From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Jun 13 22:17:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3242 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2000 05:17:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Jun 2000 05:17:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (207.252.3.72) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2000 05:17:44 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27205 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:17:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:17:42 -0400 (EDT) To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: lo Jesus In-Reply-To: <200006132155.RAA19236@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > Invent Yourself writes: > >On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > > >> I think I maybe just misunderstand lo. To me, 'lo cevni' sounds like > >> the English phrase 'the One True God(s)', which has a _huge_ mess of > >> underlying assumptions, many of which ignore the beliefs of 2/3s or so > >> of the planet, at least, depending on which god you're reffering to. > >> > >> Any set of unexamined assumptions that denigrate that many people > >> offends me (a lot of the assumptions westerners make about fat people > >> and health issues related to that, for example), but the fact that it's > >> about religion may make it more touchy. Or maybe it's just because > >> no-one ever stopped me in the street to scream "All fat people are going > >> to die of heart attacks!", whereas having strangers yell at me that > >> "Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the light!"" has happened so > >> often as to be almost commonplace. > > > > > >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. If you agree that lo (in this sense) is a logical consequence of being a Christian, then you are reserving the right to be bitchy to a Christian because of their religion. Do you hate Christians that much? Or do you prefer they would question their beliefs because they are talking to you? ----- In the Linux world, all of the major distributions have turned into companies. How much revenue would Red Hat generate if their product was flawless? How much support would they sell?