 | | Re: Is space property?
|
|
Warning: Long, long rant by the resident imperial historian follows. Grab a donut (or an ear of corn, if you're a Middle American like myself). ;) (...) It doesn't. The lifestyle we enjoy in the US, UK, Europe (as a whole), Japan, Oceania, Canada, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No "year zero", but if there was, we STILL just started new millenia!
|
|
(...) If that's the case, my computer that reads 2001 is wrong. If there was no year 1, then how is there a year 2001? Any numbering system for years starts at an arbitrary date - you are correct that there wasn't a year 1 in the sense that the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) Hi Dave, I get your point, but... The payment of taxes is (normally considered) a proper and right thing. So it feels different (even to me) than being burgled. (How often do you write a check to your burgler?) And, I do know that the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: there ain't no such thing as "year zero"...
|
|
(*Sound of dead horse being savagely beaten*) That's all right, it deserves it. Keeps our minds off of more important but far more depressing matters [1]. (...) I'm in full agreement with Franklin, but my evidence is in the term "Anno Domini" (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: there ain't no such thing as "year zero"...
|
|
(...) You're missing my point. There wasn't a year 1 AD either. There is a year which we now call 1 AD. My point is that the relevance of when the bleep the calendar started is about zero. Therefore I find more relevance in the last digits turning (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) Just a minor nitpick; if the money to fund such killings is taken from you against your will and beyond your reasonable power to resist, you are not morally responsible for what is done with that money. If a person breaks into your house and (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) And I think that the removal of forced wealth reallocation, particularly when the wealth was not gained corruptly is unfair. Fixing that problem would "push things in the _direction_ of fairness." (...) There are two issues. One is that the US (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <3A513F9C.2142BF82@m...ng.com>... (...) I would agree that life probably can't become even mostly fair for humanity as a whole. However, that would be a very poor excuse not to strive to push things in the _direction_ of (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
Hmm, I've been thinking about this issue since before Chris posted (look back and you'll find a thought exercise of mine dealing with someone living on property which is totally surrounded by someone else's property where that other person decides (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) I do find it unsettling that the majority of humanity doesn't live under the same conditions I do, but I don't see a clean way to get from where we are now, to a utopia where everyone has a "fair" allotment of "stuff" (life necessities, goods, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message ... (...) believe, (...) seem (...) As an atheist, here is my take on human rights: Rights are, as far as I can tell, a human social construct, a "base-level" set of behavioural rules that originate from (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) and (...) will (...) I've been thinking about this. I have at various times thought that rights are: A) immutable truths based on the nature of our humanity, B) make believe, C) legal constructs saying what we can do, and D) fuzzy terms that (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Healthcare should be based on need?
|
|
In: (URL) said <very heavily snipped down to one sentence...> (...) Well, I responded at the time that I didn't think I agreed. I didn't go into a lot of detail on why, because this has been debated at length in the past. At great great great (...) (24 years ago, 27-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) Well, yeah, that's the central concept, isn't it? If you're trying to apply and extend a concept but you don't really know what it is to start with, muddle will result. (The irony is that you're trying to go into space when it is grounding (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Which means the rest of us can get the last word? :-) I think it is extremely important to be carefull when making mun of something in the middle of a heated debate that it is clear that you are making fun. That was not at all clear (and there (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
To All, I was just kidding around about the sniping part folks. I do know there are other things that are celebrated, Tom S., and the like, I was just ruffling Larry P. a little bit. We have talked about this a little offline. I swear this group in (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) In my mind the ownership of objects, concepts, or land is not as clear cut as most people think it is. It is realy subject to their expectation that things will be where they see them now. (Hillside Home slides into sea etc) I myself have a (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) Hi Erik, I'm not sure I follow. I just went back and reread my note, looking for unclarity or definitionless terms. The only thing that I really came up with is the concept of rights. Rights are definately up in the air as far as a definition. (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) But, why not? (...) I don't buy the must part. I think what you mean is "ought to," right? (...) It simply depends on your inertial frame of reference. Why stop there? That same space is also spinning about the galactic core and rocketing away (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) Short answer NO. Long answer: However Space-Time can be a form of limited property, and *must* be so!!! This is due to the reality of SPACE. When people think of space they are woofully ignorant as to what they are refering to. A (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
Chris, you're hypothesizing in the absence of definitions. (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) Oh sure, I was considering water as between air and food in this regard. And as far as management, that is beyond the scope of what I was thinking about. But even still, there is something intrinsically different abut land and air v. food, (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message ... (...) special (...) If you're going to include land and air, then water, too. Don't we then get into the old, old problem of how best to manage common resources? Kevin (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is space property?
|
|
Howdy and Merry Christmas all, As you probably know, I'm one of the property-rights be-all libertarians here. But I've been fixating on the role of land (or locations) as property. I have talked about the generation of property (e.g. jars of clay) (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) For some more thoughts on what "consent of the governed" means, see this reference I just stumbled across while reading up on something Chris W. pointed me at... (URL) ties in well with David Friedman's writings on how to have non statist law (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Happy holidays (was: Uselessness of .debate)
|
|
(...) Uh oh. Now I need more info. Uh, basically, Newton was born on the 25th of December in 1642 and when I was deeply extropian in the early 90s, people on the list were celebrating Newtonmass instead of Xmas. It stuck with me. I just found this (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) the 24th is our big day, lesser activity today. That's because that's when the holidays fall on the calendar (similar to Washington's birthday being on a monday, but not really)... on the 21st I was still on the road. It's also because we have (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree, but on the other hand, calling today the solstice is incorrect. Why not celibrate the solstice on the 21st? Out of curiosity, Larry, do you celibrate the WS today, or on 21 December? Why not Newtonmass? Chris (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Indeed. Pardon me for neglecting those who stand on their heads on a regular basis... (funny, I didn't see any signs of that when I was in Oz earlier this year, but perhaps it was because I was standing on my head myself!) I'd say throw a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, I'm writing this on December 25th in a hotel room before we go spend the day with family and I don't take what Larry said as a snipe on Christianity. The celebration of the Winter Solstice predates the celebration of Christmas by a good (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what manner yout think I mean. I don't think you are the guy holding the gun, if that's what you mean. That would be too messy. Instead, you pay someone else to hold the gun on your fellows while their resources are collected. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) ...and a happy Summer Solstice to those in the Southern Hemisphere. pete.w (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) There's merit in that argument. Certainly we are "part of the universe" since we reside in it, observe it, are affected by it, and effect things within it. The problem is that "creation" carries a connotation of it being an act of volition. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) You are 100% correct. That is why Jehovah’s Witness still do not celebrate it. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Why is it a snipe to call this "holiday season" Winter Solstice festival? Are you so arrogant as to believe that ONLY Christians own the celebrations this time of year? Hanukah, Kwanza (double a?), Winter Solstice, and MANY other celebrations (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) I think science/society seeks to understand "creation". I don't think being united with creation is really a global aim. That said, could it not be argued that we are part of creation? Scott A (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Do we? What makes you think this? (...) Skepticism is GOOD. However, I don't think cynicism is good ;-) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Another day. Another contradictorily ironic post from Larry. Another conceitedly snide remark from Larry. What will tomorrow bring? Christmas!! (...) I really am trying: (URL) A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) I do not "take" anything from my fellow man in the manner you mean. I have no problem paying tax within the UK/EU system... as long as it is managed democratically. I vote for governments who tax and spend in the way I find acceptable... I am (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) Would it be your claim that it is impossible for the government to steal from a citizen? (...) I have not. (...) Nowhere to go. (...) Pressured with the threat of death is not just a little pressure. So yes. I am saying that anytime someone (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) What Larry said. Just that the two of you opt to keep .debate around. Chris (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) Yes, I agree, taxation of those who consent to be taxed is not theft. Where we differ is on how one gives consent and how one goes about withholding it. Stick with my example here... (...) So in a country of millions of people, as long as one (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message ... (...) Aren't they a good example of law coming from a higher power than government? (...) given (...) That is an entirely inappropriate substitution - I'm not asking why the government needs permission to (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) And a fine answer it is too. It follows that consenting to be governed by a government which demands tax is giving permission to be taxed by that government - ergo, taxation is not theft. (...) governed? (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I think Todd would be smart enough to figure out that somebody changed the newsgroup in the reply thread and that I simply didn't realize it. So yes, he'd probably find that funny - I mean, the laugh's on me! Which is something you didn't seem (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
I trimmed admin.general off... (...) Scott, where in the above is there a snipe at christianity? I'm honestly puzzled by that. (our holiday cards this year, as usual, wish people a happy Winter Solstice, because that's what we celebrate). (...) And (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Shou shalt not steal?
|
|
(...) I can agree with that one, in fact, that is essentially the 1st Unitarian Universalist principle: We afirm and promote: 1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person. I've always held that the rest effectively follow from the first: 2. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, for my own part, I think the debate has turned a corner. Perhaps we've convinced Larry and Scott A to back off a bit, and I think the current dicsussion is actually bringing up some interesting points, and doesn't seem as much to be (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) As I said - presenting evidence - most of it being testimony. Unscientific, non-repeatable in a lab, not-by-your-definiti...objective. (...) That's because I don't concur with your "definition" of objective as scientific-observabl...-in-a-lab. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) What I meant was the personal jabs that keep going back and forth. --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Ah, Larry, always throwing a few snipes in to Christianity, huh? I expected nothing less, that's all right. (...) Folks, all I responded to was Frank Filz (SP?) discussion about debate, and according to what he thought, I agreed with him. I (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) The way it's written one could almost read it as he hopes that you two have a lot of fights with each other, rather a mean thing to wish so close to Winter Solstice festival, don't you think? :-) So I'm doubting *that* is what he meant. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Scott is free to email me whatever he likes, but I feel it is important that I and others continue to use .debate to discuss the larger topic of what makes a good .debate and a good .debater as and when appropriate. I think it's an important (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Shou shalt not steal?
|
|
(...) Think I missed that thread-- But I'm gonna come in late and argue something perhaps a little more basic: Inter-human morality all boils down to: "Thou shalt respect others." Which really works great, I think. "Thou shalt not kill" => "Thou (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) My family is going through the stomach flu at the moment - I can feeling it creeping up on me as I type after spending last night cleaning up %$@#$# - so I am going to be dropping out for a while. Back later! (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) About what? --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Can the two of you please take all of this offline to private email? --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) people (...) So we've gone around in a circle and I still haven't heard any explanation as to why it is OK for you to take the resources of your fellow. It's not even that I _just_ disagree. I don't have anything reasonable with which to (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) I think, we are back to where we started on this one. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) No, I made it up as an example of the sort of "miracle" one sometimes hears proffered, but exaggerated in the mundane direction for effect. ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Is that from something? Chris (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Don't know what made me think of this just now, but when I first saw the thread entitled "LP point 1", etc, I had interpreted the LP as "Larry Pieniazek" rather than "Libertarian Party". :) DaveE (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Rather as I expected-- an entity, seperate to ourselves-- having created what we know of as this universe, including ourselves, and capable of enacting or creating anything therin or similar to, and quite possibly, anything at all. (...) How (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) I personally would certainly not include "we all instinctively long to be united with that Entity" in the definition, as that seems an (unproven and highly dubious) attribute of *us*, not of God. Why muddy the definition up with that other (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Since I point that out in the next paragraph but one, you can be sure I was aware of it. A danger of starting to respond before you read the whole thing... :-) as Paul B pointed out. In fact, "unconvincability" is kind of the whole point of (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Hmm. A lot of christians might (probably do) hold that, but it isn't central to being christian. A christian is defined, in the broadest sense, as someone who believes in Christ.(more below) There are christian sects that believe strictly (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) I would simply define God as a single Entity which created the universe. We all instinctively long to be united with that Entity. I would then go on to state that that Entity entered time and space in the human form of Jesus Christ, in order (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Well, nevermind the "Son of God" (mysterious at best) title-- how do they handle the intro to the Gospel of John "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...(to verse 14), and the Word became flesh and (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Wow, this is a new one on me. Seems that the veneration of Mary is reaching new heights...."co-redemptress"? Equals? -John (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Sadly, I fear the answer is just about yes, going by what I think you define as God. But really what we've got to do is define 'God' first, because I may be wrong. In fact, depending on what you define as 'God', I may in fact already believe (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Remember though, that that kind of evidence is by definition not possible, so it's true that there would be no way to convince you. (...) I was just thinking that, if I were God, how *would* I convince you that I existed? (and how much LEGO I (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Quite so-- thanks :) Actually perhaps the correct thing to say is that by the objectivist viewpoint: "Something can ONLY *BE* true if ...." or more to the point: "If something is NOT ...., then it is NOT true." (...) Oh? Actually, I rather (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) That's the trouble with jumping into the middle of these kinds of things :) I'll see if I can describe it again-- see further down... (...) In this particular part of my post where I bring this up, I'm addressing the issue of fairness as I see (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Fair question. I can speak for no one else but myself, an agnostic who's pretty convinced but not 100% certain there is no god. For myself, I would require objective verifiable evidence. Alleged miracles, things that cannot currently be (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) I'm not, but the alliteration was too much to resist. (1) Hence in the example I'm trading the CD AWAY for something I value more. ++Lar 1 - although I do like Sixpence none the Richer... (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Too much! you gotta at least leave who you're talking with... The tree view, of course, has already overflowed and we can't see context clearly... (...) Suggest you leave that as a name rather than a personal pronoun... (...) Ditto. Hope that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Nitpick, for things in general, that's only sufficient to show that they are "likely" to be true. We used to think that indivisible atoms were likely to be true. They gave good predictions and were a good tool. Now we know they're not, but we (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Hey Dave, Dave! et al. You are absolutely correct. And while I find these discussions interesting (when I am able to squeeze in the time), they are a bit unsatisfying, because we usually talking apples and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) Wow. I didn't know you were into the music of Jars of Clay, Lar... or were you just waxing poetic? -John (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
<much indiscriminate snippage> I want to figure out what the heck we're debating. As far as I can tell, we're all over the map. :) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, you: (...) I may be making assumptions myself, here. What *is* your argument? It looks (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Correct me if I'm wrong Steve, but I think the argument goes something like: 'God will show Himself to you if you are faithful/willing to listen. You, posessing free will may not be open to His presentation of Himself, and even if you are (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) given (...) Your stace here is (if I understand you correctly) that since a bunch of people think taking my money is OK, that I don't have a right to call it theft. I don't think that makes any sense. No number of opinions in favor, make (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Agreed-- once a fundamental level of subjectivity has been reached, no further progress can be made. My only nitpick was in your saying that the debate itself was worthless, which I would argue it isn't, since exposing those fundamental (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) I'm not sure (I wasn't real sure about making that stipulation), but there clearly are things which private organizations can be allowed to do that governments can't (such as discrimination). It probably does amount to a moot point since a (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) I guess. But aren't you missing an answer from within your own belief system? If (BIG if) from "Let us create man in our image" we infer that man is imbued with Grace (or the potential for Grace), then it is not unreasonable to say that man, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Any circularity whatever is sufficient to disqualify a particular item of evidence. (...) No one in this forum (or elsewhere) has yet demonstrated a proof to my satisfaction using this basis, although it's been tried. I feel like a taxonomy of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: (...) rotfl :-) Seriously - Why did God create us with an eternal soul? Come on - To know WHY someone does something you would have to know them better than they know themselves. Our (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I would argue no. I think the Christian argument would probably be that there IS equality in those that it is applying to insofar as it is concerned. I.E. we all start from the same standpoint insofar as morality matters. (...) I believe it is (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Free will (was Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity))
|
|
(...) All? No - Just the ones in this thread - and even then it's taking up too much of my time. As I tried to elaborate on before, if I went back in time a minute or a day or whatever and knew that you decided to post this message, how could that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) It is not hypothetical, Britain did this in 1788. They stopped paying their tax to the UK a while back though... we keep a tab. :-) Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) Do they not ask you each and every time there is an election in the US? Sure, I expect you were out-voted - but that is democracy for you! Did Gore and Bush not present pre-election spending plans to your nation? Will your elected (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) It is *entirely* circular to say that The Bible is proof of God at all. Now we're just sound-byting each other, but asserting that "creation" at large is proof of Christianity's God is circular again and hardly conclusive. I am willing to (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) _Somewhat_ circular, yes, but the Bible isn't the sole "proof of God". The most obvious evidence of the Creator being His creation. SRC (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Thought we cleared this up??? Elvis is alive and well and living in Las Vegas. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A438E9B.2D4C9A...ape.com... (...) in (...) human (...) What (...) Apparently you don't, Tom? Am I understanding you correctly, or are you just making an observation? Steve (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: <big snip> (...) No. 8-) SRC (Currently working on a more in-depth answer) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I believe you'll have a hard time demonstrating that to my satisfaction. (...) I don't accept that every asserted fact in the bible is the literal truth. I don't even accept that every asserted fact in the bible is allegorically true. But I do (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) You aren't inherently worth more than sparrows. Read it again. You are worth more than many sparrows. That is, some sparrows are worth more than you. :-) Chris (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) It's not simply a matter of refusing The Bible; what Tom is (and others are) asking is that The Bible not be taken as proof of God, since The Bible is only valid as such proof if one accepts it as the Word of God, which is circular. What if I (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) Disagree. If conditions one and two are in place, three needn't be. I don't care one whit what organization-x does with their internal policy. In a system of competing currencies, Bob's Green Bank could produce pretty USbob$10 bills with (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
