Is it really time for the religion thread again already?

[Dudley]

I am sorry that Dudley's buggered off for the weekend thinking that I was having a go at *him* though, because I wasn't.

Matt

*He's also a former Mr Birmingham

OK, so that's all good after all (PHEW!)  Was vaguely worried by the Mr Birmingham comment until I realised the asterixes were in a different part of your post  ;)

[Generally Contrary]

I was brought down only on the; 'it is rational to beleive in God solely on the basis on a strong conviction without outside evidence' type statement.  I answered false (don't have a go at me...).

Then I said it was rational (or whatever they ask) for Peter Sutcliffe to believe he was doing God's work.  I didn't say so because of any anti-religious bias that wants to pin murders on Him, but because the guy was hearing voices.  So empirically, that is to say, taking the evidence provided by one's senses as the foundation of knowledge, he had a good reason to believe that God (or at least the CIA or someone) did exist and was telling him to do something.

I think he was wrong, and that he should have investigated more plausible explanations.  Like that he was a loony.  But the evidence presented to your senses needs to be interpreted, and being a poor interpreter, seeing the world poorly, does not make you 'irrational'.

But, I took a hit there.  But then they asked me to make a true/false judgement on the first statement again and hey, what could I do now?  Either way I was taking a hit.  If I recognise the inconsistency that they point out, then I contradict my first statement, but If I stick to my guns I'm knocked on my arse.  I stuck to my guns and was knocked on my arse.

[Queen Firey-Bou]

by the way, i didnt actually enjoy the bb thread at all ... i was voted in there by a load of people so did what i was told & didnt run away & hide when the war-zone commenced.

yes its important to stand up & be prepared to die for ones ideals & democratic rights. Not stubborn or pedantic & childish at all, no.  I'd do it all again, yes, "die to protect inane bollocks !" ... certainly more entertaining than a keane political debate anyway.

[Jared Katooie]

Ha! I did better than you Rott's! 1 hit, 2 bullets.

Hoo Yeah!

[red_lichtie]

As a totally irrelevent aside, having studied geology at Uni one thing I learnt was that abscence of evidence is not proof of absence. Hence when it comes to nessy, the lack of evidence claimed by the website does not neccessarily preclude the existence of the monster.

RL

[NikolaiDante]

As a Christian (and I mean this in the true sense, ie belive in God and that Jesus came to earth to save us from out sins) I must say that some of the logic in this quiz is rubbish.

I was asked this question :
People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.

I answered FALSE on the premise that there are other forces (ie Satan) that cause disease. Therefore the statement 'NEED TO' is flawed in that it implies ALL people who die a horrible, painful death do so for a higher purpose.

I got this reply :

You have claimed that God exists, that she knows about suffering, wants to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don't think that there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of painful diseases. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering.


This implies that someone who dies from a horrible disease has suffered pointlessly. This is also flawed in that the trials & tribulations & suffering are meant to strengthen us spiritually. People also forget that mortal life is the battleground and Christians believe that the reward for following God is eternal life. Therefore even if we suffer, how can you compare 70 years of struggle to eternity in peace? Now you may shoot this all down but that is OUR belief.

Also the quiz has missed the point of what sin is. Sin is what goes against God. God is unchanging (how can a being that is eternal change its nature? This would imply God has a past & a present, which he doesn't. Therefore Sin cannot change its nature.

Oh and God cannot do impossible things like make 1 + 1 = 72! Or make square circles. This quiz twists words to force you down a path so it can stick two fingers up at you. If it was clearer about its meaning then it wouldn't be so irritating.....

Well I got to the end and I must say that as far as I can see the 'quiz' writer's understanding of God is flawed. Within the questions there is a lot of logic that misses out aspects of God's nature which makes the logic flawed.

Anyway, I could spend hours discussing this but this is not the place to do it!

Dante The Saved

[test 4 echo]

i got the impression that the "test" was simply designed to utimately piss off everyone who believes in god when i saw god was a woman.

[petemaskreplica]

I wonder what God would score on that?