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
|