Randomness.
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+May 30 2009, 08:02 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ May 30 2009, 08:02 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have this hunch that Islam is based on non-Nicean denominations who were left out and all those conquered areas were <b>welcoming these folks as their own guys.</b> Thats the only explanation to the sudden collapse of all those kingdoms and empires to Islam.
[right][snapback]97942[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's not right.
Arabia was <i>hyper</i>-pagan. Confirmed by multiple sources - for example, there is contemporary info on this - Roman materials. But for easier access, try Elst's pages for instance. I think he had a couple of articles on islam.
Also, mohammed:
1. knew of nearby christianism and
2. knew of the communities of 'hemerobaptists' - Sabians, Mandaens or whatever who used to do the baptism ritual for a long time before christianism came into existence.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+May 30 2009, 01:54 AM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ May 30 2009, 01:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky:
Thanks for the elaboration. I have seen folks on the internet who are attracted towards some of the "biblical teachings" and who are ready to discard some of the mythical/magical stories. They are within the Christian realm - secuarlism, liberalism, church & state framework. They are very similar to some of the Hindu folks described in Balagangadhara's talk - example the Vinayagar story; i.e. folks who pick whatever they can and discard things that no longer are relevant to contemporary society. Such Christians are increasing in number in the USA.
Ramana: Thanks you said something inline with my thoughts. <b>Our gods are little different from their God.</b> Our relationship is rather different - a lot complex though. I say complex because there are stories where individuals scold our devas and devis, and there are individual (usually lady sadvis) who sing love-songs (Meera & Andal ).
[right][snapback]97915[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. "Our gods are little different from their God." <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You could not be more wrong. They're nothing alike. (Nice use of capital G for their non-existent monster gawd, by the way. Did you even read the bible that describes the nature of their gawd? Ever? To come to that conclusion that 'our Gods are little different' from <i>it</i>?)
You don't get the difference between christianism/islamism and Natural Traditions. It is far more than merely the sort of superficial 'relationship' differences you speak of (which, by the way, there are perverted echoes of in christianism as they have frequently been stolen into mary and jeebus' characterisations from the Greco-Roman traditions, but perhaps you're not aware of that.)
As to <b>why there is nothing in common between Hindu Dharma and christianism (<i>let alone</i> our Gods and their scary fiction)</b>, I find it best explained by Natural Traditionalists who
a. Know their Natural Tradition very well (i.e. non-modernists)
AND
b. who know christianism really well.
Hindus know Hindu Dharma, so a. above is covered. But since they (we) don't know christianism well at all, they start projecting the Hindu POV onto christianism and hence conclude that it is all the same 'after all' in crucial points X, Y, Z.
NO.
As I said, the difference is best explained by those who know their own Traditional POV perfectly and without compromise, <i>and</i> who know the enemy meme's POV intimately.
Because I'm simply not clever enough, I just don't seem to understand most of what Balagangadhara says. Maybe I have to rewatch several times. It could also be due to English being a confusing language, especially when there are terms involving religion (e.g. God, Religion).
I <i>do</i> however recognise what the following people are speaking of and the more I read portions from their FAQ, the more I find that that's what I've been wanting to articulate all along and that they clearly explain the *general* Natural Traditional POV <i>as well as</i> where this differs from christianism/islamism. They have a. the <i>vocabulary</i> - and I don't just mean the spectacular English they employ - <i>to do the differentiating</i>, and they have b. the <i>knowledge to do it correctly</i> which is even more paramount.
They speak for me (and do so accurately enough on Hindu Dharma on many points here):
<b>FAQ of the Ethnikoi Hellenes @ Ysee.gr:</b>
http://ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq#11
(Please do read from the section on "Theological and Cosmological matters", at the given anchor, down to the end.)
<b>IMO, this is the page that every Hindu</b> who doesn't really know christianism (but has their own idea of it in their head) <b>ought to read and study over and over again to learn about christianism and WHY IT IS NOT THE SAME as Hindu Dharma/Natural Traditions.</b> Would be made compulsory reading for Hindus, if I could have my way.
Also good to read Julian's trusted friend and colleague Sallustius writing on such matters as Vigrahas, with translator's explanations. Sallustius long ago explained EXACTLY what Hindu Vigrahas are and aren't, though he was speaking of the Greco-Roman kind (which are mostly the same as ours, same as Shinto, same as Taoist Vigrahas). Though I'm not sure that modern Hindus even recognise what he says, since christoconditioning alienates them from understanding the Natural Traditional way of thinking.
It is the accuracy and depth of understanding shown in the Ysee FAQ that makes me certain the Hellenes will survive our kind. While modern Hindus are confusing and forgetting themselves - particularly those in the west or Angelsk-enabled, and they're the only ones speaking - the Hellenes are making sure they will always know what they are and stick to it. The fact that they can verbalise all this is amazing. I try and I try and, for the life of me, I have never been able to put to words all these things that they explain in their comparatively short paragraphs (and I haven't found a single Hindu in all this time <i>to speak for me</i> who can properly, completely, accurately explain this, the way these Hellenes explain Natural Traditions - with particular emphasis on Hellenismos: what it is and what it is NOT). While I don't think all of it applies to Hindu Dharma - somethings <i>are</i> different since our way is not the <i>same</i> as Greco-Roman tradition - a lot of it surely does apply, and I find myself nodding in violent agreement to many parts, the way I never do when reading modern Angelsk-enabled 'intellectual' Hindus. The Hellenes @ Ysee.gr have largely said what I want said. And am so grateful for them having done so and for having expressed it so well. In making a path for themselves - their right to existence - they have graciously made one for all Natural Traditionalists. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
What I find most useful and potent is that they tackle exactly the sort of interrogative leading questions that christianists always generate and inquisition Natural Traditionalists with (the <i>christoconditioning</i> questions, as I think of them as: the sorts of utterly alien questions that when the heathen even starts pondering them, the christoconditioning poison starts to work. Note how well the Greeks counter the poison). IMO, this FAQ should be a handbook that Hindus take out and rattle off in reply to christianists, in religion classes in California, and to everyone in Bharatam of course.
After reading some Ysee FAQ items the first time, I had decided I neither want nor trust Angelsk-speaking Hindus to speak for me (while they know English very well, they so easily compromise on the matters most essential to me - it is generally the sort of Hindus who'd know English at all. Of course I make an exception for Aurobindo et al, but then, he is exceptional. He speaks Hindu though it reads like Angelsk). If I want Angelsk-language representation, I'll choose self-aware Natural Traditionalist Greeks to do it for me - Angelsk is a European language after all. And on those points where our traditions differ, I'll have to resort to making my own case.
Besides, of the Europeans, who but the Greeks and Romans know christianism best? (That is also why one finds that the traditional Greeks dislike christianism the most. See the FAQ again for an indication.)
2. Modern Hindus have been changed enough to be able to do an 'equal-equal' - as you call it below (see next quoteblock) - between Hindu Dharma and christianism (and, separately, are also open to swallowing all recent theories about our Gods as 'equal possibilities' to what one's ancestors have known about them - this happens especially when modernising Hindus don't know their own religion due to incomplete transmission of tradition/knowledge and deterioration of personal involvement over generations). This is why I worry about Angelsk-speaking Hindus - especially those who ever lived in the US, since US is more consciously christo-conditioning with its forced assimilation and social engineering - speaking for the masses of Hindus back home. It's not just the 'Hindus are monotheists' and 'Hinduism is actually a philosophy onlee' type nonsense that comes forth, but also regurgitation of many other, more subtle *western perceptions* of Hindu Dharma that these Hindus have internalised. And they then think themselves to be an accurate representation of their (even recent) ancestors' Hindu Dharma or that of most Hindus back home. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> Their POV is theirs to hold, but they can't say it is representative. It's not.
One more thing. The equal-equalism mentioned below would also explain why modern Hindus start finding it contemplatable to marry christians - <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> - which IMO is just as <i>absolutely impossible</i> as a Hindu marrying a muslim.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+May 27 2009, 07:29 AM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ May 27 2009, 07:29 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Islam had similar cicumstances our war and problems in the middle-east, so why would Christians feel bad for the "problematic" origins? Sorry for doing a equal-equal, my family's kula-daivam is Murugan, and to me (and us) it does not really matter about the different stories of his origin. There are theories about Kartikeya from the North and Murukku a warrior god from the south being two entities who finally merged and became one - son of Shiva. Point is, all these fascinate me but it is not going to really diminish my faith on Hinduism - culturally or religion wise.
So why are the Christians having so much kujli?
[right][snapback]97781[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As stated above, your questions on how Natural Traditions differ from christianism is elaborately covered and answered at the Ysee.gr FAQ. How much Hindus understand of the answers (or how alien they find it) depends entirely on the level of conditioning to christian thought/their introduction into christo-patterned thinking.
3. "I have seen folks on the internet who are attracted towards some of the "biblical teachings" and who are ready to discard some of the mythical/magical stories. They are within the Christian realm - secuarlism, liberalism, church & state framework."
Last 4 generations of Dutch 'christians' are like this - not all, but many. (Though they're not attracted to christianism, but are merely still in it out of inertia.) Particularly Dutch theologians. The general populace is more apathetic to the religion than anything else.
America was always behind. And the US is not congenial to promoting this type of 'liberal' christianism. Also, all such heresy ends when christianism is in power. It does not take much to roll-back all this independent thought. One more mere 'accident' of history will suffice. That is because christianism is prone to such accidents (e.g. the 'regrettable inquisitions' as they're described in hindsight) and prone to ensuring roll-backs.
There are no useful teachings in the bible/koran that are not already to be found outside as well. Christianism/islamism is invariably a threat. It does not matter how incapacitated the virus is, we cannot allow any more of it to be injected into the world. It has done enough damage.
After > 1.5 millennia, not even a handful of christians (comparative numbers) come to a non-literal reading, and can at any point be eradicated/suppressed for heresy by their own kind (the various True Christians).
To gamble on this as an acceptable future is very dangerous, <i>because</i> it is precarious, <i>because</i> it is unlikely (as frequently as christianism generates heresy, that is how frequently it crushes it). Draw the line. Stop seeing the exceptional exceptions as a reason to live with the unbearable intolerant rule. The core, the nucleus, the 'living' (energetic) portion of the christian meme has not changed. The confused edges burn off by themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ramana: Husky, hats off for the two very clear posts<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Apparently my 'skill' at copying and pasting have impressed you. Your compliment has been accepted and in return I'm willing to share my secret with you - please take notes:
I pressed Ctl-C and Ctl-V repeatedly.
With a little bit of practice, you may all one day (in theory) be able to rise to <i>some</i> level approaching my own. Not to be matched, not to be exceeded, of course, but <i>approached</i>. I say this to encourage you all.
(Waves arms in the air in sinister 'benediction' like that famous pope from the vatican balcony when he excommunicated everyone in a drunken stupour. <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo--> You know, <i>this</i> pope:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/C2b.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->URBAN VI 1378-1389 Warmonger who resorted to bribery, and who, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, was poisoned. Described as "one of the most unstable popes in history" in Richard McBrien's Lives Of the Popes. He ordered England to fight against France because France had taken the side of his rival, Clement VII. He promised indulgences and other "spiritual rewards" to anyone who would take up arms.
Before 1380 he was known for his drunken rages, even having climbed the Vatican battlements at one time to excommunicate the gatherings below.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->One of the more *benign* popes, as we can see.)
Am I glad this is the misc thread and I didn't inflict any important thread with all the above. Although, my papal imitation was quite memorable....
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+May 30 2009, 08:02 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ May 30 2009, 08:02 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have this hunch that Islam is based on non-Nicean denominations who were left out and all those conquered areas were <b>welcoming these folks as their own guys.</b> Thats the only explanation to the sudden collapse of all those kingdoms and empires to Islam.
[right][snapback]97942[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's not right.
Arabia was <i>hyper</i>-pagan. Confirmed by multiple sources - for example, there is contemporary info on this - Roman materials. But for easier access, try Elst's pages for instance. I think he had a couple of articles on islam.
Also, mohammed:
1. knew of nearby christianism and
2. knew of the communities of 'hemerobaptists' - Sabians, Mandaens or whatever who used to do the baptism ritual for a long time before christianism came into existence.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+May 30 2009, 01:54 AM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ May 30 2009, 01:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky:
Thanks for the elaboration. I have seen folks on the internet who are attracted towards some of the "biblical teachings" and who are ready to discard some of the mythical/magical stories. They are within the Christian realm - secuarlism, liberalism, church & state framework. They are very similar to some of the Hindu folks described in Balagangadhara's talk - example the Vinayagar story; i.e. folks who pick whatever they can and discard things that no longer are relevant to contemporary society. Such Christians are increasing in number in the USA.
Ramana: Thanks you said something inline with my thoughts. <b>Our gods are little different from their God.</b> Our relationship is rather different - a lot complex though. I say complex because there are stories where individuals scold our devas and devis, and there are individual (usually lady sadvis) who sing love-songs (Meera & Andal ).
[right][snapback]97915[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. "Our gods are little different from their God." <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You could not be more wrong. They're nothing alike. (Nice use of capital G for their non-existent monster gawd, by the way. Did you even read the bible that describes the nature of their gawd? Ever? To come to that conclusion that 'our Gods are little different' from <i>it</i>?)
You don't get the difference between christianism/islamism and Natural Traditions. It is far more than merely the sort of superficial 'relationship' differences you speak of (which, by the way, there are perverted echoes of in christianism as they have frequently been stolen into mary and jeebus' characterisations from the Greco-Roman traditions, but perhaps you're not aware of that.)
As to <b>why there is nothing in common between Hindu Dharma and christianism (<i>let alone</i> our Gods and their scary fiction)</b>, I find it best explained by Natural Traditionalists who
a. Know their Natural Tradition very well (i.e. non-modernists)
AND
b. who know christianism really well.
Hindus know Hindu Dharma, so a. above is covered. But since they (we) don't know christianism well at all, they start projecting the Hindu POV onto christianism and hence conclude that it is all the same 'after all' in crucial points X, Y, Z.
NO.
As I said, the difference is best explained by those who know their own Traditional POV perfectly and without compromise, <i>and</i> who know the enemy meme's POV intimately.
Because I'm simply not clever enough, I just don't seem to understand most of what Balagangadhara says. Maybe I have to rewatch several times. It could also be due to English being a confusing language, especially when there are terms involving religion (e.g. God, Religion).
I <i>do</i> however recognise what the following people are speaking of and the more I read portions from their FAQ, the more I find that that's what I've been wanting to articulate all along and that they clearly explain the *general* Natural Traditional POV <i>as well as</i> where this differs from christianism/islamism. They have a. the <i>vocabulary</i> - and I don't just mean the spectacular English they employ - <i>to do the differentiating</i>, and they have b. the <i>knowledge to do it correctly</i> which is even more paramount.
They speak for me (and do so accurately enough on Hindu Dharma on many points here):
<b>FAQ of the Ethnikoi Hellenes @ Ysee.gr:</b>
http://ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq#11
(Please do read from the section on "Theological and Cosmological matters", at the given anchor, down to the end.)
<b>IMO, this is the page that every Hindu</b> who doesn't really know christianism (but has their own idea of it in their head) <b>ought to read and study over and over again to learn about christianism and WHY IT IS NOT THE SAME as Hindu Dharma/Natural Traditions.</b> Would be made compulsory reading for Hindus, if I could have my way.
Also good to read Julian's trusted friend and colleague Sallustius writing on such matters as Vigrahas, with translator's explanations. Sallustius long ago explained EXACTLY what Hindu Vigrahas are and aren't, though he was speaking of the Greco-Roman kind (which are mostly the same as ours, same as Shinto, same as Taoist Vigrahas). Though I'm not sure that modern Hindus even recognise what he says, since christoconditioning alienates them from understanding the Natural Traditional way of thinking.
It is the accuracy and depth of understanding shown in the Ysee FAQ that makes me certain the Hellenes will survive our kind. While modern Hindus are confusing and forgetting themselves - particularly those in the west or Angelsk-enabled, and they're the only ones speaking - the Hellenes are making sure they will always know what they are and stick to it. The fact that they can verbalise all this is amazing. I try and I try and, for the life of me, I have never been able to put to words all these things that they explain in their comparatively short paragraphs (and I haven't found a single Hindu in all this time <i>to speak for me</i> who can properly, completely, accurately explain this, the way these Hellenes explain Natural Traditions - with particular emphasis on Hellenismos: what it is and what it is NOT). While I don't think all of it applies to Hindu Dharma - somethings <i>are</i> different since our way is not the <i>same</i> as Greco-Roman tradition - a lot of it surely does apply, and I find myself nodding in violent agreement to many parts, the way I never do when reading modern Angelsk-enabled 'intellectual' Hindus. The Hellenes @ Ysee.gr have largely said what I want said. And am so grateful for them having done so and for having expressed it so well. In making a path for themselves - their right to existence - they have graciously made one for all Natural Traditionalists. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->What I find most useful and potent is that they tackle exactly the sort of interrogative leading questions that christianists always generate and inquisition Natural Traditionalists with (the <i>christoconditioning</i> questions, as I think of them as: the sorts of utterly alien questions that when the heathen even starts pondering them, the christoconditioning poison starts to work. Note how well the Greeks counter the poison). IMO, this FAQ should be a handbook that Hindus take out and rattle off in reply to christianists, in religion classes in California, and to everyone in Bharatam of course.
After reading some Ysee FAQ items the first time, I had decided I neither want nor trust Angelsk-speaking Hindus to speak for me (while they know English very well, they so easily compromise on the matters most essential to me - it is generally the sort of Hindus who'd know English at all. Of course I make an exception for Aurobindo et al, but then, he is exceptional. He speaks Hindu though it reads like Angelsk). If I want Angelsk-language representation, I'll choose self-aware Natural Traditionalist Greeks to do it for me - Angelsk is a European language after all. And on those points where our traditions differ, I'll have to resort to making my own case.
Besides, of the Europeans, who but the Greeks and Romans know christianism best? (That is also why one finds that the traditional Greeks dislike christianism the most. See the FAQ again for an indication.)
2. Modern Hindus have been changed enough to be able to do an 'equal-equal' - as you call it below (see next quoteblock) - between Hindu Dharma and christianism (and, separately, are also open to swallowing all recent theories about our Gods as 'equal possibilities' to what one's ancestors have known about them - this happens especially when modernising Hindus don't know their own religion due to incomplete transmission of tradition/knowledge and deterioration of personal involvement over generations). This is why I worry about Angelsk-speaking Hindus - especially those who ever lived in the US, since US is more consciously christo-conditioning with its forced assimilation and social engineering - speaking for the masses of Hindus back home. It's not just the 'Hindus are monotheists' and 'Hinduism is actually a philosophy onlee' type nonsense that comes forth, but also regurgitation of many other, more subtle *western perceptions* of Hindu Dharma that these Hindus have internalised. And they then think themselves to be an accurate representation of their (even recent) ancestors' Hindu Dharma or that of most Hindus back home. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> Their POV is theirs to hold, but they can't say it is representative. It's not.One more thing. The equal-equalism mentioned below would also explain why modern Hindus start finding it contemplatable to marry christians - <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> - which IMO is just as <i>absolutely impossible</i> as a Hindu marrying a muslim.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+May 27 2009, 07:29 AM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ May 27 2009, 07:29 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Islam had similar cicumstances our war and problems in the middle-east, so why would Christians feel bad for the "problematic" origins? Sorry for doing a equal-equal, my family's kula-daivam is Murugan, and to me (and us) it does not really matter about the different stories of his origin. There are theories about Kartikeya from the North and Murukku a warrior god from the south being two entities who finally merged and became one - son of Shiva. Point is, all these fascinate me but it is not going to really diminish my faith on Hinduism - culturally or religion wise.
So why are the Christians having so much kujli?
[right][snapback]97781[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As stated above, your questions on how Natural Traditions differ from christianism is elaborately covered and answered at the Ysee.gr FAQ. How much Hindus understand of the answers (or how alien they find it) depends entirely on the level of conditioning to christian thought/their introduction into christo-patterned thinking.
3. "I have seen folks on the internet who are attracted towards some of the "biblical teachings" and who are ready to discard some of the mythical/magical stories. They are within the Christian realm - secuarlism, liberalism, church & state framework."
Last 4 generations of Dutch 'christians' are like this - not all, but many. (Though they're not attracted to christianism, but are merely still in it out of inertia.) Particularly Dutch theologians. The general populace is more apathetic to the religion than anything else.
America was always behind. And the US is not congenial to promoting this type of 'liberal' christianism. Also, all such heresy ends when christianism is in power. It does not take much to roll-back all this independent thought. One more mere 'accident' of history will suffice. That is because christianism is prone to such accidents (e.g. the 'regrettable inquisitions' as they're described in hindsight) and prone to ensuring roll-backs.
There are no useful teachings in the bible/koran that are not already to be found outside as well. Christianism/islamism is invariably a threat. It does not matter how incapacitated the virus is, we cannot allow any more of it to be injected into the world. It has done enough damage.
After > 1.5 millennia, not even a handful of christians (comparative numbers) come to a non-literal reading, and can at any point be eradicated/suppressed for heresy by their own kind (the various True Christians).
To gamble on this as an acceptable future is very dangerous, <i>because</i> it is precarious, <i>because</i> it is unlikely (as frequently as christianism generates heresy, that is how frequently it crushes it). Draw the line. Stop seeing the exceptional exceptions as a reason to live with the unbearable intolerant rule. The core, the nucleus, the 'living' (energetic) portion of the christian meme has not changed. The confused edges burn off by themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ramana: Husky, hats off for the two very clear posts<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Apparently my 'skill' at copying and pasting have impressed you. Your compliment has been accepted and in return I'm willing to share my secret with you - please take notes:
I pressed Ctl-C and Ctl-V repeatedly.
With a little bit of practice, you may all one day (in theory) be able to rise to <i>some</i> level approaching my own. Not to be matched, not to be exceeded, of course, but <i>approached</i>. I say this to encourage you all.
(Waves arms in the air in sinister 'benediction' like that famous pope from the vatican balcony when he excommunicated everyone in a drunken stupour. <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo--> You know, <i>this</i> pope:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/C2b.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->URBAN VI 1378-1389 Warmonger who resorted to bribery, and who, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, was poisoned. Described as "one of the most unstable popes in history" in Richard McBrien's Lives Of the Popes. He ordered England to fight against France because France had taken the side of his rival, Clement VII. He promised indulgences and other "spiritual rewards" to anyone who would take up arms.
Before 1380 he was known for his drunken rages, even having climbed the Vatican battlements at one time to excommunicate the gatherings below.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->One of the more *benign* popes, as we can see.)
Am I glad this is the misc thread and I didn't inflict any important thread with all the above. Although, my papal imitation was quite memorable....