NJS

Not a bad moral in context but as I said that ignores the genocide angle of the tale. It's like the tale of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son - you can say it shows that faith is rewarded and that God is loving for sparing the son but at the same time it's fuck off mental cruelty to even ask it of someone even knowing you're going to let them off - again not exactly a "good" God. I realise that there is a dichotomy between the God of the OT who should be feared and the NT /Koran who should be loved but that's some level of schizoprenia to get over.

I don't mind contemplating a Deist God who may have created the universe - though I doubt he exists - but that concept does not relate in anyway to man made Gods like Yahweh. How can you doubt something exists if you have no data to go on? Surely that is as much a belief systim? Yes? As you were. Theres no positive evidence which is where the requirement lies. I just said I don't mind contemplating before dismissing it - unlike the Theist Gods which aren't even worth that much effort.

I don't mind contemplating a Deist God who may have created the universe - though I doubt he exists - but that concept does not relate in anyway to man made Gods like Yahweh.

Europe being nowhere near where the story is set. The story it was stolen from (Gilgamesh) supposedly was based on the inundation that formed the black seas but that was way before 4000 BC.

One of the things in Dogma I love is the idea that God visits anonymously to do things he likes.

I think the sons had wives/kids - in fact one of them (Ham) supposedly went off to populate Africa which then explains blacks and slaves somehow.

Well his plans probably changed when West Ham released him without the extra year or whatever it was.

In his defence, I think the West Ham move was supposedly to be near the kids rather than the wife - though I agree it was iffy.

In think The Inspiration is sometimes willing to debate but he's at the more sensible end of the spectrum and not a creationist. We probably need Parky to lend his unique viewpoint.

I've always liked Islington - get off at Angel and just wander up the High St.

I'm sure this has been justified by saying there must have been more water in the past which has evaporated into space. I think some physicists have claculated the excess water would have severely affected the Earths tilt and orbit though (apart from the evaporation bit being bollocks). I saw a calculation based on the volume required to cover the earth to any kind of depth (never mind to cover Everest) which came up with a ludicrous amount of water which would have needed millions of years to fall as rain. Of course the writers thought the world was a tad smaller than it actually is. In general it's the old argument - if you want to believe in the God you say you do than he could have just clicked his fingers to drown the planet without rain so don't try and mix science in with your total bollocks.

As well as the fact that the wood they supposedly used wouldn't have supported a boat anywhere near big ebough - even allowing for the get out clause they use for the number of species - by describing "kinds" as some kind of supersets of animals. Good story though. They love to produce illustrated stories from the bible for kids but they never look at the dubious morality which is funnily enough supposed to be the whole point of the stories in the first place.

0.858 3.9x average. I rock 0.327 for me - thought I was going to be the highest for a minute.

As well as the fact that the wood they supposedly used wouldn't have supported a boat anywhere near big ebough - even allowing for the get out clause they use for the number of species - by describing "kinds" as some kind of supersets of animals.

akin? Even allowing for the metaphor which most Christians supposedly accept, ask them what the moral lesson is of a God who destroys all humans apart from one family including all children because he doesn't like how a few behave.

I like the way betting on the failure of peoples assets when it's your own clients is fraud but when it's other peoples clients it's good business - either way people losing homes = profit.

I knew they weren't big on gay rights (but then again not that many places are) but apart from that they are reasonable within the context. Americans need enemies - I also think it's a shame nobody takes them to task over Cuba.

I know it's not but it would be funny if he lived in Singapore (though he obviously isn't 18).

Watched the first ep of Spartacus - Blood and Sand last night after someone at work mentioned it. It's run by one of the best writers on Angel/Buffy and looks quite promising - lots of blood and a bit of tit.

The current system allows a party to govern without checks by gaining the support of 31% of the country. That just is not right. The only other government in Europe which operates a system as unrepresentative as ours is France. It doesn't matter what kind of system you have as long as decently clever people with the right motives come to the top. Unfortunately I have to hope that would start to happen when total power was no longer on offer to twats. I just can't help remembering Major having to horse trade with the Ulster Unionists to remain in power at one stage - I remember a remark about how they had to pass a nasty little law which allowed the RUC to take away even more rights from people and I could see the same thing happening with the BNP or George Galloway - or even other single issue MPs which are quite likely. As you say if it was all about noble checks and balances then it would be fine - people being petty little shits puts a dampener on that imo.

I think my instinctive mistrust of PR is starting to kick in - all this stuff about Clegg deciding who's in charge when his party may still come third seems somehow wrong to me. And of course that's before considering possible BNP and other minority party influence. I've always thought the current ssytem to be flawed but I'm still not convinced the alternatives are any better.

I like Kevin Smith's story about how he joined the group of people at his house protesting about Dogma who had no clue who he was so he was able to have quite a reasonable discussion with them about their objections - of course none of them had seen it.

I'd assumed so because I remember reading something about Adams and McGuinness being able to be "full" MPs whereas previously they'd just been provided with office facilities.

Mi5 and 6 swear oaths to the crown tho don't they? I think the armed forces do and until recently MPs did - the latter always made me reluctant to accept the UK as a true democracy because it meant someone like me who would never swear an oath wouldn't be able to be an MP (although I realise the Sinn Fein ones did so on a limited basis).

She would have flooded London if Ipswich had beaten us.