Re: MODERATOR'S NOTE: Theology Discussion

From: danny mayes <dmayes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:49:35 -0400

I'm sure Alan is just doing his best to keep everyone on point with the
scientific concepts raised in FOR, but it is a little strange. For
instance, the dramatic culmination of the FOR is the OP theory, which of
course is a speculation, based in science, for a possible explanation of
of the multiverse based on intelligent design. Now regardless of
anyones thoughts on that theory the manner in which it is openly
discussed in the book, and is in fact endorsed by DD as the best current
concept of how an integration of the fundamental branches of reality may
explain reality, would certainly seem to open the door to certain
theologically orientated discussions, as long as you avoid dogmatic
"Jesus is the way to truth" or whatever type discussion.

I always had trouble getting my posts put on the FOR. Even my posts
several months ago about time being the higher dimensial space the
multiverse exists in were initially kept off the FOR board. When I
challenged Alan about it, he relented and conceded there was no problem
with the posts. Don't want to judge, but perhaps there is a little
heavy-handedness with the post censorship there. Everything list is
much better for discussion. Unfortunately it takes me a long time to
decipher some of these posts, so I have to pick and choose what to
read. I need to give up the practice of law to read all of the great
posts made to the everything list!

Danny Mayes

Russell Standish wrote:

>I commiserate with you. I finally left FOR because of the moderation
>policy - that, and the endless waffle that would have been prevented
>had more technical language been possible in the first place.
>
>Anything of substance seems to get ported to the everything list
>eventually anyway!
>
>Cheers
>
>On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 05:48:01PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Alan,
>>
>>
>>
>...
>
>
>
>>Sometimes the "moderation posts" are very interesting by themselves. It
>>is a little sad that this one is authoritative and does not admit
>>replies (in the FOR-list). (Given that my point was really that
>>"theology" could be amenable to scientific discourse, once we make some
>>assumptions).
>>
>>
>>
>
>...
>
>
>
>>Alan, how could I communicate? If I explain in plain english I will
>>look mystical and moderated out. If I explain the "mystical" out, then
>>I will look technical, and moderate out again.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Aug 01 2005 - 20:49:18 PDT