Re: virus: Re:Faith Schools Latest

From: Bill Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Mon Mar 18 2002 - 13:44:44 MST


I have to oppose the "Death to the barbarians" thing.

Just cause we have made it past the "god notion" ok does not imply that we are
not still barbarians. Speaking for myself anyway, I like the savage part of
myself.

Which reminds me, I had a good, and very old friend, say to me yesterday during
a discussion.

"Bill, I thought you hated religion"

"no way" I said, "It's a simple fact that we, as animals, create and cling to
religion. I have no qualms with religion, I have problems with the way some
people practice it, that is all. Religion itself is neither good, nor bad, but
exists through the needs of people."

That quote you posted though is indeed frightening - the thought that I have no
purpose crushes me with dispair - woe is me. ; ) I think it ironic that to
have anything of the "self" like self-respect or self-worth, or purpose
requires propping up by an external entity and does not come from the self at
all. In fact, if you come to these realities by yourself, then you can't really
have them based on that quote.

Bill Roh

self-self-worthy, self-self-respecting
good thing I don't need god to pleasure myself.

Blunderov wrote:

> Re:Faith Schools Latest, Richard Ridge [hidden@lucifer.com] Mon 2002/03/18
> 14:21
> Quoted
>
> <snip>
> \"To teach children that they are nothing more than developed mutations who
> evolved from something akin to a monkey, and that death is the end of
> everything is hardly going to engender within them a sense of purpose,
> self-worth and self-respect."\
> <snap>
>
> [Blunderov]
> By their fruits ye shall know them: three non-sequiturs for the price of
> one. Apparently it is not important to Christians whether what is taught to
> their children is in fact true or not, as long as it has the desired effect.
>
> Yesterday I had the opportunity to witness Sir Cliff Richard talking to a
> group of young people about his faith. He said that he definitely believed
> in the devil just as much as he believed in god.
>
> I have often found it convenient to stop Christians in their theological
> tracks with the following sequence of questions:
>
> Do you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, all good god? Y/N
> Do you believe in the devil, ie evil incarnate? Y/N
> then
> If god is omnipotent, and all good, why does he permit the devil to exist?
> or
> If he is not omnipotent, can he still be considered \god\?
>
> Normally one is given some guff about how god could, if he chose, enforce
> belief in him, but capriciously prefers to have that belief come from the
> free choice of his subjects. This line, however, does not get around the
> implication that god is directly responsible for all evil and is probably
> not to be trusted. I always enjoy watching their eyes glaze over at this
> one.
>
> Death to the barbarians.
>
> Blunderov



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:45 MDT