OT: What Happens If We Ever Discover Alien Life?

[Judith Latham]

https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php


That will be the end of organized religion



Judith

[Hank Rogers]

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

Nope, folks will simply invent some new gods to explain the aliens.

And some new scriptures which foretell the arrival of the aliens.

[T]

Post by Hank Rogers

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

Nope, folks will simply invent some new gods to explain the aliens.

Oh brother.

Post by Hank Rogers
And some new scriptures which foretell the arrival of the aliens.

Hardly

If you are thinking that the aliens would confirm
everything the Liberal religion teaches, you will
be in for a rude surprise. Liberalism is for
societies in decline. They would never be able to
achieve FTL (faster than light) travel. The society
would be very stagnant.

It would be an exciting time and I hope our curiosity
would not drive them away. Oh sure, there will
be some nuts, but no more than we already have.

-T (T/Mr.T/Todd/Dude/His Resplendence)

[alan_m]

Post by Hank Rogers

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

Nope, folks will simply invent some new gods to explain the aliens.
And some new scriptures which foretell the arrival of the aliens.

There is already a UK TV channel dedicated to this already. The (USA)
experts telling us about how aliens built the Egyptian and South
American pyramids, Stonehenge, how they used the Nazca lines for
navigation, why ships disappear in the Bermuda triangle and why the Ark
of the Covenant is a nuclear reactor.

The experts the TV channel role out on a regular are just about as
believable as our own David Ickeand and his theory on the genetically
modified human–Archon hybrid race of reptilian shape-shifters who are
the worlds political leaders, although this may explain Trump's hair.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by alan_m

Post by Hank Rogers
And some new scriptures which foretell the arrival of the aliens.

There is already a UK TV channel dedicated to this already. The (USA)
experts telling us about how aliens built the Egyptian and South
American pyramids, Stonehenge, how they used the Nazca lines for
navigation, why ships disappear in the Bermuda triangle and why the Ark
of the Covenant is a nuclear reactor.
The experts the TV channel role out on a regular are just about as
believable as our own David Ickeand and his theory on the genetically
modified human–Archon hybrid race of reptilian shape-shifters who are
the worlds political leaders, although this may explain Trump's hair.

Richie Sunak is clearly some form of snake.

But Two Tier Kier is clearly a transmuted harbour rat.
And Our Ange is definitely more of a ferret, stoat or weasel.

[Joe]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:17:30 +0100

Post by alan_m

Post by Hank Rogers

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

Nope, folks will simply invent some new gods to explain the aliens.
And some new scriptures which foretell the arrival of the aliens.

There is already a UK TV channel dedicated to this already. The (USA)
experts telling us about how aliens built the Egyptian and South
American pyramids, Stonehenge, how they used the Nazca lines for
navigation, why ships disappear in the Bermuda triangle and why the
Ark of the Covenant is a nuclear reactor.
The experts the TV channel role out on a regular are just about as
believable as our own David Ickeand and his theory on the genetically
modified human–Archon hybrid race of reptilian shape-shifters who are
the worlds political leaders, although this may explain Trump's hair.

I would disagree, as the extreme hostility directed at Trump by most
world leaders and all world media suggests that he *isn't* one of the
lizards.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Joe
I would disagree, as the extreme hostility directed at Trump by most
world leaders and all world media suggests that he *isn't* one of the
lizards.

Applause for joe!

IT COULD ALL BE TRUE.

And that is the secret of a good conspiracy theory. It COULD BE TRUE.
And the odd one actually is.

[alan_m]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
I would disagree, as the extreme hostility directed at Trump by most
world leaders and all world media suggests that he *isn't* one of the
lizards.

Applause for joe!
IT COULD ALL BE TRUE.
And that is the secret of a good conspiracy theory. It COULD BE TRUE.
And the odd one actually is.

Haven't 25% of American been abducted and probed by aliens?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by alan_m

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
I would disagree, as the extreme hostility directed at Trump by most
world leaders and all world media suggests that he *isn't* one of the
lizards.

Applause for joe!
IT COULD ALL BE TRUE.
And that is the secret of a good conspiracy theory. It COULD BE TRUE.
And the odd one actually is.

Haven't 25% of American been abducted and probed by aliens?

Probably suppressed memory of their birth in an American Hospital

[Rock Stolid]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by alan_m

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Joe
I would disagree, as the extreme hostility directed at Trump by most
world leaders and all world media suggests that he *isn't* one of the
lizards.

Applause for joe!
IT COULD ALL BE TRUE.
And that is the secret of a good conspiracy theory. It COULD BE TRUE.
And the odd one actually is.

Haven't 25% of American been abducted and probed by aliens?

Probably suppressed memory of their birth in an American Hospital

Ah no, not anywhere near 25%:

https://www.youtube.com/@WhitleyStrieberDreamland

[Rock Stolid]

Post by Joe
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:17:30 +0100

Post by alan_m

Post by Hank Rogers

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

Nope, folks will simply invent some new gods to explain the aliens.
And some new scriptures which foretell the arrival of the aliens.

There is already a UK TV channel dedicated to this already. The (USA)
experts telling us about how aliens built the Egyptian and South
American pyramids, Stonehenge, how they used the Nazca lines for
navigation, why ships disappear in the Bermuda triangle and why the
Ark of the Covenant is a nuclear reactor.
The experts the TV channel role out on a regular are just about as
believable as our own David Ickeand and his theory on the genetically
modified human–Archon hybrid race of reptilian shape-shifters who are
the worlds political leaders, although this may explain Trump's hair.

I would disagree, as the extreme hostility directed at Trump by most
world leaders and all world media suggests that he *isn't* one of the
lizards.

+1

[Rock Stolid]

Post by alan_m

Post by Hank Rogers

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

Nope, folks will simply invent some new gods to explain the aliens.
And some new scriptures which foretell the arrival of the aliens.

There is already a UK TV channel dedicated to this already. The (USA)
experts telling us about how aliens built the Egyptian and South
American pyramids, Stonehenge, how they used the Nazca lines for
navigation, why ships disappear in the Bermuda triangle and why the Ark
of the Covenant is a nuclear reactor.
The experts the TV channel role out on a regular are just about as
believable as our own David Ickeand and his theory on the genetically
modified human–Archon hybrid race of reptilian shape-shifters who are
the worlds political leaders, although this may explain Trump's hair.

Or more likely his:
Loading Image...

[alan_m]

Post by Rock Stolid

Post by alan_m

Post by Hank Rogers

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

Nope, folks will simply invent some new gods to explain the aliens.
And some new scriptures which foretell the arrival of the aliens.

There is already a UK TV channel dedicated to this already. The (USA)
experts telling us about how aliens built the Egyptian and South
American pyramids, Stonehenge, how they used the Nazca lines for
navigation, why ships disappear in the Bermuda triangle and why the
Ark of the Covenant is a nuclear reactor.
The experts the TV channel role out on a regular are just about as
believable as our own David Ickeand and his theory on the genetically
modified human–Archon hybrid race of reptilian shape-shifters who are
the worlds political leaders, although this may explain Trump's hair.

https://www.wallofcelebrities.com/celebrity/giorgio-tsoukalos/pictures/xxlarge/giorgio-tsoukalos_2409843.jpg

Skull formed by binding a child's head from birth, still practiced until
the 1950s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation

[Rock Stolid]

Post by alan_m

Post by Rock Stolid

Post by alan_m

Post by Hank Rogers

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

Nope, folks will simply invent some new gods to explain the aliens.
And some new scriptures which foretell the arrival of the aliens.

There is already a UK TV channel dedicated to this already. The (USA)
experts telling us about how aliens built the Egyptian and South
American pyramids, Stonehenge, how they used the Nazca lines for
navigation, why ships disappear in the Bermuda triangle and why the
Ark of the Covenant is a nuclear reactor.
The experts the TV channel role out on a regular are just about as
believable as our own David Ickeand and his theory on the genetically
modified human–Archon hybrid race of reptilian shape-shifters who are
the worlds political leaders, although this may explain Trump's hair.

https://www.wallofcelebrities.com/celebrity/giorgio-tsoukalos/pictures/xxlarge/giorgio-tsoukalos_2409843.jpg

Skull formed by binding a child's head from birth, still practiced until
the 1950s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation

In imitation of whom or what?

https://anunnakimovie.blogspot.com/2017/03/anunnaki-movie.html

https://www.deviantart.com/sancient/art/Annunaki-313561371

Loading Image...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Hank Rogers

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

Nope, folks will simply invent some new gods to explain the aliens.
And some new scriptures which foretell the arrival of the aliens.

twas ever thus..

Loading Image...

[badgolferman]

Post by Hank Rogers

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

Nope, folks will simply invent some new gods to explain the aliens.
And some new scriptures which foretell the arrival of the aliens.

Aliens were the original gods. They created Man by manipulating the
genes of monkeys with their own genes. We've been worshipping aliens
all along. Haven't you ever watched the History channel's Ancient
Aliens?

[T]

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

Hi Judith,

I never read the article.

I would say, that aliens would get awfully tired
after a while with all our questions.

I have said for a long time:

Since the first human eye saw the first
star, we were meant to go there.

So, at the top of my questions list would be
FTL (faster than light) travel, so we could
finally touch the stars.

Now as far as some here -- collectivists, perverts,
groomers, atheists, abolitionists - thinking that
Aliens would confirm that everything they thought
was true, I highly doubt it. I would see them as
having a strong moral code. Being able to
travel between the start would require a vibrant
society, and that would require a strong moral code.

As a strong religious believer, I would pepper them
with all kinds of questions about their religious
beliefs and the corresponding moral codes that
came from them.

And this is no different from my strong curiosity
I have about other religions on this planet. With
the exception of Liberalism, most of the major
religions have pretty much the same moral code.
For instance, Christianity use to be a cult of
Judaism and share virtually the same moral code.
Islam shares a similar code, but only towards
other Muslims. Eastern religions also have a
strong moral code as to how you treat other.
They all have this in common and all serve as
a force for good in this world. (The Muslims
need a "reformation".)

It would be an exciting time and I hope our curiosity
would not drive them away. Oh sure, there will
be some nuts, but no more than we already have.

-T (T/Mr.T/Todd/Dude/His Resplendence)

[alan_m]

Post by T
I would see them as
having a strong moral code.  Being able to
travel between the start would require a vibrant
society, and that would require a strong moral code.

You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!

Do you require some mythical fairy in the sky to tell you what is right
or wrong?

[T]

Post by alan_m

Post by T
I would see them as
having a strong moral code.  Being able to
travel between the start would require a vibrant
society, and that would require a strong moral code.

You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!

True. But you need religious people around you so
you can copy theirs.

For example:
Whatsoever you would have others do unto you, do unto them.

Post by alan_m
Do you require some mythical fairy in the sky to tell you what is right
or wrong?

Oh you know what, I have a personal relationship with both
my creator and done of his saints. To me it is as obvious
as the nose on my face.


And you need us around for a lot of reasons:

"We have no government armed with power capable of
contending with human passions unbridled by morality
and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only
for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other."
-- John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of
Independence, the Bill of Rights and our
second President.

[Joe]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 04:04:51 -0700

Post by T

Post by alan_m
You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!

True. But you need religious people around you so
you can copy theirs.
Whatsoever you would have others do unto you, do unto them.

That's not an especially religious rule, any people grouping together
will have this idea. And there are some religions where it only applies
to fellow-members, and not to people outside the religion, who are not
considered to be people.

[T]

Post by Joe
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 04:04:51 -0700

Post by T

Post by alan_m
You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!

True. But you need religious people around you so
you can copy theirs.
Whatsoever you would have others do unto you, do unto them.

That's not an especially religious rule, any people grouping together
will have this idea. And there are some religions where it only applies
to fellow-members, and not to people outside the religion, who are not
considered to be people.

There is a difference. Religious people have an internal break
that is absolute. No fudging.

Those without with break make their rules based on their own
self interest. This is why they will put up with things like
tearing the arms and legs off of children in the womb, 400
million lost souls to socialism, robbing humanity from those
they find inconvenient (Jew, elderly, children, etc.), and
the list goes on.

These folks are dangerous to be around.

[alan_m]

There is a difference.  Religious people have an internal break
that is absolute.
Those without with break make their rules based on their own
self interest.

If those with religion don't like the rules they just re-interpret the
literature to suit their own needs and form another religious sect.

Obviously religious people are never prosecuted for any crimes.

You don't have to go back too far in UK history to find out how corrupt
and ungodly the "church" had become.

Does anyone in the UK remember 20+ years ago senior members of the Tory
government spouting off about how they were going to make the country
more moralist and going back to the "old values". A field day for the
press exposing infidelity, sleaze, corruption, tax avoidance etc. etc.
amongst the same politicians :)

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 1 Oct 2024 12:45:40 +0100, alan_m

Post by alan_m

There is a difference.  Religious people have an internal break
that is absolute.
Those without with break make their rules based on their own
self interest.

If those with religion don't like the rules they just re-interpret the
literature to suit their own needs and form another religious sect.

Some do, some don't.

Post by alan_m
Obviously religious people are never prosecuted for any crimes.

That's not only not obvious. It's not true.

Post by alan_m
You don't have to go back too far in UK history to find out how corrupt
and ungodly the "church" had become.
Does anyone in the UK remember 20+ years ago senior members of the Tory
government spouting off about how they were going to make the country
more moralist and going back to the "old values". A field day for the
press exposing infidelity, sleaze, corruption, tax avoidance etc. etc.
amongst the same politicians :)

If you judge all religious people by the worst of politicians, you're
making a mistake.

[T]

Post by alan_m

There is a difference.  Religious people have an internal break
that is absolute.
Those without with break make their rules based on their own
self interest.

If those with religion don't like the rules they just re-interpret the
literature to suit their own needs and form another religious sect.

That does happen, but it does get fixed.

Post by alan_m
Obviously religious people are never prosecuted for any crimes.

Folks who are actual believers, not the ones that use it as an
association, wold be less likely. To be human is to be flawed.
Christianity is about redemption.

Post by alan_m
You don't have to go back too far in UK history to find out how corrupt
and ungodly the "church" had become.

Satan loves that stuff. A lot of Christian churches have abandoned
Christian teaching and have accepted the "Woke" teaching in it place.
They make my skin crawl.

But not all of them.
.

Post by alan_m
Does anyone in the UK remember 20+ years ago senior members of the Tory
government spouting off about how they were going to make the country
more moralist and going back to the "old values". A field day for the
press exposing infidelity, sleaze, corruption, tax avoidance etc. etc.
amongst the same politicians :)

That sound like fun. Guess thee is more to the UK than the
constant drama surrounding the royals.

[alan_m]

Satan loves that stuff.  A lot of Christian churches have abandoned
Christian teaching and have accepted the "Woke" teaching in it place.
They make my skin crawl.

The majority of the populations of western countries have abandoned
going to churches because they see them as what they really are, and
this was long before wokism became popular.

That sound like fun.  Guess thee is more to the UK than the
constant drama surrounding the royals.

It seems only to be a USA thing with the Royals and the titled hanger
ons. However they do have that dumb-ass prince over there who quit the
UK because the UK gutter press hounded him but makes his money by
feeding the USA gutter press and TV with his sensationalised views of
events. I wonder when the US public will get fed up with all his bull
shit? By the way - we don't want him back :)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by alan_m
It seems only to be a USA thing with the Royals and the titled hanger
ons. However they do have that dumb-ass prince over there who quit the
UK because the UK gutter press hounded him but makes his money by
feeding the USA gutter press and TV with his sensationalised views of
events. I wonder when the US public will get fed up with all his bull
shit? By the way - we don't want him back 🙂

He is on his second trip without the Me Again, to Africa this time, to
meet real black people.

I think he prefers them.

[Retirednoguilt]

Post by T

Post by Joe
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 04:04:51 -0700

Post by T

Post by alan_m
You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!

True. But you need religious people around you so
you can copy theirs.
Whatsoever you would have others do unto you, do unto them.

That's not an especially religious rule, any people grouping together
will have this idea. And there are some religions where it only applies
to fellow-members, and not to people outside the religion, who are not
considered to be people.

There is a difference. Religious people have an internal break
that is absolute. No fudging.
Those without with break make their rules based on their own
self interest. This is why they will put up with things like
tearing the arms and legs off of children in the womb, 400
million lost souls to socialism, robbing humanity from those
they find inconvenient (Jew, elderly, children, etc.), and
the list goes on.
These folks are dangerous to be around.

We ALL do things that are in our self interest. However, self-interest
can be manifested in two different ways. Some people's self-interest
pleasure is achieved by greed and narcissism and they have a zero-sum
perspective on everything, i.e., more for you means less for me. Other
people's self-interest pleasure is achieved by being kind, gracious,
helpful, and generous to others. They believe that there's no limit to
the benefits of that perspective. Everyone gains; the altruistic person
and the recipients of that altruism. And, one can be altruistic
without invoking any religious or otherwise supernatural explanation.

[T]

Post by Retirednoguilt

Post by T

Post by Joe
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 04:04:51 -0700

Post by T

Post by alan_m
You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!

True. But you need religious people around you so
you can copy theirs.
Whatsoever you would have others do unto you, do unto them.

That's not an especially religious rule, any people grouping together
will have this idea. And there are some religions where it only applies
to fellow-members, and not to people outside the religion, who are not
considered to be people.

There is a difference. Religious people have an internal break
that is absolute. No fudging.
Those without with break make their rules based on their own
self interest. This is why they will put up with things like
tearing the arms and legs off of children in the womb, 400
million lost souls to socialism, robbing humanity from those
they find inconvenient (Jew, elderly, children, etc.), and
the list goes on.
These folks are dangerous to be around.

We ALL do things that are in our self interest. However, self-interest
can be manifested in two different ways. Some people's self-interest
pleasure is achieved by greed and narcissism and they have a zero-sum
perspective on everything, i.e., more for you means less for me. Other
people's self-interest pleasure is achieved by being kind, gracious,
helpful, and generous to others. They believe that there's no limit to
the benefits of that perspective. Everyone gains; the altruistic person
and the recipients of that altruism. And, one can be altruistic
without invoking any religious or otherwise supernatural explanation.

Folks with internal breaks to their behavior (as in I am going
to hell for this, my father is watching, I will disappoint my
father, my soul is not worth any amount of money, etc.) require
a lot less government cohesion to behave, allowing for more
freedom. Non believers do benefit from having us around.

Now on the other hand, people do choose evil as it removed
barriers to their behavior. For example: it is okay for
them to rip the arms legs, heads off of children in the
womb -- a viscous way to butcher another human being.

Now a Christian is faced with God telling him that "whatsoever
you do unto the least of you, you do unto me."

Can you see where one would have an internal break and the
other would not? Does not mean the internal break would
always work that well, but far, far better than no break
at all.

[Retirednoguilt]

Post by T

Post by Retirednoguilt

Post by T

Post by Joe
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 04:04:51 -0700

Post by T

Post by alan_m
You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!

True. But you need religious people around you so
you can copy theirs.
Whatsoever you would have others do unto you, do unto them.

That's not an especially religious rule, any people grouping together
will have this idea. And there are some religions where it only applies
to fellow-members, and not to people outside the religion, who are not
considered to be people.

There is a difference. Religious people have an internal break
that is absolute. No fudging.
Those without with break make their rules based on their own
self interest. This is why they will put up with things like
tearing the arms and legs off of children in the womb, 400
million lost souls to socialism, robbing humanity from those
they find inconvenient (Jew, elderly, children, etc.), and
the list goes on.
These folks are dangerous to be around.

We ALL do things that are in our self interest. However, self-interest
can be manifested in two different ways. Some people's self-interest
pleasure is achieved by greed and narcissism and they have a zero-sum
perspective on everything, i.e., more for you means less for me. Other
people's self-interest pleasure is achieved by being kind, gracious,
helpful, and generous to others. They believe that there's no limit to
the benefits of that perspective. Everyone gains; the altruistic person
and the recipients of that altruism. And, one can be altruistic
without invoking any religious or otherwise supernatural explanation.

Folks with internal breaks to their behavior (as in I am going
to hell for this, my father is watching, I will disappoint my
father, my soul is not worth any amount of money, etc.) require
a lot less government cohesion to behave, allowing for more
freedom. Non believers do benefit from having us around.
Now on the other hand, people do choose evil as it removed
barriers to their behavior. For example: it is okay for
them to rip the arms legs, heads off of children in the
womb -- a viscous way to butcher another human being.
Now a Christian is faced with God telling him that "whatsoever
you do unto the least of you, you do unto me."
Can you see where one would have an internal break and the
other would not? Does not mean the internal break would
always work that well, but far, far better than no break
at all.

I'll play grammar police here. I think every time you've used the word
"break" in this thread you really mean "brake". Don't know if English
is your first language but those two homonyms have entirely different
meanings.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Retirednoguilt

Post by T

Post by Retirednoguilt

Post by T

Post by Joe
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 04:04:51 -0700

Post by T

Post by alan_m
You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!

True. But you need religious people around you so
you can copy theirs.
Whatsoever you would have others do unto you, do unto them.

That's not an especially religious rule, any people grouping together
will have this idea. And there are some religions where it only applies
to fellow-members, and not to people outside the religion, who are not
considered to be people.

There is a difference. Religious people have an internal break
that is absolute. No fudging.
Those without with break make their rules based on their own
self interest. This is why they will put up with things like
tearing the arms and legs off of children in the womb, 400
million lost souls to socialism, robbing humanity from those
they find inconvenient (Jew, elderly, children, etc.), and
the list goes on.
These folks are dangerous to be around.

We ALL do things that are in our self interest. However, self-interest
can be manifested in two different ways. Some people's self-interest
pleasure is achieved by greed and narcissism and they have a zero-sum
perspective on everything, i.e., more for you means less for me. Other
people's self-interest pleasure is achieved by being kind, gracious,
helpful, and generous to others. They believe that there's no limit to
the benefits of that perspective. Everyone gains; the altruistic person
and the recipients of that altruism. And, one can be altruistic
without invoking any religious or otherwise supernatural explanation.

Folks with internal breaks to their behavior (as in I am going
to hell for this, my father is watching, I will disappoint my
father, my soul is not worth any amount of money, etc.) require
a lot less government cohesion to behave, allowing for more
freedom. Non believers do benefit from having us around.
Now on the other hand, people do choose evil as it removed
barriers to their behavior. For example: it is okay for
them to rip the arms legs, heads off of children in the
womb -- a viscous way to butcher another human being.
Now a Christian is faced with God telling him that "whatsoever
you do unto the least of you, you do unto me."
Can you see where one would have an internal break and the
other would not? Does not mean the internal break would
always work that well, but far, far better than no break
at all.

I'll play grammar police here. I think every time you've used the word
"break" in this thread you really mean "brake". Don't know if English
is your first language but those two homonyms have entirely different
meanings.

In any case, "T"'s nonsense is just that. Some of the worst
behavior in the history of mankind has been "in God's name".

[citizen winston smith]

Post by Scott Lurndal
Some of the worst
behavior in the history of mankind has been "in God's name".

And an absence of God results in the "best behaviour" of this conflicted
species?

Where?

When?

Citations please.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by citizen winston smith

Post by Scott Lurndal
Some of the worst
behavior in the history of mankind has been "in God's name".

And an absence of God results in the "best behaviour" of this conflicted
species?

In the absence of God, there is no 'best behaviour'. Not objectively,
anyway.
Ultimately societies that develop strategies, religious or otherwise -
to maximise survival potential, survive.

Whether you refrain from mass murder because you are scared god wont
love you any more, or because an uncomfortable time in jail or a mental
hospital or an electric chair awaits you, is, in this context, moot.

The important thing is that you are deterred from mass murder.

But who is to judge whether or not that is 'best behaviour'? Perhaps
the mass murder you envisaged was of an Islamic terror cell plotting to
kill far far more people?

What was that film about a guy who went around murdering terminally ill
people? As a service.

Post by citizen winston smith
Where?
When?
Citations please.

Religion was a necessary component of the mediaeval mind, and in its
absence people import even worse crap like 'socialism' to fill the void.
Or end up worshipping Gaia instead...

The point about religion - especially a state sponsored religion - is
that it ensures everybody is demented in the same way, so reducing
social friction.

The problem comes when people start saying 'my way is the one true way',
and are not content to let the naysayers live in peace.

[citizen winston smith]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by citizen winston smith

Post by Scott Lurndal
Some of the worst
behavior in the history of mankind has been "in God's name".

And an absence of God results in the "best behaviour" of this
conflicted species?

In the absence of God, there is no 'best behaviour'. Not objectively,
anyway.

What other way is there?

A society can be best graded objectively in its metrics like crime rate
and productivity and press freedoms, etc.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Ultimately societies that develop strategies, religious or otherwise -
to maximise survival potential,  survive.

Do name a few that have done so in a secular manner and thrived from it.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Whether you refrain from mass murder because you are scared god wont
love you any more, or because an uncomfortable time in jail or a mental
hospital or an electric chair awaits you, is, in this context, moot. >
The important thing is that you are deterred from mass murder.

And which is the best deterrent?

Middle Eastern style brutal "justice" or enlightened juris prudence
based on Christian principles?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
But who is to judge whether or not that is 'best behaviour'?

Victims and their families.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Perhaps
the mass murder you envisaged  was of an Islamic terror cell plotting to
kill far far more people?

Or perhaps it is international imperialism and war-mongering.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
What was that film about a guy who went around murdering terminally ill
people? As a service.

Ah, like Canaduh has begun to.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by citizen winston smith
Where?
When?
Citations please.

Religion was a necessary component of the mediaeval mind, and in its
absence people import even worse crap like 'socialism' to fill the void.
Or end up worshipping Gaia instead...

Socialism is a form of feudalism.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
The point about religion - especially a state sponsored religion - is
that it ensures everybody is demented in the same way, so reducing
social friction.

And the UK (with its Church of England) has less "friction" for that?

Seriously?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
The problem comes when people start saying 'my way is the one true way',
and are not content to let the naysayers live in peace.

This is largely non responsive to my query.

Which secular societies have thrived, for how long, and why?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Retirednoguilt

Post by T

Post by Retirednoguilt

Post by T

Post by Joe
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 04:04:51 -0700

Post by T

Post by alan_m
You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!

True. But you need religious people around you so
you can copy theirs.
Whatsoever you would have others do unto you, do unto them.

That's not an especially religious rule, any people grouping together
will have this idea. And there are some religions where it only applies
to fellow-members, and not to people outside the religion, who are not
considered to be people.

There is a difference. Religious people have an internal break
that is absolute. No fudging.
Those without with break make their rules based on their own
self interest. This is why they will put up with things like
tearing the arms and legs off of children in the womb, 400
million lost souls to socialism, robbing humanity from those
they find inconvenient (Jew, elderly, children, etc.), and
the list goes on.
These folks are dangerous to be around.

We ALL do things that are in our self interest. However, self-interest
can be manifested in two different ways. Some people's self-interest
pleasure is achieved by greed and narcissism and they have a zero-sum
perspective on everything, i.e., more for you means less for me. Other
people's self-interest pleasure is achieved by being kind, gracious,
helpful, and generous to others. They believe that there's no limit to
the benefits of that perspective. Everyone gains; the altruistic person
and the recipients of that altruism. And, one can be altruistic
without invoking any religious or otherwise supernatural explanation.

Folks with internal breaks to their behavior (as in I am going
to hell for this, my father is watching, I will disappoint my
father, my soul is not worth any amount of money, etc.) require
a lot less government cohesion to behave, allowing for more
freedom. Non believers do benefit from having us around.
Now on the other hand, people do choose evil as it removed
barriers to their behavior. For example: it is okay for
them to rip the arms legs, heads off of children in the
womb -- a viscous way to butcher another human being.
Now a Christian is faced with God telling him that "whatsoever
you do unto the least of you, you do unto me."
Can you see where one would have an internal break and the
other would not? Does not mean the internal break would
always work that well, but far, far better than no break
at all.

I'll play grammar police here. I think every time you've used the word
"break" in this thread you really mean "brake". Don't know if English
is your first language but those two homonyms have entirely different
meanings.

T would seem to be as illiterate as he is religious

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by alan_m

Post by T
I would see them as
having a strong moral code.  Being able to
travel between the start would require a vibrant
society, and that would require a strong moral code.

You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!

Well you do, in a sense.

Ultimately a moral code depends on being able in whatever context it is
applied, to tell 'right' from 'wrong' and 'good' from 'bad'.

Today's progressives have replaced 'Gods word' with 'what we say' as the
standard to govern social behaviour.

Take all the nonsense surrounding sexuality. In the end all it does is
make people scared of sex and sexuality.

So the European community is having less kids, whilst Islam, with its
clear guidelines that women are there to have sex with men and bear
babies, and that's it, no argument or you get stoned to death, are
producing hordes of nasty little Muslims...

Which culture is likely to prevail?

Post by alan_m
Do you require some mythical fairy in the sky to tell you what is right
or wrong?

I personally don't, because there is no right or wrong as far as I am
concerned. Only actions and consequences. My only guideline is my
personal feelings . And an understanding that social mores are there
not to reflect right and wrong, but just to promote societal survival.


But a successful society does. If it is largely composed of not
especially bright or sophisticated people.

Otherwise you get insanity like Extinction rebellion, who appear to
believe in even greater nonsense than the average devout Muslim.

I mean "save the planet"? From what? A change that is far far smaller
than its seen in the past.

They don't give a fuck about the planet. It's all about 'give me
personally a better future, Ive been scared by some religious bogeymen,
and i BELIEVE in them'

All the progressive Left has done is removed God from religion, and
replaced priests with left wing academics and doom pixies.

But kept Original Sin, the myth of Paradise and the Garden of Eden, and
Eternal Life (sustainability/renewable)

Don't confuse religion with a god, necessarily. Modern Social Justice
is just as much a religion that cannot be questioned as the Catholic
Church ever was. And it's intensely Puritanical as well.

It's cant , it's dogma, is that all people deserve to be equal even if
they were not born that way, and the task of the exception to that rule
- the elite class of socialists - is to enforce equality on a diverse
population in the name of social morality.

So if one Welshman isn't safe at 30mph, because he is a thick drunken
cunt who doesn't really understand how a car works and ought never to
have been allowed to drive one, every other person in Wales must be
limited to 20mph, so that *one* person doesn't feel discriminated against.

Whereas the obvious solution is to remove his license.

Just because the religion of 'social justice' says we shouldn't treat
people differently, even though they clearly are all 'different'. Just
as Christianity used to say that we are 'all the same in gods eyes' Ja
well no fine, but not in mine mkay?

Which is why your next bus driver will be a deaf dumb and blind idiot,
who may play a mean pinball, but cant drive a bus 50 yards without
killing a pedestrian.

All because of the godless religion of 'socialism'

[Retirednoguilt]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by alan_m

Post by T
I would see them as
having a strong moral code.  Being able to
travel between the start would require a vibrant
society, and that would require a strong moral code.

You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!

Well you do, in a sense.
Ultimately a moral code depends on being able in whatever context it is
applied, to tell 'right' from 'wrong' and 'good' from 'bad'.
Today's progressives have replaced 'Gods word' with 'what we say' as the
standard to govern social behaviour.
Take all the nonsense surrounding sexuality. In the end all it does is
make people scared of sex and sexuality.
So the European community is having less kids, whilst Islam, with its
clear guidelines that women are there to have sex with men and bear
babies, and that's it, no argument or you get stoned to death, are
producing hordes of nasty little Muslims...
Which culture is likely to prevail?

Post by alan_m
Do you require some mythical fairy in the sky to tell you what is right
or wrong?

I personally don't, because there is no right or wrong as far as I am
concerned. Only actions and consequences. My only guideline is my
personal feelings . And an understanding that social mores are there
not to reflect right and wrong, but just to promote societal survival.
But a successful society does. If it is largely composed of not
especially bright or sophisticated people.
Otherwise you get insanity like Extinction rebellion, who appear to
believe in even greater nonsense than the average devout Muslim.
I mean "save the planet"? From what? A change that is far far smaller
than its seen in the past.
They don't give a fuck about the planet. It's all about 'give me
personally a better future, Ive been scared by some religious bogeymen,
and i BELIEVE in them'
All the progressive Left has done is removed God from religion, and
replaced priests with left wing academics and doom pixies.
But kept Original Sin, the myth of Paradise and the Garden of Eden, and
Eternal Life (sustainability/renewable)
Don't confuse religion with a god, necessarily. Modern Social Justice
is just as much a religion that cannot be questioned as the Catholic
Church ever was. And it's intensely Puritanical as well.
It's cant , it's dogma, is that all people deserve to be equal even if
they were not born that way, and the task of the exception to that rule
- the elite class of socialists - is to enforce equality on a diverse
population in the name of social morality.
So if one Welshman isn't safe at 30mph, because he is a thick drunken
cunt who doesn't really understand how a car works and ought never to
have been allowed to drive one, every other person in Wales must be
limited to 20mph, so that *one* person doesn't feel discriminated against.
Whereas the obvious solution is to remove his license.
Just because the religion of 'social justice' says we shouldn't treat
people differently, even though they clearly are all 'different'. Just
as Christianity used to say that we are 'all the same in gods eyes' Ja
well no fine, but not in mine mkay?
Which is why your next bus driver will be a deaf dumb and blind idiot,
who may play a mean pinball, but cant drive a bus 50 yards without
killing a pedestrian.
All because of the godless religion of 'socialism'

Is there any difference between a cult and a religion except for the
number of believers? I've never been able to make the distinction.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Retirednoguilt

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by alan_m

Post by T
I would see them as
having a strong moral code.  Being able to
travel between the start would require a vibrant
society, and that would require a strong moral code.

You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!

Well you do, in a sense.
Ultimately a moral code depends on being able in whatever context it is
applied, to tell 'right' from 'wrong' and 'good' from 'bad'.
Today's progressives have replaced 'Gods word' with 'what we say' as the
standard to govern social behaviour.
Take all the nonsense surrounding sexuality. In the end all it does is
make people scared of sex and sexuality.
So the European community is having less kids, whilst Islam, with its
clear guidelines that women are there to have sex with men and bear
babies, and that's it, no argument or you get stoned to death, are
producing hordes of nasty little Muslims...
Which culture is likely to prevail?

Post by alan_m
Do you require some mythical fairy in the sky to tell you what is right
or wrong?

I personally don't, because there is no right or wrong as far as I am
concerned. Only actions and consequences. My only guideline is my
personal feelings . And an understanding that social mores are there
not to reflect right and wrong, but just to promote societal survival.
But a successful society does. If it is largely composed of not
especially bright or sophisticated people.
Otherwise you get insanity like Extinction rebellion, who appear to
believe in even greater nonsense than the average devout Muslim.
I mean "save the planet"? From what? A change that is far far smaller
than its seen in the past.
They don't give a fuck about the planet. It's all about 'give me
personally a better future, Ive been scared by some religious bogeymen,
and i BELIEVE in them'
All the progressive Left has done is removed God from religion, and
replaced priests with left wing academics and doom pixies.
But kept Original Sin, the myth of Paradise and the Garden of Eden, and
Eternal Life (sustainability/renewable)
Don't confuse religion with a god, necessarily. Modern Social Justice
is just as much a religion that cannot be questioned as the Catholic
Church ever was. And it's intensely Puritanical as well.
It's cant , it's dogma, is that all people deserve to be equal even if
they were not born that way, and the task of the exception to that rule
- the elite class of socialists - is to enforce equality on a diverse
population in the name of social morality.
So if one Welshman isn't safe at 30mph, because he is a thick drunken
cunt who doesn't really understand how a car works and ought never to
have been allowed to drive one, every other person in Wales must be
limited to 20mph, so that *one* person doesn't feel discriminated against.
Whereas the obvious solution is to remove his license.
Just because the religion of 'social justice' says we shouldn't treat
people differently, even though they clearly are all 'different'. Just
as Christianity used to say that we are 'all the same in gods eyes' Ja
well no fine, but not in mine mkay?
Which is why your next bus driver will be a deaf dumb and blind idiot,
who may play a mean pinball, but cant drive a bus 50 yards without
killing a pedestrian.
All because of the godless religion of 'socialism'

Is there any difference between a cult and a religion except for the
number of believers? I've never been able to make the distinction.

"Etymologically, the word 'religion' is derived from the Latin root
religare and it means 'to bind fast'. Then 'religion' has certainly a
strong emphasis on community aspect. It is something that binds fast the
members of religion together."

So religion means 'shared beliefs and values'
So yes, climate change is a religion. Transgenderism is a religion.
Marxism is a religion.

A cult is simply a small religion, small enough that it doesnt really
compete

[Rock Stolid]

Post by Retirednoguilt
Is there any difference between a cult and a religion except for the
number of believers? I've never been able to make the distinction.

Try these:

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cult_1
small group of people who have extreme religious beliefs and who are
not part of any established religion
Their son ran away from home and joined a cult.
the members of a religious cult

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/religion?q=religion

one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the
existence of a particular god or gods, or in the teachings of a
spiritual leader
the Jewish religion
Christianity, Islam and other world religions

[Rock Stolid]

Post by Rock Stolid

Post by Retirednoguilt
Is there any difference between a cult and a religion except for the
number of believers? I've never been able to make the distinction.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cult_1
small group of people who have extreme religious beliefs and who are
not part of any established religion
Their son ran away from home and joined a cult.
the members of a religious cult
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/religion?q=religion
one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the
existence of a particular god or gods, or in the teachings of a
spiritual leader
the Jewish religion
Christianity, Islam and other world religions

I remind you that there are two philosophies of what a dictionary should
try to accomplish. One is that it should prescribe the language and its
usage. The other theory is that it should document the status of the
language at the time it is compiled.

Ipso facto, and?

I don't regard your reference as
the determinative oracle of the one and only correct definition of those
two words.

Then you operate with no compass regardless of your disingenuous lip
service paid to the two functions (your belief) of a dictionary.

If everyone accepted one specific dictionary as
determinative, languages would never evolve.

If everyone went urban dictionary, slanguage, or even worse wikipedia,
there would be no constancy nor hope of etymological parity and origin.

I'll take Oxford as a solid standard until proven otherwise with facts
and derivation, not just modern social idiomatic tidal flow.

[Retirednoguilt]

Post by Rock Stolid

Post by Rock Stolid

Post by Retirednoguilt
Is there any difference between a cult and a religion except for the
number of believers? I've never been able to make the distinction.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cult_1
small group of people who have extreme religious beliefs and who are
not part of any established religion
Their son ran away from home and joined a cult.
the members of a religious cult
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/religion?q=religion
one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the
existence of a particular god or gods, or in the teachings of a
spiritual leader
the Jewish religion
Christianity, Islam and other world religions

I remind you that there are two philosophies of what a dictionary should
try to accomplish. One is that it should prescribe the language and its
usage. The other theory is that it should document the status of the
language at the time it is compiled.

Ipso facto, and?

I don't regard your reference as
the determinative oracle of the one and only correct definition of those
two words.

Then you operate with no compass regardless of your disingenuous lip
service paid to the two functions (your belief) of a dictionary.

If everyone accepted one specific dictionary as
determinative, languages would never evolve.

If everyone went urban dictionary, slanguage, or even worse wikipedia,
there would be no constancy nor hope of etymological parity and origin.
I'll take Oxford as a solid standard until proven otherwise with facts
and derivation, not just modern social idiomatic tidal flow.

I get the strong feeling that for you, everything is binary. Either/or.
Right or wrong. One or the other. To use a metaphor, you see
everything in black and white. I see many shades of gray and colors as
well. I don't know how you feel about a judiciary, but I get the
feeling you might believe that it's an unnecessary frill. After all, if
everything is clear, why do we need judges? Your believes coincide with
your handle: Rock Solid.

[Rock Stolid]

Post by Retirednoguilt

Post by Rock Stolid

Post by Rock Stolid

Post by Retirednoguilt
Is there any difference between a cult and a religion except for the
number of believers? I've never been able to make the distinction.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cult_1
small group of people who have extreme religious beliefs and who are
not part of any established religion
Their son ran away from home and joined a cult.
the members of a religious cult
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/religion?q=religion
one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the
existence of a particular god or gods, or in the teachings of a
spiritual leader
the Jewish religion
Christianity, Islam and other world religions

I remind you that there are two philosophies of what a dictionary should
try to accomplish. One is that it should prescribe the language and its
usage. The other theory is that it should document the status of the
language at the time it is compiled.

Ipso facto, and?

I don't regard your reference as
the determinative oracle of the one and only correct definition of those
two words.

Then you operate with no compass regardless of your disingenuous lip
service paid to the two functions (your belief) of a dictionary.

If everyone accepted one specific dictionary as
determinative, languages would never evolve.

If everyone went urban dictionary, slanguage, or even worse wikipedia,
there would be no constancy nor hope of etymological parity and origin.
I'll take Oxford as a solid standard until proven otherwise with facts
and derivation, not just modern social idiomatic tidal flow.

I get the strong feeling that for you, everything is binary. Either/or.
Right or wrong. One or the other. To use a metaphor, you see
everything in black and white.

That's a specious accusation grounded only in the bipolar/binary matrix
we live in.

As such I neither claim authorship nor endorsement, merely some degree
of acquiescence to the unusual but unavoidable aspects of it that remain
immutable to humans.

Post by Retirednoguilt
I see many shades of gray and colors as well.

Good, but let's add some unseeable colors/forces to that spectrum, much
as we have in IR vs. UV.

Post by Retirednoguilt
I don't know how you feel about a judiciary, but I get the
feeling you might believe that it's an unnecessary frill.

Wrong.

It's the most necessary check and balance we have.

Post by Retirednoguilt
After all, if everything is clear, why do we need judges?

Above my pay grade in this dimension.

Read the books of Enoch for clarity as to other higher dimensions the
Creator reortdely proctors.

Post by Retirednoguilt
Your believes[sic] coincide with your handle: Rock Solid.

My "beliefs" are a smorgasbord of the available, the possible, and the
desired.

Sorry you chose to play the personal demonization card in lieu of
substantive discourse.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Retirednoguilt

Post by Rock Stolid

Post by Rock Stolid

Post by Retirednoguilt
Is there any difference between a cult and a religion except for the
number of believers? I've never been able to make the distinction.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cult_1
small group of people who have extreme religious beliefs and who are
not part of any established religion
Their son ran away from home and joined a cult.
the members of a religious cult
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/religion?q=religion
one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the
existence of a particular god or gods, or in the teachings of a
spiritual leader
the Jewish religion
Christianity, Islam and other world religions

I remind you that there are two philosophies of what a dictionary should
try to accomplish. One is that it should prescribe the language and its
usage. The other theory is that it should document the status of the
language at the time it is compiled.

Ipso facto, and?

I don't regard your reference as
the determinative oracle of the one and only correct definition of those
two words.

Then you operate with no compass regardless of your disingenuous lip
service paid to the two functions (your belief) of a dictionary.

If everyone accepted one specific dictionary as
determinative, languages would never evolve.

If everyone went urban dictionary, slanguage, or even worse wikipedia,
there would be no constancy nor hope of etymological parity and origin.
I'll take Oxford as a solid standard until proven otherwise with facts
and derivation, not just modern social idiomatic tidal flow.

I get the strong feeling that for you, everything is binary. Either/or.
Right or wrong. One or the other. To use a metaphor, you see
everything in black and white. I see many shades of gray and colors as
well. I don't know how you feel about a judiciary, but I get the
feeling you might believe that it's an unnecessary frill. After all, if
everything is clear, why do we need judges? Your believes coincide with
your handle: Rock Solid.

It is the mentality of the ArtStudent™.

Can water kill me?
Yes.
Ban water!

[Rock Stolid]

Post by alan_m

Post by T
I would see them as
having a strong moral code.  Being able to
travel between the start would require a vibrant
society, and that would require a strong moral code.

You don't need religion to have a strong moral code!
Do you require some mythical fairy in the sky to tell you what is right
or wrong?

Without an ultimate accountability everything human is relativistic and
largely narcissistic.

[Alexandria Ocrazyo-Vortex]

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

It seems to me that the churches who have a Facebook presence have
already taken the mark of the beast.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 19:56:48 -0400, Judith Latham

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion

Wishful thinking?

Does the Bible say what happens on other planets?

Does the US Constitution give rules for governments in other countries?

Except for one or two uses of the word 'treaty', clauses which didn't
have to be there, does it even suggest there are other countries?

Why should the Bible's silence about populatoins on other planets, even
intelligent life there, mean the Bible is saying it does not exist. We
were told in the Bible essentials that we need to know. Other things
can be learned from other sources later.

Post by Judith Latham
Judith

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by micky
In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 19:56:48 -0400, Judith Latham

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion

Wishful thinking?
Does the Bible say what happens on other planets?
Does the US Constitution give rules for governments in other countries?
Except for one or two uses of the word 'treaty', clauses which didn't
have to be there, does it even suggest there are other countries?
Why should the Bible's silence about populatoins on other planets, even
intelligent life there, mean the Bible is saying it does not exist. We
were told in the Bible essentials that we need to know. Other things
can be learned from other sources later.

Post by Judith Latham
Judith

Oddly there is some evidence that viruses could survive massively long
journeys in space and replicate if they ever found a suitable environment

That cold you had, may have come from Betelguese

[Rock Stolid]

Post by micky
In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 19:56:48 -0400, Judith Latham

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion

Wishful thinking?
Does the Bible say what happens on other planets?

Books of Enoch will help.

Other dimensions also covered.

Post by micky
Does the US Constitution give rules for governments in other countries?
Except for one or two uses of the word 'treaty', clauses which didn't
have to be there, does it even suggest there are other countries?
Why should the Bible's silence about populatoins on other planets, even
intelligent life there, mean the Bible is saying it does not exist. We
were told in the Bible essentials that we need to know. Other things
can be learned from other sources later.

Except that this "later" may occur post-body container expiry.

Rendering the "present" a mutable but also flawed data set.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 30 Sep 2024 13:13:02 -0600, Rock Stolid

Post by Rock Stolid

Post by micky
In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 19:56:48 -0400, Judith Latham

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion

Wishful thinking?
Does the Bible say what happens on other planets?

Books of Enoch will help.
Other dimensions also covered.

I Enoch was at first accepted in the Christian Church but later excluded
from the biblical canon. Its survival is due to the fascination of
marginal and heretical Christian groups, such as the Manichaeans, with
its syncretic blending of Iranian, Greek, Chaldean, and Egyptian
elements.

Like 1 Enoch, number 2 and 3 are also not part of the Bible, neither the
Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant versions.

Post by Rock Stolid

Post by micky
Does the US Constitution give rules for governments in other countries?
Except for one or two uses of the word 'treaty', clauses which didn't
have to be there, does it even suggest there are other countries?
Why should the Bible's silence about populatoins on other planets, even
intelligent life there, mean the Bible is saying it does not exist. We
were told in the Bible essentials that we need to know. Other things
can be learned from other sources later.

Except that this "later" may occur post-body container expiry.

I have no idea what this means.

Post by Rock Stolid
Rendering the "present" a mutable but also flawed data set.

This is irrelvant, because the original statement was that the discovery
of alien life would be the end of organized religion, and none of the
organized religions I know of claim there is no life elsewhere from
Earth.

[Tim and Jammy Baker]

Post by micky
This is irrelvant, because the original statement was that the discovery
of alien life would be the end of organized religion, and none of the
organized religions I know of claim there is no life elsewhere from
Earth.

Which religion is the official religion of God?

Why do the imposter religions enjoy tax-exempt status?

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 1 Oct 2024 07:01:55 -0400, Tim and Jammy

Post by Tim and Jammy Baker

Post by micky
This is irrelvant, because the original statement was that the discovery
of alien life would be the end of organized religion, and none of the
organized religions I know of claim there is no life elsewhere from
Earth.

Which religion is the official religion of God?

I don't think you'd accept what I said if I told you.

Post by Tim and Jammy Baker
Why do the imposter religions enjoy tax-exempt status?

AFAIK it's part of implementing the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Most or all the states have similar language in their constitutions and
it's the obligation of Congress and the legislatures to implement it
with appropriate legislation.

[alan_m]

Post by micky
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 1 Oct 2024 07:01:55 -0400, Tim and Jammy

Post by Tim and Jammy Baker

Post by micky
This is irrelvant, because the original statement was that the discovery
of alien life would be the end of organized religion, and none of the
organized religions I know of claim there is no life elsewhere from
Earth.

Which religion is the official religion of God?

I don't think you'd accept what I said if I told you.

Post by Tim and Jammy Baker
Why do the imposter religions enjoy tax-exempt status?

AFAIK it's part of implementing the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Most or all the states have similar language in their constitutions and
it's the obligation of Congress and the legislatures to implement it
with appropriate legislation.

Does the first Amendment to the Constitution say anything about the
financial side of religion?

There is a big difference between allowing all religions to be practiced
without prejudice and giving these businesses a tax advantage over other
businesses.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:18:38 +0100, alan_m

Post by alan_m

Post by micky
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 1 Oct 2024 07:01:55 -0400, Tim and Jammy

Post by Tim and Jammy Baker

Post by micky
This is irrelvant, because the original statement was that the discovery
of alien life would be the end of organized religion, and none of the
organized religions I know of claim there is no life elsewhere from
Earth.

Which religion is the official religion of God?

I don't think you'd accept what I said if I told you.

Post by Tim and Jammy Baker
Why do the imposter religions enjoy tax-exempt status?

AFAIK it's part of implementing the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Most or all the states have similar language in their constitutions and
it's the obligation of Congress and the legislatures to implement it
with appropriate legislation.

Does the first Amendment to the Constitution say anything about the
financial side of religion?
There is a big difference between allowing all religions to be practiced
without prejudice and giving these businesses a tax advantage over other
businesses.

People often assume that others are gettting away with things they
shouldn't, but AFAIK businesses owned by churches that engage in
non-religous activity are taxed at the same rate as the competition.

Yes, I'm right.

A church receives unrelated business income (“UBI”) when it engages in a
trade or business that is regularly carried on, yet not substantially
related to one or more of the church's exempt purposes. There are some
exceptions from the usual definition of UBI. A church may sell donated
items without realizing UBI.

The relevant IRS publication

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

19
Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT)
Net Income Subject to the UBIT

Churches and religious organizations, like other tax-exempt
organizations, may engage in income-producing activities unrelated to
their tax-exempt purposes, as long as the unrelated activities aren’t a
substantial part of the organization’s activities. However, the net
income from these activities will be subject to the UBITax if the
following three conditions are met:
the activity constitutes a trade or business,
the trade or business is regularly carried on, and
the trade or business is not substantially related to the
organization’s exempt purpose. (The fact that the organization uses the
income to further its charitable or religious purposes does not make the
activity substantially related to its exempt purposes.)

Exceptions to UBIT
Even if an activity meets the above criteria, the income may not be
subject to tax if it meets one of the following exceptions:
(a) substantially all the work in operating the trade or business is
performed by volunteers,
(b) the activity is conducted by the organization primarily for the
convenience of its members or
(c) the trade or business involves the selling of merchandise
substantially all of which was donated.

In general, rents from real property, royalties, capital gains, and
interest and div-idends aren’t subject to the unrelated business income
tax unless financed with borrowed money.
Examples of Unrelated Trade or Business Activities
Unrelated trade or business activities vary depending on types of
activities.
Advertising
Many tax-exempt organizations sell advertising in their publications or
other forms
of public communication. Generally, income from the sale of advertising
is unre-
lated trade or business income. This may include the sale of advertising
space
in weekly bulletins, magazines or journals, or on church or religious
organization
websites.
Gaming
Most forms of gaming, if regularly carried on, may be considered the
conduct of
an unrelated trade or business. This can include the sale of pull-tabs
and raffles.
Income derived from bingo games may be eligible for a special tax
exception (in
addition to the exception regarding uncompensated volunteer labor), if:
(a).....

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 02 Oct 2024 02:08:53 -0400, micky
<***@fmguy.com> wrote:
page 19

Post by micky
Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT)
Net Income Subject to the UBIT
Churches and religious organizations, like other tax-exempt
organizations, may engage in income-producing activities unrelated to
their tax-exempt purposes, as long as the unrelated activities aren’t a
substantial part of the organization’s activities.

So even paying the income tax doesn't entitle a church to engage in
unralated activity to the extent that it is a substantial part of the
church's activities. If it does that. ir endangers its tax exempt
status, although what I believe happens is that the are warned and given
a chance to decrease how much business they do.

Post by micky
However, the net
income from these activities will be subject to the UBITax if the
the activity constitutes a trade or business,
the trade or business is regularly carried on, and
the trade or business is not substantially related to the
organization’s exempt purpose. (The fact that the organization uses the
income to further its charitable or religious purposes does not make the
activity substantially related to its exempt purposes.)

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 02 Oct 2024 02:15:39 -0400, micky

Post by micky
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 02 Oct 2024 02:08:53 -0400, micky
page 19

Post by micky
Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT)
Net Income Subject to the UBIT
Churches and religious organizations, like other tax-exempt
organizations,

BTW, there are plenty of non-religious, non-church tax-exempt
organizations. The boy scouts, girl scouts, Rotary Club, Kiwanis,
Shriners, Masons, college fraternities, community associations, YMCA,
the Sierra Club, Appalachian Mountain Club, Maryland Mountain Club,
probably my HOA, etc. etc. The local hiking/outdoors club I was
president of was tax-exempt, although our only income was dues and
$2/hike for notn-members, and our only expense was printing and mailing
the newsletter/hiking schedule.

I have heard that the Catholic Archdiocese of NYC and maybe some other
towns owns a lot of real estate, which I believe holds commerical and
residential property for which the church collects rent. If that
income is a substantial portion of their income, maybe that should
endanger their tax-exempt status like I talked about, but maybe NYC has
millions of Catholics, lots of contributions and other income, and the
real estate is not a substantial portion.

Or maybe it's mortgaged and the mortgage interest eats of most of the
profits. or maybe owning and renting propery is not a business, but I
doubt that. It's late, you can check that one out.

This has been talked about for decades and it's hard to believe they're
in violation but no one has made a big stink, so I suspect they're not
in violation. (Anti-Catholics (my high-school Latin teacher of all
people, given that the church still used Latin for their prayers at that
time. Although that was 60 years ago hostility can last for many
centuries. )... they might spread stories. Google and see what you can
find. I'd be interested.) I hope I see your post if you post back. Feel
free to email me a copy. Remove the NONONO.

Post by micky

Post by micky
may engage in income-producing activities unrelated to
their tax-exempt purposes, as long as the unrelated activities aren’t a
substantial part of the organization’s activities.

So even paying the income tax doesn't entitle a church to engage in
unralated activity to the extent that it is a substantial part of the
church's activities. If it does that. ir endangers its tax exempt
status, although what I believe happens is that the are warned and given
a chance to decrease how much business they do.

Post by micky
However, the net
income from these activities will be subject to the UBITax if the
the activity constitutes a trade or business,
the trade or business is regularly carried on, and
the trade or business is not substantially related to the
organization’s exempt purpose. (The fact that the organization uses the
income to further its charitable or religious purposes does not make the
activity substantially related to its exempt purposes.)

[Retirednoguilt]

Post by Tim and Jammy Baker

Post by micky
This is irrelvant, because the original statement was that the discovery
of alien life would be the end of organized religion, and none of the
organized religions I know of claim there is no life elsewhere from
Earth.

Which religion is the official religion of God?
Why do the imposter religions enjoy tax-exempt status?

And depending upon where you stand, your religious belief may consider
every other religion to be an imposter religion.

[Mittens Romney]

Post by Judith Latham
https://www.toptenz.net/what-happens-if-we-ever-discover-alien-life.php
That will be the end of organized religion
Judith

God is either universal or it's little "g" time.