Re: virus: To S.G. re: his Jesus predicament

n cashen (
Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:53:58 -0500

sodom wrote:
> Well, usually I would choose to ignore this, but I just HAVE to take a poke
> to appease my sense of self-righteousness.
> n cashen wrote:
> > SG-
> >
> > Critical thinking and logic do not encompass everything; we prove this
> > with every SCHRITT or mistake science/philosophy makes
> This in itself is a non-rational argument. You misunderstand the nature of
> science and philosophy - that is why no-one here likes what you are saying -
> because its nonsense. Science (and philosophy for that matter) are open
> ended and make the most headway by making mistakes and being wrong. It is
> exactly why Science has brought us from cave hiding, rain fearing, god
> worshiping wild animals with very short lifespans to apartment dwelling,
> pool owning, knowledge seeking wild animals with long lifespans.
> > . Nobody will like
> > this here, because it is a declaration of acceptance of the illogical.
> So, you are suggesting that because you do not understand the nature of
> science and philosophy, that the rest of us should accept the illogical. Of
> course, you have some instance of non-logical to demonstrate, right? And I
> dont mean a word game, I mean a physical instance of something working
> contrary to logic.
> > But I guess I'll have to just take the heat or be ignored. Either one
> > suits me.
> >
> > Intuition tells us things that don't leave us with a "leg to stand on"
> > all the time.
> My intuition does not say that - why does yours?
> > Faith does not makes sense, but where would we be if
> > nobody every dared to be stupid enough to have it?
> Must further than we are, and probably a lot more humane - I would suggest
> -and at the very least the point is arguable.
> > My suggestion is that
> > you try to understand what this Jesus phenomenon represents, what it
> > might mean to you personally.
> I do know what it represents - It's not a phenomena to the non-Xtian - just
> an interisting and dangerous concept that primitive people invented using
> stolen concepts from around the middle east.
> > And do not allow anyone to pull it away
> > from you, because then you will never have the chance to wrestle with it
> > and find an outcome that you can believe in.
> In other words - you have been so brainwashed that even the suggestion of
> you thinking about the subject in a rational light is to be fought. Another
> concept that seems hard for you is that many many people dont have the need
> to "believe" in something - not even a hint. Many of us have a need to learn
> - and your God cant offer that.
> >
> >
> > NC
> Bill Roh

MY God? I didn't know this was MY God; when did I claim ownership? Why are you so hostile? All I'm saying is: maybe someday we will evolve, expand, learn (whatever it takes) into beings that will look back and understand our psychological/emotional needs better. I do not think I am brainwashed because I think someone should "wrestle" with their own feelings/intelligence instead of being talked out of their predicament by some jargon. People don't work that way. I get the impression that you know that. And I don't criticize people for ignoring me or "taking a poke" at my ideas. I simply made note that I was going out of bounds, and (as I predicted) the "heat" arrived. "Either is fine by me" still stands. What if the supernatural is the natural which will be understood sometime in the future...thus my comment about science/philosophy's schritts and mistakes... I wasn't criticizing philosophy or science, just saying that maybe someday people who have found themselves seized by notions that are "illogical," will find out that it had something to it, something that "we" did not yet understand or were not adequate to understand. I hope your sense of self-righteousness is appeased.