change to this forum

Being a Christian does not equate to enjoying poverty.

I am a good Christian, but I enjoy the material benifits of life and why not.

Regards

Mick

John (Chapter erm x11 verse ..)

I have never been thrown out of a temple.

Regards

Mick

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

Yes I get into a temple about once a week actually.

Regards

Mick

enjoy

ken

Now thats putting the boot in

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Yes I get into a temple about once a week actually.

---

Hmmmmmmmmm.....

(Congrats on the new top-loader!)

Simple question.........why is owning a decent Hifi system contrary to christian standards.

It makes me happy, I enjoy it, I do not suffer financially because of it, so where is the harm.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Naim

(NAIN).
The city where Christ raised to life the widow's son (Luke, vii, 11-17). The Midrash (Bereshit rabba, 88) gives the significance "agreeable" to a place called Naim in the territory of Isaachar, in Galilee. Eusebius and St. Jerome (Onomasticon) place Naim south of Mount Thabor, and not far from Endor. Now, opposite to Thabor, and a mile and a half north of Endûr (doubtless the Biblical Endor), lies a village called Naîn ("pleasantness"). It is situated on the northwestern ridge of Jebel Dahy, the Little Hermon, and commands a magnificent view. There are traces of ruins beyond its boundary to the north, but no sign of fortifications. "The gate of the city" (Luke, vii, 12) might have belonged to a wall of enclosure, built to protect the place against marauding tribes, as was often the case in the East. A steep path leads up to the village, passing by the site of an ancient church which has been converted into a mosque, "Moukâm Lidna Aisa" (Oratory of the Lord Jesus). The mosque, having fallen into ruins, was replaced by another in the vicinity. In 1880 the Franciscans bought the ruins of the first building, and erected thereon a chapel. Not far away may be seen Jewish rock-tombs. Thus the details of Naim's graphic story find an easy localization.

---

you should sell it all and forward the proceeds to charity...

and enjoy (or not?)

ken

quote:

---

Hmmm, the (erroneous) argument from personal incredulity: I can't conceive of a rational reason why X should exist, therefore, X doesn't exist.

---

You have clearly failed to understand what I said. Please read my post again. If you still think your comment above is an accurate representation of what I said then please tell me, and I'll try to find a different way of expressing it.

As for certain others: please stop bullying poor defenceless Mick - just because you know he'll turn the other cheek. Think of all those God-fearing, church-going Americans who support the death penalty yet suffer from the delusion that they're Christians.

--Jeremy

Whilst I am a good christian man, I am not a complete fool.

I will hang on to my Hifi and yes just to stir it up, I am one of the hang em and flog em brigade.

Remember, poverty can be good for the soul. Therefore, one need not be over generous.

Regards

Mick.....just enjoyed an evening of Sarah Brightman and a glass of Talisker.

quote:

---

just enjoyed an evening of Sarah Brightman

---

"enjoy" and "Sarah Brightman" do not belong in the same sentance.

"punishment" is the word that immediately springs to mind, unless you are referring to a different person!!!

Chris

quote:

---

"enjoy" and "Sarah Brightman" do not belong in the same sentence

---

Try this one then:
*I find it difficult to imagine that anyone under forty could enjoy Sarah Brightman.*

You see! "enjoy" and "Sarah Brightman" can coexist nicely in the same sentence!

I like the Talisker bit though - may make SB tolereable!
All I can say is that the Elaine Paige album in my cupboard is NOT MINE!

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

Good one... lemme buy you a beer!

regards,

dave

American , non-Christian and considers "hanging" enviromentally friendly

I have never meet a true Atheist.

Amatuer Philosopy is very dangerous.

Matthew

quote:

---

I have never meet a true Atheist.

---

You have now.

The idea that 'it's worth believeing in god just in case' is so laughable that I've broken my unwritten rule of nettiquete to say so. I'm so glad that I don't believe in the kind of god that would damn someone for just 'not believing' in it!

maybe Sarah Brightman is some kind of divine retribution for Mick?

Regards & musical happiness

Stephen

All these definitions of what an atheist is and is not, and what an agnostic is and is not, even including some standard definitions included from dictionaries.

Why I ask?

I have only three statements to make. First, using a dictionary to determine the definition of words like “atheist” and “agnostic” is wholly unsuitable to the topic. A person who would classify himself (or herself) as either would not and should not rely on Webster’s dictionary, or whatever. Both of these words at least connote systems of belief that are far more comprehensive and complex than can be included in a simple 50-word or less entry.

Second, the notion that being an atheist is tantamount to having faith because it requires “proving a negative” is false, depending on one’s approach. There are certain doubters who proclaim that God exists, but that God was created by Man, not the other way around. God, or, more accurately, the idea of God, it can be argued, was created as an explanation for the previously (and still) inexplicable – whatever that may mean to any individual, or as a tool of community Elites in an attempt to control the “masses.” God is, in this line of thinking, a creation not a deity. I suppose this does not answer definitively whether God exists, but it allows for a different approach to the same subject.

And third, why such a focus on the Christian conception of God? What if Christianity is wrong?

Back to more music-related topics for me.

I have often if Vuk is the God of Hifi with Mike Hanson as his devoted disciple.

Regards in devotion

Mick

If you hear voices in your head, you are mad, if you hear god you are a Christian, explain?.

I find it hard to not believe as it was drummed in to me (like it was for every one else) from an early age, I don't think their is a god but its hard to shake the brain washing. I think its wrong to force feed children religion, and if they stopped and let them find their own beliefs that would be much better.

pete

Just my personal opinion that I am not trying to force upon any body, feel free to disagree/ send your wrathful god down upon me/ pray for my lost soul/ totally ignore me etc

quote:

---

You have clearly failed to understand what I said. Please read my post again. If you still think your comment above is an accurate representation of what I said then please tell me, and I'll try to find a different way of expressing it.

---

Sure, give it another whirl. But what I'm struggling with is your earlier statement a couple of pages back that "inasmuch as we can prove anything we can equally prove existence or non-existence."

How can you prove the non-existence of something? I'm not talking about axiomatic proofs like there's no number that's both greater than zero and less than zero. That's true by definition. I'm talking about empirical statements like there's no such thing as the Loch Ness monster.

Say someone says there's no Loch Ness monster and sets out to prove it. No amount of non-confirming evidence will ever constitute irrefutable proof. I searched the Loch with sonar and found nothing, but maybe Nessy evaded my scans. I pulled a big net through the Loch and didn't catch the monster, but maybe Nessy is clever and swam out of the net's path. Obviously, as more and more non-confirming evidence mounts it becomes ever more likely that Nessy does, in fact, not exist. But that's not the same as proof that the monster doesn't exist. I might have scanned the Loch a hundred times with sonar and found nothing, but that doesn't mean that the 101st time won't be successful. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Proving that something exists, however, is a different matter. If I catch Nessy in a net -- viola, proof that the monster exists. It only takes one observation to establish this, discounting, of course, human error -- say, catching a big fish but thinking it to be the monster.

The discussion about whether God exists is identical to the Nessy example. Proving God's existence is logically possible, but it hasn't been done. People who believe in God do so by faith.

But proving that God doesn't exist is impossible. You can look high and low but the non-confirming evidence (whatever form it might take) does not constitute proof. So, if you say God doesn't exist, it's a position held by faith.

Joe

[This message was edited by Joe Petrik on THURSDAY 16 August 2001 at 16:51.]