Search results

I'll just give replies to the first two points in your post because the rest of your post depends on them. In the original greek version the name Jesus uses is gehenna, a place near jerusalem. This is where interpretation begins, and there is a lot of it. I happen to believe your...

Well, we haven't a clue what the historical figure upon whom the gospels were based would think, (if indeed it was a historical figure and not a generic figure: the romans were crucifying messiahs at quite a rate at that time). One thing we do know is that he'd be a little puzzled by the...

You can't be this dumb.

Can't you get anything right?

In what way do they provide emotional support, greg?

Losing faith happens all the time, AV, even in America. And even to fundamentalists, even if it is harder for them.

The bible is the fundamentalist's emotional security blanket. Take it away from them and you have a very frightened child staring back at you.

Yes, it's this sort of protection racket version of religion that thinking people find offensive. In fact it is much more akin to the Muslim belief, which is even stricter, where not even all those who worship Allah get into paradise. Luckily, however, the central Christian message is that...

Quotes posted by Inan: Inan, Cabal is not insulting god, if he exists, he's ridiculing your depiction of him. No sane christian believes a merciful, loving god (remember him?) sends people to hell for not believing in him. No sane christian is a bible literalist. Pointing out the ludicrous...

You don't like being disagreed with do you. Interesting that debate doesn't include disagreement with you. Clearly. I don't suppose it matters who disagrees with you, their disagreement is just proof that they are wrong. Yes, I often go out of my way to suck up to NP. I've gathered that. How...

In chess this call this resigning. I've enjoyed reading this exchange over the last few pages. Very entertaining and revealing. I can't help thinking that many creationists suffer from never having to exercise any sort of intellectual rigour about their thoughts. This leaves them at a distinct...

Actually, I don't.

Seconded.

I liked your second paragraph. I think in your first paragraph the argument about quality of evidence is a fudge, but it's Friday and I've finished work for the week and I liked your definition of faith, so I'll let it go.

That's not bad actually. So faith is full blown denial, but wishful involves a recognition that denial is just that: denial. Interesting.

Your problem is that you have lumbered yourself with a literal reading of the old testament. Taking the mickey out of the god of the old testament is a way of showing you how idiotic your adherence to literalism is. Plus the fact that it's fun, and incredibly easy. Honestly, you must have wished...

Actually, we don't know who wrote the gospels, but you have certainly suggested some entertaining suggestions. The gospel of ignorance, the gospel of hallucination and the gospel of conspiracy. Perhaps those ended up in the apocrypha. Who knows? The gospel of Judas and Mary Magdelene certainly...

In both your examples of faith you have given statements about independently verifiable facts. Are you quite sure that is what faith is?

As you say, you have neither. Now, the difference between faith and wishful thinking is?

The frustration and irritation displayed here is aimed solely at the stupidity of creationists and their moronically infantile idea of what god should be. So unless you are identifying yourself rather more closely with your god than is healthy, one struggles to see how you can not recognise that.