posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 02:25 AM
Oh we're back on that again are we?
The proof that I exist is that you wish to convert me. If I did not exist then you would be trying to convert something that doesn't exist, and that
would be just plain silly - just like the question! Therefore in this context, you are the reference point of my existance, because I believe that
you exist. You can even take this further and say that the reference point of my existance is that 'MY belief' - yep - that I believe you exist,
therefore, logically I must exist, because you debate with me. QED.
The problem with the written word is that it can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. I am retired, but for twenty years I worked in a profession
that was governed by a written set of rules - several volumes, in fact. During that twenty years, I observed those rules entirely re-written three
times. The job didn't change, so I can only interpret those volumes of rules as a failed attempt to write down how the job was done. The proof of
this is to actually do the job one is required to be taught one-on-one by an experienced exponent of the job. The real problem was that people existed
who would quote the rules while watching a disaster happen before their eyes instead of looking at the basic reason for the job and the basic aim of
the job. Often, parts of the rules had to be re-written to cover a specific situation, only to be re-written again because that solution adversely
affected, or contradicted so many of the other rules! The job was Air Traffic Control, and the basic tenet is 'Stop the aluminium tubes from hitting
one another!' If you do that - you win - you are a success. If you have to break the rules to do it, then the rules ARE wrong! From this kind of
example, perhaps you can see the limitations of the written word - always open to different interpretations or alternatively far most wide sweeping
than the writer ever intended. In fact millions of people worldwide are employed specifically to 'mis-interpret' very carefully written tax laws
for the benefit of their clients (they call them loopholes - but they are merely the limitations of written language). I'll leave you to work out
the limitations of a 'Holy Book' written about 2000 years ago in a different and now extinct language.
Once again you did not address the points directed at you (but then I guess you never will - even to yourself). Which laws do you obey, those of the
Catholic Church, or the laws of America, where they are in conflict?
I know quite a considerable amount concerning Catholicism - my wife is one - and she doesn't behave as you do. (and I'm particularly pleased SHE is
not celibate !). I call you a religious extremist, because your behaviour and attitude fit the definition of a religious extremist - look up the
definition for yourself. Then examine your behaviour. My wife isn't - you are!
We are not bending your words, simply quoting them back to you as we interpret them (obviously an interpretation you don't want to hear or address).
Every time you make a sweeping statement, you must remember that it may not only apply to what YOU want it to apply to (if that makes any sense, when
written). You may well believe that we are talking to one another, but we aren't - we are using the written word with all the inherent limitations
How do you know you love Australians - how many have you met - what do you know of Australia? - Do you even know where it is ? (I ask this because
there was a street survey done in the USA - by an Australian TV station - and about 90% of respondents thought we were somewhere in Europe or on the
Asian continent - with the caviat that I'm wary of such things because all TV stations edit their material to suit the story they wish to tell).
The threat of retribution has been proven NOT to be a deterent to crime or violence, therefore your statement is incorrect. As someone said today
concerning the shootings in Virginia..... after killing the first two people, the shooter had no deterent at all in shooting the rest - he was already
facing life in prison (or had the crime been in another State, the death sentence - and presumably, if he believed in an afterlife, then 'God's'
wrath). The ONLY deterrent to violence is tolerance and understanding.
Once again I'll re-introduce OBL. Since he believes he is doing HIS 'God's' work and he believes that when he dies, he will go to a glorious
afterlife due to his committment to his 'God' - then where is the deterent? (Please note - I am not comparing OBL to you in any way here - just
using him as an example - I could equally use an example from the Spanish Inquisition, but that would involve the Roman Catholic Church - and I
wouldn't want you to take the example personally).
No, I don't see any similarities in the utterances of the four people/characters you mentioned, but I do see similarities in the utterances of OBL
and yourself. Live with it! Saying that OBL is violent and you aren't violent does not address anything I said, because I didn't say you were
violent, and never intended to say such a thing because I don't believe that you are violent. Stop trying to read into something things that just
are not there. 'I see similarities in the utterances of OBL and yourself' - it is a statement of what I see - not a point of debate - unless you
wish to dispute that it is what I see!
The Winged Wombat
PS - I have examined this post very carefully, in case I might have 'twisted any of your words', but I cannot see any instance of it - by all means
advise me of any specific words that you feel I might have 'twisted'
[edit on 17/4/07 by The Winged Wombat]