To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 1775
1774  |  1776
Subject: 
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:01:06 GMT
Viewed: 
1370 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek writes:

Things aren't clear cut either way on the religious/secular debate. Shame
in most of these debates, so many people on BOTH sides make statements
without thinking through the consequences of what they are saying, and/or
argue by putting up straw men[B] (This debate has been more sensible than
some I've seen, but even so, from what I've read I'd say Larry and John N
are both guilty on both counts) (Sorry guys! <grin>)

Feel free to call me on those,  as I've said, to be an atheist is
difficult. It requires deep thought!... and I'm a big advocate of
accepting the consequences for your actions or statements. Further, I
certainly don't intend to erect straw men. The real thing is flimsy
enough.

At the risk of me being accused of saying something then not following through,
I'm not sure there's too much point me trawling through back messages to pick
logical flaws in what was said - especially as I think you and John N both
picked
each other up quite a bit. I should emphasize anyway there are a lot of good
points
being made here by everyone.

However, what I would want to do is challenge what I see as the current
weaknesses
in what everyone is saying. I've paraphrased a bit so apologies if I've
misunderstood anyone:

Larry> Answer John N's (I think it was John's) charge that what you are saying
gives you no reason to do anything good. I remember a few postings on
lugnet where you've reminded us how much you like giving to charity and
being nice to other people. I think that's great, but why do you do it? If
there
is no God etc. then what is the purpose of doing anything? Why make any effort
to help others?

John N> Answer Larry's charge that you are being inconsistent.
You said that the story of Job didn't really happen.
If - as I assume you
do - you believe the Bible is the word of God, then how can you justify
believing
bits of it but not other bits?

Jesse> It seems quite plausible to me that there is a God of love and that
God wants us to love each other etc., but that that God did *NOT* write the
Bible. Your last
posting seemed to imply that any belief in God requires you to reject things
like homosexuality, (presumably because that's what you get out of a strict
interpretation of the Bible - an interpretation which has been challenged by
scholars).
Perhaps you'd like to explain the link.

Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com



Message has 3 Replies:
  Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
 
I'll respond to this one first, and Jesse's maybe later. (...) Hopefully I didn't come off as TOO self-righteous, because that would be a flaw, and I don't have any. :-) I think that's great, but why do you do it? If (...) Good question. I could (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
 
Simon Robinson <simon@simonrobinson.com> wrote in message news:FGz2xu.8B9@lugnet.com... (...) the (...) things (...) strict (...) by (...) Okay. But before I start I have to say that "scholars" have been able to make the Bible say whatever they want (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
 
(...) Here's what I believe about the Bible. It is a collection of books edited together by many people at different times in history. It is a historical document which can be scrutinized in any manner of ways (historical criticism, literary (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
 
Plowing though .debate and a couple numbers caught my eye! (below) (...) Larry, IMBW, but I think John might've meant "pi" when he said "22/7" -- at least, I know I've heard people accidentally refer to pi in that manner before. John, pi = (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR