WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[bluehillside Retd.]

For what it's worth my sense is the The Vlunderer is telling the truth to the best of his ability about his god - he really believes this stuff - even though his behaviour here (avoidance, distortion, misrepresentations, abuse, false claims etc) is deeply dishonest.

It's an odd tactic - lying your way to (your) truth - but there it is nonetheless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vluderingintohisownridiculousness,

I've no need to be desperate at all since an arbitrary redefinition is the white flag being run up........so not desperate Hillside, the word is victorious.

You genuinely are that delusional aren't you.

Wow!

Naturally you'll be along any time now to demonstrate this "arbitrary redefinition" then won't you?

Won't you?

Certainly it's your old favourite Hillside.

Let's come up with something really ridiculous.

Compare it with God

Get told that the thing is ridiculous because of it's status in the world of the falsifiable,Tiny little green man with ginger beard.

Change it's properties so that it is the same as God (admit failure of original argument)

Hope people haven't forgot the ridiculousness of the original dropped concept.

[BeRational]

For what it's worth my sense is the The Vlunderer is telling the truth to the best of his ability about his god - he really believes this stuff - even though his behaviour here (avoidance, distortion, misrepresentations, abuse, false claims etc) is deeply dishonest.

It's an odd tactic - lying your way to (your) truth - but there it is nonetheless.

Yes it's very odd.

If I had a belief that relied on arguments that had been undone, I would stop believing them. I would not run around in circles defending the indefensible.

I think the difference is, that I have no cherished beliefs.

I do not care if any or all of my beliefs are wrong.

I do not think the same can be said of  Vlad.

[floo]

Vluderingintohisownridiculousness,

I've no need to be desperate at all since an arbitrary redefinition is the white flag being run up........so not desperate Hillside, the word is victorious.

You genuinely are that delusional aren't you.

Wow!

Naturally you'll be along any time now to demonstrate this "arbitrary redefinition" then won't you?

Won't you?

Certainly it's your old favourite Hillside.

Let's come up with something really ridiculous.

Compare it with God

Get told that the thing is ridiculous because of it's status in the world of the falsifiable,Tiny little green man with ginger beard.

Change it's properties so that it is the same as God (admit failure of original argument)

Hope people haven't forgot the ridiculousness of the original dropped concept.

You cant get much more ridiculous than the things attributed to the Biblical deity!

[Outrider]

For what it's worth my sense is the The Vlunderer is telling the truth to the best of his ability about his god - he really believes this stuff - even though his behaviour here (avoidance, distortion, misrepresentations, abuse, false claims etc) is deeply dishonest.

It's an odd tactic - lying your way to (your) truth - but there it is nonetheless.

I don't doubt that he genuinely believes that God is in a different category from fairies, leprechauns and the Invisible Pink Unicorn - he thinks that God is real and the others aren't.

What I can't understand is how someone who has at least the basic grasp of epistomology can't appreciate the difference between what they believe and what they can demonstrate.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.

And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?

Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.

No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?

Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.

How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?

Prove fairies don't exist.

You can't, they're unfalsifiable, just like your god.

er....which fairies are we talking about. The little chaps with wings or the one which isn't at all like that and is identical to God?.....Because the first type is falsifiable and the second type isn't a fairy.

How do you disprove the first kind?

Who says the second type isn't a fairy?

Just because you do not understand the deep mystery of what it is to be fairy, how can you declare them false.

I'm just saying they are falsifiable. When was the last unknown species of man discovered living in Ireland?

Also if they were discovered it wouldn't be the first time would it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For what it's worth my sense is the The Vlunderer is telling the truth to the best of his ability about his god - he really believes this stuff - even though his behaviour here (avoidance, distortion, misrepresentations, abuse, false claims etc) is deeply dishonest.

It's an odd tactic - lying your way to (your) truth - but there it is nonetheless.

I don't doubt that he genuinely believes that God is in a different category from fairies, leprechauns and the Invisible Pink Unicorn - he thinks that God is real and the others aren't.

No I'm very favourable to the entity you lot call a fairy but is in fact identical to God.

[BeRational]

Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.

And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?

Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.

No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?

Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.

How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?

Prove fairies don't exist.

You can't, they're unfalsifiable, just like your god.

er....which fairies are we talking about. The little chaps with wings or the one which isn't at all like that and is identical to God?.....Because the first type is falsifiable and the second type isn't a fairy.

How do you disprove the first kind?

Who says the second type isn't a fairy?

Just because you do not understand the deep mystery of what it is to be fairy, how can you declare them false.

I'm just saying they are falsifiable. When was the last unknown species of man discovered living in Ireland?

Also if they were discovered it wouldn't be the first time would it.

But just because it has not been found (and may never be found) it does not mean it does not exist.

Perhaps they live in a different dimension (outside of time, you get my drift) and pop in now and again.

Your god does miracles, so we can test them. It's just that when we do like prayers, the answer is the same as no god existing.

So no god then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What I can't understand is how someone who has at least the basic grasp of epistomology can't appreciate the difference between what they believe and what they can demonstrate.

Then you've ignored every post I've made where I've said God is unfalsifiable.

[Outrider]

I'm just saying they are falsifiable.

How do you disprove intangible fairies?

When was the last unknown species of man discovered living in Ireland?

When did the absence of evidence become evidence of absence? When was the last species of god discovered anywhere?

Also if they were discovered it wouldn't be the first time would it.

Uh... yes.

O.

[BeRational]

What I can't understand is how someone who has at least the basic grasp of epistomology can't appreciate the difference between what they believe and what they can demonstrate.

Then you've ignored every post I've made where I've said God is unfalsifiable.

And you must have missed every post where other things have been shown to be unfalsifiable!

[Outrider]

What I can't understand is how someone who has at least the basic grasp of epistomology can't appreciate the difference between what they believe and what they can demonstrate.

Then you've ignored every post I've made where I've said God is unfalsifiable.

No, I've seen you write that, but then I've seen you contradict it by suggestion that it's a categorically different sort of unfalsifiable than that of fairies.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.

And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?

Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.

No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?

Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.

How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?

Prove fairies don't exist.

You can't, they're unfalsifiable, just like your god.

er....which fairies are we talking about. The little chaps with wings or the one which isn't at all like that and is identical to God?.....Because the first type is falsifiable and the second type isn't a fairy.

How do you disprove the first kind?

Who says the second type isn't a fairy?

Just because you do not understand the deep mystery of what it is to be fairy, how can you declare them false.

I'm just saying they are falsifiable. When was the last unknown species of man discovered living in Ireland?

Also if they were discovered it wouldn't be the first time would it.

But just because it has not been found (and may never be found) it does not mean it does not exist.

I'm not arguing against that...........but it is still falsifiable.............i.e. subject to being scientifically discovered. I propose Topothemorningus Bluehillsidiensis.

[Outrider]

I'm not arguing against that...........but it is still falsifiable.............i.e. subject to being scientifically discovered. I propose Topothemorningus Bluehillsidiensis.

If you were to find a small, winged, humanoid-shaped species (say a intriguingly shaped butterfly) you might have an explanation for why the particular stories of fairies emerged, but it wouldn't be proof or disproof of the magical spirit-creatures that are the fairies of myth.

Similarly when we discovered meteorology we realised that thunder wasn't actually caused by gods, but this didn't stop the idea of gods, just one depiction of them.

The concept of fairies is unfalsifiable because they are not a naturalistic phenomenon, they are a supernatural claim.

The concept of gods is unfalsifiable because they are not a naturlistic phenomenon, they are a supernatural claim.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What I can't understand is how someone who has at least the basic grasp of epistomology can't appreciate the difference between what they believe and what they can demonstrate.

Then you've ignored every post I've made where I've said God is unfalsifiable.

And you must have missed every post where other things have been shown to be unfalsifiable!

er , That would be because there weren't any. How can my list of physical leprechaun and fairy features be defined as unfalsifiable?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not arguing against that...........but it is still falsifiable.............i.e. subject to being scientifically discovered. I propose Topothemorningus Bluehillsidiensis.

If you were to find a small, winged, humanoid-shaped species (say a intriguingly shaped butterfly) you might have an explanation for why the particular stories of fairies emerged, but it wouldn't be proof or disproof of the magical spirit-creatures that are the fairies of myth.

Similarly when we discovered meteorology we realised that thunder wasn't actually caused by gods, but this didn't stop the idea of gods, just one depiction of them.

The concept of fairies is unfalsifiable because they are not a naturalistic phenomenon,

The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.

[BeRational]

I'm not arguing against that...........but it is still falsifiable.............i.e. subject to being scientifically discovered. I propose Topothemorningus Bluehillsidiensis.

If you were to find a small, winged, humanoid-shaped species (say a intriguingly shaped butterfly) you might have an explanation for why the particular stories of fairies emerged, but it wouldn't be proof or disproof of the magical spirit-creatures that are the fairies of myth.

Similarly when we discovered meteorology we realised that thunder wasn't actually caused by gods, but this didn't stop the idea of gods, just one depiction of them.

The concept of fairies is unfalsifiable because they are not a naturalistic phenomenon,

The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.

Your god has a beard and a son.

[Outrider]

er , That would be because there weren't any. How can my list of physical leprechaun and fairy features be defined as unfalsifiable?

Because these are 'magical' creatures, and if you capture one then, by definition, it isn't one... fairies, when captured, wither away to dust, which is convenient if your peddling the idea of fairies, but unhelpful if you're attempting a scholarly work on fairy physiology.

Leprechauns live at the end of the rainbow, but we know from physics that there isn't an end to the rainbow - nobody's bothered updating that myth, so who knows where the leprechauns are these days, probably sleeping rough on the streets, trading their gold for crack.

God used to live in the sky where he let the rain in through windows and created world-spanning floods and then we realised that world-spanning floods were nonsense and the sky was not a shell on which the stars were painted, and so the myth was updated and updated as all the actual falsifiable claims were abandoned until just the meaningless nonsense was left.

Fairies are no more nor less unfalsifiable than God, it's just no-one's bothered updating the fairy stories because we all grew out of them.

O.

[Outrider]

The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.

Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!

Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...

So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingflatonhisfaceagain,

Certainly it's your old favourite Hillside.

Let's come up with something really ridiculous.

Compare it with God

How many freaking times? The point is that, if an argument works equally for “god” and for leprechauns, it’s probably a bad argument. Your “intuition” about a god is precisely as valuable guide to the truth for others as is my “intuition” about leprechauns.

Is this really so difficult for you to grasp?

Really?

Get told that the thing is ridiculous because of it's status in the world of the falsifiable,Tiny little green man with ginger beard.

The “ridiculousness” you’re getting hung up on is neither here nor there. As it happens lots of people do find your god belief to be as ridiculous as you find the belief in leprechauns to be (and for the same reasons), but that’s a secondary matter. Substitute for leprechauns any other member of the set “supernatural somethings that are able at will to intervene in the material” if you like and you’ll get the same answer. 

Angels maybe? A devil perhaps?

Change it's properties so that it is the same as God (admit failure of original argument)

Ah, there’s your straw man again. No-one has changed anything. All that’s being said is that human descriptions of gods and leprechauns alike may or may not be accurate. Even if you want to rely on the hopelessly broken flakey five for your belief in a universe-creating something, there’s no reason whatever to think that it’s your pick of the gods rather than any other member of the set “supernatural somethings able at will to intervene in the natural”. 

Your relentless use of the straw man doesn’t mean that you’ve won the argument – it just means that you’re a relentless user of straw men.

Hope people haven't forgot the ridiculousness of the original dropped concept.

It’s not ridiculous and it hasn’t been dropped. Again: any argument for a god that works just as well for leprechauns is probably a bad argument.

Have you finally got it now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.

Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!

Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...

So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.

O.

Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine.
So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.

[BeRational]

The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.

Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!

Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...

So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.

O.

Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine.
So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.

Jesus is falsifiable.

It could be shown that he never existed.

[Outrider]

Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine. So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.

And fairies, it turns out, are both entirely physical and spiritualists. Fae-ologists have got round a limited understanding of the dual-nature of fairies pulled that out of their collective arses and made it canon.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.

Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!

Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...

So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.

O.

Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine.
So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.

Jesus is falsifiable.

It could be shown that he never existed.

1;Yes Jesus is falsifiable in the sense that we all would be if records were lost or doubted I suppose

2: Go ahead

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine. So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.

And fairies, it turns out, are both entirely physical and spiritualists. Fae-ologists have got round a limited understanding of the dual-nature of fairies pulled that out of their collective arses and made it canon.

O.

Yep, but their physical features alone would establish them as fairies.