Home > Archive > Cobol > January 2008 > Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:
|
|
| roger.pearse@googlemail.com 2008-01-26, 6:56 pm |
| On 26 Jan, 18:45, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
> <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:506de0df-d205-4c06-ba1a-37a08770bfa2@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 25, 12:26 am, "Pete Dashwood"
>
> <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
he[color=darkred]
>
> So there must have been texts with un-respectable credentials or else you
> couldn't make that statement. =A0So trexts WERE excluded. =A0Do you really=
think
> the Council was a free and democratic deabte?
You know, wouldn't it better to find out the facts BEFORE dogmatising
like this?
1. The Council of Nicaea made no statements or decisions relating to
the canon. None, zero, zip. OK?
2. You talk about texts being excluded. Naturally the church did not
accept into its services books forged by outsiders much later in order
to propagate paganism, or novels, or whatever. Why should it? You
seem to insinuate in some way this is unreasonable. It isn't.
>
> You're ... (change of subject snipped)
Tu quoque noted.
>
> You'll have to be a great deal more convincing than that. =A0(etc)
I fear that your own beliefs are merely based on convenience, and
often merely the convenience of those who know how to sucker *you*.
So I'm sorry that the truth is inconvenient, and I wish you well with
your second-hand day dream. I would suggest we be more sceptical of
what we think you know, and rather more open-minded.
If you must throw stones, please at least be original.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
| |
| roger.pearse@googlemail.com 2008-01-31, 6:56 pm |
| On Jan 31, 3:09=A0pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:09:53 -0800 (PST),
>
> "roger.pea...@googlemail.com" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> When ancient data don't support my beliefs, I need to work more at
> interpreting which parts really matter (so that my beliefs get the
> support I want).
A bit cynical, surely? The ancient data base on any topic is seldom
so extensive that we can't know *all* of it. Convenience is always a
false belief system.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
|
|
|
|