OFF: reply to the truth is out there

[Guido Vacano]

Mr. blyoung--

        I HUMBLY apologize for not answering your post sooner (how's THAT
for sarcasm?), but my beaver account was on the fritz, and I tried to send
a reply using my ibm account. Unfortunately, boc-l will only accept posts
from my beaver account, so you never had the joyous experience of reading
my reply. Here then, is my reply in all its glory. BTW, the name is
"Guido", not "he", not "the original poster", not any convenient anonymous
term you come up with. Is that clear? I hope so. In addition, should you
feel the need to beat up on me with your acerbic wit, please email me
directly. This topic is wasting bandwidth.

Guido

--------------

blyoung wrote:

> What makes 1997 so modern?

Compared to the Dark Ages you mean? I would think that is obvious.

> Why should people in 1997 be any more
> enlightened than people in the Dark Ages?  Just because we have better
> education, better communication, etc does not FORCE people to have
> enlightened opinions.

You can lead a horse to water . . . true. People often remain unenlightened
by choice. This is in contrast to the Dark Ages where there wasn't much
choice. It seems reasonable to me that, presented with the tremendous
educational opportunities we have today, that many people, if not most,
would take advantage of these opportunities. But, there are those who do
not have access to these opportunities, and there are those who choose to
be just plain ignorant, and believe in silly things like Satan.

> Now, I disagree with you about Satan.  It's your opinion that there is
> no such thing, so I don't know if you are an athiest or just an
> agnostic, or whatever, but it's just an opinion nonetheless.

Yes, it is an opinion. I never claimed it was "truth". I don't believe in
absolute truth. And I hate to disappoint you, but I am neither agnostic
nor atheist. I consider myself a very religious person (though to you, I
suspect, I am merely a pagan).

>  My opinion
> is different, but it's only valid to myself...

Oh, I suspect there are many who share your views, and many who share mine.
I have trouble believing that your views are that "unique".

> I believe that there IS such a thing as the devil, but I don't agree
> with the common perception of a "goat horned redskinned wicked-laughing
> incarnation".  I also believe in a God that is not a dispassionate,
> remote observer, but actually a loving God who cares about his people.

Well, I believe in a god that encompasses all that is manifest and non-manifest.

There is, IMHO, one god--there is no good/evil duality (is not Satan actually a
god of evil in christianity? And what about the "trinity"? So much for
monotheism).

> So whatever, that not's the point.  I wish you would just state your
> BELIEF, or your OPINION, instead of making the presumption that your
> opinion is scientific proof.

I did state my opinion. You made that clear yourself (see above).

Did I use the words "scientific proof"? No. Feel free to criticize me for the
words I DO write. But don't burden me with your misinterpretations.

> Why use the word "foolishness"?  Where are
> your scientific proofs that Satan does not exist?

First, I don't believe science is the final authority on religious matters. In
fact, I think it is more or less useless when applied in such a way. As
for "foolishness", I was stating my opinion. Why can't I use such a word?

Second, I rarely believe in something unless there is reasonable evidence that
it really exists. I don't think there is adequate evidence that there is a
Satan (or Devil). Similarly, I do not believe in gnomes, dragons,
gremlins, snarks, little green men from Mars, honest politicians, or the
Tooth Fairy (though I think there is better evidence for the existence of some
of these than for Satan).

Guido

P.S. This is all IMHO of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Okay?!? Jeez!

--
If nothing is done, then all will be well.  -- Lao Tse