Subject: overly long religious dialoggy, nice dialoggy

Date: 16 Oct 1996 00:00:00 GMT

From: "Myrkury" <>

Organization: Shrine of the Dolphin Skin Briefcase

Newsgroups: alt.slack



Philip A. Daigle <> wrote in article


> Myrkury wrote:

> >

> > Philip A. Daigle <> wrote in article

> > <>...

> > > David F Lynch wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Philip A. Daigle ( wrote:

> > > <<SNIP>>Myrkury wrote:

> > Hmmmm..., where to begin, so the "fact" that there was this G*d guy

and he

> > created the world ex-nihilo about 5000 years ago, then he made a deal


> > this guy Abraham in which G*d decided to help kick all of Abe's


> > butts in exchange for foreskins and the right to have psychotic temper

> > tantrums and beat the crap out of Abe's family. G*d then goes


> > for a while and when he gets back the progeny of ol' Abe are in

bondage in

> > Egypt. He leads them out of Egypt and gives them a Cliff Notes

version of

> > the legal codes of the surrounding cultures and makes yet another land


> > foreskins swap. Being a sharpie he tricks ol' Abe's people out of


> > escrow and takes a generation to close the deal. Then about 2000


> > ago G*d gets over his pig phobia and appears as a man in such a way as


> > get folks to kill each other over the exact nature of the incarnation.


> > longer afraid of pigs and seemingly having had his fill of foreskins


> > breaks all his deals with the Hebrews, saying "The real estate was

> > metaphysical, you can have it after you're dead, sort of, maybe..."


> > at least he didn't want any more foreskins.


> A simplified version of history that you don't understand.


Actually I understand the Talmud quite well thank you, and yes this is a

simplified version of history, but for some reason you have not challenged

it. If its not true, then challenge the veracity of what I said rather

than making rather large assumptions about my knowledge of your favorite

historical novel. If you want to show off please explain Genesis

31:25-35, does it describe a real estate scam or what?


> What He instead established

> > was the "Way" to get in on the real estate: Low self esteem, guilt,


> > dependency. Why is that the "Way" of things? What is the reason for

> > existing? To provide amusement for a transcendental control freak who

> > probably DLs hundreds of files from alt.binaries.erotica.male.uncut.


> You show a shallowness of understanding, when have I ever showed those

> traits? Your perceptions of my belief are flawed by your own bias

> against it.

Not a shallowness of understanding but a total lack of belief on my part.

You should be able to understand that absent a belief in G*d or a

particular religion those aspects of the religion that are based on faith

are (or seem) absurd. I am not a shrink so I will refrain from claiming

that you have a problem with low self esteem, guilt, or dependency, but

you made my point for me below and in other posts when you assume that my

motivation (and that of others who disagree with you) is/are "You don't

believe in God so you want to piss on me for having a faith in something

that you wish you could have. You believe in nothing but you

know that something is out there, you just don't know what it is. I claim

to know something about God, at least in part, and you hate me for it..."

You may not have a problem with those negative feelings but you sure do

seem to make a habit of finding those faults in others, in fact you seem

to suggest that it is those very feelings which would be cured if I would

only believe. Its OK if you feel that way but it doesn't help you in

disputing that Christianity is based on guilt and fear.



> > So how does the C of the SG stack up? G*d is a Real Estate agent;Bob

is > > a salesman. God want's your foreskin/total dependency; Bob wants


> > slack. G*d will eventually come on down and reveal himself thus


> > out humanity into us and them; Bob will do the same. So unless you


> > willing to be honest and say "Religion is what I believe in and


> > else is a dangerous scam" the C of the SG is just a much a religion as

> > your Church of Christ.


> Only in your imagination, which is where this foolish notion came from.

> A lack of anything still leaves you with nothing, and since that is what

> you wanted, that is what you have.

Please tell me how I can read my comment and your response as implying

anything other than that you are a bigot. Is a Jew awaiting the messiah

in possession of nothing? Is he a fool? How about Muslims and members of

other faiths? Are they fools? According to my beliefs you are going to be

disappointed by your version of eschatology, but you are not a fool nor

are you empty as a result, on the contrary you are full of it (sorry I

just had to.)


> >(N.B. look up "doctrine" in the dictionary, now

> > look up "etymology", NOW tell me if the term "Church" [either


> > will do "of the lords" or "cave"] means the body of Christ or if it is

> > doctrinally held to be the body of Christ. Sheesh!)


> The word comes from the Egyptions I believe, they "coined" it as meaning

> those who follow Christ.

WE AGREE, the term refers to the followers of Christ who BELIEVE

themselves to be his body. It is also in general usage to refer to

religions or congregations too western in style to use another term. Do

the Mormons have no right to call themselves the Church of Latter Day

Saints? How bout the Church of Scientology? Or are they "merely"

schismatics? The origin of the term church is somewhat vague, another post

suggested the Hebrew for congregation as a root, but I believe your

suggestion is based on the theory that the term comes from the Greek

possessive meaning "of G*d's" in the possessive sense. FYI Greek was the

language that your Egyptian "coiner" must have used as Coptic does not

allow such a word in its phonology.


> > As far as agnosticism goes I thought you Christian folk held that the

ways of >>the Lord were beyond mortal comprehension, hence you are



> You forget that God was displayed for us by Jesus, and so we can *see*

> what he is like from Jesus actions.

Your decision to "*" see is a wise one even if your response is not.

Given all your assumptions (about he nature of things) are true, Jesus is

the knowable element of the Trinity, God the Father is partially knowable

through the Old Testament, and the Holy Ghost is by definition unknowable;

hence you are agnostic in the same sense that you state that I am. Are

you a Gnostic? I thought that particular heresy was wiped out 1500 years



> > If you are not agnostic please explain the above foreskin fetish (If


> > do take that one up please e-mail me your response.) But since you


> > agnostic and living a lie I might suggest that you find solace in this


> > thought "Even if I was right about this whole Christianity thing


> > law dictates that whether the diphysites or monophysites were right I


> > have picked the wrong one and will burn in hell anyway."


> Yea, I've heard all that shit before.

OK, that piece of fish is a little ripe. One should remember that harmony

of belief is the poorest proof of faith.

> You don't believe in God so you want to piss on me for having a faith in

> something that you wish you could have. You believe in nothing but you

>know that something is out there, you just don't know what it is. I

>claim to know something about God, at least in part, and you hate me for

> it..

Thank you for providing a neat little break point for my comment: Why

would I want to piss on you? Thats not my fetish. I believe in what I

know from experience and in what I choose to extrapolate from what I know,

remembering the distinction at all times. You choose to know reality (in

your case G*d) from a tradition and extrapolate from there, often

forgetting the difference between knowledge and assumption. Also, why

should not knowing something make me bitter or upset, I rather enjoy a

little mystery in life, a common human trait that is twisted into fear and

exploited by Christianity and other religions. You assume you know

something about G*d and assume you are hated for it. You are wrong on

both counts. If we were at lunch I'd pick up the tab or at least fight

you for it.

> Your jelousey(SP) over something that you claim not to believe in is

> amazing, why do you even care what I believe in? Your a pitiful little

> waste. Wanting what I have and not having it for yourself is destroying

> you, and making up lies to cover your lust will not help you in the

> least, it only makes you see what you do not have because you know it is

> a lie.


Oh my we have lost our temper, Lust???? That came from your subconscious

not mine. If I was going to diagnose sins from the above text I would

report PRIDE on both parties part. Where did I lie? remember the "bear

not false witness" line?

Am I jealous? you seem to think so, Am I being destroyed? you better not

try. Consider the possibility that I am merely making witness for the C

of the SG, and am just as joyful as you are when you make witness for your





Myrkury Josephus Third Aviator of ZENO,

Keeper of the breifcase of the 75,937,500,500 names

Send all contribuions c/o William Gates: Inmate #666

H.R.H's Correctional Home for Boys

4327 Whylster Ct.

Donnington UK


"Next, when you are describing

A shape, or sound, or tint

Don't state the matter plainly

But put it in a hint

And learn to look at all things

With a sort of mental squid"

L. "We're through the looking glass now folks" Carrol