Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (66029)	12/1/2004 6:55:58 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

No jumping CB, my conclusions were based on what you wrote. Logic led to the conclusions. Logic is the verity [as jfred says - though his conclusion that logic = some undefined God, which often enough is used to provide television sets, disease cures and defeats for enemies, is wrong and was smoted]. Start at first principles and see where you go. So, what are your first principles? On what assumptions do you build your edifice of belief? From what you wrote, your first principle is that "What Jesus wrote is the dinkum oil", but you ignore the fact that there is a chain of intepretation and rewriting going back to the beginning. But you accept that that bloke, JC, was not pulling their leg about being the real deal. Why do you accept that he was the real deal [even though he didn't write stuff himself]? What is the basis of that belief? It can only be what those blokes way back then told you, [via a long chain of Chinese-whispering interpreters who might or might not have got it right]. I know reasoning with the religious never gets anywhere because they can't go to first principles. They always, but always, slide sideways and say "I don't care! I just believe it and that's all there is to it." Mqurice