The Wizard

Antonin Scriabin · 08 Mar 2012, 15:30 · from 2012-March.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: kierkegaurdian at gmail.com (Antonin Scriabin)
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:30:18 -0500
Subject: (urth) The Wizard
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W39083F005BF6D6A83513B5CF570 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W39083F005BF6D6A83513B5CF570 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CAM0v-i4UUSOOF9q6Q-KonJ9ZKnWjYCs1RvdPko6aqJoBMnqQAw at mail.gmail.com>

"I do agree that this subject continually teeters on the brink of being
off-topic in
a Wolfe forum and might be something of a dead horse."

I tend to agree with this.  The topic of the thread is *The Wizard*, and
has turned into (again) a discussion of whether or not the Sun Cycle takes
place in a "Christian" universe.  While that might be an interesting
subject in its own right, it is a bit off-topic, and when it starts turning
into disagreements about the OT and personal religious beliefs, I start
losing interest entirely.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> >Daniel Petersen: I hope maybe what I (and some others) have said can
> >help at least some people think twice before they make sweeping Dawkinsian
> >generalisations about these matters based on utterly unsophisticated
> >readings of OT/NT.,,,All of this is very relevant to Wolfe's fiction also
> in
> >regard to allowing a text to do what it does rather than reading so much
> of
> >one's own agenda into it so as to mangle it.
>
> Heh. Thanks for a very well written post Daniel. We haven't interacted in
> here
> all that much so I can forgive you for mistaking me for some militant
> atheist
> with an agenda like Richard Dawkins. I happen to think of Dawkins as a
> brilliant
> populist theoretical biologist and a short-sighted, prejudiced fool in his
> outspoken hateful views on religion. My own views are generally the
> opposite of
> his.
>
> The idea of proving my "sophistication" in understanding the Bible seems a
> bit
> distasteful. Must different imply inferior?  Perhaps I will only mention
> that you,
> yourself, seem to have an agenda which makes it difficult for you to read
> the
> Bible in any manner which could present God in a "bad" light. I wouldn't
> call that
> view of the Bible "unsophisticated" but I think it is fair to consider it
> colored
> a bit.
>
> (FWIW, I personally agree with Dan'l, et al. that the brutality depicted
> in the OT
> and the human emotions and motivations attributed to the deity reflect
> more on
> the people and culture of the times, than on God, Himself)
>
> I do agree that this subject continually teeters on the brink of being
> off-topic in
> a Wolfe forum and might be something of a dead horse. I don't think I have
> anything
> further to add, though I get the impression Gerry Quinn might still want
> to go
> on discussing a bit.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20120308/2263684f/attachment-0001.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net