God told me...
Guillermo el Gato
Robertson.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/01/02/robertson.predictions.ap/index.html
"Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday that God has told
him that a terrorist attack on the United States would cause a "mass
killing" late in 2007.
""I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during
his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian
Broadcasting Network.
""The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something
like that.""
Now, this brings a few thoughts to mind:
1) Is this the same God that told him to run for office in '88? That'
didn't really turn out so good. Maybe Pat ought to check a little bit
on that whole "past performance/future indicator" thing.
2) Sometimes people say God talks to them. I assume it's rhetorical.
I'm pretty sure that those that actually hear a voice need
professional help. Why hasn't someone stepped in, "intervened" if you
will with Mr. Robertson.
3) Why is it that a fruit like this can make the fuckin' headlines,
but things like the subversion of the Constitution are relegated to
page A21?
Igor
Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a message
from God rather than one from your invisible friend Elmer.
Bill Bonde
The cow with the nose ring? You should know whatever he says is bull.
--
"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
NadCixelsyd
it from happening. If He/She does not, then it's just as good as if
He/She did it Himseld/Herself. As the terrorists try and slip the
device across the border at Newport, Vermont, the customs agent should
suddenly receive a "hunch" to look under the spare tire.
How does Robertson explain that he can recieve the word of God but I
never have?
darkon
> How does Robertson explain that he can recieve the word of God
> but I never have?
I don't know that he has ever offered an explanation, but I'm sure
someone here can come up with one.
Opus the Penguin
I don't buy that Robertson has received the word of God here. I don't
buy that you never have. So it's hard for me to answer that question.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Opus the Penguin
> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a message
> from God rather than one from your invisible friend Elmer.
That would be because the majority of people have some understanding
that God exists.
Boron Elgar
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you feel there is anyone today who receives the word of God in a
way comparable to what Robertson claims?
Boron
Bill Bonde
Part of the problem is that some people talk that way, "I had a word
from God", a lot. What else does he have to say on his 700 Club?:
"There's a hurricane coming our way but I astro-flipped my brain into
its eye and used my projection to bob and weave it around our city."
Who'd believe that?
Lesmond
>
>
>Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
>
>> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a message
>> from God rather than one from your invisible friend Elmer.
>
>That would be because the majority of people have some understanding
>that God exists.
No one believes in my friend Elmer?
--
Oh. You don't wanna look in there.
Paul Ciszek
In article <9snnp2d4bgj3j975o...@4ax.com>,
Guillermo el Gato <dev...@example.com> wrote:
>
>Now, this brings a few thoughts to mind:
>
>1) Is this the same God that told him to run for office in '88? That'
>didn't really turn out so good. Maybe Pat ought to check a little bit
>on that whole "past performance/future indicator" thing.
Heads God wins, tails doesn't count.
>2) Sometimes people say God talks to them. I assume it's rhetorical.
>I'm pretty sure that those that actually hear a voice need
>professional help. Why hasn't someone stepped in, "intervened" if you
>will with Mr. Robertson.
I'm looking for a quote I have seen around that goes something like,
"If someone said that God spoke to them through their toaster, even
churchgoers would conclude that they were insane. I fail to see how
omitting the toaster fundamentally changes anything."
>3) Why is it that a fruit like this can make the fuckin' headlines,
>but things like the subversion of the Constitution are relegated to
>page A21?
Because Americans are stupid and evil. That is the answer to a great
many questions these days.
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Paul Ciszek
In article <459C0DEC...@yahoo.co.uk>,
Bill Bonde <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>
>> NadCixelsyd (nadci...@aol.com) wrote:
>>
>> > Is God going to cause this disaster? Surely God can intervene and
>> > keep it from happening. If He/She does not, then it's just as
>> > good as if He/She did it Himseld/Herself. As the terrorists try
>> > and slip the device across the border at Newport, Vermont, the
>> > customs agent should suddenly receive a "hunch" to look under the
>> > spare tire.
>> >
>> > How does Robertson explain that he can recieve the word of God but
>> > I never have?
>>
>> I don't buy that Robertson has received the word of God here. I don't
>> buy that you never have. So it's hard for me to answer that question.
>>
>Part of the problem is that some people talk that way, "I had a word
>from God", a lot. What else does he have to say on his 700 Club?:
>"There's a hurricane coming our way but I astro-flipped my brain into
>its eye and used my projection to bob and weave it around our city."
>Who'd believe that?
In Pratchett & Gaiman's _Good Omens_, the seventeenth century witch
Agnes Nutter had the gift of making completely accurate, unambiguous
prophecies. But she only saw the small picture. Her prophecy for
November 22nd, 1963 had to do with a loose grate on the street of some
English village, because that might affect one of her descendents,
wheras what was going on in the Dealy plaza didn't concern her.
She did manage to leave enough cryptic notes like "Be ye ware of the
Beytamax" that her descendents were able to make a comfortable living.
Dhubghall
<snip Pat's latest auditory halucination>
Makes me wonder what good ol Pat thinks of Deuteronomy 18-10-12:
Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the
fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in
witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who
consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the
LORD
Sounds like he's cutting it a little close if you ask me.
Dougall
Boron Elgar
wrote:
I absolutely LOVE his glue.
Boron
Mary
Opus the Penguin wrote:
> Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
>
> > Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a message
> > from God rather than one from your invisible friend Elmer.
>
> That would be because the majority of people have some understanding
> that God exists.
Well, strictly speaking, they have some belief that God exists. That's
a bit different from understanding.
Mary
Erich
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <9snnp2d4bgj3j975o...@4ax.com>,
> Guillermo el Gato <dev...@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >2) Sometimes people say God talks to them. I assume it's rhetorical.
> >I'm pretty sure that those that actually hear a voice need
> >professional help. Why hasn't someone stepped in, "intervened" if you
> >will with Mr. Robertson.
>
> I'm looking for a quote I have seen around that goes something like,
> "If someone said that God spoke to them through their toaster, even
> churchgoers would conclude that they were insane. I fail to see how
> omitting the toaster fundamentally changes anything."
"The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one
occasion, to be in dialogue with God. Now, if he said that he was
talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national
emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim
more ludicrous or more offensive." - Sam Harris
--
Erich
Bob Ward
Bob Ward
That wascally fellow made GLUE out of Bugs?
Opus the Penguin
No. I believe the canon of Scripture is closed because God's
revelation of himself is complete in Christ. Robertson's claim is
tantamount to new revelation from God. It's an adding to Scripture
and implicitly a denial of the sufficiency of Christ. Many people who
make such claims, however, are merely misled. Robertson, I believe,
is a wolf and a liar.
Opus the Penguin
Is he invisible?
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>> Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
>>
>> > Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a
>> > message from God rather than one from your invisible friend
>> > Elmer.
>>
>> That would be because the majority of people have some
>> understanding that God exists.
>
>
> Well, strictly speaking, they have some belief that God exists.
That's not "strictly speaking," that's your belief.
> That's a bit different from understanding.
>
I chose the word I chose with reason. I realize we disagree.
huey.c...@gmail.com
> > Do you feel there is anyone today who receives the word of God in
> > a way comparable to what Robertson claims?
> No. I believe the canon of Scripture is closed because God's
> revelation of himself is complete in Christ. Robertson's claim is
> tantamount to new revelation from God. It's an adding to Scripture
> and implicitly a denial of the sufficiency of Christ.
While I lack the theological training to comment sensibly one way or
the other on these statements, this:
> Many people who make such claims, however, are merely misled.
> Robertson, I believe, is a wolf and a liar.
seems eminently plausible, and almost completely self-evident to me.
My question to Pat Robertson would be "What part of the Bible strikes
you as so incomplete, flawed, or both to make you believe that God
must make new revelations to YOU?"
My question to anyone who puts any serious stock in anything
Robertson says would be "Why do you pay more attention to this guy
than you do to the dirty toothless guy on the corner that's shouting
at the parking meters about how they need to rise up and overthrow the
evil grocery store? He's much more harmless and a lot less hateful.
I remember something about the money-changers, but I don't recall
Jesus ever mentioning anything about hating the Episcopalians..."
--
Huey
Lesmond
>>
>The cow with the nose ring? You should know whatever he says is bull.
Not a cow...a pig.
"They sailed away, for a year and a day,
To the land where the Bong-tree grows
And there in a wood a Piggy-wig stood
With a ring at the end of his nose
His nose, his nose.
With a ring at the end of his nose."
Lesmond
SEE?
Boron Elgar
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
The last sentence is certainly something I have though for a long
time...about 2 seconds after I checked Robertson out, AAMOF.
The first part is interesting to me, and provides a reason for no
further communication. God has said all he has to say. Of course, to
*me* that isn't rationale, but I'm not a believer.
Boron
Paul Ciszek
In article <Xns98ADB0AA1E933op...@127.0.0.1>,
>> a way comparable to what Robertson claims?
>
>No. I believe the canon of Scripture is closed because God's
>revelation of himself is complete in Christ. Robertson's claim is
>tantamount to new revelation from God. It's an adding to Scripture
>and implicitly a denial of the sufficiency of Christ. Many people who
>make such claims, however, are merely misled. Robertson, I believe,
>is a wolf and a liar.
I asked a non-evangelical Christian if mainstream Christians are
attempting to do anything about the threat people like Robertson,
Haggard, et al pose to Christianity and everyone else, and she replied,
"We aren't the mainstream anymore." Any truth to that?
Paul Ciszek
In article <vfdop2hq65a3pdg7n...@4ax.com>,
Bob Ward <bob...@email.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:22:17 -0500, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:32:20 GMT, "Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>I absolutely LOVE his glue.
>
Kill da wabbit, kill da wabbit, kill da WABBIT da-duh-da-DA!
Blinky the Shark
Elsie has a nicer figure.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Bill Bonde
> Oh. You don't wanna look in there.
>
In his nose? I bet not. I guess I don't see the connection to Elmer's
glue though.
Blinky the Shark
> On 3 Jan 2007 11:07:09 -0800, "NadCixelsyd" <nadci...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Is God going to cause this disaster? Surely God can intervene and keep
>>it from happening. If He/She does not, then it's just as good as if
>>He/She did it Himseld/Herself. As the terrorists try and slip the
>>device across the border at Newport, Vermont, the customs agent should
>>suddenly receive a "hunch" to look under the spare tire.
>>
>>How does Robertson explain that he can recieve the word of God but I
>>never have?
>
Does Robertson have a tumor? If yes, perhaps it's a misunderstanding
and he has a *tuner* -- one that gets the special God Channel.
TedTheCat
> So, God has apparently gotten on the dog and rung up ol' Pat
> Robertson.
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/01/02/robertson.predictions.ap/index.html
>
> "Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday that God has told
> him that a terrorist attack on the United States would cause a "mass
> killing" late in 2007.
>
> ""I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during
> his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian
> Broadcasting Network.
>
> ""The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something
> like that.""
In light of his latest chat with God, Pat Robertson predicts there will
be a major attack on the United States this year. Furthermore, God
told Robertson He likes the Seahawks this week over the Cowboys. God
feels that Shawn Alexander can exploit Dallas' undersized front line
and once the run is established our Creator believes that will open up
the passing game for Matt Hasslebeck so the Almighty's "Lock of the
Week" is take the Seahawks and lay the 3.
-- Letterman Show
huey.c...@gmail.com
> In light of his latest chat with God, Pat Robertson predicts there will
> be a major attack on the United States this year. Furthermore, God
> told Robertson He likes the Seahawks this week over the Cowboys. God
> feels that Shawn Alexander can exploit Dallas' undersized front line
> and once the run is established our Creator believes that will open up
> the passing game for Matt Hasslebeck so the Almighty's "Lock of the
> Week" is take the Seahawks and lay the 3.
> -- Letterman Show
No shit?
Damn. Even _God_ don't like the Cowboys.
--
Huey
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you feel there is anyone today who receives the word of God
>>> in a way comparable to what Robertson claims?
>>
>>No. I believe the canon of Scripture is closed because God's
>>revelation of himself is complete in Christ. Robertson's claim is
>>tantamount to new revelation from God. It's an adding to Scripture
>>and implicitly a denial of the sufficiency of Christ. Many people
>>who make such claims, however, are merely misled. Robertson, I
>>believe, is a wolf and a liar.
>
> I asked a non-evangelical Christian if mainstream Christians are
> attempting to do anything about the threat people like Robertson,
> Haggard, et al pose to Christianity and everyone else, and she
> replied, "We aren't the mainstream anymore." Any truth to that?
>
Quite a lot, I think.
Guillermo el Gato
"Why do you pay more attention to this guy
>than you do to the dirty toothless guy on the corner that's shouting
>at the parking meters about how they need to rise up and overthrow the
>evil grocery store?
Look, I don't care what pictures you have. I was there only for one
Friday afternoon, and I did it on a dare.
Guillermo el Gato
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Paul Ciszek (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do you feel there is anyone today who receives the word of God
>>>> in a way comparable to what Robertson claims?
>>>
>>>No. I believe the canon of Scripture is closed because God's
>>>revelation of himself is complete in Christ. Robertson's claim is
>>>tantamount to new revelation from God. It's an adding to Scripture
>>>and implicitly a denial of the sufficiency of Christ. Many people
>>>who make such claims, however, are merely misled. Robertson, I
>>>believe, is a wolf and a liar.
>>
>> I asked a non-evangelical Christian if mainstream Christians are
>> attempting to do anything about the threat people like Robertson,
>> Haggard, et al pose to Christianity and everyone else, and she
>> replied, "We aren't the mainstream anymore." Any truth to that?
>>
>
>Quite a lot, I think.
Welcome to the post-Christian Era.
Pixel Dent
"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2007 19:26:58 GMT, Opus the Penguin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
> >
> >> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a message
> >> from God rather than one from your invisible friend Elmer.
> >
> >That would be because the majority of people have some understanding
> >that God exists.
>
> No one believes in my friend Elmer?
Is he a god? If he is I'll believe in him so long as he doesn't mind my
believing in him ironically. Every god should have at least one believer.
huey.c...@gmail.com
> "Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Opus the Penguin wrote:
> > > Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
> > >> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a
> > >> message from God rather than one from your invisible friend
> > >> Elmer.
> > > That would be because the majority of people have some
> > > understanding that God exists.
> > No one believes in my friend Elmer?
> Is he a god? If he is I'll believe in him so long as he doesn't mind
> my believing in him ironically. Every god should have at least one
> believer.
And this is why, every morning, I say a prayer to Becky, the Goddess
of Liberal-Minded Nurses.
--
Huey
Peter Ward
>Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
>
>> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a message
>> from God rather than one from your invisible friend Elmer.
>
>That would be because the majority of people have some understanding
>that God exists.
You seem to have misspelt "delusion" there.
--
Peter
I'm an alien
email: groups at asylum dot nildram dot co dot uk
HVS
> On 3 Jan 2007 19:26:58 GMT, Opus the Penguin
><opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a
>>> message from God rather than one from your invisible friend
>>> Elmer.
>>
>> That would be because the majority of people have some
>> understanding that God exists.
>
> You seem to have misspelt "delusion" there.
You both seem to have misspelt "belief".
Why not call it what it is?
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Mary
Okay, but if "there is no God" is my belief, and "yes there is" is
yours, then neither of them can be proven in any substantive way to the
other person, then they're BOTH beliefs, and not an understanding.
Unless you're saying that "understanding" makes no reference to the
veracity of the belief.
But saying that your belief is true simply because you put a value on
such belief doesn't get you much outside your own head.
Mary
Lee Ayrton
> On 3 Jan 2007 19:26:58 GMT, Opus the Penguin
> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a message
>>> from God rather than one from your invisible friend Elmer.
>>
>> That would be because the majority of people have some understanding
>> that God exists.
>
> You seem to have misspelt "delusion" there.
What, pray tell, is so fucking delusional about understanding that the
Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?
--
"I defer to your plainly more vivid memories of topless women with
whips....r"
R. H. Draney recalls AFU in the Good Old Days.
Igor
Opus the Penguin wrote:
> Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
>
> > Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a message
> > from God rather than one from your invisible friend Elmer.
>
> That would be because the majority of people have some understanding
> that God exists.
Too bad that they haven't been able to get to know Elmer too.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Peter Ward wrote:
>
>> On 3 Jan 2007 19:26:58 GMT, Opus the Penguin
>> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a message
>>>> from God rather than one from your invisible friend Elmer.
>>>
>>> That would be because the majority of people have some understanding
>>> that God exists.
>>
>> You seem to have misspelt "delusion" there.
>
>What, pray tell, is so fucking delusional about understanding that the
>Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?
In my denomination, we hold belief in a fine, aged and imported
Parmesan, too. That is part of the Duality.
Boron
darkon
Heretic scum! It's Noodles, Sauce, and Cheese! And Meatballs!
Charles Bishop
<pixel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I commend to you "Small Gods" by Pratchett.
charles, friend of the Great God Om, bishop
Boron Elgar
wrote:
Idolater! That would be God the Quad. My mother says I can't play with
you (and that would be weird intervention, since she has been dead for
a decade.)
Sort of like a Doublemint Gum for religion, though, don't you think?.
Boron.
darkon
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Paul Ciszek (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
>>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you feel there is anyone today who receives the word of God
>>>>> in a way comparable to what Robertson claims?
>>>>
>>>>No. I believe the canon of Scripture is closed because God's
>>>>revelation of himself is complete in Christ. Robertson's claim
>>>>is tantamount to new revelation from God. It's an adding to
>>>>Scripture and implicitly a denial of the sufficiency of Christ.
>>>>Many people who make such claims, however, are merely misled.
>>>>Robertson, I believe, is a wolf and a liar.
>>>
>>> I asked a non-evangelical Christian if mainstream Christians are
>>> attempting to do anything about the threat people like
>>> Robertson, Haggard, et al pose to Christianity and everyone
>>> else, and she replied, "We aren't the mainstream anymore." Any
>>> truth to that?
>>>
>>
>>Quite a lot, I think.
>
> Welcome to the post-Christian Era.
>
Thank you! I'll just be over here if anyone needs me.
Opus the Penguin
>>> Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a
>>>> message from God rather than one from your invisible friend
>>>> Elmer.
>>>
>>> That would be because the majority of people have some
>>> understanding that God exists.
>>
>> You seem to have misspelt "delusion" there.
>
> You both seem to have misspelt "belief".
>
> Why not call it what it is?
>
I did. You believe differently. I understand that.
Opus the Penguin
Not everyone understands logic either. And you'll never be able to
convince a differently-logicked person. That doesn't require us to
refer to logic as a belief, although we certainly may.
groo
> So, God has apparently gotten on the dog and rung up ol' Pat
> Robertson.
>
"gotten on the dog"? I'm not familiar with this phrase, and I lived in
Texas for quite a long time.
What does it mean?
Peter Ward
wrote:
My Collins English Dictionary tells me:
delusion n. 1. a misleading or mistaken opinion, idea, belief, etc.:
(he has delusions of grandeur) 2. (Psychiatry) a belief held in the
face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.
>Why not call it what it is?
I did.
Peter Ward
wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Peter Ward wrote:
>
>> On 3 Jan 2007 19:26:58 GMT, Opus the Penguin
>> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a message
>>>> from God rather than one from your invisible friend Elmer.
>>>
>>> That would be because the majority of people have some understanding
>>> that God exists.
>>
>> You seem to have misspelt "delusion" there.
>
>What, pray tell, is so fucking delusional about understanding that the
>Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?
You're trying it on the wrong bloke, matey. I choose not to not
believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I choose not to believe in
the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
However, I'm agnostic about the Giant Mutant Stargoat.
Mary
The Great A'Tuin is Not Amused.
Mary
It's turtles all the way down!
Peter Ward
Dog-and-bone - rhyming slang, I reckon.
HVS
Spoken like a true believer.
(See my response to Peter.)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
HVS
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:25:09 GMT, HVS <harve...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04 Jan 2007, Peter Ward wrote
>>
>>> On 3 Jan 2007 19:26:58 GMT, Opus the Penguin
>>> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a
>>>>> message from God rather than one from your invisible friend
>>>>> Elmer.
>>>>
>>>> That would be because the majority of people have some
>>>> understanding that God exists.
>>>
>>> You seem to have misspelt "delusion" there.
>>
>> You both seem to have misspelt "belief".
>
> My Collins English Dictionary tells me:
>
> delusion n. 1. a misleading or mistaken opinion, idea, belief,
> etc.: (he has delusions of grandeur) 2. (Psychiatry) a belief
> held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant
> to all reason.
>
>> Why not call it what it is?
>
> I did.
Spoken like a true believer.
(See my response to Opus.)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
HVS
> On 4 Jan 2007 12:34:03 -0800, "groo" <afca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Guillermo el Gato wrote:
>>> So, God has apparently gotten on the dog and rung up ol' Pat
>>> Robertson.
>>>
>>
>> "gotten on the dog"? I'm not familiar with this phrase, and I
>> lived in Texas for quite a long time.
>>
>> What does it mean?
>
> Dog-and-bone - rhyming slang, I reckon.
Got it in one.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Blinky the Shark
Until meatballs, you had a Trinity workin', there.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
bill van
Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
> darkon wrote:
> > Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:41:59 -0500, Lee Ayrton
> >> <lay...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Peter Ward wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3 Jan 2007 19:26:58 GMT, Opus the Penguin
> >>>> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a
> >>>>>> message from God rather than one from your invisible friend
> >>>>>> Elmer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That would be because the majority of people have some
> >>>>> understanding that God exists.
> >>>>
> >>>> You seem to have misspelt "delusion" there.
> >>>
> >>>What, pray tell, is so fucking delusional about understanding
> >>>that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?
> >>
> >> In my denomination, we hold belief in a fine, aged and imported
> >> Parmesan, too. That is part of the Duality.
> >>
> >> Boron
> >
> > Heretic scum! It's Noodles, Sauce, and Cheese! And Meatballs!
>
> Until meatballs, you had a Trinity workin', there.
Still does. And 12 meatballs.
bill
Tony Myers (A cherished national treasure)
>
> "Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday that God has told
> him that a terrorist attack on the United States would cause a "mass
> killing" late in 2007.
>
> ""I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during
> his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian
> Broadcasting Network.
>
> ""The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something
> like that.""
>
You wouldn't think an omnipotent being wouldn't have to be so vague. It
would have been good to know exactly where and when the mass killing
was going to be so people could plan their vacations accordingly
> 3) Why is it that a fruit like this can make the fuckin' headlines,
> but things like the subversion of the Constitution are relegated to
> page A21
I bet if Thomas Jefferson started speaking to a public figure it would
get a lot of play in the press. Unless it was James Traficant.
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
"Tony Myers (A cherished national treasure)" wrote:
>
> >
> > "Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday that God has told
> > him that a terrorist attack on the United States would cause a "mass
> > killing" late in 2007.
> >
> > ""I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during
> > his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian
> > Broadcasting Network.
> >
> > ""The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something
> > like that.""
> >
>
> You wouldn't think an omnipotent being wouldn't have to be so vague. It
> would have been good to know exactly where and when the mass killing
> was going to be so people could plan their vacations accordingly
>
You mean so they can get close enough to get good video for that Tom
Bergeron show but still avoid being so close their dress might get
mussed helping stragglers?
--
"And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty
heart, 'til the Devil whispered behind the leaves 'It's pretty, but is
it Art?'."
Guillermo el Gato
wrote:
>On 4 Jan 2007 12:34:03 -0800, "groo" <afca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I thought it was a Berkowitz ref.
It's Cockney rhyming slang. "Dog and bone" rhymes with "telephone"
and you use the first half.
Guillermo el Gato
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Not everyone understands logic either. And you'll never be able to
>convince a differently-logicked person. That doesn't require us to
>refer to logic as a belief, although we certainly may.
That's coming real close to crossing the line to revisionism, and
extreme post modernism. (read: kookism)
Rick B.
in news:1167982579....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
> You wouldn't think an omnipotent being wouldn't have to be so vague. It
> would have been good to know exactly where and when the mass killing
> was going to be so people could plan their vacations accordingly
"Abe said 'Where you want this killin' done'? God said 'Out on Highway 61.'"
Opus the Penguin
Why? My statement seems pretty self-evident. Of course, if you are
differently-logicked I won't be able to persuade you of that.
Peter Ward
wrote:
You may believe that what I know is a belief if you wish, because
people can, and do, believe all sorts of nonsense. I've believed some
ridiculous stuff myself in the past, mostly because people have lied
to me, maliciously or through their own inability to see through the
lies themselves, although I have never believed in any god as those
lies are too preposterous. However, I'll point out, just this once,
that in this case it's not a belief, it's knowledge. But I don't
expect you to believe that.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> NadCixelsyd (nadci...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>
>>Is God going to cause this disaster? Surely God can intervene and
>>keep it from happening. If He/She does not, then it's just as
>>good as if He/She did it Himseld/Herself. As the terrorists try
>>and slip the device across the border at Newport, Vermont, the
>>customs agent should suddenly receive a "hunch" to look under the
>>spare tire.
>>
>>How does Robertson explain that he can recieve the word of God but
>>I never have?
>>
>
>
> I don't buy that Robertson has received the word of God here. I don't
> buy that you never have. So it's hard for me to answer that question.
>
Heck. Even I have occasionally received the word of God. But
nothing like what Pat Robertson claims. And sometimes the
message is none too clear. Not that I blame the sender, mind
you. My reception may not be as good as it should be.
Charles
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> On 3 Jan 2007 11:07:09 -0800, "NadCixelsyd" <nadci...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Is God going to cause this disaster? Surely God can intervene and keep
>>it from happening. If He/She does not, then it's just as good as if
>>He/She did it Himseld/Herself. As the terrorists try and slip the
>>device across the border at Newport, Vermont, the customs agent should
>>suddenly receive a "hunch" to look under the spare tire.
>>
>>How does Robertson explain that he can recieve the word of God but I
>>never have?
>
>
> Well, you don't have a tumor, for one.
>
"There was a rumor about a tumor
Nestled at the base of his brain."
Bill Kinkaid
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:44:46 -0000, darkon <darko...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:41:59 -0500, Lee Ayrton
>>> <lay...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Peter Ward wrote:
>>>>> On 3 Jan 2007 19:26:58 GMT, Opus the Penguin
>>>>> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a
>>>>>>> message from God rather than one from your invisible friend
>>>>>>> Elmer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would be because the majority of people have some
>>>>>> understanding that God exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to have misspelt "delusion" there.
>>>>
>>>>What, pray tell, is so fucking delusional about understanding
>>>>that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?
>>>
>>> In my denomination, we hold belief in a fine, aged and imported
>>> Parmesan, too. That is part of the Duality.
>>
>
>Idolater! That would be God the Quad. My mother says I can't play with
>you (and that would be weird intervention, since she has been dead for
>a decade.)
>
>Sort of like a Doublemint Gum for religion, though, don't you think?.
>
He's a Candy God!
He's two Gods in one!
--
Bill in Vancouver
huey.c...@gmail.com
> Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > darkon <darko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Igor (thoo...@excite.com) wrote:
> >>>>>>> Somehow it's more socially acceptable to say you received a
> >>>>>>> message from God rather than one from your invisible friend
> >>>>>>> Elmer.
> >>>>>> That would be because the majority of people have some
> >>>>>> understanding that God exists.
> >>>>> You seem to have misspelt "delusion" there.
> >>>> What, pray tell, is so fucking delusional about understanding
> >>>> that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?
> >>> In my denomination, we hold belief in a fine, aged and imported
> >>> Parmesan, too. That is part of the Duality.
> >> Heretic scum! It's Noodles, Sauce, and Cheese! And Meatballs!
> > Idolater! That would be God the Quad. My mother says I can't play
> > with you (and that would be weird intervention, since she has been
> > dead for a decade.)
> > Sort of like a Doublemint Gum for religion, though, don't you think?.
> He's a Breath God!
> He's a Candy God!
> He's two Gods in one!
Hey! You got Chocolate God in my Peanut Butter God!
--
Huey
Guillermo el Gato
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Guillermo el Gato (dev...@example.com) wrote:
>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Not everyone understands logic either. And you'll never be able to
>>>convince a differently-logicked person. That doesn't require us to
>>>refer to logic as a belief, although we certainly may.
>>
>> That's coming real close to crossing the line to revisionism, and
>> extreme post modernism. (read: kookism)
>>
>
>Why? My statement seems pretty self-evident. Of course, if you are
>differently-logicked I won't be able to persuade you of that.
DING! You got it. That's pretty much post-modernism. So, is Ed
Conrad a kook?
BTW, I don't think I've seen this posted here: The Postmodern Essay
Text Generator. Every time you reload the page you get another paper
indistinguishable from the real thing:
From: "Neocapitalist cultural theory and modernism," "The main theme
of the works of Spelling is the role of the poet as artist. It could
be said that Bataille promotes the use of Baudrillardist simulacra to
deconstruct elitist perceptions of sexual identity."
Have fun!
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo
Opus the Penguin
> On 5 Jan 2007 16:26:46 GMT, Opus the Penguin
> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Guillermo el Gato (dev...@example.com) wrote:
>>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not everyone understands logic either. And you'll never be able
>>>>to convince a differently-logicked person. That doesn't require
>>>>us to refer to logic as a belief, although we certainly may.
>>>
>>> That's coming real close to crossing the line to revisionism,
>>> and extreme post modernism. (read: kookism)
>>>
>>
>>Why? My statement seems pretty self-evident. Of course, if you are
>>differently-logicked I won't be able to persuade you of that.
>
> DING! You got it. That's pretty much post-modernism. So, is Ed
> Conrad a kook?
Yes. But I wouldn't be able to persuade him of that, now would I? For
my observation to be post-modern (as I think you are using the term)
I would have to make no assertion about the validity of the competing
logic systems.
bill van
In some Canadian cities, "the dog" has been a euphemism for Greyhound
Bus. You may take the dog to Banff, or put a parcel for your mother in
Calgary on the dog. This usage is now rare where I live, but 30 years
ago in Calgary most people would have known what you meant.
bill
N Jill Marsh
<bil...@separatethis.canada.com> wrote:
>In some Canadian cities, "the dog" has been a euphemism for Greyhound
>Bus. You may take the dog to Banff, or put a parcel for your mother in
>Calgary on the dog. This usage is now rare where I live, but 30 years
>ago in Calgary most people would have known what you meant.
I think that's dying out everywhere. It was common in the parts of
Ontario I lived in back when there was decent bus service, but it's
disappearing/disappeared.
nj"arf"m
--
"Like getting a tattoo or becoming a morris dancer,
I sensed that once I began this journey there would
be no turning back."
Bill Kinkaid
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 20:46:37 GMT, bill van
><bil...@separatethis.canada.com> wrote:
>
>>In some Canadian cities, "the dog" has been a euphemism for Greyhound
>>Bus. You may take the dog to Banff, or put a parcel for your mother in
>>Calgary on the dog. This usage is now rare where I live, but 30 years
>>ago in Calgary most people would have known what you meant.
>
>I think that's dying out everywhere. It was common in the parts of
>Ontario I lived in back when there was decent bus service, but it's
>disappearing/disappeared.
>
>nj"arf"m
As I recall, the only decent intercity bus service Ontario ever had
was Gray Coach, a subsidiary (at least back then) of the TTC.
Greyhound service to southwestern Ontario, and Voyageur to the east,
was always terrible, but Gray Coach was always spectacularly punctual;
if it said it got to Washago at 1:53, it did not arrive at 1:50 or
1:55. Last time we were there we dealt with the GO bus from Toronto to
Barrie, and I was amazed how it could take 3.5 hours to go 70km.
But then, out here it takes the dog 3.5 hours to go 150km from
Vancouver to Hope, where they reckon that you then need a half hour
rest stop before the two hours to Kamloops. I can drive to Hope in 90
minutes and Kamloops in under four hours; dog is an appropriate term
for that kind of service.
Bus service here has had free rein since most of the train service was
cancelled, and they've completely failed to fill the niche. Like the
trains, they've found that they can make much more money from freight
than from passengers.
--
Bill in Vancouver
Charles Wm. Dimmick
or 45 years ago in Gainesville, Florida.
Guillermo el Gato
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Guillermo el Gato (dev...@example.com) wrote:
>
>> On 5 Jan 2007 16:26:46 GMT, Opus the Penguin
>> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Guillermo el Gato (dev...@example.com) wrote:
>>>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not everyone understands logic either. And you'll never be able
>>>>>to convince a differently-logicked person. That doesn't require
>>>>>us to refer to logic as a belief, although we certainly may.
>>>>
>>>> That's coming real close to crossing the line to revisionism,
>>>> and extreme post modernism. (read: kookism)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why? My statement seems pretty self-evident. Of course, if you are
>>>differently-logicked I won't be able to persuade you of that.
>>
>> DING! You got it. That's pretty much post-modernism. So, is Ed
>> Conrad a kook?
>
>Yes. But I wouldn't be able to persuade him of that, now would I?
Does it matter? In a postmodern world, you have to accept that he
must be right because he thinks he's right.
I thought Christianity and moral relativism were at odds with each
other.
For
>my observation to be post-modern (as I think you are using the term)
>I would have to make no assertion about the validity of the competing
>logic systems.
That's not quite right. In a post-modern world, you can form your own
opinion about the other framework, but you can't question the validity
as it appears to him. Ergo, moral relativism.
Opus the Penguin
> On 6 Jan 2007 15:19:50 GMT, Opus the Penguin
> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Guillermo el Gato (dev...@example.com) wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Jan 2007 16:26:46 GMT, Opus the Penguin
>>> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Guillermo el Gato (dev...@example.com) wrote:
>>>>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not everyone understands logic either. And you'll never be
>>>>>>able to convince a differently-logicked person. That doesn't
>>>>>>require us to refer to logic as a belief, although we
>>>>>>certainly may.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's coming real close to crossing the line to revisionism,
>>>>> and extreme post modernism. (read: kookism)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why? My statement seems pretty self-evident. Of course, if you
>>>>are differently-logicked I won't be able to persuade you of
>>>>that.
>>>
>>> DING! You got it. That's pretty much post-modernism. So, is Ed
>>> Conrad a kook?
>>
>>Yes. But I wouldn't be able to persuade him of that, now would I?
>
> Does it matter?
Matter to what? Matter to the question of whether he's right or
wrong? No.
> In a postmodern world, you have to accept that he
> must be right because he thinks he's right.
Then you were mistaken in calling me post-modern. QED.
> I thought Christianity and moral relativism were at odds with each
> other.
>
> For
>>my observation to be post-modern (as I think you are using the
>>term) I would have to make no assertion about the validity of the
>>competing logic systems.
>
> That's not quite right. In a post-modern world, you can form your
> own opinion about the other framework, but you can't question the
> validity as it appears to him. Ergo, moral relativism.
>
That's bad logic. I can recognize that something appears valid within
another person's flawed logic or value system without being a moral
relativist.
Mary
But you are questioning the validity of the claim - just at a different
level.
Mary
Opus the Penguin
I think I just got lost.
Mary
Come on over to the other thread and have some chocolate.
Mary
Guillermo el Gato
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll try again. The thing that really comes out from the post-modern
thinking is that "everything is right," "no one is wrong." If they
think they are right, they must be right. You're statements about
"being differently logicked" would be a perfect post-modern
explanation about how someone else is right because it seems right to
them. This spills out to the super sensitive PC "he's been offended
if he thinks he's been offended type of thinking."
>
>> I thought Christianity and moral relativism were at odds with each
>> other.
>>
>> For
>>>my observation to be post-modern (as I think you are using the
>>>term) I would have to make no assertion about the validity of the
>>>competing logic systems.
>>
>> That's not quite right. In a post-modern world, you can form your
>> own opinion about the other framework, but you can't question the
>> validity as it appears to him. Ergo, moral relativism.
>>
>
>That's bad logic. I can recognize that something appears valid within
>another person's flawed logic or value system without being a moral
>relativist.
But you wouldn't recognize it as "flawed." You would say it's "valid"
to him. And that's where moral relativism starts.
Jerry Bauer
(in article <f964q2p0jui4ffeid...@4ax.com>):
> But you wouldn't recognize it as "flawed." You would say it's "valid"
> to him. And that's where moral relativism starts.
>
>
That's what *you * think.
Guillermo el Gato
Opus the Penguin
No, *I'll* try again. I don't believe that "everything is right" and
"no one is wrong." I do believe it is possible to be wrong and not
know you are wrong because your system for evaluating such things is
flawed.
That is why I said you were mistaken in calling me post-modern when
you explained the above.
>>> I thought Christianity and moral relativism were at odds with
>>> each other.
>>>
>>> For
>>>>my observation to be post-modern (as I think you are using the
>>>>term) I would have to make no assertion about the validity of
>>>>the competing logic systems.
>>>
>>> That's not quite right. In a post-modern world, you can form
>>> your own opinion about the other framework, but you can't
>>> question the validity as it appears to him. Ergo, moral
>>> relativism.
>>>
>>
>>That's bad logic. I can recognize that something appears valid
>>within another person's flawed logic or value system without being
>>a moral relativist.
>
> But you wouldn't recognize it as "flawed."
Yes I would. Why would you say that? You must be using some flawed
reasoning because I have never said or implied anything of the sort.
> You would say it's "valid" to him.
Yes. Just as your flawed reasoning in this exchange seems valid to
you.
But ... here's the point. It's not.
Guillermo el Gato
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay, we're back on track. I think referring to someone as
"differently logicked" validates their claims to their reality and is
a post-moderninst expression.
>
>
>>>> I thought Christianity and moral relativism were at odds with
>>>> each other.
>>>>
>>>> For
>>>>>my observation to be post-modern (as I think you are using the
>>>>>term) I would have to make no assertion about the validity of
>>>>>the competing logic systems.
>>>>
>>>> That's not quite right. In a post-modern world, you can form
>>>> your own opinion about the other framework, but you can't
>>>> question the validity as it appears to him. Ergo, moral
>>>> relativism.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's bad logic. I can recognize that something appears valid
>>>within another person's flawed logic or value system without being
>>>a moral relativist.
>>
>> But you wouldn't recognize it as "flawed."
>
>Yes I would. Why would you say that? You must be using some flawed
>reasoning because I have never said or implied anything of the sort.
Uh, make that read: If you were a post-modernist, you wouldn't
recognize it as "flawed."
>
>
>> You would say it's "valid" to him.
>
>Yes. Just as your flawed reasoning in this exchange seems valid to
>you.
>
>But ... here's the point. It's not.
I think you're confusing my trying to explain how you appear to
approach post-modernist justifications, and what I actually think
about your thinking.
Justin Hiltscher
resolved! There is no God! Peter Ward *says so*! Of course people
reading that may only *think* that bald statement sounds arrogant. Try
to understand... the reason those long running arguments about God's
existence or lack thereof are long running is not that any of the people
who have participated are less smart than you. Nor were they less wise.
Nor less well informed. Nor did they have less of a right to make
their own honest conviction than you.
You need to learn how to respect those that have beliefs (YES, BELIEFS)
that differ from yours. That's just part of growing up. People fall
into the trap of equating "respecting another whose beliefs differ" with
"accepting that belief as their own".
Justin Hiltscher
--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95
Peter Ward
<jus...@eshow2000.com> wrote:
See? I knew you wouldn't believe it.
>You need to learn how to respect those that have beliefs (YES, BELIEFS)
>that differ from yours. That's just part of growing up. People fall
>into the trap of equating "respecting another whose beliefs differ" with
>"accepting that belief as their own".
I need no such thing. There are no gods. That is something I know as
surely as I know that I'm sitting in front of a monitor typing this
message. I see no reason to pretend otherwise or be mealy-mouthed
about it.
Think, though, I'm missing out on one of life's little pleasures here;
I'll never be able to say "I told you so".
HVS
> There are no gods. That is something I know as surely as I know
> that I'm sitting in front of a monitor typing this message. I
> see no reason to pretend otherwise or be mealy-mouthed about it.
And that's an admirable statement -- or, it's admirable as long as
you don't get all mealy-mouthed and try to maintain that it's somehow
fundamentally different to the following statement (which, please
note, is not a personal statement of belief):
--------
There is a god. That is something I know as surely as I know that
I'm sitting in front of a monitor typing this messsage. I see no
reason to pretend otherwise or be mealy-mouthed about it.
--------
I've certainly encountered -- often -- that degree of certainty; I
suspect that Opus has that degree of certainty. And I see absolutely
no difference in kind -- non whatsoever -- between that version and
yours.
Which is why your statements in this thread remainn those of a true
believer in what you believe, rather than some sort of dispassionate
analysis of truths.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Justin Hiltscher
Keeping quiet on the charge of 'arrogance', then, eh?
>
>> You need to learn how to respect those that have beliefs (YES, BELIEFS)
>> that differ from yours. That's just part of growing up. People fall
>> into the trap of equating "respecting another whose beliefs differ" with
>> "accepting that belief as their own".
>
> I need no such thing. There are no gods. That is something I know as
> surely as I know that I'm sitting in front of a monitor typing this
> message. I see no reason to pretend otherwise or be mealy-mouthed
> about it.
I agree. You have no reason to pretend to believe what you don't, nor
be 'mealy-mouthed' (I think you're using that as a disparaging way to
refer to 'diplomacy') about it. I retract what I said about you needing it.
>
> Think, though, I'm missing out on one of life's little pleasures here;
> I'll never be able to say "I told you so".
>
I'm a bit perplexed at how you arrive at this conclusion. Rational
knowledge depends on observation, yes? Belief doesn't. Remember the
beginning of this argument? You said you *knew*. People corrected you,
saying that was your *belief*, and you were annoyed, I think because it
sounded like they were saying you weren't certain, when you were stating
that you were.
But having *knowledge* of the afterlife is as impossible as having
*knowledge* of the center of a black hole. Current *theory* says that
it's a mathematical singularity, where the 'laws of physics' break down,
but due to the event horizon, that theory, while plausible, remains
unproven, and unprovable.
I don't see how admitting that you have no *knowledge* of something that
can't be known takes anything away from you. That's not being
'mealy-mouthed', that's being 'honest'.
To recap: I'm not commenting on your belief or lack thereof in God,
gods, or an afterlife. I'm commenting on you repeatedly asserting that
that's *knowledge*.
Opus the Penguin
Maybe so. Maybe you could've stopped after the first four words of that
sentence. Whichever way, this exchange may have hit level of
diminishing returns where the longer we talk the less sure we are what
the other is saying.
Opus the Penguin
> On 08 Jan 2007, Peter Ward wrote
>
>> There are no gods. That is something I know as surely as I know
>> that I'm sitting in front of a monitor typing this message. I
>> see no reason to pretend otherwise or be mealy-mouthed about it.
>
> And that's an admirable statement -- or, it's admirable as long as
> you don't get all mealy-mouthed and try to maintain that it's
> somehow fundamentally different to the following statement (which,
> please note, is not a personal statement of belief):
>
> --------
>
> There is a god. That is something I know as surely as I know that
> I'm sitting in front of a monitor typing this messsage. I see no
> reason to pretend otherwise or be mealy-mouthed about it.
>
> --------
>
> I've certainly encountered -- often -- that degree of certainty;
> I suspect that Opus has that degree of certainty.
Maybe not. Peter presents his position as though he's never afflicted
by any doubts. I suppose I present my position that way too, at least
sometimes. Rationally, I think the existence of God is just that
certain. But subjectively, I don't always experience that certainty.
> And I see
> absolutely no difference in kind -- non whatsoever -- between that
> version and yours.
>
> Which is why your statements in this thread remainn those of a
> true believer in what you believe, rather than some sort of
> dispassionate analysis of truths.
>
There's an assumption (maybe a belief?) here that "dispassionate
analysis" is the proper way to approach such truths. I would disagree
with that.
HVS
> HVS (harve...@ntlworld.com) wrote
>> And I see absolutely no difference in kind -- non whatsoever --
>> between that version and yours.
>> Which is why your statements in this thread remainn those of a
>> true believer in what you believe, rather than some sort of
>> dispassionate analysis of truths.
> There's an assumption (maybe a belief?) here that "dispassionate
> analysis" is the proper way to approach such truths. I would
> disagree with that.
Of course you would; you're an active believer.
FWIW, I wouldn't say that the assumption is that dispassionate
analysis is the "proper" way to "approach" such truths -- only that
it's not an illegitimate way to look at competing sets of beliefs.
I'm not sure if you mean to say that a belief system can only be
legitimately approached by other believers (either in that faith or
of another one). That's a little too "relative truthy" for my
tastes.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Opus the Penguin
I don't know about that in the abstract (as though all belief systems
are on an equal footing). I only know that you cannot approach God as
though you are his judge and he must vindicate himself to you.
> That's a little too "relative truthy" for my
> tastes.
>
That's the second time this week someone has wondered if I'm buying
into the idea of "relative truth". I'm more used to criticism from
the other direction--i.e. that I believe in absolute truth.
HVS
>> I'm not sure if you mean to say that a belief system can only
>> be legitimately approached by other believers (either in that
>> faith or of another one).
>
> I don't know about that in the abstract (as though all belief
> systems are on an equal footing). I only know that you cannot
> approach God as though you are his judge and he must vindicate
> himself to you.
Ah, but I'm not "approaching God" for anything -- vindication or
otherwise. I'm "approaching the approach" -- the faith -- rather
than whatever it is that the faithful believe in (or disbelieve in).
Only the faithful can deal with their gods; but it seems to me that
if one places the faith *itself* above discussion, one has put the
act of believing on an equal footing with that which is believed in.
(It's happened often enough in history, of course, but I would have
thought it borders on blasphemy.)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Opus the Penguin
> On 09 Jan 2007, Opus the Penguin wrote
>> HVS (harve...@ntlworld.com) wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure if you mean to say that a belief system can only
>>> be legitimately approached by other believers (either in that
>>> faith or of another one).
>>
>> I don't know about that in the abstract (as though all belief
>> systems are on an equal footing). I only know that you cannot
>> approach God as though you are his judge and he must vindicate
>> himself to you.
>
> Ah, but I'm not "approaching God" for anything -- vindication or
> otherwise. I'm "approaching the approach" -- the faith -- rather
> than whatever it is that the faithful believe in (or disbelieve
> in).
Fair enough. That introduces other complications, but I'm feeling
laconic.
> Only the faithful can deal with their gods; but it seems to me
> that if one places the faith *itself* above discussion,
I'm not saying the faith is above discussion. I do think it's
impossible to enter into that discussion from a position of
neutrality.
Peter Ward
<jus...@eshow2000.com> wrote:
I know what I know, and am prepared to state what I know. If you
think that's arrogant, then there's not a lot I can do about it.
>>
>>> You need to learn how to respect those that have beliefs (YES, BELIEFS)
>>> that differ from yours. That's just part of growing up. People fall
>>> into the trap of equating "respecting another whose beliefs differ" with
>>> "accepting that belief as their own".
>>
>> I need no such thing. There are no gods. That is something I know as
>> surely as I know that I'm sitting in front of a monitor typing this
>> message. I see no reason to pretend otherwise or be mealy-mouthed
>> about it.
>
>I agree. You have no reason to pretend to believe what you don't, nor
>be 'mealy-mouthed' (I think you're using that as a disparaging way to
>refer to 'diplomacy') about it. I retract what I said about you needing it.
>
>>
>> Think, though, I'm missing out on one of life's little pleasures here;
>> I'll never be able to say "I told you so".
>>
>I'm a bit perplexed at how you arrive at this conclusion. Rational
>knowledge depends on observation, yes? Belief doesn't. Remember the
>beginning of this argument? You said you *knew*. People corrected you,
>saying that was your *belief*, and you were annoyed, I think because it
>sounded like they were saying you weren't certain, when you were stating
> that you were.
>But having *knowledge* of the afterlife is as impossible as having
>*knowledge* of the center of a black hole. Current *theory* says that
>it's a mathematical singularity, where the 'laws of physics' break down,
>but due to the event horizon, that theory, while plausible, remains
>unproven, and unprovable.
Current theory on sub-atomic physics is bollocksed. It seems to me
that it works the same way epicycles did for astronomers before
Copernicus and Kepler came along. That's just an opinion, I don't
claim knowledge, but it's an opinion I'd put money on (not being a
gambling man), except that I will very likely not be alive to collect
my winnings. I'm hoping for inside information.
>I don't see how admitting that you have no *knowledge* of something that
>can't be known takes anything away from you. That's not being
>'mealy-mouthed', that's being 'honest'.
>
>To recap: I'm not commenting on your belief or lack thereof in God,
>gods, or an afterlife. I'm commenting on you repeatedly asserting that
>that's *knowledge*.
It's something I know. I'm not willing to describe it any other way
because that wouldn't be honest.