The Logic of God

[Heathen Hammer]

Not at all.
The line drawn is simply not convenient for non-believers.

No, the inconvenience is for you, the one unable to provide any evidence. You wish that you could, but you cannot, so you cover your failure with flowers.

I mean, you can't even come up with your own new words. You repeat this exact post to Godnotgod in another thread. I have complained before that your posts are basically identical to each other; now they literally are.

 

[Thief]

No, the inconvenience is for you, the one unable to provide any evidence. You wish that you could, but you cannot, so you cover your failure with flowers.

I mean, you can't even come up with your own new words. You repeat this exact post to Godnotgod in another thread. I have complained before that your posts are basically identical to each other; now they literally are.

Complain.....as in....inconvenient?

Sure I copy and paste.
The response I make covers a lot of territory, and I don't want to waste time retyping.

Have you checked Webster's? The definition there leans to the lack of evidence for items of faith.
Is that inconvenient for you?

Hell yes.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Complain.....as in....inconvenient?

Sure I copy and paste.
The response I make covers a lot of territory, and I don't want to waste time retyping.

Have you checked Webster's? The definition there leans to the lack of evidence for items of faith.
Is that inconvenient for you?

Hell yes.

lol, in what way is the lack of sustainability or credibility for your faith, an inconvenience for me? It can't really get much better for me, frankly.

Your response was essentially totally non sequitur, but yet another, ad nauseum replay of your breath-dust-angels-swords crap analogy, applied yet again to someone who has explained to you that it does not apply. If I so chose I could literally impersonate you, thanks to the repetitious nature of your posts. Also, you appear to evidence a distinct inability to digest anything that has ever been said to you.

 

[Thief]

lol, in what way is the lack of sustainability or credibility for your faith, an inconvenience for me? It can't really get much better for me, frankly.

Your response was essentially totally non sequitur, but yet another, ad nauseum replay of your breath-dust-angels-swords crap analogy, applied yet again to someone who has explained to you that it does not apply. If I so chose I could literally impersonate you, thanks to the repetitious nature of your posts. Also, you appear to evidence a distinct inability to digest anything that has ever been said to you.

I hold to my beliefs.
I don't have your taste for something less.

And later as we stand before the hierarchy...
Will you repeat your declaration?.....angels-swords-crap....

I think they will know the impersonation attempt....if you try.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I have something more. You have something less.

 

[Thief]

I have something more. You have something less.

Not with shallow retorts like that one.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Says the person who repeats themselves

I'll take my shallow retorts over your shallow spiritual life

 

[waitasec]

So around about again...here you go.



Not at all.
The line drawn is simply not convenient for non-believers.

actually, i find convoluted and ambiguous reasons of faith for doing something, anything really, inconvenient.

makes perfect sense to me.

 

[1137]

Holding to beliefs in the face of adversity is respectable... To a point. If those beliefs are unsupported and contradict reality they are much less respectable.

 

[Thief]

Faith systems need only be coherent.

Perhaps you you really need for this thread is a point of conflict that cannot be resolved.

THEN proceed with your claim of poor logic.

 

[waitasec]

Faith systems need only be coherent.

just like the idea of flying into buildings can be coherent through faith...

excellent logic...i'm stumped....
:sarcastic

 

[Thief]

just like the idea of flying into buildings can be coherent through faith...

excellent logic...i'm stumped....
:sarcastic

That would be someone else's belief....not mine.
I don't follow such things.
Lay your shallow labels on the people that do such things.

I'm a rogue theologian.

 

[1137]

You said faith only needs to be coherent, and to some, acts of terrorism make perfect sense. So you just vindicated every single horrible act with religious undertones from a serial killer to the holocaust. Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Thief]

You said faith only needs to be coherent, and to some, acts of terrorism make perfect sense. So you just vindicated every single horrible act with religious undertones from a serial killer to the holocaust. Absolutely disgusting.

I take aim to the parables of the Carpenter.

You might notice some mention...'a weeping and gnashing of teeth'...

What happens in this life is likely for poor consideration.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
A code of behavior....and fair warning.

 

[waitasec]

That would be someone else's belief....not mine.
I don't follow such things.
Lay your shallow labels on the people that do such things.

I'm a rogue theologian.

it is still coherent through someones else's faith, right?
and faith needs no proving...right?

or only other peoples faith requires proving except for yours?
which is it?

 

[waitasec]

I take aim to the parables of the Carpenter.

You might notice some mention...'a weeping and gnashing of teeth'...

What happens in this life is likely for poor consideration.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
A code of behavior....and fair warning.

then i will quote you:

Faith systems need only be coherent.

Perhaps you you really need for this thread is a point of conflict that cannot be resolved.

THEN proceed with your claim of poor logic.

 

[Thief]

then i will quote you:

And your point of conflict is what?

 

[waitasec]

And your point of conflict is what?

faith systems don't work if faith requires no evidence.

it's utilizing poor logic as your argument can be used to defend those that flew in the WTC...

simple.

 

[Thief]

faith systems don't work if faith requires no evidence.

it's utilizing poor logic as your argument can be used to defend those that flew in the WTC...

simple.

Your retort is illogical.
This isn't about your fascination with the ill will of Man.

 

[tempter]

god = God

i see no difference.

A god is just that - a god.
When you say God that means, usually, the specific god being talked about. In this case, the God of the bible.
In this situation, God was created by men and worshiped to make sense of things not fully understood: "Why does it thunder? I don't know. God must have done it."
Silly really, but what you should you expect from people with limited understanding of their environment.