| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 722.1 | Charlie Daniels-Les Claypool-Messiah | ZEKE::MEMBRINO | | Wed Jun 28 1995 09:27 | 5 |
| The verses to Primus' "Big Brown Beaver" is the same as "The Devil
Went Down to Georgia". I feel saved already!
chUck
|
| 722.2 | HAVING A FLASH BACK???? | WMOIS::HORNE_C | HORNET-THE FALL GUY | Wed Jun 28 1995 10:18 | 6 |
| ....so how much ACID did you take in yer early daze??????
love
HORneT
|
| 722.3 | Could you explain this to Jessie Helms and James Exon? | DREGS::BLICKSTEIN | My other piano is a Steinway | Wed Jun 28 1995 11:37 | 7 |
| >All music and literature is God's word, even though humans don't recognize it
>yet. Everyone will recognize this soon.
If "all" music and literature is God's word, could you please explain
why so many religious folks cite religious reasons for their missions
to eradicate certain kinds of music and literature?
|
| 722.4 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Wed Jun 28 1995 12:25 | 6 |
|
Additional insight into how seriously one should take this
discussion may be obtained at HUMANE::DIGITAL note 3443.30
and thereabouts.
-b
|
| 722.5 | Arguments are next door down | WONDER::REILLY | Sean / Alpha Servers DTN:223-4375 | Wed Jun 28 1995 16:30 | 15 |
|
> If "all" music and literature is God's word, could you please explain
> why so many religious folks cite religious reasons for their missions
> to eradicate certain kinds of music and literature?
Uh, the sanity of .0 left aside, you do realize the unfair logic of
this question?
A can "claim" to be religious and B can "claim" to be religious - even
though A and B hold opposing religious views. How can you prove either
claim to be true? .0 may not agree that the censors are really
religious, so its not really fair to lump .0 and, say, Robert Dole,
together because of the claim.
- Sean
|
| 722.6 | | DREGS::BLICKSTEIN | My other piano is a Steinway | Thu Jun 29 1995 13:04 | 20 |
| > Uh, the sanity of .0 left aside, you do realize the unfair logic of
> this question?
There's something that underlies the question:
> A can "claim" to be religious and B can "claim" to be religious - even
> though A and B hold opposing religious views. How can you prove either
> claim to be true?
You can't but by virtue of the fact that they disagree I *CAN* prove
that one of them is WRONG about what god wants.
Actually... think about... I should've said that I can prove that
AT LEAST one of them is wrong.
And that's why people should not force their religious views on others.
Although everyone "knows" that THEIR view is the one true one, at
least 99.99999% of them are WRONG! We just don't know which one.
db
|
| 722.7 | | BUSY::BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Trouble with a capital 'T' | Thu Jun 29 1995 13:19 | 16 |
|
>You can't but by virtue of the fact that they disagree I *CAN* prove
>that one of them is WRONG about what god wants.
>
>Actually... think about... I should've said that I can prove that
>AT LEAST one of them is wrong.
Based on your religious views, you can prove that at least one
of them is wrong. But that's assuming that your religious views
are the correct ones.
If mankind is actually ruled by multiple gods [although I don't
believe that to be the case] then everyone else could be right
and only you would be wrong.
|
| 722.8 | | WILLEE::OSTIGUY | | Thu Jun 29 1995 14:21 | 13 |
| uh, .0 is gone, but I think the author didn't want any ratholes... this
to me is an interesting discussion, but seems like the rathole the
author didn't want, IMHO of course...
ok, I'll join in...how Can we determine what God wants...can we ?
(hypothetical I know, but this also goes to the core of one's beliefs,
and I welcome yer answers as we all go down this rathole !!!)
maybe not until we meet Him...if one holds the belief that we do meet Him
after this physical existence comes to an end...
ahh, for those politically correct folks out there, Him=Her=It :)))
Wes
|
| 722.9 | | DREGS::BLICKSTEIN | My other piano is a Steinway | Thu Jun 29 1995 14:32 | 19 |
| > Based on your religious views, you can prove that at least one
> of them is wrong. But that's assuming that your religious views
> are the correct ones.
> If mankind is actually ruled by multiple gods [although I don't
> believe that to be the case] then everyone else could be right
> and only you would be wrong.
I'm confused by your wording.
I know this, most religions claim that THEIR religion is the only correct
one.
Clearly only ONE such view can be right. That is PROOF that at least
99.999% of the religions in the world are not the correct view of god.
Food for thought.
db
|
| 722.10 | | BUSY::BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Trouble with a capital 'T' | Thu Jun 29 1995 14:41 | 13 |
|
Well, my point was that if there were multiple gods ruling over
[or presiding over] mankind, as the Greeks/Romans thought, then
people could be choosing to worship any one of those gods for
whatever reason. They believe that all of the gods are present,
but only choose to worship 1 or 2 [again, for whatever reason].
Since you believe that there is only 1 god, you could be wrong
while everyone else could be right.
It's hard to explain, and confusing. Heck, I'm getting lost just
trying to proof-read the thing.
|
| 722.11 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu Jun 29 1995 14:57 | 7 |
|
This is kinda funny. Marvin Martian stops in for an unsolicited
incoherent visit, and you all end up arguing about it!
:-)
-b
|
| 722.12 | | WONDER::REILLY | Sean / Alpha Servers DTN:223-4375 | Thu Jun 29 1995 23:15 | 18 |
|
> You can't but by virtue of the fact that they disagree I *CAN* prove
> that one of them is WRONG about what god wants.
I guess what I'm asking is "Did you castigate someone who aligned himself
with a group (the religious) by *associating* him with another group
(who call themselves religious)?" The two people may have vastly different
views on religion, you know, but I feel like "guilt by assoication" may
have possibly been employed.
Pro 2nd ammendment (Militias!) folks are often subject to the same tactic.
As are Republicans (oh, you like Newt?) and Democrats (a Ted Kennedy
fan, eh?) and pro-lifers and capitalists and, heck, lots of other......
*individuals*.
- Sean
|
| 722.13 | No and Yes | DREGS::BLICKSTEIN | My other piano is a Steinway | Fri Jun 30 1995 10:37 | 37 |
| >> You can't but by virtue of the fact that they disagree I *CAN* prove
>> that one of them is WRONG about what god wants.
>I guess what I'm asking is "Did you castigate someone who aligned himself
>with a group (the religious) by *associating* him with another group
>(who call themselves religious)?" The two people may have vastly different
>views on religion, you know, but I feel like "guilt by assoication" may
>have possibly been employed.
Huh?????
No, what I'm saying is very simple and (I would like to think)
in-arguable:
There are lots of religious groups out there that have differing
views of god. They all think that THEIR view is the right
view.
Clearly all but (at most) one of them can be right, therefore
(at least) 99.999% of them are wrong.
So while I don't think your comment about association applies to
the "99.99% wrong" comment, it definitely applies to my comment
in .2 ("Please explain this to Helms and Exon").
Clearly Jessie Helms and James Exon (and all the other religious
folk active in that particular debate) do NOT believe that "all music
and literature is god's word" and so, yes, I guess it's guilt by
association.
However, I'm not trying to prove THEIR guilt (Helms, Exon). I was
trying to demonstrate to the author of .0 that if HE thinks that's
true then he should denounce such efforts. I.E. if you believe
ALL music and literature is god's word, then you shouldn't/wouldn't
try to suppress any of it.
db
|
| 722.14 | | WONDER::REILLY | Sean / Alpha Servers DTN:223-4375 | Fri Jun 30 1995 22:24 | 12 |
|
Well, its a silly rathole, but...
He may denounce Exon. He may not try to supress music. You don't
know the nature of his religious feelings there.
Associating him with those that do supress is unfair, imo. Making him
answer for others is irrelevant, simply because some characteristic
(they call themselves religious, they are white, they are poor, they
are vegetarians, etc.) labels them both.
- Sean
|
| 722.15 | | DREGS::BLICKSTEIN | My other piano is a Steinway | Wed Jul 05 1995 10:57 | 11 |
| I'm not associating him with Exon. I am however, throwing a gauntlet
at him by saying "if you really believe that, then you should denounce
these efforts to censor music".
My guess is that he supports those efforts - he could've either said
"I agree with you, those guys are wrong" or he could "face the music"
and try to explain to us what seems like a clear contradiction in
his stated view.
I.E. I wasn't trying to prove him guilty of anything (although I'm
prone to making a guess) but I was trying to find out where he stood.
|