Zombrex wrote: » Given that on this forum we have had people defending slavery, I don't defend slavery ... I abhorr it ... in all it's modern manifestations as well as its historical ones. We are free-willed Human Beings and each of us are the equal of any man or woman. calling for science to be altered to allow Creationism, This is off-topic on this thread explaining to women why submission to men is a good thing for them, ... submission by women to men in general isn't a good thing ... but in a loving respectful relationship, like Christian Marriage, I find that my wife submits to my every desire ... and she enjoys doing so !!!:D saying how homosexual relationships are not equivalent in love to heterosexual ones and detailing how transgender people are sick (and that is what I can think of from the last month), Everyone to their own ... on this one. I think if the worst atheists do to you is laugh at you consider yourself lucky ... but ye don't just laugh ... ye are very prejudicial in the unfounded nasty comments that ye make ... and ye show every sign of supporting and following through on blatant discrimination against Christians. ... for example what is behind your veiled threat that Christians should consider themselves lucky if ye only laugh at them ... what are you saying will happen them ... if they aren't lucky??
Fanny Cradock wrote: » OK, it's my last try at this. I understand that you think my argument is based on circular reasoning. And I would agree with you if I was making an argument for miracles and this argument took the form of - if A then B therefore A. But I was doing nothing of the sort. Remember, the conversation between tommy and myself was a conversation between two theists. When I replied to tommy I didn't argue for miracles because the presupposition that miracles happen was implicit in the conversation. Given this presupposition we went on to discuss how miracles could be classified. I questioned whether a miracle would not qualify - at least in some manner - as empirical evidence because it could potentially be observed and measured. That's all. The fact that you totally discount miracles and therefore any evidence of them is of no interest to the discussion tommy and myself had. I wasn't attempting to justify the reality of miracles to a sceptic. I was talking with someone who already believe that miracles happen about another issue. I've actually spent more time defending myself against an argument I didn't make then I have talked about the one I did.
J C wrote: » I find that my wife submits to my every desire ... and she enjoys doing so !!!
Zombrex wrote: » Charming
Zombrex wrote: » JC there is a whole load of unanswered questions put to you on the Creationist thread, maybe you should go back to trolling responding there, you wouldn't want to keep your adoring fans waiting.
J C wrote: » ... you should try it sometime!!!:) This is off topic here ... and I'm over here to discuss the Existence of God ... ... I also see that ye are just as hapless in your arguments against God here, as ye are in your 'arguments' over there.:):D
Zombrex wrote: » Well yes, your ritual abuse of your wife has me stumped.
J C wrote: » ... when did submission to my every loving desire by my wife, suddenly become 'ritual abuse'? I did say that she also enjoyed it. ... so what's your problem? Are you some kind of latter-day 'puritan' that sees 'abuse' in every interaction between people ... even within a loving Christian Marriage? ... wouldn't it be ironic to have just shaken off the puritanism of 20th Century Ireland ... only to have it replaced with an even more virulent secular version in the 21st century? In many ways, the pseudo-liberals of today are more intolerant of opposing opinions and just as vociferous in their condemnations as any conservative 1950's Irish Parish Priest ever was!! ... and they are much more likely to use the full force of law to impose their PC viewpoints.
Zombrex wrote: » Groan. All I can say is obvious troll is obvious.
lazygal wrote: » To whom are you referring? Would your faith not sustain you through criticism, rather than needing to 'unleash profanity' on those who express different views? What did Jesus do when his faith was challenged by non believers?
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » I'm very open to others. I just become frustrated when people mock and deride the church. In Ireland these people for the most were raised Christian and have now turned their back on it, that's fine we all have free will but they shouldn't then abuse and belittle those who stay. It's petty behaviour.
Leinsterr wrote: » Before I get shouted down, I must say that I strongly believe that there is no god. If other people want to believe in a god, good for them, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. If they achieve inner fulfillment from believing in a god and are peaceful to one another, then that's just fine. However, the followers of religion have caused so much pain to this world that I can't see that there can be a god. I'm not saying that athiests haven't harmed anyone but not to the scale of religious nutjobs (a small minority of religious people). Also, I can pick up any random book and say this explains life and that a particular character is god if I apply the same criteria that the church has done. Therefore, i believe that there is no god
Morbert wrote: » To re-emphasise the point above: The rules of QM always apply, even at the classical level. They just predict what classical mechanics predicts. What is controversial about the Copenhagen interpretation from a mathematical perspective is it postulates one rule for an unobserved quantum system, and another rule for an observed system. Modern physics, by contrast, normally formulates wavefunction collapse as decoherence which is a more unified formalism.
lazygal wrote: » Which people, exactly? What constitutes mocking and deriding? Which "the church" do you refer?
Zombrex wrote: » Given that on this forum we have had people defending slavery, calling for science to be altered to allow Creationism, explaining to women why submission to men is a good thing for them, saying how homosexual relationships are not equivalent in love to heterosexual ones and detailing how transgender people are sick (and that is what I can think of from the last month), I think if the worst atheists do to you is laugh at you consider yourself lucky :rolleyes:
philologos wrote: » Zombrex: I know you've blocked me so this won't be read, but maybe for the benefit of others. It seems odd that if I didn't advocate the stance that Paul advocates on reforming slavery, and on the definition of marriage you would say I wasn't a "real Christian", and when you find out I'm a "real Christian" you insist on blocking me anyway. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Or is that what "tolerance" looks like?
lazygal wrote: » Does being a real Christian mean defending inequality because the 2,000 year old book you use says its OK? Should slavery have remained legal because its explained how it should be done properly in the bible?
philologos wrote: » Go read my posts again and you'll see what I actually said rather than what people claim I said. I don't think Christian marriage is inequality. Both parties are entirely equal in status even if their roles are different. That's my position and I've been 100% clear on it.
lazygal wrote: » Even though one submits to the other? Are you equal in status to god, if he exists that is, even though you submit to him? Should inequality, as in a master/slave relationship, be justified if its in the bible?
johnny-grunge wrote: » How anyone can honestly believe the creator of the universe and everything within wrote a book specially for a few humans overwhelms me.
johnny-grunge wrote: » I totally understand people believing this stuff in the past but there's no excuse for it these days.
Zombrex wrote: » By Darwin's beard I've no idea why you keep saying that when I have already explained it isn't relevant.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I believe that this is a valid statement. If you don't then I'm afraid you are stuck invoking Dawkin's beard.
marienbad wrote: » But slavery can't be reformed Phil, only abolished ! You don't condone slavery do you ?
philologos wrote: » Read my position, and you'll understand exactly what I said. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that I'm saying something entirely different from what I did Some people seem more intent on defaming my character rather than listening to what is being said, and that's really disappointing.
J C wrote: » What ever about being reformed ... slavery has been transformed into modern versions such as the 'sweat-shops' where people work for a pittance and people trafficking which are the latter-day versions of slavery ... that many people don't seem to be unduly concerned about. It's very easy to condemn the past ... but somewhat more of a challenge to face up to the present and to do something about it.
