Fact heh? The only 'fact' around here is that you'll do anything to dismiss your own arguments when they turn round and bite you on the ass. Fits what bill? Lenny is a leprechaun, (ergo: Lenny the leprechaun), not a god. Lack of argument. Once again: "Lenny is real and you cannot comment on that unless you are willing to undergo the process one must go through to come to direct perception of Lenny. You are the unqualified high school dropout trying to blame everyone else for you being an unqualified high school dropout" Have you gone through the process, yes or no?
Good point. The girls will is more important than rapist. But god is always with the rapist it seems.
LG So, then, if you were your all powerful and all loving god, would you allow this?: "Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most."
Snakelord if there is no serious party willing to take the stance of direct perception, it becomes a bit tiring playing your games of imagination ("just suppose I had a book that works on the same principles of the bible" "just suppose I had a process" etc etc) then you have to tidy up your analogy rather than trying to cram it into any theistic sized aperture Bertrand Russels analogy, which is identical to yours, works on the principle that there is no one in the position of direct perception the foundation for the process is your imagination (in other words you can make anything up and aask that we pretend it is credible according to the book of lenny, even though the best books on the subject, such as the FSM are bereft of even an iota of th ephilosophical credibility of any scriptural presentation - th eobvious reason being because they are satirical presentations and are as substantial as political cartoons (the punch line gets rehashed seasonally)- in theism however the process is practically identical despite barriers of language, time, culture and geography
High school dropout trying to blame everyone else because he can't understand electrons. "No, I wont do the process, electrons are imaginary!" *puts fingers in ears*. Wake up. I brought Lenny into the discussion because it fit the conversation better than car mechanics did. Lenny and gods are beings written about but generally unseen, unevidenced, etc etc. In all this time you have tried to equate gods to car mechanics, physicists, rocket scientists and other completely irrelevant things. The minute I actually force a more pertinent comparison you start crying about it and then go on to show that you are actually the high school dropout you've been talking about all this time. Proof that you do not pay attention. I have direct perception of Lenny, we get along well. See, you're just plain wrong, but like every other high school dropout want to believe you're onto something without having to ever put any effort in. This doesn't look like a yes or no to me. Can you not follow simple requests? Yes or no? A) Have you read the book of Lenny? If not, how could you make claims to "best books"? B) I didn't ask that you "pretend" anything. Look it's simple.. Remain the high school dropout or do the process. Without doing the process you have no say in the matter. This is your own argument, and here you are trying to weasel your way out of it. It's pathetic. C) Part of the process can hardly be considered my imagination since it has existed in writing and in culture for hundreds of years. Every high school dropout will come up with an "obvious reason", unaware that he is actually the one in error. How so and what process? (you never did say what the process was).
welcome to the material world buddy SB 6.1.44: O inhabitants of Vaikuṇṭha, you are sinless, but those within this material world are all karmīs, whether acting piously or impiously. Both kinds of action are possible for them because they are contaminated by the three modes of nature and must act accordingly. One who has accepted a material body cannot be inactive, and sinful action is inevitable for one acting under the modes of material nature. Therefore all the living entities within this material world are punishable. its not so much about having a sinful background but more about having the desire for a sinful future that creates the most wonderful learning experiences for us
Snakelord “ at least with electrons we are talking about something tangible - even in the case of religion, credibility in the form of philosophy and scriptures are tangible (you make disbelieve scripture but you can't disbelieve the existence of scripture) - your game is kind of like playing in a sand pit and having imaginary cups of tea (imagine I have a book of lenny, imagine I have a process etc etc) - perhaps it was entertaining for a bit but its quickly becoming a waste of time "care for another cup of tea" (*pours sand out of the teapot) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! at least they actually exist as tangible objects of study pertinent = imaginary??? certainly illustrates why Bertrand Russel is a different callibre of academia “ thats the point - its imagination - discussion on god however involves real books and real people that have a real history of philosophical application Wake up Knock on wood we've been there before remember (actually now you are starting to put me to sleep) I don't think you have seriously investigated leprechauns - but if you do, which I am sure that you haven't and won't, I think you would be hard pressed to present a historically backed account that spans hundreds of years (unless of course it is your request that we accept another serving of your famous imaginary tea) "more tea I say?" erm - get free from sin - how's that for a beginning?
More accurately; that's your game. The book of Lenny exists, as does a process. You, being the high school dropout, don't want to learn about it. That's your right, but it leaves you unable to address the issue with any value. So does Lenny, you've just closed your eyes and ears while blaming everyone else for your inability to see and hear. If that's how you perceive the gods, then sure. It works both ways. However, if you had have read my last post you would have seen the explanation as to why Lenny is a more pertient analogy than car mechanics. *snore* When a high school dropout is cornered, (shown they're wrong), they resort to idiotic statements like the one you just made. Incorrect. Let's try again shall we.. "Have you read the book of Lenny?" Once again: ". Remain the high school dropout or do the process. Without doing the process you have no say in the matter. This is your own argument, and here you are trying to weasel your way out of it. It's pathetic. " Do you agree or are you now changing your own argument? I don't understand the relevance. For something to be true/for a being to exist it has to be backed up by an ancient bit of text? However, given my statement I was referring to "knock on wood". The origins of that can be traced. Not very good. From a christian standpoint there's no such thing as a person free from sin. The only being ever to manage it was jesus, who's god and thus has an easy job being free from sin. If we take that stance then your claimed process is unattainable. Doh! Better luck next time.
Snakelord “ except I can refer you to sources in history and philosophy - you know, real persons in fields of philosophy and science in history while you can refer me to craft manuals for st patricks day - do you see the discrepency at least when one talks of electrons or religion one can refer to actual texts and actual persons so you keep saying, but you insist we accept it on the merit of your imagination, as opposed to anything intellectually substantial You don't get it yet? god is a far way away - at the moment we are just discussing whether actual books and actual people stand behind the claims being made - never mind at the moment what the claims are you don't get it? Bertrand Russel's analogy works when there is no platform of direct perception - the moment you introduce direct perception (as you are doing with lenny) it becomes a game of teacups and kettles in the sand pit - at the very least it explains why bertrand russel's writings are considered philosophical have you indicated the book of lenny exists within any credible field of intelligent inquiry? we've been there -yawn we got to here http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1338807&postcount=119 you might want to reread what was said before to save rehashing old issues - particularly in regard to knocking on wood etc “ it would help take the discussion out of the sand pit for a start , and further more you suggested it certainly help you take the discussion out of a myopic spirals into imagination, particularly since you insist it is all factual, historical and acclaimed by the direct perception of credible persons so shoot but there is such a thing as a person getting free from a sin and guess whose example christians follow? jesus is god? I thought he said he was the son of god? having direct perception of god certainly made the task easier I think you are messing up in the theoretical foundation - although it may be possible that you can encounter pathetic versions of christianity that advocate there is no use attempting to refrain from sin - at the very least I wouldn't expect a high level of credible information from them in relation to god
LG "its not so much about having a sinful background but more about having the desire for a sinful future that creates the most wonderful learning experiences for us" Why did your god create you this way then?
with free will and the marginal capacity for independence you mean? Quite simply, because it is impossible for love to exist without free will (a man who demands that his wife loves him otherwise he will beat her with a stick will not have a happy marriage)
I would request again that you show why history is of any relevance to the reality of a god. Does Gilgamesh exist because real people believed in him and it was written about a long time ago? Can I refer you to those sources and say "hey look LG, Gilgamesh exists"? Don't be naive. What orifice did you pull that statement from? The discrepancy here is you're making things up. I said nothing about craft manuals, and told you the book of Lenny exists. If you show genuine curiosity I shall let you read it. Oh I see, and I'm just a robot and these aren't real words, they're imaginary ones. I insisted no such thing. Indeed the opposite; I gave you some of the process and asked that you try the process to show to yourself that it's true. I also offered you the chance to read the book of Lenny. You sir are a liar and trying to blame me for the fact that you wont go through the process that you yourself have argued one must go through. That would depend entirely on whether I am an actual person or not. Hmmmm let me think for a moment..... Yep, I'm an actual person. The book of Lenny also exists, you just wont give it the time. Great so we differ because I do have direct perception, and so can you if you go through the process that one must go through to attain direct perception, (YOUR exact argument). Credible to who? You? See? High school dropout unwilling to try the process but thinking he can actually say something about it. The hypocrisy is extraordinary. I fail to see the relevance of the link. Have you tried the process, yes or no? I mentioned that the process has a history to it because you, for some bizarre reason, seem fixed upon history - that something must have been written about a long time ago to be true. I suppose this is one of your arguments against evolution.. "they didn't write about it thousands of years ago!" I'm sorry but I just fail to see the worth of your argument. You'll know it's factual if you go through the process, I am a credible person, and I still fail to see the relevance of something being written about millennia ago as making it true. But there is no such thing as a sinless person. The point. A pointless point. jesus could apparently walk on water. Because christians follow jesus example does that mean they too can walk on water? No, don't be foolish. So once again: The only person ever to have been sinless was jesus so your starting point is worthless. Guess christianity isn't your strong point. It depends entirely upon sects. Or more to the point.. being god certainly made the task easier. See the walking on water part to work out your error, then your thoughts here will change. It's not me messing up, it's you. Sorry, who decides they're pathetic? You right? Now, if you ever paid any attention you'll see I mentioned nothing about not attempting to refrain from sin, just the the goal, (a sinless state), is unattainable. Of course you wouldn't. I think most of us have already learned that when it comes down to credibility or lack thereof only your opinion counts.
LG "with free will and the marginal capacity for independence you mean?" If we have a "marginal" capacity for independence we can not sin as we have minimal control. This god is thus an unfair and cruel being. Also this god is impotent and immoral. What use is such a god? We are in a no win situation. Logic dictates there is no god and mankind in this example is acting out of pure animal human nature. Whether this god exists or not, the incident still happens. Why?
Snakelord “ even science can get a bit whaky if your doivorce its current practice from it s historical continuum certainly following the historic traditions that have (or haven't) supported it up to th epresent would help determine its validity historical source smeans more than the wild guesses by someone in the anthropology dept google - lenny the leprechaun brings up a lot of craft activities for st patricks day do a google search ( and bring your own crayons and scissors) then you truly are not familiar with lenny the leprechaun and ar ethe laughing stock of every child activity centre on st patricks day real religion doesn't need to dress its self up in the garb of esoteric mysticism to lend it authority (although such things certainly attract those bereft of theoretical foundation) “ certainly your lenny book and the historical continuum behind the involved practices are we are not discussing your existence - we are discussing how substantial the book of lenny an d the historical continuum behind the involved practices are - at least according to google, the answer can be found in references to craft activities on st patricks day except I can source real people (aside from myself) and real books (outside of craft manuals for st patricks day) any historical continuum that involves lengthy criticism,preferably in fields of philosophy (like you can find with any scripture you care to mention) but we have actually been there already - remember - knock on wood - did you read the link I gave to it - we took the conversation to a certain distance and then you just dropped it - and now you want to start it again (C'mon, I must have wasted a whole 180 seconds of my time just to locate the old link) erm - we were discussing that in the link I gave but then you dropped it even science operates on the same 'bizzare' foundation - it helps determine whether something is 'substantial' or 'progressive' since you are failing to come across as an intelligent person in yoru advocation of lenny, certainly citing a few intelligent people along the way (preferably with credible links to history) would certainly help your case actually my argument about evolution is that is accepted as an empirical fact even though it transgresses the prerequisites for empiricism (and interestingly enough, this is revealed by studying the historical continuum on the subject) my argument does not rest on my own subjective nonsense - it relies on the foundations by which we accept or reject something according to standards of empiricism since its only you stating the process you will require a bit more rather than wild claims at the very least, google disagrees for a start it helps one from making the folly of believing in the words of a goofball some people are cultivating sin and some people are reducing sin luckily jesus didn't require them to do that in the name of christianity - he did how ever give numerous instructions which seem to get back to the point of not being a sinful brute and by following jesus's instructions (which don't involve walking on water - thats kind of optional) one can reduce one's brutish mentality which can allow for the beginning of a glimmer of understanding god “ congratulations - looks like you are developing some spiritual discrimination (unless of course you feel that anyone who says anything about jesus can be accepted as a christian) its not clear why you think it is impossible for a living entity to be sinless would walking on water make one sinless? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! if their bottom line is "You can't stop sinning so why bother but jesus died for your sins, and no doubt he will do it again, so just keep on going with whatever floats your boat" it seems pretty pathetic scripture - you know, that funny book that you are accustomed to throwing in the bin and tormenting your dog with? so if sinlessness is unattainable, why endeavor for it? (sadly, this is the state of affairs amongst many christians stabilized on an unsatisfactory standard of performance) “ so you think, but actually credibility comes down to people who matter saying it is credible, hence a historical continuum can help your case
no - it just means the extent of your activities are curtailed - just like a person can remain a criminal to their hearts content, but they will probably end up in jail and be retained by four large walls if one insists in being a criminal (by misuse of independence) they wind up in jail - sounds more reasonable than the prime minister giving them a cheque for half a million dollars don't you think? if an agency can place one in jail for misuse of one's independence they sound both potent and moral the same as the use of the power of state - management give up being a criminal and get out of jail - sounds easy before you venture into logic you should establish your premises I am not sure what you are talking about here
