What to say to those who pray for you?

[Seven]

If the person want to make a big deal about their religion being better then mine (which is how I take a statement like that) then I’ll normally say “pray for yourself sinner”

[Shade]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Thanks for the invitation, but I seldom visit what remains of Great Debates anymore. **

I’m just feeling a bit guilty about this continuing hijack. You could open a MPSIMS instead.

Anyway, I’ve c&p my latest responses below so we can get some continuity… if you like you can continue the discussion by email - my address should be in my profile.

That’s not quite the right way to state the RN. If A is a theorem of K, then so is necessary A. Or A |- K -> A |- K.

DOH! I copied and pasted from your S5 website and didn’t notice the necessarily symbol was an image which disappeared. The original quote was “If A is a theorem of K, then so is A” as you suggest.

I don’t know what you mean about | -> | being necessary. Why is it necessary?

1. IIRC |->| (hereafter abbreviated T) is a theorem of prop. logic. (It is, isn’t it?)
2. Hence T is also a theorem of K, as K is an extension of prop. logic, so all theorems of prop. logic are also theorems of K.
3. Hence T, by the Necessitation Rule quoted above.

Actually, I mean what I say. G is a being Who exists necessarily if He exists in actuality.

You said “G is a symbol representing a supreme being.” I don’t think we’re yet agreed that those are the same.

There is nothing “special” about G that makes it supreme. It’s supremeness is deduced.

That’s not the impression I got earlier. Anyway:

So you don’t use G to mean supreme at all initially, just “a being Who exists necessarily if He exists in actuality”? And make no other assumptions or definitions on G?

Then at the end we deduce G is supreme? Just from the fact that G is necessary, or is more needed?

[madmonk28]

So, if I understand the OP, one is free to say things that people in mixed society would find offensive if they overhear the conversation (the kind of people one finds when walking down a public street), but if a member of the public responds to said offensive speech that person is in need of a rebuke?

So the OPer has fee speech, but the woman who was offended does not. How do I get a sweet deal like that?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Madmonk, you don’t understand the invitation.

Nobody is calling for a coercive end to anyone’s speech. Nobody is saying that anyone’s speech should be curtailed at all, except by the use of more speech.

The woman who was offended made a snarky, insulting comment. We’re having fun suggesting snarky, insulting comments that could have been made in return. No jack-booted thugs here.

Personally, I’d consider the woman to be perfectly respectful if she’d said, “Would you mind keeping the swearing down? It really bothers me.” But that’s not what she did: she was ruder and more disrespectful than the OP was. It’s a good thing to make her aware of how rude and disrespectful she’s being.

Daniel

[madmonk28]

Well the woman was probably stunned by the OP’ers rudeness and responded in a way that made sense to her.

When one shocks and offends people with outlandishly poor behavior, it doesn’t seem reasonable to criticize the person shock and offended for not responding in a way acceptable to the offendor.

The poor woman was mortified.

As for responses to the woman:

I’m sorry, I’m a self-involved jerk who is smuggly proud of the fact;

or how about:

thank you, although I don’t share your faith, I appreciate that you wish me well and recogonize I am clearly damaged (and inarticulate)

[Nocturne]

Okay, madmonk28, then is it fair if I go to people talking about God and tell them to please stop that conversation because it offends me?

And would you expect them to take it?

And can you possibly believe that some of us who use profanity (I don’t by means use it everywhere, but I’ve been known to use it in public with my friends) are very intelligent, articulate, thoughtful people?

If a mother with small children asked me politely in public to please not swear around her children, I would happily comply.

If someone had the audacity to suggest to me that I should not keep using profanity because THEIR God dislikes it, I would try to be as nice as possible, but I would make it quite clear that I don’t believe in their God, that they’re welcome to pray for me, but that I think they’re pretty rude.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

*Originally posted by madmonk28 *
I’m sorry, I’m a self-involved jerk who is smuggly proud of the fact

Huh. When quoted out of context, you actually start to make sense.

Daniel

[Phoenix_Dragon]

*Originally posted by Happy Lendervedder *
And for the record, billions of Jews, Christians and Muslims worldwide would say that, no, blaspheming the name of God is about the most offensive thing you can do.

Kinda funny. You can’t say shit on the TV. Or fuck. Nigger is iffy at best. Faggot, kike, etc are all some what iffy, and almost always portrayed as very strongly bad things.

“Blaspheming,” though? “Oh, God,” “God damnit,” “God you’re an <insult here>.” All of these go by with hardly a notice. They don’t even register.

[MEBuckner]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Buck

Actually, this is one you haven’t seen. I guess for you it’s like an algebra problem is for my nephew: they all look alike.

At any rate, could you explain why your questions are relevant since what you copied and pasted was in response to this from Suzene?

Now prove to me that your God – or any other – exists. Can’t be done.

(Empasis mine so you wouldn’t miss it. ;))

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I thought.

[The Bastard Love Child of St. Anselm of Canterbury and William Jefferson Clinton]“Well, that depends on what the definition of ‘God’ is.”[/TBLCoSAoCaWJC]

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by tdn *
**“Thank you. And I’ll sacrifice a virgin in the name of Baal for you.” **

Better idea: “I’ll sacrifice a virgin to Baal in your name. Praise the gods!”