I don't know where the last thread went, so I'll continue here for now...

Im not prepared to make a 5000 word account to defend my misconstrued words and I dont much care if you interpret this a cognitive inability: 4,492 words (such as Lees) do not necessarily speak anymore than 10 or 20. Lee, I am curious, are you sure youre not an ecclesiastic, your overabundance in reiterating the same words and paragraphs becomes superfluous and a little irritating. I will however address a couple of points: I think you have confused rationality and reason. You stated agnostics depend on reason until it begins to work against. The way I see it, rationality is used to favour the individual or group; in that sense it is biased and prejudiced and can create nonsensical ideas that defy belief. Reason searches for answers that do not necessarily benefit the individual and they can also lead down darkened avenues that can even be harmful to the individual Ill return to this as a proposal for a debate. Truth as an absolute, conceived as something knowable would also make for an interesting debate. I come here claiming I know nothing [Lee - I can already see the reply you have planned for this statement!]. Lee, shrewd psycho-analysis obviously is not your forte. I was very conscious when I wrote God only knows how youve contorted this.; a Freudian slip it is not (in fact its quite ironic that you bring Freud into the conversation, because he had some interesting things to say about Christianity.) Youre reading something that is not there. In nearly 23 years I have been conditioned in language and sayings, and I can be equally pedantic in analysing the use of certain words or phrases if I thought it of importance. What you also have to understand is that I was conditioned to avoid the use of words like Jesus Christ, G******, go to hell, and my using them now acts a subtle defiance in my new found awakening. Have I not already made it clear enough that your knowable God is a fallacy to me? Kelly, what was said to me, was said in confidence. Something I would also like to discuss, which is largely pertinent to a proposed debate, is this demonic force you speak of. To me it speaks of primitiveness and can be likened to the Greeks ideas of their Gods - again rationality is employed to give answers no matter how ludicrous they may sound. For example imagine a time when people asked, Why has our harvest done badly this year?, they cannot understand this as something beyond their doing therefore they rationalise - we have done something wrong we have made someone angry we are being punished., from here the idea of a god arises, and now they have created something they can at least try to appease. I notice this thread is surmounting to something a little impractical for one HTML page. It might be best to debate in a new thread? Can I propose the following for formal discussion, although I dont wish to lay it out as an essay question, more a suggestion of related contentions for debate Id like to return to the notion of heaven and hell and from here analyse the psychological inherency (perhaps located in the moral centre of the brain), for a need towards punishment and reward. Id also like a historical context, perhaps focusing on the concept through the ages and especially relating to the medieval epoch. Maybe from there we can return to the ideas of rationalisation against reasoning and explore how christians can turn the eternal suffering of non-believers into something that does not interfere with ethical or moral tenets I welcome any other input Warmest regards, Gavin

p.s. Lee, I thank you for your lack of pity. p.p.s. I am glad you do not contravene the idea that belief is controlled by fear.

p.p.p.s. John, Im not attacking Lewis - I never said he molested children, which is how you might possibly have interpreted it, more that he had an lustful interest in young girls who reciprocated these feelings. P.P.P.P.S. What the HELL am I doing here? I didnt expect these words to come from the mouth of one considered Christian. Its kind of a pleasant surprise. :o)

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

Answers

Another thought by "Jack":

"There is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on." - C.S. Lewis, 'Mere Christianity'

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

---

Moderation questions? read the FAQ