Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

For a good non sequitur a laddy has just contributed to a board talking about messianic sects and how only one has become a world religion by asking what about all these non messianic sects. I think he said his name was Outrider or something.

Not coming back onto topic, then...?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't - I feel a pointing-out of the negative proof fallacy coming on. See Hope for details.

Come on Shaker are you seriously suggesting that determinism is not a positive assertion.

[Shaker]

Come on Shaker are you seriously suggesting that determinism is not a positive assertion.

It might well be. But then, I haven't seen anybody make it.

[ippy]

But I do not speak from my own authority.
I am just the messenger.

Several months ago I made a big announcement that I had made my last post on this forum.  I felt that I had said everything I had to say and that God wanted me to move on.  But in retrospect I was wanting to quit because it was getting hard for me to endure the negative comments and occasional ridicule that my posts were bringing - in short I had had enough.

But God had other ideas.  He called me back and gave me some very profound and challenging things to say.  I can claim no credit for the thoughts expressed in my posts - I am not a scientist or philosopher.  I am an eleven-plus failure who grew up on a council estate (Thorntree) in Middlesbrough.  I just hope and pray that my posts will achieve whatever God intends them to.

Looks like the silver foil in your hat isn't thick enough Alan.

ippy

[Rhiannon]

OK so your on here largely to showboat,

No. The problem is that you think any kind of theist has to argue their point and convince others - proselytise, in fact. You seem incapable of understanding that I'm still interested in talking about all the things we discuss on here without the ulterior motive of convincing anyone of the rightness of my beliefs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. The problem is that you think any kind of theist has to argue their point and convince others - proselytise, in fact. You seem incapable of understanding that I'm still interested in talking about all the things we discuss on here without the ulterior motive of convincing anyone of the rightness of my beliefs.

Pure humbug you are here on an antichristian mission without exposing your own beliefs to scrutiny.

So if not my God....your gods.

Outside of that your activity on this forum doesn't exactly go down in the annals of candour.

[floo]

Pure humbug you are here on an antichristian mission without exposing your own beliefs to scrutiny.

So if not my God....your gods.

Outside of that your activity on this forum doesn't exactly go down in the annals of candour.

You don't half talk some GARBAGE!

[Dicky Underpants]

Pure humbug you are here on an antichristian mission without exposing your own beliefs to scrutiny.

So if not my God....your gods.

Outside of that your activity on this forum doesn't exactly go down in the annals of candour.

What absolute shite! You are a total arse, with all the sensitivity of a half-brick. Rhiannon is one of the most candid and insightful posters on here, and has been completely honest about how she lost her Christian faith. If she has some gripes about mainstream Christianity, she's always explained them fully, often with a good deal of scholarly backing from the tradition of Christian criticism, showing a far greater acquaintance with the latter than you, or another blowhard who now, mercifully, seems to have departed.

[Maeght]

Pure humbug you are here on an antichristian mission without exposing your own beliefs to scrutiny.

So if not my God....your gods.

Outside of that your activity on this forum doesn't exactly go down in the annals of candour.

That is nonsense really. Rhiannon is always open and honest about her beliefs and to suggest some antichristian mission is, it seems to me, to be another example of you reading people's posts through your somewhat confused filter set to interpret everything as some attack on your beliefs - displayed by your insistence on referring to people as antitheists as often as possible.

[Enki]

Pure humbug you are here on an antichristian mission without exposing your own beliefs to scrutiny.

So if not my God....your gods.

Outside of that your activity on this forum doesn't exactly go down in the annals of candour.

I suggest that Rhi certainly does not come across as having an 'antichristian mission' as you call it in your usual derisory fashion. She criticises certain aspect of Christianity, as I sometimes do. If you want to criticise her beliefs, why not go to the pagan section and give constructive arguments as to why you disagree with them. I have not found her posts to be obtuse, evasive or deceptive. One thing she doesn't do, as she herself said, is prosletyse on the rightness of her beliefs, as certain others seem to do on this forum.

I find your above post to be most unpleasant and unfounded.

[Gordon]

Pure humbug you are here on an antichristian mission without exposing your own beliefs to scrutiny.

So if not my God....your gods.

Outside of that your activity on this forum doesn't exactly go down in the annals of candour.

Well done, Vlad - said with all the subtlety of a flying mallet: and also absolutely dead wrong.
 

[Rhiannon]

Pure humbug you are here on an antichristian mission without exposing your own beliefs to scrutiny.

So if not my God....your gods.

Outside of that your activity on this forum doesn't exactly go down in the annals of candour.

Vlad, if that was a post by someone whose opinion I had some respect for it'd give me pause for thought. As it is....whatever. <shrugs>.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What absolute shite! You are a total arse, with all the sensitivity of a half-brick. Rhiannon is one of the most candid and insightful posters on here, and has been completely honest about how she lost her Christian faith. If she has some gripes about mainstream Christianity, she's always explained them fully, often with a good deal of scholarly backing from the tradition of Christian criticism, showing a far greater acquaintance with the latter than you, or another blowhard who now, mercifully, seems to have departed.

Obviously you follow the New atheist line that you can be as offensive to the religious as you like and still be a good guy and have become insensitised to axe grinding.

[Rhiannon]

Obviously you follow the New atheist line that you can be as offensive to the religious as you like and still be a good guy and have become insensitised to axe grinding.

Vlad, you can't cry 'offence' every time someone points out the illogic, inconsistencies or unkindness within Christian beliefs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, you can't cry 'offence' every time someone points out the illogic, inconsistencies or unkindness within Christian beliefs.

How can I when no one has?

[Rhiannon]

How can I when no one has?

If that's truly what you believe then I fail to see what you are offended by.

[Alan Burns]

What you call 'control' in this context is really the brain's ability to react in ways that are far more nuanced and sophisticated than the simpler and older system of inbred instincts. The fact that humans can overide instinctive responses with far more insightful responses is what we commonly call 'agency' or 'free will', but even free will is not truly and totally free because that would define our responses as random, which would be totally unhelpful.  The path from cause to effect is often harder to see in choices made through agency but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Just going back to this earlier post.
I can't get my head round your insistence that totally free will would define responses as random.

My concept of free will at its most basic is for the ability of the human soul to direct the physical brain to choose between right and wrong.  This ability is at the heart of most religious faith and there is nothing random about it.  It is simply the freedom to make a concious choice which is not pre determined.

[Alan Burns]

Yesterday evening I went with my wife and two children (aged 19 and 20) to a reconciliation service, which included personal confession of sins to a priest.  So many young people turn away from their faith due to our increasing secular society, so I was so pleased that our children are still able to be reconciled with God before celebrating the birth of our Saviour.  It is a wonderful preparation for celebrating this great joyful feast.

[ekim]

Just going back to this earlier post.
I can't get my head round your insistence that totally free will would define responses as random.

My concept of free will at its most basic is for the ability of the human soul to direct the physical brain to choose between right and wrong.  This ability is at the heart of most religious faith and there is nothing random about it.  It is simply the freedom to make a concious choice which is not pre determined.

Are they choices that are free or are they driven by whichever programme is the stronger between natural inclination and religious indoctrination?

[Sassy]

fallible and weak human beings arguing the toss about God and yet cannot see their own inability to prove anything in truth to themselves.

I wonder why you think as humans one has any upper hand on the other when it comes to God?

[Sassy]

Even if this were right, what you've got is a fallible, weak human god substitute that digs people out of post-earthquake rubble and tries to stop babies dying because of cancer. So let's go back a step to why you think it is logical that a loving God created/allows this stuff in the first place.

Is it God or was it man when he handed the world and everything to Satan on a plate. Would you want to live for ever in a body which could get sick and suffer but never die?

Do you wrap your children up and stop them going out to play so they won't get run over or hurt? You allow your children to do as they please within certain limits.
Eventually they would grow up and hate you for not allowing them to live their lives as other children.

Even if this were right, what you've got is a fallible, weak human god substitute that digs people out of post-earthquake rubble and tries to stop babies dying because of cancer. So let's go back a step to why you think it is logical that a loving God created/allows this stuff in the first place.

When it comes to logic the bible is clear that man has been able to decide for himself since day one what his actions will be. You love your child but if he jumps off the top of the slide and hurts himself, is that your fault?

Why is all the bad things Gods fault? Why would God preventing bad things and people from dying help? What you cannot do is put mans own responsibility on God. Adam chose to disobey he brought all the suffering on mankind when he chose to listen to the devil. He handed the world which is marred by Satan, to Satan.

Look at the all the disasters... God did not cause them. Only Satan brings lies, deceit, suffering and death. God does not want this but the number has to be fulfilled that are going to live before he can complete his plan for a new heaven and earth without death or suffering. You need to see that God wants an end a full stop to mankind suffering.

[savillerow]

Msg 6668 Sassy  I can't believe after all the posts over the months by people trying to temper yout thought processes you still write like this. It's very odd.

[floo]

Yesterday evening I went with my wife and two children (aged 19 and 20) to a reconciliation service, which included personal confession of sins to a priest.  So many young people turn away from their faith due to our increasing secular society, so I was so pleased that our children are still able to be reconciled with God before celebrating the birth of our Saviour.  It is a wonderful preparation for celebrating this great joyful feast.

I think the idea of confessing your wrongdoings to a priest is CRAZY! Many catholic priests are not saints by any means, some of them are perverted scum!

[Leonard James]

You love your child but if he jumps off the top of the slide and hurts himself, is that your fault?

No, but if we could foresee the future as your "God" is supposed to, then yes, it would be our fault for letting him climb up knowing that he was going to jump.

Sorry Sass, but you don't have a leg to stand on. This "God" you worship is about as real as the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

[floo]

No, but if we could foresee the future as your "God" is supposed to, then yes, it would be our fault for letting him climb up knowing that he was going to jump.

Sorry Sass, but you don't have a leg to stand on. This "God" you worship is about as real as the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

I think fairies at the bottom of the garden are more credible than Sass's take on the deity!