----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 1:20 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"
> > >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" > >Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 22:25:10 -0600 > > > >OK, what I see is that you are saying no matter what anyone says, you > >are right about whatever whimsy flits into your mind. > >What I want to know is how do you discern between truth and delusion, > >and how does this make you different from a garden variety egomaniac. > > > >Correct me please if I am misunderstanding you. > > > Perhaps in many ways I am an egomaniac of the garden variety. Just to get a > second opinion however, what do you think? > > As for me being right all the time though, I think not. And I'm suprised you > would use that against me, as you know the difference. Especially since I > have tried time and again to illuminate my position. > Please understand that I am not criticising you, but the position you espouse. I think it is also useful to consider that I am trying to keep the discussion at its basics by exploring the basics. Then there is the fact that email is devoid of the nuance of nonverbal clues, so it can often be difficult to discern if a message is nuanced otherwise, and as social animals we look for those subliminals because they often transmit meaning more effectively than words alone and we expect them. Do I think you are an egomaniac? Not really. I think you seem to be self-centered within normal parameters for an earlytwentysomething and not significantly self-absorbed at least AFAIK about these things. But, my question was in response to your statement: "But I still find it amusing that I have to argue my point on some of these issues. Of course I also admit the fact that I may be quite delusional, but I refuse to believe it. " > > > > > > > In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good > >and evil > > > being an inherent part of our environment. > > > >No one is really making that claim. What *is* being claimed is that > >good and evil are part of the human social landscape. > > Well of course!! > > I'm not just claiming that God doesn't exist, and looking towards the > heavens and screaming my lungs out here. I'm not transfixed with trying to > prove the non-existence of God. Good heavens man! > > What I'm actually saying, in this particular context, is that regardless of > what one says, believes, thinks etc... the concept of good and evil hearkens > back to some fundamental belief in God. Does it matter where a concept originates? Does that make it any less valid? And what does the existence/nonexistence of "God" have to do with the existence/nonexistence of "good and evil"? You seem to filter the entire concept through a distinctly Judeo-Christian filter. Bhuddists seem to deal with the issue without relying on "God" as a fallback position or originating element. > > Indubitably, good & evil are part of our social landscape. As is the concept > of God. But no matter how one looks at it, good & evil in whatever variant > may be dreamed up, has at the very least some fundamental premise, planted > firmly in the belief of God. > Can you prove that? > > > > >You wouldn't try to claim that Dean Corril was a really nice guy when > >he wasn't killing and raping little boys would you? > > He may have been. I don't know. > > How about Hitler? Bad man, sure. But being Human, do you think he didn't > have the capacity for love? For compassion? > > Lets look at what's backstage, behind the curtain. Too often we are content > to stare at the stage. I'd advise you not to commisserate with serial killers or mass murderers. You will find them a disappointment. > > > > >Or that Bob Hope was a complete bastard except when he was > >entertaining the troops? > > I had no idea that Bob was born out of wedlock. That bastard... > Groan! :) > > >There is evil loose in the world. > > "Blood is freedom stained" > > > > > >So I hope you can forgive > > > >us "old folks" for our impatience with your > >anti-authoritarianism.<G> > > > >Especially since we do not offer authority. We offer our > >experience, > > > >which I don't expect you to have any more appreciation for than we > >did > > > >when we were young. > > > >(It pains me to find myself preaching like an old fart)<G> > > > > > > There is nothing to forgive, friend. And quite apart from your > >expectations, > > > I do appreciate your experience. More so perhaps, than you may know. > >I > > > simply don't agree with you. > > > > > > And as for my "anti-authoritarianism", I think you have it all > >wrong. It's > > > just a by-product of me making the argument that I make. Of course I > >come at > > > this list with all the angst that is only proper in a hooligan of my > >age, > > > but I don't think it interferes with my ability to think rationally. > > > > > > >I agree. > >But I disagree with your hypothesis. > > > > > What? Huh? > > > > > But one thing that stands out when religion is embedded in ANY > >discussion, > > > is some abstract concept of God. Regardless of the circumstances, > >God > > > factors in. Now I understand where you are coming from, but due to > >the fact > > > of divine presence being present in any semblance of religion, and > >you > > > saying what you are saying...well it renders the very use of the > >word > > > "religion" a complete joke. > > > > > > >I have to reject that. > >It sounds like you are saying that the slightest mention of "God", > >even tangentally, invalidates any argument. > >I would think that patently untrue. > > In no way, shape, or form am I saying that. What I meant was that, based on > what you said, the "slightest mention of "God", even tangentally, > invalidates any argument." > > I'm not out to disprove God or religion. I'm not claiming you are. >I just think it obscures some > issues, due to people reverting back into religiously dogmatic thinking. > Whether they know it or not. Its your knee-jerk use of religion to refute the concept of "good and evil" that I argue against. > > > >I know I could be crucified for saying this but, .............. > >The existence of "God" may be an irrelevant argument because no answer > >to that question will change the reality we find ourselves in. > > > > The above statement does not speak to the reality/nonreality of > >"God". > >But it does say that in either regard we are still bound to the laws > >of the physical universe, and that in either case in social situations > >we are still bound by morality in its contemporaneous form because it > >is our nature to be social. > > > Oh you clever dog you. The above statement is your best yet. It may also be > your worst. Such an observation as you have made is perhaps more truthful > than the argument for or against God as a real being or as a concept. But in > stating that Robert, you have supplanted your own argument against me, in > favor of your own truth. Actually it is yet another restatement of the same thing I have been saying in almost every post. >And before you immediately throw your guard up over > my own statement here, I encourage you to truly think about the above words. > Well......I've been thinking about them for at least 30 years. Why should today be any different? xponent The Mechanics Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
