kirkstaller wrote:I'm afraid I'm not going to trawl through ~90 pages of debate to find your questions. I apologise for not addressing them the first time around, although the fact I didn't respond causes me to believe they were the same as questions asked by other posters.
You don't have to trawl through anything. Get a search of my posts up and clicking the ones on this thread would take you straight there. But you won't, because like I said, what you do is ignore every question, and you hope it will be submerged and your swerve not noticed, or forgotten.
kirkstaller wrote:If you really want specific questions answering then I suggest you repeat them here in plain English and I will respond by COP tomorrow.
If you do check you will see that oddly enough, English is indeed the language I chose to ask them.
kirkstaller wrote:God doesn't intercede now because he has addressed the problem of sin by sending his son Jesus Christ.
That does not mean anything. Unless sin had been obliterated by this act, then the problem of sin clearly remains, unabated. What you seem to add to this equation is that (unless I read you wrong) we are all to be punished, for sins of our forbears in the past, and burn in hell, even if personally we do nothing wrong. Have I got that one right?
If that's how it works, I wouldn't ask god to address the problem of a leak in our plumbing.
kirkstaller wrote:This [Jesus Christ popping down for a one-on-one with kirksstaller!] is not intervention. He has not materially changed the world like he did in the OT. I'm surprised that such an 'enlightened' person can't see the difference between world-changing acts such as sending a plague of locusts and flooding the world, and his contribution to a fruitful spiritual relationship with one of his followers.
"Plague of locusts"?
Stop it now, you're cracking me up.
But I do note your delusional suggestion that you were the one chosen follower. Even allowing for your conceit at being the "chosen one", intervention is not a question of degree. He either intervenes, or leaves you (personally) to it, based on your faith. As you no longer need faith, having met JC personally, that is a clear and unarguable intervention.You said JC contributed to your fruitful spiritual relationship. That is intervention.
kirkstaller wrote:Can you develop that point please? Why is call someone crazy un-Christian?
Ask JC next time he pops in.
kirkstaller wrote:It is not intervening because the world has not been materially changed.
Ah, right. So from a totally non-intervening god, who will not interfere regardless, because he just leaves us all to it, you are saying that god in fact is a full-on,hands-on interfere with everything micro-manager, then? Is that it? And unless he goes on to an intervention which is on a global scale, it "doesn't count" as intervention?
Let me then just ask you ONE question, as I know you dare not and will not answer any of my earlier questions:
You now propose that, on the micro scale, god DOES intervene in people's lives, at a trivial, petty level, such as poping down to chat with you. So, on a similar micro-management scale, ou might have an innocent child bor with AIDS and syphilis. Why would JC not find it a better use of his time to pop round there than to yours?
kirkstaller wrote:Do you realise how much you sound like a child screaming "it's not fair, it's not fair, why didn't God visit me???"
Er, no. I don't sound like that at all, as there is no god. Furthermore, if there was a god such as yours I certainly wouldn't want anything whatsoever to do with him.
kirkstaller wrote:If you are open to such a relationship then it will happen.
Sadly at the moment I am not delusional, and so it will not.