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

I knew he couldn't stay away.

I believe I owe myself a drink..

'The def from catholic encyclopaedia is good'




You think, warner, that the definition from the Catholic Encyclopaedia is good? You mean like this bit?

'Regarding the mystery of the Trinity or three Divine Persons in God, which can be known only by revelation, it is enough to say here that properly understood the mystery contains no contradiction, but on the contrary adds much that is helpful to our inadequate knowledge of the infinite.'

So Muhammad didn't get that revelation?

What about this bit?

'it is a strange confusion of thought that has led some modern Theists — even professing Christians — to maintain that such attributes can be laid aside by God, and that the Logos in becoming incarnate actually did lay them aside, or at least ceased from their active exercise. But as creation itself did not affect the immutability of God, so neither did the incarnation of a Divine Person; whatever change was involved in either case took place solely in the created nature.'

Uh oh. God became flesh in Jesus -- he wasn't just a prophet.

I won't go on. Clearly this isn't the definition you've had in mind with your earlier posts.

anhaga,
Or this bit ..

It is clear from the above post that anhaga loves to cause division, as it helps atheism to flourish

Quite simply, every denomination or group of believers have their own pet tenets, which they tend to dwell on .. but the underlying theism is fairly standard .. catholicism being quite orthodox, and consequently its theistic beliefs are fairly sound overall.

Well whodathunkit? Warner is a apologist for The Evil Empire.

"It is clear from the above post that anhaga loves to cause division"

Pointing out your inconsistencies, hollow hypocrisies and self-contradictions, Warner is not sowing the seeds of discord.

It is damn entertaining though.

On the subject of causing division:

warner needs to learn that calling oneself a Muslim Christian Jew and ignoring fundamental doctrinal differences is not ecumenicism.

I thought that warner was relying on idiopathic revelation. Aided by the scriptural buffet.

isn't the internet wonderful, you don't have to get up from your seat to fill your plate.

>>Quite simply, every denomination or group of believers have their own pet tenets, which they tend to dwell on .. but the underlying theism is fairly standard .. catholicism being quite orthodox, and consequently its theistic beliefs are fairly sound overall<<

How do you judge which are orthodox and which are unorthodox? What guidelines do you use?

As Giford has tried to point out, time and again, Hindus and Buddhists would not recognise your concept of God. It is totally alien to them so the crass generalisation that 'all believers have a standard underlying theism' is nonsense unless you define 'believers' as 'people who follow what I believe'

>The crass generalisation that 'all believers have a standard underlying theism' is nonsense unless you define 'believers' as 'people who follow what I believe'<

I wouldn't put it beyond him y'know.

>> calling oneself a Muslim Christian Jew and ignoring fundamental doctrinal differences is not ecumenicism.

I don't care what it is! I'm a person (No, not a divine one).

Some persons believe in God/Yahweh/Allah, and others do not.
Some persons belive that God is in "3 persons" and others do not.
Some persons realise that Muslims, Jews and Christians believe in the same One God, while others do not..

Education has a lot to do with it .. along with intention

Hi Warner,

Yes, but are all those people right? And if not, how do you decide which are right and which are wrong?

Is it by giving greater weight to some people's opinions than others? And if so, is it by giving greater weight to your own opinion simply because it's yours?

Gif

<>The crass generalisation that 'all believers have a standard underlying theism' is nonsense unless you define 'believers' as 'people who follow what I believe'<

I wouldn't put it beyond him y'know.

Clive, it's what I've been saying all along. It's what I called yesterday the argument from narcissism. Warner DEFINES reality as what warner feels.

Notice that he constantly offers his subjective feelings as evidence. Except to warner they are objective truth. The pope can only claim to be infallible, on this thread there is only one infallible being.

Gif,
>> how do you decide which are right and which are wrong?
By having 'pure intentions' and by using your intellect. Yes, of course you have to trust your own sincerity over any Tom, Dick or Harry
That includes travelling, living amongst different peoples, conferring with scholars of all persuasions, making your own studies, and lastly
"holding an opinion" based on your experiences.

Yes .. people will come to different conclusions .. we are all individuals.
However, there is HUGE difference between a person who believes in The One God, and a person who doesn't .. that's fundamental!
[ Christians believe in The One God, but complicate it with 'the mysterious 3' ]

Some religions don't claim to be revealed by God, or are old and unreliable etc.

<>

i have pure intentions, i want to educate people that they do not need to do evil and persicute others in the name of a non existant god

we sould all Man Up! and live in harmony with each other

instead of global conflict political leaders should sort it out behind the bike sheds

that way no one need die for anothers ideas or political ambition

i meet your criteria warner, doea that make me rightous, holy, a messiah/prophet because i want none of that for I Am A MAN!!!!

Hi Warner,

>By having 'pure intentions' and by using your intellect.

So anyone who disagrees with you has 'impure intentions' and/or hasn't used their intellect?

>That includes travelling, living amongst different peoples, conferring with scholars of all persuasions

Have you done any of that? Travelled to India or Iran, for instance, and lived among the Jains or Farsis, conferring with their scholars?

>there is HUGE difference between a person who believes in The One God, and a person who doesn't .. that's fundamental!

And what difference is that (aside from a minor theological viewpoint)? How does this affect them as moral, ethical, thinking beings?

>Some religions don't claim to be revealed by God, or are old and unreliable etc.

I can't think of any religions that don't claim to be revealed by God. And as discussed (or rather, avoided by you) before ad nauseam, Islam is plenty old enough to be highly unreliable.

Gif

PS: lest we forget, your 3-minute was an attempt to avoid the question of how you choose which prophets and scriptures to believe in and which to reject.

Gif

>> our 3-minute was an attempt to avoid the question of how you choose which prophets and scriptures to believe in

Not so .. sometimes I find it not worthwhile to discuss anything with most people who participate on these threads on h2g2 .. why?

Because of the aggressive style of them .. I like to remind, not to argue in circles with "smart" philisophical diversions.

eg. as you have no evidence, and things without evidence are unlikely etc.


What a waste of time! I'd rather educate people with what I know than to "headbang"!

>> your 3-minute was an attempt to avoid the question of how you choose which prophets and scriptures to believe in
>Not so [...]

clearly not...

Gif