A courteous, intelligent and informed discussion about religion

[Don Basilio]

Let me try again and then go to bed.

The protestant view is that if everyone has direct access to the Bible, they will be good Christians. But there are horrible, vindictive passages in the Bible and it just doesn't work like that. Scripture is to be read, for Christians, in the light of the creeds and eucharistic worship. The Dutch pastor ff mentions ignores the creeds and just takes scripture as all that counts.

This is a digression. I'll respond to richard when I'm rested after a good night's sleep,

[french frank]

The Dutch pastor ff mentions ignores the creeds

Rejects the creeds, I'd say.

[cavatina]

Though I suppose a large part of the reason I absolutely kill at poker is I have such a baby face and soft voice, nobody would ever suspect me of being a ruthless aggressive b**** who has the mathematical ability to calculate odds in the middle of a poker hand. I suppose once you know that, I lose some of my edge, but hey! I'm game.

Er.........

Oh now now, I meant at the poker table. No prisoners.

Anyway, "aggressive" has a very specific meaning; let me explain it to you. In poker, there are four basic styles of play: playing "tight" means you only start with a limited range of hands that give you the best odds to win, usually the top 10-15%. "Loose" means you'll play and bet with anything. "Passive" means you let other people raise the pot; "aggressive" means you'll raise everybody with anything whether it's a good hand or statistically garbage. So overall, you can play tight-passive, tight-aggressive, loose-passive or loose-aggressive.

It's been statistically proven that the key to winning poker is to be unpredictable: whatever it is people think they know about you, make sure they're always at least a little bit wrong. Although many of the top players debate whether it's best to be tight or loose at high levels of play, everyone agrees that for average games, a tight/aggressive style of play has a better outcome in the long run: be very selective with your starting hands, but once you commit to playing a hand, go for broke and raise the hell out of everybody. The more advanced you are and the better you know the odds, the more flexible you can be in making your table persona and playing style fit the game you happen to be in. Surrounded by tight players? Loosen up and bluff them. Surrounded by loose players? Tighten up and aggressively swoop in and kill them when you have a hand that's likely to have the best odds. And as Richard Nixon once said, "Never underestimate your opponent's ability to underestimate you".

Actually, that paragraph is a pretty fair assessment of my approach to most things.

Sigh. I used to play a lot online, but they pulled the plug on FullTilt, my online poker room of choice--agh! If you're wondering how I had time for it, the answer is multitasking: Radio 4 or some educational lecture in the background, an online poker game in the corner, a couple of arts, science, or music journal articles open in browsers, and downloading music, books, or software in the background. Insomnia rules!

[cavatina]

With a bit of luck cavatina can expand on this when she gets back from the Prom

Ha! Don't encourage me! Actually, even more important than his views on metaphysics, Schopenhauer has some of the most trenchant psychological insights to offer I've ever read. Did you know he was a huge influence on both Freud AND Darwin? And Nietzsche? And artists like Kandinsky and Paul Klee? And Wagner and Mahler? And a ton of French Symbolist/Decadent authors and poets from Baudelaire on down? There's so much to say I hardly know where to start.

Come to think of it, why don't we open up a "Influence of Schopenhauer" board? No? Oh, nevermind.

[cavatina]

Just checked my rear view and I'm an ape with better thumbs, me

Ha! Well, at least you're not a mandrill.
Which reminds me, have you ever seen what a chimpanzee that lost its hair looks like?
Food for thought indeed.

[cavatina]

Is 'the Mystery of Being' an easy read??....ie. is it too dense for a light weight like me....

Oh, I wouldn't say it's easy or hard...you might give it a shot and see if it grabs you. Actually, another work you might like is George Bataille's "Inner Experience":

"To give in a few paragraphs what this book is about is an impossible task, let alone evaluate it. Upon its publication in 1943 it took Sartre over 40 pages to review it. He called Bataille a dangerous madman as well as 'a new mystic'. (Noteworthy is that Bataille was friends with and exerted influence upon philosophers and artists ranging from Michel Foucault to Pablo Picasso, and is one of the most colorful 'bohemians' of the 20th century.) Which is funny, because "Inner Experience", one of Bataille's most influential and most important works, begins with a repudiation of mysticism. Shortly, Bataille here explores that what he calls Experience, settled within a range of terms like "non-knowledge", "communication", "rapture", "anguish", absence", "night", but largely over-capping, "ecstasy".

Essentially, Experience is the absolvement of the I, an abyss where nothing 'is', produced by the tension between our conflicting desires to become everything and to retain our autonomy. This Experience once was made possible in sacrifice or feudal war, where man came in touch with violence, excess, and death. However, since religion and the state have gone into decline this Experience has become more and more Inner instead of collective.

Bataille explores where this Experience still lingers - in the festival, eroticism, sickness, art, war, financial spilling, violence, etc. But "Inner Experience" cannot be called easily accessible. Do not expect a schematic disposition of Experience, or a structured thesis with arguments and a conclusion. Rather, Bataille shows the elusiveness and the impossibility of describing Experience by accounts of boredom, dissatisfaction with his book, by contradicting his own words, and by riddling it with autobiographical data.

Thus, it is more in style of his example Friedrich Nietzsche in his attempts to show that 'communication' is incommunicable save through Experience by writing in a playful way, playing with words which meanings are shifting and re-locating themselves. Therefore this is a book that will not be 'understood' on its first reading, but will be understood differently again and again upon subsequent readings."

.

[cavatina]

Body language, easily intimidating or provocative in face-to-face situations [...]
S-A

Speaking of provocative facial expressions, this reminds me of a funny example of how accurate nonverbal communication can be when two people know each other well:

Years ago, I was watching a TV show with a woman I knew extremely well--albeit dysfunctionally-- but wasn't getting along with at the time. Suddenly, the plot turned to some hectoring, overbearing, loudmouthed character making sarcastic wisecracks at everyone's expense. Neither one of us said a thing. As the scene went on, she looked increasingly agitated, and started scowling. Finally, she couldn't stand it anymore, turned to me and screamed: "STOP THINKING THAT!!" She somehow read my face, and was completely right: I actually was sitting there thinking how uncanny it was that the character was exactly like her. Busted!

Not a good sign when you can pick fights without even opening your mouth.

[charles t]

For anyone interested in William Tyndale there are two books readily available

God's Secretaries by Adam Nicholson and William Tyndale by Brian Moynahan. I think Nicholson did some religion programmes for BBC4

Glad to have found these postings. Strongly recommend the DVD:

God's Outlaw, The Story of William Tyndale - a dramatization starring Roger Rees.

[Nick Armstrong]

Years ago, I was watching a TV show with a woman I knew extremely well--albeit dysfunctionally-- but wasn't getting along with at the time. Suddenly, the plot turned to some hectoring, overbearing, loudmouthed character making sarcastic wisecracks at everyone's expense. Neither one of us said a thing. As the scene went on, she looked increasingly agitated, and started scowling. Finally, she couldn't stand it anymore, turned to me and screamed: "STOP THINKING THAT!!" She somehow read my face, and was completely right: I actually was sitting there thinking how uncanny it was that the character was exactly like her. Busted!

[mercia]

financial spilling

what's that?

[french frank]

That's one facial expression into which a great deal could be read!

[salymap]

ff Isn't there a 'rule' somewhere that forbids five consecutive posts from the same person? And if there isn't shouldn't there be?

[amateur51]

Ha! Well, at least you're not a mandrill.
Which reminds me, have you ever seen what a chimpanzee that lost its hair looks like?
Food for thought indeed.

Mother!!

[french frank]

I don't know about that, but I hope Don B will be able to find his way back to where he left off when he returns (Msg#92)!

[doversoul1]

Also, can we try staying on the topic, especially when OP is fairly specific about the subject? I know we go off and that’s one of the funs of these forums but we can at least be courteous to the OP and avoid going off at full tilt on our own subjects. Start a new thread in that case.

Re: Msg 103