(April 20, 2013 at 2:02 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

(April 20, 2013 at 12:36 pm)Love Wrote: It is not anything to do with not being able to tolerate personal attacks or aggressiveness, but more to do with my wish to focus on having, dare I say it, "rational" and civilised conversations as opposed to wasting time on what I perceive to be futile and petty "oneupmanship" exchanges.

Again, in the interests of full disclosure, how do you expect to have a rational and civilized discussion when your only response has been to say PHILOSOPHY to anyone who disagrees with you? You do not discuss your side at all. You declare is it is correct because of PHILOSOPHY.

Why do you consider that rational much less civilized?

If there were instead of discussion of computers and you contributed something that made no sense and your response were solely I AM A COMPUTER SCIENTIST that would be an exact analogy to you have been doing.

At this point your claims to anonymity can no longer be attributed to mere paranoia.

BTW I googled matt giwer bs physics 1967 who is me which is no secret at all and got http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.ph...0-p-3.html as the first hit. If you ctrl-f on physics you find my verifiable credentials. You can also search groups.google.com in general and soc.history.ancient in particular and find the evolution of my ideas bibleland since 1995. (To all readers -- all very boring stuff.)

What conceivably is your secret?

With all due respect, you're starting to creep me out somewhat.

Erm, I think I will leave it at that.

(April 20, 2013 at 2:11 pm)Love Wrote:

(April 20, 2013 at 2:02 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Again, in the interests of full disclosure, how do you expect to have a rational and civilized discussion when your only response has been to say PHILOSOPHY to anyone who disagrees with you? You do not discuss your side at all. You declare is it is correct because of PHILOSOPHY.

Why do you consider that rational much less civilized?

If there were instead of discussion of computers and you contributed something that made no sense and your response were solely I AM A COMPUTER SCIENTIST that would be an exact analogy to you have been doing.

At this point your claims to anonymity can no longer be attributed to mere paranoia.

BTW I googled matt giwer bs physics 1967 who is me which is no secret at all and got http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.ph...0-p-3.html as the first hit. If you ctrl-f on physics you find my verifiable credentials. You can also search groups.google.com in general and soc.history.ancient in particular and find the evolution of my ideas bibleland since 1995. (To all readers -- all very boring stuff.)

What conceivably is your secret?

With all due respect, you're starting to creep me out somewhat.

Erm, I think I will leave it at that.

And here I thought I don't get no respect.

Love, what I was interested in knowing didn't require philosophy. Therefore, as I don't give a shit about it, I dismissed it. I happen to think people should all be interested in plants, but you don't have to be interested in botany to answer all questions, so I don't insist on it. You and I will just have to disagree about philosophy. Again, it doesn't make me ignorant and lazy.

BTW, even if you think something is very important, even is your passion, if you can't qualify it as a career or job, it sorta does fall under ”pet hobby." Photography is mine.

(April 20, 2013 at 11:55 am)LastPoet Wrote: Usually, when someone posts something to me, I ignore the outrage feelings if there is an insult, and adress the argument instead of feeling insulted. To alot of theists, its the easy way out, as they can diverge from their original point and focus on how victimized they feel.

To be fair, the latest one to get really butthurt was in fact an atheist, so it's not exclusive to theists

---

(April 20, 2013 at 2:51 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: BTW, even if you think something is very important, even is your passion, if you can't qualify it as a career or job, it sorta does fall under ”pet hobby." Photography is mine.

Yeah, I agree with Summer, it doesn't work that way.

(April 20, 2013 at 12:33 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: But as I pointed out; if you value philosophy so much, I truly wonder why in god's name [my wit, it knows no bounds] you chose Christianity of all things. That'd be like me, the guy who loves bacon, partying, drinking, smoking, and making love going and becoming a fundamentalist muslim...and still doing all those things.

Now to your question about Christianity.

I have researched Christian theology and, indeed, the history of Christianity. As I have repeated on a number of occasions, I am not interested in religious dogma, scripture (The Bible is absolute nonsense to me) or anything of that nature; I would certainly be considered a heretic by many orthodox adherents. I am much more concerned with Jesus as a historical figure, his consciousness and, indeed, the remarkable impact he had on those around him. Whilst reading the writings from Alister McGrath about theology, I was quite surprised to discover the actual evolution of early Christianity in the first few centuries after the Roman Empire adopted it as its official religion. From what I have read about the actual historical (not theological) teachings of Jesus, he did not preach anything about original sin or redemptive sacrifice; the core messages were very simple: "love" and "charity". Original sin and dying our sins (which I think are grotesque ideas), were superfluous ideas grafted on to the embryonic dogmatic system of Roman Catholicism.

I think many people do not understand how revolutionary the ideas that Jesus taught (love each other and be charitable) were at the time. Human beings were treated like cattle during that period, and I truly believe that Jesus and his ideas literally transformed civilisation.

I think the most amazing thing a person can do is to be selfless and to be kind, loving and charitable to others. I think the people who do this kind thing are vastly more impressive than those who are self-serving. I am working on being more charitable and loving towards others; I do my bit, but I could do more.

(April 20, 2013 at 3:06 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: To be fair, the latest one to get really butthurt was in fact an atheist, so it's not exclusive to theists

Ah yes, I am well aware of that. Too bad, I guess I'm just that much of an ass. Its sad that such a proeminent member gone into a dramatic pridefull meltdown. Some people can't deal with being antagonized.

I am truly sad about that and expected much more. Alas, I am not here to please, just to be true to myself. Can't be friends with all I guess...

Why do you need to label yourself a Christian for that?

(April 20, 2013 at 4:33 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Alas, I am not here to please, just to be true to myself. Can't be friends with all I guess...

And I don't think anything more can be expected of anyone.

(April 20, 2013 at 2:51 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Love, what I was interested in knowing didn't require philosophy. Therefore, as I don't give a shit about it, I dismissed it. I happen to think people should all be interested in plants, but you don't have to be interested in botany to answer all questions, so I don't insist on it. You and I will just have to disagree about philosophy. Again, it doesn't make me ignorant and lazy.

BTW, even if you think something is very important, even is your passion, if you can't qualify it as a career or job, it sorta does fall under ”pet hobby." Photography is mine.

Okay, I apologise for calling you ignorant and lazy. Regarding philosophy, I feel that in order to answer your questions thoroughly, I needed to include alternatives to rationalism. However, I agree with you that we should agree to disagree.

I think photography is cool, although I am completely inept in this area of works. I am one of those that simply enjoys looking at high definition photographs (of natural beauty).

---

(April 20, 2013 at 4:33 pm)Joel Wrote: Why do you need to label yourself a Christian for that?

Because I think dogmatic Christianity is completely false, and I want to spread the message of what I believe Christianity really is all about. I am certainly with the atheists concerning the myths surrounding The Bible, original sin, redemptive sacrifice, ten commandments et cetera, and I am also very skeptical about the historicity of the resurrection.

(April 20, 2013 at 4:35 pm)Love Wrote:

(April 20, 2013 at 4:33 pm)Joel Wrote: Why do you need to label yourself a Christian for that?

Because I think dogmatic Christianity is completely false, and I want to spread the message of what I believe Christianity really is all about. I am certainly with the atheists concerning the myths surrounding The Bible, original sin, redemptive sacrifice, ten commandments et cetera, and I am also very skeptical about the historicity of the resurrection.

I also think that, assuming Jesus was a real person, a lot of the things he taught were good things. But I think they were already good things: not good just because he taught them.
I work 'goodness' into my life, and a lot of people I know see that. I just don't understand why you must ascribe that label to yourself when it's not conventional Christianity.
Whether or not you believe it's original Christianity, couldn't you do all this without that and show that what people believe Christianity to be - is not necessary?

To me, you just sound like a 'good' atheist - not a Christian.