Whose existence is not supported by a single shred of evidence.

It wouldn't matter if those beliefs were kept out of our schools, our legislative process etc, but many religious people seem to think that their delusion gives them the right to interfere in the lives of others.

And having the right to believe something ridiculous is not the same as having the right not to have that belief ridiculed.

It wouldn't matter if those secular beliefs were kept out of our schools, our legislative process etc, but many atheists seem to think that their 'enlightenment' gives them the right to interfere in the lives of others.

And having the right to believe something ridiculous is not the same as having the right not to have that belief ridiculed.

Lovely stuff.

Fook me, that's poor even by your standards.

There is a legal requirement for 'a daily act of collective worship of a broadly Christian nature' in every primary school in the country. There is no such requirement for any sort of atheist teaching.

There are bishops sitting in the House of Lords solely by virtue of the fact that they believe in a sky fairy. There are no people allowed to sit in the House of Lords solely because they are atheists.

My sons go to a CofE school and the pastoral care there is amazing. I've not seen anything come close to it and neither has my mother-in-law who is an OFSTED chief.



Good, although it would be even better if the Bishops grew a backbone and stuck to scripture instead of competing over who can be the most liberal.

If your OFSTED chief mother-in-law is anything like you that is truly terrifying thought.

And I speak as the (soon-to-be) husband of a Religious Education teacher.

In what way is it [iterrifying[/i?

Do you remember talking to me on SS before I made my faith known to all? I even congratulated you on your engagement. You didn't seem to have a problem with me then. Why not? Because I'm just a regular guy and RL fan. My beliefs are my own. I might be on the socially conservative side of the political spectrum, but I'm by no means alone.

It seems it's fashionable to hate on the Christian.

All of which is entirely irrelevant. I posted that religion should be kept out of public life. You tried to be clever and turn my post back on me, but succeeded only in making yourself look (even more) stupid by failing to see that the parallels you were drawing simply weren't there.

I don't have a problem with you or your faith. I don't have a problem with anybody who has religious beliefs.

What I do have a problem with is your insistance of forcing your faith upon others, and you dismissing other faith believers as 'sinners who have been fooled by Satan and will burn in Hell'.

For you it seems fashionable to hate on anybody who [iisn't[/i Christian. Thats what I'm not cool with.

I've come on an internet forum and shared my beliefs. They have not been forced on anyone. If anything, other people have extracted them from me by asking many questions. You say you don't have any problem with my faith, but my faith is that other religionists have been deceived and that Jesus is the way,the truth and the life (John 14:6).

So what you're basically saying is you do have a problem with my faith and you resent that I express it.

I'm really sorry if I've offended you. If I am honest, I have privately admired your contribution to RLFANS, TotalRL.com and loverugbyleague.com. I also believe we've met at Akkies in the past.

ATEOTD we all have spiritual beliefs and I've made mine abundantly clear. But here's a fact - I have friends who are atheists, Muslims, Hindus - I disagree with their religious beliefs strongly but I've never treated them any different. They are friends.

But not gay.

Whilst I am not in agreement of your description I agree that schools should be secular. If an individual wishes to learn about and explore a religion then that should be their choice and not one that's chosen for them.



I didn't say it wasn't but unless you're a stand-up comedian doing some sort of satire what purpose does it serve to ridicule what can be a very personal belief?

That for it to be true, it is predicated on an assumption that Jesus, in human form, could have spoken to and communicated with world leaders throughout history, through common and widely understood methods of communication and been systematically and consistantly and completely ignored. every time. It is wrong that this is a reasonable conclusion.

you dont have any faith. You have what is a logical conclusion to evidence presented to you. Your problem is that you expect everyone else to have faith in your experience.
Yes, and we can prove that this is what is happening. It is provable, understood and repeatable. It is the complete opposite of your argument.
The point i was making was that what you are claiming happened is that Jesus spoke to you, not through the holy spirit or any of that nonsense, not through some code or hidden message only you could see, not through any vague nonsense you have interpreted as Jesus, Not even directly as a message straight inside your head, but by a Human, talking to you Which if true means that you dont have faith in jesus, you have a conclusion based on evidentiary reasoning, something you seem to be arguing other people shouldnt do. They should have faith. But not you, because for some reason you are special, you and an infinitesimal percentage of the billions of people alive now and the billions who have ever lived, didnt need faith. They, for reasons you cant explain, were given proofyour religion isnt faith. Your beliefs arent beliefs. They are, according to you, the logical conclusion of reasoning. It requires less faith and belief than gravity does.

distinction without a difference. For me to believe and trust in what has been promised to me from god would be a belief without evidence. Something you didnt have the faith for.

Don't you find it odd there is absolutely no record of what Jesus looked like, yet he happened to almost match our typical Western portrayal? When actually in Galilee in those times he's much more likely to have had a thick head of black hair, a thick black beard and be generally much more thick-set in general.


Why? What's the point if god has already chosen who he will save? Is it simply that you want them to glorify your god when in fact they're doomed to hell? You want the masses to dedicate their lives to glorifying your god when you know most of them won't be saved. Rather devious, is it not?


You know there's only one real difference between you and I in this discussion. Let's say there are [url=http://www.godchecker.com/approximately 3,700 major gods[/url that have been or are currently worshipped on Earth. I don't believe in 3,700 of them; you don't believe in 3,699.

And you realise believers many of those gods also truly, honestly believe they met their gods and spoke with them? In their minds they probably believed they did, and they went forth and spread the good word. Just as you're doing. You're nothing more than the latest in thousands of years of similar claims.


Do you know you're saved or not? If you are, what makes you special?


Well that's not a decision then, is it? That's your god using his supernatural powers to steer people's minds.


So he selected the saved in the beginning. Again, what was the point of Jesus? Or the flood? Why not just let the sinners crack on having fun if he's chosen his saved from the start?


Nope, a god who acts in the manner you describe is not my god. Nor is he the god of two thirds of the planet, probably rather more given your particular beliefs.


That's the point of life? To glorify a being who will probably be sending me to hell unless I happen to be chosen to be saved based on an unknown criteria?


But absolutely correct.


You see, this is what I don't quite get. Jesus died on the cross 2,000 years ago to allow those who will be saved to sin without penalty? Isn't that handy for those that deem themselves saved.


Of course it is. The [url=http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Contradictory-Wisdom-in-Bible.phpKing James Bible Online[/url site even admits to a whole host of contradictions and admits they must either be contradictions or misinterpreted. And [url=http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/5257/kjverror.htmhere's a decent reference[/url for some of the translation errors and other issues with the KJV.

And I suggest you look at how Erasmus produced the Textus Resmus. Wasn't exactly translated directly from the very earliest Greek texts, was it now? Right old hodge-podge of Greek manuscripts and the Vulgate, wasn't it? Plus he was rushed to complete it.

Hardly the uncorrupted word.


Similarly, two words can convey completely different meanings and a different message. Just as misplaced punctuation and a minor error in translation can convey different meanings.


Erm, that's exactly what I said. I also pointed out that carpentry would have been a rare profession in 1st-century Galilee due to the dry, arid climate and scarcity of wood, whereas stone-working/labouring would have been an enormous market. It's widely accepted that the carpenter translation is probably incorrect.




Sorry, that's utterly ridiculous. God commanded one of the only two humans in existence not to do something, yet she demonstrated free will by defying his command. And your argument is that he "preconfigured" her to do so! Come on, get a grip.

You're saying that every decision we make is predestined by god. We're just a game of Sims to him, aren't we?


The phrase "all who did receive him" indicates there are those who DIDN'T receive him, presumably because they chose not to. But you'll just tell me it was all predestined anyway.


Those who CHOOSE not to do good won't receive glory, honour and peace. Their choice. But you'll just tell me it was all predestined anyway.


Whereas you're repeatedly demonstrating your lack of solid argument with circular reasoning.


Not at all, nothing wrong with modelling yourself on your idol. Just don't go driving nails through your hands.

I have briefly glances through some of the rubbish on various Calvinist and hyper-Calvinist four and five pointers and the thing that strikes me is how these guys can tie any simple subject in endless knots and contortions, ludicrously trying to square circles, so that they can madly ultimately "support" their own particular barking hypothesis, and make their pet theory fit,at any cost.

The inability to apply Occam's razor seems to be a common defect. The shiite about atonement alone is worth peals of laughter indeed. It does remind me a lot of the similar sort of barking claptrap from time to time insisted upon by the Catholic church, in fact so blinded were otherwise highly intelligent folk by the diktat that the Earth was the centre of the universe, that they invented fantastical celestial spheres within spheres, with ludicrous gears and cogs and axes, anything to fit Earth being at the centre, yet none would countenance the simple explanation that in fact the Earth was not. Hence the need for improbable convoluted alternative "explanations".

So these types all simply have to tortuously invent what would to any logical person be dismissed as sophistry and rubbish of the highest order, in an attempt to bolster the mad claim that there is actually truth within the utter nonsense and contradictions of the various holy books, as they seem to be hard-wired with an incapacity to see the blindingly obvious: that all you have to do is to simply accept that, yes, what appears to be rubbish is not in fact 'explained' by several pages of disingenuous tosh, twisted logic, ever more absurd claims and theories and 'interpretation', but that it appears to be rubbish simply because it IS rubbish.

I think one day for amusement though I shall get some Galilean fancy dress and turn up in some Calvinist's garden. Clearly some guy who looks like their idea of Jesus by definition must be Jesus (I presume that they don't ask for ID, much like kids sitting on "Santa"'s knee in the Arndale grotto). But actually no. The truth is, if some bearded long haired guy in a frock wandered into these people's garden, they'd be off hiding upstairs, and on the phone to the police saying there's some nutter on the loose.

Most of the New Testament was compiled and written by Romans or Greeks at the behest of Romans. It is intended to defame the Jews while promoting the idea that Jesus taught Love and peace to his fellow man. It is Roman propaganda, nothing more nothing less. Of course it's not going to say the Romans were bad. It even absolves Pilate of sole responsibility for the death of Jesus even though Crucifixion was a Roman punishment exclusively preserved for the execution of traitors and enemies of the state. Had Jesus been accused of blasphemy Pilate wouldn't have even been involved it would have been left to the Jews to handle it themselves. The purpose or the Gospels is to fit the Roman idea of Jesus into the Judaic prophecies of the Messiah to control a particularly troublesome sect in Rome that was a thorn in the side of many Emperors particularly Nero. Throw in some Eastern mysticism and you have the current Bible.

These aren't my arguments they are the arguments of most of the scholastic world. They are just a few of the major discrepencies between the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Discrepencies that the church has failed to come to terms with. You can't just paper over them by saying "Well it's mentioned in Luke so it doesn't have to be mentioned in Matthew" because they are not concurrent.

ATEOTD you can believe what you wish. However since you are not Roman Catholic I'm astonished at your slavish devotion to a book that was produced solely to steal a god from another people and crush all other Christian sects.

Edit: Again apologies I meant to put Yeshua not Yehwah in the previous post.

I am idly trying to follow some of the tortured logic but am stuck. Can somebody help? I thought Jesus wasn't going to return until Armageddon. I have scoured the Bible and can find no indication that before Armageddon, he would be on tour, playing a lot of small venues to audiences of 1. Where does it say that?

The other bit where I'm stuck is that as apparently Jesus has of late made it clear - though only to very select members of his highly exclusive club - he's a three point turn, double cream Calvinist (or something), and gigs only to selected individuals of only precisely that sub-sect, doesn't it follow that all Jesus's followers, including the entirety of religionists prior to three point turn, double cream Calvinists, were deceived by Satan and therefore anything they say or write can't be relied on?

Does this mean that the Second Coming will, in fact be a rather disappointingly mundane 138th coming, or whatever?

I tell you what, though. If he'd come to see me, I'm damn sure I'd have got the missus out and we'd have taken a photo and got it framed.

We're on a discussion forum. If the discussion was about, say, Rugby League and a poster was insisting that Hull KR would be the next SL and World Club Champions, he/she would be widely ridiculed. Belief in a supernatural being that hears our every thought, sees our every deed, created the universe etc etc is way more outlandish than the belief that Rovers will win the WCC, and would therefore be subject to an even greater degree of ridicule. In short, ridiculous religious beliefs, however personal, are deserving of no more respect than any other belief that is unsupported by evidence or sound reasoning.

A photo would have been useful for the police to help them identify the bloke who's been having it on his toes with the lawnmowers of Kirkstall's gullible religious nutjobs.

............... you might regret this observation

Perhaps, but I'm no more worried about it than I am about dying and finding out there is a hell after all. Both have a probability of close to 0.

If you are wrong, at least you'll be warm

True. I fecking despise harp music anyway.

They aren't much cop with lager either