If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:46:11 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote: that's ridiculous! Look back in history! I have. The worst regimes are the "godless" ones. Look at all the harm religious people have brought over the world. We going to have that argument again? I guess people really aren't listening to me. Or they don't study history. Rob |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:16:57 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote: so your theory that the world is in the shape it's in now due to religion does not ring completely true. Not exclusively because of religion, but looking back, it is one of the primary propaganda machines to bring evil over the world. Agreed. What you've identified is the tool of the demagogue, not his motivation, which is far more primal. Rob |
#523
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:35:38 GMT, Don Tuite
wrote: Testing a hypothesis is what got Moses' ass in trouble -- whacking the rock with his stick, when the Big Guy had just told him to order it verbally to gush water. No Promised Land for poor Moe. One: Moses was on face-to-face speaking terms with God. There is enough in the text of the pentateuch to suggest that the God he saw looked human in form. ("Moses spoke to God face to face." "I'll show you my back parts only", and so forth. I'll look it all up if anyone cares.) Whacking the rock was not scientific inquiry; the guy had been through bringing down seven plagues, lifting up his arms to keep his side on the winning side of a battle, parting (or drying up, you take your pick) the Red (Reed) Sea. Conversing with a bush. He had a consistent picture of God. No need for Moe to have faith; he'd been through the fire already, so to speak. He knew. And then did the wrong thing anyway. In my church, we hold this story up as a lesson in *pride*, not faith. Thus is Faith defined in Exodus. Two: You're using what you commonly hold as an untrue myth to bolster a point about faith. How that supports your point, when the premise is to reject the book altogether and out of hand, sits a bit beyond me. Rob |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:02:40 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote: Where do you find faith defined as "interested in the outcome"? In Mormonism, which rejects much of the common definitions of various liturgical terms, in favor of stuff that makes a different kind of sense. Because Mormonism is a minority religion worldwide (something like 0.1% of the world population) you're not likely to find its usages in the dictionary, unless the terms are exclusive to it. One example, if you can get past the 19th-century scriptural-sounding English, is he http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/21#21 And another, here, which proposes an experiment of sorts on "the word", interpreted by Mormons to mean pretty much any proposition, but especially the stuff found in scriptures: http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/26-30#26 Rob |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
"Wdtabor" wrote in message ... That is not to say that state licensing boards are evil, but they really don't serve a purpose that the insurance industry cannot fulfill just as well, at lower cost. I gather that presently dentists must be licensed by the state board, and that is a requirement with legal penalties for non-compliance. If this changes to a system where insurance companies determine who is competent to practice, then to have some protections for the public (liability and competence) there would need to be a way for the public to know which dentists carry insurance. If there was no legal requirement to carry insurance and no way for the public to know whether or not their practicioner carried it the public would suddenly be at a major disadvantage. How would you propose to set this up? |
#526
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:46:31 -0500, "Trent Moorehead"
wrote: After looking at all the harm religion has brought over mankind, how can one not fight it whereever it rears its ugly head - if one wants to remain a halfway moral being. I guess I should cancel my plans to deliver Thanksgiving dinner to the needy tomorrow. Since it's on behalf of my church. I guess you better. After all, according to the atheists here, if your motivation is religious, you must not be moral. Rob |
#527
|
|||
|
|||
Rob,
I guess people really aren't listening to me. Or they don't study history. or they don't agree with you ;-) -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#528
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Chris W wrote:
Religion is very personal, there are ways to Indeed. My personal beliefs are that Usenet posts should be =80 characters wide, but evidently not everybody accepts that particular belief or practise :-) -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
#529
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Rob, I guess people really aren't listening to me. Or they don't study history. or they don't agree with you ;-) Really. It's tough to have a discussion with someone that makes up definitions for words. If he's not even willing to use a language properly, what chance is there for logic or history? It's too easy to make things up, and arguing against that is a fool's game. When I realized that he'd countered my dictionary citation with some referenced scripture...well, there's little point to this. - Andrew |
#530
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:51:46 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote: Really. It's tough to have a discussion with someone that makes up definitions for words. What?! Point to the spot where *I* made up a definition for a word. I gave you a whole alternate worldview, embraced by millions of people, even if they are a significant minority. I gave you its source, not written by me, and therefore not my contrivance. I gave you its fundamentals. I gave you the reason why the definition is not found in a dictionary. Therefore, I didn't make up definitions for words, and the remainder of your reasoning on that line is a really simplistic straw man. And alleging so in this thread is ad hominem. "He's religious, therefore we must not take any of his ideas seriously, no matter what." It seems you'd rather attack a popular straw man than consider what a different outlook might do to the fundamentals of a belief system which is *not* atheism. I agree that that makes a good discussion very difficult, but it is not I who has a problem with reason and logic this time. When I realized that he'd countered my dictionary citation with some referenced scripture...well, there's little point to this. You ask what source contains my notion, and I tell you. You dismiss the notion because the idea is contained in scripture (a word whose etymology reduces to "stuff written down", by the way). [1] I didn't claim for you that the scripture was divine. I didn't swoon about its heavenly source. I have no expectation that you'll click the link and have a conversion experience of any kind. I explained that that was the source of the *idea*. That was the answer to your question: I don't follow your definition of faith, as used here. Would you be so kind as to provide that definition (instead of an example)? And you answer that kindness by calling me the player in a fool's game. Address the *idea* on its *merits*, and you have the basis for arguing the point of it. But if you apparantly can't stomach a proposition because of its source, (which is basic logical fallacy; so much for the atheist's worship of human reason) then and only then will there be little point. In any case, did you actually read the sentences which convey the idea, or not? If not, what the hell are you afraid of? Rob, who *has* read Rand, and rejected it on the merits [1] At any rate, ask a "traditional" Christian minister whether or not that particular reference is scripture, and why, and watch the vitriolic denials fly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |