A Cherry too Far?

You can easily compute a maximum time frame for the 'poem' to have been written in by looking at the difference in posting times between J.I.M. Home and J.I.M. Friend.

When it comes to unwillingness to discuss, I believe spambot would still like to know the details of the light and the truth he can expect in heaven. So would I. The truth about what, exactly? You can't just post flowery, vaguely spiritual nonsense, refuse to explain exactly what you mean, then accuse others of evading discussion. Well, you can, you have, but it weakens your case to the point of collapse, don't you think?

What you don't appear to realise is that bleating about 'witness' and 'the blood of the lamb' is just as offensive to some people as my poem apparently was to you.

My poem wasn't a calculated attack on anything in particular. I started it with no idea where it was going. If it ends up attacking anything, it's American Redneck Jesus culture - I don't see much KKK activity here in the UK. Would that belief in Jesus made you a better person. You only have to look to America to see that it doesn't. Or NI, where 'peace barriers' are needed to prevent protestants killing catholics and vice-versa.

I'm not going to apologise for my poem. Not everything I write is good, but it appears to have pleased a few people and on an amateur writing site that's about the best you can hope for.

Discuss?

Why was it Cherried?

I know why you wrote it and it served it's purpose, but

that kind of bias, isn't Spiritually informed, it's offensiveness lies in the very ignorance you're supposedly attacking.

The Spambot episode, simple, I didn't have a clue what he wanted from me.

I really am a straight forward Christian believer, with pretty ordinary basic Christian beliefs about heaven.

I never once had any idea where he/she was coming from, and it was also obvious he wasn't actually interested in what I had to say.

I have been a Christian for 20 years I am 47, your distaste for my faith is a majority outlook, I was of that ilk, probably as vitriolic.

As I said to `Spambot` If you have any interest in where I'm coming from read this:

http://www.abctales.com/story/mark-yelland-brown/making-sense-born-again...

Spambot gave the impression he hadn't, it's pretty comprehensive about where I'm coming from.

As for your `bleating` about the blood of the Lamb and `witness`(I presume no pun intended?)
Would you attack Islamic symbols? Or Bhuddist?

Bashing Christians is so last Century, get over it, there's more than enough truth out there showing the positive impact of Christianity in our society to make even responding redundant, unless it's just to counter offensiveness on a writing site I really admire.

It's not your poem, that was what it was, it's the fact that it was `Cherried`, when it was so `abusively` anti- Christian.

I'm just sick of Christianity being bashed because it's considered an easy target.

We shouldn't be abusively attacking beliefs when one is aware of people who could be hurt by them, saying that,
I don't think you would have the courage to attack Islam, I really don't.

Or the more polically acceptable New Age beliefs.

Hmmmmm

Lord Lucan

A couple things you have said in here interests me. First let me state that I don't expect you to defend your poem, or even some of the things you might be "implying" in your post here. You are entitled to your opinion, and I will leave that at that. But... I am also entitled to mine, *smiles* and I might actually be a little more familiar with some of the things you are suggesting.

I am a American Southern woman, and grew up in the "Redneck Jesus Culture" as you put it. It is far less prevalent than the media would like the rest of the world to believe. Let me let you in on a little secret. Things like the Westboro Baptist Church, and the moron minister in Florida that wants to burn Korans ? We Americans do not like them either. Even more so than the rest of the world I believe. But we have a Constitution that says they are free to be the asses they so often appear to be. So there we are with that one. We take away their rights , whose to say who will be next.

I take more grief for being a Catholic among Fundamentalist Christians here, than Muslims do for being Muslims ( Yeah... That whole Protestant, Catholic, thingie exist here too. Now where did America get that one from ? ) Obviously the whole adversity among the religions, not being an American invention mind you lol , seems to come in all varieties world-wide doesn't it ? So why would the " American" version be the first to come to your mind. This has me very curious.

Number 2 The KKK ? Really ? *chuckling* Europe has far more issues with extreme thinking such as that than America does. So ... Once again why would our version of these morons interest you so ?

Thanks for giving a second for me to express myself :)

I'm sorry, but that poem was very offensive, Lord Lucan. I'm a devout Christian, also, who lives in southern America. Very offensive. I have nothing more to say.

Savannah

PS yes, a cherry too far. Ok, now I have nothing more to say.

Savannah

Now... In defense of Lord Lucan. I read another piece in here referring to ALL people with a belief in Christianity to be sheep. Trust me when I say.... I have never "baaaahed" in my life. LOL

So honestly I see no reason to focus this on him :)

"You can't just post flowery, vaguely spiritual nonsense, refuse to explain exactly what you mean, then accuse others of evading discussion."

Yes.... I am back lol

Sir, From my train of thought, you have null and voided any point you are trying to make. You say you do NOT have to "defend" ( I take it that means to explain ? ) your piece but you expect Mark to explain his ? Why ?

You describe the "experience" of having faith ( or should I say Mark's description of it ) as " flowery vaguely spiritual nonsense " while in the mean time posting a poem that uses trite stereotypes that ( at least for myself ) have minimal basis in fact. You also have shown me nothing new in terms of insight into the "Christian" mindset. It is simply the same old rhetoric I have heard before from ( How shall I put it ? ) " the opposing side "

Sir,

You do NOT have to believe in Christ ( or any other religion for that matter ) I personally don't care. But if you are out to change minds, bring us to the error of our ways ? lol Please come up with something better than that poem. I, for one, would be happy to listen :)

i'm a black jew and it didn't offend me. in fact it made me laugh.

'But we have a Constitution that says they are free to be the asses they so often appear to be.' - just about says it all, don't it? it's called 'free speech'

why all the heavy shit? it was obviously tongue in cheek.

Hi Maggie. I thought I had explained it??? I wrote it with nothing much in mind. I'm not proud of it as a piece of writing, nor does it express any deeply held beliefs. I had just watched the film 'Mississippi Burning', so that's why the rednecks were close to the surface of my mind at the time. If I'd just watched The Sound of Music I dare say my poem would have contained Nazis and a singing nun. It was a throw-away piece written at typing speed. As for why it was cherried, I'm not the person you should be asking, but that's a debate that turns up quite often on these forums.

Why is it that a more considered piece I wrote here was ignored both by you and Mark (and, incidentally, the cherry fairies) in spite of the fact that it was a far better piece of writing and expressed genuine views? We could have been discussing something serious here instead of that silly poem.

Mark, I'm never surprised these days at what gets cherry picked and what doesn't. It always seems pretty random to me.

Cherrypickers themselves usually seem to have an oddly large number of cherries but that's another kettle of fish.

Lord Lucan sounds suspiciously like a few other posters on this site that have different names but the same voice and that person, whoever they are,
always seems to want to be a troll and wind people
up. I really don't think this is a good web-site for trolls, people on this website are so nice that they really don't deserve any antagonism.

I'm not a Christian by the way, having experienced a great deal of hate and prejudice from presbyterians growing up put me off Christianity altogether but I'm all for freedom of belief and I thought your song, your singing voice and your guitar playing were pretty good.

JoHn

I know! Let's talk about angels again. (stop that,you!)

Okay, I personally do not have much trouble with the quality of the poem, it does scan, there are some sneaky clever rhymes, both of which put it in a very small minority when it comes to poetry of this sort on this site.

It is pretty clear that this is not an attack on Jesus, but rather on the things done in his name and some pretty clearly nutty ideas espoused by people who profess to follow his teachings. I would dispute the cherry on the grounds that it is an easy target and it's all been said before.

I don't much care for religion myself, but I respect your right to hold whatever beliefs you choose. Even if this does include angels and a literal interpretation of the collection of folk tales and second and third hand accounts that make up the Bible. (A great book, by the way, and yes, I have read it.)

You have your belief-themed material on the site; I'm sure some of it has been cherried too. If not, then perhaps you're right about an Anti-Christian Bias. However, I don't think you can dictate to the editors what should or shouldn't be cherried. Would you have accepted this, when you were an editor?

I think if we're putting material on-site, we can expect reactions, comments, lampooning pieces written in response, serious answers in prose or verse. Or we can refuse to engage, turn off the comments, stop posting for fear of ridicule. I know which I'll be doing.

Regards
a former editor.

Now I thoroughly understand the content of the poem. The cherry issue is honestly irrelevant to me as I hope you noticed I made no mention of it. In the context of your explanation? I get this very much. I do wish you had in some fashion "time stamped" the piece considering " Mississipppi Burning " deals with a specific time frame ( which is not now for those who haven't see n the pic )

Your "explanation" makes very good sense, and I do thank you very much for it :)

Ohhhh... On an ending note shall we say :) I leave you with a "belief" I live by

I do NOT need to tear down another's faith to validate my own ( That means any kind of faith in whatever you chose to believe )

Have a good day Sir :)

Great Posts,

I'm feeling a bit queasy on this High Horse, I was really peed off!

I really enjoy debating my faith in the forums and Lord Lucan , where's your other piece?
Is that under another name?

Seriously though, I `never` debate, cherries, especially as I was an editor!
I just really felt the bias.

Feeling a lot of love for everyone at the moment,
could be the Holy Spirit, or just the drugs kicking in!
Huge Blessings!

Ohhhh Mr. Lucan

In terms of your other piece ? I am quite new to the place, and am still wondering through. lol My apologies if I missed something worthwhile :)

Hi Mark, I deleted the other piece. I have read the piece of yours you mentioned, but this isn't the time or place to comment on it. Incidentally, I see it got a cherry, so the cherry fairies aren't all bad!

well-wisher, let's have a game of Name That Troll. Who are you referring to, exactly? If you think I am X,Y or Z I promise to give an honest answer.

Well your style seems very similar to it068, Numby Pumby Poo IV and Spambot.

But, wether you are those other people or not,making such an obvious, mocking parody of someone else's story seems like a deliberate attempt to cause offence and wind them up. Especially where a touchy subject like religion is involved.

JoHn

Ewan, just read your post, properly, can't let it lie!!

(He just wouldn't let it lie! in Vic Reeves voice!)

My experience of being a Spirit filled Christian for 20 years.
20 years of walking a path of supernatural healing encounters,the transformed lives of literally hundreds that I know about.
The incredible Revivals in Africa, South America, China,Russia,
with the incredible accompanying miracles that make the book of Acts sound mundane.

The Christian community always being involved in all of the worlds poorest, most war torn, most desolate, places.
Not first `preaching` but giving practical lifesaving help.

The vibrant churches all over Britain, really growing, hardly ever seen on Songs of Praise, yet changing the face of some of our most poverty filled areas.

The facts of the authenticity of the thousands of copies of the New Testament, now known to be not `written` over Hundreds of years but mostly a generation after the death of Jesus.

Okay why all the above?

One thing I've learnt as a Christian is that there is an incredible anti-christian ethos in this country.

None of the above information , will hardly ever hit our media, it's good news and Christians are on the whole not politically correct, too exclusive.

These are the usual things that are wheeled out:

Born again Christians are bigots...

Born again Christians by there very beliefs must be thick, liars, running scared of reality, or all three!

By there very beliefs they are causing hate crime, i.e there stance on homosexuality.

My answer to all the above is, if we are supposed to be reflecting Jesus then first and foremost is that we reflect selfless love, most of my Christian friends spend their life trying to do that.

Our message should be the Gospel: the Good News that because of the death and Resurrection of Jesus, we have the message of reconciliation, Man is now at peace with God and He isn't ticked off with you...good innit!

Finally, Ewan, your view of the Bible is the very reason I actually replied to the post.

My 20 years as a Christian has showed me that the Bible is far more than a book and can, be read, prayed through, meditated on, declared... and trusted.

Here endeth etc, etc!

You know what I think? Not until I tell you.
Well I don't see the poem as antagonistic. I see it simply as a reaction to the fact that rednecks and KKK can have a friend called Jesus- who would want to be their friend anyway? I see it as a sort of paradox as to faith in Jesus- how can he forgive such monsters? I remember a writer who advocated for halal food in english schools and not very many here agreed with him. We do have freedom of speech and people are welcome to write what they like but as soon as they start to promote a specific faith I think we need to draw a line. Just as we should draw line as to others being offensive to certain faiths but irony is a good writing skill- it leaves the reader with the freedom of thought and opinion.
I think it is okay to cherry the piece. I put a questionmark to faith in that guise also.

Well-wisher- I think the editors may have more cherries, if they do, which isn't quite true- but they are usually chosen methinks because they seem to have a bit of a grip on poetry and prose- maybe that is why they are editors- with a keener eye than others. I don't know- what do you think?

Possibly, pia. I turned down the chance to be an editor for just that reason, because my grasp of punctuation, grammar, paragraphs etc wasn't strong enough.

Mind you, if you ask my opinion, Sue Dinum has an excellent grip on prose and yet she doesn't get as many Cherries as the editors so I'm not really sure that a grip on poetry and prose is a satisfactory explanation. Surely you've noticed good writers who haven't got many cherries. Anyway. My comment was just a little aside. I didn't mean to knock the editors really. I think they do a great job.

JoHn

I see no reason to promote ANY faith period either ( My definition of faith btw - a belief in ANYTHING that can not be scientifically proven, which includes the faith that there is no God or Christ,or Allah ,or Buddha. Shall I go on ? lol ) I HAVE seen the Movie "Mississippi Burning" , and quite frankly understand Lucan's strong reaction to it. But the reality for me is the piece did very little to delve into why these extremist corrupt ideologies occur. It came across more as a blanket statement, which personally is where I think people found the offense.

As I said before the cherry issue is irrelevant to me. Whom ever can cherry what ever.

Well-wisher, I promised you a truthful answer, and here it is:

I have made a few posts as spambot.

I have not made any posts as NumbyPumbyPoo or as it068. These are not my accounts.

Has spambot said anything to offend you?

Maggie
I don't think it would be an excuse to delve into WHY. The fact remains that it is racism and that is inexcusable whether you have faith or not, maybe expecially to those with faith who are supposed to "love thy neighbour"

It is not a matter of excuse Hun. It is a matter of good writing. Lucan's piece to put it bluntly in my opinion (and his own from his prior post) is the piece was poorly written, and it was written in the context to imply this is the belief of most Christians (particularly Southern ones of which I am a member)

Trust me I do NOT hold this mentality.

Lucan specifically stated to me in his post that this piece was written as a direct reaction to a very specific place, and time, ( in the movie " Mississippi Burning" ) although no mention of that was made in the piece itself. How is that not a blanket statement, or as I put before, a trite stereotype ?

Context, context, context.....

If Mr. Lucan had not told me that how was I to know ? He could have been talking about any time, including the present.

I am not going to argue religion, or these bigoted idiots lack of it. But I will argue good writing, and this piece simply does not hold up as such.

Spambot, I notice, often uses 'comments' to do his comedy impersonation of a spambot, declaring that he has to 'sell' things rather than actually leaving comments about stories. Can you please tell Spambot
when you see him to leave comments and that I don't want to buy anything, thanks.

An example of a Spambot comment:

'Buy new Pin. Is best than old Pin. Next come to bring special offer on Thing. New Thing only use twice, washed for hi Gene.

Doris stokes and leaves. Doris tokes on leaves. Get new Doris, only use twice'.

JoHn

Spambot doesn't often do anything. He came and he went having done very little at all.

I would have brought him out of retirement but I can't see he has any case to answer.

He was inviting you to join in. You declined. End of story. You won't be invited again.

I'm too lazy to read all these comments but obviously it's upset a few people - Mark's main gripe appears to be the cherry award and Maggie has mentioned that it's not good writing - I think those offended are blinded to the poems comedy value because the style/tone/topic doesn't allow them to credit a piece of writing with it's tongue firmly in it's cheek.

Of course it is full of generalisations, that's why it's so funny.

If a piece of writing makes you laugh, can't that be a qualification for it being good writing? I think Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back is infantile and moronic and probably offensive but I laughed my tits off.

How dya like dem apples?

"I'm too lazy to read all these comments but obviously it's upset a few people - Mark's main gripe appears to be the cherry award and Maggie has mentioned that it's not good writing - I think those offended are blinded to the poems comedy value because the style/tone/topic doesn't allow them to credit a piece of writing with it's tongue firmly in it's cheek."

Fatboy

I could whole-heartedly concur IF... lol

It wasn't for Mr. Lucan's statement that this piece was written as a direct response to seeing a movie ( which was not funny ) and his statement that it wasn't well written himself. He makes no mention of tongue in cheek, or any other writing device such as you mentioned :)

oh well, at least its livened things up and makes a change from angels

"If a piece of writing makes you laugh, can't that be a qualification for it being good writing? I think Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back is infantile and moronic and probably offensive but I laughed my tits off.

How dya like dem apples?"

Entertainment value ? I will give that one to you Darlin lol. But my father's farts made me laugh. Does that make them... skillfully executed ? *smirks*

How dya like them apples ? ;)

I could be wrong but I think the whole Mississippi Burning thing was a bit of nonsense on Lord Lucan's part - and he was probably a bit shocked by the response to something he'd written off the cuff as to why he was so self deprecating about it (or maybe not - who knows?) - whether he thinks it is good is beside the point - I found it funny therefore I value it as a piece of writing - an untrue/generalised/offensive to some piece of writing, but still for me of value. ATB :-)

My own dad's farts were extremely skillfully executed - in fact there was something of the comic genius in his timing. :-)

"I could be wrong but I think the whole Mississippi Burning thing was a bit of nonsense on Lord Lucan's part - and he was probably a bit shocked by the response to something he'd written off the cuff as to why he was so self deprecating about it (or maybe not - who knows?) - whether he thinks it is good is beside the point - I found it funny therefore I value it as a piece of writing - an untrue/generalised/offensive to some piece of writing, but still for me of value. ATB :-)"

Because the context was not specified, the piece is open to interpretation. And just as your interpretation is not wrong. It is your response to a piece of writing. Neither is anyone else's.

Welcome to Literature my friend ;)

"My own dad's farts were extremely skillfully executed - in fact there was something of the comic genius in his timing. :-)"

LOL ! Excellent response !

"The saying used by brainwashed American army personnel that 'My gun is my friend, I must clean it and lick it and kiss it goodnight"

Yeah ... about that ?

My husband ( a deployed combat medic ) licks and kisses his gun more than me.

and I find it highly offensive ;) lmao

So much speculation about me. It seems my own input is redandant!

Why does blighters think I need spambot? Or that he might help (or hinder) my search for enlightenment? How mysterious people are. Perhaps he doesn't know spambot was a joke?

I thought the poem was lame. Badly written and meant as a joke. I take life way too seriously to enjoy that kind of joke or the kinds a few others like to post. I'd rather use the site to post my serious work as a serious writer and meet other people interested in writing. I don't want to come to this site to learn about or discuss religion, although that seems to be a topic that gets argued a lot here. I don't appreciate fart humor or that stupid movie about Jay and Bob or whoever the hell they are. I never found fart humor funny, but that's me. I get frustrated by people that go out of their way to join a writer's site to make fake personalities to post obnoxious comments about anything. its tiresome and rude. I get that they think they're funny or bringing some kind of special enlightenment to the group by making fun of what they see written, but I would just rather be talking to people that want to write, want to learn about writing or want to discuss writing, since its a writer's site.

the poem was bad writing and had a tired boring message. go to myspace and publish that kind of stuff. the teens that still use that site will think you're amazing.

My parents told me never to discuss religion, politics or sport with strangers. Ok we've done religion now can we please get back to writing?

Wait a minute, we still have politics and sport to do. I used to be a conservative tight end but now I'm a liberal fast bowler. Can't stand those badminton democrats.

"The spambot joke was only enjoyed by its alter ego."

How do you know?

"your spamming is a disgrace."

Real spamming is certainly a disgrace and a plague on this site. More than you will ever know since the hard work of the editors keeps most of it hidden from you. Lucan has never spammed anybody.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting to hear why you took exception to one of my utterly harmless pieces.

I don't like da sound of dem apples cormacru!

I also find your dismissive response to fart humour a slight on the very nation I hold so dear - this great country (and half the world) was built by men with large moustaches who found no finer sport after billiards and a large cigar.

Wouldn't the world be a dull place if we all took ourselves a little too seriously cormacru? Does every piece of writing have to be written from the heart or need to change the world?

Peace and love to our friends in the colonies. (particularly Barry and Maggie)

I really agree with Blighters Rock about the spambot joke. If anyone wants to create a comic alter-ego(s) then they should do it via their stories/poems or on the forum but doing it in the form of comments is just annoying.

And I'd call it a kind of spam because checking your comments just to find some gibberish comedy skit that doesn't make you laugh and just wastes your time is like opening spam emails.

I've got no problem with negative comments aslong as they are comments and not irrelevant, improvised comic ramblings that,most of the time, are neither clever nor amusing (atleast not to me).

Anyway, rather than complaining any further I've just disabled my comments. Now I've said all that I wish to say.

JoHn

Really, I am out of here! I have never heard so much highfalutin nonsense.
What I learnt today is that I am entitled to free speech but not allowed to use it because my remarks might offend some people; that pomposity is alive and well: "I'd rather use the site to post my serious work as a serious writer". (As I am not a 'serious writer', I might as well go).
Never try to rebut negative comments; just ignore them and they'll soon be forgotten.

Luigi

In the context of what you just said, I am going to get very specific.

With every piece you write and put your name to, you are going to create REACTIONS to what you write.

With Freedom of Speech comes the Responsibility of Speech

Everybody want the freedom. No one wants the responsibility.

Do I think anyone needs to be censored ? ABSOLUTELY NOT ! and that means EVERYONE...

including those who took offense

You all see what I mean I hope.

Amen Geoffrey ! lol

Maggie, I will be very specific too.

"With every piece you write and put your name to, you are going to create REACTIONS to what you write."
Not necessarily: I have written and signed pieces that haven't stirred anybody's emotions nor have they been commented upon.

"With Freedom of Speech comes the Responsibility of Speech"
Pardon my French but what the f**k is responsibility of speech?

"Do I think anyone needs to be censored ? ABSOLUTELY NOT ! and that means EVERYONE...
including those who took offense"
So what is the argument about?

Us writers are very sensitive, it's ok...
I felt strongly about something and posted my views on the forum, so I expected opposing, ranbdom, getting off the topic, posts, that's the nature of the forums.
I'm a poet first and dabbled in other mediums. If you feel these forums distract from your writing Luigi give them a wide berth, but please, I know! It's lonely up there on that very high horse!

What the fuck is the responsibility of speech ?

You are kidding right ?

What a writers write produces consequences, What a speaker says produces consequences. What a painter paints produces consequences, and sometimes those reactions are negative.

Now.... You can ignore them, thinking they are just being mean,self righteous, what ever, blah blah blah.

You can walk around under some delusion that because you created "art" you get a free pass to do, and say anything you please like a friggin 4 year old and not take responsibility.

Or...

here's a thought...

You can grow up, listen to the negative critique, and maybe even learn something from it.

"Peace and love to our friends in the colonies. (particularly Barry and Maggie)"

The colonies ? *raises an eyebrow*

You lost ! Get over it ! LOL

and the same to you My friend ;)

Maggie- In art there is very little responsibility to take once you have created your piece- be it written, painted or whatever. That is the essence of art- to be irresponsible. You don't write/paint to please your audience- you do it because of your need to create and it will always disturb someone along the line.

"Maggie- In art there is very little responsibility to take once you have created your piece- be it written, painted or whatever. That is the essence of art- to be irresponsible. You don't write/paint to please your audience- you do it because of your need to create and it will always disturb someone along the line."

You are entitled to your opinion Darlin, just as I am entitled to mine.

With the exception of the "disturbing" I simply do not agree :)

Richard

I moved past the "religion" point a long time ago. I said my peace concerning Lucan's write, and from what I can tell Lucan has taken less issue with it than others. ( Says good things about the man in my book )

Upon your gentlemanly request *smiles*

I say no more :)

I feel for you mark_yelland-brown. I am afraid your sensitivity is such that it makes you misunderstand what I said. It surprises me that an ABC ex editor
did not realise that sentences in speech marks are quotes. I did not say I was a serious writer (quite the contrary), I was merely quoting cormacru999 and stated that pomposity seems to be alive and well.
Please take a minute to re-read my comments and analyse them properly.

MaggieG. I have asked you a simple answer and you gave me anything but. I said: "Pardon my French but what the f**k is responsibility of speech?" and you replied with "You are kidding right ?
What a writers write produces consequences, What a speaker says produces consequences. What a painter paints produces consequences, and sometimes those reactions are negative."
Now, you maybe erudite but not good at answering straightforward questions; what have consequences got to do with responsibility? Define responsibility of speech.
One thing strikes me: you keep saying that you are entitled to your opinion but you seem to be denying the same prerogative to others.
As for growing up I shall do so in my own time and as for learning, I doubt that I shall do that from you.

oh Richard

Good Lord ! If I had a buck for every time someone told me I have very stoic principles. LOL !

and I do...

I make no apologies for them. They have served me well *grins*

Darlin , in 30 years of writing I have had my stuff ripped to shreds, and not nicely.

I know how to critique in a plain truthful manner that is still respectful.

and my point is ... lol

Offense, whether it be from the writer or the reader is yes.... caused by sensitivity, period.

Thank you Hun :)

"Maggie's got a gun, you know, and I think she's religious.
Just having a crack, Maggie, honest. (Fuck, she's gonna kill me for saying that- I best wipe it--oh shit, I pressed 'post comment' Ahhh!!!)
All the best"

I do have a gun, a large one *grins*

And religious ? My priest throws me into confession every time he sees me just on principle ! lol

Well my response to the topic heading, is that i've seen far worse pieces get cherries , nibs, great reads or whatever label you want to attach such pieces, and i have looked on in disbelief, but i imagine everyone here shares that opinion. And i also imagine everyone thinks the same way about pieces or writers who get overlooked as well, with equal incredulity.

You just have to accept that people will have different opinions on writing , as they will on music, film,art and theatre, it doesn't mean they have the expertise to give the defining comment or critique, only their own humble opinion.

However i do think the Cherry givers do look after their colleagues here, and this seems to create a blanket effect of cherries across some writer's sets of work, which can't be good.No one deserves cherries for every piece of work they write do they?

Well apart from Christine's Diary of living with breast cancer that is, a great set of 36 pieces.

As for the piece discussed here, too long and full of obvious one liners perhaps. Clever if it was speed written, but instantly throwaway. Not cherry material in my humble opinion.

I stand by what I said. I don't think life would be boring if people took more responsibility for their actions. I don't think the country was built on fart jokes, I think it was built by serious men facing serious decisions and they did the best they could. and its simply my opinion that a writer's site should be about writing and the everyone should take it seriously. I realize that some of you won't like it and I don't care. some of you will understand and its those people I'd rather talk to.

If the mark of good writing is how much response it elicits from its readers then this was very, very good.

There have been times on this site when this discussion would have dissolved into obscene name calling and I'm delighted that it hasn't - I would delete it if it had!

Personally I don't think the poem deserved a cherry but it is quite good and I do understand why the Editor involved gave it a cherry. I also think that it makes some, admittedly slightly hackneyed, points. I don't believe that it denigrates Jesus or the vast majority of those that believe in him - it is clearly an attack on daft fundamentalists and not the religion itself.

Mark - I do understand why you raised the issue and you have every right to do so but I do not intend to remove the poem or the cherry.

Love and Peace to you all,
The boss

I'm glad there's a place to share concerns and debate.
I love the different flavours and strands.

I was not expecting it to be removed or the Cherry,

Bless You Tony!!

I've read this whole post in one go. Very interesting. And Tony you are not the boss. I am. I give myself cherries before I even write anything. Incidentally, I've not read the poem that has got you all so worked up. Can't be bothered now. That is the prerogative of all readers.

Anyway if we are going to be so pityfully politically correct when we are creating we are going to be very dull. And I see the responsibility and consequences bit as very politically correct and like putting all your creativity in a little box with an etiquette on it. That's definitely not creativity. Not in my opinion. If you see Muhammed as a dog or whichever way you see Jesus it's up to you and you alone and if people want to burn your house down that is against the law- that is not freedom of "speech" but it may be a consequence and I wouldn't take responsibility for that in creating.
I still think Lord Lucan's poem is straight and not blasfemous- it is a clear expression of some peoples hypocracy and yes being plain stupid and misunderstanding a religious message.

Celticman, you mean you haven't read my glorious work? What an impoverished life you're leading! Oh, and do share those cherries around a bit. ;)

In case you haven't guessed yet, Lord Lucan IS Mark Brown. We're just trying to drum up a bit of extra readership.

And to keep the pot boiling on this thread?

No one has mentioned angels in a while... But I could change that ;) just kidding. That topic has pretty much died, even though I still "study" them.

Savannah

Is God a God of love, a God of retribution or simply an excuse to hate each other?

Isn't this just two opposing groups 'performing' for 'the media'; religious extremists engaging in a form of amplified verbal 'stones throwing' while, inexplicably, somehow imagining that they themselves are without sin?

Free speech or defamation? Religion or bigotry?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmqfrUIzy6w

Thanks for the clip, it's so obvious it's nothing to do with the teachings and life of Jesus, but they'll get more headlines and be used as an example of what Christianity stands for. Kind of used to it ...

Like it or not, it is free speech Hun.

I am the wife of a deployed soldier, a supporter of gay rights, and a believer in God.

Sooooo... lol needless to say the Westboro Baptist Church is certain I am heading to Hell.

The one thing I am certain of though ? That type of absolute thinking is the reason why our political structures are falling apart, our educational systems are falling apart, our scientific structures are starting to be no longer trusted, children, women, and old people are being neglected, and abused, such as that. Hell Taken to its extremes, it is the reason peoples who do not look, act, or think like us are abused , neglected, and often killed period.

And I don't blame any of this on GOD. As we discussed before Mangone. I blame it on people. God is simply an excuse for them to do what they do. It is the difference between USING something or someone, and supporting.

That could be a whole new thread, what, if any , are the absolutes you live by? Juicy!

“And I don't blame any of this on GOD. As we discussed before Mangone.
I blame it on people. God is simply an excuse for them to do what they do.
It is the difference between USING something or someone, and supporting.”

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with the above Maggie!
It’s not just God that gets used as an excuse for people’s inhumanity to others who don’t agree with them but God is the best excuse because He out-ranks everybody else.

As you point out using a ’higher authority’ is one of the failings of human nature…
It leads to claims by those who, overwhelmed by their own sense of importance, assure us that the ends justify the means, that they do what must be done for the betterment of the tribe, or the clan, or the country.

The tradition of doing God’s work goes back at least as far as Abraham…
Who, we can see from the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham was recognised as the Patriarch of the Jews and hence of all the religions that sprang from their religion including Christianity and Islam.
“The Book of Genesis narrative that records the life of Abraham presents his role as one that could only be fulfilled through a monotheistic covenant established between him and God. The Qur'an has stories about Abraham and his offspring that are similar to the Bible's. In Islam, Abraham is recognized as a prophet, patriarch, and messenger, archetype of the perfect Muslim, and reformer of the Kaaba.

Yet few people can live up to Abraham’s standard be it Popes, or politicians, kings or Presidents.
In fact it’s worth bearing in mind what Abraham’s position on torture was because it is diametrically opposed to that of the Bush (the younger) administration and it might not be a coincidence that Bush mentioned Hell when he was asked if he supported ‘water boarding’…
he reportedly replied “Hell yes.”

I wonder how many Christians, Muslims and Jews agree with the following excerpt from a Sunday School lesson. http://sundayschoolsources.com/lessons/OT/Genesis/AbrahamsSons.htm

“Do the ends justify the means? God often asks us to participate is his plans, but that doesn't mean we can change his plans. We can't use any old means to achieve God's ends. The crusaders felt they could torture people into ‘converting’ to Christianity. Many people today feel they can worship, or obey, in whatever fashion they desire, as long as their ‘goal’ is to worship or obey. God wants ‘obedience more than sacrifice‘. He wants us to submit, and trust that his ways will accomplish his plans.”

I would argue that it is the LIE that the ‘ends justify the means’ that has brought so much of modern Western life into conflict with itself.

For many the mind has become the arbiter of the heart and the materialistic merit of the loathsome logic of the ‘ends justify the means’ has poisoned many souls turning them from Christians into Capitalists, from men into monsters, from trusters to terrorists!

I do wish people wouldn't conflate belief in God with belief in religion. I often say that God isn't religious. People assume I mean it as a joke since they think churches, bibles and hymns are the work of God. It isn't a joke, though. It isn't at all funny.

I'd just like to be clear whether we are speaking of God - the creator of the universe, or religion - sunday schools, mosques, 'holy' books, rites and rituals, and so forth. I don't see how you can believe in both simultaneously without making God an utterly ridiculous figure.

Am I allowed to say that here? I dare say I'll find out.

You have every right to say that, but it it really thought through?
Can you negate spiritual experiences, changed lives, centuries of revivals changing society, moral reform. The whole religion being responsible for most wars in history is ignoring the whole realm of faith, and what Jesus lived and taught, and for 2000 years there has always been a faithful witness endeavoring to offset man's attempt to usurp a life of faith as a license to control and dominate. The evidence is out there but it's neglected in favour of the usual, shallow, if your a person of faith you must be stupid or deluded.
Not true...

Well, you made me smile FTSE...
While I take your point I can't see that there is
anything we could do or believe that could make God look ridiculous although I'm sure there are many who wish it may be so.
Religion and God are connected but some religions like Buddhism and Taoism don't actually admit to having a God.

Religion isn't for God it is a guide for His people...
In the main most major religions are designed to help people find their way from the darkness to the light and stay there.

Since God hasn't personally done many chat shows in the last few centuries modern religions are mostly by the people for the people and it seems to me that slowly, but surely, science, politics and decadence have eaten away at the spiritual core of the major organised religions as practiced in the West.

I noticed that Rick Perry pointed out recently that what America needs is a good man not a glib man and I agree that all too often it is the empty heart with the clever voice that defeats the good heart with its honest voice.

There are too many clever men who believe that religion is simply a sham, a charade for the stupid, and that morals are for morons... they can't see the alienation, the despair and the growing hopelessness that will lead to anarchy, because they are too dazzled by what they imagine is the reflection of their own brilliance... hubris, the path of the snake.

Hmmmm

let me start by saying that the Bible was written down by man. But more importantly it was written in the context, framework if you will, of a specific time and place, and should be taken as such.

Example -

Yes... the Bible says being gay is wrong

Now.. Taken at face value, we can persecute gays until the cows come home,

Or... We can look a little deeper ? 99 percent of all the laws in the Bible ( Particularly the Old Testament ) were written with two things in mind. Longevity,and the continuation a very specific peoples. Being gay ( particularly in those times ) did little for procreation, and the continuation of believers. Following me so far ?

And I do hope people understand that this train of thought I am expressing goes far beyond the scope of just homosexuality. This can be applied to many things in the Bible if you really give it some thought.

Now here is another point I will make...

You agree with the Bible, and think being gay is wrong ? Good No problem... But keep in mind the Bible also says to not eat pork. Soooooo....

Before you take the sausage ( so to speak ) out of someone else's mouth ? Take it out of yours.

Follow the rules you feel necessary to live a good and decent life. But do NOT think that those rules apply to ABSOLUTELY ( and this is what I mean Mark by absolute thinking ) anyone else but YOU !

My Gran always said praying is our way of talking to God, and religion is God's way of talking to us.

And he ain't having the same conversation with everyone.

And really and truly why should he ?

Are we all the same ?

Hopefully that explains some of what I meant :)

so subtle. totally different than just saying what you think. offered you a chance but nothing. now I'll go back to where I was. no ditties for you.

I really ought to steer clear of this. In any discussion you are only welcome to participate if you accept certain unspoken premises. But I can't sleep, so here I am.

Mark, when I say that God and religion are distinct. you assume I'm saying religion is a bad thing. Not so. I believe that for some people it can be a very good thing and can indeed bring about the results you claim. It can, of course, also bring about some very bad results. It's a human activity and no human activity is ever totally good or totally bad. Lising the good and bad things to see whose list is longest is pointless. How many Mother Teresas will it take to cancel out one 9-11? That sort of argument goes nowhere. I'm not trying to place blame for wars, I'm trying to work out what I can and cannot believe in.

Mangone, I agree with you entirely when you say religion is for people, not for God. It's the very essence of the matter. Why would God go to church?

Maggie, many books have been written about how to live a good life. Once you factor out the folk tales, does the bible contain anything you can't find elsewhere? I'd like to make it clear that I have no objection to folk tales, nor any argumement with those who think the bible is poetic or worth reading for other reasons. No hidden agenda, just a straightforward query.

Here is my, somewhat light hearted, theory on the role of religion and its purpose.

I tend to see God as a benevolent king who, in His infinite wisdom, allows people to choose whether or not they wish to be His subjects.
To be allowed to emigrate to Heaven people are asked to show that they are willing and capable of following God’s laws, even when doing so might result in suffering or hardship.

In other words ‘life’ is our chance to prove to God that we are fit to live in his kingdom and that we are happy to accept His rules and that we are grateful for His benevolence.

In a way ’life’ is just another exam but rather than simply effecting your job prospects or your social status it effects your role in eternity.

I think the mistake that so many people make is to believe that they can fool God.
They are so used to conning everyone else that at some stage they fall into the trap of conning themselves. The Tester whispers into their ear that God is such a good guy He won’t really hold it against them whatever they do.
Once the sucker believes that then it doesn’t take many more whispers before they become convinced that the ’ends justify the means’ and little by little, as they pave their road with ‘good intensions’ they slide down the slippery slope into that cold place that freezes the heart and reduces everything to logic and profit and loss!

So, what is religion? It’s simply a generalised statement of the rules and laws to which you must adhere if you wish to get your visa. So far as I know God doesn’t care too much about which religion you choose so long as you lead a life that demonstrates that you are a caring, moral person who will fit in well should you be granted a visa.

The problem with all exams is that you can never be certain of the result.
You might think you are going to ace it and then, too late, find out your visa application has been refused because you had been constantly contravening some little law you thought was unimportant.

I notice that Rick Perry was booed the other day for defending free schooling for the children of illegal immigrants. Children don’t chose their parents. Surely such children are the responsibility of the land they live in. Doesn’t schooling make children more likely to fit in and embrace the American way?
What sort of children will they end up being if they don’t get an education?

I would argue that the Christian way, the way of love, would be to find some way of dealing with the problem of illegal aliens not punishing their children. If you want to build a wall then build a wall but walls keep people in as well as keeping people out. Yet who can criticize any country for requiring an entry visa if God Himself does the same :O)

If you're right, the rules must be plain and simple ones that anybody can work out for themselves. I don't know what sort of a god would be in the business of setting traps or trying to trick people.

One thing has always puzzled me: what does God get out of it? Even if he's as keen on humans as a pensioner on cats, does he really need six and a half billion pets?

"Maggie, many books have been written about how to live a good life. Once you factor out the folk tales, does the bible contain anything you can't find elsewhere? I'd like to make it clear that I have no objection to folk tales, nor any argumement with those who think the bible is poetic or worth reading for other reasons. No hidden agenda, just a straightforward query."

Actually you and I are in close proximity wise on thoughts concerning the Bible. I agreed when Pope John Paul II said the all religions hold the seeds of truth. There are basic tenets that run through them all that even an atheist couldn't argue with, Do not murder, steal, lie, etc. The same can be said for each divine book as well.

What I have done, concerning the Bible, is learn to understand it from a historical, and even scientific point of view. An example would be that I see the Old Testament as the/a written document of the oral histories of the Jews.

Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman on the Earth. They were the first Jews, and Genesis explains metaphorically their birth into that religion.

It is a high scientific probability that there was a large flood in the region of Noah during his time. ( Other places in the world have experienced these types of floods as well, hence the repeating of this story ) Now if you are an ancient man, and every where you look is flooded, wouldn't you come to the conclusion the whole world is ?

These are just two examples of how I read the Bible.

I already mentioned the manner in which ancient laws are perceived for me.

Literalists amuse me . Because if we truly took the Bible literally, we would be beating our children damn near to death for being disrespectful, and still stoning wives for adultery.

Not only do I think the Bible is not meant to be taken to the hilt, But under the more humane societal way of thinking we have evolved into, we can not, pure, and simple.

Now what do I get out of the Bible ? Stories of hope, and endurance, perseverance, and belief in something better, that it can always be better. Signs that I am not alone. A context, and frame that I can place my morality, my faith in all that is good , and my humanity into.

My principles are always growing, evolving, trying to improve, and for me the Bible is the book that accommodates that raising up if you will.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Galileo.

" God shall never be disproven, only clarified "

I find that when people treat their "interpretations" as absolutes ( an oxymoron, if you ask me ) they leave no room for God to be clarified, understood even better. I can't imagine God liking that idea any more than I would. Who does not want to be fully understood ?

Interesting questions in a way FTSE and I have strived to continue in a light hearted vein while at the same time offering what I consider to be religiously valid responses.

'If you're right, the rules must be plain and simple ones that anybody can work out for themselves.'

I'd say that most people quickly aquire a sufficiently developed conscience to be able to tell the difference between right and wrong...

I would guess that if it were to be as logical as that then God, being very bright, would know when people had done something wrong knowing it was wrong as opposed to doing something wrong without realising it was - and judge accordingly.

However, my personal belief is that what really counts in the end is where you end up compared to where you started.
All your choices are steps in a particular direction and, in effect, take you closer or further from God.

I see absolutely no reason to conclude that God's system for choosing who gets a visa should be a logical one - but I'm sure that it will be wise, fair and divinely just.

'One thing has always puzzled me: what does God get out of it?
Even if he's as keen on humans as a pensioner on cats, does he really need six and a half billion pets?'

You're judging by your own standards FTSE -
why would God need to get something out of it?
Thank goodness God doesn't see us as pets but as beings who He can share His love with...
but of course it is highly unlikely that everyone will get a visa!

I hadn't heard of the Codex Sinaiticus until today but it seems that it is probably the world's oldest Bible.
I found news about it by accident when I was searching through the BBC News archive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7651105.stm

"For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain."

"The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection."

"The Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.
One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas.
This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit.
"His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry."

"The Codex - and other early manuscripts - omit some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief."

None of this makes much difference to me but for those who do take the Bible literally it does add weight to Maggie's argument - 'Not only do I think the Bible is not meant to be taken to the hilt, But under the more humane societal way of thinking we have evolved into, we can not, pure, and simple.'

As suggested in the article if you're going to argue that the Bible is the word of God which Bible do you mean?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly, I have always felt that if there is a Hell it would be a cold place and not a pit of fire. Checking out the Gospel of Barnabus, http://www.barnabas.net/chapters/154.html?task=view ,I found...

"Thaddaeus answered: `O master, when the sense leaveth the life, a man hath not life.'

Jesus answered: `This is not true, because man is deprived of life when the soul departeth; because the soul returneth not any more to the body, save by miracle. But sense departeth by reason of fear that it receiveth, or by reason of great sorrow that the soul hath.
For the sense hath God created for pleasure, and by that alone it liveth, even as the body liveth by food and the soul liveth by knowledge and love.
This [sense] is now rebellious against the soul, through indignation that it hath at being deprived of the pleasure of paradise through sin.

Wherefore there is the greatest need to nourish it with spiritual pleasure for him who willeth not that it should live of carnal pleasure.
Understand ye?

Verily I say unto you, that God having created it condemned it to hell and to intolerable snow and ice; because it said that it was God; but when he deprived it of nourishment, taking away its food from it, it confessed that it was a slave of God and the work of his hands. And now tell me, how doth sense work in the ungodly?

Assuredly, it is as God in them: seeing that they follow sense, forsaking reason and the law of God. Whereupon they become abominable, and work not any good.'"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I've no idea what to make of this... http://www.barnabas.net/chapters/145.html?task=view
It is certainly the most shocking and unexpected thing I have ever read that is claimed to have been in the Bible!!!
I can't actually believe it!

Not that it is impossible but just that it would surely be more famous, or imfamous, depending on what you choose to believe...

Ah, it is a Muslim site run by the The Sabr Foundation -
well that explains a lot :O)

Still, I find it interesting anyway does anyone know if there are other, non Muslim sources of similar texts?

Ah, good old Wiki!

"This work (The Gospel Of Banabus) is a book depicting the life of Jesus, and claiming to be by Jesus' disciple Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles.
Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century and written respectively in Italian and in Spanish-- although the Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript.

Barnabas is about the same length as the four Canonical gospels put together (the Italian manuscript has 222 chapters), with the bulk being devoted to an account of Jesus' ministry, much of it harmonized from accounts also found in the canonical gospels.
In some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity.

It should not be confused with the surviving Epistle of Barnabas, nor with the surviving Acts of Barnabas."

Also from Wiki...
"The Epistle of Barnabas (Greek: Επιστολή Βαρνάβα, Hebrew: איגרת בארנבס‎) is a Greek epistle containing twenty-one chapters, preserved complete in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus where it appears at the end of the New Testament.
It is traditionally ascribed to Barnabas who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, though some ascribe it to another Apostolic Father of the same name, a "Barnabas of Alexandria", or simply attribute it to an unknown early Christian teacher.

A form of the Epistle 850 lines long is noted in the Latin list of canonical works in the 6th century Codex Claromontanus.
It is not to be confused with the Gospel of Barnabas."

I can't resist adding this bit of the Wiki piece which I cannot help but find amusing...

"The Epistle reinterprets many of the laws of the Torah.
For example, the prohibition on eating pork is not to be taken literally, but rather forbids the people to live like swine, who supposedly grunt when hungry but are silent when full:
likewise, the people are not to pray to God when they are in need but ignore him when they are satisfied.
Similarly, the prohibition on eating rabbit means that the people are not to behave in a promiscuous manner, and the prohibition on eating weasel is actually to be interpreted as a prohibition of oral sex, based on the mistaken belief that weasels copulate via the mouth."

"I hadn't heard of the Codex Sinaiticus until today but it seems that it is probably the world's oldest Bible.
I found news about it by accident when I was searching through the BBC News archive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7651105.stm"

Clarify that statement Hun ;) It is the oldest CHRISTIAN Bible.

The Old Testament/Torah is older. But yes you are quite correct otherwise. There are several versions of the Christian Bible, and even more religious texts that either made it in to some versions, or did not make it in at all. ( The Gnostic texts being the most well known, and what many believe the Codex to be, a fully conceived Gnostic Bible )

There are contradictions between the many varieties, as well as contradictions to be found in our latest versions as well.

Go figure huh ? *smiles*

These books ( and I believe that includes most of them at the very least ) were divinely inspired. They, in and of themselves are not divine.

Between the "evolving" of an standard ideology, and multiple interpretations of previously held beliefs, seriously how can they be ?

That is the clinical explanation. lol

Now my faith based explanation ?

Do I take any major issue with these contradictions in text ? No... As I stated before, God is simply have different conversations with different people.

I know the conversation he is having with me. I am NOT so arrogant as to believe that my way is the only way. So I do not concern myself with the conversation he is having with others.

Tonight's conversation seems to be mostly about spam. I've just removed almost 200 spam comments posted by one 'shenshen'. Silly bugger, it took him hours to post them and me a minute to delete them from the database. If you wanted Ugg boots (whatever they are) I'm afraid you've missed your chance.

What is God trying to tell me? Not to sleep in case spammers attack during the night?

Oh, how the world changes FTSE.
I can still remember when Spam was popular.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

By the way FTSE your Spammer doesn't seem to have given up and is selling his Uggg boots etc. as bozi007 - and although he started here http://www.abctales.com/forum/2011/03/09/re-wh
His Spam is spreading faster than a Texas wildfire through the Discuss Writing forum!

I hadn't considered non Christian Bibles...
It's amazing, you can think you know a lot about something and suddenly realise you've only scratched the surface.
Still, I really enjoyed my roller coaster ride of discovery yesterday.

Thanks for your clarification Maggie!

I don’t know if you ever get a sudden flash of ‘realisation’ when it suddenly dawns on you that you have a totally different concept of something to what can seem to be the majority of other people.

I had just such a ‘realisation’ earlier this morning thinking about Maggie’s belief that we have ‘civilised’ to such an extent that we need to view the bible from a different perspective.

I suddenly had a ‘vision’ of FTSE talking the place of Simon Cowell in a new version of the X Factor…
Finding God.
A series of religious Prophets from Buddha to Zoroaster would perform a short musical ‘opera’ outlining their religious philosophy and the viewers could vote for which ever god was represented by their favourite prophet performance.
I use ‘god’ since several religions don’t actually have a God and so it might be that people end up choosing a prophet that supports a pantheon or a ‘collective consciousness’.

Of course, once the X Factor had whittled down the contestants then the format would change to a debate where the prophets would be asked a series of questions and be judged on how they answer them. Naturally, the prophets would be expected to negotiate with their respective gods to bring their methods of ruler ship closer to a Democratic process where god puts forward his ideas every Sunday on primetime TV and the world votes.

Naturally the chosen god should be forbidden to use his super natural powers without permission from a specially selected committee who would represent Global Capitalism - just to make sure that the dollar could continue to say ‘In god we trust’.

If the chosen god has a Paradise then it must be run in a logical way and be subject to a scientifically sound statistical selection of “What the people want this week’. :O)

Anybody have any more ideas as to how we can choose our god?

I’m an old fashioned guy and I’ll stick to the old fashioned method where I don’t choose God but I pray He will choose me!

Our spammer has been back four times so he must know the spam is being deleted.

I don't see why I should be the Simon Cowell figure. My position has always been a perfectly sensible one: that you can only have what there is. I can believe in a two-headed dragon god all I like, but if there's no such thing then my believing in it won't bring it into existence. What there is is what there is, and no opinions, hopes, bribes or preferences will change it.

I'd go as far as to say that that's the biggest difference between me and 99% of the rest of the population. If you ask people whether they believe in ghosts, dark matter, unicorns, angels, gods, fairies, pixies, homeopathy, astrology, they give an answer entirely dependent on whether or not they like the sound of it.

"Do you believe in reincarnation?"

"Oh yes, I like the sound of that. I think I'll believe in it."

What startles me about poems of a similar ilk to the one Lord Lucan wrote is this…why do devout religious types (choose any particular theological denomination you like) proud stalwart believers that they are – UNSHAKEABLE FAITH! Go feral ferret when someone writes or draws a subjective sentiment of contradiction. Surely if the particular omnipotent deity you believe in created the many universes in their entirety; would a poem or short story by a single atheist on ABC tales bring your entire ecclesiastical kingdom down! Turn the other cheek, be insulted and rest assured in your faith; Religion is such a vast sweeping all consuming, brooking no dissent awkward beast – that occasionally someone is going to lob a philosophical spear or two at it! What is it inside, what kernel of doubt is it slumbering away deep in the core of religious types! That any criticism renders them froth mouthed and red eyed? It’s absurd that the preachers of tolerance are so deeply ingrained with intolerance! Jesus! I’d laugh...but it’s not funny!

"I had just such a ‘realisation’ earlier this morning thinking about Maggie’s belief that we have ‘civilised’ to such an extent that we need to view the bible from a different perspective"

Let's put it this way Mangone... To take the Bible in a literal sense would look something like the extremist mentalities of Middle East, maybe even worse.

Enough said ? :)

I must be one of the one percenters too FTSE because I don’t care what something is called I just recognise rubbish when I see it...
like, dark energy and dark matter make up over 95% of the Universe.
Still, I suppose if I'm wrong we should be thanking God that we were born in the less than 5% of the Universe that wasn’t dark eh? :O)

“More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery.
But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5%”
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

Maggie G

"...maybe even worse..." I am curious to know what exactly is the "...maybe even worse..." evidently something more calamitous than the extremist mentalities of the middle east! Are you referring to the extremist mentalities of Jeudo-Christian Europe, possibly? Or the ballicose fundamentalist doctrine of the North American tribe? I think a great deal more can be said and still I should think that would not be enough!

p.s

I think GOD, when he said the bible is his WORD, I think he meant for it to be taken literally, or else I missed the disclaimer just before Genesis which reads:-

DEAR CHRISTIAN, PLEASE ENJOY THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES, HOWEVER WHAT EVER YOU DO, DO NOT TAKE THE WORD OF AN OMNIPOTENT BEING AS LITERAL! JESUS NEXT YOU'LL BE WANTING TO GO TO THE BLOODY MOON!

KIND REGARDS

GOD!

What I mean Spartacard specifically is we can de-evolve back to tribal customs that actual permeate the Bible ( and predate it to be matter a fact )

A prime example to show would be female circumcision ( I prefer to call it what it is, castration ) That is a "tribal" custom that predates the Quran, and yet is preformed today, and the Quran is USED to justify it.

Stoning, slavery, absolute annihilation of enemies, and other such matters not only discussed in the Bible, but also endorsed would be put into full affect if the Bible was to be taken literally.

These are the things I meant

'Because I read it in a book' is never a justification for anything, is it?

Nope .... It isn't

I understand the practice of many of these "laws" and customs in the time they were performed. Many actually served a purpose in terms of structure and order back then. They simply serve no purpose NOW.

So what do we do with them ? We understand their time, and place and EVOLVE beyond them. This is how I think of it. If God was ok, and satisfied with these ancient laws he would have never sent Jesus Christ, or Buddha, or such as Ghandi, and Mother Theresa.

He wants us to become something better than what we started out as.

The bible is a consequence of GOD! (If you believe in GOD) thus with the possible exception Cliff Richard, nothing pre-dates GOD technically all human fault is as a God given! Stoning, slavery, war, female 'genitalia editing' are fundamental aspects of Jeudo-Christian teaching and doctrine! It is simply wrong for anyone to dip idly into someone else's belief system and say...

"excuse me, I don't believe what you believe, but that is wrong, I'd edit that, that is right out! Seriously that is crazy, I don't like that, you must be joking with that last bit...so on and so forth"

You have to take the bible 100% literally, there is no room for allegory! This I find to be of the bibles most damning aspects! It is the absolute belief that it is the absolute word of God that makes it all the more ridiculous and purile! Thus Muslims, Christians and Jews ridicule themselves with the ardant dogmatic lunacy by which they purport their faith.

It is not for you nor I to edit via our secular morality! The more literal we take the literature of all major faiths the less faithful there will be!

"You have to take the bible 100% literally, there is no room for allegory!"

Why Darlin ? Cause you said so ? *smiles*

No I don't.... and I can still believe in God. I can still read holy texts, and understand the "decency" within them. I can read them as I do.

That they are ancient man's journey toward something divine.

"Stoning, slavery, war, female 'genitalia editing' are fundamental aspects of Jeudo-Christian teaching and doctrine!"

In ANCIENT Judeo-Christian beliefs ? Yes they were. They were also aspects of Sumerian culture which is the birthplace of the three "Abraham" religions, and also predates all three religions.

With one exception !

Female 'genitalia editing" ( what a lovely politically correct way of describing a young girls clitoris being sawed off )

That practice comes directly from Northern Africa, and worked its way up, having very little to do with religion period. It was accommodated into the religions under the guise of "protecting" a girls modesty.

What a disagreeable lot you humans are! If all I knew about your species came from reading this thread I wouldn't have a very high opinion of you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision

"Asim Zaki Mustafa argues that the common attribution of the procedure to Islam is unfair because it is a much older phenomenon.[18] While individual Muslims, Christians, and Jews practise FGM, it is not a requirement of any religious observance. Judaism requires circumcision for boys, but does not allow it for girls.[19] Islamic scholars have said that, while male circumcision is a sunna, or religious obligation, female circumcision is preferable but not required, and several have issued a fatwa against Type III FGM.[20]"

"What a disagreeable lot you humans are! If all I knew about your species came from reading this thread I wouldn't have a very high opinion of you."

LOL !

I suspect God doesn't have a very high opinion of us My Dear ;)

But God love himself, I suspect he does have hope :)

GOD

Hello y'all, I am he, GOD! Kevin left his camera, but since I'm here I would like to fill you in!

Oddly enough Lord Lucan I had a spare minute and I found myself actually following this thread, odd I KNOW! You would think that I would have better things to do, well you LOT would!

Gee, the world, the universe and even valcro, you lot have given me credit for a lot of, hey that was sweet of you, thankyou for the sentiment but I came here on holiday with my friend Kevin and you lot were already here! Dirty lot of beggars if you ask me!

Out of pity I borrowed some monkey a match and that was that, WHOOOSH, you lot started burning and eating, and eating and burning, then you invented language, animal husbandry, pornographic websites and lovely neat pictures of giraffe and wolf...nothing to do with me!

That book you lot keep on tossing around, that was not written by me, sorry folks! We bought some sandles and a glow in the dark T-Rex then left.

Uncomfortable I know, but its not you its me - what we had was really good, but I'm in a really negative place right now, hey call me, lets remain friends, okay - super duper!

Well good luck and you know, stiff upper lip and all that!

So Long (keep the bloody fish)

PS. Vajazzle, Milton Keynes and Ed Balls, REALLY?....shame on you!

GOD

Maybe you should just get some religion and lighten up Lucan.

If you think the posters on this thread are disagreeable then you haven’t had much thread experience.

A few disagreements but in the main people are discussing the things they don’t agree about because they approximately agree on all the rest. :O)

Perhaps you are confusing the light hearted banter and occasional bits of dark satire with lack of brotherly love which is easily done if you don't feel as though you're part of the group and can't feel the love.

I just don't get it? Who, what is God? Is it a he or she?
Aren't we living a bit too far away from the time the Bible was supposed to be written and when Jesus lived? Isn't it all a bit of old fashioned nonsense. I have never been religious and yet I haven't missed it? Why is there such a difference in faith? Who says Allah is the truth? Who says God is for real? I have never met him/her and never will- how the hell am I supposed to believe in him/her? Because the Bible says so? Why don't I believe in Allah or Buddha ? I don't and I have survived. If it is all up to free will then it could only be imagination and self-suggestion! I'll never understand.

Scathing, yes! Inappropriate, NO! I agree with Mangone - which in my mind I pronounce '...man-goni...' its the type of you word you want to mean 'filthy minded' in Italian.

-Derek, I want to make a fajita out of your face!

-Ooooh Cyril, you are so 'mangoni' tonight!

-Pass the sauce!!!!

Oddly enough I am quite bewtiched by all things spiritual!

"I just don't get it? Who, what is God? Is it a he or she?
Aren't we living a bit too far away from the time the Bible was supposed to be written and when Jesus lived? Isn't it all a bit of old fashioned nonsense. I have never been religious and yet I haven't missed it? Why is there such a difference in faith? Who says Allah is the truth? Who says God is for real? I have never met him/her and never will- how the hell am I supposed to believe in him/her? Because the Bible says so? Why don't I believe in Allah or Buddha ? I don't and I have survived. If it is all up to free will then it could only be imagination and self-suggestion! I'll never understand."

Highhat

You are saying some wonderfully valid things here. Hun I do NOT believe in God because of the Bible.

Hell the name God is simply the name I have given something that has been with me since I was a child.

The Bible shows me people who have walked this same path, and how they dealt with this un-provable thing called faith. That does not mean I am required to walk their specific path.

I don't care what name you give to faith in something better than yourself. Personally I don't think that thing cares either. Personify it how you wish. As I said before it is having different conversations with different people.

Mr Lucan

"...You can't just post flowery, vaguely spiritual nonsense, refuse to explain exactly what you mean..."

Well actually if you can post trite, dull, tired, vaguely polemical ramblings (Jesus is my friend) then I am adamant you can post the very thing you call '...vaguely spiritual nonsense...'!

How does pleasing a few people on a website out way insulting a great many people on a website? Your defence was exactly that...

"Some people liked it, so there!"

Alexander Pope might very well disagree with you on the; vague, flowery religious theme!

Either way a few rats bit the cheese on the trap for awhile!

I quite like the word Mangoni, Sparta - as you say it does sound Italian and quite delicious in a spicy tomato pasta with olives and a sprinkling of oregano kind of way.
I may adopt it as a nickname.

"Either way a few rats bit the cheese on the trap for awhile!"

I used to have two adorable pet rats. Lovely, charming creatures.

Don't insult them by comparing them to humans ;)

*chuckling*

Mangone, you misunderstand my post. But Mags understands and that's all that matters. I worship her and can't wait for her to write a book to tell me where my life went all pear-shaped.

Spartarcad is a nit. His name doesn't even make sense. I feel spiritually impoverished every time I see it.

"Mangone, you misunderstand my post. But Mags understands and that's all that matters. I worship her and can't wait for her to write a book to tell me where my life went all pear-shaped."

Get a life, and figure that mess out yourself Darlin ! LMAO

It's all got rather light hearted now, if not vaguely homo-erotic! Which is my favourite kind of '...ic..' apart possibly from magnetic, sporadic and the obvious......epileptic! Although depending on the river sceptic pops in to my top five from time to....

Thanks Maggie- that was a good explanation- faith in something other than yourself. I would say goodness of man, kindness and love, caring etc not necessairly the bible or God. That is what I have known since I was a child! Thanks

;)Pia

Highly charged banter missing some basic Christianity 101, there's a new covenant, we have a better covenant, with better promises, and a better high priest ( Hebrews) Jesus, beautiful.
John 14:6 precious!

why is this thread so long? Have I missed something. Had the cherry crisis led to meltdown and begat the second coming?

(Sorry if I offended you non-begetters out there)

Here's the problem. Everybody hopes that somebody (person or arganisation) will have The Answer. Some think that, since The Answer isn't going to come from people at work, at home or in the High Street - your home is far too familiar - it might come from a monk on a hilltop in Nepal. Somewhere that's foreign and exotic. By the same reasoning, monks from Nepal come to strange and exotic Cheam Railway Station looking for a wino who might know life's secrets.

That's truth-seeking from an earlier age. These days you assume that if The Secret And Powerful Umlum Monks knew anything worth knowing they'd put it on their website or Facebook page or tweet about it. Exotic surroundings don't imply secret knowledge.

So who do you ask? There's no shortage of people with 'answers'. And no shortage of people willing to believe them. If you start (say) a UFO cult, you don't have to scour the world for cranks to join you. You'll find people in your street (or on ABC) to sign up. People are hungry for answers and they'll take what they can get.

Having read this far, members of any religion or cult will be getting impatient. "We are the exception," they're longing to shout. "We have the words of the One True Supreme Being to guide us. Join us and we'll tell you the way. Don't listen to the others, they're just crackpots. Did Yarg the Venusian Glommatch or Jeezers Son of Glod ever speak to them? I rest my case."

So how do you choose? No, there's a prior question. Should you choose at all? In your heart of hearts you know that all religions are the work of man, and that people don't know any answers, and that in the absence of answers they make things up. You know that people are social animals, they like being part of a group, they like to join in. They feel good, and attribute that good feeling to Yarg entering their hearts, not to the real cause, which is feeling Part Of It. That's the way people are made.

A made-up religion, as they all are - hell, we even know who made up relatively recent ones like (for instance) Islam - isn't necessarily bad. They bring people together, give them lovely things to do, make them feel part of something, and give them hope that there's more to life than the everyday routine.

In your teens you think that having a girlfriend and a motorbike (or a Gucci handbag and a boyfriend) will sort you out for life. These things, and the fantasies that follow, all let you down. You want something that won't let you down. So you believe in something unattainable: Lady Di, Elvis, God, the invisible space aliens that are orbiting Earth as I write. As long as the object of your adoration remains distant they can never let you down.

What of those who are painfully conscious of all this? Those who refuse to choose and belong? Probably they are missing out on one of life's most valuable experiences. But what if reason will not let go? Is there some drug you can take to make you more amenable? What can we do?

We get angry at people who have settled for so little, even though we know it's all there is. We underestimate how attached people can become to their special groups. Sometimes (the topic of this thread) we write doggerel. Sometimes we make flippant comments.

Help us to join in! How do you do it? How do you forget that you are just pretending and become utterly convinced that you aren't?

You mean you haven't figured this out already? I have all the answers I need. Life is simple. try to enjoy it.

Ftse, go back to your heart, and also keep believing that there is truth and a reason to love.
My experience was one of being found when I was looking for the answers in myself, I forgot completely the tsunami that is the Spiritual paradigm shift.
Make room for the paradigm shift of His love.

Strangely, despite all these posts about religion made to this thread we have only just reached the central issue... religions are based on FAITH!

I suppose many people simply accept the faith of their parents and believe that if they are basically a good person and go to church or temple regularly, or even occasionally, that they will go to a better place when they die.

Having said that, in my opinion, it is much harder to keep your faith in this modern materialistic world where, for many people, cynicism and disappointment rule.

The modern motto is "If it seems to be too good to be true then it probably is!".
For many people who have been constantly let down, their hopes continuously dashed as they look for something to believe in, they retreat into Cynicism - the last refuge of the disillusioned.

To make matters worse modern science seems to have forgotten that its role is to tell us what is and not to speculate on what might be. Newton wasn't very happy with his theory of gravity because, like Einstein later, he didn't like the idea of force at a distance, that some 'magical moon beams' from a distant sun somehow convinces the planets to follow their orbits.

Newton being a good, no a great, scientist simply gave us the laws that he believed ruled the heavens he did not speculate as to why the forces behind these laws worked... only on how he believed we could predict the result.
Einstein later suggested that Newton's Laws were almost right and that the 'magic moon beam effect' that Newton didn't like was actually a local effect caused by mass curving space-time.

Einstein's theories allowed more accurate predictions than Newton's and those that could be tested seemed to confirm his theory and so Relativity became the new paradigm - at least in theory.

The average Western Joe either tends to be convinced that science has proved that God doesn't exist and that everything is just an improbable accident involving a Big Bang and survival of the fittest or at least to pretend that he does so that he isn't jeered at by the smug, self satisfied, patronising, pratts who believe that modern science is the New Religion that has given us miracles we can believe in and will allow us to create our own Paradise without the need for imaginary gods and 'pie in the sky'.

These pratts seem to think that repeating parrot fashion the latest 'scientific' speculation makes them clever… that 'E equals MC squared' is a magical mantra that will transform mankind from intelligent apes into Lords of the Universe.

So, we see that modern science has become a religion because so many people have FAITH in it.
Like most faiths it has its own dogma and like most faiths it pretends to be open minded to other religions while constantly finding fault with their beliefs.

Okay, so, in a way modern religions are fundamentally the light you choose to live your life by.

There is no longer a need for a God, no need for prayers, just a faith that believing in it will benefit you in the long run.
I suppose that those who believe in the divine power of the stock market are true followers of Capitalism.
Maybe even those who believe that pretending that humans can actually invent, implement and maintain a fair and just method of organising themselves might be true followers of Communism.

What I'm trying to point out is that 'materialism', selfishness and greed have conspired to make the so called 'Civilised' world a place where money is more important than morals, where alienation and corruption spread like a plague - because society depends on morality and that very morality stems from spiritual values that are being eroded by the denial of the spirit.

It seems to me that because we cannot understand the Universe as a whole we have fallen into the trap of dissecting it into little pieces and, in our hubris, telling ourselves that we understand the Universe now without realising that it is not a machine which can be put together from bits - the Universe is, like the life it contains, not just the sum of its parts but a wonderful and inexplicable miracle that we are all blessed to be a part of.

Why is it so difficult for so many people to say "Thank You!"?
Did they create the Universe? What did they do to deserve the gift of life?
Even science admits that people who are grateful tend to live happier lives - so what's the problem?

Ask yourself why it is so difficult to admit that there may be a Superior Being who you should thank...
If you're honest with yourself it may well open the door...

Blighters! Lovely post, this thread is not a meandering mess, it's going where people can be bothered to take it.
It's dealing with huge issues that ultimately are to do with faith whether you believe in God , atheist, agnostic, or couldn't care.
we all post like we mean it.
Some posts will interest, some annoy, some enrage some not raise a wrinlkle, the great thing is if you post it was a choice.

My line is mostly ignored as it's deemed as too absolute, ignorant,therefore obviously flawed, and anti-interlectual.
That's because ultimately faith is subjective.
Spirituality by it's very nature cannot be realised by the mind, although it can satisfy the mind of the receiver (assuming it's a positive experience!)

The main thing `I` find frustrating is being unable to share the subjective experience of the true nature of the Paradigm shift to the mind, body and Spirit a conversion experience can have.
I could, in the past, banter with the best of them dropping names like `God` as though He was just an abstract, an irrellevant annoyance espoused by morons.
But you cannot legislate for experiencing a touch of the the supernatural, when in a space of minutes everything is changed.
My whole life utterly transformed, and the overwhelming `feeling`, subjective `feeling`, was fulfilled love, from the creator.

He's God and I'm not equals the right side up!

I can bore for England and God knows I do! Because of that love.

If you've read the following ignore, but for those who have'nt, this explains so much better my experience of meeting with `God`.

http://www.abctales.com/story/mark-yelland-brown/making-sense-born-again...

Just realised I posted it before, in this post! But that seems years ago!
Polly Gees!

Mangone: thoughtful, intelligent post.

New Age? OMG. What's that, exactly? Dream catchers and vague mock-spiritual pap? Or am I being too kind?

Nope! Lost me there!

Don't worry, I looked it up.

8% believe in astrology as a method of foretelling the future
7% believe that crystals are a source of healing or energizing power
9% believe that Tarot Cards are a reliable base for life decisions
about 1 in 4 believe in a non-traditional concept of the nature of God which are often associated with New Age thinking:
11% believe that God is "a state of higher consciousness that a person may reach"
8% define God as "the total realization of personal, human potential"

No statistics for belief in dream catchers.

New Age teachings became popular during the 1970's as a reaction against what some perceived as the failure of Christianity and the failure of Secular Humanism to provide spiritual and ethical guidance for the future. Its roots are traceable to many sources: Astrology, Channeling, Hinduism, Gnostic traditions, Neo-paganism, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Wicca, etc. The movement started in England in the 1960's where many of these elements were well established. Small groups, such as the Findhorn Community in Inverness and the Wrekin Trust formed. The movement quickly became international. Early New Age mileposts in North America were a "New Age Seminar" ran by the Association for Research and Enlightenment, and the establishment of the East-West Journal in 1971. Actress Shirley MacLaine is perhaps their most famous current figure.

Makes you want to cry.

I've spent a good few minutes posting my heart out and replying to your earlier post, who are you actually responding to, cause you've lost me!

Hmmmm I have many things to say after reading everything.

Mark -

Let me ask you a question please ? Do you believe that your "meeting" with God is the ONLY way to meet God, and if the person does not meet God in that fashion they are going to hell ?

Mangone -

Let me let you in on something about the "Big Bang Theory" Darlin ok ?

Meet Georges Lemaître. The creator of the "Big Bang Theory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

I hope you can take notice of what he is wearing. Yes...George Lemaitre was also known as

Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a priest...

When Father Lemaitre presented his theory to the then present Pope, the Pope was quoted as saying

" This is the most perfect explanation of Genesis that has ever been presented "

Blighters -

Gonna tell you a story ok ? Nothing really super new, things I have mentioned in other threads.

When I was 2 and a half, my mother gave up her parental rights to her children, and ran away. My Da , who had just got out of the Army ( and frankly was a bit of a mess ) was deemed unfit to raise us by the courts on 3 grounds. He was a man, and there fore could not mother. He was a long haul truck driver ( rarely home ) and he was a drinker. The man came and got his children every Sat, Sun, and for 2 week vacations in the summer, and winter for the next ten years until he could bring us home.

In the meantime though ? We lived in a state run orphanage. There were "religious" people working there in several different capacities. Some were decent enough but honestly ? Most were out and out zealots.

At the age of five I was placed in a bath tub full of straight hot water because I was a bad girl, and needed my sins washed away. I remember my skin burning, becoming puffy, and flaming red, screaming, as this women placed her hand on my head announcing to the other little girls not to be afraid . It was simply the holy ghost coming over me.

Needless to say I developed an intense distrust for the Holy Ghost that day.

By the time I was 6 I could reach in, turn that hot water on myself, get in it, and not make a peep.

So much for THAT Holy Ghost Huh ?

One day I was sitting under an apple tree with my Da and he was reciting a psalm to me. He got to the part

" He leads me beside still waters. He restoreth my soul "

It dawned on me that day that that ecstatic mentality was not necessary.

Every time after that, that I was abused or hurt ( and there were many times ) I went to those still waters, stared those assholes down, and gave them God's silence, the way he taught me to do it, knowing he was on my side, not theirs. Those "still waters" preserved all that was good in me, that believed in a better day, a better place, and a better way.

and as Forrest would say...

" That is all I got to say about that "

;)

Sorry Mark, I thought I saw something about New Age beliefs. Must have imagined it.

I'm going to close this topic, the database is taking a hammering and it's slowing the site down. Feel free to open a new one to continue the discussion.