On 05/03/18 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:

SWMBO's degree is in Maths and Theology. She would remind you that
since originally written, the contents have been copied and translated
a number of times. Only a fool would assume that was done without error
or changing the meaning or actual words used. Anyone who says it is
literally true is a dope or fanatic.


Problem is: there are a lot of fanatics.

The Koran is a particularly interesting case as it was supposed to have
been given verbatim by the Archangel Gabriel, so as long as you're
reading in the original Arabic, it is claimed by many to be flawless (as
far as I understand).

On 05/03/2018 10:52, charles wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 05/03/2018 10:29, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/03/18 09:37, dennis@home wrote:

I think its called the bible.

In it it describes how some bloke should go and ask a king for his
people to be freed from slavery (which they weren't in the first
place) but he will harden the king's heart so he doesn't release them
from slavery. This god then brings down plagues and such stuff to kill
millions just because he feels like it as the god could just as easily
softened the kings heart in the first place.

You forgot Noah...

Well yes, a global flood would cause mass extinction amongst aquatic
life and Noah didn't save any fish or stuff like that.


why would aquatic life be made extinct by a flood? They'd love it.

Was the rain salt or fresh water? Either way, some would be stuffed.
Switch it too and from and most.

It's
the not-saving of the unicorns that was the real disaster.


I suspect Noah failed to take on and maintain a sufficient stock of
virgins.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 05/03/18 13:52, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/03/18 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:

SWMBO's degree is in Maths and Theology. She would remind you that
since originally written, the contents have been copied and translated
a number of times. Only a fool would assume that was done without error
or changing the meaning or actual words used. Anyone who says it is
literally true is a dope or fanatic.




Problem is: there are a lot of fanatics.

Clarification: in most religions, before anyone thinks I'm trying to
victimise any particular one.


The Koran is a particularly interesting case as it was supposed to have
been given verbatim by the Archangel Gabriel, so as long as you're
reading in the original Arabic, it is claimed by many to be flawless (as
far as I understand).

On Monday, 5 March 2018 13:37:54 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 05/03/2018 10:29, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/03/18 09:37, dennis@home wrote:

I think its called the bible.

In it it describes how some bloke should go and ask a king for his
people to be freed from slavery (which they weren't in the first
place) but he will harden the king's heart so he doesn't release them
from slavery. This god then brings down plagues and such stuff to kill
millions just because he feels like it as the god could just as easily
softened the kings heart in the first place.

You forgot Noah...

Well yes, a global flood would cause mass extinction amongst aquatic
life and Noah didn't save any fish or stuff like that.


why would aquatic life be made extinct by a flood? They'd love it.

Not all water is the same (fresh/salt) or at the same temperature and even fish have to eat so it would depend on whether the plankton or what they eat has also survived.

It's
the not-saving of the unicorns that was the real disaster.

We did but they were far too tasty even without ketchup.
You do know noah took more than two sheep he took seven sheep as he liked kebabs and for 40 days & nights .......well the reast is history.






--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Tim Watts wrote:

On 05/03/18 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:

SWMBO's degree is in Maths and Theology. She would remind you that
since originally written, the contents have been copied and translated
a number of times. Only a fool would assume that was done without error
or changing the meaning or actual words used. Anyone who says it is
literally true is a dope or fanatic.


Problem is: there are a lot of fanatics.

The Koran is a particularly interesting case as it was supposed to have
been given verbatim by the Archangel Gabriel, so as long as you're
reading in the original Arabic, it is claimed by many to be flawless (as
far as I understand).

So's the Pope supposed to be infallible. Some of the book known as the
Koran is the flawless bit (also I think possibly called the Koran just
to confuse us) but much of it is much less flawless stuff, and some of
the bits quoted by the fascists just to show how bad it is are
none-infallible bits. Of course, anyone who has studied theology knows
that almost anything can be distorted to prove almost anything.



--

Roger Hayter

On 05/03/18 14:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

On 05/03/18 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:

SWMBO's degree is in Maths and Theology. She would remind you that
since originally written, the contents have been copied and translated
a number of times. Only a fool would assume that was done without error
or changing the meaning or actual words used. Anyone who says it is
literally true is a dope or fanatic.


Problem is: there are a lot of fanatics.

The Koran is a particularly interesting case as it was supposed to have
been given verbatim by the Archangel Gabriel, so as long as you're
reading in the original Arabic, it is claimed by many to be flawless (as
far as I understand).

So's the Pope supposed to be infallible.

"Papal infallibility" - yes, and it leads to nonsense like "no
contraception" (I have read the actual source of that and it makes no sense)

Some of the book known as the
Koran is the flawless bit (also I think possibly called the Koran just
to confuse us) but much of it is much less flawless stuff,

Are you confusing the Koran with the hadiths? The latter came some time
later and not all are accepted by all denominations.

and some of
the bits quoted by the fascists just to show how bad it is are
none-infallible bits.

It is hardly "fascist" to be a critical thinker and to take exception to
any ideological text and you're in danger of Godwin-ing this thread by
such ridiculous statements.

You also miss the rather over arching point that some fanatics will
follow any edict or text quite happily if they are convinced it comes
from someone with "authority" (same as the papal bulls), so the precise
authorship of any ideological text is not hugely relevant.

On Monday, 5 March 2018 14:30:07 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

On 05/03/18 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:

SWMBO's degree is in Maths and Theology. She would remind you that
since originally written, the contents have been copied and translated
a number of times. Only a fool would assume that was done without error
or changing the meaning or actual words used. Anyone who says it is
literally true is a dope or fanatic.


Problem is: there are a lot of fanatics.

The Koran is a particularly interesting case as it was supposed to have
been given verbatim by the Archangel Gabriel, so as long as you're
reading in the original Arabic, it is claimed by many to be flawless (as
far as I understand).

So's the Pope supposed to be infallible. Some of the book known as the
Koran is the flawless bit (also I think possibly called the Koran just
to confuse us) but much of it is much less flawless stuff, and some of
the bits quoted by the fascists just to show how bad it is are
none-infallible bits. Of course, anyone who has studied theology knows
that almost anything can be distorted to prove almost anything.

I don't think you have to study theology to know that.




--

Roger Hayter

On 05-Mar-18 10:35 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
....
That's the Old Testament. I think if you look into it you'll find that
Christians follow the New Testament. Sure, they refer to and read bits
of the Old, but that's for context. Just as if I read a history book
that refers to slavery, doesn't mean I approve of slavery.

It is a while since I read it, but I don't recall anything in the New
Testament to justify Charlemagne's forcible conversion of the Saxons or
any of the medieval Crusades.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 03/03/2018 21:07, newshound wrote:
On 03/03/2018 20:57, newshound wrote:
On 03/03/2018 20:03, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Mar-18 7:23 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2018 19:07:58 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
Given that one of those charged is the shopkeeper,

Of a Polish shop??

what makes you sure
there's not some other explanation, such as an insurance job?

Because the police (and Bob Eager) were *immediately* able to rule out
terrorism. ;-

The police did not immediately rule out terrorism. They simply said
at the beginning that they were not, at that time, treating it as a
terrorist attack, which is far from the same thing.


Indeed. But it always looked very much like a gas explosion. Which
could be a "genuine" accident, or an incompetent plumber, or some sort
of "inside job" for whatever reasons. Still doesn't smell to me much
like being jihadis, *or* right wing. Hence the initial police
statement (and, in the current climate, I'm all in favour of police
presenting their initial assessment as quickly as possible).

Oops just read some other posts. Is the current theory that it was a
still explosion? I've never looked at the chemistry, but there are
*lots* of stills around, and presumably plenty of illicit ones, but
explosions don't seem to be all that common. Obviously slightly more
likely if you are hiding one away in a basement.

And it certainly looked like there was a broken gas supply flaring away
for some time after the initial "bang".

The cause was petrol:
'Prosecuting solicitor Zoe Lee told the court: "It has been established
that the explosion was caused by petrol and the petrol was spread
throughout the shop."'

--
F

On 05/03/2018 10:52, charles wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 05/03/2018 10:29, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/03/18 09:37, dennis@home wrote:

I think its called the bible.

In it it describes how some bloke should go and ask a king for his
people to be freed from slavery (which they weren't in the first
place) but he will harden the king's heart so he doesn't release them
from slavery. This god then brings down plagues and such stuff to kill
millions just because he feels like it as the god could just as easily
softened the kings heart in the first place.

You forgot Noah...

Well yes, a global flood would cause mass extinction amongst aquatic
life and Noah didn't save any fish or stuff like that.


why would aquatic life be made extinct by a flood? They'd love it. It's
the not-saving of the unicorns that was the real disaster.


You are like the people that wrote the bible, you don't understand
aquatic life and its environments. To you a fish is a fish and plants
are all the same.
Suppose you flood the world like the bible says what do you think
happens to the oceans?
Do you think they don't mix with the flood water?
Do you think all freshwater aquatic life would survive being in salt
water or all marine life survive being in fresh water?
Do you think all the plants on land would survive being in sea water?

On 05-Mar-18 5:12 PM, F wrote:
....
The cause was petrol:
'Prosecuting solicitor Zoe Lee told the court: "It has been established
that the explosion was caused by petrol and the petrol was spread
throughout the shop."'

Obviously somebody didn't heed the advice never to try to start a fire
with petrol. :-)


--
--

Colin Bignell

Tim Watts wrote:

On 05/03/18 14:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

On 05/03/18 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:

SWMBO's degree is in Maths and Theology. She would remind you that
since originally written, the contents have been copied and translated
a number of times. Only a fool would assume that was done without error
or changing the meaning or actual words used. Anyone who says it is
literally true is a dope or fanatic.


Problem is: there are a lot of fanatics.

The Koran is a particularly interesting case as it was supposed to have
been given verbatim by the Archangel Gabriel, so as long as you're
reading in the original Arabic, it is claimed by many to be flawless (as
far as I understand).

So's the Pope supposed to be infallible.

"Papal infallibility" - yes, and it leads to nonsense like "no
contraception" (I have read the actual source of that and it makes no sense)

Some of the book known as the
Koran is the flawless bit (also I think possibly called the Koran just
to confuse us) but much of it is much less flawless stuff,

Are you confusing the Koran with the hadiths? The latter came some time
later and not all are accepted by all denominations.

AIUI, which is not very much, the book people cart around and gets
quoted from contains lots of hadiths as well as the actual text of the
Koran. As with Christianity, there are a lot of even less popular
hadiths that didn't make the cut.




and some of
the bits quoted by the fascists just to show how bad it is are
none-infallible bits.

It is hardly "fascist" to be a critical thinker and to take exception to
any ideological text and you're in danger of Godwin-ing this thread by
such ridiculous statements.

You also miss the rather over arching point that some fanatics will
follow any edict or text quite happily if they are convinced it comes
from someone with "authority" (same as the papal bulls), so the precise
authorship of any ideological text is not hugely relevant.


--

Roger Hayter

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 05-Mar-18 10:35 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
...
That's the Old Testament. I think if you look into it you'll find that
Christians follow the New Testament. Sure, they refer to and read bits
of the Old, but that's for context. Just as if I read a history book
that refers to slavery, doesn't mean I approve of slavery.

It is a while since I read it, but I don't recall anything in the New
Testament to justify Charlemagne's forcible conversion of the Saxons or
any of the medieval Crusades.

Or indeed the burning of Protestants/Catholics at the stake in the
16thC. But that was then, and was done by humans, not the deity of your
choice. Everyone's mellowed a lot since those days.

Not everyone; there are quite a few Americans who are willing to shoot
gynaecologists, for instance.

--

Roger Hayter

On 05/03/2018 15:19, Tim Watts wrote:
"Papal infallibility" - yes, and it leads to nonsense like "no
contraception" (I have read the actual source of that and it makes no
sense)

"Go forth, and multiply, and fill the earth"

Is it full yet? (Asimov)

Andy

On 05/03/2018 22:53, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/03/2018 15:19, Tim Watts wrote:
"Papal infallibility" - yes, and it leads to nonsense like "no
contraception" (I have read the actual source of that and it makes no
sense)

"Go forth, and multiply, and fill the earth"

Is it full yet? (Asimov)

Yes, getting on for full.

When I was a student, there were 3bn people. That seemed an awful lot.
Now, it's 7.6bn. Somehow, they are nearly all being fed, but the system
is creaking.



Andy

On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 22:53:26 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 05/03/2018 15:19, Tim Watts wrote:
"Papal infallibility" - yes, and it leads to nonsense like "no
contraception" (I have read the actual source of that and it makes no
sense)

"Go forth, and multiply, and fill the earth"

Is it full yet? (Asimov)

Make Room! Make Room! (Harrison)

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 05/03/18 22:53, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/03/2018 15:19, Tim Watts wrote:
"Papal infallibility" - yes, and it leads to nonsense like "no
contraception" (I have read the actual source of that and it makes no
sense)

"Go forth, and multiply, and fill the earth"

http://what-when-how.com/birth-contr...birth-control/




Is it full yet? (Asimov)

Andy

In article ,
harry wrote:
The bible was updated ****-fer-brains,
Called the new testament.

Meaning Christians ignore the Old Testament and only follow the New?

I've got news for you, harry. ;-)

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 5 March 2018 17:20:39 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
Exactly. But I have little time for the extremist nutters. If nothing
else, the nutters are making life hard for the regular Joes who get
tarred with the same brush.

A bit like the Nazis.
Not all of them actually gassed Jews.
But they were all part of the same organisation.
And read the same book.

Ah - right. And many Nazis also called themselves Christians. So by your
'logic' all Christians were responsible for the holocaust.

You can narrow this down as he was also a white, vegitarian and he had a moustache so it's all pretty obvious really ;-)

On 05/03/2018 22:53, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/03/2018 15:19, Tim Watts wrote:
"Papal infallibility" - yes, and it leads to nonsense like "no
contraception" (I have read the actual source of that and it makes no
sense)

"Go forth, and multiply, and fill the earth"

Is it full yet? (Asimov)

"And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the
waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." - Genesis 1:22

And this was before He created Man (or Woman). Bad move.

--
Max Demian

On 05/03/2018 18:27, Nightjar wrote:
On 05-Mar-18 5:12 PM, F wrote:
...
The cause was petrol:
'Prosecuting solicitor Zoe Lee told the court: "It has been
established that the explosion was caused by petrol and the petrol was
spread throughout the shop."'

Obviously somebody didn't heed the advice never to try to start a fire
with petrol. :-)


:-)

Quite impressive how the "whoomf" (because I really doubt if it was a
proper explosion) took out the whole front wall.

newshound wrote:

Quite impressive how the "whoomf" (because I really doubt if it was a
proper explosion) took out the whole front wall.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/leicester-explosion-cctv-hinckley-road-1263268