Error Above: “… Divine Jesus senscario. ” should read … “Divine Jesus scenario”. Sorry.
…
Atheism has donned many guises. A broad definition sees atheism, as a system of thought, in opposition to theism. Sometimes atheists were those, who did not worship the gods of their day. Early Christians were atheists to Romans. Earlier still, one could be called an atheist for being impious towards god. Both Democritus and Epicurus were labelled, “atheist”, not because they didn’t believe in the gods, rather their atomistic philosophy showed them to think/act “without” god. The privative a- in atheist signifies without.

Other atheists deny the very existence of god, absolutely. Here, Sells does not see the subtle difference between being against god and, being without god, by holding counter beliefs. How can an atheist be against something that does not exist?

What Sells sees as an affront to a spiritual entity, is, on closer examination, an attempt by atheists to argue an alternative hypothesis. In this skirmish, theists and atheists, participate in dissimilar ways. The theist plays the atheist-messenger, whereas the atheist plays the evidence.

Atheism is associated with materialism, in so-much-as materialists defer away from an extramundane explanation for the First Cause. Materialism in its primitive form sees matter, not god, as its own first cause. Today, we find a self-organising universe evident in the quantum cosmology and mathematics. At this juncture, we have a dispute between atheist materialism (and its modern extensions) and theist natural & supernatural pluralism.

Again, the atheist appeals to (testable) evidence, as uncovered by science and known to unbiased history. The theist maintains the supernatural is revealed via divine visitations and spiritually guided insights in concord with editorship of a priestly caste.

To the theist, god is ultimately unknowable: God is a mystery. To the atheist, the universe is ultimately knowable: The universe is a conundrum. The theist passively receives: The atheist proactively explores.

Oly.

waterboy:

<<Its not merely a question of vocabulary. God is the appropriate word for my purpose.
Interesting that you should be moved to persuade me to modify my ‘beliefs’. Are you a ‘proselytising’ atheist?>>

christ, that's a long bow! waterboy, how you can possibly interpret anything from my previous post as an attempt to modify your beliefs, is simply beyond me. i was simply talking about words.

if you feel the need to use the word "god", that's your business. it is just a word, but i didn't really expect you to give it up. people fight hard for ownership of that word. i questioned your need for the word, because i couldn't see anything in your posts which required it.

perhaps i misunderstood you, or you left things unsaid. i'm not sure what you gain from that 3000 years of theological reflection. my guess is, the more you gain, the less is our common ground.

finally, you seem to be setting up science as a straw man: science doesn't explain everything, hence theology or god or whatever. i fundamentally don't buy this. i explicitly stated that my understanding of my life goes beyond science. but the fact that science is not enough is for me no argument for god or universal meaning, or anything of the sort.

yes, consciousness is amazing. it is amazing that a bunch of atoms can contemplate the possibility of the divine. but i find it no more amazing than a bunch of atoms simply being able to contemplate its own consciousness, it's own feelings and fears and desires mortality.

you seem to be trying to slip the Divine (whatever it means), and thousands of years of theology (whatever it implies) through the back door. whatever you mean by that, if you expect me to to see the need or the value, you need to argue for it. and the fact science is not enough to make sense of life and of consciousness is a totally insufficient argument.

My assertion that all Judges and Magistrates are atheists needs clarifying. Even those who regularly attend church, and if Roman Catholic take confession, are atheists because neither their church, nor there own personal studies have taught them that in order to be a Christian, a person must not take the place of Almighty God.

I am an Anglican, and even within that communion I have people who think that it is alright for a Magistrate or Judge, to be a lawmaking god. Lets us just take the prayer said in the Commonwealth Parliament, from both Matthew 6 Verses 9-13, and Luke 11 2-4, and examine what it says.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, Anglicans now say, now and forever, amen. Every Judge and Magistrate who makes a law binding on another individual, without first following the teachings of Jesus Christ, in John 5 Verses 22 and 23 is an atheist. To Honor Almighty God an individual must Honor Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ in Luke 12 Verses 10-12, says anyone who does not consult the Holy Spirit, is a blasphemer, and commits the unforgivable sin. That sin is atheism.

The Prince of Peace, referred to in Isaiah 9 Verse 6, is Jesus Christ, and if a Judge or Magistrate was a Christian, and not just some play acting bureaucrat, he or she would refuse to rule, in any way repugnant to Christian teachings. The Bible, in Matthew 18 verse 20 says that where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I amongst them. This is a living cogent Almighty God who has been as promised with us in the Spirit, until he physically returns.

A Judge or Magistrate who puts himself above two of his fellows, and makes a law for one and destroys another is defiling the memory of Jesus Christ. Only Jesus Christ in a jury of 12, really knows the truth. It is called a just verdict. The jury is of the Christ King

After explaining the Biblical roots of good government, I would like to just explain how we as a collective of Australians, formed a Commonwealth. Commonwealth is a word out of Ephesians 2 verse 12, and right now we don’t have one. Israel means man of God, not some nation in the Middle East, wreaking vengeance on the descendents of Ishmael. By 377,600 to 141,500 the men of Australia voted for a Commonwealth.

We called upon the blessing of Almighty God in line two of the preamble, and decided by referendum to be a Christian nation. This really annoyed lawyer/Judges, and they have ever since been unprepared to accept Christian authority. Our Constitution is the latest in a long line of Christian Statutes, made for the peace order and good government of God’s people in line with the Bible. It has been a factor in all good government that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To prevent despotism, a jury was always charged with finding facts. A jury was gathered together, an ecclesia is a gathering of the people, from Matthew 18 Verse 17, the word church, in the original Greek. Christians usually select 12.

Con men, atheists, power mongers, whore masters like Saffron, moneylenders, and a great many misguided church leaders, have been misled by the passage in Romans 13, which says: Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. The people referred to in the previous sentence believe Parliament is the highest power. However we have nine of these in Australia, so which power must we be subject to?

A Christian had a claim of right to a jury trial, and S 79 Constitution, which says judges, without a capital J, is the guarantee. Twelve judges, under a Justice, to determine as fact whether a law made in any Parliament was good government or bad, is the central rule of a Commonwealth. The Australia Act 1986 is a law abolishing Christianity and Commonwealth. If you were a judge, with 11 of your fellows, would you let atheists abolish the Commonwealth and defile Almighty God. Think about it

Cripes
I thought mine and Spikey's earlier discussions on a different topic were going nowhere. Please shut this off.
Blair

"Oh, crud. I posted to the wrong thread. It's still relevant": Posted by Sancho.

"Error Above: “… Divine Jesus senscario. ” should read … “Divine Jesus scenario”. Sorry": Posted by Oliver.

"Only Jesus Christ in a jury of 12, really knows the truth. It is called a just verdict. The jury is of the Christ King": Posted by Peter the Believer.

"I thought mine and Spikey's earlier discussions on a different topic were going nowhere. Please shut this off": Posted by blairbar.

Crikey, Blair, you and I are in absolute and total agreement. Hallelujah brother! Pass the sauce, please.

Elizabeth