On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> The only real reason for it now is to ensure parental support for
> children. With DNA-based paternity testing, that's also no longer
> necessary.
Bingo. Hopefully, the days of sterile men paying for their wife's affair
are coming to an end.
--
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:16:39 -0800 (PST), Deirdre Saoirse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The reason the state got into licensing relationships can be tracked
>back to the 1700s in England when men left their families, moved to
>another town, and started over. That's the only reason people
>published
#if Erin Clarke
[...]
> It is more than I can ever hope to encompass in any one email reply... [=^J
Sounds like me, though I'd just call myself a scientist, and a
gentle person. Perhaps I can call myself 'spiritual' instead :)
I've been reading a lot about systems thinking recently (Capra's
'Web
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> Well, I think the state should get out of the marriage business
> altogether. That would take away a large part of the desire of
> religious organizations to be recognized by the state in the first
> place. (The other reason is probably priest-pen
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Jeff wrote:
> Yes. I am a kibologist (all of you familiar with a.r.k are cringing
> right now...).
You are NOT allowed.
:)
--
_Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net
"That doesn't make sense in any meaning of 'sense' with which I'm
familiar"
Rik Hemsley wrote:
> #if Erin
> > Snarfblat wrote:
> > > On a
> > > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious?
> >
> > I am spiritual but not religious.
>
> I am neither. Sometimes I wish I was religious. Then perhaps I wouldn't
> have to think about the Universe so much.
Bzzzt
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:54:50AM +, Rik Hemsley wrote:
> #if Erin
> > I am spiritual but not religious.
>
> I am neither. Sometimes I wish I was religious. Then perhaps I wouldn't
> have to think about the Universe so much.
I thoroughly enjoy thinking about the Universe...
> > Principall
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Jenny Brown (was Gable) wrote:
> sometimes gender-balanced, sometimes tending more toward women. It's also
> not constrictive. In general it encouarges learning about other things,
generally speaking this is one reason that I decided that I wasn't wiccan,
rather my/our own b
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:36:00 -0800 (PST), TeknoDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>if you are referring to the ULC they do have a few select doctrines,
>that all basically can be summarized as "the priesthood of all
>believers"...
ULC does have a "doctrine" but it's only there because the states
r
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 07:36:38AM +1100, Jenn V. wrote:
>
>
> Snarfblat wrote:
> >
> > On a
> > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious?
Yes. I am a kibologist (all of you familiar with a.r.k are cringing
right now...). Actually, to be serious, I am religious/spiritual --
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> I was ordained over the Internet, actually. I am aware that by doing
> so I joined a church. The church I joined has no doctrine and exists
if you are referring to the ULC they do have a few select doctrines, that
all basically can be summarized
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:53:46 -0500 (EST), Bad Mojo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Recognition isn't all bad. It does allow a church the ability to do
>many things important. Tax free contributions, marriage under law,
>etc.
You can get the tax free thing without being a church.
>When you get orda
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> I would never be a member of any church which sought recognition with
> the state as a church, except for a church whose sole reason for
> existing is to obtain recognition from the state. IMO, the act of
> seeking recognition imposes hierarchy and
#if Erin
> Snarfblat wrote:
> >
> > On a
> > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious?
>
> I am spiritual but not religious.
I am neither. Sometimes I wish I was religious. Then perhaps I wouldn't
have to think about the Universe so much.
> Principally, and in my understandi
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:57:25 -0600 (EST), "Jenny Brown (was Gable)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I'm Wiccan; it's somewhat organized, legally recognized, and varies
>from quite traditional to quite liberal.
I don't accept the tag "Wiccan" as defining anything. There are so
many types of "Wiccan
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Erin wrote:
> Snarfblat wrote:
> > On a
> > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious?
>
> I am spiritual but not religious.
I am a mix of spiritual and religious, which is probably best explained by
the fact that I'm an agnostic polytheist. Thus, I consid
dont know if anyone else has read terry pratchets "Small Gods"
but the one of the things said in the book rings true for me
namely that organisation of a 'religion' tends to kill the escense (sp?)
of it. ( it is a comedic fantasy tho )
things said in jest etc.
Sean
--
"Real Program
Snarfblat wrote:
>
> On a
> somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious?
I am spiritual but not religious.
Principally, and in my understanding, religion is the organizational
strucure of people and practices/rituals, while spirituality is a way of
being open to/part of the my
> Snarfblat wrote:
> > On a
> > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious?
Yes
> > In my
> > experience, organized religion is a very patriarchial and constrictive
> > environment, which I would imagine, would put off most people here.
> > Is
> > there a near mutual exclusion
19 matches
Mail list logo
