Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (27579)	10/9/2009 12:15:49 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

Listen you silly kids. There are thousands of "Christian" sects. The only rational way to define a Christian given such a plurality is to go to basics even beyond ecumenical creeds and foolishness. You are a Christian if you believed Christ lived and Died and Lived again and was Holy and IS the Truth and the Way to Eternal Life. Surely...It is transparent and silly nonsense...but if you want to be a Christian, this is all that is necessary for you to believe. You don't need to master the stupidities of a thousand competing churches. In that case only ONE little sect somewhere would be "Christian". So grow up, fellas. If you want to be "Christian" just take a stupid pill and believe the Jesus story--(and all the stories that MUST be true to give THAT STORY a shirt.)!! Or just take a LOT of stupid pills and avoid any thought whatsoever...

To: Greg or e who wrote (27579)	10/9/2009 2:20:50 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 28931

< In fact you have gone out of your way to express disdain for Biblical Christian beliefs and the Christians who hold those beliefs.> Oh... which ones? <The most general and vague definition of a Christian that one could come up with is that someone simply calls them self one> Ummm sure guy, but look in ANY dictionary... most of those are not anywhere NEAR the most general or vague... and yet don't even include (let alone be an option among choices) your alleged "universal definition". You've really got to learn that there is a world out here outside of your own small beliefs in your head. There are generally accepted descriptions of these concepts you seem to have trouble with (ie. "Christian", "evolution", "cause" or "causation", "Taoism" and it's concepts) which would be acceptable starting places for discussion. It's not my problem that are (here at least) unable to comprehend these descriptions and/or accepted definitions. < All I know is that you claim to be a Roman Catholic who sits in a building every Sunday > We've seen this numerous times now on other topics, but you actually spell it out nicely: above: "ALL I KNOW"...... Yes, ALL YOU KNOW about me and my beliefs, by definition, is our interaction on this board. What you bring here on most topics is superficial proclamations with a lot of smoke and biblical links that (supposedly) back them up. No depth, no discussion. Therefore OF COURSE when I disagree <but then spends the rest of your time mocking and scoffing at the Christian concept of God.> No, I mock your silly superficial proclamations and the way you pretend to understand these very esoteric concepts but can't discuss them. Futher, your retreat to claiming others don't know what they're talking about after it becomes clear YOUR agenda has hit a brick wall is a sure way of reaping disdain. <Even though some Christians do reject the authority of the Creeds they DO NOT reject the vast majority of the contents of the Creeds, recognizing them as faithful to the Biblical record. . Sure, they're guidelines today I suppose... although once I hear they, along with other Catholic Dogma were used as a 'fearful club' to keep people in line in order to further Church agenda. <So all you have is an empty shell.> Nice summation of your actions on this board. You have no idea who I am or what I'm about or what I have, spiritually or otherwise yet you judge me through the filter of your own experience (as we all do) and these shallow (by your own refusal of discourse) discussions. DAK