What It Means To Be Christian
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats because you simply are not very mature intellectually. I bore my kids too.
I think that my school counsellor would disagree with you there.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, I am. Because that is what modern liberalism is all about.
Hey, I've read The Communist Manifesto. Three times. I assure you, it is not synonymous with Liberalism.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I am asserting that there are only two well defined political alternatives to choose from. One which relies upon the empowerment of a central government to resolve economic and social problems, and one which devolves power down to the people at local level of goverment to resolve those same problems.
What about Anarchism? And you think Liberalism is determined to escalate the government to the status of GOD?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I think that my school counsellor would disagree with you there.
You probably aren't the first brainwashed little collectivist he has helped produce by just that technique - being patted on the head for regurgitating the appropriate political dogma.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hey, I've read The Communist Manifesto.
That doesn't surprise me.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Three times. I assure you, it is not synonymous with Liberalism.
Yet, you've read the Communist Manifesto three times. I've never read it at all. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What about Anarchism?
Anarchism, by definition, cannot be 'well defined'.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And you think Liberalism is determined to escalate the government to the status of GOD?
Not true liberalism, but the current collectivist philosophy calling itself liberalism is certainly trying to achieve that - heaven on earth.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
I can no more choose to believe that one exists than I can choose to believe that testicle-whales* exist on Jupiter.
Correct. Belief is not a simple choice. Interestingly, it isn't a natural outcome of raw knowledge either. This forum is full of intelligent people who take what they see and hear as evidence of their belief. Two brothers raised in the same household, taught the same lessons, work the same jobs, read the same books... and take two very different views of the world. You hold that you do not belief due to lack of compelling evidence. I hold that my belief exists in spite of a lack of such evidence. You might argue that the evidence i see exists only when interpreted in the context of belief. I would argue then that without belief, all evidence is weak, that until you first believe, until your mind opens to the possibility, no amount of evidence will convince you.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Shog9 wrote:
I hold that my belief exists in spite of a lack of such evidence.
Why? What are the steps of deduction or thought processes that made you say to yourself "there is no evidence for a god so I'll believe in one anyway"? I simply cannot fathom the logic or doublethink or whatever it is that lets your brain contain such contradictory logic. Maybe our brains are wired up differently!
-
Shog9 wrote:
I hold that my belief exists in spite of a lack of such evidence.
Why? What are the steps of deduction or thought processes that made you say to yourself "there is no evidence for a god so I'll believe in one anyway"? I simply cannot fathom the logic or doublethink or whatever it is that lets your brain contain such contradictory logic. Maybe our brains are wired up differently!
Steve_Harris wrote:
What are the steps of deduction or thought processes that made you say to yourself "there is no evidence for a god so I'll believe in one anyway"?
No, re-read that quote again - i believe in spite of what [fails to convince you|succeeds in discouraging you], not because of it. I no more choose to believe than you choose to disbelieve; my choice is to not struggle against belief. Any reasoning involved is inductive rather than deductive - based on the observations, experiences, and beliefs of myself and others rather than on a closed understanding of the world.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
What are the steps of deduction or thought processes that made you say to yourself "there is no evidence for a god so I'll believe in one anyway"?
No, re-read that quote again - i believe in spite of what [fails to convince you|succeeds in discouraging you], not because of it. I no more choose to believe than you choose to disbelieve; my choice is to not struggle against belief. Any reasoning involved is inductive rather than deductive - based on the observations, experiences, and beliefs of myself and others rather than on a closed understanding of the world.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Then our brains are wired up differently. I do not "struggle against belief". There is no evidence for a god so I do not believe. There is no evidence for Jovian testicle whales so I don't believe in them either! It requires no great effort, simply the application of logic to the available facts. If you can take the lack of evidence for the Christian god to be unconvincing enough to let you believe anyway, then belief in the existence of fairies and Santa and Thor and Neo and the Force is just around the corner.
-
Then our brains are wired up differently. I do not "struggle against belief". There is no evidence for a god so I do not believe. There is no evidence for Jovian testicle whales so I don't believe in them either! It requires no great effort, simply the application of logic to the available facts. If you can take the lack of evidence for the Christian god to be unconvincing enough to let you believe anyway, then belief in the existence of fairies and Santa and Thor and Neo and the Force is just around the corner.
Steve_Harris wrote:
If you can take the lack of evidence for the Christian god to be unconvincing enough to let you believe anyway, then belief in the existence of fairies and Santa and Thor and Neo and the Force is just around the corner.
And yet, in spite of exposure to all of these ideas from a young age, i've never believed in the latter. ;) No matter; i see that we're back to where we started, and as hunger compels me to seek breakfast (believing that it will placate this hunger)... and ideally before i misspell seek "steak" again... I will leave the repetition of this argument for another evening.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm going to fail miserably and futilely
I'm sure there's a Catholic priest near you who would just love to counsel a pubescent boy.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
That was a bit uncalled for, don't you think?
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Obama is no Marxist
Yes, he is. There is absolutely nothing in his background aside from a few months of campaign rhetoric to suggest otherwise. His entire personnel history is utterly leftist.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Republicans are socialists
No, they aren't. A republican president suddenly finding himself needing to act to save the economy from leftist mismanagement doesn't make the republican party socialist. They may not be conservatives, but they are most certainly not socialist.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They may not be conservatives, but they are most certainly not socialist.
Oooh.. so, when it benefits your twisted little world view, nuances are all of a sudden of importance.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
They may not be conservatives, but they are most certainly not socialist.
Oooh.. so, when it benefits your twisted little world view, nuances are all of a sudden of importance.
My world view isn't twisted, it is based upon the traditions and principles that my civilization was founded upon. And the simple fact of the matter is that nothing Bush has done serves as a legitimization or an acknowledgment of socialism. The problem was caused by socialism, and he had no choice but to try to fix it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
My world view isn't twisted, it is based upon the traditions and principles that my civilization was founded upon. And the simple fact of the matter is that nothing Bush has done serves as a legitimization or an acknowledgment of socialism. The problem was caused by socialism, and he had no choice but to try to fix it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
You know, feet-binding was a Chinese tradition.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I think that my school counsellor would disagree with you there.
You probably aren't the first brainwashed little collectivist he has helped produce by just that technique - being patted on the head for regurgitating the appropriate political dogma.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hey, I've read The Communist Manifesto.
That doesn't surprise me.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Three times. I assure you, it is not synonymous with Liberalism.
Yet, you've read the Communist Manifesto three times. I've never read it at all. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What about Anarchism?
Anarchism, by definition, cannot be 'well defined'.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And you think Liberalism is determined to escalate the government to the status of GOD?
Not true liberalism, but the current collectivist philosophy calling itself liberalism is certainly trying to achieve that - heaven on earth.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You probably aren't the first brainwashed little collectivist he has helped produce by just that technique - being patted on the head for regurgitating the appropriate political dogma.
We don't talk about politics at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That doesn't surprise me.
I've also read a University chemistry book. What's your point?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet, you've read the Communist Manifesto three times. I've never read it at all.
More specifically, I've written it out three times. It's quite short.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?
Nope.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Anarchism, by definition, cannot be 'well defined'.
Why not? "Remove government. Let chaos ensue." Seems simple enough.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not true liberalism, but the current collectivist philosophy calling itself liberalism is certainly trying to achieve that - heaven on earth.
You sure like the word 'Collectivism'; fits in with the way you always group people together.
-
That was a bit uncalled for, don't you think?
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
That was a bit uncalled for, don't you think?
I was being a dick. I deserved it.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You probably aren't the first brainwashed little collectivist he has helped produce by just that technique - being patted on the head for regurgitating the appropriate political dogma.
We don't talk about politics at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That doesn't surprise me.
I've also read a University chemistry book. What's your point?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet, you've read the Communist Manifesto three times. I've never read it at all.
More specifically, I've written it out three times. It's quite short.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?
Nope.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Anarchism, by definition, cannot be 'well defined'.
Why not? "Remove government. Let chaos ensue." Seems simple enough.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not true liberalism, but the current collectivist philosophy calling itself liberalism is certainly trying to achieve that - heaven on earth.
You sure like the word 'Collectivism'; fits in with the way you always group people together.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
We don't talk about politics at all.
yeah ya do.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I've also read a University chemistry book. What's your point?
What was yours?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
More specifically, I've written it out three times. It's quite short.
SO, let me get this straight. You're not merely reading the communist manifesto, you're actually writing it out? Why in the name of God would anyone be compelled to do that? Kid, you need to get out and ride your bike around more or somethng.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You sure like the word 'Collectivism'; fits in with the way you always group people together.
And that comment fits in with the way collectivists dimiss legitimate criticism. I wonder where you learned it from? It is a meaningless statement, meant to distract attention away from the subject at hand. In fact, it is self contradictory: "I assign you to the group of people who group people together" Obviously, I'll have plenty of company!
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
We don't talk about politics at all.
yeah ya do.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I've also read a University chemistry book. What's your point?
What was yours?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
More specifically, I've written it out three times. It's quite short.
SO, let me get this straight. You're not merely reading the communist manifesto, you're actually writing it out? Why in the name of God would anyone be compelled to do that? Kid, you need to get out and ride your bike around more or somethng.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You sure like the word 'Collectivism'; fits in with the way you always group people together.
And that comment fits in with the way collectivists dimiss legitimate criticism. I wonder where you learned it from? It is a meaningless statement, meant to distract attention away from the subject at hand. In fact, it is self contradictory: "I assign you to the group of people who group people together" Obviously, I'll have plenty of company!
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
yeah ya do.
I think I'd know.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What was yours?
Something relevant.
Stan Shannon wrote:
SO, let me get this straight. You're not merely reading the communist manifesto, you're actually writing it out? Why in the name of God would anyone be compelled to do that? Kid, you need to get out and ride your bike around more or somethng.
I was increasing my typing speed and accuracy. I was going to do 'Mein Kampf' as well, but it was too long. And I ride my bike sometimes too!
Stan Shannon wrote:
And that comment fits in with the way collectivists dimiss legitimate criticism. I wonder where you learned it from?
Haha, I am by no means a Collectivist. And I didn't 'learn' it from anywhere - turns out I'm capable of creative independent thought after all, even after all this deep-seated indoctrination.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, it is self contradictory: "I assign you to the group of people who group people together" Obviously, I'll have plenty of company!
Obviously.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
You choose to be an atheist.
Well not always, me, for instance. Attended Sunday School from about the age 6. Received instruction in the Church of England, but did not find God. Read: * The Bible - end to end. * Commentaries on the Bible. * Essays by chaps like C.S. Lewis, atheists who had found God. * Books on faith recommended by Christian colleagues. Went to church, attended recitals of religious music, prayed. Sat quietly in: churches, cathedrals, the countryside. But - no God. I married a Roman Catholic, and went through it all again (well, not Sunday School): different translation of the Bible, different instruction, different services - same result. A born atheist, you might say.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
Attended Sunday School from about the age 6. Received instruction in the Church of England, but did not find God. Read: * The Bible - end to end. * Commentaries on the Bible. * Essays by chaps like C.S. Lewis, atheists who had found God. * Books on faith recommended by Christian colleagues. Went to church, attended recitals of religious music, prayed. Sat quietly in: churches, cathedrals, the countryside. But - no God. I married a Roman Catholic, and went through it all again (well, not Sunday School): different translation of the Bible, different instruction, different services - same result.
I find myself wondering why someone who knows himself to be an atheist would go to so much effort. :)
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
yeah ya do.
I think I'd know.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What was yours?
Something relevant.
Stan Shannon wrote:
SO, let me get this straight. You're not merely reading the communist manifesto, you're actually writing it out? Why in the name of God would anyone be compelled to do that? Kid, you need to get out and ride your bike around more or somethng.
I was increasing my typing speed and accuracy. I was going to do 'Mein Kampf' as well, but it was too long. And I ride my bike sometimes too!
Stan Shannon wrote:
And that comment fits in with the way collectivists dimiss legitimate criticism. I wonder where you learned it from?
Haha, I am by no means a Collectivist. And I didn't 'learn' it from anywhere - turns out I'm capable of creative independent thought after all, even after all this deep-seated indoctrination.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, it is self contradictory: "I assign you to the group of people who group people together" Obviously, I'll have plenty of company!
Obviously.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I think I'd know.
I doubt it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Something relevant.
To what?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
was increasing my typing speed and accuracy. I was going to do 'Mein Kampf' as well, but it was too long. And I ride my bike sometimes too!
I see. The communist manifesto and Mein Kampf were just the most easily available material for you to do typing practice with.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
- turns out I'm capable of creative independent thought after all, even after all this deep-seated indoctrination.
Yet, isn't it amazing that your 'creative independent thought' is indistinquishable from all of the other creative independent free thinkers on the planet who also are not collectivist even though they promote an entirely collectivist world view. Quite the coincidence, eh? Indoctrination indeed!
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I think I'd know.
I doubt it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Something relevant.
To what?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
was increasing my typing speed and accuracy. I was going to do 'Mein Kampf' as well, but it was too long. And I ride my bike sometimes too!
I see. The communist manifesto and Mein Kampf were just the most easily available material for you to do typing practice with.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
- turns out I'm capable of creative independent thought after all, even after all this deep-seated indoctrination.
Yet, isn't it amazing that your 'creative independent thought' is indistinquishable from all of the other creative independent free thinkers on the planet who also are not collectivist even though they promote an entirely collectivist world view. Quite the coincidence, eh? Indoctrination indeed!
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I doubt it.
Yes, that's right, underpinning all the completely unrelated topics is persistent and subliminal suggestion subtly altering my political stance.
Stan Shannon wrote:
To what?
Everything.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I see. The communist manifesto and Mein Kampf were just the most easily available material for you to do typing practice with.
Well, War and Peace was much too long (plain text is over 3 megabytes). I'd already read Nineteen Eighty-Four and didn't feel like doing it again. I did most of Clairvoyance and Occult Powers, but it was too irritating. Someone got me Frankenstein at about this time, and I preferred reading it lying on the lush grass in my backyard (even though I got grass rash all on my arms and legs). Same goes for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. So yeah...
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet, isn't it amazing that your 'creative independent thought' is indistinquishable from all of the other creative independent free thinkers on the planet who also are not collectivist even though they promote an entirely collectivist world view. Quite the coincidence, eh? Indoctrination indeed!
If I was strongly indoctrinated, then why don't I care about politics?
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
That was a bit uncalled for, don't you think?
I was being a dick. I deserved it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I was being a dick. I deserved it.
In my mind's eye, it wasn't that bad a put down. If you think you 'deserved' it, I probably didn't think hard enough about how it was coming off.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
You choose to be an atheist.
No you don't choose, logic and experience forces you to that conclusion.
-
Logic and experience teach me that there is no god. I cannot choose to believe in a god because logic and experience teach me there isn't one. To do otherwise would involve some sort of Orwellian doublethink.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Attended Sunday School from about the age 6. Received instruction in the Church of England, but did not find God. Read: * The Bible - end to end. * Commentaries on the Bible. * Essays by chaps like C.S. Lewis, atheists who had found God. * Books on faith recommended by Christian colleagues. Went to church, attended recitals of religious music, prayed. Sat quietly in: churches, cathedrals, the countryside. But - no God. I married a Roman Catholic, and went through it all again (well, not Sunday School): different translation of the Bible, different instruction, different services - same result.
I find myself wondering why someone who knows himself to be an atheist would go to so much effort. :)
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
I do not know myself to be an atheist, merely a non-believer. As a child, and in adolescence, I attended church. I respected many of the adults I met and sought to emulate their belief. Hence the Bible Studies and prayer. But belief did not come. As for "going to so much effort", 40 years of eclectic reading, music, walking the countryside, visiting old buildings, the occasional church service, etc., have provided many opportunities for revelation, without my putting myself out in the least.
Bob Emmett