Russell is correct here in that David made a statement which is un-provable
and there for religious in it's own right: While Russell can not (please
don't try? Please?) prove that religions DO provide real goods, David also
can not possibly prove that they do NOT provide real goods.

This is exactly the sort of discussion that is prohibited on the list.
Un-provable statements are not to be discussed here.

The point about priests dining on sacrifice might be provable...

No more yelling, flaming, or moaning about this subject.

--
James Newton, PICList admin.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of
Apptech
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 18:17
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT]: Unbelievable and a bit scary!

> Yup.. Neopets is another VW that is taking real dollars 
> for imaginary goods.

> But this is nothing new really, religions have been doing 
> the same
> since the first priest dined on a sacrifice.

I find that sort of comment offensive and inappropriate,

NOT because I am unable or unwilling to debate it or even 
because I totally disagree with it, but because I am not 
ALLOWED to debate it or discuss it or make comment on it in 
this forum to a useful extent and because any attempt to do 
so is liable to be suddenly cut off, quite probably 
(entirely coincidentally)(Murphy is good at that) at a place 
that does not do merit to the counter comment. The comment 
contains a truckload of baggage which spills far outside the 
basic comment. The baggage is more worth discussing than the 
basic assertion.

SciFact & FYI :-) : If one wanted a well documented example 
of the formalisation and openness of priestly income being 
dependant on sacrifice and religious endowment then the Old 
Testament of the Christian Bible provides an excellent one. 
The fact that not only could the priests depend on offerings 
but that they HAD to is laid out in detail. The priests and 
supporting populace were not entitled to own land outside 
the allotment which was theirs by right. Separation of 
church and state at work :-). After a fashion. Those who 
brought sacrifices were entirely clear of how they were to 
be used. Some were for priestly consumption and some 
weren't. There were also things that the priests weren't 
allowed to do, and there are documented examples of things 
being done wrong and noted appropriately. The sons of Eli, 
Samuel's erstwhile mentor, (Eli, not the sons) were not only 
eating food that was forbidden to anyone but were also using 
their positions of power and authority to impress and seduce 
young women who came to bring offerings. So overall the OT 
provides an excellent example of structure, appropriate use 
and abuse of power and position. Lessons to learn for some 
modern practitioners of religion :-) :-(.

So this in general lends general weight to what you said. 
But fails to address the sub-text that you naughtily snuck 
in as a bonus. That's best left for other forae, often 
finalised at dawn, choose your weapons, seconds will call, 
... . :-)



        Russell






-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist