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

Hopeless...hopeful; God, [Man(kind)] and Social "Challenges"-- \:-O

Expand Messages
  • NEFILIM001@aol.com
    Thank you MARY, GEORGE & NOLAN; This is one of the sharpest, bravest and broadest Posts I have read to date. Everyone nails their point--and in the process
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you MARY, GEORGE & NOLAN;
      This is one of the sharpest, bravest and broadest Posts I have read to
      date. Everyone nails their point--and in the process gives us (the readers)
      a clear vision of ProGod; AntiGod and also the presumption of some measure of
      MiddleGround--were such a thing to actually exist.

      Go ExistList--I Love This Stuff!!!! /;-)
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Sorry to reproduce EveryWord, but it seems to me EveryExistListMember needs
      to "hear" what is being stated herein:

      " "Since it's a given that our planet is doomed, and we all need some
      intelligent diversion, your heads up on Flemming is appreciated. For
      anyone here who hasn't yet bashed their head against the wall
      enduring your attempts to elicit sound reasoning from "nolan",
      here's Flemmings' delightfully irreverent weblog which contains a
      link to a Salman Rushdie article I also enjoyed.

      http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/

      Mary


      "I take the approach of Brian Flemming. He is a one time evangelical
      Christian turned atheist who has created a new documentary which
      attempts to show just how fictional Jesus Christ was as a historical
      figure. Flemming suggests that "the United States is heading in the
      direction of a theocracy. The problem is that we let religious people
      say stunningly false things and we consider it rude to question those
      beliefs. But we should be shunning those people." George Walton

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, George Walton <iambiguously@y...>
      wrote:
      >
      >
      > bhvwd <v.valleywestdental@m...> wrote:
      >
      > Biggie, You have exhausted possibility to plug into this jesus
      > bonehead. Let them stew in their filth. He is here to slay dragons
      and to his dimwitted perspective he is doing his pastoral duty in
      > confrontation with the infidels. He sees no affiliation with
      other faith fools because his entire trust is in his lord and savior.
      His
      > branch of humanity is on a direct course of deadly contention with
      > those of us who could be loosely described as secularists. I like
      > that term better than humanist because with it I do not need to
      > recognise or support the various people of gods. We are a new
      people and we are growing in numbers because of our practical and
      > reasonable facility with the business of living. We will do fine ,
      > especially if we learn to ignore the subspecies behavours of the
      > faithful conformists. If we will live free and be happy in the
      reality of our finite lives our example will garnish accomplices in
      rich living. I am not afraid to live confortably and do better
      without his sort of vermin. Bill
      >
      >
      >
      > George:
      >
      >
      >
      > You're probably right but my agenda is, admittedly, plugged into
      ulterior motives. Whenever I encounter what friends of mine call
      a "cartoon character" I try to take advantage of it.
      >
      > Nolan, on the other hand, is a special case. He is more
      sophisticated in his defense of religion than your typical
      evangelical blockhead. Which makes his cleverly crafted scripture all
      the more dangerous. In other words, it seems to project as legitimate
      philosophy at times. And thus it is in need of much fuller exposure.
      >
      > I take the approach of Brian Flemming. He is a one time evangelical
      Christian turned atheist who has created a new documentary which
      attempts to show just how fictional Jesus Christ was as a historical
      figure. Flemming suggests that "the United States is heading in the
      direction of a theocracy. The problem is that we let religious people
      say stunningly false things and we consider it rude to question those
      beliefs. But we should be shunning those people."
      >
      > I don't shun them myself. And I certainly do not advocate censoring
      them. Instead, I make them defend their faith by getting right down
      to the nitty gritty issues of religion. For me there are three:
      >
      > What God? What hard evidence do you have that God exists? What
      arguments do you propose that suggest your own particular religion is
      a rational way in which to view the world around us? Why your God and
      not one of the countless others out on the market?
      > How do you reconcile God and religion [said to be loving just
      and merciful] with earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis and
      tornadoes; with starving children and dreaded diseases and genetic
      afflictions?
      > How do you reconcile divine omniscience with human autonmy?
      > Then I make them squirm with constant reminder that this sort of
      thing is what existential philosophers do. They ask questions like
      this.
      >
      > Sartre insisted that "existentialism is a Humanism". And what that
      means is this: philosophy starts with mere mortals and ends with mere
      mortals.
      >
      > Unless, of course, this can be shown to be false.
      >
      >
      > george" "



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