From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #249 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, July 14 1999 Volume 08 : Number 249 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Chicago, July 17th: Eaten By Her Own Dinner [Vivien Lyon ] Fwd: Flaming Lips/MABD tour ["Miles Goosens" ] Re: The Museum Of Robyn Hitchcock (Rip-off in UK) [Michael R Godwin ] Re: Distinction [Terrence M Marks ] RE: Distinction ["Chaney, Dolph L" ] godstuff: my 2 centimes [Natalie Jacobs ] distinction ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Re: distinction [Terrence M Marks ] Re: distinction [Paul Christian Glenn ] Re: Cater to Your Egoyan [was: blair witch vs. bell witch] ["Capitalism B] one more stab at Ray [DDerosa5@aol.com] the agnospel according to sharkology [Mark_Gloster@3com.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:34:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Vivien Lyon Subject: Chicago, July 17th: Eaten By Her Own Dinner Last call for celebrants: For all Fegs attending this Saturday's show at the Metro in Chicago, Dave DeRosa and I are having an Eaten By Her Own Dinner Dinner at my house at 1930 W. School St. It starts at five and we'll cab from my house to the show around 7:45 or thereabouts. Please RSVP to let me know if you're attending, and what Robyn-relevant food or drink item you might bring. Vivien _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:50:28 -0600 From: "Edward Doxtator" Subject: Well, it's been a very long trip... Hey all... I'm back. Nice to see you all. - -Doc, who's missing Chapterhouse this week. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:17:06 +0000 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: Distinction Ok, normally I would never enter into any religious discussion, being that I am an atheist and in the minority in america, condemned to "burn in hell", which I of coarse do not believe in. I have an honest question: how and why a belief in this invisible, non present, non substantive, non proof person, object "spirit"? I always want to know, but I don't really know any one of any faith that can give me a good answer. My husband and two best friends and my boss are all athiests too, and none of us understand this belief in the non existence. There is no logic behind it except a non acceptance in what reality is, a non acceptance in the nature on the world and the universe. A non acceptance that when we die we turn to dust and get eaten by worms, and that is the nature of the world. I know that alot of "christains " find "god" when they are depressed or need something to get them through a hardship, and it seems that they cking to this notion of "another world" so they can get through this on, like a placebo or a magic feather ( a la Dumbo the elephant). Yes, for an evolved naked ape like we, who have a sence of time and space, we naturally do not want that continuum to stop, but that is in nature, instince of all creatures, to live and not die. So how do you explain a belief in a nothing? I may never get it - it just isn't logical, except as a placebo for depression over the eventual death. eleanore ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:40:54 -0700 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: Fwd: Flaming Lips/MABD tour My pal Jeff Downing caught the first show of the Flaming Lips/Sebadoh/Hitchcock tour last night in St. Louis. He posted this to Loud-Fans today, but I thought it of sufficient interest to forward to the Feglist. Sounds like things got off to a rocky start. Apologies to folks like doug, Andy Snyder, and Steve Schiavo who will be seeing this twice. later, Miles - --------- Forwarded Message --------- DATE: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:30:50 From: jeff.downing@mosby.com To: loud-fans@loudfans.com Billing itself as the first "Headphone Concert Tour," the Music Against Brain Degeneration Revue, featuring the Flaming Lips, Robyn Hitchcock, Sebadoh, and Sonic Boom's EAR, stumbled out of the gates last night here in St. Louis. Although the tour has plenty of upside, the first night was marred by obscenely short sets, a twisted sonic philosophy, and a crowd packed in like commuters on a Tokyo subway. About the "Headphone" tour: they're going to be hauling a radio transmitter to each stop and broadcasting on an unused local FM frequency, so that patrons who opt to borrow a Sony Walkman (your driver's license is used as collateral) can listen to the show on a headset. In theory, this is a great idea, as it allows the fan to hear a clearer mix directly from the PA. However, the beneficial aspects of this approach were negated by a sound system that would have pleased Bob Mould's appetite for decibels; I don't exaggerate when I say that my girlfriend and I were brushing coal-black ceiling shavings off our clothes. For those attending this tour at future stops, heed the warning slip that accompanies your Walkman. The show was delayed slightly, due to the late arrival of the guy from Sonic Boom's EAR, so Robyn Hitchcock opened things up. I'm a pretty big Robyn fan, and I've witnessed a couple of less than sterling performances, but this was certainly a disappointment. Not that he wasn't in good spirits, or in bad voice or anything. It's just that he was only allotted a half-hour, in which he played a grand total of nine songs. Nine! And not one of them was graced with a proper (and Fegs out there know what I mean when I say proper) introduction. He started off strong with Gene Hackman and The Cheese Alarm, off his new one, but by the time he was halfway through Serpent at the Gates of Wisdom, the non-Feg element seemed to lose interest. They directed their gaze stageward near the end, as Robyn closed with a rollicking version of You and Oblivion and an abrasive, though always forgettable, Freeze (the oldest song of the night, I believe), before he bowed and exited stage left. Upon realizing he wasn't coming back, my mood darkened considerably. When Wayne brought out Sonic Boom's EAR (Wayne served as emcee throughout), he informed us that although EAR just flew in from London, all his electro-gadgetry was still stuffed in the bowels of a TWA jet. He only had one of his instruments with him, which he proceeded to monkey with for approximately seven minutes, before a few people up front started clapping, alerting us that he must be done. Wayne was just gaga over this kid's talent, so I'll reserve judgment until I hear a better sampling of his gift; however, last night's display was the aural equivalent of a mechanic adjusting a carburetor. Next up was Sebadoh, who Wayne claims surprised him by accepting a slot on this tour. Wayne's shock notwithstanding, this looked like Lou Barlow's wet dream: to perform for a paltry 25 minutes in front of a crowd that isn't expecting them to melt down. The set was sharp in terms of execution, but the songs congealed into lo-fi marmalade, the only real break in monotony being their periodic swapping of instruments. No-one around me appeared too unhappy to see them depart. Finally, the Flaming Lips took the stage, and roused the crowd with a multimedia blitz through Race For the Prize. Wayne's voice darted and quavered throughout (anyone know why he bothers to close one ear as he sings?), while he banged his gong, brought out the hand-puppets, and showered the crowd in glitter. Since I'm very unfamiliar with their output (besides Turn It Up and She Don't Use Jelly (only the latter was played)), I must say how impressed I was upon hearing so many great songs. The closing tune, Waitin' for the Superman, was staggeringly beautiful, enough to convince me that The Soft Bulletin is a must-buy. But, again, their set lasted a mere hour, and then they were gonzo, without an encore (this is probably another strike against the Headphone idea, since it looked like they were factoring in plenty of time at the end so that the 300 fans could return their walkmans. If this is an issue, they should consider having more than one table to distribute and collect these things). All in all, it wasn't a great night for me, but I appreciated the effort of those involved, and sincerely hope they get their collective act together quickly. And fer God's sake, give Robyn 45 minutes. At least. Jeff - --------- End Forwarded Message --------- Free web-based email, anytime, anywhere! ZDNet Mail - http://www.zdnetmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:54:59 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: The Museum Of Robyn Hitchcock (Rip-off in UK) On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 Nigel.Jarman@frco.com wrote: > I have just looked at the gift shop page. > http://www.robynhitchcock.com/ukorders.htm > They are selling the Storefront Hitchcock LP for 24.95 UKP. That is > the same as asking most of you to pay $40.13 for it, but on the US > orders page it is only $24. This is completely unfair. How can they > justify a 67% mark-up? I just checked this out. Another gripe about the UK stocks is that all the CDs on sale are Midnight editions which lack the bonus tracks available on other releases. Once again the poor old UK consumer gets short weight. - - Mike Godwin PS Disregard all earlier posts where I grumbled about wading through extraneous extra tracks. How can I grumble about the extra tracks if they aren't even there? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:8:12 -0600 From: Paul Christian Glenn Subject: Re: Re: Distinction At 7/14/99 9:17:00 AM, you wrote: >I have an honest question: how and why a belief in this invisible, non >present, non substantive, non proof person, object "spirit"? That's an extremely complex question, and one that I'm sure will vary from one Christian to another, but I think that the essentials can be covered fairly briefly. I'll try to do that here. The first question (i.e., "how do we believe?") is simple enough to answer: faith (and, for the Calvinist, you can tack "grace" on there as well). The Bible is very explicit about faith being the essential element of salvation; without it you cannot be saved; without it, it is impossible to please God, etc. The very assertion that faith is required implies that "it's harder to believe than not to" (if I may quote Steve Taylor ). It's easier to believe in the things that you can see and touch, but those things obviously do not constitute the whole of what exists (most people believe in things like love and imagination - things that affect our lives everyday, but which are intangible). The second question (i.e., "why do we believe") is much stickier, and this is where I think you're going to see the most diversity, and the most controversy. Many people (like myself) believe because they have had an undeniably real experience with "God", and while they cannot claim to understand everything about God, they are unable to ignore their experience. Others believe because they've been taught to, and they're either too weak or ambivalent to question what they've been taught. Still others believe because they find it incredible such wonder and beauty in the universe (as well as the tragic atrocities) are a product of chance. Their search for the answers leads them to God. A true and honest examination of the history of religion and supernatural experience cannot lead to anything other than agnosticism. The atheist claims that God cannot exist because the laws by which we "know" things show otherwise. The religious person will counter this by saying that if God *does* exist in the context which the Bible presents, then He/She necessarily *wouldn't* be subject to the laws by which we "prove" things. It's a catch- 22, and that is why the belief must ultimately come down to a decision. To believe in God is a leap of faith. To disbelieve in God is also a leap of faith (admittedly, a smaller one, but that is simply because of the culture in which we live - the tables throughout history and culture have been turned so that disbelieving in God was the bigger leap). As someone who has studied a bit of the history of religion, my question is "How does one justify a *dibelief* in the supernatural?" Most atheists I've met [WARNING: GENERALIZATION] have not studied much about religion, and in fact know very little about why believers believe. Their understanding of religion rarely ranges beyond what limited anecdotal experience they've had with those who profess to believe. (On the other hand, I've also met some very well-read atheists who know their theological stuff - they are exception, and even they continually fall back God's failure to adhere to physical laws - they want to measure the weight of water with a measuring tape) >I always want >to know, but I don't really know any one of any faith that can give me a >good answer. That depends entirely on what you consider a "good answer" to be. Hopefully the above constitutes a good answer. If not, please define the parameters of a "good answer" and I'll do my best to supply you with one. >There is no logic behind it except a non acceptance in what reality is, a >non acceptance in the nature on the world and the universe. Oh, there's plenty of logic in religion, if you look for it. I suspect you haven't given it an honest go (not judging you, here - just reading between the lines). That would include reading theological works which address these very questions that you're posing (Augustine, Borg, Wright, are some of the better ones - if you want pop theology [easier to swallow but not as comprehensive], you can't beat C.S. Lewis). >So how do you explain a belief in a nothing? That's a silly question, isn't it? I don't know of any Christians who believe in nothing. Hope that helps! :) Paul Christian Glenn | "Besides being complicated, trance@radiks.net | reality, in my experience, http://x-real.firinn.org | is usually odd." -C.S. Lewis Currently Reading: "The Complete Stories" by Flannery O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:27:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Re: Distinction Chad Leahy said: >i don't believe the acceptance of christ as "your >personal lord and savior" to be the only road to heaven. I thought it was more along the lines of "you can only be saved through Jesus", which is quite different. (eg. If He feels like saving Buddhists also, then they're in.) >i don't believe that the bible is "the inerrant word >of god." many christians believe this but there is no >support for such a lofty claim. doctrine. pure and simple. The problem with believing that it's in error is that you're likely to just edit out the parts that you disagree with. Christianity is about coming to God on His terms. If you just take the pieces that you like, then all you're doing it taking your pre-existing beliefs and stamping them "Approved by God" (and if you-all want a nice put-down for the Religious Right, this is probably it). >i believe most religous people worship the same god >with a different name. i believe the largest difference >to be cultural -- not spiritual. Well, there are very definite differences between religions. There are cultural differences as well; they may be larger, but the spiritual differences are still significant. Questions like "Is there a God" and "How does He behave in regard to humanity" can get very, very different answers in different religions, and without agreement on those basic points, you can't say that the religions are similar. From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: Distinction >I have an honest question: how and why a belief in this invisible, >non present, non substantive, non proof person, object "spirit"? Yes, and you managed to phrase this in rather derisive and partisan terms. Some rather popular reasons include the existance of human intelligence, the existance of universal moral standards, implication of existance by the personal need for a religious system, or the transformation of the Apostles after the Resurrection. There are others, of course. >So how do you explain a belief in a nothing? Well, that's your first problem there. It's a belief in something. A rather specifically defined something at that. C.S. Lewis explains exactly what it is better than I could. >I may never get it - it just isn't logical If you desire to believe that Christianity is false, then you're likely to believe that. And if you want logic, I highly recommend John Duns Scotus, who is easily the most logical writer I've ever seen (and the second-least readable after James Joyce). ************* Disclaimer: I am not a priest. Which Augustine books would you-all recommend? I tried Confessions, but found it too personal and flowery. Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://grove.ufl.edu/~normal normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:31:35 -0400 From: "Chaney, Dolph L" Subject: RE: Distinction Terry said: Which Augustine books would you-all recommend? I tried Confessions, but found it too personal and flowery. Funny... that's kinda what I've always *dug* about it. Made me feel more familiar with it, since that's how my writing is. 8-) Dolph np: polara ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:19:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: godstuff: my 2 centimes > She wasn't a fundamentalist, but still seemed > to take some of the points made about virgin births and floods as an > attack on her very being. I think there's a difference between engaging in intelligent debate about religion and referring to someone's deity as "a homophobic, racist prick." I have plenty of quibbles about Christianity - which is why I am not a Christian - but I somehow feel that name-calling in the presence of believers is incredibly rude and inappropriate. Religion, like sexuality, is a touchy subject and IMHO it's best to tread lightly when you don't know whose toes you might be stepping on. And no, I'm not advocating censorship. I'm advocating politeness. That's all. - - Miss Manners' bastard pagan daughter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:23:05 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: distinction I've tried to stay cool about this one, but Paul's admittedly qualified and self-confessedly anecdotal observation that atheists rather than religionists are generally the one's who haven't studied the faiths, seems (again from *my* necessarily subjective frame) so transparently untrue it's unbelieveable (now there's a good word). We nullifidians spend a lot of time trying to get to know our enemy (I speak rhetorically) Whereas most Christians I argue with don't know their own patch of ground let alone the bases other belief systems or the philosophical underpinnings of atheism. And as for your it's-more-difficult-to-believe line Paul, I'm afraid you've got me apostatizing on that one as well. There are good studies (John Schumacher's Wings Of Illusion is one) which postulate that humans are actually adapted by evolution to have a sense of the supernatural, the numinous, in order to protect them from the existential angst they come face to face with if they accept the fact that they are mortal. It's easier to disbelieve? Pull the other one Paul. You must have heard of Pascal's wager. What is Heaven/the after-life/Nirvana if it isn't a nice fat chiliastic carrot? And Hell, well, a nice weapon in the fight to maintain divisive social hierarchies throughout history. jmbc. Archhieropotentate Purgatorial in The Latter Day Church Of Nay-Sayers. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:40:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Re: distinction On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, jbranscombe@compuserve.com wrote: > I've tried to stay cool about this one, but Paul's admittedly qualified and > self-confessedly anecdotal observation that atheists rather than > religionists are generally the one's who haven't studied the faiths, seems > (again from *my* necessarily subjective frame) so transparently untrue it's > unbelieveable It's plausible. There are a lot of Christians who were brought up that way and never thought about it. There are also quite a few athiests who decided that religion was bad and haven't given it a second thought. Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://grove.ufl.edu/~normal normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:24:5 -0600 From: Paul Christian Glenn Subject: Re: distinction At 7/14/99 2:23:00 PM, you wrote: >I've tried to stay cool about this one, Right on, man. Cool is the way to be. :) >but Paul's admittedly qualified and >self-confessedly anecdotal observation that atheists rather than >religionists are generally the one's who haven't studied the faiths, seems >(again from *my* necessarily subjective frame) so transparently untrue it's >unbelieveable (now there's a good word). Well, you've misquoted me a bit there, but looking back at my original post I can see how you would have misunderstood. I didn't say that atheists were "the ones" who haven't studied the faiths, but rather that most of the atheists I've talked with haven't. At the same time, I'll tell you that most *Christians* I've talked with haven't studied the faiths either. I know very few who can do more than regurgitate the dogma they've been spoon-fed, and that's just as disappointing as the atheist who doesn't "know his enemy", so to speak. >Whereas most >Christians I argue with don't know their own patch of ground let alone the >bases other belief systems or the philosophical underpinnings of atheism. Agreed. >And as for your it's-more-difficult-to-believe line Paul, I'm afraid you've >got me apostatizing on that one as well. Heh. Well, it's not actually *my* line, but I do like it. And I do find it to be true, at least in this cultural context. >There are good studies (John >Schumacher's Wings Of Illusion is one) which postulate that humans are >actually adapted by evolution to have a sense of the supernatural, the >numinous, in order to protect them from the existential angst they come >face to face with if they accept the fact that they are mortal. Interesting. I've seen this argument made before, but the gent I was talking with couldn't come remember the book he'd read it in. I'll have to look into Schumacher's book to get a better idea of what you're saying. I will say that I approach such theories dubiously, as they often end up looking like contrived defensive devices rather than insightful expositions which argue from a standpoint of their own merit. I'll give it a shot, though. >It's easier >to disbelieve? Pull the other one Paul. You must have heard of Pascal's >wager. Pascal's wager fails miserably when measured against the spirit of the Christian religion. On a simplistic level it works beautifully (much like Lewis' lord/liar/lunatic "trilemma"), but those Christians are in error who bandy it about in an attempt to "convert" the disbeliever. >What is Heaven/the after-life/Nirvana if it isn't a nice fat >chiliastic carrot? And Hell, well, a nice weapon in the fight to maintain >divisive social hierarchies throughout history. Only when viewed as such. See, it is this kind of argument (and I'm not attacking you here, as I'm sure you didn't intend this post to be an essay - I'm just making a point) which makes many of the atheistic arguments I've encountered so vacuous. Rather than presenting well-thought arguments, these assertions build from the foundation of a presupposed belief system which directly contradicts the belief system of the "enemy". This statement (that heaven is the carrot and hell the weapon) comes far "too late" in the debate. As a debut, it works beautifully. As a finale, it's empty and ineffective. Paul Christian Glenn | "Besides being complicated, trance@radiks.net | reality, in my experience, http://x-real.firinn.org | is usually odd." -C.S. Lewis Currently Reading: "The Complete Stories" by Flannery O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:54:37 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: Re: Cater to Your Egoyan [was: blair witch vs. bell witch] don't know if Calendar is considered a feature or not. it's about an hour long. played in a theater here for a couple of weeks. very good movie. and thanks for forwarding that report, miles. woj assured me last night that they'd just be handing out headphones, which dismayed me no end as it should have foiled my scheme to tape the gigs directly from the walkmen. it sounds as if *all* of the acts will be broadcasting, yes? and yes, cynthia, woj, and me had a wonderful time at the chris chandler show last night. another sterling performance by a spectacular band. and as always, the company of fegs is the best company of all. in real life, woj curses much more than i do, and that ain't no shit. also, we've both seen South Park twice now, and both think a screenplay nomination is in order. i taped it yesterday, and have been listening to it ever since. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:20:27 EDT From: DDerosa5@aol.com Subject: one more stab at Ray www.bookfinder is pretty cool, they don't have the Gilt-edged boy or any shrot story collections. They do have a "girl in my soup" that's half the price of what I ordered it for through amazon. Oh well. I also want to find the movie, which having peter sellers in it should be easier than percy, which exists nowhere (though, ironically, i've not checked facets vid shop yet). Book finder did have a different military title, called "Sea Wrack", which I can't tell if it's a retitled book or some exclusively Canadian weirdness. Check out who sells it: Al Navis, A.B.A.C., I.L.A.B., ALMARK & CO. - Booksellers, P.O. Box 7, , Thornhill, Ontario L3T 3N1 Canada Specialty: Kennedy Assassination, History, Militaria, Espionage The title you selected is: Hitchcock, Raymond: Sea Wrack ; Michael Joseph London 1980, FIRST EDITION, 8/10 in 8/10 dw., Military Fiction MILITARY FICTION USD21.00 Think it has anything to do with Kennedy? Profiles in Spelling? Anyway, I ain't getting it. If someone buys it, let me know. I want a Ray Hitchcock book that's never been published. Stapled together. that sort of thing. Guess I should watch for it in my dreams. (All the best books are there.) dave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:30:56 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: the agnospel according to sharkology This won't answer any questions about you. It might answer a couple about me. You probably didn't want to know. I was raised Catholic, but was dislodged by the reckless and hypocritical behavior of a few of its particular lieutenants. I stopped going to church when I was about 12, began a long path of soul-searching and religion-sampling. I can honestly say that under the amount of scrutiny that most of my life demands, the bindings of organized belief systems crumble under their flaws (for me.) I eventually became somewhat of a proud atheist for a long time. Of course, one of the most compelling attractions of atheism is the amount of agressive venom and propaganda from organized religion of which I have at times felt the object. After wrestling with the question more, and dealing with private mysteries, etc., over time I have found myself interested in the idea of a starwarsian force concept (this is an oversimplification even for a sharkboy concept), while understanding that my tiny brain will not attain a full grasp of whatever is the profound overlying cosmic truth. I realize that in my analysis of statistical probabilities, I am technically still an atheist, but with the desire- and a small amount of mystical experience- to believe that there are some etherial mysterious bonds which happen beyond the whim of circumstance. In reality, because atheism is kind of a religion, and I'm not all that certain about that either, I feel that I am now more of a practicing devout agnostic. I really think that full grasp and understanding on my part is not possible at this juncture, and I remain skeptical of my ability to obtain it in the future. As you are not me, I am fully capable of realizing that this system is not for you. (I know I'm babbling, but another thing that I am devoutly against is procreation. There's just too damn many people, and making more of them is going to make problems worse, not better. If we utilize some of the energy we are wasting on multiplying the number of potential future consumers/souls/etc. and start focusing on education, justice, and compassion, everything will get better. But I understand that having been vasectomized doesn't allow me to directly multiply the forces of this belief.) In line with Mr. Hitchcock's view, I find the existence of organized religion to be somewhat profane. I will, however accept that some people are better off on this plane with a specific, imposed, structured belief. I am brutally offended by the huge, vomiting, judgement machines that publicly wield anger and animosity for others by various beliefs and sects- especially those whose doctrines support love and peace and harmony and 'judge ye not' tenants. Also, the incredible arrogance which underlies the selling of faith "I've found the right belief system for me, so it must be the right one for you," is really offensive to me. That said, most of the only caretakers for the have-nots in American society are houses of faith. Many are the first to become involved in the rebuilding of a destroyed community. Many organize donations for troubled places all over the world. And many of my favorite people (some on this list) profess one or another faith, which keeps me from painting faith with a wide brush full of mookie stinks. Unfortunately, the misconceptions on part of each side contribute to our difficulty with discourse. I really honestly believe that we are all more alike than we are different, and that if we look at each other with a microscope, we miss the opportunity to see the greatness of each other and any possibility of connecting as humans. (As all belief systems become personal ones, from the eyes of any one of its members, all others can be sinners, as the interpretation is, by necessity at least somewhat at odds, the view of the individual never is actually completely subdued, but I am willing to put my own view ahead of relinquishing even the perception of control. Belief and scrutiny suspension can happen for me in a theater for 1.5 hours in a heartwarming tale about some little kids in a Colorado town who sneak into a movie. It just doesn't quite work in the context of my life and over such a great geological time.) One of the most surprising aspects of avoiding the "must have faith" side of the question is that if I perish without possibility of afterlife, do my actions as a living, breathing person on this plane change? The answer is yes, but in an unexpected way. What if this is all there is? I may not only have to actually do something to justify my presence, at least to me, and tread lightly while I'm here. This becomes the same answer to the question of "what if there is a reasonable god?" Our legal department has advised me to immediately remove any possible suggestion in your mind that links sharkboy and your god, except by the most general association (sharkboy = one of the items on the list of living, not living, or dead for all eternity, which may or may not have some association to god, gods, or no god as you perceive.) I have had great conversations on and off list with Dolph, Rebecca, Kay, and lots of others who have a _way_ different religious view of the world, but we can almost uniquely discuss even things that mattered a lot to us without getting mean or mad. Over arguments about religion onlist, we've lost some really good people in the past- thanks for treading lightly. - -- To recap: I'm doing what I can. Some things are just too big for Sharkboy to understand. I also understand that there are people who can comprehend a lot more than I can, and on any given day _actually_ know where their keys are, etc. Y'know, I tend to write longer bits when I'm avoiding the vastness that is my work and the nearness that is my deadline, and tininess which is my attention span for grindstonenosedness. Happies, - -M(sh)ark(boy)g ps. Also, I'm not trying to get converts, but if you sign up today you get a free afterlife (with some limitations.) Oh, and this isn't one of those cheesy Quailesian multilevel marketing pyramid schemes, but do bring ten of your friends and tell them to bring ten of their friends. Oh, and money. Bring lots of money. And tell them to bring lots of money. And Hmuh shampoo and birdtreatz. (Residents of Utah, Saskachewan, Fiji, New York, Maryland, Los Angeles County, and the planet Kerpluplu may be legally prevented eligibility to any afterlife, due to recent legislation and zoning restrictions.) ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #249 *******************************