🚀 go-pugleaf

Diamond <Diam...@ix.I.Dont.Think.so> wrote in article
<32F69F...@ix.I.Dont.Think.so>...
> Willy wrote:
> > 
> > REIN888 <REI...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
> > <32F572...@prodigy.net>...
> > > Hello!  I wanted to share something very important.
> >         (snipped a bunch of crap out)
> > > Jesus is now your Good Shepherd, taking care of you and
> > > helping you!
> > > Thanks for reading and choosing life.  Hope to hear from you soon!
> > >
> > 
> > Thanks for the story...
> > 
> > Now do you want to hear the one about the Princess & The Seven Little
guys?
> > 
> > Also. Why do christians try to discount other traditional beliefs that
> > pre-date Jesus?
> > 
> > Willy
> > 
> > 
> 
> Not to start a thread on the wrong newsgroup, but Christianities
> beliefs, which stem from Judiahism( (I know I must have spelled that
> wrong) Is the oldest. And one of the only 3 or 4 world Religions.
> --

John's semi-pertinent micro-ramble-spew:

++ Aren't the animistic cults and such the roots of all official organized
type religion?

++ I suppose if you're some caveman dead set on anthropomorphizing the
unknown you're pretty much limited in your choice of heavy archetypal
representations to: Mommy; Daddy; or the Big Scary (but somehow...
attractive) Monster. So there really can't be that many descreet roots to
the world's religions.

++ Does it look to you like mommy/daddy cults would be more suceptible to
the incursion of ingrown, indulgent bullshit that one based on big scary
monsters? It seems to me that bsm cults would serve less well as a crutch
and therefor lead faster to higher insights about the mystery. Is this the
prob with christianity?- that it appeals too strongly to the juvenile
palate?

++ I mean, I have no beef with love-is-the-answer (any more than I have
with any other hyphenated phrase anyway) as a spiritual ideal but that
seems to be the last thing I ever hear christians preaching about. (Thus I
suspect max-love is NOT the central issue on their minds).

++ Doesn't it seem kind of fucked-up to you that a supposedly reasoning
entity can simaultaneously say A) <The ultimate nature of the universe is
indeed an unfathomable, infinite mystery.> and B) <Now let me tell you some
facts about the universe. In fact I've got a book right here that wraps it
up nicely>. Contradictory innit?

++ It strikes me that if there's a wrong step, it's certainty.

				-J

PS: comments??????????????????????