"I don't believe it... and I don't think you have given much or any? evidence of that from an archeological/anthopological/sociobiological/historical perspective."

Perhaps it wasn't a condemnation of all organized religion per se, but primarily the fundamentalists. In nations where the ultraconservative interpreters of religion rule, freedom tends to suffer, as does science.

"I remember some earlier exchanges when I defined
What I meant by God and you said you could not find a definition of God there. Now you are saying you don't object to an amorphous definition. But that is an oxymoron."

Interesting. If I rejected your view of God I would agree with you, but I didn't reject anything because I didn't see much to reject. I simply didn't understand your definition, and you didn't elaborate.

"If you want to insist you were not referring to Christ in your "Hank" post, who is anyone to dispute what you say you meant."

Please understand that the message was NOT anti-God, it was anti-God's fanatical followers. There's a big difference.

Jeez. I'm regretting posting the darn thing in the first place. I tell ya. People take things way to seriously.

• okay - carefuluniverse - June 9, 2002 - 15:38 UTC
  • I just get the impression that you're looking for trouble :) - stormcrow - June 9, 2002 - 18:23 UTC
    • not so - occupant - June 9, 2002 - 19:44 UTC