Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within

Can we divorce the medium from the message?

I thought I understood McLuhan's riddle once but it escaped me. Please explain.

Federman's take on Macluhan seems almost as muddy as McLuhan himself. I was hoping for your take on McLuhan.My take on it is that McLuhan was talking about what the relationship between medium and message "is", not what it should be - i.e. he seems to be saying that the medium tends to get in the way of the content. I know the drill. But that doesn't address the question of putting the medium ahead of the message - worshipping the TV and ignoring the movie.

So you even put a second-hand messenger before the message?A letter comes in the mail. You throw away the letter but keep the envelope. The next day another letter comes saying, "Wasn't that a great envelope?" Do you throw that letter away too and worship that envelope? How do you know which is the One True Envelope? You assert that quite often and I reply that the facts don't back you up: People who worship the messenger don't have better behaviour than people who follow the message.

I'm saying that Paul was a second-hand messenger. Whether his message had any relevance or not, why would you give it equal value to the original? You're looking at a photocopy of a photocopy.

Again, my take on McLuhan is that he didn't think substituting the medium for the message was necessarily a good idea. He was talking about the nature of communication - e.g. what can go wrong. He wasn't, as far as I can see, advocating that we should throw away the letter and keep the envelope.

That would be a postcard. If there's an envelope with a letter inside, it would be foolish to throw away the letter and "obey" the envelope.The envelope might have some value - but do you really need a return address when the sender is omniscient? Is a Heaven postmark more valuable than a Nirvana postmark? I think you're the one who needs to chew on that analogy.

Did Jesus bring a message of Original Sin?Or did He bring a message that we already had? According to Paul, the message is already written on our hearts:

quote:

---

Romans 2:14-16 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

---

It tends to shoot omnipotence in the foot, doesn't it?

Just to be clear, it doesn't have to be one or the other, objective or subjective. I have had friends who can't be trusted to be objectively factual. That doesn't prevent me from subjectively wanting them as friends.The Bible is another example. It is objectively false in many areas, yet I subjectively value it more than many True Believers do. I just wish you'd stop calling it evidence when it isn't. Allow me to repeat my tautology: Evidence must be evident.

Look at the question. If God is omniscient, YOU don't need a return address to communicate with HIM. He already knows. The only reason to have a go-between is if He isn't listening. Or He isn't talking to you directly. You can't claim to have a "personal relationship" with God and need a go-between at the same time.

Bigfoot wants us to have faith. Leprechauns want us to have faith. The Tooth Fairy wants us to have faith."Wants us to have faith" is just a lame excuse.

For God not sittng on my couch to prove He exists. The fact that God doesn't do everything for you, no matter how fervently you believe. If He can't be relied on by believers, do you think He's going to do more for unbelievers? Now you're using what you think I think as an excuse.I've told you before, I wish there was a magical spook that I could count on for help. If you have any influence with such an entity, by all means, send it to see me.

I'm rejecting EVERY "god" that deliberately hides from me.But you're avoiding my point: What's the difference between your "god" and the Tooth Fairy? What's the difference between your "god" and a leprechaun? What's the difference between your "god" and Bigfoot?If there's no evidence for any of them, why do you arbitrarily choose to believe on one of them and not the others?

Bullshit. You're the one who is lying to yourself, trying to make up excuses for why I don't accept your excuses. That's a bad analogy for you, a good one for me. Can you have a personal relationship with a cloud? If Jesus is God, resurrection is a foregone conclusion. Unfortunately, you don't. You reject the logic in favour of fantasies you've made up in your head about why others don't believe.

False dichotomy.I'd ask him the same questions I ask you: Why does He feel a need to be worshipped? If I did oppose Him, how would that affect Him?