|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 121 responses total. |
kingjon
|
|
response 91 of 121:
| 
Feb 17 20:08 UTC 2006 |
Re #90:
Your translation is wrong. Whether any one particular statement is
absolutely true, sometimes true and sometimes false, or absolutely false
is a debatable topic. In fact, the existence of any absolute truth at all
is a possible subject for debate. However, my first framing statement for
my answer to "why do I believe Christianity to be true and all other
religions to be false" must be that I believe there to be truth (and more
specifically religious truth) outside of humanity rather than each human
being "making his or her own [religious] truth."
|
keesan
|
|
response 92 of 121:
|
Feb 17 22:32 UTC 2006 |
Do you think it strange that only a small fraction of the world's population
happens to have found the correct truth?
|
tod
|
|
response 93 of 121:
|
Feb 17 22:36 UTC 2006 |
re #92
You mean about Peak Oil and the end of industrial nation superpowers? Yes,
its very sad. Its like talking to a person in hospice that is making plans
like they're leaving the next day or something. "When I got out of here
{insert task or fantasy}.."
A good friend of mine sent me a response from Feinstein regarding his concerns
of the level 3 depletion in major countries and her response was dilluted with
typical biodiesel rhetoric. Folks don't look at all the items oil is used
to create beyond just gasoline.
|
bru
|
|
response 94 of 121:
|
Feb 18 00:04 UTC 2006 |
no more palstic? No more Melamine?
|
tod
|
|
response 95 of 121:
|
Feb 18 00:17 UTC 2006 |
Sure, keep going...pesticides, drugs, machine lubricants, etc
|
rcurl
|
|
response 96 of 121:
|
Feb 18 07:24 UTC 2006 |
When Jon says "However, my first framing statement for my answer to "why
do I believe Christianity to be true and all other religions to be false"
must be that I believe there to be truth (and more specifically religious
truth) outside of humanity rather than each human being "making his or her
own [religious] truth."
just shows that he lives in a tower of Babel. Every religonist can say the
same thing about their (and other) religions. There is absolutely (!) no
way to distinguish one from another.
I conclude just from that that all of them are fantasies.
|
crimson
|
|
response 97 of 121:
|
Feb 20 21:49 UTC 2006 |
Re #96: resp:agora,101,90 Do you conclude that Cross's constitutional
theory is also a fantasy?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 98 of 121:
|
Feb 21 06:25 UTC 2006 |
Please quote that so I don't have to look it up. However I'm guessing that
anyone's "constitutional theory" is not among religions, to which "all of
them" referred.
|
crimson
|
|
response 99 of 121:
|
Feb 21 14:01 UTC 2006 |
"A law is either constitutional or not. A court may decide
later, but that doesn't change the constitutionality or lack thereof. Think
about it."
You conclude from the fact that all religions say that there are some
statements that are either true or false, irrespective of whether anyone
believes them or not, that all religions are false. Cross, in that response,
made the analogous claim about laws in the United States.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 100 of 121:
|
Feb 21 16:23 UTC 2006 |
I see no analogy. In one case a law is to be judged against the
Constitution, not against other laws. In the other, religions are vying
against one another, for which there is no standard.
|
crimson
|
|
response 101 of 121:
|
Feb 21 16:33 UTC 2006 |
I see an *exact* analogy. You concede that there is a standard for laws,
while you conclude from the fact that all religions agree that there *is* a
standard for truth that they area all fantasies.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 102 of 121:
|
Feb 21 16:58 UTC 2006 |
I made no such conclusion. There is no standard for religions. They all
choose their own stories and rituals. Resemblences between some of them
are a result of some degree of historical continuity, not a result of any
standard agreed upon among all religions. This is also true for
constitutional law between nations. A standard, such as the Constitution,
exists only within individual nations.
|
crimson
|
|
response 103 of 121:
|
Feb 21 17:06 UTC 2006 |
You don't call
"'I believe there to be truth (and more specifically religious
truth) outside of humanity rather than each human being "making his or her
own [religious] truth.'
...
"Every religonist can say the
same thing about their (and other) religions.
...
"I conclude just from that that all of them are fantasies."
making such a conclusion? You say that each law does not carry within itself
the standard by which its constitutionality is judged, but that any position
claiming that human opinion is not the standard for truth is necessarily a
"fantasy."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 104 of 121:
|
Feb 21 18:11 UTC 2006 |
I did not say #1. Please explain how #s 2 and 3 have any bearing at all
upon the relations of US laws to the Constitution vs the absence of anything
resembling a Constitution enforcable upon all (or many) religions.
|
crimson
|
|
response 105 of 121:
|
Feb 21 18:40 UTC 2006 |
Note that the first was something you quoted and 2 and 3 were your responses
to it. You admit that for constitutionality we use the Constitution as a
standard, but you say that because every religion claims that an outside
standard for truth exists, every religion is therefore a fantasy.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 106 of 121:
|
Feb 21 19:04 UTC 2006 |
I have never written "that because every religion claims that an outside
standard for truth exists, every religion is therefore a fantasy".
You are attempting to obfuscate a very simple principle. Laws are legally
subject to Constitutional authority. Religious doctines are not.
|
crimson
|
|
response 107 of 121:
|
Feb 21 19:52 UTC 2006 |
You may not have written those exact words, but that is an accurate summary.
You quoted something that said, in more words, "I believe that there is a
standard for truth outside of human opinion." You then said, "every religion
can claim this." You then said, "I conclude just from that that all of them
are fantasies." The analogy holds: To determine a law's constitutionality,
we look at whether it conforms to the objective standard of the Constitution.
You appear to accept that principle. However, you deny that a statement's
truth value is based on whether it conforms to an objective standard rather
than to human opinion.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 108 of 121:
|
Feb 21 21:13 UTC 2006 |
> It was the gross national product of the Phillipinnes for decades
Horseshit. And learn to spell while you're at it.
|
tod
|
|
response 109 of 121:
|
Feb 21 21:14 UTC 2006 |
re #108
Vas you dere, Charlie?
|
tod
|
|
response 110 of 121:
|
Feb 21 21:17 UTC 2006 |
re #108
Organized crime is probably a better definition of the GNP in the
Phillipinnes.
|
naftee
|
|
response 111 of 121:
|
Feb 22 05:34 UTC 2006 |
http://www.prankster.it/No-Use-For-A-Name-Turning-Japanese.mp3
i think i'm turning japanese i think i'm turning japanese i really think so
|
tod
|
|
response 112 of 121:
|
Feb 22 08:51 UTC 2006 |
I used to listen to Mission Burma and The Vapors when I worked at the car
wash.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 113 of 121:
|
Feb 22 10:26 UTC 2006 |
"that's when i take out my revolver..."
|
mcnally
|
|
response 114 of 121:
|
Feb 22 17:20 UTC 2006 |
(reach for, not take out..)
|
happyboy
|
|
response 115 of 121:
|
Feb 22 19:23 UTC 2006 |
whatever.
|