Continued theology discussion... Not sure what to call this really....

[Rich]

I guess it could be seen as giving in but to me it's more like peeing into the wind.

Is that akin to blowing in the wind?

 

[ShaneMan]

Is that akin to blowing in the wind?

or as Jim Croce said, "spit into the wind" so yea, along those lines.

 

[Rich]

Who's Jim Croce?

 

[ColinEssex]

Who's Jim Croce?

Well, if they do spitting, then they must be either American or Australian.

Col

 

[ShaneMan]

Who's Jim Croce?

Really? Jim Croce: Bad, Bad Leroy Brown. "you don't pull on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind" Never heard of it?

 

[ShaneMan]

Well, if they do spitting, then they must be either American or Australian.
Col

You nailed it Col. Both countries are all spitters. We ALL start spitting shortly after birth. Even the women and children spit. It's what defines us. It's how people identify us from the rest of the world, so if someone spits they have to be from one of the two countries.

 

[Adam Caramon]

You nailed it Col. Both countries are all spitters. We ALL start spitting shortly after birth. Even the women and children spit. It's what defines us. It's how people identify us from the rest of the world, so if someone spits they have to be from one of the two countries.

You remember how when you were young and your Grandpa or Grandma said something that was completely inappropriate? You looked to your Mom or Dad and they gave you the "Grandpa/Grandma is from a different time where it was acceptable to talk like that, just ignore them" speech?

Meet Colin.

 

[ShaneMan]

You remember how when you were young and your Grandpa or Grandma said something that was completely inappropriate? You looked to your Mom or Dad and they gave you the "Grandpa/Grandma is from a different time where it was acceptable to talk like that, just ignore them" speech?
Meet Colin.

Good analogy Adam, but even with you Grandma or Grandpa, there are still just those few times that you can't help from respond even if it's just a "REALLY?"

 

[ColinEssex]

You nailed it Col. Both countries are all spitters. We ALL start spitting shortly after birth. Even the women and children spit. It's what defines us. It's how people identify us from the rest of the world, so if someone spits they have to be from one of the two countries.

It's well known that Americans spit chewing tobacco.

Have you ever lived in Oz? Men and women spit there.

Col

 

[Brianwarnock]

I've never lived in Oz but when I holidayed (sp) there I never saw anybody spit. When were you there Col, we were there in 2005 and I wondered if had changed.

Brian

 

[Rich]

We ALL start spitting shortly after birth.

Then why does Clint prefer to swallow now rather than spit?

 

[ColinEssex]

I've never lived in Oz but when I holidayed (sp) there I never saw anybody spit. When were you there Col, we were there in 2005 and I wondered if had changed.

Brian

1973 to 1976.

It was more difficult in those days to tell men from women. The women could spit furthest.
There's no class there so finding a nice middle class place to live was difficult.

Col

 

[John Big Booty]

1973 to 1976.

It was more difficult in those days to tell men from women. The women could spit furthest.
There's no class there so finding a nice middle class place to live was difficult.

Col

Ladies and Gentlemen of Australia; I do believe I have discovered the archetype upon which all whining pom humour is based.

An example of which being;

Q. How can you tell when a plane load of pom's has landed?
A. You can still hear the whining, when the engines have been switched off,​

Please give a warm round of applause to Colin from Essex, as we present him with the Order of the Wombat for his hitherto unrecognised contribution to Australian humour.

 

[Pauldohert]

Perhaps you could add Col to the Sydney Circular Key - walk of fame - theres lesser lights on it for sure.

I think that would be a fair outcome.

 

[c_smithwick]

That is not true, all the theologians I know believe in Genesis. Who specifically are you referring to? Actually, that would point to someone really not being a Christian.... just taking the name of Christian

Belief does not equate to proof of validity. Ultimately, no one is an authority as to what really happened in our history other than those who were there as eyewitnesses, and even eyewitness testimony has been shown to be some of the most unreliable. And before you start your reply with the well worn "Divinely Inspired" argument, realize that unless you yourself have been directly contacted, the claim of divine inspiration is based upon the belief in someone else who told you it was divinely inspired, and their belief is based in turn on someone who told them. The argument begins to get thinner and thinner as the progression continues. Faith is by definition a belief in something for which there is no proof, so to ask someone to have faith while at the same time offering "proofs" for why your belief is correct begins to make you look silly. If there really was VALID proof then faith would not be neccessary. Quoting scripture falls short of providing a good argument in that in order for the writings you quote to be a valid argument, then by definition they must be held up as some standard of truth. To be accepted as a standard of truth, they must be accepted as divinely inspired and without falacy. To be accepted as divinely inspired requires faith that God/The Great Spaghetti Monster/Whomever inspired and ensured they remained true throughout numerous translations by fallible humans, and as faith by definiton requires no proof, then this argument begins to be very CIRCULAR!! Believe as you may, that is your perogative, but tread lightly when you seek to support your argument as being the correct one to someone else and make sure you haven't "brought a knife to a gunfight".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

[Kryst51]

Belief does not equate to proof of validity. Ultimately, no one is an authority as to what really happened in our history other than those who were there as eyewitnesses, and even eyewitness testimony has been shown to be some of the most unreliable. And before you start your reply with the well worn "Divinely Inspired" argument, realize that unless you yourself have been directly contacted, the claim of divine inspiration is based upon the belief in someone else who told you it was divinely inspired, and their belief is based in turn on someone who told them. The argument begins to get thinner and thinner as the progression continues. Faith is by definition a belief in something for which there is no proof, so to ask someone to have faith while at the same time offering "proofs" for why your belief is correct begins to make you look silly. If there really was VALID proof then faith would not be neccessary. Quoting scripture falls short of providing a good argument in that in order for the writings you quote to be a valid argument, then by definition they must be held up as some standard of truth. To be accepted as a standard of truth, they must be accepted as divinely inspired and without falacy. To be accepted as divinely inspired requires faith that God/The Great Spaghetti Monster/Whomever inspired and ensured they remained true throughout numerous translations by fallible humans, and as faith by definiton requires no proof, then this argument begins to be very CIRCULAR!! Believe as you may, that is your perogative, but tread lightly when you seek to support your argument as being the correct one to someone else and make sure you haven't "brought a knife to a gunfight".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I wasn't arguing proof..... I was simply refuting an argument that was made that said most Christians regard Genesis as a myth by sayin that most of the Christains I know (maybe just here in the US) do not regard Genesis as a myth... I am not even reading your whole comment, as you clearly misunderstood my statement...

Genesis is regarded as a myth by many mainstream christian theologians so I am not sure it is reliable

 

[c_smithwick]

No, the Bible only gives our history, and our story. Actually, C.S. Lewis (a well renowned Christian author) wrote a trilogy of books about life on other planets, fiction books. There quite good. I still don't think there is life on other planets, but if there is/was, then they too would be created by God, and subject to him.

Aaaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhh!!!! On the one hand you profess to be a "learned" individual who can present a cogent argument, and yet on the other hand admit that your only purpose in being created is to bow down, worship and subjugate yourself to a deity for your entire existence? Hell, I can create a robot to do that to me, so where does that leave the value of your brain, created to question and learn and yet asked not to? Are you no more than a voiceless, spineless, slug, forced to your knees to continually praise a god who by your own argument doesn't need praise to boost his ego because he is the omniscient almighty in the first place! Again I say aaaaaaaggggghhhhhh!!!! Christians are funny - they amuse me. If you get a chance my friend, watch a film called "The Man From Earth" with an open and receptive mind. It will make you think and maybe question what you claim to "know" as truth for it's arguments are at least as plausible as your own and posit quite a different scenario.

 

[Kryst51]

Aaaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhh!!!! On the one hand you profess to be a "learned" individual who can present a cogent argument, and yet on the other hand admit that your only purpose in being created is to bow down, worship and subjugate yourself to a deity for your entire existence? Hell, I can create a robot to do that to me, so where does that leave the value of your brain, created to question and learn and yet asked not to? Are you no more than a voiceless, spineless, slug, forced to your knees to continually praise a god who by your own argument doesn't need praise to boost his ego because he is the omniscient almighty in the first place! Again I say aaaaaaaggggghhhhhh!!!! Christians are funny - they amuse me. If you get a chance my friend, watch a film called "The Man From Earth" with an open and receptive mind. It will make you think and maybe question what you claim to "know" as truth for it's arguments are at least as plausible as your own and posit quite a different scenario.

I know it seems odd to people.... I am sorry you get so frustrated by my believing this though. Look at it objectively as me believing something. I have a belief in God. This God is sovereign, He is the King... He created me, who I am, what I look like, my personality, etc... I believe this. Because I believe He is sovereign, and that He is my King, I choose to serve Him. He does not need my servitude, He does not need my praise, but I willingly give it to Him. I choose this in response to His love and mercy (which you can argue my reasons all you want, I won't be participating in another debate of that kind). If I did not praise Him, He would still be praised by all creation and the Angels, and by other people. He is worthy of it. He is the Lord Almighty... if you believed that somebody was that powerful, and loved you as much as Christians (myself included) claim God loves us, wouldn't you want to praise Him?

 

[Kryst51]

If you get a chance my friend, watch a film called "The Man From Earth" with an open and receptive mind. It will make you think and maybe question what you claim to "know" as truth for it's arguments are at least as plausible as your own and posit quite a different scenario.

If I ever have the opportunity, I might watch it... But I am very "closed minded" when it comes accepting other ideas as truth... I don't think there is anything out there (that actually happens, or exists) that could sway my belief in the Christian God.

 

[c_smithwick]

If I ever have the opportunity, I might watch it... But I am very "closed minded" when it comes accepting other ideas as truth... I don't think there is anything out there (that actually happens, or exists) that could sway my belief in the Christian God.

A divine creature, created by the loving hand of an almighty god with free will and a complex and intricate brain with which to learn and question who has chosen to accept, "Hey, I've got all the answers, no more need to grow or learn, no other knowledge need enter my brain because I've got all I'll ever need". Seems to me there is no more use for your continued existence, as you by your own admission you will no longer seek to learn or grow, and therefore will no longer have anything new to contribute. Your free will has worked out great. If I created a robot and imbued it with the capacity for self awareness and the ability to learn and all it chose to do was sit and stare at the wall constantly babbling about what a great wall it was and genuflecting and singing, "Oh great wall, how I love thee" I would consider it a complete and utter failure. The only true sin is the refusal to learn, and the wages of sin are death, because when you refuse to learn or even question, as if the very act of questioning lessens that in which you have chosen to believe, your spirit DIES. You become that robot staring at the wall and drooling. Time for the scrapyard. May you rust in peace. By the way I noticed your avatar and looked up Grayskull only to find the following:

Castle Grayskull is a fortress located on the fictional planet Eternia. It forms a central location in the Masters of the Universe toy/comic/animation universe, and also appears in the 1987 live action adaptation.
In the series, it is the target of numerous attacks by Skeletor, Hordak and the Snake Men, all of whom believe that the secrets inside will allow them to conquer Eternia and become the titular Masters of the Universe.

That guy Skeletor seems like kind of demonic imagery for a good little boy like you to be exposed to. Hope you survive. May you be the titular "Master of your Domain" (humorous Seinfeld reference there in case it missed you). Wank on my tree-hugging, bible-thumping friend, wank on.