 | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) That's ok. I think the subject of debate in this thread is James' (pick one) view on Christianity. You'll have to take the battles as they come. Certainly I could try the turn-around on you: - Science is wrong, cuz it says the world is flat. - (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) What I was attempting to do was provide a conception of a being that can perform what throughout this debate has been considered a logical impossibility. I don't see how offering one criterion without excluding others is a restriction on (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Faith Issue
|
|
(...) Me too, sometimes. I think (1) the Koran may have the same problems. But when I asked about it what I got was a load of "you're not being tolerant enough, how dare you ask"... at least that's how I read the net net of what I got back. Would it (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Nam-shub of Enki (was Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament)
|
|
(...) Errr.. -Kurt- Vonnegut - sorry, it's 2.00am here... (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) So in other words, you're changing your definition of impossible. You are restricting impossible to mean "impossible within my frame of reference". (...) Dave E addressed this more eloquently than I can, I suspect, so I will only comment that (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Nam-shub of Enki (was Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament)
|
|
Actually, while I stand by my previous post, you bring up some pretty decent arguements here... "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:GMunx4.D0I@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) he (...) mythology, (...) techniques (...) it. I (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Faith Issue
|
|
(...) For my interest, since on Lugnet I've pursued a more atheist posture than theist, I would say that my enthusiasm for this debate (elsewhere, as much as here) stems from my desire to prevent others from legislating their beliefs and from a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Faith Issue
|
|
(...) It's probably hostility against the actions of such persons inappropriately expressing itself as antipathy for the ideas held by such persons. Just a thought, -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) In that case we must be careful, or else we're once again presented with a receding target: A. How about this criterion? B. Well, that's not the *real* Christian God. A. Okay, how about this criterion? B. Well, that's not the *real* Christian (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Nam-shub of Enki (was Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament)
|
|
(...) Yeah, it's a decent read. I'll give it that. It's just that I liked all the extensive quoting more than the actual story. (...) Doh! But don't you think that Stephenson is developing an ethical system defended by his Hiro? We agree with those (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Nam-shub of Enki (was Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament)
|
|
I just thought it was a neat story with a groovy idea is all... If you want to read motivations or morals into a book, there's always the bible. I'm sure it even talks about the evils of a hirarchical government in there -somewhere- ;0) "richard (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
|
You could always just add him to your kill file. In Outlook Express - Message/Block Sender Easy... "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GLo4nt.BF6@lugnet.com... (...) something (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) The more I think about it, I think we *did* invent math. The fact that numerical analysis appears basic to us merely meaning that math is likely to be conceived of similarly elsewhere. (...) About math? Sure. About God's ability to *change* (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Faith Issue
|
|
(...) I've more often envisioned that when they came to my house, I'd invite them in, and explain my religious perspective to them. I'd probably quite enjoy it. Presuming I wasn't in the middle of something. Actually, someone did that to me on the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The Faith Issue
|
|
Hey Y'all: Reading another thread has put me squarely in mind of my real problems with Xtianity, and more particularly with Xtians in a more general way. [note: I don't so much mean the Xtians taking part in the other thread, many of whom are making (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Hmmm...I partly agree with you here. God indeed cannot make 1=2, because that would be an absurdity. I wouldn't say that humans invented the rules of math, insofar as 1+1 actually equals 2 across time and space. (Obviously, though, our (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) I completely disagree. You're forcing a Christian God into something that it doesn't need to be. Certainly there are *some* sects of Christianity that would require it as you say, but again, they don't disprove the whole of Christianity. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) asked (...) And his mum, quick as a flash, said "What did you say 'What did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for' for?" ROSCO FUT: .o-t.fun (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Any of us can construct nonsensical statements. How big is yellow? A square circle. 2+2=5. Whatever. How can any being *do* the logically impossible? That which our imaginations may conceive cannot be the standard which a Greater Being must (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) I can conceive of such a being in at least abstract terms, such as "that being which is not bound by our definition of logical impossibility." (...) And mine too, but I'll stand by the logical impossibility requirement. If you have any notion (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
