 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) And I don't know that monkeys aren't about to fly out of my butt either. But all the objective rational evidence, that is, stuff that can be used to make meaningful predictions, stuff that can be measured and tested, points against it. Your (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) There was a time in human history when all the objective rational evidence pointed against the earth being round. Your point? Nothing in the current body of knowledge (from a scientific point of view) can either prove or disprove the existance (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Cite, please. The rational evidence pointed FOR it being round, it was the christian church that was suppressing it to enforce a flat earth, terracentric viewpoint, as I recall. As far back as we can go in history, we have evidence that people (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) I love this one! The Earth isn't round (it's not even perfectly elliptical), and it isn't flat either. But it then again it *is* flat (if you live your whole life in in the plains of Nebraska) and it *is* round (if you live your whole life on (...) (25 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38C9898F.27C595B8@v...er.net>... (...) I guess it really depends on one's definition of Christian. By my definition of Christian, I see people who were quite devout who have done good for the world, and continue to (...) (25 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) Ok, did some digging of my own, and find myself hoist on a petard, presumably my own. My example died, but the point is still extant. Simply because science (objective rational evidence) does not provide for somethings existance does not mean (...) (25 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Agreed. (...) Also agreed. But in order for X to actually matter, X has to have some effect on reality, or it's just ornamentation on a perfectly valid theory that explains things without X. In this case, the christian god has no effect (in (...) (25 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) I could argue this further, but we'd be getting away from traceable cause and effect, and getting really esoteric. (which is to say, getting into questions like 'Where does the concept of God come from' and 'Does the socio-political effect of (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | Skipped most of it but picked on one thing. James Brown wrote: \ (...) No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the basis for christianity is flawed. The basis for capitalism, and the basis for America, are not. Christianity will produce (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | Larry, Man, I really shouldn't get into this: Anyway, here is the start: < rant, babble, etc. (...) I am really trying not to grind my teeth, here, Larry, but you always had a spite against Christianity, which is fine, I have my own spites on issues (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | (...) I tried to make it more clear and more universal, as being a former Muslim...:-) Selçuk (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | To the reader, in the below quote Selçuk changed my words in a way that I don't agree with. He did it to make a point, I'm not mad that he did it or anything and no apology or retraction is necessary (to forestall any). (...) I don't agree. I think (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) Some people do interpret "Justice" to imply income redistribution. UUs range almost completely across the political spectrum, and if one had to paint with a broad brush, one would pick up the Liberal brush, but I suspect if more people (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | Well we're definitely in "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" territory and I post this mostly in fun, not because I have issues... (...) I think that's STILL begging the question. :-) What's the difference between religion and (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | (...) Sorry, anyway..:-) (...) This is from Steve Bliss's message: "I thought that old saying came from English grammar, where every rule has any number of exceptions. The exceptions don't invalidate the rule, they're just exceptions." Since my (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | Steve's wrong, I feel. Exceptions invalidate a rule, unless they are themselves subject to a subrule (that is, that they are predictable exceptions) and I feel "the exception that proves the rule" is a bit of gentle humor pointing out that (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) Well, UU theologians would argue that it is predictable. Unitarianism is derrived from rejecting the trinity and the divinity of Jesus (something which wasn't "official" until 350 AD). UUism relies on reason to establish it's precepts, so it (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) Hey! I'm willing to admit to making mistakes, but in this case, I'm being misunderstood. I was just disagreeing with Todd's understanding of the implications of 'exception which proves the rule'. I've never heard that phrase used with ironic (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I could be wrong about its primary use these days... I've never heard it used in any was _but_ with ironic (or sarcastic) intent, but I'll buy into the old English grammar etymology of it! :) --Todd (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman wrote: [about 'the exception which proves the rule'] (...) Thinking about it, I can't remember the last time I've actually heard this expression used. So the 'primary use these days' doesn't really apply. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Sorry for apparently misquoting you, Steve. Are you sure you didn't actually say what I said you said? :-) I never make misteaks, you know... (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
