<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Sorry. Take any subjective proposition P. It is still the case that either P is true or it is false (provided that false just means "not true"). Logic pertains to ALL domains. In this case, we're just talking about the basic meanings of common words like "not" and "or." They are not subjective!<br>
<br></div>
</div>
<div>In any event, I'm out. You've lost track of the conversation and just complicated matters more by introducing more complicated stuff (you've got theories about the nature of truth and morality which you've added on to your complex views about God's nature). Further it turns out that all you mean by saying "God is perfect" is that "According to Donovan's personal standards, God has no flaws." Not much I can say about that! I wouldn't, for instance, debate with you about whether or not you like coffee since you would be the one to best know that answer!<br>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Donovan Arnold <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-size:10pt;font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif"><div><span>Yes. Garbage in, garbage out. You cannot use subject criteria to get an objective answer. You can only use objective criteria to get an objective logical truth. And you can only get a subjective answer to a statement containing only subjective criteria. All moral claims about anyone are only subjective. </span></div>
<div><span></span> </div><div><span>God is either benevolent or not benevolent based upon a person's determination of the word benevolent. To me He is a benevolent, loving God that is interactive with people. To you, perhaps, he doesn't even exist. Because we have different criteria for evaluating the characteristics of God. </span></div>
<div><span></span> </div><div><span>Logical thinking is an excellent tool, but limited to only leading to the right conclusions if we have the right facts.
Determining the objective existence or non-existence of God is neither provable or improvable using logical thinking or any other method created by humans. The only way to establish if God exists is through direct or indirect observation of Him or His works. If you have not had any experience with God, you could not know He exists. However, you could never know He doesn't exist for sure. </span></div>
<div><span></span> </div><div><span>Donovan J. Arnold</span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div dir="ltr"> <div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);min-height:0px;line-height:0;font-size:0px" readonly></div> <font face="Arial"><div class="im"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell
<<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> <br>
</div><b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:17 PM<div><div class="h5"><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)<br>
</div></div></font> </div><div><div class="h5"> <div><u></u><div><div dir="ltr">No. I don't see how you win if we can't talk about the standards for evaluating God's actions. That is pretty much the second horn of my dilemma. One problem is, How can you make any moral claims about God? You seem to think that our lack of knowledge is a clear winner but how can that be so? All your comments suggest, for instance, that we can know that God is benevolent. But if we can't judge him, morally speaking, then clearly we can't say that God is benevolent.<u></u>
<u></u><u></u></div><div><u></u><u></u><div>On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Donovan Arnold <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<u></u>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div>
<span>Joe,</span></div><div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>Black dogs, and dogs are real. They are objective and definable. "Standards to morally evaluate God" is a made up abstract concept. You cannot locate it, count them, or objectively identify them. It doesn't exist. If it did, it would be completely subjective. So we would have to add another logical truth in front of your statement;</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div><div><span>Standards to morally evaluate God exist or not. If so, your statement is logical, if not, then they are not true. </span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Donovan J. Arnold </span></div>
<div><br></div> <div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div dir="ltr"> <div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px"></div> <font face="Arial"><div> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><u></u>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> <u></u> </div><b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Monday, June 3, 2013 9:36 AM<div>
<div><u></u> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)<u></u> </div></div></font> </div><div><div> <div><u></u><div><div dir="ltr">
<div>A logical truth is a statement that cannot be false. For any sentence P, either P is true OR it is false (not-P). <u></u><u></u>Also, adding the qualification "with different conditions" does nothing. If I say "Either
it is a dog or not" you can't say "There is a third option: it could be a black dog." Black dogs are dogs. Same standards with different conditions are still same standards. Your points are beside the point.<u></u>
<u></u></div>I'm going to have to get back to work now but nice chatting!<br></div><div><u></u><u></u><div>On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Donovan Arnold <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<u></u>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div>
<span>"P or not-P" is the form; logical truth." I agree, and I understand, I'm not arguing this, but it is still a false premise. It's not your logic, it is your premise. You present a choice of "A" or "B", When both A and B have a false premise. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your logic, but validity of truth in the wording of choice A or B. </span></div>
<div><span></span> </div><div><span>Donovan J. Arnold </span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div dir="ltr"> <div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px"></div> <font face="Arial"><div> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><u></u>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> <u></u> </div><b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Monday, June 3, 2013 8:45 AM<div>
<div><u></u> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)<u></u> </div></div></font> </div><div><div> <div><u></u><div><div>
<div>"P or not-P" is the form; logical truth. "Different" is the opposite of "same." The sentence can't be false. No use continuing the conversation if you can't even accept this much.</div>
<div><u></u>On Jun 3, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div> </div><span><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
"Either we should morally evaluate God's -- the God of traditional theism's actions, to be precise -- actions according to the same standards that we evaluate human persons OR we should morally evaluate God according to different standards." </font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font> </div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">This is false dilemma, because it excludes two other options for evaluation. You present only two horns to a four horned argument. If you want it to be two horned, it needs to be inclusive of all possible options. </font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font> </div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Let me rephrase for you; </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font> </div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">"Either we should morally evaluate God's actions and <span><span>inactions</span></span> according to the same standards and conditions of
humans, or we can morally evaluate God according to different standards and conditions as humans".</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font> </div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">When asked correctly, we do not have the theological dilemma you present. </font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font> </div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font> </div><div><span><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt">Donovan J. Arnold</span></span></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div></span><div> </div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> <div dir="ltr"> <div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px">
</div> <font face="Arial"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Monday, June 3, 2013 7:47 AM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)<br> </font> </div> <div><div><div><div>The first
premise is a logical truth; it cannot be false. And you continue to speculate about my assumptions and end up criticizing them even though they are not assumptions I made.</div><div><br></div><div>Here is your style of argument: "You say X. But in saying that you are supposing Y, which is false." You make up things you think I say and criticize those.</div>
<div> On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:14 AM, Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">
<div><span>Joe,</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>The problem with your made up scenario is that it doesn't properly evaluate morality because it creates a false dilemma.
It assumes there is only two options, "actions according to the same standards that we evaluate human persons OR we should morally evaluate God according to different standards."</span></div><div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>You can evaluate with same standards but with different conditions placed on the different subjects as both operate and function with different abilities. The ability of God, an able bodied human, a child, a dog, cat, tree, worm, and rock vary. So the morality remains the same, but their abilities of knowledge and action must be taken into consideration.
</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Your standards for who is moral lack the important components of knowledge and ability of the subject. What someone knows and their ability to act must be considered in evaluating any act of morality. What God knows, and what He can do is different then that of a human. Finally, your test of morality assumes the prevention of a death, injury, or pain is the highest moral priority. </span></div>
<div><span></span> </div><div><span>Take a baby that falls in the water when both God and human is present. What if God knew if He saved the baby, both the human and baby would suffer more in the future, or cause more death and suffering of others in the future by letting the baby drown, or requiring the human to save the baby? The human doesn't know what is best in the far future for humanity. So the human would
be required to act only on what they know and can do, the ending of an innocent life is wrong, so they are excepted, as they can, to save the baby. God, knows more, so His <span><span>inactions</span></span> to save the baby, maybe the higher moral act. We are incapable of knowing because we lack proper information. We can only evaluate based on what we know, which is what the human most likely does.</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div><div><span>Your false scenario also assumes that God can violate higher morals to prevent lower ones. For example, in order to prevent harm, or take action to save a life, which you expect to be moral, He would need to defy freewill of humans. If freewill is the highest moral prerogative it would be immoral to violate that to meet the standards of a moral lower standard. Which is the higher morality, to prevent all women from the freewill of dropping their babies into the water, or to prevent babies from falling
into the water? Taking away freewill makes us useless and our existence pointless, which maybe the highest immoral act of all, the elimination of freedom and freewill. </span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Donovan J. Arnold </span></div>
<div><br></div> <div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> <div dir="ltr"> <div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px">
</div> <font face="Arial"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b> Art Deco
<<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>>; "<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, June 2, 2013 9:23 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)<br> </font> </div>
<div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div>Donovan, I don't think you understand the argument. You assume I am just retelling the problem of evil but that is just part of the story. That's why you think I'm making
assumptions about God's moral obligations. I'm not.
</div> The argument I am giving fits the form of a constructive dilemma. In this argument, you assert a dilemma (a true "or" sentence) and then claim that if the first horn of the dilemma is true, then a certain claim follows, and if the second horn is true, the same claim follows. This argument has one disjunction and two conditionals. It doesn't make any assumptions. It tries to show you that even if you exhaust the arguments, you come to the same conclusion. Here's the argument.
</div> 1/ Either we should morally evaluate God's -- the God of traditional theism's actions, to be precise -- actions according to the same standards that we evaluate human persons OR we should morally evaluate God according to different standards.
</div> 2/ If we morally evaluate God's actions by human standards, traditional theism is problematic (since God seems guilty of negligence at the very least). [This is a point Nick made in the article that sparked this discussion.]
</div> 3/ If we morally evaluate God's actions by other standards, traditional theism is problematic (I talked about this in detail in several of my posts).</div> 4/ Therefore, traditional theism is problematic.
</div><div>Note it is not an argument for atheism; it is an argument against a particular kind of theism.<br></div><div><br></div>Best, Joe</div><div><div>On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Donovan Arnold <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div>
<span>I UNDERSTAND you. Heard this argument before in Ethics and Logic classes, several times. It is a very narrow view of God. It is you that aren't following us. You are so busy explaining your view, you don't listen to the answer. </span></div>
<div><span></span> </div><div><span>Donovan J. Arnold</span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div dir="ltr"> <div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px"></div> <font face="Arial"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Art Deco
<<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, June 2, 2013 4:52 PM<div><div> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
(really?) </div></div></font> </div> <div><u></u><div><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div>@Joe,<u></u><br></div>I think it a reasonable inference that Donovan did not read, or if he did, did not understand the article you referenced.<u></u><u></u></div>
w.<u></u><div><br></div></div></div></div><div>
<u></u><u></u><div><div><div>On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Donovan Arnold <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<u></u></div>
</div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div>
<div><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:8pt"><div><span>Joe,</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Yes, you are making moral claims about God's obligations. And because He doesn't meet your understanding, you falsely conclude He must be immoral if He does exist. </span></div>
<div><span></span> </div><div><span>God's obligations are not the same as my own. I am morally responsible for saving a baby if I can without harm to myself or another. If God was too, I would no longer be. Why? Because I would know God would save the baby, or not even put the baby in danger in the first place. So would not exhaust the effort or loss, nor endure the experience of trying to save a baby. That opportunity, experience and effort to save a life would be lost. This is what helps define us as human, to love and sacrifice for another human. This loss and suffering
for one another is how we come to know God and understand Him. </span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>The loss of the living flesh is not the same to God, because He doesn't lose anybody, He transforms them, He is always with them. </span></div>
<div><span></span> </div><div><span>Donovan J. Arnold</span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:8pt"> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div dir="ltr"> <div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px"></div> <font face="Arial"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> Donovan Arnold
<<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> <br><b><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b> Paul <span><span>Rumelhart</span></span> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>; viz <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, June 2, 2013 7:23 AM<div><div><u></u> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)<u></u>
</div></div></font> </div><div><div> <div><u></u><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div>I didn't make any claims about God's moral obligations. I was trying to carry YOUR logic full circle. <u></u><u></u>Don't you think it is odd that God isn't obligated to (say) save a drowning baby during a hurricane (to use one example)? If you were standing next to a pool and a baby fell in the pool and all you had to do was lean over and pick it up, wouldn't you do that? Wouldn't you be properly blamed for failing to do so? Of course, for God (who is omnipotent) every act
is as easy as leaning over and picking up a baby. Certainly it doesn't deprive the baby of his humanity simply because you saved his life. I'm not sure why God's prevention of (say) particularly heinous evils or suffering would deprive us of being human. <u></u>
<u></u></div><div>But what is worse is ultimately this view seems to leave you with a worthless God, or it ends up causing more mysteries than it attempts to solve. For either is totally inactive in worldly events (for the reason you give: saving everyone all the time would deprive us of our humanity) OR God picks and chooses who he saves and when. Why? How could a benevolent creature do that? Well, we don't know. People say things like "The Lord works in mysterious ways!" I'm not sure why one would go to the trouble of trying to solve one mystery only to produce others.<br>
</div><div><u></u>On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></div><blockquote type="cite">
<div><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:8pt">
<div><span>Joe,</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Let's carry your logic full circle. If God is obligated to prevent humans from dying, suffering, and feeling pain that would make humans incapable of dying, suffering, or feeling pain because God controls everything. If humans were incapable of dying, suffering, or feeling pain, that would change all humans into immortal Gods. In this event, we would no longer be humans, and God would have destroyed the existence of all humans. So, God has to let our bodies die before we return to him. </span></div>
<div><span></span> </div><div><span>Donovan J. Arnold</span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:8pt"> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div dir="ltr"> <div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px"></div> <font face="Arial"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> Paul <span><span>Rumelhart</span></span> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> <br><b><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b> viz <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Saturday, June 1, 2013 10:53 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
(really?)<br> </font> </div> <div><u></u><div><div dir="ltr"><br><div><div>If the creation story you are supposing is true, then NO ONE is a
(true) creator of anything other than God. We are all just characters in God's
"program." Computer programmers are no more the ultimate cause of their
programs than parents are of their children. To the extent that computer
programmers are justified in "killing" their programs by virtue of
"creating" them -- and this supports the idea that God is justified in
killing humans -- the same principle should apply to parents, as well.
Yet it clearly doesn't apply to parents.<u></u><u></u>Thus, either the
principle is false (as I maintain) or it is at least not supported by
your example. In fact, you can't find an example to support the
principle since there is only one true creator (according to your
creation story). Nothing in the set of your cumulative life experiences could provide the basis for such a principle.<u></u><u></u></div>Again, I'm just trying to make a point
similar to the one that Nick made in his original post, or maybe I'm
extending that point a bit. Really our only understanding of morality comes from the human realm, as your attempt to support the principle in question suggests. (I'm not saying morality is a human creation, just that our moral understanding is limited by our experiences.) If we apply those moral principles to God, then the problem of evil suggests that some religious views are problematic. But not all, as Nick notes. People try to get around this by making up crazy moral principles that give God a unique moral status but it is unclear how those principles could be supported. Nick did a good job of showing that some of those principles have absurd consequences. My point is that they aren't and can't be support by appeal to common sense examples, nor anything else as far as I can see.<br>
</div></div><div><u></u><u></u><div>On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul <span><span>Rumelhart</span></span> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<u></u>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
In my analogy, the parent is just another character in the video game. They didn't program it, they just made use of an existing subroutine to generate another character. The programmer(s) that made game is a different story.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>Paul<br></font></span><div><div><span><br></span></div><div><br></div> </div><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"><div> </div><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div> </div><div dir="ltr"><div> <div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px"></div> </div><font face="Arial"><div> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><u></u>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> Paul <span><span>Rumelhart</span></span> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> <u></u><b><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b> Scott Dredge <<a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a>>; viz
<<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>> <u></u> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Friday, May 31, 2013 9:54 PM</div><div><div><u></u> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)<u></u>
</div></div></font> </div><div><div> <div><u></u><div><div><div>The "I created it, I can kill it" rule doesn't work for parents, right?</div><div><u></u>On May 31, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Paul <span><span>Rumelhart</span></span> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<u></u>
<u></u></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">The way I view it, since God created the universe and everything in it,
then if anyone has the right to kill one of the denizens therein, God
does. Especially since, to Him, He's just moving us from one place to another (earth to heaven or hell). It would be like saying that a computer programmer doesn't have the right to kill off the characters in the video game he's writing.<u></u>
<u></u>Paul<u></u><div><span><br></span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> <div dir="ltr">
<div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px"></div> <font face="Arial"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> Scott Dredge <<a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a>> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b> viz <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>> <br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Friday, May 31, 2013 6:16 AM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)<br> </font> </div> <div><u></u>
<div><div><div>You are confusing descriptive facts about the world (what is the case) with norms (what should be the case).</div><div><u></u>On May 30, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Scott Dredge <<a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u>
<u></u></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div dir="ltr">'Might makes right' is irrespective of a belief in God. It's an irrefutable fact of life, the universe, and everything. It holds true for your rhetorical question of 'can [God] not take our bodies away at will' and Joe's scenario about killing your own dog if you so choose. It doesn't really matter one wit if someone deems that someone else 'has no right' to do something. All that some else (or entity) needs is means, motive, opportunity, and - above all else - the power to do it.<u></u>
<u></u><div><div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px"></div>Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 18:50:04 -0700<u></u>From: <a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a><u></u>Subject: Re: RE: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)<u></u>
To: <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>; <a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a><u></u>CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><u></u>
<u></u><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top"><div dir="ltr">Only if you don't believe in God. </div>
<div dir="ltr">Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android</div>
</td></tr></tbody></table> <div>
<div>
<u></u>
<div>
<div style="font-size:0.9em">
<div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px"></div>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span>
</b>
Scott Dredge <<a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a>>; <u></u>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span>
</b>
Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a> <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>>; <u></u>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span>
</b>
viz <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>>; <u></u>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span>
</b>
RE: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping'
(really?) <u></u>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span>
</b>
Fri, May 31, 2013 1:37:55 AM <u></u>
</div>
<u></u>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><div dir="ltr">Might makes right.<u></u><u></u><div><div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px">
</div>Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 00:41:29 -0700<u></u>From: <a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a><u></u>
To: <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><u></u>CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><u></u>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)<u></u>
<u></u><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top"><div dir="ltr">Didn't say kill it Joe. We didn't create dogs we simple capture them and call them our own. We do modify the bodies of dogs. And we do kill our
pets and other animals under conditions we deem proper. </div>
<div dir="ltr">Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android</div>
</td></tr></tbody></table> <div>
<div>
<u></u>
<div>
<div style="font-size:0.9em">
<div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px"></div>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span>
</b>
Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>>; <u></u>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span>
</b>
Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>>; <u></u>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span>
</b>
Nicholas <span><span>Gier</span></span> <<a href="mailto:ngier006@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ngier006@gmail.com</a>>; vision2020 <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>>; <u></u>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span>
</b>
Re: [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?) <u></u>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span>
</b>
Wed, May 29, 2013 4:55:07 PM <u></u>
</div>
<u></u>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><div dir="ltr"><div>Donovan asks: "... <span><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:8pt"><span>since we are also the property of God, can he not take our bodies away at will?"<br>
<br></span></span></span></div>
<span><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:8pt"><span>No. Even if you own a dog, you can't just kill it because you want to do so. Sorry.<br></span></span></span></div><div><u></u><u></u><div>
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Donovan Arnold <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<u></u><blockquote style="padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:8pt"><div></div><span><div>I don't think God punishes us with tornadoes, floods, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Most of these deaths are almost 100% human fault. We know where floods, earthquakes and volcanoes are located, yet choose to still build crappy buildings and live there. Tornado deaths are now usually the fault of global warming, caused by humans, and the collapse of buildings, built by humans in tornado prone areas. God doesn't create the deadly situation, humans do. Any human saved from the <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:8pt">consequences<span> of human action can be considered an act of God. However, let us also consider that since we are also the property of God, can he not take our bodies away at will? To God, nothing dies, it just changes shape and location.
Only in our minds is the death of someone a loss. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:8pt"><span></span></span> </div><div><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:8pt"><span>Donovan J. Arnold</span></span></div>
</span><div></div><div><u></u></div> <div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:8pt"> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> <div dir="ltr"> <div style="padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px">
</div> <font face="Arial"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Nicholas <span><span>Gier</span></span> <<a rel="nofollow">ngier006@gmail.com</a>><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> vision2020 <<a rel="nofollow">vision2020@moscow.com</a>> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Monday, May 27, 2013 10:51 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> [Vision2020] The Good Lord Just Done Gave Us a Whupping' (really?)<br> </font> </div>
<div><u></u><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Good Morning Visionaries:</div><div><u></u></div><div>I dusted off this exercise in the philosophy of religion from the time of Katrina and I'm reissuing it once again.</div><div>
<u></u></div>
<div>One Oklahoma official said that it was wonderful that God saved those who survived. But if God was the cause of the storm, then why didn't he save those who did not make it? I address the issue of Satan below.</div>
<div><u></u></div><div>The problem of evil and the very unsatisfactory answer from the <span><span>Abrahamic</span></span> religions is one of the primary reasons why good, rational people become atheists.</div><div><u></u></div>
<div>
On this Memorial Day I send out my own tribute to those were served, and also those, such as Rosie the Riveter and my UP train master father, who made sure that war machines were built and that those machines and soldiers got to where they were needed.</div>
<div><u></u></div><div>Nick</div><div><u></u></div><div><div style="text-align:center;line-height:19.42px" align="center"><b><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">THE GOOD LORD JUST DONE GAVE US A <span><span>WHUPPIN</span></span>’!</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align:center;line-height:19.42px" align="center"><b><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">NATURAL DISASTERS AS THE WRATH OF GOD?</span></b></div><div style="text-align:center;line-height:19.42px" align="center">
<span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.</span><u></u></div><div style="text-align:center;line-height:19.42px" align="center"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">~Isaiah 45:7 (Anchor Bible)</span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"> </span><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the wicked get away with murder and the innocent die in disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and terrorist attacks?</span><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"> </span><u></u>
</div><div style="line-height:19.42px"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"> After Katrina hit, a man gave this explanation to NPR: “The Good Lord just done gave us a <span><span>whuppin</span></span>’.” </span><span style="text-indent:0.5in;font-family:Georgia,serif">This is the Pat Robertson answer: all of us are being punished for the sins of homosexuals, abortionists, and their liberal supporters.</span><span style="text-indent:0.5in;font-family:Georgia,serif"> </span><span style="text-indent:0.5in;font-family:Georgia,serif">Most of us, however, are repulsed by such an outrageous and poisonous diagnosis.</span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"> In Agatha Christie’s <i>Then There Were None</i>, one of the characters opines that those who had been murdered were “struck down of the wrath of God.” Justice <span><span>Wargrave</span></span> was not convinced: “Providence leaves the work of conviction and chastisement to us mortals.” </span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"> Justice <span><span>Wargrave</span></span> is a good Confucian in holding a doctrine of General Providence. In this view, held also by Presidents Washington and Lincoln, God presides over a world that operates by natural laws and in which humans govern their own affairs. </span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"> On the other hand, the <span><span>Abrahamic</span></span> religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-- believe in Special Providence. This means that God chooses particular prophets or saviors that embody divine authority, and God then intervenes in history as an expression of divine will and judgment.</span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"> There is a difference between moral evils and natural evils. The first is the result of humans choosing to do good or evil. For orthodox Christians the prototypical moral evil was Adam and Eve’s choice to disobey God in the Garden of Eden. </span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Natural or physical evil is defined as that which is not the result of any human will: disease (both physical and mental) and natural disasters. In a theology in which God is all powerful, it must be God who wills these conditions and events to happen.</span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Recently some Christian legislators in Oklahoma tried to change the language of their insurance law, which called natural disasters “acts of God.” For them Satan was the cause of all evil, and they thought it was blasphemy to make God responsible for these horrible events.</span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Orthodox Christians, however, have always rejected the heresy of <span><span>Manicheanism</span></span>, a view that undermines God’s power by holding that there is another cosmic power that competes with God. </span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Following the Book of Job, where it is clear that Satan operates only with the permission and delegated power of God, Christian theologians have consistently declared that even Satan is empowered by God. In the end Job’s brothers and sisters “comforted him for all the evil the Lord brought upon him” (42:11).</span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Martin Luther expressed the point most clearly: “Since God moves and does all, we must take it that he moves and acts even in Satan and the godless; . . . evil things are done with God himself setting them in motion.”</span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">How do Christian theologians justify God doing evil? Here is one rationale: God cannot abide the moral evils committed by humans, so God must show that justice must prev<var></var>ail. </span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Natural disasters are simply dramatic previews of the Last Judgment, when divine justice will finally be done. If God is performing justice, then God is doing <i>good</i>, not evil. We would call a judge who let all criminals off the hook a bad judge, <span>wouldn</span>’t we?</span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Let’s take a closer look at this solution to the problem of evil. There is something important that has been forgotten. </span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">When the former <span>Manichee</span> St. Augustine discussed the Fall of Adam and Eve, he made a very interesting concession: “Our first parents fell into disobedience because they were already secretly corrupted.” </span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Adam and Eve were already corrupted because they had “deficient wills.” But who was responsible for their deficient wills? They could be only if they had created themselves. The only answer is that God created them finite, fragile, and corruptible. </span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">I submit that General Providence is a much more coherent view if people are going to continue their belief in God. The Confucians and Stoics also believed that God is not a Creator. Rather, God is <span>coeternal</span> with a universe that operates according to natural laws and contains rational beings that freely choose their own destinies.</span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Following Justice <span>Wargrave</span>, we are solely responsible for our own “convictions and chastisements.” Louisiana and New Orleans government officials are responsible for not being prepared for the big storm they knew was coming. And God had nothing to do with it, and she certainly does not stand ready with a whip to punish her children.</span></div>
<div style="line-height:19.42px;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Nick <span>Gier</span> taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31 years.</span></div></div></div></div><u></u>=======================================================<u></u>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<u></u> serving the communities of the <span>Palouse</span> since 1994.<u></u> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a><u></u> <span>mailto</span>:<a rel="nofollow">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><u></u>
=======================================================<u></u><u></u></div> </div> </div> </div></div><br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the <span>Palouse</span> since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a><br>
<span>mailto</span>:<a rel="nofollow">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><u></u></div></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<u></u>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a href="http://www.fsr.net/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</div> </div></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div></div> </div>
</div></blockquote></div></div><u></u>=======================================================<u></u> List services made available by First Step Internet,<u></u> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<u></u> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a><u></u>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><u></u>=======================================================<u></u><u></u></div> </div> </div> </div></div>
</blockquote>
</div></div><u></u><u></u></div> </div></div></div> </div> </div></div></blockquote></div><u></u></div></div><u></u>=======================================================<u></u> List services made available by First Step Internet,<u></u> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<u></u> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a><u></u> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><u></u>=======================================================<u></u><u></u></div>
</div> </div> </div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><u></u><u></u></div> </div></div></div> </div> </div></div> =======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.</div></div>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><div><u></u><u></u><u></u>-- <u></u>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<u></u><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><u></u>
<u></u><img><u></u>
</div></div></div><div><u></u>=======================================================<u></u> List services made available by First Step Internet,<u></u> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<u></u> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a><u></u> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><u></u>=======================================================<u></u><u></u></div>
</div> </div> </div> </div></div><br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div></div></div></div> </div> </div> </div></div></blockquote></div></div></div> </div> </div> </div></div></blockquote></div></div><u></u><u></u></div>
</div></div></div> </div> </div></div></blockquote></div><u></u></div></div><u></u><u></u></div> </div></div></div> </div> <var></var></div></div></blockquote></div><u></u></div></div><u></u><u></u></div> </div></div>
</div> </div> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>