20 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwwhy dont you stoke the fire and burn me at the stake, like so many other 'good christians', have done to others, notably the protestant Calvin and also the Catholic church. Its makes absolutely no difference to me either whether Agers is an unbeliever or not, what bothers me is why you should treat him differently because of it!
[b]..."born again type christians..."
And YOU have the audacity to label your so-called brothers in Christ?
And with the unbeliever you do it!
You bring shame upon the name of the Lord.
You should learn to spell Christian.[/b]
20 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAh, you're a good guy Robbie...good guy! but see, Josephw is a True Christian™ (like the
why dont you stoke the fire and burn me at the stake, like so many other 'good christians', have done to others, notably the protestant Calvin and also the Catholic church. Its makes absolutely no difference to me either whether Agers is an unbeliever or not, what bothers me is why you should treat him differently because of it!
satirical
landoverbaptists) and so is sworn to hate unsaved trash such as me! In fact, in Joseph's eyes I probably don't qualify as being human :]21 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergLol, TrueChristian trademark, i dunno how you did that, but it was pretty cool! Never the less everyone knows that God is not partial (Acts 1:35), and as theists we are under duress to try to reflect his qualities and show honour to all sorts of individuals 🙂
Ah, you're a good guy Robbie...good guy! but see, Josephw is a [b]True Christian™ (like the[hidden]satirical[/hidden]landoverbaptists) and so is sworn to hate unsaved trash such as me! In fact, in Joseph's eyes I probably don't qualify as being human :][/b]
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWith numlock on type Alt+0153 🙂
Lol, TrueChristian trademark, i dunno how you did that, but it was pretty cool! Never the less everyone knows that God is not partial (Acts 1:35), and as theists we are under duress to try to reflect his qualities and show honour to all sorts of individuals 🙂
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHello, old friend! I’m not on much these days, as it started to distract from the more contemplative side of my life—but I do look in from time to time, and a discussion between you and beetle is always going to be of interest!
hey my friend, i like this poetic approach, its is both profound and it appeals to our imagination, giving us the opportunity to try to grasp these things with our own minds. It seems to me that this mode of spirituality (i cannot think of a better description and apologise as to its vagueness), as you and beetle as well as others profess needs stud ...[text shortened]... guous terms - i really thank you for your salutations and wish you well - kind regards Robbie.
hey my friend, i like this poetic approach, its is both profound and it appeals to our imagination, giving us the opportunity to try to grasp these things with our own minds.
Thank you. I think that kind of openness—leaving things open for the reader’s interpretation, especially with metaphor (though there was not much of that in this little piece of doggerel: except for “Shiva”—that, for me, is metaphor) is valuable. I think that poetry is designed, in part, to do that.
My approach to “spirituality” (I don’t really like that word much myself—but, as you say, for lack of a better term&hellip😉 is largely aesthetic. And I think that we too often dismiss or ignore the importance of that in living a rich life; and imagination also seems as much a part of the make-up of human consciousness as, say, rationality. Perhaps that is why, although I remain a non-dualist, I travel among many different religious and philosophical expressions of that.
i hope that you do not mind my calls for simplification and illustration
On the contrary: I find it helpful for me. It forces me to focus through the complexities, as it were, and re-examine them myself in the process.
Again, I return your kind salutations. Be well!
22 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Agerglack if evidence doesn't mean lack of existence. this is where atheists are exactly like theists. neither have proof but we still believe what makes them comfortable.
Let me recast that one (for the sake of accuracy):
So tell me, which is unintelligent? To believe [an assertion from various yet to be determined as veracious sources there were] 500 eyewitnesses [present at some event which defies the laws of physics] or to believe [the counter proposal that no such event occured] [since there is no firmly established evidence for the the former]?
22 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou seem to be implicitly making the statement there is only one type of atheist: the type that affirms the non-existence of gods. Without getting drawn into a long debate over semantics let's say I'm an agnostic that operates under the assumption god doesn't exist (so as to avoid using "atheist" ) since I have precisely no reason to believe otherwise.
lack if evidence doesn't mean lack of existence. this is where atheists are exactly like theists. neither have proof but we still believe what makes them comfortable.
Similarly I have precisely no reason to believe that if we raise 2 to the power of the largest prime found so far and subtract 1 we get another prime.
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergYou are too quick to judge.
Ah, you're a good guy Robbie...good guy! but see, Josephw is a [b]True Christian™ (like the[hidden]satirical[/hidden]landoverbaptists) and so is sworn to hate unsaved trash such as me! In fact, in Joseph's eyes I probably don't qualify as being human :][/b]
Statement like those above are indicative of your true state of mind. It is you that hates Christians.
If I hate you so much, then why am I spending so much time trying to tell you how to have eternal life?
The Day is coming. I hope to see you there.
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhy dont you stoke the fire and burn me at the stake
why dont you stoke the fire and burn me at the stake, like so many other 'good christians', have done to others, notably the protestant Calvin and also the Catholic church. Its makes absolutely no difference to me either whether Agers is an unbeliever or not, what bothers me is why you should treat him differently because of it!
Childish thing to say.
I don't give a rip about Calvin. His influence on Christianity sucks. I know people who's' lives are stressed because of the legalism resulting from his theology.
But I'll let God judge him.
Its makes absolutely no difference to me either whether Agers is an unbeliever or not, what bothers me is why you should treat him differently because of it!
It bothers me that it doesn't bother you that Agers is an unbeliever.
I treat everyone the same. If I disagree, I'll say so.
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIt is down to incorrect deductions. One person claiming there were 500 eye witnesses does not carry the same weight as 500 people claiming to be eye witnesses. To report it as 'proven by 500 witnesses' implies the existence of 500 witness accounts, yet this is not the case. What we have is one account claiming 500 witnesses.
In this instance it is clearly down to incorrect use of the word 'proven'.
There are many events for which we do have 500 witness accounts, that the poster would not accept as factual - so yes it was also incorrect use of the word 'proven'.
23 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergActually, you have very good reason to believe that the largest prime number found thus far is a Mersenne prime. Almost all the known large primes are!
You seem to be implicitly making the statement there is only one type of atheist: the type that affirms the non-existence of gods. Without getting drawn into a long debate over semantics let's say I'm an agnostic that operates under the assumption god doesn't exist (so as to avoid using "atheist" ) since I have precisely no reason to believe otherwise.
Simi ...[text shortened]... raise 2 to the power of the largest prime found so far and subtract 1 we get another prime.
