By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Religion is not the cause of the war, even if Israel is a theocratic state.
In the Algerian War the independence fighters were generally Muslim, and the French colonialists were generally Christian, but religion was not the cause of the war.
'The God is Dead' stuff is straight from the book of Nietzsche.
I don't think there is any problem with pointing out the absurdities of religion.
Even if you don't follow him, the stuff ends up in your timeline through re-tweets.
Anyway, my issue is with him doing it at all, me unfollowing him won't stop it from happening. He has a site/blog where he's free to air any views or opinions he wants, where only those interested in what he has to say will see them. But that doesnt get enough of an audience to satisfy his ego, so he's intentionally aggressive with his opinions on things he knows are inflammatory, throwing in quotes like he's the only cnt to read a book without pictures.
He thinks it makes him intelligent, like it means he's part of an open forum, when in reality he courts controversy and puts his mostly ill informed opinions across in a way that will upset even those of us that are impartial on the issues. He's already proved he can't engage in an intelligent debate with knowledgable individuals, summed up perfectly when he used an analogy more suited to a football dressing room than a question time panel. He was shown for what he is, someone that's not actually as smart as they like to think they are.
I love what he does on the pitch, what he does for the team when they cross the line and go into battle, but everything off it is cringeworthy and exacerbates the negative perception of QPR.
if bartons bringing the club into dispute then the club should grow some and sort him out
"its not god that kills
its man". Spot on Holloway.
RFA
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
Has anyone got a link or picture of the tweet where he called God a Caant? because I cant see it anywhere
Cant knock him for his charity work
It was along the lines of 'if god can do something about evil but chooses not to, he's obviously a c*nt', or words to that effect. I can't get on twitter at work to find it.
Religion is not the cause of the war, even if Israel is a theocratic state.
In the Algerian War the independence fighters were generally Muslim, and the French colonialists were generally Christian, but religion was not the cause of the war.
'The God is Dead' stuff is straight from the book of Nietzsche.
I don't think there is any problem with pointing out the absurdities of religion.
Plenty of Muslims fought on the losing side of the Algerian War of Independence too. Neither side appreciated their efforts, to put it mildly.
Even if you don't follow him, the stuff ends up in your timeline through re-tweets.
Anyway, my issue is with him doing it at all, me unfollowing him won't stop it from happening. He has a site/blog where he's free to air any views or opinions he wants, where only those interested in what he has to say will see them. But that doesnt get enough of an audience to satisfy his ego, so he's intentionally aggressive with his opinions on things he knows are inflammatory, throwing in quotes like he's the only cnt to read a book without pictures.
He thinks it makes him intelligent, like it means he's part of an open forum, when in reality he courts controversy and puts his mostly ill informed opinions across in a way that will upset even those of us that are impartial on the issues. He's already proved he can't engage in an intelligent debate with knowledgable individuals, summed up perfectly when he used an analogy more suited to a football dressing room than a question time panel. He was shown for what he is, someone that's not actually as smart as they like to think they are.
I love what he does on the pitch, what he does for the team when they cross the line and go into battle, but everything off it is cringeworthy and exacerbates the negative perception of QPR.
totally compulsive personality. Must have w@nked himself dry when a teenager
Even if you don't follow him, the stuff ends up in your timeline through re-tweets.
Anyway, my issue is with him doing it at all, me unfollowing him won't stop it from happening. He has a site/blog where he's free to air any views or opinions he wants, where only those interested in what he has to say will see them. But that doesnt get enough of an audience to satisfy his ego, so he's intentionally aggressive with his opinions on things he knows are inflammatory, throwing in quotes like he's the only cnt to read a book without pictures.
He thinks it makes him intelligent, like it means he's part of an open forum, when in reality he courts controversy and puts his mostly ill informed opinions across in a way that will upset even those of us that are impartial on the issues. He's already proved he can't engage in an intelligent debate with knowledgable individuals, summed up perfectly when he used an analogy more suited to a football dressing room than a question time panel. He was shown for what he is, someone that's not actually as smart as they like to think they are.
I love what he does on the pitch, what he does for the team when they cross the line and go into battle, but everything off it is cringeworthy and exacerbates the negative perception of QPR.
Spot on Simmo.
You've turned into my favourite Loftforwords poster, and that's up against some pretty stiff opposition.
Biggest worry for me is that half of the other players in the team are most likely very religous...so probably not that great for team spirit..
And by the looks of things he was using the c word for god linked to a conditional if clause... so therefore he is not directly calling him a c***...so can;t really argue with what he says..
Biggest worry for me is that half of the other players in the team are most likely very religous...so probably not that great for team spirit..
And by the looks of things he was using the c word for god linked to a conditional if clause... so therefore he is not directly calling him a c***...so can;t really argue with what he says..
I dont think Barton should be pushing it as hard as he is but I do pretty much agree with what he is saying
he is simply pointing out the flaw in religious belief God it good etc regardless of the religion and god is all seeing and omnipotent, therefore if he/she did exist and allows such suffering to happen then god must be a right c*nt
I thinks its pretty difficult to disagree with that from any rational viewpoint
If you believe in god then you believe in free will I think (been a long time since i went to church so thats probabky nonsence) so the people who killed these kids are to blame not any god
Nope.
Look up Pre-Destination. Basic Christian doctrine since 431 AD.
Apart from logical cogency, there is to me something a little odd about the ethical valuations of those who think an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent Deity, after preparing the ground by many millions of years of lifeless nebulae, would consider Himself adequately rewarded by the final emergence of Hitler and Stalin and the H bomb. - Bertrand Russell
He no doubt would have added the Israeli state, Islam, middle eastern war and all other forms of religious fundamentalism to this devastating observation.
Nope. Pre-destination is not a 'basic' Christian doctrine. It does, I believe, form a part of Calvinist doctrine but is certainly not a standard part of mainstream Christianity.
It is, however, a theological discussion that often comes up.
Free will is a basic Christian doctrine.
Edit: sorry, meant to reply to specific post and hit the wrong button.
The Jews, Muslims and Chrustians all beleive in the same god. Personally my view is if you are going to believe in something just because someone tells you it's true without any actual proof, where do you draw the line in the sand.
Biggest worry for me is that half of the other players in the team are most likely very religous...so probably not that great for team spirit..
And by the looks of things he was using the c word for god linked to a conditional if clause... so therefore he is not directly calling him a c***...so can;t really argue with what he says..
"Biggest worry for me is that half of the other players in the team are most likely very religous"
The Jews, Muslims and Chrustians all beleive in the same god. Personally my view is if you are going to believe in something just because someone tells you it's true without any actual proof, where do you draw the line in the sand.
News to me.
Every Christian I know would say the Christian God is very different from the Muslim one.
Also, I know of no Christian that says the Bible is proof of God.
Look, I generally stay of the 'Releigion/God' threads because it's just not worth the hassle but there is so much crap being spouted that I just felt the need to point a couple out.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people can be 'experts' in something they don't believe in.
Anyway, it's getting off topic and I don't want to get into a pointless discussion on it so I'll leave it there.
Alb is correct. Predestination is a Presbyterian thing.
Of course then you have your Free Presbyterians - I assume they are also predestined.
Whereas your Baptists are not predestined - they write their own fcuking rules. Joey may be a lapsed Baptist.
Nope.
St Augustine. Accepted as catholic doctrine at council of Ephesus, 431 AD as per my post. No presbyterians back then. I'm ploughing through Peter Brown's biog of Augustine right now, alongside of Augustine's "Confessions", which are brilliant but bloody hard going.
Presbyterians have an extreme form of the doctrine, derived from Calvin, but its right there in catholicism.
It's actually a logical consequence of any of the monotheistic religions, whether or not it's in the official line, which is exactly why Augustine, who was a very sound logician, put forward the doctrine. God is both omniscient and omnipotent, according to all Christians, Jews and Muslims. He is also not constrained by time. Therefore He must know everything that is going to happen - you can't have an omniscient God who didn't know the Israelis would bomb Gaza - and be capable of stopping it, otherwise He's not omnipotent. Logically, the only explanation is that every baby shredded by a bomb is all part of God's wonderful plan. Presumably they get to heaven so that's all right. Bit of a problem for the shredder who may well go to hell.
It's all perfectly logical if you accept the basic premise, which all the monotheistic religions do. Personally I don't believe in God but it seems logical to me that if he does exist He's either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or is a bit of a bastard.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
