[calyman]

Originally Posted by Livia

Dave is no more a con man than any other "preacher".

Well any practioner of superstition can be accussed of being called a con man.

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by calyman

Well any practioner of superstition can be accussed of being called a con man.

Right. I'd only call Dave a con man if we're going to be so broad that all clergy are con men. Which they are, knowingly or unknowingly.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by stonedape

Right. I'd only call Dave a con man if we're going to be so broad that all clergy are con men. Which they are, knowingly or unknowingly.

"Clergy" wtf has Dave got to do with the "Clergy"he is NOT clergy ,you or i could set up a cult ,he has nothing whatsoever to do with the COE ,or any other legit religion ,its a business,nothing more,nothing less

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

"Clergy" wtf has Dave got to do with the "Clergy"he is NOT clergy ,you or i could set up a cult ,he has nothing whatsoever to do with the COE ,or any other legit religion ,its a business,nothing more,nothing less

Uhh....someone didn't get my point. I wasn't making any statement on whether Dave is a part of the clergy, I was saying if you're going to call Dave a con man, you have to call the clergy con men too. And all people who sell myths for a living, and that includes Christianity in all its versions.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by stonedape

Uhh....someone didn't get my point. I wasn't making any statement on whether Dave is a part of the clergy, I was saying if you're going to call Dave a con man, you have to call the clergy con men too. And all people who sell myths for a living, and that includes Christianity in all its versions.

You are STILL linking him to the clergy

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

You are STILL linking him to the clergy

Which is not remotely the same as calling them identical things. And as I've already said, your point doesn't even have any relevance to the conversation. My point would stand regardless of whether or not anyone would call Dave clergy. As far as I'm concerned, that's a petty political matter. If you're going to consider Dave a conman, you must consider ALL myth salesmen as con men, and that includes the clergy.

[housemate]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

"Clergy" wtf has Dave got to do with the "Clergy"he is NOT clergy ,you or i could set up a cult ,he has nothing whatsoever to do with the COE ,or any other legit religion ,its a business,nothing more,nothing less

Absolutly Agree .. he is a self appointed minister with no grounding, training or learning in any Faith or Body. We are all able (legally) to do this ... morally speaking, well thats another question.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by calyman

Well any practioner of superstition can be accussed of being called a con man.

Good thing Christianity isn't a superstition. Dave's beliefs are.

[calyman]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Good thing Christianity isn't a superstition. Dave's beliefs are.

Any irrational or faith based beliefs qualify as being superstitious purely on the basis that there is no real scientific basis behind them. Therefore any practioner of any such beliefs are indeed charlatans, however well meaning they may try to convince the rest of us they are.


If proof is required, then it's the charlatan who must prove to all, that they deserve our credulity and acceptance of their claims. In the absence of such prood, they are just flim flam artists, promising nothing but Pie In The Sky When We Die.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by calyman

Any irrational or faith based beliefs qualify as being superstitious purely on the basis that there is no real scientific basis behind them. Therefore any practioner of any such beliefs are indeed charlatans, however well meaning they may try to convince the rest of us they are.

Of course you're going to look at it as a superstition if that's what you think. The natural sciences (to which I believe you are alluding) can't answer all of man's question. You forget philosophy is a science and in no way incompatible with the natural sciences.

If proof is required, then it's the charlatan who must prove to all, that they deserve our credulity and acceptance of their claims. In the absence of such proof, they are just flim flam artists, promising nothing but Pie In The Sky When We Die.

Dave is a charlatan because he works for and enables an organisation that claims it can 'rehabilitate' homosexuals to lead intimate relationships with the opposite sex and that it can literally use supernatural powers to cure cancer. That is superstitious, irrational and anti-scientific and, more to the point, is a rotten, cynical lie.

[calyman]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Of course you're going to look at it as a superstition if that's what you think. The natural sciences (to which I believe you are alluding) can't answer all of man's question. You forget philosophy is a science and in no way incompatible with the natural sciences.

Dave is a charlatan because he works for and enables an organisation that claims it can 'rehabilitate' homosexuals to lead intimate relationships with the opposite sex and that it can literally use supernatural powers to cure cancer. That is superstitious, irrational and anti-scientific and, more to the point, is a rotten, cynical lie.

Philosophy is not a specifically scientific way of rationalising evidence and data, It is actually the scientific approach which deals with establishing scientific facts.

Philosophy can take a scientific approach, or a spiritual, religious or other superstitious approach and reach vastly different conclusions. That is why there are so many varied forms of philosophic disciplines. None of which can unarguably state that truth has been established.

Only scientific analysis can say, after much rigorous testing and dealing with all reasonable criticism, whether a truth has been established or not.

"Man's questions" do not necessarily come up with definitive solutions, but what they can expose is the sham of easy solutions, superstition being one of them.

Most Judaic belief systems espouse something not dissimilair to that which Dave claims he can do, all that proves is the shamanic role that some practioners try to make the rest of us believe they have. It still all comes down to flim flam in the end.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Good thing Christianity isn't a superstition. Dave's beliefs are.

Dave's beliefs aren't any less valid because he believes something different to you. He believes Jesus died on the cross for the salvation of mankind and that God loves everyone. Sounds pretty Christian to me.

I think all religions are superstition that have been used over the centuries to control the masses with the promise of an afterlife. Unfounded, unproven, made up of stories written thousands years ago and almost totally debunked by science. Personal point of view, obviously.

[housemate]

Originally Posted by Livia

Dave's beliefs aren't any less valid because he believes something different to you. He believes Jesus died on the cross for the salvation of mankind and that God loves everyone. Sounds pretty Christian to me.

I think all religions are superstition that have been used over the centuries to control the masses with the promise of an afterlife. Unfounded, unproven, made up of stories written thousands years ago and almost totally debunked by science. Personal point of view, obviously.

And many agree with you, to a degree and I am an (..allbeit unbaptised) Christian.. I agree with you.
Dave seems to have invented his own branch of Faith which has introduced lots of supersticious beings such as fairies, werewolves and the like into its teaching. This does offend me because he incorporates it all under the same banner of 'Christian Faith' and 'Gods Glory'... etc.. etc..
I can understand that you might argue that in your view it is the same thing ... in my view it is most certainly not. I'd go further and say it brings my beliefs into disrepute... it also thoroughly undermines the good, faith can bring to those who need it.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by housemate

And many agree with you, to a degree and I am an (..allbeit unbaptised) Christian.. I agree with you.
Dave seems to have invented his own branch of Faith which has introduced lots of supersticious beings such as fairies, werewolves and the like into its teaching. This does offend me because he incorporates it all under the same banner of 'Christian Faith' and 'Gods Glory'... etc.. etc..
I can understand that you might argue that in your view it is the same thing ... in my view it is most certainly not. I'd go further and say it brings my beliefs into disrepute... it also thoroughly undermines the good, faith can bring to those who need it.

I do understand what you mean. Thing is, I don't have a problem with anyone believing anything they feel drawn to if they have faith in it. If we start to say that people can follow the main Christian religions, but not the offshoots of it, then we surely have to look at all religions and see whether they are worthy of being allowed followers. And who's going to say what's right and what's wrong? What's worthy and what's not?

If Dave has invented his own branch of faith, then he's following in the footsteps of many other people. The Christian church is younger than my own religion (the one I was born into) by about three thousand years. The Church of England is barely five hundred years old and was itself once a new branch of Christianity devised so someone could get a divorce that the Catholic church wouldn't give him. That doesn't make Christianity invalid in my eyes. Live and let live, I reckon, and let people follow the faith they choose.

[housemate]

Originally Posted by Livia

I do understand what you mean. Thing is, I don't have a problem with anyone believing anything they feel drawn to if they have faith in it. If we start to say that people can follow the main Christian religions, but not the offshoots of it, then we surely have to look at all religions and see whether they are worthy of being allowed followers. And who's going to say what's right and what's wrong? What's worthy and what's not?

If Dave has invented his own branch of faith, then he's following in the footsteps of many other people. The Christian church is younger than my own religion (the one I was born into) by about three thousand years. The Church of England is barely five hundred years old and was itself once a new branch of Christianity devised so someone could get a divorce that the Catholic church wouldn't give him. That doesn't make Christianity invalid in my eyes. Live and let live, I reckon, and let people follow the faith they choose.

Right .. totally agree except that he has gone in there under the guise of being a preacher ... not an individual.
I find it offensive to see and hear him fly in the face (lying, scheming and being entirely vile about his 'friends) of the teachings and morals he reads everyday, and which he claims he believes in ..and this sometimes just moments after waving his Bible around.
I don't give a flying fig what his belief system is, good luck to him but why should he feel free to mock the people who belong to the Christian Faith ,who also read those passages and regard them WITH some reverance?
Its totally wrong of him in my opinion.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by housemate

Right .. totally agree except that he has gone in there under the guise of being a preacher ... not an individual.
I find it offensive to see and hear him fly in the face (lying, scheming and being entirely vile about his 'friends) of the teachings and morals he reads everyday, and which he claims he believes in ..and this sometimes just moments after waving his Bible around.
I don't give a flying fig what his belief system is, good luck to him but why should he feel free to mock the people who belong to the Christian Faith ,who also read those passages and regard them WITH some reverance?
Its totally wrong of him in my opinion.

Yeah, I can see you could find that offensive. However, religious freedom is a right that goes back to the Magna Carta, and it's a right that is upheld in this country now more than ever. I wonder what Jesus would make of him?

Anyway... I'm off to bed. It's been nice, and interesting, to talk to you.