Unconditional love

[Rhiannon]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.

How?

[Rhiannon]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

I don't mean to be unkind. I just really don't see why one set of documented myths around a vaguely historical person are taken as fact when around another they are dismissed as legend.

It's not so much that they're completely one or the other.

It seems likely that St Winifred is based on a real person. It seems likely that the Christian idea of Jesus is based on a real person.

It seems likely that St Winifred lived in the time specified and was a nun for a reasonable period. It seems likely that she suffered some sort of neck injury. The legendary part is the bit about being decapitated and having the head reattached, probably an exaggeration.

It's entirely possible that Jesus was crucified - it wasn't uncommon at the time, unfortunately - but the idea that he was resurrected is one of the legendary bits. The problem with the Jesus myth is that so many legends have been crammed into the narrative with so little corroboration that it all becomes highly suspect.

O.

Of course, this is my point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some historical accounts exist around this woman.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Winifred

An apparently real person, we know her lineage, where she lived, and the fact she was decapitated before her uncle restored her head and she came back to life. It's well documented.

First impressions - a lady who quite likely was attacked and had her neck cut was left with a scar. Over time the story was exaggerated more and more.

Seems far more likely an explanation than the reattachment of a severed appendage in the absence of any complex surgery, let alone a head.

O.

Well restoration of a head is quite rare i'll give you that. How well documented is well documented?

[Shaker]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.

No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.

Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point (which I'm confident Hope won't touch, given that he's the repeat offender for boring on about documentary evidence. Well, guess what: there's documentary evidence for innumerable things that Hope doesn't believe, so we need to be told why his documentary evidence is sounder and more credible than the other documentary evidence. We shall see ...).

I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.

No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.

Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point.

I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.

I have noted other pagans prepared to join antitheists flash mobs before. You will note the word perhaps. If Rhiannon is just here to promote her own antichristianity and it just happens to coincide with yours I'm prepared to accept that account.

I just wonder what Rhi has against Legend bearing in mind her own supernatural beliefs must be based on less than historical claim and in fact less than legend.

If she is going to equate the story of St Winifred with that of the resurrection she should be providing us with sources such that her assertions can be weighed up.

I've given reasons why I feel Outrider's sweeping conclusion ''well it's all legend ain't it'' is inadequate.

[floo]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.

What a daft statement!

[Shaker]

I've given reasons why I feel Outrider's sweeping conclusion ''well it's all legend ain't it'' is inadequate.

I haven't seen any such reasons. All I've seen is you bore on about philosophical naturalism yet again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whoa, Floo and Shaker......could be the beginnings of an antitheistic flash mob.

Can't get any literature citing St Winifred before 1836.
Apparently Multiple legends around her ONE of which has the head business.

[Nearly Sane]

Whoa, Floo and Shaker......could be the beginnings of an antitheistic flash mob.

Can't get any literature citing St Winifred before 1836.
Apparently Multiple legends around her ONE of which has the head business.

I believe there was once a legend about someone leaving the forum if I didn't 'resign'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whoa, Floo and Shaker......could be the beginnings of an antitheistic flash mob.

Can't get any literature citing St Winifred before 1836.
Apparently Multiple legends around her ONE of which has the head business.

I believe there was once a legend about someone leaving the forum if I didn't 'resign'.

Still here?

[Nearly Sane]

Yep, and staying

[ippy]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.

No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.

Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point (which I'm confident Hope won't touch, given that he's the repeat offender for boring on about documentary evidence. Well, guess what: there's documentary evidence for innumerable things that Hope doesn't believe, so we need to be told why his documentary evidence is sounder and more credible than the other documentary evidence. We shall see ...).

I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.

I get the impression with Hope, that his legendary but elusive evidence that he thinks would rally support for his cause, would rather kill himself a couple of times than admit that he doesn't have any of the said evidence.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.

No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.

Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point (which I'm confident Hope won't touch, given that he's the repeat offender for boring on about documentary evidence. Well, guess what: there's documentary evidence for innumerable things that Hope doesn't believe, so we need to be told why his documentary evidence is sounder and more credible than the other documentary evidence. We shall see ...).

I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.

I get the impression with Hope, that his legendary but elusive evidence that he thinks would rally support for his cause, would rather kill himself a couple of times than admit that he doesn't have any of the said evidence.

ippy

Ippy's here too, looks like we've got ourselves an antitheist CONVOY......CONVOY....Calling JeremyP...Got your ears on, good buddy?

[ippy]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.

No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.

Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point (which I'm confident Hope won't touch, given that he's the repeat offender for boring on about documentary evidence. Well, guess what: there's documentary evidence for innumerable things that Hope doesn't believe, so we need to be told why his documentary evidence is sounder and more credible than the other documentary evidence. We shall see ...).

I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.

I get the impression with Hope, that his legendary but elusive evidence that he thinks would rally support for his cause, would rather kill himself a couple of times than admit that he doesn't have any of the said evidence.

ippy

Ippy's here too, looks like we've got ourselves an antitheist CONVOY......CONVOY....Calling JeremyP...Got your ears on, good buddy?

I wondered if it might be a good idea to express yourself if you were to use a more simple form of every day English it might allow you more time for to discuss your actual ideas rather than trying to explain words you are using that are just a touch to forward of what it is you're trying to say.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

I wondered if it might be a good idea to express yourself if you were to use a more simple form of every day English it might allow you more time for to discuss your actual ideas rather than trying to explain words you are using that are just a touch to forward of what it is you're trying to say.

ippy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_(song)

[Rhiannon]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.

No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.

Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point.

I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.

I have noted other pagans prepared to join antitheists flash mobs before. You will note the word perhaps. If Rhiannon is just here to promote her own antichristianity and it just happens to coincide with yours I'm prepared to accept that account.

I just wonder what Rhi has against Legend bearing in mind her own supernatural beliefs must be based on less than historical claim and in fact less than legend.

If she is going to equate the story of St Winifred with that of the resurrection she should be providing us with sources such that her assertions can be weighed up.

I've given reasons why I feel Outrider's sweeping conclusion ''well it's all legend ain't it'' is inadequate.

1. What are 'the foundations of my faith'?

2. What makes you think I am anti-Christian and/or anti theist and/or feel the need to impress anyone?

[ippy]

I wondered if it might be a good idea to express yourself if you were to use a more simple form of every day English it might allow you more time for to discuss your actual ideas rather than trying to explain words you are using that are just a touch to forward of what it is you're trying to say.

ippy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_(song)

Yes that's exactly as I thought he meant, all I was trying to do was, in one of my more kindly moments, possibly help Big W out of the wordy trap he keeps on putting himself into.

I know my post wasn't exactly an answer to his post but thanks anyway for your concern N S. 

ippy

[Rhiannon]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.

No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.

Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point.

I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.

I have noted other pagans prepared to join antitheists flash mobs before. You will note the word perhaps. If Rhiannon is just here to promote her own antichristianity and it just happens to coincide with yours I'm prepared to accept that account.

I just wonder what Rhi has against Legend bearing in mind her own supernatural beliefs must be based on less than historical claim and in fact less than legend.

If she is going to equate the story of St Winifred with that of the resurrection she should be providing us with sources such that her assertions can be weighed up.

I've given reasons why I feel Outrider's sweeping conclusion ''well it's all legend ain't it'' is inadequate.

1. What are 'the foundations of my faith'?

2. What makes you think I am anti-Christian and/or anti theist and/or feel the need to impress anyone?

You not talking to me any more, Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette 

Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.

No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.

Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point.

I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.

I have noted other pagans prepared to join antitheists flash mobs before. You will note the word perhaps. If Rhiannon is just here to promote her own antichristianity and it just happens to coincide with yours I'm prepared to accept that account.

I just wonder what Rhi has against Legend bearing in mind her own supernatural beliefs must be based on less than historical claim and in fact less than legend.

If she is going to equate the story of St Winifred with that of the resurrection she should be providing us with sources such that her assertions can be weighed up.

I've given reasons why I feel Outrider's sweeping conclusion ''well it's all legend ain't it'' is inadequate.

1. What are 'the foundations of my faith'?

2. What makes you think I am anti-Christian and/or anti theist and/or feel the need to impress anyone?

You not talking to me any more, Vlad?

Firstly I found some of your statements pointedly antichristian.
Secondly, I take it your faith is one of the theistics. That there are stories,explanations and narratives to it that do not back the standard which  philosophical naturalist one. You seem to be taking their dismiss first....and hope there is no challenge to that dismissal attitude.

But then hey, what do I actually know about your religion with it's hidden mysteries and secret rites.

[Rhiannon]

If you point out which ones I will explain why I made them - but I am neither anti Christian nor anti theist and you will find plenty of posts from me defending both. I 'pointedly' dislike the doctrine of penal substitution and the notion that we cannot be decent human beings without it.

I'm a kind of theist which in my case means I experience something I regard as my gods, also encompassing the physical world. Around these are myths and legends that have things for me to think about and understand, if I want to. I have no proof and need none because it doesn't matter to me if this is down to a quirk in my brain or whatever. And I have no interest in trying to prove any of this to you or anyone else, because no proof exists, it's exhausting trying to prove the unprovable, and it'd be plain rude to try to make my truth somebody else's. I don't need others to believe in order to feel validated.

The only reason I won't be inviting to to any of my 'rites' is because generally I do them at home, indoors or in the garden. This is partly because it isn't safe here to be out as a pagan without getting harassment, but also because it's more convenient as I have children. But I'm happy to describe them. The last one involved me planting a tree as a gift to the new owners of my house, when they finally show up. I also burned a bit of incense.

[Hope]

Reason does not have a path to 'therefore god'.

Not sure that Christian faith has a path to 'therefore god' either, O.

For most Christians I know, God is at the start of the journey, not at the end.

[Rhiannon]

Reason and belief in God don't belong together. You can reason your way out of faith, but not into it. Faith requires experience of something as real.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you point out which ones I will explain why I made them - but I am neither anti Christian nor anti theist and you will find plenty of posts from me defending both. I 'pointedly' dislike the doctrine of penal substitution and the notion that we cannot be decent human beings without it.

Penal substitution is about justice. To be against it IMHO is to want to deprive us of justice. In other words treat justice as though it were a bad thing.
Of course, it is unreasonable to think that we are or should be recipients of justice in one way and not the other (As penalty).
In that sense it is not unreasonable to suppose that God in the crucifixion takes that justice upon himself.
There are other interpretations of the cross and I don't think all of them are incompatible with each other.
I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.

[Gordon]

I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.

Don't forget the small print Vlad: after all, they do say the devil is in the detail.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.

Don't forget the small print Vlad: after all, they do say the devil is in the detail.

Loophole sniffing again Gordon?