So, God is a pagan God then?

He is the Creator God.

Who created him?

For there to be a 'He' there has to be individuation from the whole.

Individuation necassarily implies that 'He' has existence as an entity.

So what tangible, verifiable evidence is there for this entity?

Is there more or less verifiable evidence than there is for the alien presence Uri Geller bangs on about if you let him (the one which has been communicating with him since he was a lad)?

Do you think the alien presence Uri communicates with is real?

If this god fella is the creator, why now? And Why all this fuss and death stuff? Once you get to heaven you will be eternally happy, right? Why not cut out the middle man and go straight there? And if we have to learn righteousness before we get there...whats the point of that? Once we're there we aint coming back to apply the lesson!!

This is what the Bishop of Carlisle said:

"The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's (natures) judgement on the immorality and greed of modern society"

The bishop did not use the word "nature", you've added that in an attempt to give some sort of legitimacy to the reality of what was said, which is:

"The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's judgement on the immorality and greed of modern society".

I'm pretty certain that if the bish had meant nature, he would have used the word itself. His message was perfectly clear in what he meant.

Who created him?

Individuation necassarily implies that 'He' has existence as an entity.



The writings of Jung and others, like science act as a smoke screen but I don't disagree with your premiss although I'm not getting drawn into discussions on philosophy.

.

Morning Grahame. Glad to see you're still fighting the good fight. ;)

The bishop did not use the word "nature", you've added that in an attempt to give some sort of legitimacy to the reality of what was said, which is:

"The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's judgement on the immorality and greed of modern society".

I'm pretty certain that if the bish had meant nature, he would have used the word itself. His message was perfectly clear in what he meant.

That is why I put it in brackets. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth and all in it. The Bishop was talking about God's creation which is nature and that is what the Bishop was talking about.

Morning Grahame. Glad to see you're still fighting the good fight. ;)

Morning Berlin, just off to do some shopping and then to Wendy's for a fish and chip dinner. Bye. :)

That interactive game is top!

Thing is, you can beat Grahame savagely with the slipper of reality for a whole lifetime and he still won't remove the nappies of denial.

He just proves that blind faith becomes a psychosis.Tony Blair[warmonger]
is backing him, and his ilk up.:confused:

The Bishop was talking about God's creation which is nature and that is what the Bishop was talking about.

No.

The bishop was stating that the natural disasters that have recently been on the increase, were the "wrath of god".

I don't always see your posts Jobee because you are on my ignore list. Well you ignore God don't you, so I ignore Jobee. :)

I don't think there is a Hell like people think, there are a couple of reasons for that, one is that the word hell means death and the grave, as simple as that, nothing more, nothing less, and also near Jerusalem is a valley called Hell where people dump all their rubbish and there are fires burning continually and people take it literally, but basically things that are thrown into Hell have come to the end of the line and that is it, the end, and I don't think there is conciousness and as I say and I can find it out for you if you want but honestly the literal meaning of hell is "grave."

Just to add Jobee that the Bible uses metaphor a lot. For instance, Jesus referred to Himself as "the bread of life" and "the good shepherd." In the same way, God the Father is referred to as "a refuge" and "a consuming fire." But these examples do not mean that Jesus is literally a loaf of bread or a sheep farmer, or that the Father is a pile of rocks or a blasting furnace. And neither is Hell Jobee. At least I don't think so.

Yes, you've learned the art of sophistry, but all I want is truth.

'The Virgin Mary is no more a virgin than my mother.'

[Pope Bonifice the VIII] 1294-1305

That is why I put it in brackets. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth and all in it. The Bishop was talking about God's creation which is nature and that is what the Bishop was talking about.

So you're now speaking for the Bishop?

Why didn't you ever become a man of the cloth? Is it because you're not really a Christian, you just like certain bits of it and pick and choose what you want to believe?

So you're now speaking for the Bishop?

Why didn't you ever become a man of the cloth? Is it because you're not really a Christian, you just like certain bits of it and pick and choose what you want to believe?

Quite frankly he's taking the P

Man created God, it was something else to fight about.:help:

Quite frankly he's taking the P

Man created God, it was something else to fight about.:help:

As I keep saying, he's a control figure used in the same way as Father Christmas.

The Ten Commandments are nothing more than common sense, to a point. They just had to call them something to make them sound official and scary.

In the words of George Carlin:

Thou shalt not kill, unless they believe in a different invisible man to you!

Christianity is dying and so is the idea of God.

So you're now speaking for the Bishop?

Why didn't you ever become a man of the cloth? Is it because you're not really a Christian, you just like certain bits of it and pick and choose what you want to believe?

Anton LaVey is inseparable from satanism the same as God in inseparable from his creation.

Anton LaVey is inseparable from satanism the same as God in inseparable from his creation.

What's that got to with you changing the Bishop's words without his consent?

Also, you keep saying God is nature, yet Pagans worship nature and you worship God.

You're talking bull as usual and you will use any means possible to try and back up your arguments, no matter how absurd or how much they go against the fundamental rules of your religion.

What's that got to with you changing the Bishop's words without his consent?

Also, you keep saying God is nature, yet Pagans worship nature and you worship God.

You're talking bull as usual and you will use any means possible to try and back up your arguments, no matter how absurd or how much they go against the fundamental rules of your religion.

Pagans worship his creation, Christians worship the creator.

Pagans worship his creation, Christians worship the creator.

But you said God was nature earlier.

Quite frankly he's taking the P

Man created God, it was something else to fight about.:help:

Man came last (scientific fact) first came creation (scientific fact) The Creator came before everything.

first came creation (scientific fact) The Creator came before everything.

Weren't you saying science was useless? If so, why are trying to use it to evidence your argument?

But you said God was nature earlier.

God and nature are inseparable, like words in a sentence, but the sentence is more than individual words, God is nature but is more than nature.

I would even agree that there are people who claim to be atheist, but who display such anger towards those who believe that I can only conclude that secretly they're not atheist - they are just angry that God could let them be so unhappy .


Sorry for quoting myself here, but I'm starting to think there are one or two 'angry at God' people doing the rounds today.

Stating one's own beliefs is fine as far as I'm concerned, but attacking the beliefs of someone else with the vitriol and aggression being displayed at the moment undermines the arguments against religion. So far on this thread the only people demonstrating tolerance and forgiveness are those 'with' religion.

The anti-God brigade are just showing themselves up as bitter and full of hate. Maybe they DO need to start listening to the words attributed to Jesus.

As I keep saying, he's a control figure used in the same way as Father Christmas.

The Ten Commandments are nothing more than common sense, to a point. They just had to call them something to make them sound official and scary.

In the words of George Carlin:

Thou shalt not kill, unless they believe in a different invisible man to you!

Christianity is dying and so is the idea of God.

And I want to live long enough to see it go, including the closing down of the Vatican. Not by violence tho', I think computers could do it.just me.

Man came last (scientific fact) first came creation (scientific fact) The Creator came before everything.

OK, sounds fair enough. Now, what do you mean by God/allah:confused:

[The point is, religion does not change the nature of
homosapiens. ] j

OK, sounds fair enough. Now, what do you mean by God/allah:confused:

[The point is, religion does not change the nature of
homosapiens. ] j

Whatever name you use there is only one God and can I say that I have seen peoples life's turned around by accepting Jesus Christ into their hearts and lives.

Sorry for quoting myself here, but I'm starting to think there are one or two 'angry at God' people doing the rounds today.

Stating one's own beliefs is fine as far as I'm concerned, but attacking the beliefs of someone else with the vitriol and aggression being displayed at the moment undermines the arguments against religion. So far on this thread the only people demonstrating tolerance and forgiveness are those 'with' religion.

The anti-God brigade are just showing themselves up as bitter and full of hate. Maybe they DO need to start listening to the words attributed to Jesus.

Ah, but that is a narrowminded view of the discussion.

Just because Grahame doesn't use aggressive words, or say things in a blatant manner, it doesn't mean he's not being aggressive. Many times Grahame has said he's better than those who don't believe in God, but doesn't use those particular words.

He's very diplomatic in the language he uses and, as such, it appears to many that he is quite a controlled and patient man.

The fact that he puts people on ignore because they say something he disagrees with is quite aggressive, if not childish. He also told me that he was going to report me as I'd threatened to ban him, even though I have no such powers.

As you can see, just because he's one of God's people, it doesn't stop him from showing aggression towards others.

A good example of this would be the Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't seem aggressive on the surface, yet they go door to door meaning they have a possible captive audience on which to spread the word. This is an aggressive form of preaching, it just doesn't seem it on the service.

Basically, there are two things that can be done if someone feels they are being picked on:

Either report those people and let them try and explain to the mods, or just don't post on particular threads.

Simple really.

Whatever name you use there is only one God and can I say that I have seen peoples life's turned around by accepting Jesus Christ into their hearts and lives.

THANKS GRAHAME!!!! Thats what ive been saying all along.

Religion is a purely selfish pursuit, self indulgence. But millions of us never needed it. Indeed, the vast majority of the planets population were behaving themselves, they had no choice. They never needed an overdose of religious
instruction, it was forced on them, but, there was money in it, and money
is the oxygen of any business. Religion IS a business.

Government and organised religions caused wars. Ordinary folk all around the world are terrified of war. How say you?:confused:

They never needed an overdose of religious
instruction, it was forced on them, but, there was money in it, and money
is the oxygen of any business. Religion IS a business.

Government and organised religions caused wars. Ordinary folk all around the world are terrified of war. How say you?:confused:

Also, don't forget that the Church gets lots of tax breaks, yet they constantly need money. Even though some of the branches of Christianity, such as JW's and Mormons have at least 10% of their wages taken by their religion.

If this isn't evidence of a money making scheme I'll eat my shoe laces!

Sorry for quoting myself here, but I'm starting to think there are one or two 'angry at God' people doing the rounds today.

Maybe they're just angry at Grahame and some of his replies?


So far on this thread the only people demonstrating tolerance and forgiveness are those 'with' religion.

Eternal damnation awaits anyone with religion if they do not forgive. Not so for non believers:D

Maybe they DO need to start listening to the words attributed to Jesus.

If it makes me think that what I type on an internet forum is "devinely inspired", then I think I'll give it a miss:D

Also, don't forget that the Church gets lots of tax breaks, yet they constantly need money. Even though some of the branches of Christianity, such as JW's and Mormons have at least 10% of their wages taken by their religion.

If this isn't evidence of a money making scheme I'll eat my shoe laces!

Yes lethiathan 13, I think religion does cause psychosis. Meaning, making people soft and succumb to constant brainwashing. The target is money.

The idea that religion changed the character of homosapiens in any way
is stupid. Proof, we have just had the worst century in living memory for extreme violence, two world wars, vietnam, korea, pol pot, two A bomb attacks, holocaust, ecetera,ecetera.

Organised religion, was, and still is, 'power for the sake of it'.

Never mind what warmonger Blair says, I think we must look for ways of diluting religious awe, and that means Islam as well.

:huh: I dont see the analogy here. Three persons are THREE persons. One does not equal three. Grahames point to your earlier reference does not answer the Q of the Trinity. Christians teach the Trinity as a fundamental belief- I have no issue with the religion (or any belief for that matter) but to say 3 = 1 is not logical in my book. I know some christians who found this quite mind boggling.

Read post #255 again and all will be revealed.

Religion is a purely selfish pursuit, self indulgence. But millions of us never needed it. Indeed, the vast majority of the planets population were behaving themselves, they had no choice. They never needed an overdose of religious
instruction, it was forced on them, but, there was money in it, and money
is the oxygen of any business. Religion IS a business.

Government and organised religions caused wars. Ordinary folk all around the world are terrified of war. How say you?:confused:

Been through that already in another thread (which you started- remember). But again, you cannot use this point to justify your claim that religion(s) caused wars; history shows us that it is normally greed and desire for power.I am not talking about justifable wars (the right to defend if attacked- the ONE reason I believe war is justified)

There has been plenty of bloodshed by athiest regimes-
Here's a list of those who believe in evolution:

1. Hitler

2. Stalin

3. Lenin

4. Trotsky

5. Mao

Is it a coincidence that all these people are genocidal criminals?

Ah, but that is a narrowminded view of the discussion.

Just because Grahame doesn't use aggressive words, or say things in a blatant manner, it doesn't mean he's not being aggressive. Many times Grahame has said he's better than those who don't believe in God, but doesn't use those particular words.

He's very diplomatic in the language he uses and, as such, it appears to many that he is quite a controlled and patient man.

The fact that he puts people on ignore because they say something he disagrees with is quite aggressive, if not childish. He also told me that he was going to report me as I'd threatened to ban him, even though I have no such powers.

As you can see, just because he's one of God's people, it doesn't stop him from showing aggression towards others.

A good example of this would be the Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't seem aggressive on the surface, yet they go door to door meaning they have a possible captive audience on which to spread the word. This is an aggressive form of preaching, it just doesn't seem it on the service.

Basically, there are two things that can be done if someone feels they are being picked on:

Either report those people and let them try and explain to the mods, or just don't post on particular threads.

Simple really.

What is said and how it is said are different issues. Someone can say they think that you have given up your chance of entering heaven, and you can rest easy in your lack of belief in heaven.

As far as I've read though, it's not been the believers calling people stupid, pathetic, idiotic etc.

It is not aggressive to put someone on ignore if their idea of debate is name-calling. I read all the threads about religion with some interest and I notice that believers are quite happy to engage in debate with people who have differing opinions.

It IS aggressive to insult someone for their beliefs and then accuse them of running away from the issue.

This thread could easily be summarised as :

A - 'I believe in God'
B - 'Then you are a moron'
A - 'I do not wish to debate the issue with you'
B - 'See? I have just proved your intolerance'

You may not agree with the opinions expressed, even find them distasteful or offensive, but they've not been expressed in an offensive way. There has been a lot of blasphemy against Christianity and I'm sure the Christians have found THAT offensive, yet they've not been spitting and hissing and screaming in the way that the majority of non-believers have been doing.

I stand by the assertion that there are a number of so-called atheists whose anger at the idea of God can only be explained by a belief in God, coupled with bitterness that they've not been handed earthly bliss on a plate. Something along the lines of a teenager hating their parents because they've not being given a new pair of trainers.

Well that sure shut everybody up.

There has been a lot of blasphemy against Christianity and I'm sure the Christians have found THAT offensive

Balsphemy such as claiming to be the voice of god?

Quick definitions (blasphemy)

# blasphemous language (expressing disrespect for God or for something sacred)

# blasphemous behaviour; the act of depriving something of its sacred character

# irreverent talk about God or sacred things.

Quick definitions (blasphemy)

# blasphemous language (expressing disrespect for God or for something sacred)

# blasphemous behaviour; the act of depriving something of its sacred character

# irreverent talk about God or sacred things.

What about graven images such as crucifixes?

What about graven images such as crucifixes?

Not that I am an expert, but the Vatican (along with the other two main faiths) were not pleased with this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-398931/Vaticans-fury-Madonna-blasphemy.html

(even if it is from the DM)

To Fivetide:

"What is said and how it is said are different issues. "

How? Just because I am blatant at what I say on this thread? Just because the religious dance about in the shadows being "covert" in their responses?

Grahame goads so many people on here, but because he does it in a pleasant way, when someone does it to him, they're seen as nasty and aggressive. There is no difference between the lines, I hate religion, the religious hate Atheists. It's just that if they admitted it in public, it'd go against their religion.

"As far as I've read though, it's not been the believers calling people stupid, pathetic, idiotic etc."

As I've said, they do say these things, but not so blatantly. It's a more diplomatic way. Just read Grahame's posts in slightly different contexts and you will see.

"It IS aggressive to insult someone for their beliefs and then accuse them of running away from the issue."

Is it not also aggressive to insult someone's intelligence. Grahame keeps saying that science is useless, yet if it weren't for science, his beloved Noah would have drowned along with the animals, the bible would not be able to be printed in such quantity, there would be no religious radio or tv programs and, in the end, he wouldn't be able to preach to us all by using this marvellous contraption called a computer. Is this not an unintelligent claim by Grahame?

Finally from me:

"I stand by the assertion that there are a number of so-called atheists whose anger at the idea of God can only be explained by a belief in God"

No it can't. My anger is aimed at the idea of God and religion. I can disagree with the philosophy of God, it doesn't mean I have to believe in a Him/It/Her.

There is no difference between the lines, I hate religion, the religious hate Atheists.

What's with all the hatred leviathan? I don't hate you.

.

Quick definitions (blasphemy)

# blasphemous language (expressing disrespect for God or for something sacred)

# blasphemous behaviour; the act of depriving something of its sacred character

# irreverent talk about God or sacred things.


How can one disrespect a nonentity?

How can one disrespect a nonentity?

If there is a power that caused the formation of the cosmos then I think it is a very real force and worthy of respect.

If there is a power that caused the formation of the cosmos then I think it is a very real force and worthy of respect.

I'm glad you said ' if ' .

There has been plenty of bloodshed by athiest regimes-
Here's a list of those who believe in evolution:

1. Hitler
2. Stalin
3. Lenin
4. Trotsky
5. Mao

Is it a coincidence that all these people are genocidal criminals?

I'll take your word for it that they all believed in evolution, but that doesn't make them necessarily atheists. Many religious believers also believe in evolution.

There have been atheist murders and religious murderers.

The difference is the atheist doesn't murder through a belief that they are doing the bidding of some 'higher power', whereas those killing in the name of religion try to justify it by claiming they are doing the work of a god of which there is no proof.

I'm glad you said ' if ' .


Well, what was it that started everything off?

To leviathan13 -

I don't believe Grahame goads people. As you said yourself he does it in a pleasant way. That would be how normal people debate things they disagree on. People may feel goaded but that's their own defensive attitudes, their own insecurities of faith. (Haha - Rather like the homophobe who has secret homoerotic fantasies.)

You keep trying to accuse those of faith that they deny the existence of science, and calling them stupid for doing so.

Think of it like me saying you denied the existence of the Bible.

'I don't believe in the Bible' you say.
'AHA!' I answer 'But there are numerous references to it throughout the literature of history! There are copies in the library for pity's sake! You are an imbecile for denying its existence!'

This is the sort of argument there's been.

Science exists, as does the Bible. It may be slightly stretching one's belief to say that God put fossils in the ground to test our faith (I'm going off the top of my head here) but it is also impossible to prove 'He' did not.

The point is (I think) whether you take your morality, your beliefs in why the world exists as it does, and all the rest of it from one or the other (or any other religious book... I'll stick to the Bible for now...).

Finally, from me -


Finally from me:

"I stand by the assertion that there are a number of so-called atheists whose anger at the idea of God can only be explained by a belief in God"

No it can't. My anger is aimed at the idea of God and religion. I can disagree with the philosophy of God, it doesn't mean I have to believe in a Him/It/Her.

1. 'No it can't' ... No what can't? And what can't 'it' do?
2. You just admitted an anger at the idea of God. Why? What's wrong with it?

(READ - I don't mean what's wrong with taking it too far... I am NOT talking about fundamentalism... I mean.. what's wrong with someone just believing in God and getting on with their life? The idea of God is mostly pretty darn benign. When people talk about religion causing wars, that's rubbish - it's the people who CORRUPT the religion that cause the wars. If they'd stuck to the religion they'd have been fine... so... What's so terrible about the idea that it makes you angry?)

3. Last line ... 'I can disagree with... it doesn't mean I have to believe...' What?! Where on Earth did anyone say that you have to believe in God to disagree with the philosophy of it? That's called a no-brainer. I will refrain from going 'DUR' at you.

Apologies to other posters here for the length of the reply. If I do post again I'll try and keep it more succinct.

I'll take your word for it that they all believed in evolution, but that doesn't make them necessarily atheists. Many religious believers also believe in evolution.

There have been atheist murders and religious murderers.

The difference is the atheist doesn't murder through a belief that they are doing the bidding of some 'higher power', whereas those killing in the name of religion try to justify it by claiming they are doing the work of a god of which there is no proof.

Normally wars happen because side A wants what side B has- and then it goes off. WW1 and WW11 were not caused by religion. Neither were the Crusades and even today, the Iraq war was not religiously ignited- though Bush did relate to it as 'doing Gods work':loopy:
Greed drives wars and as FiveTide put it clearly, the corruption of its (religious) people. If Laws were adhered to I also think there would not be so much hatred and bloodshed.
It's easy to look at different conflicts in our world and blame religion for the wars there.eg:Ireland and the Middle East.
When it comes right down to it humans start wars. They want more land, money whatever and decide to fight over it.
Many leaders of nations over many generations have called their wars holy because that sounds better than saying "let's kill people so we can have their oil, or fertile land etc.
Once started wars are hard to end especially when the fanatics jump on the bandwagon and convince the people that they are fighting for their God!

Well, what was it that started everything off?

Perhaps it's beyond the realms of human comprehension but does there have to be a start? Does a middle exist and will there be an end?

Or does life, in whatever form it may take, go round in never ending circles?


Are we looking for answers to questions that don't exist?

Been through that already in another thread (which you started- remember). But again, you cannot use this point to justify your claim that religion(s) caused wars; history shows us that it is normally greed and desire for power.I am not talking about justifable wars (the right to defend if attacked- the ONE reason I believe war is justified)

There has been plenty of bloodshed by athiest regimes-
Here's a list of those who believe in evolution:

1. Hitler

2. Stalin

3. Lenin

4. Trotsky

5. Mao

Is it a coincidence that all these people are genocidal criminals?

Lenin and Trotsky certainly weren't pacifists, but I have never heard them described as genocidal before.

Hitler is normally described as a Christian. I have no idea what his views on evolution were.

Stalin and Mao - I am not disputing their genocides.

None of these however are really known for their speeches on evolution?

Evolution didn't play a part in the Rwandan genocide of 800,000 Tutsi's, nor religion (I think)
The Darfuri genocide is complex but religion is involved.
The million or more killed in the Armenian Genocide religion were involved.
Genral Suharto's genocide in Indonesia at least half a million killed, anti-communist
In Cambodia the million people killed by US bombing raids and the 2 million killed by the Khmer Rouge
etc etc

So to be honest I am not sure what to conclude from looking at genocides... except there doesn't seem to be any relationship with evolution.

I agree that religion is not the sole cause of wars, if that was your point.

Perhaps it's beyond the realms of human comprehension but does there have to be a start? Does a middle exist and will there be an end?

Or does life, in whatever form it may take, go round in never ending circles?


Are we looking for answers to questions that don't exist?


My answer to the conundrum, "What came first the chicken or the egg" is that it was created, and that is why I believe in a creator.

.

Grahame. It's the weekend. Relax.;)

Lenin and Trotsky certainly weren't pacifists, but I have never heard them described as genocidal before.

Hitler is normally described as a Christian. I have no idea what his views on evolution were.

Stalin and Mao - I am not disputing their genocides.

None of these however are really known for their speeches on evolution?


So to be honest I am not sure what to conclude from looking at genocides... except there doesn't seem to be any relationship with evolution.

I agree that religion is not the sole cause of wars, if that was your point.

I was trying to point out that the above mentioned people were athiest (as it is commonly believed) and it was a direct reference to Jobee's post where he (not for the first time) pointed out that religions caused wars; I think your last sentance is good enough for me Wildcat.

My answer to the conundrum, "What came first the chicken or the egg" is that it was created, and that is why I believe in a creator.

.

Your chicken and egg conundrum has yet to be answered definitively ............by anyone. Back to my never ending circles hypothesis.

Normally wars happen because side A wants what side B has- and then it goes off.....
<snip>

Totally agree with the whole post. Wars are primarily about power struggles, not religion.

Grahame. It's the weekend. Relax.;)

I can't, these people are getting to me.

Your chicken and egg conundrum has yet to be answered definitively ............by anyone. Back to my never ending circles hypothesis.

I'm not sure a circle was ever in the frame but all I know is that when I draw a circle it has a start and then it continues for ever.

Hitler is normally described as a Christian. I have no idea what his views on evolution were.

I have no idea what he thought about evolution, either, but I would not describe him as being Christian, -not just because of his megalomaniac genocidal policies, but also as he was very strongly influenced by things like paganism, (he was known for consulting seers, and I seem to remember that he was embroiled in some search for the legendary spear which was alleged to be the one which pierced Christ's side on the cross, as it was purported to have magical/ supernatiral power)

Sounds like something out of Indiana Jones to me PT. :suspect:

Sounds like something out of Indiana Jones to me PT. :suspect:

*thinks* yes I remember the NAZI link in the first Indiana jones film. (the supernatural powers of the Ark of the Covenant, IIRC) but yeah, there was something about "The Spear Of Destiny" - in German, the Heilige Lance- the Holy Lance... Hitler apparently believed the posession of which would allow him to win the war.

Let's go and see what you would've won eh? :D

[QUOTE=Grahame;3598094]If there is a power that caused the formation of the cosmos then I think it is a very real force and worthy of respect.

[/QUOTE,Grahame, I think religion is disgusting, childish, embarrassing, effete,
lying, pretentious, nothing. and, the last century proved it.:loopy:

I have no idea what he thought about evolution, either, but I would not describe him as being Christian, -not just because of his megalomaniac genocidal policies, but also as he was very strongly influenced by things like paganism, (he was known for consulting seers, and I seem to remember that he was embroiled in some search for the legendary spear which was alleged to be the one which pierced Christ's side on the cross, as it was purported to have magical/ supernatiral power)

Some of his mates were in to that sort of thing but in Mein Kampf he ridiculed paganism. Hitler was in to 'positive christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity)', not Nazi mysticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Mysticism).

I like to believe in the fuzzy ideas of science, which say that any idea can be checked against fact by experiment; if this is fatal to our beloved theory, then bye-bye theory.

Others prefer to believe in the hard, firm knowledge that comes from faith; after all, no scientist can tell you how many days it took to create the Earth; a firm "six days" is a comforting answer.

Now faith means that you don't need an experiment! So, if you are a Wednesdayite, you know by your faith that they will win their next match -- so why bother playing, just give Wednesday all the points! (for non-Sheffielders, Wednesday play football/soccer at Hillsborough in blue and white shirts)

So I base my life on experiment, and hope to see my team win the next match; fundamentalists seek the comfort of certainty in faith, and don't need the match to be played, as their book has told them the result already!

Thats better fish, all we need is truth.

That's better fish, all we need is truth.

And some chips.

I have no idea what he thought about evolution, either, but I would not describe him as being Christian, -not just because of his megalomaniac genocidal policies, but also as he was very strongly influenced by things like paganism, (he was known for consulting seers, and I seem to remember that he was embroiled in some search for the legendary spear which was alleged to be the one which pierced Christ's side on the cross, as it was purported to have magical/ supernatiral power)

Hitler was certainly deluded, beliving in such things as a master race etc. I would probably class him as agnostic and only allied himself to the Catholic Church in order to gain popularity in Bavaria and, to a lesser extent, Austria.

I have no idea what he thought about evolution, either, but I would not describe him as being Christian, -not just because of his megalomaniac genocidal policies, but also as he was very strongly influenced by things like paganism, (he was known for consulting seers, and I seem to remember that he was embroiled in some search for the legendary spear which was alleged to be the one which pierced Christ's side on the cross, as it was purported to have magical/ supernatiral power)

I don't know of any reputable historians who claim that Hitler was a creationist, but almost all historians admit he was a social Darwinist. Anyway, he is not here to answer so will leave it at that..guess he did not find that legendary spear afterall.

Your chicken and egg conundrum has yet to be answered definitively ............by anyone. Back to my never ending circles hypothesis.

Dinosaur egg came before chicken.

Dinosaur egg came before chicken.

A tiny single-celled organism over millions of years evolved into multiple celled organism which continued to evolve over millions of years to lay eggs. There, problem solved. Doesn't sound like it could happen? Okay then, an invisible man in the sky made the universe in a week.:thumbsup:

Some of his mates were in to that sort of thing but in Mein Kampf he ridiculed paganism. Hitler was in to 'positive christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity)', not Nazi mysticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Mysticism).

But brilliant as an infantyman.

Cpl-Hitler

When the First World War broke out Hitler said.
"Overpowered by stormy enthusiasm- I fell down
on my knees and thanked heaven for granting me
the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time".

Cpl.Adolph 'Adi' Hitler. 1889 -1945.

Hitler was rescued from his drifting life,
By rumblings of war and oncoming strife,
Germany not Austria his leanings were bent,
His spirits lifted by this awesome event.

The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand,
By a man named Princip from Serbian land,
Austro-Hungary attacked the Serbs.
Then Russia and France called on reserves.

Belgian nuetrality the Germans ignored,
The British lion -awakened then roared,
Hitler signing for Bavarian command,
Overcome with enthusiasm-for his adopted land.

For Hitler the army a base and a home,
Stopping his restless urge to roam,
With the 'List' regiment he first saw war,
At Ypres in Belgium he started his tour.

Decorated early- in this vicious war,
The Iron Cross 2nd class he very soon wore.
Competent, courageous, alert and keen,
A credit to any fighting machine.

Between actions quietly reserved,
Drawing and philosophy studiously observed,
No presents or cards at Christmas time,
His pet dog 'Foxl' suited him fine.

Surviving Ypres and making his name,
The battle at Somme his next little game,
A wound in the leg caused him to fall,
Convalescing, his nature, not suited at all.

Back in action for the last great push,
Heading for Paris in a desperate rush,
Nearly, the name of this little game,
A desperate attempt before Americans came.

A First Class Iron Cross Hitlers reward,
A Jewish officer gave the award,
At the second Ypres in a gas attack,
Partly blinded -but he would be back.

Jb a coy 3 para
The Iron Cross First Class normally only given to
Commissioned officers.

God put fossils in the ground to test our faith (I'm going off the top of my head here) but it is also impossible to prove 'He' did not.

Radio Carbon dating (the fundamentalists believe the world is something around 6,000 years old):thumbsup:



2. What's wrong with it?

Other than it (religion) has been (and still is) used as a tool to "beat people into submission".
It's rammed down impressionable children's throats.
It's corrupt.
Each religion claims to be the only religion to worship the treu god (yet only one could ever be the "true god").
It encourages fundamentalism.


I am NOT talking about fundamentalism...

Yet this is a thread about fundamental christians:confused:

what's wrong with someone just believing in God and getting on with their life?

Nothing at all.
The problem arises, however, when people call non believers "sad" and "losers", who also claim that gay people are sordid. Who then claim that god speaks through them (all of which Grahame has done - both in the past, and recently).


what's wrong with someone just believing in God and getting on with their life? The idea of God is mostly pretty darn benign. When people talk about religion causing wars, that's rubbish - it's the people who CORRUPT the religion that cause the wars.

Many a war has been fought because one "tribe" believed in a different god. Biblical texts tell people to convert or kill anyone who believes in a diffent god to the one in their "holy" (more holes than Swiss cheese) book:rolleyes:

Apologies to other posters here for the length of the reply.

More grist to the mill:thumbsup:

You need to know a little history of Grahame's postings on this forum to appreciate where some of the animosity towards Grahame arises from.

Back on topic- here's a bit of more christian fundamentalism.. and I thought they were there to liberate Iraq...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38820.html

I was trying to point out that the above mentioned people were athiest

I'm pretty certain Hitler considered himself a christian:confused:

Hitler apparently believed the posession of which would allow him to win the war.

He did indeed.

Which raises the question "Why would a non-christain covet christian icons"?

I'm pretty certain Hitler considered himself a christian:confused:





He was also a vegetarian.

He was also a vegetarian.

That's another thing I don't have in common with him:D

That's another thing I don't have in common with him:D

Quite. As with most normal women...........I adore my meat :hihi::hihi::hihi:

Quite. As with most normal women...........I adore my meat :hihi::hihi::hihi:

Beefcake, I presume. :hihi:

It is the US Christian end-timers and Christian Zionists that bother me. Any group actively seeking to bring about the apocalypse and stir up trouble in the middle east has to be worrying. Their influence on George Bush and US foreign policy according to some sources is more than a little worrying.

Christians in Palestine (http://www.voltairenet.org/article144310.html) see their involvement for what it is.

This appears to be a measured article (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/22/145130/621) about the problem including a frank statement of the influence apocalyptic thinking has on US foreign policy, whilst also pointing out that it is not all evangelicals that support these views. Indeed 90% of black evangelicals vote democrat.

He was also a vegetarian.

I think I read that this was due to being alergic to some meats not through being an animal lover.

Radio Carbon dating (the fundamentalists believe the world is something around 6,000 years old):thumbsup:

Proves nothing except that God is more cunning than us - God manipulated the carbon atoms in the fossils to give the 'millions of years old' result. ;)

Other than it (religion) has been (and still is) used as a tool to "beat people into submission".
It's rammed down impressionable children's throats.
It's corrupt.
Each religion claims to be the only religion to worship the treu god (yet only one could ever be the "true god").
It encourages fundamentalism.

I'd disagree with almost all of the above points as far as religion generally is concerned. I'd say they're only true for the most radical of beliefs.

Yet this is a thread about fundamental christians:confused:

Ah... yeah, I've been done like a kipper on that one eh? :hihi:


The problem arises, however, when people call non believers "sad" and "losers", who also claim that gay people are sordid. Who then claim that god speaks through them (all of which Grahame has done - both in the past, and recently)...

...Many a war has been fought because one "tribe" believed in a different god. Biblical texts tell people to convert or kill anyone who believes in a diffent god to the one in their "holy" (more holes than Swiss cheese) book:rolleyes:

Nah, I'd still say that it's more a case of the religion being the excuse. We invaded Iraq to topple a brutal dictatorship that had a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Now, that was the reason we were given but there are a lot of people who'd disagree that it was the ACTUAL reason. But... is the toppling of brutal dictators who have stockpiles of WMD wrong, because it was used as the excuse for a war? No, I'd reckon not.

...You need to know a little history of Grahame's postings on this forum to appreciate where some of the animosity towards Grahame arises from.

And here, again... well, I can only go off the threads I have read. This hasn't been the first. All I can say is that I've not seen any views I'd class as awful yet. A lot I haven't agreed with perhaps... but none from Grahame that have offended me. I HAVE seen views, from people who would apparently be on the same side of the God debate as me, that HAVE offended me.

How we doing on the grist count? :P

Which raises the question "Why would a non-christain covet christian icons"?

I presume, thinking logically, that it was not the fact that they were "christian" icons (or items) but the supposed magical powers that they were reckoned to bestow on the posessor that he wanted, being a megalomaniac-y type who thought his half-Jewish ancestry entitled him to a share in the supposed aryan "master race"'s "ruling-of-the-civilaised-world" thingie.

Other than it (religion) has been (and still is) used as a tool to "beat people into submission".
It's rammed down impressionable children's throats.
It's corrupt.
Each religion claims to be the only religion to worship the treu god (yet only one could ever be the "true god").
It encourages fundamentalism.

I'd disagree with almost all of the above points as far as religion generally is concerned. I'd say they're only true for the most radical of beliefs.

That is exactly the point. Radical beliefs exist because of the framework of religion. Fundamental Christians exist because of Christianity, the same with 'extreme' Muslim and Zionists (I put extreme in speech marks as personally I think they are only more extreme than an ordinary religious sheep who believes in sky fairies and Jewish zombies). They hide behind the structure of religion. Because of this we can only (politically) condemn religious terrorists for the acts and be subjected to priests, community leaders etc bleating on about how they take the religion out of context. Rubbish! We should be condemning them because they believe in such tripe and are willing to kill for what are basically books that bare no relevance to reality and traditions from centuries ago.

The Nazis criticized the Christian ideals of meekness and guilt on the grounds that they repressed the violent instincts necessary to prevent inferior races from dominating Aryans. Martin Bormann, the second most powerful official in the Nazi Party after 1941, argued that Nazi and Christian beliefs were “incompatible,” primarily because the essential elements of Christianity were “taken over from Judaism.” Bormann's views were shared by Hitler, who ultimately wished to replace Christianity with a racist form of warrior paganism. Although Hitler was cautious about dangerously alienating Christians during World War II, he sometimes permitted Nazi officials to put pressure on Protestant and Catholic parents to remove their children from religious classes and to register them for ideological instruction instead. In the Nazi schools charged with training Germany's future elite, Christian prayers were replaced with Teutonic rituals and sun-worship ceremonies.


Despite the many anti-Christian elements in Nazism, the vast majority of Nazis considered themselves to be religious, and most German anti-Semites supported Christianity purged of its “Jewish” elements. The pro-Nazi German Christians, who were part of the Lutheran church in Germany, held that Christ had been a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan, and male members called themselves “SS men for Christ.” In many German families children began their prayers before meals with the phrase, “Führer, my Führer, bequeathed to me by the Lord.”

(These were evil people claiming to be religious and this is what gives religion a bad press.)



In contrast to this, National Socialism in Germany under Hitler showed paradoxical contradictions. On the one hand, Nazi propaganda pursued a consciously anti-Christian polemic against the church; it proceeded to arrest those clergy opposed to the Nazi worldview and policies. On the other hand, Hitler placed the greatest value upon concluding with the Vatican in 1934 a concordat that granted the Roman Catholic Church more special rights in the German Reich than had ever been granted it in any earlier concordat. The concordat with the Vatican represented the first recognition of the Hitler regime by a European government and was viewed by Hitler as a method of entrance into the circle of internationally recognized political powers.

(This is Hitler making up to the Catholic Church and may have caused people to believe he was a Christian when in reality he was using the church to his personal advantage.)

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The Nazis criticized the Christian ideals of meekness and guilt on the grounds that they repressed the violent instincts necessary to prevent inferior races from dominating Aryans. Martin Bormann, the second most powerful official in the Nazi Party after 1941, argued that Nazi and Christian beliefs were “incompatible,” primarily because the essential elements of Christianity were “taken over from Judaism.” Bormann's views were shared by Hitler, who ultimately wished to replace Christianity with a racist form of warrior paganism. Although Hitler was cautious about dangerously alienating Christians during World War II, he sometimes permitted Nazi officials to put pressure on Protestant and Catholic parents to remove their children from religious classes and to register them for ideological instruction instead. In the Nazi schools charged with training Germany's future elite, Christian prayers were replaced with Teutonic rituals and sun-worship ceremonies.


Despite the many anti-Christian elements in Nazism, the vast majority of Nazis considered themselves to be religious, and most German anti-Semites supported Christianity purged of its “Jewish” elements. The pro-Nazi German Christians, who were part of the Lutheran church in Germany, held that Christ had been a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan, and male members called themselves “SS men for Christ.” In many German families children began their prayers before meals with the phrase, “Führer, my Führer, bequeathed to me by the Lord.”

(These were evil people claiming to be religious and this is what gives religion a bad press.)



In contrast to this, National Socialism in Germany under Hitler showed paradoxical contradictions. On the one hand, Nazi propaganda pursued a consciously anti-Christian polemic against the church; it proceeded to arrest those clergy opposed to the Nazi worldview and policies. On the other hand, Hitler placed the greatest value upon concluding with the Vatican in 1934 a concordat that granted the Roman Catholic Church more special rights in the German Reich than had ever been granted it in any earlier concordat. The concordat with the Vatican represented the first recognition of the Hitler regime by a European government and was viewed by Hitler as a method of entrance into the circle of internationally recognized political powers.

(This is Hitler making up to the Catholic Church, and may have led people to believe he was a Christian when in fact he was using the church for his personal advantage.)

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Exactly, its not as clean cut as saying Nazi's were Christian or atheists. Nazis were Nazis. In reference to your mention of the concordat if you can take a joke have a look at this picture http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i175/Mpage2396890/n11711483_31855349_3345.jpg

Exactly, its not as clean cut as saying Nazi's were Christian or atheists. Nazis were Nazis.

They were ANTI Christian and carried out PAGAN rituals.

They were ANTI Christian and carried out PAGAN rituals.

Sigh. Yes Grahame but to people who live by the Christian code, Nazis can be lumped into the same group labelled 'Anti-Christian' with homosexuals, any woman in history who has had an abortion and couples who have sex outside of marriage.

Exactly, its not as clean cut as saying Nazi's were Christian or atheists. Nazis were Nazis. In reference to your mention of the concordat if you can take a joke have a look at this picture http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i175/Mpage2396890/n11711483_31855349_3345.jpg

I have seen similar pictures before and it is no joking matter I am afraid.

I have seen similar pictures before and it is no joking matter I am afraid.

In reference to your mention of the concordat if you can take a joke have a look at this picture

There has been plenty of comedy films based in and around WW2. Plus, this is picture and doesn't harm anybody. It simply illustrates the massive error in judgement by the Catholic Church to agree a concordat with Hitler. Its up there with Chamberlain's appeasement and airline peanuts.

One day we will have to do a study on the rise and fall of great nations and the reasons for their failure.

One day we will have to do a study on the rise and fall of great nations and the reasons for their failure.

I don't see how that is relevant but that happens daily anyway.

I don't see how that is relevant but that happens daily anyway.

I assume you have a high spec. computer, how about a high spec. life?

I assume you have a high spec. computer, how about a high spec. life?

Riiight:rolleyes:. So this is where the faith runs dry and personal attacks begin is it? Congratulations, you've successfully illustrated that you have no answers to my points.

Riiight:rolleyes:. So this is where the faith runs dry and personal attacks begin is it? Congratulations, you've successfully illustrated that you have no answers to my points.

So far you have minimised the horrors of Nazism by aligning them with our friends and neighbours.

Sigh. Yes Grahame but to people who live by the Christian code, Nazis can be lumped into the same group labelled 'Anti-Christian' with homosexuals, any woman in history who has had an abortion and couples who have sex outside of marriage.


And you have made light of the Roman Catholic Churches’ association with Hitler.

There has been plenty of comedy films based in and around WW2. Plus, this is picture and doesn't harm anybody. It simply illustrates the massive error in judgement by the Catholic Church to agree a concordat with Hitler. Its up there with Chamberlain's appeasement and airline peanuts.

I wonder why my faith in our future is on the wane when you make light of such serious issues.

So far you have minimised the horrors of Nazism by aligning them with our friends and neighbours.

Friends and neighbours? I'm quite sure that I don't know what you are talking about.


And you have made light of the Roman Catholic Churches’ association with Hitler.

Ah yes, again I point you in the door marked 'sense of humour' and ask you to walk through it. What you see as 'making light' and presumably mean 'not taking seriously', I see as making fun off. And if you can't make fun of Nazis and the Catholic Church, who must be responsible for the murder of tens of millions of innocents throughout history, then what can people make fun of?

I wonder why my faith in our future is on the wane when you make light of such serious issues.

Why are you worried? In all seriousness you must believe that you are going to heaven and I to hell. Why worry about the future, the 2nd coming will sort out that won't it?

The Nazis criticized the Christian.... Martin Bormann, ......

Boorman is a totally unreliable source.

Ref (http://nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm)

Why are you worried? In all seriousness you must believe that you are going to heaven and I to hell. Why worry about the future, the 2nd coming will sort out that won't it?

Have I missed the first coming??

Have I missed the first coming??

That is a good point. Can't have a 2nd without a 1st!

Boorman is a totally unreliable source.

Ref (http://nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm)

I was quoting the encyclopaedia Britannica.

How can one disrespect a nonentity?

Sorry, just had to bring this one back because I liked it. :hihi:

Friends and neighbours? I'm quite sure that I don't know what you are talking about.




Ah yes, again I point you in the door marked 'sense of humour' and ask you to walk through it. What you see as 'making light' and presumably mean 'not taking seriously', I see as making fun off. And if you can't make fun of Nazis and the Catholic Church, who must be responsible for the murder of tens of millions of innocents throughout history, then what can people make fun of?



Why are you worried? In all seriousness you must believe that you are going to heaven and I to hell. Why worry about the future, the 2nd coming will sort out that won't it?


Your lack of comprehension is amazing.

It isn't the end-timers we need to fear, but those who make light of the fall of nations.

I don't see how that is relevant but that happens daily anyway.

.

And once again you fail to explain what you are typing about. Is this like the Bible where I have to take some of the passages as fact and some as folk stories? Explain yourself clearly rather than spouting of random sentences that bring nothing to the debate.

Sorry, just had to bring this one back because I liked it. :hihi:

The nonentity in any scenario are those people who fail to perform in this life because not only do they fail themselves but they fail their generation and also the children coming up leaving them with a poor heritage.

And once again you fail to explain what you are typing about. Is this like the Bible where I have to take some of the passages as fact and some as folk stories? Explain yourself clearly rather than spouting of random sentences that bring nothing to the debate.

One day you will have responsibilities and I hope you take them more seriously than you are doing this conversation.

The nonentity in any scenario are those people who fail to perform in this life because not only do they fail themselves but they fail their generation and also the children coming up leaving them with a poor heritage.

The only person who can judge the value of someone's life is the individual living that actual life. At any rate, you point fails on not expanding what it is to 'preform'. What of people who do not have children? What do they owe to the future generation?

One day you will have responsibilities and I hope you take them more seriously than you are doing this conversation.

*Head-desk* You have once again ignored completly what I have said / asked and become a patronising preacher.:help:

Why don't you people who are not interested in Christianity just go home and watch TV instead of being so frustratingly annoying. Science par excellence. And mind numbingly boring.

Why don't you Christians get it either? - if your beliefs were right, we'd all believe in them! Simple, really. Why do you think so many of us don't believe? Because we're right and you're wrong... sorry! :)

The only person who can judge the value of someone's life is the individual living that actual life. At any rate, you point fails on not expanding what it is to 'preform'. What of people who do not have children? What do they owe to the future generation?

There are many great people who have gone down in the annuls of history, not on their assessment of their life but on other peoples, so lets just be proud of you eh and you reach for the sky? We never get there but if we get part way then we will all have done pretty well. :)

There are many great people who have gone down in the annuls of history, not on their assessment of their life but on other peoples, so lets just be proud of you eh and you reach for the sky? We never get there but if we get part way then we will all have done pretty well. :)

I'm sorry Grahame but can you please (without patronising) explain why that is relevant at all?

Why don't you Christians get it either? - if your beliefs were right, we'd all believe in them! Simple, really. Why do you think so many of us don't believe? Because we're right and you're wrong... sorry! :)

Beliefs in honesty, truthfulness, reliability, integrity, many many more thing that are lacking in society, these aren't the province of Christianity but all I see is selfishness, look after number one, go on the binge, have a good time, and I wont go on, but if you can't get Christianity, why can't you at least get the basics as one denomination would put it of "Being a good Christian." :)

I'm going to bed, and you stop attacking Christianity, because it is a jolly sight better than the regime we have been talking about. I can see no earthly reason why you should take delight in making fun of, and ridiculing something that has standards anyone can be proud of.

Good night.

I was quoting the encyclopaedia Britannica.

II know it is. But the reference (http://nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm) I provided appears more convincing. Have a look at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs) on his religious beliefs it comes to a the conclusion he thought of himself as christian, admittedly not a conventional one but a 'positive christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity)'.

Beliefs in honesty, truthfulness, reliability, integrity, many many more thing that are lacking in society, these aren't the province of Christianity but all I see is selfishness, look after number one, go on the binge, have a good time, and I wont go on, but if you can't get Christianity, why can't you at least get the basics as one denomination would put it of "Being a good Christian." :)

Mmmmm. Not quite sure how to answer that one, tbh. Maybe you could clarify?

II know it is. But the reference (http://nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm) I provided appears more convincing. Have alook at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs) that comes to a different conclusion to britannica as well.

I DO NOT CARE.

I DO NOT CARE.

And neither do I, to be honest. Geez (lol) Grahame, don't you ever get tired of being the Forum's token Christian? Or do you feel that you're flying the flag?

Maybe one day you'll stop to think that, out of 55,000 (or whatever it is now) people, it's possible, just possible, that you're the one out of line. Or do you think that you're the priviliged one?

Beliefs in honesty, truthfulness, reliability, integrity, many many more thing that are lacking in society, these aren't the province of Christianity but all I see is selfishness, look after number one, go on the binge, have a good time, and I wont go on, but if you can't get Christianity, why can't you at least get the basics as one denomination would put it of "Being a good Christian." :)

People are free to live their lives as they wish as long as they do not harm others. Being selfish does not harm others, neither does binge drinking and having a good time (I can't understand why you are against the last one). Why do you judge people who do the above? It does not harm you personally. If Christianity is right then why be bothered about them at all, this world is only a waiting room afterall before the pious get sent to paradise.

I'm going to bed, and you stop attacking Christianity, because it is a jolly sight better than the regime we have been talking about. I can see no earthly reason why you should take delight in making fun of, and ridiculing something that has standards anyone can be proud of.

Good night.

Yes, the teachings of Christ are certainly better than the ideas of Hitler. But this does not make Christ the son of God. It makes him a Jewish fellow who said obvious things.

I DO NOT CARE.

Caps lock says different.

People are free to live their lives as they wish as long as they do not harm others. Being selfish does not harm others, neither does binge drinking and having a good time (I can't understand why you are against the last one). Why do you judge people who do the above? It does not harm you personally. If Christianity is right then why be bothered about them at all, this world is only a waiting room afterall before the pious get sent to paradise.



Yes, the teachings of Christ are certainly better than the ideas of Hitler. But this does not make Christ the son of God. It makes him a Jewish fellow who said obvious things.



Caps lock says different.

Never mind the EU Is helping out.


[-] Text [+]
By Gilbert Reilhac
STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - Europe's main human rights body voted on Thursday to urge schools across the continent to firmly oppose the teaching of creationist and "intelligent design" views in their science classes.
The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.
The text said European schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion." It said the "intelligent design" view defended by some United States conservatives was an updated version of creationism.
Creationism says God made the world in six days as depicted in the Bible. Intelligent design argues some life forms are too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin's theory and needed an unnamed higher intelligence to develop as they have.
Anne Brasseur, an Assembly member from Luxembourg who updated an earlier draft resolution, said the report showed how creationists -- most recently a shadowy Turkish Muslim writer Harun Yahya -- were trying to infiltrate European schools.
"The purpose of this report is to warn against the attempt to pass off a belief -- creationism -- as a science and to teach the theses of this belief in science classes
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKL0417855220071004
YOUR QUOTE: National Institute of Justice



WEBSITE REFERRAL: http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKL0417855220071004

You said:


You said that whatever name people called it, they all worshipped the same God.

Sorry John you are wrong and you admit "The God of Abraham is not the same as these "gods."

The same with Allah. He is a different God from Jehovah.

It depends how you interpret the question.
Many worshippers believe in one God, supreme and unequalled, creator of the universe, without any other gods.
The "gods" whose names were quoted did not fulfil that definition; they were worshipped as members of a divine pantheon (OK tautology there).
"God" "YHWH" "Jehovah" "Andriamanitra" "le bon Dieu" "Unser Gott" are names given by worshippers who claim to have inherited from Abraham, to One supreme solitary only true God..
Which of these is NOT a name of the god of Abraham?
Now Moslems claim to worship the god of Abraham; in their language, they call him "Allah". Can you prove him not to be Abraham's god?

BTW, who was St Paul describing in the Areopagus? (Acts 17, 23)
Who was this "unknown God"? Paul seems to identify him with the god of Abraham, but why?

Never mind the EU Is helping out.


[-] Text [+]
By Gilbert Reilhac
STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - Europe's main human rights body voted on Thursday to urge schools across the continent to firmly oppose the teaching of creationist and "intelligent design" views in their science classes.
The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.
The text said European schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion." It said the "intelligent design" view defended by some United States conservatives was an updated version of creationism.
Creationism says God made the world in six days as depicted in the Bible. Intelligent design argues some life forms are too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin's theory and needed an unnamed higher intelligence to develop as they have.
Anne Brasseur, an Assembly member from Luxembourg who updated an earlier draft resolution, said the report showed how creationists -- most recently a shadowy Turkish Muslim writer Harun Yahya -- were trying to infiltrate European schools.
"The purpose of this report is to warn against the attempt to pass off a belief -- creationism -- as a science and to teach the theses of this belief in science classes
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKL0417855220071004
YOUR QUOTE: National Institute of Justice



WEBSITE REFERRAL: http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKL0417855220071004


Excellent stuff! It angers me so when tax payers money is used to partly fund faith schools.

It depends how you interpret the question.
Many worshippers believe in one God, supreme and unequalled, creator of the universe, without any other gods.
The "gods" whose names were quoted did not fulfil that definition; they were worshipped as members of a divine pantheon (OK tautology there).
"God" "YHWH" "Jehovah" "Andriamanitra" "le bon Dieu" "Unser Gott" are names given by worshippers who claim to have inherited from Abraham, to One supreme solitary only true God..
Which of these is NOT a name of the god of Abraham?
Now Moslems claim to worship the god of Abraham; in their language, they call him "Allah". Can you prove him not to be Abraham's god?

BTW, who was St Paul describing in the Areopagus? (Acts 17, 23)
Who was this "unknown God"? Paul seems to identify him with the god of Abraham, but why?


The Meads and Persians along with the astrologer Babylonians were the forerunners of today's Islamic culture. They worshipped the heavenly bodies including the moon while Daniel who worshipped Jehovah was thrown into the Lions Den simply because he did not worship the same God.

After Daniel survived his ordeal in the lions den King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwelt in all the earth: "Peace be multiplied to you. I make a decree, that in all my royal dominion people are to tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, enduring forever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end. He delivers and rescues; he works signs and wonders in heaven and on earth, he who has saved Daniel from the power of the lions."

So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian who along with their countrymen worshipped the moon god and not Jehovah the God of Daniel the Jews and Christians.

By the time of Mohammed the religion of Arabia had survived with little change save deterioration. It had many deities, of whom Allah was chief but was scarcely worshipped although the worship of natural objects, of stones, like the Kaabah, and of images flourished. Debased forms of Judaism and Christianity were also practised. Many Arabs, known as Hanitites, rejected these, as well as the native faith, holding to a simple monotheism and absolute submission to Allah. They also practised asceticism and meditation. Mohammed came in contact with all these faiths, and HIS doctrine developed out of them, particularly from Hanifis. Mohammed's originality lay in his putting monotheism on a firm foundation, proclaiming it as an absolute revelation, and making it the centre of his creed and worship. Muhammad reduced the many deities to the one god called Allah six hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ while at the same time writing his own Holy Book the Koran.

Another difference between Christians and Islam is that Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God while Muslims do not. Their god Allah had three daughters.

For Christians, "Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” If people deny Christ they deny the One True God and they worship a false god.

Again the Bible says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” Muslims say that Jesus was a prophet.

So here in Athens is the Apostle Paul who proclaimed the teaching of Jesus Christ and it was in Athens where he saw statues to the Greek gods, where the people to be on the safe side had included an alter to the “Unknown God” in addition to their other pagan gods who were:

Apollo God of music, prophecies, poetry, and archery.
Ares God of war and bloodshed.
Artemis Goddess of the hunt and wild things. Protector of the dewy young. She became associated with the moon.
Athena Goddess of wisdom, warfare, handicrafts and reason.
Demeter Goddess of fertility, grain, and harvest.
Dionysus God of wine, parties/festivals, and merriment.
Hephaestus God of fire and the forge.
Hera Goddess of marriage and love.
Hermes God of flight, thieves, and commerce.
Hestia Goddess of the hearth and home,
Poseidon God of the sea, horses and earthquakes.
Zeus King of the gods.


The legend to the unknown God was that there was a terrible plague in the city of Athens, and attempts to appease the gods and stop the plague had no effect. One of the wise men of the day brought a flock of sheep to the top of Mars Hill and released them. Wherever these sheep stopped, an altar was set up to an 'anonymous god' and the animal was sacrificed. This course of action was allegedly effective and the city returned to health, hence the alter to “An Unknown God.”


Returning from Mohammedanism and the Greek gods to Christianity, Paul the Apostle of Christ stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and began to tell them about the "God of Abraham" who he said is the one true God and He does not need to be unknown to you any more and with that he began to speak:

"Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Then using this as his theme the Apostle Paul continued to tell them about the one true God who was unknown to them and explains that their unknown God is the God of creation, He is the God who made the world and everything in it. He is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. Neither is he served by human hands because he is the one who gives all men life and breath and everything else…..

Paul goes on to tell us and the Greeks that: “God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being.'

Then, we would know him for the living God he is.

.

Excellent stuff! It angers me so when tax payers money is used to partly fund faith schools.

And it angers me when people are arrested for protesting against religions.

Fortunately the chap arrested with his “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult” banner has had the charges dropped against him. But it is frightening that the police acted the way they did in the first place. Ref (http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/free-speech-victory-as-charges-against-teen-anti-scientology-protestor-dro.shtml)

Excellent stuff! It angers me so when tax payers money is used to partly fund faith schools.

This is what I'm after, I would like those tax concessions stopped untill they stop telling lies from the pulpit. Also I did not like my children being taught those lies through the education system.
Religion in this country has always pimped off the public.

I would also like those 27 clergy removed from the House of Lords.

They have built their careers upon lies and pimping.

Walkman with no batteries. Walkman with batteries. You pray hard for them both to work...and when one does you attribute it to the praying.

But the fact is the batteries, not the praying, are responsible. Now, when you've got someone who denies this reality, it can become a bit of a pain in the arse. Hence 29 pages of the same old stuff.

Walkman with no batteries. Walkman with batteries. You pray hard for them both to work...and when one does you attribute it to the praying.

But the fact is the batteries, not the praying, are responsible. Now, when you've got someone who denies this reality, it can become a bit of a pain in the arse. Hence 29 pages of the same old stuff.

Why cant they Fink for themselves these religious folk, it wont cost them anything. I'm far to tight to let people fink for me:confused:
Am I fick or something.:help:

<some snipping>The Meads and Persians along with the astrologer Babylonians were the forerunners of today's Islamic culture. They worshipped the heavenly bodies including the moon while Daniel who worshipped Jehovah was thrown into the Lions Den simply because he did not worship their God.
Muslims worship the same god as the Medes, Persians and Babylonians who is not the God of Jews or Christians.

No we don't.

If we worship the Medean and Persian gods, then you, graham, worship the gods of the ancoent Britons, as I have explained before.

The muslims drove the pagans out of the area and destroyed the stone gods that the ancients there worshipped previously, and the Prophet (SAW) got some right royal flack for doing so, and he had to flee from Mecca to Medina.


So here we have people living in the birthplace of Islam worshipping a different god from Daniel. The Babylonians worshipped the moon god along with a multitude of other Gods. Muhammad reduced these to one god called Allah six hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ while at the same time writing his own Holy Book.

the time of daniel was a time of pagan worship, and happened long before islam was revealed to the Prophet(SAW).

Also Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God and Muslims do not which they won't anyway because they worship a different god who had three daughters.

which bit of my previous explanations were you unable to read, grahame?

We don't hold the belief that we do not believe Jesus was the son of god because of some "three daughters"... we do not believe that, because it is forbidden, as Idolatry and "shirk" to ascribe partners to God.

Also for Christians, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” If people deny Christ they deny the One True God and it is a false god they worship.

And again, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

that is the Christian belief, just like the Jewish belief is that the Lord God is one. folk are allowed to believe what they wish.

If I so wished, I could start a religion that believed the moon was made of green cheese, and a small tribe of wollen knitted creatures called Clangers lived on it, with their Soup-Dragon friend

So here in Athens is the Apostle Paul who proclaimed the teaching of Jesus Christ and it was in Athens where he saw statues to the Greek gods and where the people to be on the safe side had included an alter to the “Unknown God” in addition to their other pagan gods who were:

Apollo God of music, prophecies, poetry, and archery.
Ares God of war and bloodshed.
Artemis Goddess of the hunt and wild things. Protector of the dewy young. She became associated with the moon.
Athena Goddess of wisdom, warfare, handicrafts and reason.
Demeter Goddess of fertility, grain, and harvest.
Dionysus God of wine, parties/festivals, and merriment.
Hephaestus God of fire and the forge.
Hera Goddess of marriage and love.
Hermes God of flight, thieves, and commerce.
Hestia Goddess of the hearth and home,
Poseidon God of the sea, horses and earthquakes.
Zeus King of the gods.


The legend to the unknown God was that there was a terrible plague in the city of Athens, and attempts to appease the gods and stop the plague had no effect. One of the wise men of the day brought a flock of sheep to the top of Mars Hill and released them. Wherever these sheep stopped, an altar was set up to an 'anonymous god' and the animal was sacrificed. This course of action was allegedly effective and the city returned to health, hence the alter to “An Unknown God.”

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and began to tell them about the "God of Abraham" who he said is the true God and who does not need to be unknown to you any more and Paul begins to tell them about the one true God. He began by saying:

"Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Then using this as his theme the Apostle Paul continued to tell them about the one true God who was unknown to them and explains that their unknown God is the God of creation, He is the God who made the world and everything in it. He is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. Neither is he served by human hands because he is the one who gives all men life and breath and everything else…..

Paul goes on to tell us and the Greeks that: “God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being.'

Then we would know him for the living God he is.

And what difference would it have made if Paul The Apostle had gone around telling folk that this unknown god was the Flying Spaghetti Monster (TM)? all it was, is that paul saw an opening at that precise point to make a sales pitch/party political broadcast for the Yhwh party, and he seized that opportunity, like any good salesman.

I hope this works PT. I have done it this way for a reason. What I have done is that I have scanned one of my books and I think perhaps it would be nice if you read it. Ta.

I will be making some small changes by the way. Thanks.

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/GKirkby/Mohammed/photo#s5206783833080973138


You can pause the slide show while you read them and if you press F11 you get a full screen.

The Meads and Persians along with the astrologer Babylonians were the forerunners of today's Islamic culture. They worshipped the heavenly bodies including the moon while Daniel who worshipped Jehovah was thrown into the Lions Den simply because he did not worship the same
God.

<snip snip>

.

You're doing it again Grahame ...... No link to your copy and paste "wisdom". :hihi:

You're doing it again Grahame ...... No link to your copy and paste "wisdom". :hihi:

That is my own research.

That is my own research.

Research is best conducted with an open mind, Grahame.

With a closed mind the "contra" argument is a waste of valuable brainpower.

BTW, I'm pleased you took me off your "Ignore" List. ;)

We've been here before Grahame. And I'm sure it's time for your medication. ;)

Ok, so, you've scanned some offensive and innacurate pamphlet, rather than cutting and pasting from some offensive and innacurate website.... and?

It would help if you cited the source of the pamphlet, and when it was published. (it certainly seems as old as it is innacurate)

I mainly object to the title of the pamphlet:- "Mohammedanism", as most Muslims find that "Islam" being referred to, as such, offensive, as we do not worship Mohammed(SAW), though he is revered as a prophet.

Done that. It was wrongly titled and should have been the life of Mohammed, it has been corrected.

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/GKirkby/Mohammed/photo#s5206783833080973138


Here is a history of Islam.

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/GKirkby/HistoryOfIslam/photo#s5206815031723411410


And I thought it only right to include Christianity

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/GKirkby/Christianity/photo#s5206848468043810866

.

That is my own research.



Man created God/Allah, and made sophistry a way of life.j

Done that. It was wrongly titled and should have been the life of Mohammed, it has been corrected.

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/GKirkby/Mohammed/photo#s5206783833080973138


Here is a history of Islam.

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/GKirkby/HistoryOfIslam/photo#s5206815031723411410


And I thought it only right to include Christianity

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/GKirkby/Christianity/photo#s5206848468043810866

.

All very interesting but it doesn't prove anything. I could give you a link to the Lord of the Rings novel but it doesn't mean that it is the history of the world.

Did the Babylonians live "in the birthplace of Islam"?
It looks like a very long walk (or camel ride) from Ancient Babylon to mecca and Medina.
Or did I miss the trip to Babylon taken by the prophet before he announced his revelations?

..............................

Did the Babylonians live "in the birthplace of Islam"?
It looks like a very long walk (or camel ride) from Ancient Babylon to mecca and Medina.
Or did I miss the trip to Babylon taken by the prophet before he announced his revelations?

Babylon is modern Iraq and is close to Jerusalem.

http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre00maps.html#babylon


These are just for interest

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus.php


http://www.atlastours.net/iraq/babylon.html

When its the final day, the truth will be revealed.

How do you know there will be a 'final day'?

Why not build a statues of The Archbishop of Canterbury and put it somewhere prominant in Sheffield city centre. Then people could either admire it or not as they felt fit.

Babylon is modern Iraq and are close to Jerusalem.

http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre00maps.html#babylon

Why do you insist on linking to biased christianity websites to (fail to) prove your case?

Can you not use unbiased sites or something?

Maybe you should try wikipedia instead..

Why not build a statues of The Archbishop of Canterbury and put it somewhere prominant in Sheffield city centre. Then people could either admire it or not as they felt fit.

Men can do nothing. In God I trust.

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?....Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

(Romans chapter 8.)

Why do you insist on linking to biased christianity websites to (fail to) prove your case?

Can you not use unbiased sites or something?

Maybe you should try wikipedia instead..

Any map of the ancient world will do. But I will tell you what the more you study it the more you realise how true the Bible is. Look at the top map here and look at all the countries, it's all there.

http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre00maps.html#babylon

But surley the A of C is God's representative on earth.

Grahame - what is your view of moral laxity? Personally I quite fancy a bit.

Men can do nothing. In God I trust.

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?....Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

(Romans chapter 8.)

"Gandalf looked at Aragorn, and then, to the surprise of the others,
he lifted the covered Stone, and bowed as he presented it.
"Receive it, lord!" he said:
"in earnest of other things that shall be given back.
But if I may counsel you in the use of your own, do not use it - yet!
Be wary!"

JRR Tolkien: Lord of the Rings- Return of the King. My point being that anyone can quote a book but that it doesn't actually make any valid point.

"Gandalf looked at Aragorn, and then, to the surprise of the others,
he lifted the covered Stone, and bowed as he presented it.
"Receive it, lord!" he said:
"in earnest of other things that shall be given back.
But if I may counsel you in the use of your own, do not use it - yet!
Be wary!"

JRR Tolkien: Lord of the Rings- Return of the King. My point being that anyone can quote a book but that it doesn't actually make any valid point.

No contest, the Bible is historically accurate, while I haven't known you to say a true word yet.

No contest, the Bible is historically accurate, while I haven't known you to say a true word yet.

A book that claims that Jesus was the son of God has the same amount of evidence to back it up as the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. You are, of course, free to believe what is the 'truth' but I (and reality) deals in facts not truths. You may believe Jesus was the son of God but without any facts then you might as well believe that you can fly.

the more you study it the more you realise how true the Bible is

Whereas I have found the reverse to be the case (and, please remember, I have read the bible in it's entirety - faith school, Sunday school, church 3 times each week for about 9 years... the whole caboodle, and reject it outright).

Graham - seriously do you want to spoil other people enjoying loose morals or do you take a more enlightened view?

A book that claims that Jesus was the son of God has the same amount of evidence to back it up as the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. You are, of course, free to believe what is the 'truth' but I (and reality) deals in facts not truths. You may believe Jesus was the son of God but without any facts then you might as well believe that you can fly.

We are still talking about Jesus 2000 years on, I can't imagine we will be talking about Gandalf in 2000 years time.

Graham - seriously do you want to spoil other people enjoying loose morals or do you take a more enlightened view?

You do what you want sid, just don't blame the consequences on God, you are entirely responsible for your own destiny.

Whereas I have found the reverse to be the case (and, please remember, I have read the bible in it's entirety - faith school, Sunday school, church 3 times each week for about 9 years... the whole caboodle, and reject it outright).

Perhaps we ought to talk?

You do what you want sid, just don't blame the consequences on God, you are entirely responsible for your own destiny.

Hopefully the consequences will be enjoyable so there will be no-one to balme for anything.