Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:13:01 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERAnomorespam.COM
|
Viewed:
|
1567 times
|
| |
|
|
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 exceptions do indeed invalidate rules. It
only takes one counter example to disprove something.
UU isn't predictable. Who would have predicted such a gentle, life
affirming, reasonable religion (if that's what it is :-) ) would spring
from the life destroying base of christianity?
Hence I don't think that all religions are inherently bad... but were I
a betting man, that's the way I'd bet on a case by case basis anyway.
Selçuk Göre wrote:
>
> 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
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
