On Sun, 02 Jan 2022 15:42:52 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:

> Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> writes:
>>More from avoiding a blasphemously frivolous mention of God, I think.
>
> BTW: The author of the book "The God Particle" originally suggested
> the title "The goddamn particle"; the publisher required a change.
> Peter Higgs rejected the designation "God particle" exactly /because/
> it might offend religious people.

I'm curious about what constitutes a religious "entity".

While I'm reasonably certain that the Church of England and the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and even the Holy Catholic Apostolic
Church in Zion King George Win the War may be so described, could a
chalice, a chorten or a chasuble be described as "religious entities"?

--
Steve Hayes http://khanya.wordpress.com

Steve Hayes:

> I'm curious about what constitutes a religious "entity".
>
> While I'm reasonably certain that the Church of England
> and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and
> even the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church in Zion King
> George Win the War may be so described,

Yes, in (Roman) legal terminology so beloved of Western
Christian Churches, but I believe that `institution' would
be clearer and more technically correct.

> could a chalice, a chorten or a chasuble be described as
> "religious entities"?

Only by way of a joke, c.f. "I learned it at my mother's
knee and other low joints."

In Soviet atheist terminology those objects were "articles
of cult", but neutrally I should call them ritual items be-
cause their are used in the performance of religious rites.

Let us avoid the question of whether God Himself is a reli-
gious entity, because the answer depends on one's viewpoint.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

On 1/5/2022 2:40 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2022 15:42:52 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
>
>> Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> More from avoiding a blasphemously frivolous mention of God, I think.
>>
>> BTW: The author of the book "The God Particle" originally suggested
>> the title "The goddamn particle"; the publisher required a change.
>> Peter Higgs rejected the designation "God particle" exactly /because/
>> it might offend religious people.
>
> I'm curious about what constitutes a religious "entity".
>
> While I'm reasonably certain that the Church of England and the Church of
> Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and even the Holy Catholic Apostolic
> Church in Zion King George Win the War may be so described, could a
> chalice, a chorten or a chasuble be described as "religious entities"?

An "entity" is "a thing with distinct and independent existence" so a
chalice is an entity. I would call it "an entity used for religious
purposes and that may have some significance to it based on that use" as
opposed to "an entity that has some religious value inherent in it."

It'd be like the house I live in. It's "Mike's house" due to me buying
it and so it has some sort of special significance to it (at least in my
eyes. I may consider it irreplaceable.) The courts also would assign it
some extra significance if you were to break into it when it's occupied
(difference between burglary and trespassing) but when it was sitting
vacant at the new development and not even sold yet, it's "JUST a building."

On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:56:04 +0300, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:

>Steve Hayes:
>
>> I'm curious about what constitutes a religious "entity".
>>
>> While I'm reasonably certain that the Church of England
>> and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and
>> even the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church in Zion King
>> George Win the War may be so described,
>
>Yes, in (Roman) legal terminology so beloved of Western
>Christian Churches, but I believe that `institution' would
>be clearer and more technically correct.
>
>> could a chalice, a chorten or a chasuble be described as
>> "religious entities"?
>
>Only by way of a joke, c.f. "I learned it at my mother's
>knee and other low joints."
>
>In Soviet atheist terminology those objects were "articles
>of cult", but neutrally I should call them ritual items be-
>cause their are used in the performance of religious rites.

I think "articles of cult" (or "cultic entities") would be more
accurate descriptions than the more verbose alternative.

In our church we once had some incence that someone had bought in
Farance, and the label on the box said "pour la culte".

But "religious entities" seems to me only to work for groups of
people, and not for cultic objects.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Steve Hayes to Anton Shepelev:

> > In Soviet atheist terminology those objects were "arti-
> > cles of cult", but neutrally I should call them ritual
> > items because they are used in the performance of reli-
> > gious rites.
>
> I think "articles of cult" (or "cultic entities") would be
> more accurate descriptions than the more verbose alterna-
> tive.

A win-win situation, Steve!

> In our church we once had some incence that someone had
> bought in Farance, and the label on the box said "pour la
> culte".

But bear in mind that the same Latin word may have different
meanins in different languages.

> But "religious entities" seems to me only to work for
> groups of people, and not for cultic objects.

In that sense churches, religious communities and institu-
tions all sound better to me. `entity' in the sense of or-
ganisation reeks of legalese from a mile away; and the
Christian Church considers herself more than a mere legal
entiry, because God is part of it.

What kind of music may be heard in Christian churches in
Africa these days? Is it something like the Baptist gospel
performed by Gospel quartets in the fifties, of which I have
a large collection: Pilgrim Travelers, Detroiters, Swan Sil-
vertons, Golden Echoes?

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 16:53:28 +0300, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:

>Steve Hayes to Anton Shepelev:
>
>> > In Soviet atheist terminology those objects were "arti-
>> > cles of cult", but neutrally I should call them ritual
>> > items because they are used in the performance of reli-
>> > gious rites.
>>
>> I think "articles of cult" (or "cultic entities") would be
>> more accurate descriptions than the more verbose alterna-
>> tive.
>
>A win-win situation, Steve!
>
>> In our church we once had some incence that someone had
>> bought in Farance, and the label on the box said "pour la
>> culte".
>
>But bear in mind that the same Latin word may have different
>meanins in different languages.

The primary meaning of "cult" (in English) is "a system of religious
worship". "Rite", "ritual" and "ceremony" are related words, but
"rite" suggests a single act of worship, while "cult" implies various
rites organised into a system.

"Cult" also has an extended meaning of quasi-religious worship of a
person or leader -- a "personality cult", for example celeb cults,
like the Elvis cult, or cults of political or religious leadsers --
cults of Hitler, Trump, che Guevara or Chairman Mao. I say
"quasi-religious cults" because such adulation does not include formal
"rites", as in the strictly religious use of the term.

And then there is the further extension in sociologese, where a "cult"
actually refers to a religious entity -- a group of people who usually
have a personality cult of a particular leader, like Jim Jones of
Guyana Kool Aid fame.

>
>> But "religious entities" seems to me only to work for
>> groups of people, and not for cultic objects.
>
>In that sense churches, religious communities and institu-
>tions all sound better to me. `entity' in the sense of or-
>ganisation reeks of legalese from a mile away; and the
>Christian Church considers herself more than a mere legal
>entiry, because God is part of it.

Indeed.

It was someone else who mentioned "religious entities". and I was
trying to clarify what things could be described as "religious
entities". I agree that it sounds excessively legalistic.

>What kind of music may be heard in Christian churches in
>Africa these days? Is it something like the Baptist gospel
>performed by Gospel quartets in the fifties, of which I have
>a large collection: Pilgrim Travelers, Detroiters, Swan Sil-
>vertons, Golden Echoes?

I'm not sure generally. Much of South Africa seems to have adopted a
kind of generic Protestantism, with generic Protestant music, and from
the little I've heard of it it sounds banal.

In our church we use Russian and Byzantine chant with North Sotho
words.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022, at 10:10:43, Steve Hayes posted:
>On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 16:53:28 +0300, Anton Shepelev
>>Steve Hayes to Anton Shepelev:
>>
>>> > In Soviet atheist terminology those objects were "arti-
>>> > cles of cult", but neutrally I should call them ritual
>>> > items because they are used in the performance of reli-
>>> > gious rites.
>>>
>>> I think "articles of cult" (or "cultic entities") would be
>>> more accurate descriptions than the more verbose alterna-
>>> tive.
>>
>>A win-win situation, Steve!
>>
>>> In our church we once had some incence that someone had
>>> bought in Farance, and the label on the box said "pour la
>>> culte".
>>
>>But bear in mind that the same Latin word may have different
>>meanins in different languages.
>
>The primary meaning of "cult" (in English) is "a system of religious
>worship". "Rite", "ritual" and "ceremony" are related words, but
>"rite" suggests a single act of worship, while "cult" implies various
>rites organised into a system.
>
>"Cult" also has an extended meaning of quasi-religious worship of a
>person or leader -- a "personality cult", for example celeb cults,
>like the Elvis cult, or cults of political or religious leadsers --
>cults of Hitler, Trump, che Guevara or Chairman Mao. I say
>"quasi-religious cults" because such adulation does not include formal
>"rites", as in the strictly religious use of the term.
>
>And then there is the further extension in sociologese, where a "cult"
>actually refers to a religious entity -- a group of people who usually
>have a personality cult of a particular leader, like Jim Jones of
>Guyana Kool Aid fame.
>
>>
>>> But "religious entities" seems to me only to work for
>>> groups of people, and not for cultic objects.
>>
>>In that sense churches, religious communities and institu-
>>tions all sound better to me. `entity' in the sense of or-
>>ganisation reeks of legalese from a mile away; and the
>>Christian Church considers herself more than a mere legal
>>entiry, because God is part of it.
>
>Indeed.
>
>It was someone else who mentioned "religious entities". and I was
>trying to clarify what things could be described as "religious
>entities". I agree that it sounds excessively legalistic.
>
>>What kind of music may be heard in Christian churches in
>>Africa these days? Is it something like the Baptist gospel
>>performed by Gospel quartets in the fifties, of which I have
>>a large collection: Pilgrim Travelers, Detroiters, Swan Sil-
>>vertons, Golden Echoes?
>
>I'm not sure generally. Much of South Africa seems to have adopted a
>kind of generic Protestantism, with generic Protestant music, and from
>the little I've heard of it it sounds banal.
>
>In our church we use Russian and Byzantine chant with North Sotho
>words.
>
I know very little about Orthodox practice - just a brief visitor
experience of a Coptic monastery[1], in North Africa of course. I have
the impression that at the more fundamental and/or Puritan end of
Protestantism, music is the Devil's work (even though some say he has
all the best tunes) and if anything is to be sung it should be biblical
words, which would mean mainly psalms. My South African family are
Methodists, so they have Charles Wesley's hymns on their side. As
denominations tend to the high church end, it seems to me that church
music gets richer and better (or at least more intricate and complex -
not necessarily the same thing).

[1] I want to say that they were liberal aspergers, but that's probably
the wrong word for sprinklers of holy water. My face and clothing, but
not my spirits, were well damped.
--
Paul

On 08/01/2022 11:20, Paul Wolff wrote:
> I have the impression that at the more fundamental and/or Puritan end of
> Protestantism, music is the Devil's work (even though some say he has
> all the best tunes) and if anything is to be sung it should be biblical
> words, which would mean mainly psalms.

The phrase is attributed to Rowland Hill (1744–1833), but the twentieth
century has stolen it for rock n' roll:

They say to cut my hair, they're drivin' me insane
I grew it out long to make room for my brain
But sometimes people don't understand
What's a good boy doin' in a rock n' roll band
There's nothin' wrong with playin' blues licks
If you've got a reason, tell me to my face
Why should the devil have all the good music?

-- Larry Norman

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 04:36:32 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:56:04 +0300, Anton Shepelev
><anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes:
>>
>>> I'm curious about what constitutes a religious "entity".
>>>
>>> While I'm reasonably certain that the Church of England
>>> and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and
>>> even the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church in Zion King
>>> George Win the War may be so described,
>>
>>Yes, in (Roman) legal terminology so beloved of Western
>>Christian Churches, but I believe that `institution' would
>>be clearer and more technically correct.
>>
>>> could a chalice, a chorten or a chasuble be described as
>>> "religious entities"?
>>
>>Only by way of a joke, c.f. "I learned it at my mother's
>>knee and other low joints."
>>
>>In Soviet atheist terminology those objects were "articles
>>of cult", but neutrally I should call them ritual items be-
>>cause their are used in the performance of religious rites.
>
>I think "articles of cult" (or "cultic entities") would be more
>accurate descriptions than the more verbose alternative.
>
>In our church we once had some incence that someone had bought in
>Farance, and the label on the box said "pour la culte".
>
>But "religious entities" seems to me only to work for groups of
>people, and not for cultic objects.

To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood to include Gods,
angels, etc.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 19:48:01 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 04:36:32 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net>
>wrote:

>>But "religious entities" seems to me only to work for groups of
>>people, and not for cultic objects.

>To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood to include Gods,
>angels, etc.

That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what comes to mind
when I hear the term "religious entities".

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:41:55 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>On 08/01/2022 11:20, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> I have the impression that at the more fundamental and/or Puritan end of
>> Protestantism, music is the Devil's work (even though some say he has
>> all the best tunes) and if anything is to be sung it should be biblical
>> words, which would mean mainly psalms.
>
>The phrase is attributed to Rowland Hill (1744–1833), but the twentieth
>century has stolen it for rock n' roll:
>
>They say to cut my hair, they're drivin' me insane
>I grew it out long to make room for my brain
>But sometimes people don't understand
>What's a good boy doin' in a rock n' roll band
>There's nothin' wrong with playin' blues licks
>If you've got a reason, tell me to my face
>Why should the devil have all the good music?
>
> -- Larry Norman

I've heard the phrase "why should the devil have the vbest
tunes/music?" attributed to William Booth, founder of the Salvation
Army.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On 12/01/2022 12:53, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:41:55 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 08/01/2022 11:20, Paul Wolff wrote:
>>> I have the impression that at the more fundamental and/or Puritan end of
>>> Protestantism, music is the Devil's work (even though some say he has
>>> all the best tunes) and if anything is to be sung it should be biblical
>>> words, which would mean mainly psalms.
>>
>> The phrase is attributed to Rowland Hill (1744–1833), but the twentieth
>> century has stolen it for rock n' roll:
>>
>> They say to cut my hair, they're drivin' me insane
>> I grew it out long to make room for my brain
>> But sometimes people don't understand
>> What's a good boy doin' in a rock n' roll band
>> There's nothin' wrong with playin' blues licks
>> If you've got a reason, tell me to my face
>> Why should the devil have all the good music?
>>
>> -- Larry Norman
>
> I've heard the phrase "why should the devil have the vbest
> tunes/music?" attributed to William Booth, founder of the Salvation
> Army.

Also to George Whitefield, John Wesley, and Charles Wesley.

No doubt they all made it up, independently.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

In message <hojttghdpki8bba98c74s5udpeef7j40q5@4ax.com> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:41:55 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>>On 08/01/2022 11:20, Paul Wolff wrote:
>>> I have the impression that at the more fundamental and/or Puritan end of
>>> Protestantism, music is the Devil's work (even though some say he has
>>> all the best tunes) and if anything is to be sung it should be biblical
>>> words, which would mean mainly psalms.
>>
>>The phrase is attributed to Rowland Hill (1744–1833), but the twentieth
>>century has stolen it for rock n' roll:
>>
>>They say to cut my hair, they're drivin' me insane
>>I grew it out long to make room for my brain
>>But sometimes people don't understand
>>What's a good boy doin' in a rock n' roll band
>>There's nothin' wrong with playin' blues licks
>>If you've got a reason, tell me to my face
>>Why should the devil have all the good music?
>>
>> -- Larry Norman

> I've heard the phrase "why should the devil have the vbest
> tunes/music?" attributed to William Booth, founder of the Salvation
> Army.

I used to have a t-shirt when I was a kid (Before Good Omens was
published) that said something like "It may be Hell, but it's got the
best band" and then had a lot of dead musicians listed.

I suspect a large part of the appeal of that shirt was that it had the
word "Hell" on it because I think I was about 10 or 12yo.

When I read Good Omens the conversation about Elgar reminded me of that
shirt.

--
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone,
but they've always worked for me." --Hunter Thompson

Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:

> > To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
> > to include Gods, angels, etc.
>
> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".

Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
able adjective.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:23:38 +0300, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:

>Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:
>
>> > To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
>> > to include Gods, angels, etc.
>>
>> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
>> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".
>
>Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
>creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
>fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
>able adjective.

As you noted earlier, "entity" has a legal connotation, which doesn't
seem appropriate. A religious organisation could be regarded as a
legal entity, but I doubt that any could would recognise an angel or a
demon as an entity capable of suing or being sued in a court of law.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:28:57 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

>I used to have a t-shirt when I was a kid (Before Good Omens was
>published) that said something like "It may be Hell, but it's got the
>best band" and then had a lot of dead musicians listed.
>
>I suspect a large part of the appeal of that shirt was that it had the
>word "Hell" on it because I think I was about 10 or 12yo.

There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
you".

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On 13/01/22 05:23 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:
>
>>> To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
>>> to include Gods, angels, etc.
>>
>> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
>> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".
>
> Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
> creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
> fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
> able adjective.

Supernatural beings.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

In message <9uivtg1mc0dkpigp04i3gh8qi20qreersm@4ax.com> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:28:57 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

>>I used to have a t-shirt when I was a kid (Before Good Omens was
>>published) that said something like "It may be Hell, but it's got the
>>best band" and then had a lot of dead musicians listed.
>>
>>I suspect a large part of the appeal of that shirt was that it had the
>>word "Hell" on it because I think I was about 10 or 12yo.

> There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
> sticker"?)

We put stickers on our bumpers over here (well, not me, but people who do
so). I don't recall seeing any bumper stickers on the body of a car
other than the very very few cars that have dozens of them all over
their cars. These are usually kooks (either far right or far left
politically) but sometimes it's just someone with a lot of funny bumper
stickers.

> that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of you".

Remember the part where God slaughtered a bunch of kids because they
called an old bald guy bald? Good times. 17 kids, as I recall, torn to
shreds by a bear on God's behalf. Nice guy, that.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain--but after eating newspaper all day, do I
really need the extra fiber?"

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:52:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:28:57 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
><g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>>I used to have a t-shirt when I was a kid (Before Good Omens was
>>published) that said something like "It may be Hell, but it's got the
>>best band" and then had a lot of dead musicians listed.
>>
>>I suspect a large part of the appeal of that shirt was that it had the
>>word "Hell" on it because I think I was about 10 or 12yo.
>
>There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>you".

In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
bumpers. The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
at the rear of the car.

The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 15:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

>In message <9uivtg1mc0dkpigp04i3gh8qi20qreersm@4ax.com> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:28:57 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>>>I used to have a t-shirt when I was a kid (Before Good Omens was
>>>published) that said something like "It may be Hell, but it's got the
>>>best band" and then had a lot of dead musicians listed.
>>>
>>>I suspect a large part of the appeal of that shirt was that it had the
>>>word "Hell" on it because I think I was about 10 or 12yo.
>
>> There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>> sticker"?)
>
>We put stickers on our bumpers over here (well, not me, but people who do
>so). I don't recall seeing any bumper stickers on the body of a car
>other than the very very few cars that have dozens of them all over
>their cars. These are usually kooks (either far right or far left
>politically) but sometimes it's just someone with a lot of funny bumper
>stickers.

Political bumper stickers, telling you who the car owner will vote for
and who you should vote for, are very common.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:52:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
><hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:28:57 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
>><g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>>
>>>I used to have a t-shirt when I was a kid (Before Good Omens was
>>>published) that said something like "It may be Hell, but it's got the
>>>best band" and then had a lot of dead musicians listed.
>>>
>>>I suspect a large part of the appeal of that shirt was that it had the
>>>word "Hell" on it because I think I was about 10 or 12yo.
>>
>>There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>>you".
>
>In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
>front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
>something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
>bumpers.

With an occasional exception.

>The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
>at the rear of the car.
>
>The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
>past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.

With an occasional exception.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:23:38 +0300, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:

>Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:
>
>> > To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
>> > to include Gods, angels, etc.
>>
>> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
>> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".
>
>Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
>creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
>fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
>able adjective.

Myths (a noun, not an adjective)

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:49:31 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:23:38 +0300, Anton Shepelev
><anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:
>>
>>> > To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
>>> > to include Gods, angels, etc.
>>>
>>> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
>>> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".
>>
>>Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
>>creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
>>fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
>>able adjective.
>
>As you noted earlier, "entity" has a legal connotation, which doesn't
>seem appropriate. A religious organisation could be regarded as a
>legal entity, but I doubt that any could would recognise an angel or a
>demon as an entity capable of suing or being sued in a court of law.

Moreover as far as I'm concerned, an "entity" is something that
exists, unlike gods and angels.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:23:38 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including fallen
> ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
> able adjective.

Since no one can prove their existence, I vote for human inventions, or
make believe, invisible friends.

None of them are real until their existence is proven. Religious people
make the positive claim, so the burden of proof is their problem!

--
Order! Order in the group!

On 13-Jan-22 6:52, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:28:57 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> I used to have a t-shirt when I was a kid (Before Good Omens was
>> published) that said something like "It may be Hell, but it's got the
>> best band" and then had a lot of dead musicians listed.
>>
>> I suspect a large part of the appeal of that shirt was that it had the
>> word "Hell" on it because I think I was about 10 or 12yo.
>
> There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
> sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
> you".

Heaven forfend such a use for fenders.

--
Sam Plusnet