ONE OF THE BEST
images explaining the construction of the Giza pyramids—namely, how they got those cute little blocks up there:
(wait for it) …
… one of the best renditions of the Christian fishy symbol. Ever~!
Both available on U-toobe.
Just click ’em.
Or, don’t click ’em …
or didn’t, but it seems I be one.
It’s amazing what you stumble over whilst following trains of thought—a miracle!
“What’s a miracle, Mr Argus? Are you being sarcastic again?”
(Oh no … Little Virginia, loaded for bear … I’ll ignore her, she might go disappear herself.)
I was following some stuff that sets in context my own schooling and stumbled over a word meaning ‘self-taught’. (It was in a Wiki article on an author I’d read back in the heady days of people running about with flowers in their gun barrels.)
But I shan’t tell her that. Let her fret, it’ll twang her curiosity. Little girls are nothing if not curious critturs—
“Oh! You’re blogging again … definitely sarcastic, then.”
And just like that she’s gone, possibly off to ruin someone else’s morning and leave ’em thinking that perhaps a second coffee wouldn’t go amiss … bitch …
sole unique pathways to unique unity with the unique
In 1993, the Parliament convened at the Palmer House hotel in Chicago. Over 8,000 people from all over the world, from many diverse religions, gathered to celebrate, discuss and explore how religious traditions can work together on the critical issues which confront the world. A document, “Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration“, mainly drafted by Hans Küng, set the tone for the subsequent ten days of discussion. This global ethic was endorsed by many of the attending religious and spiritual leaders who were part of the parliament assembly.
—that the above quote (from Wiki) must trigger the semper excreta reflex, no?
(If “A word, to the wise, is sufficient” my cynicism may seem a bit superfluous)(but I doubt it) …
- All three of Him. Christianity is a bit parsonmonious here—some religions have hundreds, even thousands of ’em.
vomit … oops …
—make of it what you will:
“… Suzuki subscribed to the idea that religions are each a sort of organism, which is (through time) subject to “irritation” and having a capacity to change or evolve …”
Suzuki was a lauded expert in his field (philosophy) (not motor-bikes) and his axiomatic observation needed stating—so he stated it.
Kudos to him~!
SO THERE WE HAVE IT FROM
an expert. An expert who thinks that religions change in order to better survive. He was an observant man and not afraid to state his case, I like him — what a pity he wasn’t a Christian … probably better for him; in the wrong time and/or place he might have been guest of honour at a Fire Festival in celebration of the infinite mercy of a compassionate omnipotent God …
—instead of inspiring warriors to paint cute little chickens. And furthermore, buy now and you get the disclaimer below entirely FREE—
No chickens or slightly tubby Oriental swordsman-monks were injured, damaged, infected, or otherwise hurt in the course of writing this post.
again, Mr Argus …
Hard luck, Toots! Here it comes—so deep breath, close your eyes, cross your legs and think of England:
WE’VE BEEN SOLD A PUP!
(actually, lots of pups, but who’s counting?)
be aware that—regardless of truth— the academic professionals (being people who have invested in education and now use the fruits of their labours to defend their turf) (much like anyone else) will NOT countenance any threat to their dominance. No?
whatever they have absorbed as ‘fact’ will stay locked in forever as FACT.
BUT don’t fret.
On occasion some outfielder comes in despite the flak and drops bombshells of unassailable evidence revealing the current paradigms false, wrong, a wee bit totally incorrect … and old hat. Junk.
And so some of the ‘knowledge’ gets quietly revamped. To hell with any ‘facts’ from past doctrines, they get quietly buried; the newest facts become “This is exactly what WE were saying all along!”
I have two filters where knowledge is concerned:
- I look for apparent contradictions, and
- does it make sense?
The Establishment has much to answer for but so long as it holds all the power progress is halted—
—until their dams burst under the accumulating weight of no-longer-deniable apostate facts. (Yes, Little Virginia … Academia too is Church.)
Here’s an instance (14 minutes)—
—make of it what you will* .
For myself I still have faith in one Virginia Steen McIntyre. And I bitterly regret that I cannot go back through time to kick the shit out of those good doctors (all highly qualified) who so wisely/cleverly prevented Semelweiss from sabotaging medicine …
And the beat goes on, the beat goes onnnn …
* Clue: I’m with him~!
and stop one—
“For example, to test men for apologetics knowledge, it’s really easy – just ask them what the significance of cosmic microwave background radiation is, what chirality is, what the significance of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is, and what is the difference between the deductive and inductive problem of evil. If they can’t answer all four of those then you can’t marry them. Biblical manhood concerns are not check-boxes on the marriage application form – they’re long-form essay questions. Judging the man’s ability to do silly stuff, like get a tattoo or clown around in a bar, is just not relevant to making the marriage serve God. A woman’s personal preferences don’t decide here – evidence decides. (So long as the goal of marriage is to serve God* , instead of to make women happy) …”
From the same source as in my previous post.
You know, I think this guy would have made a brilliant Muslim … given but an accident of birth. (Which of course is all a part of God’s ineffable plan—Him being omni-everything it couldn’t be otherwise, could it?)
* To serve ‘God’? Or is it to serve God’s officers on Earth—by swelling their coffers? Tithe on, little dreamers … you may be piling up pelf on Earth for your church but thou art piling up greater investments in Heaven**. (A much better win/win … you just try stuffing a Pope, bishop, or priest through the eye of a needle~!)
** And they’ll all be waiting for you at God’s table.