Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on April 18, 2015, 09:36:28 AM
-
deleted
-
If Christians don't 'go on about their faith' then they are disobeying the Christ they claim to reverence.
The rest of your post is your opinion, to which you are, of course, entitled.
-
Most people will talk about what they consider to be right or wrong, and be happy to "impose" their views on other people once they believe the wrongness to get past a certain level. Religious or non-religious alike.
-
If Christians don't 'go on about their faith' then they are disobeying the Christ they claim to reverence.
The rest of your post is your opinion, to which you are, of course, entitled.
If a person's faith means anything at all to them, surely deeds are better than empty words, if they wish to have non believers seeing it their way?
-
If Christians don't 'go on about their faith' then they are disobeying the Christ they claim to reverence.
The rest of your post is your opinion, to which you are, of course, entitled.
The JW's think they are trying to save non believers from eternal death, that is why they proselytize.
As for the remainder, that is a typical Floo rant.
-
If Christians don't 'go on about their faith' then they are disobeying the Christ they claim to reverence.
The rest of your post is your opinion, to which you are, of course, entitled.
The JW's think they are trying to save non believers from eternal death, that is why they proselytize.
As for the remainder, that is a typical Floo rant.
I don't apologise for my 'rant'. Some of these people are more evil than poor old Satan is reputed to be, in my experience!
-
If Christians don't 'go on about their faith' then they are disobeying the Christ they claim to reverence.
The rest of your post is your opinion, to which you are, of course, entitled.
The JW's think they are trying to save non believers from eternal death, that is why they proselytize.
As for the remainder, that is a typical Floo rant.
I don't apologise for my 'rant'. Some of these people are more evil than poor old Satan is reputed to be, in my experience!
What is your definition of evil?
-
Whilst the majority of Christians don't go on about their faith, and many do a lot of good helping others, there are others who claim to be Christians, but are nothing but WUMS, imo. There are the hell fire brigade who drool at the thought of others burning in hell for all eternity. There are the bigots who use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness, particularly towards gays. Forums seem to bring out the worst in some Christians, who just love to wind others up, and refuse to turn the other cheek!
If you are anything to go by, Floo, the equivalent could be said about those without a religious faith.
If Jesus was everything they believe him to be, instead of long dead, don't they give a thought to the phrase, 'depart from me for I never knew you', which might apply to them too, as well as the heathen like myself?
I suspect that most of us have that idea in the back of our minds all the time. I've referred to it often enough, both here and elsewhere. But you need to remember that, as humans, Christians aren't perfect (though we are working towards that aim), and when comments that misrepresent Christianity and God - like many of yours do, by the way - fly around in the way that they do, it can be difficult not to become fed up with the attitude of the authors of such comments.
-
If a person's faith means anything at all to them, surely deeds are better than empty words, if they wish to have non believers seeing it their way?
Deeds are at least as important as words, but for some people (believers and non-believers), they need the reassurance of words and logic.
-
I don't apologise for my 'rant'. Some of these people are more evil than poor old Satan is reputed to be, in my experience!
How much experience of Satan and Satanic activities do you have, floo, so as to compare the two?
-
. . . as well as the heathen like myself?
Have a care in your use of the term heathen to define yourself.
In modern parlence 'heathen' is a term used to define Pagans - or neo-Pagans - who follow the Norse or Germanic (Asatru) pre-christiqn deities and they would, almost certainly, not take kindly to your use of the term to describe your particularly virulent and unpleasant form of atheism.
-
If a person's faith means anything at all to them, surely deeds are better than empty words, if they wish to have non believers seeing it their way?
Deeds are at least as important as words, but for some people (believers and non-believers), they need the reassurance of words and logic.
Belief and logic are more often than not an oxymoron!
-
. . . as well as the heathen like myself?
Have a care in your use of the term heathen to define yourself.
In modern parlence 'heathen' is a term used to define Pagans - or neo-Pagans - who follow the Norse or Germanic (Asatru) pre-christiqn deities and they would, almost certainly, not take kindly to your use of the term to describe your particularly virulent and unpleasant form of atheism.
Too bad! ::)
-
Belief and logic are more often than not an oxymoron!
Floo, I said that some people need the reassurance of WORDS and logic.
-
Belief and logic are more often than not an oxymoron!
Floo, I said that some people need the reassurance of WORDS and logic.
What sort of words?
-
Belief and logic are more often than not an oxymoron!
Floo, I said that some people need the reassurance of WORDS and logic.
What sort of words?
The type that are made up of vocalised sounds or characters written on a page - virtually or otherwise.
-
Never in my life have I met a Christian "drooling' about hell. They must all be living in Wales.
-
Never in my life have I met a Christian "drooling' about hell. They must all be living in Wales.
If they are, there must be very few of them.
-
. . . as well as the heathen like myself?
Have a care in your use of the term heathen to define yourself.
In modern parlence 'heathen' is a term used to define Pagans - or neo-Pagans - who follow the Norse or Germanic (Asatru) pre-christiqn deities and they would, almost certainly, not take kindly to your use of the term to describe your particularly virulent and unpleasant form of atheism.
Too bad! ::)
Thanks, Floo, for that vivid insight into your attitude to the beliefs of others, you really are apiece of work, one of the most intolerant people I have had the misfortune to come across.
-
If Floo's comments on an online forum make her that, you really need to get out more.
-
If Floo's comments on an online forum make her that, you really need to get out more.
Shaker, I would have to agree - at least to an degree with Matthew on this. I have often found Floo to be extremely intolerant in certain aspects of her understanding of and attitude to Christianity: assuming, for instance, that the way she was brung up is the norm for Christian families.
-
If Floo's comments on an online forum make her that, you really need to get out more.
Shaker, I would have to agree - at least to an degree with Matthew on this. I have often found Floo to be extremely intolerant in certain aspects of her understanding of and attitude to Christianity: assuming, for instance, that the way she was brung up is the norm for Christian families.
Floo has a real hang-up about Christianity in particular.
-
Floo has a real hang-up about Christianity in particular.
Not without good reason.
-
Floo has a real hang-up about Christianity in particular.
Not without good reason.
A matter of opinion, that. It's not healthy to have any hang-ups.
-
It's a matter of Floo's opinion and the opinion of innumerable people who have had a religious upbringing they consider to have been abusive.
-
It's a matter of Floo's opinion and the opinion of innumerable people who have had a religious upbringing they consider to have been abusive.
It's still a hang-up, and it's still unhealthy.
-
It's a matter of Floo's opinion and the opinion of innumerable people who have had a religious upbringing they consider to have been abusive.
It's still a hang-up, and it's still unhealthy.
That's religion for you :(
-
It's a matter of Floo's opinion and the opinion of innumerable people who have had a religious upbringing they consider to have been abusive.
It's still a hang-up, and it's still unhealthy.
That's religion for you :(
No, that's anti-religion for you.
-
No it isn't. I doubt very much indeed if Floo would hold the opinions on religion she does if she hadn't had the upbringing she had. Correct?
-
No it isn't. I doubt very much indeed if Floo would hold the opinions on religion she does if she hadn't had the upbringing she had. Correct?
Correct or not, who knows? I shouldn't think even she could say. Floo is a kind soul who seems to be caught in this negative anti-religion syndrome, and it is unhealthy.
-
Correct or not, who knows? I shouldn't think even she could say.
Why ever not?
-
Correct or not, who knows? I shouldn't think even she could say.
Why ever not?
If she could account for her obsession, or even acknowledge it, then she might be able to lift herself out of this unhealthy state.
-
I thought your issue was that she has/does account for it, only too much?
And needless to say, your judgement of "unhealthiness" stems purely from the fact that she doesn't like something you do.
-
Additionally, since we were talking about obsession, I've just had a look at some stats and discovered that in a couple of months shy of four years - that's four years - I've made 2700 or so posts (1.969 per day) whereas in just over a year you're already up to 3200+ (7.793 per day).
Interesting ;)
-
Additionally, since we were talking about obsession, I've just had a look at some stats and discovered that in a few months shy of four years - that's four years - I've made 2700 or so posts wheres in just over a year you're already up to 3200+
Interesting ;)
Not interesting: incorrect.
I was one of the first to join this forum when it began, shortly after the closure of the BBC religion forum - four years ago . Since then I have had two long absences, one for ill-health, one simply from boredom. My total posts encompasses my entire total over those years, not just one year. So the two compare, especially as you have spent time pontificating on your own forum.
If your figure was correct it would mean I've posted some twenty times a day, every day for six months - I've had six months of this last year away from the forum. Not even with my stamina could I endure that!
-
Never in my life have I met a Christian "drooling' about hell. They must all be living in Wales.
Or W H ALES as the case may be. LOL!
-
So you're saying that the stats are wrong, is that it? That it says that you joined in March 2014, but your 3200+ posts actually go back four years?
Riiiiiiiight ;D
-
Floo has a real hang-up about Christianity in particular.
Not without good reason.
What Good Reason about Christ can she have a hang up about Christianity? Her own family does NOT DEFINE Christianity. Perhaps like Floo they could not submit themselves to God and be humble and loving.
-
So you're saying that the stats are wrong, is that it?
I'm saying that the stats for me cover four years, not one. I never left the forum, I merely stopped posting for intervals, but of course my membership and details remained.
-
No it isn't. I doubt very much indeed if Floo would hold the opinions on religion she does if she hadn't had the upbringing she had. Correct?
Being rebellious causes problems. Floo did not exactly help herself did she? Right and wrong on both sides but never Christ or God. They did nothing her parents and herself did.
-
Right and wrong on both sides but never Christ or God. They did nothing
There's a reason for that ;)
-
. . . as well as the heathen like myself?
Have a care in your use of the term heathen to define yourself.
In modern parlence 'heathen' is a term used to define Pagans - or neo-Pagans - who follow the Norse or Germanic (Asatru) pre-christiqn deities and they would, almost certainly, not take kindly to your use of the term to describe your particularly virulent and unpleasant form of atheism.
Too bad! ::)
OED definition of "heathen":
chiefly derogatory
1 A person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do:
my brother and I were raised, as my grandma puts it, as heathens
(as plural noun the heathen) a chance of salvation for the heathen
1.1 A follower of a polytheistic religion; a pagan.
1.2 informal A person regarded as lacking culture or moral principles:
eat your chips, you little heathen!
-
Floo has a real hang-up about Christianity in particular.
Not without good reason.
What Good Reason about Christ can she have a hang up about Christianity? Her own family does NOT DEFINE Christianity. Perhaps like Floo they could not submit themselves to God and be humble and loving.
Humble - you! You have to be joking!
-
. . . as well as the heathen like myself?
Have a care in your use of the term heathen to define yourself.
In modern parlence 'heathen' is a term used to define Pagans - or neo-Pagans - who follow the Norse or Germanic (Asatru) pre-christiqn deities and they would, almost certainly, not take kindly to your use of the term to describe your particularly virulent and unpleasant form of atheism.
Too bad! ::)
OED definition of "heathen":
chiefly derogatory
1 A person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do:
my brother and I were raised, as my grandma puts it, as heathens
(as plural noun the heathen) a chance of salvation for the heathen
1.1 A follower of a polytheistic religion; a pagan.
1.2 informal A person regarded as lacking culture or moral principles:
eat your chips, you little heathen!
1.1 just as I said, in a slightly different wording.
And I am not a heathen, I am a Pagan and follow Celtic deities. Chips? No thanks, I just had chicken and rice.
Get back in your rocket and return to whence you came.
-
No it isn't. I doubt very much indeed if Floo would hold the opinions on religion she does if she hadn't had the upbringing she had. Correct?
Being rebellious causes problems. Floo did not exactly help herself did she? Right and wrong on both sides but never Christ or God. They did nothing her parents and herself did.
The deity is evil, I would be evil too if I kowtowed to it, if I believed it to exist. As for Jesus, he was just another guy with a bit of charisma. I don't bow down to anyone, or worship them!
-
The deity is evil, I would be evil too if I kowtowed to it, if I believed it to exist. As for Jesus, he was just another guy with a bit of charisma. I don't bow down to anyone, or worship them!
Again, the word 'evil', floo. You have been asked to expalin what you mean by it several times, but have never provided an answer. As for kowtowing or bowing down to anyone - as a Christian, nor do I - so that's at least two of us.
-
The deity is evil, I would be evil too if I kowtowed to it, if I believed it to exist. As for Jesus, he was just another guy with a bit of charisma. I don't bow down to anyone, or worship them!
Again, the word 'evil', floo. You have been asked to expalin what you mean by it several times, but have never provided an answer. As for kowtowing or bowing down to anyone - as a Christian, nor do I - so that's at least two of us.
Would you agree Hope that a supporter of Islamic States position on burning people alive is evil?
Some Christians are supporters of burning people forever.
-
Would you agree Hope that a supporter of Islamic States position on burning people alive is evil?
That doesn't explain the meaning of the word in Floo's mind, jakswan. That is why I asked her for her explanation.
Some Christians are supporters of burning people forever.
Can't say that I know any, nor that there is any Scriptural evidence to suggest that such a belief is a Christian belief. I accept that the Church has been guilty of burning people in the past, but then that was a one-off event each time!! ;)
-
Can't say that I know any, nor that there is any Scriptural evidence to suggest that such a belief is a Christian belief. I accept that the Church has been guilty of burning people in the past, but then that was a one-off event each time!! ;)
Just like murdering six millions Jews was a one-off event each time ... six million times ::)
Only somebody with their moral equipment addled by religious belief could argue in such a flippant vein.
-
Would you agree Hope that a supporter of Islamic States position on burning people alive is evil?
That doesn't explain the meaning of the word in Floo's mind, jakswan. That is why I asked her for her explanation.
Some Christians are supporters of burning people forever.
Can't say that I know any, nor that there is any Scriptural evidence to suggest that such a belief is a Christian belief. I accept that the Church has been guilty of burning people in the past, but then that was a one-off event each time!! ;)
2corrie and TW seem quite keen on the idea. You would have to ask Floo but evil would be any action that inflicts harm on sentient creatures.
How would you define it?
-
As for kowtowing or bowing down to anyone - as a Christian, nor do I - so that's at least two of us.
So you never kneel, then?
-
If Floo's comments on an online forum make her that, you really need to get out more.
Shaker, I would have to agree - at least to an degree with Matthew on this. I have often found Floo to be extremely intolerant in certain aspects of her understanding of and attitude to Christianity: assuming, for instance, that the way she was brung up is the norm for Christian families.
Why should Floo be tolerant of religions that are based on numerous falsehoods, including the supposed existence of several supernatural beings and happpenings that ddefy the laws of physics
-
If Floo's comments on an online forum make her that, you really need to get out more.
Shaker, I would have to agree - at least to an degree with Matthew on this. I have often found Floo to be extremely intolerant in certain aspects of her understanding of and attitude to Christianity: assuming, for instance, that the way she was brung up is the norm for Christian families.
Why should Floo be tolerant of religions that are based on numerous falsehoods, including the supposed existence of several supernatural beings and happpenings that defy the laws of physics
As far as I know virgin birth is possible and materialism dictates that material is the substrate for life therefore resurrection not against the laws of physics unless you believe in a soul.
Please state what laws of physics are being defied.
Or that the laws of physics hold good everywhere at all times for that matter.
Since you have categorically said they are false the burden of proof is now on you.
-
As far as I know virgin birth is possible
How does that happen in humans, then?
-
As far as I know virgin birth is possible
How does that happen in humans, then?
I think we all know how it can happen now Shaker. The point is it is not against the laws of physics as genetic engineering is not against the laws of physics.
what I want to know is:
What things are hence against the laws of physics.
Secondly...if someone states that they are against the laws of physics do they think that these laws are eternal or whether they and we can contemplate the laws not being eternal.
-
Right and wrong on both sides but never Christ or God. They did nothing
There's a reason for that ;)
We both know that wasn't what was meant. ;D
-
Why should Floo be tolerant of religions that are based on numerous falsehoods, including the supposed existence of several supernatural beings and happpenings that ddefy the laws of physics
You could equally ask why any of us should be tolerant of anything that requires us to trust any interpretation of things by another human - something that, as you know, occurs within the scientific community.
-
Why should Floo be tolerant of religions that are based on numerous falsehoods, including the supposed existence of several supernatural beings and happpenings that ddefy the laws of physics
You could equally ask why any of us should be tolerant of anything that requires us to trust any interpretation of things by another human - something that, as you know, occurs within the scientific community.
At least science has some evidence to interpret, religion has absolutely none.
-
Why should Floo be tolerant of religions that are based on numerous falsehoods, including the supposed existence of several supernatural beings and happpenings that ddefy the laws of physics
You could equally ask why any of us should be tolerant of anything that requires us to trust any interpretation of things by another human - something that, as you know, occurs within the scientific community.
Because there's nothing else - there's no alternative; because science has an inbuilt methodology to eliminate human bias, partiality and preference as far as possible and to ensure that its productions are, depending on context, testable, repeatable and shareable.
That's why.
-
Why should Floo be tolerant of religions that are based on numerous falsehoods, including the supposed existence of several supernatural beings and happpenings that ddefy the laws of physics
You could equally ask why any of us should be tolerant of anything that requires us to trust any interpretation of things by another human - something that, as you know, occurs within the scientific community.
Because there's nothing else - there's no alternative; because science has an inbuilt methodology to eliminate human bias, partiality and preference as far as possible and to ensure that its productions are, depending on context, testable, repeatable and shareable.
That's why.
But Carroll wants to get rid of falsifiability in science doesn't he or is that just in the field in which he works?
-
Does he?
-
Because there's nothing else - there's no alternative; because science has an inbuilt methodology to eliminate human bias, partiality and preference as far as possible and to ensure that its productions are, depending on context, testable, repeatable and shareable.
That's why.
Does it? Shortly after I finished my teacher training, I seem to remember that certain long-favoured educational principles were shown to have been falsified by the scientist in question (Burt(?) iirc). Then, of course, we had Kinsey and his erroneous material regarding sexuality - something that was accepted by the scientific community for some time. That's just a couple of examples which - whilst the errors have now been uncovered - were allowed to influence public practice for various periods of time.
An other problem, of course, is that when such false material is accepted, 'testable, repeatable and shareable' becomes obsolete. How long does it take to iron out 'tested, repeatable and shareable' outcomes that have been based on such erroneous material?
Finally, for now, is whilst a lot of scientific material is based on observation and other important and valid ideas, they are often based on an element of guesswork. Think, for instance, of the idea of carbon-dating. This is fairly accurate up to the last 50,00 years, but beyond that period of time is pretty useless. With a planet that is possibly as old as 4.5 billion years old, 50K is a pretty insignificant period of time.
-
Does it? Shortly after I finished my teacher training, I seem to remember that certain long-favoured educational principles were shown to have been falsified by the scientist in question (Burt(?) iirc). Then, of course, we had Kinsey and his erroneous material regarding sexuality - something that was accepted by the scientific community for some time. That's just a couple of examples which - whilst the errors have now been uncovered - were allowed to influence public practice for various periods of time.
An other problem, of course, is that when such false material is accepted, 'testable, repeatable and shareable' becomes obsolete. How long does it take to iron out 'tested, repeatable and shareable' outcomes that have been based on such erroneous material?
Finally, for now, is whilst a lot of scientific material is based on observation and other important and valid ideas, they are often based on an element of guesswork. Think, for instance, of the idea of carbon-dating. This is fairly accurate up to the last 50,00 years, but beyond that period of time is pretty useless. With a planet that is possibly as old as 4.5 billion years old, 50K is a pretty insignificant period of time.
I think the sad thing is you were teacher and know so little.
-
Does it?
Yes, it does.
Shortly after I finished my teacher training, I seem to remember that certain long-favoured educational principles were shown to have been falsified by the scientist in question (Burt(?) iirc). Then, of course, we had Kinsey and his erroneous material regarding sexuality - something that was accepted by the scientific community for some time. That's just a couple of examples which - whilst the errors have now been uncovered - were allowed to influence public practice for various periods of time.
And?
An other problem, of course, is that when such false material is accepted, 'testable, repeatable and shareable' becomes obsolete. How long does it take to iron out 'tested, repeatable and shareable' outcomes that have been based on such erroneous material?
Vastly less time it takes than to iron out erroneous material as enshrined in what some people for some reason regard as holy books.
Think, for instance, of the idea of carbon-dating. This is fairly accurate up to the last 50,00 years, but beyond that period of time is pretty useless. With a planet that is possibly as old as 4.5 billion years old, 50K is a pretty insignificant period of time.
As a wild stab in the dark I'd guess that that's probably why scientists don't use carbon dating for anything they believe to be older than around 50,000 years *head desk* ::)
-
I think the sad thing is you were teacher and know so little.
Of English, I understand.
Very definitely, emphatically, not of science.
-
If Floo's comments on an online forum make her that, you really need to get out more.
Shaker, I would have to agree - at least to an degree with Matthew on this. I have often found Floo to be extremely intolerant in certain aspects of her understanding of and attitude to Christianity: assuming, for instance, that the way she was brung up is the norm for Christian families.
Why should Floo be tolerant of religions that are based on numerous falsehoods, including the supposed existence of several supernatural beings and happpenings that ddefy the laws of physics
Why not?
We are apparently required to be tolerant of her veherement and sometimes unpleasant rejection of our beliefs - so why are we not allowed to require her to be just as tolerant of our rejection of hers - and her way of expressing it!!
-
I think the sad thing is you were teacher and know so little.
Of English, I understand.
Very definitely, emphatically, not of science.
Are we talking about science here or the new Carroll variant of science, science minus falsifiability.....AKA Antitheism.
-
Are we talking about science here or the new Carroll variant of science, science minus falsifiability.....AKA Antitheism.
There is no "new Carroll variant" of science: it's just the same science - you know, the same methodologically naturalistic/materialistic and therefore functionally atheistic, evidentialist, empiricist science that has you wetting the bed every night and jerking your knees and swivelling your eyes here every day.
-
Are we talking about science here or the new Carroll variant of science, science minus falsifiability.....AKA Antitheism.
There is no "new Carroll variant" of science: it's just the same science - you know, the same methodologically naturalistic/materialistic and therefore functionally atheistic, evidentialist, empiricist science that has you wetting the bed every night and jerking your knees and swivelling your eyes here every day.
I hope you are right however Carroll received criticism for saying that if there was one idea that could be junked from science what would be his favoured exclusion. He came up with falsifiability and was 'rightly' criticised.
-
Why should Floo be tolerant of religions that are based on numerous falsehoods, including the supposed existence of several supernatural beings and happpenings that ddefy the laws of physics
You could equally ask why any of us should be tolerant of anything that requires us to trust any interpretation of things by another human - something that, as you know, occurs within the scientific community.
At least science has some evidence to interpret, religion has absolutely none.
That is your theory just as the evidence for science is mostly theory...
-
Uh oh ... spot the one who doesn't know what theory means ... ::)
-
Uh oh ... spot the one who doesn't know what theory means ... ::)
Even a simpleton would not have written the above.
We know what theory means in science. Pity you don't.
-
Bloody hell, what knob took your muzzle off tonight?
-
Uh oh ... spot the one who doesn't know what theory means ... ::)
Even a simpleton would not have written the above.
We know what theory means in science. Pity you don't.
Abusive, ignorant and proud a hat trick of my least favourite things.
-
At least science has some evidence to interpret, religion has absolutely none.
Citation required (and not one of your own statements, Floo) ;)
-
At least science has some evidence to interpret, religion has absolutely none.
Citation required (and not one of your own statements, Floo) ;)
Read your science books it is all there. People of faith will never be likely to back up their belief system with any evidence to support it. I would back science, against religion, which will one day have it all done and dusted, imo.
-
Read your science books it is all there. People of faith will never be likely to back up their belief system with any evidence to support it. I would back science, against religion, which will one day have it all done and dusted, imo.
Sorry, that is not a citation, floo. Not only is it simply an opinion (and therefore of no weight in the matter) it is - as science is anyway - based, to some degree, on human suppositions. After all, science and scientific theories and discoveries are all governed by human understanding. Let's take an example from today's news. Research into asthma has discovered that a drug which was developed to combat osteo-arthritis, but proved inefficient, has now been shown to be efficacious on asthma.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-32418080
This doesn't tell the whole story - the bit about the osteo-arthritis drug was mentioned in BBC Breakfast this morning.
So, we are still awaiting a citation for the comment you made in Reply #74
-
After all, science and scientific theories and discoveries are all governed by human understanding.
Of course they are. There is no other kind.
-
After all, science and scientific theories and discoveries are all governed by human understanding.
Of course they are. There is no other kind.
So, there is no objective, externally corroborated evidence, if that is the case. How does that differ from what is regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration?
-
So, there is no objective, externally corroborated evidence, if that is the case.
Yes there is - scientific evidence is corroborated by other scientists via the processes of (amongst others) replicability (where applicable), blind trials, double blind trials even, anonymous peer review and what have you.
How does that differ from what is regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration?
See previous answer.
-
After all, science and scientific theories and discoveries are all governed by human understanding.
Of course they are. There is no other kind.
So, there is no objective, externally corroborated evidence, if that is the case. How does that differ from what is regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration?
It differs in that there are hundreds of thousands of scientist the world over who study every subject with extremely sophisticated instruments. They test and retest and throw their theories out to the rest of the scientific community to check for themselves. Only when exhaustive tests and trials have been carried out do they tell us, the general public, of their findings.
Compare this to the ancients who did their best to guess at everything and wrote it down in your Big Book of Magic!
-
Good post JJ.
-
You can see this with the Higgs Boson particle, which had been theoretically predicted, but needed to be tested via various experiments. These initial tests appear to confirm the prediction, but this is just the beginning. More tests are now beginning, 'more data is required', as the phrase goes, and eventually other groups of scientists will probably attempt replication, so long as the equipment can be built. Results are then written up, and published via peer review, and are open to debate and criticism. It's a long, arduous and magnificent process.
-
Brilliant post wiggy.
-
After all, science and scientific theories and discoveries are all governed by human understanding.
Of course they are. There is no other kind.
So, there is no objective, externally corroborated evidence, if that is the case. How does that differ from what is regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration?
That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.
ippy
-
Brilliant post wiggy.
Why thank you, young man.
-
It's been a long while since I've been called that! ;D
-
It's been a long while since I've been called that! ;D
Didn't you know 100 is the new 80? :P
-
That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.
What isn't fair, though, ippy is there is little or no external corroboration for science either. Where is the external 'adjudicator' saying to scientists - "Yup, you've got that interpreted correctly", or "Nope, you're missing the point". As things stand, everything scientific is adjudicated by humanity, not by the information or material that is being commented or experimented on.
-
What isn't fair, though, ippy is there is little or no external corroboration for science either. Where is the external 'adjudicator' saying to scientists - "Yup, you've got that interpreted correctly", or "Nope, you're missing the point".
Other scientists - lots of them - working according to the demonstrably successful tenets of the scientific method.
As things stand, everything scientific is adjudicated by humanity, not by the information or material that is being commented or experimented on.
Layers of sedimentary rock, molecules and galaxies tend to be reticent on such matters.
-
What isn't fair, though, ippy is there is little or no external corroboration for science either. Where is the external 'adjudicator' saying to scientists - "Yup, you've got that interpreted correctly", or "Nope, you're missing the point".
Other scientists - lots of them - working according to the demonstrably successful tenets of the scientific method.
Yes this is the case with the string theorists and multiverse scholars who are coming in for some stick at the moment.
Carroll's answer to his critics as far as I can see is to wave the philosophical materialist ''whang'' at them.
-
250 points!
Your poster boy, Prof. Tegmark who thinks it likely that a multiverse may be testable, doesn't come in for much stick from you does he?
-
At least science has some evidence to interpret, religion has absolutely none.
Citation required (and not one of your own statements, Floo) ;)
Read your science books it is all there. People of faith will never be likely to back up their belief system with any evidence to support it. I would back science, against religion, which will one day have it all done and dusted, imo.
False dichotomy with promissory materialism .....quelle plonkeuse.
-
250 points!
Your poster boy, Prof. Tegmark who thinks it likely that a multiverse may be testable, doesn't come in for much stick from you does he?
Well.......... I don't come in for much stick from him.
-
No ... but if he even knew you existed and knew how you attempt to argue on here you would ;D
-
That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.
What isn't fair, though, ippy is there is little or no external corroboration for science either. Where is the external 'adjudicator' saying to scientists - "Yup, you've got that interpreted correctly", or "Nope, you're missing the point". As things stand, everything scientific is adjudicated by humanity, not by the information or material that is being commented or experimented on.
Science and religion stand or fall by the evidence of their ideas.
Ippy
-
Uh oh ... spot the one who doesn't know what theory means ... ::)
Even a simpleton would not have written the above.
We know what theory means in science. Pity you don't.
Abusive, ignorant and proud a hat trick of my least favourite things.
Below you Jak,
If you have nothing to say about the topic why not hit the road Jak.... after all abusive, ignorant and proud isn't my bag and sorry to disappoint your ego... you are no good at it, either...
-
250 points!
Your poster boy, Prof. Tegmark who thinks it likely that a multiverse may be testable, doesn't come in for much stick from you does he?
Yes and that's the difference Tegmark respects falsifiability. Carroll would like to see it removed from science...is that because he wants his philosophy to be classed as science I wonder?
-
Other scientists - lots of them - working according to the demonstrably successful tenets of the scientific method.
So you're happy with the fact that, over the years, particular processes or events have been interpreted in different ways by different scientists all using the same methodology? Where's the evidence value in that?
Layers of sedimentary rock, molecules and galaxies tend to be reticent on such matters.
Do they? I've always understood geologists, molecular chemists and cosmologists to feel that sedimentary rocks, molecules and galaxies 'tell' us a lot about the macro- and micro-environments in which we live.
-
So you're happy with the fact that, over the years, particular processes or events have been interpreted in different ways by different scientists all using the same methodology? Where's the evidence value in that?
Examples?
-
That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.
In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible. In other words, he either died and stayed dead, or somehow survived the cross and was somehow resuscitated within the rock grave (perhaps by the extreme overnight cold that such an environment might exhibit). If the former occurred, the authorities would have been able to produce the body. Did they? No. If the latter, is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him? Humanly-speaking, no. What other possibilities would you suggest, ippy? Remember that the grave was guarded by a troop of soldiers, and realistically, the disciples had no expectations of a resurrection so would have no reason to bribe those guards and steal the body.
-
It's a matter of Floo's opinion and the opinion of innumerable people who have had a religious upbringing they consider to have been abusive.
It isn't just religion.
Floo likes to be different.
She doesn't like the things most people do, like holidays, chocolate and Christmas.
She has " attitudes " to certain things, religion being one of them.
If someone likes something or wants to share something the chances are it will be Floo who either disapproves or doesn't share it.
It's just the way she is, I guess.
;)
Julie
I like milk chocolate in moderation, and don't mind Christmas as long as it isn't too OTT.
-
So you're happy with the fact that, over the years, particular processes or events have been interpreted in different ways by different scientists all using the same methodology? Where's the evidence value in that?
Examples?
Have to go out now, so will try to come back to this later. Just a quick comment though: I know I do it sometimes, but could you try to make your comment obviously different from what you are quoting. I almost missed the response.
Perhaps the most obvious example would be the question 'Is light a particle or a wave?'
-
I like milk chocolate in moderation, and don't mind Christmas as long as it isn't too OTT.
Interestingly, Floo isn't much different to me: I like milk chocolate (and I'm having to learn to like it in moderation ( ;) ); and I don't mind Christmas as long as it isn't too OTT. Mind you, I suspect the OTT-ness of our two opinions may differ. Hers, theologically; mine, commercially.
-
That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.
In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible. In other words, he either died and stayed dead, or somehow survived the cross and was somehow resuscitated within the rock grave (perhaps by the extreme overnight cold that such an environment might exhibit). If the former occurred, the authorities would have been able to produce the body. Did they? No. If the latter, is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him? Humanly-speaking, no. What other possibilities would you suggest, ippy? Remember that the grave was guarded by a troop of soldiers, and realistically, the disciples had no expectations of a resurrection so would have no reason to bribe those guards and steal the body.
So the story goes - but on what basis have you excluded the possibility of propaganda?
Lets face it, there is nothing in this story that couldn't be fictional - whether it be the impossible bits, such as resurrection claims, or the routine bits, such as who might have seen what, who might have said what to whom etc etc. Even stories about real people can include fictional elements: such as North Korean dictators allegedly showing remarkable golf skills at their very first attempt: not believable though is it?
Some, or even all, of this story could be anecdotal fiction but I've yet to see any of you guys provide a basis for excluding this possibility. You seem to accept that it must be true by default, and also that specific aspects of the story can be used to confirm that the story must be true - so when you say;
...is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him?
I'm wondering to what degree you have taken into account that this might not actually be true at all and that it could be propaganda. To exclude the possibility of propaganda in relation to Jesus, but be prepared to be more critical when it involves the likes of North Korean dictators playing golf or ex-American Presidents assuring us that they 'didn't inhale', is special pleading pure and simple.
-
Nice one Gordon!
-
I like milk chocolate in moderation, and don't mind Christmas as long as it isn't too OTT.
Interestingly, Floo isn't much different to me: I like milk chocolate (and I'm having to learn to like it in moderation ( ;) ); and I don't mind Christmas as long as it isn't too OTT. Mind you, I suspect the OTT-ness of our two opinions may differ. Hers, theologically; mine, commercially.
By OTT I actually meant in the secular sense.
-
Perhaps the most obvious example would be the question 'Is light a particle or a wave?'
You're in error if you think wave-particle duality is a matter of differing opinion amongst scientists. All physicists are working with the same raw data. What we can say for certain is that sometimes light acts as a wave - it has defined wavelengths which can be accurately measured - and at other times it acts like a particle - individual photons can be counted. Absolutely nobody on the face of the planet has or has ever had the faintest idea of why this should be the case or what this means: all we can say for now is what presents itself to the senses, which is that in some cases it acts like a wave and in others it acts like a particle. That's all. For now, at any rate.
-
That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.
In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible. In other words, he either died and stayed dead, or somehow survived the cross and was somehow resuscitated within the rock grave (perhaps by the extreme overnight cold that such an environment might exhibit). If the former occurred, the authorities would have been able to produce the body. Did they? No. If the latter, is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him? Humanly-speaking, no. What other possibilities would you suggest, ippy? Remember that the grave was guarded by a troop of soldiers, and realistically, the disciples had no expectations of a resurrection so would have no reason to bribe those guards and steal the body.
So the story goes - but on what basis have you excluded the possibility of propaganda?
Lets face it, there is nothing in this story that couldn't be fictional - whether it be the impossible bits, such as resurrection claims, or the routine bits, such as who might have seen what, who might have said what to whom etc etc. Even stories about real people can include fictional elements: such as North Korean dictators allegedly showing remarkable golf skills at their very first attempt: not believable though is it?
Some, or even all, of this story could be anecdotal fiction but I've yet to see any of you guys provide a basis for excluding this possibility. You seem to accept that it must be true by default, and also that specific aspects of the story can be used to confirm that the story must be true - so when you say;
...is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him?
I'm wondering to what degree you have taken into account that this might not actually be true at all and that it could be propaganda. To exclude the possibility of propaganda in relation to Jesus, but be prepared to be more critical when it involves the likes of North Korean dictators playing golf or ex-American Presidents assuring us that they 'didn't inhale', is special pleading pure and simple.
What Shaker said!
-
It's a very odd attempt to shift the burden of proof when people such as Hope and Alan (Alien) ask people to explain the alleged happenings on the assumption that the alleged happenings are true. It is a violation of the historical method
-
It's not so much odd as perfectly understandable - from their point of view, I mean.
-
Does it? Shortly after I finished my teacher training, I seem to remember that certain long-favoured educational principles were shown to have been falsified by the scientist in question (Burt(?) iirc). Then, of course, we had Kinsey and his erroneous material regarding sexuality - something that was accepted by the scientific community for some time. That's just a couple of examples which - whilst the errors have now been uncovered - were allowed to influence public practice for various periods of time.
An other problem, of course, is that when such false material is accepted, 'testable, repeatable and shareable' becomes obsolete. How long does it take to iron out 'tested, repeatable and shareable' outcomes that have been based on such erroneous material?
Finally, for now, is whilst a lot of scientific material is based on observation and other important and valid ideas, they are often based on an element of guesswork. Think, for instance, of the idea of carbon-dating. This is fairly accurate up to the last 50,00 years, but beyond that period of time is pretty useless. With a planet that is possibly as old as 4.5 billion years old, 50K is a pretty insignificant period of time.
I think the sad thing is you were teacher and know so little.
There are lots of very well educated ignorant people about jak, the two don't always mix that well.
ippy
-
That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.
In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible. In other words, he either died and stayed dead, or somehow survived the cross and was somehow resuscitated within the rock grave (perhaps by the extreme overnight cold that such an environment might exhibit). If the former occurred, the authorities would have been able to produce the body. Did they? No. If the latter, is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him? Humanly-speaking, no. What other possibilities would you suggest, ippy? Remember that the grave was guarded by a troop of soldiers, and realistically, the disciples had no expectations of a resurrection so would have no reason to bribe those guards and steal the body.
You nor anyone else would be able to substantiate any of this babble and you seriously think you have evidence; well if this is an example of your elusive evidence, it's not good.
ippy
-
That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.
In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible. In other words, he either died and stayed dead, or somehow survived the cross and was somehow resuscitated within the rock grave (perhaps by the extreme overnight cold that such an environment might exhibit). If the former occurred, the authorities would have been able to produce the body. Did they? No. If the latter, is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him? Humanly-speaking, no. What other possibilities would you suggest, ippy? Remember that the grave was guarded by a troop of soldiers, and realistically, the disciples had no expectations of a resurrection so would have no reason to bribe those guards and steal the body.
Hope
I really don't know why you put so much trust in the resurrection accounts as true historical reportage. The discrepancies in the narratives, and the images of Jesus presented in them certainly do not invite sceptics to consider the sequences of events as realities. Appealing to the problems science might have in explaining Jesus' supposed appearances after the cross are as nothing when set against the anomalies in the narratives themselves.
When St Paul (the first to write of the resurrection) spoke of his experience of the risen Jesus, he was obviously not talking about a being able to pass through walls, share some kippers on toast, and then disappear again - as in John's gospel. His only experience was of a 'being of light', and speaks of 'God choosing to reveal his Son in me'. This seems to be a kind of personal experience of Jesus that modern-day born-agains report, and maybe there was some kind of mass hysteria which then took over the 500 or so other believers, who claimed to have experienced the risen Christ. All this is a long way from the rag-bag of contradictory accounts from the gospels about a half-physical, half spiritual figure who walks around and half the time is not recognised by those he first meets.
-
I am of the firm opinion that if something less than credible in the Bible cannot be proven to be true, like the resurrection, its veracity has to be in serious doubt.
-
In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible.
Lets take spiderman, some say he was bitten by a spider that gave him his extraordinary powers and some say he was born with them and the spider bite brought the powers out.
Others say its simply fiction.
-
I am of the firm opinion that if something less than credible in the Bible cannot be proven to be true, like the resurrection, its veracity has to be in serious doubt.
How do you explain #us' existing in the middle of what appears to a lifeless solar system other than us....
Some would say it is impossible... The things that I see teaches me to trust the creator for the things I do not see.
It is more difficult to find the answer to why we exist (at all) if what man teaches about the earth and space is true than to believe Christ rose from the dead.
-
In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible.
Lets take spiderman, some say he was bitten by a spider that gave him his extraordinary powers and some say he was born with them and the spider bite brought the powers out.
Others say its simply fiction.
But we are not fiction, Jak.
It is a fact we exist but how is not a fact.
GOD, created us because there is no other explanation, is there?
Why life exists here but nowhere else.....
Unless they can prove it exists elsewhere. Anything possible but not the comic books which is clearly a figment of a mans imagination.
Is everything man teaches anything less than what he can imagine?
-
But we are not fiction, Jak.
It is a fact we exist but how is not a fact.
How 'we exist' is factually known, in that our species in its current form is part of an ongoing evolutionary process.
GOD, created us because there is no other explanation, is there?
Why life exists here but nowhere else.....
Unless they can prove it exists elsewhere. Anything possible but not the comic books which is clearly a figment of a mans imagination.
Argument from both incredulity and ignorance.
Is everything man teaches anything less than what he can imagine?
No idea, since I have no idea what your question means!
-
In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible.
Lets take spiderman, some say he was bitten by a spider that gave him his extraordinary powers and some say he was born with them and the spider bite brought the powers out.
Others say its simply fiction.
But we are not fiction, Jak.
It is a fact we exist but how is not a fact.
GOD, created us because there is no other explanation, is there?
Why life exists here but nowhere else.....
Unless they can prove it exists elsewhere. Anything possible but not the comic books which is clearly a figment of a mans imagination.
Is everything man teaches anything less than what he can imagine?
Of course there could be another more credible explanation! How do you know life only exists on earth, when the universe is so huge there could be many earth like planets?
-
GOD, created us because there is no other explanation, is there?
Who created god then?
Humans of course.. there is NO other explaination, is there? ::)
Just because we are too insignificant to know about the huge universe we live in doesn't mean we have to make up gods to fill in the answers, well most of us don't. :)
-
Ah but the only explanation is that the deity created itself! ;D ;D ;D
-
Ah but the only explanation is that the deity created itself! ;D ;D ;D
Silly post.
-
But we are not fiction, Jak.
It is a fact we exist but how is not a fact.
GOD, created us because there is no other explanation, is there?
No me not knowing doesn't mean your guess is correct.
Why life exists here but nowhere else.....
Unless they can prove it exists elsewhere.
So can you clarify for us, if they find life elsewhere in the universe you will give up your faith?
-
Ah but the only explanation is that the deity created itself! ;D ;D ;D
Silly post.
No sillier than some of yours, my dear! ;D
-
In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible.
Lets take spiderman, some say he was bitten by a spider that gave him his extraordinary powers and some say he was born with them and the spider bite brought the powers out.
Others say its simply fiction.
But we are not fiction, Jak.
It is a fact we exist but how is not a fact.
GOD, created us because there is no other explanation, is there?
Why life exists here but nowhere else.....
Unless they can prove it exists elsewhere. Anything possible but not the comic books which is clearly a figment of a mans imagination.
Is everything man teaches anything less than what he can imagine?
Of course there could be another more credible explanation! How do you know life only exists on earth, when the universe is so huge there could be many earth like planets?
If the universe is infinite, then there will be an infinite number of identical Earths with copies of us all on them.
If it is sufficiently huge, there is still a chance of identical Earths with our duplicates running around.
-
If the universe is infinite, then there will be an infinite number of identical Earths with copies of us all on them.
If it is sufficiently huge, there is still a chance of identical Earths with our duplicates running around.
I don't think this is actually true. It posits that an infinite universe is bigger than the number of possibilities but that might well be infinite too.
-
If the universe is infinite, then there will be an infinite number of identical Earths with copies of us all on them.
If it is sufficiently huge, there is still a chance of identical Earths with our duplicates running around.
I don't think this is actually true. It posits that an infinite universe is bigger than the number of possibilities but that might well be infinite too.
I mean that in any portion of space, there are only so many ways to arrange the atoms.
Given sufficient space, these arrangements of atoms will have to eventually repeat.
-
I am not sure we are in a position to stare that everythng is merely a factor if the arrangement of atoms.
-
I am not sure we are in a position to stare that everythng is merely a factor if the arrangement of atoms.
This is not my point, it was a rather whimsical point made by Sean Carroll in one of his books.
Essentially if you take a volume of space say 100,000 light years, there are only so many ways to arrange the atoms, quarks etc in that volume. Thus, if space IS infinite, then this arrangement MUST repeat somewhere else, as the arrangements are finite, but the number of 100,000 light year cubes is infinite. He was making the point that it would not have to be actually infinite, but very very large to allow some repeats.
-
Since I first posted this thread back in April the 'WUMs for Jesus' have been having a field day. :o Jesus must be so very proud of the way they have dragged the faith in the doggie poo with their constant backbiting and general nastiness. :o One poster, in particular, has such a huge beam in their eye it must be difficult for them to get through a door! They moan about non believers, and how they don't seem to have read the Bible, yet their reading of it is somewhat lacking if they think their behaviour does Christianity any credit.
If I had come to this forum, not knowing anything about the Christian religion, and only encountered the 'WUMS for Jesus', I would be tarring all Christians with the same brush. Fortunately I know there are decent Christians around who are a credit to the faith. Obviously I don't see it their way, but they deserve respect for their deeds.
I will never in a million years agree with Alan Burns POV, but in spite of the stick he gets from non believers, he never appears to lose his cool, which is to his credit. Maybe some of the 'WUMS for Jesus' might take a leaf out his book, (and pigs might fly ::)! )
I have mentioned before that some posters I invited to join this forum were put off by the nastiness of the WUMS. One was an unbeliever who had been toying with the idea of seeing if Christianity might have something in it for them, decided to look at Buddhism instead!
No doubt what I have just written will be dismissed with the usual disdain reserved for the 'heathen'. However, they might think on that if there is an afterlife they might not end up in the place think they will!
-
Since I first posted this thread back in April the 'WUMs for Jesus' have been having a field day. :o Jesus must be so very proud of the way they have dragged the faith in the doggie poo with their constant backbiting and general nastiness. :o One poster, in particular, has such a huge beam in their eye it must be difficult for them to get through a door! They moan about non believers, and how they don't seem to have read the Bible, yet their reading of it is somewhat lacking if they think their behaviour does Christianity any credit.
If I had come to this forum, not knowing anything about the Christian religion, and only encountered the 'WUMS for Jesus', I would be tarring all Christians with the same brush. Fortunately I know there are decent Christians around who are a credit to the faith. Obviously I don't see it their way, but they deserve respect for their deeds.
I will never in a million years agree with Alan Burns POV, but in spite of the stick he gets from non believers, he never appears to lose his cool, which is to his credit. Maybe some of the 'WUMS for Jesus' might take a leaf out his book, (and pigs might fly ::)! )
I have mentioned before that some posters I invited to join this forum were put off by the nastiness of the WUMS. One was an unbeliever who had been toying with the idea of seeing if Christianity might have something in it for them, decided to look at Buddhism instead!
No doubt what I have just written will be dismissed with the usual disdain reserved for the 'heathen'. However, they might think on that if there is an afterlife they might not end up in the place think they will!
So have I got this straight Floo. You want to unload your bile onto Christians and what they stand for and expect them to a) fall to their knees and repent b) what?
-
Since I first posted this thread back in April the 'WUMs for Jesus' have been having a field day. :o Jesus must be so very proud of the way they have dragged the faith in the doggie poo with their constant backbiting and general nastiness. :o One poster, in particular, has such a huge beam in their eye it must be difficult for them to get through a door! They moan about non believers, and how they don't seem to have read the Bible, yet their reading of it is somewhat lacking if they think their behaviour does Christianity any credit.
If I had come to this forum, not knowing anything about the Christian religion, and only encountered the 'WUMS for Jesus', I would be tarring all Christians with the same brush. Fortunately I know there are decent Christians around who are a credit to the faith. Obviously I don't see it their way, but they deserve respect for their deeds.
I will never in a million years agree with Alan Burns POV, but in spite of the stick he gets from non believers, he never appears to lose his cool, which is to his credit. Maybe some of the 'WUMS for Jesus' might take a leaf out his book, (and pigs might fly ::)! )
I have mentioned before that some posters I invited to join this forum were put off by the nastiness of the WUMS. One was an unbeliever who had been toying with the idea of seeing if Christianity might have something in it for them, decided to look at Buddhism instead!
No doubt what I have just written will be dismissed with the usual disdain reserved for the 'heathen'. However, they might think on that if there is an afterlife they might not end up in the place think they will!
So have I got this straight Floo. You want to unload your bile onto Christians and what they stand for and expect them to a) fall to their knees and repent b) what?
Floo is horribly mixed up: best to leave her to it.
-
No doubt what I have just written will be dismissed with the usual disdain reserved for the 'heathen'. However, they might think on that if there is an afterlife they might not end up in the place think they will!
With a few notable exceptions, they're an odd bunch, Roses! Best to keep out of the hornet's nest. :)
-
No doubt what I have just written will be dismissed with the usual disdain reserved for the 'heathen'. However, they might think on that if there is an afterlife they might not end up in the place think they will!
With a few notable exceptions, they're an odd bunch, Roses! Best to keep out of the hornet's nest. :)
If a Christian says such things, his Christian"credentials" are taken to task: if an atheist says such, he is in the clear, because he makes his own rules up as he goes along: pure egotism!
-
Blimey if I was a betting person and had placed a bet on the reaction I would get from the WUMS in Chief I wouldn't have got very good odds as they are SO predictable! ;D
You do wonder if they are really Christians, or dear old Satan's agents doing his work for him, they do it so very, very well! ;D
-
Blimey if I was a betting person and had placed a bet on the reaction I would get from the WUMS in Chief I wouldn't have got very good odds as they are SO predictable! ;D
You do wonder if they are really Christians, or dear old Satan's agents doing his work for him, they do it so very, very well! ;D
A subjective moralist is by definition one who pulls his morals out from his arse.......that's why, quite often, they stink.
-
Blimey if I was a betting person and had placed a bet on the reaction I would get from the WUMS in Chief I wouldn't have got very good odds as they are SO predictable! ;D
You do wonder if they are really Christians, or dear old Satan's agents doing his work for him, they do it so very, very well! ;D
You've got us dangling now Floo. How do you think Christians should react to your bile.
-
Vlad, you are laughable, your posts are far from pleasant! ::)
-
Vlad, you are laughable, your posts are far from pleasant! ::)
Floo you are projecting again.
-
Blimey if I was a betting person and had placed a bet on the reaction I would get from the WUMS in Chief I wouldn't have got very good odds as they are SO predictable! ;D
You do wonder if they are really Christians, or dear old Satan's agents doing his work for him, they do it so very, very well! ;D
How weird!!
-
Floo needs help she just can't admit it... ::) ;D
-
Floo needs help she just can't admit it... ::) ;D
To quote a past member, "Oh, the irony of it"!
-
It's a matter of Floo's opinion and the opinion of innumerable people who have had a religious upbringing they consider to have been abusive.
Shaker, it would be interesting to know how many people who were brought up in Christian families and have since left the Church, have the type of hang-ups that Floo has, and how many simply ditched their faith because they decided that it was/is illogical?
I can think of several friends who grew up within Christian families but have left the Church as they grew up, but I can only think of one of them who feels like Floo does.
-
As for kowtowing or bowing down to anyone - as a Christian, nor do I - so that's at least two of us.
So you never kneel, then?
Actually, no I don't. My knees don't allow it!! ;)
-
It's a matter of Floo's opinion and the opinion of innumerable people who have had a religious upbringing they consider to have been abusive.
Shaker, it would be interesting to know how many people who were brought up in Christian families and have since left the Church, have the type of hang-ups that Floo has, and how many simply ditched their faith because they decided that it was/is illogical?
I can think of several friends who grew up within Christian families but have left the Church as they grew up, but I can only think of one of them who feels like Floo does.
If you were told from birth you would burn in hell if you didn't get 'saved' you might not be too thrilled about Christianity either! It is the unpleasant 'you must be 'saved' dogma', that disgusts me, when it is used in an abusive manner. As I have often said I don't have a problem with mainstream Christians who have a live and let live approach!
-
It's a matter of Floo's opinion and the opinion of innumerable people who have had a religious upbringing they consider to have been abusive.
Shaker, it would be interesting to know how many people who were brought up in Christian families and have since left the Church, have the type of hang-ups that Floo has, and how many simply ditched their faith because they decided that it was/is illogical?
I can think of several friends who grew up within Christian families but have left the Church as they grew up, but I can only think of one of them who feels like Floo does.
If you were told from birth you would burn in hell if you didn't get 'saved' you might not be too thrilled about Christianity either! It is the unpleasant 'you must be 'saved' dogma', that disgusts me, when it is used in an abusive manner. As I have often said I don't have a problem with mainstream Christians who have a live and let live approach!
So you left because you didn't like it rather than because you thought it was incorrect?
Would you not believe in cars if someone told you that you will get knocked over if you step out into a busy street without looking?
-
It's a matter of Floo's opinion and the opinion of innumerable people who have had a religious upbringing they consider to have been abusive.
Shaker, it would be interesting to know how many people who were brought up in Christian families and have since left the Church, have the type of hang-ups that Floo has, and how many simply ditched their faith because they decided that it was/is illogical?
I can think of several friends who grew up within Christian families but have left the Church as they grew up, but I can only think of one of them who feels like Floo does.
There are undoubtedly studies of this kind out there - I don't know of any of them, but I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't exist.
One other person who springs to mind who views her religious upbringing along the same lines - if anything even worse - as Floo is the psychologist Jill Mytton:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267620
-
So you left because you didn't like it rather than because you thought it was incorrect?
Would you not believe in cars if someone told you that you will get knocked over if you step out into a busy street without looking?
Psssst ... cars are real ;)
-
If you were told from birth you would burn in hell if you didn't get 'saved' you might not be too thrilled about Christianity either! It is the unpleasant 'you must be 'saved' dogma', that disgusts me, when it is used in an abusive manner. As I have often said I don't have a problem with mainstream Christians who have a live and let live approach!
I am aware of your background, Floo - you've shared them with us here and elsewhere on a number of occasions. Of the hundreds of Christians I know, I can only think of one person other than you who shares such an experience. On the other hand, I know lots of people who were brought up in Christian families/non-religious families who have rejected/accepted Christianity in their teenage and adult years.
-
If you were told from birth you would burn in hell if you didn't get 'saved' you might not be too thrilled about Christianity either! It is the unpleasant 'you must be 'saved' dogma', that disgusts me, when it is used in an abusive manner. As I have often said I don't have a problem with mainstream Christians who have a live and let live approach!
I am aware of your background, Floo - you've shared them with us here and elsewhere on a number of occasions. Of the hundreds of Christians I know, I can only think of one person other than you who shares such an experience. On the other hand, I know lots of people who were brought up in Christian families/non-religious families who have rejected/accepted Christianity in their teenage and adult years.
People are still being emotionally abused by this abusive dogma today. The Pentecostal churches spew it out!
-
People are still being emotionally abused by this abusive dogma today. The Pentecostal churches spew it out!
I know people who were brought up in Pentecostalism, who have chosen to reject their upbringing - but none are as vitupertive as you.
-
People are still being emotionally abused by this abusive dogma today. The Pentecostal churches spew it out!
I know people who were brought up in Pentecostalism, who have chosen to reject their upbringing - but none are as vitupertive as you.
Well maybe they should be. Subjecting children and the vulnerable to this evil emotional abuse should be illegal, imo! I will continue to rant about it as long as I live!
-
Well maybe they should be. Subjecting children and the vulnerable to this evil emotional abuse should be illegal, imo! I will continue to rant about it as long as I live!
Why 'should' they, if they don't regard what they grew up with as abusive?
-
So you left because you didn't like it rather than because you thought it was incorrect?
Would you not believe in cars if someone told you that you will get knocked over if you step out into a busy street without looking?
Psssst ... cars are real ;)
Agreed. Glad you realised that.
However, you may have missed the point that not believing in something because you don't like them is not a valid reason for not believing.
-
So you left because you didn't like it rather than because you thought it was incorrect?
Would you not believe in cars if someone told you that you will get knocked over if you step out into a busy street without looking?
Psssst ... cars are real ;)
Agreed. Glad you realised that.
However, you may have missed the point that not believing in something because you don't like them is not a valid reason for not believing.
Likewise, believing in something because you like to is not a valid reason to do so.
-
Well maybe they should be. Subjecting children and the vulnerable to this evil emotional abuse should be illegal, imo! I will continue to rant about it as long as I live!
Why 'should' they, if they don't regard what they grew up with as abusive?
Any right thinking person would think threatening a kid with hell is abusive, especially as there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support this nasty dogma!
-
Any right thinking person would think threatening a kid with hell is abusive, especially as there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support this nasty dogma!
In which way is telling a child that, if they do something wrong, they will likely suffer, abuse? As for the oft-repeated bit in the second part of the post, I assume that - in your view - warning a child that sticking their fingers into an electric socket will result in unpleasant consequences is no better a dogma.
-
In which way is telling a child that, if they do something wrong, they will likely suffer, abuse?
I think deliberate obtuseness seems to be the order of your day. The concept of hell, as you know perfectly well, relates to suffering (of some sort - people make this ghastly nonsense up as they go along so they can adjust it according to their own personal level of sadism) after death with no possibility of cessation.
If you don't consider that abusive - to adults, never mind children - then clearly your moral compass is knackered and is in dire need of repair.
-
Any right thinking person would think threatening a kid with hell is abusive, especially as there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support this nasty dogma!
In which way is telling a child that, if they do something wrong, they will likely suffer, abuse? As for the oft-repeated bit in the second part of the post, I assume that - in your view - warning a child that sticking their fingers into an electric socket will result in unpleasant consequences is no better a dogma.
Don't be so silly Hope! We can prove electricity can kill or maim, (I have had several electric shocks in my life) you can't prove a deity or afterlife exists!
-
Don't be so silly Hope! We can prove electricity can kill or main, (I have had several electric shocks in my life) you can't prove a deity or afterlife exists!
Good to see that you have completely missed the point. I think we all believe that silly/disobedient/wrong behaviour can result in negative consequences. In general, why is this the case? Social beliefs.
-
In which way is telling a child that, if they do something wrong, they will likely suffer, abuse?
I think deliberate obtuseness seems to be the order of your day. The concept of hell, as you know perfectly well, relates to suffering (of some sort - people make this ghastly nonsense up as they go along so they can adjust it according to their own personal level of sadism) after death with no possibility of cessation.
If you don't consider that abusive - to adults, never mind children - then clearly your moral compass is knackered and is in dire need of repair.
What he said!
-
Don't be so silly Hope! We can prove electricity can kill or main, (I have had several electric shocks in my life) you can't prove a deity or afterlife exists!
Good to see that you have completely missed the point. I think we all believe that silly/disobedient/wrong behaviour can result in negative consequences. In general, why is this the case? Social beliefs.
You are trying to compare consequences in the real world, with consequences in your imaginary world of the afterlife. IT DOESN'T WORK! ::)
-
Don't be so silly Hope! We can prove electricity can kill or main, (I have had several electric shocks in my life) you can't prove a deity or afterlife exists!
Good to see that you have completely missed the point. I think we all believe that silly/disobedient/wrong behaviour can result in negative consequences. In general, why is this the case? Social beliefs.
You are trying to compare consequences in the real world, with consequences in your imaginary world of the afterlife. IT DOESN'T WORK! ::)
What Floo said!
-
So you left because you didn't like it rather than because you thought it was incorrect?
Would you not believe in cars if someone told you that you will get knocked over if you step out into a busy street without looking?
Psssst ... cars are real ;)
Agreed. Glad you realised that.
However, you may have missed the point that not believing in something because you don't like them is not a valid reason for not believing.
Likewise, believing in something because you like to is not a valid reason to do so.
Agreed.
-
Any right thinking person would think threatening a kid with hell is abusive, especially as there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support this nasty dogma!
In which way is telling a child that, if they do something wrong, they will likely suffer, abuse? As for the oft-repeated bit in the second part of the post, I assume that - in your view - warning a child that sticking their fingers into an electric socket will result in unpleasant consequences is no better a dogma.
There's substantially more evidence that sticking your fingers in an electric socket is bad for you than that doing something God doesn't like will consign you to eternal torment.
-
A very small number of people calling themselves 'Christians' on this forum have excelled themselves in wummery since I first started this thread. Their hypocritical utterances are mind boggling, especially when they have the cheek to accuse others of hypocrisy. One can only suppose the huge planks they have in their own eyes are blinding them to the truth about themselves. No one is perfect, I am certainly not, but I think I have a right to be a bit peeved when heathens like myself are constantly taken to task by the arch wums! ::)
-
Floo, you aren't a heathen.
-
Floo, you aren't a heathen.
Not in the strict sense as used by pagans, which has a very specific meaning - some people still use the word to mean anyone who simply isn't a Christian, though.
-
Moderator:
This thread contained a derail that mainly consisted of members sniping - these posts have been removed.
-
Floo, you aren't a heathen.
Not in the strict sense as used by pagans, which has a very specific meaning - some people still use the word to mean anyone who simply isn't a Christian, though.
I have often been called a heathen by some of those sitting on the sky fairy's knee! ;D
-
Floo, you aren't a heathen.
Not in the strict sense as used by pagans, which has a very specific meaning - some people still use the word to mean anyone who simply isn't a Christian, though.
I have often been called a heathen by some of those sitting on the sky fairy's knee! ;D
And how are you going to spend this Christmas with your family?
-
Floo, you aren't a heathen.
Not in the strict sense as used by pagans, which has a very specific meaning - some people still use the word to mean anyone who simply isn't a Christian, though.
I have often been called a heathen by some of those sitting on the sky fairy's knee! ;D
And how are you going to spend this Christmas with your family?
How are you spending the winter pagan festival?
-
Floo, you aren't a heathen.
Not in the strict sense as used by pagans, which has a very specific meaning - some people still use the word to mean anyone who simply isn't a Christian, though.
I shall be spending Christmas celebrating the birth of Jesus, and not pretending to be something I'm not
I have often been called a heathen by some of those sitting on the sky fairy's knee! ;D
And how are you going to spend this Christmas with your family?
How are you spending the winter pagan festival?
-
Floo, you aren't a heathen.
Not in the strict sense as used by pagans, which has a very specific meaning - some people still use the word to mean anyone who simply isn't a Christian, though.
I have often been called a heathen by some of those sitting on the sky fairy's knee! ;D
And how are you going to spend this Christmas with your family?
How are you spending the winter pagan festival?
On Christmas Day our eldest girl and our son will join us for Christmas dinner. On Boxing day the four of us will have lunch with our youngest daughter and family at their home.
-
Are you having a pity party Floo? Have a magic cookie!
-
Rhi,
Google the definition of heathen.
-
Rhi,
Google the definition of heathen.
Lady Rhi
DON'T YOU DARE - he has almost certainly already done it and knows full well what the pagan definition of Heathen is!
He wants to take the piss, let him do by himself.
-
Dearest friend Matty,
The pagan definition has nothing to do with what that word really means. So yes, google the definition of heathen, the pagans don't own the definition of that word. A heathen can be any unbeliever, so get over it.
-
Dearest friend Matty,
The pagan definition has nothing to do with what that word really means.
Since when have you been the arbiter of what words "really" mean?
So yes, google the definition of heathen, the pagans don't own the definition of that word. A heathen can be any unbeliever, so get over it.
Nobody owns any language; nevertheless, the word has a precise and a specific meaning within paganism just as schizophrenic does within psychiatry. It can't be helped - or stopped - if these words escape their confines and get out into broader language; it's a pity however that they becone bastardised in the process.
-
I'm not and don't have to be Shaker. But if you want to take issue on the definition with Webster and Cambridge, go for it. (Snork) Best eat some meat before ya do. Get some strength back and all.
-
I'm not and don't have to be Shaker. But if you want to take issue on the definition with Webster and Cambridge, go for it. (Snork) Best eat some meat before ya do. Get some strength back and all.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe an is, not an ought.
-
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/heathen
-
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/heathen
I would only take notice of what Collins says on the subject if Collins were pagan - they are not, so I do not accept theiir rather narrow description and neither will any other pagan.
Do you lnow what the main ingredient of a magic cookie is?
Marijuana! So go take a few dopehead!
-
If you were told from birth you would burn in hell if you didn't get 'saved' you might not be too thrilled about Christianity either! It is the unpleasant 'you must be 'saved' dogma', that disgusts me, when it is used in an abusive manner. As I have often said I don't have a problem with mainstream Christians who have a live and let live approach!
I am aware of your background, Floo - you've shared them with us here and elsewhere on a number of occasions. Of the hundreds of Christians I know, I can only think of one person other than you who shares such an experience. On the other hand, I know lots of people who were brought up in Christian families/non-religious families who have rejected/accepted Christianity in their teenage and adult years.
People are still being emotionally abused by this abusive dogma today. The Pentecostal churches spew it out!
Which Pentecostal Churches do you attend today?
None.. am I right? So why make statements about religious Pentecostal Churches in the UK,which you have no proof?
At best it is an opinion you cannot support with actual evidence because you do not attend any Pentecostal Churches ANYWHERE.
Why make up statements about the Pentecostal Church when you never go to any???????
-
People are still being emotionally abused by this abusive dogma today. The Pentecostal churches spew it out!
I know people who were brought up in Pentecostalism, who have chosen to reject their upbringing - but none are as vitupertive as you.
Well maybe they should be. Subjecting children and the vulnerable to this evil emotional abuse should be illegal, imo! I will continue to rant about it as long as I live!
Why rant about something you have NO present day experience about? You don't go to Church so have no idea what is being taught in the present day Pentecostal Churches. Till you go, then you are basically telling untruths as no evidence.
-
People are still being emotionally abused by this abusive dogma today. The Pentecostal churches spew it out!
I know people who were brought up in Pentecostalism, who have chosen to reject their upbringing - but none are as vitupertive as you.
Well maybe they should be. Subjecting children and the vulnerable to this evil emotional abuse should be illegal, imo! I will continue to rant about it as long as I live!
Why rant about something you have NO present day experience about? You don't go to Church so have no idea what is being taught in the present day Pentecostal Churches. Till you go, then you are basically telling untruths as no evidence.
So are you trying to tell me that the Elim Pentecostal movement no longer preaches that evil dogma, if you don't get 'saved' you go to hell? Because if you are I will tell you that is untrue. I might no longer attend the Pentecostal church of my youth but I know people who do and what is preached! ::)
-
So are you trying to tell me that the Elim Pentecostal movement no longer preaches that evil dogma, if you don't get 'saved' you go to hell? Because if you are I will tell you that is untrue. I might no longer attend the Pentecostal church of my youth but I know people who do and what is preached! ::)
Floo:
It is time for you to listen to what Jesus preached, Floo. He preached his message in his own unique style...by thought, action and deed....
What he says is that there are mechanics that are at work in our own daily lives which we cannot see but are largely evil. We can follow his teaching, accurately, and besides taking control of our own destiny in a healthy, upbuilding way, we take control of our own righteous spirit which will, at the end of the day, either be retained in Hades else be resurrected to a new vessel via righteous laws and into righteous circumstances...The choice is ours but I'm afraid most are doing it all wrong.
Still it will all come together on Judgment Day.
-
My dearest fan matty,
I know what your problem is, it's your damned pointy hat. You so need to let it go. I betcha if you would stop wearing your pointed hat, you wouldn't fly off your handle every time you're buzzing the area.
No old timer, it is you that does not know what a magic cookie is.
https://youtu.be/0nWgsVT98Ss
-
So are you trying to tell me that the Elim Pentecostal movement no longer preaches that evil dogma, if you don't get 'saved' you go to hell? Because if you are I will tell you that is untrue. I might no longer attend the Pentecostal church of my youth but I know people who do and what is preached! ::)
Floo:
It is time for you to listen to what Jesus preached, Floo. He preached his message in his own unique style...by thought, action and deed....
What he says is that there are mechanics that are at work in our own daily lives which we cannot see but are largely evil. We can follow his teaching, accurately, and besides taking control of our own destiny in a healthy, upbuilding way, we take control of our own righteous spirit which will, at the end of the day, either be retained in Hades else be resurrected to a new vessel via righteous laws and into righteous circumstances...The choice is ours but I'm afraid most are doing it all wrong.
Still it will all come together on Judgment Day.
We have no idea if what Jesus is quoted as saying was anything to do with him. If it was, he said some sensible things and others with which I would take issue, but then he was only a mere human like the rest of us.
-
My dearest fan matty,
I know what your problem is, it's your damned pointy hat. You so need to let it go. I betcha if you would stop wearing your pointed hat, you wouldn't fly off your handle every time you're buzzing the area.
No old timer, it is you that does not know what a magic cookie is.
https://youtu.be/0nWgsVT98Ss
I'm calling a final halt to this - You wouldn't know a humourous post if it hit you in the mouth!
You seem to think that you are the natural successor to Bob Hope or Tommy Cooper, you are not - you are about as funny as a broken leg or a serious case of haemorrhoids.
Keep trying and you will know when you have succeeded in posting something really funny when I answer you - until then . . . I would wish you "Fare Well" but I cannot, not with out laughing myself hoarse anyway.
-
My dearest fan matty,
I know what your problem is, it's your damned pointy hat. You so need to let it go. I betcha if you would stop wearing your pointed hat, you wouldn't fly off your handle every time you're buzzing the area.
No old timer, it is you that does not know what a magic cookie is.
'm calling a final halt to this - You wouldn't know a humourous post if it hit you in the mouth!
You seem to think that you are the natural successor to Bob Hope or Tommy Cooper, you are not - you are about as funny as a broken leg or a serious case of haemorrhoids.
Keep trying and you will know when you have succeeded in posting something really funny when I answer you - until then . . . I would wish you "Fare Well" but I cannot, not with out laughing myself hoarse anyway.
Ignore that post, MC. He has said he will ignore me at least twice, but he continues to make his churlish little comments. Watch this space. :)
-
Yes I know BA. Dear Matty has promised me oodles of times that he would ignore me. He can't cause I believe he is my #1 fan. Perhaps he's got a man crush on me. (snork)
A monkey sitting on a rock knows comedy, Matty's consists of posting about how he gets his poop to really shine. Whatever.
-
Yes I know BA. Dear Matty has promised me oodles of times that he would ignore me. He can't cause I believe he is my #1 fan. Perhaps he's got a man crush on me. (snork)
A monkey sitting on a rock knows comedy, Matty's consists of posting about how he gets his poop to really shine. Whatever.
Take care - he'll refuse to post to you, again, and again, and again...
-
People are still being emotionally abused by this abusive dogma today. The Pentecostal churches spew it out!
I know people who were brought up in Pentecostalism, who have chosen to reject their upbringing - but none are as vitupertive as you.
Well maybe they should be. Subjecting children and the vulnerable to this evil emotional abuse should be illegal, imo! I will continue to rant about it as long as I live!
Why rant about something you have NO present day experience about? You don't go to Church so have no idea what is being taught in the present day Pentecostal Churches. Till you go, then you are basically telling untruths as no evidence.
So are you trying to tell me that the Elim Pentecostal movement no longer preaches that evil dogma, if you don't get 'saved' you go to hell? Because if you are I will tell you that is untrue. I might no longer attend the Pentecostal church of my youth but I know people who do and what is preached! ::)
I am not telling you anything...
NO present day experience about? You don't go to Church so have no idea what is being taught in the present day Pentecostal Churches.
You don't go so you don't know.
I might no longer attend the Pentecostal church of my youth but I know people who do and what is preached! ::)
Name of people and address of church. Might go and have a look. At least one of us would know the truth that way.
And the second one of us could and should stop making statements till they have witnessed it for themselves.
I personally do not know anyone who if a true church goer would agree and confirm your testimony of events.
-
My dearest fan matty,
I know what your problem is, it's your damned pointy hat. You so need to let it go. I betcha if you would stop wearing your pointed hat, you wouldn't fly off your handle every time you're buzzing the area.
No old timer, it is you that does not know what a magic cookie is.
'm calling a final halt to this - You wouldn't know a humourous post if it hit you in the mouth!
You seem to think that you are the natural successor to Bob Hope or Tommy Cooper, you are not - you are about as funny as a broken leg or a serious case of haemorrhoids.
Keep trying and you will know when you have succeeded in posting something really funny when I answer you - until then . . . I would wish you "Fare Well" but I cannot, not with out laughing myself hoarse anyway.
Ignore that post, MC. He has said he will ignore me at least twice, but he continues to make his churlish little comments. Watch this space. :)
You know Matthew cannot change his spots whatever name he calls himself.
He hates Christians.... ;D
-
He hates Christians.... ;D
I am going to take the view that you are blind and not stupid.
Blind as you cannot have read my posts; either that or stupid because you are commenting after ignoring them.
I have stated, on more than one occasion that I do NOT HATE CHRISTIANS! In capitals so that even you cannot miss it this time.
What I hate ABOUT Christians is their everlasting insistance that they are the followers of the one true deity and everyone else, belonging to any other religious path, or none, are, at best delusional, and at worst stupid, damned for all eterinity, degenerate, perverted etc etc etc.
Matthew, no longer my handle, but I cannot expect one of the terrible two to take notice of that, has always stated that, as far as he is concerned you are as entitled to your beliefs as anyone else as long as you allow him the same freedom.
I only criticise Christians when they do stupid things like referring to "the pointy hat", no self respecting witch wears a pointy hat, only Christians do that on Halloween.
Now, unless you are prepared to leave your unpleasant and unwarrented prejudices behind, don't talk about things that you know nothing of, stick to fundamentalist Chritianity and leave Paganism and witchcraft to those who know what they are talking about.
And YES I do know about Christianity as I was brought up in a Christian household until I was 15 (I've posted this before as well) - you might understand what you are talking about if you had been brought up in a Pagan household for the same period of time - you might well not be Christian now.
-
He hates Christians.... ;D
I am going to take the view that you are blind and not stupid.
Whereas with you both are a dead cert...
Blind as you cannot have read my posts; either that or stupid because you are commenting after ignoring them.
I have stated, on more than one occasion that I do NOT HATE CHRISTIANS! In capitals so that even you cannot miss it this time.
Your posts as this one says differently...
EVIDENCE convicts you.
What I hate ABOUT Christians is their everlasting insistance that they are the followers of the one true deity and everyone else, belonging to any other religious path, or none, are, at best delusional, and at worst stupid, damned for all eterinity, degenerate, perverted etc etc etc.
.
What was that about this I didn't miss that either....What I hate ABOUT Christians
Do you want to phone a friend.. 50/50 or use a lifeline.. oops sorry not got any of those. Calm down and engage brain.
Matthew, no longer my handle, but I cannot expect one of the terrible two to take notice of that, has always stated that, as far as he is concerned you are as entitled to your beliefs as anyone else as long as you allow him the same freedom.
I only criticise Christians when they do stupid things like referring to "the pointy hat", no self respecting witch wears a pointy hat, only Christians do that on Halloween.
Nah pointy hats are for Dunces are you sure witches don't have pointy hats?
Now, unless you are prepared to leave your unpleasant and unwarrented prejudices behind, don't talk about things that you know nothing of, stick to fundamentalist Chritianity and leave Paganism and witchcraft to those who know what they are talking about.
Is that from the Matthew who says in capital letters:- that I do NOT HATE CHRISTIANS!
or the Matthew who says in capital letters:- What I hate ABOUT Christians
There is nothing unwarranted or prejudice about truths you as pagans decided to drop from the history of paganism and choose to ignore. If you don't like the truths at least stop blaming others for them. It is pact and parcel of the history of your beliefs.
Selective in your reasoning with Christianity and your own beliefs is never a good thing. Don't tell others they cannot show you up for what you do.
And YES I do know about Christianity as I was brought up in a Christian household until I was 15 (I've posted this before as well) - you might understand what you are talking about if you had been brought up in a Pagan household for the same period of time - you might well not be Christian now.
You don't need to be raised in either household to know it's history. But I know Bullsh*t when I read it and denial when I witness it. You couldn't be more in denial if you were stood in the de nile in Egypt.
-
Your b*tchy post Sass proves you dislike witches, so pot and kettle! ::)
-
Your b*tchy post Sass proves you dislike witches, so pot and kettle! ::)
. . . and pagans!
-
We both know that Matty and Floo are the worst two when it comes to hurling false accusations and insults.
We have to make allowances that neither have any real knowledge about Christianity and neither have any real knowledge about paganism. Both usually take their material from google... Enough to make the mind boggle at the cheek they show when trying to accuse others of their own wrong doings....
We have to patient with them Cookie.... :)
-
We both know that Matty and Floo are the worst two when it comes to hurling false accusations and insults.
We have to make allowances that neither have any real knowledge about Christianity and neither have any real knowledge about paganism. Both usually take their material from google... Enough to make the mind boggle at the cheek they show when trying to accuse others of their own wrong doings....
We have to patient with them Cookie.... :)
BEEP - the number you have called is busy - please leave a message.
-
We both know that Matty and Floo are the worst two when it comes to hurling false accusations and insults.
We have to make allowances that neither have any real knowledge about Christianity and neither have any real knowledge about paganism. Both usually take their material from google... Enough to make the mind boggle at the cheek they show when trying to accuse others of their own wrong doings....
We have to patient with them Cookie.... :)
And of course you don't hurl accusations around do you Sass? You lie when you say I don't have any knowledge of Christianity, I probably have as much or more than you!
-
And of course you don't hurl accusations around do you Sass? You lie when you say I don't have any knowledge of Christianity, I probably have as much or more than you!
My post show I question people who make statements that show no evidence of being based in true Christianity.
Such as your posts which show you have no real idea of TRUE Christianity in Christ.
Love and God are clues...
-
My post show I question people who make statements that show no evidence of being based in true Christianity.
Such as your posts which show you have no real idea of TRUE Christianity in Christ.
Love and God are clues...
Sass, you are a conceited bigot on this point. You insist that your idea of "true Christianity in Christ" is correct and that any other is wrong. A perfect example of bigotry.
-
Sass, you are a conceited bigot on this point. You insist that your idea of "true Christianity in Christ" is correct and that any other is wrong. A perfect example of bigotry.
She would also not know a Pagan if they were stood if front of her. Unless, of course, they were wearing a pointy hat!
-
My post show I question people who make statements that show no evidence of being based in true Christianity.
Such as your posts which show you have no real idea of TRUE Christianity in Christ.
Love and God are clues...
And what is TRUE Christianity, wot Sass sez it is? ;D ;D ;D Thanks for my first giggle of the day!
-
Sass, you are a conceited bigot on this point. You insist that your idea of "true Christianity in Christ" is correct and that any other is wrong. A perfect example of bigotry.
Oh please...
You and other atheists only use words like 'conceited bigot' when you have nothing to argue with against my point.
Your arguments would be more true of 'conceited bigot' I insist Gods idea of true Christianity in Christ is correct. Which is and shows the perfect conceited bigotry of your post as the true example of conceited bigotry. You claim to once have been a Christian and by your own admission makes you a bigot or a person claiming something untrue.
Either put up an argument or you become the bigot.
-
She would also not know a Pagan if they were stood if front of her. Unless, of course, they were wearing a pointy hat!
Wizard, warlock, witch or maybe one with capital D on would be more appropriate
in your case... ;)
Maybe if you were not as ignorance to universal definition in Christianity you would know EVERYONE who is not a Christian is a PAGAN by definition.
Which way are you looking now... Either way your red face is showing.
Paganism is a term that developed among the Christian community of southern Europe during late antiquity to describe religions other than their own
-
Wizard, warlock, witch or maybe one with capital D on would be more appropriate
in your case... ;)
Maybe if you were not as ignorance to universal definition in Christianity you would know EVERYONE who is not a Christian is a PAGAN by definition.
Which way are you looking now... Either way your red face is showing.
Paganism is a term that developed among the Christian community of southern Europe during late antiquity to describe religions other than their own
Yeah! So now you use the 2,000 year old definition to cobver up yoour total and complete ignorance of modern, 21st century Paganism.
This shows your idea of what Christianinty is - that of " late antiquity".
You have no ideas or opinions of your own, you even had to steal BA's overworked comment about googling to use as an insult to cover your ignorance of anything pagan.
-
Sass is certainly a WUM for Jesus! ;D
-
Yeah! So now you use the 2,000 year old definition to cobver up yoour total and complete ignorance of modern, 21st century Paganism.
This shows your idea of what Christianinty is - that of " late antiquity".
You have no ideas or opinions of your own, you even had to steal BA's overworked comment about googling to use as an insult to cover your ignorance of anything pagan.
I think then it did mean, any religion except Christianity ( as did heathen)
I think it was slightly less derogatory than heathen but not by much.
I don't know but it seems unlikely to me that the pagans in the past thought of themselves as Pagans.
I think our understanding and meaning of those terms today, means something else.
Paganism is a huge umbrella for a large variety of beliefs across many areas.
I'm prepared to be proved wrong, but what is a Pagan? Exactly? Other than some one who follows a variety of older beliefs?
???
Feel free to tell me 🌹 :)
-
Tbh, Rose, a pagan's someone who chooses to identify as such, as far as I'm concerned. You could argue that paganism's a belief in the path of an indigenous people, but neopaganism doesn't fall into that category. Or you could call it nature spirituality, but heathenry doesn't necessarily fall into that category. It can't easily be pinned down or defined, so for me it's more about feeling and living rather than belief.
-
Tbh, Rose, a pagan's someone who chooses to identify as such, as far as I'm concerned. You could argue that paganism's a belief in the path of an indigenous people, but neopaganism doesn't fall into that category. Or you could call it nature spirituality, but heathenry doesn't necessarily fall into that category. It can't easily be pinned down or defined, so for me it's more about feeling and living rather than belief.
And one of the refreshing things about neopaganism, it seems to me, is that its participants don't insist that "my way is the only right way".
-
I think then it did mean, any religion except Christianity ( as did heathen)
I think it was slightly less derogatory than heathen but not by much.
I don't know but it seems unlikely to me that the pagans in the past thought of themselves as Pagans.
I think our understanding and meaning of those terms today, means something else.
Paganism is a huge umbrella for a large variety of beliefs across many areas.
I'm prepared to be proved wrong, but what is a Pagan? Exactly? Other than some one who follows a variety of older beliefs?
???
Feel free to tell me 🌹 :)
Both "pagan" and "heathen" were, and are, only ever used in a derogatory fashion by Christians - "Pagan" came from "paganus" which meant someone who did not live in a city or town, a rustic or villager - "Heathen" was used in almost the same way as "paganus" and meant the people of the heath(s).
Heathery is, in modern Pagan usage, used to refer to those who follow the path of Asatru, the Norse Gods and Goddesses, Odin, Freya etc whose names, incidentally, are still used by Christians for the days of the week!
Paganism is, as you say, a word used as an umbrella to cover, in its widest possible sense, any and all religious beliefs that are not parts of Christianity, Judaism and Islam; although I am not sure that Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and those of the Far East among others, would appreciate their inclusion in the Pagan grouping.
However, when it comes to Paganism accuracy and truth have never seemed to bother the Christians on here, they will deny the truth of anything that either Rhiannon or I say about our beliefs and we are the only pagans currently on this forum so what would we know about our own beliefs?
We need to be taught what our beliefs really are by a bunch who follow beliefs whose followers tried for ceturies to wipe our beliefs off the face of the earth!
On this Forum they are STILL trying.
-
Both "pagan" and "heathen" were, and are, only ever used in a derogatory fashion by Christians - "Pagan" came from "paganus" which meant someone who did not live in a city or town, a rustic or villager - "Heathen" was used in almost the same way as "paganus" and meant the people of the heath(s).
Heathery is, in modern Pagan usage, used to refer to those who follow the path of Asatru, the Norse Gods and Goddesses, Odin, Freya etc whose names, incidentally, are still used by Christians for the days of the week!
Paganism is, as you say, a word used as an umbrella to cover, in its widest possible sense, any and all religious beliefs that are not parts of Christianity, Judaism and Islam; although I am not sure that Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and those of the Far East among others, would appreciate their inclusion in the Pagan grouping.
However, when it comes to Paganism accuracy and truth have never seemed to bother the Christians on here, they will deny the truth of anything that either Rhiannon or I say about our beliefs and we are the only pagans currently on this forum so what would we know about our own beliefs?
We need to be taught what our beliefs really are by a bunch who follow beliefs whose followers tried for ceturies to wipe our beliefs off the face of the earth!
On this Forum they are STILL trying.
Don't kid yourself. The truth is nobody actually gives a witch's waddle what you believe: just as you don't with the beliefs of others, as you so frequently and vociferously say!
-
Don't kid yourself. The truth is nobody actually gives a witch's waddle what you believe: just as you don't with the beliefs of others, as you so frequently and vociferously say!
YOU are of the two most vociferous deniers of my beliefs on here; deniers and denigrators!
-
YOU are of the two most vociferous deniers of my beliefs on here; deniers and denigrators!
Oh yes? Name some times. I do not seek you out in your particular Pagan area to denounce you, or use foul language to do so; as you deliberately seek out Christians in Christian forums to vent your spleen.
-
Oh yes? Name some times. I do not seek you out in your particular Pagan area to denounce you, or use foul language to do so; as you deliberately seek out Christians in Christian forums to vent your spleen.
No comments about dancing around naked?
No comments about violating virgins?
No comments about "beliveing in rubbish/ninsense"?
Hypocrite!
-
No comments about dancing around naked?
No comments about violating virgins?
No comments about "beliveing in rubbish/ninsense"?
Hypocrite!
I have never referred to "violating virgins." That's not my style. So kindly take that back. Whether I ever made comments about the other allegations there, well, quote where. And as if you've never made fun of my, and others', Christian beliefs. So, hypocrite to you, too!
-
And one of the refreshing things about neopaganism, it seems to me, is that its participants don't insist that "my way is the only right way".
Yes I would agree with that :)
🌹
-
I have never referred to "violating virgins." That's not my style. So kindly take that back. Whether I ever made comments about the other allegations there, well, quote where. And as if you've never made fun of my, and others', Christian beliefs. So, hypocrite to you, too!
No. I am not a hypocrite - I willingly admit to making fun of your beliefs for the pure and simple reason that you will not, or can not, see the stupidity of some of your comments and your incessant insistance that you are right and everyone else is wrong and I have never denied getting great pleasure out of watching you all squirm as you try to justify the unjustifiable.
You dismiss my beliefs for no other reason thatn they are not yours! At least I have tried yours before dismissing them as rubbish!
As to quotes of your comments - you know as well as I, you almost certainly checked before posting the above, that most of them date back to prior to the last cull and cannot be reproduced.
That is duplicitous.
-
No. I am not a hypocrite - I willingly admit to making fun of your beliefs for the pure and simple reason that you will not, or can not, see the stupidity of some of your comments and your incessant insistance that you are right and everyone else is wrong and I have never denied getting great pleasure out of watching you all squirm as you try to justify the unjustifiable.
You dismiss my beliefs for no other reason thatn they are not yours! At least I have tried yours before dismissing them as rubbish!
As to quotes of your comments - you know as well as I, you almost certainly checked before posting the above, that most of them date back to prior to the last cull and cannot be reproduced.
That is duplicitous.
I do not insist that I am always right and you are always wrong. I merely stand up for my beliefs, as you do - and in a far more aggressive manner than I!
As to the highlighted comment: it is dishonest and untruthful, and you cannot quote any instances of what I said, in particular the strange reference to virgins, because they don't exist, as you well know. That is both duplicitous and downright unpleasant; but par for the course with you.
-
I do not insist that I am always right and you are always wrong. I merely stand up for my beliefs, as you do - and in a far more aggressive manner than I!
As to the highlighted comment: it is dishonest and untruthful, and you cannot quote any instances of what I said, in particular the strange reference to virgins, because they don't exist, as you well know. That is both duplicitous and downright unpleasant; but par for the course with you.
Exactly what I expected you to say! You wouldn't know the truth if you got slapped in the mouth with it!
-
Exactly what I expected you to say! You wouldn't know the truth if you got slapped in the mouth with it!
You expected it of me because it's true, and if you had a shred of decency you would acknowledge that, instead of blustering like a six-year-old.
-
You expected it of me because it's true, and if you had a shred of decency you would acknowledge that, instead of blustering like a six-year-old.
I will stop calling you what you are when you stop being what you are. What you are is a liar by omission, commission or prevarication.
As stated by Colonel Nathan Jessop in the film "A Few Good Men" - "You can't handle the truth!"
-
I will stop calling you what you are when you stop being what you are. What you are is a liar by omission, commission or prevarication.
As stated by Colonel Nathan Jessop in the film "A Few Good Men" - "You can't handle the truth!"
Hi, old chap!
Hope I haven't offended you - but don't forget, you think I'm a liar!! ;D ;D
-
Yeah! So now you use the 2,000 year old definition to cobver up yoour total and complete ignorance of modern, 21st century Paganism.
This shows your idea of what Christianinty is - that of " late antiquity".
You have no ideas or opinions of your own, you even had to steal BA's overworked comment about googling to use as an insult to cover your ignorance of anything pagan.
Owlswing pagan religions you have no real clue about because 2,000 years ago you were not around. But Jesus Christ was and so was Christianity. If you had any real knowledge of the history of your beliefs you would know all pagan worship has it's basis in Baal worship.
You continually try arguing with basic chocolate fireguards as weapons.
God has been around before any man let alone outside beliefs were first invented from man. Our faith is in the creator and your faith is in the Creators creation.
You can argue all you want and make dismissive comments. It won't change the fact you are out of your depth and wrong.
It is amazing how you accept beliefs you know are made-up. When measuring that against Jesus Christ and the Truth from God. It is not I, who is in a weak position.
21st Century Paganism, is the denial of all the evil which it original stood for in history trying to make it some nice, feel good beliefs.
Get a grip man what you mean is no one who knows the real history of paganism would ever accept the wishy washy joke that 21st Century pagans have tried to to make it into. It has an unprecedented history as a collective of the worst evil in history. When people sacrificed their children and killed for an unfounded belief.
Nah! call me what you will. For 2,000 years Christs message is strong and it says:-
Love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself.
As for 21st paganism it so far back in the closet of denial they are in Narnia.
I just do not accept the lie that 21 st century paganism is. You can cut off an arm but it was still a member of the body it came from.
With Christ we don't need to change the message... It was pagan religions which originally killed the Prophets.
-
Sass you weren't around 2000 years ago so have no clue either. In fact judging by your posts you have less of a clue than most! ::)
-
Sass you weren't around 2000 years ago so have no clue either. In fact judging by your posts you have less of a clue than most! ::)
You really are not capable are you of understanding what is being said....
-
You really are not capable are you of understanding what is being said....
That is really funny coming from one like yourself who seems to have very muddled thinking! Thanks for a giggle on a really wet day! ;D
-
That is really funny coming from one like yourself who seems to have very muddled thinking! Thanks for a giggle on a really wet day! ;D
I am beginning to feel sorry for you.
How sad you cannot actually answer any point raised or be able to defend your position.
I am glad you giggle but like Ed in the Lion King, you really do not have light on upstairs when it comes to Christianity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x49NwjnwDUw
You never really understand the things being spoken about.