" ... I don't really have the time or energy to expend on this briscoe style of nonsense ... "
And, it wouldn't be a bad idea too, since you must have found it to be nonsensical from the start. Wouldn't it be nonsensical to participate in nonsense ! Many here do not consider themselves to be the know - alls and have enough empathy to appreciate Twirl's spirit, his posts and his questions. On Jan 17, 5:32 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > I hadn't address the rest of the thread but only responded to the > initial assertion by Twrp, and unfortunately there is another > comprehension problem concerning my posts which consistently have been > perceived as less than cordial. I personally suspect a returning scud > with a new name. > > If you really look at the my initial post you will see that I > addressed the assertion from the aspect of a Haitian's view of God's > love and not from the aspect recently uttered by the moronic Robertson > to whom I was compared to. Totally off base and not even remotely > close to what I was saying. Secondly I find it irrelevant whether or > not God is immanent or not because that easily be applied to a group, > immanence within a entire group. I did not make any argument of evil > in Haiti. I could have easily used another example such as a homeless > person suffering on the streets and living in total squalor. > Whereever this God resides, the idea of being universally loving is > absurd. > > Analogous to that would be the idea that I (the god) sit within my > vehicle (the human) and claim to "love" it while I let it run low on > oil, water and other crucial fluids, crash it into trees and walls and > force it to tackle rocky terrain which is tearing up the chassis and > front end. > > The hurt feelings which are expressed by twrp are of a self inflicted > nature which can easily be seen by a review of my replying posts. > > Truthfully I don't really have the time or energy to expend on this > briscoe style of nonsense so I respectfully bow out of this person's > thread activity. However, I do appreciate your input Mr. Wostenberg, > thank you. > > On Jan 16, 4:15 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Slip, he said "I believe in a God who is immanent in each of us, > > universally loving, > > and an absolute moral authority. I have no knowledge or opinion as to > > whether this God created the universe, or is omnipotent. ". Your > > argument from evil in Haiti does not impinge his belief, for he does > > not believe in God that is universally loving /and/ omnipotent. We > > don't expect semipotent beings to do much about Haiti. They might want > > to (being loving) but be unable to (being semipotent). Isn't your > > complaint is with the One who is universally loving /and/ all- > > powerful? > > > On Jan 16, 12:04 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > MY reply is not thoughtless at all in comparison to your contention > > > that God is universally loving, which seems thoughtless in itself. > > > The Haitian example is one of millions of that exemplify God's lack of > > > universal love. > > > > I love my children with a love that is "real love". Would it be real > > > love if I sat by drinking some lemonade watching them drown in a lake > > > or burn to death in a fire when I could have easily saved them? I > > > don't think so, not in the least. That is NOT love in any way, shape > > > or form. > > > > If subtle mud slinging or crass innuendo is your forte I'll refrain > > > from injecting into your posts. No problem for me. > > > > On Jan 16, 12:19 pm, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Although Slip Disc's response to my OP seems like a thoughtless and > > > > reflex one, I have to make allowance for the context of the tragedy in > > > > Haiti. /If/ I had posted my OP with any intentional reference to that > > > > tragedy - I didn't, it only referred to the smaller tragedy and comedy > > > > of my own life, and I don't see any need to apologise for that - it > > > > would have been the almost the height of bad taste. (Only 'almost'; > > > > for the real thing, you need Pat Robertson.) > > > > > Since he has seen fit to make an issue of it, here is something I > > > > posted much earlier today, to one of the BBC Radio 4 message boards > > > > (the BBC website is wretchedly badly designed, so the URL is non- > > > > specific, and you need to refer manually to message #2 in the thread): > > > > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766774?thread=7223128 > > > > > And for more detail on the wafflings of the hapless cleric in > > > > question, here is something I posted two days ago (message #7 in the > > > > thread): > > > > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766774?thread=7217808 > > > > > Now may I get back to my own life, please?
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
