Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

Probably 

[BashfulAnthony]

I was agreeing with NS's identification of hypocrisy insofar as anyone can come here and read your posts just as much as mine.

Well at least they won't learn a whole range of expletives from me!

Do you use the Bowdler version of Shakespeare?

I think most people realise the difference between the literary use of expletives, and the casual, snarling, every day vitriol.  Though, apparently you lot don't.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Torridon,

Post 3066, luck old chum, your claim, Christianity the lucky religion, and I will not crow about it if you concede you are wrong, honest!!

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

In principle, I guess - enjoy, whoever you are, and remember: never stop asking questions and never stop thinking for yourself 

Of course, since Bash can also have his posts read by anyone then he is being hypocritical to complain about you. And then there are all the children he has 'influenced' by being a teacher.

Very true!

How do you know it's "true?"  I taught strictly by the constraints of the National Curriculum, and did not attempt to influence any child to my own beliefs and inclinations; and anybody who suggests otherwise better have just cause, because it's libelous to suggest otherwise.

But accusations of plagiarism do not have to be made with any just cause by you? Mmm this is like a masterclass in hypocrisy. Was that what you taught?

[Nearly Sane]

I was agreeing with NS's identification of hypocrisy insofar as anyone can come here and read your posts just as much as mine.

Well at least they won't learn a whole range of expletives from me!

Do you use the Bowdler version of Shakespeare?

I think most people realise the difference between the literary use of expletives, and the casual, snarling, every day vitriol.  Though, apparently you lot don't.

I am happy to have a discussion about the difference. I once wrote an essay that in part looked at it. But your statement about teaching people expletives made no such division.

[BashfulAnthony]

In principle, I guess - enjoy, whoever you are, and remember: never stop asking questions and never stop thinking for yourself 

Of course, since Bash can also have his posts read by anyone then he is being hypocritical to complain about you. And then there are all the children he has 'influenced' by being a teacher.

Very true!

How do you know it's "true?"  I taught strictly by the constraints of the National Curriculum, and did not attempt to influence any child to my own beliefs and inclinations; and anybody who suggests otherwise better have just cause, because it's libelous to suggest otherwise.

But accusations of plagiarism do not have to be made with any just cause by you? Mmm this is like a masterclass in hypocrisy. Was that what you taught?

I was suggesting plagiarism because of the content of the comments, and by the person who made them.  My suggestion has not been refuted by him, as yet.

You have no idea about my teaching career, and I guess that comment applies to most of what you prattle about.

[Alan Burns]

A couple of days ago you spoke of the "danger" of people rejecting Jesus. I asked you what this danger was but you didn't reply. Will you do so now?

I would have thought it obvious that if you reject Jesus after knowing about Him, you will vastly reduce your chances of entering Heaven.  Jesus came to save us from Sin and death.

[Alan Burns]

Alan burns: Can you give an example of what you say to young people to keep them within what I suppose you might call the 'fold'? Or what you might say to deter them from taking a real look at, for instance, the Humanist RE Syllabus?

I simply explain the Gospels to them

[Nearly Sane]

In principle, I guess - enjoy, whoever you are, and remember: never stop asking questions and never stop thinking for yourself 

Of course, since Bash can also have his posts read by anyone then he is being hypocritical to complain about you. And then there are all the children he has 'influenced' by being a teacher.

Very true!

How do you know it's "true?"  I taught strictly by the constraints of the National Curriculum, and did not attempt to influence any child to my own beliefs and inclinations; and anybody who suggests otherwise better have just cause, because it's libelous to suggest otherwise.

But accusations of plagiarism do not have to be made with any just cause by you? Mmm this is like a masterclass in hypocrisy. Was that what you taught?

I was suggesting plagiarism because of the content of the comments, and by the person who made them.  My suggestion has not been refuted by him, as yet.

You have no idea about my teaching career, and I guess that comment applies to most of what you prattle about.

Your first sentence in reply there is nonsensical. What does 'and by the person who made them' mean in that sentence. Nothing follows over from the first clause to explain it.

As for the comments on your teaching, nothing in my post claimed knowledge. It was a joke. We have them in this world. In your's, not so much.

[BashfulAnthony]

In principle, I guess - enjoy, whoever you are, and remember: never stop asking questions and never stop thinking for yourself 

Of course, since Bash can also have his posts read by anyone then he is being hypocritical to complain about you. And then there are all the children he has 'influenced' by being a teacher.

Very true!

How do you know it's "true?"  I taught strictly by the constraints of the National Curriculum, and did not attempt to influence any child to my own beliefs and inclinations; and anybody who suggests otherwise better have just cause, because it's libelous to suggest otherwise.

But accusations of plagiarism do not have to be made with any just cause by you? Mmm this is like a masterclass in hypocrisy. Was that what you taught?

I was suggesting plagiarism because of the content of the comments, and by the person who made them.  My suggestion has not been refuted by him, as yet.

You have no idea about my teaching career, and I guess that comment applies to most of what you prattle about.

Your first sentence in reply there is nonsensical. What does 'and by the person who made them' mean in that sentence. Nothing follows over from the first clause to explain it.

As for the comments on your teaching, nothing in my post claimed knowledge. It was a joke. We have them in this world. In your's, not so much.

Good grief!  You are criticising me!  Check your own post.  It's barely literate.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Torridon,

Post 3066, luck old chum, your claim, Christianity the lucky religion, and I will not crow about it if you concede you are wrong, honest!!

Gonnagle.

Does that mean that the success of IS and its killing of Christians is not just luck buy something intended?

[Shaker]

I would have thought it obvious that if you reject Jesus after knowing about Him, you will vastly reduce your chances of entering Heaven.  Jesus came to save us from Sin and death.

1. If you mean hell,  why not say so?

2. Why does rejecting Jesus vastly reduce your chances of entering heaven?

3. Does this apply only to disbelievers in all religion, or to Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains ... in fact members of all other religions?

4. Why didn't you say this the first time?

5. This only has traction if you buy into the Christian package, which I do not.

6. There's no such thing as sin.

7. Every living thing dies. No exceptions.

[Nearly Sane]

Good grief!  You are criticising me!  Check your own post.  It's barely literate.

OK, I now feel a bit like Julie Andrews because we obviously have to start at the very beginning with you about how to have a discussion.

First, if you want to say something is wrong, point out what it is and why. An example of this was where I said the second clause if your sentence did not make sense based on the first clause.

Secondly, assertion with exclamation marks, while looking good on screen, is not actual argument.


Further rules of discussion available when you pick up the basics.

[SusanDoris]

Alan burns: Can you give an example of what you say to young people to keep them within what I suppose you might call the 'fold'? Or what you might say to deter them from taking a real look at, for instance, the Humanist RE Syllabus?

I simply explain the Gospels to them

Oh dear!   

[Maeght]

Alan, any comment on post 3043 regarding God's divine interevention?

[BashfulAnthony]

I would have thought it obvious that if you reject Jesus after knowing about Him, you will vastly reduce your chances of entering Heaven.  Jesus came to save us from Sin and death.

1. If you mean hell,  why not say so?

2. Why does rejecting Jesus vastly reduce your chances of entering heaven?

3. Does this apply only to disbelievers in all religion, or to Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains ... in fact members of all other religions?

3. Why didn't you say this the first time?

4. This only has traction if you buy into the Christian package, which I do not.

5. There's no such thing as sin.

6. Every living thing dies. No exceptions.

As Pope Francis has said  -  and quoting Catholics is not my usual course: 

 “The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”.. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

[BashfulAnthony]

Good grief!  You are criticising me!  Check your own post.  It's barely literate.

OK, I now feel a bit like Julie Andrews because we obviously have to start at the very beginning with you about how to have a discussion.

First, if you want to say something is wrong, point out what it is and why. An example of this was where I said the second clause if your sentence did not make sense based on the first clause.

Secondly, assertion with exclamation marks, while looking good on screen, is not actual argument.


Further rules of discussion available when you pick up the basics.

Good joke!   

[Shaker]

Which seems to make any religious belief irrelevant and/or redundant then ... which any atheist can tell you.

[BashfulAnthony]

Alan burns: Can you give an example of what you say to young people to keep them within what I suppose you might call the 'fold'? Or what you might say to deter them from taking a real look at, for instance, the Humanist RE Syllabus?

I simply explain the Gospels to them

Oh dear!   

Terrible, isn't it!  That someone should explain about love and forgiveness and humility.

[Nearly Sane]

Good grief!  You are criticising me!  Check your own post.  It's barely literate.

OK, I now feel a bit like Julie Andrews because we obviously have to start at the very beginning with you about how to have a discussion.

First, if you want to say something is wrong, point out what it is and why. An example of this was where I said the second clause if your sentence did not make sense based on the first clause.

Secondly, assertion with exclamation marks, while looking good on screen, is not actual argument.


Further rules of discussion available when you pick up the basics.

Good joke!   

Another one liner, which as already noted earlier, you indulge in rather than have discussions. What is your problem about actually engaging in what is being said?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sensible,

IS, successful!! Explain yerself, and can you do it in a sympathetic manner, I was out partying last night.

Gonnagle.

[SusanDoris]

As Pope Francis has said  -  and quoting Catholics is not my usual course: 

 “The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”.. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Smothering, cloying words; like candyfloss.

[Shaker]

Dangerous words for a Pope, I'd have thought, since they seem to render all religious beliefs - Catholicism included - superfluous.

[BashfulAnthony]

As Pope Francis has said  -  and quoting Catholics is not my usual course: 

 “The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”.. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Smothering, cloying words; like candyfloss.

But more llberal and humble than anything you've said.

[BashfulAnthony]

Good grief!  You are criticising me!  Check your own post.  It's barely literate.

OK, I now feel a bit like Julie Andrews because we obviously have to start at the very beginning with you about how to have a discussion.

First, if you want to say something is wrong, point out what it is and why. An example of this was where I said the second clause if your sentence did not make sense based on the first clause.

Secondly, assertion with exclamation marks, while looking good on screen, is not actual argument.


Further rules of discussion available when you pick up the basics.

Good joke!   

Another one liner, which as already noted earlier, you indulge in rather than have discussions. What is your problem about actually engaging in what is being said?

When you post anything other than your usual anti-religion theme, and it's worth a second's thought, I will respond.   I'm not holding my breath.