[Vision2020] a delayed reply

Wed Oct 4 19:12:13 PDT 2006

Gary,

I was addressing an argument of yours, and I think that curiosity about what
"religion" you claim for yourself is highly germane to your argument.  In
what follows I'll remind you of the written record; and this will hopefully
be the conclusion to our interesting discussion.  Thanks much.

I. You Just Wrote:

Greetings, Michael.  Just let me tell you how sorry I am that I didn't drop
everything and respond to your question. Now that you have my full and
undivided attention, just let me say that I can't imagine any discussion,
further or otherwise, that we might have where by my religion, or lack there
of, should matter to you in the least. I am, generally, not in the habit of
indulging other peoples idle curiosity, and this instance will not be an
exception. Should you have queries of a more germane nature, please feel
free to inquire, however don't be disappointed if you don't always get what
you want, whether it be a reply or the reply you were hoping for. (despite
my slack jawed, imbecilic  countenance, I do understand precisely why you
are so adamant about receiving an answer to your ecclesiastical question.)
Please feel free to jump to whatever conclusion best meets your current
needs.

gc

II. However, you had originally written

Mr. Nielsen, I am certain that there is a boat load of difference between
"comment on" and "answer for." I am also sure that you are already well
aware of this.

As to your contention that it's an "oxymoron" that atheists don't worship
any god, I would respectfully beg to differ. It seems to me that, in their
own minds, they worship at the altar of science, rationality, and
secularism. Were this not the case why would you devote so much of your
precious time over the years to correcting what you perceive as  the error
and folly that you imagine *other* religious groups have made?

Lastly, I find your rhetorical style to be fascinating. First you demand
that Mr. Iverson explain the Pope's comments and then you call on me to do
the same. Then you toss it all off with how Pastor Lynn didn't mention the
Pope at all. I am not communicating with Pastor Lynn. I am responding
(incoherently perhaps) to you.

gc

It is impossible for there to be a person with no religion (i.e.without any
kind of relationship to the world) as it is for there to be a person without
a heart. He may not know that he has a religion, just as a person may not
know that he has a heart, but it is no more possible for a person to exist
without a religion than without a heart. (Leo Tolstoy, 1879)

III. And then this was my response, and my question:

"It is impossible for there to be a person with no religion (i.e. without
any kind of relationship to the world) as it is for there to be a person
without a heart. He may not know that he has a religion, just as a person
may not know that he has a heart, but it is no more possible for a person to
exist without a religion than without a heart. (Leo Tolstoy, 1879)"

Gary,

This is a nice quote. However, if I were to qualify Tolstoy's point, I would
say that there are a lot of people out there who hardly qualify as having "a
heart," if we take the usage of this phrase in its more normal meaning in
contexts like this. There are some who are just vain cynics, who have little
sympathy for others and little taste for transcendence.  Some find
discussions about sociology, theology, and politics to be mere
entertainment, not taking the discourse seriously, nor caring at all for
whom they dialog with.  So I would want to group folks into four groups:
theist with heart, theist without heart, non-theist with heart, non-theist
without heart.  However, given your interpretation of this nice passage from
Tolstoy, if everyman is religious, what kind of religion are you?

Thank you

Michael Metzler 

www.poohsthink.com <http://www.poohsthink.com/>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061004/1745400c/attachment.htm 