Dear John, This is ancient history judging from the post date. Just the same - I saw a post from you some time ago with the single word in the subject line "unsubscribe". I'm not dreaming - I saw it. Did you lean on the big, bright yellow unsubscribe button by mistake?
Kim Jones On 16/12/2006, at 8:53 AM, John M wrote: > Dear list: > this was the last post I received (I think I am subscribed) > Have I been (or the list?) terminated? > John Mikes > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:27 AM > Subject: Re: Natural Order & Belief > > > John, > > You are right, I was wrong. Those deeds are not contingent. They > probably appears automatically when one give a name to God. > > Perhaps, "God" could be "defined" by this: it is the one which is such > that once you give it a name or a definition trouble appears. > > Obviously such a sentence should not be taken to much literally (if we > do we are led to an obvious inconsistency). > > So, from now on, each time I use the word "God" it will means the > impersonal big unnameable 0-person point of view, that is Plotinus' > ONE, and/or some of its possible arithmetical (set theoretical) > interpretation(s), that is arithmetical truth (resp. set theoretical > truth). > > I will recall the theory in my reply to Tom Caylor. > > Bruno > > > > > > Le 20-nov.-06, à 18:03, John M a écrit : > > > > > Bruno: > > How far Occident? Quetzealcoatle was not much better. > > Orientals? did they care at all? they were occupied > > with their lovers. Germanics and Scandinavians? no > > better, not to spek about Maori, African, Hawaiian > > etc. > > requiring virgins to be thrown into the Volcano. The > > priests of the smarter ones ate them. > > Did you notice the Catholic homophag rite: "Take it > > and eat it: it is my body. Drink it: it is my blood. > > And literary thousands of protestant rites follow > > suit. > > Muslims cleaned that up, they concentrate on heavennly > > sex (hueis). > > Sorry if I hurt feelings. > > John > > > > --- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Le 18-nov.-06, à 21:49, John M a écrit : > >> > >>> Why do the religions (almost all of them) depict a > >> god after the worst > >>> human > >>> characters: jealous, flatterable, requiring praise > >> and blind > >>> obedience, > >>> vengeful, irate, picking favorites, > >>> even sadistic and not caring? Why does he punish > >> for deeds done > >>> exactly as > >>> he created the sinner? > >> > >> > >> I disagree with the "(almost all of them)". True, > >> since a long time, in > >> Occident, the main religions are based on such a > >> "God", probably > >> because he looks like the "terrifying father", very > >> useful to > >> manipulate people by fear and terror. > >> > >> But this is contingent, and eventually I take that > >> sad contingent truth > >> as a supplementary motivation to come back on > >> "serious theology", by > >> which I mean 3-person sharable theology (even if > >> such a theology does > >> talk about first person unsharable notion). > >> > >> Bruno > >> > >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 - Release Date: > 11/20/2006 > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
