I hate god

[PrincepsAmerica]

Piffle. I'm not obligated to do anything.

What makes you think my life-experience of people is somehow second fiddle to CivGeneral?

His standard tactic is to reference some person in his street or church as evidence of world religion.

After seeing him do this about two million times, I now reject his folksy assertions out of hand.

...

I did not imply anything about your life-experience as you did not mention it when you made your assertion. And while I agree anecdotal evidence isn't usually the most useful for broad speculation, it is quite suited to dispelling the generalized type of comment you made about people faith.

 

[Stylesjl]

So that's where all the flowers have gone. I tought young girls picked them, every one.

A daisy cutter is a big bomb

 

[Nick Garai]

IIRC one third of the angels rejcected god to follow Lucifer.

I am aware of the rebellion, however humans and angels are two entirely different species. You cannot compare a human to an Angel. Angels (and demons who were from the same stuff at first), animals, humans are all different and have very different purposes in the Created Order.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Given my interest in computers it's the best analogy i could think of

I thought that might be the case. The problem is that nothing presented in Christian theology would lead to the conclusion that the program analogy is appropriate. Now a Diest approach to things (god the "watchmaker" built the universe, pushed start and walked away) is pretty close to a buggy software analogy.

 

[s.c.dude]

Created Order.

Huh? never heard of it

 

[CurtSibling]

So that's where all the flowers have gone. I thought young girls picked them, every one.

Anything to make the world a bit more dark and dreary!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

A daisy cutter is a big bomb

That was a witty counter to Curt's comment on slaughering Christians, of which Birdjag is one.

 

[Nick Garai]

Huh? never heard of it

Simply: Creation.

Humanity was the epitomy of Creation including over Angels. Angels were made to be direct servants of God. Humans were meant to have fellowship with God. Animals were meant to be under Man's dominion. Creation was made for people.

 

[CurtSibling]

I did not imply anything about your life-experience as you did not mention it when you made your assertion. And while I agree anecdotal evidence isn't usually the most useful for broad speculation, it is quite suited to dispelling the generalized type of comment you made about people faith.

CG's hometown sentimentality is worthless to me.

But, the core assumptions of my comment cannot be denied out of hand, though.
Look at the world, is every religionist a stoic follower with unbreakable faith?

Of course, since I suspect you are of the believer persuasion,
I reckon you'll deny my views in any case. Doesn't matter to me.

...

 

[Birdjaguar]

A daisy cutter is a big bomb

Yes, I know that. My post was an anti-war, music reference for Curt that also dangled the proposition that love trumps all else.

 

[CurtSibling]

That was a witty counter to Curt's comment on slaughering Christians, of which Birdjag is one.

I think a deadly air-igniting explosion from a daisy cutter is about as witty as counters can get.

It shuts people up, in any case.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think a deadly air-igniting explosion from a daisy cutter is about as witter as counters can get.

There are few that can argue with a FAE.

 

[s.c.dude]

Simply: Creation.

Humanity was the epitomy of Creation including over Angels. Angels were made to be direct servants of God. Humans were meant to have fellowship with God. Animals were meant to be under Man's dominion. Creation was made for people.

knew that just never heard of it refered to it that way

 

[Birdjaguar]

That was a witty counter to Curt's comment on slaughering Christians, of which Birdjag is one.

God forbid such a thing! I'm pretty sure no christain church would claim me. I am, however, a pretty died in the wool theist, but far closer the Sufi-Hindu-Buddhist tradition. I argue against muddy thinking and not for or against particular beliefs.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

CG's hometown sentimentality is worthless to me.

But, the core assumptions of my comment cannot be denied out of hand, though.
Look at the world, is every religionist a stoic follower with unbreakable faith?

Of course, since I suspect you are of the believer persuasion,
I reckon you'll deny my views in any case. Doesn't matter to me.

...

No most "religionists" are not like that, I completely agree. I meant only to show the CG disproved your comment as applying to all people of faith. As I said it could very well be true of some or even most believers.

No need to preemptively assume anything, I do not disagree with your views. Maybe though with your phrasing which is unnecessarily confrontational and presumptive. But then I'm not the first or last person who will say that to you.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

God forbid such a thing! I'm pretty sure no christain church would claim me. I am, however, a pretty died in the wool theist, but far closer the Sufi-Hindu-Buddhist tradition. I argue against muddy thinking and not for or against particular beliefs.

Wow, talk about getting the wrong message! Have I not seen you engaged in theological discussions on the side of the Christians? I'm thoroughly confused now.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Wow, talk about getting the wrong message! Have I not seen you engaged in theological discussions on the side of the Christians? I'm thoroughly confused now.

Yes you have seen me argue on the side of faith and god as important forces within existence, but never for christianity per se. I have, over the years, also argued against the crappy Christian attempts to argue that their science is better than the real stuff. God alone is Real.

 

[GenMarshall]

His standard tactic is to reference some person in his street or church as evidence of world religion.

Untrue, I dont referance some person on the street nor anyone from the church as evidence.

And why I should take your testimony as a benchmark for the human race??? You are but one person...Big deal.

Because not all of your generalizations of people who are religious are true. Do you think I enjoy being generalized as a person who cannot accept responsibility nor is bored with real life? No. The point is, your generalizations on religious people are not all true and is quite offensive and rude to generalize people on the basis on the actions of a few.

CG's hometown sentimentality is worthless to me.

To be blunt, the statements that I made to counter your generalization that ALL religious people are like what you generalized is not sentimentaliy. Its pure fact based on experiance and knowlage. Would I generalize that all Muslims are all American hating people who want to blow themselves up in our faces? No, because I have gained knowlage from other Muslims and people who have contacts and Muslim friends.

But, the core assumptions of my comment cannot be denied out of hand, though. Look at the world, is every religionist a stoic follower with unbreakable faith?

I only agree to the part that some religious is a stoic follower with an unbreakable faith. Not every religionist is a stoic follower with an unbreakable faith. There are some who go through struggles in their belief and some dont practace their religion.

After seeing him do this about two million times, I now reject his folksy assertions out of hand.

Whatever, your choice to be in denial when someone confronts you when you make generalizations that are not true. I only hope that you stop and think about your generalizations about all Religious people, because there are many of us who dont fit into your little generalizations of the religious.

No most "religionists" are not like that, I completely agree. I meant only to show the CG disproved your comment as applying to all people of faith. As I said it could very well be true of some or even most believers.

No need to preemptively assume anything, I do not disagree with your views. Maybe though with your phrasing which is unnecessarily confrontational and presumptive. But then I'm not the first or last person who will say that to you.

Why do I have a feeling that youre reading my mind in regards to unjust generalizations on certan groups of people? . Though I would agree that I do see his phrasings are unnecessarily confrontational and presumptive which forces religious posters like myself to be on the defensive.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Most generalizations are true up to a point or they wouldn't have become genralizations. Are there exceptions to generalizations? Of course. If there weren't any, then the generalization would be some kind of universal truth. And we know the atheist don't want that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes you have seen me argue on the side of faith and god as important forces within existence, but never for christianity per se. I have, over the years, also argued against the crappy Christian attempts to argue that their science is better than the real stuff. God alone is Real.

I've argued on the side of science as well, despite being Christian. Isn't it unfortunate that we are expected to choose either religion or science?