wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:59:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:28:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:01:53 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:30:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

snipped for the salvation of bandwidth

I'm in the IT business, too. I also volunteer to help
special-needs
persons - this, without compensation, reward, or to assauge
any
speculated, deep-seated feelings of guilt. I have and do
assist
persons that most other people would avoid by walking on the
other
side of the street. (Do you do the same?) I'll return to a
question
I have asked of you before, which you failed to answer in any
reasonable manner. Who are you to judge another? (And I'll
wager
that I'm compensated annually less than you are. I'll also
wager
that
my income stream is less than yours.)

Good for you!!!

Weren't we talking about love and party affiliation?

Are you a compassionate conservative and did you support GW
Bush's
pre-emptive war of choice?

What percentage of the folks who "avoid" your friends do you
suppose
are Republicans? I'd expect it to be larger by at least the
weight
of
a six pack or two.

How much "love" do you have, jps? Do you volunteer your time
for
the
unfortunate, the dispossessed, the disaffected, the pariah of
our
society? Or do you defer to "government" to do your lovin' for
ya?
Let's see the love, dude!

Changing the subject. I'd be pleased to discuss my efforts
towards
the benefits of mankind but you haven't favored me with any real
answers yet.

So why should I invest in your inquiry when you haven't invested
in
mine?

This is how it normally goes with you.

I think a review of who first toke the path less relevant would
yeild
a contrary result. What is apparent to the sensible reader is
that
your declarations are far removed from reality, are not
representative
of the truth, and that by design. You are a propagandist and you
are
a minor one at that. You're traipsing around with your basket of
radical blubs in remote newsgroups, far from the big-lights that
the
more notorious radicals, such as Michael Moore, enjoy.

I'm sure your family understands you.

"toke the path"? I was bleary-eyed last night. I would recommend
that you avoid reading C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man" if you
have
problems comprehending what I write. Then again, I suspect that if
you or HK were able to comprehend "The Abolition of Man," any
acerbic
and witty rebuttal that either of you issued against it would fall
as
short as all of your other lackluster "blurbs."


I don't recall reading this CS Lewis book, but I really enjoyed the
space
trilogy, and I most enjoyed (and remember) Out of the Silent Planet
(apologies to Harry... it's just a coincidence).

EM

It's more of a philosophical work, em. I haven't read much of C.S.
Lewis fiction (one Narnia novel and "The Screwtape Letters," an
epistolary). I've read more of his religious and philosophical works,
the most difficult to negotiate being "The Abolition of Man," and the
most poignant being, imo, "The Problem of Pain." The man was an
estimable apologist. And I may be being a bit brutal in this opinion;
but, I doubt that either JPS or H the K possess the prowess or acumen
to fully absorb it, considering their respectively unremarkable
intellectual demonstrations in this NG. That's why the most you'll
see from either in a criticism of his work is a "pithy" blurb.

I had wanted to add, too, Em, that "The Problem of Pain" is a bit of
an exercise in theodicy. It's worth a read, even for those that don't
subscribe to any faith in particular.


Sometimes, I don't mind a pithy response.

Actually, I don't either . It's just that some comments feign
'pith' when there is little there to show for it.

I can understand God's goodness in the face of many things (all things I
suppose), but I don't subscribe to the notion of evil (this puts me at
odds
with lots of religious people of course). I guess I've struggled with
this
for a long while, but I've concluded that there doesn't have to be the
duality of good and evil for good to exist. Bad certainly exists, but I
don't believe in evil. Even bad people can be do good in select
circumstances. Certainly, the reverse is true.

At least you've invested some thought in the issue. That's more than
many others do. I think that when the discussion comes up, the terms
need to be clearly defined. It can be asserted that 'good' has no
meaning if there isn't 'evil.' The one is defined in some part by the
other. I wish I had finished G. E. Moore's "Principia Ethica." I had
started it last winter, and I put it down in the middle of his
defining "good." Maybe I'll be able to finish it when I retire, if I
ever get that far :)


That's certainly one way to look at it, but if you believe that God can
only
be good (to the the tune of Johnny Be Good of course), is all powerful,
and
all knowing, then how can evil really exist? Not to be too heavy about
it,
but it's more on par with Plato than Aristotle, the latter of which bores
me, so I tend to dislike and discount his arguments.

So, if I make a logical argument, but I mis-spell a word, the logical
argument is "good," but does that make the mis-spelling evil? I claim it's
bad but not evil. Maybe that's a stretch.

I had a rum and coke for dinner, Em; so, I'm really in too light of a
mood to tackle this heavy stuff this evening. Maybe, I'll try to
wade my way through your thoughts tomorrow. Until then, I defer to
C.S. Lewis in his "The Problem of Pain," when he states that "pain is
God's megaphone to a deaf world." (Or something very similar to
that.) Too, I think it safe to say that the argument can go to an
examination of free will and to the consideration that God endowed us
with such. That being the case, if any one free will agent (you or I)
stood inimically to God, as a matter of choice, the one who does can
be said to be 'evil.' That's only one avenue of thought, though. (And
I went farther than I intended.)


Well, I've heard, although it could be an error in judgement, that one
should never mix rum with anything.

Don't forget the protein...

I like that metaphor, but Im not sure if more than some small noise would be
heard that way. I think it's impossible to know for certain if we are our
own agents of thought or action or if there it is a predestined journey,
destination certain. I prefer to think that it's the former. But, to answer
your question, as best I'm able, I don't think it would matter if we deny
Him, given that He is omnipotent. It wouldn't matter. We are still His
children and, while we may be bad, we wouldn't be considered evil.

Of course, what I said before can go the other way... What if I do something
bad, but am also kind to a stranger? Am I evil?
--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:55:53 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/26/09 9:50 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:09:30 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:44:39 -0500, wrote:



At least you've invested some thought in the issue. That's more than
many others do. I think that when the discussion comes up, the terms
need to be clearly defined. It can be asserted that 'good' has no
meaning if there isn't 'evil.' The one is defined in some part by the
other. I wish I had finished G. E. Moore's "Principia Ethica." I had
started it last winter, and I put it down in the middle of his
defining "good." Maybe I'll be able to finish it when I retire, if I
ever get that far :)

I'll save you the trouble.
"Good" is BBQ baby back ribs.

--Vic

Nah, that's not good. Good is Tafërtingen Dunkel beer, Jagermiester
schnapps, roast chicken, and bratwurst at the Augsburg October fest.
Now that's the epitome of "good." Of course a Saturday evening at the
Hofbräuhaus in Munich comes close.



Too...German.

I'll do German before I'll do Taco Bell. (Come to think of it, I'd do
White Castle before I'd do Taco Bell.)



I don't do fast food. Can't stand it. Plastic taste.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:28:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:59:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:28:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:01:53 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:30:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

snipped for the salvation of bandwidth

I'm in the IT business, too. I also volunteer to help
special-needs
persons - this, without compensation, reward, or to assauge
any
speculated, deep-seated feelings of guilt. I have and do
assist
persons that most other people would avoid by walking on the
other
side of the street. (Do you do the same?) I'll return to a
question
I have asked of you before, which you failed to answer in any
reasonable manner. Who are you to judge another? (And I'll
wager
that I'm compensated annually less than you are. I'll also
wager
that
my income stream is less than yours.)

Good for you!!!

Weren't we talking about love and party affiliation?

Are you a compassionate conservative and did you support GW
Bush's
pre-emptive war of choice?

What percentage of the folks who "avoid" your friends do you
suppose
are Republicans? I'd expect it to be larger by at least the
weight
of
a six pack or two.

How much "love" do you have, jps? Do you volunteer your time
for
the
unfortunate, the dispossessed, the disaffected, the pariah of
our
society? Or do you defer to "government" to do your lovin' for
ya?
Let's see the love, dude!

Changing the subject. I'd be pleased to discuss my efforts
towards
the benefits of mankind but you haven't favored me with any real
answers yet.

So why should I invest in your inquiry when you haven't invested
in
mine?

This is how it normally goes with you.

I think a review of who first toke the path less relevant would
yeild
a contrary result. What is apparent to the sensible reader is
that
your declarations are far removed from reality, are not
representative
of the truth, and that by design. You are a propagandist and you
are
a minor one at that. You're traipsing around with your basket of
radical blubs in remote newsgroups, far from the big-lights that
the
more notorious radicals, such as Michael Moore, enjoy.

I'm sure your family understands you.

"toke the path"? I was bleary-eyed last night. I would recommend
that you avoid reading C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man" if you
have
problems comprehending what I write. Then again, I suspect that if
you or HK were able to comprehend "The Abolition of Man," any
acerbic
and witty rebuttal that either of you issued against it would fall
as
short as all of your other lackluster "blurbs."


I don't recall reading this CS Lewis book, but I really enjoyed the
space
trilogy, and I most enjoyed (and remember) Out of the Silent Planet
(apologies to Harry... it's just a coincidence).

EM

It's more of a philosophical work, em. I haven't read much of C.S.
Lewis fiction (one Narnia novel and "The Screwtape Letters," an
epistolary). I've read more of his religious and philosophical works,
the most difficult to negotiate being "The Abolition of Man," and the
most poignant being, imo, "The Problem of Pain." The man was an
estimable apologist. And I may be being a bit brutal in this opinion;
but, I doubt that either JPS or H the K possess the prowess or acumen
to fully absorb it, considering their respectively unremarkable
intellectual demonstrations in this NG. That's why the most you'll
see from either in a criticism of his work is a "pithy" blurb.

I had wanted to add, too, Em, that "The Problem of Pain" is a bit of
an exercise in theodicy. It's worth a read, even for those that don't
subscribe to any faith in particular.


Sometimes, I don't mind a pithy response.

Actually, I don't either . It's just that some comments feign
'pith' when there is little there to show for it.

I can understand God's goodness in the face of many things (all things I
suppose), but I don't subscribe to the notion of evil (this puts me at
odds
with lots of religious people of course). I guess I've struggled with
this
for a long while, but I've concluded that there doesn't have to be the
duality of good and evil for good to exist. Bad certainly exists, but I
don't believe in evil. Even bad people can be do good in select
circumstances. Certainly, the reverse is true.

At least you've invested some thought in the issue. That's more than
many others do. I think that when the discussion comes up, the terms
need to be clearly defined. It can be asserted that 'good' has no
meaning if there isn't 'evil.' The one is defined in some part by the
other. I wish I had finished G. E. Moore's "Principia Ethica." I had
started it last winter, and I put it down in the middle of his
defining "good." Maybe I'll be able to finish it when I retire, if I
ever get that far :)


That's certainly one way to look at it, but if you believe that God can
only
be good (to the the tune of Johnny Be Good of course), is all powerful,
and
all knowing, then how can evil really exist? Not to be too heavy about
it,
but it's more on par with Plato than Aristotle, the latter of which bores
me, so I tend to dislike and discount his arguments.

So, if I make a logical argument, but I mis-spell a word, the logical
argument is "good," but does that make the mis-spelling evil? I claim it's
bad but not evil. Maybe that's a stretch.

I had a rum and coke for dinner, Em; so, I'm really in too light of a
mood to tackle this heavy stuff this evening. Maybe, I'll try to
wade my way through your thoughts tomorrow. Until then, I defer to
C.S. Lewis in his "The Problem of Pain," when he states that "pain is
God's megaphone to a deaf world." (Or something very similar to
that.) Too, I think it safe to say that the argument can go to an
examination of free will and to the consideration that God endowed us
with such. That being the case, if any one free will agent (you or I)
stood inimically to God, as a matter of choice, the one who does can
be said to be 'evil.' That's only one avenue of thought, though. (And
I went farther than I intended.)


Well, I've heard, although it could be an error in judgement, that one
should never mix rum with anything.

Don't forget the protein...

I like that metaphor, but Im not sure if more than some small noise would be
heard that way. I think it's impossible to know for certain if we are our
own agents of thought or action or if there it is a predestined journey,
destination certain. I prefer to think that it's the former. But, to answer
your question, as best I'm able, I don't think it would matter if we deny
Him, given that He is omnipotent. It wouldn't matter. We are still His
children and, while we may be bad, we wouldn't be considered evil.

Of course, what I said before can go the other way... What if I do something
bad, but am also kind to a stranger? Am I evil?

Golly, I hope you haven't been drinking. That made a lot of sense.

On Oct 26, 2:48*pm, jps wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:07:41 -0500, wrote:
snipped contrarily

Until then, I expect we'll be seeing more missives from the Ponderosa.

You're right, guy. *I'm deliberately stodgy. *And I sincerely don't
care. *Whether I'm stodgy or casual, you folks will still employ your
ad homs, strawmen, red herrings, and assorted fallacies. *And you, H
the K, and w3f will never be intellectually honest enough to do
otherwise. *That or you're all intellectually "dilatory." *If you're
to 'lazy' to look that one up, I'll volunteer to do it for you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dilatory

Enjoy.

Oh, you should be running Scientology. *You're so dang clear!

I think you can leave stodgy out. *You're deliberately taxing.

JPS, He makes you look like what you are. A mental midget. He is
stodge, you are a stooge. And this truth will never change.

nom=de=plume wrote:

I don't do fast food. Can't stand it. Plastic taste.

What about your kids? Do you deny them the pleasure of a happy meal?

On Oct 26, 9:17*pm, jps wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:07:22 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:59:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:28:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:01:53 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:30:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

snipped for the salvation of bandwidth

I'm in the IT business, too. *I also volunteer to help
special-needs
persons - this, without compensation, reward, or to assauge any
speculated, deep-seated feelings of guilt. *I have and do assist
persons that most other people would avoid by walking on the
other
side of the street. *(Do you do the same?) *I'll return to a
question
I have asked of you before, which you failed to answer in any
reasonable manner. *Who are you to judge another? *(And I'll
wager
that I'm compensated annually less than you are. *I'll also
wager
that
my income stream is less than yours.)

Good for you!!!

Weren't we talking about love and party affiliation?

Are you a compassionate conservative and did you support GW
Bush's
pre-emptive war of choice?

What percentage of the folks who "avoid" your friends do you
suppose
are Republicans? *I'd expect it to be larger by at least the
weight
of
a six pack or two.

How much "love" do you have, jps? *Do you volunteer your time for
the
unfortunate, the dispossessed, the disaffected, the pariah of our
society? *Or do you defer to "government" to do your lovin' for
ya?
Let's see the love, dude!

Changing the subject. *I'd be pleased to discuss my efforts towards
the benefits of mankind but you haven't favored me with any real
answers yet.

So why should I invest in your inquiry when you haven't invested in
mine?

This is how it normally goes with you.

I think a review of who first toke the path less relevant would
yeild
a contrary result. *What is apparent to the sensible reader is that
your declarations are far removed from reality, are not
representative
of the truth, and that by design. *You are a propagandist and you
are
a minor one at that. *You're traipsing around with your basket of
radical blubs in remote newsgroups, far from the big-lights that the
more notorious radicals, such as Michael Moore, enjoy.

I'm sure your family understands you.

"toke the path"? *I was bleary-eyed last night. *I would recommend
that you avoid reading C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man" if you have
problems comprehending what I write. *Then again, I suspect that if
you or HK were able to comprehend "The Abolition of Man," any acerbic
and witty rebuttal that either of you issued against it would fall as
short as all of your other lackluster "blurbs."

I don't recall reading this CS Lewis book, but I really enjoyed the
space
trilogy, and I most enjoyed (and remember) Out of the Silent Planet
(apologies to Harry... it's just a coincidence).

EM

It's more of a philosophical work, em. *I haven't read much of C.S.
Lewis fiction (one Narnia novel and "The Screwtape Letters," an
epistolary). *I've read more of his religious and philosophical works,
the most difficult to negotiate being "The Abolition of Man," and the
most poignant being, imo, "The Problem of Pain." *The man was an
estimable apologist. *And I may be being a bit brutal in this opinion;
but, I doubt that either JPS or H the K possess the prowess or acumen
to fully absorb it, considering their respectively unremarkable
intellectual demonstrations in this NG. *That's why the most you'll
see from either in a criticism of his work is a "pithy" blurb.

I had wanted to add, too, Em, that "The Problem of Pain" is a bit of
an exercise in theodicy. *It's worth a read, even for those that don't
subscribe to any faith in particular.

Sometimes, I don't mind a pithy response.

Actually, I don't either . *It's just that some comments feign
'pith' when there is little there to show for it.

I can understand God's goodness in the face of many things (all things I
suppose), but I don't subscribe to the notion of evil (this puts me at
odds
with lots of religious people of course). I guess I've struggled with this
for a long while, but I've concluded that there doesn't have to be the
duality of good and evil for good to exist. Bad certainly exists, but I
don't believe in evil. Even bad people can be do good in select
circumstances. Certainly, the reverse is true.

At least you've invested some thought in the issue. *That's more than
many others do. *I think that when the discussion comes up, the terms
need to be clearly defined. *It can be asserted that 'good' has no
meaning if there isn't 'evil.' *The one is defined in some part by the
other. *I wish I had finished G. E. Moore's "Principia Ethica." *I had
started it last winter, and I put it down in the middle of his
defining "good." *Maybe I'll be able to finish it when I retire, if I
ever get that far :)

That's certainly one way to look at it, but if you believe that God can only
be good (to the the tune of Johnny Be Good of course), is all powerful, and
all knowing, then how can evil really exist? *Not to be too heavy about it,
but it's more on par with Plato than Aristotle, the latter of which bores
me, so I tend to dislike and discount his arguments.

So, if I make a logical argument, but I mis-spell a word, the logical
argument is "good," but does that make the mis-spelling evil? I claim it's
bad but not evil. Maybe that's a stretch.

I had a rum and coke for dinner, Em; so, I'm really in too light of a
mood to tackle this heavy stuff this evening. *Maybe, I'll try to
wade my way through your thoughts tomorrow. *Until then, I defer to
C.S. Lewis in his "The Problem of Pain," when he states that "pain is
God's megaphone to a deaf world." *(Or something very similar to
that.) *Too, I think it safe to say that the argument can go to an
examination of free will and to the consideration that God endowed us
with such. *That being the case, if any one free will agent (you or I)
stood inimically to God, as a matter of choice, the one who does can
be said to be 'evil.' *That's only one avenue of thought, though. (And
I went farther than I intended.)

Is that what you say to dinner guests when you're halfway through a
bottle of wine and a weighty subject is introduced to the
conversation? *You abdicate? *Retire? *Watch TV?

Did you ask Hoss if he could help pry that stick out?

By far I believe you are red-lining your tachometer. Is this the best
you can do?

No, I noticed you haven't started swearing yet. But being faced down
by superiour intellect, I'm sure you will eventually used it as a lame
defence. A last act of defiance .