The all newer Random Thoughts Thread [R] (may contain Sawker or Religion talk)

I see your point there in principle (anthropologically speaking).
However, one must also know something about the origins of the theory in question.

I would find it ludicrous for a serious minded scholar of religion to give the same credence to Scientology and The Moonies and the Branch Davidians and the People's Temple, etc as they would to Catholics, Protestants, Islam, Hinduism, etc....

 

Eventually, they would have.

 

Sorry. Conclusively proved by man without divine intervention. Happy?

 

Fairly sure that is what the Roman's were thinking when they first came across Christianity .......

 

It does give everyone a chance of being right (except the Scientologists!)
but
Everything else can't be the case from within Christianity (or Islam). Unless the individuals indulging themselves in the everything elses don't actually understand the strictures of what they believe in relation to the Commandment of NOT worshipping false Idols. Any worship of the Buddha, the Black Stone, etc is antithetical to a major (Damning) tenet of any Christianity derived from the ten commandments. Any worshipping of the Buddha is antithetical to amajor tenet of Islam, etc, etc....

 

It takes a lot to make me happy, but yes ....

 

More likely the Jews saw it that way. Since the Romans could pick an dchoose their Gods they probably saw it more as a threat..... (which it later proved to be)

 

My basic problem with religions has always been with the Malcolm Muggeridges of the world who seek to tell the John Cleeses and Michael Palins of the world what they should and shouldn't find humorous. The idea that religion should be on some pedestal aside from all other intellectual or anti-itellectual inquiry's firing line. Knowledge of history and present lucky placement in happenstance have set my psychology absolutely 100% against allowing this idea any credence. For the moment, developed-world humanity isn't cracking up to the extent that it disagrees with me, but who knows - if a rational country can be full of people as deludedly set against their own real best interests as to elect a cancerous viper like Donald Trump, then anything is possible.
But it's an intractable problem (this Muggeridgeism) because it's always been part of the same human urge as the basic urge to believe and worship.

The issue is however, that one of these things is actually inhumane because at root it seeks to deny another basic facet of human existence. The urge to inquire and control one's own thought and laugh at what we find laughable when allowed freely to.
For my two cents - no religion is inherently bad (again Scientology excepted); but no religious dogma should ever be forced upon anyone by force, fear or coercion no matter who is offended by its absence....

 

I turned on ESPN+ this morning and found that they are showing matches from the Indian Super League. A Nigerian player has just did a Fowler impersonation with a hat trick in about 10 minutes.

John Gregory, remember him, is managing Chennai.

#LETSFOOTBALLCHENNAI is the social media slogan.

 

Been a long wait hasn't it. One can ways tell by the way the quality of postings drops off.
Were away camping this week down the oregon coast. At the moment I'm cooking up this mornings catch of Dungeness Crab. Them and a bottle of Proseco will make a fine lunch.
Bit misty this morning but the crabs still came.

 

you can get lotion for that y'know.

 

And you know that, how?

 

I read about it on lotionsforcrabs.com.

 

↑LF
A Nigerian player has just did a Fowler impersonation

...and he did it without the help of 3 assists from Lee Dixon.

 

An extremely sensible post right throughout, was all that ....

But I would add one thing you missed. There is, in fact, one crucial philosophical difference between Science and Religion.

Everyone needs some level of science to survive and prosper.
Not everyone absolutely needs any iota of religion to survive and prosper.

This should be the common-sense starting point of any debate. But generally speaking, religious minded people don't seem to want to grant this right of abstinence to those who would have it.

And (obviously) the fact that throughout history the majority of religions which have participated heavily in political power have not looked kindly upon the persons who try to choose to not follow a religion, is a definitive pointer to a theory of there being a natural right of man to not have laws based upon religion.

 

No. Eventually they probably would have.

 

Football' GREATEST EVER moment!!!

 

What do you do? Buy them from a local fisherman? Or do you catch them yourself?? They come in to the beaches there at low tide?

 

The "treat them with respect" bit is unfortunately a tricky proposition. I would be more inclined to say with "the respect they deserve".

From a philosophical perspective things must be criticized. If you don't believe me, ask Socrates. This, with respect to religion, will always hurt many people's feelings and offend. However, it must be this way. Religion(s) have no problem offending when they are in a position to. (As a lapsed Catholic I was offended by Mother

I remember having a debate with a few friends on a trip back to Ireland in 2005 or so, around the time of the Danish Cartoons. My position was that (given the level of uproar which that incident had caused) that the only way to address this was that those cartoons should have been re-published every day, in every major european newspaper for ten years.

My friends said I was crazy - that Muslims just can't be offended like that. Well, that's the problem - they think that they can't. The only way to change that is by doing it often enough for them to have to accept that it happens. That we live that way WITH those rights. Well, here we are now 13 years later, and the wisdom about getting into an open debate about mine, yours and everybody else's right to insult Islam if we feel like it, without the threat of violent retribution seems prescient on my part.

Unless you act to stop that mindset from further development (with insult and offence and humour, etc) it will only develop in one of two ways. It will only get worse, not better.

 

Catch em myself. I use crab traps off the boat dock at high tide slack. They're getting too expensive to buy. I don't know where you are that you can catch Dungeness crab at low tide.
My brother in law took this shot a couple of months ago. Big girt bugger by any standards.
The crab that is!

 

The OTT outrage over that cartoon was F'kn stupid compared to their silence when they blew the bus and train up killing people. Sick bastards!

 

I don't know that you can - I remember folks in ireland catching them (atlantic crabs) with little trawl nets at low tide - but prob out a bit in a boat...

At least i think I remember it!!

btw/

how was lunch??