snowychap

I think this is a great question. I would say that there are a few sub questions: Can you value human life in monetary terms? If you can what level do you set the value at? How responsible are you for things that happen indirectly as a result of your actions? How far can you take cause and effect? Could you possibly be responsible for a coincidental outcome (even if it was certain)? I think one of the most pertinent points raised was how would you feel if you didn't take the money and the chap suffered the same fate as if you had taken it. I certainly don't see it as sick to suggest that you'd take the money. Also, what happens if you don't take it? Is there a queue for your table? I.e. is this question going to be asked over and over again until the poor bugger dies? FWIW, I wouldn't take the money regardless of the amount £1 to £100 million. Though, probably, I wouldn't take it because I'd be just be crying into my pint at the dilemma - forever.

Risso, thanks for the link.

One of our members had a very serious tumor in her breast, treated it holistically and recovered. Many years later her cancer came back and it is still with her. She is somewhat of a walking miracle though, as she should have died more than a year ago. She felt in her heart she did not want any medical treatments (not even holistic) and has done none to herself since that decision, yet she still happily lives on. The person Terry is talking about is my mother. And it is a lie that she should have been dead a year ago. She found out that it had come back about this time last year. She didn't tell anyone till April. She said that she wanted to die. The sad part is if anyone that has left their group came down with cancer they would make fun of them, and say it was because they left. "cause and effect you know" Prudence, Are you one of the 22 or so who has left their group in the last 7 years (i.e from 70 down to 48 )? If so, then I think. Terry, her input should not be ridiculed by you. You obviously disagree but as has been said previously on this thread - all are welcome to post, etc., etc. And would your Christ not say that truth will out - in the end?

Your statements and use of the word "careful" may be giving us more credit than we are due. We are not primed or coached to be "careful" and protect ourselves when communicating with each other, and that may spill over to those we communicate with that are not part of our community. Though we come from a variety of professions, educational and social backgrounds, it has been many years since the majority of us have had to deal in the hardened, faithless, skeptical world you live in which often misconstrues information. We have been taught to speak openly, honestly and from our heart. This we do, and thus many of us do not make great arguers, defenders or banterers. Let me ask you, if you were trying to communicate/educate someone regarding the more technical aspects of your profession or interests, and they were completely ignorant of what you were involved in, wouldn't you attempt to present the information in the most understandable light possible, knowing they are interested, but totally unfamiliar with the terminology, technology or theories behind what you were trying to explain, so they could receive the best understanding of the information you were trying to relate? Our words, though maybe not politically correct to suit some, are truthful and we try to share our heart with those we communicate with. Snowychap, would it be possible to simply look for and receive what Jerry's heart is trying to share with you instead of picking his words apart? I don't think that I am giving any more credit than is due. I have read a large number of postings by members of your community on this and other fora and also writings by Strong City members and I can recognize an ability when I see it. My concern and my offence in what Jerry said came from the fact that he used such an obviously patronizing phrase. Especially considering my reply to his original post gave no indication that I had not understood what he had said previously. I understood and was seeking to further clarify his position both for me and for others who might be reading the thread. I am rather of the opinion that it was a subtle attempt to elicit the offence which it so did but I also accept Jerry's apology, so graciously given. As to your last sentence, I am afraid that I can see nothing more than a great deal of irony in this when responses to my posts and questions have frequently contained dictionary definitions of the words which I have used in order to repudiate what I amy have said.

So - in this parable, two members of your community (two Christians by your definition) are substituting for 'the Adversary', i.e. one who assaults his lover. I wonder how it is that two sinless people can be equated to the being that is responsible for filling humanity with his sinful 'seed thoughts'. I'm not sure that having to relinquish one's hold on something in this way is the same as doing it willingly. Also, Jerry. I have seen this question asked on other sites more than once and mostly it surrounds a scriptural discourse on the definition of adultery, divorcement, etc. (Sorry VB - didn't mean to undermine the value of your question. )

Sorry, but I start to get very tired with and bored of people who feel the need to patronise. Banter, have a laugh, tell someone that you believe they're wrong but don't go around belittling their intelligence in order to try to support your side of the discussion. Puerile style, I'm afraid. :roll: Sorry friend if you took it that way. I have nothing in my heart that resonates with this thought about patronization you have brought up. If I have done something wrong, it is in ignorance. But I am very willing to say forgive me. Just to re-organise your post, Jerry. Only so as it identifies who posted what.

I take it that you are actually saying forgive me rather than just announcing your willingness to say so. I am more than happy to forgive you but I would wonder whether I have the power to do that? I would have thought that you could only seek forgiveness from one source. I would have to say that I am skeptical about the ignorance. Judging by the careful way in which you and your companions choose your words, I doubt that you are ignorant of the way people might construe anything you say or do.

Only 48. Were you not 70 strong? When did you lose these others?

This is a reasonable question snowychap. There are millions of such cases of "innocents". How can I look into any of them and make a judgment. I can only know my own. I know I have been preserved. For those who do not believe in God they are left to see it as good fortune. However for me to think of the events of life are just the result of a flip of the coin is unthinkable. First off, humans without God think of our few years on this planet as life, and that is all you get. It is a short stint indeed. It is the other side of time where my focus lies. Where life is eternal and what ever happens here is only an out working of something that the redeemed would look back on with satisfaction and say I would not have had it any other way. They will see that no matter how tragic, it was perfect for they will then see all the other factors involved. Every question will be answered then. We will know why things happened as they did and why we are there and some other person is not. We will see the fairness of it all. So to put in words that perhaps you might understand, God's care is there is apparent misfortune just as it is there in apparent good fortune. I hope this helps. Sorry, but I start to get very tired with and bored of people who feel the need to patronise. Banter, have a laugh, tell someone that you believe they're wrong but don't go around belittling their intelligence in order to try to support your side of the discussion. Puerile style, I'm afraid. :roll:

I must say Jerry this kind of thing offends me somewhat. You use what most people would say would be fortunate occurences in your life to justify god's existence. There was someone in my dorm at school (at the age of 10 or so) who died from a brain haemorrhage after being accidentally kicked in the head in a game of rugby. Should I wonder at 'His' lack of care for an innocent like him? I will wait for the - 'but god had something else planned for him' type of answer. I fail to see how you can use an event of good fortune to illustrate care and not allow for the fact that an opposite event (i.e. bad fortune) illustrates the oposite trait (i.e. lack of care). I am afraid that the attitude that 'god has watched over me' when he blatantly hasn't watched over others smacks of arrogance and vanity. It is not likely to endear you to me. :evil:

So without these socail security payments your bills would be unpaid. Youe are willing and keen to condemn the cult outside of your group to the damnation of their choice whilst being willing to accept their money to fund you in your belief. I would put it to you that this shows a great deal of decency and tolerance in those whom you would otherwise malign.

I have a worry about the trend of some of the posts from the group members(/leader?) which seem to be very defensive. There is a lot of talk about lying, craziness, being loony, &c. I acknowledge that, on other threads on other fora, this group has taken a lot of abuse. Though there has been a lot of skepticism on this thread and also one or two of the accusations that are also floating about elsewhere, there has also been a fair amount of tolerance, curiosity and inquiry. I'm not sure that the best way to someone's heart and/or mind is to alway reply as though your questioner is also your accuser.

I'm sorry for the sake of this discussion that I don't currently have 74 minutes free to devote to listening to this.] but I will scour, digest and disect the downloaded transcript when I have the time/inclination. But after a quick perusal of his executive summary where it says - Proof that DNA was designed by a mind: (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the existence of a Superintelligence. ............. To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer. I would say that point two would lead me to ask the question, "Do we know the origin of DNA?" If not, then you cannot use (1) and (2) to come up with (3). 'to the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything' is actually a rather humble rider of the possible lack of veracity in the conclusion that follows : 'DNA is proof of a designer'. I now see the origin of the F1 parable, though.

So are you saying that you are now free to judge everyone as a liar who claims to be telling the truth? And what has your opinion done for you lately? Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes? Have you not heard of lord Kelvin, and the temperature of “absolute” zero? Thanks, Timothy. As with Terry's previous lengthy and satirical post about 'Wayne Bent - the monster', I would have to say that I am not calling him a liar or you or Terry: I am questioning things which purport to be the Truth. You however seem to be quite keen to imply that to tonyh29 : TheDon, I would say that the tour of 7th day adventist churches some time ago by their group (or some of their group) was a bit of a recruitment drive. Timothy, I will give you the probability that you're not in that market, now - or at least on this forum. (It is quite amusing to hear language such as 'in the market' for those who claim that the corruption of the cult outside is what you are trying to avoid) I assume that you are here and on some other fora in order to try and mollify any potential fall out from the C4 programme and that is why you all have tried to appear as laid-back, liberal and tolerant as possible. Also, I would posit that it is the reason that you have concentrated upon Iraq and the middle east as a subject with a good chance of getting people on side. I think you have been drilled pretty well. I'm not so sure about the brainwashing - again an extreme word used mainly for emotive purposes. I don't doubt that we are ALL influenced both consciously and sub-consciously and I believe those that deny the possibility are deceiving themselves. Also, TheDon on the recruiting (from the keyboard of Jerry): Jerry - thank you for the parable. I'm sure if Jesus were around today he too would be updating parables to things such as F1 - sorry, I forgot Christ is here and talking through you we have such a parable? I am interested that you use the principle of human minds and the human development of language in order to provide clear evidence of the existence of god. It seems to be based on an error of logic. though. It equates DNA and language. You deem these things to have similar characteristics thus you view them as the same. You then take from language the characteristics not evident in DNA and apply these characteristics to DNA. Is he behind the search engine google, then? For I seem to remember that is what brought you to this site?

Should we see what think about the Creationist theme park? Don't worry - I'm pretty sure I know.

The Jam - Down in the tube station at midnight.

boy?? Have I just gone back to school? :shock: Doesn't sound like a fair trial, then. What a pity - I would have thought that god, at least, could have been a shining light for justice. :winkold: Then again if you are god and can't load the dice in your favour - when can you? I am interested in the thoughts of the people who are on VillaTalk. I question because that is my nature. If you believe that I am on this thread in order to obediently and unquestioningly accept each carefully crafted answer that you, Terry and Timothy give then you are mistaken. I suggest that your assumption is based on the false reasoning that those who question in order to understand further are arguing for arguments sake.

I tell you what - god must be getting a bit desperate if he's calling me as a character witness. Are you saying that human existence (i.e. the conglomeration of my life and the life of everyone else) is about judging god's character?? That's a novel and quite entertaining idea. Is it possible that he might lose?

No we've not met but I have happened upon your postings amongst others whilst googling your group. In relationship to what? And who says that truth can be discovered dialectically? Show me someone who has done this. I was advocating that this would be the sort of approach suggested by use of the word intellect. I infer from your opposition to a dialectic approach that you opine that truth can only either be known or told by god? I am of the opinion that there are no absolutes or truths and so I cannot show you someone who has arrived at the truth by this method. There are, though, many who have arrived at the most likely, plausible and supportable opinion by use of this method.

You are god's plaything, then? Are we all in some giant game of chess in your opinion (perhaps played by god and an adversary over a port and a cuban?) Manifest \Man"i*fest\ L. manifestus, lit., .........etc.

The soul is the seat of self-consciousness. It's functions are the will, intellect, and emtions. Aha, 'tis Fortitude is it not? Hello. Would intellect not suggest a reasonably high level of reasoned thought on a subject and perhaps a dialectical approach to discovering truth rather than a Kirkegaardian leap of faith?

Every human being is only a vessel, a container, yielded to one of two spirits. There is God (THE God) and there is His adversary. So it is either or? Before you yielded to Christ, were you not the container for the adversary, then? You would hold that you (and Terry) are yielded to god. I would say that this is certainly not evident and that is why I continue the debate. Manifest in deed or in word?

I would like some clarification of your above point, please. What is your meaning when you speak of 'what spirit a soul is of' ?

I was addressing the suggestion that Micahel is a liar and that I am being lied to. Again. Sorry to labour this but I was comparing a situation where some poor unfortunates were conned into believing that a seemingly decent man would not lie to them and they had been deceived by him to a situation where these same people were accepting with absolute faith and certainty what another seemingly decent man was telling them. It might seem that this group of people might admit that they don't have a great track record in the spotting deceit category and that they should be at least open to the possibility that it might happen again?

Welcome, Hanifa. I wondered how long it would be before some others from the fold started joining. I'm not sure that's the spirit of debate and I think that the spirit of VillaTalk is about bantering. Quality! I'm not sure that needs any more of a response. you were addressing whether you believed you had been lied to not whether you were open to the possibility