TheInspiration

In fairness, Lampard had a good game against Germany. Gerrard had a good game against Andorra. Still, neither have them have consistently performed near to their club ability for England. I would probably start with Gerrard on the basis that he should be adding so much more to the team. That said, if it were Lampard as the only one of the two starting, I wouldn't be surprised to see him scoring as he does frequently for club.

I get a sarcastic/mocking question, so I wouldn't expect the answer to be any different. Anyway, basically speaking, do people claiming to have a personal relationship with God have any other symptons experienced by schizophrenics? That's what I'm yet to find out.

Really? I asked how you differentiate between the two, you think I said one is equal to the other. If I ask how you differentiate between a cat and a dog, what does that mean to you? I'll break this down, it'll be fun, because it'll probably take a week to get anywhere: Do you believe in mental illness? Well if you really want to be fussy, I supposed you could always say one is schizophrenic and the other isn't. Hope this answers your question.

If successful in getting tickets, I'm going up there with a mate and his dad will take us there - he's an Arsenal fan so it'll be interesting after the match.

In all honesty, I've barely thought about the Noah's Ark story. I don't think it really matters whether someone takes it 100% literally or not, as I don't think it's that important when determining whether Christianity (or Judaism for that matter) is true. I'm quite sure there was a massive flood - the exact story I'm not too sure about. I think I've made a decent effort in answering questions. Admittedly I accept there's questions I cannot answer, but the same goes for atheists or any anyone else really. Bare in mind I've been on my own here and normally have to deal with several posts at once.

If you're referring to this: You may want to read over it a couple of times, then maybe read what you said back, and try again? I think I got what you said first time, and was effectively referring to several posts as I don't have the time to reply to several posts. If I'm totally off the mark, what's your point?

Good to see my beliefs being taken seriously as always. Of course, it HAS to be schizophrenia/delusion. That's far more likely - well no, actually it isn't. It's just a refusal to look for answers, which is present in atheism.

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest. Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though. Can you explain the differnce between your God and Thor or Zeus or the Hindu Gods? Why do you dismiss them as man-made myths yet insist yours is real? Is there more evidence? Are their holy books more dismissable? If so why? Genuine questions - I think its one of the main ones that believers don't ask of themselves. Perhaps TheInspiration feels it OK to criticise, even mock, other people's beliefs but not his own? Like I said, I don't see a great deal of difference between the goat sacrificers and christians, from an objective point of view they strike me as equally absurd. Of course it was ironic that South Park showed religious hypocrisy up for what it is not only in its excellent scripts, but also by the behaviour of Isaac Hayes. I reckon TI might be doing the same thing. Don't think I've criticised/mocked anyone's beliefs here - certainly you shouldn't be telling anyone off for that. What I said about goat sacrificers was that it's a shame that religion always has to be as equally absurd as each other - as if they are all wrong. I don't know if there's any truth in Hinduism but I respect the belief (and find the religion interesting also), however I and many others agree that there is truth in Christianity. Tbf TI, I think you do have some respect for other people's beliefs but at the end of the day, you still think you are right, and they are wrong, based purely on the place you were born (I do not believe you would be a christian if you were born and raised by a muslim family in Iran, whatever 'personal' relationship you claim to have with Jesus). You will/can never accept this point, but there are still millions of muslim versions of you out there saying pretty much the same thing, but reversed, and you can't explain that one away. Still, I respect that you do at least engage in these dialogues which a lot of religious people don't, for whatever reason. Although I also think you have Dawkins wrong. At the end of the day, you just don't like your beliefs being challenged, and he's one of the few people in public willing to do that, so you ridicule and villify him, without basis, imo. Doesn't his (my) 'belief' also deserve respect? Apologies if I am wrong, I've never heard any people talking about a personal relationship with Allah, whereas it is a frequent occurence in Christianity. Muslims aren't supposed to experience their god - there is no hinting he is a god of love for starters. And yes your belief does deserve respect. I've never ridiculed or villified atheistic beliefs. I'm more concerned with many atheists as people - attack the behaviour of Christians when they're very immoral people themselves. I respect Dawkins brilliant writing/communication skills, but as a person I don't have that much respect for him.

No more than for Mithras or other cults form the same period. Can you describe your personal relationship? (if thats not too personal a question). I don't consider chrsitianity more or less ridiculous than the rest - I'm more aware/.knowledgebale of it but I don't see any basic difference between them. When you mention "truth in christianity" I would accept that there are good morals in there somewhere (though the source is open to question) but I don't see that much "truth" elsewhere - for example whether Christ existed or was resurrected is a moot point for me compared with the morality taught in general - the whole package of morality I think is flawed (eg homosexuality) . If you mean the whole promise of eternal life then this goes back to a core question - do you believe your God is more concerned with how "good" a life a person leads or whether they acknowledge and worship him? - If its the latter then he's a very vain and petty being imo. It's very subjective and tough to answer but here goes - personal relationship basically deals with various forms of experience (hard to describe really), talking from God to you or through others, visions, dreams (Muslims being converted through dreams involving Jesus is a common occurence might I add). There may well be others. Basically the Bible states if you come to God he will respond, and I think that is how so many Christians have such a strong faith and love for God. I honestly don't think it would be the same if it were a case of Jesus dying for our sins being the only reason to pray. I admit I don't know everything, but www.bethinking.org is a very interesting apologetics site, which can provide a lot of answers for you from some very intelligent people. As for your final question, it's obviously a combination of the two. However I don't consider wishing to be worshipped as vain and petty - it's in order to be granted eternal life, so we are led to believe.

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest. Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though. Can you explain the differnce between your God and Thor or Zeus or the Hindu Gods? Why do you dismiss them as man-made myths yet insist yours is real? Is there more evidence? Are their holy books more dismissable? If so why? Genuine questions - I think its one of the main ones that believers don't ask of themselves. Perhaps TheInspiration feels it OK to criticise, even mock, other people's beliefs but not his own? Like I said, I don't see a great deal of difference between the goat sacrificers and christians, from an objective point of view they strike me as equally absurd. Of course it was ironic that South Park showed religious hypocrisy up for what it is not only in its excellent scripts, but also by the behaviour of Isaac Hayes. I reckon TI might be doing the same thing. Don't think I've criticised/mocked anyone's beliefs here - certainly you shouldn't be telling anyone off for that. What I said about goat sacrificers was that it's a shame that religion always has to be as equally absurd as each other - as if they are all wrong. I don't know if there's any truth in Hinduism but I respect the belief (and find the religion interesting also), however I and many others agree that there is truth in Christianity.

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest. Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though. Can you explain the differnce between your God and Thor or Zeus or the Hindu Gods? Why do you dismiss them as man-made myths yet insist yours is real? Is there more evidence? Are their holy books more dismissable? If so why? Genuine questions - I think its one of the main ones that believers don't ask of themselves. Firstly there is evidence for the reliability and Christ. Secondly, experience of God through a personal relationship. Thirdly, the beliefs aren't that stupid anyway. I don't see how people can go round calling Christianity ridiculous, even when there are plenty of cases in this world for a creator - removing the creator means you have to find other far more plausible explanations. Cosmology obviously a big issue.

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest. Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though. an honest question, do you believe the bible word for word in its litteral sense or do you think its metaphor to be interpreted by the individual ? Mostly literally though I do think there are parts which appear metaphorical. The creation story I reckon could be a combination of metaphorical and literal.

aye, such terrible news.

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest. Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though.

The Muslim (who used to be a jew) accused of him of not being able to talk about morality as british women all dressed like whores. He replied "I don't tell them how to dress" - "You should, that is your failing" was the reply. I have read dozens of reviews and replies to TGD - most don't read it and reply to what they think he said and those that do cannot answer any of his points without the usual goal post shifting (that's not my god he's talking about" etc, etc. That applies to "geniuses" like McGrath especially as they think they are clever enough to be able to move the goalposts and "win" - they aren't. He didn't aim the book at staunch believers - he aimed it at people who are only "weddings and funerals" christians who have an open mind. Well I must say I agree with him on what he said to the Muslim - gets what they deserve. That said, it is my view from reading Dawkin's points about God that it isn't the Christian God he's talking about as he clearly lacks knwoeldge of Christian faith and a personal God and instead decides he can use facts and figures to argue against a belief, and that simply doesn't work.

Genetics prove that Homo Sapiens were not descended from one couple who lived in the same time at the same place. Also the fact that Cain and Abel would have had to breed with their mother is overlooked with all it would have meant for deformities. CS Lewis as far as I know is a "nice" CofE type christian - fuzzy minded aruments from awe. McGrath completely failed to answer any of the points Dawkins raised with him when filming The Root fo all evil his only reply was "You raise a good question there". He then scuttled off to write a pamplet full of straw men. Yet the untouchable Dawkins refused to attend a debate with him. Because he's scared or because he's too arrogant? Either way he hasn't presented himself well. Also on the subject of religion being the "root of all evil", I find it funny people like Dawkins, Russell and many others, like to go round telling people about people acting imorrally as if they're moral people themselves. Russell had countless affairs and Dawkins is just a bitter, sarcastic, angry, arrogant man who shows zero respect for anyone with an alternative opinion he disagrees with. I personally prefer respectful, intelligent people who are also decent human beings to those who haven't contributed anything new in years and just want to write pretentious books about how deluded people are, mainly for the prupose of earning shedloads more money. Dawkins has a policy of not entering debates - I don't think he's scared he just thinks its an environment that doesn't work for him personally. As an example theres a US creationist called Kent Hovind (now jailed) who always "won" his debates by scatter gun facts that couldn't be disproved in the time available Also he certainly doesn't need the money. Considering the people he interviewed on either of his C4 tv shows I think those remarks cound't be more wrong - if someone told you "all your women dress like whores" would you answer respectfully with "they dress how THEY want to" or would you tell the bloke he was a fuckwit? Did anyone say anything akin to the statement about women dressing like whores? My point was countless times I've seen him bang on about how stupid or comical it is someone makes a point, even when it's nothing to do with him and certainly not to him. He should go have a bit more fun in life than rewrite books. Any more intelligent Christian just looks down on his book and laughs at his ridiculous obsession, yet there is a view from the atheist camp that they're all frightened of reading his books as if he's some superhuman who will make them atheist just by writing a book. Also with regards to debates, for another theologian he refused to attend a debate because "it might like good on his CV but not mine". Tough in cheek maybe, but obviously arrogance and dare I say, delusion.

I don't think I'll even bother replying to your "fairy tale" comment. As for Dawkins, he's just a scientist who is a little bitter maybe because he had a prayer not answered as a kid. His attempts at being a philosopher are terrible and I don't think I've seen him say anything groundbreaking with regards to his points about there being almost certainly no God. So no, he is not "right".

yet that person who everyone likes to insult has done many good things for us. Can't seriously be the person most deserving of abuse but there are some odd people around.

Genetics prove that Homo Sapiens were not descended from one couple who lived in the same time at the same place. Also the fact that Cain and Abel would have had to breed with their mother is overlooked with all it would have meant for deformities. CS Lewis as far as I know is a "nice" CofE type christian - fuzzy minded aruments from awe. McGrath completely failed to answer any of the points Dawkins raised with him when filming The Root fo all evil his only reply was "You raise a good question there". He then scuttled off to write a pamplet full of straw men. Yet the untouchable Dawkins refused to attend a debate with him. Because he's scared or because he's too arrogant? Either way he hasn't presented himself well. Also on the subject of religion being the "root of all evil", I find it funny people like Dawkins, Russell and many others, like to go round telling people about people acting imorrally as if they're moral people themselves. Russell had countless affairs and Dawkins is just a bitter, sarcastic, angry, arrogant man who shows zero respect for anyone with an alternative opinion he disagrees with. I personally prefer respectful, intelligent people who are also decent human beings to those who haven't contributed anything new in years and just want to write pretentious books about how deluded people are, mainly for the prupose of earning shedloads more money.

in fairness, height's got nothing to do with heading ability, but you'd think at his height Crouch should at least win every header, which he doesn't.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other. The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane. Well it's not to me and plenty of other people, many very intelligent. I know it's not realistic but I don't think an omnipotent God would have intended it to be. For the record Jesus died because of the sins of all humans, ao we are all forgiven. That explains why many see the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical. If most people were introduced many of the beliefs of christianity as informed adults rather than naive children I'm pretty sure they would think of it every bit as absurd as sacrificing goats to fix a plane. Try and be objective and think about it, it makes almost no sense at all. The bits that have been utterly proven to be false have now have been conveniently passed off as metaphor, as you have just done there with Adam and Eve. Mind you, Jesus didn't regard it as a metaphor according to the gospels iirc, how can this be with an omniscient God? I'd like to know what parts have been "utterly proven" to be false. I can't change your opinions on something being absurd, but most of the great Christian theologians/apologists like C.S. Lewis, McGrath etc were atheists who got converted. Got to be some reason why - maybe there's far more reason in Christianity than you attempt to make out. If Lewis, and especially McGrath, are examples of great christian theologians then frankly that's not adding any weight to your argument. And if you don't accept the Adam and Eve story has been shown to be utterly false then what else can I say? Of course it hasn't been proven to be utterly false. Here's the deal - science has suggested the world is far older than 6000 years old which is fair enough even though the actual age is debatable. This does not mean the whole story is completely false at all - we don't really have solid grounds for beliving it was only 4004 BC or whenever. Anyway like I've already stated, the creation story looks metaphorical, explaining why many think it is so, and aren't just saying that as a cop-out. The New Testament is clearly supposed to be about actual events, on the other hand. If you look at the language used in Genesis you'll see it all appears poetic and mythical and the message presented through using sin and the Garden of Eden is clear. As for theology/apologetics, have you read much? I must admit I've only been reading a lot of in the past few months, but I don't see why such people's work isn't worth reading?

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other. The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane. Well it's not to me and plenty of other people, many very intelligent. I know it's not realistic but I don't think an omnipotent God would have intended it to be. For the record Jesus died because of the sins of all humans, ao we are all forgiven. That explains why many see the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical. If most people were introduced many of the beliefs of christianity as informed adults rather than naive children I'm pretty sure they would think of it every bit as absurd as sacrificing goats to fix a plane. Try and be objective and think about it, it makes almost no sense at all. The bits that have been utterly proven to be false have now have been conveniently passed off as metaphor, as you have just done there with Adam and Eve. Mind you, Jesus didn't regard it as a metaphor according to the gospels iirc, how can this be with an omniscient God? I'd like to know what parts have been "utterly proven" to be false. I can't change your opinions on something being absurd, but most of the great Christian theologians/apologists like C.S. Lewis, McGrath etc were atheists who got converted. Got to be some reason why - maybe there's far more reason in Christianity than you attempt to make out.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other. The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane. Well it's not to me and plenty of other people, many very intelligent. I know it's not realistic but I don't think an omnipotent God would have intended it to be. For the record Jesus died because of the sins of all humans, ao we are all forgiven. That explains why many see the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical.

Yes it's quite odd someone 6 ft 7 still has to tug someone's hair to head the ball.

Couldn't have possibly chosen a better place than Hull in that case.