*Hawking Sticks Butt Out At God Again: Just STFU Idjit*

[JimBowie1958]

I'm pretty sure God didn't create the church, man did. I also suspect man created God (I capitalize God because I'm agostic and hedge my bet).

And I am pretty sure you are wrong on both points.

Wow, wasnt that fun.

Not sure why you are bitching, you think the same about the thousands of religions that aren't yours.

Wrong, Photonic, I do think ALL religions are touched in some manner by the Divine Spirit.

You presume too much.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Since it is now popular for universe models that it is all part of a hologram, thus, it isn't so much that religion is for people afraid of the dark, rather, a window on repeating universes throughout time in a remote echo.

We sense the echo. Brilliant man dealing with a very rough affliction.

Hat is tipped.

1. Done acid I see, *get off the dope*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[JimBowie1958]

Can I ask you something? How does one "Be an expert on Theology?"

How does one become an expert on any non-empirical subject?

 

[jwreck]

Sorry bout that,

1. Done acid I see, *get off the dope*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Did you eat too many paint chips as a child?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Sorry bout that,

Since it is now popular for universe models that it is all part of a hologram, thus, it isn't so much that religion is for people afraid of the dark, rather, a window on repeating universes throughout time in a remote echo.

We sense the echo. Brilliant man dealing with a very rough affliction.

Hat is tipped.

1. Done acid I see, *get off the dope*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

And yet -your- claims of knowledge of the nature of existence are completely rational, right? I was under the impression that faith was the act of believing without knowing, yet so many subscribers to various religions speak and act as though, despite not being able to prove the divine inspiration of their book or doctrine, they deal in fact.

Not that devout atheists are any more believable, mind you. I often find it funny when proponents for the absence of God being a proven or prove'able fact tout their superior logic, as if there is a truly logical way to discard the possibility of the divine through abstract thought.

 

[idb]

Sorry bout that,

Since it is now popular for universe models that it is all part of a hologram, thus, it isn't so much that religion is for people afraid of the dark, rather, a window on repeating universes throughout time in a remote echo.

We sense the echo. Brilliant man dealing with a very rough affliction.

Hat is tipped.

1. Done acid I see, *get off the dope*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

And yet -your- claims of knowledge of the nature of existence are completely rational, right? I was under the impression that faith was the act of believing without knowing, yet so many subscribers to various religions speak and act as though, despite not being able to prove the divine inspiration of their book or doctrine, they deal in fact.

Not that devout atheists are any more believable, mind you. I often find it funny when proponents for the absence of God being a proven or prove'able fact tout their superior logic, as if there is a truly logical way to discard the possibility of the divine through abstract thought.

That would be attempting to prove a negative, would it not?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Sorry bout that,







1. Done acid I see, *get off the dope*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

And yet -your- claims of knowledge of the nature of existence are completely rational, right? I was under the impression that faith was the act of believing without knowing, yet so many subscribers to various religions speak and act as though, despite not being able to prove the divine inspiration of their book or doctrine, they deal in fact.

Not that devout atheists are any more believable, mind you. I often find it funny when proponents for the absence of God being a proven or prove'able fact tout their superior logic, as if there is a truly logical way to discard the possibility of the divine through abstract thought.

That would be attempting to prove a negative, would it not?

Haha, and -quite- a negative.

 

[idb]

And yet -your- claims of knowledge of the nature of existence are completely rational, right? I was under the impression that faith was the act of believing without knowing, yet so many subscribers to various religions speak and act as though, despite not being able to prove the divine inspiration of their book or doctrine, they deal in fact.

Not that devout atheists are any more believable, mind you. I often find it funny when proponents for the absence of God being a proven or prove'able fact tout their superior logic, as if there is a truly logical way to discard the possibility of the divine through abstract thought.

That would be attempting to prove a negative, would it not?

Haha, and -quite- a negative.

It depends on your attitude I guess.

In quieter moments I sometimes ruminate on the how a religious person that happily accepts (and welcomes) that they are being looked after by an all-powerful dictator in the sky can be rabidly anti- any form of involvement by the government of their land in the welfare of it's citizens.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In quieter moments I sometimes ruminate on the how a religious person that happily accepts (and welcomes) that they are being looked after by an all-powerful dictator in the sky can be rabidly anti- any form of involvement by the government of their land in the welfare of it's citizens.

1. God is not a dictator. He gives us free will.

2. It is not necesarily a good thing that government replace personal charity. We are to give out of our love for our fellow man, not to avoid being arrested with the threat of deadly force.

Funny how libs just dont get that little fine point. Maybe thats why so many of them are OK with Stalin and Mao?

 

[idb]

In quieter moments I sometimes ruminate on the how a religious person that happily accepts (and welcomes) that they are being looked after by an all-powerful dictator in the sky can be rabidly anti- any form of involvement by the government of their land in the welfare of it's citizens.

1. God is not a dictator. He gives us free will.

2. It is not necesarily a good thing that government replace personal charity. We are to give out of our love for our fellow man, not to avoid being arrested with the threat of deadly force.

Funny how libs just dont get that little fine point. Maybe thats why so many of them are OK with Stalin and Mao?

Yeah but it's so much easier if we delegate and authorise our representatives to issue charity on our behalf.
After all...who has the time these days.

And 'historically', God has been a bit snippy when his will isn't followed.
Theoretically he might have given us free will but he has shown over the years that he expects us to use that free will doing what he demands or there will be consequences...a bit like Stalin and Mao...

 

[JimBowie1958]

In quieter moments I sometimes ruminate on the how a religious person that happily accepts (and welcomes) that they are being looked after by an all-powerful dictator in the sky can be rabidly anti- any form of involvement by the government of their land in the welfare of it's citizens.

1. God is not a dictator. He gives us free will.

2. It is not necesarily a good thing that government replace personal charity. We are to give out of our love for our fellow man, not to avoid being arrested with the threat of deadly force.

Funny how libs just dont get that little fine point. Maybe thats why so many of them are OK with Stalin and Mao?

Yeah but it's so much easier if we delegate and authorise our representatives to issue charity on our behalf.
After all...who has the time these days.

And 'historically', God has been a bit snippy when his will isn't followed.
Theoretically he might have given us free will but he has shown over the years that he expects us to use that free will doing what he demands or there will be consequences...a bit like Stalin and Mao...

God never destroyed the innocent, unlike Mao and Stalin.

 

[idb]

1. God is not a dictator. He gives us free will.

2. It is not necesarily a good thing that government replace personal charity. We are to give out of our love for our fellow man, not to avoid being arrested with the threat of deadly force.

Funny how libs just dont get that little fine point. Maybe thats why so many of them are OK with Stalin and Mao?

Yeah but it's so much easier if we delegate and authorise our representatives to issue charity on our behalf.
After all...who has the time these days.

And 'historically', God has been a bit snippy when his will isn't followed.
Theoretically he might have given us free will but he has shown over the years that he expects us to use that free will doing what he demands or there will be consequences...a bit like Stalin and Mao...

God never destroyed the innocent, unlike Mao and Stalin.

Because everyone is born with sin?

 

[Toro]

Yeah but it's so much easier if we delegate and authorise our representatives to issue charity on our behalf.
After all...who has the time these days.

And 'historically', God has been a bit snippy when his will isn't followed.
Theoretically he might have given us free will but he has shown over the years that he expects us to use that free will doing what he demands or there will be consequences...a bit like Stalin and Mao...

God never destroyed the innocent, unlike Mao and Stalin.

Because everyone is born with sin?

Didn't God flood the world re: Noah's Ark?

 

[Old Rocks]

If you believe in an all knowing, all powerful Diety, then that Diety created the world with all it's cruelties, and mankind with all its frailties and insanities. And if you believe that Diety is going to punish all the people that are cruel and insane for being what he created them to be, then your Diety is more insane and cruel than his creations.

Diesm is a bit easier to comprehend than the present Judeo-Christian and Moslem concepts of a Diety.