Still stinging
GoPlayer harvey1 GoPlayer harvey1" <harvey1@goplay.com
Mon, 22 Sep 1997 06:46:37 -0800 (00874961197, 10937444.1.24949@server1.onmedia.com)
I see you are still smarting a little after Lenny left the list. There used to be a country western song that said something like, "Winners walk out laughin, losers cry deal again." I think I hear Lenny laughing at your cries to deal again. Looks like Matt is holding his own as well. Instead of getting your back up perhaps you should look again at the evidence for Christianity?
Until next time
Harvey1@goplay
>> Today's thought.
>
>One a day for better health!
>
>On Mon, Sep 22, 1997 at 04:27:17AM -0800, GoPlayer harvey1 wrote:
>> Some people use language to express thought. Some use language to
>> conceal thought. And some people ( some athiest) use it instead of
>> thought.
>
>Yes, I have some experience with the use of language to conceal thought.
>If Jesus did claim elsewhere to be God, then his words "Why do you call
>me good? None is good but God" were a good example of concealing
>thought with words. A disturbingly large number of inerrantist
>"harmonizations" require the assumption that thought-concealing
>language is used in the bible. Why did the Holy Spirit inspire authors
>to write misleading text? Why should I trust something which is either
>full of contradictions or full of misleading text?
As for using language to conceal thought, if you feel this is true of
>me then you can read some of my posts on the archive and show just how
>absent thought actually _is_ from them.
>
>Under the subject "The logic to which Lenny hasn't responded", Jeff
>Epler once wrote:
>| Lenny recently made a claim to the effect that the errantists on the list
>| (I'm not sure quite how wide he intended to spread his net here) were blind
>| to reason and logic, and that is the reason why they do not like Lenny's
>| point of view and are not Christians. Apparently it is Rob Squires whose
>| "mind is like a steel trap that has rusted closed", but the point is that
>| Lenny will not justify with a response some irrational claptrap created
>| because it will help the uncritical guard their inconsistent positions, but
>| not convince anyone who looks at the issue with an unjaundiced eye.
>|
>| I have taken a look through my old postings and the errancy archive and
>| have found some postings that neither my mail folders nor the errancy
>| archives seem to have a Lenny posting refuting the logic and reason that I
>| used. To show that I am wrong on these issues, Lenny could show that my
>| premises were incorrect, or that the form of my argument was invalid, or
>| that (in the case of induction or analogy) there was some case that I had
>| not considered in my original post.
>|
>| Not all these posts were specifically addressed to Lenny, and I know it is
>| not fair to expect Lenny to make a reply to _every_ posting on _every_
>| subject, but I hope that he might show me the weakness in these arguments
>| now that I am explicitly calling them to his attention.
>|
>| Anyhow, Lenny, I must have missed any response you gave to me on the
>| following posts:
>| http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/archive/1997/sep97/000655.html
>| http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/archive/1997/sep97/000855.html
>| http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/archive/1997/sep97/000908.html
>| (Lenny did reply to this _very_ briefly, but I didn't
>| understand his defense of the free-will reply to the argument
>| from evil. Is it not contradictory to say "Man has free yet
>| will in fact will sin at least once", and if so why? If not,
>| then why would it be impossible for God to have caused that
>| "Man has free will yet will in fact never sin")
>| http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/archive/1997/sep97/000923.html
>| http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/archive/1997/sep97/000886.html
>| http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/archive/1997/aug97/001144.html
>| http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/archive/1997/sep97/000968.html
>| http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/archive/1997/sep97/001205.html
>| (Note that "inaccurately paraphrased readers" should be
>| "inaccurately paraphrased speech" or something like that)
>| http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/archive/1997/sep97/001147.html
>| http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/archive/1997/aug97/000582.html
>| http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/archive/1997/aug97/000690.html
>| There are probably others, but my patience for searching the archives is
>| finite and the archives are seeming nearly infinite at the moment.
>|
>| I hope I haven't overloaded you, Lenny. Take these old issues in any order
>| you like, but start soon before the bits all rot away.
>|
>| Jeff
>| --
>| \/ jepler@inetnebr.com http://www.python.org/ (0|1(01*0)*1)+
>| At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find
>| at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the
>| computer.
>
>Feel free to respond to any of these issues. If all the language was
>in fact a substitute for thoguht, you ought to be able to demonstrate
>this.
>
>On Mon, Sep 22, 1997 at 04:27:17AM -0800, GoPlayer harvey1 wrote:
>> Until next time.
>
>Does there _have_ to be a next time?
>
>Jeff
>--
>\/ jepler@inetnebr.com http://incolor.inetnebr.com/jepler/ (0|1(01*0)*1)+
>
>Depart not from the path which fate has assigned you.
------------------------------------------------------
| How long do you want to wait for your Email?
| http://www.goplay.com/email/1000003 - it's FREE!