Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sassy on July 21, 2015, 07:02:58 AM
-
Christians chose the former...
Is it just about hope? No it isn't.
But the truth is God has a much better plan for our lives and most people are just to scared to let go of the reins and let someone else make the plans and decisions for them.
A number of threads on the forum read like a battle of keeping your own independence from God so mocking those who would rather depend on God. What options are there?
What do YOU really know about God when it comes to making that choice?
A choice we all make sometime in our life whether it is a conscious choice or not.
-
Most people live with hope for what the future holds, both believers and non-believers.
Believers just hope for more than non-believers.
-
Christians chose the former...
Is it just about hope? No it isn't.
But the truth is God has a much better plan for our lives and most people are just to scared to let go of the reins and let someone else make the plans and decisions for them.
A number of threads on the forum read like a battle of keeping your own independence from God so mocking those who would rather depend on God. What options are there?
What do YOU really know about God when it comes to making that choice?
A choice we all make sometime in our life whether it is a conscious choice or not.
We all need hope. I prefer mine to be realistic rather than fantastic.
-
Christians chose the former...
Is it just about hope? No it isn't.
But the truth is God has a much better plan for our lives and most people are just to scared to let go of the reins and let someone else make the plans and decisions for them.
A number of threads on the forum read like a battle of keeping your own independence from God so mocking those who would rather depend on God. What options are there?
What do YOU really know about God when it comes to making that choice?
A choice we all make sometime in our life whether it is a conscious choice or not.
We all need hope. I prefer mine to be realistic rather than fantastic.
But what is reality? You don't know any more than anyone else. You just look around you with your conscious mind and assume that is the only reality.
Many people have an intuitive impression generated probably by their subconscious mind, that there is something more to life than the obvious material reality. This gives them hope and faith.
Not that they are necessarily wrong.
-
Nobody mocks those who depend on God until they try to mix science with faith and make 'true for me ' true for everyone, even those for whom the Christian 'truth' has brought nothing but pain.
-
But what is reality? You don't know any more than anyone else. You just look around you with your conscious mind and assume that is the only reality.
Many people have an intuitive impression generated probably by their subconscious mind, that there is something more to life than the obvious material reality. This gives them hope and faith.
Not that they are necessarily wrong.
A reality revealed by disciplined methods that seek to eliminate human biases is more likely to be real; an over indulgence of subjectivity or intuition risks mistaking fantasies born of the human psyche for obective reality.
-
A reality revealed by disciplined methods that seek to eliminate human biases is more likely to be real; an over indulgence of subjectivity or intuition risks mistaking fantasies born of the human psyche for obective reality.
Indeed, we can all have dreams and hopes for un-evidenced things, but it is important to be able to distinguish between these and reality.
-
But what is reality? You don't know any more than anyone else. You just look around you with your conscious mind and assume that is the only reality.
Many people have an intuitive impression generated probably by their subconscious mind, that there is something more to life than the obvious material reality. This gives them hope and faith.
Not that they are necessarily wrong.
A reality revealed by disciplined methods that seek to eliminate human biases is more likely to be real; an over indulgence of subjectivity or intuition risks mistaking fantasies born of the human psyche for obective reality.
But we have already seen that the subconscious/unconscious mind knows more than the conscious mind does and is also more reliable in future planning and decision making!
-
A reality revealed by disciplined methods that seek to eliminate human biases is more likely to be real; an over indulgence of subjectivity or intuition risks mistaking fantasies born of the human psyche for obective reality.
But we have already seen that the subconscious/unconscious mind knows more than the conscious mind does and is also more reliable in future planning and decision making!
I wouldn't go that far. There is nothing magic about subconscious/unconscious mind, it can and does get things wrong; it may be less cluttered with day to day trivia, is all.
-
But we have already seen that the subconscious/unconscious mind knows more than the conscious mind does...
Why are you talking as if the two are separate entities? They are both a part of the same brain, and everything in the sub-conscious must first have passed through the conscious.
...and is also more reliable in future planning and decision making!
What evidence is there that it is more reliable? Has there been any research into the veracity of gut-feeling responses, or are you just assuming that because you remember the positive ones better than the negative?
-
But we have already seen that the subconscious/unconscious mind knows more than the conscious mind does and is also more reliable in future planning and decision making!
I wouldn't go that far. There is nothing magic about subconscious/unconscious mind, it can and does get things wrong; it may be less cluttered with day to day trivia, is all.
Freedom from clutter is not a small thing! The ability to observe subtle patterns in our lives is another plus that the conscious mind is incapable of.
We have also seen the power the unconscious mind has in the form of placebo effects....which is a major 'magical' ability IMO. Something the conscious mind is incapable of.
We cannot dismiss the subconscious/unconscious as easily as that! IMO it is the source of all human intuitive knowledge.
-
But we have already seen that the subconscious/unconscious mind knows more than the conscious mind does...
Why are you talking as if the two are separate entities? They are both a part of the same brain, and everything in the sub-conscious must first have passed through the conscious.
...and is also more reliable in future planning and decision making!
What evidence is there that it is more reliable? Has there been any research into the veracity of gut-feeling responses, or are you just assuming that because you remember the positive ones better than the negative?
I have already given you enough links. You want science...you have it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=unconscious+mind#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=unconscious%20mind&gsc.page=1
-
We all hope for different things, I hope to cease to be when I kick the bucket.
-
Freedom from clutter is not a small thing! The ability to observe subtle patterns in our lives is another plus that the conscious mind is incapable of.
The conscious mind is quite capable of recognising subtle patterns. Where did you get the idea that it isn't?
We have also seen the power the unconscious mind has in the form of placebo effects....which is a major 'magical' ability IMO. Something the conscious mind is incapable of.
You will have to explain this claim further. As far as I am aware the placebo effect takes place in the conscious mind.
We cannot dismiss the subconscious/unconscious as easily as that! IMO it is the source of all human intuitive knowledge.
And false "knowledge".
-
I have already given you enough links. You want science...you have it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=unconscious+mind#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=unconscious%20mind&gsc.page=1
I'm sorry, Sriram, I have tried the link and find a mass of confusing leads. Can you link more specifically?
-
Why do certain types of Christians think NON-Christians are somehow stupid, ignorant or 'refuse' to see the Truth??? ;)
-
Why do certain types of Christians think NON-Christians are somehow stupid, ignorant or 'refuse' to see the Truth??? ;)
Because they have simply been taken in by the whole fable of "God" and Jesus.
-
You can all live with Hope if you want - I'll stick with my current partner thanks.
Anyway his house is going to get a little overcrowded if only some of you live with hope. ;)
-
You can all live with Hope if you want - I'll stick with my current partner thanks.
Anyway his house is going to get a little overcrowded if only some of you live with hope. ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I'm sure he would hate that as much as we would!
-
I have already given you enough links. You want science...you have it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=unconscious+mind#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=unconscious%20mind&gsc.page=1
I'm sorry, Sriram, I have tried the link and find a mass of confusing leads. Can you link more specifically?
I have given you these links several times. You probably don't want to see it. Anyway, here they are.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910152011.htm - Placebo at unconscious level
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081224215542.htm - unconscious makes the best decisions
-
You probably don't want to see it.
Rude.
-
But we have already seen that the subconscious/unconscious mind knows more than the conscious mind does and is also more reliable in future planning and decision making!
I wouldn't go that far. There is nothing magic about subconscious/unconscious mind, it can and does get things wrong; it may be less cluttered with day to day trivia, is all.
Freedom from clutter is not a small thing! The ability to observe subtle patterns in our lives is another plus that the conscious mind is incapable of.
We have also seen the power the unconscious mind has in the form of placebo effects....which is a major 'magical' ability IMO. Something the conscious mind is incapable of.
We cannot dismiss the subconscious/unconscious as easily as that! IMO it is the source of all human intuitive knowledge.
'Intuitive' does not equal 'always correct'. Our intuitions are often wrong. Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.
-
I have already given you enough links. You want science...you have it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=unconscious+mind#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=unconscious%20mind&gsc.page=1
I'm sorry, Sriram, I have tried the link and find a mass of confusing leads. Can you link more specifically?
I have given you these links several times. You probably don't want to see it. Anyway, here they are.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910152011.htm - Placebo at unconscious level
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081224215542.htm - unconscious makes the best decisions
OK, Sriram, sorry to have bothered you.
I have again tried both these links and get the following message :-
"The page you are looking for does not exist, or may have moved or is currently under construction."
It can't be a glitch on my computer because link addresses work alright on other sites.
Anyway, it's not important because we are never going to see eye to eye on this, so I will keep my nose out of this thread.
-
Leonard,
I tried the links and they work fine. Are you by any chance trying along with the lines I have written after the links? Just try these.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910152011.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081224215542.htm
I request you to try again or go to the Science Daily site and search for 'unconscious mind'.
It's not about agreeing with me. It's about what latest research in science has to say about the unconscious mind. All of us should know that.
-
But we have already seen that the subconscious/unconscious mind knows more than the conscious mind does and is also more reliable in future planning and decision making!
I wouldn't go that far. There is nothing magic about subconscious/unconscious mind, it can and does get things wrong; it may be less cluttered with day to day trivia, is all.
Freedom from clutter is not a small thing! The ability to observe subtle patterns in our lives is another plus that the conscious mind is incapable of.
We have also seen the power the unconscious mind has in the form of placebo effects....which is a major 'magical' ability IMO. Something the conscious mind is incapable of.
We cannot dismiss the subconscious/unconscious as easily as that! IMO it is the source of all human intuitive knowledge.
'Intuitive' does not equal 'always correct'. Our intuitions are often wrong. Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.
It does not mean 'wrong' either.
The point is that the unconscious mind observes and senses phenomena that the conscious mind is unable to. It also makes decisions ahead of the conscious mind....and has been observed to make optimal decisions for the future....and also has dramatic effects on our health through the placebo effect.
Listening to its subtle messages certainly makes sense IMO.
-
Leonard,
I tried the links and they work fine. Are you by any chance trying along with the lines I have written after the links? Just try these.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910152011.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081224215542.htm
I request you to try again or go to the Science Daily site and search for 'unconscious mind'.
It's not about agreeing with me. It's about what latest research in science has to say about the unconscious mind. All of us should know that.
Both these links work fine Sriram, thank you. I will now read them and tell you what I think.
-
Well..thanks for trying again..Leonard.
For the benefit of others who may not be bothered to follow the links...here is a brief extract from each.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910152011.htm
********************************************************************
new findings demonstrate that the placebo effect can be activated outside of conscious awareness, and provide an explanation for how patients can show clinical improvement even when they receive treatments devoid of active ingredients or of known therapeutic efficacy.
"In this study, we used a novel experimental design and found that placebo and nocebo [negative placebo] effects rely on brain mechanisms that are not dependent on cognitive awareness," explains first author Karin Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Psychiatry
It has long been believed that placebo responses are related to conscious beliefs or thoughts and that when given an inert pill or therapy, patients get better because they have the expectation that they will get better, or in the case of nocebos, get worse because they anticipate that they will get worse.
Ted Kaptchuk notes, "It's not what patients think will happen [that influences outcomes] it's what the nonconscious mind anticipates despite any conscious thoughts. This mechanism is automatic, fast and powerful, and does not depend on deliberation and judgment. These findings open an entirely new door towards understanding placebos and the ritual of medicine."
******************************************************************
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081224215542.htm
******************************************************************
Alex Pouget, associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester, has shown that people do indeed make optimal decisions—but only when their unconscious brain makes the choice.
"A lot of the early work in this field was on conscious decision making, but most of the decisions you make aren't based on conscious reasoning," says Pouget.
Subjects in this test performed exactly as if their brains were subconsciously gathering information before reaching a confidence threshold, which was then reported to the conscious mind as a definite, sure answer. The subjects, however, were never aware of the complex computations going on,
*****************************************************************
-
Most people live with hope for what the future holds, both believers and non-believers.
Believers just hope for more than non-believers.
Interesting you believe the believer hopes for more.
-
Christians chose the former...
Is it just about hope? No it isn't.
But the truth is God has a much better plan for our lives and most people are just to scared to let go of the reins and let someone else make the plans and decisions for them.
A number of threads on the forum read like a battle of keeping your own independence from God so mocking those who would rather depend on God. What options are there?
What do YOU really know about God when it comes to making that choice?
A choice we all make sometime in our life whether it is a conscious choice or not.
We all need hope. I prefer mine to be realistic rather than fantastic.
So you believe the Christians hope is 'FANTASTIC'? Why is that?
-
Hi again Sriram,
I have now read the articles and learned that when subjected to external stimuli the subconscious can indeed come to a right/wrong decision of its own volition, and sometimes contrary to the conscious thought decision. Thank you.
Now I am struggling to remember how this affects the subject under discussion in this thread! :(
-
Nobody mocks those who depend on God until they try to mix science with faith and make 'true for me ' true for everyone, even those for whom the Christian 'truth' has brought nothing but pain.
Your view isn't realistic...
You cannot mix science with faith.I think you meant religion and science... because both religion and science require faith from a person.
Truth is that science and religion both require a blind faith at first. Though faith in science has not yet been made by sight...
-
Most people live with hope for what the future holds, both believers and non-believers.
Believers just hope for more than non-believers.
Interesting you believe the believer hopes for more.
Well, believers hope for eternal life with "God", the rest of us don't. Surely that is hoping for more?
-
So you believe the Christians hope is 'FANTASTIC'? Why is that?
Because it is based on the fantasy story of "God".
-
Why do certain types of Christians think NON-Christians are somehow stupid, ignorant or 'refuse' to see the Truth??? ;)
For myself...I personally have not found that to be the case.
Stupidity, refusal or being ignorant does not stop you finding Christ.
It is because man looks through the natural to find God and the knowledge of science etc. But the truth of God is simple and is found
through humbling ourselves and finding Gods way of calling man to himself. Man cannot do it, through his own understanding, his own will or strength. Christ is the ONLY way to know God.
-
Most people live with hope for what the future holds, both believers and non-believers.
Believers just hope for more than non-believers.
Interesting you believe the believer hopes for more.
Well, believers hope for eternal life with "God", the rest of us don't. Surely that is hoping for more?
I cannot see why that hope would alone sustain belief????
It didn't for you. Do you not want more? It is NEVER too late to ask...remember that... :D
-
Nobody mocks those who depend on God until they try to mix science with faith and make 'true for me ' true for everyone, even those for whom the Christian 'truth' has brought nothing but pain.
Your view isn't realistic...
You cannot mix science with faith.I think you meant religion and science... because both religion and science require faith from a person.
Truth is that science and religion both require a blind faith at first. Though faith in science has not yet been made by sight...
And your view is realistic Sass? ;D ;D ;D
-
I cannot see why that hope would alone sustain belief????
It didn't for you.
Of course not! I believed "God" existed because that is what I was taught from childhood and accepted what I was taught about him and his kingdom.
Do you not want more? It is NEVER too late to ask...remember that... :D
There are many things I would like to believe, Sass, but wanting to believe them is useless if you are unable to convince yourself that they are true.
-
Christians chose the former...
Is it just about hope? No it isn't.
But the truth is God has a much better plan for our lives and most people are just to scared to let go of the reins and let someone else make the plans and decisions for them.
A number of threads on the forum read like a battle of keeping your own independence from God so mocking those who would rather depend on God. What options are there?
What do YOU really know about God when it comes to making that choice?
A choice we all make sometime in our life whether it is a conscious choice or not.
We all need hope. I prefer mine to be realistic rather than fantastic.
So you believe the Christians hope is 'FANTASTIC'? Why is that?
My preference is to remain grounded, tethered to reality by valuing the disciplined ethos characterised by scientific methods. Anyone who actually cares about whether their beliefs are true or not would want to stay focused and not wander far from what is well evidenced through research I would have thought. If you wander too far you risk ending up in a fantasy land of baseless beliefs.
-
Why do certain types of Christians think NON-Christians are somehow stupid, ignorant or 'refuse' to see the Truth??? ;)
For myself...I personally have not found that to be the case.
Stupidity, refusal or being ignorant does not stop you finding Christ.
It is because man looks through the natural to find God and the knowledge of science etc. But the truth of God is simple and is found
through humbling ourselves and finding Gods way of calling man to himself. Man cannot do it, through his own understanding, his own will or strength. Christ is the ONLY way to know God.
Ok but you wont know that until you die. And maybe not then either ?!!?!?
-
Why do certain types of Christians think NON-Christians are somehow stupid, ignorant or 'refuse' to see the Truth??? ;)
Could it have anything to do with such people asking questions like this, Nick? ;) Or I wonder whether it something to do with the fact that some non-Christians make it very plain that this is how they view Christians.
-
Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.
Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.
-
Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.
Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.
No, this does not mean that if you think up some weird thing, it is likely to be weird because sometimes the universe is weird.
As ever, the time to believe something (and the ONLY time) is when the evidence is compelling.
Electrons can be in many places all at once. This is not true because it's weird, it's true because the science points this way.
True as always, means best approximation of truth, and always subject to change.
-
My preference is to remain grounded, tethered to reality by valuing the disciplined ethos characterised by scientific methods. Anyone who actually cares about whether their beliefs are true or not would want to stay focused and not wander far from what is well evidenced through research I would have thought. If you wander too far you risk ending up in a fantasy land of baseless beliefs.
The problem with this approach, imo torri, is that it limits one to a relatively narrow area of reality - namely those elements of reality that are open to empirical research. For instance, there are some parts of the natural world that I absolutely adore being in - walking behind waterfalls; hiking in the some of the most incredible landscapes around; (until fairly recently) running with no real purpose through wild countryside and demoralising urban sprawl: being different to others, being immersed in a book, being part of a community, being contrary! All these are things and conditions that science doesn't even attempt to explain. Science deals with patterns; imo, life deals with experience.
-
Hi again Sriram,
I have now read the articles and learned that when subjected to external stimuli the subconscious can indeed come to a right/wrong decision of its own volition, and sometimes contrary to the conscious thought decision. Thank you.
Now I am struggling to remember how this affects the subject under discussion in this thread! :(
I have already covered this in the 'Faith' thread.
You seem to have missed the 'placebo' effect and the fact that leaving it to the unconscious makes for better decisions. Ref my thread 26 above.
***********************************************
"It's not what patients think will happen [that influences outcomes] it's what the nonconscious mind anticipates despite any conscious thoughts. This mechanism is automatic, fast and powerful, and does not depend on deliberation and judgment.
...shown that people do indeed make optimal decisions—but only when their unconscious brain makes the choice.
...most of the decisions you make aren't based on conscious reasoning," says Pouget.
************************************************
You really think these are small matters to be dismissed casually?! And it should be obvious how relying on the unconscious relates to 'faith'. And we are just beginning to scratch the surface in this area.
-
Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.
Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.
Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.
-
No, this does not mean that if you think up some weird thing, it is likely to be weird because sometimes the universe is weird.
I notice you have had to use the phrase "if you think up some weird thing"; do you spend a lot of your time 'thinking weird things up'? I rarely do; my imagination isn't up to that.
As ever, the time to believe something (and the ONLY time) is when the evidence is compelling.
I'd disagree. The time to believe is when one believes something: when the evidence is compelling, then is the time to know.
Let's take an example: Mrs A, whilst doing her routine breast check comes across a lump. She ignores it for a month, and then notices that it is slightly larger. It is then time to believe that she has breast cancer and ask her GP for a proper check-up. Only when the results come back as malign/benign/something else can she really know.
I believe in Christ because I find the evidence to be more compelling of belief than of non/disbelief. It isn't only based on what I read in the Bible or hear in church: it is also based on my experience of humanity, and of the natural world. Ironically, at least for some, it is also based on my understanding of science and the limitations of science.
-
No, this does not mean that if you think up some weird thing, it is likely to be weird because sometimes the universe is weird.
I notice you have had to use the phrase "if you think up some weird thing"; do you spend a lot of your time 'thinking weird things up'? I rarely do; my imagination isn't up to that.
As ever, the time to believe something (and the ONLY time) is when the evidence is compelling.
I'd disagree. The time to believe is when one believes something: when the evidence is compelling, then is the time to know.
Let's take an example: Mrs A, whilst doing her routine breast check comes across a lump. She ignores it for a month, and then notices that it is slightly larger. It is then time to believe that she has breast cancer and ask her GP for a proper check-up. Only when the results come back as malign/benign/something else can she really know.
I believe in Christ because I find the evidence to be more compelling of belief than of non/disbelief. It isn't only based on what I read in the Bible or hear in church: it is also based on my experience of humanity, and of the natural world. Ironically, at least for some, it is also based on my understanding of science and the limitations of science.
Fine if that works for you, it didn't work for me.
-
Hi again Sriram,
I have now read the articles and learned that when subjected to external stimuli the subconscious can indeed come to a right/wrong decision of its own volition, and sometimes contrary to the conscious thought decision. Thank you.
Now I am struggling to remember how this affects the subject under discussion in this thread! :(
I have already covered this in the 'Faith' thread.
You seem to have missed the 'placebo' effect and the fact that leaving it to the unconscious makes for better decisions. Ref my thread 26 above.
***********************************************
"It's not what patients think will happen [that influences outcomes] it's what the nonconscious mind anticipates despite any conscious thoughts. This mechanism is automatic, fast and powerful, and does not depend on deliberation and judgment.
...shown that people do indeed make optimal decisions—but only when their unconscious brain makes the choice.
...most of the decisions you make aren't based on conscious reasoning," says Pouget.
************************************************
You really think these are small matters to be dismissed casually?! And it should be obvious how relying on the unconscious relates to 'faith'. And we are just beginning to scratch the surface in this area.
Yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that the subconscious mind is taking into consideration all the religious stuff that has been fed to it as if it were fact. Remember that the experiments you have told me about were with real external stimuli, not just recounted stories.
-
Hi again Sriram,
I have now read the articles and learned that when subjected to external stimuli the subconscious can indeed come to a right/wrong decision of its own volition, and sometimes contrary to the conscious thought decision. Thank you.
Now I am struggling to remember how this affects the subject under discussion in this thread! :(
I have already covered this in the 'Faith' thread.
You seem to have missed the 'placebo' effect and the fact that leaving it to the unconscious makes for better decisions. Ref my thread 26 above.
***********************************************
"It's not what patients think will happen [that influences outcomes] it's what the nonconscious mind anticipates despite any conscious thoughts. This mechanism is automatic, fast and powerful, and does not depend on deliberation and judgment.
...shown that people do indeed make optimal decisions—but only when their unconscious brain makes the choice.
...most of the decisions you make aren't based on conscious reasoning," says Pouget.
************************************************
You really think these are small matters to be dismissed casually?! And it should be obvious how relying on the unconscious relates to 'faith'. And we are just beginning to scratch the surface in this area.
Yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that the subconscious mind is taking into consideration all the religious stuff that has been fed to it as if it were fact. Remember that the experiments you have told me about were with real external stimuli, not just recounted stories.
You think philosophical naturalism is a fact.
What scientific facts can possibly affect us on the human level?
What scientific facts do we need to make us happy or unhappy on any other basis than I'm alive and i'm not (too) ill?
-
Why do certain types of Christians think NON-Christians are somehow stupid, ignorant or 'refuse' to see the Truth??? ;)
Could it have anything to do with such people asking questions like this, Nick? ;) Or I wonder whether it something to do with the fact that some non-Christians make it very plain that this is how they view Christians.
Do you mean ALL non-Christians & are lumping theists in there too? I'm not an atheist but I do resent being treated as some resistant idiot who can't see 'the Truth' if it smacked me in the gob ?!!?!?!?
I very often wonder if some here know as much about the 'opposition' as they THINK they do about their OWN faiths.
-
My preference is to remain grounded, tethered to reality by valuing the disciplined ethos characterised by scientific methods. Anyone who actually cares about whether their beliefs are true or not would want to stay focused and not wander far from what is well evidenced through research I would have thought. If you wander too far you risk ending up in a fantasy land of baseless beliefs.
The problem with this approach, imo torri, is that it limits one to a relatively narrow area of reality - namely those elements of reality that are open to empirical research. For instance, there are some parts of the natural world that I absolutely adore being in - walking behind waterfalls; hiking in the some of the most incredible landscapes around; (until fairly recently) running with no real purpose through wild countryside and demoralising urban sprawl: being different to others, being immersed in a book, being part of a community, being contrary! All these are things and conditions that science doesn't even attempt to explain. Science deals with patterns; imo, life deals with experience.
The world of inner experience is not off limits to science. That might have been the case 30 years ago, but areas like consciousness research are hot areas in science now. And where research goes, technology is not far behind; Samsung is working on a next generation mobile that uses thought control. BMW have a modified vehicle that you drive using willpower only; you can apply for a test drive here :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3162060/The-mind-powered-CAR-BMW-i3-navigates-track-using-driver-s-brain-waves.html
The world of thoughts and emotions is very much under the remit of science now so your habit of claiming some sort of exception for your beliefs because they are 'beyond science' somehow is starting to look decidely dodgy to me.
-
My preference is to remain grounded, tethered to reality by valuing the disciplined ethos characterised by scientific methods. Anyone who actually cares about whether their beliefs are true or not would want to stay focused and not wander far from what is well evidenced through research I would have thought. If you wander too far you risk ending up in a fantasy land of baseless beliefs.
The problem with this approach, imo torri, is that it limits one to a relatively narrow area of reality - namely those elements of reality that are open to empirical research. For instance, there are some parts of the natural world that I absolutely adore being in - walking behind waterfalls; hiking in the some of the most incredible landscapes around; (until fairly recently) running with no real purpose through wild countryside and demoralising urban sprawl: being different to others, being immersed in a book, being part of a community, being contrary! All these are things and conditions that science doesn't even attempt to explain. Science deals with patterns; imo, life deals with experience.
The world of inner experience is not off limits to science... Samsung is working on a next generation mobile that uses thought control. BMW have a modified vehicle that you drive using willpower only; you can apply for a test drive here :
Torridon you seem to have, like the hyena who fell into a vat of OXO, made a laughing stock of yourself.
I don't think making your motor go just by thinking about can be classed as ''Inner experience''.
Fuck me, you are so far off the mark I certainly wouldn't allow you any where near the thought control of a car.
-
Interesting you believe the believer hopes for more.
You hope for eternal life. I hope for a peaceful prosperous and sustainable future. I think you hope for more than me.
-
Nobody mocks those who depend on God until they try to mix science with faith and make 'true for me ' true for everyone, even those for whom the Christian 'truth' has brought nothing but pain.
Your view isn't realistic...
You cannot mix science with faith.I think you meant religion and science... because both religion and science require faith from a person.
Truth is that science and religion both require a blind faith at first. Though faith in science has not yet been made by sight...
And your view is realistic Sass? ;D ;D ;D
If you believe my view above is unrealistic then by all means state what is unrealistic and why. If you cannot do that, then what are you talking about?
-
I cannot see why that hope would alone sustain belief????
It didn't for you.
Of course not! I believed "God" existed because that is what I was taught from childhood and accepted what I was taught about him and his kingdom.
Do you not want more? It is NEVER too late to ask...remember that... :D
There are many things I would like to believe, Sass, but wanting to believe them is useless if you are unable to convince yourself that they are true.
There lies the error, Len.
If you were trying to convince yourself then you had no faith in what you believed.
You should never be the person trying to convince yourself. You can do nothing of yourself. You needed to remember you cannot succeed in your own strength. You needed to do everything through Christ... :-*
-
Christians chose the former...
Is it just about hope? No it isn't.
But the truth is God has a much better plan for our lives and most people are just to scared to let go of the reins and let someone else make the plans and decisions for them.
A number of threads on the forum read like a battle of keeping your own independence from God so mocking those who would rather depend on God. What options are there?
What do YOU really know about God when it comes to making that choice?
A choice we all make sometime in our life whether it is a conscious choice or not.
We all need hope. I prefer mine to be realistic rather than fantastic.
So you believe the Christians hope is 'FANTASTIC'? Why is that?
My preference is to remain grounded, tethered to reality by valuing the disciplined ethos characterised by scientific methods. Anyone who actually cares about whether their beliefs are true or not would want to stay focused and not wander far from what is well evidenced through research I would have thought. If you wander too far you risk ending up in a fantasy land of baseless beliefs.
A man gets tied up to the ground he gives the world it's saddest sound, it's saddest sound....
Scientific methods do not and cannot represent the truth from God or the creation and Christ. Fantasy is what we create but what the bible does is reveal the truth and power of God. Your reply does not really represent what I asked.... Why do you believe what the Christians hope for to be fantastic?
-
Why do certain types of Christians think NON-Christians are somehow stupid, ignorant or 'refuse' to see the Truth??? ;)
For myself...I personally have not found that to be the case.
Stupidity, refusal or being ignorant does not stop you finding Christ.
It is because man looks through the natural to find God and the knowledge of science etc. But the truth of God is simple and is found
through humbling ourselves and finding Gods way of calling man to himself. Man cannot do it, through his own understanding, his own will or strength. Christ is the ONLY way to know God.
Ok but you wont know that until you die. And maybe not then either ?!!?!?
Know what? I know what I have said that Christ is the ONLY way to God. It is personal experience that allows me the knowledge that we cannot do it through our own wisdom and strength.
We can know the presence of God here and NOW....
-
Interesting you believe the believer hopes for more.
You hope for eternal life. I hope for a peaceful prosperous and sustainable future. I think you hope for more than me.
My hope is present too.
-
There lies the error, Len.
If you were trying to convince yourself then you had no faith in what you believed.
You should never be the person trying to convince yourself. You can do nothing of yourself. You needed to remember you cannot succeed in your own strength. You needed to do everything through Christ... :-*
But I couldn't believe what Jesus said, no matter how hard I tried, so I prayed for help. None came.
-
Hi again Sriram,
I have now read the articles and learned that when subjected to external stimuli the subconscious can indeed come to a right/wrong decision of its own volition, and sometimes contrary to the conscious thought decision. Thank you.
Now I am struggling to remember how this affects the subject under discussion in this thread! :(
I have already covered this in the 'Faith' thread.
You seem to have missed the 'placebo' effect and the fact that leaving it to the unconscious makes for better decisions. Ref my thread 26 above.
***********************************************
"It's not what patients think will happen [that influences outcomes] it's what the nonconscious mind anticipates despite any conscious thoughts. This mechanism is automatic, fast and powerful, and does not depend on deliberation and judgment.
...shown that people do indeed make optimal decisions—but only when their unconscious brain makes the choice.
...most of the decisions you make aren't based on conscious reasoning," says Pouget.
************************************************
You really think these are small matters to be dismissed casually?! And it should be obvious how relying on the unconscious relates to 'faith'. And we are just beginning to scratch the surface in this area.
Yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that the subconscious mind is taking into consideration all the religious stuff that has been fed to it as if it were fact. Remember that the experiments you have told me about were with real external stimuli, not just recounted stories.
You are still thinking of the unconscious mind as just a dumb repository of memories. From what we have seen it is more observant, more careful, more intelligent and more powerful than the conscious mind. And our ego self awareness is not connected to it at all.
For you...faith healing is nonsense. Just an imaginary and delusional belief. For me.... 'faith healing' is real. I have seen it happen. And from the placebo effect of the unconscious mind, I am able to see how this 'faith healing' works.
Similarly...for you....any power superior to the conscious mind is nonsense. So...for you...giving up ego control is nonsense. For me.... abandoning all ego control leads to happiness and better decisions in the long run. I can see how this also works through the unconscious mind.
You think of the unconscious mind as 'you'. Just an extension of the conscious mind. Reality is that the 'you' is confined to the conscious mind and the unconscious mind is outside your control and even your awareness.
What the unconscious mind has observed, what it knows, what it decides and how it works...is completely outside our orbit...and understanding.
Do you get my point now?!
-
The problem with this approach, imo torri, is that it limits one to a relatively narrow area of reality - namely those elements of reality that are open to empirical research. For instance, there are some parts of the natural world that I absolutely adore being in - walking behind waterfalls; hiking in the some of the most incredible landscapes around; (until fairly recently) running with no real purpose through wild countryside and demoralising urban sprawl: being different to others, being immersed in a book, being part of a community, being contrary! All these are things and conditions that science doesn't even attempt to explain. Science deals with patterns; imo, life deals with experience.
The world of inner experience is not off limits to science... Samsung is working on a next generation mobile that uses thought control. BMW have a modified vehicle that you drive using willpower only; you can apply for a test drive here :
Torridon you seem to have, like the hyena who fell into a vat of OXO, made a laughing stock of yourself.
I don't think making your motor go just by thinking about can be classed as ''Inner experience''.
Fuck me, you are so far off the mark I certainly wouldn't allow you any where near the thought control of a car.
That is where we are at already Vlad, in terms of man/machine interface, it's already a reality. Beliefs, thoughts, desires are not immaterial things beyond science, they are material things that can be measured, calibrated, fashioned, transmitted. Our great grandchildren will consider our tech soooo primitive, I mean, grandad, did you really have to interface with a computer by typing characters of a language on a keyboard ? Soo clunky that. In the future we will be biologically and psychologically integrated with machines.
-
We all need hope. I prefer mine to be realistic rather than fantastic.
So you believe the Christians hope is 'FANTASTIC'? Why is that?
My preference is to remain grounded, tethered to reality by valuing the disciplined ethos characterised by scientific methods. Anyone who actually cares about whether their beliefs are true or not would want to stay focused and not wander far from what is well evidenced through research I would have thought. If you wander too far you risk ending up in a fantasy land of baseless beliefs.
A man gets tied up to the ground he gives the world it's saddest sound, it's saddest sound....
Scientific methods do not and cannot represent the truth from God or the creation and Christ. Fantasy is what we create but what the bible does is reveal the truth and power of God. Your reply does not really represent what I asked.... Why do you believe what the Christians hope for to be fantastic?
Because any belief not derived from evidence is fantasy, by definition. If there were any evidence for a god, then 'goddidit' would be a leading theory in cosmology. As it is, there is no such evidence, so goddidit is not even a theory, never mind a leading one. Goddidit, is therefore, is an indulgence, a fantasy indulged for psychological reasons, but not a rational explanation based on evidence.
-
Because any belief not derived from evidence is fantasy, by definition. If there were any evidence for a god, then 'goddidit' would be a leading theory in cosmology. As it is, there is no such evidence, so goddidit is not even a theory, never mind a leading one. Goddidit, is therefore, is an indulgence, a fantasy indulged for psychological reasons, but not a rational explanation based on evidence.
Wise words wasted, I'm afraid, Torri. You might as well say it all in Chinese ... Sass will understand it no worse. If it ain't in the Bible it ain't true! :)
-
...
True as always, means best approximation of truth, and always subject to change.
Is your statement here true as in a best approximation of truth and always subject to change? If it were to change it would mean that "true" would mean something other than a (best) approximation of truth.
You seem to be using "true" and "truth" in significantly different ways. Would it not be better to say that something is the best approximation to reality?
-
Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.
Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.
Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.
Your claim here is self-refuting. What verifiable evidence do you have to back it up so that it is reasonable for me to believe?
-
Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.
Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.
Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.
Your claim here is self-refuting. What verifiable evidence do you have to back it up so that it is reasonable for me to believe?
What evidence do you need for the self evident truth:
"if you have no evidence I can check, I don't need to believe your assertion".
-
Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.
Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.
Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.
Your claim here is self-refuting. What verifiable evidence do you have to back it up so that it is reasonable for me to believe?
What evidence do you need for the self evident truth:
"if you have no evidence I can check, I don't need to believe your assertion".
Floo was claiming that is wrong to believe something "beyond science", whatever that means. It sounds like scientism to me. Would you agree? If so, would you say that scientism is correct?
I'm not here arguing that Christianity is correct, just pointing out that Floo's claim is self-refuting since it seems to be "beyond science" itself and has no verifiable evidence itself to back it up.
-
Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.
Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.
Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.
Your claim here is self-refuting. What verifiable evidence do you have to back it up so that it is reasonable for me to believe?
What evidence do you need for the self evident truth:
"if you have no evidence I can check, I don't need to believe your assertion".
Floo was claiming that is wrong to believe something "beyond science", whatever that means. It sounds like scientism to me. Would you agree? If so, would you say that scientism is correct?
I'm not here arguing that Christianity is correct, just pointing out that Floo's claim is self-refuting since it seems to be "beyond science" itself and has no verifiable evidence itself to back it up.
That isn't what Floo wrote
-
Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.
Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.
Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.
Your claim here is self-refuting. What verifiable evidence do you have to back it up so that it is reasonable for me to believe?
What evidence do you need for the self evident truth:
"if you have no evidence I can check, I don't need to believe your assertion".
Floo was claiming that is wrong to believe something "beyond science", whatever that means. It sounds like scientism to me. Would you agree? If so, would you say that scientism is correct?
I'm not here arguing that Christianity is correct, just pointing out that Floo's claim is self-refuting since it seems to be "beyond science" itself and has no verifiable evidence itself to back it up.
That isn't what Floo wrote
Maybe I misunderstood what she wrote. What do think she wrote?
-
That isn't what Floo wrote
Maybe I misunderstood what she wrote. What do think she wrote?
'Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.'
If something is 'as reasonable not to believe' then that isn't saying believing is wrong, is it?
-
That isn't what Floo wrote
Maybe I misunderstood what she wrote. What do think she wrote?
'Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.'
If something is 'as reasonable not to believe' then that isn't saying believing is wrong, is it?
Indeed. I read her wrongly.
OED says "verify" means,"Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified." That goes for everything, doesn't it, scientific or not (apart from perhaps believing something to be, on balance, true, i.e. assigning some significant uncertainty, but not >50%).
-
Indeed. I read her wrongly.
OED says "verify" means,"Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified." That goes for everything, doesn't it, scientific or not (apart from perhaps believing something to be, on balance, true, i.e. assigning some significant uncertainty, but not >50%).
Not sure of your point here. Evidence that can be verified would to me be something that independent of the observer could be established using an agreed methodology. It may be that Floo's point is that there is an absence of such a methodology for non scientific claims, which I would suggest is incorrect but if you were to substitute naturalistic for science, I would probably agree with. That isn't to say that either everything that is natural can have verified evidence provided for it or that there is only the natural.
-
Indeed. I read her wrongly.
OED says "verify" means,"Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified." That goes for everything, doesn't it, scientific or not (apart from perhaps believing something to be, on balance, true, i.e. assigning some significant uncertainty, but not >50%).
Not sure of your point here. Evidence that can be verified would to me be something that independent of the observer could be established using an agreed methodology. It may be that Floo's point is that there is an absence of such a methodology for non scientific claims, which I would suggest is incorrect but if you were to substitute naturalistic for science, I would probably agree with. That isn't to say that either everything that is natural can have verified evidence provided for it or that there is only the natural.
And I'm not entirely sure of Floo's point either, so I'll call it a day.
-
...
True as always, means best approximation of truth, and always subject to change.
Is your statement here true as in a best approximation of truth and always subject to change? If it were to change it would mean that "true" would mean something other than a (best) approximation of truth.
You seem to be using "true" and "truth" in significantly different ways. Would it not be better to say that something is the best approximation to reality?
Not sure, I also see reality as the truth.
We do our best to find them out, but cannot be sure if and when we have.
-
...
True as always, means best approximation of truth, and always subject to change.
Is your statement here true as in a best approximation of truth and always subject to change? If it were to change it would mean that "true" would mean something other than a (best) approximation of truth.
You seem to be using "true" and "truth" in significantly different ways. Would it not be better to say that something is the best approximation to reality?
Not sure, I also see reality as the truth.
We do our best to find them out, but cannot be sure if and when we have.
Are you sure about that? Etc.
-
Nah! The Jews managed it thousands of years before Jesus was born.
Moses seems to have had a friendship with God anyway 😉
Even Noah seems to have got to know him.
Before that, Adam and Eve seem to have known him quite intimately.
Christianity likes to perpetrate the myth that knowledge of God is exclusively theirs, against all the evidence. ( using the OT as evidence)
Let's see Sass argue out of that one! :)
-
There lies the error, Len.
If you were trying to convince yourself then you had no faith in what you believed.
You should never be the person trying to convince yourself. You can do nothing of yourself. You needed to remember you cannot succeed in your own strength. You needed to do everything through Christ... :-*
But I couldn't believe what Jesus said, no matter how hard I tried, so I prayed for help. None came.
I believe you, Leonard.
But what help did you want/expect to come?
-
We all need hope. I prefer mine to be realistic rather than fantastic.
So you believe the Christians hope is 'FANTASTIC'? Why is that?
My preference is to remain grounded, tethered to reality by valuing the disciplined ethos characterised by scientific methods. Anyone who actually cares about whether their beliefs are true or not would want to stay focused and not wander far from what is well evidenced through research I would have thought. If you wander too far you risk ending up in a fantasy land of baseless beliefs.
A man gets tied up to the ground he gives the world it's saddest sound, it's saddest sound....
Scientific methods do not and cannot represent the truth from God or the creation and Christ. Fantasy is what we create but what the bible does is reveal the truth and power of God. Your reply does not really represent what I asked.... Why do you believe what the Christians hope for to be fantastic?
Because any belief not derived from evidence is fantasy, by definition. If there were any evidence for a god, then 'goddidit' would be a leading theory in cosmology. As it is, there is no such evidence, so goddidit is not even a theory, never mind a leading one. Goddidit, is therefore, is an indulgence, a fantasy indulged for psychological reasons, but not a rational explanation based on evidence.
I believe you are fooling yourself. God has never been out of the running regarding the creation and existence of the world and mankind.
You denying the truth that God platys an integral part of mans life and belief is really the illusion you create.
The evidence is that those who believe have prayers answered and miracles happen.
-
Christians chose the former...
Is it just about hope? No it isn't.
But the truth is God has a much better plan for our lives and most people are just to scared to let go of the reins and let someone else make the plans and decisions for them.
A number of threads on the forum read like a battle of keeping your own independence from God so mocking those who would rather depend on God. What options are there?
What do YOU really know about God when it comes to making that choice?
A choice we all make sometime in our life whether it is a conscious choice or not.
There is a saying "God helps those who help themselves"
And God help them who get caught helping themselves.
I'm a great believer in taking the initiative and making your own plans and decisions and helping those you meet on your path if you feel called to do so.
All this stuff about it being wrong to be independant and to sit about waiting for God to sort out your life for you, doesn't sound right to me.
Being independent? Do you know Rose, I am beginning to see how some unbelievers are thinking so wrongly about these things
How does believing and knowing God stop us making plans or decisions?
How do you think a believer could sit and wait around waiting for God to make decisions and plans? God is about us living life to the full not becoming robots.
I am suspicious that it is all ( being dependant on God ) some ruse to allow other religious people to influence your choices and is to open to manipulation.
I never knew people thought as you do and find it very strange.
Where did you get such ideas from?
I think you should make your own plans and decisions, independently and then use what you are good at, to help those around you or fulfill what you feel your calling is.
I'm not about to be relinquishing any reins or decisions to the influence of any religion, now or in the foreseeable future.
As far as Christianity goes , if you did then you would be the first to do so, if you did. I am amazes you have such a wrong outlook at such things...
If God is your "Heavenly Father" then children still need to aim to be "independant " adults.
So God should remove your food and mine because we are adults?
You really don't understand the nature of God being the Father.
If God did not provide all would be dead...
I tend to think all this "surrender your decisions and plans to God" is an excuse for various religious human beings to gain an influence over your life and gives them a sort of justification for it.
I'm a cynic when it comes to surrendering independence.
You have it all wrong... Rose go study Christianity because your ideas are way over the top....
-
Why do certain types of Christians think NON-Christians are somehow stupid, ignorant or 'refuse' to see the Truth??? ;)
For myself...I personally have not found that to be the case.
Stupidity, refusal or being ignorant does not stop you finding Christ.
It is because man looks through the natural to find God and the knowledge of science etc. But the truth of God is simple and is found
through humbling ourselves and finding Gods way of calling man to himself. Man cannot do it, through his own understanding, his own will or strength. Christ is the ONLY way to know God.
Nah! The Jews managed it thousands of years before Jesus was born.
The jews had a covenant and if they obey the Law fully they do come to know God.
King David... Take not thy Holy Spirit from us. But that covenant was for the Jews NOT YOU or anyone else./ That covenant also promised the Messiah so the Jews knew God because they believed his words about Christ,. So you are wrong. You are not a Jew you need Christ,.
Moses seems to have had a friendship with God anyway 😉
God rescued the Jews using Moses because of his covenant with Abraham.
You appear not to understand the truth.
Even Noah seems to have got to know him.
Noah knew God before the LAW and so did Abraham....
Before that, Adam and Eve seem to have known him quite intimately.
Yep BEFORE THE FALL...
Christianity likes to perpetrate the myth that knowledge of God is exclusively theirs, against all the evidence. ( using the OT as evidence)
RUBBISH... Christians are really JEWS. You need to read the bible with correct understanding of the new covenant which included everyone and the Jews....
-
Because any belief not derived from evidence is fantasy, by definition. If there were any evidence for a god, then 'goddidit' would be a leading theory in cosmology. As it is, there is no such evidence, so goddidit is not even a theory, never mind a leading one. Goddidit, is therefore, is an indulgence, a fantasy indulged for psychological reasons, but not a rational explanation based on evidence.
I believe you are fooling yourself. God has never been out of the running regarding the creation and existence of the world and mankind.
You denying the truth that God platys an integral part of mans life and belief is really the illusion you create.
The evidence is that those who believe have prayers answered and miracles happen.
Prayer and miracles don't really meet the standard of evidence you would expect in a scientific context. It's patchy, not consistent, and probably these phenomena find a truer explanation through psychology and the placebo effect. For instance if you go to Lourdes you might see crutches left behind by people who believe they were miraculously cured, but in reality might have just found there the necessary self-belief to cast aside their walking aid. We don't get amputees coming home from Lourdes with suddenly regrown limbs. This suggests the healing power of prayer is a natural power already resident within the minds of all humans. Also this phenomenon is culturally widespread, it is not confined to Abrahamic faiths, probably most alleged miracles take place in other faith contexts, particularly in Hinduism and Sikhism. So I grant you, belief in God can be a beneficial thing but that doesn't make god actually exist in any normal sense of the word.
-
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about. Yet another pig has just flown passed my window! ;D ;D ;D
-
Why do certain types of Christians think NON-Christians are somehow stupid, ignorant or 'refuse' to see the Truth??? ;)
For myself...I personally have not found that to be the case.
Stupidity, refusal or being ignorant does not stop you finding Christ.
It is because man looks through the natural to find God and the knowledge of science etc. But the truth of God is simple and is found
through humbling ourselves and finding Gods way of calling man to himself. Man cannot do it, through his own understanding, his own will or strength. Christ is the ONLY way to know God.
Nah! The Jews managed it thousands of years before Jesus was born.
Moses seems to have had a friendship with God anyway 😉
Even Noah seems to have got to know him.
Before that, Adam and Eve seem to have known him quite intimately.
Christianity likes to perpetrate the myth that knowledge of God is exclusively theirs, against all the evidence. ( using the OT as evidence)
Sass is quite right in this.
God initially made Himself known through inspired prophets in the OT, and finally made Himself known through Jesus in the NT. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one who knows of Jesus can get to heaven if they reject Him.
-
Why do certain types of Christians think NON-Christians are somehow stupid, ignorant or 'refuse' to see the Truth??? ;)
For myself...I personally have not found that to be the case.
Stupidity, refusal or being ignorant does not stop you finding Christ.
It is because man looks through the natural to find God and the knowledge of science etc. But the truth of God is simple and is found
through humbling ourselves and finding Gods way of calling man to himself. Man cannot do it, through his own understanding, his own will or strength. Christ is the ONLY way to know God.
Nah! The Jews managed it thousands of years before Jesus was born.
Moses seems to have had a friendship with God anyway 😉
Even Noah seems to have got to know him.
Before that, Adam and Eve seem to have known him quite intimately.
Christianity likes to perpetrate the myth that knowledge of God is exclusively theirs, against all the evidence. ( using the OT as evidence)
Sass is quite right in this.
God initially made Himself known through inspired prophets in the OT, and finally made Himself known through Jesus in the NT. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one who knows of Jesus can get to heaven if they reject Him.
As I have asked many times, if it exists why does it play stupid beggars and not make its existence clear to all in an irrefutable way? Because it probably doesn't exist and is a human creation, an explanation which seems tick the boxes.
-
As I have asked many times, if it exists why does it play stupid beggars and not make its existence clear to all in an irrefutable way? Because it probably doesn't exist and is a human creation, an explanation which seems tick the boxes.
To be fair, people like Alan Burns, Hope, Sassy etc on here think that it has made its existence clear in irrefutable ways. they do not really understand why those of us who don't believe cannot see it.
-
As I have asked many times, if it exists why does it play stupid beggars and not make its existence clear to all in an irrefutable way? Because it probably doesn't exist and is a human creation, an explanation which seems tick the boxes.
I do not presume to know why things are as they are, because my knowledge is too limited to know the whole truth. I have to accept reality as it is, and I accept the knowledge of God's love for us.
-
Because any belief not derived from evidence is fantasy, by definition. If there were any evidence for a god, then 'goddidit' would be a leading theory in cosmology. As it is, there is no such evidence, so goddidit is not even a theory, never mind a leading one. Goddidit, is therefore, is an indulgence, a fantasy indulged for psychological reasons, but not a rational explanation based on evidence.
I believe you are fooling yourself. God has never been out of the running regarding the creation and existence of the world and mankind.
You denying the truth that God platys an integral part of mans life and belief is really the illusion you create.
The evidence is that those who believe have prayers answered and miracles happen.
Prayer and miracles don't really meet the standard of evidence you would expect in a scientific context. It's patchy, not consistent, and probably these phenomena find a truer explanation through psychology and the placebo effect. For instance if you go to Lourdes you might see crutches left behind by people who believe they were miraculously cured, but in reality might have just found there the necessary self-belief to cast aside their walking aid. We don't get amputees coming home from Lourdes with suddenly regrown limbs. This suggests the healing power of prayer is a natural power already resident within the minds of all humans. Also this phenomenon is culturally widespread, it is not confined to Abrahamic faiths, probably most alleged miracles take place in other faith contexts, particularly in Hinduism and Sikhism. So I grant you, belief in God can be a beneficial thing but that doesn't make god actually exist in any normal sense of the word.
Yes, I agree, belief can have a hugely powerful effect on the body.
I never understand why Christians think healing as a result of prayer is the product of a just and loving God. A god that cures those in his club but not those outside it? No thanks.
-
As I have asked many times, if it exists why does it play stupid beggars and not make its existence clear to all in an irrefutable way? Because it probably doesn't exist and is a human creation, an explanation which seems tick the boxes.
To be fair, people like Alan Burns, Hope, Sassy etc on here think that it has made its existence clear in irrefutable ways. they do not really understand why those of us who don't believe cannot see it.
That is spot on, NS. Trying to use scripture and messing with scientific ideas isn't going to help us on the way to enlightenment though.
-
That is spot on, NS. Trying to use scripture and messing with scientific ideas isn't going to help us on the way to enlightenment though.
I can understand the scripture bit, if it's about explaining how they feel, or how they see things. And I can understand why Alan Burns goes down the route of consciousness as an argument for there being something different - though it tends to lead to having to ignore the actual science. Whoever hasn't thought to themselves what a piece of the work is a human, and felt dizzy staring into the abyss of even thinking about thinking seems to me the poorer for it and I can see that giving the abyss a name can feel right to some but my abyss is nameless.
-
That is spot on, NS. Trying to use scripture and messing with scientific ideas isn't going to help us on the way to enlightenment though.
I can understand the scripture bit, if it's about explaining how they feel, or how they see things. And I can understand why Alan Burns goes down the route of consciousness as an argument for there being something different - though it tends to lead to having to ignore the actual science. Whoever hasn't thought to themselves what a piece of the work is a human, and felt dizzy staring into the abyss of even thinking about thinking seems to me the poorer for it and I can see that giving the abyss a name can feel right to some but my abyss is nameless.
Quoting scripture in context, yes. Not mass cut and paste.
Pondering what it means to be human is what sets us apart - cats do not ponder the nature of catness. But to try and dress that up as scientific proof of a soul is impossible. So much better just to say, I believe this but I can't prove it and leave others to their own truths.
-
To be fair, people like Alan Burns, Hope, Sassy etc on here think that it has made its existence clear in irrefutable ways. they do not really understand why those of us who don't believe cannot see it.
True! And until they accept that those ways are NOT irrefutable, they will remain ensnared.
-
...
Yes, I agree, belief can have a hugely powerful effect on the body.
I never understand why Christians think healing as a result of prayer is the product of a just and loving God. A god that cures those in his club but not those outside it? No thanks.
Those in his club? Is that what Scripture teaches? Please point me to where it says that. Ta.
-
As I have asked many times, if it exists why does it play stupid beggars and not make its existence clear to all in an irrefutable way? Because it probably doesn't exist and is a human creation, an explanation which seems tick the boxes.
To be fair, people like Alan Burns, Hope, Sassy etc on here think that it has made its existence clear in irrefutable ways. they do not really understand why those of us who don't believe cannot see it.
They obviously don't understand the meaning of the word 'irrefutable', in that case!
-
To be fair, people like Alan Burns, Hope, Sassy etc on here think that it has made its existence clear in irrefutable ways. they do not really understand why those of us who don't believe cannot see it.
True! And until they accept that those ways are NOT irrefutable, they will remain ensnared.
Again your offensive suggestion that intelligent people are ensnared: what arrogance; and only such enlightened people as yourself have escaped. Get real!
-
BA
Can one undersatnd the Bible & yet NOT be a Christian?
-
BA
Can one undersatnd the Bible & yet NOT be a Christian?
Absolutely!
-
BA
Can one undersatnd the Bible & yet NOT be a Christian?
Well, I doubt, very much, that any atheist here does understand it, because they don't know it. It has taken me a life-time of study and consideration, and I am not pretentious enough to say I understand it all. It is about forming what seems to each individual the right course, and to keep on searching. And even if you achieve a comprehensive understanding of what is being said, only then you can make up your mind, either way, though there are always going to be doubts lurking. So, I guess, the answer to your question is "yes," but only with the proviso that you do actually do understand it: but I suppose that could also be interpreted as a likely "no." :)
-
OK So one CAN understand its messages etc & STILL be a non-Christian.??
-
OK So one CAN understand its messages etc & STILL be a non-Christian.??
Of course. Nobody is suggesting you have to be a certain thing merely on the basis that you understand it.
-
BA
Thing is you DO seem to say ALL atheists DON'T understand the Bible so that's why I asked....
-
You certainly don't need to be a Christian to understand what is being said in the Bible. I have read the book for most of my life!
-
You certainly don't need to be a Christian to understand what is being said in the Bible. I have read the book for most of my life!
As I have pointed out, on many issues, if you've read it, you have most certainly not understood it?
-
You certainly don't need to be a Christian to understand what is being said in the Bible. I have read the book for most of my life!
What does this well-known New Testament term mean, then: the abomination of desolation," anybody?
-
Because any belief not derived from evidence is fantasy, by definition. If there were any evidence for a god, then 'goddidit' would be a leading theory in cosmology. As it is, there is no such evidence, so goddidit is not even a theory, never mind a leading one. Goddidit, is therefore, is an indulgence, a fantasy indulged for psychological reasons, but not a rational explanation based on evidence.
I believe you are fooling yourself. God has never been out of the running regarding the creation and existence of the world and mankind.
You denying the truth that God platys an integral part of mans life and belief is really the illusion you create.
The evidence is that those who believe have prayers answered and miracles happen.
Prayer and miracles don't really meet the standard of evidence you would expect in a scientific context.
There is a scientific context for proving or disproving God, is there. Didn't think so, so why make such a statement about a scientific standard of evidence it doesn't meet? Surely the truth is that science doesn't have anything to explain prayers being answered and miracles. Do no standard to meet.
It's patchy, not consistent, and probably these phenomena find a truer explanation through psychology and the placebo effect.
Placebo affect would not explain a miracle or answer to prayer.
I am surprised at you Torridon...you have no arguments..
For instance if you go to Lourdes you might see crutches left behind by people who believe they were miraculously cured, but in reality might have just found there the necessary self-belief to cast aside their walking aid.
Are you really having a laugh... You might dip a wheelchair in the water and it will come out with two new tyres... Sounds silly now doesn't it.. Do you actually have any arguments at all to explain why people are really cured?
We don't get amputees coming home from Lourdes with suddenly regrown limbs.
I don't know but isn't withered limbs renewed just as good a miracle? Seems that amputees have had limbs grown back in the past. Could be a matter of belief.
This suggests the healing power of prayer is a natural power already resident within the minds of all humans.
Doesn't suggest any such thing... How do people severed spinal cord get up and walk?
Also this phenomenon is culturally widespread, it is not confined to Abrahamic faiths, probably most alleged miracles take place in other faith contexts, particularly in Hinduism and Sikhism. So I grant you, belief in God can be a beneficial thing but that doesn't make god actually exist in any normal sense of the word.
You do not have a scientific argument at all...
-
OK So one CAN understand its messages etc & STILL be a non-Christian.??
Do you understand that Jesus died to save sinners?
Well, if you believed it, you would know why...
-
OK So one CAN understand its messages etc & STILL be a non-Christian.??
Do you understand that Jesus died to save sinners?
No he didn't, he died because somebody didn't like what he was preaching. In any case, according to you, his "death" was very temporary.
Well, if you believed it, you would know why...
I don't think Trippy is very inclined to swallow fairy stories.
-
OK So one CAN understand its messages etc & STILL be a non-Christian.??
Do you understand that Jesus died to save sinners?
Well, if you believed it, you would know why...
Jesus died because he upset the religious authorities of the day. He was far from perfect himself if the gospel accounts about him trashing the Temple, frightening the pigs over the cliff, telling people to leave their responsibilities and follow him etc have any veracity. Who died to save Jesus from his sins? ::)
-
OK So one CAN understand its messages etc & STILL be a non-Christian.??
Do you understand that Jesus died to save sinners?
Well, if you believed it, you would know why...
Jesus died because he upset the religious authorities of the day. He was far from perfect himself if the gospel accounts about him trashing the Temple, frightening the pigs over the cliff, telling people to leave their responsibilities and follow him etc have any veracity. Who died to save Jesus from his sins? ::)
I have answered the points you make here, more than once,: but as always you ignore any answers made to your responses., You have little or no knowledge of the New Testament and the teaching of Jesus. All you do is repeat that you have read it many times; and as I've pointed out, reading it is not the same as understanding it - not that I think, for one minute, that you have even read it.
-
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
If ever there was a time to be a grammar nazi...
-
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
If ever there was a time to be a grammar nazi...
There's always time to be a grammar Nazi >:(
-
OK So one CAN understand its messages etc & STILL be a non-Christian.??
Do you understand that Jesus died to save sinners?
Well, if you believed it, you would know why...
Jesus died because he upset the religious authorities of the day. He was far from perfect himself if the gospel accounts about him trashing the Temple, frightening the pigs over the cliff, telling people to leave their responsibilities and follow him etc have any veracity. Who died to save Jesus from his sins? ::)
Nicely put, Roses!
-
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
If ever there was a time to be a grammar nazi...
There's always time to be a grammar Nazi >:(
Don't forget the full stop.
-
Not required when an emoticon ends a sentence ;)
-
Not required when an emoticon ends a sentence ;)
Roight.
-
Not required when an emoticon ends a sentence ;)
"Write the sentence with the full stop in the normal place and then write the smiley face. :)
This is true even if there is a sentence following the smiley face. This is because the new sentence begins with the first letter of that sentence. The smiley is, in fact, not actually part of either sentence. It is, in its own right, a new sort of sentence -- one that is simply shorthand. It equals some other sentence like "I am smiling, happy, whatever," and yet, because it is not written as a sentence, it needs no punctuation following it."
-
According to whom?
-
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
If ever there was a time to be a grammar nazi...
You really do not get it, do you. I have O level in English which took me literally 6 lessons to do and pass.
What I find really stupid is that you and others moan about English grammar(but only here on sites where you post) is the hardest for anyone including English teachers. But I do know as any educated person that sometimes we tend to write as we speak without punctuation. The educated amongst us have no problem with reading what everyone else writes because our ability to comprehend and understand what we see if above that of the average person.
You complaining about grammar is about your lack in ability to see what is before you in content. It is the lack of the person complaining which is the real issue. You are lacking in the ability and intelligence to be able to put in your own punctuation as you read. I have no problem with the punctuation and the grammar fallacy.
All people who complain about grammar (basically the stringing of words together to make sentences) are actually lacking in the intelligence and ability to correct it themselves.
That they lack the knowledge, education and ability to understand what is written based on the words strung together. The sentences do make sense to those educated enough to know what is being discussed...
-
Your sentences regarding matters of faith make no sense at all Sass, even if they were grammatically correct.
-
... which they're not.
-
OK So one CAN understand its messages etc & STILL be a non-Christian.??
Do you understand that Jesus died to save sinners?
Well, if you believed it, you would know why...
Jesus died because he upset the religious authorities of the day. He was far from perfect himself if the gospel accounts about him trashing the Temple, frightening the pigs over the cliff, telling people to leave their responsibilities and follow him etc have any veracity. Who died to save Jesus from his sins? ::)
Nicely put, Roses!
The pigs are a veiled reference to one of the Roman legions. He didn't really frighten Pigling Bland and chums to a watery grave.
As for trashing the temple, fair dos, materialism seems to be an eternal plague on humanity and we need santuaries where we can escape from it (Cathedral gift shops take note - our spiritual lives aren't enhanced by being able to buy giant pencils and fridge magnets).
-
The pigs are a veiled reference to one of the Roman legions. He didn't really frighten Pigling Bland and chums to a watery grave.
Tell me more about this Roman Legion, and why you think Jesus was referring to them as pģgs.
-
The pigs are a veiled reference to one of the Roman legions. He didn't really frighten Pigling Bland and chums to a watery grave.
Tell me more about this Roman Legion, and why you think Jesus was referring to them as pģgs.
Len, nobody kept pigs by the thousand. But Roman legions (note that) numbered thousands. The Tenth Legion were infamous in Palestine and were partly responsible for the destruction of the temple. Their emblem was the boar.
I don't think Jesus referred to them as pigs, but the writer of Mark did. We was making the point that Jesus triumphed over those that wanted to destroy him and his followers. It's a kind of satire.
-
The pigs are a veiled reference to one of the Roman legions. He didn't really frighten Pigling Bland and chums to a watery grave.
Tell me more about this Roman Legion, and why you think Jesus was referring to them as pģgs.
Len, nobody kept pigs by the thousand. But Roman legions (note that) numbered thousands. The Tenth Legion were infamous in Palestine and were partly responsible for the destruction of the temple. Their emblem was the boar.
I don't think Jesus referred to them as pigs, but the writer of Mark did. We was making the point that Jesus triumphed over those that wanted to destroy him and his followers. It's a kind of satire.
Blimey, you've got to hand it to these Christians! Their ingenuity in thinking up "explanations" for the otherwise daft stories in the Bible knows no bounds! ::)
-
Not required when an emoticon ends a sentence ;)
Yes, because the crime of ending a sentence with an emoticon (or, indeed, putting an emoticon anywhere in a sentence) far outweighs the missing full stop.
-
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
If ever there was a time to be a grammar nazi...
You really do not get it, do you.
Wrong, it is you who has failed to get "it".
Foo wrote
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
I'm pretty sure she meant
A string of posts from Sass - who knows what she is talking about?
I've observed her posts about you quite a lot and it would be totally out of character for her to imply you know what you are talking about ever.
Anyway, thanks for the rant. I deleted the rest without reading it.
Who knows what you are talking about?
-
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
If ever there was a time to be a grammar nazi...
You really do not get it, do you. I have O level in English which took me literally 6 lessons to do and pass.
What I find really stupid is that you and others moan about English grammar(but only here on sites where you post) is the hardest for anyone including English teachers. But I do know as any educated person that sometimes we tend to write as we speak without punctuation. The educated amongst us have no problem with reading what everyone else writes because our ability to comprehend and understand what we see if above that of the average person.
You complaining about grammar is about your lack in ability to see what is before you in content. It is the lack of the person complaining which is the real issue. You are lacking in the ability and intelligence to be able to put in your own punctuation as you read. I have no problem with the punctuation and the grammar fallacy.
All people who complain about grammar (basically the stringing of words together to make sentences) are actually lacking in the intelligence and ability to correct it themselves.
That they lack the knowledge, education and ability to understand what is written based on the words strung together. The sentences do make sense to those educated enough to know what is being discussed...
Blimey. Someone is having a bad day. :(
-
Who knows what you are talking about?
Only Sass does ... and even she is mystified as to what she means at times. :)
-
The pigs are a veiled reference to one of the Roman legions. He didn't really frighten Pigling Bland and chums to a watery grave.
Tell me more about this Roman Legion, and why you think Jesus was referring to them as pģgs.
Len, nobody kept pigs by the thousand.
Jews didn't, but Jesus went into areas of mixed Gentile/Jewish populations.But Roman legions (note that) numbered thousands. The Tenth Legion were infamous in Palestine and were partly responsible for the destruction of the temple.
That was 40 years later or so. Were they around when Jesus was? Their emblem was the boar.
You may be right, but the only info I can find (Wikipedia) says their emblem was a bull.
-
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
If ever there was a time to be a grammar nazi...
You really do not get it, do you.
Wrong, it is you who has failed to get "it".
Foo wrote
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
I'm pretty sure she meant
A string of posts from Sass - who knows what she is talking about?
I've observed her posts about you quite a lot and it would be totally out of character for her to imply you know what you are talking about ever.
Anyway, thanks for the rant. I deleted the rest without reading it.
Who knows what you are talking about?
I have just clocked why the grammar issue was brought up.
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
But actually that sentence is not grammatically incorrect, I said what I meant to say, I was being tongue in cheek! ;D
-
According to whom?
According to those who write correct English. Try doing it.
-
According to whom?
According to those who write correct English. Try doing it.
I do - consistently.
The passage you posted to which I was referring was bracketed by quotation marks, indicating that it was lifted from some source without attribution. Where did it come from? Anybody able to understand correct English would have grasped that, I'd have thought ... ::)
-
According to whom?
According to those who write correct English. Try doing it.
I do - consistently.
The passage you posted to which I was referring was bracketed by quotation marks, indicating that it was lifted from some source without attribution. Where did it come from? Anybody able to understand correct English would have grasped that, I'd have thought ... ::)
You were wrong. Why can't you ever accept that?
-
According to whom?
According to those who write correct English. Try doing it.
I do - consistently.
The passage you posted to which I was referring was bracketed by quotation marks, indicating that it was lifted from some source without attribution. Where did it come from? Anybody able to understand correct English would have grasped that, I'd have thought ... ::)
You were wrong. Why can't you ever accept that?
Why can't you answer a simple question? You presented a passage in #116 which was bracketed by quotation marks, thus imputing it to some as yet unidentified source instead of its being written in your own words. What was/is that source and why are you so keen to conceal it? My alleged "wrongness" in this matter relies upon some authoritative source which is generally regarded as a definitive agreement upon English usage; you're copying and pasting without even revealing your sources.
A bit shabby and shoddy all round, really. No surprise to me, but still.
-
According to whom?
According to those who write correct English. Try doing it.
I do - consistently.
The passage you posted to which I was referring was bracketed by quotation marks, indicating that it was lifted from some source without attribution. Where did it come from? Anybody able to understand correct English would have grasped that, I'd have thought ... ::)
You were wrong. Why can't you ever accept that?
Why can't you answer a simple question? You presented a passage in #116 which was bracketed by quotation marks, thus imputing it to some as yet unidentified source instead of its being written in your own words. What was/is that source and why are you so keen to conceal it? My alleged "wrongness" in this matter relies upon some authoritative source which is generally regarded as a definitive agreement upon English usage; you're copying and pasting without even revealing your sources.
A bit shabby and shoddy all round, really. No surprise to me, but still.
You silly, sad man! You were wrong: the end!
-
Ah; a feeble and pathetic dodge, then. So it goes.
-
Ah; a feeble and pathetic dodge, then. So it goes.
Staggering: The way you attempt to turn things round to avoid admitting a simple error. I'm not dodging anything - you are! You really have a problem admitting you are wrong, ever Still, that's your problem, but it is not a pleasant characteristic.
-
I'm not dodging anything
Sure you are. Where did your quotation in #116 come from?
-
I'm not dodging anything
Sure you are. Where did your quotation in #116 come from?
Give up. Admit you are wrong, you pathetic man!
-
Why are you so reluctant to reveal the source of the quotation you posted in #116?
-
Why are you so reluctant to reveal the source of the quotation you posted in #116?
What does it matter? Are you saying what I wrote was incorrect? That is the point. If so, justify why it was incorrect. If not, admit you were wrong. It is as simple as that.
-
What does it matter?
You're claiming it as an authority which supposedly demonstrates that I am incorrect. I want to know what you regard as such an authority.
Are you saying what I wrote was incorrect? That is the point. If so, justify why it was incorrect. If not, admit you were wrong. It is as simple as that.
No, it's as simple as the fact that you are constitutionally dishonest in refusing to provide a source for something which you have posted supposedly as some sort of authority on the English language.
I suspect it was some sort of half-arsed mess of a third-string website whose source you're embarrassed to acknowledge, hence the continued stonewalling.
-
What does it matter?
You're claiming it as an authority which supposedly demonstrates that I am incorrect. I want to know what you regard as such an authority.
Are you saying what I wrote was incorrect? That is the point. If so, justify why it was incorrect. If not, admit you were wrong. It is as simple as that.
No, it's as simple as the fact that you are constitutionally dishonest in refusing to provide a source for something which you have posted supposedly as some sort of authority on the English language.
I suspect it was some sort of half-arsed mess of a third-string website whose source you're embarrassed to acknowledge, hence the continued stonewalling.
Is your original comment correct or not? The rest is a red herring. Try doing it, it won't
hurt; and people might even think more of you (though that's unlikely.)
-
Is your original comment correct or not? The rest is a red herring. Try doing it, it won't
hurt; and people might even think more of you (though that's unlikely.)
Christ, that really must have been some shitty old website you lifted your quotation from; no wonder you won't reveal the source :D
-
Is your original comment correct or not? The rest is a red herring. Try doing it, it won't
hurt; and people might even think more of you (though that's unlikely.)
Christ, that really must have been some shitty old website you lifted your quotation from; no wonder you won't reveal the source :D
The fact is, you are narcissistic. A narcissist is never, ever wrong, and likes to present diversions. The narcissist cannot accept responsibility for making a mistake and he is expert at diverting the blame to others. A narcissist, like you, will never admit any mistakes, and when confronted, will deflect and delay. You believe you are invincible and perfect. Most people can admit to making errors, and apologise. You are unable to do this as that would require acknowledging that you are not perfect. Learn a little humility, old son.
-
A narcissist, like you, will never admit any mistakes, and when confronted, will deflect and delay.
You haven't "confronted" me with anything but a quote from a source you're quite clearly too ashamed to acknowledge.
-
A narcissist, like you, will never admit any mistakes, and when confronted, will deflect and delay.
You haven't "confronted" me with anything but a quote from a source you're quite clearly too ashamed to acknowledge.
Narcissist. Keep on deflecting and delaying. Keep digging. :D
-
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes. The term originated from the Greek mythology, where the young Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water.
I would never attribute narcissism to Shaker, however the term would be a very good description of his accuser! ;D ;D ;D
-
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes. The term originated from the Greek mythology, where the young Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water.
I would never attribute narcissism to Shaker, however the term would we a very good description of his accuser! ;D ;D ;D
Your perception, Roses, is brialliant at times! :D
-
The pigs are a veiled reference to one of the Roman legions. He didn't really frighten Pigling Bland and chums to a watery grave.
Tell me more about this Roman Legion, and why you think Jesus was referring to them as pģgs.
Len, nobody kept pigs by the thousand.
Jews didn't, but Jesus went into areas of mixed Gentile/Jewish populations.But Roman legions (note that) numbered thousands. The Tenth Legion were infamous in Palestine and were partly responsible for the destruction of the temple.
That was 40 years later or so. Were they around when Jesus was? Their emblem was the boar.
You may be right, but the only info I can find (Wikipedia) says their emblem was a bull.
Come off it. Even agribusiness farmers today don't keep free-ranging herds of pigs by the thousand.
It's not a historical account so the fact it post-dates Jesus doesn't matter. The probable date of the writing of Mark fits perfectly with the idea of satirising Rome though.
Legio X Fretensis had the boar as its emblem.
-
The pigs are a veiled reference to one of the Roman legions. He didn't really frighten Pigling Bland and chums to a watery grave.
Tell me more about this Roman Legion, and why you think Jesus was referring to them as pģgs.
Len, nobody kept pigs by the thousand. But Roman legions (note that) numbered thousands. The Tenth Legion were infamous in Palestine and were partly responsible for the destruction of the temple. Their emblem was the boar.
I don't think Jesus referred to them as pigs, but the writer of Mark did. We was making the point that Jesus triumphed over those that wanted to destroy him and his followers. It's a kind of satire.
Blimey, you've got to hand it to these Christians! Their ingenuity in thinking up "explanations" for the otherwise daft stories in the Bible knows no bounds! ::)
Which Christian would that be, Len? Not this pagan for one.
If you look into it, Len, you'll find this entirely plausible, even likely. Why be closed-minded as to its meaning just because some still take it literally?
-
According to whom?
It's an answer by Alexandra Pell (English tutor) from the Quora web site
http://www.quora.com/Punctuation/If-you-finish-a-sentence-with-a-smiley-face-should-you-use-a-full-stop-as-well
The trouble with Bashful Anthony is that he can't ever admit that his posts aren't always perfect. Then his defence just enhances his wrongness and makes the perceived humiliation of admitting to being wrong even worse. Thus starts a vicious circle that usually escalates into actual viciousness.
-
Thanks JP. Why Bashers was so coy about this I have no idea.
I've not come across Quora before so I'll look into it. I'll find out who Alexandra Pell is and why I should listen to her opinion too while I'm at it :)
-
Hi Rhi,
You have still not explained to me why you think Jesus was referring to Roman soldiers and not to swine.
-
Thanks JP. Why Bashers was so coy about this I have no idea.
I've not come across Quora before so I'll look into it. I'll find out who Alexandra Pell is and why I should listen to her opinion too while I'm at it :)
It's a general Q&A web site, a bit like a more general version of stackoverflow.com. I've been on it for a few months, and it does have interesting stuff. However, there's no reason why Alexandra Pell should be a world authority on emoticon punctuation. That answer was just her opinion (although she does give a logical reason).
-
Hi Rhi,
You have still not explained to me why you think Jesus was referring to Roman soldiers and not to swine.
EDIT. At the same time perhaps you can explain how it was better to drown legions of soldiers just to rid two men of the devils. Not exactly loving your neighbour, is it? :)
-
Hi Rhi,
You have still not explained to me why you think Jesus was referring to Roman soldiers and not to swine.
EDIT. At the same time perhaps you can explain how it was better to drown legions of soldiers just to rid two men of the devils. Not exactly loving your neighbour, is it? :)
I think the point is that they were only metaphorically 'drowned'
-
Hi Rhi,
You have still not explained to me why you think Jesus was referring to Roman soldiers and not to swine.
EDIT. At the same time perhaps you can explain how it was better to drown legions of soldiers just to rid two men of the devils. Not exactly loving your neighbour, is it? :)
I think the point is that they were only metaphorically 'drowned'
Exactly. Jesus didn't do or say anything. It's the writer of Mark composing a satire, myth, whatever, to make a point.
-
Hi Rhi,
You have still not explained to me why you think Jesus was referring to Roman soldiers and not to swine.
EDIT. At the same time perhaps you can explain how it was better to drown legions of soldiers just to rid two men of the devils. Not exactly loving your neighbour, is it? :)
I think the point is that they were only metaphorically 'drowned'
Exactly. Jesus didn't do or say anything. It's the writer of Mark composing a satire, myth, whatever, to make a point.
But how can you be sure of that? Who decided that that was what the gospel meant?
-
Hi Rhi,
You have still not explained to me why you think Jesus was referring to Roman soldiers and not to swine.
EDIT. At the same time perhaps you can explain how it was better to drown legions of soldiers just to rid two men of the devils. Not exactly loving your neighbour, is it? :)
I think the point is that they were only metaphorically 'drowned'
Exactly. Jesus didn't do or say anything. It's the writer of Mark composing a satire, myth, whatever, to make a point.
But how can you be sure of that? Who decided that that was what the gospel meant?
I'm not. But do I think it more likely that we are expected to take it literally? No, not given the use of myth and allegory throughout the Gospels.
The point is to remain open-minded. It makes it a lot more interesting.
-
I'm not. But do I think it more likely that we are expected to take it literally? No, not given the use of myth and allegory throughout the Gospels.
So the crucifixion itself may be just myth or allegory?
The point is to remain open-minded. It makes it a lot more interesting.
And at the same time quite unconvincing! :)
-
I'm not. But do I think it more likely that we are expected to take it literally? No, not given the use of myth and allegory throughout the Gospels.
So the crucifixion itself may be just myth or allegory?
The point is to remain open-minded. It makes it a lot more interesting.
And at the same time quite unconvincing! :)
What are you unconvinced of? That the Gospel writers didn't just randomly make up stuff but had something interesting to say in places?
Of course the crucifixion could be a myth, although I find it extremely plausible (but not the resurrection). And I know that Alien won't agree, being a conservative evangelical sort of a chap, but it's now quite mainstream among scholars to think that the Nativity accounts are both allegorical - Matthew is concerned with proving Jesus to be the promised King of the Jews whereas Luke's Jesus is come to save the dispossessed, lowly and poor, Jew and Gentile alike.
-
What are you unconvinced of? That the Gospel writers didn't just randomly make up stuff but had something interesting to say in places?
The gospel writers simply wrote down what they had heard or believed, and because of that I am unconvinced of the truth of it, as I would be of any far-fetched story put about nowadays.
My common sense tells me that much of the stuff that is claimed to have been spoken by Jesus is good advice. My common sense also tells me that all the miracles claimed by them are just the product of rumours they had heard.
-
I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot. There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot; and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic Floo. What a bunch of losers. Get a life you lot!
-
I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot. There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot; and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic Floo. What a bunch of losers. Get a life you lot!
Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?
I say you cannot.
-
What are you unconvinced of? That the Gospel writers didn't just randomly make up stuff but had something interesting to say in places?
The gospel writers simply wrote down what they had heard or believed, and because of that I am unconvinced of the truth of it, as I would be of any far-fetched story put about nowadays.
My common sense tells me that much of the stuff that is claimed to have been spoken by Jesus is good advice. My common sense also tells me that all the miracles claimed by them are just the product of rumours they had heard.
No doubt there are some stories that were based on rumour. But I think there are also some that give us interesting glimpses of the world in which Jesus and his followers lived, and the mindset of the Gospel writers. I think the myth of the Gadarene swine falls into that category.
-
I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot. There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot; and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic Floo. What a bunch of losers. Get a life you lot!
Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?
I say you cannot.
Do you still call me a liar? I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.
-
I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot. There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot; and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic Floo. What a bunch of losers. Get a life you lot!
Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?
I say you cannot.
Do you still call me a liar? I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.
Easy.
You choose to believe that there is no god.
Let me know when you have done that.
If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.
-
I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot. There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot; and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic Floo. What a bunch of losers. Get a life you lot!
Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?
I say you cannot.
Do you still call me a liar? I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.
Easy.
You choose to believe that there is no god.
Let me know when you have done that.
If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.
I strongly suspect you do not know what you are talking about. As far as I'm concerned, you are talking nonsense.
How about answering my question, rather than just ignoring it? Presumably because you haven't a clue how to respond.
-
I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot. There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot; and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic Floo. What a bunch of losers. Get a life you lot!
Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?
I say you cannot.
Do you still call me a liar? I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.
Easy.
You choose to believe that there is no god.
Let me know when you have done that.
If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.
I strongly suspect you do not know what you are talking about. As far as I'm concerned, you are talking nonsense.
How about answering my question, rather than just ignoring it? Presumably because you haven't a clue how to respond.
I see you fail the test yet again!
What question do you have?
Unlike you I will answer honestly and not lie.
Do you for now though retract the claim that YOU can choose your beliefs?
-
I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot. There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot; and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic Floo. What a bunch of losers. Get a life you lot!
Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?
I say you cannot.
Do you still call me a liar? I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.
Easy.
You choose to believe that there is no god.
Let me know when you have done that.
If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.
I strongly suspect you do not know what you are talking about. As far as I'm concerned, you are talking nonsense.
How about answering my question, rather than just ignoring it? Presumably because you haven't a clue how to respond.
I see you fail the test yet again!
What question do you have?
Unlike you I will answer honestly and not lie.
Do you for now though retract the claim that YOU can choose your beliefs?
"What question do you have?" ???? I have asked you repeatedly, only just now being the latest time: you called me a liar, and I asked you to prove it. Do so.
I have answered your question, if not to your satisfaction.
-
I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot. There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot; and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic Floo. What a bunch of losers. Get a life you lot!
Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?
I say you cannot.
Do you still call me a liar? I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.
Easy.
You choose to believe that there is no god.
Let me know when you have done that.
If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.
I strongly suspect you do not know what you are talking about. As far as I'm concerned, you are talking nonsense.
How about answering my question, rather than just ignoring it? Presumably because you haven't a clue how to respond.
I see you fail the test yet again!
What question do you have?
Unlike you I will answer honestly and not lie.
Do you for now though retract the claim that YOU can choose your beliefs?
"What question do you have?" ???? I have asked you repeatedly, only just now being the latest time: you called me a liar, and I asked you to prove it. Do so.
I have answered your question, if not to your satisfaction.
I just did prove it.
You say you can choose your beliefs.
Okay, so YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD.
If you do not do that, then you are a LIAR.
-
I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot. There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot; and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic Floo. What a bunch of losers. Get a life you lot!
Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?
I say you cannot.
Do you still call me a liar? I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.
Easy.
You choose to believe that there is no god.
Let me know when you have done that.
If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.
I strongly suspect you do not know what you are talking about. As far as I'm concerned, you are talking nonsense.
How about answering my question, rather than just ignoring it? Presumably because you haven't a clue how to respond.
I see you fail the test yet again!
What question do you have?
Unlike you I will answer honestly and not lie.
Do you for now though retract the claim that YOU can choose your beliefs?
"What question do you have?" ???? I have asked you repeatedly, only just now being the latest time: you called me a liar, and I asked you to prove it. Do so.
I have answered your question, if not to your satisfaction.
I just did prove it.
You say you can choose your beliefs.
Okay, so YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD.
If you do not do that, then you are a LIAR.
Idiot! I choose to believe there is a God, and if I decided to change my mind, I could. What has that got to do with proving I'm a liar? You get yourself into the most silly situations..
-
I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot. There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot; and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic Floo. What a bunch of losers. Get a life you lot!
Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?
I say you cannot.
Do you still call me a liar? I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.
Easy.
You choose to believe that there is no god.
Let me know when you have done that.
If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.
I strongly suspect you do not know what you are talking about. As far as I'm concerned, you are talking nonsense.
How about answering my question, rather than just ignoring it? Presumably because you haven't a clue how to respond.
I see you fail the test yet again!
What question do you have?
Unlike you I will answer honestly and not lie.
Do you for now though retract the claim that YOU can choose your beliefs?
"What question do you have?" ???? I have asked you repeatedly, only just now being the latest time: you called me a liar, and I asked you to prove it. Do so.
I have answered your question, if not to your satisfaction.
I just did prove it.
You say you can choose your beliefs.
Okay, so YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD.
If you do not do that, then you are a LIAR.
Idiot! I choose to believe there is a God, and if I decided to change my mind, I could. What has that got to do with proving I'm a liar? You get yourself into the most silly situations..
You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.
The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.
This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?
-
"You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.
The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.
This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?"
I said I could, and I can, if I wished. In fact, in my younger days I did go through a phase when I chose to reject the Faith, and that totally demolishes your silly argument. Please admit you are wrong, and go your way. And you still haven't proved I'm a liar, by the way.
-
"You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.
The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.
This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?"
I said I could, and I can, if I wished. In fact, in my younger days I did go through a phase when I chose to reject the Faith, and that totally demolishes your silly argument. Please admit you are wrong, and go your way. And you still haven't proved I'm a liar, by the way.
I have proved it because you still believe in a god, despite saying you could simply choose not to.
I say you cannot, and indeed to always fail to do what you claim you can do.
Do you understand that I cannot simply choose to believe in a god, and need evidence?
-
"You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.
The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.
This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?"
I said I could, and I can, if I wished. In fact, in my younger days I did go through a phase when I chose to reject the Faith, and that totally demolishes your silly argument. Please admit you are wrong, and go your way. And you still haven't proved I'm a liar, by the way.
I have proved it because you still believe in a god, despite saying you could simply choose not to.
I say you cannot, and indeed to always fail to do what you claim you can do.
Do you understand that I cannot simply choose to believe in a god, and need evidence?
You are a strange one. What ever people say to you, you simply repeat the same stuff. It seems you are trying to bore people into agreeing with your ridiculous argument. I have answered, and a number of times in the past, too, and that's all I'm prepared to say. I have more important things to consider, when to scrub the door-step, for example.
-
"You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.
The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.
This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?"
I said I could, and I can, if I wished. In fact, in my younger days I did go through a phase when I chose to reject the Faith, and that totally demolishes your silly argument. Please admit you are wrong, and go your way. And you still haven't proved I'm a liar, by the way.
I have proved it because you still believe in a god, despite saying you could simply choose not to.
I say you cannot, and indeed to always fail to do what you claim you can do.
Do you understand that I cannot simply choose to believe in a god, and need evidence?
You are a strange one. What ever people say to you, you simply repeat the same stuff. It seems you are trying to bore people into agreeing with your ridiculous argument. I have answered, and a number of times in the past, too, and that's all I'm prepared to say. I have more important things to consider, when to scrub the door-step, for example.
But you have NOT answered you have just evaded.
Answer this, do you accept that I cannot simply choose to believe your or any other god exists?
Can you answer?
-
"You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.
The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.
This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?"
I said I could, and I can, if I wished. In fact, in my younger days I did go through a phase when I chose to reject the Faith, and that totally demolishes your silly argument. Please admit you are wrong, and go your way. And you still haven't proved I'm a liar, by the way.
I have proved it because you still believe in a god, despite saying you could simply choose not to.
I say you cannot, and indeed to always fail to do what you claim you can do.
Do you understand that I cannot simply choose to believe in a god, and need evidence?
You are a strange one. What ever people say to you, you simply repeat the same stuff. It seems you are trying to bore people into agreeing with your ridiculous argument. I have answered, and a number of times in the past, too, and that's all I'm prepared to say. I have more important things to consider, when to scrub the door-step, for example.
But you have NOT answered you have just evaded.
Answer this, do you accept that I cannot simply choose to believe your or any other god exists?
Can you answer?
I have not evaded - can you read? And evading is not the same as lying? You have called me a liar, and I asked you to prove it. Can you answer?
-
"You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.
The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.
This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?"
I said I could, and I can, if I wished. In fact, in my younger days I did go through a phase when I chose to reject the Faith, and that totally demolishes your silly argument. Please admit you are wrong, and go your way. And you still haven't proved I'm a liar, by the way.
I have proved it because you still believe in a god, despite saying you could simply choose not to.
I say you cannot, and indeed to always fail to do what you claim you can do.
Do you understand that I cannot simply choose to believe in a god, and need evidence?
You are a strange one. What ever people say to you, you simply repeat the same stuff. It seems you are trying to bore people into agreeing with your ridiculous argument. I have answered, and a number of times in the past, too, and that's all I'm prepared to say. I have more important things to consider, when to scrub the door-step, for example.
But you have NOT answered you have just evaded.
Answer this, do you accept that I cannot simply choose to believe your or any other god exists?
Can you answer?
I have not evaded - can you read? And evading is not the same as lying? You have called me a liar, and I asked you to prove it. Can you answer?
Yes I can.
You will not choose to believe there is no god.
That makes you claim that you can do so FALSE.
You know this is FALSE, so you are a liar when you say you can do it.
There proved.
-
"You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.
The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.
This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?"
I said I could, and I can, if I wished. In fact, in my younger days I did go through a phase when I chose to reject the Faith, and that totally demolishes your silly argument. Please admit you are wrong, and go your way. And you still haven't proved I'm a liar, by the way.
I have proved it because you still believe in a god, despite saying you could simply choose not to.
I say you cannot, and indeed to always fail to do what you claim you can do.
Do you understand that I cannot simply choose to believe in a god, and need evidence?
You are a strange one. What ever people say to you, you simply repeat the same stuff. It seems you are trying to bore people into agreeing with your ridiculous argument. I have answered, and a number of times in the past, too, and that's all I'm prepared to say. I have more important things to consider, when to scrub the door-step, for example.
But you have NOT answered you have just evaded.
Answer this, do you accept that I cannot simply choose to believe your or any other god exists?
Can you answer?
I have not evaded - can you read? And evading is not the same as lying? You have called me a liar, and I asked you to prove it. Can you answer?
Yes I can.
You will not choose to believe there is no god.
That makes you claim that you can do so FALSE.
You know this is FALSE, so you are a liar when you say you can do it.
There proved.
Oh, go away! Have you nothing better to occupy your "mind?"
-
BR I think your point has been proved! ;D
-
"You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.
The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.
This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?"
I said I could, and I can, if I wished. In fact, in my younger days I did go through a phase when I chose to reject the Faith, and that totally demolishes your silly argument. Please admit you are wrong, and go your way. And you still haven't proved I'm a liar, by the way.
I have proved it because you still believe in a god, despite saying you could simply choose not to.
I say you cannot, and indeed to always fail to do what you claim you can do.
Do you understand that I cannot simply choose to believe in a god, and need evidence?
You are a strange one. What ever people say to you, you simply repeat the same stuff. It seems you are trying to bore people into agreeing with your ridiculous argument. I have answered, and a number of times in the past, too, and that's all I'm prepared to say. I have more important things to consider, when to scrub the door-step, for example.
But you have NOT answered you have just evaded.
Answer this, do you accept that I cannot simply choose to believe your or any other god exists?
Can you answer?
I have not evaded - can you read? And evading is not the same as lying? You have called me a liar, and I asked you to prove it. Can you answer?
Yes I can.
You will not choose to believe there is no god.
That makes you claim that you can do so FALSE.
You know this is FALSE, so you are a liar when you say you can do it.
There proved.
Oh, go away! Have you nothing better to occupy your "mind?"
And back to evasion and blustering.
That confirms it then.
-
BR I think your point has been proved! ;D
You wouldn't know if it was proved if it hit you in the face. And, in case you haven't noticed, I answered, and have a number of times, if you actually read any of the posts.
-
BR I think your point has been proved! ;D
You wouldn't know if it was proved if it hit you in the face. And, in case you haven't noticed, I answered, and have a number of times, if you actually read any of the posts.
No you have NOT answered you have evaded.
Until you can tell me you have chosen to NOT believe a god exists, then your statement that you can is FALSE.
-
BR I think your point has been proved! ;D
You wouldn't know if it was proved if it hit you in the face. And, in case you haven't noticed, I answered, and have a number of times, if you actually read any of the posts.
No you have NOT answered you have evaded.
Until you can tell me you have chosen to NOT believe a god exists, then your statement that you can is FALSE.
Call it what you like, chum, I'm out of it: boredom has got the better of me. :)
-
BR I think your point has been proved! ;D
You wouldn't know if it was proved if it hit you in the face. And, in case you haven't noticed, I answered, and have a number of times, if you actually read any of the posts.
No you have NOT answered you have evaded.
Until you can tell me you have chosen to NOT believe a god exists, then your statement that you can is FALSE.
Call it what you like, chum, I'm out of it: boredom has got the better of me. :)
And you do not like being shown to be wrong.
You lose
-
BR I think your point has been proved! ;D
You wouldn't know if it was proved if it hit you in the face. And, in case you haven't noticed, I answered, and have a number of times, if you actually read any of the posts.
No you have NOT answered you have evaded.
Until you can tell me you have chosen to NOT believe a god exists, then your statement that you can is FALSE.
Call it what you like, chum, I'm out of it: boredom has got the better of me. :)
And you do not like being shown to be wrong.
You lose
Who does?
I haven't lost anything, though I came close to losing my will to live posting with you. :)
-
BR I think your point has been proved! ;D
You wouldn't know if it was proved if it hit you in the face. And, in case you haven't noticed, I answered, and have a number of times, if you actually read any of the posts.
No you have NOT answered you have evaded.
Until you can tell me you have chosen to NOT believe a god exists, then your statement that you can is FALSE.
Call it what you like, chum, I'm out of it: boredom has got the better of me. :)
And you do not like being shown to be wrong.
You lose
Who does?
I haven't lost anything, though I came close to losing my will to live posting with you. :)
Be my guest.
-
BR I think your point has been proved! ;D
You wouldn't know if it was proved if it hit you in the face. And, in case you haven't noticed, I answered, and have a number of times, if you actually read any of the posts.
No you have NOT answered you have evaded.
Until you can tell me you have chosen to NOT believe a god exists, then your statement that you can is FALSE.
Call it what you like, chum, I'm out of it: boredom has got the better of me. :)
And you do not like being shown to be wrong.
You lose
Who does?
I haven't lost anything, though I came close to losing my will to live posting with you. :)
Be my guest.
Not likely, not the way you bore your "guests!" :)
-
BR I think your point has been proved! ;D
You wouldn't know if it was proved if it hit you in the face. And, in case you haven't noticed, I answered, and have a number of times, if you actually read any of the posts.
No you have NOT answered you have evaded.
Until you can tell me you have chosen to NOT believe a god exists, then your statement that you can is FALSE.
Call it what you like, chum, I'm out of it: boredom has got the better of me. :)
And you do not like being shown to be wrong.
You lose
Who does?
I haven't lost anything, though I came close to losing my will to live posting with you. :)
Be my guest.
Not likely, not the way you bore your "guests!" :)
I meant you could die at any time.
-
BR I think your point has been proved! ;D
You wouldn't know if it was proved if it hit you in the face. And, in case you haven't noticed, I answered, and have a number of times, if you actually read any of the posts.
No you have NOT answered you have evaded.
Until you can tell me you have chosen to NOT believe a god exists, then your statement that you can is FALSE.
Call it what you like, chum, I'm out of it: boredom has got the better of me. :)
And you do not like being shown to be wrong.
You lose
Who does?
I haven't lost anything, though I came close to losing my will to live posting with you. :)
Be my guest.
BA seems to be like a small child having frequent temper tantrums. Maybe he should find another source of entertainment, if WUMMERY is getting too much for him! ::)
-
BR I think your point has been proved! ;D
You wouldn't know if it was proved if it hit you in the face. And, in case you haven't noticed, I answered, and have a number of times, if you actually read any of the posts.
No you have NOT answered you have evaded.
Until you can tell me you have chosen to NOT believe a god exists, then your statement that you can is FALSE.
Call it what you like, chum, I'm out of it: boredom has got the better of me. :)
And you do not like being shown to be wrong.
You lose
Who does?
I haven't lost anything, though I came close to losing my will to live posting with you. :)
Be my guest.
Not likely, not the way you bore your "guests!" :)
I meant you could die at any time.
Stating the obvious, I think.
-
BR I think your point has been proved! ;D
You wouldn't know if it was proved if it hit you in the face. And, in case you haven't noticed, I answered, and have a number of times, if you actually read any of the posts.
No you have NOT answered you have evaded.
Until you can tell me you have chosen to NOT believe a god exists, then your statement that you can is FALSE.
Call it what you like, chum, I'm out of it: boredom has got the better of me. :)
And you do not like being shown to be wrong.
You lose
Who does?
I haven't lost anything, though I came close to losing my will to live posting with you. :)
Be my guest.
BA seems to be like a small child having frequent temper tantrums. Maybe he should find another source of entertainment, if WUMMERY is getting too much for him! ::)
No tantrum: it's all carefully done, and there's plenty of ammunition to work on, daily, courtesy of the resident obsessive atheists. Thanks, Floo. :)
-
Well at least BA admits he is a WUM, a bit of honesty doesn't go amiss!
-
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
If ever there was a time to be a grammar nazi...
You really do not get it, do you.
Wrong, it is you who has failed to get "it".
Foo wrote
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
I'm pretty sure she meant
A string of posts from Sass - who knows what she is talking about?
I've observed her posts about you quite a lot and it would be totally out of character for her to imply you know what you are talking about ever.
Anyway, thanks for the rant. I deleted the rest without reading it.
Who knows what you are talking about?
I have just clocked why the grammar issue was brought up.
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
But actually that sentence is not grammatically incorrect, I said what I meant to say, I was being tongue in cheek! ;D
Actually, that isn't a sentence. To be a sentence, it would need something like "This is" or "That was" on the front. ::) I think it ought to have a comma after "Sass" as well.
Have a nice day. :)
-
A narcissist, like you, will never admit any mistakes, and when confronted, will deflect and delay.
You haven't "confronted" me with anything but a quote from a source you're quite clearly too ashamed to acknowledge.
Narcissist. Keep on deflecting and delaying. Keep digging. :D
Blimey, it's getting a bit heated over a full stop, chaps.
-
A narcissist, like you, will never admit any mistakes, and when confronted, will deflect and delay.
You haven't "confronted" me with anything but a quote from a source you're quite clearly too ashamed to acknowledge.
Narcissist. Keep on deflecting and delaying. Keep digging. :D
Blimey, it's getting a bit heated over a full stop, chaps.
Given one can be heretical because of an iota, is that so strange?
-
I'm not dodging anything
Sure you are. Where did your quotation in #116 come from?
Give up. Admit you are wrong, you pathetic man!
Bashers, it is not an unreasonable question. You did present that argument about full stops and whatnot in quotation marks. I, too, wondered where the quote comes from. Was it a quote? If so, where was it from?
-
JeremyP answered this the other day. Apparently it's from some forum where people pose questions and other random people chip in with answers.
-
I'm not dodging anything
Sure you are. Where did your quotation in #116 come from?
Give up. Admit you are wrong, you pathetic man!
Bashers, it is not an unreasonable question. You did present that argument about full stops and whatnot in quotation marks. I, too, wondered where the quote comes from. Was it a quote? If so, where was it from?
-
thanks Shaker - sorry I didn't see this had already been addressed.
thanks also BA for replying.
-
thanks Shaker - sorry I didn't see this had already been addressed.
thanks also BA for replying.
I can't say. I merely paraphrased a comment I had seen on Yahoo, and put it in speech marks because I did not wish to claim it for myself, though it was something I believed anyway. I could not name anyone because there was only a silly user-name attached.
( Just putting things in the right order!)
Incidentally, if Shaker is watching, perhaps now he will admit he was wrong, which is what the whole point was.
-
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
If ever there was a time to be a grammar nazi...
You really do not get it, do you.
Wrong, it is you who has failed to get "it".
Foo wrote
A string of posts from Sass who knows what she is talking about.
I'm pretty sure she meant
A string of posts from Sass - who knows what she is talking about?
I've observed her posts about you quite a lot and it would be totally out of character for her to imply you know what you are talking about ever.
Anyway, thanks for the rant. I deleted the rest without reading it.
Who knows what you are talking about?
Which is probably why... you never learn anything.
Just imagine being able to give a learned response to the contents of the post you quote. I think I prefer where I am to where you are... I can give an informed response to contents....
-
Who knows what you are talking about?
Only Sass does ... and even she is mystified as to what she means at times. :)
Is that how you talked yourself out of your faith?
Truth is everyone knows why you gave up your faith. It was your choice after all.
But don't try to make less of the beliefs of others because they choose not to put something or someone before God.
-
According to whom?
According to those who write correct English. Try doing it.
I do - consistently.
The passage you posted to which I was referring was bracketed by quotation marks, indicating that it was lifted from some source without attribution. Where did it come from? Anybody able to understand correct English would have grasped that, I'd have thought ... ::)
You believe you write correct English. Actually, English has changed tremendously with every past century. The truth is that grammar can be a problem for anyone when it comes to the English language, including it's teachers.
-
According to whom?
According to those who write correct English. Try doing it.
I do - consistently.
The passage you posted to which I was referring was bracketed by quotation marks, indicating that it was lifted from some source without attribution. Where did it come from? Anybody able to understand correct English would have grasped that, I'd have thought ... ::)
You were wrong. Why can't you ever accept that?
Why can't you answer a simple question? You presented a passage in #116 which was bracketed by quotation marks, thus imputing it to some as yet unidentified source instead of its being written in your own words. What was/is that source and why are you so keen to conceal it? My alleged "wrongness" in this matter relies upon some authoritative source which is generally regarded as a definitive agreement upon English usage; you're copying and pasting without even revealing your sources.
A bit shabby and shoddy all round, really. No surprise to me, but still.
All this from someone who uses a grammar and spell checker.. LOL.
-
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes. The term originated from the Greek mythology, where the young Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water.
I would never attribute narcissism to Shaker, however the term would we a very good description of his accuser! ;D ;D ;D
Your perception, Roses, is brialliant at times! :D
Fools seldom differ....
It really won't make you right when you are both so clearly wrong.
Shaker, has been caught out several times now. Wonder if S is the shaker anymore....
-
Is that how you talked yourself out of your faith?
Lie! I didn't "talk myself out of my faith" and you know it. My faith in "God" weakened and died because he remained silent when I asked for help.
Truth is everyone knows why you gave up your faith.
I didn't "give it up", it gave me up.
It was your choice after all.
Don't be stupid! It was no more a choice than is your believing in "God".
But don't try to make less of the beliefs of others because they choose not to put something or someone before God.
It's a very weird person who would put "God" before his/her family!
-
"You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.
The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.
This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?"
I said I could, and I can, if I wished. In fact, in my younger days I did go through a phase when I chose to reject the Faith, and that totally demolishes your silly argument. Please admit you are wrong, and go your way. And you still haven't proved I'm a liar, by the way.
I have proved it because you still believe in a god, despite saying you could simply choose not to.
I say you cannot, and indeed to always fail to do what you claim you can do.
Do you understand that I cannot simply choose to believe in a god, and need evidence?
The argument here is unnecessary. Because the choosing to believe in God relies solely on the faith you put into Gods words and the honesty of yourself to receive the things promised. We know people choose not to believe even if eternal life is a true offer. So it is very much a choice. But the continuing in that belief is very much based on faith and the reality of God and his promises and presence in a persons life. You still choose.
-
Is that how you talked yourself out of your faith?
Lie! I didn't "talk myself out of my faith" and you know it. My faith in "God" weakened and died because he remained silent when I asked for help.
God has never been silent... his words and replies are directly there IN the OT.
So you are the one lying to yourself. You had a book full of nutrients for your soul.
God clearly telling you what he wants you to do and what he wants to do for you.
But the wants of your own heart was wanted more than the relationship with God.
Because God has already placed everything you need within you. Your love for your own life outweighed your love for God.
Truth is everyone knows why you gave up your faith.
I didn't "give it up", it gave me up.
It didn't...John 6:37.. you turned away on your own. You never really believed what God had told you or Christ taught.
It was your choice after all.
Don't be stupid! It was no more a choice than is your believing in "God".
There you go again... my belief has nothing to do with your choice.
Not even a comparison can be made from what you have just said.
Belief in God is always a choice. But in truth, once you know God is real in your heart you can never walk away from that reality. It is lying to yourself, to do so.
But don't try to make less of the beliefs of others because they choose not to put something or someone before God.
It's a very weird person who would put "God" before their family!
Again the lack of knowledge of God and Christianity is shown in your reply.
25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
King James 2000 Bible
He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
If you truly know Christ then you realise he wants what is best for your mother, brother, sister and yourself. It isn't a personality contest and not based in the
worldly aspect of love.
Paulo Coelho
“Agape is total love, the love that devours those that experience it. Whoever knows and experiences Agape sees that nothing else in this world is of any importance, only loving. This was the love that Jesus felt for humanity, and it was so great that it shook the stars and changed the course of man’s history.”¯
You see when you know the love God has for us, made known by Christ, then the greatest love exists not in the worldly version of love but Gods love which includes the good of all of us. It is a foolish thing to turn away from Christ and the Father God for the love of the world.
I know my God puts myself and my family first. He includes my family he does not divide us. If my family love God they too will understand that true love never turns it's back on God and there is nothing to choose for Gods love covers our families too.
-
Just a note:Christian replies:-
That beliefs are not condemning in themselves. But peoples conscience condemn themselves when they read sometimes. You should never think it an attack or affront from the person posting. Because it is really the way it is understood and read according to ones own life...
-
Your problem, Sass, is that you think you know what is in other people's minds ... and you don't need me to tell you that that is a VERY foolish thing to think.
:)
-
As usual Sass makes daft statements, which might make sense to her, but not to many others! ::)
-
The gospel writers simply wrote down what they had heard or believed,
I think there's a fair chance that they made some of it up. Matthew and Luke have their nativity stories, Mark has his Messianic Secret, John has his crucifixion as a parallel of the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb.
-
The gospel writers simply wrote down what they had heard or believed,
I think there's a fair chance that they made some of it up. Matthew and Luke have their nativity stories, Mark has his Messianic Secret, John has his crucifixion as a parallel of the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb.
But surely believing that "God" was guiding them? If not, the authenticity of the gospels goes out of the window.
-
The gospel writers simply wrote down what they had heard or believed,
I think there's a fair chance that they made some of it up. Matthew and Luke have their nativity stories, Mark has his Messianic Secret, John has his crucifixion as a parallel of the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb.
But surely believing that "God" was guiding them? If not, the authenticity of the gospels goes out of the window.
What do you mean by the "authenticity of the gospels"? These are stories that were written, probably, thirty years at least after the alleged events they describe bu persons unknown. We have no idea if they believed they were guided by God or not.
-
What do you mean by the "authenticity of the gospels"? These are stories that were written, probably, thirty years at least after the alleged events they describe bu persons unknown. We have no idea if they believed they were guided by God or not.
I suppose you are right, mate. I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt, since Christians claim the Bible books are "God" inspired.
-
What do you mean by the "authenticity of the gospels"? These are stories that were written, probably, thirty years at least after the alleged events they describe bu persons unknown. We have no idea if they believed they were guided by God or not.
I suppose you are right, mate. I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt, since Christians claim the Bible books are "God" inspired.
And it should be pointed out, Len, that the text they cite for that view was one of the last in the Bible to be written (and not by the author whose name is given to it), and is most likely a mistranslation of the greek....
-
What do you mean by the "authenticity of the gospels"? These are stories that were written, probably, thirty years at least after the alleged events they describe bu persons unknown. We have no idea if they believed they were guided by God or not.
I suppose you are right, mate. I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt, since Christians claim the Bible books are "God" inspired.
And it should be pointed out, Len, that the text they cite for that view was one of the last in the Bible to be written (and not by the author whose name is given to it), and is most likely a mistranslation of the greek....
Allegedly.
-
Is that how you talked yourself out of your faith?
Lie! I didn't "talk myself out of my faith" and you know it. My faith in "God" weakened and died because he remained silent when I asked for help.
God has never been silent... his words and replies are directly there IN the OT.
So you are the one lying to yourself. You had a book full of nutrients for your soul.
God clearly telling you what he wants you to do and what he wants to do for you.
But the wants of your own heart was wanted more than the relationship with God.
Because God has already placed everything you need within you. Your love for your own life outweighed your love for God.
Truth is everyone knows why you gave up your faith.
I didn't "give it up", it gave me up.
It didn't...John 6:37.. you turned away on your own. You never really believed what God had told you or Christ taught.
It was your choice after all.
Don't be stupid! It was no more a choice than is your believing in "God".
There you go again... my belief has nothing to do with your choice.
Not even a comparison can be made from what you have just said.
Belief in God is always a choice. But in truth, once you know God is real in your heart you can never walk away from that reality. It is lying to yourself, to do so.
But don't try to make less of the beliefs of others because they choose not to put something or someone before God.
It's a very weird person who would put "God" before their family!
Again the lack of knowledge of God and Christianity is shown in your reply.
25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
King James 2000 Bible
He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
If you truly know Christ then you realise he wants what is best for your mother, brother, sister and yourself. It isn't a personality contest and not based in the
worldly aspect of love.
Paulo Coelho
“Agape is total love, the love that devours those that experience it. Whoever knows and experiences Agape sees that nothing else in this world is of any importance, only loving. This was the love that Jesus felt for humanity, and it was so great that it shook the stars and changed the course of man’s history.”¯
You see when you know the love God has for us, made known by Christ, then the greatest love exists not in the worldly version of love but Gods love which includes the good of all of us. It is a foolish thing to turn away from Christ and the Father God for the love of the world.
I know my God puts myself and my family first. He includes my family he does not divide us. If my family love God they too will understand that true love never turns it's back on God and there is nothing to choose for Gods love covers our families too.
Sass, your words: "You see when you know the love God has for us"; I'm certain you think know about this, so please tell, exactly how do you know?
Your words again: "I know my God puts myself and my family first"; how can you or anyone else possibly know this?
I know you believe these things but there are some people that are certain that Elvis is still alive, like you they don't know, even then, it's as likely that Elvis is still around as it is that this god thingy of yours is around, in fact it's far more likely your workshop manual is man made than any other explanation, all the evidence points that way.
Do you know the difference between believing something and knowing something?
ippy
-
Your problem, Sass, is that you think you know what is in other people's minds ... and you don't need me to tell you that that is a VERY foolish thing to think.
:)
The fact is there can ONLY BE SO MANY THINGS in peoples minds..
Human nature is a fact and you are the person GUILTY of the very thing you accuse me of being when it comes to Christians...
Maybe you just hit your own brick wall.
-
Your problem, Sass, is that you think you know what is in other people's minds ... and you don't need me to tell you that that is a VERY foolish thing to think.
:)
The fact is there can ONLY BE SO MANY THINGS in peoples minds..
Human nature is a fact and you are the person GUILTY of the very thing you accuse me of being when it comes to Christians...
Maybe you just hit your own brick wall.
More GARBAGE from Sass! ::)
-
Sass Ref post 221 on this thread, what is it? You haven't got an answer?
Or if you do manage to turn reason and yourself inside out, trying to answer that post, would it be because you fear that it's going expose some holes in your efforts to promote that beloved by you religion.
ippy
-
What do you mean by the "authenticity of the gospels"? These are stories that were written, probably, thirty years at least after the alleged events they describe bu persons unknown. We have no idea if they believed they were guided by God or not.
I suppose you are right, mate. I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt, since Christians claim the Bible books are "God" inspired.
And it should be pointed out, Len, that the text they cite for that view was one of the last in the Bible to be written (and not by the author whose name is given to it), and is most likely a mistranslation of the greek....
Thanks for the information, Dicky. It's obvious to me that the whole God/Jesus story is a fiction cobbled together by the authors of the various books of the Bible, and has no more connection with reality than any of the other god stories the ancients believed.