This isn't baseball

[James_S_Saint]

Setting aside the problem of the apparent implication that “feminine” is somehow “illogical”, what is it that you find illogical here? You take time for armchair psychoanalysis, but not the time to identify what you find problematic in terms of logic. The discussion will be more interesting and more productive with more of the latter, and less of the former, don’t you think?

You can debate the differences between the male and female all you like. It will not change the 10,000 years of evidence, not to mention the more recent scientific evidence. Being PC doesn’t alter Truth, but it is very feminine to try to claim the preferred Truth regardless.

And I pointed out the “illogic”. You believe what you want to believe. That is the feminine way. And that’s fine, but when you say that it is “rational”, then I have to proclaim, “no. It isn’t rational. It is merely preferred by you.”

OF course, then you would proclaim, “But I want it to be rational. What I want is what I want. I don’t know why I want it and don’t care why. It is what I want. I want. I want. I want.” Thus the argument goes on.

But then using your reasoning, “I want logic to dictate what is or isn’t logical. I want. I want. I want.” Thus the argument goes on forever.

Without a male or masculinized female, large groups of feminine minds do not get along very well. That has been tried over and over under scientific watch. It is well known, but not often advertised. It isn’t “PC”.

I go with being male - “What is is what is, even if I don’t like it.”

 

[James_S_Saint]

This computer has WindowsXP, so I clicked where you directed me. Sure enough, “Check my spelling as I type” was enabled. It underlines with red, when I misspell a word, but it doesn’t provide a list of other spellings, from which to choose the correct one.
Whine, whine, complain, moan and groan.

Did you “right click” on the word? It should open a small menu of options.

 

[donsnow]

Ok, Hi, nice to “meet” you.

OK, that’s definitely a difference between Unicorns and God, at least if we aren’t wondering about Immortable Unicorns (we aren’t, right?).

What do you see as the relevancy of that distinction, though. I agree it’s a difference. I don’t see (yet) where that makes any impact on the discussion, so far.

Let’s try to keep it very simple and basic, to start with then. We have this proposition:

God exists.

Without getting bogged down with debate about the ‘attributes of God’ yet, can we agree that this proposition is a statement about the real world? That is, the proposition is one that is subject to evidence and observation as the supporting justification for embracing such a belief?

At this point, I think we can avoid bickering about various flavors of theism and atheism and focus on just whether “God Exists” is a statement that is statement that is confirmed (or not) by evidence and observation of the world around us, as opposed to being confirmed by tautologies and definitions (e.g. I have an intuition that God logically must exist, ergo he exists!, etc.).

I think there’s something to that. The farther back we go, as man operates with less and less real knowledge, that means that there is far less chance of collision and contradiction between faith and reason. When reason doesn’t have much to say, there aren’t going to be many disputed faith claims. 2,000 years ago we had no clue about the physics and cosmological discoveries we have available to us today that indicate a billions-of-years-old earth, so ‘reason’ really had no objection to young earth claims in particular, beyond their superstitious basis. For all reason knew, the earth could have been young.

It’s only as reason starts to pile up knowledge upon knowledge, and acquire discovery upon discovery, that it gets uppity in thinking that Faith is, on many issues, a self-satisfied fool. Reason had no way to reject a “young earth” claim 2,000 years ago. Reason has a wealth of reasons to dismiss a “young earth” claim as utterly discredited, today. Reason and Faith on the “young earth” issue was possible when Reason was Ignorance. Today, with Reason slight more clued in than it was 2,000 years ago, the comity between Reason and Faith-in-young-earth is something more like enmity.

Both those assessments (unnatural and self-defeating) seem to beg the question as to the terms they use. Nothing seems more nature to me as a human than inquiry, the application of reason, and the striving toward knowledge, slowly growing out of barbaric superstitions and toward models that rely on a robust and accountable framework of reason and empiricism rather than religious credulity.

Would you say ignorance is the ‘natural’ we should cling to?

I understand. But reason is laying the axe to ideas much farther down the tree, at the roots. That is, reason cringes at statements like " we each have an immortal spark of something in our make-up" as a statement of knowledge. It’s an idea reason can take on provisionally and examine, but it doesn’t hold up, and looks like so much superstition under a critical, objective method of review.

I understand that “self-defeating” for you obtains from these beliefs, these presuppositions you are offering, and that you harbor. But I suggest reason militates against those starting points themselves.

-TS

Hi, TS -

Nice to meet you, too.

I was keeping it nice and simple, then you brought along your proposition: God exists.
Well, yes, He’s proven His existence, to me. And, to others. However, I’m not going to submit my experiences with God, to your disbelief. Why would I do that? That would endanger your soul, and put a blot on mine.

Now, you’ve already, to your satisfaction, shredded with your analysis the statement: “God exists”.
However, you have failed to shred to my experience, that He exists.
You see?

In other words, I made my opening statement, and left it there. You’ve made your opening statement, and are itching for a fight. Well, I’m not going to fight.
We’re disagreed and it’s OK to be disagreed. You may not understand, and I may think all your explanations about not understanding are but an elaborate, beautiful and elegant smokescreen; but, my experience prompts me to say, “Hey, if you haven’t tried it, don’t knock it. Come on, agree to disagree. I don’t want to fight.”:tiphat:

 

[Touchstone]

Hi, TS -

Nice to meet you, too.

I was keeping it nice and simple, then you brought along your proposition: God exists.
Well, yes, He’s proven His existence, to me. And, to others. However, I’m not going to submit my experiences with God, to your disbelief. Why would I do that? That would endanger your soul, and put a blot on mine.

You’re free to do as you like, of course, and believe what you will. But the motivations for submitting one’s experiences to outside review are fairly clear, and compelling, I say: if you want to take reasonable precautions against fooling yourself and embracing errors and mistakes that can be practically avoided, then being accountable to the experiences of others, as theirs are made accountable to you is a valuable method. By applying the critiques of objective review and outside analysis, we can find problems, errors and biases we would not otherwise, “blindspots” which obscure our thinking and vision, which we may not even be aware of.

Which is to say, if you think some statement is true in a real sense, and not just an imaginary or purely subjective sense, the experiences and analysis of others is your best friend in substantiating that idea as true. It’s only when we have submitted an idea to tests of minds and evidence outside ourselves that ‘true’ becomes more than a trivial, personal label.

Now, you’ve already, to your satisfaction, shredded with your analysis the statement: “God exists”.
However, you have failed to shred to my experience, that He exists.
You see?

As a long time Christian, one who had many personal experiences I suspect are similar to yours, I’ve not shredded my own experience – it’s still my experience – but have come to understand that it is much more likely those experiences were me indulging myself and engaging in fanciful thinking over against critical thinking than not.

In other words, I made my opening statement, and left it there. You’ve made your opening statement, and are itching for a fight. Well, I’m not going to fight.

That’s fine. It doesn’t need to be (and shouldn’t be) a fight in some personal way. We can (and should) be able to discuss the epistemology that obtains here without having to put our experiences on the line, or “in the shredder”. That means, your experiences can remain what they are even as you contemplate where the burden of proof rests for someone who does want to claim to the world or persuade others that God does, indeed, exist, and in some actual, objective sense rather than a purely subjective one.

But all of this discussion is “at will”, engaged in by those who so desire. As it should be.

We’re disagreed and it’s OK to be disagreed. You may not understand, and I may think all your explanations about not understanding are but an elaborate, beautiful and elegant smokescreen; but, my experience prompts me to say, “Hey, if you haven’t tried it, don’t knock it. Come on, agree to disagree. I don’t want to fight.”:tiphat:

I’m quite fine with agreeing to disagree, or ‘disagreeing amicably’. If disagreement was a problem, I wouldn’t be here. But disagreements are a great context for testing, learning, and growing; even when we aren’t persuade by opposing arguments and ideas, we can be enriched by them, and can know our own thoughts and beliefs better through them.

A simple shrug and parting of the ways at the first sign of disagreement does clip things off right there, but I think the mind is the poorer for it, on both sides. Obviously, at some point the returns diminish and beating a dead horse becomes… beating a dead horse. But there’s lots of growth and edification between the immediate “let’s just agree to disagree” and the “enough beating of the dead horse, already!”.

Like I said, though, this is all ‘at will’ discourse, so I have no problem with anyone who just isn’t interested in engaging the ideas at work here.

-TS

 

[donsnow]

Did you “right click” on the word? It should open a small menu of options.

Whoops.
Nope.
I’ll try to remember to do that, next time.
Thank you, I’m still transitioning from Windows’98.

 

[donsnow]

You’re free to do as you like, of course, and believe what you will. But the motivations for submitting one’s experiences to outside review are fairly clear, and compelling, I say: if you want to take reasonable precautions against fooling yourself and embracing errors and mistakes that can be practically avoided, then being accountable to the experiences of others, as theirs are made accountable to you is a valuable method. By applying the critiques of objective review and outside analysis, we can find problems, errors and biases we would not otherwise, “blindspots” which obscure our thinking and vision, which we may not even be aware of.

My most recent experience, the beginning of this year, I have already submitted to an outside observer, and validated my experience as genuine, by his action. I remain unwilling to submit this experience to your disbelief. I don’t have to. It’s already been validated by an unbiased person.

Which is to say, if you think some statement is true in a real sense, and not just an imaginary or purely subjective sense, the experiences and analysis of others is your best friend in substantiating that idea as true. It’s only when we have submitted an idea to tests of minds and evidence outside ourselves that ‘true’ becomes more than a trivial, personal label.

I have several best friends who do not contest my experiences. I remain unwilling to open up to your disbelief.

As a long time Christian, one who had many personal experiences I suspect are similar to yours, I’ve not shredded my own experience – it’s still my experience – but have come to understand that it is much more likely those experiences were me indulging myself and engaging in fanciful thinking over against critical thinking than not.

That reads to me, like you just contradicted yourself.

That’s fine. It doesn’t need to be (and shouldn’t be) a fight in some personal way. We can (and should) be able to discuss the epistemology that obtains here without having to put our experiences on the line, or “in the shredder”. That means, your experiences can remain what they are even as you contemplate where the burden of proof rests for someone who does want to claim to the world or persuade others that God does, indeed, exist, and in some actual, objective sense rather than a purely subjective one.

I have learned, from personal experience, that when the Holy Spirit comes upon me, I persuaded a young man to turn to God. That was a joyous experience. However, in your case the Holy Spirit is not moving me to give words to you, they come from my own heart.
I think this indicates that I am capable of recognizing my own thoughts and their origins.

But all of this discussion is “at will”, engaged in by those who so desire. As it should be.

I desired to put the reminder of your soul into the conversation, and step out. I have done so, but you keep tugging at me to stay.

I’m quite fine with agreeing to disagree, or ‘disagreeing amicably’. If disagreement was a problem, I wouldn’t be here. But disagreements are a great context for testing, learning, and growing; even when we aren’t persuade by opposing arguments and ideas, we can be enriched by them, and can know our own thoughts and beliefs better through them.

You are a smooooth talker. Have you ever considered going in to sales?

A simple shrug and parting of the ways at the first sign of disagreement does clip things off right there, but I think the mind is the poorer for it, on both sides. Obviously, at some point the returns diminish and beating a dead horse becomes… beating a dead horse. But there’s lots of growth and edification between the immediate “let’s just agree to disagree” and the “enough beating of the dead horse, already!”

Oh, I’ve read enough, so that your discourse with me is not a first time for me, only me a first time for you.

Like I said, though, this is all ‘at will’ discourse, so I have no problem with anyone who just isn’t interested in engaging the ideas at work here.

The idea of this conversation between you and me, is when to agree to disagree. I remain unwilling to discuss this further with you, because I have done my part, and, for me, any further discussion of my part will be ‘beating a dead horse’. Even, if that’s not so with you.

-TS

Thank you and good bye :tiphat:

 

[Detales]

Tonyrey, all of that is fine ofr subjective acceptance. It is not* proof* to someone who has adopted a contrary stance, as many have. You are doing, it seems to me, what TS so eloquently described as mixing the criteria for actual and synthetic knowledge. (Yes, JamesSS, you would do well to stop making yourself look like a tyro, and follow Augustin’s advice for such as you.) Does it not make you curious why, despite my absolute conviction regarding God, that I argue against all the things you call "evidence? Heck, I even agree with you about some of what you say. But I would never hold it up as evidence. I might hold it up for cause for inquiry, if one is so moved. Otherwise, it is barking up the wrong tree, plowing the wrong field, or what have you, however “real” any of those might seem to you as evidence. An there is a good, but difficult to verbalize reason for that, so I will reserve that for another encounter.

As for establishing the inadequacy of an explanation of the sort you wish, which idea is tied to the above, the very fact that it is an explanation has already sealed its defeat in terms of any Real utility. Again, such might be a cause for inquiry due to your enthusiasm ofr proposing it, but it is again not yet proof.

As for your claim that*" From the dawn of history human beings have known intuitively that the spiritual world is distinct from, and more significant than, the world of material objects… "* which humans and how did they know? I have an answer to that for myself, but upon hearing this statement from you I immediately recalled Franklin Jones’ statement of great accuracy and worth that “This is always already the other world.”

 

[tonyrey]

Does it not make you curious why, despite my absolute conviction regarding God, that I argue against all the things you call "evidence? Heck, I even agree with you about some of what you say. But I would never hold it up as evidence

 

[Detales]

TS, you sound like one of those blessed scientists, all full of reason and logic and making non-faith based sense. I don’t give you much of a chance on here.

DonSnow, Sorry for the incomplete directions. I use that feature so often I didn’t even think it through! (Just like faith, eh? )

But more later. I was just called in to work. Darn! I was praying for rain today!

 

[donsnow]

TS, you sound like one of those blessed scientists, all full of reason and logic and making non-faith based sense. I don’t give you much of a chance on here.

DonSnow, Sorry for the incomplete directions. I use that feature so often I didn’t even think it through! (Just like faith, eh? )

But more later. I was just called in to work. Darn! I was praying for rain today!

You gave good directions. I found it, and learned to right click on underlined word. Thanks.

Be glad you can respond to call to work. There was times I couldn’t. Retired, now.

 

[a_priori]

This I cannot understand.

Are “Unicornists” and “a-Unicornists” at a respectful stalemate, too, with neither carrying the burden of proof for a claim?

Or, should we present “young earth creationism” and “hindu creation theology” alongside scientific cosmology, anthropology and biology because none of these are amenable to invincible certainty (ok, YECs have invincible certainty, but I mean justified certainty…)?

A ‘respectful stalemate’ is a prescription for intellectual nihilism, trending toward solipsism. For example, a young earth creationist is delighted to have a ‘stalemate’, as that is parity on the cheap with science; it has nothing to recommend it, is incoherent, ad-hoc, and foolish, and most importantly, utterly without any evidence that support its claims in a positive way. What a delight to achieve a stalemate with the enterprise of science. Like a child playing chess a grand master learning he can just declare a “tie” at any point before he’s in checkmate – Junior’s at parity with Kasparov, and doesn’t even need to know how to play!

This is a crucial bit of ground. If theism can declare a “stalemate”, just on the grounds that neither claim can be demonstrated with certainty, it’s Theism For the Win! It’s gotten out from any burdens of proof for its claims, and stands to be warranted belief, just as a brute idea, excused form the burdens reason places on our other beliefs as a qualification for embracing them.

There’s enormous apologetic value in that – see the young earth creationists forever suing for a stalemate, for ‘parity’, ‘parity’ which will preserve and protect it, and place it alongside science in the classroom, even.

But from a reasoning standpoint, it’s a basic failure of logic applied to claims about the real world. What we observe to work as a heuristic is the demand for evidential support for existential claims. If you tell me you own a car, I won’t ask for anything more than your claim in order to accept it. It’s a perfectly mundane claim. If you tell me you have a special custom Ferrari that can also fly you to the moon, I’d consider that a claim that needed some significant support in terms of evidence before I’d accept it.

But at the outset, I’d have to say, I don’t know you don’t have such a Ferrari, if that was your claim. Do you suppose we’d be at a ‘respectful stalemate’, so long as you could not substantiate your claim, and I couldn’t show you didn’t have one of those machines???

-TS

The thing that is interesting here is that atheists insist their methodology is somehow born of the ultimate arbiter of all truth, logic. Assuming all questions can be answered in the language of human logic is actually the Mother of all provincial thinking. The ability to declare that nothing occurs outside of the fishbowl of spacetime is, quite frankly, above the pay grade of human beings. Using logic to convince oneself that they have it all wrapped up is convenient but delusional. The same muscles theists use to console themselves that God exists and that there is a point to all this are the exact same muscles atheists use to console themselves that there are no consequences to one’s actions here on Earth. Truth is incredibly complex and arguments on both sides are usually reductionist.

Newton was convinced that time and space were immutable. He would have argued that point with great conviction on any internet forum I’m sure.

 

[Detales]

Fran, I always enjoy your posts. Sorry about your bout with H1N1.*

Yes, I don’t get JamesSS’ accusation of “feminized male mind.” Especially when some have described the civilizing of society as “a battle against testosterone” and its animalistic territorial dualism. This infection can as well be seen in the patristic nature of the Church itself as evident from Paul onwards. That emphasis is on unfortunate interpretations of writings attributed to Paul whose consequence, given his actual respect for women and his different than today’s understanding even of homosexuality.

I wish I could pass you a copy through the keyboard here of a wonderful paper written by a friend of my Dad. It is called A Feminist Reading of Christian Celibacy. It starts with a grammatical note that distinguishes between thea- and theo- the m/f forms of “god.” Inherent in the word “theology,” then, is the gender assumption of God as male and attendant ideological consequences. My preference includes the forms that understand God as “Father/Mother,” that being a more inclusive and accommodating assemblage point for data, speculation, and introspection. It also is open to more useful interpretation of gender related issues in Biblical interpretation, human psychology, and even brain anatomy. We are pretty clear now about how most Western culture is heavily oriented to left brain interpretations and lensings of experience.**

My own Mentor claimed that this is an era of “raising the feminine,” by which he meant that it is about time that we took a far more integrated approach both to our own psyches and as well as to the nature of human relations in general. Witness the physical and psychological mutilations of women in the Middle East based on patristic fear and homophobia.

At any rate, this is sparked by yet another example of JamesSS’ aberrant views and logics, and is, I hope both an apology from a wider and kinder viewpoint, as well as an encouragement to be more complete and sound in our considerations of how and why we incorporate habitually ingrained and unexamined thought patterns in our adamantine belief systems, religious or otherwise.

*I am a rabid denier of the efficacy of flu vaccines, btw, on the grounds of their toxicity, preferring other safer, equally effective, and far cheaper anti-virals.

Though incomplete in my personal terms of understanding the underlying dynamic in her explication, it is of great value to view a brief excerpt from a lecture by Dr. Jill Bolte-Taylor viewable at [youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&feature=related](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&feature=related)

 

[Detales]

Re post #35 and many other: JamesSS, angel, you need to give it up, brother. You are embarrassing yourself in front of God and everyone.

 

[Detales]

TS~If one says “proof” is the crucial standard, then no knowledge is available, since noone can prove nothin’. Which is a very good ‘scorched earth’ strategy for proponents of weak or frivolous ideas and models; it destroys the critical grounds for judging ideas and beliefs on their relative merits. If a 6,000 year old earth cannot be “proven false” – and it can’t, all we can do is acknowledge that all the available evidence thoroughly discredits that idea, and also acknowledge that a putatitve omnipotent god is by definition powerful enough to fool us with “ancient-earth” evidence, or even some applied “Last Tuesday-ism”/Omphalos shenanigans – then, why, young earth creationism is just as legit as any other idea!

This and ff are a wonderful explication of the egalitarianism that is so desired by many, such as JamesSS, who wish their less-than-coherent habituated emotionalizations to be taken as if they had value in the field of critical analysis. That is with a note to TS that my own conviction is that Diety IS, but I would be ashamed to put forth any theological argument in that direction, as my basis for that conviction is on rather different ground than theology, logic, or science.

Further, the “design” non-argument for atheism, similar to the ID pap, assumes that someone started with the proposition that “I will attack the idea of God” instead of having, by whatever means, arrived at that conclusion, which may yet be amenable to teleological adjustment.

 

[Detales]

DonSnow~“With the thought in mind, that there’s such a thing as too much analysis will shred the very thing being analysed, I accept the Synoptic Gospels as valid authentication of our Lord’s birth, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection and ascension. So, we each have different views, here. I understand why for yours, and wanted to explain why, for mine. So, we don’t have to dwell on this.”

Truth can’t be shredded. I understand why someone might accept the synoptic Gospels. I did that myself for a long time, until the need for examining that assumption unceremoniously and abruptly changed my life. I have never regreted, and in fact celebrated, that awakening these many decades with increasing fervor.

And given your words relative to my experience, I conclude that you do not even intellectually perceive my stance. So, I understand the discomfort this raises and don’t have from you or anyone a requirement to pursue this thread of insight.

But I am really happy that you discovered the spell check thingy. My posts would be a mess without it!

 

[Detales]

DonSnow~Well, at least your second paragraph starts with comparing different theisms, which strikes me as comparing apples to apples. Then, you introduce science and its attendant fields of study. With that, comparing the different theisms to science et al is again comparing apples to oranges imho. (underline mine.)

Yes, I agree with this. Nevertheless, it is crucial to use a very strict critical faculty when introspecting on such a vital consideration as one’s spirituality, if there is such an thing in terms commonly understood. Imho, that area is vastly misunderstood and misrepresented, as evidenced by the common presentations of not only christianism, but the Abrahamic and some other religions in toto.*

For some good examples of how we might more usefully think about our religious convictions, I personally would recommend Gina Cerminara’s very unfortunately titled *Insights for the Age of Aquarius: a handbook for religious sanity. This is a very wlell annotated book that is often used in comparative religion classes (even Catholic) and is entertaining as well. Another would be Pathways Through to Space and its sequel The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object both by Franklin Merrell-Wolff, a relatively contemporary electrical engineer who lived and mined in California. The first reads like a diary of his awakening and the strict critical analysis he subjected himself to, and the second is an exegesis of his experience in a scholarly form.
*

*I know that's the name of a dog as well, but once we get into some of these areas, *we* aren't in Kansas any more, either, eh?

 

[Detales]

Re post #41~I go with being male - “What is is what is, even if I don’t like it.” If that is so, you need to radically revise your understanding of male and female, masculine and feminine. Your Biblical Adam/Eve version based on God knows what skewed reading is loveless and useless, not to mention false and silly. I urge you again to stop embarrassing yourself. Aquinas had your best interest at heart, believe me, when he said such as you ought keep silence less they give the Church a bad name. And hey, I don’t even care for the Church!

 

[donsnow]

DonSnow~“With the thought in mind, that there’s such a thing as too much analysis will shred the very thing being analysed, I accept the Synoptic Gospels as valid authentication of our Lord’s birth, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection and ascension. So, we each have different views, here. I understand why for yours, and wanted to explain why, for mine. So, we don’t have to dwell on this.”

Truth can’t be shredded. I understand why someone might accept the synoptic Gospels. I did that myself for a long time, until the need for examining that assumption unceremoniously and abruptly changed my life. I have never regreted, and in fact celebrated, that awakening these many decades with increasing fervor.

And given your words relative to my experience, I conclude that you do not even intellectually perceive my stance. So, I understand the discomfort this raises and don’t have from you or anyone a requirement to pursue this thread of insight.

But I am really happy that you discovered the spell check thingy. My posts would be a mess without it!

Gee, Detales,

I wonder if your intellect towers so high over mine, that you could not clearly see the meaning of my quote, that you started with?

Nevertheless, my little military mind salutes you on your way, which is not my way.

 

[donsnow]

DonSnow~Well, at least your second paragraph starts with comparing different theisms, which strikes me as comparing apples to apples. Then, you introduce science and its attendant fields of study. With that, comparing the different theisms to science et al is again comparing apples to oranges imho. (underline mine.)

Yes, I agree with this. Nevertheless, it is crucial to use a very strict critical faculty when introspecting on such a vital consideration as one’s spirituality, if there is such an thing in terms commonly understood. Imho, that area is vastly misunderstood and misrepresented, as evidenced by the common presentations of not only christianism, but the Abrahamic and some other religions in toto.*

For some good examples of how we might more usefully think about our religious convictions, I personally would recommend Gina Cerminara’s very unfortunately titled Insights for the Age of Aquarius: a handbook for religious sanity. This is a very wlell annotated book that is often used in comparative religion classes (even Catholic) and is entertaining as well. Another would be Pathways Through to Space and its sequel The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object both by Franklin Merrell-Wolff, a relatively contemporary electrical engineer who lived and mined in California. The first reads like a diary of his awakening and the strict critical analysis he subjected himself to, and the second is an exegesis of his experience in a scholarly form.

*I know that's the name of a dog as well, but once we get into some of these areas, *we* aren't in Kansas any more, either, eh?

Hi, Detales -

I ain’t interested in going your way. I have chosen the Holy Bible and the CCC as guides for my Christian/Catholic way. And, I ain’t gonna change horses in midstream.

 

[Detales]

Yes, and no use beating a dead horse. Enjoy your CCC. And I make no claim of a towering intellect, just intellectual curiosity about my world, God, and the phenomenon of existence.

Blessings and Best.