Who's going to protect the Christians?

[MrSmith]

You haven't proved anything, just reaffirmed what you thought, again.

 

 

 

No but the countless links by countless different posters that take you to external sites which contain the evidence does.

 

Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't make you right.

 

I've had enough now, you may continue

 

 

You are deluding yourself again, and as I have pointed out countless time, it would be better if you ignored me since you rarely understand what I type.

[Lockjaw]

Why are you getting irate,

 

Hmm... Why do you think I'm becoming irate?

 

Grrrrr

 

Oh, I see. Projection.

 

 

 

You asked him why christians need protecting from halal meat, i pointed out that he/she said they are Jewish therefore they kill the meat in exactly the same way as muslims and he/she won't be able to come up with an answer.

 

and

 

I am saying Richie will not be able to come up with a reason either. Am I talking a different language here?

 

You seem to be reading in a different language.

 

Regardless of whether he does or doesn't have his meat Halal or Kosher, it does not in any way detract from the fact he feels Christians need protecting from it.

 

That being the case he must, logically, believe it will harm them (unless he's talking nonsense, of course, but that remains to be seen). I wish to know how and why he thinks it will harm them.

 

Of course, I didn't ask you, I asked him. Perhaps a lie down will help dispel your anger.

 

---------- Post added 19-02-2013 at 19:10 ----------

 

You are deluding yourself again, and as I have pointed out countless time, it would be better if you ignored me since you rarely understand what I type.

 

Seems a lot of otherwise very intelligent people have that same problem.

 

Here y'are.

 

HTH

[harvey19]

A very simple solution to all this is to decide whatever made/started/created the universe is called God.

We all agree something started it all off but none know what it was.

[PaliRichard]

Seems a lot of otherwise very intelligent people have that same problem.

 

Here y'are.

 

HTH

 

:hihi:

 

and just in case I didn't make myself clear

 

:hihi:

 

That loosened a stool

 

---------- Post added 19-02-2013 at 20:46 ----------

 

A very simple solution to all this is to decide whatever made/started/created the universe is called God.

We all agree something started it all off but none know what it was.

 

It's not entirely a simple solution as many of us on here (or in fact most, as most of us don't put any weight behind the bizarre and philosophically flawed ignostic position) do have some notion of what 'God' is and either reject it outright or have a lack of belief in it.

[harvey19]

It's not entirely a simple solution as many of us on here (or in fact most, as most of us don't put any weight behind the bizarre and philosophically flawed ignostic position) do have some notion of what 'God' is and either reject it outright or have a lack of belief in it.

 

I appreciate your point but something must have started off the universe and so whatever it was, chemical reaction, God whatever why not just use the word God to describe this phenomena.

[MrSmith]

It's not entirely a simple solution as many of us on here (or in fact most, as most of us don't put any weight behind the bizarre and philosophically flawed ignostic position) do have some notion of what 'God' is and either reject it outright or have a lack of belief in it.

 

Where does that notion come from?

How can an agnostic think God is unknowable yet have a notion of what it is?

How can an agnostic think nothing can be known of the nature of God yet know enough about God to come to that conclusion?

[PaliRichard]

It's not entirely a simple solution as many of us on here (or in fact most, as most of us don't put any weight behind the bizarre and philosophically flawed ignostic position) do have some notion of what 'God' is and either reject it outright or have a lack of belief in it.

 

I appreciate your point but something must have started off the universe and so whatever it was, chemical reaction, God whatever why not just use the word God to describe this phenomena.

 

As explained above. The word 'God' has connotations contrary to the evidence. For many people it simply wouldn't be accurate. Incedentally some people do call it God, for those people that's fine, but to insist everyone adopt the term would be akin to insisting we all call 'cars' motorcycles.

[harvey19]

I appreciate your point but something must have started off the universe and so whatever it was, chemical reaction, God whatever why not just use the word God to describe this phenomena.

 

As explained above. The word 'God' has connotations contrary to the evidence. For many people it simply wouldn't be accurate. Incedentally some people do call it God, for those people that's fine, but to insist everyone adopt the term would be akin to insisting we all call 'cars' motorcycles.

 

If I relate this to the Gay Marriage thread where there doesn't appear to many posters any problem with changing the accepted understanding of the word marriage why not do the same here ?

 

---------- Post added 19-02-2013 at 21:14 ----------

 

Just for clarification the quotes in the above posts have been credited to the wrong people.

[PaliRichard]

If I relate this to the Gay Marriage thread where there doesn't appear to many posters any problem with changing the accepted understanding of the word marriage why not do the same here ?

 

Because it's entirely different. Marriage has always evolved, no one is changing the meaning of the word 'marriage', just accepting it's been 'tweaked' as it has been many times.

 

As, however, those who provide us with the meaning of the word 'God' are generally believers in that (or those) God(s), and most people have a defined understanding of what that God is based on those meanings given by believers then simply changing the accepted meaning entirely (and somewhat out of context in most (with the possible exception of the Hindu interpretation) cases) makes no sense.

 

As I said it is akin to calling cars motorcycles, whereas the 'marriage' thread, to use the same simile, would be like the evolution of the car over time - it is entirely different.

[harvey19]

Because it's entirely different. Marriage has always evolved, no one is changing the meaning of the word 'marriage', just accepting it's been 'tweaked' as it has been many times.

 

As, however, those who provide us with the meaning of the word 'God' are generally believers in that (or those) God(s), and most people have a defined understanding of what that God is based on those meanings given by believers then simply changing the accepted meaning entirely (and somewhat out of context in most (with the possible exception of the Hindu interpretation) cases) makes no sense.

 

As I said it is akin to calling cars motorcycles, whereas the 'marriage' thread, to use the same simile, would be like the evolution of the car over time - it is entirely different.

 

I accept your points and after thought realised the impossibility of it.