Proselytism

[jeremyp]

Wow it must be catching. He asked a question about a post that contained the answer and now, so have you.

No, jeremy, she said that she begged him to 'show up'.  That isn't an answer, it is a request.

Yes, and that tells us exactly what she wants him to do: to "show up".

The question we are asking the answer to is - how did she expect him to 'turn up'?  Did he do so and she fail to recognise him for waht he was?

That's not the question that Vlad asked. He actually asked what she wanted God to do and she had already said "show up". Instead of haranguing me, why don't you get on at Vlad to ask the question you think he should have asked.

Actually, part of the answer appeared in subsequent posts by Rhi - yet she still hasn't explained in what manner she hoped he would appear in?

No she hasn't but then Vlad didn't ask her that question.

No he wasn't, at least, if he was, I dispute your use of the adverb "effectively".

You can dispute to your heart's content

And you have confirmed that I am correct to dispute your use of "effectively". You claim that Vlad meant a different question to the one he actually asked. If so, You should have said "ineffectively".

but when I have had discussions with people who have made similar comments to Rhi's they have said that they had envisaged God appearing in a given way

It's clear from the context — her crisis of faith — that she wasn't bothered about how God manifests, only that he does.

She asked God to show up, not a man in a lifeboat.

'Allegory', jeremy.  In other words, as Christ instructs Christians to be his hands and feet (etc.) if a person turns up in a metaphorical 'lifeboat' it doesn't mean that s/he isn't Christ responding to one's request.

It doesn't mean it is either. In a crisis of faith you want God, not some lackey.

[Hope]

Yes, and that tells us exactly what she wants him to do: to "show up".

And 'show up' isn't a state, its a concept?  How did she expect/want him to 'show up'? 

That's not the question that Vlad asked. He actually asked what she wanted God to do and she had already said "show up".

Precisely, to show up for what purpose?  Did she want him to show up and stand there with his hands in his pocket, sneering at her?  OK that's a tad extreme, but when someone wants someone else to 'show up' one needs to know what they want that person to do.  I agree that she clarifies that in later posts.

And you have confirmed that I am correct to dispute your use of "effectively". You claim that Vlad meant a different question to the one he actually asked. If so, You should have said "ineffectively".

No, I have confiirmed that Vlad asked the right question (slightly clumsily, maybe), as we needed to know why Rhi wanted him to 'show up'. Is she saying that she had absolutely no support from anyone at the time?

It's clear from the context — her crisis of faith — that she wasn't bothered about how God manifests, only that he does.

OK, you're having a crisis of faith, how would you expect God to manifest himself to you?

It doesn't mean it is either. In a crisis of faith you want God, not some lackey.

If I ask to be rescued from a flood, I'm going to take it that if someone appears to help that that request has been answered.  As for 'lackey', Christians aren't God's lackeys; we are called to be Christ to others.

[jeremyp]

Yes, and that tells us exactly what she wants him to do: to "show up".

And 'show up' isn't a state, its a concept?  How did she expect/want him to 'show up'? 

She probably didn't care. To abuse your analogy, if you were stranded on the roof of your house with the waters rising, you wouldn't care whether the emergency services showed up in a life boat or a helicopter, would you. The important thing is that they show up.

That's not the question that Vlad asked. He actually asked what she wanted God to do and she had already said "show up".

Precisely, to show up for what purpose?

He didn't ask that question, but the answer is obvious anyway: it was to show he exists.

No, I have confiirmed that Vlad asked the right question (slightly clumsily, maybe),

He asked the wrong question as can be seen from the fact that Rhiannon had already answered it.

as we needed to know why Rhi wanted him to 'show up'. Is she saying that she had absolutely no support from anyone at the time?

If you want to know the answers to those questions, you should ask them, not some different question that she had already answered.

OK, you're having a crisis of faith, how would you expect God to manifest himself to you?

I wouldn't give a fuck how he did it as long as he did do it.

As for 'lackey', Christians aren't God's lackeys; we are called to be Christ to others.

If you are doing God's bidding, you are his lackey.

[Owlswing]

#51 to #59 inclusive - is it any wonder that theer are so few new posters here!

Nine posts that have achieved nothing!

Why?

Because a Christian is trying to justify total inaction from his god when it was requested by a troubled (at the time) Christian.

This is why Rhi is no longer Christain and why I have no time for Christians like Hope who put the blame for all their god's shortcomings on the people who have been subjected to those shortcomings..

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.

I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''

Not callous - but closed-minded.

A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.

Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.

[jeremyp]

#51 to #59 inclusive - is it any wonder that theer are so few new posters here!

Nine posts that have achieved nothing!

I don't agree. I think they have exposed the desperation of two Christians who have no answers to the challenges put to them about their god.

[jeremyp]

A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.

Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.

Owlswing will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he makes the claim that his gods are truly loving. I don't think he claims that his gods will answer if you "open your heart to them".

[Owlswing]

A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.

Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.

Owlswing will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he makes the claim that his gods are truly loving. I don't think he claims that his gods will answer if you "open your heart to them".

Too true.

As I have said elsehere - my gods (and goddesses) have the same frailities as do humans. The do not claim to be "loving".

They are capricious, hateful, loving, jealous, childish, stupid, arrogant and they are not all-powerful, all-seeing all-knowing. We really are "made in their image", but by them? No, not by them - they do not claim to have created the world or us.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.

What would those errors be, ad_o?

An inherent rationalism, iconoclasm, a low viewof to even outright rejection of the sacraments, scripture alone, to name just a few, all reasons why some went even so far as to adopt many of the ancient heresies such as Arianism (for insance some of the rebaptisers did just that).

Ad O - you are the perfect example of a Christian Fundamentalist.

Not at all. "Fundamentalism" is a reductionist term, reductionism being something I would reject.

You can reject it all you like - virtually every reference you make to your beliefs show an attachment to a set of rules that are totally inflexible and that is my definition of Fundamentalist!

Wouldn't it be great if something could be made not true just by rejecting it. I reject that I am fat. I reject that I have no musical talent. I reject that England got knocked out of the RWC early.

Fantastic, my life is already.... exactly the same. Damn.

Funnily enough Jeremy, Although you never meant it. This post is the answer I was struggling for but wanted to give about the discussions of this post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.

I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''

Make me feel I wasn't facing the worst moment of my life alone. I thought my child was dying.

. . . and this is the god who sees every sparrow that falls, but ignores kids dying by the thousand!

People do die.....that is everybody's experience and I have an experience of God.

I can deny neither.

[Owlswing]

I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.

I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''

Not callous - but closed-minded.

A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.

Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.

When?

When Rhi called on them? She didn't. She called on YOUR god, which, at the time, was also her god, and, surprise surprise, he proceeded to do sweet fuck all.

Then, unsiurprisingly, she dropped him!

Good on her, say I.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.

Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.

Owlswing will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he makes the claim that his gods are truly loving. I don't think he claims that his gods will answer if you "open your heart to them".

So he has a beef with a divinity who turns out to be not all loving so he questions that god's existence.
But then he worships gods who are not loving............puzzling.
Even more puzzling is that he has said these Gods have given us the universe and therefore they must be responsible for his troubles and yet he chooses to worship these.

Does he believe the Christian god exists or not?
If he does he is to Owlswing, uncaring and yet Owlswing is prepared to throw his lot in with uncaring God's.

If he doesn't believe the Christian god exists then his gods are unloving and uncaring and possibly the cause of his troubles and yet he is prepared to worship them.

I thought I was confused but realise now it must be Owlswing.

[ad_orientem]

Good! I have a low opinion of Protestantism especially, who went from error to deeper error.

What would those errors be, ad_o?

An inherent rationalism, iconoclasm, a low viewof to even outright rejection of the sacraments, scripture alone, to name just a few, all reasons why some went even so far as to adopt many of the ancient heresies such as Arianism (for insance some of the rebaptisers did just that).

Ad O - you are the perfect example of a Christian Fundamentalist.

Not at all. "Fundamentalism" is a reductionist term, reductionism being something I would reject.

You can reject it all you like - virtually every reference you make to your beliefs show an attachment to a set of rules that are totally inflexible and that is my definition of Fundamentalist!

Wouldn't it be great if something could be made not true just by rejecting it. I reject that I am fat. I reject that I have no musical talent. I reject that England got knocked out of the RWC early.

Fantastic, my life is already.... exactly the same. Damn.

Funnily enough Jeremy, Although you never meant it. This post is the answer I was struggling for but wanted to give about the discussions of this post.

No. Fundamentalism is by it's nature reductionist. Fact. Therefore I am not a fundamentalist because I am not a reductionist. The faith can only be accepted as a whole. Feel free to call me a maximalist but not a fundamentalist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

#51 to #59 inclusive - is it any wonder that theer are so few new posters here!

Nine posts that have achieved nothing!

I don't agree. I think they have exposed the desperation of two Christians who have no answers to the challenges put to them about their god.

No, that's merely an a priori idea in your head.

[jeremyp]

#51 to #59 inclusive - is it any wonder that theer are so few new posters here!

Nine posts that have achieved nothing!

I don't agree. I think they have exposed the desperation of two Christians who have no answers to the challenges put to them about their god.

No, that's merely an a priori idea in your head.

And the little conversation I had with you and Hope is more evidence that shows my a priori idea is correct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.

Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.

Owlswing will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he makes the claim that his gods are truly loving. I don't think he claims that his gods will answer if you "open your heart to them".

Too true.

As I have said elsehere - my gods (and goddesses) have the same frailities as do humans. The do not claim to be "loving".

They are capricious, hateful, loving, jealous, childish, stupid, arrogant and they are not all-powerful, all-seeing all-knowing. We really are "made in their image", but by them? No, not by them - they do not claim to have created the world or us.

And yet you accuse the Christian God of being exactly that to Rhiannon and applaud her decision not to worship him for those very reasons!

You did say earlier this weekend that the Gods gave us the universe.

You are getting everybody confused with your flexible theology......but mostly yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

#51 to #59 inclusive - is it any wonder that theer are so few new posters here!

Nine posts that have achieved nothing!

I don't agree. I think they have exposed the desperation of two Christians who have no answers to the challenges put to them about their god.

No, that's merely an a priori idea in your head.

And the little conversation I had with you and Hope is more evidence that shows my a priori idea is correct.

Well at the moment I am talking to you and Owlswing. He is confused and you seem to think that the sun shines out of your proverbial..................

And you have chosen to nail your colours to the mast of his rudderless ship........and yes I have pointed out the flaw in Owlswings argument.

[Hope]

#51 to #59 inclusive - is it any wonder that theer are so few new posters here!

Nine posts that have achieved nothing!

I don't agree. I think they have exposed the desperation of two Christians who have no answers to the challenges put to them about their god.

I felt that they showed the desperation of one non-Christian to make out that the Christian had no answer, but had to completely avoid the point of the Gospel in order to make his point.  jeremy often seems to do this. 

Let me give you a modern parallel: you phone for an ambulance, only for the fire brigade to arrive?  In this particular case, the local fire brigade have a medical emergency section which has agreed to help cover some ambulance call outs on behalf of the ambulances.  Has your request been answered, or not?

As for Matt's "Because a Christian is trying to justify total inaction from his god when it was requested by a troubled (at the time) Christian", does he have any evidence that there was any inaction in the case under discussion?  I realise that Rhi felt that there was, but she still hasn't explained whether there was any help at all, all be it not what she expected.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.

I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''

You're an idiot aren't you?

The answer is right there in the post, she was begging him to show up - to be there when she asked.

Then if he was there.....and as a Christian she must have believed he is with us always.....her beef with him must have been that he was inactive. Hence the perfectly valid question ''To DO WHAT?

It is also valid for Hope to ask in what way she wanted him to be there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.

I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''

Not callous - but closed-minded.

A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.

Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.

When?

When Rhi called on them? She didn't. She called on YOUR god, which, at the time, was also her god, and, surprise surprise, he proceeded to do sweet fuck all.

Then, unsiurprisingly, she dropped him!

Good on her, say I.

So she dropped him in favour of god's who couldn't help her?

[Hope]

Then if he was there.....and as a Christian she must have believed he is with us always.....her beef with him must have been that he was inactive. Hence the perfectly valid question ''To DO WHAT?

It is also valid for Hope to ask in what way she wanted him to be there.

OS, stop being so logical - jeremy and Matt, and others like them, can't deal with it   

[Owlswing]

A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.

Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.

Owlswing will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he makes the claim that his gods are truly loving. I don't think he claims that his gods will answer if you "open your heart to them".

So he has a beef with a divinity who turns out to be not all loving so he questions that god's existence.
But then he worships gods who are not loving............puzzling.
Even more puzzling is that he has said these Gods have given us the universe and therefore they must be responsible for his troubles and yet he chooses to worship these.

Does he believe the Christian god exists or not?
If he does he is to Owlswing, uncaring and yet Owlswing is prepared to throw his lot in with uncaring God's.

If he doesn't believe the Christian god exists then his gods are unloving and uncaring and possibly the cause of his troubles and yet he is prepared to worship them.

I thought I was confused but realise now it must be Owlswing.

I do not question your god's existence - he may well exist. What I question is those qualities that Christians claim for him.

He is, if he acted as Rhi and others claim that he has, or rather has not, he is not the god of love claimed by the Christians.

I dismiss him and follow the so-called uncaring gods and goddesses because they claim to be no more than they are, my gods (and goddesses) have the same frailities as do humans. The do not claim to be "loving".

They are capricious, hateful, loving, jealous, childish, stupid, arrogant and they are not all-powerful, all-seeing all-knowing. We really are made in the same image as them, but by them? No, not by them - they do not claim to have created the world or us.

You're confused becasue your god cannot and doies not fulfil his "promises2 to humanity, mine have made no such promises. They DO NOT LIE to gain adherents.

[Owlswing]

I thought that the God I believed in would have shown up when I begged him to.

I don't wish to sound callous but the first question that pops into my mind is ''to do what?''

Not callous - but closed-minded.

A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.

Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.

When?

When Rhi called on them? She didn't. She called on YOUR god, which, at the time, was also her god, and, surprise surprise, he proceeded to do sweet fuck all.

Then, unsiurprisingly, she dropped him!

Good on her, say I.

So she dropped him in favour of god's who couldn't help her?

I do not think that Rhi's gods are the same as mine - she follows a Pagan path that is hers not mine. She dropped an unpleasant areshole of a god who refused her succour when her child was dying for gods that actually act in a way that she can relate to. Who they are I have no idea and have no need to find out.

As you will never understand, our gods are far more personal than your one size fits all. You can keep him - he does not fit my all.

[Owlswing]

Then if he was there.....and as a Christian she must have believed he is with us always.....her beef with him must have been that he was inactive. Hence the perfectly valid question ''To DO WHAT?

It is also valid for Hope to ask in what way she wanted him to be there.

OS, stop being so logical - jeremy and Matt, and others like them, can't deal with it   

I treat this comment with the contempt it deserves. You have been told "TO DO WHAT" several times, but because YOU cannot handle the answer . . .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A truly loving god would turn up regardless of what you asked and tell you why it was not possible for him to help and how to deal with the problem yourself - not just ignore you.

Sorry Owlswing but that just begs the question.....'' Where were your Gods?''.

Owlswing will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he makes the claim that his gods are truly loving. I don't think he claims that his gods will answer if you "open your heart to them".

So he has a beef with a divinity who turns out to be not all loving so he questions that god's existence.
But then he worships gods who are not loving............puzzling.
Even more puzzling is that he has said these Gods have given us the universe and therefore they must be responsible for his troubles and yet he chooses to worship these.

Does he believe the Christian god exists or not?
If he does he is to Owlswing, uncaring and yet Owlswing is prepared to throw his lot in with uncaring God's.

If he doesn't believe the Christian god exists then his gods are unloving and uncaring and possibly the cause of his troubles and yet he is prepared to worship them.

I thought I was confused but realise now it must be Owlswing.

I do not question your god's existence - he may well exist. What I question is those qualities that Christians claim for him.

He is, if he acted as Rhi and others claim that he has, or rather has not, he is not the god of love claimed by the Christians.

I dismiss him and follow the so-called uncaring gods and goddesses because they claim to be no more than they are, my gods (and goddesses) have the same frailities as do humans. The do not claim to be "loving".

They are capricious, hateful, loving, jealous, childish, stupid, arrogant and they are not all-powerful, all-seeing all-knowing. We really are made in the same image as them, but by them? No, not by them - they do not claim to have created the world or us.

You're confused becasue your god cannot and doies not fulfil his "promises2 to humanity, mine have made no such promises. They DO NOT LIE to gain adherents.

There is a question in yours and to some extent Jeremy's argument and that is the primacy in you mind of Rhiannon's account.

I am not confused at all since God is with us all the time. He hasn't pretended ever to save us from everything, (after all he did not save his son/self), He has stated he will save us.

Rhiannon I would have thought would have known that as a Christian.

I have lots of questions to ask Rhiannon and would have appreciated it if you had kept a more respectful distance but have to say that what you say of the pagan Gods does raise the question if they are like what you say, why abandon one capricious god for a set of others.