Subject: (urth) Wolfe as Heretic

From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 14:00:52 +0000

In my fairly extensive review of Gene Wolfe interviews I've
found him to be generally cautious and circumspect with regard
to revealing the mysteries behind his literary work. But 
occasionally a certain interviewer will inspire him to let 
something important slip. For example, in the Larry McCaffery
interview I mentioned in another post he is willing to resolve
the central mystery of Fifth Head of Cerberus.
 
In the '96 interview with James Jordan I find one of the most
telling revelations which has helped my personal understanding
of the thematic underpinnings of the Sun series. Ironically the
answer is in response to a question about the Soldier series. But
it displays a part of the stated personal belief system of Gene
Wolfe which seems to have inspired much of his work. I think it is
a belief which is not reconcilable with orthodox Catholicism, though
I can't be sure.
 
>JJ: Which is another way of saying, do we have fallen angels here
>or some type of power that really was operative in the world before
>the kingdom of God?
 
>GW: That is my personal belief. I think that the gods of paganism were
>real. But what I tried to do was to write about that pagan world as the
>pagans themselves wrote about it. If we read modern historians we are
>reading a very rationalistic viewpoint of this which says that all of
>these people were absolutely wasting their time by building temples to
>Ares or Apollo or you name it. And by offering sacrifices in worship and
>all that it was nothing there. Nothing at all there and that whether it
>is true or not that certainly is not the way the people who were doing it
>felt. They were convinced that there was something there and they had all
>sorts of legends and so forth about the appearances of the god and in fact
>there is one place in the Acts where Paul and another one of the apostles
>are mistaken for Zeus and Mercury. Zeus and Hermes, we are mixing the Latin
>and the Greek which is what I was trying to get away from. They are mistaken
>for Zeus and Hermes in human form because people in those days expected that
>you could see Zeus and Hermes in human form. I am not so sure they were wrong.
>I am not convinced that they were wrong. We love to think how much smarter we
>are than people of ancient times or biblical times or so forth but I am very
>dubious about that.
> 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4

---

From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 14:10:12 +0000

I am not certain that monolatrism is heretical.

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100519/39efd4b9/attachment.htm>

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 14:33:01 +0000

Church Fathers did not in general make a point of saying pagan gods didn't 
exist. I don't think any considered them divine, but instead of angelic 
nature, though either fallen or miscontrued by their worshippers.

Hi, people.

---

From: Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 14:47:36 +0000

> nature, though either fallen or miscontrued by their worshippers.

That's what I read Wolfe as saying:  the being worshipped is real even
if humans misconstrue their nature.  Let's say that an ancient Greek
worshipping Apollo was really worshipping one of the angels to whom
was given custody of poetry, the sun, music, etc.  The imperfect
nature of the worshipper is such that all he knows how to call what he
sees is "divine," even if that appellation might more properly refer
to Apollo's boss, and not to Apollo himself.  Certainly the same sort
of modernistic arguments against the existence of divinity apply with
equanimity to the existence of Apollo or the god of monotheists.
Wolfe is right that there is no reason for people that acknowledge the
existence of that monotheistic god to assume that heathens were silly
for believing in their many gods.  In fact, it is contrary to their
own faith that they would be dismissive of the faith of others.

Also, Wolfe is a learned man, and well aware of Christianity's roots
being not too far removed from henotheistic Judaism.  I think our
modern theological discussions are stripped very bare of the
supernatural (except for, of course, those beings for which theodicies
are traditionally maintained), and we tend to impart our rather
cynical view to ancients, or view them as deficient in some regard
because they believed in things we now consider seriously.  Every time
I indulge myself in this prejudice, I recall all of the wonders the
people of the ancient world produced, and am humbled a bit.

---

From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:26:34 +0000

Exactly. This is how Tolkien handled it too; his elemental gods were clearly angelic, and Elves remembered this if Men didn't. Just acknowledging the gods as real doesn't mean they must be gods. 

I don't think Wolfe would agree that only the Jews knew God before the Christians; the Greeks must have glimpsed divinity, whether in angelic form or as fragments of true divinity. They were well acquainted with it.

To me, all his novels read like the Soldier novels to me---his characters are like the blind men encountering the elephant, but they don't think they know everything like 21st century people do, nor do they think God is a big warm hug. They acknowledge the persistence of mystery/ies. Encountering their gods could be a fatal experience.

I don't think there are angels in FHC.

BTW, I'd bet that Wolfe might have fun with heretical status in the sense of being a "bad boy," but no more than that. He's too smart to have converted with the purpose of either deconstructing and demolishing his new religion or oversimplifying/rigidifying it.

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:33:01 +0100
From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) Wolfe as Heretic
Message-ID: <4BF3F69D.5060501 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

Hi, people.

---

From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:32:42 +0000

And now I grasp another layer of meaning in Latro's name. 

Am I always the last to know? ;)

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:10:12 -0400
From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) Wolfe as Heretic
Message-ID:
	<AANLkTimBy7TYu9Spxvov6WNsDP2wN_PEhekSwSY8w98N at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

---

From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:37:56 +0000

The last to know was me, reading this just now!  I thought it meant "hunter"
and was a reference to his desire to regain his memories.  I missed the pun.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100519/975fbcb6/attachment.htm>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:39:00 +0000

In what way is this not compatible with Catholicism?

What is Catholic doctrine on this matter?

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:41:12 +0000

Y'all ought to speak for yourselves when talking about what the ancients
believed as opposed to what we believe.

There's plenty of people out there with other pictures of the World than
the Moderrun one that suit them very well.

.

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 17:50:19 +0000

Wolfe said in that same interview, "Laura is my idea of what a pagan goddess might be who survived
into the Christian world. One of the places where I probably split
off from conventional Catholic thinking is that I believe that the
gods of paganism were real. I don't think that they are entitled to
the worship that they received from the pagans. I think what many
of the biblical writers are saying is, 'Yes, these are real powers,
but it is wrong for you to give to them the honors that are due to
God alone.' And I think that that is exactly correct."

So he thinks (or thought) his view of the pagan gods was "probably" not "conventional Catholic thinking", but that's different from "heretical".

I can't answer your questions about Catholic doctrine, Josh.

Jerry

----- Original Message ----
From: "brunians at brunians.org" <brunians at brunians.org>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 9:39:00 AM
Subject: Re: (urth) Wolfe as Heretic

.

---

From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 18:04:32 +0000

And it's a great pun. 

Wouldn't want to overinterpret, but if Latro is hunting (seeking) something in a world where gods present themselves to him daily, what is he seeking except which god to worship? Indeed, which god would a Christian worship if he lived before Christ?

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:37:56 -0400
From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) Wolfe as Heretic
Message-ID:
	<AANLkTinvp1t8dXQpKZTta6i-TAScytV8fUUqk-qRi5DS at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

---

From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 18:28:52 +0000

Well, I did a quick search and didn't find mention of "monolatrism"
elsewhere on this list. Can't remember it in any other analysis so
it looks like David Stockhoff might be elevated from last to first
in the Lupine universe to catch the likely intended connection between
that term and the Soldier. Much credit to John Watkins for dredging up
the term.
 
I wasn't seriously arguing that Wolfe should be branded a heretic. It
was mostly a jest aimed at Dan'l's worry above about "Very deep heresy".
Plus a bit of poetic license. "Wolfe as non-conventional Catholic thinker"
just didn't have the same ring for a subject title.
 
So monolatrism allows for Apollo and Hermes to be the Greeks' 
misinterpretation of angels while Typhon and Medusa or Lamia were the
misinterpretation of fallen angel demons, etc. But I still get the 
impression Gene Wolfe had more on his mind than the straight
religious interpretation, especially with the Sun series.
 
Wolfe is Catholic but he is more than just Catholic. Science and SF are  
also obviously very important to him. The decade during which Shadow of 
the Torturer was written featured a great popularity of the notion that
alien travellers had visited Earth and strongly impacted the ancient
peoples and civilizations. Not to suggest Wolfe is a "trendy" thinker but
neither did he live in a cave.  These ideas combined with monolatrism
may had been part of the impetus for that theme in the series, allowing
for Abaia and Hierodules and The Cumaean etc. to have their impact on Urth. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. 
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 18:30:32 +0000

God's got our best interests in mind, and all, but that's from His point
of view.

God is the Person who kills every one of us.

God is the Enemy on the Left.

.

> And it's a great pun.
>
> Wouldn't want to overinterpret, but if Latro is hunting (seeking)
> something in a world where gods present themselves to him daily, what is
> he seeking except which god to worship? Indeed, which god would a
> Christian worship if he lived before Christ?
>

---

From: Rob Thornton <oblate777 at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 18:39:37 +0000

Who is the Enemy on the Right?

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:30 PM,  <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
>> ? ? ? <AANLkTinvp1t8dXQpKZTta6i-TAScytV8fUUqk-qRi5DS at mail.gmail.com>
>> The last to know was me, reading this just now! “I thought it meant
>> "hunter"
>> and was a reference to his desire to regain his memories. ?I missed the
>> pun.
>>
>>> Am I always the last to know” ;)
>>>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 18:42:51 +0000

...Richard Nixon?

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Rob Thornton <oblate777 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:30 PM, ?<brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:03:21 +0000

A regular enemy is the enemy on the right.

The Enemy on the Left is a title of Tezcatlipoca.

Another of His titles is the Smoking Mirror.

.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:24:27 +0000

I'm familiar with Tezcatlipoca as Necoc Yaotl, "The Enemy on Both Sides."

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:49:45 +0000

That's also right.

It's interesting to reflect that Arjuna is the Left Handed Archer.

Arjuna uses his bow from both sides.

When we die, it is God that kills us.

He is closer to you than your jugular vein.

Are you familiar with the observance of Toxcatl, Dan'l?

.

>>>>> and was a reference to his desire to regain his memories.  I missed
>>>>> the
>>>>> pun.
>>>>>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:51:10 +0000

Only in broad terms. And we're wandering pretty far from the topic of the list.

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:49 PM,  <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:03 PM, ?<brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:55:45 +0000

The most important part of the Toxcatl ritual was the sacrifice of a young
man who had been impersonating Tezcatlipoca since the last Toxcatl
festival, and the selection of a new man to take that role in the year to
come.

The youth chosen to be the ixiptlatli (impersonator) of Tezcatlipoca was
normally a war captive. He was taught courtly speech, singing and to play
the flute. Throughout the year he would parade in the streets of
Tenochtitlan and be treated with great reverence.

His skin was painted black except for a ribbon across his eyes, he was
dressed in precious jewellery and cotton embroidered clothes. He wore a
snail-shell lip pendant, eagle down headdress, turquoise bracelets and
golden bells on his ankles.

He walked about the city playing the flute, smoking tobacco and smelling
flowers, and people would salute him as the living image of the god. At
the building called Quauhxicalco he would sometimes burn copal incense and
play his flute.

Several times during the year he would meet with the Aztec ruler, the
tlatoani, who would ritually adorn him. In the month of Huey Tozoztli
which preceded Toxcatl, he would be ritually wed to four maidens who
impersonated the goddesses Xochiquetzal, Xilonen, Atlatonan and
Huixtocihuatl, and he lived with them for twenty days.

Four days before the main ceremony the tlatoani secluded himself in his
palace and the Tezcatlipoca impersonator and his four wives paraded
through the city. On the fifth day they travelled by canoe to a place
called Acaquilpan, here he was left to himself by his wives near the
temple Tlacochcalco ("In the House of Darts"). He then freely walked up
the stairs of the pyramid, breaking a flute on each step. At the summit
the priests would lay him on a sacrificial stone, open his chest with an
obsidian dagger, and remove his heart.

He was beheaded and his skull was placed on the tzompantli (skull rack),
his body was flayed and his flesh was distributed among the nobles of the
city and eaten. The warcaptive who was to be the next impersonator of
Tezcatlipoca also took part in the flesh and probably also wore the skin
of his predecessor.

.

>>>>>> something in a world where gods present themselves to him daily,
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> is

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:56:17 +0000

I don't actually think we are.

See my previous post.

.

>>>>>>> ? ? ?

---

From: Garry Geer <geerster at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 20:11:44 +0000

There are elements of early gnosticism in the BOTNS, where one can never
truly reach the level of the Increate, but one can move upward through the
various levels (i.e. spiritual beings) to better understand the Increate but
never quite reaching Him. Think of it as a spiritual version of Zeno's
paradox as personified through pseudo-deities.

As a pastor I find Wolfe's work fascinating as it always operates in a moral
universe, but there never seems to be a clearly communicated ethic from the
Increate.

Garry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100519/2fdeacd2/attachment.htm>

---

From: Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 20:17:43 +0000

Aztecs, you don't say?  Remind me to sleep lightly the next time I
stay over at my in-laws' place.

Lane

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 20:23:36 +0000

While I admit that I don't see the immediate relevance of this to
Wolfe, it is interesting (and much more than I knew, or at least
remembered). I'll leave it to others to find the relevance.

I suspect, however, that this is a case of "anything is relevant to
Wolfe if looked at from the right angle: extreme freedom of
interpretation is fun and interesting but not always productive.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 20:43:47 +0000

> nature, though either fallen or miscontrued by their worshippers.

For pagans, the difference between divine and merely "higher" is
probably splitting hairs. It is only an important difference for
monotheists.

Paul's opinion was that: "Idols are truly divine and what is offered
to them does not dow any good.. But the gentiles sacrifice to demons,
not to God." (1 Cor 10:20)

He was glossing from Deuteronomy: "They sacrificed to demons, which
are not God. Gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared,
gods your fathers did not fear."

Wolfe differs in accepting that the ancient gods might not always be
malevolent, but potentially even good. He might have received this
from (or had it confirmed by) the Anglican C.S. Lewis who said almost
the same thing. (And in "That Hideous Strength" he portrayed the gods
Venus and Mercury as powers not positively aligned to the rebellious
Lord of Earth,) This all sounds like something Chesterton might have
opined, but I can't find anywhere he did.

But then again, CS Lewis's view of pagan gods portrayed in "The Last
Battle" is certainly at odds with Paul's. So maybe it is all
heretical.

The Fathers and the Biblical Prophets seem to have all agreed that
sacrifices to these powers is without practical value. This is
different from Latro's world.

Is it heretical to believe that that magic (defined as prayers and
sacrifices powers who are not God) *works" even if you believe it is
something that is wrong or hurtful to do? .I met a Christian erstwhile
fortune-teller who said it definitely did work for him. But he wasn't
a theologian and his opinions on the source of its efficacy were more
like Paul's than Wolfe's; so, I guess that doesn't really prove
anything.

I suppose we'd have to drill down farther into what Wolfe truly
believes and how strongly he believes it to know if he's a heretic or
not. Put him on the rack.

J.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 20:45:21 +0000

I made a mess of Paul's quote, let me try again:

"Paul's opinion was that: "Idols are NOT truly divine and what is offered
to them does not do any good.. But the gentiles sacrifice to demons,
not to God." (1 Cor 10:20)

---

From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 20:52:26 +0000

Chesterton in The Everlasting Man took a pretty firm position that the
Phoenicians/Carthaginians were devil-worshippers.  I can't recall if he took
a more charitable position on other pagan deities.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100519/1adfd47c/attachment.htm>

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 20:54:47 +0000

> opined, but I can't find anywhere he did.

Not just Venus and Mercury, but all the "divine spirits" of the
traditional Planets.

> Battle" is certainly at odds with Paul's. So maybe it is all

Au contraire: to whatever extent the idea may be at odds with Paul's,
the idea that good acts offered to false gods seems to align perfectly
with what Jesus had to say on the subject, i.e., the Sheep and the
Goats ("When did I ever see you ...")

> different from Latro's world.

True; but then, the Fathers seem to have done away with the idea of
sacrifice entirely, other than self-sacrifice (including the sacrifice
of the Eucharist, which is the ultimate self-sacrifice).

> like Paul's than Wolfe's; so, I guess that doesn't really prove

Not only is it not-heretical to suppose that magic works: it is quite
possible to suppose that working some kinds of magic is not inherently
"sinful." The idea that it is is relatively recent, coming in with the
late Middle Ages/early Renaissance; before that a clear distinction
was made between _magia_ and _goetia_, magic and sorcery. The one had
to do with using the inherent laws of created nature (as in alchemy),
while the other was dealing with spirits (and was clearly forbidden).

> not. Put him on the rack.

I'll fetch the comfy chair and the soft cushion.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 21:19:48 +0000

> Goats ("When did I ever see you ...")

Well, IIRC correctly, Aslan says to the Calorman "Any good deed done
for Tash was actually done for me." I don't think this is far removed
from "sacrifices made to Tash were actually made to Aslan", especially
if the Calorman performed the sacrifices with an honest and devout
heart, that is, with good intentions.But Paul positively repudiated
that sacrifices offered to idols were actually offered to God.

I get what you mean by the "Sheep and Goats" example, but *Jesus's*
final assessment of our good works is highly debatable. He also said
that good works done explicitly *in his Name* might be insufficient --
that some would cite such works and be told by Him "Depart. I never
knew you."

> of the Eucharist, which is the ultimate self-sacrifice).

Granted, but sacrifice is sacrifice.

> while the other was dealing with spirits (and was clearly forbidden).

Well, many Christians have believed (and continue to believe) that
magic works. I doubt those who participated in the Salem witch trials
thought the practitioners were harmless. But taking the Prophets and
the New Testament alone, the consenus seems to be that prayers to
false gods are of no practical value.There was that witch who
successfully summoned the Prophet Samuel however.
I suppose you're right, though. Enough Christians seem to have
believed in the efficacy of magic that I doubt the belief could have
been labeled heretical.

J.

---

From: JBarach at aol.com <jbarach at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 22:29:31 +0000

In a discussion of Wolfe's views of other gods, it might be helpful to  
factor in "When I Was Ming the Merciless."  All my books are in boxes right  
now, alas, so I can't look up the passage, but maybe someone could find it and 
 quote it to push this discussion along.
 
The passage I'm thinking of is the one where "Ming" talks about the Spirit  
of Yellow.  The Yellows all bring trophies of war and present them to the  
Spirit of Yellow at the shrine they've built.  Now of course there is no  
such thing as "the Spirit of Yellow." It's something that they've just made  
up.  It's a nothing in itself (just as much as "team spirit," I  suppose).  
 
But, Ming says, when you start to do that -- when you start to pay homage  
to something like that -- ... and here's where my memory breaks down.  He  
says something like: When you start to do that, the thing you're worshipping 
and  paying homage to takes on a new quality and becomes real.
 
Please, please: Someone find the passage and quote it.
 
But here's how that relates to the Bible.  In some passages, the Bible  
indicates that there are no other gods.  There is only Yahweh.  All  the other 
idols are nothings.  But at the same time, the Bible indicates  that those 
who worship these idols are worshipping demons and those who eat at  the 
table of the false gods is communing with demons, as really as those who eat  at 
the Lord's Table are communing with the Lord and with His people, becoming  
one bread, one body, with Him.
 
A man cuts down a tree and fashions it into an idol and bows down to it and 
 worships it.  What is it?  Well, one answer is: It's a hunk of wood,  
carved a certain way, and nothing else.  And that's a true answer, which  leads 
the prophets to mockery: You cut down the tree and part of it you burn to  
cook your food and the other part you worship.  How ridiculous!  But  at the 
same time, when you do that -- when you bow before the idol -- you are  
communing with demons.  There's something real out there that attaches  itself 
to the idol in terms of your worship of it.  And that, it seems to  me, is 
what Ming is talking about. 
 
Add two more things:
 
(1) The angels are called "gods" in the Bible.  While that is disputed  
when it comes to, e.g., Psalm 97 or Psalm 8, these psalms are quoted in Hebrews 
 1 and 2 in connection with angels.  Some of those angels are rebellious  
angels, which we now call demons.  But some of the angels are faithful  
angels.  So not all of these "gods" are evil by any means.  The  various nations, 
the Bible says, were ruled by various angelic beings, one of  whom is 
Gabriel, who is good.  He isn't God, but he is good and he is a  ruler and can be 
called a "god."
 
(2) Many of the things that people have worshipped are simply creatures or  
aspects of life, and not necessarily bad.  Aphrodite is the goddess of  
love.  Love can become an idol and can be pursued idolatrously.  If  you 
worship love, if you make romantic love your highest ideal, etc., you are an  
idolater, even if you don't bow to the image of Aphrodite.  But love is not  
evil.  God is love.  So if you put love in its proper place, under  God, it 
ceases to be an idol and becomes something good.  (Charles  Williams, following 
Dante, would speak of romantic love, too, as something  designed both to be 
enjoyed and to lead upwards to the love of God.)  These  created things are 
great in themselves, but they are not God.  If they are  treated as God, 
they are demonic and evil.  If they are put in their proper  place under God, 
they are good.
 
And so, in Long Sun, the goddess of love is redeemed.  And in There  Are 
Doors, the paganish pursuit of love is presented as something that might, in  
the end, lead to something good.
 
I'm sorry this is so rough.  Perhaps someone else (with the texts in  front 
of him/her) can flesh this out a bit more.
 
John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100519/e2be57d2/attachment.htm>

---

From: Adam Thornton IO <adam at io.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 22:31:17 +0000

On Wed, 19 May 2010 12:51:10 -0700, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com>
>> Are you familiar with the observance of Toxcatl, Dan'l?

Awww, c'mon, Dan'l.  Have a heart!

Adam

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 22:41:42 +0000

> like Paul's than Wolfe's; so, I guess that doesn't really prove

Again generally speaking, most pre-modern christians believed in the 
existence of supernatural powers. There wasn't nor isn't anything heretical 
about that. The thing is that christians believe such powers are as nothing 
in comparison to God, or can't even be compared. Certainly 'sorcery' can 
work if the being it is addressed to has the will and power to answer - in 
an extreme example, if Satan can operate in the World, why not also through 
answering such calls for assistance as are made to him?

The reason magic arts are condemned is certainly not because of their 
inneffectiveness, but their tainted nature of commerce with demons.

But there is also something in Christianity about demons being essentially 
powerless against wary and confident christians. Going all the way up to 
considering demons extinct at this time and age. For the modern common 
christian, it's as if God had willed all such beings out of existence, and 
to hint otherwise sounds like questioning God or God's powers - which may be 
why at first sight people may think that admitting the existence of such 
beings is heretical.

---

From: Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 22:50:36 +0000

Remember also that the several writers of Biblical texts came from
different stages along the evolution of the native Hebrew religion
from one essentially indistinguishable from the general polytheism of
the region to one of henotheism (in essence, a cult of Yahweh) to one
of monotheism.  The work of the scholars and priests of Judaism has
been to change the religion.  This could be a side effect of
standardization of practice and teachings, in essence, organizing the
religion from its tribal roots to one practiced by a priestly caste
and promulgated through the use of standard texts and "orthodox"
theology.

The Bible (as well as early Church teachings based on it) represents
the cultural, social and theological evolution of a people.

LH

---

From: Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 23:05:30 +0000

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:29 PM,  <JBarach at aol.com> wrote:
> factor in "When I Was Ming the Merciless."? All my books are in boxes right
> now, alas, so I can't look up the passage, but maybe someone could find it
> and quote it to push this discussion along.
>
> But, Ming says, when you start to do that -- when you start to pay homage to
> something like that -- ... and here's where my memory breaks down. He says
> something like: When you start to do that, the thing you're worshipping and
> paying homage to takes on a new quality and becomes real.
>

Courtesy of the ebooks some have execrated, from _Endangered Species_:

"No, we didn't worship the Lung-Rin. It was a symbol,
that's all. In the long run, if you know what I mean, we were
the Lung-Rin. We had ceremonies, yes. We set up a figure
to represent all the Yellows. Don made it of wood and leather,
and that was the center of the ceremonies. Althea helped
him with the face, and I had her make it look something like
me-you understand, a little psychology. It's odd, but you
can make a thing like that, and have everyone bow in front
of it, and offer it the things we took in war, and after a time
it becomes . . I don't know, something more. More than just
the figure you set up in the beginning. Have you talked to
Don?
"He had a theory-I don't know whether he believed it
himself. I didn't, but still. . . . There was something in it. Do
you understand what I mean? It wasn't true; but still. . . .
"All right, here's what he thought. Or anyway, what he
said he thought. That there are things we don't know about
that live in the world with us-things in another plane of
reality. And when you make something like that, it comes-
one of them comes. It shapes itself to fit your image of it,
becoming the real Spirit of the Yellows. Anyway, when we
had the torchlight processions, sometimes you might think
you could see it move. It was just the flickering light, of
course, and the fact that because it was so tall the face was
illuminated from the bottom. Any face will look strange when
you light it from below, I suppose. We caught rats and pi-
geons when we built it and put them inside, so it would make
strange sounds; some of them must have lived a long time."

-- 
gwern

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 23:06:31 +0000

Just about everybody believes in the existence of supernatural powers.

Some people consistently assert that they do not, and some fewer people
have convinced themselves that they do not.

Not believing in supernatural powers is only a win if they don't actually
exist.

.

---

From: Matthew Weber <palaeologos at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 23:18:26 +0000

> the cultural, social and theological evolution of a people.

That's one theory, certainly, but it's not uncontroversial even among
comparative religionists.  Judaism was constantly cheek-by-jowl with
paganism, and there was a constant struggle to keep it free of the religious
observances of "the nations".  There is an observable change from the
Pentateuch's language concerning other gods (what Max Mueller termed
"henotheistic") to that of the later Writings and Prophets, but that may not
be as significant as Mueller thought it was.  And Mueller himself was far
from an objective observer, since his teleology leads ultimately to a
non-personal, transcendent God which is inseparable from Nature--familiar to
those who have read widely in late 19th-century liberal Christianity.

I will grumpily admit, however, that "henotheism" is a useful word.

Just a brief comment on Antonio's point earlier : The position of the
Vatican, as far as I'm aware, is that Satan indeed has objective existence,
and power to tempt humanity.  Magic has always been forbidden (despite
Renaissance speculations and hair-splitting), not because it doesn't work,
but because one petitions the wrong forces in using it.  In James Blish's
excellent novel *The Day After Judgment*, the black magician Theron Ware
upbraids a Dominican who practices ritual magic and divination by saying
something like "There is no such thing as 'white magic'.  It is all black,
black, black as the ace of spades."  That's the official RC position as near
as I can figure, and although to believe in the efficacy of sorcery might be
old-fashioned, it ain't heretical.

-- 
Matt +

I feel again a spark of that ancient flame.
Virgil [Publius Vergilius Maro] (70-19 B.C.), Aeneid, bk. IV, l. 23
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100519/7cec3d91/attachment.htm>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 23:26:00 +0000

Satan works for the Management.

You're not supposed to have to do with him: better, if you are lucky he
won't have anything to do with you. You hope he doesn't have to do with
you.

When he thinks someone is doing really well, he brings him to God's
attention. Everything after that is on God. God can choose not do test
you, and presumably does occasionally, since good people do ocasionally do
well without the kinds of ups and downs Job had.

It is not ever good to come to the attention of the powerful.

But if you have to do with him professionally, or in the course of your
business, it's not necessarily a huge deal. It all depends on your
atttitude.

.

---

From: Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 00:20:21 +0000

The term "Satan" means accuser, and in most texts, the angel known as
"Satan" (which can be a term of office as well as name, acts as "God's
prosecutor," seeking to tempt man into sin.  Consider the book of Job:
 Satan is given free reign to walk into heaven and make a challenge to
God, basically betting on Job's life.  God ultimately wins (Job is
found righteous through his trial) but it is Satan that puts him to
the test.

A lot of this gets obscured throughout the ages as words and terms are
translated and Christianity begins to piggyback onto folk beliefs,
plus every two-bit occultist throughout history who has muddied the
waters with their ravings.  The difference between an Anton LaVey and
a more "respectable" occultist like Albertus Magnus is one of age, not
necessarily credibility.

As I understand Catholic doctrine (again, not a Catholic myself), none
of the angels that fell with Lucifer are able to take action directly
against humans, because like all angels, they lack independent will.
However, they are able to tempt humans and humans are free to enter
into exchanges with them for supernatural efficacy, e.g., spells or
magic.

LH

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:26 PM,  <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
>>> of monotheism. ?The work of the scholars and priests of Judaism has
>>> been to change the religion. ?This could be a side effect of
>> comparative religionists. ?Judaism was constantly cheek-by-jowl with
>> observances of "the nations". ?There is an observable change from the
>> be as significant as Mueller thought it was. ?And Mueller himself was far
>> and power to tempt humanity. ?Magic has always been forbidden (despite
>> but because one petitions the wrong forces in using it. ?In James Blish's
>> something like "There is no such thing as 'white magic'. ?It is all black,
>> black, black as the ace of spades." ?That's the official RC position as
>> near

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 00:31:48 +0000

The term haSatan (The Accuser) is the title of an office.

In esoteric Judaism, you learn that this office is filled, aeon after
aeon, by various archangels, and that the archangel who was filling the
office in Job's time and is still fulfilling it in ours is Gabriel.

He performs this office twice that is recorded in the Bible, and of course
he performs this office every day. The two times in the Bible his client
is Job on the one hand and Jesus on the other.

Christians of various stripes and types have various other ideas which
they take from the common religion, or the religion of the World, or
Zoroastrianism or whatever.

This is all discussed in the various Mishnahs and Talmuds and so on,
copies of which I need to obtain at some point.

.

>>> "henotheistic") to that of the later Writings and Prophets, but that
>>> may
>>> not
>>> non-personal, transcendent God which is inseparable from
>>> Nature--familiar
>>> to
>>> as I can figure, and although to believe in the efficacy of sorcery
>>> might
>>> be

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 00:39:22 +0000

I don't see Aa Gabriel (by the theory) as issuing a challenge, but as
fulfilling the duties of his office.

Does not the conversation run more or less like this?:

God: Have you seen Job? He's pretty good.

AaG: Not as good as you think: He's good because you treat him well.

It's a stretch to see what follows as a challenge on Satan's part.

.

---

From: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 01:18:39 +0000

All the theological discussion makes me wonder: Do we have a list anywhere of specifically non-fiction books that Wolfe has actually mentioned or read? Castle of Days mentions various linguistic references, but what about philosophy or theology? It seems that if we had a better grasp of what specific texts Wolfe is familiar with, a lot of these discussions would be more focused and less speculative.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 01:21:41 +0000

> against humans, because like all angels, they lack independent will.

How does the lack of free will prevent direct action against humans?

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
IEEE Student Chapter Blog at
< http://ieeetamut.org >

---

From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 01:42:56 +0000

In one interview, Wolfe claimed to have gone through phases in which he read
"everything" he could obtain by Chesterton and Lewis.  Without specific
references, I think it is very, very safet to assume that he has read:

Chesterton
-The Everlasting Man
-Orthodoxy
-Charles Dickens
-Thomas Aquinas
-The Man Who Was Thursday
-The Ballad of the White Horse
-Pretty much all of Father Brown

Lewis
-All seven Narnia books
-All three Ransom books
-Screwtape
-Mere Christianity
-Till We Have Faces
-The Great Divorce
-The Discarded Image

He's also evidently read not only The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, but
also Leaf by Niggle and probably Smith of Wootten Major.

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com> wrote:

> All the theological discussion makes me wonder: Do we have a list anywhere
> of specifically non-fiction books that Wolfe has actually mentioned or read?
> Castle of Days mentions various linguistic references, but what about
> philosophy or theology? It seems that if we had a better grasp of what
> specific texts Wolfe is familiar with, a lot of these discussions would be
> more focused and less speculative.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100519/7c6d61bc/attachment.htm>

---

From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 04:06:59 +0000

Perhaps this well-known quote is relevant here. Toward the
end is, maybe, a statement regarding gnosticicm.
 
>We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us;
>we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges. When
>soldiers take their oath they are given a coin, an asimi stamped
>a profile of the Autarch. The acceptance of that coin is their
>acceptance of the special duties and burdens of military 
>life--they are soldiers from that moment, though they may know
>nothing of the management of arms. I did not know that then, but
>it is a profound mistake to believe that we must know of such
>things to be influenced by them, and in fact to believe so is to
>believe in the most debased and superstitious kind of magic. The
>would-be sorcerer alone has faith in the efficacy of pure knowledge;
>rational people know that things act of themselves or not at all.  		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 14:56:54 +0000

He has recommended Robert Graves' "The Greek Myths". He's implied that
he has not finished "The White Goddess". "Only enough to know he was
crazy" was sort of how he phrased it IIRC.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 16:05:01 +0000

> Not believing in supernatural powers is only a win if they don't actually

Actual existence in a context that is beyond nature seems like a 
combination of attributes that is almost free of meaning. If the 
supernatural powers have ceased to provide fishing tackle and dispense 
only subjective spiritual gifts, where's the loss?

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 16:09:15 +0000

I never said that they 'ceased to provide fishing tackle and dispense only
subjective spiritual gifts'. If that's what you believe, that's what you
believe.

It was, let me see, I was mostly convinced by my second miraculous escape
from death, but the third one was definitely the clincher, with the
classical answered prayers and all. There's been several since then.

I don't know if I'd call what I believe supernatural. There's nothing
beyond nature. Nature, however, has a number of poorly documented
features.

Knowledge is based upon experience. Telepathy, bilocation and parallel
Worlds are all within mine.

.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 02:18:55 +0000

> subjective spiritual gifts'. If that's what you believe, that's what you

It's a HUCK FINN reference.

> Worlds are all within mine.

You've yet to contribute to establishing their actual existence (as 
opposed to subjective existence), however.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 02:51:30 +0000

It's established for me.

You, who cares about you?

.

---

From: Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:00:34 +0000

I care about Jeff.

Lane

---

From: Robert Thornton <oblate777 at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:01:32 +0000

So what do you say to your fellow solipsists?

rob

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:02:37 +0000

> So what do you say to your fellow solipsists?

"Bite me."

Adam

P.S. Why are my teeth sore?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3588 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100520/cb89e697/attachment.bin>

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:09:37 +0000

> You, who cares about you?

You do, if you want to meaningfully communicate about actual existence.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:11:12 +0000

> I care about Jeff.

I love you, man!

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:23:33 +0000

Good! I am also, actually, well disposed towards him.

Is it important to you that he believes a particular way?

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:26:50 +0000

It's also established for people who have had similar experiences to mine.

Knowledge is based upon experience.

I have in fact discussed such things with folks who have had similar
experiences.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:30:27 +0000

I've been known to say that also.

And, you know, go into some detail about various anatomical peculiarities
my interlocutor may encounter whilst proctosculating me.

Etc.

.

> P.S. Why are my teeth sore?_______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:31:19 +0000

I disagree.

.

---

From: Robert Thornton <oblate777 at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:33:34 +0000

I respect your opinion. From my vantage point, most belief in the supernatural is based in our instinctive reflex to impose cause and effect on everything.

rob

---

From: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:36:30 +0000

Will whoever actually writes about Gene Wolfe next please change the subject line so I know to start reading again. I mean that sincerely and without snark.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:40:34 +0000

> Knowledge is based upon experience.

I happen to agree with this very strongly, in that the qualities of the 
knowledge is often very heavily dependent on the qualities of the 
experience. I have objective knowledge that springs from objective 
experience as well as subjective knowledge that springs from very 
personal, subjective experiences. But I am careful to distinguish 
between them where they disagree. I am not the buddha, but I have 
grasped this bit of the buddha-nature.

> I have in fact discussed such things with folks who have had similar

Do you have objective reasons to think they have, or is the belief based 
on their consistent assertion that they have?

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:44:49 +0000

> Will whoever actually writes about Gene Wolfe next please change the subject line so I know to start reading again. I mean that sincerely and without snark.

Doubtless Wolfe has read Twain. Does anyone see a particular influlence 
on Wolfe, other than the probably accidental superficial plot 
similarities between HUCK FINN and BOTNS?

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:44:54 +0000

How many miraculous escapes from death have you had?

.

>
> I respect your opinion. From my vantage point, most belief in the
> supernatural is based in our instinctive reflex to impose cause and effect
> on everything.
>
> rob
>
>
>
>>>>>> I never said that they 'ceased to provide fishing tackle and
>>>>>> dispense
>>>>>> only

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:45:37 +0000

The hell you do.

.

> Will whoever actually writes about Gene Wolfe next please change the
> subject line so I know to start reading again. I mean that sincerely and
> without snark.
>
>
>
>

---

From: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:47:00 +0000

TWK is obviously just a reboot of _A Connecticut Yankee_...

But, seriously, couldn't we at least put an OT or "Off Topic" in the subject line once discussions go severely off-Wolfe-related-topic?

----- Original Message ----
From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Thu, May 20, 2010 10:44:49 PM
Subject: (urth)  Wolfe as Steamboat Pilot

> Will whoever actually writes about Gene Wolfe next please change the subject line so I know to start reading again. I mean that sincerely and without snark.

Doubtless Wolfe has read Twain. Does anyone see a particular influlence on Wolfe, other than the probably accidental superficial plot similarities between HUCK FINN and BOTNS?

-- Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:48:17 +0000

In at least one case it is based upon a shared experience.

Not a miraculous escape from death, but something truly wierd.

I've been around the block a couple of times.

I don't expect people who don't share my peculiar experiences to share my
beliefs.

As I say, what you believe doesn't matter to me. You may believe what you
like.

.

---

From: Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:49:48 +0000

Talk about whatever you want. I don't even care if it ends up in my mailbox. I just want to know if I can delete it without having to read it first. I like to think that emails from a Gene Wolfe mailing list with "Wolfe" in the subject line might actually be about Wolfe rather than someone's own personal theology and other peoples' arguments about it.

----- Original Message ----
From: "brunians at brunians.org" <brunians at brunians.org>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Thu, May 20, 2010 10:45:37 PM
Subject: (urth) Gene Wolfe

The hell you do.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:50:21 +0000

God gave you freewill.

RUSH and Ayn Rand remain unhappy about this.

.

> But, seriously, couldn't we at least put an OT or "Off Topic" in the
> subject line once discussions go severely off-Wolfe-related-topic?
>
>
>
> Doubtless Wolfe has read Twain. Does anyone see a particular influlence on
> Wolfe, other than the probably accidental superficial plot similarities
> between HUCK FINN and BOTNS?
>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:53:54 +0000

There are things that are under your control and things that are not under
your control.

I often receive mails that I do not wish to read and do not read.

I follow this simple procedure, which I recommend to you.

My mailer exposes normally four to half a dozen lines of the post.

I can tell if I wish to read it from those lines.

If I do not wish to read a post, I look at it for perhaps a quarter of a
second, and delete it.

I then spend absolutely no time bitching, whining, complaining or
protesting. I move right on the next post.

You understand, the exact number of lines is unimportant. You don't even
have to read them all.

.

> Talk about whatever you want. I don't even care if it ends up in my
> mailbox. I just want to know if I can delete it without having to read it
> first. I like to think that emails from a Gene Wolfe mailing list with
> "Wolfe" in the subject line might actually be about Wolfe rather than
> someone's own personal theology and other peoples' arguments about it.
>
>
>
>

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:54:50 +0000

Because I choose to.

.

> On 5/20/2010 10:48 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote:
> then why are you talking?
>
> --

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:54:52 +0000

---

From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:59:16 +0000

I have to agree.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100520/11e18c2e/attachment-0001.htm>

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 04:01:58 +0000

> Because I choose to.

At least you're sincere about being insincere.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 04:03:33 +0000

> I have to agree.

It's just Brunians' time of the month, it'll pass.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 04:03:49 +0000

I'm a sincere guy.

.

---

From: Greg Bates <tedkennedyrolls at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 15:48:15 +0000

He's also read Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" (which, incidentally, I
always thought he got the idea for abducting a woman named
Catherine/Katherine each year for the Feast of St. Katherine)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100521/7c770c06/attachment.htm>