Subject:
|
Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:28:35 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswestAVOIDSPAM.net
|
Viewed:
|
388 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal repeats himself:
>
> > At the risk (hope;) of annoying you further, I'll recite the absolute pertinent
> > part of the chapter:
> >
> > "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be
> > done; and there is nothing new under the
> > sun.
> >
> > Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"? It has been
> > already, in the ages before us.
> >
> > There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any
> > remembrance of later things yet to happen
> > among those who come after."
> >
> > So, my point is that *everything* is plowed ground
>
> No, your point is that someone ASSERTS that everything everyone can imagine
> is plowed ground. Not everything actually is, John. That person is wrong.
> There are wonders still to discover, changes ahead of us, neato creations
> yet to build. (reminder, that person lived in an age that didn't think much
> of science, and in which the rate of discovery and change was orders of
> magnitude lower than now)
I don't know, Lar. Whether you drive a horse and cart, a 2000 LeSabre or a
Hovercoupe, you are still going to wonder about the nature of your own existence and
die. Maybe the little details change, but the important questions are still the same.
> But when we all go over the same topic in this forum, over and over and over
> again, it's annoying. For example, Bill F. in his response to your response,
> posts Pascal's Wager AGAIN, for what must be the 57th time in this
> newsgroup... and when, in fact, LFB had already said, (in effect) don't
> bother because here are the cites that argue against it, make up your own
> mind, it's old news. When he does that, THAT is plowed ground.
>
> I for one am tired of this endless repetition. It's not helping anyone
> clarify their thinking or discover anything new, about themselves, about
> their friends, about society, not about anything.
>
> > and therefore your whining
>
> I'm not whining, I'm ranting. There's a difference.
>
> > about it is senseless. But even still, some of this plowed ground is still new to
> > some and is therefore valid to them. Merely because *you* have shut your mind on
> > the topic doesn't invalidate its relevancy for others.
>
> Those others can read it in the historical record (posts here never go away)
> when they come upon it later. Or they can speak up now. If there are any,
> which I doubt. This discussion is the Usual Suspects talking about the usual
> things.
>
> Why don't you monomaniacal christians just shut up on this topic? Really.
I'll cease when I get a satisfactory answer from you. First off, let me say that I
have no illusions about trying to convert you or even trying to get you to believe in
God. Really. I know that that isn't possible. All I want to hear you say is that
you are open to the possibility that the Christian God exists, more or less as we
claim. We both agree that there isn't or can't be proof on either side that that is
the case. So why dismiss is summarily? Is it because God's followers annoy you so?
They annoy *me* sometimes too!
If I heard you say "you know, you very well may be right and I will keep an open mind
about this matter" (and if you say you would I would believe you) I would be happy.
Because honestly, nothing I can say or anyone else for that matter will *ever* change
your mind and it is not our job to. I am called to be witnesses to the Good News and
nothing more. If you ever were to become a Christian, it would be because of the
influence of the Spirit of God, certainly not me.
> Just... shut... up... Or get Todd to set up an off-topic.debate.religion so
> it can be ignored by those not interested.
>
> Or at least not bring up religion in threads that weren't started to discuss
> it. And I believe that's the first time I've ever singled out a group rather
> than a person as the cause of trouble in a LUGNet newsgroup, and I'm sorry
> it's come to this, but it has.
>
> Bill says he hates christians who get in your face about their religion.
> Look in the mirror, Bill. Just accept that some are happy without your tin
> god and let it go at that. Just let it go.
>
> I've gotten several notes from long time readers of this forum, people whose
> participation in it makes it fun and interesting when they are here, who
> despair of any discussion lately not ending up talking about religion within
> a few posts and who are giving up on the newsgroup altogether
>
> I would too but I don't have the willpower they do.
Sucker;-)
-John
>
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
| Tell you what, John... (...) How about this: I concede that it is not impossible(1) that the christian god as described by brand X (choose your favorite brand, there are many choices) exists. With the implication, of course, that brands Y, Z, A, B, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal repeats himself: (...) No, your point is that someone ASSERTS that everything everyone can imagine is plowed ground. Not everything actually is, John. That person is wrong. There are wonders still to discover, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
