 | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) But as you of all people konw, science doesn't declare truths; it's a system of explanation endlessly refined to fit more closely with observation. Christianity, by contrast, declares certain absolutes that remain absolute regardless of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) The most basic moral law that I can postulate would be some derivative of selfless love. Any lesser principle would be subservient to this, and thus, morally broken. Theft could clearly be moral, if, for example, one were stealing guns from an (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Faith Issue
|
|
Hi Rick and all, The main points in this post that I agree with, are: (...) Oh-so-totally-true. What *you* believe is what matters. My beliefs are very different than, say, my Jewish friend Mimi's beliefs. It doesn't matter that we are both Jewish - (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) We're arguing semantics, I think, over the meaning of "impossible". I am suggesting that if there are absolute limits, they limit everything (including God). You are stating that if there are are absolute limits, God can't exist. That doesn't (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Faith Issue
|
|
(...) May not be your way of thinking, but I actually thought that the above was fairly brilliant. Sorry for the compliment -- I'll try to piss you off later to make up for it, K? (...) Windowpane? Blotter? What? No microdot?! =) I am very serious (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Simply because something is used as a crutch does not make it inherently a crutch. Many people use a professed athiesm as a basis to attack and ridicule anyone who believes in a higher power, but that doesn't make atheism a crutch any more so (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: [...] Dang... If you thought it was confusing before with 2 Dave's and one James, wait till you try it with 2 Dave's and 2 James's! :) DaveE FUT fun (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) You're saying (in essence) that if God exists, that existence must by definition be without limits. If that's what you're getting at, then I think you need to take a look at how you are using impossible. Impossible, by my understanding, is (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Why do you feel the need for Lego? Isn't it pleasant? Don't you want it? Some people want a crutch. Is that incorrect? What good is morality, then? Is it not only your desire to be seen by yourself and others as "good"? Does it matter in the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Very Descartian of you :) I think the only rebuttal I can say is "Why must it be that way?" I guess I just don't see a problem with a God for whom certain things are impossible, such as the absurdity of changing 4+3=9, while leaving the rest (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Um-- I don't think that's what I mean... The "good" deemed by God is that which he judges upon, whatever that may be. I've been told repeatedly that there are... I dunno... 3? aspects to God's judgement. 1. Your faith in God 2. Your love of (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
I consider having to rely on some higher power to explain the good and bad in the world a crutch. Stuff happens, deal with it. Requiring a higher power to explain it is a crutch IMO. It also denies the inherent good in people - so many religious (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) This is a pretty blatant leading question, so here's the obvious turn-around right back at you: Why do you feel it is a crutch? James (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) But why do you feel the need to have a crutch? I believe a person is far stronger without a crutch, and religion is simply a crutch for feelings people cannot handle. Why is it so wrong to believe our "fate" is in OUR hands, and ours alone, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) A few posts back I put forth "God is that being greater than which nothing can be thought" as a rhetorical assumption. It's not my personal belief, but, in my attempt to understand the Christian source of morality, it seemed an okay starting (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Judged by the same criterion that he is beholden to, yes. (...) I'm not sure that I understand this, but on face value, I'd say that I have to disagree. I believe the Sermon on the Mount teachings because they strike a chord within me of all (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) I dunno. What makes you so sure that he shouldn't be? Is it a logical fallacy to say that he shouldn't be? Is there a flaw with such a belief that makes it invalid? (...) Demonstrated, no. At least not within our abilities. But again, is there (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Sort of, but I'm not sure that I agree with it. Why should an infinite being be constrained by our notions of impossibility, even if those notions seem absolute to us? I'm also not sure about the practical equivalence of math and morality: our (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Just jumping in for James, my guess is that he'd say that it's akin to mathematics. God can't suddenly make 1==2 or 3+9=234. Humans "invented" the basic rules mathematics, and the rest is true based on those rules, no matter what. To take away (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Hmm. One of the long-standing concepts of God is "greater-than-which-...-thought." That is, of course, a formulation of the ontological argument and is therefore insufficient to prove His existence, but let's assume it (those of us who don't (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) I propose that human moral awareness is self-evident from the fact that all non- intellectually or emotionally impaired humans for as long as we have record have possessed an innate belief, sense, and faculty for moral calculus. So yes, my (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Oops-- miswording/typo on my part: That's why experimental developments in other things are palatable and are unpalatable in religion-- other things aren't expected to be "fair". DaveE (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Let me see if I can phrase it better. I expect that you posit Truth (moral, judicial, 'heavenly') and God as unchanging; while Christianity (human understanding of Truth) changes as time goes on. Is that correct? (...) Not necessarily morality (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) 8^) What's your problem, anyway? I was getting set to demonize you and burn you in effigy, and then you turn out to have been reasonable all along! 8^) (...) Ah! My fault. My use of "nonsense" was intended with a note of irony (which, as is (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
This is a helluva lot more rambling than I'm comfortable with... (...) Ah -- I think I see what happened. You had replied to my message, in a fairly (imho) personal kinda way ("personal" as though one person addressing another, not "personal" as in (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
|
(...) Darn, and I just told Larry I don't usually get heated replies :) DaveE (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
|
(...) I suppose if one defined it that way, sure. Perhaps it's my inexperience with outside newsgroups other than Lugnet, but I've more just seen it as a general (non-person-specific) goading into debate. Certainly the connotations associated with (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Forgive me if this comes across as trolling, but my understanding would benefit from a few points of clarification. Do you propose that morality is self-evident? I accept a priori your faith in God, but did God specifically create morality, or (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
|
(...) No, I don't think you'd ever notice the trend in any sort of public forum, because while it works, the most common reply to a flame is to flame back. I've kind of noticed that in o-t.debate-- a rather alarming number of the regulars quite (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
|
(...) All right then. Stipulating that "troll" can reasonably be used as a neutral term, then I'll agree that I was trolling. Generally I don't accept that definition, however; never have I seen "troll" used with a positive connotation, and it's (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Indeed. I do not posit Christianity as an unchanging Thing. I do assert, however, that Christianity claims to have some insights about the ultimate nature of reality, insofar as it concerns us. Science didn't change with Einstein's theories, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
|
(...) And that would be incorrect in my understanding of the word "troll." troll (trol) verb 1. To post a message in a newsgroup or other online conference in the hopes that somebody else will consider the original message so outrageous that it (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
|
(...) Thanks for the tip. Haven't seen it work that way here, though. (23 years ago, 15-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 read Stephenson's novel last year, and while I liked it, I don't think he ever gets any more interesting than his obvious sources: Sumerian mythology, and William Burroughs. And I guess I fault Stephenson, and many other Cyberpunk authors, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
|
(...) Well, the thing that's wrong with that is the fact that there's nothing *but* connotation there. Being a "bonehead" is sufficiently without good definition, whereas a "troll" post has a definition as well as a connotation. If Jeremy only used (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | RE: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
|
(...) I see your point, but if (hypothetically) I call someone a bonehead, there's nothing wrong with it either, except the connotation. If Jeremy was using "troll" to say "bravo to you for throwing down the rhetorical gauntlet and inviting (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Tried that. No answer. (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) So what's trolling, then? Isn't it trying to sucker someone into debating something? (albeit civilly or not) Was that the point of your sensationalism on Jeremy's point? To get someone *else* to respond who was such a fundamentalist? Not that (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Yikes--easy there, fireball. Since this is an open forum, I address my comments to any who care to respond. With this in mind, I specifically stated that I don't hold you to the literal standard, but I don't excuse others. If you perceive it (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) I dunno -- why not ask Him? ;-) *IF* I were to second-guess the guy, I would imagine that He wasn't fearful of the tower builders actually succeeding. Rather, He was probably aware of the dangers of a prideful-then-disappointed people at such (...) (23 years ago, 15-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)
|
|
Oooo... Well done! You really like 'Snow Crash' by Neal Stephenson? If you haven't read it, you should. The entire book is about Nam-Shubs and 'neurolinguistic hacking'. Very cyber.. "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Herein lies the dilemma. The appeal of science (particularly mathematics) is that it doesn't change. Did science change when Einstein theorized that time wasn't constant? Nope. Only our understanding of reality changed. To posit Christianity (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Learning, common sense, reason, faith, and experience, all in good measure, are the best approach to ascertaining Christianity's *validity*. Since we can't absolutely prove it to be true using empirical methods--nor can we prove it to be (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) But that puts us squarely back in the "is it all true or not" debate, and how does one distinguish biblical truth from biblical falsehood? I'm not putting this forth as an all-or-nothing question, and I'm delighted to accept the assertion that (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Actually, strike that. I still don't agree with Larry. Just because someone is dishonest (read 'lacking integrity' / 'deceptive' / 'unfair' / 'untruthful' / 'insincere' / 'unreputable' / 'with affectation' / 'unvirtouous') to you, doesn't mean (...) (23 years ago, 14-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)
|
|
(...) Well, that's just not inflammatory enough for me! (...) I'll try re-sending the reply just to verify that we're able to communicate. I didn't offer any great insights, but I don't want you to think I'm snubbing you, either. (...) Ah, I recall (...) (23 years ago, 14-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)
|
|
(...) Ah, then you fell for the misleading opening comments -- if you get to the end, it's all about how there is no god. Instead, there is just a story to describe a human experience that may have to do with evolution. (...) Nope, which sucks. Try (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) I'd offer that one shouldn't read a great deal of Old Testament history with a literal eye. Much of the ancient work has a very folklorish quality from which we are meant to learn certain truths (such as the folly of pride in the case of (...) (23 years ago, 14-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)
|
|
(...) Post? What post? Actually, I was responding not to your post directly but to a point that resonated from what you wrote. To that end, I should have been more specific in identifying that your point was not really what I was addressing, and I (...) (23 years ago, 14-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)
|
|
Dave! Did you even read my post? -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 14-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 see your point, and I've heard that argument before, but as an analogy it fails because the alleged God is allegedly omnipotent, so comparisons between a God:Man equation and a Man:Man equation aren't really valid. An omnipotent being has (...) (23 years ago, 14-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)
|
|
(...) An even more recent example of this would be the utterance of Voldemort's name in the Harry Potter series. Maggie C. (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) I would rather it were "mostly harmless". =) -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The Nam-shub of Enki (was Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament)
|
|
(...) Maybe a god who loves his people does these things, in the same manner that you would stop your children from stepping in front of a moving train -- even if you had to use force to stop them. You've come to the right place to ask your (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) In that case, it's even more absurd than spiteful. Did God really think they'd reach Heaven? If so, then why doesn't he smite every satellite we launch? And if not, why didn't he let them try--and fail--since that would be a much more (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Once the tower was, constructed was the plan not to shoot an arrow at God? But I agree with you, the story I remember is that God causes confusion in the tower workers by creating the language barriers – this was more to stop the tower (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Don't you mean "this is a trawl" ... ? OW OW OW OW OWWWW MY HEAD LFB FUT-> you know where (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Alright, I blame English. I've always thought of it as being truthful. I don't usually equate it with virtuous other than to say that I think honesty is generally virtuous. If that's how Larry's interpreting it, 'sok by me. I'll just have to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) I choose not to believe in any god, but it's not because of the sort of god "he" may be. Especially as described by the OT prophets, whose words many scholars (christian & other) have raised doubts about anyway. BTW, what *is* your sort (of (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I think the problem here is the definition of "honest". It doesn't only cover truth (and lies). Check out the dictionary.com definition: hon·est (adj). 1. Marked by or displaying integrity; upright: an honest lawyer. 2. Not deceptive or (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Okay, this is a troll, but I'll bite, since Larry's my chum... Spite? Hardly. Larry, the picture is taken out of context. Presented by itself, yes, it depicts a spiteful god. However, so would a picture depicting only the scene of a parent (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) So it's only being honest when the other person hasn't lied to you? What if you don't *know* that they've lied to you? Or that you don't know that they *haven't* lied to you? Nah, I completely disagree. If someone's been dishonest to you and (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
is illustrated here: (URL) What sort of god thwarts his people out of spite? Not my sort. Brick Testament is absolutely gorgeous work and I think the Rev is to be commended for some very very well done models and pages. Bravo! But I can tell you (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) Can one draw a parallel to the way Easter is celebrated among catholic cultures? Not in the religious sense, but in the overall outcome. (holidays!) (...) Yeah? (Like I didn't know *this*... :-) Cool, I love turkey! One of these days I'll go (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) No, I would argue that it is *not* dishonest to lie to someone or something that has first lied to me. Which is why I put "honest" in quotes because the definition of honesty that would require me to sacrifice myself at the whim of a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) But you would probably argue that you are *moral*, while dishonest, or at least "not immoral", I'm guessing? Or at least that you would argue that one could *be* dishonest (by marking "gift") and yet still be moral, even though maybe you're (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) You were asking him, but I'll answer with my opinion anyway... No, it is not immoral to lie, in general. Was it immoral for the UK to place large inflatable tanks in empty fields to mislead the Germans about where the invasion was being (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Is that how you define "honesty"? Or is that how you define "moral"? Is honesty necessarily moral? If you ask me, if you're honest with respect to putting the little "gift" mark on a package, then you *DON'T* mark it as a gift no matter *WHAT* (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) No, I don't think all lies are equal. But shouldn't we try to avoid lying when and where we can? As I already said in a reply to Richard, the end result is that you, for yourself, have to decide what works for you in your life. What "Little (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) No, I guess you shouldn't care what laws of another country you break. (...) Yes. I am willing to accept that. We do pick and choose which ones are important to us, as individuals. (...) I think your wrong on that point. I know I don't contort (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Actually, no. Since we are essentially immune to this silly customs tax (certainly, I have never been thusly taxed as a person in the U.S.) if we white lie by marking items as "gifts" or "cadeaux" we do so for the benefit of others. I have (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) So who gets to decide what is morally incorrect? You? Me? Isn't breaking the law, breaking the law? (Hmm, about to kill my entire arguement here, but I guess I break the law regularly by speeding.) (...) But is this a victimless crime? If you (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Is it a sin to break a law that is morally incorrect? Is it a sin to abide by a law that is morally incorrect? Stealing is way different than evading customs impositions that hinder free trade or than evading laws against victimless crimes, (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) In our family there has always been a break. We usually didn't start the Christmas preparations until a week or two before. Commercially there certainly is no break (the holiday season for retail these days seems to be all year, but certainly (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) I always thought of it as the closest Thursday to the 25th. Both methods yield the same date, which can range from the 22nd to the 28th. Canada also celebrates a Thanksgiving, but theirs is on a different date. It's basically a harvest (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) An Kuwaiti- American friend of mine always tells me that a holiday atmosphere exists in many homes (and work places) in the USA from the week before Thanksgiving to the week after Xmas. How true is that? Scott A (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) Is that anything like an eye-bitin' monkey????? ROSCO (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News! Plane down in NYC
|
|
(...) Well, I can give you the date: The fourth Thursday in November. That's how it works. But as for the holiday itself, it's very steeped in lore--a lot of it contradictory--but in short it's time to "give thanks" for good fortune. The context of (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
|
(...) Uh...sorry. It seems that we're in essentially complete agreement. I must have misunderstood your points...or they changed...or something. Chris (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
|
(...) I'm *happy* for airlines (and building managers, whoever) to pay for extra security *if they choose to*. I'm *happy* to pay an extra fee to increase my safety when I fly. I should, however, be able to choose. (...) for (...) planning (...) OK. (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
