From sentto-44114-3064-960961804-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Wed Jun 14 05:47:24 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 19515 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2000 05:47:22 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 14 Jun 2000 05:47:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 24127 invoked by uid 40001); 14 Jun 2000 05:50:06 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 24124 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2000 05:50:05 -0000 Received: from hh.egroups.com (208.50.144.88) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 14 Jun 2000 05:50:05 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-3064-960961804-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Jun 2000 05:50:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 26505 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2000 05:50:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Jun 2000 05:50:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2000 05:50:03 -0000 Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA29230 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006140550.BAA29230@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> To: lojban@egroups.com In-Reply-To: Message from Invent Yourself of "Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:17:42 EDT." X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:50:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] lo Jesus Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Invent Yourself writes: >On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> Invent Yourself writes: >> >If a Christian really believes there is only one True God, it behooves >> >them to use "lo" to indicate their absolute belief. It is not a relative, >> questionable point of debate for them. The fact that you don't happen to >> >agree is irrelevant to them. >> >> Preciesly my point. And I'd be just as offended by that assumption in >> english. >> >> >If we restrict lo for points which are never debated then lo can never be >> >used, since a trivial nonexistence argument can be raised for anything >> >(although I will not participate in a discussion fleshing this out). >> >> I'm not saying it _shouldn't_ be used in that case, just that I >> reserve the right to get all bitchy about it. OK, first of all, this is way, way, way off topic. Any followups to e-mail, please. >If you agree that lo (in this sense) which apparently not the sense that it is actually for, oops. >is a logical consequence of being a Christian, then you are reserving >the right to be bitchy to a Christian because of their religion. Incorrect. I reserve the right to be bitchy if some Christian _tells_me_ that they believe this, with the intended implication that everyone who doesn't believe it is deluded and/or going to hell. If they politely keep their beliefs to themselves, it's not a problem. Even if they don't, I almost always manage to stay shut up. Unless it's online. I'm much nicer in person. :) It also depends on _how_ it's done. If we're having a discussion about religion, sure, whatever. If I'm crossing the street and someone accosts me to tell me I'll burn in hell if I don't accept Jesus as my personal saviour, not OK. There's a whole gray area in between. Say, for example, that I say, in an unrelated conversation, that such-and-such a bad thing is happening in my life, and a person responds, "Well, why don't you pray about it? Put it in God's hands.". Further investigation shows that they are Christian, have assumed I am, and are talking about praying to the Christian God. That's going to piss me off. It would piss me off just as much Allah was used, or Buddha, or Krishna. The difference being that I've only ever seen Christians make this type of assumption. Granted, this may have to do with having lived in North America almost all my life, but I never had Shinto evangalists accost me in the streets in Japan. >Do you hate Christians that much? I do not hate anyone _because_ they are Christian, unless my only contact with a person has been as a result of them trying to convert me. I loathe most forms of the religion (for a wide variety of reasons; e-mail if you must know), the primary exception being Universalists, whether they call themselves that or not.. A person is not their religion. >Or do you prefer they would question their beliefs because they are >talking to you? I certainly wouldn't mind. but I've found that a very, very large proportion of adherents of _any_ religion are unconsidered adherents; adhererents by default. I tend to lose them very quickly when arguing about the underlying philosophies and how I see those philosophies extending to the real world. So I usually don't bother. -Robin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. ... stripped of our uniqueness as human beings by Darwin, exposed to our own inadequacies by Freud, ... Power -- "the ability to bring about our desires" -- is all that we have left. --- Michael Korda, _Power!_ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WRITERS WANTED! Themestream allows ALL writers to publish their articles on the Web, reach thousands of interested readers, and get paid in cash for their work. Click below: http://click.egroups.com/1/3840/3/_/17627/_/960961773/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com