Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

More Religious Nuts

Jump to new
bunyip said:
Maybe we need a new thread titled 'All Things Religious' where we can talk about anything at all relating to religion without wandering off topic.
Click to expand...

Oh, please no. Not another damn religion thread. There are umpteen already.
They all go round in the same interminable circles. No one ever actually says anything remarkable or different. Just the participants change every now and then.
 
More of a case of "I reject your sense of reality and replace it with my own" kind of thread. This way we can argue over nothing for hours, NAY, days or even months. I am sure that theologians and atheists smarter than us have had this wordy battle prior to us vomiting our opines for all to see.

How many christians does it take to change a lightbulb?
NONE ... because they already see the light !!

Back to the topic. Ummmmm ... what was it again? I forgot. :eek:
 
Julia said:
Oh, please no. Not another damn religion thread. There are umpteen already.
They all go round in the same interminable circles. No one ever actually says anything remarkable or different. Just the participants change every now and then.
Click to expand...

Too late Julia....it's already done. My guess is that you'll put an odd post on there, same as you've done in here.
 
Julia said:
I doubt it, Bunyip, unless someone actually says anything different.
Click to expand...

Julia Julia Julia, of course you will - you know you can't resist putting your two bobs worth into these religious discussions!

Come to think of it, you could always be the someone who 'actually says anything different'.
 
Sunder

One final call for you to step up and answer my questions....

Who or what created God?
How did he come into existence?

You were pretty quick to denounce me as deluded and inflammatory when I quoted a passage from the Bible that you didn't like the sound of.
You accused me of creating an illusion, a fantasy version of Christianity.
I could have given you a dressing down for using such strong language against me, but I didn't - instead I answered your post in a polite and courtesy manner.
And I asked you the quite reasonable questions of who or what created God, or how you think he came into existence.
Haven't heard from you since. For someone who was very outspoken and definite in your views, it's disappointing to see you run and hide as soon as you're asked a couple of confronting questions.

Ktrianta had enough character to make a genuine attempt to address these questions.
You apparently do not.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Yes, but seriously, would you send Tom Cruise down to the corner shop with a $20 note to get a pack of Benson and Hedges. He'd get mugged or lose the change or bring back a pack of Drum.

He's not the brightest star in the sky. He was handsome and could remember his lines, and he's had a fair bit of luck, and good on him, but this puppy won't be following him if he decides to do a Jonestown or get into a spaceship.

gg
Click to expand...

GG, great news, we may be getting John Travolta back from "scientology" , seems that since the tragic death of his son, Travolta now regrets adhering so closely to Scientology's strict rules about refusing medications for Jett, who suffered from the rare Kawasaki Syndrome.
Wow John really , so if you followed Dr's recommendations as opposed to Ron Hubbard's bizzare beliefs, your child would still be alive and you would'nt be driving the golf buggy around alone at night. Me thinks "religious nut"
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/841734/guilt-ridden-john-travolta-in-constant-distress
 
Pretty much sums up both sides of the argument really. Woopeeeee !
 

Attachments

  • addis-religious-nut-cartoon.jpg
    addis-religious-nut-cartoon.jpg
    59.6 KB · Views: 93
Trainspotter, nice work "champ", very apt. !!!!!!!!!:)

Your cartoon holds pride of place on the fridge for the week .
 
Sunder

Have you found that Bible passage yet, the one about killing your son if he's a drunkard?

Turns out that my memory was a little faded. It doesn't say that you personally should stone your drunken son to death - it says you should hand him over to the city elders, and all the men of his city (presumably including you) shall stone him to death.
Sounds like pretty much the same thing to me....whether you personally kill your son, or hand him over to others so they can kill him, you're still responsible for the gruesome crime of killing your son.


Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Not very nice, is it?....not exactly how any of us would treat our sons!

There's another interesting segment in the Bible that says when you attack a city, you should kill all the males, plunder everything in the city, and take the cattle and women for yourself.

Great...kind of makes a mockery of 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', does it not?
Likewise with the command 'You shall not murder'.....it mocks and contradicts that commandment as well.

Anyone still want to claim the Bible is the word of God?
 
LMAO Bunyip. The velvet sledgehammer approach is not working ! Talk about "shock and awe" stuff. The "Little Boy" (Atomic bomb droppped on Hiroshima) device has nothing on you when wound up !

Maybe "weird" can answer that one with some paper that contradicts itself and also dismisses it's own argument by allowing for seasonal adjustments?

Or ktrianta can try and dispel it with some double meaning verbosity straight out of Psychology 101 that when read backwards means the same thing.

Bwahaha ha ha hah h aha hh ah (insert maniacal laugh here) :D
 
trainspotter said:
LMAO Bunyip. The velvet sledgehammer approach is not working ! Talk about "shock and awe" stuff. The "Little Boy" (Atomic bomb droppped on Hiroshima) device has nothing on you when wound up !

Maybe "weird" can answer that one with some paper that contradicts itself and also dismisses it's own argument by allowing for seasonal adjustments?

Or ktrianta can try and dispel it with some double meaning verbosity straight out of Psychology 101 that when read backwards means the same thing.

Bwahaha ha ha hah h aha hh ah (insert maniacal laugh here) :D
Click to expand...

Don't be too hard on Ktrianta, mate. We may not agree with his views, but at least he didn't run and hide when difficult questions were asked about how God came into existence - he stepped forward and made a sincere effort to answer them. For that, I admire him.

Ktrianta - if you're female, which I suspect you are, my apologies for referring to you as 'he'.
 
bunyip said:
Sunder

One final call for you to step up and answer my questions....

Who or what created God?
How did he come into existence?
Click to expand...

You said to ktrianta:

Well no actually, he [God] always wasn't. If he exists then he was created in some way by someone or something or some process....but nobody has the faintest idea who or what it was.
Click to expand...

If you're reasonable you will agree that your statement is a claim, not an argument. It is no more compelling to say, "God was created in some way" then to say, "God always was."

Why does God have to have a creator? What is the reasoning behind this statement?

(And by "God", I'm not restricting it to the Christian God - feel free to assume any maximal conception, be it theistic, deistic or panentheistic)
 
MS+Tradesim said:
You said to ktrianta:

If you're reasonable you will agree that your statement is a claim, not an argument. It is no more compelling to say, "God was created in some way" then to say, "God always was."

Why does God have to have a creator? What is the reasoning behind this statement?

(And by "God", I'm not restricting it to the Christian God - feel free to assume any maximal conception, be it theistic, deistic or panentheistic)
Click to expand...
The answer is we don't know.

Why assign it to anything other than, 'something unknown'. Why invent a character who has shape (in our form) who created Adam and Eve, and the Universe in 7 days, etc etc.

No need to be Neanderthalic.
 

Similar threads

wayneL
The Under 16 Social Media Ban
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
Smurf1976
Smurf1976
JohnDe
Merry Christmas 2024
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
Knobby22
2026 Victorian Election
Replies
2
Views
832
sptrawler
sptrawler
M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
370
SirRumpole
SirRumpole
mullokintyre
Mick's USA sojourn
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2K
moXJO
M
Top