Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #28245 > unrolled thread

Re: Monotheism - One God

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Monotheism - One God David Moorman <email@domain.com> - 2015-03-19 23:33 -0500
    Re: Monotheism - One God Joanna Shuttleworth <js@example.com> - 2015-03-20 08:10 +0000
      Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-20 08:35 -0700
        Re: Monotheism - One God David Moorman <email@domain.com> - 2015-03-20 22:34 -0500
      Re: Monotheism - One God "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-20 15:47 -0400
        Re: Monotheism - One God Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-20 18:56 -0700
          Re: Monotheism - One God "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-21 17:55 -0400
      Re: Monotheism - One God David Moorman <email@domain.com> - 2015-03-20 22:33 -0500
        Re: Monotheism - One God Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-20 21:27 -0700
          Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-20 23:17 -0700
        Re: Monotheism - One God dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-21 16:33 +1100
          Re: Monotheism - One God peter@pfjames.co.uk (Peter James) - 2015-03-22 07:42 +0000
            Re: Monotheism - One God dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-23 06:59 +1100
              Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-22 13:58 -0700
                Re: Monotheism - One God Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 17:25 -0400
                  Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-22 14:38 -0700
                  Re: Monotheism - One God Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-22 17:34 -0700
                Re: Monotheism - One God Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-03-22 22:23 +0000
                Re: Monotheism - One God dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-23 21:43 +1100
                  Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-23 08:25 -0700
                    Re: Monotheism - One God dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-24 07:56 +1100
                      Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-23 15:15 -0700
                        Re: Monotheism - One God dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-24 10:47 +1100
                          Re: Monotheism - One God Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 20:10 -0400
                            Re: Monotheism - One God dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-24 11:43 +1100
                            Re: Monotheism - One God "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-24 19:00 -0400
                              Re: Monotheism - One God Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-24 17:29 -0700
                    Re: Monotheism - One God "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-23 19:44 -0400
        Re: Monotheism - One God Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-21 09:54 +0000
          Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-21 09:05 -0700
            Re: Monotheism - One God Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-21 09:13 -0700
              Re: Monotheism - One God Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-21 13:54 -0400
                Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-21 11:32 -0700
            Re: Monotheism - One God Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-21 16:38 -0700
              Re: Monotheism - One God jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-22 20:24 +1300
              Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-22 09:30 -0700
                Re: Monotheism - One God Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-22 17:35 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#28339

In article <2015032308255251338-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2015-03-23 10:43:07 +0000, dorayme said:
> 
... 
> > What religious person would happily allow that their belief systems
> > contains a logical contradiction?
> 
> What religious person considers logic a consideration of faith, happily 
> or otherwise?
> 

Pretty well all educated serious religious people. I think you might 
have a different idea about what is meant by logic here (most people 
do). It is not the very same as scientific practice or scientific 
theory, it is merely about consistency and validity, empty of 
substantial truth. For example, it is illogical to argue that if p is 
true then so is q and then to explain, or already have explained that 
q is not-p.


> > People who have faith presumably have faith in that something is the 
> > case, I cannot imagine a serious religious person easily admitting this 
> > proposition is either self contradictory or that it contradicts 
> > something else they agree is true. So, while you might not have heard 
> > of this as some theory, it is not hard to appreciate it being true. To 
> > that extent, it is as much a structural demand as any belief.
> 
> I didn't get a bit of that.  

None of it at all? Have you ever seen an educated, serious or sensible 
commonsensical, religious person say something along the lines of that 
he knows the earth is round but that his god says it is flat and he 
believes both things? Religious people are not all stupid, illogical, 
crazy in such blatant ways and few would admit to simple errors of 
logic. 

> I don't think faith pivots on logic nor vice versa.

Perhaps because you have too grand a view of what logic is. It is 
always a background thing that no rational person will easily admit to 
not having. It is not some complex jewelled fulchrum on which 
particular positions turn on, it is neither like the pasta nor the 
sauce in a great spag bowl, it is simply a requirement of being 
rational, of being able to communicate. 

> I have heard doctors and scientists who are Christians 
> specifically say that they are unrelated. 

But that is probably because they are confusing logic itself with 
other things like, say, specific or general science.

> And the usual escape hatch 
> is that we don't know the mechanics of what we don't know, either 
> within a framework of logic or outside it.
> 
...
 
> If God is bigger than man's capacity for understanding, what use is 
> logic to understanding?  If logic is critical, then God has failed, 
> religions have failed.

Elementary logic is not a tool, critical or otherwise, thinkers of all 
fields do not use it as *a technique* in their investigations, it is a 
background assumption, it is the very condition for thinking. (I say 
elementary because there is a view that maths is logic, and I don't 
want to say that maths is not a useful tool but this is quite a 
further topic and, naturally, I would hate to get off-topic in this 
usenet group, I know how strict you all are).

About this oft repeated idea about something beyond the understanding 
of men, it is not any real refuge. If it is beyond a mind's capacity 
to fathom something, then it is beyond its capacity to argue the case 
for it.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28340

On 2015-03-23 20:56:41 +0000, dorayme said:

> In article <2015032308255251338-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-03-23 10:43:07 +0000, dorayme said:
>> 
> ...
>>> What religious person would happily allow that their belief systems
>>> contains a logical contradiction?
>> 
>> What religious person considers logic a consideration of faith, happily
>> or otherwise?
> 
> Pretty well all educated serious religious people. I think you might
> have a different idea about what is meant by logic here (most people
> do). It is not the very same as scientific practice or scientific
> theory, it is merely about consistency and validity, empty of
> substantial truth. For example, it is illogical to argue that if p is
> true then so is q and then to explain, or already have explained that
> q is not-p.

I'm talking about (as was attempted upstream) the idea of holding the 
existance of God, and the miracles of the bible up to logical scrutiny. 
 Pointless.  Faith is to be built upon, not scrutinized for continuing 
validity.  No, I don't believe that Christians, by definition, use no 
logic in measuring their lives against religious doctrine, nor flights 
of philosophical "logic" that fill thousands of related books.

I had a conversation with a Jewish person where I said pork was 
rejected because during ancient times it was had more potential danger. 
 "Irrelevant", she was quick to point out.  Her assertion: The demands 
of the religious are followed not because they meet some kind of 
case-by-case passage of logic or reasoning by each adherent.  You 
adhere because that's part of the tradition, and such traditions ARE 
the religion.

>>> People who have faith presumably have faith in that something is the
>>> case, I cannot imagine a serious religious person easily admitting this
>>> proposition is either self contradictory or that it contradicts
>>> something else they agree is true. So, while you might not have heard
>>> of this as some theory, it is not hard to appreciate it being true. To
>>> that extent, it is as much a structural demand as any belief.
>> 
>> I didn't get a bit of that.
> 
> None of it at all? Have you ever seen an educated, serious or sensible
> commonsensical, religious person say something along the lines of that
> he knows the earth is round but that his god says it is flat and he
> believes both things?

No, but in all candor I don't really have a lot of interaction any more 
with religious people.  When I did, though, I never heard them say they 
believed both the impossible and their own demonstrable perceptions 
about as a flat earth, earth as the middle of the solar system, or 
anything quite so radical.  "Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying 
(heretical) eyes?"  I have heard the opposite though: They said they 
didn't need to believe the veracity of Daniel in the lion's den, or 
Moses parting the Red Sea to believe in God, Jesus, the resurrection 
and all the "important" parts of Christianity. Similarly they didn't 
need to *question* it as fundamental to their faith.  On the other hand 
questioning the existance of God, the relationship to Jesus and where 
the resurrection occured--that's a little more dicey on the faith v. 
logic meter.

> Religious people are not all stupid, illogical, crazy in such blatant 
> ways and few would admit to simple errors of logic.

Nor do I think they are.  But you threw illogical in there like it was 
an important way of calling the stupid or crazy.  Logic isn't part of 
defining them.  Faith is part of defining them.

>> I don't think faith pivots on logic nor vice versa.
> 
> Perhaps because you have too grand a view of what logic is. It is
> always a background thing that no rational person will easily admit to
> not having. It is not some complex jewelled fulchrum on which
> particular positions turn on, it is neither like the pasta nor the
> sauce in a great spag bowl, it is simply a requirement of being
> rational, of being able to communicate.

"Complex jewelled fulchrum", huh?  I don't think you need to put the 
pig in so glorious a ballgown:  Look up faith in a dictionary and 
consider if logic or reasoning is fundamental to its definition.

>> I have heard doctors and scientists who are Christians
>> specifically say that they are unrelated.
> 
> But that is probably because they are confusing logic itself with
> other things like, say, specific or general science.

Yeah, perhaps everybody everywhere is confused.

> About this oft repeated idea about something beyond the understanding
> of men, it is not any real refuge.

No, not a refuge a metaphor.

Well, this was fun and done.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28342

In article <2015032315154154322-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

...

> I'm talking about (as was attempted upstream) the idea of holding the 
> existance of God, and the miracles of the bible up to logical scrutiny. 
>  Pointless. ...

When people say they hold things up for logical scrutiny they usually 
mean looking at a theory and seeing if it is plausible. But that is a 
different thing to strictly looking for its contradictions or mere 
strict invalidity of argument.

...

> 
> > Religious people are not all stupid, illogical, crazy in such blatant 
> > ways and few would admit to simple errors of logic.
> 
> Nor do I think they are.  But you threw illogical in there like it was 
> an important way of calling the stupid or crazy.  

It is an important test of someone being these things, it being so 
blatantly irrational. Most sane people and especially educated self 
conscious people and especially scientific people who happen to be 
religious would be concerned about at least being logical. You are 
using the concept loosely.

> Logic isn't part of 
> defining them.  Faith is part of defining them.
>

No one is disputing you on this. Logic is not part of defining anyone 
at all in any field except perhaps logic teachers. 
 
> >> I don't think faith pivots on logic nor vice versa.
> >
 
> > Perhaps because you have too grand a view of what logic is. It is
> > always a background thing that no rational person will easily admit to
> > not having....

> ... Look up faith in a dictionary and 
> consider if logic or reasoning is fundamental to its definition.
> 

Once again, it has nothing to do with any definition of faith, no one 
is claiming that. But people who have faith are not as happy as you 
are to think they can happily defy simple logic.

...

> 
> > About this oft repeated idea about something beyond the understanding
> > of men, it is not any real refuge.
> 
> No, not a refuge a metaphor.

No, this is not right. It is *also* a refuge that is sought by those 
who want to justify themselves in various respects when their views 
and arguments are questioned. 

> 
> Well, this was fun and done.

I can understand you saying this. Nice talking to you gtr. Have a nice 
day, missing you already and ... anyway, I will be coming to USA soon 
and I will pick up more of these expressions soon... btw, I've heard 
USA is a real god fearing country, I will be very careful!

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28344

In article <do_ray_me-DE153D.10470824032015@aioe.org>,
 dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:

> I can understand you saying this. Nice talking to you gtr. Have a nice 
> day, missing you already and ... anyway, I will be coming to USA soon 
> and I will pick up more of these expressions soon... btw, I've heard 
> USA is a real god fearing country, I will be very careful!

Watch out for that Cruz arsehole.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28345

In article <5510ab93$0$42940$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <do_ray_me-DE153D.10470824032015@aioe.org>,
>  dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:
> 
> > I can understand you saying this. Nice talking to you gtr. Have a nice 
> > day, missing you already and ... anyway, I will be coming to USA soon 
> > and I will pick up more of these expressions soon... btw, I've heard 
> > USA is a real god fearing country, I will be very careful!
> 
> Watch out for that Cruz arsehole.

All I want to do is check to see if Elvis is around, where exactly 
Garry Cooper had that showdown at High Noon, where in the New Mexico 
desert, Walt hid his money, if Hank was really deadums - I liked Hank, 
he had MF (moral fibre). And I want to see where Peggy Sawyer danced 
in 42nd Street. And like that...  politics and religion, nope, ... 

I'm practising various American drawls in preparation. My partner 
tells me I should not under any circumstances try to be when in 
America because its folks' sense of humour is very different to mine. 
I am inclined not to believe her, how come I can just split up merely 
seeing Bob Hope's face on stage, get asthma from watching Planes, 
Trains and Automobiles, delight in Steve Martin's putdown of that big 
oaf in the beer barn? I'll play it by ear if that's ok with you Oatsie.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28357

In article <5510ab93$0$42940$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> Watch out for that Cruz arsehole.

Yeah, this country really needs another Texas wingnut in the White House.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28358

In article <dfmanno-56D6AE.19005324032015@news.albasani.net>, D.F.
Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, this country really needs another Texas wingnut in the White House.

 "Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of
the United States, please pay attention."  -- Molly Ivins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28341

In article <2015032308255251338-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2015-03-23 10:43:07 +0000, dorayme said:
> 
> >> The idea that logic must be a structural demand of a religious *faith*,
> >> has never been a theory I've heard stated with much enthusiasm.
> > 
> > What religious person would happily allow that their belief systems
> > contains a logical contradiction?
> 
> What religious person considers logic a consideration of faith, happily 
> or otherwise?

Presuppositionalists.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28267

On 2015-03-21, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-20 08:10:06 +0000, Joanna Shuttleworth said:
>
>> On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
>>> 
>>>> Monotheism - One God
>>> 
>>> Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their
>>> adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith,
>>> following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.
>>> 
>> 
>> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
>> religions is an error.
>
> I know, I know, but we must treat Christians with respect, goofy as 
> they can be.
>
> However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.  

Since they do not exist, they aren't anything, deity or otherwise.


-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 7th day of Discord in the YOLD 3181
I don't have an attitude problem.  If you have a problem with my attitude,
                    that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28272

On 2015-03-21 09:54:19 +0000, Huge said:

> On 2015-03-21, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-03-20 08:10:06 +0000, Joanna Shuttleworth said:
>> 
>>> On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
>>>> 
>>>>> Monotheism - One God
>>>> 
>>>> Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their
>>>> adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith,
>>>> following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
>>> religions is an error.
>> 
>> I know, I know, but we must treat Christians with respect, goofy as
>> they can be.
>> 
>> However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.
> 
> Since they do not exist, they aren't anything, deity or otherwise.

Next you'll be saying that Daffy Duck isn't a duck!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28273

On 2015-03-21 16:05:47 +0000, gtr said:

> On 2015-03-21 09:54:19 +0000, Huge said:
>> On 2015-03-21, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-20 08:10:06 +0000, Joanna Shuttleworth said:
>>>> On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Monotheism - One God
>>>>> 
>>>>> Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their
>>>>> adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith,
>>>>> following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.
>>>> 
>>>> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
>>>> religions is an error.
>>> 
>>> I know, I know, but we must treat Christians with respect, goofy as
>>> they can be.
>>> 
>>> However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.
>> 
>> Since they do not exist, they aren't anything, deity or otherwise.
> 
> Next you'll be saying that Daffy Duck isn't a duck!

Thathss dithspicable!!

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28274

In article <2015032109131114085-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMme.com>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2015-03-21 16:05:47 +0000, gtr said:
> 
> > On 2015-03-21 09:54:19 +0000, Huge said:
> >> On 2015-03-21, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2015-03-20 08:10:06 +0000, Joanna Shuttleworth said:
> >>>> On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Monotheism - One God
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their
> >>>>> adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith,
> >>>>> following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
> >>>> religions is an error.
> >>> 
> >>> I know, I know, but we must treat Christians with respect, goofy as
> >>> they can be.
> >>> 
> >>> However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.
> >> 
> >> Since they do not exist, they aren't anything, deity or otherwise.
> > 
> > Next you'll be saying that Daffy Duck isn't a duck!
> 
> Thathss dithspicable!!

I'll put my trutht in Daffy before Allah or Yahwoo. Pork isn't a Pig? 
Bugs isn't a Bunny? What about Rudolph?
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28276

On 2015-03-21 17:54:01 +0000, Warren Oates said:

> In article <2015032109131114085-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMme.com>,
>  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-03-21 16:05:47 +0000, gtr said:
>> 
>>> On 2015-03-21 09:54:19 +0000, Huge said:
>>>> On 2015-03-21, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-03-20 08:10:06 +0000, Joanna Shuttleworth said:
>>>>>> On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Monotheism - One God
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their
>>>>>>> adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith,
>>>>>>> following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
>>>>>> religions is an error.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I know, I know, but we must treat Christians with respect, goofy as
>>>>> they can be.
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.
>>>> 
>>>> Since they do not exist, they aren't anything, deity or otherwise.
>>> 
>>> Next you'll be saying that Daffy Duck isn't a duck!
>> 
>> Thathss dithspicable!!
> 
> I'll put my trutht in Daffy before Allah or Yahwoo. Pork isn't a Pig? 
> Bugs isn't a Bunny? What about Rudolph?

There's many things that Rudolph isn't.  But if one of you fuckers 
tries to spread doubts about the Easter Bunny,
you'll see me get MAD!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28283

In article <2015032109054777801-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> >> However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.
> > 
> > Since they do not exist, they aren't anything, deity or otherwise.
> 
> Next you'll be saying that Daffy Duck isn't a duck!

He is a drake.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28285

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <2015032109054777801-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
> > >> However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.
> > > 
> > > Since they do not exist, they aren't anything, deity or otherwise.
> > 
> > Next you'll be saying that Daffy Duck isn't a duck!
> 
> He is a drake.

Ha :-D
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28293

On 2015-03-21 23:38:58 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

> In article <2015032109054777801-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>>>> However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.
>>> 
>>> Since they do not exist, they aren't anything, deity or otherwise.
>> 
>> Next you'll be saying that Daffy Duck isn't a duck!
> 
> He is a drake.

You gotta love the drake!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28322

In article <2015032209305593001-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2015-03-21 23:38:58 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:
> 
> > In article <2015032109054777801-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > 
> >>>> However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.
> >>> 
> >>> Since they do not exist, they aren't anything, deity or otherwise.
> >> 
> >> Next you'll be saying that Daffy Duck isn't a duck!
> > 
> > He is a drake.
> 
> You gotta love the drake!
> 
I love Drake's Yankee Doodles; too bad they're not available here.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web