Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:28:58 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
sgore@=stopspammers=superonline.com
|
Viewed:
|
1530 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> 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).
Sorry, anyway..:-)
> Selçuk Göre wrote:
> >
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > > That's right, it's actively bad for people to be RELIGIOUS and the more
> > > RELIGOUS they are, the worse off they are. Further, it's actively bad
> > > for a society to be influenced by ANY RELIGION and the more influenced
> > > it is, the worse off it is. IMHO.
> >
> >
> > I tried to make it more clear and more universal, as being a former
> > Muslim...:-)
>
> I don't agree. I think there may well exist religions that do not have
> the corrosive soul destroying aspects that (most major branches of)
> christianity does.
>
> Frank's Unitarian Universalism, for example. He posted 7 guiding
> principles on Wednesday last
> http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=4700 ... they have nothing
> about "brother's keeper"... I do wonder what is meant by #6 as "justice"
> is often a code word used by usurpers to mean income redistribution, but
> I doubt that's what meant here.
>
> So if you accept UU as a religion (which raises the interesting question
> of is something one because its adherents say it is? Because its
> detractors say it is?) then I'd say not all religions are actively bad.
>
> Note that this is the "exception that proves the rule" so to speak, as
> most are.
> --
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 lack of good english, do you use it as in the above paragraph?
Selçuk
Selçuk
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| 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 (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| 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 (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 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
|
|
|
|
