(April 29, 2013 at 12:31 pm)Tex Wrote: You already know the basic Christian system of an uncaused causer that cares for what it causes, a human person with both material and immaterial components, that very same uncaused causer humbling himself unto death in order to redeem us from our own frailty, and desiring us to embrace the grace offered so that we may live life how it was intended.

All this talk of an uncaused causer reminds me of Muslim Scholar's proof of [his] god...
Do you also assume there's some sort of time which is not a part of the Universe's space-time, because at t=0, there is no before time, so no way to have some causation of time... which would require time before time.... arghhh... my head hurts just to think of it.

(April 29, 2013 at 4:12 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 29, 2013 at 1:36 am)Godschild Wrote: You could not have believed as I do or you would not have rejected Christ, this is simply and necessarily true.

Boy, I'm glad you're around to let us all know who is and isn't a Scotsman, GC!

There's a worrying close-mindedness about this kind of response from you, but I don't think you really care, either. You've designated yourself as in possession of the one truth of the universe, after all.

Well worry right on, I'm not close minded, you've decided that Ryantology believed in the same way as I do, just exactly how can you possibly know this. I know Christ in a way that will keep me from ever rejecting Him. Ryan reject Christ, so how does this make his belief the same as mine. The One Truth of the universe is where my knowledge of Christ comes from, so I've designated nothing, and if you had read all I stated you would have seen that I believe there is no hierarchy in Christianity unless God places one higher than another, and as far as I know i'm on a level or maybe lower with many others.
Tell me, why do you worry so much about how those who rejected Christ believed? I would think it would make you happy that their faith was not strong enough to hold to Christ.

You know, it's lucky you stated upfront how not closed-minded you are, because I wouldn't have been able to spot it among the rest of what you said there.

(April 29, 2013 at 1:30 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(April 29, 2013 at 1:36 am)Godschild Wrote: You could not have believed as I do or you would not have rejected Christ, this is simply and necessarily true.

No it isn't, it's nonsense.

What you're basically doing there is elevating yourself to the moral high ground (which is imagined) over Ryan by appealing to the lowest common denominator; that you're right and everything that conflicts with you is necessarily wrong. This, based on nothing but emotive reasoning and a level of indoctrination that can only be guessed.

Speaking on behalf (but not for, an important distinction) of everyone who has both sought to and managed to disassociate themselves from the religion that they were taught to follow, just, fuck you man. It's views such as the one that you propagate in your post above that leads to be people being branded apostates and ostracized, maybe even killed, for not believing in the same deity as their peers around them.

Not often do I swear at posters, but here I think it's totally warranted.

Where did I say I was on higher moral ground, you sure assume a lot from one short statement. As far as I'm right and Ryantology is wrong, God will decide which is correct. If you can't speak for them then why speak at all. My view is what I know and if he had believed as I do he would have never rejected Christ, it would have been impossible.
That is a pathetic excuse for cursing at someone.

---

(April 29, 2013 at 3:32 pm)Stimbo Wrote: You know, it's lucky you stated upfront how not closed-minded you are, because I wouldn't have been able to spot it among the rest of what you said there.

That's because your hat is squeezing on your head so hard it's squeezed the sense out of you.

(April 29, 2013 at 3:18 pm)Godschild Wrote: Well worry right on, I'm not close minded, you've decided that Ryantology believed in the same way as I do, just exactly how can you possibly know this. I know Christ in a way that will keep me from ever rejecting Him. Ryan reject Christ, so how does this make his belief the same as mine. The One Truth of the universe is where my knowledge of Christ comes from, so I've designated nothing, and if you had read all I stated you would have seen that I believe there is no hierarchy in Christianity unless God places one higher than another, and as far as I know i'm on a level or maybe lower with many others.
Tell me, why do you worry so much about how those who rejected Christ believed? I would think it would make you happy that their faith was not strong enough to hold to Christ.

I don't think I did believe in quite the same way as you did. I never took the Bible for literal fact. I treated much of it as metaphor. But, the way in which I believed made me certain, ten years ago, that I would never reject Christ. To see myself at 30 would have horrified me at 20.

The reason why I was Christian for as long as I was, was that I had never had my faith sufficiently challenged by the real world and real life. I never thought much about what sort of character God was, for those who mentored me in my church made a point not to focus much on that. It could just boil down you being indoctrinated more thoroughly and for much longer than I was. In any case, my exposure to reality brought all of my religious beliefs into question, and once that happened, I no longer feared analyzing my faith critically. It came to pass that I discovered a vast emptiness in the entire Christian message underneath the theology and apologetics I had accepted more or less without question. These are questions you have either never asked about your faith, out of ingrained devotion and fear of retribution from your god, or you might just be so convinced that you have the right answer that you feel it is a waste of time to find out for sure.

Either way, you are right. You believe in a mindless, robotic way, executing your programming no matter what, saying, thinking and doing exactly what you think God wants. I believed in a naive, accepting way, because people I respected told me this was the truth, but that could only last as long as my naivety held out. As reason is the enemy of faith, perhaps I was doomed all along while your faith would never be endangered.

But, you cannot say that you did it right and I did it wrong, just because you got the result you wanted, because I was looking for the right answer, more than the answer I wanted to be right (though, I did want that answer to be right). From God, I got no answer. So, either God refuses to answer anybody who might ask critical questions (even before those questions are asked), or he's just not there to answer anything. It's pretty obvious to me, now, which of those is the correct answer.

(April 29, 2013 at 3:33 pm)Godschild Wrote: Where did I say I was on higher moral ground, you sure assume a lot from one short statement.

You don't say much of anything, but if your repeated pontificating and grandstanding reveals anything, it's the nature of your faux sincerity and the fact you seem to get off on telling people "where [your version of god] will judge them/us" and how you appear to be above everyone else in the revelation that has been supposedly bestowed upon you.

"I spoke to god today"

No, no you didn't.

(April 29, 2013 at 3:33 pm)Godschild Wrote: As far as I'm right and Ryantology is wrong, God will decide which is correct.

There you go again. Fairy tales deserve to be laughed at.

(April 29, 2013 at 3:33 pm)Godschild Wrote: If you can't speak for them then why speak at all.

Because I'm not arrogant enough to presume to speak on behalf of anyone who hasn't bestowed legitimate authority upon me.

(April 29, 2013 at 3:33 pm)Godschild Wrote: My view is what I know and if he had believed as I do he would have never rejected Christ, it would have been impossible.

Tripe, utter tripe.

(April 29, 2013 at 3:33 pm)Godschild Wrote: That is a pathetic excuse for cursing at someone.

I thank you for your critique. However, I wasn't 'cursing you', I was swearing at you. There's a subtle difference. Perhaps consult your bible?

You are the epitome of why attempting to reason with people who are unreasonable is an act of futility. I'm glad that here in the UK we're slowing beginning to demolish the structures that endorse and actively promote people to become automatons such as yourself. It's taken the best part of 3 centuries, but we're finally beginning to evolve beyond the need for silliness and irrational religious beliefs.

(April 29, 2013 at 3:33 pm)Godschild Wrote: That's because your hat is squeezing on your head so hard it's squeezed the sense out of you.

By Zeus GC, Min is really rubbing on ya, I could've sworn if I hadn't looked at the avatar and username...

(April 29, 2013 at 1:51 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 29, 2013 at 12:31 pm)Tex Wrote: You already know the basic Christian system of an uncaused causer that cares for what it causes, a human person with both material and immaterial components, that very same uncaused causer humbling himself unto death in order to redeem us from our own frailty, and desiring us to embrace the grace offered so that we may live life how it was intended.

All this talk of an uncaused causer reminds me of Muslim Scholar's proof of [his] god...
Do you also assume there's some sort of time which is not a part of the Universe's space-time, because at t=0, there is no before time, so no way to have some causation of time... which would require time before time.... arghhh... my head hurts just to think of it.

Time is not used in my proof. I actually criticized Muslim_Scholar for using Aristotle's proof wrong on page 9 or 10 or something.

(April 29, 2013 at 4:51 pm)Tex Wrote:

(April 29, 2013 at 1:51 pm)pocaracas Wrote: All this talk of an uncaused causer reminds me of Muslim Scholar's proof of [his] god...
Do you also assume there's some sort of time which is not a part of the Universe's space-time, because at t=0, there is no before time, so no way to have some causation of time... which would require time before time.... arghhh... my head hurts just to think of it.

Time is not used in my proof. I actually criticized Muslim_Scholar for using Aristotle's proof wrong on page 9 or 10 or something.

That was you? good show, then!

If you don't use time, then what do you use?... if you've already type it here somewhere, could you just put the link to there, please?

It's basically the correct way to use the cosmological argument in the only way that is impossible to misunderstand. When I talk about Existence itself, no one can say "well that's the big bang, fucktard". It's just off the wall enough that its hard to intentionally skew, but not crazy enough that I'm doing mental gymnastics. I do it like this:

The universe exists.
The universe does not exist under it's own power.
There is a foreign power to the universe that causes existence.

Ad infinitum unless this foreign power doesn't need a cause for being. Being/Existence itself doesn't need a cause for existence because, well, it is that very same.