Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable, especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
The book is _Grey_Eminence_, a biography of the priest Joseph Ezéchiely . The year is 1620.
The rest of what you see in this post is taken from pp. 122 -123 of the 1941 edition.
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The book is _Grey_Eminence_, a biography of the priest Joseph Ezéchiely . The year is 1620.
The rest of what you see in this post is taken from pp. 122 -123 of the 1941 edition.
In the engagement at Pont-de-Cé, royal forces won a decisive victory. As a kind of consolation prize and to reinforce their loyalty, Marie de Medicis gave orders that her infantry should be permitte to sack the town of Angers before retiring furthersouth. Father Joseph, who was in the neighborhood, heard of this and immediately demanded an audience of the Queen. This time the friar's "infinite dexterity with the nobility" gave place to prophethic eloquence. Standing before the Queen, he told her
The doctrine of hell fire was not entirely mischievous in its effects. On occasions like the present, for example, it could do excellent service. A stupid, obstinate, heartless creature, like Marie de Medicis, would have been deaf to any appeal to thehigher feelings she did not possess, or possessed only in a condition so latent that it would have taken the greatest saint a very long time to bring them into actuality.
But the Queen cared intensely for herself, and she believed without doubt or question in the physical reality of hell. Thunderously harping on that portentuous theme, Ezéchiely was able to put the fear of God in her. She recalled the order she hadgiven; Angers was not sacked.
Thanks to a kind of intellectual "progress," the rulers of the modern world no longer believe that they will be tortured everlastingly, if they are wicked. The eschatological sanction, which was one of the principal weapons in the hands of the prophetsof past times, has disappeared. This would not matter, if moral had kept pace with intellecual "progress." But it has not. Twentieth-century rulers behave just as vilely and ruthlessly as did rulers in the seventeenth or any other century. But unlike
On 8/2/23 5:57 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, >> one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need >> to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. >> I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The book is _Grey_Eminence_, a biography of the priest Joseph Ezéchiely . The year is 1620.
The rest of what you see in this post is taken from pp. 122 -123 of the 1941 edition.
south. Father Joseph, who was in the neighborhood, heard of this and immediately demanded an audience of the Queen. This time the friar's "infinite dexterity with the nobility" gave place to prophethic eloquence. Standing before the Queen, he told herIn the engagement at Pont-de-Cé, royal forces won a decisive victory. As a kind of consolation prize and to reinforce their loyalty, Marie de Medicis gave orders that her infantry should be permitte to sack the town of Angers before retiring further
the higher feelings she did not possess, or possessed only in a condition so latent that it would have taken the greatest saint a very long time to bring them into actuality.The doctrine of hell fire was not entirely mischievous in its effects. On occasions like the present, for example, it could do excellent service. A stupid, obstinate, heartless creature, like Marie de Medicis, would have been deaf to any appeal to
given; Angers was not sacked.But the Queen cared intensely for herself, and she believed without doubt or question in the physical reality of hell. Thunderously harping on that portentuous theme, Ezéchiely was able to put the fear of God in her. She recalled the order she had
prophets of past times, has disappeared. This would not matter, if moral had kept pace with intellecual "progress." But it has not. Twentieth-century rulers behave just as vilely and ruthlessly as did rulers in the seventeenth or any other century. ButThanks to a kind of intellectual "progress," the rulers of the modern world no longer believe that they will be tortured everlastingly, if they are wicked. The eschatological sanction, which was one of the principal weapons in the hands of the
You seem to have wandered from your original topic. You started by
talking (or hinting at future discussions) about reasons to entertain
the possibility of an afterlife. But now you change to reasons why other people, specifically evil leaders, should entertain that possibility.
Further, the facts don't seem to bear out the general benefits of
believing in hell. Despite one anecdote about Marie de Medici, the evil
done by Christians doesn't seem to differ much from the evil done by atheists. Belief in hell can even spark evil, as in the Inquisition's
quest to save peple from Hell by torturing and/or killing them.
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable, especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Peter Nyikos
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable, especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all
places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Peter Nyikos
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 4:41:01 AM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:south. Father Joseph, who was in the neighborhood, heard of this and immediately demanded an audience of the Queen. This time the friar's "infinite dexterity with the nobility" gave place to prophethic eloquence. Standing before the Queen, he told her
On 8/2/23 5:57 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, >>>> one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need >>>> to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. >>>> I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The book is _Grey_Eminence_, a biography of the priest Joseph Ezéchiely . The year is 1620.
The rest of what you see in this post is taken from pp. 122 -123 of the 1941 edition.
In the engagement at Pont-de-Cé, royal forces won a decisive victory. As a kind of consolation prize and to reinforce their loyalty, Marie de Medicis gave orders that her infantry should be permitte to sack the town of Angers before retiring further
the higher feelings she did not possess, or possessed only in a condition so latent that it would have taken the greatest saint a very long time to bring them into actuality.
The doctrine of hell fire was not entirely mischievous in its effects. On occasions like the present, for example, it could do excellent service. A stupid, obstinate, heartless creature, like Marie de Medicis, would have been deaf to any appeal to
given; Angers was not sacked.
But the Queen cared intensely for herself, and she believed without doubt or question in the physical reality of hell. Thunderously harping on that portentuous theme, Ezéchiely was able to put the fear of God in her. She recalled the order she had
prophets of past times, has disappeared. This would not matter, if moral had kept pace with intellecual "progress." But it has not. Twentieth-century rulers behave just as vilely and ruthlessly as did rulers in the seventeenth or any other century. But
Thanks to a kind of intellectual "progress," the rulers of the modern world no longer believe that they will be tortured everlastingly, if they are wicked. The eschatological sanction, which was one of the principal weapons in the hands of the
You seem to have wandered from your original topic. You started by
talking (or hinting at future discussions) about reasons to entertain
the possibility of an afterlife. But now you change to reasons why other
people, specifically evil leaders, should entertain that possibility.
Further, the facts don't seem to bear out the general benefits of
believing in hell. Despite one anecdote about Marie de Medici, the evil
done by Christians doesn't seem to differ much from the evil done by
atheists. Belief in hell can even spark evil, as in the Inquisition's
quest to save peple from Hell by torturing and/or killing them.
It's for lots of reasons such an odd example to use, especially in
a TO context. The background of the siege of Angers are the French
religious wars. Marie's policy was one of internal tolerance - one of the first things she did after her husband had been murdered by a catholic fanatic had been to reconfirm his Edict of Nantes that gave Huguenots
some protection, but combined in foreign policy with alignment with
the catholic Habsburgs, advocating in particular for peace with Spain.
The opposition, which later would be joined by her former protégé
Richelieu and his ally François Leclerc du Tremblay, a.k.a Father Joseph, a.k.a. the "Grey Eminence" , preferred war with Spain. Richelieu's motive
was to strengthen the French nation state, but Father Joseph seems to
have been motivated by his desire to lead a new crusade against the
Ottomans, and thought the Habsburg dynasty stood in its way. Sacking
of cities at the time was a standard means to prevent one's soldiers from mutiny, and was used by him and Richelieu just as much as anyone else -
and one can imagine the carnage that a new crusade would have brought.
So you could as well argue that without religion, the conflict that put Angers
in danger might not have happened in the first place. And Joseph just
wants to save Angers to have more young men to put in uniform
and throw against the Muslims.
Which is sort of Huxley's point in the book, even if it doesn't become clear in
this passage. He contrasts "good religion" which for him is pure
mystic experience, free from any form of dogma, or theology, from "bad religion" which is any form of systems of belief statements - T. S Eliot would
accuse him of "canned Buddhism". The Richelieu-Joseph axis are not the heroes of the book. Rather, it shows Josephs how his initial pure mysticism gets corrupted under the influence of the catholic mainstream Richelieu and turns
into the type of dogmatism that led not only to the thirty year's war and the French
religious war, but according to Huxley laid the foundations of all the atrocities of
the 20th century too, which he saw as a continuation of the religious wars.
By the same token, while Joseph was one of the good mystical Christians, he'd have
rejected natural theology and creationism, and embraced it only after he became one
of the bad, rational Christians.
As an aside, a bit disappointing how Huxley perpetuates the romanticists propaganda
against Marie, whose main fault was that a) she was a strong woman who did not take shit
from weak men, including the constant public affairs of her husband and b) a foreigner,
and you know you can't trust them foreign pasta-eaters and their foreign ways.
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:01:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
snip
The book is _Grey_Eminence_, a biography of the priest Joseph Ezéchiely . The year is 1620.snip cut and paste of run-on line length.
The rest of what you see in this post is taken from pp. 122 -123 of the 1941 edition.
Synopsis: Father Joseph threatens Marie de Medicis with the eternal suffering
of hell if she allows her troops to sack the city of Angers. Out of fear, she reverses
an order to let them sack the city. See how great the fear of hell is!
Retort:
How many abominations have been carried out because of a promise of
an eternal reward for killing in the name of god? Bring out the royal scales, and
see who weighs more than a duck.
On 8/3/23 1:21 AM, Burkhard wrote:further south. Father Joseph, who was in the neighborhood, heard of this and immediately demanded an audience of the Queen. This time the friar's "infinite dexterity with the nobility" gave place to prophethic eloquence. Standing before the Queen, he
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 4:41:01 AM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/2/23 5:57 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, >>>> one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom >>>> has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need >>>> to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable, >>>> especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The book is _Grey_Eminence_, a biography of the priest Joseph Ezéchiely . The year is 1620.
The rest of what you see in this post is taken from pp. 122 -123 of the 1941 edition.
In the engagement at Pont-de-Cé, royal forces won a decisive victory. As a kind of consolation prize and to reinforce their loyalty, Marie de Medicis gave orders that her infantry should be permitte to sack the town of Angers before retiring
the higher feelings she did not possess, or possessed only in a condition so latent that it would have taken the greatest saint a very long time to bring them into actuality.
The doctrine of hell fire was not entirely mischievous in its effects. On occasions like the present, for example, it could do excellent service. A stupid, obstinate, heartless creature, like Marie de Medicis, would have been deaf to any appeal to
given; Angers was not sacked.
But the Queen cared intensely for herself, and she believed without doubt or question in the physical reality of hell. Thunderously harping on that portentuous theme, Ezéchiely was able to put the fear of God in her. She recalled the order she had
prophets of past times, has disappeared. This would not matter, if moral had kept pace with intellecual "progress." But it has not. Twentieth-century rulers behave just as vilely and ruthlessly as did rulers in the seventeenth or any other century. But
Thanks to a kind of intellectual "progress," the rulers of the modern world no longer believe that they will be tortured everlastingly, if they are wicked. The eschatological sanction, which was one of the principal weapons in the hands of the
You seem to have wandered from your original topic. You started by
talking (or hinting at future discussions) about reasons to entertain
the possibility of an afterlife. But now you change to reasons why other >> people, specifically evil leaders, should entertain that possibility.
Further, the facts don't seem to bear out the general benefits of
believing in hell. Despite one anecdote about Marie de Medici, the evil >> done by Christians doesn't seem to differ much from the evil done by
atheists. Belief in hell can even spark evil, as in the Inquisition's
quest to save peple from Hell by torturing and/or killing them.
It's for lots of reasons such an odd example to use, especially in
a TO context. The background of the siege of Angers are the French religious wars. Marie's policy was one of internal tolerance - one of the first things she did after her husband had been murdered by a catholic fanatic had been to reconfirm his Edict of Nantes that gave Huguenots
some protection, but combined in foreign policy with alignment with
the catholic Habsburgs, advocating in particular for peace with Spain.
The opposition, which later would be joined by her former protégé Richelieu and his ally François Leclerc du Tremblay, a.k.a Father Joseph, a.k.a. the "Grey Eminence" , preferred war with Spain. Richelieu's motive was to strengthen the French nation state, but Father Joseph seems to
have been motivated by his desire to lead a new crusade against the Ottomans, and thought the Habsburg dynasty stood in its way. Sacking
of cities at the time was a standard means to prevent one's soldiers from mutiny, and was used by him and Richelieu just as much as anyone else - and one can imagine the carnage that a new crusade would have brought.
So you could as well argue that without religion, the conflict that put Angers
in danger might not have happened in the first place. And Joseph just wants to save Angers to have more young men to put in uniform
and throw against the Muslims.
Which is sort of Huxley's point in the book, even if it doesn't become clear in
this passage. He contrasts "good religion" which for him is pure
mystic experience, free from any form of dogma, or theology, from "bad religion" which is any form of systems of belief statements - T. S Eliot would
accuse him of "canned Buddhism". The Richelieu-Joseph axis are not the heroes of the book. Rather, it shows Josephs how his initial pure mysticism
gets corrupted under the influence of the catholic mainstream Richelieu and turns
into the type of dogmatism that led not only to the thirty year's war and the French
religious war, but according to Huxley laid the foundations of all the atrocities of
the 20th century too, which he saw as a continuation of the religious wars.
By the same token, while Joseph was one of the good mystical Christians, he'd have
rejected natural theology and creationism, and embraced it only after he became one
of the bad, rational Christians.
As an aside, a bit disappointing how Huxley perpetuates the romanticists propaganda
against Marie, whose main fault was that a) she was a strong woman who did not take shit
from weak men, including the constant public affairs of her husband and b) a foreigner,
and you know you can't trust them foreign pasta-eaters and their foreign ways.
My understanding is that the Italian cooks she brought with her were the beginning of "French" cooking. Of course that has nothing to do with the topic, but in my defense all this about Marie de Medici has nothing to
do with the topic from the very beginning. If you recall, the topic was supposedly why we should take the possibility of an afterlife seriously.
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 11:46:01 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:01:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
snip
Why did you snip the specifics? They directly relate to the example I gave. I said:
"one where a person's experience depends at least in part on what one has done in this life."
I will be using this very statement below.
The book is _Grey_Eminence_, a biography of the priest Joseph Ezéchiely . The year is 1620.snip cut and paste of run-on line length.
The rest of what you see in this post is taken from pp. 122 -123 of the 1941 edition.
I chose this historical illustration of Voltaire's famous dictum [which you also snipped]
because it is a literary gem. Nothing I've seen in talk.origins [my own writing included, of course]
comes close to Aldous Huxley's masterly command of prose.
Synopsis: Father Joseph threatens Marie de Medicis with the eternal suffering
of hell if she allows her troops to sack the city of Angers. Out of fear, she reverses
an order to let them sack the city. See how great the fear of hell is!
Your last sentence is the sound of one hand clapping,
because you left out Huxley's lesson for our times, which were his times already.
In his own words:
"Thanks to a kind of intellectual `progress,' the rulers of the modern world no longer believe that they will be tortured everlastingly, if they are wicked. The eschatological sanction, which was one of the principal weapons in the hands of theprophets of past times, has disappeared. This would not matter, if moral had kept pace with intellectual `progress.' But it has not. Twentieth-century rulers behave just as vilely and ruthlessly as did rulers in the seventeenth or any other century. But
I believe every participant of talk.origins enjoys "the advantages of a modern education,"
and I believe none of us lies "awake at nights wondering" whether they will suffer eternal hellfire.
The enormous differences between us pertain to the one you snipped:
"[An afterlife] where a person's experience depends at least in part on what one has done in this life."
It would be interesting to know: (1) how many participants disbelieve in such a thing and
(2) how many take this possibility seriously and (3) among these, what their thoughts on this are.
In re (3), I hope that any afterlife will be similar to that depicted in CS Lewis's _The_Great_Divorce_,
where there is a heaven of happiness, but to get to it, one must first get over
an attachment to any vices they may have.
Retort:
As a retort to Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him," snipped by you, it is also the sound of one hand clapping, because ... I think you can figure out why.
How many abominations have been carried out because of a promise of
an eternal reward for killing in the name of god? Bring out the royal scales, and
see who weighs more than a duck.
Mao Zedong weighed a lot more than a duck, and I don't mean literally.
He is credited with responsibility for the deaths of 65 million in the following webpage:
https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/the-legacy-mao-zedong-mass-murder
There is no hint anywhere in the Wikipedia entry on him that he had any religion,
unless you count Marxism-Leninsm as a religion, or any belief in an afterlife.
Peter Nyikos
PS Are you enough of a leftist to put Mao in the same idealized category that
millions of leftists (and naive people influenced by their fervor) put Che Guevara?
On 8/2/23 5:57 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, >> one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need >> to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. >> I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The book is _Grey_Eminence_, a biography of the priest Joseph Ezéchiely . The year is 1620.
The rest of what you see in this post is taken from pp. 122 -123 of the 1941 edition.
south. Father Joseph, who was in the neighborhood, heard of this and immediately demanded an audience of the Queen. This time the friar's "infinite dexterity with the nobility" gave place to prophethic eloquence. Standing before the Queen, he told herIn the engagement at Pont-de-Cé, royal forces won a decisive victory. As a kind of consolation prize and to reinforce their loyalty, Marie de Medicis gave orders that her infantry should be permitte to sack the town of Angers before retiring further
the higher feelings she did not possess, or possessed only in a condition so latent that it would have taken the greatest saint a very long time to bring them into actuality.The doctrine of hell fire was not entirely mischievous in its effects. On occasions like the present, for example, it could do excellent service. A stupid, obstinate, heartless creature, like Marie de Medicis, would have been deaf to any appeal to
given; Angers was not sacked.But the Queen cared intensely for herself, and she believed without doubt or question in the physical reality of hell. Thunderously harping on that portentuous theme, Ezéchiely was able to put the fear of God in her. She recalled the order she had
prophets of past times, has disappeared. This would not matter, if moral had kept pace with intellecual "progress." But it has not. Twentieth-century rulers behave just as vilely and ruthlessly as did rulers in the seventeenth or any other century. ButThanks to a kind of intellectual "progress," the rulers of the modern world no longer believe that they will be tortured everlastingly, if they are wicked. The eschatological sanction, which was one of the principal weapons in the hands of the
You seem to have wandered from your original topic. You started by
talking (or hinting at future discussions) about reasons to entertain
the possibility of an afterlife. But now you change to reasons why other people, specifically evil leaders, should entertain that possibility.
Further, the facts don't seem to bear out the general benefits of
believing in hell. Despite one anecdote about Marie de Medici, the evil
done by Christians doesn't seem to differ much from the evil done by atheists. Belief in hell can even spark evil, as in the Inquisition's
quest to save peple from Hell by torturing and/or killing them.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:46:01 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:further south. Father Joseph, who was in the neighborhood, heard of this and immediately demanded an audience of the Queen. This time the friar's "infinite dexterity with the nobility" gave place to prophethic eloquence. Standing before the Queen, he
On 8/3/23 1:21 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 4:41:01 AM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/2/23 5:57 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, >>>>>> one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom >>>>>> has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need >>>>>> to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable, >>>>>> especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The book is _Grey_Eminence_, a biography of the priest Joseph Ezéchiely . The year is 1620.
The rest of what you see in this post is taken from pp. 122 -123 of the 1941 edition.
In the engagement at Pont-de-Cé, royal forces won a decisive victory. As a kind of consolation prize and to reinforce their loyalty, Marie de Medicis gave orders that her infantry should be permitte to sack the town of Angers before retiring
the higher feelings she did not possess, or possessed only in a condition so latent that it would have taken the greatest saint a very long time to bring them into actuality.
The doctrine of hell fire was not entirely mischievous in its effects. On occasions like the present, for example, it could do excellent service. A stupid, obstinate, heartless creature, like Marie de Medicis, would have been deaf to any appeal to
given; Angers was not sacked.
But the Queen cared intensely for herself, and she believed without doubt or question in the physical reality of hell. Thunderously harping on that portentuous theme, Ezéchiely was able to put the fear of God in her. She recalled the order she had
prophets of past times, has disappeared. This would not matter, if moral had kept pace with intellecual "progress." But it has not. Twentieth-century rulers behave just as vilely and ruthlessly as did rulers in the seventeenth or any other century. But
Thanks to a kind of intellectual "progress," the rulers of the modern world no longer believe that they will be tortured everlastingly, if they are wicked. The eschatological sanction, which was one of the principal weapons in the hands of the
My understanding is that the Italian cooks she brought with her were theYou seem to have wandered from your original topic. You started by
talking (or hinting at future discussions) about reasons to entertain
the possibility of an afterlife. But now you change to reasons why other >>>> people, specifically evil leaders, should entertain that possibility.
Further, the facts don't seem to bear out the general benefits of
believing in hell. Despite one anecdote about Marie de Medici, the evil >>>> done by Christians doesn't seem to differ much from the evil done by
atheists. Belief in hell can even spark evil, as in the Inquisition's
quest to save peple from Hell by torturing and/or killing them.
It's for lots of reasons such an odd example to use, especially in
a TO context. The background of the siege of Angers are the French
religious wars. Marie's policy was one of internal tolerance - one of the >>> first things she did after her husband had been murdered by a catholic
fanatic had been to reconfirm his Edict of Nantes that gave Huguenots
some protection, but combined in foreign policy with alignment with
the catholic Habsburgs, advocating in particular for peace with Spain.
The opposition, which later would be joined by her former protégé
Richelieu and his ally François Leclerc du Tremblay, a.k.a Father Joseph, >>> a.k.a. the "Grey Eminence" , preferred war with Spain. Richelieu's motive >>> was to strengthen the French nation state, but Father Joseph seems to
have been motivated by his desire to lead a new crusade against the
Ottomans, and thought the Habsburg dynasty stood in its way. Sacking
of cities at the time was a standard means to prevent one's soldiers from >>> mutiny, and was used by him and Richelieu just as much as anyone else -
and one can imagine the carnage that a new crusade would have brought.
So you could as well argue that without religion, the conflict that put Angers
in danger might not have happened in the first place. And Joseph just
wants to save Angers to have more young men to put in uniform
and throw against the Muslims.
Which is sort of Huxley's point in the book, even if it doesn't become clear in
this passage. He contrasts "good religion" which for him is pure
mystic experience, free from any form of dogma, or theology, from "bad
religion" which is any form of systems of belief statements - T. S Eliot would
accuse him of "canned Buddhism". The Richelieu-Joseph axis are not the
heroes of the book. Rather, it shows Josephs how his initial pure mysticism >>> gets corrupted under the influence of the catholic mainstream Richelieu and turns
into the type of dogmatism that led not only to the thirty year's war and the French
religious war, but according to Huxley laid the foundations of all the atrocities of
the 20th century too, which he saw as a continuation of the religious wars. >>>
By the same token, while Joseph was one of the good mystical Christians, he'd have
rejected natural theology and creationism, and embraced it only after he became one
of the bad, rational Christians.
As an aside, a bit disappointing how Huxley perpetuates the romanticists propaganda
against Marie, whose main fault was that a) she was a strong woman who did not take shit
from weak men, including the constant public affairs of her husband and b) a foreigner,
and you know you can't trust them foreign pasta-eaters and their foreign ways.
beginning of "French" cooking. Of course that has nothing to do with the
topic, but in my defense all this about Marie de Medici has nothing to
do with the topic from the very beginning. If you recall, the topic was
supposedly why we should take the possibility of an afterlife seriously.
There is a kernel of truth in what thou speakest, but only a kernel, small like a
fennel seed, which also originates in Italy but became common in France during the reign of Charlemagne, who ordered its cultivation by law.
It is Catherine, not Marie de Medici who has been often seen as the historical
conduit that introduced Italian cuisine to France. But more recent research considers
this largely a myth.
I refer my learned friend to the authoritative study by Barbara Wheaton:
( Savoring the Past: The French Kitchen and Table from 1300 to 1789):
"“This theory is wrong on two counts: French haute cuisine did not appear
until a century later and then showed little Italian influence; and there is no
evidence that Catherine’s cooks had any impact on French cooking in the early
sixteenth century. Indeed, French sixteenth-century cooking was very conservative
and in general continued the medieval traditions.”
Now, that is where Marie de Medici comes in. Her cook was François Pierre La Varenne,
whose cook books (esp. Le Cuisinier françois) laid the foundations of the modern
haute cuisine. It is still in print today, and apart from being the first place where you
find classics such as sauce hollandaise, Mille-feuille, Roux and Béchamel. He was both
an innovator and someone who codified the massive innovation that had taken place
in French cooking. Many of the technical terms we use today also go back to his books,
such as Bouquet garni, Bisque or "bleu" (for fish)
There is some borrowing from Italia cuisine, but overall rather limited.
As for the relation to the topic, verily, did not Esau sell his birthright for a mess of pottage
(or maybe a pot of message) , which surely must have been cooked with the French recipe
(I myself use this one https://www.pardonyourfrench.com/classic-french-lentil-soup/ make
sure you use Puy lentils from the Puy region of France, otherwise it's just sparking lentil stew)
One part of this is the so-called "Hellfire debate", a term coined by the criminologist
Hirschi. I posted about this quite a while ago here: >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/LsfxvUYQARc/m/kLR1FIoeK1IJ
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:54:23 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
<snip for focus>
One part of this is the so-called "Hellfire debate", a term coined by the criminologistThe following has nothing whatever to do with topic under discussion. Instead, I post a personal request to you. Would you please post a
Hirschi. I posted about this quite a while ago here: >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/LsfxvUYQARc/m/kLR1FIoeK1IJ
Usenet message-ID along with your GG URLs? GG sometimes shows other
messages besides the one you have in mind, and sometimes doesn't even
show that message, leaving readers to guess which message you're
talking about.
GG used to have an option to "show original message", which included
the Usenet headers. But for the past several months, that option has
been greyed out/inactivated. As a registered GG user, I hope your
interface provides you with the means to conveniently extract the
relevant Usenet ID, which in any case is the appropriate medium of
exchange for Usenet messages.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 8:01:02?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:54:23 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
<snip for focus>
One part of this is the so-called "Hellfire debate", a term coined by the criminologistThe following has nothing whatever to do with topic under discussion.
Hirschi. I posted about this quite a while ago here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/LsfxvUYQARc/m/kLR1FIoeK1IJ
Instead, I post a personal request to you. Would you please post a
Usenet message-ID along with your GG URLs? GG sometimes shows other
messages besides the one you have in mind, and sometimes doesn't even
show that message, leaving readers to guess which message you're
talking about.
GG used to have an option to "show original message", which included
the Usenet headers. But for the past several months, that option has
been greyed out/inactivated. As a registered GG user, I hope your
interface provides you with the means to conveniently extract the
relevant Usenet ID, which in any case is the appropriate medium of
exchange for Usenet messages.
I'm afraid that GG option is also for me greyed out,
and I haven't found another way yet to retrieve the
Usenet ID - tried forward and reply, no dice
I'd very much prefer to use Usenet again, but after my third newsreader >stoped talking to TO pretty much gave up on it - TO is the last of my
groups still alive, and it seemed not worth the hassle.
If you can think of an easy way to find both IDs, happy to oblige...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 12:30:31 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 8:01:02?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:54:23 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
<snip for focus>
One part of this is the so-called "Hellfire debate", a term coined by the criminologist
Hirschi. I posted about this quite a while ago here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/LsfxvUYQARc/m/kLR1FIoeK1IJ
The following has nothing whatever to do with topic under discussion.
Instead, I post a personal request to you. Would you please post a
Usenet message-ID along with your GG URLs? GG sometimes shows other
messages besides the one you have in mind, and sometimes doesn't even
show that message, leaving readers to guess which message you're
talking about.
GG used to have an option to "show original message", which included
the Usenet headers. But for the past several months, that option has
been greyed out/inactivated.
As a registered GG user, I hope your
interface provides you with the means to conveniently extract the
relevant Usenet ID, which in any case is the appropriate medium of
exchange for Usenet messages.
I'm afraid that GG option is also for me greyed out,
and I haven't found another way yet to retrieve the
Usenet ID - tried forward and reply, no dice
I'd very much prefer to use Usenet again, but after my third newsreader >stoped talking to TO pretty much gave up on it - TO is the last of my >groups still alive, and it seemed not worth the hassle.
If you can think of an easy way to find both IDs, happy to oblige...
I understand. Like evolution, progress doesn't always follow a
straight line. One can only hope GG will start fixing things that are
broke and stop fixing things that aren't.
One question, though: why don't you tell how to access TO on the newsreader/netserver you use?
You keep providing us with Message-IDs that you can apparently access but which
are useless to us GG users.
Is Burkhard referring to the Message-ID? Loss of access to that
forces me to add to every use of an url the date and time,
and Subject line. That's because of what the folks in charge of Wikipedia call "url rot." A horrible example: when netscape got picked up by another company,
almost all Netscape urls became instantly worthless.
And to think that, once, I thought "Netscape" was synonymous with the part of the internet
that was accessible to the public!
On 2023-08-03 18:13, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
One question, though: why don't you tell how to access TO on the newsreader/netserver you use?
You keep providing us with Message-IDs that you can apparently access but which
are useless to us GG users.
You can lookup messages by message ID at:
http://al.howardknight.net
(make sure you include the angle brackets)
André
Looks like I, who use GG exclusively to access t.o., need to step in here >despite the way it dilutes this thread even further than it has
already been diluted in sundry ways.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:51:02?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 12:30:31 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 8:01:02?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:54:23 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
<snip for focus>
One part of this is the so-called "Hellfire debate", a term coined by the criminologist
Hirschi. I posted about this quite a while ago here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/LsfxvUYQARc/m/kLR1FIoeK1IJ
The following has nothing whatever to do with topic under discussion.
Instead, I post a personal request to you. Would you please post a
Usenet message-ID along with your GG URLs? GG sometimes shows other
messages besides the one you have in mind, and sometimes doesn't even
show that message, leaving readers to guess which message you're
talking about.
GG used to have an option to "show original message", which included
the Usenet headers. But for the past several months, that option has
been greyed out/inactivated.
Actually, that happened several years ago, when GG gave us the "New New Google groups."
In the outrageously false piece of advertising before they foisted it on us, >they claimed they were "keeping all your favorite features." Of course,
by "your" they meant "our".
They might have thought they were safeguarding people's privacy.
Instead, they made it impossible to track down where spam (and worse) was coming from,
and who was actually posting under an unfamiliar new nym.
As a registered GG user, I hope your
interface provides you with the means to conveniently extract the
relevant Usenet ID, which in any case is the appropriate medium of
exchange for Usenet messages.
Is Burkhard referring to the Message-ID?
Loss of access to that
forces me to add to every use of an url the date and time,
and Subject line. That's because of what the folks in charge of Wikipedia >call "url rot." A horrible example: when netscape got picked up by another company,
almost all Netscape urls became instantly worthless.
And to think that, once, I thought "Netscape" was synonymous with the part of the internet
that was accessible to the public!
I'm afraid that GG option is also for me greyed out,
and I haven't found another way yet to retrieve the
Usenet ID - tried forward and reply, no dice
I'd very much prefer to use Usenet again, but after my third newsreader
stoped talking to TO pretty much gave up on it - TO is the last of my
groups still alive, and it seemed not worth the hassle.
If you can think of an easy way to find both IDs, happy to oblige...
I understand. Like evolution, progress doesn't always follow a
straight line. One can only hope GG will start fixing things that are
broke and stop fixing things that aren't.
A forlorn hope, I fear. I shudder to think what unbroke things they will fix in
the New New New Google Groups. To paraphrase a toast in "Fiddler on the Roof": >may the good Lord keep it far, far from the present time!
One question, though: why don't you tell how to access TO on the newsreader/netserver you use?
You keep providing us with Message-IDs that you can apparently access but which
are useless to us GG users.
Peter Nyikos
PS Today, instead of a small window when I clicked on "Link' to get the url of a post,
I got a whole new tab for this. After a few moments of worry, I tested the url >on a new tab having nothing to do with that one, and it did take me to the right post.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Peter Nyikos
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:we dance to its music”). Rather contradictory then to talk about a problem of evil at all.
I had planned to post this late last evening, but I had too much trouble finding it,
so I'm posting it early in the morning. First, some context:
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all
places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
The url for it: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
Due to the length of the article, I'm only posting two excerpts:
Firstly, at the intellectual level, if there is no God then I agree with thinkers from Dostoyevsky to Dawkins who say that there is no such thing as evil (e.g. Dawkins’ famous statement: “there is no good…no evil… no justice…DNA just is and
Secondly, getting rid of God does not get rid of the suffering. In fact, it can make the pain worse since it gets rid of all ultimate hope and justice. Horgan denies this in his last sentence, but I still maintain he has no ultimate personal hope tooffer for anyone, including himself. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have suffered and not received justice in this life. Since, according to atheism, death is the end, then these people will never receive justice since there is no life
At the very least that shows me that God has not remained distant from human suffering but has become part of it. Furthermore, Christ rose from the dead, which is a guarantee that there is to be a future judgement. This is a marvellous hope, because itmeans that our conscience is not an illusion, and those who terrorise, abuse, exploit, defame and cause their fellow humans untold suffering will not get away with it. Atheism has no such hope--for it ultimate justice is an illusion.
Finally, none of us finds the idea of ultimate justice attractive because we are all flawed and have all messed up. The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me.Christianity competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution to my human problem.
Of course these are huge claims and demand evidence. I have tried to put some of that evidence together in Gunning for God. published by Kregel. Also see my website johnlennox.org.
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I had planned to post this late last evening, but I had too much trouble finding it,
so I'm posting it early in the morning. First, some context:
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about whatThe url for it: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Due to the length of the article, I'm only posting two excerpts:we dance to its music”). Rather contradictory then to talk about a problem of evil at all.
Firstly, at the intellectual level, if there is no God then I agree with thinkers from Dostoyevsky to Dawkins who say that there is no such thing as evil (e.g. Dawkins’ famous statement: “there is no good…no evil… no justice…DNA just is and
Secondly, getting rid of God does not get rid of the suffering. In fact, it can make the pain worse since it gets rid of all ultimate hope and justice. Horgan denies this in his last sentence, but I still maintain he has no ultimate personal hope tooffer for anyone, including himself. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have suffered and not received justice in this life. Since, according to atheism, death is the end, then these people will never receive justice since there is no life
...means that our conscience is not an illusion, and those who terrorise, abuse, exploit, defame and cause their fellow humans untold suffering will not get away with it. Atheism has no such hope--for it ultimate justice is an illusion.
At the very least that shows me that God has not remained distant from human suffering but has become part of it. Furthermore, Christ rose from the dead, which is a guarantee that there is to be a future judgement. This is a marvellous hope, because it
Finally, none of us finds the idea of ultimate justice attractive because we are all flawed and have all messed up.
The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me. Christianity >competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution to my humanproblem.
Of course these are huge claims and demand evidence. I have tried to put some of that evidence together in Gunning for God. published by Kregel. Also see my website johnlennox.org.
Peter Nyikos
On 8/4/23 4:33 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I had planned to post this late last evening, but I had too much trouble finding it,
so I'm posting it early in the morning. First, some context:
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. >> I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all
places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
we dance to its music”). Rather contradictory then to talk about a problem of evil at all.The url for it: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
Due to the length of the article, I'm only posting two excerpts:
Firstly, at the intellectual level, if there is no God then I agree with thinkers from Dostoyevsky to Dawkins who say that there is no such thing as evil (e.g. Dawkins’ famous statement: “there is no good…no evil… no justice…DNA just is and
Boy, Scientific American sure has gone downhill since the last time I
saw it. I remember that it used to have all these cool articles about science. And now it features jejune philosophy
that, bonus, is only
slightly relevant to the supposed topic, which if I recall was "taking
the possibility of an afterlife seriously".
Perhaps I misunderstood. I
thought it was supposed to be about a serious consideration of its plausibility,
but all it seems to be, surprisingly, is about whether it
would feel good to believe in it, or whether believing it would have a salutary effect on otherwise nasty people.
As for the claims above, I respond "Euthyphro", which is all that should
be necessary.
offer for anyone, including himself. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have suffered and not received justice in this life. Since, according to atheism, death is the end, then these people will never receive justice since there is no lifeSecondly, getting rid of God does not get rid of the suffering. In fact, it can make the pain worse since it gets rid of all ultimate hope and justice. Horgan denies this in his last sentence, but I still maintain he has no ultimate personal hope to
So the argument for an afterlife is that it would be nice if there were
one? That's taking it seriously? Seriously?
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:21:03 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 4:33 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I had planned to post this late last evening, but I had too much trouble finding it,
so I'm posting it early in the morning. First, some context:
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. >>>> I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all
places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
I don't know whether everyone has figured out whom I was referring to when I wrote in my OP,
"two outspoken atheists, one of whom has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need to grow out of;"
But I don't think I am giving away any big secrets when I say the one in the second claus was you, John.
we dance to its music”). Rather contradictory then to talk about a problem of evil at all.The url for it:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
Due to the length of the article, I'm only posting two excerpts:
Firstly, at the intellectual level, if there is no God then I agree with thinkers from Dostoyevsky to Dawkins who say that there is no such thing as evil (e.g. Dawkins’ famous statement: “there is no good…no evil… no justice…DNA just is and
You make no explicit response to what is written above, but your spiel
does suggest that you do agree with Dawkins.
Boy, Scientific American sure has gone downhill since the last time I
saw it. I remember that it used to have all these cool articles about
science. And now it features jejune philosophy
What's jejune about it? are you being smart-alecky again?
that, bonus, is only
slightly relevant to the supposed topic, which if I recall was "taking
the possibility of an afterlife seriously".
Since you are seldom really serious, you have some excuse for
that illogical-seeming comment, but I still need to see you
try to explain it before I take it seriously.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I
thought it was supposed to be about a serious consideration of its
plausibility,
Moving of goalposts from "possibility" to "plausibility," noted.
but all it seems to be, surprisingly, is about whether it
would feel good to believe in it, or whether believing it would have a
salutary effect on otherwise nasty people.
"seems to be" is consistent with your dismissal of the very
possibility of an afterlife as a fairy tale. You seem to be so steeped in that
dismissal that you come up with "surprisingly" for a very strained
take on what John Lennox wrote.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, believe it or not.
Would you like to see what my first impression of your last bit was?
As for the claims above, I respond "Euthyphro", which is all that should
be necessary.
Sorry, it's neither necessary nor sufficient. I did an essay for a philosophy class on Euthyphro,
and part of it went about like this:
Euthypro is commonly dismissed as a "blue-nose" and such in the commentaries I've read, but this ignores the significance of his action in punishing his father for his atrocious treatment of a slave.
Euthyphro has shown his compassion for a downtrodden victim, one of the "wretched of the earth",
as Franz Fanon put it.
If one of his disciples happens to browse through an anthology of Plato's dialogues (perhaps to look up some utopian passages in "The Republic"), we may yet live to see the ultimate vindication of poor Euthyphro.
[Ever since New New Google Groups subjected every line to left bias, with only
attribution marks as barriers, I use run-on lines to set quoted material apart,
where before I had indented it.]
offer for anyone, including himself. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have suffered and not received justice in this life. Since, according to atheism, death is the end, then these people will never receive justice since there is no lifeSecondly, getting rid of God does not get rid of the suffering. In fact, it can make the pain worse since it gets rid of all ultimate hope and justice. Horgan denies this in his last sentence, but I still maintain he has no ultimate personal hope to
So the argument for an afterlife is that it would be nice if there were
one? That's taking it seriously? Seriously?
Thanks for setting my mind at ease for what some might call "blowing your cover" -- otherwise,
some readers might be puzzled as to where you are coming from.
I have been appalled since pre-adolescence about the indescribable suffering of untold billions.
In early adolescence, I read what in some ways was the most searing account, _A_World_Apart_, by Gustav Herling. Another day I might quote a fine preface by Bertrand Russell, but I have a lot on my plate today, so I will just make a little
excerpt the Quote of the Day. The book is about the Soviet slave labor camps, and it far outdoes Sozhenitsyn's _Archipelag_Gulag_ in the intimate detail of one of them.
Remainder deleted, to be replied to today, or Monday at the latest, after
my usual weekend break from Usenet posting.
Peter Nyikos
QUOTE OF THE DAY
Although the effort is not easy, one should attempt, in reading such a book as this one,
to understand the circumstances that turn men into fiends, and to realize that
it is not by blind rage that such evils will be prevented. I do not say that to understand
is to pardon; there are things which for my part I cannot pardon. But I do say that
to understand is necessary if the spread of similar evils over the whole world is to be prevented.
-- from the preface by Bertrand Russell, O.M. to _A_World_Apart_.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:we dance to its music”). Rather contradictory then to talk about a problem of evil at all.
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I had planned to post this late last evening, but I had too much trouble finding it,
so I'm posting it early in the morning. First, some context:
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. >>> I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.The url for it:
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all
places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
Started to read it and found the re-warmed and utterly awful Plantinga argument
against the ToE. (what do you think is the chances of reproductive
success of someone who believes gravity is optional?)
I did mot give me much hope for the rest.
Due to the length of the article, I'm only posting two excerpts:
Firstly, at the intellectual level, if there is no God then I agree with thinkers from Dostoyevsky to Dawkins who say that there is no such thing as evil (e.g. Dawkins’ famous statement: “there is no good…no evil… no justice…DNA just is and
offer for anyone, including himself. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have suffered and not received justice in this life. Since, according to atheism, death is the end, then these people will never receive justice since there is no life
Secondly, getting rid of God does not get rid of the suffering. In fact, it can make the pain worse since it gets rid of all ultimate hope and justice. Horgan denies this in his last sentence, but I still maintain he has no ultimate personal hope to
Well, yes and no. First, as an argument for the afterlife it is, well, not much of an argument at all. It says essentially: it would be ever so niceit means that our conscience is not an illusion, and those who terrorise, abuse, exploit, defame and cause their fellow humans untold suffering will not get away with it. Atheism has no such hope--for it ultimate justice is an illusion.
to have an afterlife where the wicked can be punished and their victims rewarded.
But unless there is a hidden mayor premise of the form: "if something is nice it is
also true" this really does not fly.
Second, one can make the argument the other way round: as long as the promise of justice in an afterlife is dangled in front of people's noses, their motivation to change
things in this life are diminished. This is particularly true for crimes that are so big they
don't count as crimes: SO your employer works you to death in dangerous conditions for a
hunger wage? How wicked of him, rest assured he'll suffer for his greed once he is death,
while you'll have a whale of a time then. So really no need to unionise in this life, is there?
Seeing how short it will be, what with all the coal dust you've been inhaling ever since you
first went down the pit age 10....
Or as someone else has put it (slightly updated)
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and
a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart
of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the Aspirin of the people
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their
real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call
on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore,
in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
...
At the very least that shows me that God has not remained distant from human suffering but has become part of it. Furthermore, Christ rose from the dead, which is a guarantee that there is to be a future judgement. This is a marvellous hope, because
Maybe - but then better an imperfect justice in the hand than an "ultimate" justicehuman problem.
in the bush.
And is it even true? There are a number of "secular" theories of ultimate justice, going back
to Epicurus or Plato: there the evildoer "with necessity" harms himself, by failing to be
the person they could have been, and at. cost to his happiness.
There is also psychological basis for this - the "warm feeling": we get when doing good, the anxiety
when doing bad etc. It is at least not impossible to think of a world where the cost
of evil actions are intrinsically higher than any gain they can give to the perpetrator
Finally, none of us finds the idea of ultimate justice attractive because we are all flawed and have all messed up.
I'll find this extremely implausible - and before I get accused of having an overly cynical view of
human nature, I think I have the evidence from psychology and anthropology to back me up.
Humans just LOVE the idea of punishment for the wicked. They just divide immediately in their mind
the world in "the wicked" and "me, my friends, and the more agreeable members of my family".
Punishment happens in this view (mostly) to others, and we enjoy inflicting it, do we not just,
sometimes personally mostly in modernity vicariously, , sometimes consensually , mostly of
course not so.
That's why penal populism works, even in times when the objective data shows that crime is decreasing
and incarceration makes things worse. Sure, on one level people realise that "we are all poor
sinners" - which is why concepts such as purgatory play such an important role THEIR evil ways
require eternal hot pokers up the backsy, MY regrettable lack of judgement should get me probation,
or maybe 20 lashes at max. This way we "pay" for the satisfaction of inflicting pain on others with the risk
of a little pain for ourselves, AND can feel good and humble in the process too (...of course I too
am a sinner...) Hell, to misquote Sartre, is full of other people. And nobody thinks of
him/herself seriously as a baddy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
We see this in the penal institutions we create in this world: if people realised that the prison they
want to build, or the judicial torture, could one day be inflicted on them our prisons etc through
history would have looked very different. It's typically only the handful of penal abolitionists whose
empathetic reasoning makes them see themselves on the receiving end too.
This us vs them logic of punishment is well studied in the research on penal populism cf e.g.
classically Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing, If one
believes in evolutionary psychology, this may have evolutionary roots - I think the term is
"altruistic punishment" - opting for a system in which meeting out punishment even harms
the punisher
(I myself found Flesch: Comeuppance: Costly signaling, altruistic punishment,
and other biological components quite interesting )
That the "us vs them" logic is also central to divine punishment is particularly obvious when
we consider that more often than not, the most serious punishment is reserved for non-believers
for no other reason that they are non-believers. Indeed, for sola-fide Christians, any harm inflicted
on others during our lifetime is largely irrelevant, determinative for punishment is merely a state of
mind.
The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me. Christianity >competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution to my
Yes, and every member of every other religion will feel the same about theirs.
But also an interesting point on the substance. Is this really a vision
of justice that is plausible? Imagine being the victim of a terrible
crime - someone murdering one's family. now it comes to the trial,
and the judge says to the accused: "well, you did it, obviously, but you also really love me, so that's OK then, off you go."
I'd say most of us would be pissed off by that. Now, when complaining that the forgiveness stuff should have been our to give (cf e.g. the introduction of victim impact statements in US criminal law precisely to increase punishment) ,
the judge says "ahh, but in return I forgive YOU that from 1973-1975 you seriously
doubted me, AND in 1984 you fancied your neighbour even though they were married/of the wrong sex/of the wrong religion.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think the idea of universal reconciliation is a great theological
concept - just not one that one can ground in our desire for justice
Of course these are huge claims and demand evidence. I have tried to put some of that evidence together in Gunning for God. published by Kregel. Also see my website johnlennox.org.
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
.[quoted, I think]
, Finally, none of us finds the idea of ultimate justice attractive because
. we are all flawed and have all messed up.
I'll find this extremely implausible - and before I get accused of having an overly cynical view of
human nature, I think I have the evidence from psychology and anthropology to back me up.
Humans just LOVE the idea of punishment for the wicked. They just divide immediately in their mind
the world in "the wicked" and "me, my friends, and the more agreeable members of my family".
Punishment happens in this view (mostly) to others, and we enjoy inflicting it, do we not just,
sometimes personally mostly in modernity vicariously, , sometimes consensually , mostly of
course not so.
That's why penal populism works, even in times when the objective data shows that crime is decreasing
and incarceration makes things worse. Sure, on one level people realise that "we are all poor
sinners" - which is why concepts such as purgatory play such an important role THEIR evil ways
require eternal hot pokers up the backsy, MY regrettable lack of judgement should get me probation,
or maybe 20 lashes at max. This way we "pay" for the satisfaction of inflicting pain on others with the risk
of a little pain for ourselves, AND can feel good and humble in the process too (...of course I too
am a sinner...) Hell, to misquote Sartre, is full of other people. And nobody thinks of
him/herself seriously as a baddy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
We see this in the penal institutions we create in this world: if people realised that the prison they
want to build, or the judicial torture, could one day be inflicted on them our prisons etc through
history would have looked very different. It's typically only the handful of penal abolitionists whose
empathetic reasoning makes them see themselves on the receiving end too.
This us vs them logic of punishment is well studied in the research on penal populism cf e.g.
classically Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing, If one
believes in evolutionary psychology, this may have evolutionary roots - I think the term is
"altruistic punishment" - opting for a system in which meeting out punishment even harms
the punisher
(I myself found Flesch: Comeuppance: Costly signaling, altruistic punishment,
and other biological components quite interesting )
That the "us vs them" logic is also central to divine punishment is particularly obvious when
we consider that more often than not, the most serious punishment is reserved for non-believers
for no other reason that they are non-believers. Indeed, for sola-fide Christians, any harm inflicted
on others during our lifetime is largely irrelevant, determinative for punishment is merely a state of
mind.
On 8/4/23 10:07 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:and we dance to its music”). Rather contradictory then to talk about a problem of evil at all.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:21:03 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 4:33 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I had planned to post this late last evening, but I had too much trouble finding it,
so I'm posting it early in the morning. First, some context:
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all >>>> places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
I don't know whether everyone has figured out whom I was referring to when I wrote in my OP,
"two outspoken atheists, one of whom has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need to grow out of;"
But I don't think I am giving away any big secrets when I say the one in the second claus was you, John.Why should anyone care who?
The url for it:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
Due to the length of the article, I'm only posting two excerpts:
Firstly, at the intellectual level, if there is no God then I agree with thinkers from Dostoyevsky to Dawkins who say that there is no such thing as evil (e.g. Dawkins’ famous statement: “there is no good…no evil… no justice…DNA just is
You make no explicit response to what is written above, but your spiel does suggest that you do agree with Dawkins.I don't actually know what Dawkins is trying to say there, so I can't
tell if I agree with it. Possibly it's a quote mine.
Boy, Scientific American sure has gone downhill since the last time I
saw it. I remember that it used to have all these cool articles about
science. And now it features jejune philosophy
What's jejune about it? are you being smart-alecky again?Patience.
that, bonus, is only
slightly relevant to the supposed topic, which if I recall was "taking
the possibility of an afterlife seriously".
Since you are seldom really serious, you have some excuse forAgain, patience.
that illogical-seeming comment, but I still need to see you
try to explain it before I take it seriously.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I
thought it was supposed to be about a serious consideration of its
plausibility,
Moving of goalposts from "possibility" to "plausibility," noted.Isn't that what serious consideration of possibility involves? Both of
your initial posts are not about the possibility of an afterlife.
They're about the supposed attractions of believing in one, rather than reasons to suppose there is one. If that's what you were trying to talk about, the thread is mistitled.
but all it seems to be, surprisingly, is about whether it
would feel good to believe in it, or whether believing it would have a
salutary effect on otherwise nasty people.
"seems to be" is consistent with your dismissal of the very???
possibility of an afterlife as a fairy tale. You seem to be so steeped in that
dismissal that you come up with "surprisingly" for a very strained
take on what John Lennox wrote.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, believe it or not.Again, you hint at some kind of response rather than actually
Would you like to see what my first impression of your last bit was?
responding. That's one of your most annoying habits.
As for the claims above, I respond "Euthyphro", which is all that should >> be necessary.
Sorry, it's neither necessary nor sufficient. I did an essay for a philosophy class on Euthyphro,
and part of it went about like this:
Euthypro is commonly dismissed as a "blue-nose" and such in the commentaries I've read, but this ignores the significance of his action in punishing his father for his atrocious treatment of a slave.
Euthyphro has shown his compassion for a downtrodden victim, one of the "wretched of the earth",
as Franz Fanon put it.
If one of his disciples happens to browse through an anthology of Plato's dialogues (perhaps to look up some utopian passages in "The Republic"), we may yet live to see the ultimate vindication of poor Euthyphro.
[Ever since New New Google Groups subjected every line to left bias, with onlyNone of this seems relevant to the point. Let me be clear: the central
attribution marks as barriers, I use run-on lines to set quoted material apart,
where before I had indented it.]
point of mentioning Euthyphro is that it shows that, if there is an objective basis of morality, it can't be God. If God commands it because it's just, there is a standard by which to judge God's commands; if it's just because God commands it, then morality is based on whim. And this
does indeed show Lennox's musings to be jejune.
to offer for anyone, including himself. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have suffered and not received justice in this life. Since, according to atheism, death is the end, then these people will never receive justice since there is noSecondly, getting rid of God does not get rid of the suffering. In fact, it can make the pain worse since it gets rid of all ultimate hope and justice. Horgan denies this in his last sentence, but I still maintain he has no ultimate personal hope
So the argument for an afterlife is that it would be nice if there were >> one? That's taking it seriously? Seriously?
Thanks for setting my mind at ease for what some might call "blowing your cover" -- otherwise,
some readers might be puzzled as to where you are coming from.
I have been appalled since pre-adolescence about the indescribable suffering of untold billions.Again, you merely hint obscurely at whatever point you may have. Is it
In early adolescence, I read what in some ways was the most searing account,
_A_World_Apart_, by Gustav Herling. Another day I might quote a fine preface
by Bertrand Russell, but I have a lot on my plate today, so I will just make a little
excerpt the Quote of the Day. The book is about the Soviet slave labor camps,
and it far outdoes Sozhenitsyn's _Archipelag_Gulag_ in the intimate detail of one of them.
too much to ask for you to actually say what you mean? If your argument
is not as I have claimed, please clarify what it actually is.
Would you say that giving people hope by providing them with a delusion
is a good thing? Would you say that this is a good reason why we should
take that delusion seriously? We could of course argue about whether it
is indeed a delusion, which would at last be on-topic for the thread
title. But we should first settle why we aren't already talking about that.
Remainder deleted, to be replied to today, or Monday at the latest, after my usual weekend break from Usenet posting.
Peter Nyikos
QUOTE OF THE DAY
Although the effort is not easy, one should attempt, in reading such a book as this one,
to understand the circumstances that turn men into fiends, and to realize that
it is not by blind rage that such evils will be prevented. I do not say that to understand
is to pardon; there are things which for my part I cannot pardon. But I do say that
to understand is necessary if the spread of similar evils over the whole world is to be prevented.
-- from the preface by Bertrand Russell, O.M. to _A_World_Apart_.Is that intended somehow to be relevant to the topic? If so, how?
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:focusing
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
.[quoted, I think]
, Finally, none of us finds the idea of ultimate justice attractive because
. we are all flawed and have all messed up.
I'll find this extremely implausible - and before I get accused of having an overly cynical view of
human nature, I think I have the evidence from psychology and anthropology to back me up.
Humans just LOVE the idea of punishment for the wicked. They just divide immediately in their mind
the world in "the wicked" and "me, my friends, and the more agreeable members of my family".
Punishment happens in this view (mostly) to others, and we enjoy inflicting it, do we not just,
sometimes personally mostly in modernity vicariously, , sometimes consensually , mostly of
course not so.
That's why penal populism works, even in times when the objective data shows that crime is decreasing
and incarceration makes things worse. Sure, on one level people realise that "we are all poor
sinners" - which is why concepts such as purgatory play such an important role THEIR evil ways
require eternal hot pokers up the backsy, MY regrettable lack of judgement should get me probation,
or maybe 20 lashes at max. This way we "pay" for the satisfaction of inflicting pain on others with the risk
of a little pain for ourselves, AND can feel good and humble in the process too (...of course I too
am a sinner...) Hell, to misquote Sartre, is full of other people. And nobody thinks of
him/herself seriously as a baddy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
We see this in the penal institutions we create in this world: if people realised that the prison they
want to build, or the judicial torture, could one day be inflicted on them our prisons etc through
history would have looked very different. It's typically only the handful of penal abolitionists whose
empathetic reasoning makes them see themselves on the receiving end too.
This us vs them logic of punishment is well studied in the research on penal populism cf e.g.
classically Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing, If one
believes in evolutionary psychology, this may have evolutionary roots - I think the term is
"altruistic punishment" - opting for a system in which meeting out punishment even harms
the punisher
(I myself found Flesch: Comeuppance: Costly signaling, altruistic punishment,
and other biological components quite interesting )
That the "us vs them" logic is also central to divine punishment is particularly obvious whenI isolated this part because of a particular interest in the whole "punishment"
we consider that more often than not, the most serious punishment is reserved for non-believers
for no other reason that they are non-believers. Indeed, for sola-fide Christians, any harm inflicted
on others during our lifetime is largely irrelevant, determinative for punishment is merely a state of
mind.
aspect. I'm especially interested in it relative to the "nurture v. nature" question.
You are up on some of the modern analysis around this question, so what, briefly (I don't wish to distract you too much), do you think? And feel free to drop a __few__ starter refs if they are handy.
My own anecdotal experiences with others, and some haphazard reading,
is that children who were raised with more stick than carrot retain a far greater "need" for punishment within their internal sense of justice. There's
a horrible correlate about child-beaters begetting child-beaters. That
would fit my biases about childhood development from a perspective
of neurophysiology and the equivalent of imprinting.
The simplistic psychological experiments have looked at how upset people
get when somebody gets away with something unpunished, and then have
looked for associations/correlations to the level of upset. Of course, many get very upset by the idea that theirs is not some Platonic Ideal of justice and was somehow imprinted upon them.
Perhaps this even feeds back into warping people's perceptions of 'virtues' associated with beliefs in eternal damnation.
And somehow I have to leave with
https://youtu.be/MxYsi5Y-xOQ?t=28
On 8/4/23 10:07 AM, Burkhard wrote:and we dance to its music”). Rather contradictory then to talk about a problem of evil at all.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I had planned to post this late last evening, but I had too much trouble finding it,
so I'm posting it early in the morning. First, some context:
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.The url for it:
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all >>> places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
Started to read it and found the re-warmed and utterly awful Plantinga argument
against the ToE. (what do you think is the chances of reproductive
success of someone who believes gravity is optional?)
I did mot give me much hope for the rest.
Due to the length of the article, I'm only posting two excerpts:
Firstly, at the intellectual level, if there is no God then I agree with thinkers from Dostoyevsky to Dawkins who say that there is no such thing as evil (e.g. Dawkins’ famous statement: “there is no good…no evil… no justice…DNA just is
offer for anyone, including himself. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have suffered and not received justice in this life. Since, according to atheism, death is the end, then these people will never receive justice since there is no life
Secondly, getting rid of God does not get rid of the suffering. In fact, it can make the pain worse since it gets rid of all ultimate hope and justice. Horgan denies this in his last sentence, but I still maintain he has no ultimate personal hope to
it means that our conscience is not an illusion, and those who terrorise, abuse, exploit, defame and cause their fellow humans untold suffering will not get away with it. Atheism has no such hope--for it ultimate justice is an illusion.Well, yes and no. First, as an argument for the afterlife it is, well, not much of an argument at all. It says essentially: it would be ever so nice to have an afterlife where the wicked can be punished and their victims rewarded.
But unless there is a hidden mayor premise of the form: "if something is nice it is
also true" this really does not fly.
Second, one can make the argument the other way round: as long as the promise
of justice in an afterlife is dangled in front of people's noses, their motivation to change
things in this life are diminished. This is particularly true for crimes that are so big they
don't count as crimes: SO your employer works you to death in dangerous conditions for a
hunger wage? How wicked of him, rest assured he'll suffer for his greed once he is death,
while you'll have a whale of a time then. So really no need to unionise in this life, is there?
Seeing how short it will be, what with all the coal dust you've been inhaling ever since you
first went down the pit age 10....
Or as someone else has put it (slightly updated)
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and
a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart
of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the Aspirin of the people
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their
real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call
on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore,
in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
...
At the very least that shows me that God has not remained distant from human suffering but has become part of it. Furthermore, Christ rose from the dead, which is a guarantee that there is to be a future judgement. This is a marvellous hope, because
human problem.Maybe - but then better an imperfect justice in the hand than an "ultimate" justice
in the bush.
And is it even true? There are a number of "secular" theories of ultimate justice, going back
to Epicurus or Plato: there the evildoer "with necessity" harms himself, by failing to be
the person they could have been, and at. cost to his happiness.
There is also psychological basis for this - the "warm feeling": we get when doing good, the anxiety
when doing bad etc. It is at least not impossible to think of a world where the cost
of evil actions are intrinsically higher than any gain they can give to the perpetrator
Finally, none of us finds the idea of ultimate justice attractive because we are all flawed and have all messed up.
I'll find this extremely implausible - and before I get accused of having an overly cynical view of
human nature, I think I have the evidence from psychology and anthropology to back me up.
Humans just LOVE the idea of punishment for the wicked. They just divide immediately in their mind
the world in "the wicked" and "me, my friends, and the more agreeable members of my family".
Punishment happens in this view (mostly) to others, and we enjoy inflicting it, do we not just,
sometimes personally mostly in modernity vicariously, , sometimes consensually , mostly of
course not so.
That's why penal populism works, even in times when the objective data shows that crime is decreasing
and incarceration makes things worse. Sure, on one level people realise that "we are all poor
sinners" - which is why concepts such as purgatory play such an important role THEIR evil ways
require eternal hot pokers up the backsy, MY regrettable lack of judgement should get me probation,
or maybe 20 lashes at max. This way we "pay" for the satisfaction of inflicting pain on others with the risk
of a little pain for ourselves, AND can feel good and humble in the process too (...of course I too
am a sinner...) Hell, to misquote Sartre, is full of other people. And nobody thinks of
him/herself seriously as a baddy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
We see this in the penal institutions we create in this world: if people realised that the prison they
want to build, or the judicial torture, could one day be inflicted on them our prisons etc through
history would have looked very different. It's typically only the handful of penal abolitionists whose
empathetic reasoning makes them see themselves on the receiving end too.
This us vs them logic of punishment is well studied in the research on penal populism cf e.g.
classically Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing, If one
believes in evolutionary psychology, this may have evolutionary roots - I think the term is
"altruistic punishment" - opting for a system in which meeting out punishment even harms
the punisher
(I myself found Flesch: Comeuppance: Costly signaling, altruistic punishment,
and other biological components quite interesting )
That the "us vs them" logic is also central to divine punishment is particularly obvious when
we consider that more often than not, the most serious punishment is reserved for non-believers
for no other reason that they are non-believers. Indeed, for sola-fide Christians, any harm inflicted
on others during our lifetime is largely irrelevant, determinative for punishment is merely a state of
mind.
The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me. Christianity >competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution to my
Yes, and every member of every other religion will feel the same about theirs.
But also an interesting point on the substance. Is this really a vision
of justice that is plausible? Imagine being the victim of a terrible
crime - someone murdering one's family. now it comes to the trial,
and the judge says to the accused: "well, you did it, obviously, but you also
really love me, so that's OK then, off you go."
I'd say most of us would be pissed off by that. Now, when complaining that the forgiveness stuff should have been our to give (cf e.g. the introduction
of victim impact statements in US criminal law precisely to increase punishment) ,
the judge says "ahh, but in return I forgive YOU that from 1973-1975 you seriously
doubted me, AND in 1984 you fancied your neighbour even though they were married/of the wrong sex/of the wrong religion.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think the idea of universal reconciliation is a great theologicalPeter more or less ignored everything I said that repeated most of what
concept - just not one that one can ground in our desire for justice
you say here. It will be interesting to see how/if he responds to you.
Regarding justice: How can eternal damnation be considered justice for
any finite crime?
repentance of past crimes, and how are future crimes precluded?
Especially so since our tendency to commit crimes is ostensibly the
result of our creator's actions, i.e. "free will". The whole idea just doesn't hold together, and Peter's customary appeal to C.S. Lewis will
not help.
Of course these are huge claims and demand evidence. I have tried to put some of that evidence together in Gunning for God. published by Kregel. Also see my website johnlennox.org.
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:31:03 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
.And somehow I have to leave with
https://youtu.be/MxYsi5Y-xOQ?t=28
gets to you, doesn't she? I' On a more cheerful note, I once had a bet with a colleague.
who of us would get more Benatar references into discussion at a pretty high powered Nato meeting on armed autonomous robots. I won! :o)
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:46:01 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
Well, there is a highly credible eyewitness account from near my place, Eilean Chaluim Chille, with impeccable Christian
credentials who reported back:
Heaven is not waiting
for the good and pure and gentle
there's no punishment eternal
there's no hell for the ungodly
nor is god as you imagine
there's no hell to spite the sinners
there's no heaven for the blessed
nor is god as you imagine
And who'd doubt the words of an abbot and catholic saint
who had literally seen it all?
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all
places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:52:43 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:and we dance to its music”). Rather contradictory then to talk about a problem of evil at all.
On 8/4/23 10:07 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:21:03 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:Why should anyone care who?
On 8/4/23 4:33 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I had planned to post this late last evening, but I had too much trouble finding it,
so I'm posting it early in the morning. First, some context:
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all >>>>>> places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
I don't know whether everyone has figured out whom I was referring to when I wrote in my OP,
"two outspoken atheists, one of whom has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need to grow out of;"
But I don't think I am giving away any big secrets when I say the one in the second claus was you, John.
The url for it:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
Due to the length of the article, I'm only posting two excerpts:
Firstly, at the intellectual level, if there is no God then I agree with thinkers from Dostoyevsky to Dawkins who say that there is no such thing as evil (e.g. Dawkins’ famous statement: “there is no good…no evil… no justice…DNA just is
I don't actually know what Dawkins is trying to say there, so I can't
You make no explicit response to what is written above, but your spiel
does suggest that you do agree with Dawkins.
tell if I agree with it. Possibly it's a quote mine.
Patience.Boy, Scientific American sure has gone downhill since the last time I
saw it. I remember that it used to have all these cool articles about
science. And now it features jejune philosophy
What's jejune about it? are you being smart-alecky again?
Again, patience.that, bonus, is only
slightly relevant to the supposed topic, which if I recall was "taking >>>> the possibility of an afterlife seriously".
Since you are seldom really serious, you have some excuse for
that illogical-seeming comment, but I still need to see you
try to explain it before I take it seriously.
Isn't that what serious consideration of possibility involves? Both ofPerhaps I misunderstood. I
thought it was supposed to be about a serious consideration of its
plausibility,
Moving of goalposts from "possibility" to "plausibility," noted.
your initial posts are not about the possibility of an afterlife.
They're about the supposed attractions of believing in one, rather than
reasons to suppose there is one. If that's what you were trying to talk
about, the thread is mistitled.
???but all it seems to be, surprisingly, is about whether it
would feel good to believe in it, or whether believing it would have a >>>> salutary effect on otherwise nasty people.
"seems to be" is consistent with your dismissal of the very
possibility of an afterlife as a fairy tale. You seem to be so steeped in that
dismissal that you come up with "surprisingly" for a very strained
take on what John Lennox wrote.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, believe it or not.Again, you hint at some kind of response rather than actually
Would you like to see what my first impression of your last bit was?
responding. That's one of your most annoying habits.
None of this seems relevant to the point. Let me be clear: the centralAs for the claims above, I respond "Euthyphro", which is all that should >>>> be necessary.
Sorry, it's neither necessary nor sufficient. I did an essay for a philosophy class on Euthyphro,
and part of it went about like this:
Euthypro is commonly dismissed as a "blue-nose" and such in the commentaries I've read, but this ignores the significance of his action in punishing his father for his atrocious treatment of a slave.
Euthyphro has shown his compassion for a downtrodden victim, one of the "wretched of the earth",
as Franz Fanon put it.
If one of his disciples happens to browse through an anthology of Plato's dialogues (perhaps to look up some utopian passages in "The Republic"), we may yet live to see the ultimate vindication of poor Euthyphro.
[Ever since New New Google Groups subjected every line to left bias, with only
attribution marks as barriers, I use run-on lines to set quoted material apart,
where before I had indented it.]
point of mentioning Euthyphro is that it shows that, if there is an
objective basis of morality, it can't be God. If God commands it because
it's just, there is a standard by which to judge God's commands; if it's
just because God commands it, then morality is based on whim. And this
does indeed show Lennox's musings to be jejune.
There is an interesting (well, for people who are into history of ideas :o) ) connection to
TO here William "The Watchmaker" Paley gives a rather interesting answer to this that
also implicates the afterlife.. For him, there is both an objective basis for morality that
does not need god, AND a role for God to play.
Runs like this: (rule) utilitarianism gives an objective foundation for ethics. Every ethical
problem can be solved on purely secular terms using it. Indeed, he says explicitly there is
nothing in the Bible that is of any use for political or legal theory and practice. BUT humans
are also weak willed, and recognising what they ought to do, contra Plato, is not enough to
make them do it. That's where God is needed, not as source or morality but merely
as its enforcer. By altering the decision matrix in such a way that the negative utilities
(hell) become abundantly clear, people will fall in line.
And boy is our man punitive... England had seen in the decades when he was writing a
massive increase in the use of the death penalty - More and more crimes, especially
crimes against property , attracted it (and judges were less and less willing to use their
discretionary power of mercy) . This led to a whole host of people, across religious and
political divides, write against it and arguing either for abolition altogether, or limiting it
to murder. (William Blackstone, William Eden, or Samuel Romilly e.g. bringing the
argument of of the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria to the UK)
Paley was having none of this and wrote passionately in defence of the death penalty for
property crimes - and his influence was enough to help delay any reform for several decades.
In your reply to me in another post, you make the argument that infinite punishment
can't be fair for finite crimes - but that assumes that "just deserts" and "punishment must
fit the crime" are requirements of justice. How very Montesquieu of you, whatever next,
eating frogs and storming the Bastille? (Ah Ca ira, ca ira, ca ira) ;o) At the time, this
was quite a radical idea - the predominant view saw punishment as deterrence only, and
there it made sense to be particularly severe on low level property crime: a murderer killing
in range or passion does not engage in rational deliberation, a thief might...
There is an interesting comparison to be made, which speaks a bit to the issue of afterlife
and punishment, ultimately a question of philosophical temperament. The Christian
clergyman Paley build his secular utilitarianism on fear and punishment (or indeed terror)
80 years later, the agnostic Mill would use Bible quotes to propose a utilitarianism build
on an inherent human instinct for benevolence:
"The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not
the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness
and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a
disinterested and benevolent spectator. In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we
read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to
love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian
morality."
to offer for anyone, including himself. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have suffered and not received justice in this life. Since, according to atheism, death is the end, then these people will never receive justice since there is noSecondly, getting rid of God does not get rid of the suffering. In fact, it can make the pain worse since it gets rid of all ultimate hope and justice. Horgan denies this in his last sentence, but I still maintain he has no ultimate personal hope
Again, you merely hint obscurely at whatever point you may have. Is it
So the argument for an afterlife is that it would be nice if there were >>>> one? That's taking it seriously? Seriously?
Thanks for setting my mind at ease for what some might call "blowing your cover" -- otherwise,
some readers might be puzzled as to where you are coming from.
I have been appalled since pre-adolescence about the indescribable suffering of untold billions.
In early adolescence, I read what in some ways was the most searing account,
_A_World_Apart_, by Gustav Herling. Another day I might quote a fine preface
by Bertrand Russell, but I have a lot on my plate today, so I will just make a little
excerpt the Quote of the Day. The book is about the Soviet slave labor camps,
and it far outdoes Sozhenitsyn's _Archipelag_Gulag_ in the intimate detail of one of them.
too much to ask for you to actually say what you mean? If your argument
is not as I have claimed, please clarify what it actually is.
Would you say that giving people hope by providing them with a delusion
is a good thing? Would you say that this is a good reason why we should
take that delusion seriously? We could of course argue about whether it
is indeed a delusion, which would at last be on-topic for the thread
title. But we should first settle why we aren't already talking about that. >>> Remainder deleted, to be replied to today, or Monday at the latest, after >>> my usual weekend break from Usenet posting.
Is that intended somehow to be relevant to the topic? If so, how?
Peter Nyikos
QUOTE OF THE DAY
Although the effort is not easy, one should attempt, in reading such a book as this one,
to understand the circumstances that turn men into fiends, and to realize that
it is not by blind rage that such evils will be prevented. I do not say that to understand
is to pardon; there are things which for my part I cannot pardon. But I do say that
to understand is necessary if the spread of similar evils over the whole world is to be prevented.
-- from the preface by Bertrand Russell, O.M. to _A_World_Apart_.
[...]
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:46:01 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, >> one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. >> I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all
places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Peter Nyikos
The thought crosses my mind that if Peter is looking for a utilitarian justification for promoting belief in an afterlife as a deterrent to
immoral actions in this life
he would be better promoting Hinduism and
karma-driven reincarnation than Christianity
- Christian doctrine is not
big on Hell as a proportional punishment for deeds.
Though I note that
it doesn't seem to be any more effective in India than it is in America.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:46:03 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
[...]
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:46:01 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, >>>> one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
Did you pay much attention to how general that "specific" is?
It covers at least four of the five religions that most Americans have learned of equally well: Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Buddhism is the ambiguous one: it depends on how much the concept
of "rebirth" differs from the Hindu concept of reincarnation.
[Of course, its founder was agnostic about the supernatural.]
[...]
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need >>>> to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. >>>> I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all
places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Peter Nyikos
The thought crosses my mind that if Peter is looking for a utilitarian
justification for promoting belief in an afterlife as a deterrent to
immoral actions in this life
That's only part of it, of course: John Lennox puts very little emphasis on it
in the part I quoted, and he isn't specific about its nature.
I lean towards the concept of heaven and hell in C.S. Lewis's _The Great Divorce_,
where hell is not so bad that it will deter everyone who is having too much fun being evil.
Still, the picture it paints of hell, and the big obstacles to getting out of it,
would deter perhaps the majority of people who believe in such an afterlife.
he would be better promoting Hinduism and
karma-driven reincarnation than Christianity
Both are implicit in what I wrote, and I take that part of Hinduism seriously.
I get the impression that most people at this time [1] in the USA
would take that kind of afterlife more seriously than the traditional Christian,
Jewish, or Mohammedan forms.
[1] Our society is more secularized now than any time in our history,
and the trend gives every sign of continuing. The Catholic Church is especially
in a bad way: the attendance at Mass by young single adult men is vanishingly small,
because the emphasis on "vocations" has only shifted in the last two or three decades
from the word being synonymous with "religious and priestly vocations"
to spottily including "the married life." Too little, too late for the demographic free fall
to secularism to be arrested any time in the next decade or two.
- Christian doctrine is not
big on Hell as a proportional punishment for deeds.
_The Great Divorce_ is heterodox, but not heretical, and is
very much proportional, although Lewis plays down that
fact for dramatic reasons.
Though I note that
it doesn't seem to be any more effective in India than it is in America.
Unless you've lived in India [I haven't even visited there], I don't think "seem" carries much weight.
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I had planned to post this late last evening, but I had too much trouble finding it,
so I'm posting it early in the morning. First, some context:
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about whatThe url for it: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Started to read it and found the re-warmed and utterly awful Plantinga argument
against the ToE. (what do you think is the chances of reproductive
success of someone who believes gravity is optional?)
I did mot give me much hope for the rest.we dance to its music”). Rather contradictory then to talk about a problem of evil at all.
Due to the length of the article, I'm only posting two excerpts:
Firstly, at the intellectual level, if there is no God then I agree with thinkers from Dostoyevsky to Dawkins who say that there is no such thing as evil (e.g. Dawkins’ famous statement: “there is no good…no evil… no justice…DNA just is and
offer for anyone, including himself. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have suffered and not received justice in this life. Since, according to atheism, death is the end, then these people will never receive justice since there is no lifeSecondly, getting rid of God does not get rid of the suffering. In fact, it can make the pain worse since it gets rid of all ultimate hope and justice. Horgan denies this in his last sentence, but I still maintain he has no ultimate personal hope to
Well, yes and no. First, as an argument for the afterlife it is, well, not much of an argument at all. It says essentially: it would be ever so nice
to have an afterlife where the wicked can be punished and their victims rewarded.
But unless there is a hidden mayor premise of the form: "if something is nice it is
also true" this really does not fly.
Second, one can make the argument the other way round: as long as the promise
of justice in an afterlife is dangled in front of people's noses, their motivation to change
things in this life are diminished.
This is particularly true for crimes that are so big they
don't count as crimes: SO your employer works you to death in dangerous conditions for a
hunger wage? How wicked of him, rest assured he'll suffer for his greed once he is death,
while you'll have a whale of a time then.
So really no need to unionise in this life, is there?
Seeing how short it will be, what with all the coal dust you've been inhaling ever since you
first went down the pit age 10....
It's incredible -- simply incredible -- how Harshman and Burkhard have been acting as though my emphasis were on arguing for the existence of an afterlife
that is primitive evangelical Christian. Perhaps my reply to Ernest Major this evening
will start to part the clouds of that misconception.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I had planned to post this late last evening, but I had too much trouble finding it,
so I'm posting it early in the morning. First, some context:
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. >>>> I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.The url for it:
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all
places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
Started to read it and found the re-warmed and utterly awful Plantinga argument
against the ToE. (what do you think is the chances of reproductive
success of someone who believes gravity is optional?)
You are too inchoate here for me to follow you. It reads like you
are channeling Hemidactylus doing his thing in the midst of another context.
we dance to its music”). Rather contradictory then to talk about a problem of evil at all.I did mot give me much hope for the rest.
Due to the length of the article, I'm only posting two excerpts:
Firstly, at the intellectual level, if there is no God then I agree with thinkers from Dostoyevsky to Dawkins who say that there is no such thing as evil (e.g. Dawkins’ famous statement: “there is no good…no evil… no justice…DNA just is and
offer for anyone, including himself. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have suffered and not received justice in this life. Since, according to atheism, death is the end, then these people will never receive justice since there is no life
Secondly, getting rid of God does not get rid of the suffering. In fact, it can make the pain worse since it gets rid of all ultimate hope and justice. Horgan denies this in his last sentence, but I still maintain he has no ultimate personal hope to
Well, yes and no. First, as an argument for the afterlife it is, well, not >> much of an argument at all. It says essentially: it would be ever so nice
to have an afterlife where the wicked can be punished and their victims
rewarded.
The only problem is that you are dealing with child-level ideas about
what the way these things would play out. Have you ever read _The Great Divorce_?
It's far from perfect, just as Plato's "Gorgias" is far from perfect, yet both can awaken some slumbering virtues in someone who does not have
"a soul so dead, who never to himself has said..." [Do you know the rest?
a minister once gave a very different sequel after substituting "herself" for "himself".]
But unless there is a hidden mayor premise of the form: "if something is nice it is
also true" this really does not fly.
Now you know what I meant up in the preamble.
Second, one can make the argument the other way round: as long as the promise
of justice in an afterlife is dangled in front of people's noses, their motivation to change
things in this life are diminished.
That depends on whether one is isolated from a milieu that teaches
about altruism and love of others. Such people will care much more about injustice
than the majority of the regulars who remain in talk.origins after most decent
and halfway decent people have left. I miss them all, and am glad a remnant still remains.
I wonder whether you understand what I mean by justice. The way you answered with a narrow legal-system treatise when I asked whether "giving the other guy
the benefit of the doubt" is a well known concept among Germans, makes me wonder
whether you can apply "justice" to everyday behavior, like some of what goes on in talk.origins
and, alas, in sci.bio.paleontology as well.
This is particularly true for crimes that are so big they
don't count as crimes: SO your employer works you to death in dangerous conditions for a
hunger wage? How wicked of him, rest assured he'll suffer for his greed once he is death,
Unless he truly repents, like Ebenezer Scrooge, and mends his ways as much
as possible. For a real-life example, take the person who gave us the film, "Amazing Grace." He really meant it when he wrote, "saved a wretch like me."
The phony "spirit of Vatican II" caused innumerable Catholic hymnals
to substitute the wishy-washy "saved a-and set me free", leaving it up
in the air what " I on-once wa-as lost, but no-ow a-am found" is all about.
while you'll have a whale of a time then.
Not I. It really irritates me when evangelicals ask would-be volunteers for some of their charitable causes whether they know they will go to heaven
when they die. Much more generally, I am irritated by them asking
random people they meet, "Are you saved?"
Joan of Arc had the real Christian attitude. When asked whether she
was in a state of grace, she answered:
"If I am not, may God put me there; if I am, may God keep me there."
>So really no need to unionise in this life, is there?
Seeing how short it will be, what with all the coal dust you've been inhaling ever since you
first went down the pit age 10....
You posted this before I answered Harshman for the first time, so you
are excused for having made these silly assumptions about me.
Your cynicism reminds me of the reporter in "Inherit the Wind." The actor who played him in the movie starring Spencer Tracy and Frederick March was poorly cast for the role. When I was an undergraduate, my college had a drama
club that had just the right kind of person for the role when they were putting on the play.
He was just as unflappable and cocky as you and Harshman are in your roles here in talk.origins.
Sorry to quit on you so early in your spiel, but duty calls.
See you Monday.
Peter Nyikos
On 8/4/23 10:07 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:21:03 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 4:33 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4,
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
No it didn't It appeared as a guest response (John Lennox) to a blogThe second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all >>>>> places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
The url for it:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
Boy, Scientific American sure has gone downhill since the last time I
saw it. I remember that it used to have all these cool articles about
science. And now it features jejune philosophy
On 8/4/23 1:31 PM, Burkhard wrote:and we dance to its music”). Rather contradictory then to talk about a problem of evil at all.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:52:43 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 10:07 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:21:03 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/4/23 4:33 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Why should anyone care who?
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I had planned to post this late last evening, but I had too much trouble finding it,
so I'm posting it early in the morning. First, some context:
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all >>>>>> places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what >>>>>> a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
I don't know whether everyone has figured out whom I was referring to when I wrote in my OP,
"two outspoken atheists, one of whom has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need to grow out of;"
But I don't think I am giving away any big secrets when I say the one in the second claus was you, John.
The url for it:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
Due to the length of the article, I'm only posting two excerpts:
Firstly, at the intellectual level, if there is no God then I agree with thinkers from Dostoyevsky to Dawkins who say that there is no such thing as evil (e.g. Dawkins’ famous statement: “there is no good…no evil… no justice…DNA just is
I don't actually know what Dawkins is trying to say there, so I can't
You make no explicit response to what is written above, but your spiel >>> does suggest that you do agree with Dawkins.
tell if I agree with it. Possibly it's a quote mine.
Patience.Boy, Scientific American sure has gone downhill since the last time I >>>> saw it. I remember that it used to have all these cool articles about >>>> science. And now it features jejune philosophy
What's jejune about it? are you being smart-alecky again?
Again, patience.that, bonus, is only
slightly relevant to the supposed topic, which if I recall was "taking >>>> the possibility of an afterlife seriously".
Since you are seldom really serious, you have some excuse for
that illogical-seeming comment, but I still need to see you
try to explain it before I take it seriously.
Isn't that what serious consideration of possibility involves? Both ofPerhaps I misunderstood. I
thought it was supposed to be about a serious consideration of its
plausibility,
Moving of goalposts from "possibility" to "plausibility," noted.
your initial posts are not about the possibility of an afterlife.
They're about the supposed attractions of believing in one, rather than >> reasons to suppose there is one. If that's what you were trying to talk >> about, the thread is mistitled.
???but all it seems to be, surprisingly, is about whether it
would feel good to believe in it, or whether believing it would have a >>>> salutary effect on otherwise nasty people.
"seems to be" is consistent with your dismissal of the very
possibility of an afterlife as a fairy tale. You seem to be so steeped in that
dismissal that you come up with "surprisingly" for a very strained
take on what John Lennox wrote.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, believe it or not.Again, you hint at some kind of response rather than actually
Would you like to see what my first impression of your last bit was?
responding. That's one of your most annoying habits.
None of this seems relevant to the point. Let me be clear: the centralAs for the claims above, I respond "Euthyphro", which is all that should
be necessary.
Sorry, it's neither necessary nor sufficient. I did an essay for a philosophy class on Euthyphro,
and part of it went about like this:
Euthypro is commonly dismissed as a "blue-nose" and such in the commentaries I've read, but this ignores the significance of his action in punishing his father for his atrocious treatment of a slave.
Euthyphro has shown his compassion for a downtrodden victim, one of the "wretched of the earth",
as Franz Fanon put it.
If one of his disciples happens to browse through an anthology of Plato's dialogues (perhaps to look up some utopian passages in "The Republic"), we may yet live to see the ultimate vindication of poor Euthyphro.
[Ever since New New Google Groups subjected every line to left bias, with only
attribution marks as barriers, I use run-on lines to set quoted material apart,
where before I had indented it.]
point of mentioning Euthyphro is that it shows that, if there is an
objective basis of morality, it can't be God. If God commands it because >> it's just, there is a standard by which to judge God's commands; if it's >> just because God commands it, then morality is based on whim. And this
does indeed show Lennox's musings to be jejune.
There is an interesting (well, for people who are into history of ideas :o) ) connection to
TO here William "The Watchmaker" Paley gives a rather interesting answer to this that
also implicates the afterlife.. For him, there is both an objective basis for morality that
does not need god, AND a role for God to play.
Runs like this: (rule) utilitarianism gives an objective foundation for ethics. Every ethicalI think my argument still works. Hell and death are not symmetrical.
problem can be solved on purely secular terms using it. Indeed, he says explicitly there is
nothing in the Bible that is of any use for political or legal theory and practice. BUT humans
are also weak willed, and recognising what they ought to do, contra Plato, is not enough to
make them do it. That's where God is needed, not as source or morality but merely
as its enforcer. By altering the decision matrix in such a way that the negative utilities
(hell) become abundantly clear, people will fall in line.
Death in the absence of Hell deprives the malefactor of a finite number
of years of life, so there is some possibility of proportionality. But
Hell is eternal and thus infinite. No scale of punishment could
conceivably be matched. Of course, deterrence, as per Marie de Medici, doesn't seem to work all that well, even for crimes of calculation. And "anecdote" is not the singular of data.
<snip>
It's incredible -- simply incredible -- how Harshman and Burkhard have been acting as though my emphasis were on arguing for the existence of an afterlife
that is primitive evangelical Christian.
will start to part the clouds of that misconception.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I had planned to post this late last evening, but I had too much trouble finding it,
so I'm posting it early in the morning. First, some context:
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about whatThe url for it: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Started to read it and found the re-warmed and utterly awful Plantinga argumentYou are too inchoate here for me to follow you. It reads like you
against the ToE. (what do you think is the chances of reproductive
success of someone who believes gravity is optional?)
are channeling Hemidactylus doing his thing in the midst of another context.
and we dance to its music”). Rather contradictory then to talk about a problem of evil at all.I did mot give me much hope for the rest.
Due to the length of the article, I'm only posting two excerpts:
Firstly, at the intellectual level, if there is no God then I agree with thinkers from Dostoyevsky to Dawkins who say that there is no such thing as evil (e.g. Dawkins’ famous statement: “there is no good…no evil… no justice…DNA just is
to offer for anyone, including himself. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have suffered and not received justice in this life. Since, according to atheism, death is the end, then these people will never receive justice since there is noSecondly, getting rid of God does not get rid of the suffering. In fact, it can make the pain worse since it gets rid of all ultimate hope and justice. Horgan denies this in his last sentence, but I still maintain he has no ultimate personal hope
Well, yes and no. First, as an argument for the afterlife it is, well, not much of an argument at all. It says essentially: it would be ever so nice to have an afterlife where the wicked can be punished and their victims rewarded.The only problem is that you are dealing with child-level ideas about
what the way these things would play out.
Have you ever read _The Great Divorce_?
It's far from perfect, just as Plato's "Gorgias" is far from perfect, yet both can awaken some slumbering virtues in someone who does not have
"a soul so dead, who never to himself has said..." [Do you know the rest?
a minister once gave a very different sequel after substituting "herself" for "himself".]
But unless there is a hidden mayor premise of the form: "if something is nice it isNow you know what I meant up in the preamble.
also true" this really does not fly.
Second, one can make the argument the other way round: as long as the promiseThat depends on whether one is isolated from a milieu that teaches
of justice in an afterlife is dangled in front of people's noses, their motivation to change
things in this life are diminished.
about altruism and love of others.
than the majority of the regulars who remain in talk.origins after most decent
and halfway decent people have left. I miss them all, and am glad a remnant still remains.
I wonder whether you understand what I mean by justice.
with a narrow legal-system treatise when I asked whether "giving the other guy
the benefit of the doubt" is a well known concept among Germans,
whether you can apply "justice" to everyday behavior, like some of what goes on in talk.origins
and, alas, in sci.bio.paleontology as well.
This is particularly true for crimes that are so big theyUnless he truly repents, like Ebenezer Scrooge, and mends his ways as much as possible. For a real-life example, take the person who gave us the film, "Amazing Grace." He really meant it when he wrote, "saved a wretch like me."
don't count as crimes: SO your employer works you to death in dangerous conditions for a
hunger wage? How wicked of him, rest assured he'll suffer for his greed once he is death,
The phony "spirit of Vatican II" caused innumerable Catholic hymnals
to substitute the wishy-washy "saved a-and set me free", leaving it up
in the air what " I on-once wa-as lost, but no-ow a-am found" is all about.
while you'll have a whale of a time then.Not I. It really irritates me when evangelicals ask would-be volunteers for some of their charitable causes whether they know they will go to heaven when they die. Much more generally, I am irritated by them asking
random people they meet, "Are you saved?"
Joan of Arc had the real Christian attitude. When asked whether she
was in a state of grace, she answered:
"If I am not, may God put me there; if I am, may God keep me there."
So really no need to unionise in this life, is there?You posted this before I answered Harshman for the first time, so you
Seeing how short it will be, what with all the coal dust you've been inhaling ever since you
first went down the pit age 10....
are excused for having made these silly assumptions about me.
Your cynicism reminds me of the reporter in "Inherit the Wind." The actor who
played him in the movie starring Spencer Tracy and Frederick March was poorly
cast for the role. When I was an undergraduate, my college had a drama
club that had just the right kind of person for the role when they were putting on the play.
He was just as unflappable and cocky as you and Harshman are in your roles here in talk.origins.
Sorry to quit on you so early in your spiel, but duty calls.
See you Monday.
Peter Nyikos
On 8/4/23 5:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:46:03 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
[...]
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:46:01 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, >>>> one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
Did you pay much attention to how general that "specific" is?
It covers at least four of the five religions that most Americans have learned of equally well: Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Buddhism is the ambiguous one: it depends on how much the concept
of "rebirth" differs from the Hindu concept of reincarnation.
[Of course, its founder was agnostic about the supernatural.]
[...]
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom >>>> has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need >>>> to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable, >>>> especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all >>>> places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Peter Nyikos
The thought crosses my mind that if Peter is looking for a utilitarian
justification for promoting belief in an afterlife as a deterrent to
immoral actions in this life
That's only part of it, of course: John Lennox puts very little emphasis on it
in the part I quoted, and he isn't specific about its nature.
I lean towards the concept of heaven and hell in C.S. Lewis's _The Great Divorce_,Why do you lean toward that concept? Is it just because you find it more pleasant to contemplate? Or do you have any sort of evidence for one position or another? If the former, is that a valid reason for belief,
where hell is not so bad that it will deter everyone who is having too much fun being evil.
Still, the picture it paints of hell, and the big obstacles to getting out of it,
would deter perhaps the majority of people who believe in such an afterlife.
or even for inclination?
he would be better promoting Hinduism and
karma-driven reincarnation than Christianity
Both are implicit in what I wrote, and I take that part of Hinduism seriously.Why do you take it seriously?
I get the impression that most people at this time [1] in the USA
would take that kind of afterlife more seriously than the traditional Christian,
Jewish, or Mohammedan forms.
[1] Our society is more secularized now than any time in our history,Do you consider that a bad thing?
and the trend gives every sign of continuing. The Catholic Church is especially
in a bad way: the attendance at Mass by young single adult men is vanishingly small,
because the emphasis on "vocations" has only shifted in the last two or three decades
from the word being synonymous with "religious and priestly vocations"
to spottily including "the married life." Too little, too late for the demographic free fall
to secularism to be arrested any time in the next decade or two.
- Christian doctrine is not
big on Hell as a proportional punishment for deeds.
_The Great Divorce_ is heterodox, but not heretical, and is
very much proportional, although Lewis plays down that
fact for dramatic reasons.
Though I note that
it doesn't seem to be any more effective in India than it is in America.
Unless you've lived in India [I haven't even visited there], I don't think "seem" carries much weight.
Peter Nyikos
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:26:03 AM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 5:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:46:03 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:Why do you lean toward that concept? Is it just because you find it more
[...]
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:46:01 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, >>>>>> one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
Did you pay much attention to how general that "specific" is?
It covers at least four of the five religions that most Americans have
learned of equally well: Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Buddhism is the ambiguous one: it depends on how much the concept
of "rebirth" differs from the Hindu concept of reincarnation.
[Of course, its founder was agnostic about the supernatural.]
[...]
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom >>>>>> has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need >>>>>> to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable, >>>>>> especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all >>>>>> places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Peter Nyikos
The thought crosses my mind that if Peter is looking for a utilitarian >>>> justification for promoting belief in an afterlife as a deterrent to
immoral actions in this life
That's only part of it, of course: John Lennox puts very little emphasis on it
in the part I quoted, and he isn't specific about its nature.
I lean towards the concept of heaven and hell in C.S. Lewis's _The Great Divorce_,
where hell is not so bad that it will deter everyone who is having too much fun being evil.
Still, the picture it paints of hell, and the big obstacles to getting out of it,
would deter perhaps the majority of people who believe in such an afterlife.
pleasant to contemplate? Or do you have any sort of evidence for one
position or another? If the former, is that a valid reason for belief,
or even for inclination?
Well, Peter has on a number of occasions expressed his admiration for William James (I always found this a bit incongruous, but there you are) . James
is of course founding father of philosophical pragmatism, and advocated
a pragmatist definition of truth that equates it with usefulness for a speaker in
a given context. (that sounds a bit worse than it is, there are a couple of constraints). And on God, he said ""On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of
God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, then it is 'true'."
I don't think James would have meant it in quite the way as Peter's two sources,
but it could be extended in that direction. Or do you remember the discussion about
"ancestor fossils" where Peter wanted to call a given species "ancestor" or at least
"ancestor candidate" because that would make it easier to convince creationists? And you (and I) argued that there was just not enough evidence for such claims,
and they are hence misleading or outright lies? James called that sort of belief "Overbelief", beliefs that may have an experiental dimension, but require (much)
more evidence than the holder presently has, or can hope to acquire. Spiritual beliefs
are the archetype for James (he introduced the term in a lecture series on religion
and spiritual experience he gave in Edinburgh - this place obvs. always allows great
thinkers to be at theory absolute best ;o)). But it can also be applied to more mundane beliefs.
Why do you take it seriously?he would be better promoting Hinduism and
karma-driven reincarnation than Christianity
Both are implicit in what I wrote, and I take that part of Hinduism seriously.
I get the impression that most people at this time [1] in the USA
would take that kind of afterlife more seriously than the traditional Christian,
Jewish, or Mohammedan forms.
[1] Our society is more secularized now than any time in our history,Do you consider that a bad thing?
and the trend gives every sign of continuing. The Catholic Church is especially
in a bad way: the attendance at Mass by young single adult men is vanishingly small,
because the emphasis on "vocations" has only shifted in the last two or three decades
from the word being synonymous with "religious and priestly vocations"
to spottily including "the married life." Too little, too late for the demographic free fall
to secularism to be arrested any time in the next decade or two.
- Christian doctrine is not
big on Hell as a proportional punishment for deeds.
_The Great Divorce_ is heterodox, but not heretical, and is
very much proportional, although Lewis plays down that
fact for dramatic reasons.
Though I note thatUnless you've lived in India [I haven't even visited there], I don't think >>> "seem" carries much weight.
it doesn't seem to be any more effective in India than it is in America. >>>
Peter Nyikos
On 8/5/23 12:39 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:26:03 AM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 5:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:46:03 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote: >>>> [...]Why do you lean toward that concept? Is it just because you find it more >> pleasant to contemplate? Or do you have any sort of evidence for one
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:46:01 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they >>>>>> believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
Did you pay much attention to how general that "specific" is?
It covers at least four of the five religions that most Americans have >>> learned of equally well: Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Buddhism is the ambiguous one: it depends on how much the concept
of "rebirth" differs from the Hindu concept of reincarnation.
[Of course, its founder was agnostic about the supernatural.]
[...]
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom >>>>>> has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable, >>>>>> especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all >>>>>> places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what >>>>>> a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Peter Nyikos
The thought crosses my mind that if Peter is looking for a utilitarian >>>> justification for promoting belief in an afterlife as a deterrent to >>>> immoral actions in this life
That's only part of it, of course: John Lennox puts very little emphasis on it
in the part I quoted, and he isn't specific about its nature.
I lean towards the concept of heaven and hell in C.S. Lewis's _The Great Divorce_,
where hell is not so bad that it will deter everyone who is having too much fun being evil.
Still, the picture it paints of hell, and the big obstacles to getting out of it,
would deter perhaps the majority of people who believe in such an afterlife.
position or another? If the former, is that a valid reason for belief,
or even for inclination?
Well, Peter has on a number of occasions expressed his admiration for William
James (I always found this a bit incongruous, but there you are) . James is of course founding father of philosophical pragmatism, and advocated
a pragmatist definition of truth that equates it with usefulness for a speaker in
a given context. (that sounds a bit worse than it is, there are a couple of
constraints). And on God, he said ""On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of
God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, then it is 'true'."
I don't think James would have meant it in quite the way as Peter's two sources,I would certainly be interested in Peter's reaction to all that. And I
but it could be extended in that direction. Or do you remember the discussion about
"ancestor fossils" where Peter wanted to call a given species "ancestor" or at least
"ancestor candidate" because that would make it easier to convince creationists? And you (and I) argued that there was just not enough evidence for such claims,
and they are hence misleading or outright lies? James called that sort of belief "Overbelief", beliefs that may have an experiental dimension, but require (much)
more evidence than the holder presently has, or can hope to acquire. Spiritual beliefs
are the archetype for James (he introduced the term in a lecture series on religion
and spiritual experience he gave in Edinburgh - this place obvs. always allows great
thinkers to be at theory absolute best ;o)). But it can also be applied to more mundane beliefs.
don't think James's definition would work well in science, in the widest sense of the word.
Why do you take it seriously?he would be better promoting Hinduism and
karma-driven reincarnation than Christianity
Both are implicit in what I wrote, and I take that part of Hinduism seriously.
I get the impression that most people at this time [1] in the USA
would take that kind of afterlife more seriously than the traditional Christian,
Jewish, or Mohammedan forms.
[1] Our society is more secularized now than any time in our history, >>> and the trend gives every sign of continuing. The Catholic Church is especiallyDo you consider that a bad thing?
in a bad way: the attendance at Mass by young single adult men is vanishingly small,
because the emphasis on "vocations" has only shifted in the last two or three decades
from the word being synonymous with "religious and priestly vocations" >>> to spottily including "the married life." Too little, too late for the demographic free fall
to secularism to be arrested any time in the next decade or two.
- Christian doctrine is not
big on Hell as a proportional punishment for deeds.
_The Great Divorce_ is heterodox, but not heretical, and is
very much proportional, although Lewis plays down that
fact for dramatic reasons.
Though I note that
it doesn't seem to be any more effective in India than it is in America.
Unless you've lived in India [I haven't even visited there], I don't think
"seem" carries much weight.
Peter Nyikos
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:06:04 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/23 12:39 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:26:03 AM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 5:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:46:03 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote: >>>> [...]Why do you lean toward that concept? Is it just because you find it more
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:46:01 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they >>>>>> believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
Did you pay much attention to how general that "specific" is?
It covers at least four of the five religions that most Americans have >>> learned of equally well: Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. >>> Buddhism is the ambiguous one: it depends on how much the concept
of "rebirth" differs from the Hindu concept of reincarnation.
[Of course, its founder was agnostic about the supernatural.]
[...]
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic. >>>>>>
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all
places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what >>>>>> a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Peter Nyikos
The thought crosses my mind that if Peter is looking for a utilitarian
justification for promoting belief in an afterlife as a deterrent to >>>> immoral actions in this life
That's only part of it, of course: John Lennox puts very little emphasis on it
in the part I quoted, and he isn't specific about its nature.
I lean towards the concept of heaven and hell in C.S. Lewis's _The Great Divorce_,
where hell is not so bad that it will deter everyone who is having too much fun being evil.
Still, the picture it paints of hell, and the big obstacles to getting out of it,
would deter perhaps the majority of people who believe in such an afterlife.
pleasant to contemplate? Or do you have any sort of evidence for one
position or another? If the former, is that a valid reason for belief, >> or even for inclination?
Well, Peter has on a number of occasions expressed his admiration for William
James (I always found this a bit incongruous, but there you are) . James is of course founding father of philosophical pragmatism, and advocated a pragmatist definition of truth that equates it with usefulness for a speaker in
a given context. (that sounds a bit worse than it is, there are a couple of
constraints). And on God, he said ""On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of
God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, then it is 'true'."
Unfortunately, as with most philosophers, there are multiple ways they can have have been read -I don't think James would have meant it in quite the way as Peter's two sources,I would certainly be interested in Peter's reaction to all that. And I don't think James's definition would work well in science, in the widest sense of the word.
but it could be extended in that direction. Or do you remember the discussion about
"ancestor fossils" where Peter wanted to call a given species "ancestor" or at least
"ancestor candidate" because that would make it easier to convince creationists? And you (and I) argued that there was just not enough evidence for such claims,
and they are hence misleading or outright lies? James called that sort of
belief "Overbelief", beliefs that may have an experiental dimension, but require (much)
more evidence than the holder presently has, or can hope to acquire. Spiritual beliefs
are the archetype for James (he introduced the term in a lecture series on religion
and spiritual experience he gave in Edinburgh - this place obvs. always allows great
thinkers to be at theory absolute best ;o)). But it can also be applied to more mundane beliefs.
Rorty's James is a very different animal from Haack's James, for instance. My reading is probably
through the lens of later philosophers that I like, especially Quine (even though he
claimed to disagree with James) And somewhat confusingly, many contemporaries and
subsequent philosophers read James that way, but in reply to his critics he defended
both the pragmatist definition of truth, AND claimed to be epistemological realist.
The way I read him, he is congenial to science, and tries to rid it from vestigial philosophical
ideas more than anything else. He began his career after all in the empirical sciences -
teaching anatomy and physiology at Harvard - and contributed to some highly influential
theories on the relation between physiological change and emotions (The James - Lang
theory is named after him) . His epistemology is shaped a lot bu his earlier work on cognition,
and how subjects contribute to the creation of what they (report to ) perceive.
That means (again in my reading) "useful" should not be understood as "useful to get
money/fame/laid". At worst, it would be " useful to pass peer review". That is it is useful
for a community of practice (hence pragmatism) to solve the research questions they have
set themselves to the level of granularity that it requires - a concept "has cash value" (another
term he created to the extend it helps them to structure the data. He also promoted a "radical
empiricism" where everyday practice and scientific practice are seen as overlapping.
Take an old example from TO discussions with John Wilkins, the species concept.
A strong realist would say that there is one and only one structure out there in the worlds
that carves out "species". That means (at most) one of our species conceptions is true,
the others are false. For a Popperian, thy are all probably false but in varying degree approaching
what "the one true conception" would look like. For pluralists and pragmatists like James,
these two are "overbeliefs", over-ambitious philosophical claims that can't be cashed in with evidence.
Instead, a more cautious: they work well for a research field/tradition in solving practical problems
(tells researchers what to do), so that these can have a more fulfilling research practice.
So an environmental scientists may use a different concept from a systematists etc, and as
long it works for them, that's all we can meaningful say, they are true wrt to the various research
traditions and interests, asking for "the TRUE"conception is a bad philosophical relict.
Where you might be the most skeptical about James, he does indeed treat spiritual experience on
a par with any other reported experience. So ultimately there is little difference for him between
reporting "I saw the measurement instrument report a 6", "I had the sense impression of red
in my lower visual field", "I experience hunger, pain, anger" and " I experience being grasped and
held by a superior power in ways that human language is insufficient to describe, but which
is a bit like <being held by a father or mother/unified with the universe/any other religious concept).
We observe that over time and space communities develop a language which enables them to
communicate about this experience, and as a result live lives that they experience as for them
fuller and better. Asking if these are "real", or which one is TRUE, from an external observer perspective
is as futile as asking which species conception , if any, is the TRUE one.
As above, this is my reading of James. Peter's might well differ. The only time we discussed James, I
found his interpretation difficult to reconcile with the text.
Why do you take it seriously?he would be better promoting Hinduism and
karma-driven reincarnation than Christianity
Both are implicit in what I wrote, and I take that part of Hinduism seriously.
I get the impression that most people at this time [1] in the USA
would take that kind of afterlife more seriously than the traditional Christian,
Jewish, or Mohammedan forms.
[1] Our society is more secularized now than any time in our history, >>> and the trend gives every sign of continuing. The Catholic Church is especiallyDo you consider that a bad thing?
in a bad way: the attendance at Mass by young single adult men is vanishingly small,
because the emphasis on "vocations" has only shifted in the last two or three decades
from the word being synonymous with "religious and priestly vocations" >>> to spottily including "the married life." Too little, too late for the demographic free fall
to secularism to be arrested any time in the next decade or two.
- Christian doctrine is not
big on Hell as a proportional punishment for deeds.
_The Great Divorce_ is heterodox, but not heretical, and is
very much proportional, although Lewis plays down that
fact for dramatic reasons.
Though I note that
it doesn't seem to be any more effective in India than it is in America.
Unless you've lived in India [I haven't even visited there], I don't think
"seem" carries much weight.
Peter Nyikos
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:06:04 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/23 12:39 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:26:03 AM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/4/23 5:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:I would certainly be interested in Peter's reaction to all that. And I
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:46:03 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote: >>>>>> [...]Why do you lean toward that concept? Is it just because you find it more >>>> pleasant to contemplate? Or do you have any sort of evidence for one
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:46:01 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they >>>>>>>> believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
Did you pay much attention to how general that "specific" is?
It covers at least four of the five religions that most Americans have >>>>> learned of equally well: Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. >>>>> Buddhism is the ambiguous one: it depends on how much the concept
of "rebirth" differs from the Hindu concept of reincarnation.
[Of course, its founder was agnostic about the supernatural.]
[...]
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom >>>>>>>> has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable, >>>>>>>> especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all >>>>>>>> places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what >>>>>>>> a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Peter Nyikos
The thought crosses my mind that if Peter is looking for a utilitarian >>>>>> justification for promoting belief in an afterlife as a deterrent to >>>>>> immoral actions in this life
That's only part of it, of course: John Lennox puts very little emphasis on it
in the part I quoted, and he isn't specific about its nature.
I lean towards the concept of heaven and hell in C.S. Lewis's _The Great Divorce_,
where hell is not so bad that it will deter everyone who is having too much fun being evil.
Still, the picture it paints of hell, and the big obstacles to getting out of it,
would deter perhaps the majority of people who believe in such an afterlife.
position or another? If the former, is that a valid reason for belief, >>>> or even for inclination?
Well, Peter has on a number of occasions expressed his admiration for William
James (I always found this a bit incongruous, but there you are) . James >>> is of course founding father of philosophical pragmatism, and advocated
a pragmatist definition of truth that equates it with usefulness for a speaker in
a given context. (that sounds a bit worse than it is, there are a couple of >>> constraints). And on God, he said ""On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of
God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, then it is 'true'."
I don't think James would have meant it in quite the way as Peter's two sources,
but it could be extended in that direction. Or do you remember the discussion about
"ancestor fossils" where Peter wanted to call a given species "ancestor" or at least
"ancestor candidate" because that would make it easier to convince
creationists? And you (and I) argued that there was just not enough evidence for such claims,
and they are hence misleading or outright lies? James called that sort of >>> belief "Overbelief", beliefs that may have an experiental dimension, but require (much)
more evidence than the holder presently has, or can hope to acquire. Spiritual beliefs
are the archetype for James (he introduced the term in a lecture series on religion
and spiritual experience he gave in Edinburgh - this place obvs. always allows great
thinkers to be at theory absolute best ;o)). But it can also be applied to more mundane beliefs.
don't think James's definition would work well in science, in the widest
sense of the word.
Unfortunately, as with most philosophers, there are multiple ways they can have have been read -
Rorty's James is a very different animal from Haack's James, for instance. My reading is probably
through the lens of later philosophers that I like, especially Quine (even though he
claimed to disagree with James) And somewhat confusingly, many contemporaries and
subsequent philosophers read James that way, but in reply to his critics he defended
both the pragmatist definition of truth, AND claimed to be epistemological realist.
The way I read him, he is congenial to science, and tries to rid it from vestigial philosophical
ideas more than anything else. He began his career after all in the empirical sciences -
teaching anatomy and physiology at Harvard - and contributed to some highly influential
theories on the relation between physiological change and emotions (The James - Lang
theory is named after him) . His epistemology is shaped a lot bu his earlier work on cognition,
and how subjects contribute to the creation of what they (report to ) perceive.
That means (again in my reading) "useful" should not be understood as "useful to get
money/fame/laid". At worst, it would be " useful to pass peer review". That is it is useful
for a community of practice (hence pragmatism) to solve the research questions they have
set themselves to the level of granularity that it requires - a concept "has cash value" (another
term he created to the extend it helps them to structure the data. He also promoted a "radical
empiricism" where everyday practice and scientific practice are seen as overlapping.
Take an old example from TO discussions with John Wilkins, the species concept.
A strong realist would say that there is one and only one structure out there in the worlds
that carves out "species".
That means (at most) one of our species conceptions is true,
the others are false. For a Popperian, thy are all probably false but in varying degree approaching
what "the one true conception" would look like. For pluralists and pragmatists like James,
these two are "overbeliefs", over-ambitious philosophical claims that can't be cashed in with evidence.
Instead, a more cautious: they work well for a research field/tradition in solving practical problems
(tells researchers what to do), so that these can have a more fulfilling research practice.
So an environmental scientists may use a different concept from a systematists etc, and as
long it works for them, that's all we can meaningful say, they are true wrt to the various research
traditions and interests, asking for "the TRUE"conception is a bad philosophical relict.
Where you might be the most skeptical about James, he does indeed treat spiritual experience on
a par with any other reported experience. So ultimately there is little difference for him between
reporting "I saw the measurement instrument report a 6", "I had the sense impression of red
in my lower visual field", "I experience hunger, pain, anger" and " I experience being grasped and
held by a superior power in ways that human language is insufficient to describe, but which
is a bit like <being held by a father or mother/unified with the universe/any other religious concept).
We observe that over time and space communities develop a language which enables them to
communicate about this experience, and as a result live lives that they experience as for them
fuller and better. Asking if these are "real", or which one is TRUE, from an external observer perspective
is as futile as asking which species conception , if any, is the TRUE one.
As above, this is my reading of James. Peter's might well differ. The only time we discussed James, I
found his interpretation difficult to reconcile with the text.
Why do you take it seriously?he would be better promoting Hinduism and
karma-driven reincarnation than Christianity
Both are implicit in what I wrote, and I take that part of Hinduism seriously.
I get the impression that most people at this time [1] in the USA
would take that kind of afterlife more seriously than the traditional Christian,
Jewish, or Mohammedan forms.
[1] Our society is more secularized now than any time in our history, >>>>> and the trend gives every sign of continuing. The Catholic Church is especiallyDo you consider that a bad thing?
in a bad way: the attendance at Mass by young single adult men is vanishingly small,
because the emphasis on "vocations" has only shifted in the last two or three decades
from the word being synonymous with "religious and priestly vocations" >>>>> to spottily including "the married life." Too little, too late for the demographic free fall
to secularism to be arrested any time in the next decade or two.
- Christian doctrine is not
big on Hell as a proportional punishment for deeds.
_The Great Divorce_ is heterodox, but not heretical, and is
very much proportional, although Lewis plays down that
fact for dramatic reasons.
Though I note thatUnless you've lived in India [I haven't even visited there], I don't think
it doesn't seem to be any more effective in India than it is in America. >>>>>
"seem" carries much weight.
Peter Nyikos
On 8/6/23 4:07 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:06:04 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/23 12:39 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:26:03 AM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 8/4/23 5:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:I would certainly be interested in Peter's reaction to all that. And I
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:46:03 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote: >>>>>>> [...]Why do you lean toward that concept? Is it just because you find it
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:46:01 AM UTC+1,
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they >>>>>>>>> believe about the possibility of a life after death; and,
specifically,
one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
Did you pay much attention to how general that "specific" is?
It covers at least four of the five religions that most Americans
have
learned of equally well: Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. >>>>>> Buddhism is the ambiguous one: it depends on how much the concept
of "rebirth" differs from the Hindu concept of reincarnation.
[Of course, its founder was agnostic about the supernatural.]
[...]
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of >>>>>>>>> whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature
adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is
improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take
both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in >>>>>>>>> this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic. >>>>>>>>>
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him." >>>>>>>>>
The second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, >>>>>>>>> of all
places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what >>>>>>>>> a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
Peter Nyikos
The thought crosses my mind that if Peter is looking for a
utilitarian
justification for promoting belief in an afterlife as a deterrent to >>>>>>> immoral actions in this life
That's only part of it, of course: John Lennox puts very little
emphasis on it
in the part I quoted, and he isn't specific about its nature.
I lean towards the concept of heaven and hell in C.S. Lewis's _The >>>>>> Great Divorce_,
where hell is not so bad that it will deter everyone who is having >>>>>> too much fun being evil.
Still, the picture it paints of hell, and the big obstacles to
getting out of it,
would deter perhaps the majority of people who believe in such an
afterlife.
more
pleasant to contemplate? Or do you have any sort of evidence for one >>>>> position or another? If the former, is that a valid reason for belief, >>>>> or even for inclination?
Well, Peter has on a number of occasions expressed his admiration
for William
James (I always found this a bit incongruous, but there you are) .
James
is of course founding father of philosophical pragmatism, and advocated >>>> a pragmatist definition of truth that equates it with usefulness for
a speaker in
a given context. (that sounds a bit worse than it is, there are a
couple of
constraints). And on God, he said ""On pragmatic principles, if the
hypothesis of
God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, then it is
'true'."
I don't think James would have meant it in quite the way as Peter's
two sources,
but it could be extended in that direction. Or do you remember the
discussion about
"ancestor fossils" where Peter wanted to call a given species
"ancestor" or at least
"ancestor candidate" because that would make it easier to convince
creationists? And you (and I) argued that there was just not enough
evidence for such claims,
and they are hence misleading or outright lies? James called that
sort of
belief "Overbelief", beliefs that may have an experiental dimension,
but require (much)
more evidence than the holder presently has, or can hope to acquire.
Spiritual beliefs
are the archetype for James (he introduced the term in a lecture
series on religion
and spiritual experience he gave in Edinburgh - this place obvs.
always allows great
thinkers to be at theory absolute best ;o)). But it can also be
applied to more mundane beliefs.
don't think James's definition would work well in science, in the widest >>> sense of the word.
Unfortunately, as with most philosophers, there are multiple ways they
can have have been read -
Rorty's James is a very different animal from Haack's James, for
instance. My reading is probably
through the lens of later philosophers that I like, especially Quine
(even though he
claimed to disagree with James) And somewhat confusingly, many
contemporaries and
subsequent philosophers read James that way, but in reply to his
critics he defended
both the pragmatist definition of truth, AND claimed to be
epistemological realist.
The way I read him, he is congenial to science, and tries to rid it
from vestigial philosophical
ideas more than anything else. He began his career after all in the
empirical sciences -
teaching anatomy and physiology at Harvard - and contributed to
some highly influential
theories on the relation between physiological change and emotions
(The James - Lang
theory is named after him) . His epistemology is shaped a lot bu his
earlier work on cognition,
and how subjects contribute to the creation of what they (report to
) perceive.
Clearly, I don't have any real understanding of what James meant.
Perhaps nobody does, and perhaps we can take any meaning we find useful. "Useful", unfortunately, has a host of potential interpretations and all manner of criteria.
That means (again in my reading) "useful" should not be understood as
"useful to get
money/fame/laid". At worst, it would be " useful to pass peer
review". That is it is useful
for a community of practice (hence pragmatism) to solve the research
questions they have
set themselves to the level of granularity that it requires - a
concept "has cash value" (another
term he created to the extend it helps them to structure the data. He
also promoted a "radical
empiricism" where everyday practice and scientific practice are seen as
overlapping.
Take an old example from TO discussions with John Wilkins, the species
concept.
A strong realist would say that there is one and only one structure
out there in the worlds
that carves out "species".
Let me stop you there. I don't think a species realist has to think
there's a single meaning of the word. Bacterial species could be real in
a wholly different way from mammalian species. Some varieties of species could be real and others unreal, i.e. some taxa could have species and
others could not.
That means (at most) one of our species conceptions is true,
Or it could mean that at most one could be true in any given case.
the others are false. For a Popperian, thy are all probably false but
in varying degree approaching
what "the one true conception" would look like. For pluralists and
pragmatists like James,
these two are "overbeliefs", over-ambitious philosophical claims
that can't be cashed in with evidence.
Instead, a more cautious: they work well for a research
field/tradition in solving practical problems
(tells researchers what to do), so that these can have a more
fulfilling research practice.
So an environmental scientists may use a different concept from a
systematists etc, and as
long it works for them, that's all we can meaningful say, they are
true wrt to the various research
traditions and interests, asking for "the TRUE"conception is a bad
philosophical relict.
To me, this stretches the idea of truth beyond...usefulness. And it
also, to get back in the general direction of the topic, seems a quite different idea of what "useful" means than Peter may be applying. (Or
may not; who knows what he actually means by his various coy hints?)
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable, especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01?PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >> Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they~~~~~~~~~~
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
Perhaps this is best seen in the world of proxy wars conducted
in the World Cup.
* * * *
. The 'shocking and totally unexpected' loss by the U.S. Women's Soccer Team >. to Sweden is fully emblematic of what is happening to the our once great Nation
. under Crooked Joe Biden. Many of our players were openly hostile to America >. No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close. WOKE EQUALS FAILURE.
. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA
* * * *
Quoting 45**
One can clearly understand the necessity of inventing God, and of course
the corollary of an afterlife that includes eternal damnation in Hell for >countries that permit WOKENESS in the females conscripted to wage
war against people who don't even speak American. Hell is for losers.
PS. Harran 39', 52', Morgan 89'.
PPS Make them make a save, never shoot wide or high in penalties. Biden >should have told them.
* impeached
indicted
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 23:21:56 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01?PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, >> one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need >> to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. >> I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
Perhaps this is best seen in the world of proxy wars conducted
in the World Cup.
* * * *
. “The 'shocking and totally unexpected' loss by the U.S. Women's Soccer Team
. to Sweden is fully emblematic of what is happening to the our once great Nation
. under Crooked Joe Biden. Many of our players were openly hostile to America
. – No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close. WOKE EQUALS FAILURE.
. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA”
* * * *
Quoting 45**†††
One can clearly understand the necessity of inventing God, and of course >the corollary of an afterlife that includes eternal damnation in Hell for >countries that permit WOKENESS in the females conscripted to wage
war against people who don't even speak American. Hell is for losers.
PS. Harran 39', 52', Morgan 89'.~~~~~~~~~~
OY, nothing to do with me!
PPS Make them make a save, never shoot wide or high in penalties. Biden >should have told them.
* impeached
† indicted
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 23:21:56 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:.
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01?PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, >> one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need >> to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. >> I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
Perhaps this is best seen in the world of proxy wars conducted
in the World Cup.
* * * *
. “The 'shocking and totally unexpected' loss by the U.S. Women's Soccer Team
. to Sweden is fully emblematic of what is happening to the our once great Nation
. under Crooked Joe Biden. Many of our players were openly hostile to America
. – No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close. WOKE EQUALS FAILURE.
. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA”
* * * *
Quoting 45**†††
One can clearly understand the necessity of inventing God, and of course >the corollary of an afterlife that includes eternal damnation in Hell for >countries that permit WOKENESS in the females conscripted to wage
war against people who don't even speak American. Hell is for losers.
PS. Harran 39', 52', Morgan 89'.~~~~~~~~~~
OY, nothing to do with me!
PPS Make them make a save, never shoot wide or high in penalties. Biden >should have told them.
* impeached
† indicted
Take an old example from TO discussions with John Wilkins, the species
concept.
A strong realist would say that there is one and only one structure
out there in the worlds
that carves out "species".
Let me stop you there. I don't think a species realist has to think
there's a single meaning of the word. Bacterial species could be real in
a wholly different way from mammalian species. Some varieties of species could be real and others unreal, i.e. some taxa could have species and
others could not.
That means (at most) one of our species conceptions is true,
Or it could mean that at most one could be true in any given case.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:36:06?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 23:21:56 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett.
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01?PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:~~~~~~~~~~
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, >> >> one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need >> >> to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable,
especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. >> >> I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, shows
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
Perhaps this is best seen in the world of proxy wars conducted
in the World Cup.
* * * *
. The 'shocking and totally unexpected' loss by the U.S. Women's Soccer Team
. to Sweden is fully emblematic of what is happening to the our once great Nation
. under Crooked Joe Biden. Many of our players were openly hostile to America
. No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close. WOKE EQUALS FAILURE.
. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA
* * * *
Quoting 45**
One can clearly understand the necessity of inventing God, and of course
the corollary of an afterlife that includes eternal damnation in Hell for >> >countries that permit WOKENESS in the females conscripted to wage
war against people who don't even speak American. Hell is for losers.
PS. Harran 39', 52', Morgan 89'.
OY, nothing to do with me!
Indeed, it's actually Horan, Lindsey #10. My bad. To hell with me.
.
PPS Make them make a save, never shoot wide or high in penalties. Biden
should have told them.
* impeached
indicted
On 06/08/2023 14:13, John Harshman wrote:
Take an old example from TO discussions with John Wilkins, the species
concept.
A strong realist would say that there is one and only one structure
out there in the worlds
that carves out "species".
Let me stop you there. I don't think a species realist has to think there's a single meaning of the word. Bacterial species could be real inThe way I put that is "Every species is real, in its own way, except for those that aren't".
a wholly different way from mammalian species. Some varieties of species could be real and others unreal, i.e. some taxa could have species and others could not.
But Burkhard wrote "strong realist", and in this context I think this
has to mean strong species realist, which would mean the position that
the reality of species is universal and unitary.
That means (at most) one of our species conceptions is true,
Or it could mean that at most one could be true in any given case.--
alias Ernest Major
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need
to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable, especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread. I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, showsPerhaps this is best seen in the world of proxy wars conducted
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
in the World Cup.
* * * *
. “The 'shocking and totally unexpected' loss by the U.S. Women's Soccer Team
. to Sweden is fully emblematic of what is happening to the our once great Nation
. under Crooked Joe Biden. Many of our players were openly hostile to America
. – No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close. WOKE EQUALS FAILURE.
. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA”
* * * *
Quoting 45**†††
One can clearly understand the necessity of inventing God,
the corollary of an afterlife that includes eternal damnation in Hell for countries that permit WOKENESS in the females conscripted to wage
war against people who don't even speak American. Hell is for losers.
PS. Harran 39', 52', Morgan 89'.
PPS Make them make a save, never shoot wide or high in penalties. Biden should have told them.
* impeached
† indicted
On 06/08/2023 14:13, John Harshman wrote:
Take an old example from TO discussions with John Wilkins, the
species concept.
A strong realist would say that there is one and only one structure
out there in the worlds
that carves out "species".
Let me stop you there. I don't think a species realist has to think
there's a single meaning of the word. Bacterial species could be real
in a wholly different way from mammalian species. Some varieties of
species could be real and others unreal, i.e. some taxa could have
species and others could not.
The way I put that is "Every species is real, in its own way, except for those that aren't".
But Burkhard wrote "strong realist", and in this context I think this
has to mean strong species realist, which would mean the position that
the reality of species is universal and unitary.
That means (at most) one of our species conceptions is true,
Or it could mean that at most one could be true in any given case.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:51:05 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:multicellular organisms and bacteria since bacterial classification was still a field in flux.
On 06/08/2023 14:13, John Harshman wrote:
Take an old example from TO discussions with John Wilkins, the species >> concept.
A strong realist would say that there is one and only one structure
out there in the worlds
that carves out "species".
Let me stop you there. I don't think a species realist has to think there's a single meaning of the word. Bacterial species could be real in a wholly different way from mammalian species. Some varieties of species could be real and others unreal, i.e. some taxa could have species and others could not.The way I put that is "Every species is real, in its own way, except for those that aren't".
But Burkhard wrote "strong realist", and in this context I think this
has to mean strong species realist, which would mean the position that
the reality of species is universal and unitary.
That means (at most) one of our species conceptions is true,
Another thing about species and William James is that how to classify microbes was a field in taxonomy that was just getting started during James' lifetime. He might have been less inclined to see the tension between species definitions for largeOr it could mean that at most one could be true in any given case.--
alias Ernest Major
Well, Peter has on a number of occasions expressed his admiration for William(that sounds a bit worse than it is, there are a couple of
James (I always found this a bit incongruous, but there you are) . James
is of course founding father of philosophical pragmatism, and advocated
a pragmatist definition of truth that equates it with usefulness for a speaker in
a given context.
constraints).
And on God, he said ""On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of
God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, then it is 'true'."
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:26:05 PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:multicellular organisms and bacteria since bacterial classification was still a field in flux.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:51:05 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 06/08/2023 14:13, John Harshman wrote:Another thing about species and William James is that how to classify microbes was a field in taxonomy that was just getting started during James' lifetime. He might have been less inclined to see the tension between species definitions for large
The way I put that is "Every species is real, in its own way, except for >>> those that aren't".Take an old example from TO discussions with John Wilkins, the species >>>>> concept.
A strong realist would say that there is one and only one structure
out there in the worlds
that carves out "species".
Let me stop you there. I don't think a species realist has to think
there's a single meaning of the word. Bacterial species could be real in >>>> a wholly different way from mammalian species. Some varieties of species >>>> could be real and others unreal, i.e. some taxa could have species and >>>> others could not.
But Burkhard wrote "strong realist", and in this context I think this
has to mean strong species realist, which would mean the position that
the reality of species is universal and unitary.
--
That means (at most) one of our species conceptions is true,
Or it could mean that at most one could be true in any given case.
alias Ernest Major
This was really just my example for illustration purposes, to the best of my knowledge
he never wrote anything about biology. I just wanted to illustrate it by something that
was discussed on TO before And I was probably also not as clear as I should have been.
What I had in mind was something like the position Brent Mishler takes - this type of
pluralism I'd say should be something James found attractive. That is again under the
caveat that that's how I read both James and Mishler - and I'd be more confident in
defending my James interpretation than my Mishler. The aim as I said was merely
to show that James' pragmatism is not incompatible with positions scientists can
also take.
To Peter, an idea is useful if he can use it to make himself look better
(in his estimation) than someone else.
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
To Peter, an idea is useful if he can use it to make himself look better
(in his estimation) than someone else.
SMILE when you say that, Podner, or be guilty of egregious hypocrisy.
NOTE: I said almost the same thing to Harshman on the "parent" thread,
about a very different but derogatory comment of his.
Bottom line: I give him and you the benefit of the doubt if I see no reply by either
of you, and I have seen none from him. That is, I assume that you both follow the "silence gives consent" rule to the *first* clause and would put a smiley to the next time (if any) that you post similar derogatory comment.
Peter Nyikos
PS Martin Harran was clueless as to what my reply to Harshman referred to, and he made a fool of himself with his reaction to our exchange. I believe you
can figure out what's behind my closing clause, if you think hard enough about it.
On 8/7/23 11:34 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
To Peter, an idea is useful if he can use it to make himself look better >> (in his estimation) than someone else.
SMILE when you say that, Podner, or be guilty of egregious hypocrisy.
NOTE: I said almost the same thing to Harshman on the "parent" thread, about a very different but derogatory comment of his.
Bottom line: I give him and you the benefit of the doubt if I see no reply by either
of you, and I have seen none from him. That is, I assume that you both follow
the "silence gives consent" rule to the *first* clause and would put a smiley
to the next time (if any) that you post similar derogatory comment.
Peter Nyikos
PS Martin Harran was clueless as to what my reply to Harshman referred to, and he made a fool of himself with his reaction to our exchange. I believe you
can figure out what's behind my closing clause, if you think hard enough about it.
That was an impenetrable series of coy hints regarding I know not what,
but as far as I can make out, all of it was off-topic, merely some kind
of veiled attack on three people.
On 8/7/23 11:34 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
To Peter, an idea is useful if he can use it to make himself look better >> (in his estimation) than someone else.
SMILE when you say that, Podner, or be guilty of egregious hypocrisy.
NOTE: I said almost the same thing to Harshman on the "parent" thread, about a very different but derogatory comment of his.
Bottom line: I give him and you the benefit of the doubt if I see no reply by either
of you, and I have seen none from him. That is, I assume that you both follow
the "silence gives consent" rule to the *first* clause and would put a smiley
to the next time (if any) that you post similar derogatory comment.
Peter Nyikos
PS Martin Harran was clueless as to what my reply to Harshman referred to, and he made a fool of himself with his reaction to our exchange. I believe you
can figure out what's behind my closing clause, if you think hard enough about it.
That was an impenetrable series of coy hints regarding I know not what,
but as far as I can make out, all of it was off-topic, merely some kind
of veiled attack on three people.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/7/23 11:34 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
To Peter, an idea is useful if he can use it to make himself look better
(in his estimation) than someone else.
SMILE when you say that, Podner, or be guilty of egregious hypocrisy.
NOTE: I said almost the same thing to Harshman on the "parent" thread, about a very different but derogatory comment of his.
Bottom line: I give him and you the benefit of the doubt if I see no reply by either
of you, and I have seen none from him. That is, I assume that you both follow
the "silence gives consent" rule to the *first* clause and would put a smiley
to the next time (if any) that you post similar derogatory comment.
I expect there is an infinite regress of veils.Peter Nyikos
PS Martin Harran was clueless as to what my reply to Harshman referred to,
and he made a fool of himself with his reaction to our exchange. I believe you
can figure out what's behind my closing clause, if you think hard enough about it.
That was an impenetrable series of coy hints regarding I know not what, but as far as I can make out, all of it was off-topic, merely some kindI was preparing a response but now see he has responded with veiled threats of what I guess is more veiled hints of consequences of repercussions. So veiled accusations and veiled threats. I'm hoping his dance doesn't increase the count of veils to 7.
of veiled attack on three people.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:26:06 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/7/23 11:34 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
To Peter, an idea is useful if he can use it to make himself look better
(in his estimation) than someone else.
SMILE when you say that, Podner, or be guilty of egregious hypocrisy.
NOTE: I said almost the same thing to Harshman on the "parent" thread, about a very different but derogatory comment of his.
Bottom line: I give him and you the benefit of the doubt if I see no reply by either
of you, and I have seen none from him. That is, I assume that you both follow
the "silence gives consent" rule to the *first* clause and would put a smiley
to the next time (if any) that you post similar derogatory comment.
.Peter Nyikos
PS Martin Harran was clueless as to what my reply to Harshman referred to,
and he made a fool of himself with his reaction to our exchange. I believe you
can figure out what's behind my closing clause, if you think hard enough about it.
That was an impenetrable series of coy hints regarding I know not what, but as far as I can make out, all of it was off-topic, merely some kind of veiled attack on three people.
.I was preparing a response but now see he has responded with veiled threats
of what I guess is more veiled hints of consequences of repercussions. So veiled accusations and veiled threats. I'm hoping his dance doesn't increase
the count of veils to 7.
I expect there is an infinite regress of veils..
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:26:06 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/7/23 11:34 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
To Peter, an idea is useful if he can use it to make himself look better
(in his estimation) than someone else.
SMILE when you say that, Podner, or be guilty of egregious hypocrisy.
NOTE: I said almost the same thing to Harshman on the "parent" thread, about a very different but derogatory comment of his.
Bottom line: I give him and you the benefit of the doubt if I see no reply by either
of you, and I have seen none from him. That is, I assume that you both follow
the "silence gives consent" rule to the *first* clause and would put a smiley
to the next time (if any) that you post similar derogatory comment.
Peter Nyikos
PS Martin Harran was clueless as to what my reply to Harshman referred to,
and he made a fool of himself with his reaction to our exchange. I believe you
can figure out what's behind my closing clause, if you think hard enough about it.
That was an impenetrable series of coy hints regarding I know not what, but as far as I can make out, all of it was off-topic, merely some kind of veiled attack on three people.
I was preparing a response but now see he has responded with veiled threats
of what I guess is more veiled hints of consequences of repercussions.
So veiled accusations and veiled threats. I'm hoping his dance doesn't increase
the count of veils to 7.
I expect there is an infinite regress of veils.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/7/23 11:34 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:That was an impenetrable series of coy hints regarding I know not what,
To Peter, an idea is useful if he can use it to make himself look better >>>> (in his estimation) than someone else.
SMILE when you say that, Podner, or be guilty of egregious hypocrisy.
NOTE: I said almost the same thing to Harshman on the "parent" thread,
about a very different but derogatory comment of his.
Bottom line: I give him and you the benefit of the doubt if I see no reply by either
of you, and I have seen none from him. That is, I assume that you both follow
the "silence gives consent" rule to the *first* clause and would put a smiley
to the next time (if any) that you post similar derogatory comment.
Peter Nyikos
PS Martin Harran was clueless as to what my reply to Harshman referred to, >>> and he made a fool of himself with his reaction to our exchange. I believe you
can figure out what's behind my closing clause, if you think hard enough about it.
but as far as I can make out, all of it was off-topic, merely some kind
of veiled attack on three people.
All you need to know is that you wrote "Jeez, what an aßhat."
in reference to something I wrote, and I wrote
"SMILE when you say that, podner, or be guilty of sinking
ever deeper into hypocrisy."
Since you didn't reply, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt,
and, to add to what I wrote to Mark, I want readers to
treat what you wrote as though you HAD put a smiley to what
you had written. That goes for Mark, too.
If either of you objects to that, I will respond, but things could
get very ugly, very fast. Best to let sleeping dogs lie, I say.
Peter Nyikos
PS If anyone reading this requests it, I can give a link to John's
comment above, but please look at my last sentence before
my electronic signature before making it.
You quickly shifted to an issue that is on topic for the reasons for which talk.origins
was established. I will set up a whole new thread for it today.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:21:06 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
You quickly shifted to an issue that is on topic for the reasons for which talk.originsMake that tomorrow morning. Family duties intervened,
was established. I will set up a whole new thread for it today.
and so the groundwork didn't get done until a few minutes ago.
Peter Nyikos
I need to correct a serious misconception of yours, Burkhard. Fortunately, nobody got seriously sidetracked by it.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 3:41:04 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
Well, Peter has on a number of occasions expressed his admiration for William(that sounds a bit worse than it is, there are a couple of
James (I always found this a bit incongruous, but there you are) . James is of course founding father of philosophical pragmatism, and advocated
a pragmatist definition of truth that equates it with usefulness for a speaker in
a given context.
constraints).That is not a concept of truth that I would use, although many if not most regular participants act as though they subscribed to it.
It reminds me of Polonius's comment at the end of his soliloquy in "Hamlet" "This above all: to thine own self be true, and then thou canst not be false to any man."
And on God, he said ""On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis ofWhat you've written above has NOTHING to do with my assessment of William James
God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, then it is 'true'."
as one of the two greatest philosophers of the 20th century.
William Barrett gotremains of American Pragmatism today is forced to think of him as the black sheep of the movement. Pragmatists nowadays acknowledge James’s genius but are embarrassed by his extremes: by the unashamedly personal tone of his philosophizing, his
a lot closer to my reasons when he wrote:
Of all the non-European philosophers, William James probably best deserves to be labeled an Existentialist. Indeed, at this late date, we may very well wonder whether it would not be more accurate to call James an Existentialist than a Pragmatist. What
[...]against a "block” universe that could be enclosed in a single rational system.
And it is not merely a matter of tone, but of principle, that places James among the Existentialists: he plumped for a world which contained contingency, discontinuity, and in which the centers of experience were irreducibly plural and personal, as
from pp. 18-19 of _Irrational Man_, Anchor Books Edition, 1962.
The last two sentences sum up a lot of what I like about James. The one before the deletion
touches on something I have to constantly fight against in t.o.: generalities that give no hint
of what really goes on, while a single well chosen example would illustrate it in the spirit
of the old proverb, "one picture is worth a thousand words."
Incidentally, I haven't read deeply of either book in over a decade, but IIRC there is
as little pragmatism in _Varieties of Religious Experience_ as there is in Aldous Huxley's
_Heaven and Hell_.
You quickly shifted to an issue that is on topic for the reasons for which [talk.origins
was established. I will set up a whole new thread for it today.
Peter Nyikos
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
To Peter, an idea is useful if he can use it to make himself look better
(in his estimation) than someone else.
SMILE when you say that, Podner, or be guilty of egregious hypocrisy.
NOTE: I said almost the same thing to Harshman on the "parent" thread,
about a very different but derogatory comment of his.
Bottom line: I give him and you the benefit of the doubt if I see no reply by either
of you, and I have seen none from him. That is, I assume that you both follow the "silence gives consent" rule to the *first* clause and would put a smiley to the next time (if any) that you post similar derogatory comment.
Peter Nyikos
PS Martin Harran was clueless as to what my reply to Harshman referred to, and he made a fool of himself with his reaction to our exchange. I believe you
can figure out what's behind my closing clause, if you think hard enough about it.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:26:06 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/7/23 11:34 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
To Peter, an idea is useful if he can use it to make himself look better
(in his estimation) than someone else.
SMILE when you say that, Podner, or be guilty of egregious hypocrisy.
NOTE: I said almost the same thing to Harshman on the "parent" thread,
about a very different but derogatory comment of his.
Bottom line: I give him and you the benefit of the doubt if I see no reply by either
of you, and I have seen none from him. That is, I assume that you both follow
the "silence gives consent" rule to the *first* clause and would put a smiley
to the next time (if any) that you post similar derogatory comment.
Peter Nyikos
PS Martin Harran was clueless as to what my reply to Harshman referred to,
and he made a fool of himself with his reaction to our exchange. I believe you
can figure out what's behind my closing clause, if you think hard enough about it.
A two-man peanut gallery sounded off as follows:That was an impenetrable series of coy hints regarding I know not what,
but as far as I can make out, all of it was off-topic, merely some kind
of veiled attack on three people.
Daggett is referring to the following response by me, ten minutes before he wrote the above:I was preparing a response but now see he has responded with veiled threats
of what I guess is more veiled hints of consequences of repercussions.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zz-sXdHqagQ/m/iXqbp22pAQAJ
If Daggett is an ethical nihilist, it won't matter to him how hypocritical Mark or Harshman are. I'm content to assume that both are OKSo veiled accusations and veiled threats. I'm hoping his dance doesn't increase
the count of veils to 7.
with being seen as having kidded with the comments at issue.
I expect there is an infinite regress of veils.Unless one of them objects to my assumption, there will be no more veils, and you know it, but you couldn't resist being smart-alecky.
Neither could Daggett.
Peter NyikosI'll bite: I object to your assumptions. Now, what are the additional veils?
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:21:06 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I need to correct a serious misconception of yours, Burkhard. Fortunately, nobody got seriously sidetracked by it.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 3:41:04 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
Well, Peter has on a number of occasions expressed his admiration for William(that sounds a bit worse than it is, there are a couple of
James (I always found this a bit incongruous, but there you are) . James is of course founding father of philosophical pragmatism, and advocated a pragmatist definition of truth that equates it with usefulness for a speaker in
a given context.
constraints).
That is not a concept of truth that I would use, although many if not most regular participants act as though they subscribed to it.
It's pretty much at the centre of all of Jame's philosophising,
so you may have a problem there.
It reminds me of Polonius's comment at the end of his soliloquy in "Hamlet"
"This above all: to thine own self be true, and then thou canst not be false to any man."
"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
Not sure how you interpret this.
One could argue that this is indeed
a way to formulate a pragmatist position: as long as everybody
is true to themselves and their own visions of the good life, from an internal perspective, than this will also lead to beneficial behaviour towards everybody else.
But this centres the individual and mutually
incompatible visions of their respective selves, the good life "for them" and exactly not any "objective truth" or external evaluation.
So I'd say in this way Polonius can be understood as a Jamesian
pragmatist, but I'm not sure that this is your reading of either.
My own take would be different, and relate to your claim about generalities. I don't think Shakespeare meant to make a general or generalisable point here at all. This is a father speaking to his son, i.e. someone he knows intimately. So he really says "Because I know the type of person that
you are, my best advice is stay true to that person, he is really good"
(you can read that as either descriptive, or encouragement, or both)
It is not meant as a general rule: "If people in general are true to themselves
they are true to others". That would be barmy. The last thing I want is
an evil, brutal etc person to be true to themselves. There is a more general issue here - I just hate it when a politician proposes something terribly hurtful, bigoted, mean etc, and the media and public reacts "oh, but
at least s/he really and honestly means it". That is not an excuse, on
the contrary. And I prefer politicians that promote benign policies
even if they don't believe in them themselves over those that "follow
they heart" and crew it up for everybody.
The accusation of hypocrisy
is just something lazy people use who don't want to do the hard research to judge the merit of a position.
On 8/4/23 10:07 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:21:03 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 4:33 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4,
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
No it didn't It appeared as a guest response (John Lennox) to a blogThe second is an article that appeared in Scientific American, of all >>>>> places. It talks in greater generality than the first, about what
a difference a life after death can make for everyone.
The url for it:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-faith-and-science-coexist-mathematician-and-christian-john-lennox-responds/
Boy, Scientific American sure has gone downhill since the last time I
saw it. I remember that it used to have all these cool articles about
science. And now it features jejune philosophy
What's jejune about it? are you being smart-alecky again?
Patience.
that, bonus, is only
slightly relevant to the supposed topic, which if I recall was "taking
the possibility of an afterlife seriously".
Since you are seldom really serious, you have some excuse for
that illogical-seeming comment, but I still need to see you
try to explain it before I take it seriously.
Again, patience.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I
thought it was supposed to be about a serious consideration of its
plausibility,
Moving of goalposts from "possibility" to "plausibility," noted.
Isn't that what serious consideration of possibility involves? Both of
your initial posts are not about the possibility of an afterlife.
They're about the supposed attractions of believing in one, rather than reasons to suppose there is one. If that's what you were trying to talk about, the thread is mistitled.
but all it seems to be, surprisingly, is about whether it
would feel good to believe in it, or whether believing it would have a
salutary effect on otherwise nasty people.
"seems to be" is consistent with your dismissal of the very
possibility of an afterlife as a fairy tale. You seem to be so steeped
in that
dismissal that you come up with "surprisingly" for a very strained
take on what John Lennox wrote.
???
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, believe it or not.
Would you like to see what my first impression of your last bit was?
Again, you hint at some kind of response rather than actually
responding. That's one of your most annoying habits.
As for the claims above, I respond "Euthyphro", which is all that should >>> be necessary.
Sorry, it's neither necessary nor sufficient. I did an essay for a
philosophy class on Euthyphro,
and part of it went about like this:
Euthypro is commonly dismissed as a "blue-nose" and such in the
commentaries I've read, but this ignores the significance of his
action in punishing his father for his atrocious treatment of a slave.
Euthyphro has shown his compassion for a downtrodden victim, one of
the "wretched of the earth",
as Franz Fanon put it.
If one of his disciples happens to browse through an anthology of
Plato's dialogues (perhaps to look up some utopian passages in "The
Republic"), we may yet live to see the ultimate vindication of poor
Euthyphro.
[Ever since New New Google Groups subjected every line to left bias,
with only
attribution marks as barriers, I use run-on lines to set quoted
material apart,
where before I had indented it.]
None of this seems relevant to the point. Let me be clear: the central
point of mentioning Euthyphro is that it shows that, if there is an
objective basis of morality, it can't be God. If God commands it because
it's just, there is a standard by which to judge God's commands; if it's
just because God commands it, then morality is based on whim. And this
does indeed show Lennox's musings to be jejune.
Secondly, getting rid of God does not get rid of the suffering. In
fact, it can make the pain worse since it gets rid of all ultimate
hope and justice. Horgan denies this in his last sentence, but I
still maintain he has no ultimate personal hope to offer for anyone,
including himself. The vast majority of people who have ever lived
have suffered and not received justice in this life. Since,
according to atheism, death is the end, then these people will never
receive justice since there is no life to come. I applaud Horgan’s
positive reaction to what we have achieved in overcoming disease,
poverty, oppression and war, but that does not affect my point in
the slightest.
So the argument for an afterlife is that it would be nice if there were
one? That's taking it seriously? Seriously?
Thanks for setting my mind at ease for what some might call "blowing
your cover" -- otherwise,
some readers might be puzzled as to where you are coming from.
I have been appalled since pre-adolescence about the indescribable
suffering of untold billions.
In early adolescence, I read what in some ways was the most searing
account,
_A_World_Apart_, by Gustav Herling. Another day I might quote a fine
preface
by Bertrand Russell, but I have a lot on my plate today, so I will
just make a little
excerpt the Quote of the Day. The book is about the Soviet slave labor
camps,
and it far outdoes Sozhenitsyn's _Archipelag_Gulag_ in the intimate
detail of one of them.
Again, you merely hint obscurely at whatever point you may have. Is it
too much to ask for you to actually say what you mean? If your argument
is not as I have claimed, please clarify what it actually is.
Would you say that giving people hope by providing them with a delusion
is a good thing? Would you say that this is a good reason why we should
take that delusion seriously? We could of course argue about whether it
is indeed a delusion, which would at last be on-topic for the thread
title. But we should first settle why we aren't already talking about that.
Remainder deleted, to be replied to today, or Monday at the latest, after
my usual weekend break from Usenet posting.
Peter Nyikos
QUOTE OF THE DAY
Although the effort is not easy, one should attempt, in reading such a
book as this one,
to understand the circumstances that turn men into fiends, and to
realize that
it is not by blind rage that such evils will be prevented. I do not
say that to understand
is to pardon; there are things which for my part I cannot pardon. But
I do say that
to understand is necessary if the spread of similar evils over the
whole world is to be prevented.
-- from the preface by Bertrand Russell, O.M. to _A_World_Apart_.
Is that intended somehow to be relevant to the topic? If so, how?
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:21:06 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I need to correct a serious misconception of yours, Burkhard. Fortunately, >> nobody got seriously sidetracked by it.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 3:41:04 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
Well, Peter has on a number of occasions expressed his admiration for William(that sounds a bit worse than it is, there are a couple of
James (I always found this a bit incongruous, but there you are) . James >>> is of course founding father of philosophical pragmatism, and advocated
a pragmatist definition of truth that equates it with usefulness for a speaker in
a given context.
constraints).That is not a concept of truth that I would use, although many if not most >> regular participants act as though they subscribed to it.
It's pretty much at the centre of all of Jame's philosophising,
so you may have a problem there.
It reminds me of Polonius's comment at the end of his soliloquy in "Hamlet" >> "This above all: to thine own self be true, and then thou canst not be false to any man."
"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
On 8/8/23 5:20 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:21:06 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I need to correct a serious misconception of yours, Burkhard. Fortunately,
nobody got seriously sidetracked by it.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 3:41:04 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
Well, Peter has on a number of occasions expressed his admiration for William(that sounds a bit worse than it is, there are a couple of
James (I always found this a bit incongruous, but there you are) . James >>> is of course founding father of philosophical pragmatism, and advocated >>> a pragmatist definition of truth that equates it with usefulness for a speaker in
a given context.
constraints).That is not a concept of truth that I would use, although many if not most
regular participants act as though they subscribed to it.
It's pretty much at the centre of all of Jame's philosophising,
so you may have a problem there.
It reminds me of Polonius's comment at the end of his soliloquy in "Hamlet"
"This above all: to thine own self be true, and then thou canst not be false to any man."
"This above all: to thine own self be true,Or if you want to sing it to a Bizet tune,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
Do not forget,
Stay out of debt;
Think twice, and take this good advice from me:
Guard that old solvency.
There's just one other thing
You ought to do.
To thine own self be true."
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 10:36:04?AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
To Peter, an idea is useful if he can use it to make himself look better
(in his estimation) than someone else.
SMILE when you say that, Podner, or be guilty of egregious hypocrisy.
NOTE: I said almost the same thing to Harshman on the "parent" thread,
about a very different but derogatory comment of his.
Bottom line: I give him and you the benefit of the doubt if I see no reply by either
of you, and I have seen none from him. That is, I assume that you both follow >the "silence gives consent" rule to the *first* clause and would put a smiley >to the next time (if any) that you post similar derogatory comment.
Peter Nyikos
PS Martin Harran was clueless as to what my reply to Harshman r
I believe you
can figure out what's behind my closing clause, if you think hard enough about it.
On 8/7/23 3:47 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 06/08/2023 14:13, John Harshman wrote:
Take an old example from TO discussions with John Wilkins, the
species concept.
A strong realist would say that there is one and only one structure
out there in the worlds
that carves out "species".
Let me stop you there. I don't think a species realist has to think
there's a single meaning of the word. Bacterial species could be real
in a wholly different way from mammalian species. Some varieties of
species could be real and others unreal, i.e. some taxa could have
species and others could not.
The way I put that is "Every species is real, in its own way, except
for those that aren't".
But Burkhard wrote "strong realist", and in this context I think this
has to mean strong species realist, which would mean the position that
the reality of species is universal and unitary.
I'll grant you "universal". But why "unitary"?
That means (at most) one of our species conceptions is true,
Or it could mean that at most one could be true in any given case.
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 5:56:08?AM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/8/23 5:20 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:21:06?PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> I need to correct a serious misconception of yours, Burkhard. Fortunately,Or if you want to sing it to a Bizet tune,
nobody got seriously sidetracked by it.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 3:41:04?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
Well, Peter has on a number of occasions expressed his admiration for William(that sounds a bit worse than it is, there are a couple of
James (I always found this a bit incongruous, but there you are) . James
is of course founding father of philosophical pragmatism, and advocated >> >>> a pragmatist definition of truth that equates it with usefulness for a speaker in
a given context.
constraints).That is not a concept of truth that I would use, although many if not most
regular participants act as though they subscribed to it.
It's pretty much at the centre of all of Jame's philosophising,
so you may have a problem there.
It reminds me of Polonius's comment at the end of his soliloquy in "Hamlet"
"This above all: to thine own self be true, and then thou canst not be false to any man."
"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
Do not forget,
Stay out of debt;
Think twice, and take this good advice from me:
Guard that old solvency.
There's just one other thing
You ought to do.
To thine own self be true."
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
OK, so that gets us to more important, but also more difficult
questions: Ginger, Mary Ann or Roy?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 02:47:27 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 5:56:08?AM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/8/23 5:20 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:21:06?PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Or if you want to sing it to a Bizet tune,
I need to correct a serious misconception of yours, Burkhard. Fortunately,
nobody got seriously sidetracked by it.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 3:41:04?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
Well, Peter has on a number of occasions expressed his admiration for William(that sounds a bit worse than it is, there are a couple of
James (I always found this a bit incongruous, but there you are) . James
is of course founding father of philosophical pragmatism, and advocated
a pragmatist definition of truth that equates it with usefulness for a speaker in
a given context.
constraints).That is not a concept of truth that I would use, although many if not most
regular participants act as though they subscribed to it.
It's pretty much at the centre of all of Jame's philosophising,
so you may have a problem there.
It reminds me of Polonius's comment at the end of his soliloquy in "Hamlet"
"This above all: to thine own self be true, and then thou canst not be false to any man."
"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
Do not forget,
Stay out of debt;
Think twice, and take this good advice from me:
Guard that old solvency.
There's just one other thing
You ought to do.
To thine own self be true."
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
OK, so that gets us to more important, but also more difficultI had no idea you were a Gilligan's Island fan.
questions: Ginger, Mary Ann or Roy?
Or is the above a segue to discussing group sex?
On 2023-08-03, peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death;
For every talk on arguments about the existence of magic/religion,
replace the Abrahamic god/afterlife/miracles with
Enki/Seth, Hades/Valhalla and Sumerian myths/Vikings' Berserk strength.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Or as someone else has put it (slightly updated)
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and
a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart
of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the Aspirin of the people
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their
real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call
on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore,
in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
[Quoting from Lennox's piece:]...
it means that our conscience is not an illusion, and those who terrorise, abuse, exploit, defame and cause their fellow humans untold suffering will not get away with it. Atheism has no such hope--for it ultimate justice is an illusion.At the very least that shows me that God has not remained distant from human suffering but has become part of it. Furthermore, Christ rose from the dead, which is a guarantee that there is to be a future judgement. This is a marvellous hope, because
Maybe - but then better an imperfect justice in the hand than an "ultimate" justice
in the bush.
And is it even true? There are a number of "secular" theories of ultimate justice, going back
to Epicurus or Plato: there the evildoer "with necessity" harms himself, by failing to be
the person they could have been, and at. cost to his happiness.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Picking up where I left off in my first reply to you:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Or as someone else has put it (slightly updated)
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and
a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart
of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the Aspirin of the people
What's this about Aspirin?
Job didn't expect any from God. On the contrary, he indicted God Himself
for the worst of real suffering. See Job 9:22-24, or Job 24:2-12, with its shattering climax,
From the towns come the groans of the dying
and the gasp of wounded men crying for help.
Yet God remains deaf to their appeal!
[The Jerusalem Bible ]
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their
real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call
on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore,
in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
What halo, Job might well ask. He takes the possibility of a life after death seriously --
but he has no such "illusion":
I tell the tomb, "You are my father,"
and call the worm my mother and my sister.
Where then is my hope?
Who can see any happiness for me?
Will these come down to me in Sheol,
or sink with me into the dust? [ibid., Job 17:14-16]
The image of Sheol, where there may still be a ghostly
existence, makes Epicurus's confidence that death
is the end of everything for an individual look like wishful thinking,
no less wishful than "pie in the sky". Hamlet's own "to sleep,
perchance to dream -- ay, there's the rub" puts paid to Epicurus's confidence.
[See my post to this thread a little while ago for the sequel.]
because it means that our conscience is not an illusion, and those who terrorise, abuse, exploit, defame and cause their fellow humans untold suffering will not get away with it. Atheism has no such hope--for it ultimate justice is an illusion.[Quoting from Lennox's piece:]...
At the very least that shows me that God has not remained distant from human suffering but has become part of it. Furthermore, Christ rose from the dead, which is a guarantee that there is to be a future judgement. This is a marvellous hope,
Maybe - but then better an imperfect justice in the hand than an "ultimate" justice
in the bush.
You say that because you dismiss the possibility of any justice after death, don't you?
And is it even true? There are a number of "secular" theories of ultimate justice, going back
to Epicurus or Plato: there the evildoer "with necessity" harms himself, by failing to be
the person they could have been, and at. cost to his happiness.
Socrates's argument in Plato's "Gorgias" for that kind of solution is irremediably flawed,
and neither Polus nor Callicles noticed that.
Plato did open my eyes to the fact that he and Socrates had arrived at a vision
of goodness and evil that is independent of reward/retribution, divine or otherwise.
That vision has stayed with me all my life and keeps growing stronger each year.
By the way, the "Last Judgment" story of Radamanthus at the end of "Gorgias" is
a sort of *deus* *ex* *machina* ending which did not distract me
from having my eyes opened in this way.
Again duty calls me to end here, but I hope to finish replying to this thought-provoking
post of yours tomorrow, by starting earlier in the evening than in these first two replies.
If not, then certainly on Friday.
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
because it means that our conscience is not an illusion, and those who terrorise, abuse, exploit, defame and cause their fellow humans untold suffering will not get away with it. Atheism has no such hope--for it ultimate justice is an illusion.At the very least that shows me that God has not remained distant from human suffering but has become part of it. Furthermore, Christ rose from the dead, which is a guarantee that there is to be a future judgement. This is a marvellous hope,
There is also psychological basis for this - the "warm feeling": we get when doing good, the anxiety
when doing bad etc. It is at least not impossible to think of a world where the cost
of evil actions are intrinsically higher than any gain they can give to the perpetrator
Finally, none of us finds the idea of ultimate justice attractive because we are all flawed and have all messed up.
I'll find this extremely implausible - and before I get accused of having an overly cynical view of
human nature, I think I have the evidence from psychology and anthropology to back me up.
Humans just LOVE the idea of punishment for the wicked. They just divide immediately in their mind
the world in "the wicked" and "me, my friends, and the more agreeable members of my family".
Punishment happens in this view (mostly) to others, and we enjoy inflicting it, do we not just,
sometimes personally mostly in modernity vicariously, , sometimes consensually , mostly of
course not so.
That's why penal populism works, even in times when the objective data shows that crime is decreasing
and incarceration makes things worse.
Sure, on one level people realise that "we are all poor
sinners" - which is why concepts such as purgatory play such an important role THEIR evil ways
require eternal hot pokers up the backsy, MY regrettable lack of judgement should get me probation,
or maybe 20 lashes at max. This way we "pay" for the satisfaction of inflicting pain on others with the risk
of a little pain for ourselves, AND can feel good and humble in the process too (...of course I too
am a sinner...)
Hell, to misquote Sartre, is full of other people. And nobody thinks of him/herself seriously as a baddy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
We see this in the penal institutions we create in this world: if people realised that the prison they
want to build, or the judicial torture, could one day be inflicted on them our prisons etc through
history would have looked very different. It's typically only the handful of penal abolitionists whose
empathetic reasoning makes them see themselves on the receiving end too.
This us vs them logic of punishment is well studied in the research on penal populism cf e.g.
classically Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing, If one
believes in evolutionary psychology, this may have evolutionary roots - I think the term is
"altruistic punishment" - opting for a system in which meeting out punishment even harms
the punisher
(I myself found Flesch: Comeuppance: Costly signaling, altruistic punishment,
and other biological components quite interesting )
That the "us vs them" logic is also central to divine punishment is particularly obvious when
we consider that more often than not, the most serious punishment is reserved for non-believers
for no other reason that they are non-believers.
Indeed, for sola-fide Christians, any harm inflicted
on others during our lifetime is largely irrelevant, determinative for punishment is merely a state of
mind.
human problem.The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me. Christianity competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution to my
Yes, and every member of every other religion will feel the same about theirs.
But also an interesting point on the substance. Is this really a vision
of justice that is plausible? Imagine being the victim of a terrible
crime - someone murdering one's family. now it comes to the trial,
and the judge says to the accused: "well, you did it, obviously, but you also
really love me,
so that's OK then, off you go."
I'd say most of us would be pissed off by that. Now, when complaining that the forgiveness stuff should have been our to give (cf e.g. the introduction of victim impact statements in US criminal law precisely to increase punishment) ,
the judge says "ahh, but in return I forgive YOU that from 1973-1975 you seriously
doubted me, AND in 1984 you fancied your neighbour even though they were married/of the wrong sex/of the wrong religion.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think the idea of universal reconciliation is a great theological
concept - just not one that one can ground in our desire for justice
Of course these are huge claims and demand evidence. I have tried to put some of that evidence together in Gunning for God. published by Kregel. Also see my website johnlennox.org.
Peter Nyikos
I didn't post at all to Usenet yesterday because a family celebration lasted till after 9pm.it means that our conscience is not an illusion, and those who terrorise, abuse, exploit, defame and cause their fellow humans untold suffering will not get away with it. Atheism has no such hope--for it ultimate justice is an illusion.
But now I finally have time to finish the series of three replies to this thought-provoking post of yours.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[quoting from an essay by Oxford philosopher John Lennox:]
At the very least that shows me that God has not remained distant from human suffering but has become part of it. Furthermore, Christ rose from the dead, which is a guarantee that there is to be a future judgement. This is a marvellous hope, because
Picking up where I left off in my second reply:
There is also psychological basis for this - the "warm feeling": we get when doing good, the anxiety
when doing bad etc. It is at least not impossible to think of a world where the cost
of evil actions are intrinsically higher than any gain they can give to the perpetrator
But that is not our world. I purposely talked to Harshman about conditions under Stalin, where the
perpetrators inflicted untold suffering on the prisoners in the slave labor camps, yet there
was no retribution to them at all, except in one solitary case of a perpetrator who fell from grace
and had to share the worst conditions of the people he had once sent to their hell on earth.
[Lennox again:]
Finally, none of us finds the idea of ultimate justice attractive because we are all flawed and have all messed up.
I'll find this extremely implausible - and before I get accused of having an overly cynical view of
human nature, I think I have the evidence from psychology and anthropology to back me up.
Humans just LOVE the idea of punishment for the wicked. They just divide immediately in their mind
the world in "the wicked" and "me, my friends, and the more agreeable members of my family".
Punishment happens in this view (mostly) to others, and we enjoy inflicting it, do we not just,
sometimes personally mostly in modernity vicariously, , sometimes consensually , mostly of
course not so.
With a primitive bow and arrow, you have taken a shot in the direction of what I call
The Achilles Heel of Christianity: the doctrine of a hell of everlasting fire, along with
the way apologists have defended it.
Thomas Aquinas, for instance, illogically argued for it by saying that since sin is
an offense against an infinite God, it deserves an infinite punishment.
Some two millennia earlier, Job had some choice words for this kind of thinking,
in Job 7: 17-20, where he turns Psalm 8 on its head with the words,
"What is man that you should make so much of him,
subjecting him to your scrutiny,
that morning after morning you should examine him,
and every moment test him?
Will you never take your eyes off me
long enough for me to swallow my spittle?
Suppose I have sinned, what have I done to you,
you tireless watcher of mankind?
Why do you choose me as your target?
Why should I be a burden to you?"
-- The Jerusalem Bible
That's why penal populism works, even in times when the objective data shows that crime is decreasing
and incarceration makes things worse.
Than what? letting violent criminals loose and able to wreak revenge on their victims for
daring to testify against them?
little ones* (42) as indicating different groups within the followers of Jesus. Probably all three designations are used here of Christian missionaries as such."Sure, on one level people realise that "we are all poor
sinners" - which is why concepts such as purgatory play such an important role THEIR evil ways
require eternal hot pokers up the backsy, MY regrettable lack of judgement should get me probation,
or maybe 20 lashes at max. This way we "pay" for the satisfaction of inflicting pain on others with the risk
of a little pain for ourselves, AND can feel good and humble in the process too (...of course I too
am a sinner...)
IIRC it was St. Augustine who perversely claimed that one of the joys of those in heaven
was to witness the unending suffering of people condemned to everlasting torture.
I rebelled against such callousness well before my final break with the Catholicism
I had been taught in primary and secondary school. I comforted myself with the widespread
sentiment that "Hell exists, but it is empty." It was when I felt I could no longer believe this
and still cling to Catholic doctrine that the irrevocable break came.
Now, over half a century later, I have a better perspective on what Catholic doctrine
is, but the break is still there, and I remain an agnostic. However, I do have a couple of things
to say to your one-dimensional picture.
First: there is a way to read the Biblical account of Jesus's teachings to the effect that,
although hell is everlasting, any one person remains there for only a finite period
of time, and then is granted Epicurus's hope: annihilation. Many Jews of today
believe in this kind of punishment, but based on Daniel 12: 2-3 rather than anything in the NT.
Second: there is an amazing footnote in the New American Bible (NAB) on Matthew 10:41-42 which
has to do with "these least ones" of the famous Last Judgment scene (Mt. 25: 31-46 at 40, 45).
"*A prophet*: one who speaks in the name of God; here, the Christian prophets who speak in the name of God. *Righteous man*: since righteousness is demanded of all the disciples, it is difficult to take the *righteous man* of [v.41] and *one of these
The "least/little ones" are traditionally believed to refer to all the poor, hungry, etc. people of earth,
and yet, if the footnote is correct, that scene from the Last Judgment is a self-serving depiction
of Jesus's favoritism towards his own disciples! And make no mistake: Mt 25:40 has a footnote
cross-referencing Mt. 10:42, and the NAB is the official translation for the Roman Catholic Mass.
All of the above notwithstanding, I believe these footnotes are in error, and it was an oversight
of the people vetting the NAB to have them included. But either way, the Achilles' Heel of
Christianity is in a bad way.
Hell, to misquote Sartre, is full of other people. And nobody thinks of
him/herself seriously as a baddy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
"nobody" certainly ignores the author of "Amazing Grace," who went from being part of
the slave trade to working tirelessly to have it abolished. And I believe there are millions
like him on a smaller scale at any one time. I see myself as having been a baddy from the age of 9 through
the age of 14, and I cringe when I think back at many of the things I did back then.
And you seem to speak of such people yourself below.
We see this in the penal institutions we create in this world: if people realised that the prison they
want to build, or the judicial torture, could one day be inflicted on them our prisons etc through
history would have looked very different. It's typically only the handful of penal abolitionists whose
empathetic reasoning makes them see themselves on the receiving end too.
This us vs them logic of punishment is well studied in the research on penal populism cf e.g.
classically Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing, If one
believes in evolutionary psychology, this may have evolutionary roots - I think the term is
"altruistic punishment" - opting for a system in which meeting out punishment even harms
the punisher
(I myself found Flesch: Comeuppance: Costly signaling, altruistic punishment,
and other biological components quite interesting )
Sounds quite specialized, though.
That the "us vs them" logic is also central to divine punishment is particularly obvious when
we consider that more often than not, the most serious punishment is reserved for non-believers
for no other reason that they are non-believers.
This is a really serious misunderstanding -- confusing mere belief with the many-faceted concept
of faith. I believe the Epistle of James was written to correct people who had this
false idea of what "faith" entails. The Roman Catholic Church sides with James on this issue.
Even the Lutheran Church seems to have turned its back on Luther, who removed that Epistle
from his Bible, calling it an "epistle of straw."
human problem.Indeed, for sola-fide Christians, any harm inflicted
on others during our lifetime is largely irrelevant, determinative for punishment is merely a state of
mind.
There was such a person, proclaiming this travesty with a stentorian voice, on the University of Illinois
campus back in 1975 or 1976. I'd give some details, but this post has gotten quite long as it is.
[quoting Lennox again:]
The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me. Christianity competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution to my
Yes, and every member of every other religion will feel the same about theirs.
Stop and think: what ARE the other religions which talk so radically about forgiveness?
And how do they do it? I know of no examples, and I know of one that has no such
thing: the Zoroastrians are so diffident about their religion that it can only be passed
on by inheritance. The Jews aren't big on proselytizing either.
But also an interesting point on the substance. Is this really a vision
of justice that is plausible? Imagine being the victim of a terrible
crime - someone murdering one's family. now it comes to the trial,
and the judge says to the accused: "well, you did it, obviously, but you also
really love me,
"AND your neighbor as yourself, AND even your enemies."
Surely you know the NT better than to leave this out.
so that's OK then, off you go."
The vision of heaven does not stop there for C.S. Lewis and many other Christian leaders. They include tearful confessions by the wrongers to the wronged,
followed by reconciliation.
I'd say most of us would be pissed off by that. Now, when complaining that >> the forgiveness stuff should have been our to give (cf e.g. the introduction >> of victim impact statements in US criminal law precisely to increase punishment) ,
the judge says "ahh, but in return I forgive YOU that from 1973-1975 you seriously
doubted me, AND in 1984 you fancied your neighbour even though they were
married/of the wrong sex/of the wrong religion.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think the idea of universal reconciliation is a great theological
concept - just not one that one can ground in our desire for justice
Justice never stands alone, and neither does mercy, in Christian doctrine. They are inextricably bound with one another.
Unfortunately for me, my realism keeps me from believing in the existence of a God that
corresponds to these doctrines, but they are high on a "wish list." Lennox has the right
idea of what true believers are like, and I would probably be happier if I could be one of them,
but my integrity won't let me go back to my old beliefs before the decisive break.
We both give Lennox the last word:
Of course these are huge claims and demand evidence. I have tried to put some of that evidence together in Gunning for God. published by Kregel. Also see my website johnlennox.org.
I didn't post at all to Usenet yesterday because a family celebration lasted till after 9pm.because it means that our conscience is not an illusion, and those who terrorise, abuse, exploit, defame and cause their fellow humans untold suffering will not get away with it. Atheism has no such hope--for it ultimate justice is an illusion.
But now I finally have time to finish the series of three replies to this thought-provoking post of yours.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[quoting from an essay by Oxford philosopher John Lennox:]
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
At the very least that shows me that God has not remained distant from human suffering but has become part of it. Furthermore, Christ rose from the dead, which is a guarantee that there is to be a future judgement. This is a marvellous hope,
Picking up where I left off in my second reply:
There is also psychological basis for this - the "warm feeling": we get when doing good, the anxiety
when doing bad etc. It is at least not impossible to think of a world where the cost
of evil actions are intrinsically higher than any gain they can give to the perpetrator
But that is not our world. I purposely talked to Harshman about conditions under Stalin, where the
perpetrators inflicted untold suffering on the prisoners in the slave labor camps, yet there
was no retribution to them at all, except in one solitary case of a perpetrator who fell from grace
and had to share the worst conditions of the people he had once sent to their hell on earth.
[Lennox again:]
Finally, none of us finds the idea of ultimate justice attractive because we are all flawed and have all messed up.
I'll find this extremely implausible - and before I get accused of having an overly cynical view of
human nature, I think I have the evidence from psychology and anthropology to back me up.
Humans just LOVE the idea of punishment for the wicked. They just divide immediately in their mind
the world in "the wicked" and "me, my friends, and the more agreeable members of my family".
Punishment happens in this view (mostly) to others, and we enjoy inflicting it, do we not just,
sometimes personally mostly in modernity vicariously, , sometimes consensually , mostly of
course not so.
With a primitive bow and arrow, you have taken a shot in the direction of what I call
The Achilles Heel of Christianity: the doctrine of a hell of everlasting fire, along with
the way apologists have defended it.
Thomas Aquinas, for instance, illogically argued for it by saying that since sin is
an offense against an infinite God, it deserves an infinite punishment.
Some two millennia earlier, Job had some choice words for this kind of thinking,
in Job 7: 17-20, where he turns Psalm 8 on its head with the words,
"What is man that you should make so much of him,
subjecting him to your scrutiny,
that morning after morning you should examine him,
and every moment test him?
Will you never take your eyes off me
long enough for me to swallow my spittle?
Suppose I have sinned, what have I done to you,
you tireless watcher of mankind?
Why do you choose me as your target?
Why should I be a burden to you?"
-- The Jerusalem Bible
That's why penal populism works, even in times when the objective data shows that crime is decreasing
and incarceration makes things worse.
Than what? letting violent criminals loose and able to wreak revenge on their victims for
daring to testify against them?
little ones* (42) as indicating different groups within the followers of Jesus. Probably all three designations are used here of Christian missionaries as such."Sure, on one level people realise that "we are all poor
sinners" - which is why concepts such as purgatory play such an important role THEIR evil ways
require eternal hot pokers up the backsy, MY regrettable lack of judgement should get me probation,
or maybe 20 lashes at max. This way we "pay" for the satisfaction of inflicting pain on others with the risk
of a little pain for ourselves, AND can feel good and humble in the process too (...of course I too
am a sinner...)
IIRC it was St. Augustine who perversely claimed that one of the joys of those in heaven
was to witness the unending suffering of people condemned to everlasting torture.
I rebelled against such callousness well before my final break with the Catholicism
I had been taught in primary and secondary school. I comforted myself with the widespread
sentiment that "Hell exists, but it is empty." It was when I felt I could no longer believe this
and still cling to Catholic doctrine that the irrevocable break came.
Now, over half a century later, I have a better perspective on what Catholic doctrine
is, but the break is still there, and I remain an agnostic. However, I do have a couple of things
to say to your one-dimensional picture.
First: there is a way to read the Biblical account of Jesus's teachings to the effect that,
although hell is everlasting, any one person remains there for only a finite period
of time, and then is granted Epicurus's hope: annihilation. Many Jews of today
believe in this kind of punishment, but based on Daniel 12: 2-3 rather than anything in the NT.
Second: there is an amazing footnote in the New American Bible (NAB) on Matthew 10:41-42 which
has to do with "these least ones" of the famous Last Judgment scene (Mt. 25: 31-46 at 40, 45).
"*A prophet*: one who speaks in the name of God; here, the Christian prophets who speak in the name of God. *Righteous man*: since righteousness is demanded of all the disciples, it is difficult to take the *righteous man* of [v.41] and *one of these
The "least/little ones" are traditionally believed to refer to all the poor, hungry, etc. people of earth,
and yet, if the footnote is correct, that scene from the Last Judgment is a self-serving depiction
of Jesus's favoritism towards his own disciples! And make no mistake: Mt 25:40 has a footnote
cross-referencing Mt. 10:42, and the NAB is the official translation for the Roman Catholic Mass.
All of the above notwithstanding, I believe these footnotes are in error, and it was an oversight
of the people vetting the NAB to have them included. But either way, the Achilles' Heel of
Christianity is in a bad way.
Hell, to misquote Sartre, is full of other people. And nobody thinks of him/herself seriously as a baddy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
"nobody" certainly ignores the author of "Amazing Grace," who went from being part of
the slave trade to working tirelessly to have it abolished. And I believe there are millions
like him on a smaller scale at any one time. I see myself as having been a baddy from the age of 9 through
the age of 14, and I cringe when I think back at many of the things I did back then.
And you seem to speak of such people yourself below.
We see this in the penal institutions we create in this world: if people realised that the prison they
want to build, or the judicial torture, could one day be inflicted on them our prisons etc through
history would have looked very different. It's typically only the handful of penal abolitionists whose
empathetic reasoning makes them see themselves on the receiving end too.
This us vs them logic of punishment is well studied in the research on penal populism cf e.g.
classically Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing, If one
believes in evolutionary psychology, this may have evolutionary roots - I think the term is
"altruistic punishment" - opting for a system in which meeting out punishment even harms
the punisher
(I myself found Flesch: Comeuppance: Costly signaling, altruistic punishment,
and other biological components quite interesting )
Sounds quite specialized, though.
That the "us vs them" logic is also central to divine punishment is particularly obvious when
we consider that more often than not, the most serious punishment is reserved for non-believers
for no other reason that they are non-believers.
This is a really serious misunderstanding -- confusing mere belief with the many-faceted concept
of faith.
I believe the Epistle of James was written to correct people who had this false idea of what "faith" entails. The Roman Catholic Church sides with James on this issue.
Even the Lutheran Church seems to have turned its back on Luther, who removed that Epistle
from his Bible, calling it an "epistle of straw."
human problem.Indeed, for sola-fide Christians, any harm inflicted
on others during our lifetime is largely irrelevant, determinative for punishment is merely a state of
mind.
There was such a person, proclaiming this travesty with a stentorian voice, on the University of Illinois
campus back in 1975 or 1976. I'd give some details, but this post has gotten quite long as it is.
[quoting Lennox again:]
The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me. Christianity competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution to my
Yes, and every member of every other religion will feel the same about theirs.
Stop and think: what ARE the other religions which talk so radically about forgiveness?
And how do they do it? I know of no examples, and I know of one that has no such
thing: the Zoroastrians are so diffident about their religion that it can only be passed
on by inheritance. The Jews aren't big on proselytizing either.
But also an interesting point on the substance. Is this really a vision
of justice that is plausible? Imagine being the victim of a terrible
crime - someone murdering one's family. now it comes to the trial,
and the judge says to the accused: "well, you did it, obviously, but you also
really love me,
"AND your neighbor as yourself, AND even your enemies."
Surely you know the NT better than to leave this out.
so that's OK then, off you go."
The vision of heaven does not stop there for C.S. Lewis and many other Christian leaders. They include tearful confessions by the wrongers to the wronged,
followed by reconciliation.
I'd say most of us would be pissed off by that. Now, when complaining that the forgiveness stuff should have been our to give (cf e.g. the introduction
of victim impact statements in US criminal law precisely to increase punishment) ,
the judge says "ahh, but in return I forgive YOU that from 1973-1975 you seriously
doubted me, AND in 1984 you fancied your neighbour even though they were married/of the wrong sex/of the wrong religion.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think the idea of universal reconciliation is a great theological
concept - just not one that one can ground in our desire for justice
Justice never stands alone, and neither does mercy, in Christian doctrine. They are inextricably bound with one another.
Unfortunately for me, my realism keeps me from believing in the existence of a God that
corresponds to these doctrines, but they are high on a "wish list." Lennox has the right
idea of what true believers are like, and I would probably be happier if I could be one of them,
but my integrity won't let me go back to my old beliefs before the decisive break.
We both give Lennox the last word:
Of course these are huge claims and demand evidence. I have tried to put some of that evidence together in Gunning for God. published by Kregel. Also see my website johnlennox.org.
Peter Nyikos
On 8/11/23 5:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:human problem.
I didn't post at all to Usenet yesterday because a family celebration lasted till after 9pm.
But now I finally have time to finish the series of three replies to this thought-provoking post of yours.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[quoting Lennox again:]
The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me. Christianity competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution to my
Yes, and every member of every other religion will feel the same about theirs.
Stop and think: what ARE the other religions which talk so radically about forgiveness?
And how do they do it? I know of no examples, and I know of one that has no such
thing: the Zoroastrians are so diffident about their religion that it can only be passed
on by inheritance. The Jews aren't big on proselytizing either.
Islam would seem to be the major candidate here. Why would you reject it?
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:human problem.
On 8/11/23 5:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't post at all to Usenet yesterday because a family celebration lasted till after 9pm.
But now I finally have time to finish the series of three replies to this thought-provoking post of yours.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[quoting Lennox again:]
The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me. Christianity competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution to my
Yes, and every member of every other religion will feel the same about theirs.
Stop and think: what ARE the other religions which talk so radically about forgiveness?
And how do they do it? I know of no examples, and I know of one that has no such
thing: the Zoroastrians are so diffident about their religion that it can only be passed
on by inheritance. The Jews aren't big on proselytizing either.
Islam would seem to be the major candidate here. Why would you reject it?
I can't figure out what you are getting at here. I couldn't find anything about
forgiveness in anything I've read about The Five Pillars of Islam. Also, there is no forgiveness
for those who insult "Allah's greatest prophet, upon whom be peace."
Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
I suggest you read my reply to Bozo User on Aug 9, 2023, 8:41:08 PM
on this thread, to try and get some focus on the other things you
wrote in this same reply to me [deleted].
On 8/17/23 9:52 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:human problem.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 5:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't post at all to Usenet yesterday because a family celebration lasted till after 9pm.
But now I finally have time to finish the series of three replies to this thought-provoking post of yours.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[quoting Lennox again:]
The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me. Christianity competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution to my
Yes, and every member of every other religion will feel the same about theirs.
Stop and think: what ARE the other religions which talk so radically about forgiveness?
And how do they do it? I know of no examples, and I know of one that has no such
thing: the Zoroastrians are so diffident about their religion that it can only be passed
on by inheritance. The Jews aren't big on proselytizing either.
Islam would seem to be the major candidate here. Why would you reject it?
I can't figure out what you are getting at here. I couldn't find anything aboutI don't actually know that much about Islam, though it's claimed to be
forgiveness in anything I've read about The Five Pillars of Islam. Also, there is no forgiveness
for those who insult "Allah's greatest prophet, upon whom be peace." Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that the hard way.
"a religion of peace", so I would think forgiveness might have something
to do with that. One thing I do know is that you can't use the things
its followers actually do to determine what a religion's tenets are. For every Ayatollah there's a corresponding Torquemada, and plenty of
killings in the name of Jesus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
I suggest you read my reply to Bozo User on Aug 9, 2023, 8:41:08 PMRude. I'm going to doubt in advance that there's much relevance. If you don't want to reply to me, just say so.
on this thread, to try and get some focus on the other things you
wrote in this same reply to me [deleted].
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 3:11:09 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Picking up where I left off in my first reply to you:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Or as someone else has put it (slightly updated)
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and
a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart
of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the Aspirin of the people
What's this about Aspirin?
Err, just to double check, you did recognise the quote, right? I only updated it slightly
for 21th century readers to avoid a common misunderstanding of the text
Job didn't expect any from God. On the contrary, he indicted God Himself for the worst of real suffering. See Job 9:22-24, or Job 24:2-12, with its shattering climax,
From the towns come the groans of the dying
and the gasp of wounded men crying for help.
Yet God remains deaf to their appeal!
[The Jerusalem Bible ]
I'd say you are mixing here the internal perspective of Job and the external perspective
of the reader.
The reader knows the backstory - the bet of God with Satan that
makes God's actions not just, but at least intelligible. And the reader also eventually
learns about all the "rewards" or restitution Job gets.
So for the reader, it works exactly like aspirin: bad things happen to you and you
don't know why? Lucky you, it means you might have been chosen to be a stormtrooper in God's fight against the adversary, and chosen precisely because
you are such a marvellous human being - and fear not eventually there will be
massive rewards, possibly already in this life (after all that's what Job got too)
or in the next.
That's I'd say very much the way the Job story works out at least in the Christian
and Islamic tradition - that's in essence how the Epistle of James sees him: as someone to be emulated and eventually rewarded because of their unquestionable acceptance of God . And with Christianity essentially being a jewish apocalyptic sect, the earthly rewards in the original Job story get replaced
by the promise of rewards in the afterlife.
In the background of all of this is a different question I find quite interesting, of
what we actually mean with "justice". The type of justice Job asks for is at least
also "procedural" - this includes the right to state one's case and challenge the
accuser, hence the confrontation clause in the US constitution e.g.
Now one way to understand such procedural rules is purely instrumental: given all the
limitations we have to work with in real life, this is the best way to get the result
right. Hence God's (non) answer to Job: I know everything anyway, so I have no
need for due process (God in full sarcasm mode for a few pages: "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off
its dimensions? Surely you know!).
So justice is just giving everybody their just deserts, rewards for the good, punishment for
the wicked - how this is determined is none of our business. Max Weber would call the
underlying conception of justice "Kadi justice " and contrast it with the "formal rational
justice" of modernity. I would say a strong case can be made that the due process rules
are not purely incidental and instrumental to justice, more than "getting it more often
right than wrong in establishing the facts" but are of intrinsic value. Justice must be seen
to be done, and all parties, victim, accused, judge, observers have to play a part. (cf.
e.g. Antony Duff's conception of the trial as a communicative action) Few if any of the
"justice in the afterlife" conceptions offer that as far as I'm aware.
And as far as justice is concerned, things are even worse in the Job story - on
another thread we had a short discussion of the 2. series of Good Omens, which
starts with the story (and the best episodes in my view were about this):
Two of the subordinate angles of Satan and God find the behavior of the masters so
atrocious that they refuse to carry out their orders, and hide Job's children. Because
they die (in the original, that is) for the 2 powerful protagonist to have their little
wager, they are offered even less that Job, and nobody finds this offensive. And
God's restitutive justice gives Job twice the number of new kids - which shows that
the Old Testament deity sees humans as fungible. Not sure if most (sane) humans
would agree with that deal - Sure, I killed your kids, but then I paid for the fertility
treatment of your wife, and you got twice the number of new ones! That's like,
stealing £10 from you but giving you £20 back - so you and up well ahead! (oh
and your elderly wife will have to bear them, and no, epidurals won't be invented
for another few thousand years, as will sterilised medical equipment) . There is
a more serious theological point behind that quip - in one way to understand the incarnation, God had to become human to understand that we are indeed not
fungible and quantifiable, and that every single one matters.
Be this as it may, as a case for justice and the afterlife, I don't think Job works at all
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their
real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call
on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore,
in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
What halo, Job might well ask. He takes the possibility of a life after death seriously --
but he has no such "illusion":
I tell the tomb, "You are my father,"
and call the worm my mother and my sister.
Where then is my hope?
Who can see any happiness for me?
Will these come down to me in Sheol,
or sink with me into the dust? [ibid., Job 17:14-16]
The image of Sheol, where there may still be a ghostly
existence, makes Epicurus's confidence that death
is the end of everything for an individual look like wishful thinking,
no less wishful than "pie in the sky". Hamlet's own "to sleep,
perchance to dream -- ay, there's the rub" puts paid to Epicurus's confidence.
[See my post to this thread a little while ago for the sequel.]
Not sure where you are going with any of this, of why you think Job takes that afterlife serious. Ins't job making the exact opposite case here? "If
I have to give up on justice in this world, I definitely won't get it in the next"
This is after all to justify himself against the accusation of his friends that demanding justice from God now is blasphemous.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:human problem.
On 8/11/23 5:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't post at all to Usenet yesterday because a family celebration lasted till after 9pm.
But now I finally have time to finish the series of three replies to this thought-provoking post of yours.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[quoting Lennox again:]
The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me. Christianity competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution to my
Yes, and every member of every other religion will feel the same about theirs.
Stop and think: what ARE the other religions which talk so radically about forgiveness?
And how do they do it? I know of no examples, and I know of one that has no such
thing: the Zoroastrians are so diffident about their religion that it can only be passed
on by inheritance. The Jews aren't big on proselytizing either.
Islam would seem to be the major candidate here. Why would you reject it?I can't figure out what you are getting at here. I couldn't find anything about
forgiveness in anything I've read about The Five Pillars of Islam.
for those who insult "Allah's greatest prophet, upon whom be peace."
Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
I suggest you read my reply to Bozo User on Aug 9, 2023, 8:41:08 PM
on this thread, to try and get some focus on the other things you
wrote in this same reply to me [deleted].
Peter Nyikos
On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 5:55:05 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 5:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
my human problem.[quoting Lennox again:]
The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me. Christianity competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution to
Yes, and every member of every other religion will feel the same about theirs.
Stop and think: what ARE the other religions which talk so radically about forgiveness?
And how do they do it? I know of no examples, and I know of one that has no such
thing: the Zoroastrians are so diffident about their religion that it can only be passed
on by inheritance. The Jews aren't big on proselytizing either.
Islam would seem to be the major candidate here. Why would you reject it?
I can't figure out what you are getting at here. I couldn't find anything about
forgiveness in anything I've read about The Five Pillars of Islam.
Well, 5 of the 99 names of Allah are variants of "the forgiver", including Ar-Raḥeem, which is evoked at the beginning of 113 of th 114 Surahs. Then there is "al-Ghaffaar", (the repeatedly forgiving) , al-Ghafour, al-ʿAfou (the
pardoner)
And as rules of conduct for followers, there would be :
“And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation –
his reward is [due] from Allah." (Quran 42:40)
and
"And whoever is patient and forgives – indeed, that is of the matters [worthy] of resolve.” (Quran 42:43)
or
“. . . and let them pardon and overlook. Would you not like that Allah should forgive you?
And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 24:22)
which mirrors the Lord's prayer's And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Also, there is no forgiveness
for those who insult "Allah's greatest prophet, upon whom be peace."
Matthew 12:30-32:] "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the
Spirit will not be forgiven.
Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
I suggest you read my reply to Bozo User on Aug 9, 2023, 8:41:08 PM
on this thread, to try and get some focus on the other things you
wrote in this same reply to me [deleted].
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any IRA member involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, fortunately, are over.Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that >>>> the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not have
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean that
it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:I think you did not parse Ernest Major's last sentence correctly.
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that >>>> the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not have >>> a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean thatI don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean that
it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The spirit
of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") the IRA
killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers.
In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 5:06:06 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:26:06 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/7/23 11:34 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
To Peter, an idea is useful if he can use it to make himself look better
(in his estimation) than someone else.
SMILE when you say that, Podner, or be guilty of egregious hypocrisy.
NOTE: I said almost the same thing to Harshman on the "parent" thread,
about a very different but derogatory comment of his.
Bottom line: I give him and you the benefit of the doubt if I see no reply by either
of you, and I have seen none from him. That is, I assume that you both follow
the "silence gives consent" rule to the *first* clause and would put a smiley
to the next time (if any) that you post similar derogatory comment.
Peter Nyikos
PS Martin Harran was clueless as to what my reply to Harshman referred to,
and he made a fool of himself with his reaction to our exchange. I believe you
can figure out what's behind my closing clause, if you think hard enough about it.
That was an impenetrable series of coy hints regarding I know not what,
but as far as I can make out, all of it was off-topic, merely some kind
of veiled attack on three people.
A two-man peanut gallery sounded off as follows:
I was preparing a response but now see he has responded with veiled threats
of what I guess is more veiled hints of consequences of repercussions.
Daggett is referring to the following response by me, ten minutes before he wrote the above:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zz-sXdHqagQ/m/iXqbp22pAQAJ
So veiled accusations and veiled threats. I'm hoping his dance doesn't increase
the count of veils to 7.
If Daggett is an ethical nihilist, it won't matter to him how hypocritical Mark or Harshman are. I'm content to assume that both are OK
with being seen as having kidded with the comments at issue.
I expect there is an infinite regress of veils.
Unless one of them objects to my assumption, there will be no more veils, and you know it, but you couldn't resist being smart-alecky.
Neither could Daggett.
Peter Nyikos
I'll bite: I object to your assumptions.
Now, what are the additional veils?
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:15:04 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
What do you call "Stochastic terrorism" and why is it relevant?
My counterexample involves an Islamic religious leader, in line with
the use of the word "Christianity" by Burkhard.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean that
it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The spirit
of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the killing of
Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") the IRA
killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers.
The IRA are not to be confused with bishops or others with authority
to issue religious edicts.
There is room for disagreement as to who can be considered
to be speaking for Christianity or Islam, but it stands to reason
that there should be some hierarchy to repudiate individual abuses
by rogue clergy.
An Ayatollah IS very high in the Islamic hierarchy,
and I would like to know whether there is a higher authority
capable of over-ruling one. A Caliph might have such authority,
but there is no recognized Caliph any more, and the recent attempts by various groups of Islamic terrorists to re-establish a Caliphate were laughable.
In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
Speculation is not evidence. Neither are rumors, such as the
one you mentioned about "one Billy Wright, fundamentalist preacher."
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:40:05?PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Alleged...from an evolutionist with no actual facts to back it up. What a surprise!
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
On 8/18/23 3:51 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:15:04?PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
What do you call "Stochastic terrorism" and why is it relevant?
My counterexample involves an Islamic religious leader, in line with
the use of the word "Christianity" by Burkhard.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean that
it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The spirit >>> of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the killing of
Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") the IRA
killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers.
The IRA are not to be confused with bishops or others with authority
to issue religious edicts.
There is room for disagreement as to who can be considered
to be speaking for Christianity or Islam, but it stands to reason
that there should be some hierarchy to repudiate individual abuses
by rogue clergy.
An Ayatollah IS very high in the Islamic hierarchy,
and I would like to know whether there is a higher authority
capable of over-ruling one. A Caliph might have such authority,
but there is no recognized Caliph any more, and the recent attempts by
various groups of Islamic terrorists to re-establish a Caliphate were laughable.
You don't get to defend a religion by pointing to another religion >(especially an outlier member of it) and saying, "See? It's worse!"
I was thinking of mentioning Pat Roberson as a counterexample, but he
doesn't really count. What counts is the 30% of the country who
approves of his messages of hate. (He even approved of attacking other >denominations of Protestantism, not to mention Islam, Hinduism, LGBQ,
and women.) I wonder what Khomeini's actual approval rating, in *all*
of Afghanistan, was. My suspicion is that it would also be about 30%,
though I doubt it could have been accurately measured even during
Khomeini's lifetime.
In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
Speculation is not evidence. Neither are rumors, such as the
one you mentioned about "one Billy Wright, fundamentalist preacher."
It's not rumor that Billy Wright called for someone to be murdered and
almost certainly murdered other people himself.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 23:40:01 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:40:05?PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Alleged...from an evolutionist with no actual facts to back it up. What a surprise!
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >>>>> the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The >>>>> spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") >>>>> the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army >>>>> informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman >>>>> involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat >>>> of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called >>>> for Roman Catholics to be killed.
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Are the BBC evolutionists with no actual facts to back them up?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"Who was Billy Wright?
Billy Wright was one of the most terrifying loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.
The man nicknamed King Rat - a term coined by journalists on the
Sunday World newspaper - waged a bloody and bigoted campaign against
the Catholic population in the Portadown and Lurgan area between the
mid 1980s and his death in 1997 … "
On 19/08/2023 14:02, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 23:40:01 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:40:05?PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Alleged...from an evolutionist with no actual facts to back it up. What a surprise!
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >>>>>> the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The >>>>>> spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>>>>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") >>>>>> the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army >>>>>> informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman >>>>>> involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>>>>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >>>>> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat >>>>> of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called >>>>> for Roman Catholics to be killed.
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >>>> done so.
Are the BBC evolutionists with no actual facts to back them up?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"Who was Billy Wright?
Billy Wright was one of the most terrifying loyalist paramilitaries in
Northern Ireland.
The man nicknamed King Rat - a term coined by journalists on the
Sunday World newspaper - waged a bloody and bigoted campaign against
the Catholic population in the Portadown and Lurgan area between the
mid 1980s and his death in 1997 "
To clarify, "alleged" above was shorthand for him not having been
convicted (as far as I know) in a court of law.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >>> the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The >>> spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") >>> the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army >>> informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman >>> involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >done so.I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:44:57 -0700, Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 8/18/23 3:51 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:15:04?PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >>> the USA.
What do you call "Stochastic terrorism" and why is it relevant?
My counterexample involves an Islamic religious leader, in line with
the use of the word "Christianity" by Burkhard.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean that >>> it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The spirit >>> of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the killing of >>> Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") the IRA
killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers.
The IRA are not to be confused with bishops or others with authority
to issue religious edicts.
There is room for disagreement as to who can be considered
to be speaking for Christianity or Islam, but it stands to reason
that there should be some hierarchy to repudiate individual abuses
by rogue clergy.
An Ayatollah IS very high in the Islamic hierarchy,
and I would like to know whether there is a higher authority
capable of over-ruling one. A Caliph might have such authority,
but there is no recognized Caliph any more, and the recent attempts by
various groups of Islamic terrorists to re-establish a Caliphate were laughable.
You don't get to defend a religion by pointing to another religion >(especially an outlier member of it) and saying, "See? It's worse!"
I was thinking of mentioning Pat Roberson as a counterexample, but he >doesn't really count. What counts is the 30% of the country who
approves of his messages of hate. (He even approved of attacking other >denominations of Protestantism, not to mention Islam, Hinduism, LGBQ,
and women.) I wonder what Khomeini's actual approval rating, in *all*
of Afghanistan, was. My suspicion is that it would also be about 30%, >though I doubt it could have been accurately measured even during >Khomeini's lifetime.
In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
Speculation is not evidence. Neither are rumors, such as the
one you mentioned about "one Billy Wright, fundamentalist preacher."
It's not rumor that Billy Wright called for someone to be murdered and >almost certainly murdered other people himself.As I've just pointed out in a reply to Ernest Major, the BBC article I
cited to Glenn states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
The BBC don't print stuff like that without good reason.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 23:40:01 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:40:05?PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:Are the BBC evolutionists with no actual facts to back them up?
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Alleged...from an evolutionist with no actual facts to back it up. What a surprise!
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >> >>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >> >>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >> >> the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The >> >> spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") >> >> the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army >> >> informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman >> >> involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat >> > of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called >> > for Roman Catholics to be killed.
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >> done so.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"Who was Billy Wright?
Billy Wright was one of the most terrifying loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.
The man nicknamed King Rat - a term coined by journalists on the
Sunday World newspaper - waged a bloody and bigoted campaign against
the Catholic population in the Portadown and Lurgan area between the
mid 1980s and his death in 1997 … "
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >>>>> the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The >>>>> spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") >>>>> the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army >>>>> informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman >>>>> involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat >>>> of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called >>>> for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state" (and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
On 2023-08-19 12:28 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>>>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >>>>> the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The >>>>> spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>>>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") >>>>> the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army >>>>> informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman >>>>> involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>>>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >>>> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat >>>> of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called >>>> for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >>> done so.
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, >> Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
The second prong - Graffiti? Which do you think is more likely to be
used in graffiti? "Fuck the blah 'Blah blah Blah blah'" or "Fuck the 'Blah'"
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 10:05:07 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
On 2023-08-19 12:28 PM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Saturday, August 19, 2023
at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:> >> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023
20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major> >> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:> >>>
2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:> >>>>> >>>>> OnOn 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >>>> On
18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:> >>>>>>>> Salman Rushdie
and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about> >>>>>>>> that the
hard way.> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie> >>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting> >>>>>>> As an
argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not> >>>>>>>
have a concept> >>>>>>> of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?> >>>>>>
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any>
troubles" -- which,> >>>>>> fortunately, are over.> >>>>>> >>>>> I seeIRA member> >>>>>> involved in misbehavior in the "time of
two problems with your counterargument.> >>>>>> >>>>> Firstly you're
not comparing like with like - you're drawing your> >>>>>
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in>
it happened doesn't mean> >>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledgethe USA.> >>>>>> >>>>> Secondly just because you don't know that
is not knowledge of absence. The> >>>>> spirit of your counterexample
is unclear, but the IRA did order the> >>>>> killing of Catholics. Fide
Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")> >>>>> the IRA killed also
some IRA members suspected of being police or army> >>>>> informers. In
the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman> >>>>> involved
in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA> >>>>> member
an implausible event.> >>>>> >>>> I don't know enough to argue, but I
think you're probably right. The> >>>> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from
Bob Jones University, that great seat> >>>> of learning) was pretty
nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called> >>>> for Roman
Catholics to be killed.> >>>>> >>>> >>> I did a bit more digging and
found mention of one Billy Wright,> >>> fundamentalist preacher and
paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have> >>> done so.> >> I don't
know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong> >>
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone> >>
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find> >>
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any> >>
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about>
loyalist> >> terrorists who eventually became disgusted with himit. [1]> >>> >> There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and
because many of> >> them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but
he discarded them> >> when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams
and McGuiness who> >> refused to condemn the IRA and took active part
in IRA funerals.> >>> >> Another factor in this is the observation by
Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,> >> Catholic primate of Ireland, that
although there was bigotry on both> >> sides of the divide, it tended
to be religious on the Protestant side> >> but political on the
Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that> >> graffiti in
Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck> >> the
President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck> >>
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."> >> >> > Mhh,
not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope> > is also a
head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in> >
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't> > be
proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of
state"> > (and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs
wrote something> > along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a
few years back, when he> > was still a QC of course, to general uproar.
than the> > AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:> >> >Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the>
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these OurDominions,> > We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and
Our own religious> > zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church
committed to Our Charge, in Unity> > of true Religion, and in the Bond
of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature> > Deliberation, and with
the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might> > conveniently be called
together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...> > That We
are Supreme Governor of the Church of England> >
The second prong - Graffiti? Which do you think is more likely to be>
used in graffiti? "Fuck the blah 'Blah blah Blah blah'" or "Fuck the
'Blah'"
Also a good point, though mine was simply the "Conversely" part: on the
one hand
the Pope is also a head of state and politician, on the other QEI was also a head of church.
It is of course handy to have short nouns available if needed, though these are
of course just abbreviations.
The correct graffiti would be:
"Fuck Elizabeth the First,
by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the
Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and Sovereign of the Most Noble
Order of the Garter."
and
"Fuck his holiness the Pope, Bishop of Rome,Vicar of Jesus Christ,
Successor of the Prince of the Apostles SupremePontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan Archbishopof the Roman Province,
Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of theServants of God"
the latter can be done in Latin. I guess you'd need long walls for
them. (In a TO context
the "Primate of Italy" also makes me chuckle)
--
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific> >>
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :> >>> >> 'On >>>> 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's> >>
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.> >>> >>>> >> The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for>
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737> >Wright.'> >>> >>
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
On 2023-08-20 09:50:18 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 10:05:07 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
On 2023-08-19 12:28 PM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 >> at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:> >> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023
20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major> >> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:> >>> >> >>> On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >>>> On
2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:> >>>>> >>>>> On
18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:> >>>>>>>> Salman Rushdie
and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about> >>>>>>>> that the
hard way.> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie> >>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting> >>>>>>> As an
argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not> >>>>>>>
have a concept> >>>>>>> of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?> >>>>>>
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any>
troubles" -- which,> >>>>>> fortunately, are over.> >>>>>> >>>>> I seeIRA member> >>>>>> involved in misbehavior in the "time of
two problems with your counterargument.> >>>>>> >>>>> Firstly you're
not comparing like with like - you're drawing your> >>>>>
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in> >> >>>>> the USA.> >>>>>> >>>>> Secondly just because you don't know that
it happened doesn't mean> >>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge
is not knowledge of absence. The> >>>>> spirit of your counterexample
is unclear, but the IRA did order the> >>>>> killing of Catholics. Fide >> Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")> >>>>> the IRA killed also
some IRA members suspected of being police or army> >>>>> informers. In >> the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman> >>>>> involved >> in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA> >>>>> member >> an implausible event.> >>>>> >>>> I don't know enough to argue, but I
think you're probably right. The> >>>> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from >> Bob Jones University, that great seat> >>>> of learning) was pretty
nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called> >>>> for Roman
Catholics to be killed.> >>>>> >>>> >>> I did a bit more digging and
found mention of one Billy Wright,> >>> fundamentalist preacher and
paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have> >>> done so.> >> I don't
know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong> >>
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone> >>
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find> >>
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any> >>
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about>
loyalist> >> terrorists who eventually became disgusted with himit. [1]> >>> >> There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and
because many of> >> them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but
he discarded them> >> when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams
and McGuiness who> >> refused to condemn the IRA and took active part
in IRA funerals.> >>> >> Another factor in this is the observation by
Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,> >> Catholic primate of Ireland, that
although there was bigotry on both> >> sides of the divide, it tended
to be religious on the Protestant side> >> but political on the
Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that> >> graffiti in
Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck> >> the
President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck> >>
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."> >> >> > Mhh,
not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope> > is also a >> head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in> >
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't> > be
proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of
state"> > (and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs
wrote something> > along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a
few years back, when he> > was still a QC of course, to general uproar. >> )> >> > Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the> >> > Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these OurChurch of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual >> than the> > AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:> >> >
Dominions,> > We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and
Our own religious> > zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church
committed to Our Charge, in Unity> > of true Religion, and in the Bond
of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature> > Deliberation, and with
the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might> > conveniently be called >> together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...> > That We >> are Supreme Governor of the Church of England> >
The second prong - Graffiti? Which do you think is more likely to be>
used in graffiti? "Fuck the blah 'Blah blah Blah blah'" or "Fuck the
'Blah'"
Also a good point, though mine was simply the "Conversely" part: on the one hand
the Pope is also a head of state and politician, on the other QEI was also a
head of church.
It is of course handy to have short nouns available if needed, though these are
of course just abbreviations.
The correct graffiti would be:
"Fuck Elizabeth the First,As you're in Scotland I suppose "the First" is OK, but in England we
called her Elizabeth II.
are over (indeed, I expect they were over some years ago.)
by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and Sovereign of the Most Noble
Order of the Garter."
and
"Fuck his holiness the Pope, Bishop of Rome,Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles SupremePontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan Archbishopof the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of theServants of God"
the latter can be done in Latin. I guess you'd need long walls for
them. (In a TO context
the "Primate of Italy" also makes me chuckle)
----
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific> >> >>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :> >>> >> 'On >>>> 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's> >> >>>> men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.> >>> >>>> >> The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for> >>>> >> Wright.'> >>> >>
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737> >
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 6:30:08?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:44:57 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 8/18/23 3:51 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:As I've just pointed out in a reply to Ernest Major, the BBC article I
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:15:04?PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >> >>> the USA.
What do you call "Stochastic terrorism" and why is it relevant?
My counterexample involves an Islamic religious leader, in line with
the use of the word "Christianity" by Burkhard.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean that >> >>> it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The spirit >> >>> of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the killing of >> >>> Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") the IRA
killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers.
The IRA are not to be confused with bishops or others with authority
to issue religious edicts.
There is room for disagreement as to who can be considered
to be speaking for Christianity or Islam, but it stands to reason
that there should be some hierarchy to repudiate individual abuses
by rogue clergy.
An Ayatollah IS very high in the Islamic hierarchy,
and I would like to know whether there is a higher authority
capable of over-ruling one. A Caliph might have such authority,
but there is no recognized Caliph any more, and the recent attempts by
various groups of Islamic terrorists to re-establish a Caliphate were laughable.
You don't get to defend a religion by pointing to another religion
(especially an outlier member of it) and saying, "See? It's worse!"
I was thinking of mentioning Pat Roberson as a counterexample, but he
doesn't really count. What counts is the 30% of the country who
approves of his messages of hate. (He even approved of attacking other
denominations of Protestantism, not to mention Islam, Hinduism, LGBQ,
and women.) I wonder what Khomeini's actual approval rating, in *all*
of Afghanistan, was. My suspicion is that it would also be about 30%,
though I doubt it could have been accurately measured even during
Khomeini's lifetime.
In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
Speculation is not evidence. Neither are rumors, such as the
one you mentioned about "one Billy Wright, fundamentalist preacher."
It's not rumor that Billy Wright called for someone to be murdered and
almost certainly murdered other people himself.
cited to Glenn states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
The BBC don't print stuff like that without good reason.
Neither did Nazis, or anyone else you could name. Doesn't mean it is true, unbiased or objective.
You seem not to understand what a fact is. What's your IQ?
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 6:05:08?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 23:40:01 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:40:05?PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:Are the BBC evolutionists with no actual facts to back them up?
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Alleged...from an evolutionist with no actual facts to back it up. What a surprise!
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >> >> >>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >> >> >>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >> >> >> the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The >> >> >> spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") >> >> >> the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army >> >> >> informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman >> >> >> involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat >> >> > of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called >> >> > for Roman Catholics to be killed.
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >> >> done so.
As far as I know, Ernest is not the BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"Who was Billy Wright?
Billy Wright was one of the most terrifying loyalist paramilitaries in
Northern Ireland.
The man nicknamed King Rat - a term coined by journalists on the
Sunday World newspaper - waged a bloody and bigoted campaign against
the Catholic population in the Portadown and Lurgan area between the
mid 1980s and his death in 1997 "
These are claims, not facts. And Wright was a person, not a "paramilitary".
By the way, are you praying for me, family and friends as you claimed you were for Ron Dean? Or was that just bullshit...(horn blowing in background)
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >> >>> the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The >> >>> spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") >> >>> the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army >> >>> informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Toms Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state" >(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something >along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he >was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious >zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic*
prayer
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 13:11:56 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic* >>prayer
Some people you pray for, other people you killfile.
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 13:11:56 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic* >prayerSome people you pray for, other people you killfile.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >>> the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The >>> spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") >>> the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army >>> informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman >>> involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat >> of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called >> for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >done so.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 04:35:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 13:11:56 +0100, Martin HarranEmbrace the power of "and".
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic* >>>prayer
Some people you pray for, other people you killfile.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >done so.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theAnother factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for Wright.'
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained minister in a Christian denomination:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 6:10:10 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:to my human problem.
On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 5:55:05 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/11/23 5:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[quoting Lennox again:]
The cross also speaks of a place where I can receive forgiveness and new life by repenting and trusting the one who died for me. Christianity competes with no other philosophy or religion since no one else offers me such a radical solution
Yes, and every member of every other religion will feel the same about theirs.
Stop and think: what ARE the other religions which talk so radically about forgiveness?
And how do they do it? I know of no examples, and I know of one that has no such
thing: the Zoroastrians are so diffident about their religion that it can only be passed
on by inheritance. The Jews aren't big on proselytizing either.
Islam would seem to be the major candidate here. Why would you reject it?
I am obviously largely ignorant of the religion of Islam, as opposed to its history.I can't figure out what you are getting at here. I couldn't find anything about
forgiveness in anything I've read about The Five Pillars of Islam.
Thank you for all the information you give below, Burkhard.
Well, 5 of the 99 names of Allah are variants of "the forgiver", including Ar-Raḥeem, which is evoked at the beginning of 113 of th 114 Surahs. Then
there is "al-Ghaffaar", (the repeatedly forgiving) , al-Ghafour, al-ʿAfou (the
pardoner)
And as rules of conduct for followers, there would be :
“And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation –
his reward is [due] from Allah." (Quran 42:40)
and
"And whoever is patient and forgives – indeed, that is of the matters [worthy] of resolve.” (Quran 42:43)
or
“. . . and let them pardon and overlook. Would you not like that Allah should forgive you?Excellent. It's too bad Lennox's blog seems to be defunct, otherwise I would post this there.
And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 24:22)
which mirrors the Lord's prayer's And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Also, there is no forgiveness
for those who insult "Allah's greatest prophet, upon whom be peace."
Matthew 12:30-32:] "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.This verse has caused untold harm to millions of scrupulous Christians who fear that they have committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit [whatever that means].
Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the
Spirit will not be forgiven.
It is one of many reasons why my confidence that there is a God who rewards and punishes justly is so low.
There, I've returned to one of my themes in the OP-- the closing clause of my first paragraph there:
"Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they
believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically,
one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life."
Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not have a conceptNot quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a *fatwa* on any IRA member
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, fortunately, are over.
And I hope you don't mind my adding: one of the best friends of our family [also a wonderful colleague in the Math Department before she retired]
did her modest part in helping them to end. She was one of the leaders
of the Irish Children Program, which brought children from both
"the Green and the Orange" together here in Columbia, enabling them
to see each other for the decent children they are, and finding
good host families for them during their stay here.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." [Matthew 5:9]
I suggest you read my reply to Bozo User on Aug 9, 2023, 8:41:08 PM
on this thread, to try and get some focus on the other things you
wrote in this same reply to me [deleted].
Peter Nyikos
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >>>>>> the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The >>>>>> spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>>>>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") >>>>>> the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army >>>>>> informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman >>>>>> involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>>>>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >>>>> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat >>>>> of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called >>>>> for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >>>> done so.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something >> along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he >> was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious >> zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity >> of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 04:35:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 13:11:56 +0100, Martin HarranEmbrace the power of "and".
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic* >>>prayer
Some people you pray for, other people you killfile.
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 05:47:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 04:35:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 13:11:56 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:Embrace the power of "and".
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic* >>>>prayer
Some people you pray for, other people you killfile.
Your advice is probably wasted on someone feels compelled to reply to
a poster who has them killfiled :(
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>>>>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>>>>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman >>>>>> involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>>>>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >>>>> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat >>>>> of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called >>>>> for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >>>> done so.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong >>> anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, >>> Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side >>> but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that >>> graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the >> AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's >>> men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
I knew a man who had a "near death experience", some years ago. Unknown
to him, his oldest
daughter had died in a car crash, on the way to the hospital. This, the hospital, was where he was, after a severe heart attack. The family
decided to keep this news from him, believing the shock could take him. Later, he died for 5 minutes, but he was revived. The first words he
said, after he could, I saw Nancy, why didn't you'll tell me she had
died? He was not terribly upset, only saying, "I'll miss her". He had no
way to know his daughter was dead, yet somehow, he knew.
Peter Nyikos
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 18:01:42 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 05:47:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 04:35:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 13:11:56 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martin...@gmail.com> wrote:Embrace the power of "and".
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic* >>>>prayer
Some people you pray for, other people you killfile.
Martin has little time to do more than brag because most of his time is spent in prayer.Your advice is probably wasted on someone feels compelled to reply toTo the contrary, his advice is wasted on someone who so often goes out
a poster who has them killfiled :(
of his way to brag about how he has me killfiled, and has never even
once suggested he prays for me.
--
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 18:01:42 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 05:47:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 04:35:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 13:11:56 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:Embrace the power of "and".
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic* >>>>>prayer
Some people you pray for, other people you killfile.
Your advice is probably wasted on someone feels compelled to reply to
a poster who has them killfiled :(
To the contrary, his advice is wasted on someone who so often goes out
of his way to brag about how he has me killfiled, and has never even
once suggested he prays for me.
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:issue - how many times had he had sudden premonitions that someone dear to him had died, but it turned out they hadn't?
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >>>>>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>>>>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>>>>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>>>>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >>>>> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong >>> anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >>> it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >>> them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >>> when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >>> sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side >>> but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that >>> graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >>> the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >>> the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the >> Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >> We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's >>> men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
I knew a man who had a "near death experience", some years ago. Unknown"He had no way to know his daughter was dead...." Well, that's one issue. What was the family whispering about in the hospital? How long was he conscious before he "died," and was it long enough for him to notice the absence of his daughter? Another
to him, his oldest
daughter had died in a car crash, on the way to the hospital. This, the hospital, was where he was, after a severe heart attack. The family decided to keep this news from him, believing the shock could take him. Later, he died for 5 minutes, but he was revived. The first words he
said, after he could, I saw Nancy, why didn't you'll tell me she had
died? He was not terribly upset, only saying, "I'll miss her". He had no way to know his daughter was dead, yet somehow, he knew.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >done so.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theAnother factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for Wright.'
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained minister in a Christian denomination:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:01:11 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:because it means that our conscience is not an illusion, and those who terrorise, abuse, exploit, defame and cause their fellow humans untold suffering will not get away with it. Atheism has no such hope--for it ultimate justice is an illusion.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[quoting from an essay by Oxford philosopher John Lennox:]
At the very least that shows me that God has not remained distant from human suffering but has become part of it. Furthermore, Christ rose from the dead, which is a guarantee that there is to be a future judgement. This is a marvellous hope,
Picking up where I left off in my second reply:
There is also psychological basis for this - the "warm feeling": we get when doing good, the anxiety
when doing bad etc. It is at least not impossible to think of a world where the cost
of evil actions are intrinsically higher than any gain they can give to the perpetrator
But that is not our world. I purposely talked to Harshman about conditions under Stalin, where the
perpetrators inflicted untold suffering on the prisoners in the slave labor camps, yet there
was no retribution to them at all, except in one solitary case of a perpetrator who fell from grace
and had to share the worst conditions of the people he had once sent to their hell on earth.
Well, 3 possible answers,
one theistic spiritual, one naturalised spiritual and one
theistic, all without afterlife:
1) the spiritual answer Epicurus, Plato or Seneca might have given: "
There is no greater punishment of wickedness than that it is dissatisfied with itself
and its deeds."
Why did the prison guards act as they did? Out of a range of emotions such as fear (of their
superiors, and also of the prisoners, not qua prisoners, but of
the groups they belonged to) Are fear and hate healthy emotions that lead to happiness? No. So by remaining captives to these emotions, the guards
harm themselves and prevent themselves from achieving true happiness.
2) Now, as there is a danger that this is based on something resembling a circular definition,
as "happiness" as understood by them is less a descriptive and more a normative state.
The naturalised version treats this as a statement of psychology or anthropology - "as
a matter of fact" people who live brutal lives suffer mentally for it
3) finally, there is the answer Job's God gives: “Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn Do you count the months till they bear?
So it might look to YOU as if the prison guards got unpunished, and the prisoners treated unjustly,
but this is just b/c you are not in full possession of the facts. From the divine perspective, guard
A might get a particularly bad colon cancer at 80,
prisoner B's daughter will have twins which for
B is the greatest thing possible, and prisoner C had it coming for other misdeeds you don't know,
possibly insufficient belief in the divine judgement.
Now to be sure I'm not arguing for any of these, especially I don't claim anyone has evidence that they are
factually correct. and doing an empirical longitudinal might be pointless in 1) and dangerous in 2)
(after all you are testing here someone who made the Behemoth AND can control him - can can you do
that? So better just take his word for it)
But I am arguing that as far as "overbeliefs" go, they do not require more, and possible a lot less, leap
pf faith than the afterlife based accounts of justice.
[Lennox again:]
Finally, none of us finds the idea of ultimate justice attractive because we are all flawed and have all messed up.
I'll find this extremely implausible - and before I get accused of having an overly cynical view of
human nature, I think I have the evidence from psychology and anthropology to back me up.
Humans just LOVE the idea of punishment for the wicked. They just divide immediately in their mind
the world in "the wicked" and "me, my friends, and the more agreeable members of my family".
Punishment happens in this view (mostly) to others, and we enjoy inflicting it, do we not just,
sometimes personally mostly in modernity vicariously, , sometimes consensually , mostly of
course not so.
With a primitive bow and arrow, you have taken a shot in the direction of what I call
The Achilles Heel of Christianity: the doctrine of a hell of everlasting fire, along with
the way apologists have defended it.
Thomas Aquinas, for instance, illogically argued for it by saying that since sin is
an offense against an infinite God, it deserves an infinite punishment.
Some two millennia earlier, Job had some choice words for this kind of thinking,
in Job 7: 17-20, where he turns Psalm 8 on its head with the words,
"What is man that you should make so much of him,
subjecting him to your scrutiny,
that morning after morning you should examine him,
and every moment test him?
Will you never take your eyes off me
long enough for me to swallow my spittle?
Suppose I have sinned, what have I done to you,
you tireless watcher of mankind?
Why do you choose me as your target?
Why should I be a burden to you?"
-- The Jerusalem Bible
That's why penal populism works, even in times when the objective data shows that crime is decreasing
and incarceration makes things worse.
Than what? letting violent criminals loose and able to wreak revenge on their victims for
daring to testify against them?
That would be an entirely different discussion. For the purpose of the one here, I'd
happy say I don't know either, and yes, that makes it extremely frustrating which gives
additional psychological support for punitive approaches - but that does not make the facts go away. So we should at least be honest to ourselves and admit that
this is a response to emotions rather than a strategy to reduce crime.
There was a case last week here that struck me in this regard: criminal trial of a death
by dangerous driving case. Young man, newly qualified for driving, takes his father's
high powered BMW, races it across the streets and takes a selfie of himself. Runs of the
road and kills a young girl.
He gets 12 years, in my view a substantial sentence. The parents consider it unduly
lenient (which I understand on the emotional level) but also argue that by asking for a higher punishment, they don't want it for revenge, but "to have a proper deterrent for others, who now might do the same".
Rationally, that makes
no sense of course. Nobody says: I'll take this care for a spin - what's the worst
that can happen, a mere 12 years in prison (and then having a previous conviction
that pretty much determines the rest of your life). That's not how humans work.
Instead, they think "nothing will happen", making the punishment more or less
irrelevant
That it is an emotional response doesn't make the parent's demand for stiffer
sentences necessarily illegitimate (as I said, that would be a different discussion) but here
it is for a an argument against Lennox' claim that we find punishment unattractive because
we fear that it would apply to us too.
That is exactly not the way we think. The parent's
position got a lot of public support - and I bet that all the supporters discounted all
the "moral luck" that they have had in their lives - when they took silly risks, but nothing
bad happened - had it happened, they'd now sit in the dock.
Very few people really think like John Bradford (allegedly, the authorship is contested)
did when he said when looking at convicted criminals: "There but for the grace of God,
goes John Bradford".
little ones* (42) as indicating different groups within the followers of Jesus. Probably all three designations are used here of Christian missionaries as such."Sure, on one level people realise that "we are all poor
sinners" - which is why concepts such as purgatory play such an important role THEIR evil ways
require eternal hot pokers up the backsy, MY regrettable lack of judgement should get me probation,
or maybe 20 lashes at max. This way we "pay" for the satisfaction of inflicting pain on others with the risk
of a little pain for ourselves, AND can feel good and humble in the process too (...of course I too
am a sinner...)
IIRC it was St. Augustine who perversely claimed that one of the joys of those in heaven
was to witness the unending suffering of people condemned to everlasting torture.
I rebelled against such callousness well before my final break with the Catholicism
I had been taught in primary and secondary school. I comforted myself with the widespread
sentiment that "Hell exists, but it is empty." It was when I felt I could no longer believe this
and still cling to Catholic doctrine that the irrevocable break came.
Now, over half a century later, I have a better perspective on what Catholic doctrine
is, but the break is still there, and I remain an agnostic. However, I do have a couple of things
to say to your one-dimensional picture.
First: there is a way to read the Biblical account of Jesus's teachings to the effect that,
although hell is everlasting, any one person remains there for only a finite period
of time, and then is granted Epicurus's hope: annihilation. Many Jews of today
believe in this kind of punishment, but based on Daniel 12: 2-3 rather than anything in the NT.
Second: there is an amazing footnote in the New American Bible (NAB) on Matthew 10:41-42 which
has to do with "these least ones" of the famous Last Judgment scene (Mt. 25: 31-46 at 40, 45).
"*A prophet*: one who speaks in the name of God; here, the Christian prophets who speak in the name of God. *Righteous man*: since righteousness is demanded of all the disciples, it is difficult to take the *righteous man* of [v.41] and *one of these
The "least/little ones" are traditionally believed to refer to all the poor, hungry, etc. people of earth,
and yet, if the footnote is correct, that scene from the Last Judgment is a self-serving depiction
of Jesus's favoritism towards his own disciples! And make no mistake: Mt 25:40 has a footnote
cross-referencing Mt. 10:42, and the NAB is the official translation for the Roman Catholic Mass.
All of the above notwithstanding, I believe these footnotes are in error, and it was an oversight
of the people vetting the NAB to have them included. But either way, the Achilles' Heel of
Christianity is in a bad way.
Hell, to misquote Sartre, is full of other people. And nobody thinks of him/herself seriously as a baddy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
"nobody" certainly ignores the author of "Amazing Grace," who went from being part of
the slave trade to working tirelessly to have it abolished. And I believe there are millions
like him on a smaller scale at any one time. I see myself as having been a baddy from the age of 9 through
the age of 14, and I cringe when I think back at many of the things I did back then.
OK fair enough, "nobody" is too strong. People can be guilt ridden - and an even
better example for me would be things like survivor guilt where people blame themselves for no wrongdoing whatsoever.
Still a couple of things on that: First there is a difference between evaluating one's past actions,
and how they see themselves at any given point in time. Newton had his conversion, and then
reevaluated his past deeds. But that means he thought of himself as a goodie (or at least
not a baddie) when trading in slaves, and after that too thought of himself as a goodie (...
and now am found" if one who has a debt to pay. For Lennox argument to work, we'd have to
think of ourselves as baddies who intend to remain baddies and therefore are against
strict punishment.
Related, there is a difference between evaluating one's actions and one's "character" or identity.
What I meant above was the latter more than the former, and is not any more demanding than
what we observe in everyday life: When people watch crime dramas, westerns, historical dramas
and identify with one of the characters, almost always they'll chose a goodie because that's how
we like to think about ourselves,
And you seem to speak of such people yourself below.
We see this in the penal institutions we create in this world: if people realised that the prison they
want to build, or the judicial torture, could one day be inflicted on them our prisons etc through
history would have looked very different. It's typically only the handful of penal abolitionists whose
empathetic reasoning makes them see themselves on the receiving end too.
This us vs them logic of punishment is well studied in the research on penal populism cf e.g.
classically Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing, If one
believes in evolutionary psychology, this may have evolutionary roots - I think the term is
"altruistic punishment" - opting for a system in which meeting out punishment even harms
the punisher
(I myself found Flesch: Comeuppance: Costly signaling, altruistic punishment,
and other biological components quite interesting )
Sounds quite specialized, though.
True, but also universal, which indicates some evolutionary and biological roots. And other aspects
of punitiveness can similarly be traced across time and space)
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:issue - how many times had he had sudden premonitions that someone dear to him had died, but it turned out they hadn't?
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:I knew a man who had a "near death experience", some years ago. Unknown
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>>>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>>>>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>>>>>>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >>>>>>>> the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>>>>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The >>>>>>>> spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>>>>>>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed") >>>>>>>> the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army >>>>>>>> informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman >>>>>>>> involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>>>>>>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >>>>>>> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat >>>>>>> of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called >>>>>>> for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >>>>>> done so.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong >>>>> anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >>>>> it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >>>>> when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, >>>>> Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >>>>> sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side >>>>> but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that >>>>> graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >>>>> the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >>>>> the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the >>>> AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the >>>> Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious >>>> zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's >>>>> men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
to him, his oldest
daughter had died in a car crash, on the way to the hospital. This, the
hospital, was where he was, after a severe heart attack. The family
decided to keep this news from him, believing the shock could take him.
Later, he died for 5 minutes, but he was revived. The first words he
said, after he could, I saw Nancy, why didn't you'll tell me she had
died? He was not terribly upset, only saying, "I'll miss her". He had no
way to know his daughter was dead, yet somehow, he knew.
"He had no way to know his daughter was dead...." Well, that's one issue. What was the family whispering about in the hospital? How long was he conscious before he "died," and was it long enough for him to notice the absence of his daughter? Another
Peter Nyikos
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:15:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:issue - how many times had he had sudden premonitions that someone dear to him had died, but it turned out they hadn't?
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest MajorI knew a man who had a "near death experience", some years ago. Unknown >>>> to him, his oldest
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>>>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>>>>>>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >>>>>>>>>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>>>>>>>>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>>>>>>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>>>>>>>>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>>>>>>>>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >>>>>>>>> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >>>>>>>> fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong >>>>>>> anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone >>>>>>> openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any >>>>>>> public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >>>>>>> it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >>>>>>> them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >>>>>>> when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who >>>>>>> refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals. >>>>>>>
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, >>>>>>> Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >>>>>>> sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side >>>>>>> but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that >>>>>>> graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >>>>>>> the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >>>>>>> the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >>>>>> anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the >>>>>> Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >>>>>> We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might >>>>>> conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries? >>>>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>>>>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's >>>>>>> men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >>>>>>>
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >>>>>>> Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained >>>>> minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
daughter had died in a car crash, on the way to the hospital. This, the >>>> hospital, was where he was, after a severe heart attack. The family
decided to keep this news from him, believing the shock could take him. >>>> Later, he died for 5 minutes, but he was revived. The first words he
said, after he could, I saw Nancy, why didn't you'll tell me she had
died? He was not terribly upset, only saying, "I'll miss her". He had no >>>> way to know his daughter was dead, yet somehow, he knew.
"He had no way to know his daughter was dead...." Well, that's one issue. What was the family whispering about in the hospital? How long was he conscious before he "died," and was it long enough for him to notice the absence of his daughter? Another
I don't know the answer to your last question. But he was not
conscientious upon his arrival at the hospital. He was kept under for 2
days after a 3 way by-pass. The family was sent to the waiting room, and
only two at the time, was allowed to visit. The man was my dad. Of
course, I was not there with each visit. so obviously, I cannot know
what whispering took place. Even if her death
was discussed, I don't think, under the circumstances, he could have
been aware. Nancy was his
first, and they were very close.
You'd be surprised how much seemingly unaware, unconscious patients can hear and understand.
Peter Nyikos
broger...@gmail.com wrote:issue - how many times had he had sudden premonitions that someone dear to him had died, but it turned out they hadn't?
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:I knew a man who had a "near death experience", some years ago. Unknown >> to him, his oldest
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >>>>>>>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>>>>>>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>>>>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>>>>>>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>>>>>>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >>>>>>> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >>>>>> fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong >>>>> anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any >>>>> public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >>>>> it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >>>>> them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >>>>> when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >>>>> sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side >>>>> but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that >>>>> graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >>>>> the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >>>>> the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >>>> anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the >>>> Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >>>> We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might >>>> conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries? >>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's >>>>> men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >>>>>
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >>>>> Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
daughter had died in a car crash, on the way to the hospital. This, the >> hospital, was where he was, after a severe heart attack. The family
decided to keep this news from him, believing the shock could take him. >> Later, he died for 5 minutes, but he was revived. The first words he
said, after he could, I saw Nancy, why didn't you'll tell me she had
died? He was not terribly upset, only saying, "I'll miss her". He had no >> way to know his daughter was dead, yet somehow, he knew.
"He had no way to know his daughter was dead...." Well, that's one issue. What was the family whispering about in the hospital? How long was he conscious before he "died," and was it long enough for him to notice the absence of his daughter? Another
I don't know the answer to your last question. But he was not
conscientious upon his arrival at the hospital. He was kept under for 2
days after a 3 way by-pass. The family was sent to the waiting room, and only two at the time, was allowed to visit. The man was my dad. Of
course, I was not there with each visit. so obviously, I cannot know
what whispering took place. Even if her death
was discussed, I don't think, under the circumstances, he could have
been aware. Nancy was his
first, and they were very close.
Peter Nyikos
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam.(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that. This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?
Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
broger...@gmail.com wrote:Another issue - how many times had he had sudden premonitions that someone dear to him had died, but it turned out they hadn't?
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:15:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:I knew a man who had a "near death experience", some years ago. Unknown >>>> to him, his oldest
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out abouthave a concept
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting >>>>>>>>>>>> As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >>>>>>>>>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>>>>>>>>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >>>>>>>> fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone >>>>>>> openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find >>>>>>> themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any >>>>>>> public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >>>>>>> it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >>>>>>> them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >>>>>>> when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who >>>>>>> refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals. >>>>>>>
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >>>>>>> sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >>>>>>> the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >>>>>>> the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope >>>>>> is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >>>>>> anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the >>>>>> Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >>>>>> We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might >>>>>> conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries? >>>>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>>>>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >>>>>>>
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >>>>>>> Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained >>>>> minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
daughter had died in a car crash, on the way to the hospital. This, the >>>> hospital, was where he was, after a severe heart attack. The family >>>> decided to keep this news from him, believing the shock could take him. >>>> Later, he died for 5 minutes, but he was revived. The first words he >>>> said, after he could, I saw Nancy, why didn't you'll tell me she had >>>> died? He was not terribly upset, only saying, "I'll miss her". He had no
way to know his daughter was dead, yet somehow, he knew.
"He had no way to know his daughter was dead...." Well, that's one issue. What was the family whispering about in the hospital? How long was he conscious before he "died," and was it long enough for him to notice the absence of his daughter?
I don't know the answer to your last question. But he was not
conscientious upon his arrival at the hospital. He was kept under for 2 >> days after a 3 way by-pass. The family was sent to the waiting room, and >> only two at the time, was allowed to visit. The man was my dad. Of
course, I was not there with each visit. so obviously, I cannot know
what whispering took place. Even if her death
was discussed, I don't think, under the circumstances, he could have
been aware. Nancy was his
first, and they were very close.
You'd be surprised how much seemingly unaware, unconscious patients can hear and understand.
So, you think, he heard someone discussing her death. Maybe, but I would hope not!
Peter Nyikos
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 05:47:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 04:35:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 13:11:56 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:Embrace the power of "and".
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic* >>>>prayer
Some people you pray for, other people you killfile.
You first.
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:50:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Another issue - how many times had he had sudden premonitions that someone dear to him had died, but it turned out they hadn't?
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:15:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:I knew a man who had a "near death experience", some years ago. Unknown >>>>>> to him, his oldest
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>>>>>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out abouthave a concept
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >>>>>>>>>>>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>>>>>>>>>>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>>>>>>>>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>>>>>>>>>>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >>>>>>>>>> fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone >>>>>>>>> openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find >>>>>>>>> themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any >>>>>>>>> public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >>>>>>>>> it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist >>>>>>>>> terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >>>>>>>>> them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >>>>>>>>> when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who >>>>>>>>> refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals. >>>>>>>>>
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >>>>>>>>> sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side >>>>>>>>> but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that >>>>>>>>> graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >>>>>>>>> the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >>>>>>>>> the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope >>>>>>>> is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >>>>>>>> anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't >>>>>>>> be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the >>>>>>>> Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the >>>>>>>> Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >>>>>>>> We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might >>>>>>>> conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries? >>>>>>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>>>>>>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's >>>>>>>>> men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >>>>>>>>>
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >>>>>>>>> Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained >>>>>>> minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
daughter had died in a car crash, on the way to the hospital. This, the >>>>>> hospital, was where he was, after a severe heart attack. The family >>>>>> decided to keep this news from him, believing the shock could take him. >>>>>> Later, he died for 5 minutes, but he was revived. The first words he >>>>>> said, after he could, I saw Nancy, why didn't you'll tell me she had >>>>>> died? He was not terribly upset, only saying, "I'll miss her". He had no >>>>>> way to know his daughter was dead, yet somehow, he knew.
"He had no way to know his daughter was dead...." Well, that's one issue. What was the family whispering about in the hospital? How long was he conscious before he "died," and was it long enough for him to notice the absence of his daughter?
So, you think, he heard someone discussing her death. Maybe, but I wouldI don't know the answer to your last question. But he was not
conscientious upon his arrival at the hospital. He was kept under for 2 >>>> days after a 3 way by-pass. The family was sent to the waiting room, and >>>> only two at the time, was allowed to visit. The man was my dad. Of
course, I was not there with each visit. so obviously, I cannot know
what whispering took place. Even if her death
was discussed, I don't think, under the circumstances, he could have
been aware. Nancy was his
first, and they were very close.
You'd be surprised how much seemingly unaware, unconscious patients can hear and understand.
hope not!
Or he was worried about her before it all started and he noticed that she was not among the visitors.
Peter Nyikos
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:15:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Another issue - how many times had he had sudden premonitions that someone dear to him had died, but it turned out they hadn't?
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:I knew a man who had a "near death experience", some years ago. Unknown >> to him, his oldest
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out abouthave a concept
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting >>>>>>>>>> As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >>>>>>>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>>>>>>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >>>>>> fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone >>>>> openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any >>>>> public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >>>>> it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >>>>> them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >>>>> when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who >>>>> refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals. >>>>>
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >>>>> sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >>>>> the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >>>>> the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >>>> anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >>>> We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might >>>> conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries? >>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >>>>>
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >>>>> Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained >>> minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
daughter had died in a car crash, on the way to the hospital. This, the >> hospital, was where he was, after a severe heart attack. The family
decided to keep this news from him, believing the shock could take him. >> Later, he died for 5 minutes, but he was revived. The first words he
said, after he could, I saw Nancy, why didn't you'll tell me she had
died? He was not terribly upset, only saying, "I'll miss her". He had no
way to know his daughter was dead, yet somehow, he knew.
"He had no way to know his daughter was dead...." Well, that's one issue. What was the family whispering about in the hospital? How long was he conscious before he "died," and was it long enough for him to notice the absence of his daughter?
And you wouldn't.I don't know the answer to your last question. But he was not conscientious upon his arrival at the hospital. He was kept under for 2 days after a 3 way by-pass. The family was sent to the waiting room, and only two at the time, was allowed to visit. The man was my dad. OfYou'd be surprised how much seemingly unaware, unconscious patients can hear and understand.
course, I was not there with each visit. so obviously, I cannot know
what whispering took place. Even if her death
was discussed, I don't think, under the circumstances, he could have
been aware. Nancy was his
first, and they were very close.
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 11:10:10?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 18:01:42 +0100, Martin HarranMartin has little time to do more than brag because most of his time is spent in prayer.
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 05:47:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>To the contrary, his advice is wasted on someone who so often goes out
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 04:35:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 13:11:56 +0100, Martin HarranEmbrace the power of "and".
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic* >> >>>>prayer
Some people you pray for, other people you killfile.
Your advice is probably wasted on someone feels compelled to reply to
a poster who has them killfiled :(
of his way to brag about how he has me killfiled, and has never even
once suggested he prays for me.
--
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >> > > >>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >> > > >>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >> > > >>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >> > > >>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >> > > >>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >> > > >>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >> > > >> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >> > > >done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theI don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong >> > > anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Toms Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the PopeDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the >> > AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious >> > zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >> > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >> > > >>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theI don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >> > > it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >> > > them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >> > > when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >> > > sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side >> > > but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that >> > > graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >> > > the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >> > > the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the PopeDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the >> > Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >> > We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's >> > > men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 14:04:53 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 05:47:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>I assume you think that makes sense in this context.
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 04:35:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 13:11:56 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:Embrace the power of "and".
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic* >>>>>prayer
Some people you pray for, other people you killfile.
You first.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:00:11?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:caused a collision. After a few years in, I realized that that principle of the captain being held responsible for everything was absolutely necessary to counteract the overwhelming tendency of sh_t and blame to flow downhill.
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >> >> > > >>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theI don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >> >> > > it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >> >> > > them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >> >> > > when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Toms Fiaich, >> >> > > Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >> >> > > sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side >> >> > > but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that >> >> > > graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >> >> > > the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >> >> > > the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the PopeDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the >> >> > Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >> >> > We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's >> >> > > men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
When I first joined the Navy I thought it was very unfair that the captain of a ship was held responsible for anything that went wrong, even if, for example, he was asleep and the duty officer, though fully trained and qualified, made a mistake that
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:00:11 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:caused a collision. After a few years in, I realized that that principle of the captain being held responsible for everything was absolutely necessary to counteract the overwhelming tendency of sh_t and blame to flow downhill.
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theI don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any >> > > public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >> > > them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the PopeDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries? >> > > [1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >> > anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >> > We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might >> > conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
When I first joined the Navy I thought it was very unfair that the captain of a ship was held responsible for anything that went wrong, even if, for example, he was asleep and the duty officer, though fully trained and qualified, made a mistake thatSeems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 12:05:11 PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:00:11 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
.Did the President directly order those crimes?
.When I first joined the Navy I thought it was very unfair that the captain of a ship was held responsible for anything that went wrong, even if,
for example, he was asleep and the duty officer, though fully trained
and qualified, made a mistake that caused a collision. After a few
years in, I realized that that principle of the captain being held responsible for everything was absolutely necessary to counteract
the overwhelming tendency of sh_t and blame to flow downhill.
"Command responsibility" in the case of crimes committed by subordinates . Not a strict liability offense, but it holds superior officers (or their political masters) responsible for either failing to prevent their subordinates from committing a crime when they knew, or negligently failed to.
know, that a crime was about to be committed, or failing to punish them afterwards.
Though for a mere terrorist like Wright, the relevant doctrine would more likely be
" Joint criminal enterprise" which hold each member of an organized group individually
responsible for crimes committed by group , as long as this was broadly within its
shared plan or purpose (cf in particular Prosecutor v Duko Tadic, where it was first
explicitly names like this, though the idea is older and was also used in Nuremberg)
Or simply ordinary criminal law, like the US concept of felony murder (law of parties in Texas) that can lead to a conviction for murder for nothing more than lending
a car to a person who had previously announced they would commit a crime with it.
They are all common law concepts, though the US extends it rather more than we would in
England or Ireland, especially after R v Jogee [2016] UKSC limited it a lot for England
(Scotland, as always, is different)
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 12:05:11 PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:caused a collision. After a few years in, I realized that that principle of the captain being held responsible for everything was absolutely necessary to counteract the overwhelming tendency of sh_t and blame to flow downhill.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:00:11 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >> > > >>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >> > > >fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theI don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone >> > > openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who >> > > refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals. >> > >
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the PopeDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >> > anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >> > > murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
When I first joined the Navy I thought it was very unfair that the captain of a ship was held responsible for anything that went wrong, even if, for example, he was asleep and the duty officer, though fully trained and qualified, made a mistake thatSeems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
"Command responsibility" in the case of crimes committed by subordinates . Not a strict liability offense, but it holds superior officers (or their political masters) responsible for either failing to prevent their subordinates from committing a crime when they knew, or negligently failed to
know, that a crime was about to be committed, or failing to punish them afterwards.
Though for a mere terrorist like Wright, the relevant doctrine would more likely be
" Joint criminal enterprise" which hold each member of an organized group individually
responsible for crimes committed by group , as long as this was broadly within its
shared plan or purpose (cf in particular Prosecutor v Duko Tadic, where it was first
explicitly names like this, though the idea is older and was also used in Nuremberg)
Or simply ordinary criminal law, like the US concept of felony murder (law of parties in Texas) that can lead to a conviction for murder for nothing more than lending
a car to a person who had previously announced they would commit a crime with it.
They are all common law concepts, though the US extends it rather more than we would in
England or Ireland, especially after R v Jogee [2016] UKSC limited it a lot for England
(Scotland, as always, is different)
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 04:04:09 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:caused a collision. After a few years in, I realized that that principle of the captain being held responsible for everything was absolutely necessary to counteract the overwhelming tendency of sh_t and blame to flow downhill.
[...]
When I first joined the Navy I thought it was very unfair that the captain of a ship was held responsible for anything that went wrong, even if, for example, he was asleep and the duty officer, though fully trained and qualified, made a mistake that
I totally endorse Truman's "the buck stops here" approach and those
placed in charge of an organisation should carry ultimate
responsibility for both successes and failures of the organisation. I
don't think, however, that would justify being charged with specific
*crimes* that they did not directly order though they could be open to
other charges for negligence in not preventing things from happening.
An interesting case going on in the UK at the moment. A young nurse
has been found guilty of murdering at least 7 babies. What is
particularly disturbing is that the paediatricians repeatedly warned
the management board over a number of years that this nurse was
damaging babies but the board ignored the warnings, apparently because
they were worried about bad publicity. In that instance, I would fully support those board members being charged with manslaughter because
although they did not directly kill the babies, they had been told
what was happening and chose to allow the nurse to continue working
with babies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66120934
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>
wrote:
"Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
On 8/22/23 4:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:caused a collision. After a few years in, I realized that that principle of the captain being held responsible for everything was absolutely necessary to counteract the overwhelming tendency of sh_t and blame to flow downhill.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 04:04:09 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
When I first joined the Navy I thought it was very unfair that the captain of a ship was held responsible for anything that went wrong, even if, for example, he was asleep and the duty officer, though fully trained and qualified, made a mistake that
I totally endorse Truman's "the buck stops here" approach and those
placed in charge of an organisation should carry ultimate
responsibility for both successes and failures of the organisation. I don't think, however, that would justify being charged with specific *crimes* that they did not directly order though they could be open to other charges for negligence in not preventing things from happening.
An interesting case going on in the UK at the moment. A young nurse
has been found guilty of murdering at least 7 babies. What is
particularly disturbing is that the paediatricians repeatedly warned
the management board over a number of years that this nurse was
damaging babies but the board ignored the warnings, apparently because they were worried about bad publicity. In that instance, I would fully support those board members being charged with manslaughter because although they did not directly kill the babies, they had been told
what was happening and chose to allow the nurse to continue working
with babies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66120934Relevant to the last couple comments, some might be interested in the
book _Black Box Thinking_ by Matthew Syed. Its thesis is that the
reason why negative outcomes in medicine are orders of magnitude more
common than negative outcomes in aviation is because aviation has a
culture of taking responsibility for accidents, including investigating their causes and suggesting changes, while the culture in medicine is to cover up accidents.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >> > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >> > > >>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theI don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >> > > it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >> > > them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >> > > when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >> > > sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side >> > > but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that >> > > graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >> > > the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >> > > the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the PopeDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the >> > Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >> > We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's >> > > men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
rOn Sat, 19 Aug 2023 13:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
<GlennSheldon@msn.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 6:05:08?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 23:40:01 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:40:05?PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:Are the BBC evolutionists with no actual facts to back them up?
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Alleged...from an evolutionist with no actual facts to back it up. What a surprise!
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>> >> >>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>> >> >>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>> >> >>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>> >> >> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>> >> >> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman >>> >> >> involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>> >> >> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >>> >> > Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat >>> >> > of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called >>> >> > for Roman Catholics to be killed.
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have >>> >> done so.
As far as I know, Ernest is not the BBC.
I never claimed he was.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"Who was Billy Wright?
Billy Wright was one of the most terrifying loyalist paramilitaries in
Northern Ireland.
The man nicknamed King Rat - a term coined by journalists on the
Sunday World newspaper - waged a bloody and bigoted campaign against
the Catholic population in the Portadown and Lurgan area between the
mid 1980s and his death in 1997 "
These are claims, not facts. And Wright was a person, not a "paramilitary".
Oxford Languages
paramilitary
noun
a member of a paramilitary organization.
Then again, maybe they're evolutionists too.
By the way, are you praying for me, family and friends as you claimed you were for Ron Dean? Or was that just bullshit...(horn blowing in background)
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic*
prayer
On 8/22/23 4:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:caused a collision. After a few years in, I realized that that principle of the captain being held responsible for everything was absolutely necessary to counteract the overwhelming tendency of sh_t and blame to flow downhill.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 04:04:09 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
When I first joined the Navy I thought it was very unfair that the captain of a ship was held responsible for anything that went wrong, even if, for example, he was asleep and the duty officer, though fully trained and qualified, made a mistake that
I totally endorse Truman's "the buck stops here" approach and those
placed in charge of an organisation should carry ultimate
responsibility for both successes and failures of the organisation. I don't think, however, that would justify being charged with specific *crimes* that they did not directly order though they could be open to other charges for negligence in not preventing things from happening.
An interesting case going on in the UK at the moment. A young nurse
has been found guilty of murdering at least 7 babies. What is
particularly disturbing is that the paediatricians repeatedly warned
the management board over a number of years that this nurse was
damaging babies but the board ignored the warnings, apparently because they were worried about bad publicity. In that instance, I would fully support those board members being charged with manslaughter because although they did not directly kill the babies, they had been told
what was happening and chose to allow the nurse to continue working
with babies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66120934Relevant to the last couple comments, some might be interested in the
book _Black Box Thinking_ by Matthew Syed. Its thesis is that the
reason why negative outcomes in medicine are orders of magnitude more
common than negative outcomes in aviation is because aviation has a
culture of taking responsibility for accidents, including investigating their causes and suggesting changes, while the culture in medicine is to cover up accidents.
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:20:10 PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:issue - how many times had he had sudden premonitions that someone dear to him had died, but it turned out they hadn't?
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:15:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:I knew a man who had a "near death experience", some years ago. Unknown >>>>> to him, his oldest
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>>>>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out abouthave a concept
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting >>>>>>>>>>>>> As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >>>>>>>>>>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>>>>>>>>>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>>>>>>>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>>>>>>>>>> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>>>>>>>>>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >>>>>>>>>> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >>>>>>>>> fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong >>>>>>>> anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone >>>>>>>> openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find >>>>>>>> themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any >>>>>>>> public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >>>>>>>> it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >>>>>>>> them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >>>>>>>> when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who >>>>>>>> refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals. >>>>>>>>
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >>>>>>>> sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side >>>>>>>> but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that >>>>>>>> graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >>>>>>>> the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >>>>>>>> the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >>>>>>> anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the >>>>>>> Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the >>>>>>> Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >>>>>>> We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might >>>>>>> conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries? >>>>>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>>>>>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's >>>>>>>> men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >>>>>>>>
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >>>>>>>> Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained >>>>>> minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
daughter had died in a car crash, on the way to the hospital. This, the >>>>> hospital, was where he was, after a severe heart attack. The family
decided to keep this news from him, believing the shock could take him. >>>>> Later, he died for 5 minutes, but he was revived. The first words he >>>>> said, after he could, I saw Nancy, why didn't you'll tell me she had >>>>> died? He was not terribly upset, only saying, "I'll miss her". He had no >>>>> way to know his daughter was dead, yet somehow, he knew.
"He had no way to know his daughter was dead...." Well, that's one issue. What was the family whispering about in the hospital? How long was he conscious before he "died," and was it long enough for him to notice the absence of his daughter? Another
And you wouldn't.You'd be surprised how much seemingly unaware, unconscious patients can hear and understand.I don't know the answer to your last question. But he was not
conscientious upon his arrival at the hospital. He was kept under for 2
days after a 3 way by-pass. The family was sent to the waiting room, and >>> only two at the time, was allowed to visit. The man was my dad. Of
course, I was not there with each visit. so obviously, I cannot know
what whispering took place. Even if her death
was discussed, I don't think, under the circumstances, he could have
been aware. Nancy was his
first, and they were very close.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >> >> > > >>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theI don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >> >> > > it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >> >> > > them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >> >> > > when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Toms Fiaich, >> >> > > Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >> >> > > sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side >> >> > > but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that >> >> > > graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >> >> > > the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >> >> > > the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the PopeDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the >> >> > Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >> >> > We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's >> >> > > men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him? Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 13:11:56 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
rOn Sat, 19 Aug 2023 13:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
<GlennSheldon@msn.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 6:05:08?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 23:40:01 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:40:05?PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote: >>>> >> On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Are the BBC evolutionists with no actual facts to back them up?
Alleged...from an evolutionist with no actual facts to back it up. What a surprise!On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>> >> >>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>>> >> >> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>>> >> >> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the >>>> >> >> killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>>> >> >> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >>>> >> > Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
As far as I know, Ernest is not the BBC.
I never claimed he was.
Oxford Languages
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"Who was Billy Wright?
Billy Wright was one of the most terrifying loyalist paramilitaries in >>>> Northern Ireland.
The man nicknamed King Rat - a term coined by journalists on the
Sunday World newspaper - waged a bloody and bigoted campaign against
the Catholic population in the Portadown and Lurgan area between the
mid 1980s and his death in 1997 … "
These are claims, not facts. And Wright was a person, not a "paramilitary". >>
paramilitary
noun
a member of a paramilitary organization.
Then again, maybe they're evolutionists too.
By the way, are you praying for me, family and friends as you claimed you were for Ron Dean? Or was that just bullshit...(horn blowing in background)
I pray for everyone I encounter, what could be described as *catholic* >>prayer
I mentioned before that I get a daily Pray and Reflect from Franciscan
Medi. By coincidence, this was today’s:
Reflect
Sometimes we face our day knowing we must cross paths with someone
difficult. Going forward, reflect on the words of Thomas Merton: “I
must see and embrace God in the whole world”.
Pray
God, today if I encounter difficult people
who provoke and anger me
help me know I am safely held
within your Sacred Heart.
Help me feel your protection
if I feel diminished by anyone.
Rather than collapsing, or reacting, or rejecting another,
may I first remember this:
your perfect heart
enclosing me instead.
Act
Can you keep an image of the Sacred Heart near you today? On your
dashboard, or as a bookmark, or a photo on your phone to remind you of
his love.
Glenn wrote:Another issue - how many times had he had sudden premonitions that someone dear to him had died, but it turned out they hadn't?
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:20:10?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:15:10?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:05:10?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest MajorI knew a man who had a "near death experience", some years ago. Unknown >>>>>> to him, his oldest
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>>>>>>>>>>> IRA memberSalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out abouthave a concept
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >>>>>>>>>>>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>>>>>>>>>>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean >>>>>>>>>>>> that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA >>>>>>>>>>>> member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >>>>>>>>>> fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone >>>>>>>>> openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find >>>>>>>>> themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any >>>>>>>>> public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about >>>>>>>>> it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist >>>>>>>>> terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >>>>>>>>> them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them >>>>>>>>> when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who >>>>>>>>> refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals. >>>>>>>>>
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both >>>>>>>>> sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side >>>>>>>>> but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that >>>>>>>>> graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck >>>>>>>>> the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck >>>>>>>>> the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope >>>>>>>> is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >>>>>>>> anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't >>>>>>>> be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the >>>>>>>> Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the >>>>>>>> Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, >>>>>>>> We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might >>>>>>>> conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries? >>>>>>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>>>>>>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's >>>>>>>>> men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >>>>>>>>>
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >>>>>>>>> Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained >>>>>>> minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
daughter had died in a car crash, on the way to the hospital. This, the >>>>>> hospital, was where he was, after a severe heart attack. The family >>>>>> decided to keep this news from him, believing the shock could take him. >>>>>> Later, he died for 5 minutes, but he was revived. The first words he >>>>>> said, after he could, I saw Nancy, why didn't you'll tell me she had >>>>>> died? He was not terribly upset, only saying, "I'll miss her". He had no >>>>>> way to know his daughter was dead, yet somehow, he knew.
"He had no way to know his daughter was dead...." Well, that's one issue. What was the family whispering about in the hospital? How long was he conscious before he "died," and was it long enough for him to notice the absence of his daughter?
He did say he had no fear of death anymoreAnd you wouldn't.You'd be surprised how much seemingly unaware, unconscious patients can hear and understand.I don't know the answer to your last question. But he was not
conscientious upon his arrival at the hospital. He was kept under for 2 >>>> days after a 3 way by-pass. The family was sent to the waiting room, and >>>> only two at the time, was allowed to visit. The man was my dad. Of
course, I was not there with each visit. so obviously, I cannot know
what whispering took place. Even if her death
was discussed, I don't think, under the circumstances, he could have
been aware. Nancy was his
first, and they were very close.
Glenn wrote:Another issue - how many times had he had sudden premonitions that someone dear to him had died, but it turned out they hadn't?
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:20:10 PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:15:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:I knew a man who had a "near death experience", some years ago. Unknown
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out abouthave a concept
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting >>>>>>>>>>>>> As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >>>>>>>>>>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >>>>>>>>> fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone >>>>>>>> openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find >>>>>>>> themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any >>>>>>>> public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist >>>>>>>> terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of >>>>>>>> them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who >>>>>>>> refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals. >>>>>>>>
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope >>>>>>> is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >>>>>>> anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't >>>>>>> be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the >>>>>>> Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might >>>>>>> conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Did a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>>>>>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >>>>>>>>
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >>>>>>>>
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >>>>>>>> Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained >>>>>> minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
to him, his oldest
daughter had died in a car crash, on the way to the hospital. This, the
hospital, was where he was, after a severe heart attack. The family >>>>> decided to keep this news from him, believing the shock could take him.
Later, he died for 5 minutes, but he was revived. The first words he >>>>> said, after he could, I saw Nancy, why didn't you'll tell me she had >>>>> died? He was not terribly upset, only saying, "I'll miss her". He had no
way to know his daughter was dead, yet somehow, he knew.
"He had no way to know his daughter was dead...." Well, that's one issue. What was the family whispering about in the hospital? How long was he conscious before he "died," and was it long enough for him to notice the absence of his daughter?
I don't know the answer to your last question. But he was not
conscientious upon his arrival at the hospital. He was kept under for 2 >>> days after a 3 way by-pass. The family was sent to the waiting room, and >>> only two at the time, was allowed to visit. The man was my dad. Of
course, I was not there with each visit. so obviously, I cannot know
what whispering took place. Even if her death
was discussed, I don't think, under the circumstances, he could have
been aware. Nancy was his
first, and they were very close.
You'd be surprised how much seemingly unaware, unconscious patients can hear and understand.And you wouldn't.
He did say he had no fear of death anymore
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 10:30:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:caused a collision. After a few years in, I realized that that principle of the captain being held responsible for everything was absolutely necessary to counteract the overwhelming tendency of sh_t and blame to flow downhill.
On 8/22/23 4:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 04:04:09 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
When I first joined the Navy I thought it was very unfair that the captain of a ship was held responsible for anything that went wrong, even if, for example, he was asleep and the duty officer, though fully trained and qualified, made a mistake that
likely, without having to worry about assigning blame to a living individual. Whereas doctors usually survive the mistakes they make and are around to be ashamed, embarrassed, at risk of liability,and inclined to cover up.Relevant to the last couple comments, some might be interested in the
I totally endorse Truman's "the buck stops here" approach and those
placed in charge of an organisation should carry ultimate
responsibility for both successes and failures of the organisation. I
don't think, however, that would justify being charged with specific
*crimes* that they did not directly order though they could be open to
other charges for negligence in not preventing things from happening.
An interesting case going on in the UK at the moment. A young nurse
has been found guilty of murdering at least 7 babies. What is
particularly disturbing is that the paediatricians repeatedly warned
the management board over a number of years that this nurse was
damaging babies but the board ignored the warnings, apparently because
they were worried about bad publicity. In that instance, I would fully
support those board members being charged with manslaughter because
although they did not directly kill the babies, they had been told
what was happening and chose to allow the nurse to continue working
with babies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66120934
book _Black Box Thinking_ by Matthew Syed. Its thesis is that the
reason why negative outcomes in medicine are orders of magnitude more
common than negative outcomes in aviation is because aviation has a
culture of taking responsibility for accidents, including investigating
their causes and suggesting changes, while the culture in medicine is to
cover up accidents.
I wonder if it's at all related to the fact that after a pilot error, the pilot is usually not alive to try to cover anything up, or to feel ashamed by his mistake, so the aviation safety people can look at what systemic things made the error more
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >> >> > > >>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >> >> > > >fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theI don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone >> >> > > openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any >> >> > > public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who >> >> > > refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals. >> >> > >
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the PopeDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries? >> >> > > [1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >> >> > > murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >> >> > anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might >> >> > conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >> >
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him? Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained >> >> minister in a Christian denomination:
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >> >> > > Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On 8/22/23 9:58 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:that caused a collision. After a few years in, I realized that that principle of the captain being held responsible for everything was absolutely necessary to counteract the overwhelming tendency of sh_t and blame to flow downhill.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 10:30:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/22/23 4:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 04:04:09 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
When I first joined the Navy I thought it was very unfair that the captain of a ship was held responsible for anything that went wrong, even if, for example, he was asleep and the duty officer, though fully trained and qualified, made a mistake
Relevant to the last couple comments, some might be interested in the
I totally endorse Truman's "the buck stops here" approach and those
placed in charge of an organisation should carry ultimate
responsibility for both successes and failures of the organisation. I >>> don't think, however, that would justify being charged with specific
*crimes* that they did not directly order though they could be open to >>> other charges for negligence in not preventing things from happening. >>>
An interesting case going on in the UK at the moment. A young nurse
has been found guilty of murdering at least 7 babies. What is
particularly disturbing is that the paediatricians repeatedly warned
the management board over a number of years that this nurse was
damaging babies but the board ignored the warnings, apparently because >>> they were worried about bad publicity. In that instance, I would fully >>> support those board members being charged with manslaughter because
although they did not directly kill the babies, they had been told
what was happening and chose to allow the nurse to continue working
with babies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66120934
book _Black Box Thinking_ by Matthew Syed. Its thesis is that the
reason why negative outcomes in medicine are orders of magnitude more
common than negative outcomes in aviation is because aviation has a
culture of taking responsibility for accidents, including investigating >> their causes and suggesting changes, while the culture in medicine is to >> cover up accidents.
I wonder if it's at all related to the fact that after a pilot error, the pilot is usually not alive to try to cover anything up,
or to feel ashamed by his mistake, so the aviation safety people can look at what systemic things made the error more
likely, without having to worry about assigning blame to a living individual.
Whereas doctors usually survive the mistakes they make and are around to be ashamed, embarrassed, at risk of liability,and inclined to cover up.
As I recall, the book did note one incident where the pilot was blamed before the completion of the investigation, and called it out as a bad change of direction for the industry.
When doctors admit mistakes quickly and readily, liability costs go
*down*. People recognize that other people make mistakes and are more
likely to be forgiving when the other person is not being a hard-ass
about it. Of course, admitting errors puts the doctor in a position
where they are not in control, which is generally not a place doctors enjoy.
Errors are almost never one person's fault. Even when one person is the proximate cause, there are systematic conditions which facilitate the
error and other conditions which make it harder to recover from it.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >> >> >> > > >>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >> >> >> > > >fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theI don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone >> >> >> > > openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any >> >> >> > > public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who >> >> >> > > refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals. >> >> >> > >
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Toms Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the PopeDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries? >> >> >> > > [1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >> >> >> > > murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >> >> >> > anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might >> >> >> > conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >> >> >
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder.
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him? Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained >> >> >> minister in a Christian denomination:
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >> >> >> > > Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:[...]
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>> IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in >>> the USA.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat >> of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called >> for Roman Catholics to be killed.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to
type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point
of what I typed.
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder.
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you two straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question.
Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?
Your hero Donald seems to think not.
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?
Did the President directly order those crimes?
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him? Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:00:28?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
[Glenn wrote:]
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
[you, Martin, wrote:]
You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
[and then you wrote:]
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to
type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point
of what I typed.
[Glenn wrote earlier:]
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder.
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you two
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question.
True, although a t.o. regular with whom you enjoy a friendly relationship sometimes
ducks similar questions by falsely alleging that they are in the genre of >"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I'm not sure which of you is more hostile towards Glenn. You demonstrated >your hostility in sci.bio.paleontology during the recent downtime of Beagle. >Did you see my reply to that post? Here it is:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/eNHv_1Ig3L8/m/hynR_-2yAAAJ >Re: OT: Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance
Aug 21, 2023, 8:20:58?AM
Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
What vacuousness? Your failure to comment on anything that went on
between you and Glenn below suggests that you didn't bother to read any further than this
last comment of yours (about what you claim to think Glenn's silence suggests).
Be that as it may, you didn't notice a touch of irony that I've commented on below [keyword: petard].
[Glenn:]
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?
[you, Martin:]
Your hero Donald seems to think not.
[Glenn, hoisting you with your "rather pathetic attempt at swerve" petard before you uttered it]
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.
[Glenn:]
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?
[you, Martin:]
Did the President directly order those crimes?
[Glenn, overdoing the condescension with his last sentence:]
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him? Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:42:53 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" ><peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:00:28?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>> >> >> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>> >> >> wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >>> >> >> >> > >
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
[Glenn wrote:]
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
[you, Martin, wrote:]
You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
[and then you wrote:]
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to
type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point
of what I typed.
[Glenn wrote earlier:]
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you twoNo, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder. >>
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question.
True, although a t.o. regular with whom you enjoy a friendly relationship sometimes
ducks similar questions by falsely alleging that they are in the genre of >>"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I'm not sure which of you is more hostile towards Glenn. You demonstrated >>your hostility in sci.bio.paleontology during the recent downtime of Beagle. >>Did you see my reply to that post? Here it is:
Aug 21, 2023, 8:20:58?AMhttps://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/eNHv_1Ig3L8/m/hynR_-2yAAAJ >>Re: OT: Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance
Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
What vacuousness? Your failure to comment on anything that went on >>between you and Glenn below suggests that you didn't bother to read any further than this
last comment of yours (about what you claim to think Glenn's silence suggests).
Be that as it may, you didn't notice a touch of irony that I've commented on below [keyword: petard].
[Glenn:]
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?
[you, Martin:]
Your hero Donald seems to think not.
[Glenn, hoisting you with your "rather pathetic attempt at swerve" petard before you uttered it]
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.
[Glenn:]
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?
[you, Martin:]
Did the President directly order those crimes?
[Glenn, overdoing the condescension with his last sentence:]
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him? Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
Rather than a pointless attempt at dissection of a discussion between
Glenn and me, it would fit you better to deal with your scurrilous
lies about me and abortion which I reminded you of in another thread
just a few hours ago.
Your futile attempts to divert attention when you are caught out in
something have become increasingly pathetic.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:42:53 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:00:28?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >> >> wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >> >> >> >> > >
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
[Glenn wrote:]
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
[you, Martin, wrote:]
You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
[and then you wrote:]
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to
type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point
of what I typed.
[Glenn wrote earlier:]
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder.
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you two
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question.
True, although a t.o. regular with whom you enjoy a friendly relationship sometimes
ducks similar questions by falsely alleging that they are in the genre of >"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I'm not sure which of you is more hostile towards Glenn. You demonstrated >your hostility in sci.bio.paleontology during the recent downtime of Beagle.
Did you see my reply to that post? Here it is:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/eNHv_1Ig3L8/m/hynR_-2yAAAJ
Re: OT: Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance
Aug 21, 2023, 8:20:58?AM
Jillery's right. As it stands now, trying to converse with Peter or Glenn is a wasteNot answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
What vacuousness? Your failure to comment on anything that went on
between you and Glenn below suggests that you didn't bother to read any further than this
last comment of yours (about what you claim to think Glenn's silence suggests).
Be that as it may, you didn't notice a touch of irony that I've commented on below [keyword: petard].
[Glenn:]
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?
[you, Martin:]
Your hero Donald seems to think not.
[Glenn, hoisting you with your "rather pathetic attempt at swerve" petard before you uttered it]
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.
[Glenn:]
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?
[you, Martin:]
Did the President directly order those crimes?
[Glenn, overdoing the condescension with his last sentence:]Rather than a pointless attempt at dissection of a discussion between
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him? Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
Glenn and me, it would fit you better to deal with your scurrilous
lies about me and abortion which I reminded you of in another thread
just a few hours ago.
Your futile attempts to divert attention when you are caught out in something have become increasingly pathetic.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 07:00:32 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:42:53 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:00:28?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:[Glenn wrote:]
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>>>>>>>>>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >>>>>>>>>>>>
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >>>
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" >>>>>>>>> implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he >>>>>>>>> wasn't convicted of that.
[you, Martin, wrote:]
You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
[and then you wrote:]
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to
type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point
of what I typed.
[Glenn wrote earlier:]
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you twoNo, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think >>>>>>> that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder. >>>
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question.
True, although a t.o. regular with whom you enjoy a friendly relationship sometimes
ducks similar questions by falsely alleging that they are in the genre of >>> "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I'm not sure which of you is more hostile towards Glenn. You demonstrated >>> your hostility in sci.bio.paleontology during the recent downtime of Beagle.
Did you see my reply to that post? Here it is:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/eNHv_1Ig3L8/m/hynR_-2yAAAJ
Re: OT: Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance
Aug 21, 2023, 8:20:58?AM
Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
What vacuousness? Your failure to comment on anything that went on
between you and Glenn below suggests that you didn't bother to read any further than this
last comment of yours (about what you claim to think Glenn's silence suggests).
Be that as it may, you didn't notice a touch of irony that I've
commented on below [keyword: petard].
[Glenn:]
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible >>>>>>>>> for ever single thing his followers do?
[you, Martin:]
Your hero Donald seems to think not.
[Glenn, hoisting you with your "rather pathetic attempt at swerve"
petard before you uttered it]
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is
responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.
[Glenn:]
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the
President have been convicted of those crimes?
[you, Martin:]
Did the President directly order those crimes?
[Glenn, overdoing the condescension with his last sentence:]
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him?
Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained >>>>>>>>>> minister in a Christian denomination:The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >>>>>>>>>>>> Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent >>>>>>>>>> time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
Rather than a pointless attempt at dissection of a discussion between
Glenn and me, it would fit you better to deal with your scurrilous
lies about me and abortion which I reminded you of in another thread
just a few hours ago.
Your futile attempts to divert attention when you are caught out in
something have become increasingly pathetic.
So killife him, and spare us your angst.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:05:13 PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:42:53 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"Jillery's right. As it stands now, trying to converse with Peter or Glenn is a waste
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:00:28?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>Rather than a pointless attempt at dissection of a discussion between
wrote:[Glenn wrote:]
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>>>>>>>>>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >>>>>>>>>>>>
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >>>
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" >>>>>>>>> implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he >>>>>>>>> wasn't convicted of that.
[you, Martin, wrote:]
You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
[and then you wrote:]
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to
type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point
of what I typed.
[Glenn wrote earlier:]
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you twoNo, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think >>>>>>> that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder. >>>
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question.
True, although a t.o. regular with whom you enjoy a friendly relationship sometimes
ducks similar questions by falsely alleging that they are in the genre of >>> "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I'm not sure which of you is more hostile towards Glenn. You demonstrated >>> your hostility in sci.bio.paleontology during the recent downtime of Beagle.
Did you see my reply to that post? Here it is:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/eNHv_1Ig3L8/m/hynR_-2yAAAJ
Re: OT: Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance
Aug 21, 2023, 8:20:58?AM
Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
What vacuousness? Your failure to comment on anything that went on
between you and Glenn below suggests that you didn't bother to read any
further than this
last comment of yours (about what you claim to
think Glenn's silence suggests).
Be that as it may, you didn't notice a touch of irony that I've
commented on below [keyword: petard].
[Glenn:]
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible >>>>>>>>> for ever single thing his followers do?
[you, Martin:]
Your hero Donald seems to think not.
[Glenn, hoisting you with your "rather pathetic attempt at swerve"
petard before you uttered it]
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is
responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.
[Glenn:]
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the
President have been convicted of those crimes?
[you, Martin:]
Did the President directly order those crimes?
[Glenn, overdoing the condescension with his last sentence:]
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him?
Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained >>>>>>>>>> minister in a Christian denomination:The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >>>>>>>>>>>> Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent >>>>>>>>>> time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
Glenn and me, it would fit you better to deal with your scurrilous
lies about me and abortion which I reminded you of in another thread
just a few hours ago.
Your futile attempts to divert attention when you are caught out in
something have become increasingly pathetic.
of time. It may always have been so. Take it from me, who has wasted too much
time.
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:05:13?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:Jillery never converses with Peter or Glenn. Jillery leads by example.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:42:53 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"Jillery's right. As it stands now, trying to converse with Peter or Glenn is a waste
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:00:28?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>> wrote:Rather than a pointless attempt at dissection of a discussion between
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>>>>>>>>>>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >>>>>>>>>>>>>
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
[Glenn wrote:]
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" >>>>>>>>>> implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he >>>>>>>>>> wasn't convicted of that.
[you, Martin, wrote:]
You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
[and then you wrote:]
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to >>>>> type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point >>>>> of what I typed.
[Glenn wrote earlier:]
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think >>>>>>>> that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder.
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you two
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question.
True, although a t.o. regular with whom you enjoy a friendly relationship sometimes
ducks similar questions by falsely alleging that they are in the genre of >>>> "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I'm not sure which of you is more hostile towards Glenn. You demonstrated >>>> your hostility in sci.bio.paleontology during the recent downtime of Beagle.
Did you see my reply to that post? Here it is:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/eNHv_1Ig3L8/m/hynR_-2yAAAJ
Re: OT: Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance
Aug 21, 2023, 8:20:58?AM
Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
What vacuousness? Your failure to comment on anything that went on
between you and Glenn below suggests that you didn't bother to read any >>>> further than this
last comment of yours (about what you claim to
think Glenn's silence suggests).
Be that as it may, you didn't notice a touch of irony that I've
commented on below [keyword: petard].
[Glenn:]
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible >>>>>>>>>> for ever single thing his followers do?
[you, Martin:]
Your hero Donald seems to think not.
[Glenn, hoisting you with your "rather pathetic attempt at swerve"
petard before you uttered it]
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is >>>>>>>> responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.
[Glenn:]
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the
President have been convicted of those crimes?
[you, Martin:]
Did the President directly order those crimes?
[Glenn, overdoing the condescension with his last sentence:]
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him?
Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
minister in a Christian denomination:
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737 >>>>>>>>>>> Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent >>>>>>>>>>> time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
Glenn and me, it would fit you better to deal with your scurrilous
lies about me and abortion which I reminded you of in another thread
just a few hours ago.
Your futile attempts to divert attention when you are caught out in
something have become increasingly pathetic.
of time. It may always have been so. Take it from me, who has wasted too much
time.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 07:00:32 +0100, Martin HarranOh dear God the irony it burns me so…right through to the core of my being!
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:42:53 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:00:28?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>>>>>>>>>>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >>>>>>>>>>>>>
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
[Glenn wrote:]
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" >>>>>>>>>> implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he >>>>>>>>>> wasn't convicted of that.
[you, Martin, wrote:]
You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
[and then you wrote:]
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to >>>>> type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point >>>>> of what I typed.
[Glenn wrote earlier:]
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think >>>>>>>> that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder.
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you two
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question.
True, although a t.o. regular with whom you enjoy a friendly relationship sometimes
ducks similar questions by falsely alleging that they are in the genre of >>>> "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I'm not sure which of you is more hostile towards Glenn. You demonstrated >>>> your hostility in sci.bio.paleontology during the recent downtime of Beagle.
Did you see my reply to that post? Here it is:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/eNHv_1Ig3L8/m/hynR_-2yAAAJ
Re: OT: Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance
Aug 21, 2023, 8:20:58?AM
Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
What vacuousness? Your failure to comment on anything that went on
between you and Glenn below suggests that you didn't bother to read any further than this
last comment of yours (about what you claim to think Glenn's silence suggests).
Be that as it may, you didn't notice a touch of irony that I've
commented on below [keyword: petard].
[Glenn:]
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible >>>>>>>>>> for ever single thing his followers do?
[you, Martin:]
Your hero Donald seems to think not.
[Glenn, hoisting you with your "rather pathetic attempt at swerve"
petard before you uttered it]
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is >>>>>>>> responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.
[Glenn:]
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the
President have been convicted of those crimes?
[you, Martin:]
Did the President directly order those crimes?
[Glenn, overdoing the condescension with his last sentence:]
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him?
Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
minister in a Christian denomination:
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737 >>>>>>>>>>> Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent >>>>>>>>>>> time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
Rather than a pointless attempt at dissection of a discussion between
Glenn and me, it would fit you better to deal with your scurrilous
lies about me and abortion which I reminded you of in another thread
just a few hours ago.
Your futile attempts to divert attention when you are caught out in
something have become increasingly pathetic.
So killife him, and spare us your angst.
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:05:13?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:Jillery never converses with Peter or Glenn. Jillery leads by example.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:42:53 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"Jillery's right. As it stands now, trying to converse with Peter or Glenn is a waste
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:00:28?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>Rather than a pointless attempt at dissection of a discussion between
wrote:[Glenn wrote:]
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>>>>>>>>>>>> murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >>>>>>>>>>>>>
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >>>>
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" >>>>>>>>>> implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he >>>>>>>>>> wasn't convicted of that.
[you, Martin, wrote:]
You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
[and then you wrote:]
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to
type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point >>>>> of what I typed.
[Glenn wrote earlier:]
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think >>>>>>>> that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder.
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you two
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question.
True, although a t.o. regular with whom you enjoy a friendly relationship sometimes
ducks similar questions by falsely alleging that they are in the genre of >>>> "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I'm not sure which of you is more hostile towards Glenn. You demonstrated >>>> your hostility in sci.bio.paleontology during the recent downtime of Beagle.
Did you see my reply to that post? Here it is:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/eNHv_1Ig3L8/m/hynR_-2yAAAJ
Re: OT: Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance
Aug 21, 2023, 8:20:58?AM
Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
What vacuousness? Your failure to comment on anything that went on
between you and Glenn below suggests that you didn't bother to read any >>>> further than this
last comment of yours (about what you claim to
think Glenn's silence suggests).
Be that as it may, you didn't notice a touch of irony that I've
commented on below [keyword: petard].
[Glenn:]
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible >>>>>>>>>> for ever single thing his followers do?
[you, Martin:]
Your hero Donald seems to think not.
[Glenn, hoisting you with your "rather pathetic attempt at swerve"
petard before you uttered it]
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is >>>>>>>> responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.
[Glenn:]
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the
President have been convicted of those crimes?
[you, Martin:]
Did the President directly order those crimes?
[Glenn, overdoing the condescension with his last sentence:]
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him?
Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent >>>>>>>>>>> time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
Glenn and me, it would fit you better to deal with your scurrilous
lies about me and abortion which I reminded you of in another thread
just a few hours ago.
Your futile attempts to divert attention when you are caught out in
something have become increasingly pathetic.
of time. It may always have been so. Take it from me, who has wasted too much
time.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 16:57:36 +0000, *Hemidactylus* ><ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:05:13?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:42:53 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"Jillery never converses with Peter or Glenn. Jillery leads by example.
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:Jillery's right. As it stands now, trying to converse with Peter or Glenn is a waste
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:00:28?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>> wrote:Rather than a pointless attempt at dissection of a discussion between >>>> Glenn and me, it would fit you better to deal with your scurrilous
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
[Glenn wrote:]
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" >>>>>>>>>>> implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he >>>>>>>>>>> wasn't convicted of that.
[you, Martin, wrote:]
You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
[and then you wrote:]
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him >>>>>>>> responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to >>>>>> type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point >>>>>> of what I typed.
[Glenn wrote earlier:]
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think >>>>>>>>> that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder.
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you two
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question.
True, although a t.o. regular with whom you enjoy a friendly relationship sometimes
ducks similar questions by falsely alleging that they are in the genre of
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I'm not sure which of you is more hostile towards Glenn. You demonstrated
your hostility in sci.bio.paleontology during the recent downtime of Beagle.
Did you see my reply to that post? Here it is:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/eNHv_1Ig3L8/m/hynR_-2yAAAJ
Re: OT: Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance
Aug 21, 2023, 8:20:58?AM
Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy >>>>>> Wright.
What vacuousness? Your failure to comment on anything that went on
between you and Glenn below suggests that you didn't bother to read any >>>>> further than this
last comment of yours (about what you claim to
think Glenn's silence suggests).
Be that as it may, you didn't notice a touch of irony that I've
commented on below [keyword: petard].
[Glenn:]
This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible >>>>>>>>>>> for ever single thing his followers do?
[you, Martin:]
Your hero Donald seems to think not.
[Glenn, hoisting you with your "rather pathetic attempt at swerve"
petard before you uttered it]
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is >>>>>>>>> responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.
[Glenn:]
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the
President have been convicted of those crimes?
[you, Martin:]
Did the President directly order those crimes?
[Glenn, overdoing the condescension with his last sentence:]
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him?
Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
minister in a Christian denomination:
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737 >>>>>>>>>>>> Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent >>>>>>>>>>>> time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
lies about me and abortion which I reminded you of in another thread
just a few hours ago.
Your futile attempts to divert attention when you are caught out in
something have become increasingly pathetic.
of time. It may always have been so. Take it from me, who has wasted too much
time.
In fairness, those three people do have a lot in common. For example,
there are many people here who disagree with my views on various
issues but those three are the only regulars here who consistently try
to attack my character.
I overlooked something in my first reply to this post of yours, Burkhard.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:[...]
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Salman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out about >>>>>> that the hard way.As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not >>>>> have a concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
FTR, I never got a reply to my question of what "Stochastic terrorism" is supposed to mean.Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on any >>>> IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your >>> counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
<snip for focus>
<snip for focus>
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The >> Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
This is nonsense. I could easily apply for Hungarian citizenship, but I would stillAnother factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "FuckMhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
remain a proper US citizen.
Fortunately, the rules for dual citizenship have been relaxed in recent decades.
For a long time, I discouraged my wife, who had permanent resident alien ("green card") status, from becoming a US citizen, because I feared she would have
to renounce her Australian citizenship thereby. When it became clear that this would no longer be the case, she applied immediately for US citizenship and became one without any trouble.
Actually, all this purely legal talk is just frosting on the following cake: the loyalty Catholics have to the Pope is only on religious matters,
and we Yanks have had a strong separation between church and state;
is it any different for the UK?
On the patriotic ("state") side, I had to swear loyalty
to the US Constitution when I became a US citizen at the age of 18.
And I meant it: I became a US Army Reserve 2nd Lieutenant three years later, after taking a similar oath in a military setting.
These loyalties are not absolute: one is bound to disobey illegal orders even
when a soldier, as I told Glenn in connection with the My Lai massacre.
On the religious side, I disagree with Pope Francis on his failure to move toward the ordination of women deacons, and I also object to the draconian measures against the traditional Latin Mass that the Vatican has recently started to enforce.
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote somethingFor the benefit of my fellow Yanks, I want to note that QC here refers to Queen's Counsel, a type of lawyer in Commonwealth countries, during the reign of a queen.
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Today the same kind of lawyer would be called a KC, King's Counsel.
All this talk about various loyalties reminds me of a scene in "Chariots of Fire."
Eric Liddell (played by Ian Charleson), on the British Olympic team, refuses to run in
a race on Sunday because of his religious convictions.
One of the members of the British Olympic Committee says in a disgruntled voice,
"In my day, it was King first and God afterwards."
One of the other committee members, the Duke of Sutherland (played by Peter Egan), retorts,
"Yes, and the War to End All Wars bitterly proved your point."
Peter Nyikos
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 7:26:06 AM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few regulars of talk.origins are forthcoming about what they believe about the possibility of a life after death; and, specifically, one where a person's experience depends at least in part on
what one has done in this life.
I only know of three exceptions: two outspoken atheists, one of whom
has even dismissed an afterlife as a fairy tale that mature adults need to grow out of; and myself. I think that an afterlife is improbable, especially one of the specific sort I described, but I take both possibilities very seriously.
I will talk more about how I take them seriously later on in this thread.
I want to introduce two different perspectives on this topic.
The first, from a classic biography by Aldous Huxley, showsPerhaps this is best seen in the world of proxy wars conducted
a historical example illustrating Voltaire's famous dictum,
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
in the World Cup.
* * * *
. “The 'shocking and totally unexpected' loss by the U.S. Women's Soccer Team
. to Sweden is fully emblematic of what is happening to the our once great Nation
. under Crooked Joe Biden. Many of our players were openly hostile to America
. – No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close. WOKE EQUALS FAILURE.
. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA”
* * * *
Quoting 45**†††
One can clearly understand the necessity of inventing God,I don't think in the case at hand that would work, the US uncharacteristically struggled in the offence, but Jesus
plays in goal, or so I understand from the people who shove
leaflets in under my door.
and of course
the corollary of an afterlife that includes eternal damnation in Hell for countries that permit WOKENESS in the females conscripted to wage
war against people who don't even speak American. Hell is for losers.
PS. Harran 39', 52', Morgan 89'.
PPS Make them make a save, never shoot wide or high in penalties. Biden should have told them.
* impeached
† indicted
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 16:56:25 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:[]
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 07:00:32 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:42:53 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:00:28?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>>>
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >>>>>>>>>>>>>
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
Oh dear God the irony it burns me so…right through to the core of my being!Your futile attempts to divert attention when you are caught out in
something have become increasingly pathetic.
So killife him, and spare us your angst.
Bad enough you don't even try to address Harran's self-serving virtue signaling, even as he trolls about others doing things he regularly
does himself. Worse that you completely ignore he does this while concurrently preaching the virtues of killfiles. The real irony here
is you're blind to your own willful blindness.
No doubt Harran will be grateful to you for copying my disgusting
pathetic comment, so he won't be compelled to look it up on GG. You
is a real public servant, you is.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever the
thread was about).
From there it is just safe to only check when
anyone who hasn't posted anything before writes something.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever theThe thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
thread was about).
Perhaps the last post on that subject was my reply to Ron Dean, 5 days ago [1]:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zz-sXdHqagQ/m/ow4ZZkSMBgAJ
Re: Taking the Possibility of an Afterlife Seriously
Aug 23, 2023, 9:25:13 AM
Hamlet's words which I quoted there are of the very essence
of taking this possibility seriously:
"who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?"
-- "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark,"
by William Shakespeare; Act III, Scene 1.
[1] As of the time this post appears, this clock resets at 0.Note that in ancient Greek they did believe in metempsychosis. It feels that by current
I have often remarked that Epicurus's confidence [2] that with death comes oblivion,
is just as much wishful thinking as "pie in the sky."
The above words from Shakespeare's immortal play bring that out very well, IMO.
[2] and that of billions of other people since his day, including most classical Stoics,
from Zeno of Cithium through Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.
From there it is just safe to only check when
anyone who hasn't posted anything before writes something.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, Öö. John Kerr-Mudd is a newcomer here,
and is still feeling his way around talk.origins, so I think any advice you could
give him -- the more clearly worded, the better -- would be greatly appreciated.
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[]
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever the thread was about).The thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life. Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
From there it is just safe to only check when
anyone who hasn't posted anything before writes something.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, Öö. John Kerr-Mudd is a newcomer here,
and is still feeling his way around talk.origins, so I think any advice you could
give him -- the more clearly worded, the better -- would be greatly appreciated.
I tried to say that the accusations and whataboutism can be skipped, something
interesting comes too rarely up after it.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
[]At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever the thread was about).The thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life. Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
To come off the fence: I don't see there's a jot of evidence for any afterlife. So no, I don't take it seriously.
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 11:30:19 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:I'd say that studies of near death experiences and resuscitation after cardiac arrest are studies of what the brain does when sufficiently deprived of oxygen, not studies of an afterlife.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
[]At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever the thread was about).The thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life. Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
... snipping about whataboutism we agree.
To come off the fence: I don't see there's a jot of evidence for any afterlife. So no, I don't take it seriously.
Scientist study near death experiences and recoveries from clinical death
to get clues about afterlife and other scientists research cases of little kids
talking about times "when they were adults" for reincarnation. Some "indicative" information is gathered and published about both. No proofs or conclusive evidences have been obtained about neither. IOW it is science, just yet unsuccessful, bad science.
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever the thread was about).
The thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
Perhaps the last post on that subject was my reply to Ron Dean, 5 days ago [1]:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zz-sXdHqagQ/m/ow4ZZkSMBgAJ
Re: Taking the Possibility of an Afterlife Seriously
Aug 23, 2023, 9:25:13 AM
Hamlet's words which I quoted there are of the very essence
of taking this possibility seriously:
"who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?"
-- "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark,"
by William Shakespeare; Act III, Scene 1.
[1] As of the time this post appears, this clock resets at 0.
I have often remarked that Epicurus's confidence [2] that with death comes oblivion,
is just as much wishful thinking as "pie in the sky."
Note that in ancient Greek they did believe in metempsychosis. It feels that by current
philosophies that believe in immaterial soul ... reincarnation is about as popular as
afterlife.
The above words from Shakespeare's immortal play bring that out very well, IMO.
[2] and that of billions of other people since his day, including most classical Stoics,
from Zeno of Cithium through Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life.
Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
From there it is just safe to only check when
anyone who hasn't posted anything before writes something.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, Öö. John Kerr-Mudd is a newcomer here,
and is still feeling his way around talk.origins, so I think any advice you could
give him -- the more clearly worded, the better -- would be greatly appreciated.
I tried to say that the accusations and whataboutism can be skipped, something
interesting comes too rarely up after it.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 6:55:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 11:30:19 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
[]At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever theThe thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
thread was about).
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life. Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
... snipping about whataboutism we agree.
To come off the fence: I don't see there's a jot of evidence for any afterlife. So no, I don't take it seriously.
Scientist study near death experiences and recoveries from clinical death to get clues about afterlife and other scientists research cases of little kids
talking about times "when they were adults" for reincarnation. Some "indicative" information is gathered and published about both. No proofs or
conclusive evidences have been obtained about neither. IOW it is science, just yet unsuccessful, bad science.
I'd say that studies of near death experiences and resuscitation after cardiac arrest are studies of what the brain does when sufficiently deprived of oxygen, not studies of an afterlife.
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 14:40:18 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:......
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 6:55:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 11:30:19 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
[]At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever theThe thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
thread was about).
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life. Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
... snipping about whataboutism we agree.
To come off the fence: I don't see there's a jot of evidence for any afterlife. So no, I don't take it seriously.
Scientist study near death experiences and recoveries from clinical death
to get clues about afterlife and other scientists research cases of little kids
talking about times "when they were adults" for reincarnation. Some "indicative" information is gathered and published about both. No proofs or
conclusive evidences have been obtained about neither. IOW it is science,
just yet unsuccessful, bad science.
I'd say that studies of near death experiences and resuscitation after cardiac arrest are studies of what the brain does when sufficiently deprived of oxygen, not studies of an afterlife.
There can be number of whatever other studies about such events at same time.
Both proponents and opponents of idea of immaterial soul agree that if there is
such a thing then it has to interact with brain of living creature.
I think that no one
denies that potential information exchange between such entities can be proved
by content of information gained during hypothetical loss of such connection.
So of course it is studied and findings published, but nothing conclusive has been
found.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:00:20 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:then it has no way to influence or be influenced by matter.
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 14:40:18 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 6:55:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 11:30:19 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
[]At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever theThe thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
thread was about).
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life. Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
... snipping about whataboutism we agree.
To come off the fence: I don't see there's a jot of evidence for any afterlife. So no, I don't take it seriously.
Scientist study near death experiences and recoveries from clinical death
to get clues about afterlife and other scientists research cases of little kids
talking about times "when they were adults" for reincarnation. Some "indicative" information is gathered and published about both. No proofs or
conclusive evidences have been obtained about neither. IOW it is science,
just yet unsuccessful, bad science.
......I'd say that studies of near death experiences and resuscitation after cardiac arrest are studies of what the brain does when sufficiently deprived of oxygen, not studies of an afterlife.
There can be number of whatever other studies about such events at same time.Well, that interaction was a major problem with Cartesian dualism (pointed out to Descartes by his own clever niece). If the soul can interact with matter in the brain, then it is as material as electromagnetism or gravity. If it is truly immaterial,
Both proponents and opponents of idea of immaterial soul agree that if there is
such a thing then it has to interact with brain of living creature.
I think that no one
denies that potential information exchange between such entities can be proved
by content of information gained during hypothetical loss of such connection.
So of course it is studied and findings published, but nothing conclusive has been
found.
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 15:05:20 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:then it has no way to influence or be influenced by matter.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:00:20 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 14:40:18 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 6:55:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 11:30:19 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
[]At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever theThe thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
thread was about).
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life. Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
... snipping about whataboutism we agree.
To come off the fence: I don't see there's a jot of evidence for any
afterlife. So no, I don't take it seriously.
Scientist study near death experiences and recoveries from clinical death
to get clues about afterlife and other scientists research cases of little kids
talking about times "when they were adults" for reincarnation. Some "indicative" information is gathered and published about both. No proofs or
conclusive evidences have been obtained about neither. IOW it is science,
just yet unsuccessful, bad science.
......I'd say that studies of near death experiences and resuscitation after cardiac arrest are studies of what the brain does when sufficiently deprived of oxygen, not studies of an afterlife.
There can be number of whatever other studies about such events at same time.Well, that interaction was a major problem with Cartesian dualism (pointed out to Descartes by his own clever niece). If the soul can interact with matter in the brain, then it is as material as electromagnetism or gravity. If it is truly immaterial,
Both proponents and opponents of idea of immaterial soul agree that if there is
such a thing then it has to interact with brain of living creature.
Why it is problem? We do not know what 95% of "stuff" around of us is yet we have
already discovered that it interacts with matter using gravity. We do not know if it
interacts with ordinary matter by using any other means or not.
I think that no one
denies that potential information exchange between such entities can be proved
by content of information gained during hypothetical loss of such connection.
So of course it is studied and findings published, but nothing conclusive has been
found.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:50:18 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever the thread was about).
The thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
Perhaps the last post on that subject was my reply to Ron Dean, 5 days ago [1]:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zz-sXdHqagQ/m/ow4ZZkSMBgAJ Re: Taking the Possibility of an Afterlife Seriously
Aug 23, 2023, 9:25:13 AM
Hamlet's words which I quoted there are of the very essence
of taking this possibility seriously:
"who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?"
-- "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark,"
by William Shakespeare; Act III, Scene 1.
[1] As of the time this post appears, this clock resets at 0.
I have often remarked that Epicurus's confidence [2] that with death comes oblivion,
is just as much wishful thinking as "pie in the sky."
Note that in ancient Greek they did believe in metempsychosis. It feels that by currentThe way I use the words, reincarnation is just another kind of afterlife. Materialists, which I believe include the majority of talk.origins regulars, would stick with Epicurus since they have no theory of how reincarnation
philosophies that believe in immaterial soul ... reincarnation is about as popular as
afterlife.
can come about.
But, as I've been saying, there are very few who will commit themselves on where they stand on this whole idea of taking life after death seriously, and if so, what they think the outlook is.
Intellectually, I lean towards the idea of oblivion; emotionally, I wish there
were some way to prolong my experiences to many times my time on earth.
Even more than that, I would like for people far less fortunate than myself to get some compensation for their suffering on earth.
And most of all, I hope that children aborted in the womb after they
have experienced some sights and sounds there could have the equivalent
of many years of life after death in some future state.
The above words from Shakespeare's immortal play bring that out very well, IMO.
[2] and that of billions of other people since his day, including most classical Stoics,
from Zeno of Cithium through Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life.I, too. Maybe we have yet to undergo our first reincarnations. :)
Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
From there it is just safe to only check when
anyone who hasn't posted anything before writes something.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, Öö. John Kerr-Mudd is a newcomer here,
and is still feeling his way around talk.origins, so I think any advice you could
give him -- the more clearly worded, the better -- would be greatly appreciated.
I tried to say that the accusations and whataboutism can be skipped, somethingOr the thread degenerates into idle socializing. These are the fates of most threads,
interesting comes too rarely up after it.
and this was my experience already in the 1990's.
Perhaps a more frequent starting of new threads by us will help a bit.
But right now, there are two relatively new threads started by MarkE
that seem to have some life in them.
Peter Nyikos
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:45:20 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:immaterial, then it has no way to influence or be influenced by matter.
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 15:05:20 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:00:20 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 14:40:18 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 6:55:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 11:30:19 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
[]At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever theThe thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
thread was about).
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life. Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
... snipping about whataboutism we agree.
To come off the fence: I don't see there's a jot of evidence for any
afterlife. So no, I don't take it seriously.
Scientist study near death experiences and recoveries from clinical death
to get clues about afterlife and other scientists research cases of little kids
talking about times "when they were adults" for reincarnation. Some
"indicative" information is gathered and published about both. No proofs or
conclusive evidences have been obtained about neither. IOW it is science,
just yet unsuccessful, bad science.
......I'd say that studies of near death experiences and resuscitation after cardiac arrest are studies of what the brain does when sufficiently deprived of oxygen, not studies of an afterlife.
There can be number of whatever other studies about such events at same time.Well, that interaction was a major problem with Cartesian dualism (pointed out to Descartes by his own clever niece). If the soul can interact with matter in the brain, then it is as material as electromagnetism or gravity. If it is truly
Both proponents and opponents of idea of immaterial soul agree that if there is
such a thing then it has to interact with brain of living creature.
material, though it might be a different sort of matter than we know about yet. On the other hand, if the soul you are looking for is immaterial, then it cannot interact with matter. It's really a problem of definitions.Why it is problem? We do not know what 95% of "stuff" around of us is yet we have
already discovered that it interacts with matter using gravity. We do not know if it
interacts with ordinary matter by using any other means or not.
Why is it a problem? It's a problem because in order to be immaterial something must, by definition, not interact with matter. Therefore, if the soul you are looking for is interacting with matter (in the brain for example) then it, too must be
I think that no one
denies that potential information exchange between such entities can be proved
by content of information gained during hypothetical loss of such connection.
So of course it is studied and findings published, but nothing conclusive has been
found.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[]
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18?AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:The thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever the
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
thread was about).
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life. Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
I tried to say that the accusations and whataboutism can be skipped, somethingFrom there it is just safe to only check when
anyone who hasn't posted anything before writes something.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, Öö. John Kerr-Mudd is a newcomer here,
and is still feeling his way around talk.origins, so I think any advice you could
give him -- the more clearly worded, the better -- would be greatly appreciated.
interesting comes too rarely up after it.
That's my problem with this NG; there's too much ".. but you failed to >apologize for lying n years ago..." etc.
I don't care for this, I expected a more rational debate, preferably with >links to facts. But it seems some of the regulars here, no matter what
their actual knowledge and expertise, get caught up in the feuding, so
that (IME) 70% of posts are uninformative. I'm not here to take anyone's >side, but I do want to ignore the obsessives.
To come off the fence: I don't see there's a jot of evidence for any >afterlife. So no, I don't take it seriously.
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 17:05:20 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:45:20 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 15:05:20 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:00:20 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 14:40:18 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 6:55:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 11:30:19 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
[]At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever theThe thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
thread was about).
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life. Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
... snipping about whataboutism we agree.
To come off the fence: I don't see there's a jot of evidence for any
afterlife. So no, I don't take it seriously.
Scientist study near death experiences and recoveries from clinical death
to get clues about afterlife and other scientists research cases of little kids
talking about times "when they were adults" for reincarnation. Some
"indicative" information is gathered and published about both. No proofs or
conclusive evidences have been obtained about neither. IOW it is science,
just yet unsuccessful, bad science.
......I'd say that studies of near death experiences and resuscitation after cardiac arrest are studies of what the brain does when sufficiently deprived of oxygen, not studies of an afterlife.
There can be number of whatever other studies about such events at same time.
Both proponents and opponents of idea of immaterial soul agree that if there is
such a thing then it has to interact with brain of living creature.
Well, that interaction was a major problem with Cartesian dualism (pointed out to Descartes by his own clever niece). If the soul can interact with matter in the brain, then it is as material as electromagnetism or gravity.
If it is truly immaterial, then it has no way to influence or be influenced by matter.
Why it is problem? We do not know what 95% of "stuff" around of us is yet we have
already discovered that it interacts with matter using gravity. We do not know if it
interacts with ordinary matter by using any other means or not.
Why is it a problem? It's a problem because in order to be immaterial something must, by definition, not interact with matter.
immaterial, then it cannot interact with matter. It's really a problem of definitions.Therefore, if the soul you are looking for is interacting with matter (in the brain for example) then it, too must be material, though it might be a different sort of matter than we know about yet. On the other hand, if the soul you are looking for is
Oh ... I get it, the "immaterial soul" can't be meant in sense that it does not
interact at all with us. Otherwise presence or lack of one would not make any difference whatsoever.
I think that no one
denies that potential information exchange between such entities can be proved
by content of information gained during hypothetical loss of such connection.
So of course it is studied and findings published, but nothing conclusive has been
found.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:45:20 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:is immaterial, then it cannot interact with matter. It's really a problem of definitions.
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 17:05:20 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:45:20 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 15:05:20 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:00:20 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 14:40:18 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 6:55:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 11:30:19 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:50:23 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:05:18 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 11:10:18 UTC+3, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
How about snipping more and sniping less?
There B* all TO content anyhow.
[]At some point there are no content about afterlife (or whatever theThe thread is supposed to be about exactly what the thread title says. See line after url below.
thread was about).
I surely have forgotten everything that was before this life. Perhaps it is good as
knowledge is like burden, seeing more choices slows one down.
... snipping about whataboutism we agree.
To come off the fence: I don't see there's a jot of evidence for any
afterlife. So no, I don't take it seriously.
Scientist study near death experiences and recoveries from clinical death
to get clues about afterlife and other scientists research cases of little kids
talking about times "when they were adults" for reincarnation. Some
"indicative" information is gathered and published about both. No proofs or
conclusive evidences have been obtained about neither. IOW it is science,
just yet unsuccessful, bad science.
......I'd say that studies of near death experiences and resuscitation after cardiac arrest are studies of what the brain does when sufficiently deprived of oxygen, not studies of an afterlife.
There can be number of whatever other studies about such events at same time.
Both proponents and opponents of idea of immaterial soul agree that if there is
such a thing then it has to interact with brain of living creature.
Leibnitz, with his monadology, was an exception.
This is a subtle fallacy. Gravity and electromagnetism are forces, not objects. It's the objectsWell, that interaction was a major problem with Cartesian dualism (pointed out to Descartes by his own clever niece). If the soul can interact with matter in the brain, then it is as material as electromagnetism or gravity.
that are the cause of these forces, and the objects upon which the forces act,
that are the material entities.
Physicists *define* force as "mass times acceleration. F = ma. " But the matter in the mass
and the matter primarily responsible for the acceleration, are two different things.
Newton's apple is the first kind of matter; it is the earth which makes the apple fall
at such a high acceleration.
Why? "Because I, the illustrious Bill Rogers, say it is so." :)If it is truly immaterial, then it has no way to influence or be influenced by matter.
Why it is problem? We do not know what 95% of "stuff" around of us is yet we have
already discovered that it interacts with matter using gravity. We do not know if it
interacts with ordinary matter by using any other means or not.
Bill Rogers reminds me of what one reviewer wrote about Daniel Dennett's book,Why is it a problem? It's a problem because in order to be immaterial something must, by definition, not interact with matter.
_Consciousness Explained_. "Dennett not so much tries to explain consciousness
as he tries to explain consciousness away."
Bill does the variant "defining soul away" by defining it as being made of matter (of an indefinable sort)
if it interacts with ordinary 5% matter.
Therefore, if the soul you are looking for is interacting with matter (in the brain for example) then it, too must be material, though it might be a different sort of matter than we know about yet. On the other hand, if the soul you are looking for
Oh ... I get it, the "immaterial soul" can't be meant in sense that it does notI think we've been through this before, Öö. [Or was it someone else from Eastern Europe?]
interact at all with us. Otherwise presence or lack of one would not make any difference whatsoever.
Descartes, his "clever niece" notwithstanding, conjectured that interaction of soul
[he used the word *mind*, which does not have immortal connotations]
with body took place in the pineal gland. I prefer to think that if there is a soul,
it interacts through the thalamus, the great "relay center" of the brain.
If it was you, I also mentioned something intermediate between Bill's "materialism by definition"
and dualist interactionism [which Descartes championed]: epiphenomenalism, whereby the body causes qualia to form, but the Self that experiences the qualia
is powerless to make changes in the body. This is a very difficult compromise to make,
since it seems to be vulnerable to materialism on the one side [1] and to interactionism [2] on the other.
[1] Unless one flat-out denies the existence of consciousness -- which some people
are crazy enough or ideological enough to do -- the matter in our bodies produces qualia,
and materialism winds up having the same effect as epiphenomenalism
[2] If epiphenomenalism is true, how is it that we are able to talk so intelligently
about what we consciously experience? How can we say things like,
"it's a mystery why one part of the rainbow is such a highly contrasting color from another part,"
or, better yet,
"it's an impenetrable mystery to color blind people what people with full color vision experience."
This is where you were talking about what is commonly called "near-death experiences."I think that no one
denies that potential information exchange between such entities can be proved
by content of information gained during hypothetical loss of such connection.
So of course it is studied and findings published, but nothing conclusive has been
found.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS My 4-line .sigs are for posts that have some connection with the purposes for which talk.origins was set up. Here it touches on the problem of how evolution could have produced consciousness of the level we've been
able to talk with and about.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which, >>> >> >> > > >>>> fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright, >>> >> >> > > >fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theI don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone >>> >> >> > > openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find >>> >> >> > > themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who >>> >> >> > > refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals. >>> >> >> > >
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Toms Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the PopeDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in >>> >> >> > anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the >>> >> >> > Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific >>> >> >> > > murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan. >>> >> >
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to
type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point
of what I typed.
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder.
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you two
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question. Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him? Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained >>> >> >> minister in a Christian denomination:
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for >>> >> >> > > Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 21:57:41 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >>> >> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>> >> wrote:Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >>> >> >> > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out abouthave a concept
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting >>> >> >> > > >>>>> As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theI don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find >>> >> >> > > themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist >>> >> >> > > terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope >>> >> >> > is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme inDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't >>> >> >> > be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the >>> >> >> > Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >>> >> >> > >
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to
type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point
of what I typed.
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder.
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you two >straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question. Not answering them suggestsOnce again we get the RAG[1] response.
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
[1] Run Away Glenn
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him? Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:50:22?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 21:57:41 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>Once again we get the RAG[1] response.
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >> >>> >> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >>> >> wrote:Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote: >> >>> >> >> > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out aboutAs an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
have a concept
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of theI don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find >> >>> >> >> > > themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist >> >>> >> >> > > terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Toms Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the Pope >> >>> >> >> > is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme inDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't >> >>> >> >> > be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the >> >>> >> >> > Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states :
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to
type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point
of what I typed.
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you two
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder. >> >
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question. Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
[1] Run Away Glenn
You'd be hilarious in a jury room.
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him? Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:41:11 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:because it means that our conscience is not an illusion, and those who terrorise, abuse, exploit, defame and cause their fellow humans untold suffering will not get away with it. Atheism has no such hope--for it ultimate justice is an illusion.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:01:11 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[quoting from an essay by Oxford philosopher John Lennox:]
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:46:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
At the very least that shows me that God has not remained distant from human suffering but has become part of it. Furthermore, Christ rose from the dead, which is a guarantee that there is to be a future judgement. This is a marvellous hope,
Picking up where I left off in my second reply:
There is also psychological basis for this - the "warm feeling": we get when doing good, the anxiety
when doing bad etc. It is at least not impossible to think of a world where the cost
of evil actions are intrinsically higher than any gain they can give to the perpetrator
But that is not our world. I purposely talked to Harshman about conditions under Stalin, where the
perpetrators inflicted untold suffering on the prisoners in the slave labor camps, yet there
was no retribution to them at all, except in one solitary case of a perpetrator who fell from grace
and had to share the worst conditions of the people he had once sent to their hell on earth.
Well, 3 possible answers,
All Polyannaish/Panglossian, and implicitly rejected by Job.
one theistic spiritual, one naturalised spiritual and one
theistic, all without afterlife:
1) the spiritual answer Epicurus, Plato or Seneca might have given: " There is no greater punishment of wickedness than that it is dissatisfied with itself
and its deeds."
Why did the prison guards act as they did? Out of a range of emotions such as fear (of their
superiors, and also of the prisoners, not qua prisoners, but of
the groups they belonged to) Are fear and hate healthy emotions that lead to
happiness? No. So by remaining captives to these emotions, the guards
harm themselves and prevent themselves from achieving true happiness.
According to O'Brien in _1984_, power-based sadism is a chief source of satisfaction
to those who act on its basis. "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot
stomping on a human face -- forever." [quoted from memory]
2) Now, as there is a danger that this is based on something resembling a circular definition,
as "happiness" as understood by them is less a descriptive and more a normative state.
The naturalised version treats this as a statement of psychology or anthropology - "as
a matter of fact" people who live brutal lives suffer mentally for it
Plato and Socrates and the Stoics believed that, but I don't see much scientific evidence for it.
3) finally, there is the answer Job's God gives: “Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn Do you count the months till they bear?
I've said my piece on that already, and it renders this statement irrelevant.
Funny, I thought you would give St. Augustine's Panglossian solution: God brings enough good out of evil
to more than compensate for it. That was more or less the line we were given in Catholic schools.
So it might look to YOU as if the prison guards got unpunished, and the prisoners treated unjustly,
but this is just b/c you are not in full possession of the facts. From the divine perspective, guard
A might get a particularly bad colon cancer at 80,
A random outcome, not applicable to all guards and especially not all common criminals
who lorded it over the political prisoners.
from all accounts I've read about the Gulag Archipelago.
prisoner B's daughter will have twins which for
B is the greatest thing possible, and prisoner C had it coming for other misdeeds you don't know,
possibly insufficient belief in the divine judgement.
Does that last clause hint at vigilante justice due to such an insufficient belief?
Now to be sure I'm not arguing for any of these, especially I don't claim anyone has evidence that they are
factually correct. and doing an empirical longitudinal might be pointless in 1) and dangerous in 2)
(after all you are testing here someone who made the Behemoth AND can control him - can can you do
that? So better just take his word for it)
But I am arguing that as far as "overbeliefs" go, they do not require more, and possible a lot less, leap
pf faith than the afterlife based accounts of justice.
However, those overbeliefs DO work in the directions you suggest
about those haphazard Panglossian outcomes.
[Lennox again:]
Finally, none of us finds the idea of ultimate justice attractive because we are all flawed and have all messed up.
I'll find this extremely implausible - and before I get accused of having an overly cynical view of
human nature, I think I have the evidence from psychology and anthropology to back me up.
Humans just LOVE the idea of punishment for the wicked. They just divide immediately in their mind
the world in "the wicked" and "me, my friends, and the more agreeable members of my family".
Punishment happens in this view (mostly) to others, and we enjoy inflicting it, do we not just,
sometimes personally mostly in modernity vicariously, , sometimes consensually , mostly of
course not so.
With a primitive bow and arrow, you have taken a shot in the direction of what I call
The Achilles Heel of Christianity: the doctrine of a hell of everlasting fire, along with
the way apologists have defended it.
Thomas Aquinas, for instance, illogically argued for it by saying that since sin is
an offense against an infinite God, it deserves an infinite punishment.
Some two millennia earlier, Job had some choice words for this kind of thinking,
in Job 7: 17-20, where he turns Psalm 8 on its head with the words,
"What is man that you should make so much of him,
subjecting him to your scrutiny,
that morning after morning you should examine him,
and every moment test him?
Will you never take your eyes off me
long enough for me to swallow my spittle?
Suppose I have sinned, what have I done to you,
you tireless watcher of mankind?
Why do you choose me as your target?
Why should I be a burden to you?"
-- The Jerusalem Bible
That's why penal populism works, even in times when the objective data shows that crime is decreasing
and incarceration makes things worse.
Than what? letting violent criminals loose and able to wreak revenge on their victims for
daring to testify against them?
That would be an entirely different discussion. For the purpose of the one here, I'd
happy say I don't know either, and yes, that makes it extremely frustrating which gives
additional psychological support for punitive approaches - but that does not
make the facts go away. So we should at least be honest to ourselves and admit that
this is a response to emotions rather than a strategy to reduce crime.
It's a factor that must be addressed if one is to get out of the purely theoretical
reasoning/rationalization and look for concrete solutions.
There was a case last week here that struck me in this regard: criminal trial of a death
by dangerous driving case. Young man, newly qualified for driving, takes his father's
high powered BMW, races it across the streets and takes a selfie of himself. Runs of the
road and kills a young girl.
He gets 12 years, in my view a substantial sentence. The parents consider it unduly
lenient (which I understand on the emotional level) but also argue that by asking for a higher punishment, they don't want it for revenge, but "to have
a proper deterrent for others, who now might do the same".
What did the young man's parents think about the sentence?
Anyway, deterrence in the abstract has gotten a bad rap due to a inadequate filters.
A violent criminal such as I've described is perfectly deterred by keeping him locked up.
OTOH it is questionable whether more than a 2-year sentence is needed to keep
others from the kind of gross carelessness that this young man exhibited.
Rationally, that makes
no sense of course. Nobody says: I'll take this care for a spin - what's the worst
that can happen, a mere 12 years in prison (and then having a previous conviction
that pretty much determines the rest of your life). That's not how humans work.
Instead, they think "nothing will happen", making the punishment more or less
irrelevant
That it is an emotional response doesn't make the parent's demand for stiffer
sentences necessarily illegitimate (as I said, that would be a different discussion) but here
it is for a an argument against Lennox' claim that we find punishment unattractive because
we fear that it would apply to us too.
That argument is on a purely secular, this-life basis,
where we have a good idea how the legal system works.
Lennox refers to an unexplorable afterlife, with little confidence by the average person of
the reasons for punishment and their severity.
Jack Chick preys on this lack of confidence with simplistic tracts about "accepting
Jesus as your Lord and Savior" as THE necessary means of avoiding hell.
But what does accepting Jesus as one's "Lord" entail in future behavior?
"If you love me, keep my commandments"
is the Catholic starting point on what this means; who knows what Jack Chick thinks about it?
That is exactly not the way we think. The parent's
position got a lot of public support - and I bet that all the supporters discounted all
the "moral luck" that they have had in their lives - when they took silly risks, but nothing
bad happened - had it happened, they'd now sit in the dock.
How do you know they didn't lead dull, bourgeois lives, where risks on that level
were unthinkable?
Very few people really think like John Bradford (allegedly, the authorship is contested)
did when he said when looking at convicted criminals: "There but for the grace of God,
goes John Bradford".
But they should, especially in cases like the following. A well-known militant anti-abortion
person whose wife was a former abortionist, nevertheless advocated the murder
of abortionists. I asked a nonviolent anti-abortion friend who has had contact with this
militant [whose name escapes me at the moment]: "Surely he must think, `there, but the grace of God, goes my wife' -- how does he reconcile these two things?"
The answer was basically that he was all screwed up [not the words he used].
these little ones* (42) as indicating different groups within the followers of Jesus. Probably all three designations are used here of Christian missionaries as such."Sure, on one level people realise that "we are all poor
sinners" - which is why concepts such as purgatory play such an important role THEIR evil ways
require eternal hot pokers up the backsy, MY regrettable lack of judgement should get me probation,
or maybe 20 lashes at max. This way we "pay" for the satisfaction of inflicting pain on others with the risk
of a little pain for ourselves, AND can feel good and humble in the process too (...of course I too
am a sinner...)
IIRC it was St. Augustine who perversely claimed that one of the joys of those in heaven
was to witness the unending suffering of people condemned to everlasting torture.
I rebelled against such callousness well before my final break with the Catholicism
I had been taught in primary and secondary school. I comforted myself with the widespread
sentiment that "Hell exists, but it is empty." It was when I felt I could no longer believe this
and still cling to Catholic doctrine that the irrevocable break came.
Now, over half a century later, I have a better perspective on what Catholic doctrine
is, but the break is still there, and I remain an agnostic. However, I do have a couple of things
to say to your one-dimensional picture.
First: there is a way to read the Biblical account of Jesus's teachings to the effect that,
although hell is everlasting, any one person remains there for only a finite period
of time, and then is granted Epicurus's hope: annihilation. Many Jews of today
believe in this kind of punishment, but based on Daniel 12: 2-3 rather than anything in the NT.
Second: there is an amazing footnote in the New American Bible (NAB) on Matthew 10:41-42 which
has to do with "these least ones" of the famous Last Judgment scene (Mt. 25: 31-46 at 40, 45).
"*A prophet*: one who speaks in the name of God; here, the Christian prophets who speak in the name of God. *Righteous man*: since righteousness is demanded of all the disciples, it is difficult to take the *righteous man* of [v.41] and *one of
The "least/little ones" are traditionally believed to refer to all the poor, hungry, etc. people of earth,
and yet, if the footnote is correct, that scene from the Last Judgment is a self-serving depiction
of Jesus's favoritism towards his own disciples! And make no mistake: Mt 25:40 has a footnote
cross-referencing Mt. 10:42, and the NAB is the official translation for the Roman Catholic Mass.
All of the above notwithstanding, I believe these footnotes are in error, and it was an oversight
of the people vetting the NAB to have them included. But either way, the Achilles' Heel of
Christianity is in a bad way.
Hell, to misquote Sartre, is full of other people. And nobody thinks of
him/herself seriously as a baddy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
"nobody" certainly ignores the author of "Amazing Grace," who went from being part of
the slave trade to working tirelessly to have it abolished. And I believe there are millions
like him on a smaller scale at any one time. I see myself as having been a baddy from the age of 9 through
the age of 14, and I cringe when I think back at many of the things I did back then.
OK fair enough, "nobody" is too strong. People can be guilt ridden - and an even
better example for me would be things like survivor guilt where people blame
themselves for no wrongdoing whatsoever.
That is a primitive, pre-Christian form of guilt, as is the feeling when one [male or female, it surprisingly makes little difference]
who has been raped looks upon her/himself as "damaged goods".
Still a couple of things on that: First there is a difference between evaluating one's past actions,
and how they see themselves at any given point in time. Newton had his conversion, and then
reevaluated his past deeds. But that means he thought of himself as a goodie (or at least
not a baddie) when trading in slaves, and after that too thought of himself as a goodie (...
and now am found" if one who has a debt to pay. For Lennox argument to work, we'd have to
think of ourselves as baddies who intend to remain baddies and therefore are against
strict punishment.
Too one-dimensional, as I tried to explain above ["unexplorable afterlife"].
Related, there is a difference between evaluating one's actions and one's "character" or identity.
What I meant above was the latter more than the former, and is not any more demanding than
what we observe in everyday life: When people watch crime dramas, westerns, historical dramas
and identify with one of the characters, almost always they'll chose a goodie because that's how
we like to think about ourselves,
The baddies are generally so bad that it is impossible to relate to their behavior. I think everyone in
talk.origins, whatever their faults, would root for the good guys in most films for that reason alone.
In many cases, I cannot identify with any of the main characters because their
flaws are not mine, and their heroism looks too dangerous. One example is the friend of the murdered character played by Frank Sinatra in "Here to Eternity,.
He seeks revenge on the warden (played by Ernest Borgnine)
who killed his friend [legally, it was manslaughter] in a lonely place.
He's armed with the same weapon as the warden - switchblade knife -
and the outcome is pretty predictable.
[OTOH I *can* identify with the Burt Lancaster character
in the barroom confrontation involving the characters I've named just now. But that's a lesser role.]
And you seem to speak of such people yourself below.
We see this in the penal institutions we create in this world: if people realised that the prison they
want to build, or the judicial torture, could one day be inflicted on them our prisons etc through
history would have looked very different. It's typically only the handful of penal abolitionists whose
empathetic reasoning makes them see themselves on the receiving end too.
Altruism does not require this specialized self-reflection. It is far more broad than that.
In fact, some of the best people have realized that they were prison bound, yet showed great courage through engaging in civil disobedience.
The archetypal example is Mohandas ("Mahatma") Gandhi.
I don't know whether Nelson Mandela was so noble in the events leading
to his incarceration, but he emerged as one of the greatest statesmen
of the latter half of the 20th century. The only other contemporary on his level that I can think of is Anwar Sadat.
His death by assassination was a great tragedy, all the more so because the present time
seems to lack statesmen of the same caliber as these two.
This us vs them logic of punishment is well studied in the research on penal populism cf e.g.
classically Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing, If one
believes in evolutionary psychology, this may have evolutionary roots - I think the term is
"altruistic punishment" - opting for a system in which meeting out punishment even harms
the punisher
That makes "altruistic punishment" seem like an oxymoron.
(I myself found Flesch: Comeuppance: Costly signaling, altruistic punishment,
and other biological components quite interesting )
Sounds quite specialized, though.
True, but also universal, which indicates some evolutionary and biological roots. And other aspects
of punitiveness can similarly be traced across time and space)
I tend to look askance at such theories. The incarceration of Nelson Mandela may have
harmed his punishers initially, but then they cooperated with him sufficiently to
end apartheid in a laudable manner. The comparison with the tyrant Mugabe of Zimbabwe is stark.
There are other posts that I want to do today, so I will end here and resume later this week -- possibly tomorrow. Thank you for a stimulating, thought-provoking discussion.
Peter Nyikos
PS one item on the agenda for tomorrow is my temporarily postponed reply to on-topic portion of a
post by you. It is identified in the following reply that I did to you on the same thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/sR8yaogsBgAJ
Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
Aug 17, 2023, 4:30:06 PM EDT = UTC-4
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:17:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:50:22?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 21:57:41 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >>> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out abouthave a concept
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting >> >>> >> >> > > >>>>> As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the >> >>> >> >> President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the PopeDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >> >>> >> >> > >
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to
type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point
of what I typed.
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder.
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you two
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question.
Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
Once again we get the RAG[1] response.
[1] Run Away Glenn
You'd be hilarious in a jury room.RAG 2
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him? Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 2:30:22?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:17:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:50:22?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 21:57:41 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 11:05:48?PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >> >>> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:50:10?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:You seem to think that not convicted means not guilty.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:30:08?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:25:08?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:"preacher" is misleading: see note at the end.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 20:35:10 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2023 19:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-18 17:13:01 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 18/08/2023 14:33, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite: no counterpart of an Ayatollah put out a*fatwa* on anySalman Rushdie and the "Charlie Hebdo" publishers found out abouthave a concept
that the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>>> As an argument, that would be akin to saying Christianity does not
of forgiveness because of the IRA, no?
IRA member
involved in misbehavior in the "time of troubles" -- which,
fortunately, are over.
I see two problems with your counterargument.
Firstly you're not comparing like with like - you're drawing your
counterexample too narrowly. Stochastic terrorism is alive and well in
the USA.
Secondly just because you don't know that it happened doesn't mean
that it didn't - absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The
spirit of your counterexample is unclear, but the IRA did order the
killing of Catholics. Fide Wikipedia ("informers were usually killed")
the IRA killed also some IRA members suspected of being police or army
informers. In the other direction I don't find a Protestant clergyman
involved in a Protestant paramilitary ordering the death of an IRA
member an implausible event.
I don't know enough to argue, but I think you're probably right. The
Rev. Ian Paisley (doctorate from Bob Jones University, that great seat
of learning) was pretty nasty, but I don't think he ever openly called
for Roman Catholics to be killed.
I did a bit more digging and found mention of one Billy Wright,
fundamentalist preacher and paramilitary leader, who is alleged to have
done so.
Don Cates's quibble would have been moot if the surname of the >> >> >>> >> >> President of Ireland had been used instead of the title.I don't know what the situation in the US is but there has been strong
anti-hatred legislation in Northern Ireland since 1970 so anyone
openly calling for people to be killed would very quickly find
themselves before a judge. That means you are unlikely to find any
public figures openly doing so, irrespective of their feelings about
it. [1]
There were very murky links between Ian Paisley and loyalist
terrorists who eventually became disgusted with him because many of
them got involved in response to his rhetoric, but he discarded them
when they were caught or killed - unlike Adams and McGuiness who
refused to condemn the IRA and took active part in IRA funerals.
Another factor in this is the observation by Cardinal Toms Fiaich,
Catholic primate of Ireland, that although there was bigotry on both
sides of the divide, it tended to be religious on the Protestant side
but political on the Catholic side. He pointed out, for example, that
graffiti in Protestant areas was always "Fuck the Pope", never "Fuck
the President of Ireland"; in the Catholic areas it was always "Fuck
the Queen", never "Fuck the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Mhh, not sure about that analysis. On the first prong, the PopeDid a legitimate Caliph serve the same dual role in Islamic countries?
is also a head of state of course - and indeed a recurring theme in
anti-catholic propaganda in the UK always was "catholics can't
be proper British subjects because they are loyal to a foreign head of state"
(and regrettably remains - one of our hardline unionist KCs wrote something
along these lines in a letter to a newspaper just a few years back, when he
was still a QC of course, to general uproar. )
Conversely, the Queen was of course also Supreme Governor of the
Church of England - so one rank higher also in matters spiritual than the
AoC -as per the introduction to the 39 Articles:
Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions,
We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious
zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity
of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature
Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might
conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ...
That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England
[1] Billy Wright was never found directly guilty of any specific
murder but in the BBC article I cited to Glenn, it states : >> >> >>> >> >> > >
'On 8 July 1996, with the tension at Drumcree at its height, Wright's
men murdered Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick near Lurgan.
Seems a little misleading, and perhaps biased. "Wright's men" implies what they did was at the direction of Wright. Yet he wasn't convicted of that.
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
You are replying to what you said.
OK, I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to
type in the wrong place. You obviously, however, understood the point
of what I typed.
No, not convicted sounds like not found guilty. You seem to think that not convicted means guilty. Weird but apparently true.
Here is your answer. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not murder.
That's a rather pathetic attempt at a swerve. I asked you two
straightforward questions:
Do you regard Al Capone as a top gangster? Do you consider him
responsible for the criminal activities of 'his men'?
They are both a simple Yes/No question.
Nope.
Not answering them suggests
that you now realise the vacuousness of your arguments about Billy
Wright.
You're vacuous.
RAG 2Once again we get the RAG[1] response.
[1] Run Away Glenn
You'd be hilarious in a jury room.
My hero Donald? How old are you? You seem to think a leader is responsible for every single thing his followers do. Bizarre, but apparently true.This brings up the question of whether a leader is responsible for ever single thing his followers do?Your hero Donald seems to think not.
There were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Should the President have been convicted of those crimes?Did the President directly order those crimes?
Did Wright directly order the crimes you attribute to him? Remember, no conviction. Or else remember to have your diapers changed.
Here we learn that it's a safe bet that Wright was never an ordained
The murder was reportedly carried out as a "birthday present" for
Wright.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-11112737
minister in a Christian denomination:
"He also claimed to have become a born-again Christian and spent time preaching the gospel."
[*ibid*]
Complete with soapbox, perhaps. :)
Peter Nyikos
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:33:14 |
| Calls: | 9,799 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,572 |