On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:41:21 -0800, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >In article ><1657c54d-b711-40db-bdee-a3093d8d0...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, > Opus <opusthep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 12:44 am, !Jones <swsm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >snip< >> > Tell me, Ed... have you found Jesus, yet?
>> > Jones
>> I found Him. Turns out he was between the couch cushions the whole >> time.
>> Seriously though, Christianity would be a whole lot better if >> Christians followed His teachings rather than worshiping Him. It was >> only 4 chapters out of the Bible people, how hard can that be? His >> entire recorded life would only make a tabloid newspaper. Ignore the >> rest, the Old Testament can be summarized as "Jesus is coming, look >> busy" and after Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John the rest of the New >> Testament was written by Paul to destroy Christianity, which I think >> he did a wonderful job at. The only thing left intact was Jesus' name >> and the Gospels which Paulists ignore anyway except at Christmas and >> Easter when they trot out the birth and death stories.
>Aye ah. The very nub of the gist.
Sheesh. Theology from a bike group. Slightly less sensible than looking to Deuteronomy for advice on derailleur adjustment.
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:41:21 -0800, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >In article > ><1657c54d-b711-40db-bdee-a3093d8d0...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, > > Opus <opusthep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 3, 12:44 am, !Jones <swsm...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >snip< > >> > Tell me, Ed... have you found Jesus, yet?
> >> > Jones
> >> I found Him. Turns out he was between the couch cushions the whole > >> time.
> >> Seriously though, Christianity would be a whole lot better if > >> Christians followed His teachings rather than worshiping Him. It was > >> only 4 chapters out of the Bible people, how hard can that be? His > >> entire recorded life would only make a tabloid newspaper. Ignore the > >> rest, the Old Testament can be summarized as "Jesus is coming, look > >> busy" and after Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John the rest of the New > >> Testament was written by Paul to destroy Christianity, which I think > >> he did a wonderful job at. The only thing left intact was Jesus' name > >> and the Gospels which Paulists ignore anyway except at Christmas and > >> Easter when they trot out the birth and death stories.
> >Aye ah. The very nub of the gist.
> Sheesh. Theology from a bike group. Slightly less sensible than looking to > Deuteronomy for advice on derailleur adjustment.
Deuteronomy 1:29 Then I said to you, "Do not be terrified; do not be afraid of them."
>On Nov 4, 1:57 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:41:21 -0800, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >In article >> ><1657c54d-b711-40db-bdee-a3093d8d0...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, >> > Opus <opusthep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 3, 12:44 am, !Jones <swsm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >snip< >> >> > Tell me, Ed... have you found Jesus, yet?
>> >> > Jones
>> >> I found Him. Turns out he was between the couch cushions the whole >> >> time.
>> >> Seriously though, Christianity would be a whole lot better if >> >> Christians followed His teachings rather than worshiping Him. It was >> >> only 4 chapters out of the Bible people, how hard can that be? His >> >> entire recorded life would only make a tabloid newspaper. Ignore the >> >> rest, the Old Testament can be summarized as "Jesus is coming, look >> >> busy" and after Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John the rest of the New >> >> Testament was written by Paul to destroy Christianity, which I think >> >> he did a wonderful job at. The only thing left intact was Jesus' name >> >> and the Gospels which Paulists ignore anyway except at Christmas and >> >> Easter when they trot out the birth and death stories.
>> >Aye ah. The very nub of the gist.
>> Sheesh. Theology from a bike group. Slightly less sensible than looking to >> Deuteronomy for advice on derailleur adjustment.
>Deuteronomy 1:29 Then I said to you, "Do not be terrified; >do not be afraid of them."
There you are, the OT is more useful for bike adjustment than RBT is for theology.
On Nov 4, 6:57 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Sheesh. Theology from a bike group. Slightly less sensible than looking to > Deuteronomy for advice on derailleur adjustment.
I'm very surprised to discover that you've not heard of Kobayashi- san's seminal book "Deureronomy: The Mystery, Adjustment and Feeding of the Dura-Ace Derailleur: Making Toyoda-san's Five Why's Pleasing to the Bicycle God" (1).
Andre Jute I quite understand, Kobayashi-san; one of my greatest achievements was making the zen of reprographics comprehensible to anyone with only three Ph.D's.
(1) I've worked with that translator myself; she's rather too apt to translate "He bitch-slapped her upside the face," as a tender moment of poetic depth. Of course, Japanese isn't a precise language (it's much like French, but more beautiful) but I'd translate Kobayashi's title a bit more closely as: "When I get my hands around the throat of the engineer who designed the Dura-Ace deraileur, I won't count to five before I send him to his gods."
> >> Seriously though, Christianity would be a whole lot better if > >> Christians followed His teachings rather than worshiping Him. It was > >> only 4 chapters out of the Bible people, how hard can that be? His > >> entire recorded life would only make a tabloid newspaper. Ignore the > >> rest, the Old Testament can be summarized as "Jesus is coming, look > >> busy" and after Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John the rest of the New > >> Testament was written by Paul to destroy Christianity, which I think > >> he did a wonderful job at. The only thing left intact was Jesus' name > >> and the Gospels which Paulists ignore anyway except at Christmas and > >> Easter when they trot out the birth and death stories.
> >Aye ah. The very nub of the gist.
> Sheesh. Theology from a bike group. Slightly less sensible than looking to > Deuteronomy for advice on derailleur adjustment.
Right.
Look no farther than the horse's mouth-- or one of the horse's orifices, anyway-- for real spiritual wisdom:
Remember, the Bible is complete and inerrant! "bake your bread over burning human shit for fourteen months" and "slaves obey your masters" are just as important as "love your neighbor"!
Simple machines like bicycles help us assimilate stuff like cause and effect, the importance of details versus generalities, the interrelatedness of things, and that no system no matter how simple can be brought fully under control all of the time. In this way, bicycles are much better at conferring spiritual wisdom than Ezekiel 4 and its accompanying texts, which together are proven to make a lot of people unlearn basic decency and even common sense.
Letting a few specialists become authorities in God and, by extension, life and existence is one of the main reasons that so many religious folks are such tools. What kind of a pissant God would really work that way?
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:32:45 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan" > <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>>>>> Oh, just one idiot on Usenet to another... I can't imagine why they >>>>> would ban you. I personally do not care for the idea of moderation as >>>>> it tends to get carried to extremes. Usenet is the proper forum for >>>>> idiots such as you and I.
>>>>A moderator will ban anyone who says anything the least bit out of the >>>>ordinary. Me ... ordinary? Get real!
>>> Please read more carefully, Ed... I implied in no way, shape, or form >>> that you were ordinary. In fact, I believe that I explicitly argued >>> that you are an idiot, did I not?
>>I am a genius of course as everyone on Usenet knows. Who knows about you.
> I'm a genius, too... now, *you* know about me.
> But, that's not the issue. Here's the real question: if Jesus had > ridden a bicycle, what kind of bicycle would he have ridden and would > he have worn a helmet?
The one and only issue is who is the greater genius, you or I. I think it boils down to who has the most posts to Usenet. I think I must be well over 15,000 by now, but I can't say for sure since Google has banned me from their statistics. That is just another indication of what a Great Genius I am! If you have not yet been banned by Google, then you are just a pretender to the throne.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
> On Nov 3, 12:44 am, !Jones <swsm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>snip< >> Tell me, Ed... have you found Jesus, yet?
>> Jones
> I found Him. Turns out he was between the couch cushions the whole > time.
> Seriously though, Christianity would be a whole lot better if > Christians followed His teachings rather than worshiping Him. It was > only 4 chapters out of the Bible people, how hard can that be? His > entire recorded life would only make a tabloid newspaper. Ignore the > rest, the Old Testament can be summarized as "Jesus is coming, look > busy" and after Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John the rest of the New > Testament was written by Paul to destroy Christianity, which I think > he did a wonderful job at. The only thing left intact was Jesus' name > and the Gospels which Paulists ignore anyway except at Christmas and > Easter when they trot out the birth and death stories.
If it hadn't been for St. Paul, Christianity would have been nothing but another small oriental sect of interest to no one except for some Jewish fanatics.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:32:57 -0800 (PST), in rec.bicycles.tech Opus
<opusthep...@gmail.com> wrote: >Seriously though, Christianity would be a whole lot better if >Christians followed His teachings rather than worshiping Him. It was >only 4 chapters out of the Bible people, how hard can that be? His >entire recorded life would only make a tabloid newspaper. Ignore the >rest, the Old Testament can be summarized as "Jesus is coming, look >busy" and after Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John the rest of the New >Testament was written by Paul to destroy Christianity, which I think >he did a wonderful job at. The only thing left intact was Jesus' name >and the Gospels which Paulists ignore anyway except at Christmas and >Easter when they trot out the birth and death stories.
Oh, OK... I really don't wanna argue about Jesus *OR* safety helmets.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:57:51 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan"
<edo...@iw.net> wrote: >The one and only issue is who is the greater genius, you or I.
Actually, I think it's "you or me" since it's used as an object. The rule is a bit unclear in that, some handbooks of style (MLA, for example) argue that, if the pronoun follows a form of the verb "to be" and renames the subject, then it takes the subjective form... that rule probably applies here; however, methinks it's a silly rule. Are you writing to MLA?
>I think it >boils down to who has the most posts to Usenet. I think I must be well over >15,000 by now, but I can't say for sure since Google has banned me from >their statistics. That is just another indication of what a Great Genius I >am! If you have not yet been banned by Google, then you are just a pretender >to the throne.
Oh, I can easily write a bot that posts nonsense to Usenet; I simply format it with a script and write port 119. What brings you to the belief that genius is measured by a metric such as a simple counter? If that's so, then I have written single threads that have spawned well over 30K postings... hardly a mark of genius, I suggest!
On the other hand, it may be so... you may very well be a genius. I have no criteria before me by which to judge.
So, dazzle me, Ed... say something profound! Here's your big chance! If I'm impressed, then I will acknowledge genius when I recognize it.
>Remember, the Bible is complete and inerrant! "bake your bread over >burning human shit for fourteen months" and "slaves obey your masters" >are just as important as "love your neighbor"!
>Simple machines like bicycles help us assimilate stuff like cause and >effect, the importance of details versus generalities, the >interrelatedness of things, and that no system no matter how simple >can be brought fully under control all of the time. In this way, >bicycles are much better at conferring spiritual wisdom than Ezekiel 4 >and its accompanying texts, which together are proven to make a lot of >people unlearn basic decency and even common sense.
>Letting a few specialists become authorities in God and, by extension, >life and existence is one of the main reasons that so many religious >folks are such tools. What kind of a pissant God would really work >that way?
>Chalo
But... I'm generally on board.
Actually, I was joking when I asked Ed if he had found Jesus... sorry 'bout that, GI.
> The issue with that is that the Bible never makes any such claim. > From what logical foundation does such a claim flow?
Logical? I thought by now we could be quite sure that logic has no place in applied Christianity.
But flip to the end of your Bible, and there in the midst of some ancient schizophrenic's feverish ravings is an implied assurance of completeness, if not inerrancy:
Revelation 22:18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
>Remember, the Bible is complete and inerrant! "bake your bread over >burning human shit for fourteen months" and "slaves obey your masters" >are just as important as "love your neighbor"!
"Remember, the Bible is complete and inerrant!" Whoever told you that? He's wrong. It is the Koran that claims to be the quoted word of its god. The Bible in both Jewish and Christian traditions is known to have been written by men. Otherwise we'd have that rule about not translating it, too. You'll notice that we also fail to murder those who question, revise, research or interpret it, as well.
Next: No, not everything is as important as everything else. Jesus was asked about the commandments, He said there are two that answer all, "Love your God above all else and love your neighbor as yourself." Those are commandments from the mouth of Christ (among his few direct quotes), it should be obvious that they are a far higher priority.
Further: A prophetic vision of a threat of hard times is not a command.
A Curiousity: That athiests and fundamentalists alike seem unable to read the Bible as anything other than a series of literal statements. It seems to me they both suffer from the same failure of education or thought but differ in how they respond to it. Neither group is so dense that they think "Moby Dick" is about a guy and a whale, but both seem unable to comprehend that neither is "Jonah."
The Bible is a difficult book. There are books of history, prayer, poetry, law, social commentary and philosophy. To read all of it as if it were a newspaper is simply silly. In fact, you don't even read the different sections of the same newspaper in the same way, there's a different understanding of what's in the Editorial section than Style or Sports or Section 1A.
>Simple machines like bicycles help us assimilate stuff like cause and >effect, the importance of details versus generalities, the >interrelatedness of things, and that no system no matter how simple >can be brought fully under control all of the time. In this way, >bicycles are much better at conferring spiritual wisdom than Ezekiel 4 >and its accompanying texts, which together are proven to make a lot of >people unlearn basic decency and even common sense.
Bicycles are good. Working on and building them is good. It is a part of our role in the continuing process of Creation. For any one person some bike work is beyond his abilities or time and resources. Not every person should be attempting study of every book of the Bible either. Some of this requires a tremendous investment in time and study. Revelations, I'll get to that some day. For now, no, I'll study something more immediately rewarding and that will help as foundation and background for when I get to it.
>Letting a few specialists become authorities in God and, by extension, >life and existence is one of the main reasons that so many religious >folks are such tools. What kind of a pissant God would really work >that way?
That's more a reflection of the way pissant humans work. Which does raise Mark Twain's "The quesion isn't why did God create man, it's why he didn't create something credible when he had the opportunity?" That's an answer we'll find much later.
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:57:51 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan" > <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>>The one and only issue is who is the greater genius, you or I.
> Actually, I think it's "you or me" since it's used as an object. The > rule is a bit unclear in that, some handbooks of style (MLA, for > example) argue that, if the pronoun follows a form of the verb "to be" > and renames the subject, then it takes the subjective form... that > rule probably applies here; however, methinks it's a silly rule. Are > you writing to MLA?
I am right and you are wrong.
>>I think it >>boils down to who has the most posts to Usenet. I think I must be well >>over >>15,000 by now, but I can't say for sure since Google has banned me from >>their statistics. That is just another indication of what a Great Genius >>I >>am! If you have not yet been banned by Google, then you are just a >>pretender >>to the throne.
> Oh, I can easily write a bot that posts nonsense to Usenet; I simply > format it with a script and write port 119. What brings you to the > belief that genius is measured by a metric such as a simple counter? > If that's so, then I have written single threads that have spawned > well over 30K postings... hardly a mark of genius, I suggest!
Who cares who spawns what. I have posted distinctive messages tailored to other messages. That is all that counts.
> On the other hand, it may be so... you may very well be a genius. I > have no criteria before me by which to judge.
> So, dazzle me, Ed... say something profound! Here's your big chance! > If I'm impressed, then I will acknowledge genius when I recognize it.
You have 15,000 messages to read. I suggest you begin right away if you are ever going to get up to speed.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:19:17 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan"
<edo...@iw.net> wrote: >> So, dazzle me, Ed... say something profound! Here's your big chance! >> If I'm impressed, then I will acknowledge genius when I recognize it.
>You have 15,000 messages to read. I suggest you begin right away if you are >ever going to get up to speed.
Hi, Ed... sorry if I'm not right back to you in 8 minutes. I appreciate your prompt replies; however, *I* have a job, a wife, and a life, all of which demand my attention.
Now, I am not going to rummage through ancient history. I am not going to deny that you may, in fact, be a genius; however, the burden of proof remains squarely in your court... I will leave myself open to that possibility.
Yes, it could be true...
Ladies and gentlemen, you saw it here in... wherever we are... some cycling newsgroup, massively cross-posted. We stand in the presence of genius.
OK, Ed... here's your big chance... nail my ass! Say something *REALLY* profound!!!
I'm a genius sometimes... I just can't produce it on demand and that's the mark of a real one, you know.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:27:29 -0800, in rec.bicycles.tech Michael Press
<rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >No. Recast. Recasting is the way to resolve almost every >grammatical question.
>You are the greater genius. >I am the greater genius.
>NOT
>Me is the greater genius.
But that approach would also give you: "The greater genius is me."
I've tried that rule... it gives you whatever you want. For that matter, so do the handbooks of style... maybe it's just a stylistic thing. I'd use objective; however, I won't scream if you choose otherwise.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:58:11 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech * Still Just
Me * <noEmailto...@stillnodomainey.com> wrote: >But you can't be, I is!
You will see some obscure rule stating that: when a pronoun follows a form of the verb "to be" and renames the subject, it takes the subjective form of the pronoun... i.e.: "I" versus "me".
Thus: "It is I," is correct by that rule even though the first-person pronoun is an object in the sentence. If I were writing a formal paper, I'd have to live with that because I always try to write good.
<chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote: >Logical? I thought by now we could be quite sure that logic has no >place in applied Christianity.
>But flip to the end of your Bible, and there in the midst of some >ancient schizophrenic's feverish ravings is an implied assurance of >completeness, if not inerrancy:
>Revelation 22:18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy >of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the >plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from >this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the >tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this >book."
>Chalo
Oh, yeah... that's piquant! Why, they used to call me "The Revelation Kid" about 40 years ago... no, *they* didn't; however, *I* did... why, I was *so* smart... it's like... you know... (my brains were as big as my vocabulary.)
Now, all we have to do is to define "... this book." and we'll have it nailed down, I say!
Oh, well... I still go to church every Sunday and I put my money in the plate; I like to hedge my bet.
I wonder if Jesus would have been as hep for the cross at age 70... what do you think?
!Jones wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:58:11 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech * Still Just > Me * <noEmailto...@stillnodomainey.com> wrote:
>> But you can't be, I is!
> You will see some obscure rule stating that: when a pronoun follows a > form of the verb "to be" and renames the subject, it takes the > subjective form of the pronoun... i.e.: "I" versus "me".
> Thus: "It is I," is correct by that rule even though the first-person > pronoun is an object in the sentence. If I were writing a formal > paper, I'd have to live with that because I always try to write good.
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:19:17 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan" > <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>>> So, dazzle me, Ed... say something profound! Here's your big chance! >>> If I'm impressed, then I will acknowledge genius when I recognize it.
>>You have 15,000 messages to read. I suggest you begin right away if you >>are >>ever going to get up to speed.
> Hi, Ed... sorry if I'm not right back to you in 8 minutes. I > appreciate your prompt replies; however, *I* have a job, a wife, and a > life, all of which demand my attention.
A wife should not demand any attention other than a good swift kick in the ass every now and then. If your job demands much attention, then you are in over your head. As for your life, just contemplate your navel. That will tell you all you will ever have to know.
> Now, I am not going to rummage through ancient history. I am not > going to deny that you may, in fact, be a genius; however, the burden > of proof remains squarely in your court... I will leave myself open to > that possibility.
> Yes, it could be true...
> Ladies and gentlemen, you saw it here in... wherever we are... some > cycling newsgroup, massively cross-posted. We stand in the presence > of genius.
> OK, Ed... here's your big chance... nail my ass! Say something > *REALLY* profound!!!
Here it is, just 10 words, but it sums up all the wisdom in the world.
"Once I wasn't, then I was, now I ain't again."
- Epitaph found on tombstone in Ohio graveyard
> I'm a genius sometimes... I just can't produce it on demand and that's > the mark of a real one, you know.
How does anyone smart every impress anyone who is a moron?
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:49:42 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan"
<edo...@iw.net> wrote: >> Hi, Ed... sorry if I'm not right back to you in 8 minutes. I >> appreciate your prompt replies; however, *I* have a job, a wife, and a >> life, all of which demand my attention.
>A wife should not demand any attention other than a good swift kick in the >ass every now and then. If your job demands much attention, then you are in >over your head. As for your life, just contemplate your navel. That will >tell you all you will ever have to know.
I see that you're a single, and, most likely, unemployed genius.
>> Now, I am not going to rummage through ancient history. I am not >> going to deny that you may, in fact, be a genius; however, the burden >> of proof remains squarely in your court... I will leave myself open to >> that possibility.
>> Yes, it could be true...
>> Ladies and gentlemen, you saw it here in... wherever we are... some >> cycling newsgroup, massively cross-posted. We stand in the presence >> of genius.
>> OK, Ed... here's your big chance... nail my ass! Say something >> *REALLY* profound!!!
>Here it is, just 10 words, but it sums up all the wisdom in the world.
>"Once I wasn't, then I was, now I ain't again."
[...]
>How does anyone smart every impress anyone who is a moron?
Well, Ed, I try to keep an open mind. I suppose my question is: How can I differentiate a genius from the rest of the people on the group? Of course, you tell me that you're a genius; however, you wouldn't *believe* how many times that's happened.
To address your question: I suppose that you should start with some original writing. Quoting someone's epitaph isn't a mark of genius. Personally, I like visiting old cemeteries and reading epitaphs, too... does *that* make me a genius?
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:49:42 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan" > <edo...@iw.net> wrote: >>Here it is, just 10 words, but it sums up all the wisdom in the world.
>>"Once I wasn't, then I was, now I ain't again."
> [...] >>How does anyone smart every impress anyone who is a moron?
> Well, Ed, I try to keep an open mind. I suppose my question is: How > can I differentiate a genius from the rest of the people on the group? > Of course, you tell me that you're a genius; however, you wouldn't > *believe* how many times that's happened.
> To address your question: I suppose that you should start with some > original writing. Quoting someone's epitaph isn't a mark of genius. > Personally, I like visiting old cemeteries and reading epitaphs, > too... does *that* make me a genius?
It does if you can separate the seed from the chaff. Original writing is vastly overrated and so is original thought. It is quite enough to be able to intelligently select what is fine to make one a genius. It explains why some think Beethoven's last quartets are fine while others think Wellington's Victory is fine. It is also explains why my epitaph will be infinity superior to any that you can find. All that counts is the ability to make discriminations, and the finer the discrimination, the greater the genius.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
