Armchair Revolutionaries

In response to:Shattering a 'National Mythology'

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:47:03 +0100

GBHsxx:)

In response to:Shattering a 'National Mythology'

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:27:48 +0100

Yes, I can agree happily to that...:)

In response to:Shattering a 'National Mythology'

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:35:49 +0100

1. I was referring to 'scholars' who have no axe to grind!
2. It is unlikely that we could converge in how we perceive what constitutes 'myth'....I deeply respect your knowledge of Religion and Religious Writings...It is likely that I have a great deal more to learn..
3. I am sure Prof Dawkins has a great deal of credible argument to offer; by the same token, I believe there are other equall credible Scholars who can submit the contrary!
I wonder whether we could agree to let the matter rest...
GBHsxx:)

In response to:Shattering a 'National Mythology'

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:48:02 +0100

You think I have an axe to grind then? And, if the Jewish people can believe so ardently in myths including renowned scholars so can Christian and Moslem scholars...my argument is that continuing to believe in myths as the truth is keeping people infantile...mind sets that are based on myths are extremely unhealthy for the well being of the sanity of the human race as well as severely limiting its potential to mature...I don't know whether you approve or disapprove of Richard Dawkins efforts to show that religions are baseless, but he isn't doing it to be malicious but to help the human race to transcend these as he calls them 'memes', ideas passed on from generation to generation that prolong the myths, and grow up...

In response to:Shattering a 'National Mythology'

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:19:47 +0100

I am very much aware of all of the stuff..also familiar with much other very scholarly work....by people who have NO Axe to grind....However, it is a BIG subject! GBHsxx:)

In response to:Shattering a 'National Mythology'

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:41:27 +0100

It is, but there's a great deal of evidence now that the end of the life of Jesus is pure myth, and even that he didn't die on the cross but was resuscitated with the healing ointments taken into the tomb by Joseph of Arimathea and not embalming ointments as you would expect, and that Jesus left Israel and ended up in Kashmir where he is now buried...
http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/home.html
Also, the entire Biblical history in the NT would only cover about three weeks of the life of Jesus...the rest of it remains concealed in the Apocryphal gospels in the Vatican that contain stories far too uncomfortable for the Church to have included in the final version of the NT...put together centuries after the alleged death of Jesus on Golgotha...it is a huge subject but we've had discussion here before on it...comes up every now and then...:)

In response to:Shattering a 'National Mythology'

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:57:59 +0100

Rather complex subject for this forum.....The Nazarene DID question into question...many and much of the Institutions, practices, religious beliefs...etc...ample evidence available for that...There is a great gulf between...Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus of the Church...

In response to:Shattering a 'National Mythology'

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:34:40 +0100

Yes, it is...scholars know that a great deal of the New Testament alleged sayings of Christ weren't his at all but the Jewish writers interpretation of what they thought he had said...also, if you know the OT is myth...how come Jesus, who was supposed to be the all knowing God's son, didn't tell his people that their books weren't true? I believe he was equally taken in by them, alternatively, he chose to leave them with their beliefs because they weren't going to listen to him no matter what he said...

In response to:Shattering a 'National Mythology'

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:36:09 +0100

Will have to read him...I would certainly agree that a great part of the OT is 'Myth'....which does not necessarily make the NT Myth...Not very good logic! But, I'll make a point of reading him...

In response to:Shattering a 'National Mythology'

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:35:24 +0100

I believe he also pointed out that the Old Testament is pure myth as well, which makes the New Testament the same...there seems to be indisputable evidence now that this is the case, which is particularly depressing as two major religions of our world have emerged from it in Christianity and Islam and have been responsible for a vast number of deaths for domination of one or the other...

In response to:Shattering a 'National Mythology'

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:18:10 +0100

A fascinating proposition........He will not be alone in the underlying thesis of an 'invented' or 'contrived' history.......I shall no doubt want to read him first hand! ;)

In response to:The source of Gravity?

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:08:44 +0100

HLOL...

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:46:39 +0100

Glad you spotted my deliberate mistake...

In response to:The source of Gravity?

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:12:21 +0100

BOL - we seem to be on the same cosmic wavelength

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:12:33 +0100

I don't remember that, but maybe they thought you were referring to loose ladies. ;)

Is the offset punctuation as Steiner School habit?

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:52:34 +0100

As I was once 'jumped on' for pointing out on this site , a lot of ladies here write loose in place of lose .
Or at used to , as I've noticed that a lot less recently .

I used to be a wicked misapostrophiser , and probably still am on occasions , which I blame my Steiner School education for .

Martin .

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:45:32 +0100

As far as I know both are equally acceptable, but I prefer "spelled".

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:48:50 +0100

How do you feel about "misspelt" as opposed to "misspelled?"

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:06:18 +0100

You misspelled misspell.

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:02:26 +0100

Good selection. :)

Extending your comment; excessive commas are often the result of misplaced phrases. In your example sentence "...that shows, in my opinion, a weakness..." would need less punctuation if written "...in my opinion that shows a weakness..." - obviously if it's the reporting of speech it would be different, but as written information the phrase order is best when optimised.

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:06:09 +0100

People constantly mispell "a lot" as "alot" and "as well" as "aswell". Another one that is slightly more forgivable is mixing up "effect" and "affect" and "then" and "than".

When people use the phrase "begging the question" to mean "prompts the question" when that's not what it means at all.

Also, overuse, in my opinion, of commas, when a conjunction, or other method, would be just as sufficient, and, in fact, more desirable. It comes from a desire for their writing to sound exactly as they would say it, but that shows, in my opinion, a weakness in their written word.

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:40:37 +0100

The same applies to "its" and "it's" :yes:

In response to:The source of Gravity?

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:37:17 +0100

Our bodies are similar to the Universe as we are made up of the stuff of the stars for a start, have loads of life living on us as well and you have read my thought on my web site about Black Holes have you...LOL...what you've written here about the female and Black Holes, I put up years ago now in a humourous way...:) Here it is...

Here is something humorous to consider.

Our Cosmos is made up balls and black holes. Each galaxy is composed of millions of balls circling black holes. All the balls (planets) spend most of their existence trying not to be sucked into a black hole. These power houses go dormant for aeons of time then spring to life again and begin to suck in anything that gets too close to them. When satisfied, they appear to return to their dormant state again. This is where our current knowledge of black holes appears to end. It has only recently been discovered that every galaxy possesses one or several of these phenomena.

Now this is the thought that occurred to me.

If we look at human beings, what do we discover? We are sentient reflections of that reality. What is the driving power behind every human being? The urge to procreate and ensure the survival of the species. The male carries balls between his legs containing the seeds for future generations; the female is endowed with a black hole into which the male spends a greater part of his life seeking entry, not because he wants to, but because her black hole is such a powerful draw, he is helpless, in most cases, when it comes to resisting it. Her black hole must have his seed in order to reproduce a new human being. The consideration here is: we had better expand our study of black holes in our cosmos, because, if my analogy is correct, they are the phenomena which will ensure the survival of our cosmos, and as a by-product, the continuation of life itself, by giving birth to new galaxies. When satiated, they will jettison forth new worlds, just as the female of our species does when she gives birth to a new born infant.

No wonder modern human beings are so obsessed with kicking, bashing or striking balls into holes. It's the governing force of the whole Universe!

:)

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:36:53 +0100

Yes! A good one. I have the same double-checking problem. :)

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:53:22 +0100

I think using "you're" where it should be "your" crops up a lot. That said I have to look twice when I come to use it :roll:

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:47:15 +0100

Just taken a quick look at your most recent postings and didn't see anything apposite.

I used to write a Broad Norfolk dialect blog where everything was spelt as it was said. It's OK to do it deliberately or for comic effect. However, if somebody is writing something serious and spoils it with a colloquialism through sheer ignorance, that is when it becomes annoying.

I suppose "woulda" and "kinda" are more acceptable because there the words are merely compressed, whereas "would of" is a definite mistake.

In response to:Colloquialisms

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:50:58 +0100

Hi There!

Methinks you'd loath my writing!

I often use would've or even woulda!

To me such terms are kinda friendly!

FYI - Escape from school. Some of us do this by choice!

Adam ... x :)

In response to:The source of Gravity?

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:22:15 +0100

Interesting!! I sometimes think that maybe our bodies are universes, and the various parts of our bodies galaxies within the universe, and the individual cells of our bodies are maybe stars and planets within the galaxies of our heart and lungs and kidneys etc, and maybe our orifices are black holes sucking matter in. The female is even able to create new universes within her womb.

As for the universe as we know it, well, who's to say that all the stars and planets and galaxies and black holes etc aren't just parts of some infinitely larger being????

In response to:Royal Mail.... Grrrr

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:07:43 +0100

Unfortunately the Postal workers' union seems to be too aggressive and confrontational. It always has been, despite all the union amalgamations and name changes. They are their members' worst enemies. So I do agree with SeasideMan on which side to take.

The real problem lies with the opening up of the postal market to what has turned out to be unfair competition - just another government cock-up.

If it all fails, many people will lose their daily postal deliveries, at least anything so economically priced as that provided by Royal Mail!

In response to:Royal Mail.... Grrrr

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:58:18 +0100

I'm not on the strikers side either.