Following on from the horrific news of a little boy killed by lightning -
I am genuinly intrigued to hread how any of our Christian contributors can begin to reconcile this tragedy with the notion that their 'loving' God, who clearly allowed it to happen, could let such a loss be felt by his parents and family.
Don’t be rude Theland. Nailit knows more about the bible than you ever will simply because he regards it objectively - something that people who seek only personal benefit in it will never be capable of.
stop being rude - did I just read this from Naomi?
oh well normal evening on AB then
as I said to AH - gods plan for hillsborough seems pretty opaque but that doesnt mean there isnt one ( damn double negative but luckily this is AB so no one will notice)
// semantics will never trump an honest view honestly expressed,// oh yeah right a refutation. you only need one counterexample to refute a sweeping statement such as that. And here is one coming up!
David Hilbert 1900 thought all maff would be reduced into principles ( axioms ) and rules of inference (*)
1930 Godel (incompleteness theorem) showed some maff statement were true but unprovable. He did this by arithmetising a semantic statement - "this theorem is unprovable" - managed to get it into x,yz and numbers.
and that boys and girls was a semantic statement refuting ( or trumping) an honestly held view
My problem is that I think too hard about what the proles write
// Please don't reply to me, I rarely read what you post.//
then you cant comment on what I post for chrissakes - coz you aint readem - yeah?
This discussion on Gods Plan at answer 228 I feel hasnt even taken off ( AH: well I dont read alot of them because they're crap!
No Andie: you cant tell they are crap UNTIL you have read them!
AH well that is crap for a start)