Prev: Inter v Barcelona Sithcast
Next: half filled anfield in complete silence even at 2-0
From: Mentalguy2k8 on 19 Apr 2010 12:07

"Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6%yn.483349$2R.462803(a)newsfe11.ams2...
>
> .
>>
>> "Pope Pompous XVIII" .
>>>>>
>
>
>>>
>>> All the old monks were taught to deliberately introduce flaws
>>> into their work, be it a Russian icon or the Book of Kells. In those
>>> days people were humble enough to know nothing perfect on earth could be
>>> created by man, and so they deliberately crippled their work as a sign
>>> of their humility before God.
>>
>
>
> And this is a bunch of total nonsense for a start. Like so much religious
> thinking there is no logic to it. The monks had to 'deliberately'
> introduce flaws? So if they hadn't made a mistake on purpose the icon or
> book would have been perfect?
>
> But according to them nothing made by man could be perfect so even if
> they'd tried their damnedest their work wouldn't have been flawless. So
> why bother putting in the deliberate mistakes in the first place?

Surely if the book was "perfect", people would be more inclined to believe
that it really did come from God?

If a book has flaws, then any old drunk with a penchant for repeating
anecdotes with a huge helping of bullshit could have written it.

From: Mentalguy2k8 on 19 Apr 2010 12:11

"Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:78%yn.483350$2R.208883(a)newsfe11.ams2...
>
> "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy2k8(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:V5%yn.21586$Pu5.18493(a)newsfe30.ams2...
>>
>> "Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:LW_yn.483348$2R.451383(a)newsfe11.ams2...
>>>
>>> "Pope Pompous XVIII" .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you actually read any of Pullman's books pope? And if so, which?
>>>>
>>>> No I haven't. Bitter zealots like Pullman and Dawkins are an instant
>>>> turn-off.
>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't really put you in a very strong position to comment on his work
>>> then, I'd have thought. You could try expanding your mind a little. You
>>> never know, it might help you to form some independent thought.
>>
>> You're wasting your breath. If Popey himself doesn't realise the enormous
>> irony of calling other people "bitter zealots", there seems little point
>> in going on.
>
> Indeed. But I feel duty-bound to carry as many towards the light as I can.
> I won't give up on him yet.

I gave up on him a long time ago. I think anyone who takes their religious
arguments to this extreme is probably mentally ill and only good for
pointing and laughing at.

From: Red Rackham on 19 Apr 2010 12:13

"Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy2k8(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Wc%yn.21588$Pu5.10512(a)newsfe30.ams2...
>
> "Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f6%yn.483349$2R.462803(a)newsfe11.ams2...
>>
>> .
>>>
>>> "Pope Pompous XVIII" .
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> All the old monks were taught to deliberately introduce flaws
>>>> into their work, be it a Russian icon or the Book of Kells. In those
>>>> days people were humble enough to know nothing perfect on earth could
>>>> be
>>>> created by man, and so they deliberately crippled their work as a sign
>>>> of their humility before God.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And this is a bunch of total nonsense for a start. Like so much religious
>> thinking there is no logic to it. The monks had to 'deliberately'
>> introduce flaws? So if they hadn't made a mistake on purpose the icon or
>> book would have been perfect?
>>
>> But according to them nothing made by man could be perfect so even if
>> they'd tried their damnedest their work wouldn't have been flawless. So
>> why bother putting in the deliberate mistakes in the first place?
>
> Surely if the book was "perfect", people would be more inclined to believe
> that it really did come from God?
>
> If a book has flaws, then any old drunk with a penchant for repeating
> anecdotes with a huge helping of bullshit could have written it.


I don't really understand why god didn't just present the world with a
beautifully bound copy of the whole thing beamed down in a halo of light,
possibly in the middle of St Peters Square, written in such a way as to be
at least slightly plausible.

Or better still, why doesn't he produce a five-parter on blue-ray explaining
the whole thing himself and using the best dead actors heaven can supply to
illustrate his points. It could have 3D and surround sound and I bet Cecille
B demille's on at him daily for the chance to produce.

The thing is, given the weight of evidence he did provide, he clearly
doesn't want anyone with half a brain to believe it.




From: Red Rackham on 19 Apr 2010 12:15

"Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy2k8(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Wc%yn.21588$Pu5.10512(a)newsfe30.ams2...
>>
>> "Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f6%yn.483349$2R.462803(a)newsfe11.ams2...
>>>
>>> .
>>>>
>>>> "Pope Pompous XVIII" .
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All the old monks were taught to deliberately introduce flaws
>>>>> into their work, be it a Russian icon or the Book of Kells. In those
>>>>> days people were humble enough to know nothing perfect on earth could
>>>>> be
>>>>> created by man, and so they deliberately crippled their work as a sign
>>>>> of their humility before God.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And this is a bunch of total nonsense for a start. Like so much
>>> religious thinking there is no logic to it. The monks had to
>>> 'deliberately' introduce flaws? So if they hadn't made a mistake on
>>> purpose the icon or book would have been perfect?
>>>
>>> But according to them nothing made by man could be perfect so even if
>>> they'd tried their damnedest their work wouldn't have been flawless. So
>>> why bother putting in the deliberate mistakes in the first place?
>>
>> Surely if the book was "perfect", people would be more inclined to
>> believe that it really did come from God?
>>
>> If a book has flaws, then any old drunk with a penchant for repeating
>> anecdotes with a huge helping of bullshit could have written it.
>
>
> I don't really understand why god didn't just present the world with a
> beautifully bound copy of the whole thing beamed down in a halo of light,
> possibly in the middle of St Peters Square, written in such a way as to be
> at least slightly plausible.
>
> Or better still, why doesn't he produce a five-parter on blue-ray
> explaining the whole thing himself and using the best dead actors heaven
> can supply to illustrate his points. It could have 3D and surround sound
> and I bet Cecille B demille's on at him daily for the chance to produce.
>
> The thing is, given the weight of evidence he did provide, he clearly
> doesn't want anyone with half a brain to believe it.


I think pope's slipped away while we were distracted.

D'oh. He always does this just when it's getting interesting.


From: Mentalguy2k8 on 19 Apr 2010 14:54

"Pope Pompous XVIII" <popepompousxviii(a)popes.news> wrote in message

> If you go back
> through my post by the way, you'll see I wasn't passing judgment on his
> book, but on Pullman himself, as he reveals himself in his interview.
> But that's perhaps far too subtle a point for you to understand.

He sounds like a better babysitter for the kids than someone from the
Catholic Church, that's for sure.

I wonder if he's ever committed, or allowed, child-abuse? If not, then he's
already way ahead of the Pope in most people's opinion.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Inter v Barcelona Sithcast
Next: half filled anfield in complete silence even at 2-0