Cobol - Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:

Author

Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:

roger.pearse@googlemail.com

2008-01-29, 6:56 pm

On Jan 26, 10:11=A0pm, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
> <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:d49a7111-2dbf-497d-817c-208d0881253d@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Jan, 18:45, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>
>
[color=darkred]
> the
>
>
u[color=darkred]
nk[color=darkred]
>
> RP: You know, wouldn't it better to find out the facts BEFORE dogmatising
> like this?
>
> 1. =A0The Council of Nicaea made no statements or decisions relating to
> the canon. =A0None, zero, zip. =A0OK?
>
> PL: =A0Ah, brain cramp. =A0Nicea was about Arianism, not about the Canon. =
=A0

Glad that it went in second time around. Indeed it was.

> 2. =A0You talk about texts being excluded. =A0Naturally the church did not=

> accept into its services books forged by outsiders much later in order
> to propagate paganism, or novels, or whatever. =A0Why should it? =A0You
> seem to insinuate in some way this is unreasonable. =A0It isn't.
>
> PL Much later than what? =A0

Much later than the first century.

> We're talking ~ 400 CE. =A0

Are we? The canon of the NT was settled for most practical purposes
by the 2nd century. The extent of it wasn't a subject of controversy
in the 4th century.

> There is no possible doubt that books were excluded. =A0

I'm sorry that you are reiterating here; it's one of the easiest ways
to pick a fight. But perhaps you didn't understand the point made
earlier.

There is no possible doubt that books that had been considered
canonical were not excluded. The "Da Vinci Code" is *not* a
reliable source of historical information, you know.

> Forgeries or novels? =A0How do you know?

By the usual means by which forgeries and novels are distinguished
from historical accounts. You find out the dates of composition and
the contents and these tell you.

I realise that you're just repeating some standard ideas, but they are
not sound, if we think about them for five minutes. If someone says
something is a forgery, the idea that we can't find out is absurd.
The police do it every day.

No, this particular story/idea/meme is circulated to us all by people
who want to confuse and obscure things, and aren't very scrupulous as
to how. I would suggest that it might be people who don't care for
"Thou shalt not commit adultery..." and the like (which would sort of
cover most of our politicians!)

>
>
> Tu quoque noted.
>
>
> 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. =A0I 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.
>
> Since you came into this thread late, you either don't know or
> have ignored my stated position, which is agnostic. =A0

Actually I couldn't care less if you were an Aztec and cut the heart
out of an actuary every Friday night (which would probably be a
socially worthy thing to do right now). But I'm not sure that I see
how this relates to what I wrote. Can you justify your belief
system? Can you even state it? If not, how "convincing" can you be
for it?

NB: the standard evasion at that point is to say "I don't have one" or
"I don't need to be". But people engaging in throwing stones at the
religions of others automatically fail both statements, IMHO.

> That being said, I can read things for myself and decide if they
> make sense. =A0

I hope so.

> The bible is clearly written by men =A0...(reiteration snipped)

We discussed this, and you were mistaken.

> I strongly doubt if anyone can say anything original about this. =A0Sorry
> about that. =A0

What I think we need to avoid are the mindless repetitions of slogans,
tho.

> I'm glad we're not living in Spain about 500 years ago: you
> would make me very, very frightened.

As far as I know it isn't agnostics who are being harassed by the
police today, so this is a particularly nasty accusation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

roger.pearse@googlemail.com

2008-01-31, 9:56 pm

On Jan 31, 4:13=A0pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:56:42 -0800 (PST),
>
> "roger.pea...@googlemail.com" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Surely.
>
> But I see all over people who know their way is right (it works for
> them) who if they analyze it at all, it's to justify their belief. An
> obvious example is how they search hard to "prove" that homosexuals
> are dammed, while ignoring commandments from God that don't fit modern
> life styles. =A0 =A0

The condemnation of sodomy is not a novelty, tho; it is the
*endorsement* of it to fit modern life styles that is.

> Another example is when someone denounces someone
> with a different political view than theirs as being "unpatriotic".

I agree that is sickening, but it's worse on the PC side. If I were
to express views held by everyone 20 years ago, I would risk prison.
There is no right of free speech in the UK.

Intimidation as a technique to stifle debate is always awful, IMHO.

> That doesn't bother me nearly as much as those who expand that to say
> that other ways are wrong - and that those who have other ways will be
> punished by them, if not in this world, in the next. =A0 =A0 Quite often
> they aren't content to wait for the next world and s

to punish them
> now. =A0 =A0

I'm content to be punished by anyone young, blonde and female, and
dressed in something low-cut and tight-fitting. I'd almost pay the
fines willingly! But I insist on high-heels. (for her)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Alistair

2008-02-02, 9:58 pm

On 31 Jan, 19:59, "roger.pea...@googlemail.com"
<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:13=A0pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[color=darkred]
>
>
>
> The condemnation of sodomy is not a novelty, tho; it is the
> *endorsement* of it to fit modern life styles that is.
>
>
> I agree that is sickening, but it's worse on the PC side. =A0If I were
> to express views held by everyone 20 years ago, I would risk prison.
> There is no right of free speech in the UK.
>
> Intimidation as a technique to stifle debate is always awful, IMHO.
>
[color=darkred]
>
> I'm content to be punished by anyone young, blonde and female, and
> dressed in something low-cut and tight-fitting. =A0I'd almost pay the
> fines willingly! =A0But I insist on high-heels. (for her)
>

Be wary of what you wish for because you might just get it. I've seen
young blonds in videos using whips in a fashion which would certainly
bring tears to your eyes.

Alistair

2008-02-04, 6:56 pm

Sponsored Links