"A-Z" yahoo.co.uk>
2004-04-08 00:58:59 UTC
TEMPLE OF REASON
http://groups.yahoo.co.jp/group/temple_of_reason
http://groups.msn.com/TempleofReasonDeists
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito
The AGNOSTIC CONTRADICTIONS of the "Illustrious Rev Peter[/s]":
a MSN moderator of a "Deist user group"
1. RP is typical of many who call themselves Deists Today generally they are
white, American, male, above average intelligence, and of some sort of
modernistic libertarian bent that is often neither anarchist not statist but
individualist as they are mainly most interested and concerned with issues
relating to themselves in search of a freedom perhaps they will never know.
2. The "Rev Peter" an outspoken writer on topics related to Deism appears to
an audience wiser than the widely distributed labels himself currently a
Deist though his arguments are in a pronounced manner agnostic and as such
ill defined and fall short of Deist requirements. The Rev Peter Deluged by
the vague guarantees of modern society and hard pressed by the constraints
of living under the pressures of modern economics espouses a views which can
be described as typical and respresentitive of many (if not most) claiming
to be Deists.
In his regular posts his views have be notably contradictory and
revisionistic as he glosses over his error if admitting them at at all and
he hangs and gathers with a click of similarly minded individual.
IN ORDER FOR ONE TO VISUALIZE THE ISSUES THE FOLLOWING QUOTES WERE PUT IN
PROPER SEQUENTIAL ORDER
Rev Peter: "Deism is a personal belief system; there is no dogma in
Deism." ***
AZ: If Deism is truly a personal belief then how is it you can attempt to
some social meaning to such a belief as if the greater good and the
individual were one and the same?
REV PETER: "Deism is self-evident, this is why someone who never read the
works of a Deist, who is even unaware of the term can come to the conclusion
that they are in effect believing in a Creator, but not in religion."
AZ: So you are saying that within the framework of Deism and Deist
methodology anyone so inclined to such beliefs as they may, and of their own
volition has their own personal (existential) view that has nothing to do
generally with the views of others including individual Deists and Deist
Organizations acting as they like without ever violating the coexisting
views of others professing to be Deists or generally of the population at
large?
AZ: So form what you are saying of the basis of Deism as you define Deism as
an anti-clerical belief that Deism is what ever one feels so inclined to
believe regardless as to wither or not they are really Deists Catholics
Protestants Buddhists Atheists Jews Nazis or Libertarians or what ever?
AZ: Generally you have been noted to have said that you:
"started off as a Catholic, then turned hard-core Christian fundamentalist
(in my eyes, Pat Robertson was a wimp)" then you gravitated towards Deism
Why did you gravitate towards Deism instead of the liberal branches of the
religious organization you were affiliated Hans Kueng, Jesuit Liberation
Theology, or Liberal Baptists? Why the extreme dilettante shifts from the
extreme Western Roman Catholic Embrace of all that is holy, to the fire and
brimstone heavily judgmental fundamentalism of Protestantsm and then to the
rationalized self-serving arguments of what you call "Deism"?
Rev Peter :
"When I studied history in university, I applied my newly developed critical
reading skills and historical methodology to the Bible, and realized it was
bunk. So I was left with the belief in a Creator, but not in any revelation;
finally I found that the word which best described my beliefs was Deism"
AZ: So you profess some critical insight into a personal belief system that
YOU YOURSELF as differing person to person and which can often be very
arbitrary and capricious and capricious as such?
Can you define abstract or abstraction without being authoritatively
specific?
AZ: So generally in search of a resolution of the issues you had as a Roman
Catholic and a Evangelical Fundamentalist you then swung towards Deism.
AZ: You said "Of course the word "Reason" is not very clear in English. I
like the old Greek term "Logos," which had many meanings, but my favorite
was the "divine Reason" or the "divine Mind""
Can you define reason or "logos" in either English or Greek?
I
In the word Logos having in Greek as you say "many meaning" does that mean
it is defined or has "definitions" and as such has not set definition?
Can you say honestly you can to Deism without intellectual, religious,
emotional methodological baggage at first you went deeper into a form of
extremism in search of a resolution of deep personal issues have been
affected by?
And in your saying that
"The perfection of Reason within ourselves can be observed in how Reasonable
we behave. Reason transcends cultures, so reasonable people are more alike
irrespective of culture, than their respective cultures. Deism is about
seeking answers, not preaching to others that we have the answers --
enlightenment is Reason perfected."
You say you have no answers but are seeking them, and that Deism has no
commonality of basis, as culturally is has no foundation, we can examine
empirical and that Deists are actually delusional in some illusionary
psychotic episode where ther can not agree as to what is real or not but are
miraculously persuaded to act appropriately at times in the company of
others in respect or fear of those others' cultures?
Shouldn't you say you were either a born-again Agnostic Deist and if so how
can one reconcile the definition of Agnosticism with Deism?
And Would Deism be better served by clear definition and epistemology?
TEMPLE OF REASON
http://groups.yahoo.co.jp/group/temple_of_reason
http://groups.msn.com/TempleofReasonDeists
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito
http://groups.yahoo.co.jp/group/temple_of_reason
http://groups.msn.com/TempleofReasonDeists
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito
The AGNOSTIC CONTRADICTIONS of the "Illustrious Rev Peter[/s]":
a MSN moderator of a "Deist user group"
1. RP is typical of many who call themselves Deists Today generally they are
white, American, male, above average intelligence, and of some sort of
modernistic libertarian bent that is often neither anarchist not statist but
individualist as they are mainly most interested and concerned with issues
relating to themselves in search of a freedom perhaps they will never know.
2. The "Rev Peter" an outspoken writer on topics related to Deism appears to
an audience wiser than the widely distributed labels himself currently a
Deist though his arguments are in a pronounced manner agnostic and as such
ill defined and fall short of Deist requirements. The Rev Peter Deluged by
the vague guarantees of modern society and hard pressed by the constraints
of living under the pressures of modern economics espouses a views which can
be described as typical and respresentitive of many (if not most) claiming
to be Deists.
In his regular posts his views have be notably contradictory and
revisionistic as he glosses over his error if admitting them at at all and
he hangs and gathers with a click of similarly minded individual.
IN ORDER FOR ONE TO VISUALIZE THE ISSUES THE FOLLOWING QUOTES WERE PUT IN
PROPER SEQUENTIAL ORDER
Rev Peter: "Deism is a personal belief system; there is no dogma in
Deism." ***
AZ: If Deism is truly a personal belief then how is it you can attempt to
some social meaning to such a belief as if the greater good and the
individual were one and the same?
REV PETER: "Deism is self-evident, this is why someone who never read the
works of a Deist, who is even unaware of the term can come to the conclusion
that they are in effect believing in a Creator, but not in religion."
AZ: So you are saying that within the framework of Deism and Deist
methodology anyone so inclined to such beliefs as they may, and of their own
volition has their own personal (existential) view that has nothing to do
generally with the views of others including individual Deists and Deist
Organizations acting as they like without ever violating the coexisting
views of others professing to be Deists or generally of the population at
large?
AZ: So form what you are saying of the basis of Deism as you define Deism as
an anti-clerical belief that Deism is what ever one feels so inclined to
believe regardless as to wither or not they are really Deists Catholics
Protestants Buddhists Atheists Jews Nazis or Libertarians or what ever?
AZ: Generally you have been noted to have said that you:
"started off as a Catholic, then turned hard-core Christian fundamentalist
(in my eyes, Pat Robertson was a wimp)" then you gravitated towards Deism
Why did you gravitate towards Deism instead of the liberal branches of the
religious organization you were affiliated Hans Kueng, Jesuit Liberation
Theology, or Liberal Baptists? Why the extreme dilettante shifts from the
extreme Western Roman Catholic Embrace of all that is holy, to the fire and
brimstone heavily judgmental fundamentalism of Protestantsm and then to the
rationalized self-serving arguments of what you call "Deism"?
Rev Peter :
"When I studied history in university, I applied my newly developed critical
reading skills and historical methodology to the Bible, and realized it was
bunk. So I was left with the belief in a Creator, but not in any revelation;
finally I found that the word which best described my beliefs was Deism"
AZ: So you profess some critical insight into a personal belief system that
YOU YOURSELF as differing person to person and which can often be very
arbitrary and capricious and capricious as such?
Can you define abstract or abstraction without being authoritatively
specific?
AZ: So generally in search of a resolution of the issues you had as a Roman
Catholic and a Evangelical Fundamentalist you then swung towards Deism.
AZ: You said "Of course the word "Reason" is not very clear in English. I
like the old Greek term "Logos," which had many meanings, but my favorite
was the "divine Reason" or the "divine Mind""
Can you define reason or "logos" in either English or Greek?
I
In the word Logos having in Greek as you say "many meaning" does that mean
it is defined or has "definitions" and as such has not set definition?
Can you say honestly you can to Deism without intellectual, religious,
emotional methodological baggage at first you went deeper into a form of
extremism in search of a resolution of deep personal issues have been
affected by?
And in your saying that
"The perfection of Reason within ourselves can be observed in how Reasonable
we behave. Reason transcends cultures, so reasonable people are more alike
irrespective of culture, than their respective cultures. Deism is about
seeking answers, not preaching to others that we have the answers --
enlightenment is Reason perfected."
You say you have no answers but are seeking them, and that Deism has no
commonality of basis, as culturally is has no foundation, we can examine
empirical and that Deists are actually delusional in some illusionary
psychotic episode where ther can not agree as to what is real or not but are
miraculously persuaded to act appropriately at times in the company of
others in respect or fear of those others' cultures?
Shouldn't you say you were either a born-again Agnostic Deist and if so how
can one reconcile the definition of Agnosticism with Deism?
And Would Deism be better served by clear definition and epistemology?
TEMPLE OF REASON
http://groups.yahoo.co.jp/group/temple_of_reason
http://groups.msn.com/TempleofReasonDeists
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito