From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:50:06 GMT
Organization: WP Group


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Personally, I'm not interested in finding someone to "worship", but
rl> I am deeply interested in the foundation of Jefferson's philosophy.
rl> Would you be more inclined to respect Jefferson's ideas if he had
rl> claimed that they were the dictates of a deity?  

From article <1b1i63INNc8s@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> It's obvious the only thing you worship is the almighty empirical 
ml> fact.

I don't worship facts and reason, Mike, but I do respect them.

rl> Who do you think truly wrote the phrase: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch 
rl> to live."

ml> I have not read the verse so I cannot say.  It is true that the 
ml> Bible was written by mortals but they were told directly by God 
ml> or Jesus what to write.  This is for you to believe or 
ml> disbelieve.  Your choice.  

According to Jesus, Moses wrote the Pentateuch, which contains the 
passage concerning witches.   Is it ok to kill witches, simply because
your "god" says so?  Would it be ok for someone else to kill
protestant christians if "god" told them to do so?

rl> I'm still trying to understand your penchant for name-calling, Mike.

ml> Can you point out where I called you any names in the above 
ml> paragraph Russell?  What are names for?  They are labels.  You 
ml> fancy yourself as an intellect.  If that was what I labelled you, 
ml> I doubt you would be complaining.  If I were to call you a fool, 
ml> that would be my opinion and that is what the word if for.  If 
ml> the shoe fits, wear it!  

You have a particular fondness for the names: "fool" and "idiot".

It seems to me that a "fool" is a man who's gullible and easily 
mislead.   You, on the other hand, apparently believe that a "fool"
is a man who doesn't mindlessly believe stories about gods, ghosts,
demons, angels, etc.

It also seems to me that an "idiot" is a man whose mental faculties
are severely impairied, and thus, has difficult mastering facts
and thinking clearly.  You, on the other hand, apparently believe
that any person who doesn't accept your beliefs on "faith" is an 
idiot, regardless of the paucity of facts and lack of rational
argument.

rl> Which person is truly more immature: the man who labels his 
rl> opponents as "idiots" and "fools" while claiming that "god" is on 
rl> his side?  Or the man who's trying very hard to understand such 
rl> behavior?  

ml> Oh boy.  Now Russell wants to start a battle of maturity.  No 
ml> battel will ensue Russell.  I'll just call them the way I see 
ml> them and you can do the same.  Perhaps you might choose to 
ml> reflect on you behavior over the past few months and ask yourself 
ml> why so many people have a problem with your "style" and 
ml> integrity.  Can we all be wrong and you right?  I can't help but 
ml> thing there might be something there that you should examine 
ml> critically.  

Can truth be determined by polling?  Since millions of medieval 
and renaissance christians believed that the protestant "heresy" 
had to be eradicated by whatever means necessary, would you be 
inclined to endorse the torture, the killing, the imprisonment, 
and the confiscation of property that subsequently ensued?  

Or, are you one of those timid folks who only values the 
fallacious "truth by polling" concept when he thinks that he's 
surrounded by a gang of like-minded individuals?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals