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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Merry Christmas
"johnval1" wrote in message news "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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Merry Christmas
"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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Merry Christmas
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Merry Christmas
"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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Merry Christmas
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Merry Christmas
"johnval1" wrote in message t... Merry Christmas And a happy New Year |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Merry Christmas
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Merry Christmas
"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!-- |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Merry Christmas
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!-- |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Merry Christmas
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Merry Christmas! | Karl S | Fly Fishing | 67 | December 23rd, 2005 03:38 AM |
Merry Christmas | Stinkweed | General Discussion | 0 | December 23rd, 2005 03:29 AM |
Merry Christmas | Dave LaCourse | Fly Fishing | 27 | December 29th, 2003 11:00 PM |
Merry Christmas | Gone Angling | Bass Fishing | 5 | December 26th, 2003 09:09 PM |
OT merry christmas | Larry and a cat named Dub | Fly Fishing | 2 | December 24th, 2003 09:04 AM |