On 3 Jul, 15:55, Ivan Gowch <ivango...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:03:18 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse
>
> <roger.pea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> =3D=3D>On 2 Jul, 00:17, Ivan Gowch <ivango...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Whether the versions are
similar=
or identical
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 doesn't change the fact that
the=
Bible is a
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 contradictory collection of
myth=
s, fables and
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 children's stories, written by
a=
nonymous and
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ignorant men, translated,
re-tra=
nslated, rewritten
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 and finally compiled by a
commit=
tee.=A0 Not one word of
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 it can be regarded as factual.
>
> =3D=3D>A lot of the rich and powerful people would like us to think so.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Which "rich and powerful people? =A0
Be serious.
> Historically, rich and powerful people were almost
always=
at least
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 allied with the churches
Indeed they were. Today they are not.
> =3D=3D>Ever wonder why? =A0After all, if there is no right or wrong
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Who says that without religion there
woul=
d be no
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 right and wrong? =A0
Atheists, when tasked with their own immorality. For instance they
say things like this:
"You say "permissive society" as it were a bad thing. Permissiveness
is good, except to those social fascists who want to substitute their
own moral judgments for everyone elses'. We need
more permissiveness, not less."
> =3D=3D>what stops them screwing us all over?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Rich and powerful people always "screw
ov=
er" as much
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 of the rest of society as they can.
=A0Th=
at's how they
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 *became* and *remain* rich and powerful.
Indeed. But it's rather more difficult to say "greed is good" in
public when you have to turn up in church next week.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (Former New York Stock Exchange Chairman
=
Richard
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Grasso just managed to grab $187.5
millio=
n when he
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 walked away from his job. =A0How much do
=
YOU earn,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Roger?)
What on earth is that to do with you? What do YOU earn?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Sheesh! =A0Do I have to explain
everythin=
g to you?
Explain what?
> =3D=3D> Ever wondered whether the permissive society
> =3D=3D>was a bribe?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You say "permissive society" as it were
a=
bad
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 thing. =A0Permissiveness is good, except
=
to those
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 social fascists who want to substitute
th=
eir own
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 moral judgments for everyone elses'.
=A0W=
e need
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 more permissiveness, not less.
QED.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 But then, we know that religionistas
fear=
and loathe...
> (hate snipped)
You need to learn more tolerance for others, friend. A man is not a
fiend merely because he tells you to zip up your trousers, and you
know that. Yet here you are screaming the foulest abuse. Rational
people do not treat their own convenience as the end of all reason and
morality.
> =3D=3D>We need a strict moral society, if only to keep the greedy
bastard=
s at
> =3D=3D>the top in line.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Really? =A0And just whose morals will be
=
strictly
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 enforced in this society? =A0Yours? =A0
I wish. But you were the one saying a few moments ago that you don't
need to be Christian to be moral, so I think you have shot yourself in
the foot!
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 **** off, Roger. =A0What we need is a
fre=
e society
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 in which everyone is at liberty to live
b=
y
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 their own moral code, with anti-social
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 behaviour restrained by a reasonable,
sen=
sible
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 and *secular* criminal code.
I'm sure that every greedy financier would cheer you all the way.
Because, of course, THEY decide what is "anti-social behaviour", and
somehow screwing the world for private profit never is (according to
them).
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 God save us from other people's
"morals."
Certainly from yours; no poor man could survive a society based on
them.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (BTW, Roger, we don't disagree on
everyth=
ing.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I notice that in another post you wrote
t=
his:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "But of course this would not show that
(=
ancient
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 texts) are divinely inspired or indeed
co=
ntain
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 correct content."
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In this you are absolutely correct.
=A0As=
I have been
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 pointing out forever, there isn't a
scrap=
of credible
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 evidence that *anything* in either the
Ol=
d or New
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Testaments was divinely inspired or
conta=
in correct
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 content. =A0
I'm afraid that you misunderstood me, then, since I never asserted
this.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "The Bible, it seems certain, was the
wor=
k of
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 sand-strewn men and women who thought
the=
earth was
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would
hav=
e been a
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 breathtaking example of emerging
technolo=
gy." -Sam
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Harris
I am interested to learn that no-one who gets sand on them can
possibly have anything attractive to offer, according to this Sam
Harris. Presumably he never goes to the beach, then? I did like the
idea that God -- in his view -- only appears to people who have mobile
phones! What a cretin.
But all in all such a statement betrays a breathtaking provincialism
and a wilful ignorance possibly only to an uneducated fool, and Sam
Harris seems to be such a fool.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
