[Vision2020] Religious Diversity Education
Donovan Arnold
donovanarnold@hotmail.com
Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:16:39 -0700
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Luke,</P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P>You are once again backing silly logic with more silly logic.<BR><BR>You wrote: "Wait a minute; you're saying that everyone is wrong, but you are right in saying that everyone is wrong. But if you're right that everyone is wrong, then you are wrong too, so everyone is not wrong."</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Here is another one "If 50% of all car accidents involve alcohol and 50% don't, what is the difference between being drunk and sober when driving?"</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>First, You are basing your argument on a false premise. I did not say I was wrong in matters of interpreting the generalized behavior of humans. I said I and all others were wrong in our full understanding of God. Second, it is entirely possible for both people in an argument to be wrong. If one person is arguing that Pluto is the closest planet to Earth and another that Jupiter is the closest planet to the Earth, it is possible that one can disprove the other's claims and still be wrong. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Luke wrote: "I am fully willing to admit that I, being human, am wrong at times. However,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>God's Word is not; so if I believe what it clearly says, then I am not wrong."
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Here again Luke, if you are human, and the language you read is written by humans, it is unlikely to "clearly" understand any written word and the intention of the author. This is not saying God is flawed, this is saying the "Human language" and the "reader" are flawed.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>If I ask in writing, "Would you rather have a Hippo attack you or a Lion ?" The answer to this question depends on your understanding of the question. If you interpret it to mean I am giving you the option of being attacked by a Hippo or attacked by a Lion, your answer might be that you would rather be attacked by a Hippo. On the other hand, if you interpret it to mean you would rather have a Hippo attack you as the subject of attack, or the Lion as the subject of attack, you would most likely choose to have the Lion attacked then you being attacked. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>You wrote: "You now admit that we are to follow God's rules. But what are God's rules, Mr. Arnold? What basis do you have for judging morality, for judging truth? You do a lot of both those things, so what is your foundation?"</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I never claimed their were not rules.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Two Rules:</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>1) Love God above all other things and 2) Love you neighbor as yourself</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>The foundation is understanding and love. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I don't judge the morality of someone's actions , that is God's place. I only judge actions to weigh if I think God would want me to commit those same actions.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>you argue:</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> "People may know lots of falsities, but massive amounts of knowledge don't verify anything. Simply knowing thousands of folk legends about unicorns doesn't make it any more likely that there are or were unicorns in real life. To further illustrate the point, if someone wrote down twelve volumes of mathematical numbers of the following: </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>1 + 0 = 2
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>1 + 1 = 3
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>1 + 2 = 4
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>etc...
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Even if you memorized all twelve volumes of false mathematics, they are
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>still false, and it doesn't get you anywhere."</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>First off, a little history. The Unicorn is based on the visual human interpretation of a desert Gazette facing side ways. If you ever were to see one, the two horns are nearly exactly parallel. So when they stand sideways it appears that they have only one horn in the middle of their head. For an inexperienced person who views the creature getting a drink of water and then dashing off at 50 miles an hour, this can seem pretty mystical. Almost all legends and myths are based on such instances, from seals being seen for the first time and being mistaken for mermaids, to dragons of Africa that are indeed Komodo Dragons. It is not if these things ever existed, it is the human eye and understanding of what someone is seeing that is the mistake. Illustrating my point that "humans" often misinterpret what they see, hear, and read.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Second, if there was a twelve volume collection of math equations giving "false" answers that would still be knowledge. Using deductive reasoning, having all the incorrect answers leads you to the correct one. Of course this is assuming you are able to interpret that information correctly by interpreting that all of the answers are incorrect. If you were taking a multiple choice quiz, would it not be great if knew the three wrong answers? Or would you insist that only the correct answer was useful?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Donovan J Arnold </P></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Help STOP SPAM with <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMEENUS/2731??PS=">the new MSN 8 </a> and get 2 months FREE*</html>