ChatterBank1 min ago
I am leaving the site for a while. Why?
129 Answers
This is supposed to be an R & S section. However until the editor decides to do something about the obvious prejudice displayed by some, this cannot be a genuine site for discussion on religion.
In my experience I have found that people who say nasty things are generally nasty people.
In my experience I have found that people who say nasty things are generally nasty people.
Answers
If you would like this section to be about your religion, then you must ask a question about it. Your questions are often charged with the intention of having the very debate you're now having a flounce about.
If you'd asked something like "Why was Lazarus returned from the grave?" or "What fundamental differences can we draw from the 5 pillars of Islam vs...
If you'd asked something like "Why was Lazarus returned from the grave?" or "What fundamental differences can we draw from the 5 pillars of Islam vs...
09:53 Thu 22nd Nov 2012
I thought that perhaps goodlife had nominated the Ed for 'Best Answer' in order to have him on side for when he/she reappears in AB.
However, now that the Ed has confessed to having been responsible for a self nomination of 'Best Answer' it means that he is in a position to mark anyone as such. Consequently, this throws the whole matter of 'Best Answer' as open to Editorial intervention and is Not to be applauded.
Ron.
However, now that the Ed has confessed to having been responsible for a self nomination of 'Best Answer' it means that he is in a position to mark anyone as such. Consequently, this throws the whole matter of 'Best Answer' as open to Editorial intervention and is Not to be applauded.
Ron.
vivandorron
Are you suggesting that the Ed is God ?
Ron
15:18 Thu 22nd Nov 2012
Within His sphere of influence, who would dispute it? Let's just hope He's more merciful than the other bloke. ;o)
But no, I'm not suggesting Their one in the same. That wouldn't be a fair accusation to make on anyone. It was inspired by the preceding comments but it was mainly addressed to 'goodlife' with regards to their (albeit noncommittal) leave of absence.
What I mean by the quote, (ripped from Roger Waters) is that to the extent God actually exists (in the mind of the believer) God is what is made of Him, in the image of those whose minds create Him. May they all get what they have coming to them.
Are you suggesting that the Ed is God ?
Ron
15:18 Thu 22nd Nov 2012
Within His sphere of influence, who would dispute it? Let's just hope He's more merciful than the other bloke. ;o)
But no, I'm not suggesting Their one in the same. That wouldn't be a fair accusation to make on anyone. It was inspired by the preceding comments but it was mainly addressed to 'goodlife' with regards to their (albeit noncommittal) leave of absence.
What I mean by the quote, (ripped from Roger Waters) is that to the extent God actually exists (in the mind of the believer) God is what is made of Him, in the image of those whose minds create Him. May they all get what they have coming to them.
Perhaps he'll leave kindling for the other fireplace > http
I would love to say "reconsider", goodlife, because generally speaking when people with opposing views pack up and go, it reduces the quality of the debate. But in your case, we are unlikely to see any such effect - quite the reverse, if anything.
Your posts were never about discussion, nor were they open for a proper debate. It was cut and paste evangelism, drive-by proselytising. Your post stinks of special pleading and censorship.
Each post you initiated was clearly designed as an attempt by you to promote a lesson from the holy book of myth, and your whining here shows that what you really wanted was a bunch of compliant recipients, gathered around in breathless anticipation of your next pearl of wisdom.
Each post followed a similar pattern - recite a little homily -preaching dressed up as a life question. Praise for those that agreed with some element of what you said, and generally ignored those raising questions about the validity of your faith by offering another unattributed, often opaque cut and paste parable.
When you did attempt to engage in proper debate,it became clear very rapidly that you were typical of the evangelical poster that we have seen here over the years - willing to make unsubstantiated claims and strawman statements about important scientific principles like evolution, without any evidence to support your contention, and demonstrating a willful lack of knowledge about even remedial science.
Unattributed cut and paste posts are a lazy and intellectually dishonest way of entering into a debate. Ignoring rebuttals in favour of posting more, usually tangential propositions even more so.
But your finest hour, bar none - the epitome of what you were reduced to when stung into making an honest response - your single best argument for believing in god, according to you, was Pascals Wager - a notion that has been derided as being one of the more pathetic and logically risible arguments over the last few centuries.
Is there a merit badge for alienating potential recruits? A medal for persistent cut and pasting? Your efforts should have earned you a chestful, if so.
So, au revoir goodlife - not goodbye, because I suspect you share the zombie -like qualities of the JW cult - shambling and shuffling,dangerous only if allowed too close, outdated, irrelevant - dead, but the corpse is still kicking still firing off those autonomic reflexes.....
goodlife has left the building - thank you very much.........
Your posts were never about discussion, nor were they open for a proper debate. It was cut and paste evangelism, drive-by proselytising. Your post stinks of special pleading and censorship.
Each post you initiated was clearly designed as an attempt by you to promote a lesson from the holy book of myth, and your whining here shows that what you really wanted was a bunch of compliant recipients, gathered around in breathless anticipation of your next pearl of wisdom.
Each post followed a similar pattern - recite a little homily -preaching dressed up as a life question. Praise for those that agreed with some element of what you said, and generally ignored those raising questions about the validity of your faith by offering another unattributed, often opaque cut and paste parable.
When you did attempt to engage in proper debate,it became clear very rapidly that you were typical of the evangelical poster that we have seen here over the years - willing to make unsubstantiated claims and strawman statements about important scientific principles like evolution, without any evidence to support your contention, and demonstrating a willful lack of knowledge about even remedial science.
Unattributed cut and paste posts are a lazy and intellectually dishonest way of entering into a debate. Ignoring rebuttals in favour of posting more, usually tangential propositions even more so.
But your finest hour, bar none - the epitome of what you were reduced to when stung into making an honest response - your single best argument for believing in god, according to you, was Pascals Wager - a notion that has been derided as being one of the more pathetic and logically risible arguments over the last few centuries.
Is there a merit badge for alienating potential recruits? A medal for persistent cut and pasting? Your efforts should have earned you a chestful, if so.
So, au revoir goodlife - not goodbye, because I suspect you share the zombie -like qualities of the JW cult - shambling and shuffling,dangerous only if allowed too close, outdated, irrelevant - dead, but the corpse is still kicking still firing off those autonomic reflexes.....
goodlife has left the building - thank you very much.........
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
