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

Re: flockless

Expand Messages
  • louise
    ... though I doubt you meant it in the way I like to think of it. You are the most passive aggressive person I have ever met ! ... SK and that therefore the
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert" <al_d@...> wrote:
      >
      > Louise
      >
      > I might well be narcissistic, this is in my mind a healthy thing,
      though I doubt you meant it in the way I like to think of it. You
      are the most passive aggressive person I have ever met !
      >
      > You shrugged me off essentially by telling me that I did not know
      SK and that therefore the matter was not worth discussing to you.
      >
      > All I want is a reasonable argument. For example, I think it was
      Plato who said "...order implies a creator...". This statement
      supports the hypothesis that God exists. SK criticising the believer
      does not support the hypothesis that God does not exist. My
      criticism of SK, is that he is actually trying to prove to his
      reader that God does not exist by criticising the believer in this
      way. This is what I meant by "pop-psychology criticism".
      >
      > Now before we go any further, I do not actually support any of
      these two hypotheses, I am merely asking you, an avid reader of SK,
      to defend him with an argument that does actually support the idea
      that God does not exist.
      >
      > Even kinder regards
      > Albert


      Albert,

      First of all, as someone embroiled at present in the variously
      sympathetic and scary meshes of the British judicial and psychiatric
      systems, your description of me as passive-aggressive, though not
      offensive, reads to one of my persuasion as a political statement.
      If I expanded on my theories - which would take too long, anyway - I
      don't really expect you would be convinced. In any case, Susan
      (currently acting as moderator), whilst tolerant of the complexities
      of this intellective bind I'm in, would prefer psychiatric matters
      to be discussed elsewhere. My first Yahoo group, to this day a
      welcome haven to me, welcomes anyone genuinely interested in what
      the mental medics call schizophrenia. An e-mail to my own address,
      and I should be happy to direct you there. Actually, my own [self-]
      diagnosis these days would be manic-depressive, but I distrust
      labels in general. I love narcissism, to be open with you, and wish
      only for the liberty to express my own. Well, that 'only' is
      probably misleading. It is my commitment to paradox and dialectic
      which gives the impression of belligerence (in my opinion).
      Your second paragraph is untrue, and I explained my meaning in my
      reply to you, and apologised!
      What do you mean by 'SK criticising the believer'?? He only
      criticises the hypocrisy and complacency of those who claim belief
      in the Creator he passionately loves, a committed love without
      illusion (within the given parameters). The apostle Paul, for
      instance, described himself and other converts as 'the offscourings
      of the earth'. He expected persecution, resisted lawfully, and
      fought the good fight.
      Anyway, all this explanation is intended to clear the way for
      existential debate. To discuss faith itself is off-topic, so far as
      I understand the moderators' interpretation of the rules.

      Regards,
      Louise
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.