Seeker

But the question is: can one idea be both, or neither?

Mark, please don't conflate England with the entire UK. The law in Scotland is different, and AFAIK it is possible but difficult - essentially you have to have an established church organisation and congregation, then get registered. For a one-shot option, see http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/registration/getting-married-in-scotland/we-would-like-a-family-friend-to-solemnise-our-marriage

I think there are problems with all of those "laws". Starting with the excluded middle - consider a continuum, for example a set of colours fading from red to yellow. Pick a colour in-between. Is it red, yellow, not-red, not yellow, or could it fall between those categories? Let's say for argument's sake that we can agree on a particular colour which is the dividing point, and anything redder is "red" and "not-yellow" and anything yellower is "yellow" and "not-red". Now let's introduce the intermediate colour of orange. Suddenly, some of the "red" shades become "orange" and "not-red". Likewise we have formerly "yellow" shades which are now "orange" and "not-yellow". The excluded middle is usually only applied to "propositions", i.e. true/false statements. For example "This is a red ball" should only be true or false, but when the reference for "red" is undecidable, it is not clear to me that it must be one or the other. The argument above already gives rise to problems with not-not-A, since not-red includes some red-ish colours. There are also problems with infinite categories and self-referential definitions. Is something which is not not a hole the same hole as you started with? Finally identity. This may seem unassailable, but there are problems with reference. There was a classic discovery "Hespherus (the evening star) is Phosphorus (the morning star)". We would nowadays agree that these are both "Venus". However, the experience of seeing the morning star is different from the experience of seeing the evening star. By using a single label "Venus" we assert a truth about the underlying cause, but may lose an important distinction in the actual perception. The cause may be the same, but the effects are different. Which side of that divide holds the identity? In all three cases I believe they are good rules of thumb, but if you try to treat them as absolutes you may come unstuck. Edit: clarity, typos.

Coming back to the "what is a soul?" element of the thread - I found this article interesting, although I'm not sure how much of it I would agree with. http://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/4518-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death

I'd prefer to say we have the potential for both, but that most people incline towards good.

I don't know whether souls exist or not, nor do I think it matters much - I'm out to do the best I can in this life regardless. If they do, though, I think it would make more sense to say we are souls who have bodies.

I see them as perfectly compatible. Both are a search for truth. Science seeks in areas where repetition and measurement are possible. Religion looks beyond, into the unknown. Both have their place. The problems arise when they stray from their respective areas.

There's a good background article on this at http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

I see someone else came to a similar conclusion to mine... http://www.techspot.com/news/60071-mars-one-finalist-breaks-silence-claims-organization-total.html

Surely you are mis-remembering, comrade Atwater. America has always been at war with ISIS.

I beg to differ. It is difficult but theoretically possible in Scotland. You need to apply as a celebrant about 3 months prior, and give details including a statement from your church that you are authorised to solemnise, and what congregation you serve. There is no list of 'approved' churches, so ULC ministers can qualify.

Who knows - the training will be pretty arduous and I might have bailed, but I definitely intended to give it a go.

I was on the list, but I dropped out when I realised it was being run as a popularity contest and publicity stunt.

He wasn't the first to suggest that the devil was in charge. For example, C. S. Lewis had a similar view running through his "out of the silent planet" trilogy. Going much further back, it seems to tie into some of the Gnostic positions, such as Sethianism and Manicheanism. I can't pretend to understand all the subtle distinctions, but most of these views were indeed condemned.

Thank you Gwynn. Blessed be.

I don't think anyone would claim that the medium (physical or digital copy) was evil. What is less clear to me is whether there is evil content. Yes, the reader is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. But if the message of a book is one which encourages or persuades people to commit evil acts, then can't the message be said to be evil? If the author said the same things face-to-face, would you consider them evil? If so, then the book (message) is evil. If not, then would you say that books have no effect on their readers (or spoken words on their listeners)? If words have no effect, then why do we communicate at all?

I couldn't comment on that. My point was that it is not a new text.

From what I've seen it's a re-interpretation of "Joseph and Aseneth".

Hello Timothy. I greet you in my own name, but wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else. Welcome! I mostly play acoustic these days, so no pedals, but with my electric and bass I swear by Boss for effects pedals. I use a digital delay, chorus, sometimes a flanger and a multi-band equalizer. I have a nice little digital reverb which usually sits in the effects loop at the end of the chain. I have built-in compression on the bass amp, I don't use it for guitar. I generally prefer an octaver to using distortion, but mine went walkies a while back and I haven't replaced it. I also have a Zoom multi-effects box, but I've never really felt comfortable with it. Too many options and it's hard to see how they hang together. If I were to add anything (other than a new octaver) I think I might go for an envelope shaper if I can find one. They're out of fashion but can do a lot of nice things: auto wah, auto swell, triggered filters, etc.

I find all this rather confusing. When I think of speaking in tongues, it is as in Acts 2:6 - Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. The gift of tongues allowed the apostles to speak to everyone without any need for interpretation. The idea of speaking incomprehensibly seems to run completely counter to that.

The ignorant or mentally deficient may have expectations which are not reasonable. That doesn't make them unfair. I think keystrikr is close to the mark. Another way of putting it would be that there is a lack of bias. My definition was slightly broader in that it allows for a rigged game provided it is openly rigged. (There is a different kind of unfairness involved if you are forced to participate in a rigged game.)

Light coloured hair? Good looking? To attempt a more serious answer to what I think Panpareil was asking: An outcome which corresponds to reasonable expectations given the disclosed starting conditions.

I think I still have some 8" floppies lurking somewhere!

I waste time each day polishing the small grey box where I keep my soul

Playing doctor Lub-a-dub, lub dub Can you hear my love, my love through a stethoscope?