christian life centre

[Dan]

exactly earl........


And I am not looking for childcare We are lookin for a mums/playgroup different thing completely

 

[Dan]

So UP what you are saying is the foundation for nearly everything your believe and for the religions you subscribe is or could be BS so should not be believed?

 

[clontaago]

UP, haven't you realised yet that Dan thinks he IS God?

Fro, the random jumble of quarks and atoms that is Drae has not yet been enrolled in a child care centre.

Have you been to the byso school of pointing out semantics to avoid answering questions you don't have the answers for?

 

[Utility Player]

No I am saying that the bible is not a foundation for what I believe. If people want to take it literally (such as the created in his image part) then good luck to them. I have not read the whole thing as I doubt you have but I am sceptical enough to think that man would have bent the pure form to suit his own needs. As I said though I don't see this scepticism as a barrier to a belief in a creator.

 

[Dan]

If it is not a foundation for what you believe then how do you believe in the christian god?

 

[Utility Player]

I suppose I believe in a god (creator) without putting on a lable of christianity. A force spirit entity that can comfort me and mine in time of need and perhaps give a reason for my existance other than a random course of events. But thats just me.

 

[Dan]

in saying that let me suggest however that you also subscribe to the christian god even in referencial ways.
If so then your suggestion that the bible is not to be believed etc seems odd to say the least

 

[Matabele]

Would love to continue sparring Dan but today is a day when I need to put the nose to the grindstone.

Suffice to say, you know full well that "image" represents more than a physical representation.

 

[Fluffy]

ahh goto love the god debates.

Someone said image could mean 2 legs, 2 arms and a head - that doesnt work as not everyone conforms to that - there are people out there with no arms or legs at birth and siamese twins etc.

the thing about religon rather than god is that everyone who believes in one particular religon is thereby automatically a hypocrite. Why? - well their beliefs are based on information given to them from others who believe in that religon and their religon is right just becuase it is ie most christians come from a christian upbringing and never fully explore other religons and certainly not all religons. There is no way of disproving another religon without the same reason being also correct against your own.

How can anyone say their religon is the right one? If there is a god that is the only entity that can give an answer on which religon is correct although i would be suprised if any is anywhere near close anymore.

Buddist, christian, hindu, muslim, jews etc - there is just too much variety for any one religon to be right and anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

Religon has always been a way of controlling the masses - not neccesarily for good either.

Seems hypocritical to me that mata is religous since its all just dribble for the masses when he is so vocally against this sort of thing when it comes from the football club - the best religon of all.

 

[Dan]

pretty close to my points fluffy.

My whole argument is it is impossible to prove the existence of god. only a god itself could do so.

 

[Utility Player]

in saying that let me suggest however that you also subscribe to the christian god even in referencial ways.
If so then your suggestion that the bible is not to be believed etc seems odd to say the least

I agree with your point about the christian god as I first learnt of the concept of a god through Anglican church Sunday school as for the 2nd point if you have time have a look at www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm which I found last night.

 

[Matabele]

pretty close to my points fluffy.

My whole argument is it is impossible to prove the existence of god. only a god itself could do so.

We agreed on that didn't we?

 

[Dan]

no you didnt but since you are agreeing now that is fine with me. My point is proven and I am happy to accept as I always suspected that I am right 🙂

 

[Matabele]

it's just that you don't like the revelation.

 

[Fro]

Just because you cant prove something Dan doesnt make it wrong.

 

[Dan]

know it doesnt but it makes my point that I am Agnostic right doesnt it Fro!

 

[Fro]

It makes it right for you Danny boy, but different people require different things.

And no I'm not going to get into a drawn out "discussion" with you, I am well aware you are a devoted fisherman 🙂

 

[Dan]

No Fro it has nothing to do with different people.

I said it was not possible to prove the existence of god. that I am an Agnostic!

Matabele finally just conceded that that is true. that makes me right no 2 ways about it....now cast your line elsewhere as you have missed the points!

 

[Fro]

Actually you said that "it makes my point that I am Agnostic right doesnt it Fro!"

I didnt need proof that you were agnostic Dan, your word would have been enough for me. But you however need more proof of things, different people...

 

[Dan]

ahhh but see the problem with coming in late fro is that you missed the original which matabele and I are still debating, his claim was initially that the existence of a god was provable by him.
He has since conceded.

now do you have any value to add or do you wish to just try and stir the pot, because you are swimming witht he masters of it here