Subject:
|
Re: The god debate again... sigh (Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Nov 2000 01:59:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
924 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > Plowed ground alert.
> >
> > Many of us could also say: "Ugh, The LP debate again...bigger sigh!
>
> Myself among them, believe me.
And yet it is kinda like sharpening swords and having at it, isn't it. Must
be a guy thing.
>
> > My views are no less valid than yours, I do not seek to ridicule or stifle
> > yours - or limit them to "ONE" reply. Unlike you, I have no ghosts.
>
> I blew it already.. OK, *TWO* replies, that's it. :-) Really!
>
> I'm sorry if you think I'm ridiculing you. I do find christianity a bit
> laughable, though. Along with animism, chiropractic, and socialism to pick a
> few of many equally unsupported theories.
And again, that's fine with me. I know what I believe, and more importantly,
I know why. Believe me, I'm a huge skeptic, I question myself and what I
believe regularly. I go back to my Hawaii in the Atlantic analogy though as
to why you find it unsupported. I find it very rational and supportable when
you look at the entirety of human history. Nearly every major event in
history can be linked to Judaism or Christianity in some way (nitpick caveat
- I said "nearly").
>
> I guess I find it fascinating how otherwise apparently rational people can
> believe in it (I'm not talking about "going along" by going to church in
> order to get social position, which is common enough in many US communities
> including mine, I'm talking about actually believing).
I think I'm fairly rational. As far as intelligence - I measure between 140
and 160 on all the IQ tests I've taken. I still wish I could squeeze in a
little college though, it gets tougher as you get older. I think the problem
is that those who are religiously offensive on our side are far more visible
than the minority of rational ones. I am more offended than you by what I
see in Christendom.
>
> > Which is totally fine with me, I don't seek to twist peoples arms into
> > agreeing with me - my beliefs are mine. Everyone is entitled to their own.
> > I'm just trying to represent mine in a fairly intelligent manner (because
> > many here try to relegate them to ridiculousness).
>
> Why bring it up again, though? Both our views are well known.
Because it's these foundational beliefs that cause all of us to approach any
given matter from the angle that we do. As I said earlier, you can't fix a
problem without realistically being able to identify it's root cause. I
don't believe that Atheism faces the human condition as it is. Atheistic
systems have consistently failed because, like it or not, man will always
slip toward the "dark side" without something higher than himself to guide
him. I am not saying that some atheists, including yourself, are not fine
upstanding people - I hold you and others here on LUGnet in highest regard -
but, as a whole WE all tend to lean toward the "dark side" when given
opportunity. Plato** believed that knowledge could free us from wrong, yet
it hasn't and can't . If there is nothing beyond us then anything is
permissable.
**(Oddly enough I believe that much of the problem in Christendom stems from
a 17th century group called the Cambridge Platonists which led to the idea
of "entire sanctification" and then evolved into the Pentecostal Movement)
> this present LP debate was, I think, me posting (what I thought was) a
> relevant press release relating to the then current election... not just a
> restatement of my views or anyone else's, but something what I thought was
> something new...)
Actually this current discussion was started by Frank dealing with motives
for benevolence - which is where I believe the Christian ethic is pertinent.
>
> > I believe I told you once
> > in a private correspondence how that I disagree with many Christians who
> > feel it compulsory to accost everyone in their path and brow-beat them with
> > the "gospel". Christ Himself only spoke to those who wanted to listen to
> > Him. My engagement here is simply participation in the arena of ideas.
>
> Fair enough. I'm conceptually familiar with Christian Macho Flash, being
> guilty of a "little" Libertarian Macho Flash now and again. (you in the back
> there, keeping score! How much do I have to pay you not to publish? I can't
> coerce you but I can make it worth your while!! L0L)
I can forsee dusting that one off on a regular basis. See, Larry said... :)
Bill
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
231 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
|
|
|
|
