Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[kurious_kathy]

Trusting people without knowing them and whether they are deserving of trust is stupid. But I need no god to inform me of that.

Knowing people takes time, but trusting them may never be possible. And I'm not saying we are to go around not trusting either. People are fallable and mess up even when sometimes it's by accident. They don't mean to hurt you, or your feelings, but they certainly can and do quite often.

So it's okay with you that the man, the real man, I described above is a minister now?

I don't know this person but from what you've shared he sounds suspicious on whether he is the real deal. And even if he is a real believer, it doesn't mean he's called to be a pastor. God's the one that tells us to check our faith and our motivations. If someone is pastoring a church for the wrong reasons then I feel sorry for them. They could very well be one of those wolves we are warned to stay clear of.

It's okay with you that he bought a piece of paper off the Internet for $50 that says he's a minister, and that's all he's got in the way of credentials?

Well I can't say that sounds right, but God knows if his motivations aren't right. If he's not called of God to serve the way he wants to, then he should possibly step down and re-evaluate his calling or faith. If his congregation has grown and there seems to be good fruit in his congregation then perhaps God really has given him a gift to preach? I don't know him so I can't make that call clearly. We are told to test the fruit and what each pastor preaches to see if He does teach the word correctly.

It's okay with you that he owns his own church, a real church, with pews and an organ and hymnals and collection plates?

What church is his church? If you don't want to say I understand. All I know there are many false teachers out there and we are taught in scripture to beware.

It's okay with you that he has never told a soul here about his past, never confessed his sins, and that everyone who trusts him now can do so only because he's been dishonest with them--the opposite of "trustworthy?"

Well if he hasn't confessed his sins then Jesus can't forgive him. Are you sure he's never confessed and asked for forgiveness of his sin? That would definitely say he's a phoney to me. People need to be brutely honest with themselves and others to be right with eachother and God. I hope he confesses and mostly to you. If he never asked you for forgiveness then that's a pretty strong inclination that his heart isn't right. If anyone thinks God can be mocked they are sorely mistaken.

Well, hey, it is apparently all right with God, so who am I to question his obvious good taste in shepherds, hmmm?

Don't judge God by your ex. God and him are not the same people. If he's a phoney then God will have his time to confront him. I myself wonder why God allows so many of the preachers we know that are teaching heresies are even aloud to keep going out there in ministry? No matter what we can choose to call them out if they are heretical teachers and tell them so. I know lots of people don't like Hank at CRI because that's his specialty. Hey sling why not contact Hank and ask him to check out your ex's church and teaching, it could prove quite interesting.

You can trust God exactly as you can trust Santa Claus.

I'd rather place my limited and highly guarded trust in real flesh-and-blood people I can see. And whom I can sue if they screw me over. When "God" screws you over, there's no recourse.

No sling, Santa and God aren't the same either. God is very much real. And I understand some of your pain, I have certainly gone through things that are painful too, but I still know God is who He says He is, LOVE. Accept no substitutes, there is only one that loves you so much he was willing to die for you. He loves you and wants to spend eternity with you, but it's your choice.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Are you married?

Do you know the "rules"?:

1) The wife is always right.
2) When the wife is wrong, see rule #1.

God is God. Whatever position He takes is "right", even if Mrs. Huntster doesn't think so (yup; He even trumps Her..................)

See, this is tipping your hand. You're really an atheist playacting at being a theist. All us married guys know that our wimmin could trump God. If for no other reason than proximity.

You misunderstand.

All us married guys know that our wimmin continually try to trump God.

The problem is that they think they're successful, because they trump us.

Cliff Clavin told me once that women knew the way to a man's soul was through his stomach immediately after Eve figured it out with Adam with a simple apple:

Here. Eat this.

And the damned fool ate it........

 

[Paulhoff]

What does that have to do with it?

With her way of thinking, everything. She knows everything about what her so-called idea of a god does and or doesn't do, gee, just like it comes right out of her brain.

Paul

 

[The Atheist]

And the damned fool ate it........

Now you have finally got to the crux of my beef with G-d!

HE made MAN in HIS image. HE blew the first breath into HIS lungs with HIS own, divine breath.

She was made from a spare rib.

The MAN lived a blameless life, until SHE tempted him to eat, typical gullible bitch that she was (can ya say bitch?) after getting talked into it by a talking snake?!?!?! Had The Big Fella left some salvia divornum in the cabbage patch?

So, the MAN ate of the food that his dumb harlot hath given him.

And G-d was verily pissed off!

So, the MAN liveth a shorter life, is susceptible to more diseases, gets shipped off to wars and the woman lives till she's 100.

No way is god a bloke. I'm going to hell.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
What does that have to do with it?

With her way of thinking, everything. She knows everything about what her so-called idea of a god does and or doesn't do....

What? Do you know more about "her so-called idea" than she does?

You can't seem to read the written word of the Bible, but you can read minds?

....gee, just like it comes right out of her brain.

Would you prefer her thoughts came right our of your brain?

 

[Tricky]

Who am I to question what God allowed or allows in my life? He's in control, not me.

This is exactly what I mean. How can you possibly say God will not let you down when you expect absolutely nothing of Him? Anything He allows is okay with you.

Suppose, for example, you bought a car and it didn't work. Would you expect the seller to make it work or to return your money? Of course you would. But with God, you would just say, "Who am I to question why God sold me this defective car? He's in control, not me."

And He has pulled me through pretty well so far.

He has not pulled you through any better or any worse than a person of a different religion or of no religion. Perhaps you feel better for believing in Him, but you still have had good things and bad things happen to you, just like everybody else.

We all make choices and sometimes that means consequences as well. For me I can tell others I have learned from my painful past that the deeds of the flesh or living worldly truly can and do catch up with a person. Gods grace and mercy showed me the way to trun my life and my will over to his care. I no longer live my life to please myself, but I want to please and serve God.

Yes, choices have consequences. We all know that. But what you are suggesting is that these consequences affect us even after we are dead. For some reasons, you find that comforting and for some reasons, I don't. But none of it has anything to do with objective, verifiable reality. I'm glad you find comfort where you can. I do wish you wouldn't try to imply to others that they should do the same. Not everybody finds comfort the same way you do, just as you would not find comfort believing in pagan gods. I don't mind you having your faith and beliefs. It is your insistance that your beliefs are right and that everyone else's are wrong that is insulting and hurtful. I wish your concept of God did not tell you to be insulting and hurtful because it makes everybody sad. It makes you sad because we don't believe you and it makes us sad because we don't like being told we are bad people.

Why can't you be more like Huntster or Mr. Clingford who, though they have firm beliefs, don't feel that they have to inflict them on others?

Better to become a friend of God than to be His enemy.

I am not God's enemy. I don't believe in God. I cannot be the enemy of an imaginary being.

People don't realize we are on the wrong side of right without Christ. He's the one that saves us from our three enemies. Do you remember what Christianity teaches are our three main enemies? Let me refresh your memory if you have forgotten...
The world, the flesh, and the devil. We fight battles with all three constantly.

The world is our enemy? That is totally ridiculous. The world a mixture of good and bad. Your church is part of the world. Is it your enemy?

Flesh is our enemy? Where would you be without flesh? You wouldn't exist if your parents had not had sex. If God thinks we are better off without flesh (or the world) then why would they exist?

The devil? According to your religion, God created the devil. If so, He must have had a reason to do so. Are you telling me that God made our enemies?

The truth for Christians is we know we can't win the battle for our soul, only Christ can. That's why we know what scripture teaches us is true, "Greater is He that is in me, than he that is in the world."

That is not truth (see my earlier comments on the usage of that word) that is belief. But if you truly believe that you can't win the battle, then why even bother to fight? What is the point if Christ is the only one who can do anything to win the battle?

You see, your religion, as you practice it, make lots of silly and contradicting statements just like the one you just made. It is no wonder that people who actually listen to what you say think you are, to say the least, misguided.

I reiterate, Kathy, you really should go to some boards where your preaching is appreciated as the rhetoric it is. Here, where people actually listen to and analyze what you say, it will not be accepted. This is not the place for you, Kathy. It will not bring you peace. We are not sheep. Don't try sell us on your shepherd.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Huh.

I just got suspended for a week for "casually" using a "casual" term referring to feces.

That word (which I will not repeat) can be found defined here.

I used it properly (according to it's defined meaning), even if casually.

Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when an important term in an argument is used in two (or sometimes more) senses. An example might be:

Why is it okay to kill time but not to kill people?​

Here the word "kill" is being used in two different ways: the first time it is employed as a figure of speech, where "killing time" means to use up some spare moments in one way or another; in the second it takes on a more specific meaning, the kind we normally associate with it. The person asking the question has confused these, so that something else we could ask with the word would mean different things depending on which sense we adopted. For instance, we could inquire, "how did you kill time?" and "how did you kill the person?" The first would give us a reply that describes an action and could be all manner of things; the second, though, would have to specifically be about the way in which someone was murdered. Asking the question, then, shows a misunderstanding in the use of the word.
In general, we can tell if someone has equivocated by finding a term used in two or more contexts, such that its meaning in one is different than in the other(s). Take another instance:

My school is supposed to provide free tuition but I've seen restrictions in the lessons I've attended.​

This time the word "free" has been implicitly equivocated, with it meaning "free of charge" in the first instance but "free of restrictions" in the second, resulting in a confused argument. If we set it out again, this time removing the problematic term and replacing it with synonyms, we might get the following:

P1: Tuition at my school does not cost students any money;
P2: There are restrictions on course content, etc;
C: Therefore, the tuition does cost money after all.​

The conclusion does not follow and the error is plain to see. Rewriting an argument in this way is sometimes the best way to note (or to demonstrate) that an equivocation has occurred.

http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#equivocation

 

[Tricky]

Are you married?

Do you know the "rules"?:

1) The wife is always right.
2) When the wife is wrong, see rule #1.

Ah yes, one of my favorite jokes. Usually the word is "boss" not "wife", but humorously, I often refer to Ms. Tricky as "The Boss".

God is God. Whatever position He takes is "right", even if Mrs. Huntster doesn't think so (yup; He even trumps Her..................)

Then I definitely don't want to play cards with God. He sounds like a terrible cheater.

 

[Paulhoff]

What? Do you know more about "her so-called idea" than she does?

Well, you seem to be reading my brain, you tell me what I'm thinking.

Paul



I'll wait, but not for long.

 

[Huntster]

...(can ya say bitch?) ...

I don't know, but if not, I'll see ya' later.

I'll miss you..............

Now you have finally got to the crux of my beef with G-d!

HE made MAN in HIS image. HE blew the first breath into HIS lungs with HIS own, divine breath.

She was made from a spare rib.

The MAN lived a blameless life, until SHE tempted him to eat, typical gullible bitch that she was......after getting talked into it by a talking snake?!?!?! Had The Big Fella left some salvia divornum in the cabbage patch?

So, the MAN ate of the food that his dumb harlot hath given him.

Yeah, He tested the man to the extreme, and the man (probably hungry, and in the morning before he had a cup of joe) fell for it.

So, the MAN liveth a shorter life, is susceptible to more diseases, gets shipped off to wars and the woman lives till she's 100.

No way is god a bloke. I'm going to hell.

Don't forget that women bitch more than men do, too.

Oh, oh! I wrote it!

Maybe we're both going on vacation!?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
What? Do you know more about "her so-called idea" than she does?

Well, you seem to be reading my brain, you think me what I'm thinking.

Did you see the question marks in my sentences?

(Just in case you didn't, I embolded them. If you don't know what a question mark is, I can't help you.)

Do you think in questions?

 

[Tricky]

Note: God will never actually let you down because he (or she) never promises anything.
When I was a christian, God never promised jack all to me.

Me neither. God himself never said a blooming word to me. But lots of people told me He had made a bunch of promises. They were written down in their favorite book.

And welcome to the boards, Sybarite. I hope you find much luxury and pleasure here.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Who am I to question what God allowed or allows in my life? He's in control, not me.

And He has pulled me through pretty well so far. We all make choices and sometimes that means consequences as well. For me I can tell others I have learned from my painful past that the deeds of the flesh or living worldly truly can and do catch up with a person. Gods grace and mercy showed me the way to trun my life and my will over to his care. I no longer live my life to please myself, but I want to please and serve God.

No. This smacks of both a shirking of responsibility and a cry of vicitimization complex. You are in control of your life. Some outside factors to your life you may not have control over, but how you react to them, and what choices you make are yours.

Better to become a friend of God than to be His enemy. People don't realize we are on the wrong side of right without Christ.

Ah yes, if you can't sucker them with sweets, threaten them with some nebuluous doooom.

He's the one that saves us from our three enemies. Do you remember what Christianity teaches are our three main enemies? Let me refresh your memory if you have forgotten...
The world, the flesh, and the devil. We fight battles with all three constantly.

The world is an enemy? No wonder you have so much trouble accepting that things just are and that things can happen to you without it being some karmic style repurcussion.
The flesh? A falsely created line in the sand, set up by cult gurus to help control their followers.
The devil? A mythical creation whom modern Christians, such as yourself, don't even know the history of beyond what the bible-belt spewing evangelists of the US spout from their Sunday pulpet.

The truth for Christians is we know we can't win the battle for our soul, only Christ can. That's why we know what scripture teaches us is true, "Greater is He that is in me, than he that is in the world."

Sounds no different than the drek put forth by Koresh, Manson, or Jones.

 

[Paulhoff]

Did you see the question marks in my sentences?

She always posts what her so-called god thinks and does.

Paul

 

[Huntster]

She always posts what her so-called god thinks and does.

And you always post that God doesn't exist.

So?

 

[Paulhoff]

Bye, this didn't take long.

 

[Tricky]

(Not to me, but hey, it's a forum. I'll reply to anything I like.)

Apparently you don't "got it".

"Being good because it's the right thing to do" as defined by whom? You?

Yep. Defined by me. I am in charge of my own morality. I kinda like it that way. Do you prefere having somebody tell you right from wrong? What happens if you disagree?

Somebody else might not consider that so "good" (as clearly outlined in this forum).

Indeed. This forum clearly reflects that there is a lot of difference in what people consider "good" (especially if you go to the politics forum.) I think a quick glance at the various religions and indeed any aspect of humanity will demonstrate that such disagreements are far from uncommon.

And if you "do this or you're in trouble", you might find yourself in trouble anyway, right?

Yep. Look at Job.

So just what is it you've "got"?

I might guess that, like so many others, he's grasped yet another internal contradiction in your beliefs.

Convinced:

Playing the dictionary game again, Huntster? Why didn't you choose the "to prove or find guilty" one?

So does your lack of "belief, agreement, consent, or a course of action" make you more or less "good" than me?

Depends on whose moral system we are using. By my moral system, my lack of belief in the Christian God makes me more "good" than you. By yours, just the opposite.

I'll happily defend my moral system with the best tools I have, which are evidence, logic and reason. You probably use those too, but you also throw in faith. I think that is a mistake, because faith is a wild card. Unlike evidence, logic and reason, it can be used to defend anything.

 

[Huntster]

Bye, this didn't take long.

Bye.

Did you get suspended, too?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And you always post that God doesn't exist.

So?

Those are no where near analagous and you know it. That Paulhoff says there is no God is nowheres near claiming, not only there is one, but to know what that God thinks and does.

 

[Paulhoff]

Thank-you

Paul