- ... Gee. This is the first time I can recall where a crosstalker seems to think that there isn t already entirely too much stuff sent by me. ... No. I needMessage 1 of 42 , Dec 3, 1998View Source
> >Evidently Ian has succeeded in cowing Steve intoGee. This is the first time I can recall where a crosstalker seems to
>submission on this issue.
think that there isn't already entirely too much stuff sent by me.
> "Cowed"? I think there would be numerous reasons why the discussion has goneNo. I need more work. Am at an intellectual stop at the moment.
> to water that you haven't considered.
> 1) Steve has a lot of work at the moment
> 2) No-one else has shown much interestYeah. It's always tiresome to have a discussion where
only two people seem to have an interest.
> 3) There's not much more to be saidThis is probably so. You have an Ian view and a Steve
view and there we are. There's no more evidence that
I know of and so what you do with it is either what he
does or I do.
> 4) One needs a little time to shape one's responseNot me, usually.
> 5) Ian is only an argumentative so-and-soThat too.
> 6) Steve's social life is intruding into his net-timeHah. Most of my social life is taken up with car troubles.
> 7) (Add your own...)I guess my ironies re: faith went zooming right over Mike's
head. Dunno about Ian who has a fondness for irony himself.
He just ignores the ironies which is a decent strategem... but
not as much fun as accepting them and going from there.
Arguing against them though is just falling into the trap, which
Ian didn't do.
- Sorry to have to say so, Chris, but you ve unacceptably confused truth ... Thank s for picking me up on that ... I don t have a problem with that ... SurelyMessage 42 of 42 , Dec 7, 1998View SourceSorry to have to say so, Chris, but you've unacceptably confused 'truth'
> with 'belief'. The notion of something being "true for person x" is nothingThank's for picking me up on that
> more than another way of saying that x believes something to be true.
> Everyone has fundamental beliefs, of course, but it's misleading to callI don't have a problem with that
> these beliefs 'fundamental truths'. When your distinction is reworded as
> one between "fundamental belief" and "universal belief", it makes much more
> BTW, the bit about the "believer's hat" was my way of trying to capture theSurely the important thing for the believer 'doing history' is to declare their interest - that way the reader knows how many grains of salt to take to make the results more palletable (sp?).
> same idea that Mahlon and Bob have spoken of as "bracketing-off" one's
> beliefs about the divinity of a person when one is "doing history" related
> to that person. I have my doubts as to whether or how far this is possible,
> but I'm willing to take their word for it that it is possible, since
> they're the ones who find themselves in that situation.
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/crosstalk/?start=3936