rampant curiosity--how do you waste time?

I've always thought that it is less to do with how much a person drinks (or in my case, hash) but rather why one drinks. Even in my heaviest days of smoking hash, the amounts involved weren't tremendous but the amount of time under the influence of it was.Not to turn this into a God-thing but I remember reading The Screwtape letters and there was a part when the Chief Demon is explaining to Wormwood how it is that he should use drugs to destroy people: be that drink, smoke, materialism, EvC, sex, career etc. First there is the extra-pleasure that one gets from engaging in it. This is to lead the person into more and more - in pursuit of more of the pleasure. Then after a while, the trick is to start removing some of the pleasure for a given input. The chief Demon talks of the joy (for him) when he starts removing the pleasurable aspects. The victim is then required to push harder and harder into it to gain the same pleasure as he once had. Eventually all the pleasure is removed and the person is left with what remains - addiction. John Cleese did the audio book and at this point gives a fiendish little laught and the exquisiteness of it all - the person impaling themselves....My own wasting time? Far too many things to mention. It would waste even more to try and list them. I reckon in any case, that if life has no externally-derived meaning then there is no such thing as wasting time - which could be said to be spending time in a meaningless (or in a less-than-optimally-meaningful) way

About the most succinct and accurate description I have yet heard of nihilism. You're a poet but you don't know it...

First book of the this bible should, I suggest, be called Revelation: And no good works-based bible would be complete without 10 commandments. And the first commandment needs to be the basis of the rest. It would be fitting to call the book that contains them Excrement....(as in Monty Pythons "...lifes a piece of sh1t, when you look at it")1.
2.
3.We've decided Nietzsche is the Messiah so we should have Gospels according to some of his disciples: Casimir, Turgenov, Beckett and Warhol. Satre could be our doubting Thomas, whose contentious Gospel fights for inclusion. Hitler could be the great Apostle Paul who expounded so brilliantly on the source material. Stalin could be Peter, very effective but less brilliant than Paul....(Note to Robin: my somewhat negative view of nihilism is not intended to indicate that this is the only interpretation possible - every bible needs it factions and sects in order to confuse what the true message is)This message has been edited by iano, 24-Nov-2005 04:22 PM

If one were gay the one couldn't be absolutely sure someone else didn't chose to be gay. If one were straight one couldn't be absolutely sure someone else didn't chose to be gay. Only if one chose to be gay after they were straight (or vice versa) could one be absolutely sure (of the opposite to what you are saying)

You've caught the style nicely (I'm wondering are these verses are somewhere in the bible). But you have a 'therfore' nested in there so you'll have to work backwards towards Nn2:1 in forming the basis for this doctrineThis message has been edited by iano, 24-Nov-2005 05:32 PM

And after all that you still don't believe in God. Sheesh....

As it happens, God doesn't expect that you will your way to him. He is fully aware that you cannot. It is him that comes to you. He is the one who shows you the sign and the necessity. He is the one who gives the belief (or rather, the grounds by which belief is automatic). He give faith. He does it all.The only part you can play is to say "no thanks" Is there any practical (as opposed to philosophical) difference between them. Don't both live their lives without any reference to God.This message has been edited by iano, 30-Nov-2005 07:40 PM