Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Farmer Geddon

Death and Inevitable death.

Just to say, when I read threads about death and/or inevitable death here or on other forums. I tend to ignore them.

It doesn't mean that I don't wish hope for those posting about their loved ones, or even about those they barely know!!

But my position is: those who we are asked to 'pray' for, or give our 'best wishes' for, will survive or die regardless of our prayers or best wishes.

It's nature, and we can't fight against it.

For sure, if it it gives you comfort to believe your dead loved ones are in 'heaven', or awaiting the journey into 'heaven' and not just rotting in the ground, dust to dust, ash to ash and all that..

Then I can share your grief.

To a certain extent.

Bury. Ash. Dust I can understand.

Ascension into 'heaven'?

Too Pre-Archeology for my liking!!

What if Death is it, and you have wasted your life in false hope instead of embracing it?
Powwow

But what if it isn't?
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
But what if it isn't?

That's not an answer.

What's the more reasonable conclusion? Not an afterlife, that's for sure. And which one? Nor does an afterlife inevitably and ineluctably pair up with the existence of any gods, necessarily. (There have been atheists who believed in an afterlife, though not many at all). Even if you assume that your own personally favoured version of an afterlife according to the religious tradition you espouse out of hundreds if not thousands of others just happens to be the right one (convenient, huh?), apply just a smidgen of critical thought to the concept, ask all the pointed, pertinent questions and it vanishes instantly in a puff of illogic.
Shaker

Re: Death and Inevitable death.

Farmer Geddon wrote:
But my position is: those who we are asked to 'pray' for, or give our 'best wishes' for, will survive or die regardless of our prayers or best wishes.

Quite. I don't say it on the relevant threads as that would be out of place not to mention quite properly against the house rules but I do think this every time I see somebody ask for inercessory prayers for someone who is ill.

If you're praying to a god of some form for the recovery of ill loved ones, one scenario is that that deity is in a position to alter the course of events - in which case he actively caused them or passively allowed them (there's a factual but arguably not a moral difference) to become ill in the first instance, and so this isn't a deity worth praying to as far as I'm concerned. Praying for the recovery of the sick is in effect asking that the supposed creator of the universe change its mind. As Ambrose Bierce defined prayer: "To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." Or the deity is ignorant and doesn't even know that they're ill, which also makes it not worth praying to. Or it knows about the situation but is powerless to alter it: well-intentioned, kind even, but inept, something of a benevolent but ultimately useless muddler and bumbler. Same case scenario - not worth praying to. It's the problem of evil/riddle of Epicurus in a nutshell.

Then there's the rather major issue that even if you accept the idea of a god, there's absolutely no way of telling whether any such prayers are answered at all. Illnesses - even desperately serious ones - do resolve spontaneously sometimes and people get better. At other times they don't and people die. Prayer may not be a scientific experiment for those doing the praying but it can be and has been tested scientifically and found wanting. Why prayer itself can never be a scientific experiment is that it lacks a control: you can't have two identical people identically ill down to the very last particular, one of whom is prayed for and the other who isn't, to compare like with like. In the absence of that, there's absolutely no way of telling the difference between prayer being answered and the action of complete random chance. In scientific terms, that makes it unfalsifiable and therefore invalid. Again, people minded to consider prayer to be real and to have real effects don't treat it scientifically, but I'm not one of those people and I do. I like to have some consistently reliable means of being able to tell whether my provisional beliefs about the nature of reality are most likely true or false.

And let's face it, some believers have such an overwhelming need to believe that their brand of god is at work in all things and all situations at all times that literally any and every possible outcome will be counted, by them, as evidence that that god is there. Confirmation bias writ large. Subject recovers fully = god's will. Subject dies = still god's will. (I have certainly heard, and not just a few times but repeatedly, Christians say that death was their God's decision as to the 'recovery' of the sick person. I could, but will not, provide examples from this very forum). Subject lingers for weeks or months in pain and then dies a hideous death = you guessed it. God's will again. For believers of this stripe there is literally no outcome, nothing that can happen which would pull them up and introduce even a scintilla of doubt along the lines of "Oh wait ... whatever happened might well have happened anyway, no matter what I or anybody else did. But that could mean ..."

Returning to science once again, an unfalsifiable hypothesis, one that explains everything, actually explains nothing at all, because there's no means of establishing its truth or falsity.
bnabernard

I'm minded of the film Kelly's Heroes, whats with all the negative waves man.  

bernard (hug)
Powwow

That's all atheists have is the negative. So it only makes sense that when their death happens they will continue for eternity in the negative. Of course at that time it will be a permanent, eternal condition.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
That's all atheists have is the negative. So it only makes sense that when their death happens they will continue for eternity in the negative. Of course at that time it will be a permanent, eternal condition.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And just has been, in both cases.

I've spent 638 words (thus far) asking the searching and pertinent questions and outlining the objections to your stance. That you've failed to engage with any of this in any way whatsoever is no surprise to anyone, least of all me, but when you clearly have so little intention of contributing anything of any substance to a thread I do wonder why you bother chipping in with your irrelevant one liners at all.
bnabernard

God shaker are  you realy expecting an in depth enquiry with an absolute outcome.
Positivity is exampled in the placebo effect that something can happen from a belief and is excused for not happening by a lack of belief, there then add up arguments for and against, then we get into spectres and such like, apparitions unidentified happenings, gravity and all the other tosh we generate in these arguments.
Then the cracker ''prove it''.
What everybody is left with is a search for hard evidence and while sceince looks for the God particle,  those who believe in an actual higher power just tick along with positive attitude that lingers arround a negative attitude.

What you don't get is dedicated agreement, without dedicated agreement then you/everybody lives in a grey area of Pos&Neg and nobody progressess back beyond 0 .

Anyhow just a bit more than a one liner to satisfy your inner frustration of negative replies,  

I'll try thought transferance and see if we can have a meeting of minds  


bernard (hug)
Shaker

bnabernard wrote:
God shaker are  you realy expecting an in depth enquiry with an absolute outcome.

No no, nothing like that. But anybody with any integrity (not to mention more than two brain cells to rub together) will surely (a) be aware of the objections and challenges to their stance/position/belief(s) and (b) at some point would presumably want to meet these head-on in one way or another - perhaps answering them with better arguments (if they exist), perhaps even putting up their hands and saying "OK, you're right, it's a fair cop. You have the better arguments [Miguel de Unamuno, I think it was - a believer - said this of atheism] and I don't; these are just my beliefs" - rather than pretending that they simply don't exist. FG created this thread with a good OP containing some interesting points and food for thought: I've replied in kind.
northernstar

Dead is dead, no afterlife whatsoever, to me that is sheer selfishness, we all have an allotted span, why be greedy and want more? Not being negative, pow wow, just realistic.
Powwow

Who allotted your span? I do agree with that idea though. God knows the number of my days on planet earth and I thank Him for each and every one.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Who allotted your span?

Who says it's a who? It seems to be a what. To a considerable degree it appears to be one's telomeres, i.e. the genetic material at the end of each chromosome.
Powwow

"If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come."   Job 14:14
Shaker

northernstar wrote:
Dead is dead, no afterlife whatsoever

I would state the same thing negatively rather than as positively as that, i.e. I've seen no credible, compelling evidence that dead is anything other than dead and that there's an afterlife. There might well be, but to misquote Dr Johnson, all hope is for it but all experience and evidence is against it. And it's always a good maxim to mistrust anything that we may want to believe to be the case.
Quote:
to me that is sheer selfishness, we all have an allotted span, why be greedy and want more? Not being negative, pow wow, just realistic.



Link
Powwow

"graves from very early sites all over the earth give evidence of the belief in human survival of bodily death."   Dr. Raymond Moody Jr.

"What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave? Selah"   Psalm 89:48

"And it came to pass, that the beggar died , and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom:..."   Luke 16:22
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
"graves from very early sites all over the earth give evidence of the belief in human survival of bodily death."   Dr. Raymond Moody Jr.

Yes, we know that already. But that's only belief in survival, not actual survival.

Quote:
"What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave? Selah"   Psalm 89:48

"And it came to pass, that the beggar died , and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom:..."   Luke 16:22

I can only assume your attempt at trying to engage properly fizzled out somewhere between the Moody quote and the irrelevant Bible passages.
Powwow

"Being is without reason, without cause, and without necessity."   Jean-Paul Sartre
"Life has no meaning the moment you loose the illusion of being eternal."   Jean-Paul Sartre
LOL!!

So the atheist life has no cause, reason and is not needed. No wonder no atheist can live a truly happy life. Those atheists that claim they have purpose and are happy, are dishonest.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
"Being is without reason, without cause, and without necessity."   Jean-Paul Sartre
"Life has no meaning the moment you loose the illusion of being eternal."   Jean-Paul Sartre
LOL!!

So the atheist life has no cause, reason and is not needed. No wonder no atheist can live a truly happy life. Those atheists that claim they have purpose and are happy, are dishonest.


Rubbish. Quite happy thank you. Other than the usual shit you have to deal with, like people thinking that just because Satre said something somehow makes it correct.

I could just as easily argue "Life has meaning the moment you lose the illusion of being eternal - it gives it greater urgency and immediacy"

Those Christians who claim that atheists are being dishonest are themselves being dishonest.

Which I thought was against their religion or something.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
"Being is without reason, without cause, and without necessity."   Jean-Paul Sartre
"Life has no meaning the moment you loose the illusion of being eternal."   Jean-Paul Sartre
LOL!!

So the atheist life has no cause

It has proximate causes rather than ultimate ones, correct.
Quote:
reason

There's no inherent link between being an atheist and being rational, but broadly speaking, the majority of atheists, you'll find, do seem to place a very very high premium indeed on rationality.
Quote:
and is not needed.

Needed by what or by whom?
Quote:
No wonder no atheist can live a truly happy life.

I know I'm on a hiding to nothing here but at least one of us has to maintain some sort of intellectual rigour. Where is your evidence that substantiates this statement? Bear in mind that you have written: "no atheist can live a truly happy life." What is a truly happy life, where is your evidence that no atheist has ever lived one and how would you know what counts as a truly happy life for somebody else?

Quote:
Those atheists that claim they have purpose and are happy, are dishonest.

No - those atheists who claim they have purpose are the ones who can tell the difference between (in Sartre's terms) Being itself being without reason/meaning and the individual life possessing reason/meaning. Not an easy concept to grasp if you're unfamiliar with Sartre's thought and his very specific use of very specific terms in the context of his philosophical writings (such as Being, or être-en-soi).

In any case, Sartre was only one atheist so he represents only one man's opinion: I'm not sure why I'm implicitly supposed to accept his pronouncements as being the last word when you will blithely ignore, without engagement much less understanding, the directly contrary words of other atheists on meaning and purpose in life such as Eric Maisel (particularly good in this area), Bertrand Russell, Andre Comte Sponville, Daniel Dennett, Michel Onfray or Richard Dawkins (already quoted). Almost any atheist, in fact. You quote Sartre as though you take his words at face value and believe what he says. Which is très intéressant, n'est-ce-pas? (as the old fella himself might have said).
bnabernard

While sitting here rolling a cigarette I have to recognise phychological dependency, especialy as I have one of those E-cigs next to me as well.
Routine dependencies can vary from a cup of tea to a sunday stroll but become part of lifes habits, friends and family fall into that catagory and substitutes generaly have to be provided, habit and adiction walk a fine line of seperation. In that train of thought we have to deal with loss in one way or another and one way is not to accept a loss but to concede a seperation which in turn leads to re-union, however reunion in itself presents another seperation.
Because I have a certain understanding about life, ie it is a self perpetuating force outside of substance, a singuler entity capable of exercising a right of passage over substance, and about here run out of what to say to best describe what I'm talking about and hope someone else has had the same thought and related it better  

Can life exist without there being substance, and we arrive back at 0 which is where we get to before any big bang or particle existence.

Has life 0 thought and recollection anough to re-establish itself as was.

If all the atoms were to dissapear back into nothing could they reapear as was.

has anybody seen my car keys?

bernard (hug)
Powwow

bna,
Are you sitting on them? lol
Powwow

Atheism has nothing to offer but arrogance, hate and misery. Let it go and be truly happy.
Shaker

bnabernard wrote:
Because I have a certain understanding about life, ie it is a self perpetuating force outside of substance

OK ...
Quote:
Can life exist without there being substance, and we arrive back at 0 which is where we get to before any big bang or particle existence.

Well Bern, my answer would be no because that would be a contradiction in terms, but your answer is the direct opposite since you say that you have an "understanding" about life, namely, it being a self-perpetuating force outside of substance. I would say that it is as incoherent to talk about life existing as some impersonal and abstract principle apart from substance (I assume you mean an actual, material, corporeal body of some kind) - Being Itself, beloved of Paul Tillich et hoc genus omnes - as it would be to talk about Temperature Itself, divorced from any physical substance. Temperature is a measure of the relative rate of molecular movement: for something to possess the quality of temperature, whatever that may be relative to something else, it actually has to inhere as a property in something, some actual physical, material stuff-in-the-world, whether that's air or any other gas, the water in a boiling kettle, the water in the Arctic Ocean, a mint choc chip Cornetto, molten iron, whatever. It makes no sense to talk about temperature in the abstract, divorced from something which actually possesses that property. Same with life, as far as I'm concerned: there isn't and can't be any such thing as mere Life or mere Being Itself. Being is a property that specific existent things - me; you; the cat further down my street; the Shard; New Zealand; prawn cocktail flavoured crisps; the M42 galaxy - possess.

Well, I know what I mean, anyway

Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Atheism has nothing to offer but arrogance, hate and misery. Let it go and be truly happy.

I thought you were yet to define "truly happy," let alone "truly happy" according to whom?

Oh yes, so you are.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
Atheism has nothing to offer but arrogance, hate and misery. Let it go and be truly happy.


Random nonsense.

Christianity has nothing to offer but arrogance, hate and misery. Let it go and be truly happy.
Lexilogio

Even scientifically, death is not an ending, but a new beginning.

Physical bodies are broken down, and molecules recycled into other things - into plants, then eaten by animals, and converted into parts of animal etc...

Most religions, to my knowledge, believe in some form of afterlife. The nature of that afterlife varies somewhat between religions, and even between adherents of a given religion. The general principle is that it is:
a) better for those who have lived by the rules
b) non physical - but the "id" or "soul" continues.

Do I believe in an afterlife? Y...e...s... but I don't think it is a necessary part of believing in a deity. And I'm inclined to think of it as a separate dimension - and therefore somewhere we would struggle to comprehend in our current physical form. Therefore I am happy to be surprised (at least - I hope I won't be unhappily surprised...
Shaker

Lexilogio wrote:
Even scientifically, death is not an ending, but a new beginning.

Physical bodies are broken down, and molecules recycled into other things - into plants, then eaten by animals, and converted into parts of animal etc...

That's one way of looking at it; another is that rather than a new beginning per se it's simply the restoration of inert constituent parts (the electrons, protons and neutrons of which we're all made) to pre-existing forms.

Whichever way you look at it, though, from the point of view of somebody desperate to believe in a literal afterlife - which I would define as the immaterial survival or persistence of personality/consciousness after physical death - the fact that you might feed crows and make the daffodils grow would be cold comfort, however true. Nobody who wants their personality, their consciousness to go on and on and on existing for ever, indefinitely into an unlimited and timeless future, cares about the iron in their blood being forged in the explosions of dead stars many billions of years ago. Miguel de Unamuno, who as it happens I had cause to mention earlier in this thread today, was nakedly honest about this in his masterwork, The Tragic Sense of Life. (A historical curiosity, as far as I'm concerned, only as a book-length explication of the absolutely desperate will to believe whatever is emotionally comforting - credo consolans - no matter what). More so than the vast majority.

Quote:
"I am presented with arguments designed to eliminate it, arguments demonstrating the absurdity of the belief in the immortality of the soul; but these arguments fail to make any impression on me, for they are reasons and nothing more than reasons, and it is not with reasons that the heart is appeased. I do not want to die — no; I neither want to die nor do I want to want to die; I want to live for ever and ever and ever. I want this "I" to live — this poor "I" that I am and that I feel myself to be here and now, and therefore the problem of the duration of my soul, of my own soul, tortures me."


Martin Gardner was another who held to that credo. It's possibly more common that we think, but you wouldn't know it since relatively few people seem to be prepared to be that open, up-front and explicit about it.

*

Quote:
Most religions, to my knowledge, believe in some form of afterlife. The nature of that afterlife varies somewhat between religions, and even between adherents of a given religion.


You used to hear people try to define the word "religion" as a belief system that accepts the existence of at least one supernatural figure(s) considered as/treated as/venerated as a god, which knocks Buddhism and arguably Jainism out; elsewhere I've seen religion defined (by somebody or other and I've been sitting here racking my poor brain trying to remember who it was and where I read it) rather as a belief system that, whatever its position on gods, accepts some form of posthumous existence. This definition would include even Buddhism, where its form of post-mortem continuation is unconscious, non-personal and abstract.

Quote:
Do I believe in an afterlife? Y...e...s...

Say what you really think, Lex

Quote:
but I don't think it is a necessary part of believing in a deity.


You're quite right; the two are in principle totally separate and separable. Bertrand Russell spoke for the majority opinion when he described belief in god(s) and belief in personal immortality as "the irreducible minimum of theology":

Quote:
God and immortality, the central dogmas of the Christian religion, find no support  in science. It cannot be said that either doctrine is essential to religion, since neither is found in Buddhism. (With regard to immortality, this statement in an unqualified form might be misleading, but it is correct in the last analysis). But we in the West have come to think of them as the irreducible minimum of theology*
.

But in actual fact the two things, while most often they've gone in tandem, are discrete entities. No doubt there have been staunch theists/deists who have disbelieved in any form of afterlife (I don't know of any specific examples, but I'm sure others may) and there have certainly been convinced atheists who have believed in an afterlife, presumably on the basis that an afterlife is simply a brute fact about nature, something that simply is. An odd position, but it just goes to show that you don't necessarily have to be a materialist/naturalist/physicalist to be an atheist. The philosopher J.M.E. MacTaggart (1866-1925) was one such.

Quote:
And I'm inclined to think of it as a separate dimension - and therefore somewhere we would struggle to comprehend in our current physical form. Therefore I am happy to be surprised (at least - I hope I won't be unhappily surprised...

The trouble is, Lexi, when your belief system contains at least the possibility of being unhappily surprised, and presumably not just as a one-off, one-shot deal but eternally, for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever, the door is always open ...  

* (Bertrand Russell, What I Believe).
bnabernard

Quote:
I assume you mean an actual, material, corporeal body of some kind


Well no not realy, in fact I could not describe what I mean as Infinty comes into the frame, be blowed if I can explain that but somehow or the other I am always at the centre of it because if will always be as far in any given direction from the point that I'm at.

Material and corperal are the things that exist post '0' and because I am part of post '0' then '0' can only be counted as no thing, no thing has the greater potential of an infinte existence even if it is littered in part by some thing, temperature judged within no thing is a no brainer because from the material cannot judge no thing, however both religion and science end up faced with 'no thing'.
Pure energy seems to be a discription of 'no thing' by some, but because no one has the true concept then it remains beyond knowledge and non provable, we simply end up with '0' as the source of everything.

The search for a God particle just gets into smaller and smaller 'material' but while the material gets smaller nothing gets bigger.

It's about here I have to echo your sentiments and say, well at least I know what I mean  

Within infinite we could enjoy the concept of their being billions of universes like ours, and even billions of universes unlike ours as well, with room left over for trillions of the same with room for a few more and no matter how many times we multiply it still find that no thing takes up the most space while all the time we are looking for something smaller than an atom

bernard (hug)
Powwow

Oh, I'm sensing a bit of hostility from some atheists around here. lol
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Oh, I'm sensing a bit of hostility from some atheists around here. lol

Probably because it's just more of the same old, same old from you: bald, dogmatic crap, on matters that you cannot in any way possibly know, with nary a hint of evidence or substantiation and no attempt at discussion, debate or dialogue.

It becomes very tiresome very quickly.
bnabernard

I was just sitting here doing the (er dare I say the you crossword that comes with the daily mail   ) And yes it's not to taxing, but, heres what we come up with, the working of the brain,
I expect we are all familiar with the with the situation where we know something but can't recall it, so we 'stop' thinking about it and move on and while we are moved on the brain suddenly says like, here you are the thing you stoped thinking about, and the answer pops into your head while you are not thinking on it but thinking on something else, (I think I rambeled over myself there blooming brain what was I thinking  

But who or what is in charge?

On a more serious note dementiar (brain having problem spelling that) a person to a different world, and actualy lives there in their mind, I think we all spoke on this a while back because some of us have experienced people close who suffered, however I just used the word suffered, did they suffer or us suffer.

How longs a bit of string and no I wasn't sitting on me car keys, who's in charge of me brain  

bernard (hug)
cymrudynnion

Re: Death and Inevitable death.

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Just to say, when I read threads about death and/or inevitable death here or on other forums. I tend to ignore them.

It doesn't mean that I don't wish hope for those posting about their loved ones, or even about those they barely know!!

But my position is: those who we are asked to 'pray' for, or give our 'best wishes' for, will survive or die regardless of our prayers or best wishes.

It's nature, and we can't fight against it.

For sure, if it it gives you comfort to believe your dead loved ones are in 'heaven', or awaiting the journey into 'heaven' and not just rotting in the ground, dust to dust, ash to ash and all that..

Then I can share your grief.

To a certain extent.

Bury. Ash. Dust I can understand.

Ascension into 'heaven'?

Too Pre-Archeology for my liking!!

What if Death is it, and you have wasted your life in false hope instead of embracing it?
On the other hand as all of us who believe in Faith find that when we enter the  Everlasting Kingdom, it is as we belive, An Everlasting Kingdom. We are with the Sancitity of Our Lord.
Powwow

What make me laugh is Luci's suggestion that those of us that believe, are wasting our lives. lol  How exactly am I wasting my life? What is that old godless atheist suggesting, that we replace our faith with the nothingness of atheism? Ya right.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
What make me laugh

Is just about everything and anything, given how often you inject an inane "lol" into so many posts.


Quote:
is Luci's suggestion that those of us that believe, are wasting our lives. lol  How exactly am I wasting my life? What is that old godless atheist suggesting, that we replace our faith with the nothingness of atheism? Ya right.

Why not? What would be the problem with that, exactly? Too much of a challenge?
Powwow

"I have caught the Holy Ghost in the cellars and flung him out of them. Atheism is a cruel, long-term business: I believe I have gone through it to the end."   Jean-Paul Sartre
"Life is absurd."   Jean-Paul Sartre
"I was intoxicated with death because I did not like life."   Jean-Paul Sartre

No surprises there.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
"I have caught the Holy Ghost in the cellars and flung him out of them. Atheism is a cruel, long-term business: I believe I have gone through it to the end."   Jean-Paul Sartre
"Life is absurd."   Jean-Paul Sartre
"I was intoxicated with death because I did not like life."   Jean-Paul Sartre

No surprises there.


Again what makes you think all atheists think alike - or feel alike. You really don't have much of a grasp of the reality of the range of diverse thinking that exists within, for want of a better phrase, the atheist community ?

The only statement there that chimes with me is "Life is absurd" especially when reading some posts on Message boards.
bnabernard

The problem with life is that once you have caught it it's a job to get rid of it.

bernard (hug)
Powwow

bna,
Not to the godless atheist. They are big promoters of suicide.
bnabernard

pow wow wrote:
bna,
Not to the godless atheist. They are big promoters of suicide.


Er   Jesu springs to mind.

bernard (hug)
Powwow

Are you saying He took his own life? That's not scriptural.
"Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."   Luke 22: 42
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
bna,
Not to the godless atheist. They are big promoters of suicide.


You will of course be able to prove that I am a big promoter of suicide.

And actually to post that without the merest thought for other people who have lost friends to suicide is very UNCHRISTIAN.

Why don't you fuck off and boil your head.
bnabernard

pow wow wrote:
Are you saying He took his own life? That's not scriptural.
"Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."   Luke 22: 42


But I thought under the trinity Jesu was God the father?

bernard (hug)
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Are you saying He took his own life? That's not scriptural.
"Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."   Luke 22: 42


That would be his own will, wouldn't it? Since "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30).

Nevertheless, the idea that Jesus passively committed suicide has a long and respectable history - John Donne wrote a celebrated essay, Biathanatos, to that effect.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
bna,
Not to the godless atheist.

As opposed to godly atheists, I assume?
Quote:
They are big promoters of suicide.

If it's your aim to come here in order to make yourself look like a monumental fool, as it certainly seems to be, I have to hand it to you - you're doing a sterling job.
Powwow

bna,
"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which has sent me."   John 5: 30
bnabernard

pow wow wrote:
bna,
"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which has sent me."   John 5: 30


So Jesus is not God then, wish you would tell LC and the others who think he is.

And while you are at it explain to them how Jesus comes to have the power to judge.

At the end of the day he offered himself up for certain death, he could have backed out but didn't. and not only that but encourages others to give up their lives in the same way.

bernard (hug)
Powwow

"Modern atheists don't have any new arguments and they lack their forbearers charm."   Sam Schulman  Wall Street Journal

"The new atheists are separated from the old ones by their shallowness."   Sam Schulman  Wall Street Journal
Powwow

bna,
Of course Jesus is God but this is a thread about death. How's about you start a new thread. Or actually, restart an old one. lol
bnabernard

pow wow wrote:
bna,
Of course Jesus is God but this is a thread about death. How's about you start a new thread. Or actually, restart an old one. lol


You made a wild accussation, I as a believer in God simply brought it into perspective.

bernard (hug)
trentvoyager

So Po wow

Nothing to say about your baseless and insulting assertion about suicide and atheists.

Quelle Surprise !
Powwow

bna,
You think Jesus had a suicidal death wish. That's crazy talk.
"Jesus answered him, if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smites thou me?"   John 18: 23

It doesn't sound like some one with a death wish to put up objections at his trial.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
bna,
You think Jesus had a suicidal death wish. That's crazy talk.

Your posts inevitably and invariably fall into exactly that category.
bnabernard

pow wow wrote:
bna,
You think Jesus had a suicidal death wish. That's crazy talk.
"Jesus answered him, if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smites thou me?"   John 18: 23

It doesn't sound like some one with a death wish to put up objections at his trial.


So you believe he did not think he had to die.?

bernard (hug)
bnabernard

Shaker wrote:
pow wow wrote:
bna,
You think Jesus had a suicidal death wish. That's crazy talk.

Your posts inevitably and invariably fall into exactly that category.


The way they twist and turn in their belief it's no wonder there are so many athiests.

bernard (hug)

And no wonder there's so many suicides of all nominations  
Powwow

bna,
Jesus didn't think He had to die? I don't recall ever posting such a notion.
bnabernard

Well I wonder wether the athiest agrees with you from what they have been taught by the christians.
Did Jesus have to die, ?

bernard (hug)
trentvoyager

trentvoyager wrote:
So Po wow

Nothing to say about your baseless and insulting assertion about suicide and atheists.

Quelle Surprise !


Just so you don't forget that I await your erudite thoughts on the above......... I won't hold my breath, mind.
Shaker

You'll have a long, long, long wait, trent.
Powwow

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/17.24.html
"The viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?"   Melvin J Konner
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/17.24.html
"The viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?"   Melvin J Konner

Which will do the most damage?
Farmer Geddon

Empathy..

When we hear about the distress of others..

We show Empathy..

When the individual we are to supposed to empithise with who has defrauded us..

Then they deserve our scorn!!
SusanDoris

[quote="Shaker:87885"]I've spent 638 words (thus far) asking the searching and pertinent questions and outlining the objections to your stance. [/quoet]
Very interesting read it was too.
SusanDoris

pow wow wrote:
"So the atheist life has no cause, reason and is not needed. No wonder no atheist can live a truly happy life. Those atheists that claim they have purpose and are happy, are dishonest.

Completely wrong!!

Thanks to most of the posters on this topic for an interesting half-hour reading through on a wet, gloomy and cold day.
Shaker

SusanDoris wrote:
Shaker wrote:
I've spent 638 words (thus far) asking the searching and pertinent questions and outlining the objections to your stance.

Very interesting read it was too.


Thank you Susan!  
Powwow

"Bless you" What the heck does a godless atheist mean by that?  Wow, what a hoot, them atheists are blessing each other. Borrowing from Christians again.
And just like Christians, each and every atheist will take a step of faith at the point of their death.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
"Bless you" What the heck does a godless atheist mean by that?  Wow, what a hoot, them atheists are blessing each other. Borrowing from Christians again.

It's a figure of speech indicating pleasure at a nice comment from a nice person. You'll be unfamiliar with this.
Quote:
And just like Christians, each and every atheist will take a step of faith at the point of their death.

What a funny little man. Such dogmatic certitude in the existence of things so patently and so often contradicted by evidence and experience. That's faith for you.
Powwow

So some atheists won't have faith in their atheism when death comes a knocking? That's a good thing then.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
"Bless you" What the heck does a godless atheist mean by that?  Wow, what a hoot, them atheists are blessing each other. Borrowing from Christians again.
And just like Christians, each and every atheist will take a step of faith at the point of their death.


Pathetic. I don't know about Canada but here in the uk...we've shortened it in general conversation in some situations to just "bless" usually after someone hasn't got a point peple will say "ah, bless" in a patronising/sucky tone very  irritating,  but my point is that it is  far removed from any connection with God in the minds of the speakers. A bit like "bless you" is as well.
To try and extract from the use of that saying some kind of religious impulse is complete bollocks.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
So some atheists won't have faith in their atheism when death comes a knocking?

I'm unaware of any atheist who has 'faith' in their atheism. Goodness knows it's been said often, though apparently not often enough for some, that atheism is not a belief but the absence of one. It's a stance about the existence of gods, certainly, but a negative one, and is no more a belief than 'off' is a TV channel.
Powwow

LOL!
http://www.comedycentral.com/joke...ook--dane-cook--sneezing-atheists
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
I don't know about Canada

If our powsers is in any way representative I'd say you were in luck there. Still, I'm sure that that's not remotely the case - doubtless Her Majesty's far-flung territory is a generally fine place full of otherwise splendid people and is I'm sure famous for umpteen things. Like being the USA's hat, for example.
Shaker

The painful experience of watching Dane Cook actually trying to pass himself off as a comic is akin to watching Edward Scissorhands trying to make balloon animals. The man is to comedy what pow wow is to logic.

Still, no doubt he suits the perpetually easily pleased.
Powwow

So now most atheists don't believe their atheism, most don't believe there is no God. Well that is interesting indeed. And every day is bringing them all closer to the point of no second chance.
Oh and I love Chopin's funeral march. I'm down loading and printing it today so I can sit at my piano and play it while thinking of the Lead Act and his Side Show. lol
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
So now most atheists don't believe their atheism, most don't believe there is no God.

Where did you derive this, for want of a better word, opinion?
Powwow

http://www.motifake.com/image/dem...otivational-poster-1263504395.jpg
Shaker

Ah. Argument by would-be humorous posters. We've got to that stage, I see.
Powwow

http://atheist-nutters.blogspot.c...-things-village-atheists-say.html
Shaker

What a sketch
Powwow

"Thank you, thank very much"
Shaker

You've already used that line on the thread below this, and with as little meaning there, too.
trentvoyager

Shaker wrote:
You've already used that line on the thread below this, and with as little meaning there, too.


He's got indigestion that's why he keeps repeating himself.
Shaker

There must be some reason  
Powwow

Indeed there is. I'm just having fun with the fact that the two who have posted that they will not engage me(my words), are the ones who actually can't ignore me. I can make the Lead Act and Side Show dance whenever I want. Ignoring somebody really isn't so hard. I've shown the two of you how. Good grief should I draw a picture in crayon so you can figure it out? LOL
Have a wonderful evening you two.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
Indeed there is. I'm just having fun with the fact that the two who have posted that they will not engage me(my words), are the ones who actually can't ignore me. I can make the Lead Act and Side Show dance whenever I want. Ignoring somebody really isn't so hard. I've shown the two of you how. Good grief should I draw a picture in crayon so you can figure it out? LOL
Have a wonderful evening you two.


You too.

Ps if what you have posted is true* you really need to get out more.

*But we can all see it isn't so no worries.
Powwow

Check my blog trenty. I not only get out but I got bit on my leg by a german shepard on my last bike ride.   Now don't faint, it didn't draw blood and the ladies are not going to be taken to court. I even got off my bike and made friends with the stupid mutt. lol
Oh, of course I believe what I posted but that wasn't the fun part.
Farmer Geddon

You have a blog?

Does it involve killing things?
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Indeed there is. I'm just having fun with the fact that the two who have posted that they will not engage me(my words)

Who has ever said that?

Links to specific posts will do nicely, thanks.

Quote:
Ignoring somebody really isn't so hard. I've shown the two of you how.

Indeed, you've certainly shown us how you completely ignore lengthy, articulate, well-thought-out posts that piss all over your assertions and how you're constitutionally incapable of providing evidence for or answering questions about your dogmatic statements. Definitely.
Powwow

Shaker, you can remove them but it doesn't mean you never posted them. lol
At least trent is a honest man.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Shaker, you can remove them but it doesn't mean you never posted them.

Remove what? Posted what?
Powwow

Shaker why didn't you play dumb when I told you I was looking forward to you ignoring me?  Don't you think that would have been the right time to bring on your selective memory? lol
Shaker

So, to sum up, you made a concrete allegation that, when given the opportunity, you can't substantiate.

That's not like you.
trentvoyager

I'm not at all sure what you are referring to PowWow. I think on one thread I said I was out of here as there was nothing more to add - altho I thought that was in response to Cheapjack conspiratorial mutterings.

If I ever did say I wasn't going to engage with you - it would be to do with a specific thread. Can't recall it though. Not denying it, I just can't afford to store crap in my memory as I've got all on remembering the important stuff.

Tis not important anyhow - its all pixels on a screen - although technically that is probably out of date or incorrect - but you take my meaning I'm sure.

As for the accusation of honesty - I thank you - but I'm not sure the corollary of that is acceptable, unless you have definitive proof of wrong doing (are you referring to posts being doctored or deleted ?) on the part of another poster, I think it is best to stick on the side of caution.

Remember: To err is human, to forgive divine.
Powwow

So true. I want to forgive Shaker for accusing me of making up that story about the Canadian government telling the clergy not to mention the name Jesus at a memorial for the swiss air crash. But Shaker's just not man enough to apologize, and I have no respect for people like that.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
So true. I want to forgive Shaker for accusing me of making up that story about the Canadian government telling the clergy not to mention the name Jesus at a memorial for the swiss air crash. But Shaker's just not man enough to apologize, and I have no respect for people like that.

I'll be crying myself to sleep over that tonight, obviously.
Powwow

No you won't. Don't play Homey like that.
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
As for the accusation of honesty - I thank you - but I'm not sure the corollary of that is acceptable, unless you have definitive proof of wrong doing (are you referring to posts being doctored or deleted ?) on the part of another poster, I think it is best to stick on the side of caution.

If that is a polite way of saying, as I suspect it is, "powsers has no compunction about making shit up off the top of his head with impunity knowing that despite being asked umpteen times he'll never, ever, ever substantiate a single one of any of his allegations," then you're bang on the money.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
No you won't. Don't play Homey like that.

No I won't. It's called sarcasm, popular over here and just one more of the services I offer, but proverbially not well understood in North America.
Powwow

You won't deny me the right to have opinions I'm sure. But what did I make up?
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
You won't deny me the right to have opinions I'm sure.

Not at all.

Quote:
But what did I make up?

Just from this current thread alone:

Quote:
That's all atheists have is the negative. So it only makes sense that when their death happens they will continue for eternity in the negative. Of course at that time it will be a permanent, eternal condition.

Quote:

the atheist life has no cause, reason and is not needed. No wonder no atheist can live a truly happy life. Those atheists that claim they have purpose and are happy, are dishonest.


Quote:
Atheism has nothing to offer but arrogance, hate and misery.


Quote:
Not to the godless atheist. They are big promoters of suicide.


Quote:
just like Christians, each and every atheist will take a step of faith at the point of their death.


Quote:
So now most atheists don't believe their atheism, most don't believe there is no God.


Quote:
Shaker, you can remove them but it doesn't mean you never posted them.
bnabernard

Shaker wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
As for the accusation of honesty - I thank you - but I'm not sure the corollary of that is acceptable, unless you have definitive proof of wrong doing (are you referring to posts being doctored or deleted ?) on the part of another poster, I think it is best to stick on the side of caution.

If that is a polite way of saying, as I suspect it is, "powsers has no compunction about making shit up off the top of his head with impunity knowing that despite being asked umpteen times he'll never, ever, ever substantiate a single one of any of his allegations," then you're bang on the money.


Makes me wonder if he has an alter ego called Leclerc, what with it;s canadian conontations  

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum