| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2003 12:07:11 PM |
| Object: |
Serious Question. Honest. |
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
| User: "John W" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
12 Oct 2003 10:35:07 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:27:18 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 11 Oct 2003 05:04:51 GMT, John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>,
Message ID: <7p3fovggqi386a35elv4grck2uv3i2it0l@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:28:47 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On 10 Oct 2003 19:17:52 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
Short answer: No.
Good answer in as much as it tells me all I need to know.
Congratulations. Glad I made you happy. Now turn it around. Could I
reveal ANY FACT to you, ANY FACT whatever, that would cause you to
believe in God and in His Son?
Any fact would be quite a change since christianity has none.
TOTAL ignorance and bigotry strike again.
You've been given bad information; there is PLENTY of internal
evidence in the Bible.
John W
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Semler" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
12 Oct 2003 03:08:46 PM |
|
|
In news:53tiovoe4tjcta0u64ubnr4rl70re7lv0n@4ax.com,
John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> slavered, and posted this:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:27:18 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Any fact would be quite a change since christianity has none.
TOTAL ignorance and bigotry strike again.
You've been given bad information; there is PLENTY of internal
evidence in the Bible.
There's plenty of internal evidence in the Lord of the Rings trilogy to
prove the existance of Elves. And, I might add, the trilogy of which I
speak is actually more internally consistent than your Bible.
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, uneqyl nalbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
12 Oct 2003 09:56:53 PM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2003 15:35:07 GMT, John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You've been given bad information; there is PLENTY of internal
evidence in the Bible.
The bible telling the bible is correct. Anything new, Sjonny?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
12 Oct 2003 03:32:37 PM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2003 15:35:07 GMT, John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>,
Message ID: <53tiovoe4tjcta0u64ubnr4rl70re7lv0n@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:27:18 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 11 Oct 2003 05:04:51 GMT, John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>,
Message ID: <7p3fovggqi386a35elv4grck2uv3i2it0l@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:28:47 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On 10 Oct 2003 19:17:52 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
Short answer: No.
Good answer in as much as it tells me all I need to know.
Congratulations. Glad I made you happy. Now turn it around. Could I
reveal ANY FACT to you, ANY FACT whatever, that would cause you to
believe in God and in His Son?
Any fact would be quite a change since christianity has none.
TOTAL ignorance and bigotry strike again.
Congradulations! You've finally self analyzed yourself!
You've been given bad information; there is PLENTY of internal
evidence in the Bible.
That the main character doesn't exist, yes.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "D Wolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
10 Oct 2003 09:03:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Sworn testimony of a person I saw dead and buried twenty years ago
showing up and telling me aobut it, not a day older then the aslt time
I saw her.
That would pretty much do it for me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 02:53:04 PM |
|
|
"D Wolf" <notan@emailadress.com> wrote in message
news:38peov0krv074j8d7qbmh3coqjbm98bsms@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Sworn testimony of a person I saw dead and buried twenty years ago
showing up and telling me aobut it, not a day older then the aslt time
I saw her.
That would pretty much do it for me.
<G>
FWIW, this was actually adressed in the Bible itself. People asked if
someone could come back from the dead to prove God's words. Jesus said
something to the effect of, "If they wouldn't believe the prophets, what
makes you think that they would beleive someone back from the dead?"
I understand how this might add to "proof," but--as someone else stated
earlier--how do you know for sure that this would change your mind? (the
earlier poster asked a person of belief something about "how do you know for
sure that nothing would change your mind?")
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "386sx" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 03:51:58 PM |
|
|
FWIW, this was actually adressed in the Bible itself. People asked if
someone could come back from the dead to prove God's words. Jesus said
something to the effect of, "If they wouldn't believe the prophets, what
makes you think that they would beleive someone back from the dead?"
I think you got the story mixed up a little. Anyways, when did the prophets
ever visit those who didn't believe them. The prophets would have to come
back from the dead, too, wouldn't they?
I understand how this might add to "proof," but--as someone else stated
earlier--how do you know for sure that this would change your mind?
Yeah. Second hand accounts of the prophets must be more convincing than
somebody's returning from the dead.
--
"He affirmed that only in man we had the beatings of the heart, that the
left side of the body was colder than the right, that men have more teeth
than women." -- John Tyndall
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 05:33:42 PM |
|
|
"386sx" <KEEP_IN_THE_386sx_AND_ALSO_THE_@email.com> wrote in message
news:m2ekxjpkepXx386xX.fsf@jms.localhost.localnet...
FWIW, this was actually adressed in the Bible itself. People asked if
someone could come back from the dead to prove God's words. Jesus said
something to the effect of, "If they wouldn't believe the prophets, what
makes you think that they would beleive someone back from the dead?"
I think you got the story mixed up a little.
Luke 16:19-31 The parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. They were both
dead, with the rich man in torment, and Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham.
The rich man asked that Lazarus be sent to his (rich man) brothers as a
warning. Luke 16:31 "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they
will not be convinced even if one should rise from the dead."
No, I did not "get it mixed up a little."
Anyways, when did the prophets
ever visit those who didn't believe them.
Do you believe what the prophets said, what they wrote, what was written
about them?
The prophets would have to come
back from the dead, too, wouldn't they?
Their words are what believers follow...
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "386sx" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 08:12:27 PM |
|
|
SumBuny writes:
386sx wrote:
FWIW, this was actually adressed in the Bible itself. People asked if
someone could come back from the dead to prove God's words. Jesus said
something to the effect of, "If they wouldn't believe the prophets,
what makes you think that they would beleive someone back from the
dead?"
I think you got the story mixed up a little.
Luke 16:19-31 The parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. They were both
dead, with the rich man in torment, and Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham.
The rich man asked that Lazarus be sent to his (rich man) brothers as a
warning. Luke 16:31 "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets,
they will not be convinced even if one should rise from the dead."
No, I did not "get it mixed up a little."
Uh huh. So who were the people who asked if someone could come back from
the dead to prove God's words. Who was it who supposedly said, "If they do
not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if one
should rise from the dead." BTW, I'll bet there really are people who don't
bat an eyelash when they are told that someone was put into the bosom of
Abraham.
Anyways, when did the prophets ever visit those who didn't believe them.
Do you believe what the prophets said, what they wrote, what was written
about them?
The prophets would have to come back from the dead, too, wouldn't they?
Their words are what believers follow...
Yeah. Second hand accounts of the purported prophets written thousands of
years gone by must be more convincing than the sworn testimony of a person
Mr. Wolf saw dead and buried twenty years ago showing up and telling him
about it, not a day older then the last time he saw her.
--
"He affirmed that only in man we had the beatings of the heart, that the
left side of the body was colder than the right, that men have more teeth
than women." -- John Tyndall
.
|
|
|
| User: "D Wolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
12 Oct 2003 12:46:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:12:27 -0400, 386sx <386sx@email.com> wrote:
The prophets would have to come back from the dead, too, wouldn't they?
Their words are what believers follow...
Yeah. Second hand accounts of the purported prophets written thousands of
years gone by must be more convincing than the sworn testimony of a person
Mr. Wolf saw dead and buried twenty years ago showing up and telling him
about it, not a day older then the last time he saw her.
Ms.Wolf, actually.
But thats the idea, yes. What this person is saying is, " Why
would I believe somoene I know if I wont belive the sworn testimony of
the Easter Bunny?"
I bet yo get no reply to this one. : / They tend to chicken ot
when backed into corners.
Dana Wolf
a#344
.
|
|
|
| User: "386sx" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 02:39:14 PM |
|
|
D Wolf writes:
I bet yo get no reply to this one. : / They tend to chicken ot when
backed into corners.
I think perhaps sometimes they realize the size of the hole they've got to
dig in order to get from out of it. Ain't worth the trouble, I guess. ;^/
--
"He affirmed that only in man we had the beatings of the heart, that the
left side of the body was colder than the right, that men have more teeth
than women." -- John Tyndall
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 10:25:59 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:53:04 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> ejaculated:
"D Wolf" <notan@emailadress.com> wrote in message
news:38peov0krv074j8d7qbmh3coqjbm98bsms@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Sworn testimony of a person I saw dead and buried twenty years ago
showing up and telling me aobut it, not a day older then the aslt time
I saw her.
That would pretty much do it for me.
<G>
FWIW, this was actually adressed in the Bible itself. People asked if
someone could come back from the dead to prove God's words. Jesus said
something to the effect of, "If they wouldn't believe the prophets, what
makes you think that they would beleive someone back from the dead?"
I understand how this might add to "proof," but--as someone else stated
earlier--how do you know for sure that this would change your mind?
That's not really the point, is it? Your omniscient god knows what
would change D Wolf's mind and has failed to show it to her. Why is
that?
--
<http://www20.brinkster.com/beowulf9/gottod/Jesus%20Hates%20The%20Little%20Children.html>
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 01:17:24 PM |
|
|
"Beowulf" <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:duglovkkc3vtfqr8r29o94chc9515mj4ba@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:53:04 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> ejaculated:
"D Wolf" <notan@emailadress.com> wrote in message
news:38peov0krv074j8d7qbmh3coqjbm98bsms@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Sworn testimony of a person I saw dead and buried twenty years ago
showing up and telling me aobut it, not a day older then the aslt time
I saw her.
That would pretty much do it for me.
<G>
FWIW, this was actually adressed in the Bible itself. People asked if
someone could come back from the dead to prove God's words. Jesus said
something to the effect of, "If they wouldn't believe the prophets, what
makes you think that they would beleive someone back from the dead?"
I understand how this might add to "proof," but--as someone else stated
earlier--how do you know for sure that this would change your mind?
That's not really the point, is it? Your omniscient god knows what
would change D Wolf's mind and has failed to show it to her. Why is
that?
At the risk of coming across as a "blind believer"...I have to honestly
answer "I do not know, nor presume to know the mind of God." I truly wish I
did at times (and not just times like these).
<G>
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 01:40:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:17:24 -0500 in alt.atheism, SumBuny ("SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
"Beowulf" <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:duglovkkc3vtfqr8r29o94chc9515mj4ba@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:53:04 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> ejaculated:
"D Wolf" <notan@emailadress.com> wrote in message
news:38peov0krv074j8d7qbmh3coqjbm98bsms@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Sworn testimony of a person I saw dead and buried twenty years ago
showing up and telling me aobut it, not a day older then the aslt time
I saw her.
That would pretty much do it for me.
<G>
FWIW, this was actually adressed in the Bible itself. People asked if
someone could come back from the dead to prove God's words. Jesus said
something to the effect of, "If they wouldn't believe the prophets, what
makes you think that they would beleive someone back from the dead?"
I understand how this might add to "proof," but--as someone else stated
earlier--how do you know for sure that this would change your mind?
That's not really the point, is it? Your omniscient god knows what
would change D Wolf's mind and has failed to show it to her. Why is
that?
At the risk of coming across as a "blind believer"...I have to honestly
answer "I do not know, nor presume to know the mind of God." I truly wish I
did at times (and not just times like these).
You're quite sure about that, are you?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 03:26:40 PM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:fngoovcg1cfubitn7gn4l9t96h1pf50mse@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:17:24 -0500 in alt.atheism, SumBuny ("SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
"Beowulf" <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:duglovkkc3vtfqr8r29o94chc9515mj4ba@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:53:04 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> ejaculated:
"D Wolf" <notan@emailadress.com> wrote in message
news:38peov0krv074j8d7qbmh3coqjbm98bsms@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Sworn testimony of a person I saw dead and buried twenty years ago
showing up and telling me aobut it, not a day older then the aslt
time
I saw her.
That would pretty much do it for me.
<G>
FWIW, this was actually adressed in the Bible itself. People asked if
someone could come back from the dead to prove God's words. Jesus
said
something to the effect of, "If they wouldn't believe the prophets,
what
makes you think that they would beleive someone back from the dead?"
I understand how this might add to "proof," but--as someone else
stated
earlier--how do you know for sure that this would change your mind?
That's not really the point, is it? Your omniscient god knows what
would change D Wolf's mind and has failed to show it to her. Why is
that?
At the risk of coming across as a "blind believer"...I have to honestly
answer "I do not know, nor presume to know the mind of God." I truly
wish I
did at times (and not just times like these).
You're quite sure about that, are you?
At this moment I am <G>
Buny
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 02:31:34 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:17:24 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Beowulf" <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:duglovkkc3vtfqr8r29o94chc9515mj4ba@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:53:04 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> ejaculated:
"D Wolf" <notan@emailadress.com> wrote in message
news:38peov0krv074j8d7qbmh3coqjbm98bsms@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Sworn testimony of a person I saw dead and buried twenty years ago
showing up and telling me aobut it, not a day older then the aslt time
I saw her.
That would pretty much do it for me.
<G>
FWIW, this was actually adressed in the Bible itself. People asked if
someone could come back from the dead to prove God's words. Jesus said
something to the effect of, "If they wouldn't believe the prophets, what
makes you think that they would beleive someone back from the dead?"
I understand how this might add to "proof," but--as someone else stated
earlier--how do you know for sure that this would change your mind?
That's not really the point, is it? Your omniscient god knows what
would change D Wolf's mind and has failed to show it to her. Why is
that?
At the risk of coming across as a "blind believer"...I have to honestly
answer "I do not know, nor presume to know the mind of God." I truly wish I
did at times (and not just times like these).
By coincidence I have just reread something Bertrand Russell wrote
concerning Rousseau:
"For my part, I prefer the ontological argument, the cosmological
argument, and the rest of the old stock-in-trade, to the sentimental
illogicality that has sprung from Rousseau. The old arguments at
least were honest: if valid, they proved their points; if invalid, it
was open to any critic to prove them so. But the new theology of the
heart dispenses with arguments; it cannot be refuted, because it does
not profess to prove its points. At bottom, the only reason offered
for its acceptance is that it allows us to indulge in pleasant dreams.
This is an unworthy reason, and if I had to choose between Thomas
Aquinas and Rousseau, I should unhesitatingly choose the Saint."
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 01:05:32 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:1qtpovcstqhqr97ib7bkb1ev6co3ojgloj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:17:24 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
At the risk of coming across as a "blind believer"...I have to honestly
answer "I do not know, nor presume to know the mind of God." I truly
wish I
did at times (and not just times like these).
By coincidence I have just reread something Bertrand Russell wrote
concerning Rousseau:
"For my part, I prefer the ontological argument, the cosmological
argument, and the rest of the old stock-in-trade, to the sentimental
illogicality that has sprung from Rousseau. The old arguments at
least were honest: if valid, they proved their points; if invalid, it
was open to any critic to prove them so. But the new theology of the
heart dispenses with arguments; it cannot be refuted, because it does
not profess to prove its points. At bottom, the only reason offered
for its acceptance is that it allows us to indulge in pleasant dreams.
This is an unworthy reason, and if I had to choose between Thomas
Aquinas and Rousseau, I should unhesitatingly choose the Saint."
I am not all that familiar with Russel or Rousseau (I read the required
selections in high school some 20 years ago <G>), but this is a truly
thought-provoking statement. I can agree with most of this...and, FWIW, if
a little dream-indulgence helps keep one's psyche balanced, is that
necessarily a bad thing?
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
16 Oct 2003 12:30:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:05:32 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> ejaculated:
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:1qtpovcstqhqr97ib7bkb1ev6co3ojgloj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:17:24 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
At the risk of coming across as a "blind believer"...I have to honestly
answer "I do not know, nor presume to know the mind of God." I truly
wish I
did at times (and not just times like these).
By coincidence I have just reread something Bertrand Russell wrote
concerning Rousseau:
"For my part, I prefer the ontological argument, the cosmological
argument, and the rest of the old stock-in-trade, to the sentimental
illogicality that has sprung from Rousseau. The old arguments at
least were honest: if valid, they proved their points; if invalid, it
was open to any critic to prove them so. But the new theology of the
heart dispenses with arguments; it cannot be refuted, because it does
not profess to prove its points. At bottom, the only reason offered
for its acceptance is that it allows us to indulge in pleasant dreams.
This is an unworthy reason, and if I had to choose between Thomas
Aquinas and Rousseau, I should unhesitatingly choose the Saint."
I am not all that familiar with Russel or Rousseau (I read the required
selections in high school some 20 years ago <G>), but this is a truly
thought-provoking statement. I can agree with most of this...and, FWIW, if
a little dream-indulgence helps keep one's psyche balanced, is that
necessarily a bad thing?
I think the only reason we have a debate about theism/atheism is
because all too often this dream-indulgence serves to keep the psyche
unbalanced.
It is not the balanced believers putting religious monuments in public
buildings or sending antrax to abortion clinics or flying planes into
buildings or rolling over paupers with tanks or blowing up busloads of
school children or telling people in Africa not to use condoms. The
hallmark of religion is the unbalancing force it exerts on the psyche.
Good religious people are good, but they'd be better without religion.
Bad people are bad, and they're worse with religion. It is a disease
of the mind and as long as it doesn't show symptoms or spread it is
not a threat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
17 Oct 2003 03:19:43 PM |
|
|
"Beowulf" <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o7ltovk8umrhppsjclvvtopeofj6t5kmmr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:05:32 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> ejaculated:
I am not all that familiar with Russel or Rousseau (I read the required
selections in high school some 20 years ago <G>), but this is a truly
thought-provoking statement. I can agree with most of this...and, FWIW,
if
a little dream-indulgence helps keep one's psyche balanced, is that
necessarily a bad thing?
I think the only reason we have a debate about theism/atheism is
because all too often this dream-indulgence serves to keep the psyche
unbalanced.
It is not the balanced believers putting religious monuments in public
buildings or sending antrax to abortion clinics or flying planes into
buildings or rolling over paupers with tanks or blowing up busloads of
school children or telling people in Africa not to use condoms. The
hallmark of religion is the unbalancing force it exerts on the psyche.
Good religious people are good, but they'd be better without religion.
Bad people are bad, and they're worse with religion. It is a disease
of the mind and as long as it doesn't show symptoms or spread it is
not a threat.
I cannot argue that horrible things have been done in the name of religion,
nor that there are some who are very vocal in doing so...I am in a parish
that generally produces people that volunteer in the community without
asking for limelight--and because of this, are not able to "balance" those
that are doing evil in the limelight, because no one really knows about
them...
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
21 Oct 2003 07:42:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:19:43 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> ejaculated:
"Beowulf" <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o7ltovk8umrhppsjclvvtopeofj6t5kmmr@4ax.com...
Good religious people are good, but they'd be better without religion.
Bad people are bad, and they're worse with religion. It is a disease
of the mind and as long as it doesn't show symptoms or spread it is
not a threat.
I cannot argue that horrible things have been done in the name of religion,
nor that there are some who are very vocal in doing so...I am in a parish
that generally produces people that volunteer in the community without
asking for limelight--and because of this, are not able to "balance" those
that are doing evil in the limelight, because no one really knows about
them...
I believe it is more than "horrible things have been done in the name
of religion" but that literalist religion (such as Christianity for
the majority of its history or fundamentalist Islam) compels its
followers to think and act in horrible ways.
Like nicotine, religion is a very dangerous drug that it is difficult
to use without hurting yourself or those around you. I don't deny
that some people walk that tightrope successfully and effect real
demonstrable good in their communities. However, I doubt that those
people would behave very much differently if they were irreligious.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
18 Oct 2003 10:59:50 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:19:43 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<T4Yjb.89519$a16.36470@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Beowulf" <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o7ltovk8umrhppsjclvvtopeofj6t5kmmr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:05:32 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> ejaculated:
I am not all that familiar with Russel or Rousseau (I read the required
selections in high school some 20 years ago <G>), but this is a truly
thought-provoking statement. I can agree with most of this...and, FWIW,
if
a little dream-indulgence helps keep one's psyche balanced, is that
necessarily a bad thing?
I think the only reason we have a debate about theism/atheism is
because all too often this dream-indulgence serves to keep the psyche
unbalanced.
It is not the balanced believers putting religious monuments in public
buildings or sending antrax to abortion clinics or flying planes into
buildings or rolling over paupers with tanks or blowing up busloads of
school children or telling people in Africa not to use condoms. The
hallmark of religion is the unbalancing force it exerts on the psyche.
Good religious people are good, but they'd be better without religion.
Bad people are bad, and they're worse with religion. It is a disease
of the mind and as long as it doesn't show symptoms or spread it is
not a threat.
I cannot argue that horrible things have been done in the name of religion,
nor that there are some who are very vocal in doing so...I am in a parish
that generally produces people that volunteer in the community without
asking for limelight--and because of this, are not able to "balance" those
that are doing evil in the limelight, because no one really knows about
them...
Such is the 'catch 22' that people of all and no religion have to deal
with.
/me who had to get military medical authorization before was able to
volunteer to search for a lost child for two days in nasty terrain and
weather.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
18 Oct 2003 11:56:39 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:loo2pv4s3268e9kdeei8a5i1tg39oe537u@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:19:43 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<T4Yjb.89519$a16.36470@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
I cannot argue that horrible things have been done in the name of
religion,
nor that there are some who are very vocal in doing so...I am in a parish
that generally produces people that volunteer in the community without
asking for limelight--and because of this, are not able to "balance"
those
that are doing evil in the limelight, because no one really knows about
them...
Such is the 'catch 22' that people of all and no religion have to deal
with.
/me who had to get military medical authorization before was able to
volunteer to search for a lost child for two days in nasty terrain and
weather.
<nodding> I have been in military communities for over half my life, and
know of people who were on non-flying status due to medical problems who
have gone in to get back on status for SAR missions...did you find the kid?
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
19 Oct 2003 03:05:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:56:39 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<rcekb.90900$a16.14706@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:loo2pv4s3268e9kdeei8a5i1tg39oe537u@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:19:43 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<T4Yjb.89519$a16.36470@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
I cannot argue that horrible things have been done in the name of
religion,
nor that there are some who are very vocal in doing so...I am in a parish
that generally produces people that volunteer in the community without
asking for limelight--and because of this, are not able to "balance"
those
that are doing evil in the limelight, because no one really knows about
them...
Such is the 'catch 22' that people of all and no religion have to deal
with.
/me who had to get military medical authorization before was able to
volunteer to search for a lost child for two days in nasty terrain and
weather.
<nodding> I have been in military communities for over half my life, and
know of people who were on non-flying status due to medical problems who
have gone in to get back on status for SAR missions...did you find the kid?
No. The kid was found the following spring. It turns out he didn't
survive the first night. The story went national.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
19 Oct 2003 06:25:37 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:b2q5pvg20he9jgqcipjlcli18ohjb3gtc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:56:39 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<rcekb.90900$a16.14706@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:loo2pv4s3268e9kdeei8a5i1tg39oe537u@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:19:43 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<T4Yjb.89519$a16.36470@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
I cannot argue that horrible things have been done in the name of
religion,
nor that there are some who are very vocal in doing so...I am in a
parish
that generally produces people that volunteer in the community without
asking for limelight--and because of this, are not able to "balance"
those
that are doing evil in the limelight, because no one really knows
about
them...
Such is the 'catch 22' that people of all and no religion have to deal
with.
/me who had to get military medical authorization before was able to
volunteer to search for a lost child for two days in nasty terrain and
weather.
<nodding> I have been in military communities for over half my life, and
know of people who were on non-flying status due to medical problems who
have gone in to get back on status for SAR missions...did you find the
kid?
No. The kid was found the following spring. It turns out he didn't
survive the first night. The story went national.
<slaps self in head> I remember that--it was tragic, and I am sorry that you
could not help them more.
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
20 Oct 2003 08:39:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:25:37 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<0%Ekb.94541$a16.35427@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:b2q5pvg20he9jgqcipjlcli18ohjb3gtc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:56:39 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<rcekb.90900$a16.14706@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:loo2pv4s3268e9kdeei8a5i1tg39oe537u@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:19:43 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<T4Yjb.89519$a16.36470@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
I cannot argue that horrible things have been done in the name of
religion,
nor that there are some who are very vocal in doing so...I am in a
parish
that generally produces people that volunteer in the community without
asking for limelight--and because of this, are not able to "balance"
those
that are doing evil in the limelight, because no one really knows
about
them...
Such is the 'catch 22' that people of all and no religion have to deal
with.
/me who had to get military medical authorization before was able to
volunteer to search for a lost child for two days in nasty terrain and
weather.
<nodding> I have been in military communities for over half my life, and
know of people who were on non-flying status due to medical problems who
have gone in to get back on status for SAR missions...did you find the
kid?
No. The kid was found the following spring. It turns out he didn't
survive the first night. The story went national.
<slaps self in head> I remember that--it was tragic, and I am sorry that you
could not help them more.
Oh we tried...a helluva lot of us (us being people from all walks of
life) tried. The paper mill the kid's dad worked for closed for a week
and everyone searched and drew their std pay checks. At one time there
was 400 people looking.
The second day the terrain was hellish. The base commander even was
searching. He ordered that no one would search past two days. It was
so draining and he didn't want any accidents to happen to his people.
An amplifier to the problem was no one was sure what area to focus on.
IIRC they even utilized an aircraft with heat imaging-at night when the
forest was clear. Nothing.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
16 Oct 2003 12:29:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:05:32 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:1qtpovcstqhqr97ib7bkb1ev6co3ojgloj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:17:24 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
At the risk of coming across as a "blind believer"...I have to honestly
answer "I do not know, nor presume to know the mind of God." I truly
wish I
did at times (and not just times like these).
By coincidence I have just reread something Bertrand Russell wrote
concerning Rousseau:
"For my part, I prefer the ontological argument, the cosmological
argument, and the rest of the old stock-in-trade, to the sentimental
illogicality that has sprung from Rousseau. The old arguments at
least were honest: if valid, they proved their points; if invalid, it
was open to any critic to prove them so. But the new theology of the
heart dispenses with arguments; it cannot be refuted, because it does
not profess to prove its points. At bottom, the only reason offered
for its acceptance is that it allows us to indulge in pleasant dreams.
This is an unworthy reason, and if I had to choose between Thomas
Aquinas and Rousseau, I should unhesitatingly choose the Saint."
I am not all that familiar with Russel or Rousseau (I read the required
selections in high school some 20 years ago <G>), but this is a truly
thought-provoking statement. I can agree with most of this...and, FWIW, if
a little dream-indulgence helps keep one's psyche balanced, is that
necessarily a bad thing?
That would be for you to determine. For my part I cannot see how
avoiding reality helps one's mental health.
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
17 Oct 2003 03:17:48 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:dlasovkari07mjm33mu1tvn1t4lm1mu8ar@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:05:32 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:1qtpovcstqhqr97ib7bkb1ev6co3ojgloj@4ax.com...
"For my part, I prefer the ontological argument, the cosmological
argument, and the rest of the old stock-in-trade, to the sentimental
illogicality that has sprung from Rousseau. The old arguments at
least were honest: if valid, they proved their points; if invalid, it
was open to any critic to prove them so. But the new theology of the
heart dispenses with arguments; it cannot be refuted, because it does
not profess to prove its points. At bottom, the only reason offered
for its acceptance is that it allows us to indulge in pleasant dreams.
This is an unworthy reason, and if I had to choose between Thomas
Aquinas and Rousseau, I should unhesitatingly choose the Saint."
I am not all that familiar with Russel or Rousseau (I read the required
selections in high school some 20 years ago <G>), but this is a truly
thought-provoking statement. I can agree with most of this...and, FWIW,
if
a little dream-indulgence helps keep one's psyche balanced, is that
necessarily a bad thing?
That would be for you to determine. For my part I cannot see how
avoiding reality helps one's mental health.
I understand what you mean...I, for one, do a lot of work with children with
developmental disabilities (my sons have this...ADHD and
ADHD/autism/SID/gifted...though in some cases one could say being a teenager
should be considered such! <G>)...I know quite a bit about the ins and outs
of mental health. I do not claim to know everything, but have years of
experience volunteering/subbing/working in elementary special ed.
If religion helps me keep my sanity while helping others who are in such
difficulties--and it *does*--then yes, it does help keep one's psyche
balanced. As in all cases, YMMV (and probably does <G>)
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
18 Oct 2003 10:57:51 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:17:48 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<13Yjb.89515$a16.64546@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:dlasovkari07mjm33mu1tvn1t4lm1mu8ar@4ax.com...
(snip)
if
a little dream-indulgence helps keep one's psyche balanced, is that
necessarily a bad thing?
That would be for you to determine. For my part I cannot see how
avoiding reality helps one's mental health.
I understand what you mean...I, for one, do a lot of work with children with
developmental disabilities (my sons have this...ADHD and
ADHD/autism/SID/gifted...though in some cases one could say being a teenager
should be considered such! <G>)...I know quite a bit about the ins and outs
of mental health. I do not claim to know everything, but have years of
experience volunteering/subbing/working in elementary special ed.
If religion helps me keep my sanity while helping others who are in such
difficulties--and it *does*--then yes, it does help keep one's psyche
balanced. As in all cases, YMMV (and probably does <G>)
/me tips hat to a lady doing a very difficult and fulfilling job.
/me much prefers tearing into jets and black boxes although that is a
thing of the past.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
18 Oct 2003 11:55:10 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:cko2pvokp7je3rmf0ascmb7lt6ham7m7df@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:17:48 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<13Yjb.89515$a16.64546@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:dlasovkari07mjm33mu1tvn1t4lm1mu8ar@4ax.com...
(snip)
if
a little dream-indulgence helps keep one's psyche balanced, is that
necessarily a bad thing?
That would be for you to determine. For my part I cannot see how
avoiding reality helps one's mental health.
I understand what you mean...I, for one, do a lot of work with children
with
developmental disabilities (my sons have this...ADHD and
ADHD/autism/SID/gifted...though in some cases one could say being a
teenager
should be considered such! <G>)...I know quite a bit about the ins and
outs
of mental health. I do not claim to know everything, but have years of
experience volunteering/subbing/working in elementary special ed.
If religion helps me keep my sanity while helping others who are in such
difficulties--and it *does*--then yes, it does help keep one's psyche
balanced. As in all cases, YMMV (and probably does <G>)
/me tips hat to a lady doing a very difficult and fulfilling job.
<blush> Thanks, but I also see that there are others who have a lot more
difficult times in life...the old saying (if you will forgive me) "...there,
but for the Grace of God go I.." is often my thought when I observe that.
There is also the old saying "I once wept because I had no shoes, until I
saw a man with no feet."
/me much prefers tearing into jets and black boxes although that is a
thing of the past.
Having reletives in the military, and reletives who fly for a living, I
don't think that this is a thing of the past just yet <G>
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
19 Oct 2003 02:38:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:55:10 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<%aekb.90896$a16.22117@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:cko2pvokp7je3rmf0ascmb7lt6ham7m7df@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:17:48 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<13Yjb.89515$a16.64546@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:dlasovkari07mjm33mu1tvn1t4lm1mu8ar@4ax.com...
(snip)
if
a little dream-indulgence helps keep one's psyche balanced, is that
necessarily a bad thing?
That would be for you to determine. For my part I cannot see how
avoiding reality helps one's mental health.
I understand what you mean...I, for one, do a lot of work with children
with
developmental disabilities (my sons have this...ADHD and
ADHD/autism/SID/gifted...though in some cases one could say being a
teenager
should be considered such! <G>)...I know quite a bit about the ins and
outs
of mental health. I do not claim to know everything, but have years of
experience volunteering/subbing/working in elementary special ed.
If religion helps me keep my sanity while helping others who are in such
difficulties--and it *does*--then yes, it does help keep one's psyche
balanced. As in all cases, YMMV (and probably does <G>)
/me tips hat to a lady doing a very difficult and fulfilling job.
<blush> Thanks, but I also see that there are others who have a lot more
difficult times in life...the old saying (if you will forgive me) "...there,
but for the Grace of God go I.." is often my thought when I observe that.
There is also the old saying "I once wept because I had no shoes, until I
saw a man with no feet."
Certainly, however, you're in the position where you can try to lighten
their burden.
/me much prefers tearing into jets and black boxes although that is a
thing of the past.
Having reletives in the military, and reletives who fly for a living, I
don't think that this is a thing of the past just yet <G>
Sadly, for me it is.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
