Your syntax *was* offensive - and Addison ain't no sophomoric idiot as would miss the unsubtlety of the phrasing. And your non-apology underscores that the offense was meant.

J'Accuse too, as your 'way of putting it' is one I too have encountered over a relatively long lifetime: it is the supercilious one of ~

I Know Truth and - you, poor bastard: are gonna rot in that fearful-man imagined slow-broiler which My Loving God\ufffd reserves for you heathens. Hee Hee - whilst I get to Watch from that seat right next to Her throne..

No, you likely wouldn't use Those words. But I have heard ~ Those Words spoken by so-called Christians over the years / ages? In fact you too can hear variations on them, spoken nightly - in SF Bay Area *now*:

Channel 42 Tee Vee. Usually in the wee hours - some of these folk can dispense their folksy wisdom for hours non-stop -- telling the listener Exactly What God Meant / what kinda guy *He* is and, and how pissed-off he is with *YOU* [from execrable Sin-full birth and >>>> onwards] on and on and -

(In fact recently I scribbled down what I was hearing! - as one of these minions of Light was giving advice to a caller-in. I mentioned that in a post, though no reason to suppose you caught that one; too lazy to look it up - have we a search engine yet?)

'Religion' in my vocabulary - always and everywhere connotes: an organization of *Men* (and damn Few women except as ancillaries, often trying really hard to Sound like the men, especially when discussing Divine Justice and the Delicious Punishments Awaiting). These Are Homo-saps Period. No metaphysical entity picked a language and writ in stone - that which is claimed by virtually all aforementioned religious organizations; nowadays: Corporations (the Vatican being merely the largest, richest).

Now if what you were trying to get at was the concept of spirituality ? That's another concept never accessible to pure logic - just as the Ontological Proof of God: Isn't, either, if *that* is what you were implying in Your idea of religion (?)

Well - we sure as hell aren't going to derive That umm from the axioms - G\ufffddel or no G\ufffddel - either! Sheesh - you really imagine that You Can *Prove* God IS ?? (even in Sanskrit, intended for that sort of discourse and free of most pedestrian language pollution)

Sorry Gerard, but Logician, Heal Thyself.. I'd expected better from you - based on previous exchanges. Now you are expressing mere smug Certainty where.. no actual Certainty is accessibly by *ANY* form of human-invented 'logic'.

And if you don't even realize Yet! that: you *cannot* pass-on!
[whatever has been discerned internally via difficult, sustained labor?]
- to others*, and especially Not 'Truth' - then your logic exercises failed utterly to inform you of where logic ceases to apply.

* except via example, in a life lived, that is.

Sanctimony is sanctimony; so is hubris hubris. Anyone selling Certainty in this world of mere appearances?
Qualifies for both. IMhO.



Ashton
who 'believes' than man has a much better BS-detector built-in than, ever: a Truth-detector. But we so love to appear Right(eous).