Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 08:07:42 EDT
In a message dated 9/18/03 2:01:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> You know, I really hate this kind of "argument". I like to know what people
> think is important reading but when a reference is used as an "argument" I
> get really suspicious. It seems to show fear of engagement and implies that
> the prior argument is *so* unsophisticated and elementary it doesn't deserve
> comment. If lists deteriorate into bibliography tit for tat then they are
> worthless. However, civil and rigorous argumentation is, in my opinion, what
> influences what I think and what others think as well.
> Steve Petermann
you've come here from the postmodern ldg-net with the prospect of shaking up
the christians but you don't understand christianity. You think if we doubt
the existence of a place in the sky and a man with a beard who saves us that the
religion is fragile. Not so. That's only scratching the surface of religion.
Your argument suggesting that ETs would somehow invalidate Jesus of Nazareth
is unsophisticated and elementary. If the ETs have free will, they would
benefit from religious discipline and would have a need for redemption as they
would be as capable of ruining their lives as we are. Ontology is ontology,
here or in a far off galaxy.
If you want civil and rigorous argumentation, produce some.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 08:08:02 EDT