(Also, Bayes was a Presbyterian minister — not a priest, which (in England) would imply Catholic or Anglican. It was the family trade; his father was also a minister.)
Showing results for: Divine quotation of gay Turing
God quoting Turing would be more remarkable than got quoting Bayes because the latter was a priest (and so already affiliated with God) while the former is notoriously homosexual (while God is allegedly violently homophobic).
God quoting Turing would be more remarkable than got quoting Bayes because the latter was a priest (and so already affiliated with God) while the former is notoriously homosexual (while God is allegedly violently homophobic).
So? God is still willing to work with (and through) sinners.
Oh, hmm. I got confused about what ESRogs’ hypothesis actually implied. Never mind. Anyway, I agree with your interpretation but still think the original phrasing was quite confusing.
Even God can quote Bayes when it suits him.
Still upvoted for raw cleverness, though.
Bayes was a priest, after all. Now divine quote of gay Turing would be a different feat altogether.
… or polyamorous agnostic Russell, maybe?
(Also, Bayes was a Presbyterian minister — not a priest, which (in England) would imply Catholic or Anglican. It was the family trade; his father was also a minister.)
I’m not sure I know how to parse this.
Showing results for: Divine quotation of gay Turing
God quoting Turing would be more remarkable than got quoting Bayes because the latter was a priest (and so already affiliated with God) while the former is notoriously homosexual (while God is allegedly violently homophobic).
So? God is still willing to work with (and through) sinners.
It isn’t my position. Merely one I translated into well formed English. Any questions should be directed to the original source.
The word I had trouble parsing was “of.” I think ESRogs’ hypothesis is probably correct, though.
That seems highly unlikely: it would make prase’s comment not fit the context. I think you have been misled.
Oh, hmm. I got confused about what ESRogs’ hypothesis actually implied. Never mind. Anyway, I agree with your interpretation but still think the original phrasing was quite confusing.
Very much so. Without context the intended meaning would definitely not be the top of the hypothesis list.
Wedrifid’s interpretation is the intended one. I agree that the chosen formulation wasn’t particularly clear.
I think that should be read as ‘by’ rather than ‘of’.
You mean the Devil, surely.
Potato potato.
Huh, it works even better in text with undifferentiated spelling. I’ll have to remember that one.
That would require Him to exist. ;)
I find it rather irritating when someone does this every time I use the words “soul” or “God” in a rhetorical context.
I believe in neither, but both words have their uses.