h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Justin,

in the child's game "hide and seek", one or more people hide and one person counts to a predetermined number, and then tries to find them. Once those who have hidden are found, it is the turn of someone else to count and do the seeking.

I'm sorry if that reference was too oblique for you. It was a joke, intimating that Jesus and I were playing hide and seek.
It is one of the responses I use when confronted by people who ask me if I have found Christ.

The other is: "Look, friend, if you can't keep track of your Messiah I don't see why you should ask me to go looking for him. Honestly, you'd think that you'd be more responsible with your Saviours. Now, have you looked behind the sofa?"
- but that usually causes more trouble than it's worth.

The idea of sending a ransom note to the Vatican was sparked by you saying something about me having Christ. I had a sudden vision of the Pope opening his morning post to find one of those notes that are assembled out of newspaper clippings, reading "We have your Messiah. Leave large amounts of cash in a brown paper bag...." etc.

It may be that you don't feel that faith is an appropriate subject for humour, in which case I apologise unreservedly and will immediately .

This is in referral to post 102.

Blicky, why start a post entitled to "everyone" when it was blatently to me?

>>>"They are not the words of the bigG, there simply isnt one. Im sorry for him (and more so for anyone who is taken in by his claptrap) that hes so gulible or stupid that he cant see that. They *are* somtimes words from one of the translations of the bible and he chooses to put the spin on them that he does. Then he chooses to post them here as if they are fact."<<<

This is your opinion. And it's no more right or wrong than Justin's, as unfortunately, we will never know if what we think in terms of religion is truly right. People can think they know, but there is never any definitive proof besides that which folks call "faith".

I could have dissected your whole post and shown it to be riddled with hypocrisy, but I'm sticking to these small chunks.

>>>"That you and he share the same view of what christians should be shows that it is you and he who are infact the ones who hold prescriptive opinions about what is right and wrong. Most of the people on this thread think Justin should be allowed to post what he likes, even if we dont like whats in his posts and think that he shouldnt be yiksed as often as he is. So who is the real hypocrite Saturnine, when you come here chiding others who simply believe that Justin should not be so incessantly offensive in his posts."<<<

Who is the real hypocrite? You blicky. On one hand, you accuse me of being arrogant enough to decide right from wrong. Damn right, that is MY religion. I'm a Satanist. Go educate yourself sometime. But then, on the other, you exhibit the exact same action. You condemn Justin, you decide that there is no God. I, at least, am consistent in my actions. I don't proclaim to be this all-loving hippie - and then launch an attack on those that your brain can't handle because they are different.

Open you mind blicky. Justin is consistent with the Bible that he reads. Therefore, he a correct Christian. Christianity is a horrific religion where women lack importance, sexuality is based on reproduction only, and paedophilia is not a crime (perhaps you should study the Bible and the history of man to discover why). He has every right to believe what he wants, and express those beliefs online. He's no one important in our social structure, so it's not likely that he could do much damage anyway.

He might be offensive - but then maybe some people should be asking themselves *why* they are offended.

>>>"Someone who does not tell the truth based on what I know. He calls me a liar and a sinner based on what he tells us he knows."<<<

And he knows a lot more than you do about his religion. Have you ever read the Bible? Especially the parts that relate to the opinions that Justin offends you with?

>>>"Its a bit pathetic and pointless"<<<

Damn right. I was really interested in hearing a whole bunch of logical opinions on this subject, as this is the first time I've seen Justin head out into the public forum. But this "pathetic" (your words) activity (that is essentially trolling) has completely ruined any potential it had.

<>

But this brings up another issue, do the majority of those in Britain who I consider Christians but you do not support the Archbishop's actions? It may be that the majority of them do not see Islam as an enemy religion. I don't have enough data to come to a meaningful conclusion about that.

Hello Lemon,

What the nominals do is nothing to do with me, but you would probably be right; the majority of them would not see Islam as an enemy religion. The reason for that is that they have never been born again of the Holy Spirit and are of the same spirit as Islam still. Therefore, whilst they would not agree with it, they do not see it as enemy religion. That is why the leader of the Anglican religion does not, also.

J.

Gradient,

I see. Well let me assure you that the old pagan would not be too concerned as Jesus is not his Messiah anyway!

J.

Justin, I know you are wrong, and that there is no God.

I would explain, but the things of Atheism cannot be understood without intellect. Quote;

"Thought is useful."

My answers were the best I can do, and it is all very obvious to me, and all Atheists. I am more than well aware that few will agree with me.

Member is sensible. Answer his question. He may not want explanation or incontrovertable proof, but like all people, I am not psychic and therefore have to base my estimation of what he wants on what he writes, like the ? at the end of his post. He's asking you something, let him enjoy an intelligent, non-dogmatic argument.

S.

<...the things of atheism cannot be understood without intellect.>

Noggin

The post above is meant to illustrate how Justin's entire argument is based on his own assertions, and how it can only possibly be convincing to those that agree with him. Anyone who was convinced that they knew there was no God would probably agree wholeheartedly with what I wrote, and they would be as idiotic as Justin is being (I'm not saying Justin is idiotic, just that he is *being* idiotic). The whole post contradicts the worldview of science, to which I subscribe, because it refuses to answer any questions and asserts absolute truths, which science does not. The idea was to parody what Justin wrote in post 118. This is the more serious post.

Justin is refusing to answer any questions, and attempts to get him to do so have a blood/stone air to them. I may carry on if I get bored later, but until then Justin, keep preaching to the converted, they are the only ones who'll be convinced.

Sarkie,

Well, as they say, 'you have another think coming'.

It is just as well that atheism cannot be understood without intellect, as that is the only tool poor atheists have.

Hoovooloo, aka 'Member', is not sensible at all. He is determined not to accept anything that any of the Lord's people tell him. I have simply left him to his end where the Lord gives him all the 'proof' he could possibly want. I am not God. He can do anything, I cannot.

The things of God are not by the wretched tools that human beings use, like 'intellect', 'debate', 'dispute', 'argument'. This is for the very simple reason that God is a person and not a theological/philosophical position. Mere religion is as you say, but God is not. The merely religious have an intllectually derived, or book derived, religion. I, and all other Christians, do not. (I don't include the nominal Christians in that.)

J.

No offence Noggin, I meant anyone who agreed with the bit about absolutely knowing there is no God would be idiotic (going with the overwhelming balance of evidence and being very nearly certain, that's fine). Anyone agreeing with the rest of it, thanks.

None taken; in my opinion omnipotent/omniscient entities are an impossibility "within the limits constituted by human understanding" - which doesn't cover all possibilities, only those that we can sensibly comment on.

Noggin

sarkie,

<>

That's our Justin! One has to wonder why he started a thread called 'opinions please' when he has never seemed interested in other people's opinions before.

az

I'm amazed that people are trying to use "intellect" against Justin's arguments. You cannot argue with Faith, as Cardinal Henry Newman put it:

It is not that we lack reason, we lack Faith.

When you have it, you just must accept that is the way they are.

hi third man,

In fact I completely accept Justin for what he is and I have no reason to think he will ever change. But as long as he continues to post in the manner he does, I will continue to challenge his words. Not with the intention of ever getting him to stop posting. I reckon he's going to do this somewhere anyhow, so it may as well be here where he can get his holy roller rocks off and perhaps cause less damage than elsewhere.




Saturnine,

You seem to think some people here are being hypocrites for . . . what exactly? Challenging a researcher for posting offensive garbage rather than just yikesing him? I would never yikes Justin myself. I prefer to see his words stand out in all their horrific glory for all to see.

<>

I find his words and his manner offensive. I cannot say I find him personally offensive because I do not know him personally. As for why I am offended by his words, well, that's personal.

And I do try my best never to get personal during discussions on threads.

az

Hi Saturnine.

Who is the real hypocrite? You blicky. On one hand, you accuse me of being arrogant enough to decide right from wrong. Damn right, that is MY religion. I'm a Satanist. Go educate yourself sometime. But then, on the other, you exhibit the exact same action. You condemn Justin, you decide that there is no God. I, at least, am consistent in my actions. I don't proclaim to be this all-loving hippie - and then launch an attack on those that your brain can't handle because they are different.


Would you like to enlighten me on what you call Satanism then, please?

I dont proclaim to be an all loving hippie, my hippie friends, would love it if they heard anyone calling me that

My, one love, refers to the idea that love is the one thing that we can all share and ahows how we are all one. I am attacking Justins not just because they are different to mine but because they directly undermine the chances of unity. Infact read literally the Bible gives many examples of god creating divisions between people as well as the sexist one you mention.




And he knows a lot more than you do about his religion. Have you ever read the Bible? Especially the parts that relate to the opinions that Justin offends you with?

I know there is no god. Not because I have proof there is no god but because I know all the "evidence" that there is is unreliable. The holy scriptures with there manifold inaccuracies and inconsitencies. The testaments of borderline psychotics and assertions regarding gods omniscience and omnipotence from people who cant behave according to their religion inspite of the fact that they *know* the bigG is watching, lend no realistic support to the idea that there is a god. Add to this the unfulfilled prophecies. Two millenia have passed and no Apoclypse as predicted by many in the god squad, people running round telling us the end is nigh and....nada!

Both times.

Infact the only evidence that I could trust suggests there is no god. Strangely my evidence comes from exactly the same place as Justins

I looked/felt inside and found no god. Even when I was open to the idea, while I went to church, the methodist mission, boys brigade and the Sunday school. We read the bible at school too aswell as having RE lessons and a daily act of christian worship. I lstened and believed in what I was told and not a tickle never mind feeling the guiding hand of god. Admitedly I have never been to the higly esteemed bible college that Justin has attended but he went there *after* his conversion. Since leaving school I have continued to read and kept an open mind, thats not to say that I did not reach a conclusion, I did but I was always ready to reasess it in the light of new evidence. So Id say that gives me a fairly good grounding in what christianity is about.

So I have approached the question from both a spiritual and logical perspective and both times, nada.

In the logical sense I can now not even see a need for god in the unverse but merely as a crutch for those who cant bare the bleakness of exsistence without a reward at the end or as some supernatural explanation for phenomena they are mentally unable to understand. (There are many things I cant understand, but I just accept that my mind cant grasp everything without falling back on suprerstitious fantasies)

On a spiritual level I found that people are ultimately better off without the idea of god, as WE then become reponsible for our actions and are allowed to asses and define our own moral codes without recourse or being restricted by dogma at very step.

one love

ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN THE FIRST POST, and return to topic?

J.

hi Justin,

<>

How can God be a person? A person is an individual flesh and blood human being. This is not possible, wouldn't you agree? Or did you mean that God is a Person? As is tne First Person of the Holy Trinity. Which then would make Him a theological position. Right?

az

Azahar,

I am not putting answers to that here. Those things are for God's people's ears only.

Hang around, you get to ask Him face to face, everyone does.

J.

At the time of posting both Justins posts after mine are still hidden, but off thread I have been told that my last posting looks agressive. I fully intended it to be a robust defence of my position but I mean no malice by it and hope no one is greatly offended by it.