Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:59:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1820 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> 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?
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 should be predictable.
Of course it also had a rough start, and didn't firmly establish itself
until the 1500s (in Transylvania and other parts of eastern Europe).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
