Grahame Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 This is the same argument that Al Qaida used to justify crashing two planes into the world trade centre on 9/11 "Get out of Iraq or suffer the consequences" I don't agree with them or you. Wasn't it man who said that Waldershelf? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Siddall Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 You were wrong about what? oh lots of things, but in the context of that message i was just trying to say how hard it is for some people to say 'I was wrong' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbo Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I have not changed anything, look at your original post. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5014795&postcount=1688 Grahame, please look at your post number 1590, and you will see at the foot the following words "Last edited by Grahame; 13-05-2009 at 14:01." So, you clearly DID amend your post by changing the wording! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I will skip the bit about quarks without rising to the bait, so i am by admission, ignoring the main point of your post. If we can try and get over that, I'll pick up on something else at the risk of manufacturing more strawmen (i have quite a collection now) and loosing more red herrings into the river Fallacy (and if i must choose one of the above, i'll go for intellectual bankrupcy..) Even if i dedicated some serious time to understanding the tight, factual, intellectually bloated modes of communication that are deemed acceptible and models of honesty by debators on threads like this, there would still be no place for the...heart of what I live and believe, because the... heart of what i believe rests in a god whos existence is not provable. So it's game over for me really. But I am interested in how you guys have come to think they way you do. I find it quite extreem, and spiritually stifling, but it brings you satisfaction somehow. I do understand that radically living out what you see to be true is satisfying, and congruent, but it can mean that you become blind to life and truth that exists outside it, this as always is totally fine unless it harms some one else. What is your take on that? Well I think it's a load of pretentious nonsense.Do you think that your view on reality is a healthy one, for example, to bring up children in?Yes, the healthiest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 oh lots of things, but in the context of that message i was just trying to say how hard it is for some people to say 'I was wrong' yeah that's what I figured, I thought I might've missed something major for a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 This was pointed out by a retired Anglican medical missionary, Marian Sherman, who said last fall: “I became an atheist very largely because of the terrible suffering of Indian women who had never done anything to deserve it. How could an all-loving God allow this to happen? And we’ve had two ghastly world wars. It just doesn’t make sense.” Not a few persons reason this way. A loving God, they feel, would not allow human suffering; and since suffering exists, they conclude, there must not be a God who is loving. Is this conclusion justified? No, it is not. The existence of wickedness and the suffering it has brought to mankind does not arbitrarily rule that a God of love does not exist. Such a view overlooks entirely man’s responsibility. It is like a patient who ignores a doctor’s instructions, and then denies the existence of the doctor because he is suffering. Or it is like a machinist who refuses to follow the manufacturer’s advice, and then, when his tools do not function properly, denies that the manufacturer exists. In such cases it would be foolish to question the existence of a compassionate doctor or a skilled manufacturer. The individual himself is to blame for the suffering and trouble. It is similar with mankind today. The inspired Scriptures show that Jehovah God created the first human pair perfect, with the prospect of enjoying life in an earthly paradise as long as they lived. This provision was an evidence of God’s love. But when mankind refused to follow God’s instructions, they suffered the consequences. This did not mean a loving God does not exist. God had warned them in advance what would happen; so it was man, not God, that was responsible for the suffering, sickness and death that followed.—Gen. 1:27, 28; Deut. 32:4, 5; Eccl. 7:29. True, it would not be loving to allow this suffering to continue indefinitely. And this God has no intention of doing. Human wickedness and suffering have been tolerated only because an issue was raised in the garden of Eden. One of God’s spirit creatures, identified in the Bible as Satan the Devil, influenced the first human pair, Adam and Eve, to disobey God. This called into question God’s creatorship and his justice in demanding obedience as a condition for life and yet seemingly not creating man with the capability of remaining loyal to God. So God has allowed a set period of time to settle this question of whether men can remain faithful under test. This period is now about up. Very soon Satan and all the human suffering he has been responsible for will be eliminated. It is the loving Creator who will provide this relief by ushering obedient mankind into a righteous new system of things.—2*Pet. 3:13; Rev. 12:12. And when did this all begin and how did it happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Grahame still waiting for you to name one, just one of these "unbelieving atheists" that voted against these God fearing Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Please read what i've said again in context. I believe you've misunderstood what I am saying. God is a loving creator who does not agree with Al Qaida. You don't know that. And that's certainly not how he's described in the bible. In fact it is just as likely that the God they worship exists and he wants us all dead than it is that your god exists. The solution for the oppressed of the earth is not in resorting to acts of terrorism but in the fulfillment of God’s sure promiseAl Qaida agree, with you, they just want to kill us both in order to acheive God's will. What evidence have you that your religion is any more valid than theirs? This promise of God will soon be fulfilled. His ruler, the resurrected Jesus Christ, will see to that. Yes, God’s Son Jesus Christ will soon eliminate all injustice, as well as those responsible for it. In God’s righteous new system, terrorism and violence of every kind will be things of the past. Then everyone on earth will live in security, free from fear of any harm.—Revelation 21:3,*4. Great, I'll put on my 'Jesus is coming... Look busy' T-shirt to warn people:thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 And when did this all begin and how did it happen... Magic Man done it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Grahame, please look at your post number 1590, and you will see at the foot the following words "Last edited by Grahame; 13-05-2009 at 14:01." So, you clearly DID amend your post by changing the wording! Original post - Quote: Originally Posted by Grahame Bible slaves were well looked after and protected and their lifestyle can in no way be compared to modern slavery which Christians stopped while the atheists argued for keeping slavery. Amended post - Quote: Originally Posted by Grahame Bible slaves were well looked after and protected and their lifestyle can in no way be compared to modern slavery which Christians stopped while it was the non-Christian atheists who argued to keep people in enslavement. They both say the same thing. What is your problem redrobbo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.