29 Oct 08
Overall, I think it might be a toss-up. I've found almost as many rude, boorish bullies among the so-called "churched" among us as among the professed atheists. Oddly, the few that claim to be "agnostic", or that are genuinely not convinced either way of the subjects, seem to be the most courteous. The atheists use far more sarcasm---they think it makes them appear intelligent. The fundamentalists use far more personal insults---they think being righteously indignant is some sort of merit badge.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI believe sarcasm is popular with the British whatever their beliefs. Could it be that the atheists whose books you read were British, and the Theists were American?
After having been a participant on the Spirituality Forum for some time, I've noticed that about 80% of the posts that contain sarcasm and personal attacks are posted by atheists and agnostics.
I've noticed the same thing about popular books about rellgion.
29 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJellosorry, 'righteous by my own lights', when did i establish Christs righteousness,? infact to my knowledge i have never written a biblical verse in my life, they were all there before i was born, perhaps you mean the Biblical standard, however one can only surmise, anyhow, yes Christ was not adverse to helping those who were ailing spiritually, however by your definition, one would consider atheists and agnostics to be either lawless, sick (no comment), tax collectors and or/sinners and in need of some help, a position i am sure they would deny! this is further compounded by the fact that in order for help to be administered they must be willing to be assisted, to see the erroneous course they have taken, also quite difficult if they do not accept that they are erroneous in the first place. obviously Christ went to these ones with a view to trying to readjust their thinking, to reach out to them in earnest and exhort them to give up their 'lawlessness', this is also quite difficult given the fact that many confirmed atheists live more or at least equally moral lives than do many nominally professed Christians, is it not so. Conclusion, if a Christian deems it profitable to spend time 'helping a person', who is recipient to assistance then by all means, otherwise, what fellowship do light and darkness have?
Presumably his point has to do with the fact that Jesus, though righteous by your own lights, was not above engaging in fellowship with "the lawless".
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, this is quite erroneous my friend, God, can by definition also mean anything that one gives undue attention and devotion to, therefore in this context, many things can be deemed to be a 'god', for some it may be inordinate amount of time devoted to the pursuit of riches, with others its the pursuit of pleasure, for some its eating too much, food becomes all important etc etc anything infact which gains a controlling influence in ones life, which causes the adherent to devote excessive amounts of time and energy may be deemed a god! lol
Defn.
God: A being who requires that all non-enemies worship him. Since worship requires belief, it follows trivially that all non-believers are enemies.
29 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadnot only is it popular, it is considered an art form, however, please note the cultural differences between the Scots and Irish, and the Angles and the Saxons. in truth to be honest, i have found that the English are not so keen on it as one might expect, the cannot seem to differentiate between jest and becoming personal, i dunno, they have not yet learned to laugh at themselves as the Celtic contingency has, its not that they are humorless, just different, that is why, when we in the western and northern parts of the British isles succumb to sarcasm, it is never ever meant to be taken personally, because it was never intended to be such, its just making fun, having a laugh, and when done in kind, no one thinks anything of it, you may try this approach in England, with disastrous results!
I believe sarcasm is popular with the British whatever their beliefs. Could it be that the atheists whose books you read were British, and the Theists were American?
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat is 'a god' not 'God'.
No, this is quite erroneous my friend, God, can by definition also mean anything that one gives undue attention and devotion to, therefore in this context, many things can be deemed to be a 'god', for some it may be inordinate amount of time devoted to the pursuit of riches, with others its the pursuit of pleasure, for some its eating too much, food ...[text shortened]... ch causes the adherent to devote excessive amounts of time and energy may be deemed a god! lol
I was not trying to give an exhaustive definition anyway, but merely responding to DoctorScribbles challenge to josephw's proof by definition. I fully realize that the word 'God' holds far more meaning to josephw than the definition I gave, but I am guessing that my definition is a subset of his beliefs - if it is then his conclusion is valid - whether or not such an entity actually exists.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadwell excuse me for butting in , and now you are also trying to guess someones beliefs, why don't you just ask him?
That is 'a god' not 'God'.
I was not trying to give an exhaustive definition anyway, but merely responding to DoctorScribbles challenge to josephw's proof by definition. I fully realize that the word 'God' holds far more meaning to josephw than the definition I gave, but I am guessing that my definition is a subset of his beliefs - if it is then his conclusion is valid - whether or not such an entity actually exists.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckgaychessplayer is an awesome dude, his posts in the chess only forum are well researched and based on practical experience, i bet he could whup you! at chess that is!
I get the feeling that 'gaychessplayer' is actually 'closetchessplayer' if you get my drift.
29 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBecause I didn't really need to know, my post was not addressed to him anyway. I was merely demonstrating to DoctorScribbles a way in which jaywill could be correct in his reasoning. At least I have clearly stated that it is only a guess. You on the other hand keep telling me that you know better than me what my beliefs are - which is absolutely ridiculous.
well excuse me for butting in , and now you are also trying to guess someones beliefs, why don't you just ask him?
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by kirksey957Interesting questions.
Let's try something. If you were to run into the five most difficult persons or as you say "enemies of God" from Redhotpawn at Burger King, how would you relate to them? Can you give sort of an account of how that encounter might go from your perspective?
The only thing that would be different from an encounter at a Burger King or anywhere else from our meeting here in this forum would be that we would be face to face. At least as far as our positions are concerned.
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. I'm who I am. Not what I appear to be here. I'm not afraid to stand up and say what I'm thinking no matter what the odds. I'm not the mean spirited, bigoted, narrow minded, homophobe you all think I am. I have my faults like anyone else, but I enjoy debating the issues with anyone who feels the same.
I wonder just what such an encounter would be like with some of those in this forum that oppose themselves against the truth of God. Would they be as physically abusive as their posts are verbally abusive? I doubt it.Would they resort to name calling and insult slinging? Maybe.
No matter. I would welcome such a meeting. As a matter of fact I've offend wondered if I could meet some of you in person. I'd enjoy that. Then maybe after meeting me you would see that I'm not such a bad fella after all. Just as I'm sure you too are a decent person.
I think the nature of this forum tends to make us look worse than we really are. I try to give folks the benefit of the doubt.
How about you? Is your perspective broader than the scope of this forum?
Just one thing. When I say "enemies of God" it is within the context of the issue being discussed, and is meant to be read objectively. I'm not here to make enemies. There is entirely too much misunderstanding going on here.
29 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadlol, how could that be neither of us know what it is you profess to believe, hehe! that is real ridiculous!
Because I didn't really need to know, my post was not addressed to him anyway. I was merely demonstrating to DoctorScribbles a way in which jaywill could be correct in his reasoning. At least I have clearly stated that it is only a guess. You on the other hand keep telling me that you know better than me what my beliefs are - which is absolutely ridiculous.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI fail to see how your conclusion follows. At first glance, the way I would interpret your definition is that G is a being whose directive (or command, or will, or some such) it is that all non-enemies worship him. That, along with the idea that non-belief entails non-worship, gives us:
Defn.
God: A being who requires that all non-enemies worship him. Since worship requires belief, it follows trivially that all non-believers are enemies.
(1) G is a being whose directive it is that all non-enemies worship him.
(2) It is not the case that non-believers worship G.
I fail to see how the conjunction of (1) and (2) entails that non-believers are enemies.
Or think of it this way. You could compare to another example: G is a being who requires that all humans worship him. So if you don't believe in G (and therefore don't worship G), then you must be a non-human. (This follows your same logic: G is a being who requires that all non-enemies worship him. So if you don't believe in G (and therefore don't worship G), then you must be an enemy.) Obviously something is wrong here.
There seems no reasonable reading upon which josephw's claim makes any sense (despite his claiming that it follows obviously from definition).
29 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh yeah, if he's so awesome how come he's not here then?
gaychessplayer is an awesome dude, his posts in the chess only forum are well researched and based on practical experience, i bet he could whup you! at chess that is!
What is he off being awesome somewhere else? Not enough awesomeness
to spread around. I bet I bet he's like awesome for like 5 microseconds a day
and then he just tuckers out.