Saved by Faith through Grace.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting post!  I may be all sorts of things, but I think I can safely say nasty is not one of them!

That would suggest that other people's opinion doesn't matter.

[Nearly Sane]

That would suggest that other people's opinion doesn't matter.

it really doesn't.

[Sassy]

Saved by Grace - God made man for me giving Himself for me - first - then faith to accept it.
As per Scripture - and normal Christian teaching.

http://biblehub.com/ephesians/2-8.htm

Be still Anchorman you are going to learn very soon how Jesus was fully human a holy thing and the Son of God.
Soon because you are going to start to question when you find the evidence to support what you preach is not in the OT.

[floo]

Be still Anchorman you are going to learn very soon how Jesus was fully human a holy thing and the Son of God.
Soon because you are going to start to question when you find the evidence to support what you preach is not in the OT.

And what you 'preach' Sass is the product of your imagination. 

[Sassy]

And what you 'preach' Sass is the product of your imagination. 

Floo,

There is a difference between something which is and something you don't want to exist.

I know if you really had a heart that cared if God existed or not. Then you could tell God that you want to believe but need him to show you he is there. But the truth is, that even though God is there, you believe yourself to be superior to your creator.
You blame him and not the devil for everything bad in the world. This you do because you do not realise if God exists then so does the evil one who does the evil and causes you to believe the evil about God and not him.

Sometimes, knowing about God means you have to learn about the reality about yourself and Satan.

God never  lied to you only humans and the devil. But you choose to remain with the people who lied and with Satan.
Do you not realise in rejecting God you are accepting Satan and accepting that the evil he does is okay with yourself?
You actually condone what Satan does in rejecting God.

[floo]

Floo,

There is a difference between something which is and something you don't want to exist.

I know if you really had a heart that cared if God existed or not. Then you could tell God that you want to believe but need him to show you he is there. But the truth is, that even though God is there, you believe yourself to be superior to your creator.
You blame him and not the devil for everything bad in the world. This you do because you do not realise if God exists then so does the evil one who does the evil and causes you to believe the evil about God and not him.

Sometimes, knowing about God means you have to learn about the reality about yourself and Satan.

God never  lied to you only humans and the devil. But you choose to remain with the people who lied and with Satan.
Do you not realise in rejecting God you are accepting Satan and accepting that the evil he does is okay with yourself?
You actually condone what Satan does in rejecting God.

There you go again Sass, more assertions, no evidence to support them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

it really doesn't.

But that is the secular humanists conceit isn't it...... ''No matter how I treat you I am always doing you a favour''.

[Nearly Sane]

But that is the secular humanists conceit isn't it...... ''No matter how I treat you I am always doing you a favour''.

It really isn't

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It really isn't

Of course not...all secular humanists are the nicest people you could ever meet.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course not...all secular humanists are the nicest people you could ever meet.

Your misrepresentation is tedious even for you. 

[Rhiannon]

But that is the secular humanists conceit isn't it...... ''No matter how I treat you I am always doing you a favour''.

Is it your mission to convince secular humanists that all Christians are lying pillocks?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it your mission to convince secular humanists that all Christians are lying pillocks?

It's a question.

You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you.

I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.

It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.

[floo]

It's a question.

You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you.

I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.

It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.

Christianity doesn't need any berating from non believers when there are one or two Christians on this forum of whom dear old Satan must be very proud. Do you get a special badge of honour with a horns and tail crest, Vlad?

[Rhiannon]

It's a question.

You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you.

I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.

It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.

No, I'm here to have interesting conversations and discussions. Unfortunately I get sidetracked by liars.

[ippy]

It's a question.

You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you.

I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.

It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.

Why Green Vlad? What's the green got to do with anything?

ippy

[Gordon]

It's a question.

You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you.

I think you are both misrepresenting Rhiannon's position and possibly that of other Christians here by use of the term 'berating'. As far as I can see critiques of Christianity are either refutations of arguments offered or involve fair comment about the content and delivery of the Christian 'message' (for want of a better term).

I'd say you owe Rhiannon an apology.

I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.

It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.

Do you? Well that's nice, we'll just have hope that there are some secular humanists here who will take your views to heart - mind you I can't think of anyone who fits your definition, so perhaps the problem lies with your take on this along the same lines as your take on PN.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

One post, three mistakes:

You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you

People don’t “berate Christianity”. What they actually to is to falsify the arguments Christians often attempt to claim special privileges for their beliefs.

I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.

Secular humanism just says that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. It also supports the equal treatment of everyone regardless of religious beliefs, which is a good reason by the way for you to be grateful for it. If you think it has shortcomings nonetheless though then you’ll need to tell us what they are and why you think them to be so.

That though would require exposition rather than mere assertion, so I won’t hold my breath.

It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.’

An advert for the Green Party maybe?

Whatever, again you’d have to tell us who “we” is and how you think “others” see it if you want your (presumably pejorative) point not to be treated as just more Vladdism. 

[Dicky Underpants]

It's a question.

You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you.

I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.

It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.

You could actually try reading with attention some of the things that Rhiannon has written on Christianity. Firstly, Rhiannon is not a "secular humanist", and secondly, I fail to see secular humanism as a 'collective movement', though there are various groups around with 'humanist' principles (some with Christian affiliations).

Ippy, Walter and Floo etc seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Though not a believer, I do not wish to do so. Neither, I think, does Rhiannon. But I'd like the believers to face up to some of the faith's more deeply unpleasant aspects.

[Dicky Underpants]

Whatever, again you’d have to tell us who “we” is and how you think “others” see it if you want your (presumably pejorative) point not to be treated as just more Vladdism.

I don't think there's much common ground between Vlad, Sassy, Ad_Orientem, Spud and Anchorman (though the latter is certainly open to debate, and even Spud seems capable of actually reading what other people write)

Ad_Orientem of course thinks all the others are bloody heretics

[floo]

Ippy, Walter and Floo etc seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Please can you explain that comment?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hey Dicky,

I don't think there's much common ground between Vlad, Sassy, Ad_Orientem, Spud and Anchorman (though the latter is certainly open to debate, and even Spud seems capable of actually reading what other people write)

Ad_Orientem of course thinks all the others are bloody heretics

No, there doesn't seem to be. That in itself though is informative I think. If we imagine just for a moment that religious faith is BS but that lots of people have it anyway, I'd expect just that - every opinion on it pretty much being different from every other one, precisely because they are opinions.

People here often ask why "God" didn't make his presence felt such that atheists couldn't agree on "His" existence. Another question though might be why "He" didn't reveal himself such that any two believers would agree on the details.

As for ad, I agree - it's a wonder he doesn't think himself to be a heretic sometimes...

     

[ad_orientem]

Very droll!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Secular humanism just says that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity.

I think we would be hard pressed on finding two secular humanists who could agree on the details of these beyond slogan use against theists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think we would be hard pressed on finding two secular humanists who could agree on the details of these beyond slogan use against theists.

Then, as so often, you think wrongly. There is no “slogan use against theists”. There’s just the rejection of the faith-based claims theists make in favour of reason and evidence. There’s also incidentally the belief that the rights of religious people to think and practice whatever they like should be protected, something very few theocracies afford to faiths other than their own.

You’re also confusing a supposed difference of understanding between secular humanists (actually a fairly homogeneous position) with the difference between what secular humanism really is and your paranoid misrepresentation of it (see above). 

[ippy]

Floo,

There is a difference between something which is and something you don't want to exist.

I know if you really had a heart that cared if God existed or not. Then you could tell God that you want to believe but need him to show you he is there. But the truth is, that even though God is there, you believe yourself to be superior to your creator.
You blame him and not the devil for everything bad in the world. This you do because you do not realise if God exists then so does the evil one who does the evil and causes you to believe the evil about God and not him.

Sometimes, knowing about God means you have to learn about the reality about yourself and Satan.

God never  lied to you only humans and the devil. But you choose to remain with the people who lied and with Satan.
Do you not realise in rejecting God you are accepting Satan and accepting that the evil he does is okay with yourself?
You actually condone what Satan does in rejecting God.

Sass how does anyone regect something when there's no rational reason to think, such as lack of evidence; to say pixies, are there in the first place to be able to regect, if there were any? Isn't it a bit of a daft idea Sass?

ippy