does this include not slagging off christians and suchlike??p
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trevor Joyce" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: God & Religion
> Would this be a good time to remind everyone of the requisite
list-courtesies?
>
> My own pre-emptive strike . . .
>
> . . . or caress
>
> best,
>
> Trevor
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> >Date: 09 March 2004 18:46
> >Subject: Re: God & Religion
> >
> >>It must be nice to know what the phrase "fully human" means.
> >
> >I had to go back to Peter's to see what it was he said which I couldnt
> >remember and there was nothing there meriting this
> >
> >He said he came to feel you can't be fully human... etc
> >
> >and that was as strong as it got
> >
> >seems to me you're the one who thinks they *know things
> >
> >>You seem to think that those of us for whom religion is at best an
object
> >>of anthropological and psychological study can't "take to ourselves the
> >>world we are in, interiorise it," that we're in that sense less "fully
> >>human."
> >
> >that's pushing it - What you quote from has an _if_ in it, nor is it
about
> >you. You're stuck on either / or; and I don't think Peter is. The
likelihood
> >is that youre not going to agree; but in rejecting what he says in this
way
> >it seems to me that you are demanding of him that what he says be
assessed
> >as an either / or position and it isnt and either / or position
> >
> >>relative "humanity" of those around you. You're free to believe whatever
> >>makes you happy.
> >
> >How very USAmerican!
> >
> > Sanity would require that that set of beliefs be capable
> >>of modification by experience.
> >
> >and expediency presumably
> >
> >
> >L
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.soundeye.org/trevorjoyce
|