You are out of line.

[prometheus]

According to the bible you need to kill false prophets. According to the bible Jesus is a false prophet.

There is no god.

Yes, there is a week. Six days of work, and the seventh day is a rest.

But you rest on the eight day. Therefore, if I were to follow the bible I would have to kill you.


When Jesus said he would return within the lives of his listeners the world was 4000 years old according to the bible.

And 2000 years later, half the time of the earth, Jesus has still not returned. He said he would return soon. This is clearly false. The bible is very clear here.


And according to the old testament this is all wrong as well. If you follow the old testament then Jesus is clearly not the Jewish messiah.

Of course we know that God does not exist.

If god did exist we would know for sure that the bible is not his word.



So what are you ranting about? Why don't you go to the core? Does god actually exist? Is the bible actually the word of god?

If you can't support these ideas then why even bother trying to promote the writings of bronze age people?

If the bible is the word of god then God doesn't know his own creation. The bible clearly is a book written with the knowledge of bronze age sheep herders. Not a book written with the knowledge of all things.

It wouldn't be very hard to distinguish between the two. Imagine the difference in knowledge.

[thalbergmad]

that's all i'm saying.

If only

[elspeth]

But what I don't understand is why Christians don't edit the bible. Why don't you get rid of the genocide in the old testament? Why don't you get rid of the passages that say that homosexuality is unnatural and that homosexuals should be killed?

A 'modern revised' version would be interesting, I think - there are of course already many vastly edited childrens' editions, for instance - although the politics would be a nightmare to write a new official full version - certainly in the church of England there was a furore over the prayer book being officially issued in modern English, never mind rewriting the bible.

Who do you get to write it? Can each separate denomination have its own version in the language of its choice (Latin for the Roman Catholics, old-fashioned English for the traditional Anglicans, modern English for the rest of the Protestants, and a version in the home language of each country that wanted to)? Or just one in one language which was accepted as the official root for all other translations, so getting round the 'creeping definitions over time and translations' issues?

Can each denomination edit in and out different bits? The problem would be one of fragmenting the root of the Christian church, which arguably might not be a bad thing but it would be difficult to call each denomination broadly Christian if we could all pick and choose the bits we wanted to edit out. There are, as you say, passages against homosexuals, passages advocating repression of women, and tales of unspeakable cruelty. None of them sit well in a modern interpretation. So we get rid of them - but what else to edit out? Do we get rid of prophecies like the second coming, purely on the basis it hasn't happened yet (or if it has, we didn't notice!) and many people aren't convinced it will? Also, what do you edit in? Other than a specific passage or two setting out equal rights and tolerance for all. Do we make illegal drug taking a 'sin'? Or binge drinking, seeing as the 'old' version doesn't have a problem with alcohol?

However, then you start getting onto trickier ground - what to leave in in principle but alter to suit society. For instance, there was a discussion previously about the differences between adultery and fornication and which - whether either or both - should be considered 'wrong' in a modern interpretation. Myself I would vote for adultery being wrong and fornication permitted as long as one was not overly promiscuous or taking risks - therefore supporting the idea of being faithful to your partner while allowing people to have other relationships while not committed (not necessarily married) to one particular individual. But that's just my preference becaue that's how I like to live. Do we take 'do not murder' or do we make it 'do not kill', or 'do not kill, unless you can justify it in a court of law and live with your own conscience afterwards'? Sticky ground, when you're trying to set down guidelines for the faithful to live their lives by - unless you write the new text and stamp on the cover 'please always take this in the context of your individual circumstances, and never literally'.

Most modern liberal Christians don't use the bible as their sole source of religious thought or inspiration. There is a wealth of art and literature - and music - out there. And of course nature, and people too.

I think your point about the bible being banned if it were not religious is well made. The same could be said of other holy books too - and a great many historical books living in specialist libraries and archives. Propaganda printed in Nazi Germany, for instance. And propaganda against them printed in the UK and elsewhere - nowadays it's not the done thing - officially at least - to make fun of or imply denegrating things about the oponent in order to bolster public opinion against them to support the war effort. However, taking aside your opinion of its contents, if nothing else it is of interest to historians as an insight into the culture of the time. I do believe as a society we need to understand where we came from - as the cenotaph says, lest we forget - and to that end there is a social argument for the bible to have a place as a historical resource if not as a religious one.

[pianowolfi]

One in ten people are asexual. They lack all forms of sexuality.

Okay again I ignore completely all the posts around and try to get the point: Where do you have this claim from? Because I am very interested. I am in some sense a very sexual person (straight btw) and like to know why some persons seem to be not sexual? Just out of curiosity 

[pianistimo]

dear prometheus,

what words of the bible make Jesus a false prophet?  He said he would return - but He didn't say exactly when.  so how could that make Him a false prophet?  in fact, He tells us what has to happen BEFORE He returns, so that we will know when He is 'at the door.'

i agree with elspeth - in that the bible, even on historical grounds, can give one insight as to a perspective of ancient cultures and proven connections to actual geographical places and peoples.

about the seventh day, prometheus.  why do you presume so much about people that you do not know?  i actually keep the seventh day.  does that make me better than my counterparts (christian) that do not?  no.  i don't personally think so.  will the seventh day again be important in the millenium.  yes.  i do think so.  why?  because when Jesus returns - His law will again be in effect.  not only that - the fall harvest festival (feast of booths) will again be remembered and observed.  zechariah 14:16 'then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of booths.'

Jesus, himself, kept this feast 'of the jews' - but in actuality it is a memorial past and present of deliverance.  the feast of booths - is a time when living in booths reminds one of our temporary home on earth -and permanent one with God.  also, the harvest reminds us that we are 'firstfruits' of all the fruits of God and that He will come and 'harvest' us (as wheat from tares).  there's always something in the bible that is intruieging because God has planned so many things to teach us about his ways.  He never ceases to love us and to be patient and longsufferring so that all will come to know Him AS HE IS.  He is always supreme and there is no way that we can possibly overrule Him.  may as well enjoy the benefits of the 'grapevine.'

[prometheus]

Okay again I ignore completely all the posts around and try to get the point: Where do you have this claim from? Because I am very interested. I am in some sense a very sexual person (straight btw) and like to know why some persons seem to be not sexual? Just out of curiosity 

I tried to find the source of this claim. I remember it quite well but I can't find it anymore. I have to say that I was very quick to say "one in ten". That's what I read once. But I shouldn't take these sociological studies so seriously. I found another study that said one in a hundred people. So it's somewhere in between those.

Why they aren't sexual? Well, the problem with these definitions is that they are often ambiguous and that the condition described can be the result of many different things. For example celibate clerics are not asexual. Frigid people or people that have experienced sexual abuse are not asexual.

Another problem is that there is no academic definition of asexuality. Strangely enough these people are now getting the same problems gay people used to have. People tell them they are 'sick' or that it's just their choice instead of accepting that it is an orientation. Maybe in some cases it is. But since we have so much variation in sexual preference and also gender identity it is only natural that asexuality is also an orientation on can expect.
Things aren't so black and white.

If people go in hunger strike their sexuality stops functioning while the body is starving. It is experienced as a liberation by many people.

Also, a study has shown that asexual people are more religious than people in general. Paul, for example, promoted having no sex at all though not many Christians follow this teaching of the bible.

But at the same time asexuality must be an abomination according to many Abrahamic monotheists.


You are one of those Christians that keeps sabbath on Saturday? Yes, I do consider that to be closer to the bible. But what does it matter.
In my country, where Christianity is dying, Christian politicians are trying to disallow everyone to shop on the eight day. That just makes no sense in a hundred ways.

It's a safe presumption to assume that a Christian keeps sabbath at Sunday.

Jesus said he would return within the lives of the people he spoke to, according to the bible. And since the gospels were written such a long time after Jesus's his presumed death back then, 1900 years ago, it was just around the corner.

It didn't happen. And it will not happen. If you truly believe the bible you need to believe that Jesus did actually return 1900 years ago or that Jesus is a false prophet that should be killed.

There is no way around it.

Would you still believe in Christ's second comming if after another 2000 years he still hadn't returned?

[ahinton]

Would you still believe in Christ's second comming if after another 2000 years he still hadn't returned?

Perhaps we should wait until Pianistimo is aged two thousand and not very much so that she can answer that with unquestionable authority.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Perhaps we should wait until Pianistimo is aged two thousand and not very much so that she can answer that with unquestionable authority.

Best,

Alistair

pianistimo
PS Gold Member
Sr. Member
*****
Online

Posts: 10958576

[pianistimo]

dear prometheus,

although it is true that the jews thought Jesus was going to save them at his first coming - He chose to allow the world another 2000+ years.  He is longsufferring and not willing that any should perish - but that many people would have everlasting life.  i don't, however find ANY scriptures where Christ said He would return in glory at that time.  in fact, matthew 28:20 implies that He knows He won't.  'go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, i am with you always, EVEN TO THE END OF THE AGE (AGES).  that means generations.  not one generation.  in another translation it says 'end of days'  or 'all the days.'  (all the days appointed)

He did, however, reveal Himself in His ressurrected body to the disciples.  then it was evident that all His words about the three days and nights were true.  That He WAS God.  tell me why this affected SO MANY PEOPLE (romans included) that they changed the ENTIRE CALENDAR?  there was a great earthquake when he died and when He was ressurrected.  enough to roll the stone away from the tomb (which in roman times would have been impossible for a man).  now, if there was a seal on the stone (as mentioned in matt 27:66 - He would have ran out of oxygen in three days had he been alive.  and, they would have found His body (wrapped from head to toe).  but, the amazing thing is that nobody found a body.  so, what is out of line here is to suddenly say that a body was mummified and found recently somewhere's - disproving what the bible says.

it occurred to me that perhaps the scripture you are referring to, prometheus, is matt. 16:28 'truly, i say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.'  what he is saying - is that He is coming INTO His kingdom.  He overcame Satan at His death and ressurrection - and the keys to the kingdom were His.  He actually overcame death at the exact moment of His ressurrection.  that is why we call it the 'hope of glory.'  if you are hoping for something - you believe that it will come true.  why else hope for it?  Jesus showed us that it is entirely possible for one to be ressurrected by appearing to his disciples (just as He will be at the first ressurrection of the dead).  He refers to death as to 'sleep.'  the next moment the disciples and all of us are ressurrected - will be as a 'moment - a twinkling of an eye.'  we don't count time when we are dead.

ps do you all REALLY believe that there won't be a world war.  that things will go on for another 2000 years?  i think you are more unreasonable than me - considering past history.  it only takes a few crazy people to start big problems.  i believe it will happen with our lifetimes or our children's.  why?  because we are already seeing the demise of many things that it takes to sustain life.  even without war there is a serious problem with WATER.  this was also prophecied in revelations, btw. 

millions are dying every year from lack of safe water.  soon, more than two billion people will be in dire need of clean drinking water.  expanding populations are draining rivers and depleting aquifers.  1.2 billion people already lack enough clean water.    our highly-developed society, with its modern farms, factories, and chemical plants, can create toxic waste that often gets into our water sources.  in 1998, about one-third of the waters in the us (lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams) had become too polluted to allow fishing or swimming.  the country's most threatened waterways have been contaminated by rocket fuel, human waste, and uranium tailings, among other pollutants.  recently there have been complaints about various contaminants in local water causing health problems.

[pianistimo]

there's always things written that make the solutions appear easy - such as the ogallala aquifer -covering 174,000 square miles - and lies anywhere from 100 to 400 feet below the surface.  supposedly 'royal spring' water is from this aquifer - but sometimes water companies can avoid spending buckoo bucks by slightly changing the name and going back to other sources that are more easily transported.  unless you can bring a glacier to your backyard - you pretty much rely on the local water.

even without man-made pollution (where sometimes sewage and industrial wastewater goes untreated and ends up in the drinking supply) - some groundwater is still dangerous to drink.  the reason is that arsenic - a naturally-occurring, poisonous chemical - is widely distributed throughout the earth's crust.  under the right conditions it can leach out of the rock and into the water underground.  that's how some of the wells in northern india and bangladesh have become severely polluted.  a recent study suggests that bangladesh may be facing the larges mass poisoning in history - affecting up to 77 million people who are drinking this water.

some of this information i got from 'royal spring' water newsletter - but recently there have been complaints here in pennsylvania about tap water needing to be boiled because of outbreaks of various health problems from drinking the water.  for instance, when it rains a lot - the rivers and streams overflow and pollutants get into the water much easier. 

rev 16: 3-4 'and the second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became blood (oil?) like that of a dead man; and every living thing in the sea died.  (we have this very problem today - john did not know that we would be drilling for oil - and oil/blood looked similar to him)  and the third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood (polluted) - and i heard the angel of the waters saying, 'righteous art Thou, who art and who wast, o Holy One, because Thou didst judge these things; for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and Thou hast given them blood to drink.  They deserve it.'

then it goes on to mention intense heat from the sun.  'and the fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun; and it was given it to scorch men with fire.  and men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues; and they did not repent, so as to give Him glory.'

there is scripture somewhere's where God commands the angels not to touch the wine or the oil.  so that wine be the only unpolluted thing to drink at a certain point in time.  now, as i see it - much better to be close to God NOW - before things get worse.  you see, i believe that God has the power to protect us by supernatural means. 

[prometheus]

I know the stories of the bible.

But I don't understand how emphasizing the fact that they talk about miracles and supernatural feats proves it must have happened. It makes it only more unlikely.

The notion that Jesus would have died in the cave because of lack of oxygen proving that it really happened is amazing to me.

First off, if you just roll a stone in front of the cave it will not close off the space completely. Sure, there is no ventilation but surely it will help.

But let's say it was impossible to survive. Instead of being proof that it actually happened isn't this evidence that it probably did not happen?

I don't understand.


As for the end of the world. Just look at the history, like you said. What makes you say that the world has to end based on past events.

If I look to the mythology of ancient people I quickly conclude that even these people at the starting point of civilization believed the world could or would end soon.

For example, the oldest story in the world that was carried over to modern times is Gilgamesh. The bible plagiarized a large part of this story, specifically the story of Noah.
In it Utnapishtim was the only one to have survived the great flood, which destroyed the whole world.

Many people seem to believe the world is going to end soon. Just look up some eschatology stories.

As for the actual end of the world. We know that the sun will burn through its hydrogen one day and expand resulting in the earth to be boiled and then maybe even the earth will be immersed by the sun.

So I don't understand why civilization can't go on another 2000 years. Human civilization is already 12,000 years old. And humans as a whole about one and a half million years old, including proto-homo sapiens hominids.


matt. 16:28 is very clear. Don't deny what you believe to be god's word. Read the thing in context.

[pianistimo]

you and i disagree, prometheus.  if war doesn't completely change civilization around (as always the newest world ruling empires did) - then the environment will.  you can be an ostrich.

[prometheus]

I never said there wouldn't be any change.

[living_stradivarius]

you and i disagree, prometheus.  if war doesn't completely change civilization around (as always the newest world ruling empires did) - then the environment will.  you can be an ostrich.

The Christians and Muslims can have their war and kill each other off. I'll be moving to an offshore island.

There's not much one can do to for pianistimo. No matter what happens, she'll just manipulate her understanding of the bible to frame events while still evading key questions about inconsistencies in the text. If you don't want to be "offended" just leave your religious beliefs out of the discussion.

[thalbergmad]

The Christians and Muslims can have their war and kill each other off. I'll be moving to an offshore island.

Save a space for me.

Thal

[pianistimo]

off-shore islands?  i thought all islands were off-shore.  well, in any case - you'll be in good company if thal goes.  i mean, you with the stradivarius and him with the banjo.

[ahinton]

off-shore islands?  i thought all islands were off-shore.  well, in any case - you'll be in good company if thal goes.  i mean, you with the stradivarius and him with the banjo.

It's when you show your sense of humour like this that people will, I think, be more ready to forgive you the sins of your literal-Bible-promoting posts (whoops - I used the word "sins" - sorry...)

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

I am exceedingly cross at the disgusting way in which people are treated on this forum. the language which has become commonplace of late and the inability to debate without getting really nasty is the only thing I find intolerable on this site.  I have to say if the tirade further up this thread Prometheus is not that of someone who is angry then ...well it speaks for itself - noone who is tolerant would write such a stream of abuse because their views were challenged on a discussion...it is out of line and where Pianistimo has had the decency to apologise you seem to think its ok to swear and curse at anyone you please and they'll just have to take it because thats the way you are. That disturbes me. I refuse to comment on religious issues for the time being as reasonable discussion of these topics is absolutely impossible in the current climate.

If people want to debate religion in serious terms then they should be free to do so in the appropriate places. Others are not forced to read the topics if they choose not to be involved.  It is possible to discuss these deeply felt and serious issues in an indepth manner without resorting to name calling and insults. Please make the effort.  Imagine how you would feel to have threads set up saying how annoying you were and how stupid your comments had been and then have people post obscenties at you.  It is totally disgracefull. It is utterly shamefull Prometheus.

[living_stradivarius]

off-shore islands?  i thought all islands were off-shore.  well, in any case - you'll be in good company if thal goes.  i mean, you with the stradivarius and him with the banjo.

Islands right off US shores to be clear.

Be a good pagan and join us

[ahinton]

you and i disagree, prometheus.  if war doesn't completely change civilization around (as always the newest world ruling empires did) - then the environment will.  you can be an ostrich.

Of course there will be changes of all kinds - just as there always have been - changes in climate, society, economy, language, just about everything - and some of these will be minuscule, some long-term, some drastic, etc. If I understand you correctly, however, what you seem to be advocating - or at least expecting or perhaps promoting - is the notion of more world war and/or drastic environmental change as a means to prove some prophet-of-doom-like point of your own. World wars do indeed change a great deal, as the last two have shown. What history has also shown is that we move on after them (or at least those who survive them do). Climate change seems to be more of a matter of concern to humanity now than it has been in the past only because there are now far more humans today than when earlier major climate changes occurred and our means of communication and our scientific understanding of such things are much greater than in the past, so we hear far more about it; inevitably, some of what we hear is ill-informed and/or politically motivated. The one thing that is certain is that climate has always changed and almost certainly always will; whether we use our ongoing scientific discoveries to endeavour to control any part of that remains to be seen. UK's Channel 4 devoted some 90 minutes (less the wretched ads) a few hours ago to some of the garbage that has been spoken and written about recent and current climate change and its effects; a couple of bits were rather repetitive and thus carelessly edited, but otherwise it was perhaps the most thorough, convincing and salutary series of arguments against the hell-fire carbon-emission blame-humanity-only stuff that is nowadays almost omnipresent. I must confess that it had not previously occurred to me that governments who promote all this have as part of their agendas the maintenance of abject poverty in those regions where most if not all people have little or no access to electricity, but one may suppose that this is indeed the case. The programme certainly put quite a lot of issues, including historical evidence, into perspective; whether it will come to have been more than a mere cry in the wilderness is sadly open to grave doubt. The implied view that is emerging from beneath what I am writing here does not, however, signify that I think it inappropriate or unnecessary to research and develop alternative sustainable energy sources, but I believe in this as a good idea for reasons of personal convenience and political expediency rather than on environmental grounds. I think, in any case, that worldwide shortages of potable water will soon come to overtake such international concerns; it is already being suggested that, since this is quite soon likely to affect up to 70% of the world's population, there are zillions more dollars to be made out of that than out of the carbon-emission-control business.

Anyway, to return to what started this post, I really do not believe in the doom-and-gloom end-of-the-world-is-nigh it's-all-in-the-Bible prophecy stuff and I usually find that, when such sentiments are expressed, at least a whiff of holier-than-thou self-righteousness is never far away...

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

Sorry Alistair but you misunderstand the argument regarding end times. But im not going to go into that here as it would be inappropriate. The question which is indeed far more serious here and now IS that pianistimo si being victimised because of her beliefs on this forum. This is unacceptable. I find it incredible that so many people fail to recognise this and actually join in ridiculing her!  If people have looney ideas about music or a one track mind with teaching methods etc do they have threads saying the 'annoying things about xxxx'  etc.  No!  Ok we may get irritated by spam and inappropriate comments - there maybe a temporary spat or rebuke, but not the sustained campaign against someone that pianistimo has recieved.  Its totally unfair and should come to an end.

[ahinton]

Sorry Alistair but you misunderstand the argument regarding end times. But im not going to go into that here as it would be inappropriate.

Maybe I don't, but then I don't quite understand what you mean by what you write here either; perhaps if you explain that, i might understand both!

The question which is indeed far more serious here and now IS that pianistimo si being victimised because of her beliefs on this forum. This is unacceptable. I find it incredible that so many people fail to recognise this and actually join in ridiculing her!  If people have looney ideas about music or a one track mind with teaching methods etc do they have threads saying the 'annoying things about xxxx'  etc.  No!  Ok we may get irritated by spam and inappropriate comments - there maybe a temporary spat or rebuke, but not the sustained campaign against someone that pianistimo has recieved.  Its totally unfair and should come to an end.

She is certainly not being "victimised" by me; even when I take her to task for things that she writes that appear unsupportable by any means other than her own personal faith, neither my intent nor the effect is one of "victimisation". I don't do that kind of thing to anyone.

Fora such as this one are supposed to be discussion groups and discussion is bound to involve disagreements from time to time; provided that these are conducted in a reasonable and civilised manner, that's fine - and, by "reasonable" and "civilised" I do not exclude the upbraiding of one member by another for making statements that appear unsupportable by any means other than that member's faith - but I do not hold with resorting to slanging matches and abuse for the sake of insulting other members rather than developing a genuine disagreement.

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

Alistair I dont suggest for a minute that you do. Im agreeing with you that the 'slanging matches' are inappropriate and shouldnt be going on. I do believe that Pianistimo has been victimised (though not by you).   My point about the end times argument is that this is hardly the place to throw a subjective point of view on that issue, when you know full well it is contentious.  I agree with you on the freedom to speak without victimisation but as you know we donot and cannot agree on our end times theology so it may be best to keep to the topic in hand, which is the right to express what you believe without being maligned or attacked.

[living_stradivarius]

The usage of religion judges and attacks others in a very surreptitious way. Zealots repeatedly use this technique. They tell someone that what s/he is doing is a form of sin, that they are less "worthy" humans because of sin, and finally they say they are not judging because only God can judge. What cowardice.
Hannah Arendt was right about the banality of evil.

If you don't agree with the way some people are because of your OWN interpretation of the bible, then keep it to yourself. The moment you start quoting (and misquoting) from the text is the moment you begin to malign to others and INVITE others to malign you.

Now go home, be happy, and stop rubbing your salvation in others' faces.

[prometheus]

Pianistimo isn't victimised. Christianity and silly bible literalism is being, what you would call, vitimised.

The reason for this is not because we are mean people but because of the nature of the idea.


It is kind of ironic that you realise that religion is weak because it cannot be defended by reason or evidence. And that is what you call 'victimised'.

Religion just can't defend itself because it is makes claims about reality while ignoring reality itself.


On the other hand, religion does victimise homosexuals, to name just one group. And religion cannot even defend it's attacks on homosexuals. They even make claims everyone knows are wrong.

[ahinton]

Alistair I dont suggest for a minute that you do. Im agreeing with you that the 'slanging matches' are inappropriate and shouldnt be going on. I do believe that Pianistimo has been victimised (though not by you).

OK - understood.

My point about the end times argument is that this is hardly the place to throw a subjective point of view on that issue, when you know full well it is contentious.  I agree with you on the freedom to speak without victimisation but as you know we donot and cannot agree on our end times theology so it may be best to keep to the topic in hand, which is the right to express what you believe without being maligned or attacked.

The only reason that some people might not agree with me on the time when the world as we know it may come to an end is that those people believe they know more or less when this may occur but cannot prove it scientifically whereas I do not claim to have the faintest idea so I don't have anything to prove! C'est la vie, peut-être...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Now go home, be happy, and stop rubbing your salvation in others' faces.

Praise be to that brother.

Thal

[pianistimo]

where's the line?  i never did find that line.  i think it's the bible.  i mean, a literal translation.  but, no matter.  what i truly think is the issue is a perspective on 'can man control the universe - or does the universe (and God) control us.'  can we control climate change - or is it going to control us.  can we control iran - or will iran control us.  can we control a one world system or will it control us.  it's all about control.

i say - some things are just out of our control after a while.  say, you get taken to the emergency room - do you make the nurse ask permission to help you - or do you put an element of trust in her?  even if she asks you that silly 'on a scale of one to ten - how badly do you hurt?' 

all i'm saying is that God is there to mend things that we can't figure out how to.  one is world peace.  who's going to come up with a better solution than God's.  Jesus comes and wipes out sin, death, disease, destruction.  with one fell swoop.

[thalbergmad]

all i'm saying is that God is there to mend things that we can't figure out how to.  one is world peace.  who's going to come up with a better solution than God's. 

Just about anyone really, judging by the last 2,000 years.

 

Jesus comes and wipes out sin, death, disease, destruction.  with one fell swoop.

When? again, he has not bothered in the last 2,000 years.

[pianistimo]

but, He did say He would return.  if He came the first time...don't you think He will come the second?

[thalbergmad]

Not really.

He did not do much good the first time anyway.

If he was supposed to bring peace, he did not do very well.

Thal

[ahinton]

Oh, for heaven's sakes STOP it, children! If Jesus Christ does indeeed come again (come again?), let us just hope that pianistithalbergmadimo will be there ready to question him on his first stint two thousand years ago and let Him defend Himself by means of His own arguments; if He doesn't (and, frankly, even if He were capable of such a feat, who would blame Him for desisting?!), we won't have to run that one. will we?!...

Yawn - Y a  w   z
                              .
                                 .
                                   .
                                    .
                                     .
Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

If he does come again, i will take him to Nells Cafe for a "gutbuster" breakfast.

Better than all that fish and wine nonsense.

Thal

[ahinton]

If he does come again, i will take him to Nells Cafe for a "gutbuster" breakfast.

Better than all that fish and wine nonsense.

Thal

And you'd pay, would you? Anyway, the success or otherwise of that would have to depend very much on personal taste.

Who says that "fish and wine" is nonsense, in any case? (except for the fact that it was five loaves and two fish and, in an entirely separate context - albeit not so separate for me, thinking as I might of a really lovely white burgundy - the alleged turning of water into wine). If Jesus Christ can manage to turn the utter garbage that comes out of our taps here in the City of Bath, of all places (where one might be forgiven for assuming that at least the water is acceptable) into Corton Charlemagne, then He can come as soon as He likes! Maybe He'll come to the Roman City of Bath just out of a sense of vengeance ("vengeance is mine, saith the Lord", as in?) toward those ancient Romans; if so, someone ought to make a point of diverting Him from our local vineyard in High Bannerdown which produces the kind of liquor that, whilst marketed as "wine", I'd seriously think twice about using as brake fluid or grabage disposal cleaner...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

brake fluid, garbage disposal cleaner- eww.  that must be a bad wine.  say, did you hear gallo died recently.  apparently - he learned to make wine when he was young by going to the local library.  i always wondered why it tasted a bit off.  then, come to find out how he got into the wine business.  you always sort of assume it's a long ancestral line back to italy or france or something.  here his vines were as young as the blooming orchestration of unintiated wine-tasters at a cheese ball.

[ahinton]

brake fluid, garbage disposal cleaner- eww.  that must be a bad wine.  say, did you hear gallo died recently.  apparently - he learned to make wine when he was young by going to the local library.  i always wondered why it tasted a bit off.  then, come to find out how he got into the wine business.  you always sort of assume it's a long ancestral line back to italy or france or something.  here his vines were as young as the blooming orchestration of unintiated wine-tasters at a cheese ball.

No, I'd not heard - which of the Gallo family was this? Maybe for me "Gallo" means part of the title of Sorabji's late set of variations on a theme from Rimsky-Korsakov's Le Coq d'Or which he called Il Grido del Gallino d'Oro and which one distinguished Sorabji scholar said should have "Gallo" rather than "Gallino" in the title for the sake of Italian correctitude (Jonathan Powell premièred this work wonderfully in the 2005 Radio France et Montpellier Festival, which I attended)...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Should this thread now be re-entitled "You are out of wine"?...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

here is the obituary:  ernest gallo  2007
https://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16847502.htm

it seems kind of sad that joseph gallo couldn't use the family name for his cheese.  what a thing to become estranged over. 

alistair, you have some journalistic tendencies that cannot be equalled.

[ahinton]

here is the obituary:  ernest gallo  2007
https://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16847502.htm

Thanks for that.

alistair, you have some journalistic tendencies that cannot be equalled.

Moi? Journalist? Mais non! And whatever would "ada" say about that?! No, to be honest, I think that I have quite enough troubles just doing what I do, really...

Best,

Alistair

[living_stradivarius]

but, He did say He would return.  if He came the first time...don't you think He will come the second?

Ever watch "Life of Brian" ?

[thalbergmad]

I would doubt it, but she should.

Thal

[ahinton]

Ever watch "Life of Brian" ?

When I first heard of that many years ago, I did wonder momentarily whether it was Havergal Brian or Brian Ferneyhough...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Yeh, that would have been great fun.

Life of Hvergal Brian

"Always look on the Bright Side of Life" for full orchestra, dragged out for 4 hours.

Thal

[ahinton]

Life of Hvergal Brian

"Always look on the Bright Side of Life" for full orchestra, dragged out for 4 hours.

Or used as a text to set for soprano as a pendant movement to Ferneyhough's Fourth Quartet...

Seriously, though, you imply the perpetuation of a well-established myth about Havergal Brian with your remark hee, amusing though it is in itself. Most of his 32 symphonies are not at all long, many indeed occupying less that half an hour apiece. 2 & 3 are on quite a large scale, although even these are less long than the largest of Mahler's symphonies. It's really only the one that eventually was designated no. 1 - the famous (or notorious, depending on your viewpoint) "Gothic" that is of truly immense proportions; the sad thing about that is that it is by far the best of the whole lot and I would have no hesitation in describing it as one of the very greatest symphonies ever composed by an Englishman (I believe that one L Bernstein felt similarly about it). Its size and scope and the forces for which it calls would initially seem to be the principal factors that have determined the gret rarity of its public outings, yet nowadays performances of Mahler's Eighth Symphony are not at all uncommon; OK, the Brian is rather longer than that work and requires even larger forces, but it is a work of truly monumental power and breadth that deserves to be recognised for what it is, but the only way that'll ever happen is if someone gives it the performance that it needs - Mark Elder, anyone? I have no idea where that work came from, since there is little or no obvious precedent for it in Brian's earlier music and it is a great pity that he was simply unable to sustain anywhee near that kind of level on inspiration much beyond his fourth symphony...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

although even these are less long than the largest of Hamler's symphonies.

I am unaware of this composer.

Can you please give me further information.

Thanks

Thal

[ahinton]

I am unaware of this composer.

Can you please give me further information.

Thanks

Thal

Marc-André Hamler (1961- ). Canadian/Austrian composer of some of the most extraordinary typographically dyslexic scores in the entire history of Western music, perhaps equalled in this remarkable skill only by the Scottish composer who goes by the nom-de-plume Italian Shirt On (except that this composer has tended to reserve his own typographical dyslexia for literary works rather than musical ones).

It is amazing, is it not, Lath, how certain people whose abilities at piano playing are especially compromised tend to make all kinds of the most absurd errors when attempting to manipulate the computer keyboard when endeavouring to express themselves in words; the unwitting creation of Marc-André's Austrian Döppelgänger is perhaps one of the more notable consequences thereof. One of his favourite movies is The File of Brain, by the way...

Bets,

Asil Nadir

[ahinton]

Rather more out of order than out of line, I'd say...

Best,

Alistair