Rugby League family, I need your help. Recently, I've been heavily involved with a campaign called the Coalition For Equal Marriage (C4EM). This campaign seeks to alter the definition of marriage which has held back mankind well since year dot. You will no doubt have heard certain noisy parties in the media declaring their support for an alternative definition of marriage. I respectfully submit that such a reclassification would have a profoundly positive impact on society. If you are interested in hearing more, or if you are willing to help, please visit: c4em.org.uk When you visit the site you can sign the petition and show your support for a new definition of marriage. Thanks

Rugby League family, I need your help. Recently, I've been heavily involved with a campaign called the Coalition For Equal Marriage (C4EM). This campaign seeks to alter the definition of marriage which has held back mankind well since year dot. You will no doubt have heard certain noisy parties in the media declaring their support for an alternative definition of marriage. I respectfully submit that such a reclassification would have a profoundly positive impact on society. If you are interested in hearing more, or if you are willing to help, please visit: c4em.org.uk When you visit the site you can sign the petition and show your support for a new definition of marriage. Thanks

To answer the opening question, 'god' doesn't have a nature because he doesn't exist. Having watched my mother die an awful, drawn out death over almost two years, I can quite happily say that if God exists, he's a complete b*stard, and he can go and move his butt onto a sharp stake in as mysterious a way as he likes. If he's got a problem with that, I dare him to come and see me - he apparently knows where I am at all times, so finding me shouldn't be a problem.

People have choice. People can choose what they want to believe in or not. End of.

Paedophiles believe in "loving" children, should they be allowed to practise their belief without challenge?

Some people choose to believe in some things. Some don't. Rightly, or wrongly in your extreme example.

You chose to post what you post.

See. It's all about choice.

People can "believe" in what they want.

But it shouldn't effect other people.

But people have to accept that if they air unacceptable beliefs in public they will be challenged. That's also all about choice.

[iGenesis[/i says God created everything. Ergo, God created the worm that eats the child's eyeball for food.



Ah, another apologist. It's up to the child gathering water, for instance, to "overcome" having a worm get into its eye and blind it?

Let's go back to the question that neither you nor Kirkstaller want to answer

Have a go at Kirkstaller, then. He's the one who doesn't believe that 'good deeds' are required in life, and who has spent countless posts telling others that they're sinners, that they're going to hell, that they haven't done religion 'right' (ie, the way he does it).

Explain to him humility, decency and altruism. And explain to him to concentrate on "goodness" instead of trying to persuade everyone else they should follow his murdering, criminal, evil god – just as long as they do it the way he tells them.

And perhaps if so many people didn't go around worshiping a god that clearly is not good or loving or even basically moral by our evolved, moral standards – indeed, is criminal – then maybe we could "overcome our ills that much more quickly", eh?

When someone told you that - I assume that other people tell you this nonsense and you simply swallow the whole story without question - didn't you stop and wonder why a god would create the whole world to live in with all the infrastructure for a man to survive, food, water etc, and also at the same time provide him with the necessary implements to reproduce himself without restriction ?

With no limit to the number of offspring that every resultant human can have and with no demise of any of those humans, how long would it have taken for this plan of your god to have standing room only on earth with no food, water etc to survive on, not that you'd need food water etc if you can't die.

Is this another case of bad planning, poor quality control, or just sheer, utter bull ?

Yes. In the worm that eats a child's eye.

'But that's okay because daddy god's home is so much nicer that it will make even a blinded child feel it was worth it having their eye eaten out'.

I said it before: you're a sociopath.

Exactly. No other form of stupidity or delusion is given a 'free pass' in the way religion is. All other outlandish statements (on, say, politics, sport, science) are open to be challenged, without anyone questioning our right to challenge them. But when it comes to religion, there are those who think we should all just accept every ridiculous statement and treat the person making the statement with respect.

Let's hope you fall down a mineshaft before your unpleasant imaginary friend issues such an order, then.

Its part of the teaching, some may call it brain-washing.

I have Catholic friends who were brought up within strict Catholic environments where they were simply not allowed to question the word of their god or of the priest or indeed of the teachers in their Catholic school - you'd think that education would be the one place where free thinking and analytical questioning would be actively encouraged, but apparently not in a school under religious control - children can be very perceptive and innocently analytical in their questioning of adults, the question of the eye burrowing worm is blatently obvious to a child but such questions display a shocking lack of acceptance of the teachings of their bible and so would be instantly quashed with the catch-all phrase "Ours is not to question why" or "He moves in mysterious ways".

Tell me why I should refuse such an instruction?