"Dannan DeCrete" (Michael Edward Rippie) wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 09:15:37 +0100, Martin Willett
> wrote:
>> god = a deity
>> God = a particular deity.
>
> Like I said, "if you want to call your particular deity,
> Mr. Morality that is not a problem.
You obviously find the concept too hard to grasp. I'll try it more
slowly:
I don't believe in gods, any of them, yours is special only to you.
Morality has nothing to do with gods. My morality is my morality, it
is not
my religion as I haven't got one and it is certainly not your religion
in denial.
>>
>> Spelling the word god as God is a typical Christian trick to try to
>> hijack theology and philosophy.
>
> I refer to my deity as "The Force" or spirit. Watch out
> though it might be a trick.
You also refer to it as God, by implication the only true deity, given
a capital letter either because of his special status or because God
is his name.
>
>>>> Love is real Michael, it can be demonstrated.
>>>
>>> If you wish to demonstrate love you will be demonstrating
>>> The spirit of God.
>>
>> That's just bullshit. There is a rational explanation for love, you
>> may be too stupid to understand it but that says nothing new.
>
> Love is the emotion we get when we "Decide" to forgive in advance
> all the mistakes a person is going to make in life. God can do
> no less. You can't fall, in love or stop loving what you once loved.
> If you can, then you never loved them to begin with.
> Love generates Compassion and compassion is a dictator even unto
> God.
> If you wish to demonstrate love you will be demonstrating
> The spirit of God.
Crap Michael. Your analysis of love in a human context isn't that far
off the mark. But ascribing that sentiment to a being that wasn't
brought up in a human family is absurd. Love is a sophisticated high
level mental strategy that has only developed in sophisticated
intelligent social animals with a strong sense of a self. Imagining
such feelings in a disembodied entity that exists before time, space
and matter exists is just as absurd as imagining this hypothetical
entity would have either the wisdom or the desire to create a
universe.
>>
>> Another thing Michael, answer under your own name or butt out.
>
> Your butt is out there alright and everyone seams to be
> spanking it for you. Reminds me of the bear that kept
> screwing the hunter who came to kill him. On the third
> time the bear whispered in the hunters ear, " You don't
> really come here for the hunting, do you."
>
> Still think everyone is Michael do you? What makes you
> think that?
Because, Michael, when I talk to Michael, you reply, pretending to be
somebody else. That's why, Michael. You are doing again, aren't you
Michael?
>>
>>>
>>>> Love is not "something spiritual" it is a behaviour pattern
>>>> that enables us to make commitments to people which seem to defy
>>>> simple logic but have a higher order logic to them.
>>>
>>> What name do you wish to call your higher order?
>>
>> Calling one a higher level has
>> precisely bugger all to do with gods.
>
> English, you know bugger all about what you speak. You may
> impress yourself but what you really need is a snot rag.
>
>>> A single man can have 25 or 30 children with women
>>> who are married to men that support them and the
>>> children.
>>
>> Most men who try that are dead before they reach 25. (Years, not
>> children)
>
> Don't know much about women either I see. And your morals
> are out the window when you start killing men and maybe
> your wife for having sex while you were at work.
Which planet are you on now Michael? Killing a person for adultery is
a crime and is punishable. It isn't a crime to say that you cannot
guarantee what you will do if you witness your wife in an act of
adultery, it isn't immoral either.
>
>>>> and if she did not commit to one man she would not
>>>> get a partner either.
>>>
>>> The ugliest woman in the world has no trouble getting sex
>>> or children or finding a man to give her money.
>>
>> Shame on you. Haven't you read Exodus 20:12?
>
Obviously not or else you would have spotted the fact that I was
implying that yo' momma was the ugliest woman in the world who has no
trouble getting sex or children or finding men to give her money. A
cheap shot? Sure. But you've been taking enough of them and at least
this one had a bit of subtlety to it, too much as it turned out.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
