Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.

Expand Messages
  • Richard Godwin
    You wanted to discuss the BB about two weeks ago, as I recall. But never mind; no problem. You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 28, 2009
      You wanted to discuss the BB about two weeks ago, as I recall. But never
      mind; no problem.

      You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred North
      Whitehead. I happen to follow his Process Philosophy a good deal in my
      religious beliefs. Have you read his "Process and Reality," or just read
      what some biblicist said about it and him? I bring this up in answer to
      your reference to query of whether I am a Pantheist.

      Sorry you perceive arrogance from me, but probably you are not used to
      having your views questioned from a totally rationally point of view. I
      don't worry; do you? I have no idea how you relate me to "the discussion
      board." Maybe I did say that, but I don't recall it.

      Richard.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "a a" <Praesto12@...>
      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 4:54 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.


      Well Richard, as always, there is a needless sense of arrogance in your
      emails...with that aside, no, my most recent question was not about the Big
      Bang but rather a specific question to you as to wether or not you are a
      Pantheist or what would you consider the basis of your belief system.

      Don't worry though, if you want to go down the route of discussing the Big
      Bang,Higher Scholarship of Biblical interpretation or the epistemology of
      faith its self, we can do that too
      :)

      From, in your words, "the discussion board."

      --- On Fri, 2/27/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:


      From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Arab-Israeli Conflict
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, February 27, 2009, 10:04 PM






      Nope. how is that relevant to my message?

      So you know something about the BB? No one ever took you up on your
      invitation. Here's a brief analysis:

      The BB. Very briefly science works through a process of developing theories
      from hypotheses (hypothetical deduction) that predict confirmation
      ("if...then" ) through rigorous testing of evidence, in physics and
      chemistry
      experimentation, and thoroughly replicated, so that the hypothesis (among a
      number of them) that conforms closer to the successfully tested evidence, is
      given the status of theory. Theories are only tentative based on
      probability, as the best available at the time in explaining the acceptable
      evidence. So in any given case, based on peer-review, the theory that
      provides the best explanation is the one which becomes the standard, until
      it is replaced by a better one.

      The BB theory is so far the best theory judged by peer-review of the
      scientists who are peer-reviewed specialists in that field: cosmology.
      Obviously experimentation presents a problem, as does replication, but there
      is a plethora of evidence available, and theoretical means of testing,
      through special instrumentation including telescopes of various types, by
      developing hypotheses from certain phenomena in the universe (including
      physical elements and chemicals), lead by inductive inference to a few
      theories which are candidates for the BEST theory for the origin of the
      universe. The BB is not ex nihilo, since it proposes a basic element, such
      as a quantum. There are some explanations for there being that one
      (possible more) basic element, and presently the considered best explanation
      is the Multiverse theory, combined with timelessness (i.e. time began with
      the universe, as well as gravity), and the processes of entrophy (high to
      low; low to high). Things like neutrinos and dark energy (which may have
      come later) are involved, and other theories are involved, like String
      Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity Theory. Our universe has been measured (by
      reverse time) as 13.7 billion light-years ago, creating equal amounts of
      matter and antimatter. Observation through Hubble comes as close to the
      event as much less than a second. Of course there are critics among
      scientists of the BB theory

      Richard.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
      To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
      Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:41 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Arab-Israeli Conflict

      > Richard what do you believe about God, are you a Pantheist?
      >
      >
      > --- On Fri, 2/27/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
      > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Arab-Israeli Conflict
      > To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
      > Date: Friday, February 27, 2009, 10:46 AM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Three reasons might suffice. 1. they mess up everything they get into. 2.
      > rampant corruption. 3. the accomplish nothing.
      >
      > Richard.
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "cobbie1919" <cobbie1919@ yahoo. com>
      > To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
      > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 8:20 AM
      > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Arab-Israeli Conflict
      >
      >> --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...>
      >> wrote:
      >>>
      >>> Implication of the United Nations would be the very worst solution!
      >>>
      >>> Richard.
      >>>
      >> ____________ _________ _________ ___
      >>
      >> And why is that? Just a simple, very simple, statement with no reason
      >> is really no statement at all.
      >>
      >> Judy
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> ------------ --------- --------- ------
      >>
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
      >
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1975 - Release Date: 02/27/09
      > 07:05:00
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------ --------- --------- ------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >

      ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: 02/27/09
      13:27:00



















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links





      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: 02/27/09
      13:27:00
    • a a
      You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. I happen to follow his Process Philosophy a good deal in my religious beliefs.
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 1, 2009
        You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred North
        Whitehead. I happen to follow his Process Philosophy a good deal in my
        religious beliefs. Have you read his "Process and Reality," or just read
        what some biblicist said about it and him? I bring this up in answer to
        your reference to query of whether I am a Pantheist.
         
         
        If there is a specific "Biblicist" that I prefer then it would be ravi zacharias or c.s. lewis, but the truth is that I like them more because they have such a background in philosophy. Apologetics and Languages are probably my "background." 

        Sorry you perceive arrogance from me, but probably you are not used to
        having your views questioned from a totally rationally point of view.
         
        Rich, I think that you have read some philosohpy. I think that you are intelligent and I'm sure on the more philosophical levels most people do not understand what you're saying.  I do. There is nothing so overtly rational in what you are saying that has ever in any way intimidated me ever intellectually.  However I do enjoy the points that you make on some issues. I hope to learn from our dialogs.
         
         I
        don't worry; do you?
         
         
        No, my friend that's really not it at all. haha.
         
         I have no idea how you relate me to "the discussion
        board." Maybe I did say that, but I don't recall it.
         
         
        You guys stated that my responses must be coming from a "discussion board." I was alluding to that, haha.

        Richard.


        --- On Sat, 2/28/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:


        From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 8:31 PM






        You wanted to discuss the BB about two weeks ago, as I recall. But never
        mind; no problem.

        You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred North
        Whitehead. I happen to follow his Process Philosophy a good deal in my
        religious beliefs. Have you read his "Process and Reality," or just read
        what some biblicist said about it and him? I bring this up in answer to
        your reference to query of whether I am a Pantheist.

        Sorry you perceive arrogance from me, but probably you are not used to
        having your views questioned from a totally rationally point of view. I
        don't worry; do you? I have no idea how you relate me to "the discussion
        board." Maybe I did say that, but I don't recall it.

        Richard.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
        To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
        Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 4:54 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.

        Well Richard, as always, there is a needless sense of arrogance in your
        emails...with that aside, no, my most recent question was not about the Big
        Bang but rather a specific question to you as to wether or not you are a
        Pantheist or what would you consider the basis of your belief system.

        Don't worry though, if you want to go down the route of discussing the Big
        Bang,Higher Scholarship of Biblical interpretation or the epistemology of
        faith its self, we can do that too
        :)

        From, in your words, "the discussion board."

        --- On Fri, 2/27/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:

        From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Arab-Israeli Conflict
        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Friday, February 27, 2009, 10:04 PM

        Nope. how is that relevant to my message?

        So you know something about the BB? No one ever took you up on your
        invitation. Here's a brief analysis:

        The BB. Very briefly science works through a process of developing theories
        from hypotheses (hypothetical deduction) that predict confirmation
        ("if...then" ) through rigorous testing of evidence, in physics and
        chemistry
        experimentation, and thoroughly replicated, so that the hypothesis (among a
        number of them) that conforms closer to the successfully tested evidence, is
        given the status of theory. Theories are only tentative based on
        probability, as the best available at the time in explaining the acceptable
        evidence. So in any given case, based on peer-review, the theory that
        provides the best explanation is the one which becomes the standard, until
        it is replaced by a better one.

        The BB theory is so far the best theory judged by peer-review of the
        scientists who are peer-reviewed specialists in that field: cosmology.
        Obviously experimentation presents a problem, as does replication, but there
        is a plethora of evidence available, and theoretical means of testing,
        through special instrumentation including telescopes of various types, by
        developing hypotheses from certain phenomena in the universe (including
        physical elements and chemicals), lead by inductive inference to a few
        theories which are candidates for the BEST theory for the origin of the
        universe. The BB is not ex nihilo, since it proposes a basic element, such
        as a quantum. There are some explanations for there being that one
        (possible more) basic element, and presently the considered best explanation
        is the Multiverse theory, combined with timelessness (i.e. time began with
        the universe, as well as gravity), and the processes of entrophy (high to
        low; low to high). Things like neutrinos and dark energy (which may have
        come later) are involved, and other theories are involved, like String
        Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity Theory. Our universe has been measured (by
        reverse time) as 13.7 billion light-years ago, creating equal amounts of
        matter and antimatter. Observation through Hubble comes as close to the
        event as much less than a second. Of course there are critics among
        scientists of the BB theory

        Richard.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
        To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
        Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:41 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Arab-Israeli Conflict

        > Richard what do you believe about God, are you a Pantheist?
        >
        >
        > --- On Fri, 2/27/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
        > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Arab-Israeli Conflict
        > To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
        > Date: Friday, February 27, 2009, 10:46 AM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Three reasons might suffice. 1. they mess up everything they get into. 2.
        > rampant corruption. 3. the accomplish nothing.
        >
        > Richard.
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "cobbie1919" <cobbie1919@ yahoo. com>
        > To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
        > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 8:20 AM
        > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Arab-Israeli Conflict
        >
        >> --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...>
        >> wrote:
        >>>
        >>> Implication of the United Nations would be the very worst solution!
        >>>
        >>> Richard.
        >>>
        >> ____________ _________ _________ ___
        >>
        >> And why is that? Just a simple, very simple, statement with no reason
        >> is really no statement at all.
        >>
        >> Judy
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> ------------ --------- --------- ------
        >>
        >> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
        >
        > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1975 - Release Date: 02/27/09
        > 07:05:00
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------ --------- --------- ------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >

        ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: 02/27/09
        13:27:00

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        ------------ --------- --------- ------

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: 02/27/09
        13:27:00



















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Richard Godwin
        ... From: a a To: Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB. You
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 1, 2009
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "a a" <Praesto12@...>
          To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:08 PM
          Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.


          You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred North
          Whitehead. I happen to follow his Process Philosophy a good deal in my
          religious beliefs. Have you read his "Process and Reality," or just read
          what some biblicist said about it and him? I bring this up in answer to
          your reference to query of whether I am a Pantheist.


          If there is a specific "Biblicist" that I prefer then it would be ravi
          zacharias or c.s. lewis, but the truth is that I like them more because they
          have such a background in philosophy. Apologetics and Languages are probably
          my "background."

          R: C.S. Lewis as a philosopher would be a very loose use of that term
          indeed.

          Sorry you perceive arrogance from me, but probably you are not used to
          having your views questioned from a totally rationally point of view.

          Rich, I think that you have read some philosohpy. I think that you are
          intelligent and I'm sure on the more philosophical levels most people do not
          understand what you're saying. I do. There is nothing so overtly rational in
          what you are saying that has ever in any way intimidated me ever
          intellectually. However I do enjoy the points that you make on some issues.
          I hope to learn from our dialogs.

          R: What makes you think from what I have said that I am trying to
          intimidate you? Far from it. Must be just in your mind. Actually my M.A.
          and Ph.D. studies were in philosophy (I quit school to go into a real
          business, not teaching, although I did teach philosophy on the side in a
          community college). But by far most I have learned was after schooling in
          my own studies. However, I don't claim to be a scholar or even properly a
          philosopher.

          You guys stated that my responses must be coming from a "discussion board."
          I was alluding to that, haha.

          R: Not from me. I laugh with you.

          Richard.
        • a a
          Why Whitehead? What do you see him as? Do you think that he most adequately discover,creates, correlates to Truth? ... From: Richard Godwin
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 2, 2009
            Why Whitehead? What do you see him as? Do you think that he most adequately discover,creates, correlates to Truth?

            --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:


            From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
            Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
            To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 10:27 PM







            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
            To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
            Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:08 PM
            Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.

            You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred North
            Whitehead. I happen to follow his Process Philosophy a good deal in my
            religious beliefs. Have you read his "Process and Reality," or just read
            what some biblicist said about it and him? I bring this up in answer to
            your reference to query of whether I am a Pantheist.

            If there is a specific "Biblicist" that I prefer then it would be ravi
            zacharias or c.s. lewis, but the truth is that I like them more because they
            have such a background in philosophy. Apologetics and Languages are probably
            my "background. "

            R: C.S. Lewis as a philosopher would be a very loose use of that term
            indeed.

            Sorry you perceive arrogance from me, but probably you are not used to
            having your views questioned from a totally rationally point of view.

            Rich, I think that you have read some philosohpy. I think that you are
            intelligent and I'm sure on the more philosophical levels most people do not
            understand what you're saying. I do. There is nothing so overtly rational in
            what you are saying that has ever in any way intimidated me ever
            intellectually. However I do enjoy the points that you make on some issues.
            I hope to learn from our dialogs.

            R: What makes you think from what I have said that I am trying to
            intimidate you? Far from it. Must be just in your mind. Actually my M.A.
            and Ph.D. studies were in philosophy (I quit school to go into a real
            business, not teaching, although I did teach philosophy on the side in a
            community college). But by far most I have learned was after schooling in
            my own studies. However, I don't claim to be a scholar or even properly a
            philosopher.

            You guys stated that my responses must be coming from a "discussion board."
            I was alluding to that, haha.

            R: Not from me. I laugh with you.

            Richard.



















            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Richard Godwin
            If you have something to say about Whitehead, then just say it. Richard.
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 3, 2009
              If you have something to say about Whitehead, then just say it.

              Richard.

              --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, a a <Praesto12@...> wrote:
              >
              > Why Whitehead? What do you see him as? Do you think that he most adequately discover,creates, correlates to Truth?
              >
              > --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
              > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
              > To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 10:27 PM
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
              > To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
              > Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:08 PM
              > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
              >
              > You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred North
              > Whitehead. I happen to follow his Process Philosophy a good deal in my
              > religious beliefs. Have you read his "Process and Reality," or just read
              > what some biblicist said about it and him? I bring this up in answer to
              > your reference to query of whether I am a Pantheist.
              >
              > If there is a specific "Biblicist" that I prefer then it would be ravi
              > zacharias or c.s. lewis, but the truth is that I like them more because they
              > have such a background in philosophy. Apologetics and Languages are probably
              > my "background. "
              >
              > R: C.S. Lewis as a philosopher would be a very loose use of that term
              > indeed.
              >
              > Sorry you perceive arrogance from me, but probably you are not used to
              > having your views questioned from a totally rationally point of view.
              >
              > Rich, I think that you have read some philosohpy. I think that you are
              > intelligent and I'm sure on the more philosophical levels most people do not
              > understand what you're saying. I do. There is nothing so overtly rational in
              > what you are saying that has ever in any way intimidated me ever
              > intellectually. However I do enjoy the points that you make on some issues.
              > I hope to learn from our dialogs.
              >
              > R: What makes you think from what I have said that I am trying to
              > intimidate you? Far from it. Must be just in your mind. Actually my M.A.
              > and Ph.D. studies were in philosophy (I quit school to go into a real
              > business, not teaching, although I did teach philosophy on the side in a
              > community college). But by far most I have learned was after schooling in
              > my own studies. However, I don't claim to be a scholar or even properly a
              > philosopher.
              >
              > You guys stated that my responses must be coming from a "discussion board."
              > I was alluding to that, haha.
              >
              > R: Not from me. I laugh with you.
              >
              > Richard.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • a a
              No, it s not about whitehead at all, another philosopher, another man. Hume,Kant,Descartes,Whitehead,Plato,Bergson,Camus,Sartre, Nietzsche,C.S. Lewis and on
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 3, 2009
                No, it's not about whitehead at all, another philosopher, another man. Hume,Kant,Descartes,Whitehead,Plato,Bergson,Camus,Sartre, Nietzsche,C.S. Lewis and on and on all have atleast one thing in common , they died. They were all men, some were very intelligent some were not.
                 
                 However, I guess my question is why chose a man over God? Why chose Whitehead or anyone else of the person of Jesus Christ? Who do you say that he is?
                 


                --- On Tue, 3/3/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:


                From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 10:01 PM






                If you have something to say about Whitehead, then just say it.

                Richard.

                --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, a a <Praesto12@. ..> wrote:
                >
                > Why Whitehead? What do you see him as? Do you think that he most adequately discover,creates, correlates to Truth?
                >
                > --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                > To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
                > Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 10:27 PM
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
                > To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
                > Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:08 PM
                > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                >
                > You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred North
                > Whitehead. I happen to follow his Process Philosophy a good deal in my
                > religious beliefs. Have you read his "Process and Reality," or just read
                > what some biblicist said about it and him? I bring this up in answer to
                > your reference to query of whether I am a Pantheist.
                >
                > If there is a specific "Biblicist" that I prefer then it would be ravi
                > zacharias or c.s. lewis, but the truth is that I like them more because they
                > have such a background in philosophy. Apologetics and Languages are probably
                > my "background. "
                >
                > R: C.S. Lewis as a philosopher would be a very loose use of that term
                > indeed.
                >
                > Sorry you perceive arrogance from me, but probably you are not used to
                > having your views questioned from a totally rationally point of view.
                >
                > Rich, I think that you have read some philosohpy. I think that you are
                > intelligent and I'm sure on the more philosophical levels most people do not
                > understand what you're saying. I do. There is nothing so overtly rational in
                > what you are saying that has ever in any way intimidated me ever
                > intellectually. However I do enjoy the points that you make on some issues.
                > I hope to learn from our dialogs.
                >
                > R: What makes you think from what I have said that I am trying to
                > intimidate you? Far from it. Must be just in your mind. Actually my M.A.
                > and Ph.D. studies were in philosophy (I quit school to go into a real
                > business, not teaching, although I did teach philosophy on the side in a
                > community college). But by far most I have learned was after schooling in
                > my own studies. However, I don't claim to be a scholar or even properly a
                > philosopher.
                >
                > You guys stated that my responses must be coming from a "discussion board."
                > I was alluding to that, haha.
                >
                > R: Not from me. I laugh with you.
                >
                > Richard.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >



















                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Richard Godwin
                I choose em all, buddy. There some truth in all of them. Jesus had very little to say, and what he did say is from a very limited perspective, albeit a very
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 4, 2009
                  I choose 'em all, buddy. There some truth in all of them. Jesus had very
                  little to say, and what he did say is from a very limited perspective,
                  albeit a very important one: in re "The Common Sayings Tradition", the
                  synoptic gospels and the Gospel of Thomas.

                  Richard.

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "a a" <Praesto12@...>
                  To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:38 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.


                  No, it's not about whitehead at all, another philosopher, another man.
                  Hume,Kant,Descartes,Whitehead,Plato,Bergson,Camus,Sartre, Nietzsche,C.S.
                  Lewis and on and on all have atleast one thing in common , they died. They
                  were all men, some were very intelligent some were not.

                  However, I guess my question is why chose a man over God? Why chose
                  Whitehead or anyone else of the person of Jesus Christ? Who do you say that
                  he is?



                  --- On Tue, 3/3/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:


                  From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                  Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                  To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 10:01 PM






                  If you have something to say about Whitehead, then just say it.

                  Richard.

                  --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, a a <Praesto12@. ..> wrote:
                  >
                  > Why Whitehead? What do you see him as? Do you think that he most
                  > adequately discover,creates, correlates to Truth?
                  >
                  > --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                  > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                  > To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
                  > Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 10:27 PM
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
                  > To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
                  > Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:08 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                  >
                  > You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred North
                  > Whitehead. I happen to follow his Process Philosophy a good deal in my
                  > religious beliefs. Have you read his "Process and Reality," or just read
                  > what some biblicist said about it and him? I bring this up in answer to
                  > your reference to query of whether I am a Pantheist.
                  >
                  > If there is a specific "Biblicist" that I prefer then it would be ravi
                  > zacharias or c.s. lewis, but the truth is that I like them more because
                  > they
                  > have such a background in philosophy. Apologetics and Languages are
                  > probably
                  > my "background. "
                  >
                  > R: C.S. Lewis as a philosopher would be a very loose use of that term
                  > indeed.
                  >
                  > Sorry you perceive arrogance from me, but probably you are not used to
                  > having your views questioned from a totally rationally point of view.
                  >
                  > Rich, I think that you have read some philosohpy. I think that you are
                  > intelligent and I'm sure on the more philosophical levels most people do
                  > not
                  > understand what you're saying. I do. There is nothing so overtly rational
                  > in
                  > what you are saying that has ever in any way intimidated me ever
                  > intellectually. However I do enjoy the points that you make on some
                  > issues.
                  > I hope to learn from our dialogs.
                  >
                  > R: What makes you think from what I have said that I am trying to
                  > intimidate you? Far from it. Must be just in your mind. Actually my M.A.
                  > and Ph.D. studies were in philosophy (I quit school to go into a real
                  > business, not teaching, although I did teach philosophy on the side in a
                  > community college). But by far most I have learned was after schooling in
                  > my own studies. However, I don't claim to be a scholar or even properly a
                  > philosopher.
                  >
                  > You guys stated that my responses must be coming from a "discussion
                  > board."
                  > I was alluding to that, haha.
                  >
                  > R: Not from me. I laugh with you.
                  >
                  > Richard.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >



















                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                  ------------------------------------

                  Yahoo! Groups Links





                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                  No virus found in this incoming message.
                  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date: 03/03/09
                  16:09:00
                • a a
                  I choose em all, buddy.     How pantheistic of you, haha. There maybe some truth in somethings they said, however do you believe in the Law on
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 4, 2009
                    I choose 'em all, buddy.
                     
                     
                    How pantheistic of you, haha. There maybe some truth in somethings they said, however do you believe in the Law on non-contradiction?
                     
                     Jesus had very little to say, and what he did say is from a very limited perspective,
                    albeit a very important one:
                     
                    The Bible consist of 66 books, dozens of authors, thousands of thousands of words, and sayings and ideas which cover ever range of human emotion from depression to love to sex to morality. Each and every book alludes to, is, or describes Jesus and his message so in all Truthfulness it is ignorant to say Jesus had little to say. It's simply a false statement. I also find it interesting that you say he had a limited perspective but a  very important one? Either the guy is a liar,lunatic or lord. All the Jesus  is "just a great teacher" bull shit is exactly that, bull shit. Yes he was deeply wise, however he was also Lord of you and us all, atleast that's his claim. You can reject it, spit at him or deny it but you can't logically say he had a limited perspective, History and common sense prove you wrong on that matter.
                     
                     
                     
                     in re "The Common Sayings Tradition", the
                    synoptic gospels and the Gospel of Thomas.
                     
                    I'm interested in discussing these issues with you. Why do you buy into G.of Thomas, what do you say when you say you believe in "the common sayings tradition?"




                    --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:


                    From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                    Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                    To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 9:59 AM






                    I choose 'em all, buddy. There some truth in all of them. Jesus had very
                    little to say, and what he did say is from a very limited perspective,
                    albeit a very important one: in re "The Common Sayings Tradition", the
                    synoptic gospels and the Gospel of Thomas.

                    Richard.

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
                    To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
                    Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:38 PM
                    Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.

                    No, it's not about whitehead at all, another philosopher, another man.
                    Hume,Kant,Descartes ,Whitehead, Plato,Bergson, Camus,Sartre, Nietzsche,C. S.
                    Lewis and on and on all have atleast one thing in common , they died. They
                    were all men, some were very intelligent some were not.

                    However, I guess my question is why chose a man over God? Why chose
                    Whitehead or anyone else of the person of Jesus Christ? Who do you say that
                    he is?

                    --- On Tue, 3/3/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:

                    From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                    Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                    To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
                    Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 10:01 PM

                    If you have something to say about Whitehead, then just say it.

                    Richard.

                    --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, a a <Praesto12@. ..> wrote:
                    >
                    > Why Whitehead? What do you see him as? Do you think that he most
                    > adequately discover,creates, correlates to Truth?
                    >
                    > --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                    > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                    > To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
                    > Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 10:27 PM
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
                    > To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
                    > Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:08 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                    >
                    > You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred North
                    > Whitehead. I happen to follow his Process Philosophy a good deal in my
                    > religious beliefs. Have you read his "Process and Reality," or just read
                    > what some biblicist said about it and him? I bring this up in answer to
                    > your reference to query of whether I am a Pantheist.
                    >
                    > If there is a specific "Biblicist" that I prefer then it would be ravi
                    > zacharias or c.s. lewis, but the truth is that I like them more because
                    > they
                    > have such a background in philosophy. Apologetics and Languages are
                    > probably
                    > my "background. "
                    >
                    > R: C.S. Lewis as a philosopher would be a very loose use of that term
                    > indeed.
                    >
                    > Sorry you perceive arrogance from me, but probably you are not used to
                    > having your views questioned from a totally rationally point of view.
                    >
                    > Rich, I think that you have read some philosohpy. I think that you are
                    > intelligent and I'm sure on the more philosophical levels most people do
                    > not
                    > understand what you're saying. I do. There is nothing so overtly rational
                    > in
                    > what you are saying that has ever in any way intimidated me ever
                    > intellectually. However I do enjoy the points that you make on some
                    > issues.
                    > I hope to learn from our dialogs.
                    >
                    > R: What makes you think from what I have said that I am trying to
                    > intimidate you? Far from it. Must be just in your mind. Actually my M.A.
                    > and Ph.D. studies were in philosophy (I quit school to go into a real
                    > business, not teaching, although I did teach philosophy on the side in a
                    > community college). But by far most I have learned was after schooling in
                    > my own studies. However, I don't claim to be a scholar or even properly a
                    > philosopher.
                    >
                    > You guys stated that my responses must be coming from a "discussion
                    > board."
                    > I was alluding to that, haha.
                    >
                    > R: Not from me. I laugh with you.
                    >
                    > Richard.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                    ------------ --------- --------- ------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

                    No virus found in this incoming message.
                    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                    Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date: 03/03/09
                    16:09:00



















                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Richard Godwin
                    ... From: a a To: Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 4, 2009
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "a a" <Praesto12@...>
                      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:06 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.


                      however do you believe in the Law on non-contradiction?

                      R: How does that fit. Of course there are many different ideas, many
                      contradicting those of others. Goes with the territory of knowledge.

                      The Bible consist of 66 books, dozens of authors, thousands of thousands of
                      words, and sayings and ideas which cover ever range of human emotion from
                      depression to love to sex to morality. Each and every book alludes to, is,
                      or describes Jesus and his message so in all Truthfulness it is ignorant to
                      say Jesus had little to say. It's simply a false statement. I also find it
                      interesting that you say he had a limited perspective but a very important
                      one? Either the guy is a liar,lunatic or lord. All the Jesus is "just a
                      great teacher" bull shit is exactly that, bull shit. Yes he was deeply wise,
                      however he was also Lord of you and us all, atleast that's his claim. You
                      can reject it, spit at him or deny it but you can't logically say he had a
                      limited perspective, History and common sense prove you wrong on that
                      matter.

                      R: And there also were many, many other writings in all the periods of
                      time. Why leave out Gospel of Thomas? And many others. The culmination of
                      what Jesus said, as I told you in "The Common Sayings Tradition," is very
                      little and limited in perspective. I believe in his truth, and "lord" in a
                      sense. Buddha was similar. You can have whatever Lord you want, tis your
                      option. His perspective was limited in just that: his wisdom teachings and
                      lordship. That's very limited compared with all knowledge we should have.
                      History and common sense prove you wrong on that matter.




                      in re "The Common Sayings Tradition", the
                      synoptic gospels and the Gospel of Thomas.

                      I'm interested in discussing these issues with you. Why do you buy into G.of
                      Thomas, what do you say when you say you believe in "the common sayings
                      tradition?"

                      R: Why not. Written in the same period of time with the gospels, sayings of
                      Jesus also. Why don't you google "The Common Sayings Tradition," and see
                      for yourself.

                      Richard.




                      --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:


                      From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 9:59 AM






                      I choose 'em all, buddy. There some truth in all of them. Jesus had very
                      little to say, and what he did say is from a very limited perspective,
                      albeit a very important one: in re "The Common Sayings Tradition", the
                      synoptic gospels and the Gospel of Thomas.

                      Richard.

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
                      To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
                      Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:38 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.

                      No, it's not about whitehead at all, another philosopher, another man.
                      Hume,Kant,Descartes ,Whitehead, Plato,Bergson, Camus,Sartre, Nietzsche,C. S.
                      Lewis and on and on all have atleast one thing in common , they died. They
                      were all men, some were very intelligent some were not.

                      However, I guess my question is why chose a man over God? Why chose
                      Whitehead or anyone else of the person of Jesus Christ? Who do you say that
                      he is?

                      --- On Tue, 3/3/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:

                      From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                      Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                      To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
                      Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 10:01 PM

                      If you have something to say about Whitehead, then just say it.

                      Richard.

                      --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, a a <Praesto12@. ..> wrote:
                      >
                      > Why Whitehead? What do you see him as? Do you think that he most
                      > adequately discover,creates, correlates to Truth?
                      >
                      > --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                      > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                      > To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
                      > Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 10:27 PM
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
                      > To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
                      > Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:08 PM
                      > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                      >
                      > You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred North
                      > Whitehead. I happen to follow his Process Philosophy a good deal in my
                      > religious beliefs. Have you read his "Process and Reality," or just read
                      > what some biblicist said about it and him? I bring this up in answer to
                      > your reference to query of whether I am a Pantheist.
                      >
                      > If there is a specific "Biblicist" that I prefer then it would be ravi
                      > zacharias or c.s. lewis, but the truth is that I like them more because
                      > they
                      > have such a background in philosophy. Apologetics and Languages are
                      > probably
                      > my "background. "
                      >
                      > R: C.S. Lewis as a philosopher would be a very loose use of that term
                      > indeed.
                      >
                      > Sorry you perceive arrogance from me, but probably you are not used to
                      > having your views questioned from a totally rationally point of view.
                      >
                      > Rich, I think that you have read some philosohpy. I think that you are
                      > intelligent and I'm sure on the more philosophical levels most people do
                      > not
                      > understand what you're saying. I do. There is nothing so overtly rational
                      > in
                      > what you are saying that has ever in any way intimidated me ever
                      > intellectually. However I do enjoy the points that you make on some
                      > issues.
                      > I hope to learn from our dialogs.
                      >
                      > R: What makes you think from what I have said that I am trying to
                      > intimidate you? Far from it. Must be just in your mind. Actually my M.A.
                      > and Ph.D. studies were in philosophy (I quit school to go into a real
                      > business, not teaching, although I did teach philosophy on the side in a
                      > community college). But by far most I have learned was after schooling in
                      > my own studies. However, I don't claim to be a scholar or even properly a
                      > philosopher.
                      >
                      > You guys stated that my responses must be coming from a "discussion
                      > board."
                      > I was alluding to that, haha.
                      >
                      > R: Not from me. I laugh with you.
                      >
                      > Richard.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      ------------ --------- --------- ------

                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

                      No virus found in this incoming message.
                      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                      Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date: 03/03/09
                      16:09:00



















                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                      ------------------------------------

                      Yahoo! Groups Links





                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                      No virus found in this incoming message.
                      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                      Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date: 03/03/09
                      16:09:00
                    • a a
                      You still there Richard?       however do you believe in the Law on non-contradiction? R: How does that fit. Of course there are many different ideas, many
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 8, 2009
                        You still there Richard?
                         
                         
                         
                        however do you believe in the Law on non-contradiction?

                        R: How does that fit. Of course there are many different ideas, many
                        contradicting those of others. Goes with the territory of knowledge.

                        The Bible consist of 66 books, dozens of authors, thousands of thousands of
                        words, and sayings and ideas which cover ever range of human emotion from
                        depression to love to sex to morality. Each and every book alludes to, is,
                        or describes Jesus and his message so in all Truthfulness it is ignorant to
                        say Jesus had little to say. It's simply a false statement. I also find it
                        interesting that you say he had a limited perspective but a very important
                        one? Either the guy is a liar,lunatic or lord. All the Jesus is "just a
                        great teacher" bull shit is exactly that, bull shit. Yes he was deeply wise,
                        however he was also Lord of you and us all, atleast that's his claim. You
                        can reject it, spit at him or deny it but you can't logically say he had a
                        limited perspective, History and common sense prove you wrong on that
                        matter.

                        R: And there also were many, many other writings in all the periods of
                        time. Why leave out Gospel of Thomas? And many others. The culmination of
                        what Jesus said, as I told you in "The Common Sayings Tradition," is very
                        little and limited in perspective. I believe in his truth, and "lord" in a
                        sense. Buddha was similar. You can have whatever Lord you want, tis your
                        option. His perspective was limited in just that: his wisdom teachings and
                        lordship. That's very limited compared with all knowledge we should have.
                        History and common sense prove you wrong on that matter.

                        in re "The Common Sayings Tradition", the
                        synoptic gospels and the Gospel of Thomas.

                        I'm interested in discussing these issues with you. Why do you buy into G.of
                        Thomas, what do you say when you say you believe in "the common sayings
                        tradition?"

                        R: Why not. Written in the same period of time with the gospels, sayings of
                        Jesus also. Why don't you google "The Common Sayings Tradition," and see
                        for yourself.

                        Richard.


                        --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:


                        From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 3:59 PM







                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
                        To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
                        Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:06 PM
                        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.

                        however do you believe in the Law on non-contradiction?

                        R: How does that fit. Of course there are many different ideas, many
                        contradicting those of others. Goes with the territory of knowledge.

                        The Bible consist of 66 books, dozens of authors, thousands of thousands of
                        words, and sayings and ideas which cover ever range of human emotion from
                        depression to love to sex to morality. Each and every book alludes to, is,
                        or describes Jesus and his message so in all Truthfulness it is ignorant to
                        say Jesus had little to say. It's simply a false statement. I also find it
                        interesting that you say he had a limited perspective but a very important
                        one? Either the guy is a liar,lunatic or lord. All the Jesus is "just a
                        great teacher" bull shit is exactly that, bull shit. Yes he was deeply wise,
                        however he was also Lord of you and us all, atleast that's his claim. You
                        can reject it, spit at him or deny it but you can't logically say he had a
                        limited perspective, History and common sense prove you wrong on that
                        matter.

                        R: And there also were many, many other writings in all the periods of
                        time. Why leave out Gospel of Thomas? And many others. The culmination of
                        what Jesus said, as I told you in "The Common Sayings Tradition," is very
                        little and limited in perspective. I believe in his truth, and "lord" in a
                        sense. Buddha was similar. You can have whatever Lord you want, tis your
                        option. His perspective was limited in just that: his wisdom teachings and
                        lordship. That's very limited compared with all knowledge we should have.
                        History and common sense prove you wrong on that matter.

                        in re "The Common Sayings Tradition", the
                        synoptic gospels and the Gospel of Thomas.

                        I'm interested in discussing these issues with you. Why do you buy into G.of
                        Thomas, what do you say when you say you believe in "the common sayings
                        tradition?"

                        R: Why not. Written in the same period of time with the gospels, sayings of
                        Jesus also. Why don't you google "The Common Sayings Tradition," and see
                        for yourself.

                        Richard.

                        --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:

                        From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
                        Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 9:59 AM

                        I choose 'em all, buddy. There some truth in all of them. Jesus had very
                        little to say, and what he did say is from a very limited perspective,
                        albeit a very important one: in re "The Common Sayings Tradition", the
                        synoptic gospels and the Gospel of Thomas.

                        Richard.

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
                        To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
                        Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:38 PM
                        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.

                        No, it's not about whitehead at all, another philosopher, another man.
                        Hume,Kant,Descartes ,Whitehead, Plato,Bergson, Camus,Sartre, Nietzsche,C. S.
                        Lewis and on and on all have atleast one thing in common , they died. They
                        were all men, some were very intelligent some were not.

                        However, I guess my question is why chose a man over God? Why chose
                        Whitehead or anyone else of the person of Jesus Christ? Who do you say that
                        he is?

                        --- On Tue, 3/3/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:

                        From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                        Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
                        Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 10:01 PM

                        If you have something to say about Whitehead, then just say it.

                        Richard.

                        --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, a a <Praesto12@. ..> wrote:
                        >
                        > Why Whitehead? What do you see him as? Do you think that he most
                        > adequately discover,creates, correlates to Truth?
                        >
                        > --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
                        > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                        > To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
                        > Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 10:27 PM
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: "a a" <Praesto12@yahoo. com>
                        > To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
                        > Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:08 PM
                        > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: BB.
                        >
                        > You also mentioned you know all about the philosophy of Alfred North
                        > Whitehead. I happen to follow his Process Philosophy a good deal in my
                        > religious beliefs. Have you read his "Process and Reality," or just read
                        > what some biblicist said about it and him? I bring this up in answer to
                        > your reference to query of whether I am a Pantheist.
                        >
                        > If there is a specific "Biblicist" that I prefer then it would be ravi
                        > zacharias or c.s. lewis, but the truth is that I like them more because
                        > they
                        > have such a background in philosophy. Apologetics and Languages are
                        > probably
                        > my "background. "
                        >
                        > R: C.S. Lewis as a philosopher would be a very loose use of that term
                        > indeed.
                        >
                        > Sorry you perceive arrogance from me, but probably you are not used to
                        > having your views questioned from a totally rationally point of view.
                        >
                        > Rich, I think that you have read some philosohpy. I think that you are
                        > intelligent and I'm sure on the more philosophical levels most people do
                        > not
                        > understand what you're saying. I do. There is nothing so overtly rational
                        > in
                        > what you are saying that has ever in any way intimidated me ever
                        > intellectually. However I do enjoy the points that you make on some
                        > issues.
                        > I hope to learn from our dialogs.
                        >
                        > R: What makes you think from what I have said that I am trying to
                        > intimidate you? Far from it. Must be just in your mind. Actually my M.A.
                        > and Ph.D. studies were in philosophy (I quit school to go into a real
                        > business, not teaching, although I did teach philosophy on the side in a
                        > community college). But by far most I have learned was after schooling in
                        > my own studies. However, I don't claim to be a scholar or even properly a
                        > philosopher.
                        >
                        > You guys stated that my responses must be coming from a "discussion
                        > board."
                        > I was alluding to that, haha.
                        >
                        > R: Not from me. I laugh with you.
                        >
                        > Richard.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                        ------------ --------- --------- ------

                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

                        No virus found in this incoming message.
                        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                        Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date: 03/03/09
                        16:09:00

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                        ------------ --------- --------- ------

                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

                        No virus found in this incoming message.
                        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                        Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1982 - Release Date: 03/03/09
                        16:09:00



















                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.