Re: An answer to Kelly's false psychology and (more importantly) false theology

On 2009-11-09, crunch <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The foundation for your thoughts and observations
on these matters is wanting.

Certainly it is.

You should be open
to the possibility that you are wrong.

I am.

And the moment I see you admit fault in any matter, genuine culpability
for a moral or cognitive failing, I will substantially revise my opinion
of you.

See, that's the thing. When I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong,
that doesn't mean I instantly assume I'm wrong; it means I understand what
my position is, and what I predict. And if those predictions don't
pan out, then I'm wrong. Otherwise, I don't change my mind. It's called
waiting for evidence. :)

Further, it
is not for you to judge others lest others judge you,

Ahh, but I'm not judging. I am not determining whether you are worthy
or not. I am not saying whether you deserve Heaven or Hell. (Were it
up to me, of course, the answer would be obvious; I have standing orders
to unconditionally forgive everything, so that seems a pretty easy case.)

Suggest to me a topic of quakerism that we can discuss.

Okay.

Why should I care about Christian Origins? I never particularly have. I
don't see them as relevant or informing to my life. Loving my neighbors
works, and I don't see why I should care who figured it out, or when, or
any of that.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
.

Relevant Pages