Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sensible,

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

Gonnagle.

That they have territory, money and followers. How else would you describe success? Is it simply having the most followers? Does that make Christina into by definition wrong before JC and wrong for about a thousand years at least, probably 1700 years after?
Will it make Islam right, if the number increase?

[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?

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.

I am actually far from anti religious. I don't know if this is you not reading posts, lying, or simply reading posts without discernment, however I would suggest that if you want to enter into discussion you need to read and reply to the post. It's exactly why I am taking this time with you, at your best you are an interesting and challenging poster but too often you both retreat to and start in a mode of lazy attacks in one liners and snide comments which do nothing for discussion.

[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.

I am actually far from anti religious. I don't know if this is you not reading posts, lying, or simply reading posts without discernment, however I would suggest that if you want to enter into discussion you need to read and reply to the post. It's exactly why I am taking this time with you, at your best you are an interesting and challenging poster but too often you both retreat to and start in a mode of lazy attacks in one liners and snide comments which do nothing for discussion.

Thank you for that sensible post  -  I am not intending to be condescending.  But it is not true, what you say.  I do engage in discussion, as you will find if you look through my posts.  I do not often engage in long discussion because I do not often feel so inclined;  and I do not have long periods of time when I can put my mind to it.  I tend to have the computer on and do quick browses in between doing other things, as I am now.

[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?

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.

I am actually far from anti religious. I don't know if this is you not reading posts, lying, or simply reading posts without discernment, however I would suggest that if you want to enter into discussion you need to read and reply to the post. It's exactly why I am taking this time with you, at your best you are an interesting and challenging poster but too often you both retreat to and start in a mode of lazy attacks in one liners and snide comments which do nothing for discussion.

Thank you for that sensible post  -  I am not intending to be condescending.  But it is not true, what you say.  I do engage in discussion, as you will find if you look through my posts.  I do not often engage in long discussion because I do not often feel so inclined;  and I do not have long periods of time when I can put my mind to it.  I tend to have the computer on and do quick browses in between doing other things, as I am now.

Probably time to leave this but I would like to suggest that you spend less time about atheists, and more straight forwardly replying to the person you are talking to. I realise that we all do this generalisation to an extent but it is best avoided.

[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.

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

Synthetic Dave had a problem with 'llberal' but fortunately after listening a few times, I put it to where words can be spelt out letter by letter...
Tell me - why should I or anyone be humble ever, to anyone? (If you think that is conceited or smug or something, look up the definition of humble.)
What is the Pope doing for the good of RCs all over the world to bring them TRUTH, Science, safety, etc? Is he telling them to 'search for God'? How can he stand there and tell anyone that God is in heaven, listening to their prayers? Does he give daily thought to what could be  done with the vast wealth at his disposal?
Don't bother to answer!!!

ETA: Meant to say - well said, Floo!!

[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.

Synthetic Dave had a problem with 'llberal' but fortunately after listening a few times, I put it to where words can be spelt out letter by letter...
Tell me - why should I or anyone be humble ever, to anyone? (If you think that is conceited or smug or something, look up the definition of humble.)
What is the Pope doing for the good of RCs all over the world to bring them TRUTH, Science, safety, etc? Is he telling them to 'search for God'? How can he stand there and tell anyone that God is in heaven, listening to their prayers? Does he give daily thought to what could be  done with the vast wealth at his disposal?
Do't bother to answer!!!

Please do not assume I am an apologist for Catholicism..I am not, and hinted at that in my post.  I readily accept what else you say, and all I was saying is that the Pope was saying that all go to Heaven, and that comment was made in response to a post questioning the fact.  So please don't ascribe to me words and meanings I never made.

[Alan Burns]

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?

I do not have a definition of hell, apart from not being in heaven.

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

Jesus is the way the truth and the life, and no one can get to the Father except through Him.

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?

Accept Jesus as your saviour - it is the only sure way.

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

I honestly thought I had answered your point

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

I agree

6. There's no such thing as sin.

I do not agree

7. Every living thing dies. No exceptions.

Every biological thing dies

[Shaker]

I do not have a definition of hell, apart from not being in heaven.

Jesus is the way the truth and the life, and no one can get to the Father except through Him.

Accept Jesus as your saviour - it is the only sure way.

Yet just this afternoon we've seen Bashful Anthony quoting the current Pope where the plain meaning of the words indicates that all that's necessary to gain entry into heaven is to be and to do good - even atheists. Unless I am mistaking him, this is undercutting and rendering useless all religious beliefs and practices including his own.

Every biological thing dies

That's what I said.

[cyberman]

In a material earthly life we have to be self centered;

Why?

 The airline stewardess always says put on your own oxygen mask first before attempting to help others.

That's not self-centredness, that's common sense. If someone is relying on your help, you'll be a fat lot of good if you pass out trying to get them sorted first, won't you? Most people can figure that out for themselves, of course, but they point it out just in case in the panic you forget.

[cyberman]

... current Pope where the plain meaning of the words indicates that all that's necessary to gain entry into heaven is to be and to do good - even atheists. Unless I am mistaking him, this is undercutting and rendering useless all religious beliefs and practices including his own.

Only if you think that the sole purpose of religious beliefs and practices is to avoid hell. While this is a popular parody of religion, it isn't really what religion is all about. I certainly don't practice my faith because I think I'll go to hell if I don't.

[Alan Burns]

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

As I have tried to explain previously, I believe that divine intervention involves initiating events which are not in themselves caused by previous events, but which then produces naturally ocurring chain reactions to produce a desired result.  For example in the human brain, whatever initiates an act of conscious free will must be an event which has not been caused by previous events, but by the human soul.

Take for example the parting of the red sea.  It has been suggested that a certain combination of tides and weather conditions might have created the opportunity for the Isrealites to wade across, but for this to happen just at the right time suggests that God might have initiated a few "God's will" events to induce those conditions.  For a much fuller explanation of this concept of God's intervention I would suggest reading the book "Miracles" by CS Lewis.

[ippy]

You certainly don't need to be religious to bring your children up properly!

But if you ARE religious it makes the job much more difficult!

A ridiculous comment! How is it more difficult?  There are those who would say it is easier, because you have  very well-defined set of values.

It would be vastly preferable to have these "well-defined values" defined by help and harm to other sentient creatures, not adherence to the daft, arbitrary rules of alleged supernatural figures without a scrap of evidence to support their existence.

I'm referring to such things as the love and forgiveness and care for others, that Jesus taught.  You clearly, from your comment, do not subscribe to such values  -  I realise that from the usual tenor of your posts.

It's hardly Shakers fault if you chose to take the narrow religious POV.

Yet again another religionist that thinks good ethics and morals are the exclusive preserve of religious believers.

ippy

Your narrow-minded and manipulative attitude to the young, makes you no kind of advert for standards of behaviour.

I note you didn't really have an answer to my post, demonstrated by your reply above, where you profess to know how I behave toward youngsters, you have no idea about about any idea I may or may not have towards youngsters, but somehow you think you have.

O K B A, tell me exactly what is my, in your words, "narrow-minded and manipulative attitude to the young"?

ippy

Because you dismiss all religion with derision, and would deny your, and other children ,the right to learn about it with an open mind.  You know that is your position, so don't be so hypocritical!

I have to admit I'm all for thinking for yourself and probably passed that on to my two boys, naturally I would have found it disappointing had they been taken in by a religious belief, adopting silly stuff instead of actually doing their own thinking and working things out.

I didn't remove them from any of the prescribed religious stuff at school nor did they take to any of it, as it happens, they're in their mid thirties now and there're neither pro or anti your regressive line of thought, a couple of good blokes as it happens.

ippy

[Shaker]

I made, and make, no such suggestion; I was commenting on the words of the Pope as quoted by BA earlier which seem to suggest that religious belief is irrelevant, Catholicism included.

[ippy]

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.

You're a clown alan.

ippy

[cyberman]

I would have found it disappointing had they been taken in by a religious belief, adopting silly stuff instead of actually doing their own thinking and working things out.

I "actually" do my own thinking, and I am religious. Schoolboy error, Ippy, to assume that if someone comes to a different conclusion from you it can only mean they haven't given the matter sufficient thought. Very arrogant, in fact - "if only people would think properly, they would all agree with me!"

[Rhiannon]

The Pope is saying some good stuff there. I used to be universalist and yet I was still a Christian. Why? Because at the time it fed my spirit and gave shape to my life.

[ippy]

I would have found it disappointing had they been taken in by a religious belief, adopting silly stuff instead of actually doing their own thinking and working things out.

I "actually" do my own thinking, and I am religious. Schoolboy error, Ippy, to assume that if someone comes to a different conclusion from you it can only mean they haven't given the matter sufficient thought. Very arrogant, in fact - "if only people would think properly, they would all agree with me!"

I suppose it would be arrogant to expect evidence before you believe, well anything.

ippy   

[Alan Burns]

I suppose it would be arrogant to expect evidence before you believe, well anything.

ippy

There is ample evidence in the fact that you are aware of your own existence.
Think about it.

[Shaker]

And what's that "ample evidence" of, Alan?

[Alan Burns]

And what's that "ample evidence" of, Alan?

The human soul, and its ability to perceive

[Maeght]

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

For a much fuller explanation of this concept of God's intervention I would suggest reading the book "Miracles" by CS Lewis.

I'm asking what you think Alan not C.S. Lewis.

As I have tried to explain previously, I believe that divine intervention involves initiating events which are not in themselves caused by previous events, but which then produces naturally ocurring chain reactions to produce a desired result. For example in the human brain, whatever initiates an act of conscious free will must be an event which has not been caused by previous events, but by the human soul.

If free will exists then by definition it must not be effected by previous events, but you haven't demonstrated free will exists so asserting this gets us no where.

Take for example the parting of the red sea.  It has been suggested that a certain combination of tides and weather conditions might have created the opportunity for the Isrealites to wade across,but for this to happen just at the right time suggests that God might have initiated a few "God's will" events to induce those conditions.

Might? So you are suggesting that God might have initiated some natural events which might have resulted in the Red Sea parting. So God controls the weather conditions to intervene. Why couldn't he do the same with the child that fell into the storm drain and blow the child back out again rather than leave it to the father to rescue him? You seem to want it both ways.

[Shaker]

And what's that "ample evidence" of, Alan?

The human soul, and its ability to perceive

It's nothing of the sort though is it?

[Alien]

Dear Me,

Damn!! I missed the 3000 post, will this thread trundle on for another 1000 posts!! I can only live in hope.

Gonnagle.

If you have 7 previous posts, delete those and then your current 3007 will become 3000.

Then someone else will do something similar, perhaps.

[ippy]

I suppose it would be arrogant to expect evidence before you believe, well anything.

ippy

There is ample evidence in the fact that you are aware of your own existence.
Think about it.

You're in a very strange place Alan.

ippy

[torridon]

And what's that "ample evidence" of, Alan?

The human soul, and its ability to perceive

You seem to be overlooking the unfortunate fact that there isn't any evidence for souls though, human or otherwise. Real evidence, I mean.