Merry Christmas

[catfish2006]

[Opus]

"catfish2006" > wrote in message
...

And a Happy month of Eid ul Adha to you too!

The Hajj begins on Dec. 29th. I hope to see everyone in Mecca

Op

[Fred Lebow]

Opus" > wrote in message
...>
> "> And a Happy month of Eid ul Adha to you too!
>
> The Hajj begins on Dec. 29th. I hope to see everyone in Mecca
>
> Op

Very good!

I am already on the way
Salaam Aleichem!

Fred

[Opus]

"Fred Lebow" > wrote in message
...
> Opus" > wrote in message
> ...>
>> "> And a Happy month of Eid ul Adha to you too!
>>
>> The Hajj begins on Dec. 29th. I hope to see everyone in Mecca
>>
>> Op
>
> Very good!
>
> I am already on the way
> Salaam Aleichem!
>
> Fred

As an agnostic, I'm a firm believer in diversity of religious holidays.

Op

[Fred Lebow]

Opus" > wrote in message
...

Opus" > wrote in message

As an agnostic, I'm a firm believer in diversity of religious holidays.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> "> And a Happy month of Eid ul Adha to you too!
>>>
>>> The Hajj begins on Dec. 29th. I hope to see everyone in Mecca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Very good!
>>
>> I am already on the way
>> Salaam Aleichem!
>>
>> Fred

Op

We do have that in common
I am a devout agnostic!
and I also do believe and thrive in diversity of religion, races, music and
ideas.

Altho - Having been born in NYC - at this point in my life
I do not like the company of too many humans
but
I do like animals -
so - referring to another thread
Why would I believe a racist jerk and a fool that wears an asinine and
provocative shirt about Peta backwards.
I still see no problem ethically w PETA

--
Fred

[Opus]

"Fred Lebow" > wrote in message
et...

> I do like animals -
> so - referring to another thread
> Why would I believe a racist jerk and a fool that wears an asinine and
> provocative shirt about Peta backwards.
> I still see no problem ethically w PETA
>
> --
> Fred

As I said in that thread. I don't know very much about PETA, but what I do
know about them doesn't interest me enough to join them. However, I believe
you should have a right to your opinion. Regardless of what the other
person thinks.

I hope to one day makin' it out that away for one of them there 'clave
thingies, and maybe see hang out with a real wolf or beefalo.

Op

[Fred Lebow]

Opus" > wrote in message

As I said in that thread. I don't know very much about PETA, but what I do
> know about them doesn't interest me enough to join them. However, I
> believe you should have a right to your opinion. Regardless of what the
> other person thinks.


I really have no desire to join PETA either!
and I really don't give a rat's ass what a couple of fools on this list
think.

Fred

[Opus]

"Fred Lebow" > wrote in message
et...
> Opus" > wrote in message
>
> As I said in that thread. I don't know very much about PETA, but what I
> do
>> know about them doesn't interest me enough to join them. However, I
>> believe you should have a right to your opinion. Regardless of what the
>> other person thinks.
>
>
> I really have no desire to join PETA either!
> and I really don't give a rat's ass what a couple of fools on this list
> think.
>
> Fred

I just **** can those folk. A lot easier to get along with 'em that way.

Op

[catfish2006]

"Opus" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Fred Lebow" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>> I do like animals -
>> so - referring to another thread
>> Why would I believe a racist jerk and a fool that wears an asinine and
>> provocative shirt about Peta backwards.
>> I still see no problem ethically w PETA
>>
>> --
>> Fred
>
If it was up to PETA all fishing and hunting would be band.

[Opus]

"catfish2006" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Opus" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Fred Lebow" > wrote in message
>> et...
>>
>>> I do like animals -
>>> so - referring to another thread
>>> Why would I believe a racist jerk and a fool that wears an asinine and
>>> provocative shirt about Peta backwards.
>>> I still see no problem ethically w PETA
>>>
>>> --
>>> Fred
>>
> If it was up to PETA all fishing and hunting would be band.

But it's not, is it.

Op



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[johnval1]

"Opus" wrote in message
>> If it was up to PETA all fishing and hunting would be band.
>
> But it's not, is it.

No thank God, at least not yet. For that to happen, there would have to be
more political consensus to support PETA's stated objectives.

I believe what is puzzling and troubling to some readers of this group is
the seeming acceptance of PETA's extreme positions against hunting, fishing,
flesh-eating, animal-owning and other such by participants in a newsgroup
who engage in at least some of the activities PETA wishes to ban.

How does one rationally reconcile the PETA mandate with one's own acceptance
of or participation in recreational or vocational activities which PETA
claims to be immoral? How can you support (in word if not in deed) an
organization whose views and actions are polar to what you practice? To
offer support to an organization which does not support you and your love
for something - in this case fishing - does not appear to some readers to be
a rational act.

Or, is it that Fred did not practice rational behavior in his response and
just engaged in a visceral response to a post clearly intended to be
humorous? If that is the case, Fred's response was an attack on the OP.
Perhaps there is a poisoned relationship at play here that I am not aware.
Clearly however, something is going on for this argument to spill over from
one thread to another.

Now what would be fun would be for some actual PETA or AIM folks to engage
in a discussion with this or like-minded NGs.

[Opus]

"johnval1" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Opus" wrote in message
>>> If it was up to PETA all fishing and hunting would be band.
>>
>> But it's not, is it.
>
> No thank God, at least not yet. For that to happen, there would have to
> be more political consensus to support PETA's stated objectives.

Exactly.

> I believe what is puzzling and troubling to some readers of this group is
> the seeming acceptance of PETA's extreme positions against hunting,
> fishing, flesh-eating, animal-owning and other such by participants in a
> newsgroup who engage in at least some of the activities PETA wishes to
> ban.
>
> How does one rationally reconcile the PETA mandate with one's own
> acceptance of or participation in recreational or vocational activities
> which PETA claims to be immoral? How can you support (in word if not in
> deed) an organization whose views and actions are polar to what you
> practice? To offer support to an organization which does not support you
> and your love for something - in this case fishing - does not appear to
> some readers to be a rational act.

I don't support PETA anymore than I support Christians that tell me I am
going to HELL because I don't believe in their god. It's a fact of life.
Do I believe that certain elements of the Christian religion would like to
do away with my kind, yes. Do I believe it is likely to come about, no. If
I feared PETA/Christians I might as well take my life, cause the end would
already be ata hand.

> Or, is it that Fred did not practice rational behavior in his response and
> just engaged in a visceral response to a post clearly intended to be
> humorous? If that is the case, Fred's response was an attack on the OP.
> Perhaps there is a poisoned relationship at play here that I am not aware.
> Clearly however, something is going on for this argument to spill over
> from one thread to another.

I don't think Fred's response was anymore irrational than the Christian's
response to someone that where's a shirt that defames there god. Yes, it
may be visceral, but it's haw strongly that person feels about the subject
at hand. Fred didn't think the t-shirt was humorous.

> Now what would be fun would be for some actual PETA or AIM folks to engage
> in a discussion with this or like-minded NGs.

Why would that be fun. Are angry tirades fun, for you?

It may be that that PETA person is actually quite intelligent and makes you
or some other person look like a fool in a serious debate of the subject.
Of course, these NG discussions rarely lead to intellectual debate. They
merely devolve into name calling and personal attacks.

Op

[catfish2006]

P.E.T.A.

People eating tasty animals, HE He

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

[johnval1]

"Opus" wrote in message >
>
> I don't support PETA anymore than I support Christians that tell me I am
> going to HELL because I don't believe in their god. It's a fact of life.
> Do I believe that certain elements of the Christian religion would like to
> do away with my kind, yes. Do I believe it is likely to come about, no.
> If I feared PETA/Christians I might as well take my life, cause the end
> would already be ata hand.

Sorry OP, I am not going to enter into a discussion of religion and how it
does or does not have any effect on you. Isn't this a grand non sequitar in
a discussion of animal rights suuport in a fishing newsgoup?


>> Now what would be fun would be for some actual PETA or AIM folks to
>> engage in a discussion with this or like-minded NGs.
>
> Why would that be fun. Are angry tirades fun, for you?
>
> It may be that that PETA person is actually quite intelligent and makes
> you or some other person look like a fool in a serious debate of the
> subject. Of course, these NG discussions rarely lead to intellectual
> debate. They merely devolve into name calling and personal attacks.

First of all OP, I reject your contention that all NG discussions devolve
into name calling and personal attacks. You yourself are involved in one of
these discussions as am I. This still seems fairly civil, eh?

Secondly, "Why would that be fun?" If the definition of "fun" can include
enjoyment or pleasure taken from a thing or an event that stimulates, then I
would find such an exchange "fun" on a NG largely comprised of non-PETAs. I
am certain there would be angry tirades in such a conversation, but there
also might be some real viewpoints worth considering in the exchange.

As for angry tirades, I have seen them and have even engaged in them in
younger days. Looking back on them, they humor me now in ways I could not
have imagined then, if for no other reason than they were so irrational.

Thirdly, I don't believe the intelligence of PETA as an organization, nor a
PETA member/supporter is in question. Certainly not by me. My disclaimer to
you is that I have actually known PETA members, some of whom I suspected
were ELF members. There was nothing stupid or ignorant about these people.

My relationship with these folks neither threatened me nor did it "make me
look like a fool" in our discussions. At least not to myself. I can't
speak for them although one of them did use me for a reference on a job
application.

[Opus]

"catfish2006" > wrote in message
et...
> P.E.T.A.
>
> People eating tasty animals, HE He
>
> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

**** You! Hee Hee!

Op



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Opus]

"johnval1" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Opus" wrote in message >

> Sorry OP, I am not going to enter into a discussion of religion and how it
> does or does not have any effect on you. Isn't this a grand non sequitar
> in a discussion of animal rights suuport in a fishing newsgoup?
>

My point was not to enter into a religious discussion. My point was this:

You wrote in our firt exchange,

"How does one rationally reconcile the PETA mandate with one's own
acceptance
of or participation in recreational or vocational activities which PETA
claims to be immoral? How can you support (in word if not in deed) an
organization whose views and actions are polar to what you practice? To
offer support to an organization which does not support you and your love
for something - in this case fishing - does not appear to some readers to be
a rational act."

Now, insert the words "Christian" for PETA, and the words "diversed beliefs"
for the word fishing.


How does one rationally reconcile the Christian mandate [that I am damned to
Hell] with one's own acceptance
of or participation in recreational or vocational activities which Christian
claims to be immoral? How can you support (in word if not in deed) an
organization whose views and actions are polar to what you practice? To
offer support to an organization which does not support you and your love
for something - in this case diversed beliefs - does not appear to some
readers to be
a rational act.

You see, it's not a religious argument. It's simply word replacement.
However, the context is still the same.

I don't agree with Christians on every thing, but I do *support* some
Christian organizations. I give to religious causes, because I believe that
they do more god than harm. I don't give to other religious causes, because
they go against my beliefs. While not all Christians will tell me to my
face that I am going to Hell, they are likely thinking it, if they know my
beliefs. What I'm trying to show you is that I can support an organization,
even if they hold me in contempt as an organization, because I know that
their are good people who are a part of that organization. People that I
may like personally, but people with whom I don't share their passion for a
particular something or other.


>
> First of all OP, I reject your contention that all NG discussions devolve
> into name calling and personal attacks.

One with a PETA person and the likes of that catfish fella would certainly
devolve, and from my experience in Usenet, most of these types of threads
generally devolve into attacks and name calling. But you are correct in
stating that no all will devolve.

>You yourself are involved in one of these discussions as am I. This still
>seems fairly civil, eh?

Yes, but we are both trying to rationally understand one anothers positions.
It's not like we are at diametrical ends of the issue ourselves. Were I a
PETA member and you a gung ho gun rights and hunting/fishing advocate,
things might very well take a turn for the worse. I'd hope not, but who
knows?

> Secondly, "Why would that be fun?" If the definition of "fun" can include
> enjoyment or pleasure taken from a thing or an event that stimulates, then
> I would find such an exchange "fun" on a NG largely comprised of
> non-PETAs. I am certain there would be angry tirades in such a
> conversation, but there also might be some real viewpoints worth
> considering in the exchange.

I misinterpreted "fun" to mean a knock down drag out fight between PETA
members and rednecks. My bad! You know as well as I that this medium isn't
th ebest means of communication. Facial expression and body langauge
explains a great deal. We don't have that luxury.

> As for angry tirades, I have seen them and have even engaged in them in
> younger days. Looking back on them, they humor me now in ways I could not
> have imagined then, if for no other reason than they were so irrational.

Sadly, I still engage in them, but I am trying to mature! That's a
difficult task at 48 years of age--old dogs and all that.

> Thirdly, I don't believe the intelligence of PETA as an organization, nor
> a PETA member/supporter is in question. Certainly not by me. My
> disclaimer to you is that I have actually known PETA members, some of whom
> I suspected were ELF members. There was nothing stupid or ignorant about
> these people.

I have never met personally a person I knew to be a PETA member, but odds
tell me that you are correct. No matter ones special interest, there will
likely be a full range of intellects--depending on the siz of the group,
that is.

> My relationship with these folks neither threatened me nor did it "make me
> look like a fool" in our discussions. At least not to myself. I can't
> speak for them although one of them did use me for a reference on a job
> application.

My comment about "fools" was with in the context of Usenet and a devolving
thread. We never really know who is on the other end of the cyber line. I
don't consider myself to be overly intelligent and I don't consider myself
to be a complete idiot either. I am able to recognize when an individual in
a particular NG has a better grasp of the subject and is more articulate
than myself, so I chose my battles accordingly.

As you said, you had a relationship with the folks that you had your
discussions and they were likely face to face discussions. Usenet is a
whole other ball game. We may or may not know our opponents (for lack of
better term) knowledge of the subject at hand and we may or may not know
there ability to argue intelligently. In many cases, you get two guyz who
don't know **** from shinola about the subject they are arguing, so the
argument goes down hill rather quickly. In other cases, you get to guyz,
one who is very well informed about the subject and knows how to argue a
point intelligently, and one who is shooting from the hip and becomes
frustrated, and then the argument goes all to hell from one side. Then
there are the cases when two people can discuss a subject civilly, whether
they are particularly well versed on the subject or exceptionally bright.

As I said before, I don't know all that much about PETA, and that is one
reason that I won't damn them to hell. If I knew more about them, who
knows, I might agree with them or I might just hunt them down and throw fish
eyes at them :~^ )

Op



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Opus]

"Opus" > wrote in message
.. .


> I give to religious causes, because I believe that they do more god* than
> harm.

*should have read: good

Freudian slip?

> Op



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[johnval1]

"Opus" wrote in message:

Hey Opus, nicely put. I will not accept the substitution of "Christian" for
"PETA", and "diversified beliefs" for "fishing". Other than that, a very
nice post indeed. This theological twist is probably best left explored in
another NG.

I did enjoy the image of throwing fish eyes however. When the perch were
running on Muskegon Lake and on the Channel to Lake Michigan back in the
50s, we would sometimes run out of bait, be it minnows or worms. We would
resort to using the eyes from the fish we had already caught. So, I guess
there are a number of things we can do with fish eyes contrary to the PETA
way.

[johnval1]

"Opus" <
>> I give to religious causes, because I believe that they do more god* than
>> harm.
>
> *should have read: good
>
> Freudian slip?
>
I sense unresolved conflict Grasshopper. :-)

[Opus]

"johnval1" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Opus" wrote in message:
>
> Hey Opus, nicely put. I will not accept the substitution of "Christian"
> for "PETA", and "diversified beliefs" for "fishing". Other than that, a
> very nice post indeed. This theological twist is probably best left
> explored in another NG.

Are you saying that you don't "accept" my point or just that you don't like
replacing the word PETA, for the word Christian?

If it is the case that you don't "accept" my fine and well thought out
argument, well, you can just blow me, you filthy pig-mouthed scumbag! :~^ )

It's truly sad how an otherwise fine discussion goes all to hell, over
religion!

> I did enjoy the image of throwing fish eyes however. When the perch were
> running on Muskegon Lake and on the Channel to Lake Michigan back in the
> 50s, we would sometimes run out of bait, be it minnows or worms. We would
> resort to using the eyes from the fish we had already caught. So, I
> guess there are a number of things we can do with fish eyes contrary to
> the PETA way.

I wouldn't, exactly, be a model PETA member. We used to take bullfrogs and
safety pin an M-80 in their mouths to make depth charges. I went through a
fair cruel period as a child. No furry critters, but reptiles were fair
game. guilt feelings may be why I didn't begin hunting until my late 30s.
Of course, the fact that I was too drunk and drugged up from 12 years of age
to about 35 years of age, might explain it too? Drug and alcohol free,
thankfully, these dayz. I can actually afford to do things I like to do,
within reason of course.

Op



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Opus]

"johnval1" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Opus" <
>>> I give to religious causes, because I believe that they do more god*
>>> than harm.
>>
>> *should have read: good
>>
>> Freudian slip?
>>
> I sense unresolved conflict Grasshopper. :-)

That or very poor typing skills.

Op --and I am a bit drugged. Gettin' over my back surgery--



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[johnval1]

"Opus" < wrote in message ...
>
> Are you saying that you don't "accept" my point or just that you don't
> like replacing the word PETA, for the word Christian?
>
> If it is the case that you don't "accept" my fine and well thought out
> argument, well, you can just blow me, you filthy pig-mouthed scumbag!
> :~^ )
>
> It's truly sad how an otherwise fine discussion goes all to hell, over
> religion!
>

Consider Picasso's "blue period" piece of The Old Guitarist. A seminal
work, bridging period genres and one of the turning pieces of art pointing
out the direction of modernism.

Except, substitute Picasso with Renoir, substitute a blue theme with lively
colors, substitute the old guitarist with a young female ballet dancer in a
mid-twirl, and we have the same painting making the same arguement. Right?

What I am saying is that I do not accept the substitution of those words.
Not in the context of that specific discussion nor in any other actually.
There is no conceptual equality of those words worthy - to me at least - of
discussion.

Besides, PETA has some linkage to fishing. Come to think of it, Christ did
too when he divided the fishes and loaves to feed the gathering, but I don't
believe PETA would have approved of that menu either.

Sorry to hear about your back surgery.

[Opus]

"johnval1" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Consider Picasso's "blue period" piece of The Old Guitarist. A seminal
> work, bridging period genres and one of the turning pieces of art pointing
> out the direction of modernism.
>
> Except, substitute Picasso with Renoir, substitute a blue theme with
> lively colors, substitute the old guitarist with a young female ballet
> dancer in a mid-twirl, and we have the same painting making the same
> arguement. Right?

No, you replaced one painting for another, thus changing the meaning of the
art. We have been talking about a conceptual framework, in which meaning is
not changed, only the words are changed.

> What I am saying is that I do not accept the substitution of those words.
> Not in the context of that specific discussion nor in any other actually.
> There is no conceptual equality of those words worthy - to me at least -
> of discussion.

What is so special about the words Christian and diverse beliefs that makes
them unfit to be used?

What words would you use, since you "do not accept the substitution of
*those* words."

So you do understand my point, but you are oppose to the use of my word
choice? And I'm not asking you to accept anything. I am asking if you
understand my point of view.

> Besides, PETA has some linkage to fishing. Come to think of it, Christ
> did too when he divided the fishes and loaves to feed the gathering, but I
> don't believe PETA would have approved of that menu either.

I imagine that would depend upon whether or not Jesus (himself) was dividing
the fish up among PETA members.

> Sorry to hear about your back surgery.

It's not the problem. I'm tickles to death with the surgery. It was before
the surgery that was such a pain.

Take care.

Op



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[johnval1]

"Opus" < wrote in message >
> No, you replaced one painting for another, thus changing the meaning of
> the art. We have been talking about a conceptual framework, in which
> meaning is not changed, only the words are changed.

Well, this is the nut of the discussion. Words are the colors and shapes we
give to thoughts, ideas, and concepts. That is why war is not peace, and
love is not hate. When you change the words, you change the conceptual
framework of the discussion. Words are not interchangable parts.
>
>
> What is so special about the words Christian and diverse beliefs that
> makes them unfit to be used?

I believe my point was that Christianity and PETA were not interchangable.
I have no problem with the use of either word, but not as a substitute for
one another in the context of our discussion.

By the way, Christianity itself a very diverse lot.
>
> What words would you use, since you "do not accept the substitution of
> *those* words."

The words I used are the words I would accept.

>
> So you do understand my point, but you are oppose to the use of my word
> choice? And I'm not asking you to accept anything. I am asking if you
> understand my point of view.

I do understand your point of view. And I still will not accept free
exchange of one word for the other, which would mean that I don't believe
words have meaning. What I gain from this discussion, and please correct
me if I am wrong, is that you have little use for either Christianity or
PETA, and so are willing to consider them conceptually the same. I do not.
To me they are not the same.

[Opus]

"johnval1" > wrote in message
.. .

> Well, this is the nut of the discussion. Words are the colors and shapes
> we give to thoughts, ideas, and concepts. That is why war is not peace,
> and love is not hate. When you change the words, you change the
> conceptual framework of the discussion. Words are not interchangable
> parts.

No they don't always and if the meaning of the word itself is not the crux
of the argument, it really doesn't matter.

> I believe my point was that Christianity and PETA were not interchangable.
> I have no problem with the use of either word, but not as a substitute for
> one another in the context of our discussion.

Okay, I can accept that you don't believe the two words are interchangeable.
However, for the purposes of this argument, I do believe do believe them to
be interchangeable and without changing the meaning of the oveall context of
the disscussion.

> The words I used are the words I would accept.

Well that seems reasonable enough for you, I'm not so certain for me?

> I do understand your point of view. And I still will not accept free
> exchange of one word for the other, which would mean that I don't believe
> words have meaning.

Okay, let me see if I can try this one last time.

PETA's organization is antehetical to fishers and hunters, and therefore it
would seem a hunter/fisher can't rationally identify/support PETA.

The Christian faith is antethetical to agnostics and atheists, and therefore
it would seem that agnostics/atheists can't rationally identify/support the
Christian faith.

The meanings of these two statements is the same, conceptually. This isn't
to say that either statement is true or false.

If you can say that one group which is diametrically opposed to another
group can't rationally support the other, then you can say that for all
other groups that are the mirror opposites of one another, or you can say it
about none.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of the words used, except
that they must be words that will meet the criterion of the overall context.

Unless you are trying to contend that there is a certain degree of animosity
greater between PETA and hunter/fishers groups than there is between the
Christian and agnostic/atheist groups? I'd have a hard time agreeing with
that argument.


>What I gain from this discussion, and please correct me if I am wrong, is
>that you have little use for either Christianity or PETA, and so are
>willing to consider them conceptually the same. I do not. To me they are
>not the same.

You are certainly wrong. What I said was,
"I don't support PETA anymore than I support Christians that tell me I am
going to HELL because I don't believe in their god."
This was to show that I believe them (Christians who tell me that I am going
to Hell) to be diametrically opposed to my beliefs, and has noting to do
with what use I have for either group. I actually have a great deal of use
for Christians--my mother happens to be one. And as I stated previously, I
do support some Christian activities. Which brings us full circle, because
my original contention was that if I can support one group that is my polar
opposite, I can certainly support another group that may be my polar
opposite.

Op

[catfish2006]

"johnval1" > wrote in message t...
>
Merry Christmas
And a happy New Year

[Bob Rickard]

Opus, I personally am a Christian Agnostic. If seeing those two words
together causes you to stupidly giggle, then read the book that launched
this religion: The Christian Agnostic, published in 1940 by Lesley D.
Weatherhead, a semi-defrocked Episcopalian Bishop found guilty by many of
actually thinking & making sense. His book is long out of print, but is
still sought-after & available for many bucks... I just purchased another
copy from Amazon.com.

To cause you even more giggles, my being a Christian Agnostic has caused me
to understand, accept & appreciate Judaism, Muslimism, Buddhism, & all other
sincere faiths. To openly state what I have been hiding, I am now severely
terminal, having been sent home to die by my doctors on Oct. 31st. But... my
doctors have been declared me terminal before but my faith keeps me going as
if tomorrow was a sure thing, and for me it is!

Bob Rickard

PS: Don't be too cheap you buy the book, Opus... you have a lot to learn.
.................................................. .................................................. ......................................


"Opus" > wrote in message
...
>
> "johnval1" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> Well, this is the nut of the discussion. Words are the colors and shapes
>> we give to thoughts, ideas, and concepts. That is why war is not peace,
>> and love is not hate. When you change the words, you change the
>> conceptual framework of the discussion. Words are not interchangable
>> parts.
>
> No they don't always and if the meaning of the word itself is not the crux
> of the argument, it really doesn't matter.
>
>> I believe my point was that Christianity and PETA were not
>> interchangable. I have no problem with the use of either word, but not as
>> a substitute for one another in the context of our discussion.
>
> Okay, I can accept that you don't believe the two words are
> interchangeable. However, for the purposes of this argument, I do believe
> do believe them to be interchangeable and without changing the meaning of
> the oveall context of the disscussion.
>
>> The words I used are the words I would accept.
>
> Well that seems reasonable enough for you, I'm not so certain for me?
>
>> I do understand your point of view. And I still will not accept free
>> exchange of one word for the other, which would mean that I don't believe
>> words have meaning.
>
> Okay, let me see if I can try this one last time.
>
> PETA's organization is antehetical to fishers and hunters, and therefore
> it would seem a hunter/fisher can't rationally identify/support PETA.
>
> The Christian faith is antethetical to agnostics and atheists, and
> therefore it would seem that agnostics/atheists can't rationally
> identify/support the Christian faith.
>
> The meanings of these two statements is the same, conceptually. This
> isn't to say that either statement is true or false.
>
> If you can say that one group which is diametrically opposed to another
> group can't rationally support the other, then you can say that for all
> other groups that are the mirror opposites of one another, or you can say
> it about none.
>
> This has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of the words used,
> except that they must be words that will meet the criterion of the overall
> context.
>
> Unless you are trying to contend that there is a certain degree of
> animosity greater between PETA and hunter/fishers groups than there is
> between the Christian and agnostic/atheist groups? I'd have a hard time
> agreeing with that argument.
>
>
>>What I gain from this discussion, and please correct me if I am wrong, is
>>that you have little use for either Christianity or PETA, and so are
>>willing to consider them conceptually the same. I do not. To me they are
>>not the same.
>
> You are certainly wrong. What I said was,
> "I don't support PETA anymore than I support Christians that tell me I am
> going to HELL because I don't believe in their god."
> This was to show that I believe them (Christians who tell me that I am
> going to Hell) to be diametrically opposed to my beliefs, and has noting
> to do with what use I have for either group. I actually have a great deal
> of use for Christians--my mother happens to be one. And as I stated
> previously, I do support some Christian activities. Which brings us full
> circle, because my original contention was that if I can support one group
> that is my polar opposite, I can certainly support another group that may
> be my polar opposite.
>
> Op
>

[Opus]

"Bob Rickard" > wrote in message
t...
> Opus, I personally am a Christian Agnostic.

I'm very happy for you.

>If seeing those two words together causes you to stupidly giggle,

No, those two words together don't cause me to react in any way, "stupidly"
or otherwise.

>then read the book that launched this religion: The Christian Agnostic,
>published in 1940 by Lesley D. Weatherhead, a semi-defrocked Episcopalian
>Bishop found guilty by many of actually thinking & making sense.

Hey, since you are so moved by books that launch religious movements, you
might be interested in L. Ron Hubbard. Mr. Hubbard launched " the
fastest-growing religion in the world today, Scientology."
http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/


>His book is long out of print, but is still sought-after & available for
>many bucks... I just purchased another copy from Amazon.com.

Mr. Hubbards books are wide spread and quite cheap, I hear. I bet
Amozon.con has them too!

> To cause you even more giggles,

You never caused me any, but do go on.

>my being a Christian Agnostic has caused me to understand, accept &
>appreciate Judaism, Muslimism, Buddhism, & all other sincere faiths.

If you take up with the Scientologists, you can some day meet space aliens!
Imagine that, you space aliens hangin' out, havin' a few beers together.
Beware though, the space aliens book, "How to Serve Humans," is really a
cookbook! Don't get on their spaceships with them!

>To openly state what I have been hiding, I am now severely terminal, having
>been sent home to die by my doctors on Oct. 31st.

Bad break. I just got sent home from the hospital after back surgery, and
I'm afraid it didn't go all that well either. My hands still hurt badly.
However, there is good news! The drugs that they gave me don't cause me to
have delusions of grandeur. Nor do they cause me to want to proselytize
over Usenet. Imagine that?

>But... my doctors have been declared me terminal before but my faith keeps
>me going as if tomorrow was a sure thing, and for me it is!

Great! I wish you the best. In the future, if you want to have a serious
conversation over Usenet, I suggest that you don't suppose that you know
someones beliefs, better than they themselves, and attempt to *a better way
for them*.
> Bob Rickard
>
> PS: Don't be too cheap you buy the book, Opus... you have a lot to learn.

I tell ya what. When you convert to Scientology, I'll buy you favorite
religion's latest publications. At 48 years of age, I find it difficult to
believe that I will learn a great deal from some nutcase in a newsgroup. Of
course we all have a lot to learn about so many things. I, personally, have
alway been fascinated by quantum physics, but I doubt I'll take it up
anytime soon.

Op --amazing, simply amazing!--

[Bob Rickard]

Scientology bears no more resemblance to a religion than people like you
bear to thinking humans.

Bob
.................................................. .................................................. .......................

"Opus" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Rickard" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Opus, I personally am a Christian Agnostic.
>
> I'm very happy for you.
>
>>If seeing those two words together causes you to stupidly giggle,
>
> No, those two words together don't cause me to react in any way,
> "stupidly" or otherwise.
>
>>then read the book that launched this religion: The Christian Agnostic,
>>published in 1940 by Lesley D. Weatherhead, a semi-defrocked Episcopalian
>>Bishop found guilty by many of actually thinking & making sense.
>
> Hey, since you are so moved by books that launch religious movements, you
> might be interested in L. Ron Hubbard. Mr. Hubbard launched " the
> fastest-growing religion in the world today, Scientology."
> http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/
>
>
>>His book is long out of print, but is still sought-after & available for
>>many bucks... I just purchased another copy from Amazon.com.
>
> Mr. Hubbards books are wide spread and quite cheap, I hear. I bet
> Amozon.con has them too!
>
>> To cause you even more giggles,
>
> You never caused me any, but do go on.
>
>>my being a Christian Agnostic has caused me to understand, accept &
>>appreciate Judaism, Muslimism, Buddhism, & all other sincere faiths.
>
> If you take up with the Scientologists, you can some day meet space
> aliens! Imagine that, you space aliens hangin' out, havin' a few beers
> together. Beware though, the space aliens book, "How to Serve Humans," is
> really a cookbook! Don't get on their spaceships with them!
>
>>To openly state what I have been hiding, I am now severely terminal,
>>having been sent home to die by my doctors on Oct. 31st.
>
> Bad break. I just got sent home from the hospital after back surgery, and
> I'm afraid it didn't go all that well either. My hands still hurt badly.
> However, there is good news! The drugs that they gave me don't cause me
> to have delusions of grandeur. Nor do they cause me to want to
> proselytize over Usenet. Imagine that?
>
>>But... my doctors have been declared me terminal before but my faith keeps
>>me going as if tomorrow was a sure thing, and for me it is!
>
> Great! I wish you the best. In the future, if you want to have a
> serious conversation over Usenet, I suggest that you don't suppose that
> you know someones beliefs, better than they themselves, and attempt to *a
> better way for them*.
>> Bob Rickard
>>
>> PS: Don't be too cheap you buy the book, Opus... you have a lot to learn.
>
> I tell ya what. When you convert to Scientology, I'll buy you favorite
> religion's latest publications. At 48 years of age, I find it difficult
> to believe that I will learn a great deal from some nutcase in a
> newsgroup. Of course we all have a lot to learn about so many things. I,
> personally, have alway been fascinated by quantum physics, but I doubt
> I'll take it up anytime soon.
>
> Op --amazing, simply amazing!--
>
>

[Opus]

"Bob Rickard" > wrote in message
t...
> Scientology bears no more resemblance to a religion than people like you
> bear to thinking humans.
>
> Bob

But then again, I'm not the one proselytizing in newsgroup, am I.

And I'm not the one who chose his beliefs system after reading a book.

Get a life Bobby.

Op --I think, therefore I chose for myself!--



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Bass_Mr.]

Opie, can you tell me how scientologists celebrate Christmas ?
"Opus" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Rickard" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Opus, I personally am a Christian Agnostic.
>
> I'm very happy for you.
>
>>If seeing those two words together causes you to stupidly giggle,
>
> No, those two words together don't cause me to react in any way,
> "stupidly" or otherwise.
>
>>then read the book that launched this religion: The Christian Agnostic,
>>published in 1940 by Lesley D. Weatherhead, a semi-defrocked Episcopalian
>>Bishop found guilty by many of actually thinking & making sense.
>
> Hey, since you are so moved by books that launch religious movements, you
> might be interested in L. Ron Hubbard. Mr. Hubbard launched " the
> fastest-growing religion in the world today, Scientology."
> http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/
>
>
>>His book is long out of print, but is still sought-after & available for
>>many bucks... I just purchased another copy from Amazon.com.
>
> Mr. Hubbards books are wide spread and quite cheap, I hear. I bet
> Amozon.con has them too!
>
>> To cause you even more giggles,
>
> You never caused me any, but do go on.
>
>>my being a Christian Agnostic has caused me to understand, accept &
>>appreciate Judaism, Muslimism, Buddhism, & all other sincere faiths.
>
> If you take up with the Scientologists, you can some day meet space
> aliens! Imagine that, you space aliens hangin' out, havin' a few beers
> together. Beware though, the space aliens book, "How to Serve Humans," is
> really a cookbook! Don't get on their spaceships with them!
>
>>To openly state what I have been hiding, I am now severely terminal,
>>having been sent home to die by my doctors on Oct. 31st.
>
> Bad break. I just got sent home from the hospital after back surgery, and
> I'm afraid it didn't go all that well either. My hands still hurt badly.
> However, there is good news! The drugs that they gave me don't cause me
> to have delusions of grandeur. Nor do they cause me to want to
> proselytize over Usenet. Imagine that?
>
>>But... my doctors have been declared me terminal before but my faith keeps
>>me going as if tomorrow was a sure thing, and for me it is!
>
> Great! I wish you the best. In the future, if you want to have a
> serious conversation over Usenet, I suggest that you don't suppose that
> you know someones beliefs, better than they themselves, and attempt to *a
> better way for them*.
>> Bob Rickard
>>
>> PS: Don't be too cheap you buy the book, Opus... you have a lot to learn.
>
> I tell ya what. When you convert to Scientology, I'll buy you favorite
> religion's latest publications. At 48 years of age, I find it difficult
> to believe that I will learn a great deal from some nutcase in a
> newsgroup. Of course we all have a lot to learn about so many things. I,
> personally, have alway been fascinated by quantum physics, but I doubt
> I'll take it up anytime soon.
>
> Op --amazing, simply amazing!--
>
>

[johnval1]

"Bob Rickard" < wrote in message >

Bob, from one Usernet nutcase to another, I wish you a Merry Christmas. I
am sorry to learn of your illness. I can only hope the true spirit of the
season finds a place within you as you go through this.

John