Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Googling around in Free.Christians -- Our Buddy Pastor Dave
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:17:05 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Ladny Tylek & Takdalej
Lines: 144
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <bs1lv6$klo$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>
References: <lbTCb.16305$HL2.15776@twister.socal.rr.com> <mqortvk44ii4n9au37babrmv41lnbofkbh@4ax.com> <dmovtvgq67m6snabb44081l35bqkgd3nbo@4ax.com> <brqnog$dbr$0@pita.alt.net> <pan.2003.12.18.00.00.02.863143@cox.net> <3fe11b95$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com> <brsmi2$3m8$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <inr3uvstc09ubeut4bcq6tsmqbnd1fonaq@news.supernews.com> <brsvkk$hbj$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <r534uvoennq2o43epa23ugldq4rmv47e0c@4ax.com> <brv6i2$88l$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <3fe39794$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1071929825 27021 128.100.83.246 (20 Dec 2003 14:17:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:17:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: qr142.warszawa.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at TP Internet
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:1205
news:3fe39794$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> > news:r534uvoennq2o43epa23ugldq4rmv47e0c@4ax.com...
> >
> >>In talk.origins, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in
> >><brsvkk$hbj$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>:
> >>
news:inr3uvstc09ubeut4bcq6tsmqbnd1fonaq@news.supernews.com...
> >>>
> >>>>"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>news:3fe11b95$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>But I strongly suspect that "Constance" is not a female anyway . . .
> >
> > .
> >
> >>>.
> >>>
> >>>>>>. . .
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That's nice.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why should we listen to your opinions on whether Constance is a
female
> >>>
> >>>more
> >>>
> >>>>>than Behe's or Ross's or, for that matter, the guy who delivered a
> >
> > pizza
> >
> >>>>>here to my colleagues this afternoon?
> >>>>
> >>>>Because evidence, however circumstancial, is on the side of his
> >
> > opinion?
> >
> >>>>Note, too, that Lenny doesn't make his claim with the certainty of a
> >>>>creationist; he qualifies it with a "strongly suspect."
> >>>>
> >>>>I know, I know... you were just trying to turn the tables on him, but
> >
> > it
> >
> >>>>didn't work.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I was just satirising his highly amusing style of questioning.
> >>>
> >>>Uncle Davey, I don't mean it in a nasty way, though.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Have you noticed that none of the anti-science folks have ever tried to
> >>answer Lenny's questions? A few have responded with non-responsive
> >>comments, but I don't recall any actual attempts at an answer.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Well, the question as to why we think our opinions are worth listening
to is
> > obvious, I would have thought. Everybody holds their opinions because
they
> > think they are the correct opinions and therefore worth listening to.
>
>
>
>
>
> But you claim more than that, Davey --- you claim YOU ARE SPEAKING TO US
> ON BEHALF OF GOD.
>
> That's a bit different from "I'm entitled to my opinion".
>
>
In as much as what I say is scriptural, it is on behalf of God, but I don't
claim papal infallibility for my interpretations.
You're naturally welcome to give other interpretations, and we can discuss
why we don't prefer each other's versions.
> If
> > people believe they don't know or care about a topic, they won't even
> > comment it. For example, you won't see me join many sports threads, as I
> > really have no opinions on sports.
> >
> > It's built in to any form of belief or opinion holding that you thing
what
> > you have accepted as the truth is a better version than what you
rejected.
> > If not, you would change your beliefs.
> >
>
> Is it "built into any form of belief or opinion holding" that one's
> opinion is ON BEHALF OF GOD? When I express the opinion "I like
> chocolate ice cream", am I automatically assuming the GOD likes
> chocolate ice cream too? When I give the opinion "Republicans are
> assholes", does that automatically mean that GOD HIMSELF thinks
> Republicans are assholes?
>
> Are your opinions YOUR opinions, Davey, or are they GOD'S opinion.
I know they are my opinions, and I hope they coincide with God's opinions.
>
> Or are they both one and the same to you.
>
That's what I'm working towards, but not in the way you're hinting at.
> > That's why the question is comical to me, and I started treating Lenny
as
> > more a fuigure of fun than anything else.
> >
> > But like I say, I don't mean it in a nasty way.
> And when I say that you are a self-righteous prideful arrogant
> holier-than-thou (literally) prick who actually believes that HE IS
> SPEAKING TO US DIRECTLY ON BEHALF OF GOD -- I don't mean THAT in a nasty
> way, either.
Heh.
That's all right, then.
Happy Hanukkah.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
|