Post-modernist filth is spewed out of the Bowels of Hell!
James P H
be seen as either directly or indirectly responsible for all the horrors that
afflict modern society: satanism, cannabilism, baby-murdering, serial killing,
mass murdering, homosexuality and sky-rocketing criminality. Unless something is
done to neutralise and conunter its hideous and insane premises, civilisation as we know it will plunge into the Abyss and a new Dark Age....where it will
drown in blood and then be consumed by hell-fire!
----
cheers!
(jimbo)
======================================================
"He who tolerates confusion, propogates confusion"
[Malachi Martin]
======================================================
ap Alun
What the hell are you so upset about? Post-modernism? And if so what is it?
Beyond Odd
James P H <jim...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:7n77av$gkr$1...@emu.cs.rmit.edu.au...
> This filthy garbage is the worst plague to afflict man-kind since the
Black Death and the Golden Hordes. Its theoriticians, ideologues and
practitioners should
> be seen as either directly or indirectly responsible for all the horrors
that
> afflict modern society: satanism, cannabilism, baby-murdering, serial
killing,
> mass murdering, homosexuality and sky-rocketing criminality. Unless
something is
Mike Conrad
now, and it's gratifying to see that the reactionaries in question are
making such progress with their complaint!
Mike
On 22 Jul 1999 13:46:07 GMT, James P H <jim...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>This filthy garbage is the worst plague to afflict man-kind since the Black Death and the Golden Hordes. Its theoriticians, ideologues and practitioners should
>be seen as either directly or indirectly responsible for all the horrors that
>afflict modern society: satanism, cannabilism, baby-murdering, serial killing,
>mass murdering, homosexuality and sky-rocketing criminality. Unless something is
>done to neutralise and conunter its hideous and insane premises, civilisation as we know it will plunge into the Abyss and a new Dark Age....where it will
>drown in blood and then be consumed by hell-fire!
>
>----
>cheers!
>
>
>(jimbo)
>
>
>
> ======================================================
> "He who tolerates confusion, propogates confusion"
> [Malachi Martin]
> ======================================================
>
"Fighting for Peace is like F**king for Virginity"
( --spied on a T-Shirt in London )
Bryan Palmer
>This filthy garbage is the worst plague to afflict man-kind since the
>Black Death and the Golden Hordes. Its theoriticians, ideologues and
>practitioners should be seen as either directly or indirectly responsible
>for all the horrors that afflict modern society: satanism, cannabilism,
>baby-murdering, serial killing, mass murdering, homosexuality and
>sky-rocketing criminality. Unless something is done to neutralise and
>conunter its hideous and insane premises, civilisation as we know it
>will plunge into the Abyss and a new Dark Age....where it will
>drown in blood and then be consumed by hell-fire!
And by what authority and with what evidence do you make this claim?
-----------------------------------------------------
bpa...@pcug.org.au
www.pcug.org.au/~bpalmer
ray hartman
Bryan Palmer wrote:
> Heavy shit in culture_land ... when ...
> ... expression substitutes for the LOGO, and valid speech escapes the
bounds of truth.
>
> Scares shit out of me.
>
> When one violents the laws of dynamics, one does things like " fall into a
well and drown." Nuff said !
>
> When one violates the rationalist taboos - in place since THE GREEKS but
certainly well before - now ...
> what is the cultural equivalent ? Billy bob Klinton and Microdoze ??????
What's next ?
>
> imho
> ray hartman
Aldis Ozols
>
> . . . civilisation as we know it will plunge into
> the Abyss and a new Dark Age....where it will
> drown in blood and then be consumed by hell-fire!
>
> cheers!
I really like the way you said cheers! after that.
--
How to Lobby Politicians
http://www.zeta.org.au/~aldis/lobby.html
"Reality is whatever doesn't go away when you stop believing in it."
-- Philip K Dick
ant
James P H wrote in message <7n77av$gkr$1...@emu.cs.rmit.edu.au>...
>This filthy garbage is the worst plague to afflict man-kind since the Black
Death and the Golden Hordes. Its theoriticians, ideologues and practitioners
should
>be seen as either directly or indirectly responsible for all the horrors
that
>afflict modern society: satanism, cannabilism, baby-murdering, serial
killing,
>mass murdering, homosexuality and sky-rocketing criminality. Unless
something is
>done to neutralise and conunter its hideous and insane premises,
Age....where it will
>drown in blood and then be consumed by hell-fire!
>
pass the ferrous sulphate please, time for a troll roasting.
ant
When I'm out trolling, I often find that if the #7 Floating Rapala isn't
getting any hits, it's worth switching to something with a very different
presentation -- often a large Mepps spinner with some weight about 18" in
front to bring it right down close to the bottom.
Robert J. Kolker
Neville Duguid wrote:
> What exactly is post-modernism?
>
> I haven't been able to find a good explanation, even on the web.
There is no definition or explanation.
See THE EMPEROR AND HIS NEW CLOTHES by
Hans Christian Anderson.
Bob Kolker
Neville Duguid
I haven't been able to find a good explanation, even on the web.
Cheers
--
Neville Duguid * The power of the press is broken when *
nevi...@netspace.net.au * its victims have the right of reply.*
Spare me, spam me not * "Save trees! Get on the Internet!" *
DRS
news:1dvh7s3.1p...@dialup-m1-39.brisbane.netspace.net.au...
: What exactly is post-modernism?
:
: I haven't been able to find a good explanation, even on the web.
"Postmodernism: a late 20th-century style and concept in the arts,
architecture and criticism, which represents a departure from modernism and
has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as
well as a problematical relationship with any notion of 'art'.
Typical features include a deliberate mixing of different artistic styles
and media, the self-conscious use of earlier styles and conventions, and
often the incorporation of images relating to the consumerism and
mass-communication of late 20th-century post-industrial society.
Postmodernist architecture was pioneered by Robert Venturi; the AT&T
skyscraper in New York (completed in 1984) is a prime example of the style.
Influential literary critics include Jean Baudrillard and Jean-Francois
Lyotard."
The New Oxford
--
"Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes
can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private
parts"
Nabokov on Freud
che_...@my-deja.com
<1dvh7s3.1p...@dialup-m1-39.brisbane.netspace.net.au>,
nevi...@netspace.net.au (Neville Duguid) wrote:
> What exactly is post-modernism?
If you cross 'Political Correctness" with "Bicameralism"
you get "post-modernism" ;-)
>
> I haven't been able to find a good explanation, even on the web.
Now you know why.
Che
----
If you read the definition DRS posted you will realise
that despite my levity regarding 'fuzzy logic' concepts,
Political Correctness and Post Modernism are close relatives.
Post-modernism, which provided a useful critique of
intelectual hegemony, has also been used to support some
total codswallop lurking in the guise of 'deconstructing'
archetypes.
There is a danger in telling you this.. A little knowledge
is a dangerous thing.. some people have blown up
government buildings with no more than diesel fuel
and fertilizer...
I have always felt this was the fundamental flaw in giving
a diesel fuel rebate, when One Nation is so full of shit.
I am relying on your natural talent for using explosive
ideas chiefly to blow yourself up! ;-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Lev Lafayette
>What exactly is post-modernism?
An interest in what comes after modernity, if we take that to mean the
separation of church and state, the development of an individualistic and
scientific mode of consciousness, industrialisation as the means of production,
the institutialisation of corporate property and social differentiation
being primarily based on class.
Those who suggest that advanced societies are becoming post-modern note
rge deligitimation of state authority, the growth of decentered consciousness
(particularly the development from the philosophies of consciousness to
ordinary language philosophy), the rise of the "information economy" as the
dominant means of production. Other requisites for a transition from
modernity to post-modernity (new institutions with independent subsystems,
new means of social differentiation) are lacking, suggesting uneven
development.
>I haven't been able to find a good explanation, even on the web.
A university library would be a better source ;-)
Try...
Habermas, J., The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity
Lyotard, J-F., The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge
Jameson, F., Postmodernism, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism
That should whet the appetite...
Regardez,
Lev Lafayette. l...@ariel.unimelb.edu.au http://ariel.unimelb.edu.au/~lev
* Electorate Officer for George Seitz, Member for Keilor, Parliament of
Victoria.
* Thesis in progress: 'A Social Theory of the Internet'. Ashworth Centre
for Social Theory, University of Melbourne.
Richard Kerr
>
> In <1dvh7s3.1p...@dialup-m1-39.brisbane.netspace.net.au> nevi...@netspace.net.au (Neville Duguid) writes:
>
> >What exactly is post-modernism?
>
> An interest in what comes after modernity, if we take that to mean the
> separation of church and state, the development of an individualistic and
> scientific mode of consciousness, industrialisation as the means of production,
> the institutialisation of corporate property and social differentiation
> being primarily based on class.
A good summary of post modern societal construction.
My bet is the original poster was criticising post modern thouhght as
well.
What started the philosophical post modern ball rolling was the notion
of contructed truth. That is, many of the things we believed to be
absolutes are in fact constructed from our social milleu. So...,
historically the West has firmly believed that the death penalty is
right. Or, more particularly, Right.
Over time some people have questioned the basis for this and seen that
this attitude actually grows out of assumptions we make about the nature
of people, justice and what makes for a "good" society. In other words,
some people have deconstructed the conservative notion of the death
penalty by making the implicit assumptions behind the pro death penalty
position explicit and debating them on their merits.
This has been called moral relativism and is at the core of post modern
thought. We can no longer believe everything we are told without first
questioning the assumptions implicit in our construction of what we call
truth.
Interestingly, some people have reversed their positions on capital
punishment and now believe it is Wrong. That is, the post modernist
revolution has made another opinion possible and people are now holding
it as a moral absolute.
Hope that helps.
--
Regards,
Richard Kerr Ph: (02) 9351 8017
SUHRF 2000 Project Fx: (02) 9351 7393
University of Sydney
Andrew Bromage
G'day all.
Richard Kerr <r.k...@perspolicy.usyd.edu.au> writes:
>What started the philosophical post modern ball rolling was the notion
>of contructed truth. That is, many of the things we believed to be
>absolutes are in fact constructed from our social milleu.
For those with a slightly geekier bent, you might want to take a look at
this article. (It's even on-topic on aus.religion as you will see.) Non-
geeks are invited to read it anyway and mentally screen out the computer
bits:
http://kiev.wall.org/~larry/pm.html
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
Peter Butler
>What exactly is post-modernism?
>
>
Maybe not an explanation but check out this link anyway
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/postmodern
I'm not sure if you will have to have an exorcist check out your computer
after reading it though-gotta watch out for that "Fires of Hell" virus.
Peter Butler
Peter Butler
>This filthy garbage is the worst plague to afflict man-kind since the Black
> Death and the Golden Hordes.
Do you mean PostModernism or your email??
Its theoriticians, ideologues and practitioners
> should
>be seen as either directly or indirectly responsible for all the horrors that
>afflict modern society: satanism, cannabilism, baby-murdering, serial killing,
>mass murdering, homosexuality and sky-rocketing criminality.
Funny, from my understanding of the historical and archaeological evidence,
most of these have occurred in various forms at various times through all of
human history over at least the last few thousand years and probably much
longer
Unless something
> is
>done to neutralise and conunter its hideous and insane premises, civilisation
> as we know it will plunge into the Abyss and a new Dark Age....where it will
>drown in blood and then be consumed by hell-fire!
The only dark age is one where superstition overwhelms critical thought and
rational analysis.
>
>----
>cheers!
>
Yeah, y'all have a nice day now!
Funny thing, Jimbo doesn't seem to be hanging around to explain this diatribe,
let alone defend it. Hmm, it looks like a troll, it smells like a
troll........
Peter Butler
ptc1
>
> What exactly is post-modernism?
>
> I haven't been able to find a good explanation, even on the web.
>
> Cheers
It's utter complete crap. Typically defined as "A mistrust of
meta-narratives",
its main premises are that there is no such thing as 'the truth' or even
a
shared reality. Every culture, idea, expression is equally valid.
Basically it's a intellectual, culturual and moral free-for-all.
This view is usually shared by people with their heads up their own
asses
while trying to being intellectualy arrogant.
In reality it stems from intellectual laziness and is related to
90's Political Correctness.
- ptc1
--
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise,
we don't believe in it at all."
- Noam Chomsky
Robert J. Kolker
ptc1 wrote:
>
> It's utter complete crap. Typically defined as "A mistrust of
> meta-narratives",
> its main premises are that there is no such thing as 'the truth' or even
> a
> shared reality.
You are right. The assertion that "there is no such thing as the truth"
cannot be a truth so the premise undercuts itself. Self reference will do
it every time.
Bob Kolker
Neville Duguid
> In article <7n77av$gkr$1...@emu.cs.rmit.edu.au>, James P H <jim...@mailcity.com>
> wrote:
> >This filthy garbage is the worst plague to afflict man-kind since the Black
> > Death and the Golden Hordes.
>
> Do you mean PostModernism or your email??
>
> Its theoriticians, ideologues and practitioners
> > should be seen as either directly or indirectly responsible for all the
> >horrors that afflict modern society: satanism, cannabilism,
> >baby-murdering, serial killing, mass murdering, homosexuality and
> >sky-rocketing criminality.
>
> Funny, from my understanding of the historical and archaeological evidence,
> most of these have occurred in various forms at various times through all of
> human history over at least the last few thousand years and probably much
> longer
>
> Unless something
> > is
> >done to neutralise and conunter its hideous and insane premises, civilisation
> > as we know it will plunge into the Abyss and a new Dark Age....where it will
> >drown in blood and then be consumed by hell-fire!
>
>
>
> The only dark age is one where superstition overwhelms critical thought and
> rational analysis.
Assuming you know what you're talking about,
What would you call it when rational thought is applied to false
premises that cause conclusions to run progressively farther and farther
off the rails?
An example of the sort of situation I am thinking about is where people
deduce logically from false premises that the end of the world is nigh,
and, as a result, all starve to death on a mountain top waiting for it
to happen.
Another example would be an "Easter Island economy" where people become
so obsessed with a range of occupations devoted to the production of "a
better statue", they spurn more lowly occupations like food production,
and all starve to death.
Another example might be a "service economy" where everyone is so busy
perfecting new ways to scratch each other's backs...
PS: Thanks to all who responded to my Q about "postmodernism".
From all your replies, I'm starting to piece together what it is I
think we're talking about.
Cheers
--
Neville Duguid * PC Political Science: "The insane should have *
nevi...@netspace.net.au * the same rights as everyone else. Anyone *
Spare me, spam me not. * who disagrees with them should not." *
Richard Kerr
ptc1 wrote:
>
> Neville Duguid wrote:
> >
> > What exactly is post-modernism?
> >
> > I haven't been able to find a good explanation, even on the web.
> >
> > Cheers
>
> It's utter complete crap.
You say that as if you are sure that it's True. :)
> Typically defined as "A mistrust of
> meta-narratives",
> its main premises are that there is no such thing as 'the truth' or even
> a
> shared reality.
Postmodernism is a recognition of the fact that different cultures, even
different subcultures, construct "truth" differently. For instance, the
West has decided that individual freedom is often more valuable than
civil order. Some south east asian societies have put things the other
way round.
Recognising that this happens does not imply a value judgement. It just
means you need to be prepared to understand why different positions
arise and be prepared to argue your own position on its merits.
Most postmodernists do not maintain there is no such thing as truth (the
speed of light is still the speed of light in other cultures), we simply
say that the truth is not always as obvious as it seems and that you
need to take other positions seriously.
> Every culture, idea, expression is equally valid.
How about equally "real"? Once you accept that indigenous populations
often _do_ have a different concept of ownership and relationship to the
land it makes it possible to start talking about solutions to what have
up until now been unsolvable disputes in western legal systems (to give
a for instance)
> Basically it's a intellectual, culturual and moral free-for-all.
Nope. It's a world where you have to think before adopting a moral
position. It's not good enough to simply say that abused wives need to
shut up and take it since the man is the head of the household, as some
women used to and still do. If you expect this kind of moral code you
need to be prepared to argue for it. In this example you will obviously
lose, and that's good thing, isn't it?
> This view is usually shared by people with their heads up their own
> asses
> while trying to being intellectualy arrogant.
> In reality it stems from intellectual laziness and is related to
> 90's Political Correctness.
Er, yeh.
> "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise,
> we don't believe in it at all."
> - Noam Chomsky
<Cough!> <Slack jawed stare of disbelief>
I bet you can't see the irony in your choice of .sig.
ptc1
> NB: Followups to aus.religion.
> ptc1 wrote:
> > Neville Duguid wrote:
> > > What exactly is post-modernism?
> > > I haven't been able to find a good explanation, even on the web.
> > > Cheers
> > It's utter complete crap.
> You say that as if you are sure that it's True. :)
Sure, but I'm willing to discuss.
> > Typically defined as "A mistrust of
> > meta-narratives",
> > its main premises are that there is no such thing as 'the truth' or even
> > a
> > shared reality.
> Postmodernism is a recognition of the fact that different cultures, even
> different subcultures, construct "truth" differently. For instance, the
> West has decided that individual freedom is often more valuable than
> civil order. Some south east asian societies have put things the other
> way round.
> Recognising that this happens does not imply a value judgement. It just
> means you need to be prepared to understand why different positions
> arise and be prepared to argue your own position on its merits.
What you are arguing for, actually, is the case for cultural relativism.
Why I agree wholeheartedly that different cultures may have different
conceptions or ideas of the truth and what is real, it does not follow
ipso facto, that there is no such thing as absolute truth or a reality
that is shared by all.
I have no problem with investigating phenomenon within their cultural
context. What I *am* saying is that just because a culture is different
doesnt imply that the ideas contained within are outside the realm
of criticism or that they cannot be judged to be more or less close to
the Truth (..with a Capital T..IF it exists AND if we can ever know it)
than other ideas.
> Most postmodernists do not maintain there is no such thing as truth (the
> speed of light is still the speed of light in other cultures), we simply
> say that the truth is not always as obvious as it seems and that you
> need to take other positions seriously.
Ok, then. But it appears that you contradict yourself here...
We can accept the ideas of other cultures but 'accept' them knowing
that they are false. For example, some cultures 'know' (i.e. believe
to be reality) that all sorts of paranormal phenomenon exist... like
if you were to bring a radio into a very primite culture.. they would
'know' that someone or something is inside the box speaking... whereas
we have a more privilaged access to the truth that explains the voice
inside the box as the transmission and reception of radio waves.
> > Every culture, idea, expression is equally valid.
>
> How about equally "real"? Once you accept that indigenous populations
> often _do_ have a different concept of ownership and relationship to the
> land it makes it possible to start talking about solutions to what have
> up until now been unsolvable disputes in western legal systems (to give
> a for instance)
'real' only in the relative sense- i.e. What a culture believes.
There are some things that are REAL that are NOT relative.
> > Basically it's a intellectual, culturual and moral free-for-all.
> Nope. It's a world where you have to think before adopting a moral
> position. It's not good enough to simply say that abused wives need to
> shut up and take it since the man is the head of the household, as some
> women used to and still do. If you expect this kind of moral code you
> need to be prepared to argue for it. In this example you will obviously
> lose, and that's good thing, isn't it?
Of course you look at things through the context of culture and place
and time. This doesn't mean that you can't make a value judgment
at ALL simply by virtue of the fact that the culture is different.
> > This view is usually shared by people with their heads up their own
> > asses
> > while trying to being intellectualy arrogant.
> > In reality it stems from intellectual laziness and is related to
> > 90's Political Correctness.
> Er, yeh.
:)
> > "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise,
> > we don't believe in it at all."
> > - Noam Chomsky
> <Cough!> <Slack jawed stare of disbelief>
> I bet you can't see the irony in your choice of .sig.
> -
There is no irony what-so-ever. Just because I wholeheartedly
believe in people being allowed to express their beliefs, doesnt
mean that I have to agree with everything they say, nor does
it mean that I will not argue with them, nor does it mean or
imply in any way that all ideas are equally valid.
This is the same flaw you commit above.
It is necessarily for the progress of mankind that all ideas
be shared and out in the open to discuss and debate.. but it
is equally valid those ideas with little merit are treated
as such.
So where is the irony?
> Regards,
>
> Richard Kerr Ph: (02) 9351 8017
- ptc1
--
Kenneth Lee
should
>be seen as either directly or indirectly responsible for all the horrors
that
>afflict modern society: satanism, cannabilism, baby-murdering, serial
killing,
something is
>done to neutralise and conunter its hideous and insane premises,
civilisation as we know it will plunge into the Abyss and a new Dark
Age....where it will
>drown in blood and then be consumed by hell-fire!
>
zeek0th...@my-deja.com
smoking so much pot you'd realize that your following science just as
dogmaticly as i follow Christianity...
~ZeeK
"Last night i was a man dreaming i was a butterfly, how do i know that
presently, i'm not a butterfly dreaming i'm a man?" ~Hindu Proverb
Daniel Hugh Nexon
> You are right. The assertion that "there is no such thing as the truth"
> cannot be a truth so the premise undercuts itself. Self reference will do
> it every time.
To play Devil's Advocate here, the notion you are referring to is not that
'there is no such thing as truth' but rather that truth has to be
understood in non-absolute terms; as locally produced and somewhat
contingent. Some people have called this an antipathy to 'Capital-T' truth
rather than truth in general.
This is similar to the "postmodern" attack on foundationalism. You can
read it as an attack on any foundational claims, or as an effort to
redefine what constitutes a "foundation." To say, for example, that all
foundational claims should be rejected is not understood to be a
"foundational" claim in the same sense as the category of claims which are
being negated.
Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2
"Evolution is to allegory as statues are to birdshit. It is a convenient
platform upon which to deposit badly digested ideas." --Steve Jones, NYRB,
July 17, 1997, p. 39
Barry O'Grady
Barry
==========
Please send me an email copy if you reply to this post.
Web page: http://www.acay.com.au/~barryo
Che Guava
Barry O'Grady <bar...@fastlink.com.au> wrote in article
<37e70ec8...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
> Since God created Hell then God must have created post-modernist filth.
If I explain the consequences of right action and wrong action to my children..
and grant them free will and responsibility...
They, not I, are responsible for their actions.
Che
------
As there is no "Hell" other than that of mans own making, post-modernism may
well
be part of it.
Barry O'Grady
:
:
:Barry O'Grady <bar...@fastlink.com.au> wrote in article
:<37e70ec8...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
:
:> Since God created Hell then God must have created post-modernist filth.
:
:If I explain the consequences of right action and wrong action to my
:children.. and grant them free will and responsibility...
:
:They, not I, are responsible for their actions.
Let me see if I have this right. Your lecture your newborn child in
how to feed itself and change its nappies. You then abandon the child
in the sure knowledge that said child must take care of itself. When
the child is found dead you deny any responsability.
You abuse your child for 15 years. You then tell him about right and
wrong, but in a contradictory and generaly vague and incorrect way.
You disclaim responsability when your child abuses his own children.
I hope you don't have any children with that attitude.
There is no way you can make God look good. Stop wasting your time.
All you do is make yourself look bad.
:Che
Che Guava
> "Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> :Barry O'Grady <bar...@fastlink.com.au> wrote in article
> :<37e70ec8...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
> :
> :> Since God created Hell then God must have created post-modernist filth.
> :
> :If I explain the consequences of right action and wrong action to my
> :children.. and grant them free will and responsibility...
> :
> :They, not I, are responsible for their actions.
>
> Let me see if I have this right.
No, despite two attempts, you failed to get it right.
Some have suggested genetic obtuseness..
Others reckon you went to stupidity school..
I suspect deliberate idiocy as an act of will.
This nature/nurture argument could go on for some time..
Come back when you have evolved into a higher life form
and perhaps you can contribute to this fascinating
scientific puzzle.
> Your lecture your newborn child in
> how to feed itself and change its nappies. You then abandon the child
> in the sure knowledge that said child must take care of itself. When
> the child is found dead you deny any responsability.
>
> You abuse your child for 15 years. You then tell him about right and
> wrong, but in a contradictory and generaly vague and incorrect way.
> You disclaim responsability when your child abuses his own children.
Any resemblance between your ranting, and any intelligent
perspective is purely in your mind.
Has someone actually done this to you?
If not, what relation does it bear to your original
question and my response?
>
> I hope you don't have any children with that attitude.
No, none of my children have that ridiculous attitude,
you seem to possess it uniquely.
>
> There is no way you can make God look good. Stop wasting your time.
> All you do is make yourself look bad.
Who was trying to make God look good? No one is going to ask him
out on a date! B^D
I just wanted to demonstrate what a gormless pratt you are.
Job done..
go back to trolling for dumb Christian Fundies to torment! ;-)
>: Che
>: As there is no "Hell" other than that of mans own making,
As you snipped, and did not dispute, this point, we can only
assume you actually believe in a God-Created Hell. Why?
It seems profoundly irrational.
>:post-modernism may well be part of it.
Having read your 'deconstruction' of my perfectly simple and
lucid point, I think the odds for this proposition have
shortened considerably. B^)
> Barry
> ==========
> Please send me an email copy if you reply to this post.
Why, you appear incapable of mounting a decent argument!?
Che
-------
Dear God, protect me from those to whom you speak directly.
Barry O'Grady
:Barry O'Grady <bar...@fastlink.com.au> wrote in article
:<37ecad3f...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
:> "Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:> :Barry O'Grady <bar...@fastlink.com.au> wrote in article
:> :<37e70ec8...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
:> :
:> :> Since God created Hell then God must have created post-modernist
:> :> filth.
:> :
:> :If I explain the consequences of right action and wrong action to my
:> :children.. and grant them free will and responsibility...
:> :
:> :They, not I, are responsible for their actions.
:>
:> Let me see if I have this right.
:
:No, despite two attempts, you failed to get it right.
Damn! I'd better try again then.
:Some have suggested genetic obtuseness..
:Others reckon you went to stupidity school..
:I suspect deliberate idiocy as an act of will.
Free will, or pay will?
:
:This nature/nurture argument could go on for some time..
:
:Come back when you have evolved into a higher life form
:and perhaps you can contribute to this fascinating
:scientific puzzle.
Where does science come into it?
:> Your lecture your newborn child in
:> how to feed itself and change its nappies. You then abandon the child
:> in the sure knowledge that said child must take care of itself. When
:> the child is found dead you deny any responsability.
:>
:> You abuse your child for 15 years. You then tell him about right and
:> wrong, but in a contradictory and generaly vague and incorrect way.
:> You disclaim responsability when your child abuses his own children.
:
:Any resemblance between your ranting, and any intelligent
:perspective is purely in your mind.
Yeah yeah, but what about my serious comments?
:Has someone actually done this to you?
Used logic against my arguements? Probably.
:If not, what relation does it bear to your original question and
:my response?
I suggest you reread your statement as quoted above, and then my
response, and then see how my "silly" reply was in response to
your absurd statement. Consider also that the parent in my reply
is God. Now to you see the connection?
:> I hope you don't have any children with that attitude.
:
:No, none of my children have that ridiculous attitude,
:you seem to possess it uniquely.
You made the absurd statement "They, not I, are responsible for
their actions." You tell me how a newborn child can be responsable
for it's own welfare after you talk to it in a language it does
not understand.
:> There is no way you can make God look good. Stop wasting your time.
:> All you do is make yourself look bad.
:
:Who was trying to make God look good?
You.
:No one is going to ask him out on a date! B^D
:I just wanted to demonstrate what a gormless pratt you are.
You failed.
I wanted to show how absurd your God concept is.
:Job done..
:
:go back to trolling for dumb Christian Fundies to torment! ;-)
You left out "other."
:>: Che
:>: As there is no "Hell" other than that of mans own making,
:
:As you snipped, and did not dispute, this point, we can only
:assume you actually believe in a God-Created Hell.
ass-u-me.
:Why?
:It seems profoundly irrational.
Yep. All of your religious beliefs are irrational.
:>:post-modernism may well be part of it.
:
:Having read your 'deconstruction' of my perfectly simple and
:lucid point, I think the odds for this proposition have
:shortened considerably. B^)
You blew it.
:> Barry
:> ==========
:> Please send me an email copy if you reply to this post.
:
:Why, you appear incapable of mounting a decent argument!?
You didn't refute it.
I don't mind if you show my arguement up to be stupid. If I
am wrong I want to know.
:Che
Barry
==========
Please send me an email copy if you reply to this post.
Web page: http://www.acay.com.au/~barryo