From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 22:25:10 -0600
----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"
> >It is noble for the young to question authority and to > >question assumptions. And as you get older you tend to be less patient > >with arguments you discarded long long ago. > > In essence, "that ship has sailed" for you. I understand completely, and ask > you to understand that it has left port for me as well. But I'm young you > say; how can that be? Well, I don't have biological age backing me up on > this one, but I feel like I've lived a hundred years. I've been to the stars > and back. I've lived past lives, and lives yet to come. I write, and have > written for as long as I could coherently put ideas together. And in that > writing is a pure journey of self discovery. I've solved the mysteries of > the Universe (you get my meaning, I'm sure) simply by transferring thoughts > to words. And in those words, those conversations with myself, I have > discovered certain things that I hold to be true. This has led me to adopt a > certain line of thinking, which I hold true to. A line of thinking where > anything and everything is disgarded if it doesn't hold some element of > apparant truth. Now I empathize with the fact that people en masse certainly > don't think this way. I also understand when people who supposedly have > "open minds" refuse to accept, or more accurately adopt, certain ways of > thinking. But I still find it amusing that I have to argue my point on some > of these issues. Of course I also admit the fact that I may be quite > delusional, but I refuse to believe it. Unless of course someone were to > prove it<lol>.
OK, what I see is that you are saying no matter what anyone says, you are right about whatever whimsy flits into your mind. What I want to know is how do you discern between truth and delusion, and how does this make you different from a garden variety egomaniac.
Correct me please if I am misunderstanding you.
Perhaps in many ways I am an egomaniac of the garden variety. Just to get a second opinion however, what do you think?
As for me being right all the time though, I think not. And I'm suprised you would use that against me, as you know the difference. Especially since I have tried time and again to illuminate my position.
> > In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good and evil > being an inherent part of our environment.
No one is really making that claim. What *is* being claimed is that good and evil are part of the human social landscape.
Well of course!!
I'm not just claiming that God doesn't exist, and looking towards the heavens and screaming my lungs out here. I'm not transfixed with trying to prove the non-existence of God. Good heavens man!
What I'm actually saying, in this particular context, is that regardless of what one says, believes, thinks etc... the concept of good and evil hearkens back to some fundamental belief in God.
Indubitably, good & evil are part of our social landscape. As is the concept of God. But no matter how one looks at it, good & evil in whatever variant may be dreamed up, has at the very least some fundamental premise, planted firmly in the belief of God.
You wouldn't try to claim that Dean Corril was a really nice guy when he wasn't killing and raping little boys would you?
He may have been. I don't know.
How about Hitler? Bad man, sure. But being Human, do you think he didn't have the capacity for love? For compassion?
Lets look at what's backstage, behind the curtain. Too often we are content to stare at the stage.
Or that Bob Hope was a complete bastard except when he was entertaining the troops?
I had no idea that Bob was born out of wedlock. That bastard...
There is evil loose in the world.
"Blood is freedom stained"
> >So I hope you can forgive > >us "old folks" for our impatience with your anti-authoritarianism.<G> > >Especially since we do not offer authority. We offer our experience, > >which I don't expect you to have any more appreciation for than we did > >when we were young. > >(It pains me to find myself preaching like an old fart)<G> > > There is nothing to forgive, friend. And quite apart from your expectations, > I do appreciate your experience. More so perhaps, than you may know. I > simply don't agree with you. > > And as for my "anti-authoritarianism", I think you have it all wrong. It's > just a by-product of me making the argument that I make. Of course I come at > this list with all the angst that is only proper in a hooligan of my age, > but I don't think it interferes with my ability to think rationally. >
I agree. But I disagree with your hypothesis.
What?
> > > > >While > > > your first paragraph, being quite anthropological, is relevant, one > >still > > > needs some abstract concept of God. It's what it all hearkens back > >to, and I > > > reject that. > > > >Let me spell my meaning more plainly. > > > >Morality does not prove the existence of "God". > >But the same basic morality espoused by religion is actually a set of > >self-evident rules for social, sentient beings. > > You spout mundane truths.
Mundane truths are the most eternal truths. Exotic truths would be the most fleeting. (Or most limited in scope) Would you prefer to restate this somehow?
Actually, no.
> But one thing that stands out when religion is embedded in ANY discussion, > is some abstract concept of God. Regardless of the circumstances, God > factors in. Now I understand where you are coming from, but due to the fact > of divine presence being present in any semblance of religion, and you > saying what you are saying...well it renders the very use of the word > "religion" a complete joke. >
I have to reject that. It sounds like you are saying that the slightest mention of "God", even tangentally, invalidates any argument. I would think that patently untrue.
In no way, shape, or form am I saying that. What I meant was that, based on what you said, the "slightest mention of "God", even tangentally, invalidates any argument."
I'm not out to disprove God or religion. I just think it obscures some issues, due to people reverting back into religiously dogmatic thinking. Whether they know it or not.
I know I could be crucified for saying this but, .............. The existence of "God" may be an irrelevant argument because no answer to that question will change the reality we find ourselves in.
The above statement does not speak to the reality/nonreality of "God". But it does say that in either regard we are still bound to the laws of the physical universe, and that in either case in social situations we are still bound by morality in its contemporaneous form because it is our nature to be social.
Oh you clever dog you. The above statement is your best yet. It may also be your worst. Such an observation as you have made is perhaps more truthful than the argument for or against God as a real being or as a concept. But in stating that Robert, you have supplanted your own argument against me, in favor of your own truth. And before you immediately throw your guard up over my own statement here, I encourage you to truly think about the above words.
-Travis
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
