Gentlemen,

I have a few younger relatives who went into central London for the
usual festivities (very brave of 'em not wearing stab vests I
thought). Anyway, they said fireworks (which I haven't seen myself as
yet) were great, but the whole experience was marred by the blaring,
shitty music interspersed with Left-wing Globalist propaganda. I'm
just wondering HTF that wanker Khan can get away with a stunt like
that. I mean - a fireworks display FFS. Seems there's nothing that
cunt can't politicise these days. :-(

-CD

On 01/01/2024 00:40, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> I have a few younger relatives who went into central London for the
> usual festivities (very brave of 'em not wearing stab vests I
> thought). Anyway, they said fireworks (which I haven't seen myself as
> yet) were great, but the whole experience was marred by the blaring,
> shitty music interspersed with Left-wing Globalist propaganda. I'm
> just wondering HTF that wanker Khan can get away with a stunt like
> that. I mean - a fireworks display FFS. Seems there's nothing that
> cunt can't politicise these days. :-(
>
> -CD
I watched the fireworks on the TV and was similarly annoyed by the music
and unnecessary politics. I was blaming the BBC, seems I was wrong but
at least I could mute the sound and just watch the spectacular display.
Happy New year all

On 01/01/2024 01:32, John Miller wrote:

> I watched the fireworks on the TV and was similarly annoyed by the music
> and unnecessary politics. I was blaming the BBC, seems I was wrong but
> at least I could mute the sound and just watch the spectacular display.
> Happy New year all

Is there a world shortage of barium and copper for pyrotechnics?
Although the fireworks (and drones) were very impressive, the colours
seemed to be limited to red, white, yellow, silver, and gold. No green
or blue. Watching the short excerpts on the news of the displays of a
few of the other capitals, they also seemed to have little - if any -
green or blue.

--

Jeff

On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 00:40:32 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>Gentlemen,
>
>I have a few younger relatives who went into central London for the
>usual festivities (very brave of 'em not wearing stab vests I
>thought). Anyway, they said fireworks (which I haven't seen myself as
>yet) were great, but the whole experience was marred by the blaring,
>shitty music interspersed with Left-wing Globalist propaganda. I'm
>just wondering HTF that wanker Khan can get away with a stunt like
>that. I mean - a fireworks display FFS. Seems there's nothing that
>cunt can't politicise these days. :-(
>

Didn't you want to know that it's 10 yrs since Same Sex Marriage was
made legal* during your New Year's pa'ty celebrations?

* and in common with much of today that itself is an erroneous
statement as it was made legal in 2013! But what do we expect
nowadays? Facts FFS!

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

In article <umub9r$26lug$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 01/01/2024 01:32, John Miller wrote:

> > I watched the fireworks on the TV and was similarly annoyed by the music
> > and unnecessary politics. I was blaming the BBC, seems I was wrong but
> > at least I could mute the sound and just watch the spectacular display.
> > Happy New year all

> Is there a world shortage of barium and copper for pyrotechnics?
> Although the fireworks (and drones) were very impressive, the colours
> seemed to be limited to red, white, yellow, silver, and gold. No green
> or blue. Watching the short excerpts on the news of the displays of a
> few of the other capitals, they also seemed to have little - if any -
> green or blue.

what about air pollution?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:30:51 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:

> On 01/01/2024 01:32, John Miller wrote:
>
>> I watched the fireworks on the TV and was similarly annoyed by the
>> music and unnecessary politics. I was blaming the BBC, seems I was
>> wrong but at least I could mute the sound and just watch the
>> spectacular display. Happy New year all
>
> Is there a world shortage of barium and copper for pyrotechnics?
> Although the fireworks (and drones) were very impressive, the colours
> seemed to be limited to red, white, yellow, silver, and gold. No green
> or blue. Watching the short excerpts on the news of the displays of a
> few of the other capitals, they also seemed to have little - if any -
> green or blue.

I saw quite a lot of green, and remarked upon it!

--
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 01/01/2024 13:24, AnthonyL wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 00:40:32 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Gentlemen,
>>
>> I have a few younger relatives who went into central London for the
>> usual festivities (very brave of 'em not wearing stab vests I
>> thought). Anyway, they said fireworks (which I haven't seen myself as
>> yet) were great, but the whole experience was marred by the blaring,
>> shitty music interspersed with Left-wing Globalist propaganda. I'm
>> just wondering HTF that wanker Khan can get away with a stunt like
>> that. I mean - a fireworks display FFS. Seems there's nothing that
>> cunt can't politicise these days. :-(
>>
>
> Didn't you want to know that it's 10 yrs since Same Sex Marriage was
> made legal* during your New Year's pa'ty celebrations?
>
The strange fact is that though it is legal, by e,g. Christina
definitions, it is not even possible.

> * and in common with much of today that itself is an erroneous
> statement as it was made legal in 2013! But what do we expect
> nowadays? Facts FFS!
>
>

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote
> John Miller wrote

>> I watched the fireworks on the TV and was similarly annoyed by the music
>> and unnecessary politics. I was blaming the BBC, seems I was wrong but
>> at least I could mute the sound and just watch the spectacular display.
>> Happy New year all

> Is there a world shortage of barium and copper for pyrotechnics?

Nope.

> Although the fireworks (and drones) were very impressive, the colours
> seemed to be limited to red, white, yellow, silver, and gold. No green
> or blue. Watching the short excerpts on the news of the displays of a
> few of the other capitals, they also seemed to have little - if any -
> green or blue.

On 01/01/2024 13:45, charles wrote:
> In article <umub9r$26lug$1@dont-email.me>,
> Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 01/01/2024 01:32, John Miller wrote:
>
>>> I watched the fireworks on the TV and was similarly annoyed by the music
>>> and unnecessary politics. I was blaming the BBC, seems I was wrong but
>>> at least I could mute the sound and just watch the spectacular display.
>>> Happy New year all
>
>> Is there a world shortage of barium and copper for pyrotechnics?
>> Although the fireworks (and drones) were very impressive, the colours
>> seemed to be limited to red, white, yellow, silver, and gold. No green
>> or blue. Watching the short excerpts on the news of the displays of a
>> few of the other capitals, they also seemed to have little - if any -
>> green or blue.
>
> what about air pollution?
>

often wonder how many people end up in A&E with debris in their
eyes after a display like this.

On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 03:13:41 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
FredXX to Rodent Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID: <plbf76$gfl$1@dont-email.me>

On 01/01/2024 13:45, charles wrote:
> In article <umub9r$26lug$1@dont-email.me>,
> Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 01/01/2024 01:32, John Miller wrote:
>
>>> I watched the fireworks on the TV and was similarly annoyed by the music
>>> and unnecessary politics. I was blaming the BBC, seems I was wrong but
>>> at least I could mute the sound and just watch the spectacular display.
>>> Happy New year all
>
>> Is there a world shortage of barium and copper for pyrotechnics?
>> Although the fireworks (and drones) were very impressive, the colours
>> seemed to be limited to red, white, yellow, silver, and gold. No green
>> or blue. Watching the short excerpts on the news of the displays of a
>> few of the other capitals, they also seemed to have little - if any -
>> green or blue.
>
> what about air pollution?
>

Roll on fully electric fireworks

In article <78PkN.1394497$zWV8.478519@fx14.ams4>, Andy Bennett
<aben@ben37j.com> wrote:
> On 01/01/2024 13:45, charles wrote:
> > In article <umub9r$26lug$1@dont-email.me>, Jeff Layman
> > <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 01/01/2024 01:32, John Miller wrote:
> >
> >>> I watched the fireworks on the TV and was similarly annoyed by the
> >>> music and unnecessary politics. I was blaming the BBC, seems I was
> >>> wrong but at least I could mute the sound and just watch the
> >>> spectacular display. Happy New year all
> >
> >> Is there a world shortage of barium and copper for pyrotechnics?
> >> Although the fireworks (and drones) were very impressive, the colours
> >> seemed to be limited to red, white, yellow, silver, and gold. No green
> >> or blue. Watching the short excerpts on the news of the displays of a
> >> few of the other capitals, they also seemed to have little - if any -
> >> green or blue.
> >
> > what about air pollution?
> >

> Roll on fully electric fireworks

like exploding electrolytics?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 01/01/2024 13:24, AnthonyL wrote:
>
> Didn't you want to know that it's 10 yrs since Same Sex Marriage was
> made legal* during your New Year's pa'ty celebrations?

I read that as "same sex during your NY celebrations" and thought you were
implying dogging. ;-)

> The strange fact is that though it is legal, by e,g. Christian
> definitions, it is not even possible.

That shows that Christian etc definitions are out of date and therefore
irrelevant (in that respect) to modern life. Religions need to define some
standards (theft, murder etc are crimes) and to lead the secular laws in
that respect, but in other respects such as the equality between males and
females, including in the religion's own hierarchy, and the attitude to
same-sex relationships, they need to follow current secular attitudes and
not try to play King Canute.

I'm not sure what the exact legal distinctions are between civil partnership
(which allowed same sex earlier) and marriage (which became legal more
recently).

I'm not gay, but I've long thought that it is iniquitous only to
allow/accept opposite-sex marriage and not to make the legal status
identical for male-male and female-female marriage. If a definition only
includes opposite-sex, then it needs to be widened to include same-sex, by
simple change of wording. Why should a man who happens to love a man or a
woman who happens to love a woman be treated any differently to a man who
loves a woman?

I can much more readily accept same-sex relationships than I can accept a
person who "identifies" as neither male nor female or who identifies as the
opposite gender: to me (with my 60-year-old attitudes and upbringing) you
are the gender that is defined by your "bits" and your biology
(presence/absence of Y chromosome), and that is non-negotiable and not for
adjustment based on what you "feel like". I accept that I am *way* behind
the times! When my generation and maybe the next generation dies out,
attitudes may have changed - whether for the better or not is for debate
(*). But humans should only be allowed to identify as other humans - people
who are identify as trees or cats are beyond ridicule.

(*) But if it makes people who want to identify as opposite or neutral
gender feel more included, then I suppose it has got to be a good thing, as
long as it is not abused (previously-male athletes who want to compete in
female sports teams).

On 02/01/2024 11:28, NY wrote:
> On 01/01/2024 13:24, AnthonyL wrote:
>>
>> Didn't you want to know that it's 10 yrs since Same Sex Marriage was
>> made legal* during your New Year's pa'ty celebrations?
>
> I read that as "same sex during your NY celebrations" and thought you
> were implying dogging. ;-)
>
>> The strange fact is that though it is legal, by e,g. Christian
>> definitions, it is not even possible.
>
> That shows that Christian etc definitions are out of date and therefore
> irrelevant (in that respect) to modern life. Religions need to define
> some standards (theft, murder etc are crimes) and to lead the secular
> laws in that respect, but in other respects such as the equality between
> males and females, including in the religion's own hierarchy, and the
> attitude to same-sex relationships, they need to follow current secular
> attitudes and not try to play King Canute.
Oh dear...
Marriage was aroundn LONG before your oh so woke modern definition
changed its meaning completely.

>
> I'm not sure what the exact legal distinctions are between civil
> partnership (which allowed same sex earlier) and marriage (which became
> legal more recently).
>
Well there are legal definitions, religions definitions and the language
used by hoi polloi.

> I'm not gay, but I've long thought that it is iniquitous only to
> allow/accept opposite-sex marriage and not to make the legal status
> identical for male-male and female-female marriage. If a definition only
> includes opposite-sex, then it needs to be widened to include same-sex,
> by simple change of wording. Why should a man who happens to love a man
> or a woman who happens to love a woman be treated any differently to a
> man who loves a woman?

Because the marriage will be essentially sterile. Heterosexual marriage
has religious blessing and state blessing because it seems to be the
most stable environment to produce the next generation.

Homosexual 'marriages' do not *produce* the next generation, though they
may *nurture* it.

>
> I can much more readily accept same-sex relationships than I can accept
> a person who "identifies" as neither male nor female or who identifies
> as the opposite gender: to me (with my 60-year-old attitudes and
> upbringing) you are the gender that is defined by your "bits" and your
> biology (presence/absence of Y chromosome), and that is non-negotiable
> and not for adjustment based on what you "feel like". I accept that I am
> *way* behind the times! When my generation and maybe the next generation
> dies out, attitudes may have changed - whether for the better or not is
> for debate (*). But humans should only be allowed to identify as other
> humans - people who are identify as trees or cats are beyond ridicule.
>
Why should you feel you have to 'accept' anything at all?

>
> (*) But if it makes people who want to identify as opposite or neutral
> gender feel more included, then I suppose it has got to be a good thing,
> as long as it is not abused (previously-male athletes who want to
> compete in female sports teams).

Christ you really have swallowed the woke koolaid havent you?

--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 11:28:59 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>On 01/01/2024 13:24, AnthonyL wrote:
>>
>> Didn't you want to know that it's 10 yrs since Same Sex Marriage was
>> made legal* during your New Year's pa'ty celebrations?
>
>I read that as "same sex during your NY celebrations" and thought you were
>implying dogging. ;-)
>
>> The strange fact is that though it is legal, by e,g. Christian
>> definitions, it is not even possible.
>

It was not me who wrote the last two sentences.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

On 02/01/2024 12:20, AnthonyL wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 11:28:59 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 01/01/2024 13:24, AnthonyL wrote:
>>>
>>> Didn't you want to know that it's 10 yrs since Same Sex Marriage was
>>> made legal* during your New Year's pa'ty celebrations?
>>
>> I read that as "same sex during your NY celebrations" and thought you were
>> implying dogging. ;-)
>>
>>> The strange fact is that though it is legal, by e,g. Christian
>>> definitions, it is not even possible.
>>
>
> It was not me who wrote the last two sentences.
>
>
Nope. It was me.

Marriage is the 'union of man and women, for the production of
children'...according to traditional theological doctrine.

Nothing wrong with a couple of gay people living together, but marriage
of the traditional churchly sort, it ain't.

I went to my first gay 'marriage' in 1973.

It's hardly novel, what is, is getting tax breaks for it.

--
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong.”

― Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

On 02/01/2024 07:42, Andy Bennett wrote:
> On 01/01/2024 13:45, charles wrote:
>> In article <umub9r$26lug$1@dont-email.me>,
>>     Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 01/01/2024 01:32, John Miller wrote:
>>
>>>> I watched the fireworks on the TV and was similarly annoyed by the
>>>> music
>>>> and unnecessary politics. I was blaming the BBC, seems I was wrong but
>>>> at least I could mute the sound and just watch the spectacular display.
>>>> Happy New year all
>>
>>> Is there a world shortage of barium and copper for pyrotechnics?
>>> Although the fireworks (and drones) were very impressive, the colours
>>> seemed to be limited to red, white, yellow, silver, and gold. No green
>>> or blue. Watching the short excerpts on the news of the displays of a
>>> few of the other capitals, they also seemed to have little - if any -
>>> green or blue.
>>
>> what about air pollution?

> Roll on fully electric fireworks

No, they'll be let off at a secret location and we'll be told to watch
them on TV, like they did for the millennium and the solar eclipse the
year before.

Next (safely) stage: flotation tanks and the Matrix.

--
Max Demian

On 02/01/2024 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 02/01/2024 11:28, NY wrote:

<snip>

> Because the marriage will be essentially sterile.

Nonsense. Many gay men co-parent and lesbian couples will typically have
children.

<snip>

> Homosexual 'marriages' do not *produce* the next generation, though they
> may *nurture* it.

Splitting hairs. Usually one of the partners will typically provide the
egg or sperm for the couple's child.

>> I can much more readily accept same-sex relationships than I can
>> accept a person who "identifies" as neither male nor female or who
>> identifies as the opposite gender: to me (with my 60-year-old
>> attitudes and upbringing) you are the gender that is defined by your
>> "bits" and your biology (presence/absence of Y chromosome), and that
>> is non-negotiable and not for adjustment based on what you "feel
>> like". I accept that I am *way* behind the times! When my generation
>> and maybe the next generation dies out, attitudes may have changed -
>> whether for the better or not is for debate (*). But humans should
>> only be allowed to identify as other humans - people who are identify
>> as trees or cats are beyond ridicule.
>>
> Why should you feel you have to 'accept' anything at all?

I accept the world is not flat, do you?

>> (*) But if it makes people who want to identify as opposite or neutral
>> gender feel more included, then I suppose it has got to be a good
>> thing, as long as it is not abused (previously-male athletes who want
>> to compete in female sports teams).
>
> Christ you really have swallowed the woke koolaid havent you?

One wonders what you're swallowing these day. You can identify as an
arsehole if you like.

On 02 Jan 2024 at 12:53:18 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> No, they'll be let off at a secret location and we'll be told to watch
> them on TV, like they did for the millennium and the solar eclipse the
> year before.

For the eclipse I went to France, as it was pretty obvious that (a) that part
of Cornwall would be packed out to beat hell and (b) accommodation would be
impossible.

Although it rained, nephew and I spotted a patch of blue sky in the distance
so we raced off hell for leather and reached it just in time.

--
Britain sitting behind the protectionist wall of the Customs Union is doing absolutely nothing for the oppressed coffee bean growers of the developing world. How ironic then that the cappuccino-swilling hordes of Hove voted in large numbers to keep some of the world's poorest people and traders locked out of our markets.

Tom Bewick - Labour councillor in Brighton and Hove

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote
> AnthonyL wrote

>> Didn't you want to know that it's 10 yrs since Same Sex Marriagewas
>> made legal* during your New Year's pa'ty celebrations?

> I read that as "same sex during your NY celebrations" and thought you
> were implying dogging. ;-)

That is just your sewer of a 'mind' :-(

>> The strange fact is that though it is legal, bye,g. Christian
>> definitions, it is not even possible.

> That shows that Christian etc definitions are out of date and therefore
> irrelevant (in that respect) to modern life. Religions need to define
> some standards (theft, murder etc are crimes) and to lead the secular
> laws in that respect, but in other respects such as the equality between
> males and females, including in the religion's own hierarchy, and the
> attitude to same-sex relationships, they need to follow current secular
> attitudes and not try to play King Canute.

Its much more complicated than that in reality.

The whole point of religion is to get people to do what
they would not otherwise do by telling the most stupid
that if they don't do what some fool who claimed to be
just telling them what some god or other requires them
to do they will end up in deep shit when they die etc.

> I'm not sure what the exact legal distinctions are between civil
> partnership (which allowed same sex earlier) and marriage (which became
> legal more recently).

> I'm not gay, but I've long thought that it is iniquitous only to
> allow/accept opposite-sex marriage and not to make the legal status
> identical for male-male and female-female marriage. If a definition only
> includes opposite-sex, then it needs to be widened to include same-sex,
> by simple change of wording. Why should a man who happens to love a man
> or a woman who happens to love a woman be treated any differently to a
> man who loves a woman?

Because that was one of the thing that particular
religion always proclaimed was unacceptible.

> I can much more readily accept same-sex relationships than I can accept
> a person who "identifies" as neither male nor female or who identifies
> as the opposite gender: to me (with my 60-year-old attitudes and
> upbringing) you are the gender that is defined by your "bits" and your
> biology (presence/absence of Y chromosome), and that is non-negotiable
> and not for adjustment based on what you "feel like". I accept that I am
> *way* behind the times! When my generation and maybe the next generation
> dies out, attitudes may have changed - whether for the better or not is
> for debate (*). But humans should only be allowed to identify as other
> humans - people who are identify as trees or cats are beyond ridicule.

> (*) But if it makes people who want to identify as opposite or neutral
> gender feel more included, then I suppose it has got to be a good thing,
> as long as it is not abused (previously-male athletes who want to
> compete in female sports teams).

On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 04:07:52 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID: <f9056fe6-1479-40ff-8cc0-8118292c547e@googlegroups.com>

On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 04:07:52 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote
>> AnthonyL wrote
>
>>> Didn't you want to know that it's 10 yrs since Same Sex Marriagewas
>>> made legal* during your New Year's pa'ty celebrations?
>
>> I read that as "same sex during your NY celebrations" and thought you
>> were implying dogging. ;-)
>
>That is just your sewer of a 'mind' :-(
>
>>> The strange fact is that though it is legal, bye,g. Christian
>>> definitions, it is not even possible.
>
>> That shows that Christian etc definitions are out of date and therefore
>> irrelevant (in that respect) to modern life. Religions need to define
>> some standards (theft, murder etc are crimes) and to lead the secular
>> laws in that respect, but in other respects such as the equality between
>> males and females, including in the religion's own hierarchy, and the
>> attitude to same-sex relationships, they need to follow current secular
>> attitudes and not try to play King Canute.
>
>Its much more complicated than that in reality.
>
>The whole point of religion is to get people to do what
>they would not otherwise do by telling the most stupid
>that if they don't do what some fool who claimed to be
>just telling them what some god or other requires them
>to do they will end up in deep shit when they die etc.
>

Many would disagree with you here, eg:

�Religion is an attempt to find meaning in events, not a theory that
tries to explain the universe.� John Gray

"Religious beliefs are not universal truths, but community truths, and
they guide lives rather than describe facts" Don Cupitt

Closer to (your) home I'm not sure that you what you say is true for
the Aboriginal people either who traditionally (pre-white man) were
very spiritual and religious.

However when it comes to the Abrahamic faiths it is quite clear that
the power of the spirits has been abused beyond (at least in the case
of Christianity) beyond the original doctrines.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

In message <65953c4c.98989781@news.eternal-september.org>, AnthonyL
<nospam@please.invalid> writes
>On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 04:07:52 +1100, "Rod Speed"
><rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote
>>> AnthonyL wrote
>>
>>>> Didn't you want to know that it's 10 yrs since Same Sex Marriagewas
>>>> made legal* during your New Year's pa'ty celebrations?
>>
>>> I read that as "same sex during your NY celebrations" and thought you
>>> were implying dogging. ;-)
>>
>>That is just your sewer of a 'mind' :-(
>>
>>>> The strange fact is that though it is legal, bye,g. Christian
>>>> definitions, it is not even possible.
>>
>>> That shows that Christian etc definitions are out of date and therefore
>>> irrelevant (in that respect) to modern life. Religions need to define
>>> some standards (theft, murder etc are crimes) and to lead the secular
>>> laws in that respect, but in other respects such as the equality between
>>> males and females, including in the religion's own hierarchy, and the
>>> attitude to same-sex relationships, they need to follow current secular
>>> attitudes and not try to play King Canute.
>>
>>Its much more complicated than that in reality.
>>
>>The whole point of religion is to get people to do what
>>they would not otherwise do by telling the most stupid
>>that if they don't do what some fool who claimed to be
>>just telling them what some god or other requires them
>>to do they will end up in deep shit when they die etc.
>>
>
>Many would disagree with you here, eg:
>
> “Religion is an attempt to find meaning in events, not a theory that
>tries to explain the universe.” John Gray
>
>"Religious beliefs are not universal truths, but community truths, and
>they guide lives rather than describe facts" Don Cupitt
>
>Closer to (your) home I'm not sure that you what you say is true for
>the Aboriginal people either who traditionally (pre-white man) were
>very spiritual and religious.
>
>However when it comes to the Abrahamic faiths it is quite clear that
>the power of the spirits has been abused beyond (at least in the case
>of Christianity) beyond the original doctrines.

Marriage would seem to be a step forward from *strongest wins* rules.

On religion, would any of the World's peoples be in existence with or
without some many flavoured super being.

On a personal note, my mother fully believed she was going to meet her
father, dead 30 years earlier!
>
>

--
Tim Lamb

AnthonyL <nospam@please.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote
>>> AnthonyL wrote

>>>> Didn't you want to know that it's 10 yrs since Same Sex Marriagewas
>>>> made legal* during your New Year's pa'ty celebrations?

>>> I read that as "same sex during your NY celebrations" and thought you
>>> were implying dogging. ;-)

>> That is just your sewer of a 'mind' :-(

>>>> The strange fact is that though it is legal, by
>>>> e,g. Christian definitions, it is not even possible.

>>> That shows that Christian etc definitions are out of date and therefore
>>> irrelevant (in that respect) to modern life. Religions need to define
>>> some standards (theft, murder etc are crimes) and to lead the secular
>>> laws in that respect, but in other respects such as the equality
>>> between
>>> males and females, including in the religion's own hierarchy, and the
>>> attitude to same-sex relationships, they need to follow current secular
>>> attitudes and not try to play King Canute.

>> Its much more complicated than that in reality.

>> The whole point of religion is to get people to do what
>> they would not otherwise do by telling the most stupid
>> that if they don't do what some fool who claimed to be
>> just telling them what some god or other requires them
>> to do they will end up in deep shit when they die etc.

> Many would disagree with you here, eg:

> “Religion is an attempt to find meaning in events, not a theory that
> tries to explain the universe.” John Gray

Doesnt explain why almost all religions have lists of things must
and must not do. And he said more about religion than just that.

> "Religious beliefs are not universal truths, but community truths,

No such animal.

> and they guide lives

Which is another way of saying what I said.

> rather than describe facts" Don Cupitt

That is just silly with much of the old testament.

> Closer to (your) home I'm not sure that you what you say is true for
> the Aboriginal people either who traditionally (pre-white man) were
> very spiritual and religious.

They had plenty of prescriptions of what you can and can not do.

Some did make sense, plenty more make no sense at all,
most obviously with the silly line about not ever mentioning
someone who has died.

> However when it comes to the Abrahamic faiths it is quite clear that
> the power of the spirits has been abused beyond (at least in the case
> of Christianity) beyond the original doctrines.

Not clear what you mean by that.

On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 22:39:12 +1100, Tim Lamb <tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> In message <65953c4c.98989781@news.eternal-september.org>, AnthonyL
> <nospam@please.invalid> writes
>> On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 04:07:52 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote
>>>> AnthonyL wrote
>>>
>>>>> Didn't you want to know that it's 10 yrs since Same Sex Marriagewas
>>>>> made legal* during your New Year's pa'ty celebrations?
>>>
>>>> I read that as "same sex during your NY celebrations" and thought you
>>>> were implying dogging. ;-)
>>>
>>> That is just your sewer of a 'mind' :-(
>>>
>>>>> The strange fact is that though it is legal, bye,g. Christian
>>>>> definitions, it is not even possible.
>>>
>>>> That shows that Christian etc definitions are out of date and
>>>> therefore
>>>> irrelevant (in that respect) to modern life. Religions need to define
>>>> some standards (theft, murder etc are crimes) and to lead the secular
>>>> laws in that respect, but in other respects such as the equality
>>>> between
>>>> males and females, including in the religion's own hierarchy, and the
>>>> attitude to same-sex relationships, they need to follow current
>>>> secular
>>>> attitudes and not try to play King Canute.
>>>
>>> Its much more complicated than that in reality.
>>>
>>> The whole point of religion is to get people to do what
>>> they would not otherwise do by telling the most stupid
>>> that if they don't do what some fool who claimed to be
>>> just telling them what some god or other requires them
>>> to do they will end up in deep shit when they die etc.
>>>
>>
>> Many would disagree with you here, eg:
>>
>> “Religion is an attempt to find meaning in events, not a theory that
>> tries to explain the universe.” John Gray
>>
>> "Religious beliefs are not universal truths, but community truths, and
>> they guide lives rather than describe facts" Don Cupitt
>>
>> Closer to (your) home I'm not sure that you what you say is true for
>> the Aboriginal people either who traditionally (pre-white man) were
>> very spiritual and religious.
>>
>> However when it comes to the Abrahamic faiths it is quite clear that
>> the power of the spirits has been abused beyond (at least in the case
>> of Christianity) beyond the original doctrines.

> Marriage would seem to be a step forward from *strongest wins* rules.

I must have had a stroke. I have no idea what that means either.

> On religion, would any of the World's peoples be in existence with or
> without some many flavoured super being.

Or that either.

> On a personal note, my mother fully believed she was going to meet her
> father, dead 30 years earlier!

Yeah, that is certain a crutch for many religious 'minds'