On 23-9-2014 10:18, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/09/2014 03:37, clipka wrote:
>> Am 22.09.2014 21:57, schrieb Stephen:
>>
>>>>> Which reminds me. I read that Blair said that we might have to send
>>>>> troops against the Islamic State. Another Christian Fundamentalist.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, I'm not sure about that one. the IS seems to be a serious problem
>>>> indeed, and there /are/ countries that have their share in being
>>>> responsible for that.
>>>
>>> But if he believe that it is the right thing to do and God told him...
>>
>> Sounds a bit far-fetched to me; any reliable source for this?
>>
>
> I put the two clauses together and the one about God is an interpolation.
>
> Google Tony Blare and God.
>
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5373525/Tony-Blair-believed-God-wanted-him-to-go-to-war-to-fight-evil-claims-his-mentor.html

That, in a very uncomfortable way, makes sense. Divine inspiration 
always trumps facts. Which, in a sense is exactly what was at the root 
of e.g. 9/11 and IS now. Yet, this is not just two gods fighting, it is 
one god fighting himself. Divine Auto-mutilation is probably the word 
for that.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity most
>> to be feared
>
> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be feared.
> ;-)
>
>
Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a 
few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)

And still it seems to me, the devil is more to be feared because he will 
drive you under that baleful stare. Devil and God allied together to 
bring down the flock and make them meek.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.09.2014 14:32, schrieb Stephen:
> On 23/09/2014 12:26, clipka wrote:
>>
>> In light of this article, and if you had written "and God wants him
>> to...", I'd be compelled to agree. Still no sign of "and God told
>> him...".
>>
>
> Have you been promoted to 2nd dan Nitpicker? ;-)

I consider that an insult, since I am the /King/ of Nitpickers! :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 23/09/2014 19:14, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.09.2014 14:32, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 23/09/2014 12:26, clipka wrote:
>>>
>>> In light of this article, and if you had written "and God wants him
>>> to...", I'd be compelled to agree. Still no sign of "and God told
>>> him...".
>>>
>>
>> Have you been promoted to 2nd dan Nitpicker? ;-)
>
> I consider that an insult, since I am the /King/ of Nitpickers! :-P
>

Kaiser nicht?
You disappoint me.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/09/2014 15:13, andrel wrote:
>
> That, in a very uncomfortable way, makes sense. Divine inspiration
> always trumps facts. Which, in a sense is exactly what was at the root
> of e.g. 9/11 and IS now. Yet, this is not just two gods fighting, it is
> one god fighting himself. Divine Auto-mutilation is probably the word
> for that.

Nah! The gods sit back and watch with amusement.

But don't get me started on religion.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/09/2014 15:57, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity most
>>> to be feared
>>
>> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be feared.
>> ;-)
>>
>>
> Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a
> few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)
>

And that is the one that all Fundamentalists believe in.

> And still it seems to me, the devil is more to be feared because he will
> drive you under that baleful stare. Devil and God allied together to
> bring down the flock and make them meek.
>

Keep them in their place? Kowtowing to the priests?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/09/2014 14:57, andrel wrote:
> On 22-9-2014 16:49, Stephen wrote:
>> 2. What does a macho-man do when his back is to the wall?
> Turn around and fight.
>
> (First heard that one on HIGNFY years ago. I think it was Ian on Blair,
> but probably that joke is much older).
>

It is a joke?
It is the answer I would have given.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.09.2014 20:51, schrieb Stephen:
> On 23/09/2014 19:14, clipka wrote:
>> Am 23.09.2014 14:32, schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 23/09/2014 12:26, clipka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In light of this article, and if you had written "and God wants him
>>>> to...", I'd be compelled to agree. Still no sign of "and God told
>>>> him...".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have you been promoted to 2nd dan Nitpicker? ;-)
>>
>> I consider that an insult, since I am the /King/ of Nitpickers! :-P
>>
>
> Kaiser nicht?
> You disappoint me.

Nah. There ain't no Kaiser these days.

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.09.2014 20:59, schrieb Stephen:
> On 23/09/2014 14:57, andrel wrote:
>> On 22-9-2014 16:49, Stephen wrote:
>>> 2. What does a macho-man do when his back is to the wall?
>> Turn around and fight.
>>
>> (First heard that one on HIGNFY years ago. I think it was Ian on Blair,
>> but probably that joke is much older).
>>
>
> It is a joke?
> It is the answer I would have given.

Turn around and fight? Well, Chuck Norris certainly would. 
Roundhouse-kick style.

Post a reply to this message

On 23/09/2014 20:23, clipka wrote:
>> Kaiser nicht?
>> You disappoint me.
>
> Nah. There ain't no Kaiser these days.

Something to aim for, then. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/09/2014 20:25, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.09.2014 20:59, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 23/09/2014 14:57, andrel wrote:
>>> On 22-9-2014 16:49, Stephen wrote:
>>>> 2. What does a macho-man do when his back is to the wall?
>>> Turn around and fight.
>>>
>>> (First heard that one on HIGNFY years ago. I think it was Ian on Blair,
>>> but probably that joke is much older).
>>>
>>
>> It is a joke?
>> It is the answer I would have given.
>
> Turn around and fight? Well, Chuck Norris certainly would.
> Roundhouse-kick style.
>

But then if your back is to the wall and you turn around you are facing 
the wall.
English is a great language.

For instance:
There is no double positive.

Aye right!


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

I say part of a YT video of about 2-3 hrs long, and it's just some more 
self-concluded christian BS, to prove that Jesus is coming soon, yes 
more christian fan fiction or mental masturbation, anyway irrelephant 
unless they decide to make another inquisition or crusade, oh wait..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2W41pvvZs0

Somebody should create laws against this kind of christian dictatorship 
on Human Rights.

Post a reply to this message

On 23-9-2014 20:57, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/09/2014 15:57, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity most
>>>> to be feared
>>>
>>> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be feared.
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a
>> few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)
>>
>
> And that is the one that all Fundamentalists believe in.

Yes. Now that you mentioned this, I sincerely wonder what the position 
of the devil can be for them. Is there a place for him? Recalling Salem, 
I suppose there is.

>
>> And still it seems to me, the devil is more to be feared because he will
>> drive you under that baleful stare. Devil and God allied together to
>> bring down the flock and make them meek.
>>
>
> Keep them in their place? Kowtowing to the priests?

Not /priests/ sir! Those are the minions of the Babylon whore who sits 
in Rome!

But yes, I think there certainly is power play involved.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 23-9-2014 22:17, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/09/2014 20:25, clipka wrote:
>> Am 23.09.2014 20:59, schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 23/09/2014 14:57, andrel wrote:
>>>> On 22-9-2014 16:49, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> 2. What does a macho-man do when his back is to the wall?
>>>> Turn around and fight.
>>>>
>>>> (First heard that one on HIGNFY years ago. I think it was Ian on Blair,
>>>> but probably that joke is much older).
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a joke?
>>> It is the answer I would have given.
>>
>> Turn around and fight? Well, Chuck Norris certainly would.
>> Roundhouse-kick style.
>>
>
> But then if your back is to the wall and you turn around you are facing
> the wall.
> English is a great language.

LOL! I had not seen that one coming at my face!

>
> For instance:
> There is no double positive.
>
> Aye right!
>

Oh! that one is more subtle :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 08:12, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 23-9-2014 20:57, Stephen wrote:
>> On 23/09/2014 15:57, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity
>>>>> most
>>>>> to be feared
>>>>
>>>> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be
>>>> feared.
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a
>>> few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)
>>>
>>
>> And that is the one that all Fundamentalists believe in.
>
> Yes. Now that you mentioned this, I sincerely wonder what the position
> of the devil can be for them. Is there a place for him? Recalling Salem,
> I suppose there is.
>

As a big stick.

>>
>>> And still it seems to me, the devil is more to be feared because he will
>>> drive you under that baleful stare. Devil and God allied together to
>>> bring down the flock and make them meek.
>>>
>>
>> Keep them in their place? Kowtowing to the priests?
>
> Not /priests/ sir! Those are the minions of the Babylon whore who sits
> in Rome!
>

LOL the attitude in Ulster and Scotland.
It must be something to do with the House of Orange. ;-)

> But yes, I think there certainly is power play involved.
>

Too true.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 9:47, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/09/2014 08:12, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 23-9-2014 20:57, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 23/09/2014 15:57, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> to be feared
>>>>>
>>>>> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be
>>>>> feared.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a
>>>> few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that is the one that all Fundamentalists believe in.
>>
>> Yes. Now that you mentioned this, I sincerely wonder what the position
>> of the devil can be for them. Is there a place for him? Recalling Salem,
>> I suppose there is.
>>
>
> As a big stick.

Ouch! That hurts! ;-)

>
>>>
>>>> And still it seems to me, the devil is more to be feared because he
>>>> will
>>>> drive you under that baleful stare. Devil and God allied together to
>>>> bring down the flock and make them meek.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Keep them in their place? Kowtowing to the priests?
>>
>> Not /priests/ sir! Those are the minions of the Babylon whore who sits
>> in Rome!
>>
>
> LOL the attitude in Ulster and Scotland.
> It must be something to do with the House of Orange. ;-)

Truth is that the House of Orange has become very discreet where 
religion is concerned but then we are talking about a different Orange 
when in Ulster or Scotland...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 09:07, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> As a big stick.
>
> Ouch! That hurts! ;-)
>
>>

As it is meant to.


>>
>> LOL the attitude in Ulster and Scotland.
>> It must be something to do with the House of Orange. ;-)
>
> Truth is that the House of Orange has become very discreet where
> religion is concerned but then we are talking about a different Orange
> when in Ulster or Scotland...

Nope! The same House of Orange.
It takes its name from King Billy (Willem III prince of the House of 
Orange, later William III of Great Britain) during the Glorious Revolution.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 11:19, Stephen wrote:
> Nope! The same House of Orange.
> It takes its name from King Billy (Willem III prince of the House of
> Orange, later William III of Great Britain) during the Glorious Revolution.
>

Sorry, I did not made myself clear. The same /house/ indeed, but the 
orangist idea in Ulster and Scotland is light years away from what the 
house represents nowadays in its home country, and over the last century 
its religious identity so to speak has become increasingly liberal to 
the point that the present queen consort is not a protestant and - if I 
am correct - was not asked to become one.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 12:05, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 24-9-2014 11:19, Stephen wrote:
>> Nope! The same House of Orange.
>> It takes its name from King Billy (Willem III prince of the House of
>> Orange, later William III of Great Britain) during the Glorious
>> Revolution.
>>
>
> Sorry, I did not made myself clear. The same /house/ indeed, but the
> orangist idea in Ulster and Scotland is light years away from what the
> house represents nowadays in its home country, and over the last century
> its religious identity so to speak has become increasingly liberal to
> the point that the present queen consort is not a protestant and - if I
> am correct - was not asked to become one.
>

You did make yourself clear, Thomas.
But someone need to take the blame. ;-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 14:11, Stephen wrote:
> You did make yourself clear, Thomas.
> But someone need to take the blame. ;-)
>
>

Oh right! Did I tell you about the day I thought I stepped on a sand 
hump, which proved to be cow dung?  :-D

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 15:18, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 24-9-2014 14:11, Stephen wrote:
>> You did make yourself clear, Thomas.
>> But someone need to take the blame. ;-)
>>
>>
>
> Oh right! Did I tell you about the day I thought I stepped on a sand
> hump, which proved to be cow dung?  :-D
>

No but it reminds me of the urban myth we had when I was a child.
It was a bit like knocking the door and running away. The twist was that 
you put some dog droppings in a paper bag outside someone's door, set 
fire to it, knock the door and run away.
The idea was that the householder would come to the door in his slippers 
see the fire and stamp on it to put the flames out.
For certain age groups that was very funny.
My next door neighbour's granddaughter has not heard about the paper bag 
thing.
Cheeky little beasom. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 16:39, Stephen wrote:
>> Oh right! Did I tell you about the day I thought I stepped on a sand
>> hump, which proved to be cow dung?  :-D
>>
>
> No but it reminds me of the urban myth we had when I was a child.
> It was a bit like knocking the door and running away. The twist was that
> you put some dog droppings in a paper bag outside someone's door, set
> fire to it, knock the door and run away.
> The idea was that the householder would come to the door in his slippers
> see the fire and stamp on it to put the flames out.
> For certain age groups that was very funny.
> My next door neighbour's granddaughter has not heard about the paper bag
> thing.
> Cheeky little beasom. ;-)
>

LOL

Schadenfreude indeed when it happens. I was on fieldwork with a 
colleague and we had to cross a barbed wire fence. I thought that sand 
hump on the other side very convenient to put my foot on and help me 
over. The season was dry and sand had been blown over a dung heap put 
there by the farmer. My colleague was literally rolling over the ground 
laughing seeing me soiled up to my knee. My own laugh was rather 
sheepish... :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 16:02, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Schadenfreude indeed when it happens. I was on fieldwork with a
> colleague and we had to cross a barbed wire fence. I thought that sand
> hump on the other side very convenient to put my foot on and help me
> over. The season was dry and sand had been blown over a dung heap put
> there by the farmer. My colleague was literally rolling over the ground
> laughing seeing me soiled up to my knee. My own laugh was rather
> sheepish... :-)

LOL
And that reminds me of...

No, enough is enough. You win. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 9/23/2014 7:57 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity most
>>> to be feared
>>
>> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be feared.
>> ;-)
>>
>>
> Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a
> few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)
>
I have always contended that they got the old saying dead wrong. If 
there was a devil, his greatest trick was convincing people that he and 
god where different entities.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 25-9-2014 5:50, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 9/23/2014 7:57 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity most
>>>> to be feared
>>>
>>> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be feared.
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a
>> few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)
>>
> I have always contended that they got the old saying dead wrong. If
> there was a devil, his greatest trick was convincing people that he and
> god where different entities.
>
Well, you may not be wrong :-) In fact in some religions both are 
different aspects of the same entity.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 08:28, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 25-9-2014 5:50, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 9/23/2014 7:57 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity
>>>>> most
>>>>> to be feared
>>>>
>>>> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be
>>>> feared.
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a
>>> few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)
>>>
>> I have always contended that they got the old saying dead wrong. If
>> there was a devil, his greatest trick was convincing people that he and
>> god where different entities.
>>
> Well, you may not be wrong :-) In fact in some religions both are
> different aspects of the same entity.
>

And if the Devil conquered God and took his place. Who would be able to 
tell the difference?


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25-9-2014 10:22, Stephen wrote:
> On 25/09/2014 08:28, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 25-9-2014 5:50, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> On 9/23/2014 7:57 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> to be feared
>>>>>
>>>>> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be
>>>>> feared.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a
>>>> few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)
>>>>
>>> I have always contended that they got the old saying dead wrong. If
>>> there was a devil, his greatest trick was convincing people that he and
>>> god where different entities.
>>>
>> Well, you may not be wrong :-) In fact in some religions both are
>> different aspects of the same entity.
>>
>
> And if the Devil conquered God and took his place. Who would be able to
> tell the difference?
>
>
Indeed. A certain form of Manichaeism is essential to distinguish good 
from evil (what is good? what is evil?)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 12:05, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 25-9-2014 10:22, Stephen wrote:

>>
>> And if the Devil conquered God and took his place. Who would be able to
>> tell the difference?
>>
>>
> Indeed. A certain form of Manichaeism is essential to distinguish good
> from evil (what is good? what is evil?)
>
>
Deep thoughts Thomas.
Next we will be counting angels on pinheads. ;-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25-9-2014 14:18, Stephen wrote:
> On 25/09/2014 12:05, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 25-9-2014 10:22, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>
>>> And if the Devil conquered God and took his place. Who would be able to
>>> tell the difference?
>>>
>>>
>> Indeed. A certain form of Manichaeism is essential to distinguish good
>> from evil (what is good? what is evil?)
>>
>>
> Deep thoughts Thomas.
> Next we will be counting angels on pinheads. ;-)
>
>
I would be even more fascinated by the question: Can there be as many 
devils on a pinhead? or more? or less?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 15:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 25-9-2014 14:18, Stephen wrote:
>> On 25/09/2014 12:05, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 25-9-2014 10:22, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> And if the Devil conquered God and took his place. Who would be able to
>>>> tell the difference?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Indeed. A certain form of Manichaeism is essential to distinguish good
>>> from evil (what is good? what is evil?)
>>>
>>>
>> Deep thoughts Thomas.
>> Next we will be counting angels on pinheads. ;-)
>>
>>
> I would be even more fascinated by the question: Can there be as many
> devils on a pinhead? or more? or less?
>
> Thomas
>
You don't catch me as easy as that.

Get thee behind me... ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.09.2014 05:50, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 9/23/2014 7:57 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity most
>>>> to be feared
>>>
>>> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be feared.
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a
>> few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)
>>
> I have always contended that they got the old saying dead wrong. If
> there was a devil, his greatest trick was convincing people that he and
> god where different entities.

Another thought about the God of the OT: If God exists, who says he 
can't learn from experience?

(Heck, when he originally made humans he "saw that it was good", only to 
later find that something had gone utterly wrong and that he had to 
press the Big Flood Reset Button - only to later find that this was such 
a horrible thing to do that he promised to never do it again - et cetera.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.09.2014 16:09, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 25-9-2014 14:18, Stephen wrote:

>> Deep thoughts Thomas.
>> Next we will be counting angels on pinheads. ;-)
>>
> I would be even more fascinated by the question: Can there be as many
> devils on a pinhead? or more? or less?

Less of course, because they'd bicker and fight...

... unless of course they pose as angels, in which case they have to 
stop the bickering and fighting for a while...

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.09.2014 21:13, schrieb clipka:

> Another thought about the God of the OT: If God exists, who says he
> can't learn from experience?

... and maybe sending His Only Begotten Son to die on the cross was to 
figure out what this "suffering" the humans kept complaining about was 
all about in the first place...

Post a reply to this message

On 25-9-2014 21:15, clipka wrote:
> Am 25.09.2014 16:09, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 25-9-2014 14:18, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Deep thoughts Thomas.
>>> Next we will be counting angels on pinheads. ;-)
>>>
>> I would be even more fascinated by the question: Can there be as many
>> devils on a pinhead? or more? or less?
>
> Less of course, because they'd bicker and fight...
>
> ... unless of course they pose as angels, in which case they have to
> stop the bickering and fighting for a while...
>
Good. Good, Brother Christoph. Your level of casuistry is improving. 
However, the answer is correct but for the wrong reason...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 25-9-2014 17:48, Stephen wrote:
> On 25/09/2014 15:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 25-9-2014 14:18, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 25/09/2014 12:05, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 25-9-2014 10:22, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And if the Devil conquered God and took his place. Who would be
>>>>> able to
>>>>> tell the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed. A certain form of Manichaeism is essential to distinguish good
>>>> from evil (what is good? what is evil?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Deep thoughts Thomas.
>>> Next we will be counting angels on pinheads. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I would be even more fascinated by the question: Can there be as many
>> devils on a pinhead? or more? or less?
>>
>> Thomas
>>
> You don't catch me as easy as that.
>
> Get thee behind me... ;-)
>
Evading the answer, Brother Stephen?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 08:11, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Evading the answer, Brother Stephen?

First we will need to define a Devil.
Does a fallen angel take up more or less space than an angel who picked 
the right side?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 10:13, Stephen wrote:
> On 26/09/2014 08:11, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Evading the answer, Brother Stephen?
>
> First we will need to define a Devil.
> Does a fallen angel take up more or less space than an angel who picked
> the right side?
>

My guess is that in theory the number of devils on a pinhead is the same 
as for angels, but that in practice there is no time to collect them as 
they immediately fall from the pinhead.

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 09:48, andrel wrote:
> My guess is that in theory the number of devils on a pinhead is the same
> as for angels,

I am drawn to that conclusion. too

> but that in practice there is no time to collect them as
> they immediately fall from the pinhead.

That could be because Angels dance more sedately.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 11:23, Stephen wrote:
> On 26/09/2014 09:48, andrel wrote:
>> My guess is that in theory the number of devils on a pinhead is the same
>> as for angels,
>
> I am drawn to that conclusion. too
>
>> but that in practice there is no time to collect them as
>> they immediately fall from the pinhead.
>
> That could be because Angels dance more sedately.
>

Now, now my Brothers, you are evading the /real/ answer!

Brother Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 26-9-2014 11:23, Stephen wrote:
>> On 26/09/2014 09:48, andrel wrote:
>>> My guess is that in theory the number of devils on a pinhead is the same
>>> as for angels,
>>
>> I am drawn to that conclusion. too
>>
>>> but that in practice there is no time to collect them as
>>> they immediately fall from the pinhead.
>>
>> That could be because Angels dance more sedately.
>>
>
> Now, now my Brothers, you are evading the /real/ answer!
>
> Brother Thomas

I don't want to be the one to say that Santa Claus does not...

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-09-26 08:01, Stephen a écrit :
> On 26/09/2014 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 26-9-2014 11:23, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 26/09/2014 09:48, andrel wrote:
>>>> My guess is that in theory the number of devils on a pinhead is the
>>>> same
>>>> as for angels,
>>>
>>> I am drawn to that conclusion. too
>>>
>>>> but that in practice there is no time to collect them as
>>>> they immediately fall from the pinhead.
>>>
>>> That could be because Angels dance more sedately.
>>>
>>
>> Now, now my Brothers, you are evading the /real/ answer!
>>
>> Brother Thomas
>
> I don't want to be the one to say that Santa Claus does not...
>
Dude!  Spoilers should be called in the header!  Not cool!

*cries*

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 14:17, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2014-09-26 08:01, Stephen a écrit :
>> On 26/09/2014 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 26-9-2014 11:23, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2014 09:48, andrel wrote:
>>>>> My guess is that in theory the number of devils on a pinhead is the
>>>>> same
>>>>> as for angels,
>>>>
>>>> I am drawn to that conclusion. too
>>>>
>>>>> but that in practice there is no time to collect them as
>>>>> they immediately fall from the pinhead.
>>>>
>>>> That could be because Angels dance more sedately.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now, now my Brothers, you are evading the /real/ answer!
>>>
>>> Brother Thomas
>>
>> I don't want to be the one to say that Santa Claus does not...
>>
> Dude!  Spoilers should be called in the header!  Not cool!
>
> *cries*
>

That Santa Claus does not drink beer is so well known that it is hardly 
a spoiler IMO.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 13:17, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2014-09-26 08:01, Stephen a écrit :

>> I don't want to be the one to say that Santa Claus does not...
>>
> Dude!  Spoilers should be called in the header!  Not cool!
>
> *cries*
>

Okay I was going to say:
Winters in Australia. It is New Zealand he goes to.
So there. You made me do it!

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 14:01, Stephen wrote:
> On 26/09/2014 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 26-9-2014 11:23, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 26/09/2014 09:48, andrel wrote:
>>>> My guess is that in theory the number of devils on a pinhead is the
>>>> same
>>>> as for angels,
>>>
>>> I am drawn to that conclusion. too
>>>
>>>> but that in practice there is no time to collect them as
>>>> they immediately fall from the pinhead.
>>>
>>> That could be because Angels dance more sedately.
>>>
>>
>> Now, now my Brothers, you are evading the /real/ answer!
>>
>> Brother Thomas
>
> I don't want to be the one to say that Santa Claus does not...
>

Order! Order!

Thomas

PS: This is fun!

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/14 15:04, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 
> Order! Order!
> 

Two pints of lager and a packet of crisps, please

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 15:11, Doctor John wrote:
> On 26/09/14 15:04, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> Order! Order!
>>
>
> Two pints of lager and a packet of crisps, please
>
> John
>

I thought it was your round. And either plain, salted or S & vinegar. SVP

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/14 16:24, Stephen wrote:
> 
> I thought it was your round. And either plain, salted or S & vinegar. SVP
> 

Damn, I forgot to add: 'My friend will pay'.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 16:04, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Order! Order!

Me, I'll have a pan pizza Hawaii.

So with Doc and me having ordered, can we please go on with the show? :-P

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 09:09, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 25-9-2014 21:15, clipka wrote:
>> Am 25.09.2014 16:09, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> On 25-9-2014 14:18, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> Deep thoughts Thomas.
>>>> Next we will be counting angels on pinheads. ;-)
>>>>
>>> I would be even more fascinated by the question: Can there be as many
>>> devils on a pinhead? or more? or less?
>>
>> Less of course, because they'd bicker and fight...
>>
>> ... unless of course they pose as angels, in which case they have to
>> stop the bickering and fighting for a while...
>>
> Good. Good, Brother Christoph. Your level of casuistry is improving.
> However, the answer is correct but for the wrong reason...

Enlighten us then, O Father Thomas, for we knoweth not the answer!

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 16:39, Doctor John wrote:
> On 26/09/14 16:24, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> I thought it was your round. And either plain, salted or S & vinegar. SVP
>>
>
> Damn, I forgot to add: 'My friend will pay'.
>

You will pay for that mistake, my friend.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message