Women Bishops ?
28 November 2012, 04:26 PM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it isn’t and it isn’t going to be.
I’m not sure why you’re pretending we haven’t met on here before.
It’s called multi-tasking, Les.
I’m able to act and think at the same time - broad, deep and, above all, independent thought.
I realise that to a mind as narrow and shallow as yours that must seem quite astonishing.
I’m not sure why you’re pretending we haven’t met on here before.
It’s called multi-tasking, Les.
I’m able to act and think at the same time - broad, deep and, above all, independent thought.
I realise that to a mind as narrow and shallow as yours that must seem quite astonishing.
Personally I just don't think you are worth bothering about.
Les
28 November 2012, 05:21 PM
#92
Hi, @SRSport,
I’m glad you stayed with us and I hope the debate has not been the usual puerile stuff you’re used to getting. Please don’t take offence by my reply, it’s not intended.
According to Greek mythology, in c1400 BC, before his ships set sail in the Trojan war Agamemnon, King of Mycenae (Greece to us) sacrifices one of his innocent virgin daughters, Iphianassa to ensure his army’s success against the Trojans. He does it to show his love for his country and so the gods would to guarantee a successful war.
According to the Bible, in Roman times c33 AD, God loved the world so much, he goes one better and sacrifices his only son in a blood sacrifice to saved mankind and make man live forever. [John 3.16 et al]
Would you be promoting the first act as a good thing to do?
Whether, by myth or ‘holy’ book I can not understand why anyone would want to promote or condone child (or adult) blood sacrifice or why anyone would offer it as a fit example or act of wondrous goodness. This is the type of act would probably have gone down well in ancient, desert, nomadic thinking, though.
Jimmy Saville (spit) was a tireless active fund-raiser, raising £millions for good charitable causes for many years. But if he were around today, no-one would want anything to do with him.
Today we don’t consider it to be acceptable to be really good most of the time but really cruel and bad the rest of the time.
We’d shun anyone who behaved like that by a mile, wouldn’t we?
I’m glad you stayed with us and I hope the debate has not been the usual puerile stuff you’re used to getting. Please don’t take offence by my reply, it’s not intended.
According to Greek mythology, in c1400 BC, before his ships set sail in the Trojan war Agamemnon, King of Mycenae (Greece to us) sacrifices one of his innocent virgin daughters, Iphianassa to ensure his army’s success against the Trojans. He does it to show his love for his country and so the gods would to guarantee a successful war.
According to the Bible, in Roman times c33 AD, God loved the world so much, he goes one better and sacrifices his only son in a blood sacrifice to saved mankind and make man live forever. [John 3.16 et al]
Would you be promoting the first act as a good thing to do?
Whether, by myth or ‘holy’ book I can not understand why anyone would want to promote or condone child (or adult) blood sacrifice or why anyone would offer it as a fit example or act of wondrous goodness. This is the type of act would probably have gone down well in ancient, desert, nomadic thinking, though.
Jimmy Saville (spit) was a tireless active fund-raiser, raising £millions for good charitable causes for many years. But if he were around today, no-one would want anything to do with him.
Today we don’t consider it to be acceptable to be really good most of the time but really cruel and bad the rest of the time.
We’d shun anyone who behaved like that by a mile, wouldn’t we?
28 November 2012, 05:55 PM
#93
But it's rude of you to refer to my fully developed, wide ranging, obsessive prejudices as "somewhat biased".
So, maybe on second thoughts ....
28 November 2012, 06:41 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
The objective although similar is different. One is to benefit the immediate, physical safety of people the other is eternal spirit of billions.
When talking about God there is far too much focus on the short term, physical consequences of actions and not much on the spiritual. There are many comparisons given in the Bible between the spirit which endures forever and the flesh which will perish (in the grand scheme of time) very quickly. Gods concern is first and foremost for our spiritual wellbeing although this is not to say that he ignores or does not value our physical needs as I have on many occasions witnessed.
When talking about God there is far too much focus on the short term, physical consequences of actions and not much on the spiritual. There are many comparisons given in the Bible between the spirit which endures forever and the flesh which will perish (in the grand scheme of time) very quickly. Gods concern is first and foremost for our spiritual wellbeing although this is not to say that he ignores or does not value our physical needs as I have on many occasions witnessed.
28 November 2012, 08:05 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
The objective although similar is different. One is to benefit the immediate, physical safety of people the other is eternal spirit of billions.
When talking about God there is far too much focus on the short term, physical consequences of actions and not much on the spiritual. There are many comparisons given in the Bible between the spirit which endures forever and the flesh which will perish (in the grand scheme of time) very quickly. Gods concern is first and foremost for our spiritual wellbeing although this is not to say that he ignores or does not value our physical needs as I have on many occasions witnessed.
When talking about God there is far too much focus on the short term, physical consequences of actions and not much on the spiritual. There are many comparisons given in the Bible between the spirit which endures forever and the flesh which will perish (in the grand scheme of time) very quickly. Gods concern is first and foremost for our spiritual wellbeing although this is not to say that he ignores or does not value our physical needs as I have on many occasions witnessed.
and conversely SouthwalesSam will not
29 November 2012, 01:34 AM
#100
That work stops the system of that being from decaying and falling apart - even though the being does nothing other than exist.
To do work requires energy and you have to source that energy from somewhere, somehow and using energy produces by-products.
We use our bodies (flesh as you prefer) as an energy processor to support our state of being. When our body dies, we die.
But the Bible says my body must perish but my spirit can break apart and exist independently and unaided and smash the known (thermodynamics) laws of the universe. (ref: The Uncaged Monkey, ***, B)
Good scientists know we have only theories, as although we continue to question, we don’t have all the answers. But we know for sure that we have more answers than the Bible when it comes to ‘laws’ of the natural universe.
However, the Bible and its believers need no such modesty or need for question.
It took 400 years for the Vatican to apologise for excommunicating Galileo for heresy when he dared to contradict the Bible and support Copernicus' theory that the Earth went round the Sun.
Given the Bible’s poor track record on its attempts to explain the natural universe, you’ll understand my reluctance to accept its explanations of how things are going to work in the supernatural multiverse.
29 November 2012, 01:51 AM
#101
But I’ll not turn up hammering on Heaven’s Gate like Roy Batty arriving at Tyrell Corp, as fortunately I have no overwhelming need to live forever.
I don’t hanker to hang around long enough to see “attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion, [or] watch c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate”.
I’m happy just to have been, and to have passed on some values to my children...
... and I’ll be content, even though “all [my] moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.” (ref: Well, you know……!)
29 November 2012, 07:07 AM
#102
Scooby Regular
but according to the bible -- and christian teaching, it is my understanding that they will be welcome into the kingdom of heaven, if they ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus in their lives (and it is this that is central to Christianity)
does God put a limit on the number of times this forgiveness can be asked for and given?
consider the Parable of the smoker, who knows smoking is damaging his body and killing him
He hates himself for smoking – but needs help and understanding to repair his damaged body for being so stupid
He ask the magical doctor in the sky for help every night – who hearing his plea magically fixes his damaged body
The next morning the smoker is truly grateful, but because he is weak willed (and starting with a “healthy” body) smokes all day untill teh evening
Repeat the above ad infinitum (and replace smoking with any vice you like, including sex with children)
the catholic church seem to have institutionalised this, in the form of the confessional
a sort of moral reboot every week -- a mechanism, using the central teaching of Christianity (as described above) that allows people to abdicate their human responsibility to one another - to a mythical being in the sky
the total antitheses to humanity
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 29 November 2012 at 10:18 AM.
29 November 2012, 11:40 AM
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@JTaylor
Q. Can you distinguish between the conceptual and the literal?
A. No, Not in the religious sense. If God, or the Biblical description of his nature and his works are concepts how can that align to (for example) the belief in the power of prayer? Can a conceptual being / ideaset quite literally deliver?
Q. Are you familiar with the notion of a spirituality that in no way diminishes material, objective truth, but which nourishes the soul and allows for the subjective?
A. No, I am aware of my body and my mind. I haven’t found my soul so it’s not an area I can go to or opine on.
Q. How do you define the soul?
A. I don’t and I’m not aware that I need to.
Q.What's your position regarding Hegel's omniscient narrator or kierkegaard's assertion that faith is the highest virtue?
A. I don’t hold one. I have not read Hegel or Kierkegaard. But my aversion to 18th Christian philosophers is that they propounded, exposed and examined their ideas inside the impregnable perimeter fence of cast iron certainty of the existence of God that pertained at the time. As an atheist that’s an enclosure I wouldn’t venture to step inside.
Q. How do you define faith?
A. Not given. I wouldn’t dare. It’s personal to each and every believer. Though I’d tiptoe across this minefield by saying I agree with the first part in St Paul’s definition: “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. Though I’d dispute the second part as it’s not evidence at all (that why it’s faith), it’s (just?) belief. Though as I’ve said, I have a view on its effects though.
Don’t know if that helps but thanks for checking anyway.
Q. Can you distinguish between the conceptual and the literal?
A. No, Not in the religious sense. If God, or the Biblical description of his nature and his works are concepts how can that align to (for example) the belief in the power of prayer? Can a conceptual being / ideaset quite literally deliver?
Q. Are you familiar with the notion of a spirituality that in no way diminishes material, objective truth, but which nourishes the soul and allows for the subjective?
A. No, I am aware of my body and my mind. I haven’t found my soul so it’s not an area I can go to or opine on.
Q. How do you define the soul?
A. I don’t and I’m not aware that I need to.
Q.What's your position regarding Hegel's omniscient narrator or kierkegaard's assertion that faith is the highest virtue?
A. I don’t hold one. I have not read Hegel or Kierkegaard. But my aversion to 18th Christian philosophers is that they propounded, exposed and examined their ideas inside the impregnable perimeter fence of cast iron certainty of the existence of God that pertained at the time. As an atheist that’s an enclosure I wouldn’t venture to step inside.
Q. How do you define faith?
A. Not given. I wouldn’t dare. It’s personal to each and every believer. Though I’d tiptoe across this minefield by saying I agree with the first part in St Paul’s definition: “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. Though I’d dispute the second part as it’s not evidence at all (that why it’s faith), it’s (just?) belief. Though as I’ve said, I have a view on its effects though.
Don’t know if that helps but thanks for checking anyway.
Last edited by JTaylor; 29 November 2012 at 11:48 AM. Reason: Modify the post.
29 November 2012, 03:01 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it so much easier and more relaxing to just make up my own mind about my personal beliefs and I really cannot be bothered to try to make others think the same way.
I reserve the right to defend my own way of thinking however when under attack.
Les
I reserve the right to defend my own way of thinking however when under attack.
Les
14 July 2014, 06:11 PM
#105
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 July 2014, 09:46 PM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Tractor
ScoobyNet General
3
28 July 2001 11:14 AM