Since You're Back Ironhorse...

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Romans 1:18 is not referring to miraculous acts recorded in the scriptures but to the general revelation of God through his creations. This is revealed to all people. It is not a complete revelation that includes Christ, but it is sufficient enough to speak of a Creator.

 

Yes, I know that, Ironhorse.

 

But we're still waiting for you to tell us exactly... HOW ...God's creation is sufficient enough to speak to those who have no faith in him.

 

Those are the terms and conditions set down by Paul.  

 

No faith in Paul's God is required to see His invisible qualities in His visible creation.

 

So how do we (the faithless) see them, Ironhorse?

 

How...?

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

(Re-bump!)

 

 

(Re-re-bump!)

 

 

(Re-re-re-bump!)

 

 

(Re-re-re-re-bump!)

 

 

(Re-re-re-re-re-bump!)

 

 

(Re-re-re-re-re-re-bump!)

 

 

A quick count up reveals that I've put this question to you over a dozen times, Ironhorse.

 

Please tell us how we (the faithless) see God's invisible qualities in the visible universe.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

As of now that's a bakers dozen, Ironhorse.

 

Please answer the question that was put to you twenty-eight (28) days ago.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is “this”?

 

“This” is another example of where I see signs of a creator. Two things I see are design and beauty.

 

What in “this” do you see?

 

 

You haven't answered the question, Ironhorse.

 

You weren't asked what you see.

 

You were asked what everyone sees.

 

That is the 'this' in question.

 

So now please answer the question that was asked and not a different question.

 

And please don't make us wait as long.

 

And please don't make us have to prompt you so many times.

 

 

I've asked you this question six (6) times now, Ironhorse.

 

So, for the seventh time...

 

Please answer this simple and obvious question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

And now it's eight, Ironhorse.

 

Please answer before I have to use double digits.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[ironhorse]

that sounds right but I was thinking there was another one too. Paul was trying to tell someone, Timothy or someone how to convert people.

I could be wrong, but it seems like this.

I never did have a memory for scriptures, sorry. For me memories of scriptures are more like shapes and colors, feelings and such. Bookmarks where I might one day go back again to look for a thing.

I see math the same way. Shapes and patterns.

 

Ironhorse? You should know where it is, right? What's the passage I'm referring to?

 

 

 

Voice,

I also thought of the passage BAA posted from Matthew.

This passage from Paul might be what you are also thinking about:

 

Paul’s Use of His Freedom

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.  To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

 

~ 1 Corinthians 9:19-21((NIV)

[bornagainathiest]

Shame on you, Ironhorse!

 

Shame on you for ignoring me so much in this thread that I can't quote and bump my question any further.

 

So I'll just have to copy it and start over.

 

Like this.

.

.

.

ironhorse, on 06 Oct 2016 - 2:42 PM, said:

Romans 1:18 is not referring to miraculous acts recorded in the scriptures but to the general revelation of God through his creations. This is revealed to all people. It is not a complete revelation that includes Christ, but it is sufficient enough to speak of a Creator.

 

Yes, I know that, Ironhorse.

 

But we're still waiting for you to tell us exactly... HOW ...God's creation is sufficient enough to speak to those who have no faith in him.

 

Those are the terms and conditions set down by Paul.  

 

No faith in Paul's God is required to see His invisible qualities in His visible creation.

 

So how do we (the faithless) see them, Ironhorse?

 

How...?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is “this”?

 

“This” is another example of where I see signs of a creator. Two things I see are design and beauty.

 

What in “this” do you see?

 

 

You haven't answered the question, Ironhorse.

 

You weren't asked what you see.

 

You were asked what everyone sees.

 

That is the 'this' in question.

 

So now please answer the question that was asked and not a different question.

 

And please don't make us wait as long.

 

And please don't make us have to prompt you so many times.

 

 

I've asked you this question six (6) times now, Ironhorse.

 

So, for the seventh time...

 

Please answer this simple and obvious question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

And now it's eight, Ironhorse.

 

Please answer before I have to use double digits.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

(Bump!)

[ironhorse]

But we're still waiting for you to tell us exactly... HOW ...God's creation is sufficient enough to speak to those who have no faith in him.

Those are the terms and conditions set down by Paul. 

No faith in Paul's God is required to see His invisible qualities in His visible creation.

So how do we (the faithless) see them, Ironhorse?

How...?

 

~BAA

 

 

A person does not need any faith to behold the wonders of this universe and life. You look and think. Did all of this just occur by chance or was it created by a highly intelligent being? Thinking and studying that question does not take faith. 

 

But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can’t see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.

~ Romans 1:18-23 (The Message)

 

Of course a person who sees this may decide it was not created by a God but by chance or in some other way. 

It is a decision we all make either way. Yes or no? 

[LogicalFallacy]

Don't need faith? Of course you do. You have nothing to backup your conclusions except speculations and faith.

 

This, in is simplest form, is God of the gaps. “Look at the world. Therefore God” Do you have anything beyond ancient tales, speculation, and inability to simply accept a “we have no real clue as to how and why we got here?” I mean this is William Craigs line of thought. “The universe must have had a beginning” he says. Maybe, maybe not, we don’t know, and if we did that does not lead logically to therefore God. Ironhorse, you are not giving any reason to make us reconsider. It is simply I think and you think and that’s it. Except our think has very good reasons to back up “I think”.

 

I admit when it comes to the very beginning of time it’s hard to comprehend, and we have no answers – yet. But I am honest enough to say I have no bloody clue, not, I have no idea therefore God. As soon as you introduce God you wind up with far more unsettling questions than answers, but Christians don’t think of the implications.

[bornagainathiest]

But we're still waiting for you to tell us exactly... HOW ...God's creation is sufficient enough to speak to those who have no faith in him.

 

Those are the terms and conditions set down by Paul. 

 

No faith in Paul's God is required to see His invisible qualities in His visible creation.

 

So how do we (the faithless) see them, Ironhorse?

 

How...?

 

~BAA

 

 

A person does not need any faith to behold the wonders of this universe and life. You look and think. Did all of this just occur by chance or was it created by a highly intelligent being? Thinking and studying that question does not take faith. 

 

But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can’t see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.

~ Romans 1:18-23 (The Message)

 

Of course a person who sees this may decide it was not created by a God but by chance or in some other way. 

It is a decision we all make either way. Yes or no? 

 

Please give us a specific worked example, Ironhorse.

 

Pick any aspect of the visible, physical universe and explain how that given thing clearly shows the invisible, eternal power and divinity of God.

 

All you've done so far is to talk in vague generalities and repackage that Romans quote.

 

Now take us thru it, starting with the visible, physical things/s being looked at and then walk us, step-by-step, thru the thinking process that inevitably leads to the conclusion Paul refers to.

 

Go!

[sdelsolray]

Let's deconstruct this.

 

...
A person does not need any faith to behold the wonders of this universe and life. 

...

 

 

That would depend on the character, composition and details of the "wonders".  If the "wonders" include GODDIDIT, then they would require religious faith.  

 

...
You look and think. 

...

 

 

OK.  Let's try it....

 

...
Did all of this just occur by chance or was it created by a highly intelligent being? 

...

 

 

And invent a false dichotomy with a side salad of a strawman fallacy.  Yeah, that's real deep looking and thinking.  Actually, it is shallow and irrational thinking.

 

You really can't seem to escape the emotional box your were placed in as a child.  That's probably because you have no interest in doing so.  That would take clear thinking and courage.

 

...
Thinking and studying that question does not take faith.

...

 

No, in your case, it just takes logical fallacies and irrational thinking, all designed to reach your premade conclusion, which is entirely based on religious faith (and indoctrination and peer pressure, among other things).

 

But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can’t see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.

~ Romans 1:18-23 (The Message)

...

 

Paraphrased religious dogma.

 

...

Of course a person who sees this may decide it was not created by a God but by chance or in some other way. 

It is a decision we all make either way. Yes or no? 

 

Of course, it would depend on whether your "vision" is infected with thinking errors and religious faith.  Yours is.  Others, no so much.

[bornagainathiest]

But we're still waiting for you to tell us exactly... HOW ...God's creation is sufficient enough to speak to those who have no faith in him.

 

Those are the terms and conditions set down by Paul. 

 

No faith in Paul's God is required to see His invisible qualities in His visible creation.

 

So how do we (the faithless) see them, Ironhorse?

 

How...?

 

~BAA

 

 

A person does not need any faith to behold the wonders of this universe and life. You look and think. Did all of this just occur by chance or was it created by a highly intelligent being? Thinking and studying that question does not take faith. 

 

But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can’t see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.

~ Romans 1:18-23 (The Message)

 

Of course a person who sees this may decide it was not created by a God but by chance or in some other way. 

It is a decision we all make either way. Yes or no? 

 

Just noticed this, Ironhorse.

 

Of course a person who sees this may decide it was not created by a God but by chance or in some other way. 

 

Yes, that's exactly what's happened over the thousands of years of human history.

 

Long before science came along people did decide that everything was created by... A GOD.

 

Some people have decided that this god was called Zeus, some decided he was called Brahma, others decided he was called Quetzacoatl or any of these names... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

 

What you now need to do is to clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that what Paul claims to be true, is true.

 

That looking at the visible universe inevitably causes everyone to reach exactly the same conclusion.

 

That they are seeing the invisible qualities of the God of the Bible.

 

That is your extremely specific task.

 

Go!

[ironhorse]

 

But we're still waiting for you to tell us exactly... HOW ...God's creation is sufficient enough to speak to those who have no faith in him.

 

Those are the terms and conditions set down by Paul. 

 

No faith in Paul's God is required to see His invisible qualities in His visible creation.

 

So how do we (the faithless) see them, Ironhorse?

 

How...?

 

~BAA

 

 

A person does not need any faith to behold the wonders of this universe and life. You look and think. Did all of this just occur by chance or was it created by a highly intelligent being? Thinking and studying that question does not take faith. 

 

But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can’t see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.

~ Romans 1:18-23 (The Message)

 

Of course a person who sees this may decide it was not created by a God but by chance or in some other way. 

It is a decision we all make either way. Yes or no? 

 

Just noticed this, Ironhorse.

 

Of course a person who sees this may decide it was not created by a God but by chance or in some other way. 

 

Yes, that's exactly what's happened over the thousands of years of human history.

 

Long before science came along people did decide that everything was created by... A GOD.

 

Some people have decided that this god was called Zeus, some decided he was called Brahma, others decided he was called Quetzacoatl or any of these names... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

 

What you now need to do is to clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that what Paul claims to be true, is true.

 

That looking at the visible universe inevitably causes everyone to reach exactly the same conclusion.

 

That they are seeing the invisible qualities of the God of the Bible.

 

That is your extremely specific task.

 

Go!

 

 

 

What you now need to do is to clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that what Paul claims to be true, is true.

Paul was making a statement about the reality of creation and how it speaks of a Creator. You either accept it as true or you don’t.

 

That looking at the visible universe inevitably causes everyone to reach exactly the same conclusion.

Paul did not say everyone would reach the same conclusion.

 

That they are seeing the invisible qualities of the God of the Bible.

Again, people can view the same thing (creation) and reach different conclusions. 

 

That is your extremely specific task.

 

Go!

 

I have answered and tried to explain my reasons several times in this thread. It is evident you find my answers insufficient. So be it.

I wasn’t trying to WIN this discussion. I was just giving my view.

 

I don't have anything else to add. 

[L.B.]

 

What you now need to do is to clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that what Paul claims to be true, is true.

Paul was making a statement about the reality of creation and how it speaks of a Creator. You either accept it as true or you don’t.

 

It's not like that's a passive choice; in Paul's world, if you don't accept it, you're doomed to eternal fire for an inherited guilt. Nice guy, that god of his.

 

 

That looking at the visible universe inevitably causes everyone to reach exactly the same conclusion.

Paul did not say everyone would reach the same conclusion.

 

Bullshit. He said that these were the qualities of GOD, and that HIS character, etc could be seen clearly. He is assuming that everyone will not only see something, but the specific god of Paul's religion.

 

 

That they are seeing the invisible qualities of the God of the Bible.

Again, people can view the same thing (creation) and reach different conclusions.

 

Again, bullshit. That's your modern "reasoning" being applied where the author(s) clearly did not have an open-ended, polytheistic (and Atheistic) worldview in mind as viable choices.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

But we're still waiting for you to tell us exactly... HOW ...God's creation is sufficient enough to speak to those who have no faith in him.

 

Those are the terms and conditions set down by Paul. 

 

No faith in Paul's God is required to see His invisible qualities in His visible creation.

 

So how do we (the faithless) see them, Ironhorse?

 

How...?

 

~BAA

 

 

A person does not need any faith to behold the wonders of this universe and life. You look and think. Did all of this just occur by chance or was it created by a highly intelligent being? Thinking and studying that question does not take faith. 

 

But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can’t see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.

~ Romans 1:18-23 (The Message)

 

Of course a person who sees this may decide it was not created by a God but by chance or in some other way. 

It is a decision we all make either way. Yes or no? 

 

Just noticed this, Ironhorse.

 

Of course a person who sees this may decide it was not created by a God but by chance or in some other way. 

 

Yes, that's exactly what's happened over the thousands of years of human history.

 

Long before science came along people did decide that everything was created by... A GOD.

 

Some people have decided that this god was called Zeus, some decided he was called Brahma, others decided he was called Quetzacoatl or any of these names... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

 

What you now need to do is to clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that what Paul claims to be true, is true.

 

That looking at the visible universe inevitably causes everyone to reach exactly the same conclusion.

 

That they are seeing the invisible qualities of the God of the Bible.

 

That is your extremely specific task.

 

Go!

 

 

 

What you now need to do is to clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that what Paul claims to be true, is true.

Paul was making a statement about the reality of creation and how it speaks of a Creator. You either accept it as true or you don’t.

 

Not according to Paul.

In the same letter he wrote to the Romans he makes it quite clear that it is God who predestines everyone to accept or not.  That decision was never ours to make, having being made by God for us, before he created anything.  

 

That looking at the visible universe inevitably causes everyone to reach exactly the same conclusion.

Paul did not say everyone would reach the same conclusion.

 

Paul said that they have no excuse for not reaching the correct conclusion, then elsewhere in the same epistle he writes that they never had a choice in the first place.

 

That they are seeing the invisible qualities of the God of the Bible.

Again, people can view the same thing (creation) and reach different conclusions. 

 

But only because God has predetermined who will reach the 'proper' conclusion.

 

That is your extremely specific task.

 

Go!

 

I have answered and tried to explain my reasons several times in this thread. It is evident you find my answers insufficient. So be it.

I wasn’t trying to WIN this discussion. I was just giving my view.

 

I don't have anything else to add. 

 

 

Your answers have consistently fallen outside the terms and conditions laid down by Paul in Romans 1 : 18 - 20, or have clearly violated them.

 

Agreed, there is no winning involved here.  Someone who hasn't answered a question or who can't do so should have the honesty and integrity to say so.

 

Won't you at least have the decency and honesty to say so?  That's all it takes.  A few simple words.  "I don't know" or "I can't answer".

 

Are you using the 'I was just giving my view' ploy to hold out against making such an honest admission?

 

Or worse, does this imply that you will never admit to being wrong in any thread in the Den?

 

 Because you will always claim to just be... giving your view?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I wonder why Ironhorse went and started another thread when there is so much he has yet to address in this one.  Hmmm....

[LogicalFallacy]

Yeah, I thought that. He still not finished in The Beginning thread either. BAA and I have not got either a satisfactory answer or admission from Ironhorse other than "I'm speculating" which is highly unsatisfactory. We could all speculate. Christians have to come up better than that or why bother believing? (Note its partly because I couldn't come up with satisfactory answers that I left Christianity)

 

And he must have known that the Israel thread was bound to open up some hefty discussion.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Yeah, I thought that. He still not finished in The Beginning thread either. BAA and I have not got either a satisfactory answer or admission from Ironhorse other than "I'm speculating" which is highly unsatisfactory. We could all speculate. Christians have to come up better than that or why bother believing? (Note its partly because I couldn't come up with satisfactory answers that I left Christianity)

 

And he must have known that the Israel thread was bound to open up some hefty discussion.

Ironhorse is just staying true to form.  We've seen this many times; not just with Ironhorse, but with a fair number of christians who spend any amount of time here (most don't, for some reason).  I'd actually be somewhat disappointed if Ironhorse addressed everything before starting a new thread; I'd feel like he wasn't being himself and wonder if he was okay.  

[bornagainathiest]

Yeah, I thought that. He still not finished in The Beginning thread either. BAA and I have not got either a satisfactory answer or admission from Ironhorse other than "I'm speculating" which is highly unsatisfactory. We could all speculate. Christians have to come up better than that or why bother believing? (Note its partly because I couldn't come up with satisfactory answers that I left Christianity)

 

And he must have known that the Israel thread was bound to open up some hefty discussion.

 

Remember this, LF..?

 

 

Posted 31 October 2016 - 02:55 PM

This could be interesting, LF.

If Ironhorse is true to form you'll soon get to see just how much integrity and honesty there is in this sincere, trustworthy and truth-loving Christian.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

 

Well there's his integrity and honesty.

He did give a clear and definitive answer to you on the incest issue in Genesis, saying that Adam's line was genetically pure.  But when the example of Noah and the Romans passage that refuted his answer were shown to him, he didn't want to be held accountable to his answer and didn't want to be seen to be in error about scripture and didn't have the integrity and honesty to admit that he was wrong.  So he backpedaled on it, changed his tune and now tells us that he was... just speculating.  Why?  Because if he's 'just speculating' then he knows he can't be seen to be in error and can't be held accountable for giving a clear and definitive answer to you that was wrong.  That's why.  

 

So, you're right, LogicalFallacy.

Ironhorse did know that starting up a new thread was going to start up some hefty discussion.  As the Prof has mentioned, this is true to his form.  Starting the Israel thread was a calculated move on his part to re-direct our attention away from your thread and from mine.  He knows he screwed up in yours on the incest issue and he knows he cannot answer my questions in this one.  So he's tried to cut and run from both our threads, using his Israel thread as cover.

.

.

.

Btw, since you've just come out to your folks, do they know that you're a member of Ex-C..?

I ask because if they do, then you could show them how honest and sincere Ironhorse's behavior has been toward you.  How he loved the truth so much that he stood to be counted when you showed him to be wrong.  That he didn't dodge or try to weasel his way out, but acted like a trustworthy and faithful Christian, ready to do the principled and moral thing when it mattered.  I wonder what their reaction would be if they saw how he'd behaved toward you?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Remember this, LF..?

 

Posted 31 October 2016 - 02:55 PM

This could be interesting, LF.

If Ironhorse is true to form you'll soon get to see just how much integrity and honesty there is in this sincere, trustworthy and truth-loving Christian.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

Aye, I do

 

 

Well there's his integrity and honesty.

He did give a clear and definitive answer to you on the incest issue in Genesis, saying that Adam's line was genetically pure.  But when the example of Noah and the Romans passage that refuted his answer were shown to him, he didn't want to be held accountable to his answer and didn't want to be seen to be in error about scripture and didn't have the integrity and honesty to admit that he was wrong.  So he backpedaled on it, changed his tune and now tells us that he was... just speculating.  Why?  Because if he's 'just speculating' then he knows he can't be seen to be in error and can't be held accountable for giving a clear and definitive answer to you that was wrong.  That's why.  

 

So, you're right, LogicalFallacy.

Ironhorse did know that starting up a new thread was going to start up some hefty discussion.  As the Prof has mentioned, this is true to his form.  Starting the Israel thread was a calculated move on his part to re-direct our attention away from your thread and from mine.  He knows he screwed up in yours on the incest issue and he knows he cannot answer my questions in this one.  So he's tried to cut and run from both our threads, using his Israel thread as cover.

.

So if we can get Ironhorse abandoning a thread we can declare 'victory'? Seems a bit of a pyrrhic win to have posted so much and what I hoped was decent quality to not have an official I surrender post.  

.

Btw, since you've just come out to your folks, do they know that you're a member of Ex-C..?

I ask because if they do, then you could show them how honest and sincere Ironhorse's behavior has been toward you.  How he loved the truth so much that he stood to be counted when you showed him to be wrong.  That he didn't dodge or try to weasel his way out, but acted like a trustworthy and faithful Christian, ready to do the principled and moral thing when it mattered.  I wonder what their reaction would be if they saw how he'd behaved toward you?

 

No, my parents don't know of Ex-C that I'm aware of and I'm planning to keep it that way. It's possible because they know I have been talking to atheists and Christians on the net that they may look for, and may possibly find, Ex-C and identify me, but unlikely. Ex-C I feel is my place I can come and express full opinion, be as hard and undiplomatic as I like in debates without having to worry about causing real life relationship problems. (Obviously I take online relationships seriously too which is why I was hasty to clarify things with TRP in the Israel thread)

 

Sadly BAA, I feel my father may be much the same as Ironhorse when I have discussions with him - which discussions he wants. Ultimately, so far, no matter what I've shown him he comes down to either 'I'm thinking to much', or GODDIDIT. Why can't you believe the bible??? Well, um *Points to evidence showing Aboriginal settlements 49,000 years old* Errr um the earth isn't 6000 years old Dad... like you believe. Sadly Dad has already flipflopped on the age of the earth and evolution in the very short time I have come out. First he was yeah yeah that doesn't contradict the bible, to now some NASA engineer has proven how 4.7 billion years is too long for the solar system to have formed.. not too short.. too long, therefore the earth and man is only 6000 years old! Have you heard this 'too long theory' before?

 

So yeah I need this place and you guys to keep me sane - no pressure, but you guys are the sole non Christian contact I have of any serious note.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Remember this, LF..?

 

Posted 31 October 2016 - 02:55 PM

This could be interesting, LF.

If Ironhorse is true to form you'll soon get to see just how much integrity and honesty there is in this sincere, trustworthy and truth-loving Christian.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

Aye, I do

 

 

Well there's his integrity and honesty.

He did give a clear and definitive answer to you on the incest issue in Genesis, saying that Adam's line was genetically pure.  But when the example of Noah and the Romans passage that refuted his answer were shown to him, he didn't want to be held accountable to his answer and didn't want to be seen to be in error about scripture and didn't have the integrity and honesty to admit that he was wrong.  So he backpedaled on it, changed his tune and now tells us that he was... just speculating.  Why?  Because if he's 'just speculating' then he knows he can't be seen to be in error and can't be held accountable for giving a clear and definitive answer to you that was wrong.  That's why.  

 

So, you're right, LogicalFallacy.

Ironhorse did know that starting up a new thread was going to start up some hefty discussion.  As the Prof has mentioned, this is true to his form.  Starting the Israel thread was a calculated move on his part to re-direct our attention away from your thread and from mine.  He knows he screwed up in yours on the incest issue and he knows he cannot answer my questions in this one.  So he's tried to cut and run from both our threads, using his Israel thread as cover.

.

So if we can get Ironhorse abandoning a thread we can declare 'victory'? Seems a bit of a pyrrhic win to have posted so much and what I hoped was decent quality to not have an official I surrender post.  

.

Ummm...no, LF. 

As I said to Ironhorse recently, our interactions aren't about winning or losing.  They are about relentlessly pursuing the evidence and the data, no matter where it leads us.  Naturally, he won't do that because for him, all questions and all answers must arrive at the conclusion he wants.  Any possibility that his beliefs are false is filtered out, ignored or just dropped.  As we have just witnessed over the past 72 hours.  He tried to answer your question about Cain by referring to genetic purity and incest, but when you and I refuted his argument, he didn't do the honest thing and admit that he couldn't give you a scripturally-sound answer.   He realized that there was no scriptural way to explain who it was that Cain was in fear of nor who Cain's wife was. His literal reading of Genesis 4 forces him to believe that the only human beings alive at that time were Adam, Eve and Cain.  Nobody else to find Cain and do violence to him and no other females for Cain to marry.  In the face of this Biblical contradiction Ironhorse didn't face up to it... he ran and hid from it.  It's a threat to his all-important beliefs and the bottom line of Ironhorse's long tenure in Ex-C is that his beliefs mustn't ever be threatened!  Which explains why he's prepared to change his tune, backpedal, dissemble, obfuscate and refuse to answer or participate further in any given thread.

 

But please don't be too upset by the outcome, LF.

This actually isn't a pyrrhic victory.  The great thing about the Den is that it's often visited by lurkers and those who are seriously considering leaving Christianity.  They are ordianry folks like you and me, but who have just a little further to go on the road of their deconversion.  So, even if you and I can never persuade Ironhorse to face up to the flaws, the inconsistencies and the contradictions of Christianity, our rational, reasoned and logical efforts to do so will be anonymously observed by many other people.   They will take note of his behavior - his lack of personal integrity, his lack of honesty and his unwillingness to pursue the truth.  His actions will be the cause of many leaving Christianity and rejecting Jesus as a false god.

 

Fyi, years ago I messaged him privately and predicted that if he continued to behave as he did, he would actually be conducting a kind of negative Christian ministry.

Instead of bringing people to Christ in Ex-C, he would actually be driving them away from the foot of the cross.  I recall that long ago one member even posted a message, personally thanking Ironhorse and his dishonest behavior for being the last straw that broke the back of that members faith.  (I'll see if I can find it to show you.)  And yet he hasn't changed one iota - which tells me (and the watching lurkers) that his presence here is ultimately a selfish one.  

 

Btw, since you've just come out to your folks, do they know that you're a member of Ex-C..?

I ask because if they do, then you could show them how honest and sincere Ironhorse's behavior has been toward you.  How he loved the truth so much that he stood to be counted when you showed him to be wrong.  That he didn't dodge or try to weasel his way out, but acted like a trustworthy and faithful Christian, ready to do the principled and moral thing when it mattered.  I wonder what their reaction would be if they saw how he'd behaved toward you?

 

No, my parents don't know of Ex-C that I'm aware of and I'm planning to keep it that way. It's possible because they know I have been talking to atheists and Christians on the net that they may look for, and may possibly find, Ex-C and identify me, but unlikely. Ex-C I feel is my place I can come and express full opinion, be as hard and undiplomatic as I like in debates without having to worry about causing real life relationship problems. (Obviously I take online relationships seriously too which is why I was hasty to clarify things with TRP in the Israel thread)

 

Sadly BAA, I feel my father may be much the same as Ironhorse when I have discussions with him - which discussions he wants. Ultimately, so far, no matter what I've shown him he comes down to either 'I'm thinking to much', or GODDIDIT. Why can't you believe the bible??? Well, um *Points to evidence showing Aboriginal settlements 49,000 years old* Errr um the earth isn't 6000 years old Dad... like you believe. Sadly Dad has already flipflopped on the age of the earth and evolution in the very short time I have come out. First he was yeah yeah that doesn't contradict the bible, to now some NASA engineer has proven how 4.7 billion years is too long for the solar system to have formed.. not too short.. too long, therefore the earth and man is only 6000 years old! Have you heard this 'too long theory' before?

 

So yeah I need this place and you guys to keep me sane - no pressure, but you guys are the sole non Christian contact I have of any serious note.

 

I hear what you say, LF.  Please let me think about your words and I'll get back to you soon.

 

All the best,

 

BAA.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

[Voice]

 

that sounds right but I was thinking there was another one too. Paul was trying to tell someone, Timothy or someone how to convert people.

I could be wrong, but it seems like this.

I never did have a memory for scriptures, sorry. For me memories of scriptures are more like shapes and colors, feelings and such. Bookmarks where I might one day go back again to look for a thing.

I see math the same way. Shapes and patterns.

 

Ironhorse? You should know where it is, right? What's the passage I'm referring to?

 

 

 

Voice,

I also thought of the passage BAA posted from Matthew.

This passage from Paul might be what you are also thinking about:

 

Paul’s Use of His Freedom

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.  To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

 

~ 1 Corinthians 9:19-21((NIV)

 

 

It's a passage about how to convert, but it's not the one I was thinking of. Was there something in Timothy about being deceptive like a serpent? It could be the Matthew quote that I was in fact thinking of. It's been a couple decades since I looked anything up in the bible, and the memory ain't what it used to be.

If I read anything now it's going to be either Orwell's 1984, or Ayn Rand's Anthem. Or else safety manuals and operation manuals for machinery. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

.

Btw, since you've just come out to your folks, do they know that you're a member of Ex-C..?

I ask because if they do, then you could show them how honest and sincere Ironhorse's behavior has been toward you.  How he loved the truth so much that he stood to be counted when you showed him to be wrong.  That he didn't dodge or try to weasel his way out, but acted like a trustworthy and faithful Christian, ready to do the principled and moral thing when it mattered.  I wonder what their reaction would be if they saw how he'd behaved toward you?

 

No, my parents don't know of Ex-C that I'm aware of and I'm planning to keep it that way. It's possible because they know I have been talking to atheists and Christians on the net that they may look for, and may possibly find, Ex-C and identify me, but unlikely. Ex-C I feel is my place I can come and express full opinion, be as hard and undiplomatic as I like in debates without having to worry about causing real life relationship problems. (Obviously I take online relationships seriously too which is why I was hasty to clarify things with TRP in the Israel thread)

 

Ok LF,

I understand your situation better now.  And thanks for sharing that with me, btw.  

 

Sadly BAA, I feel my father may be much the same as Ironhorse when I have discussions with him - which discussions he wants. Ultimately, so far, no matter what I've shown him he comes down to either 'I'm thinking to much', or GODDIDIT. Why can't you believe the bible??? Well, um *Points to evidence showing Aboriginal settlements 49,000 years old* Errr um the earth isn't 6000 years old Dad... like you believe. Sadly Dad has already flipflopped on the age of the earth and evolution in the very short time I have come out. First he was yeah yeah that doesn't contradict the bible, to now some NASA engineer has proven how 4.7 billion years is too long for the solar system to have formed.. not too short.. too long, therefore the earth and man is only 6000 years old! Have you heard this 'too long theory' before?

 

So yeah I need this place and you guys to keep me sane - no pressure, but you guys are the sole non Christian contact I have of any serious note.

 

 

 

 

LogicalFallacy,

 

If I were to suggest any advice to a newly-deconverted Ex-Christian who is having difficulty with his family, it might be this.  

An old friend once put a few questions to me about the consequences of arguing.  "Which is better?" he asked. "To win friends or to win arguments?" He went on to explain.  "Is it really the best outcome if, by winning the argument, you lose the friendship of the person you were arguing with?  Surely alienating and antagonizing friends and family is too high a cost to pay for the winning of any argument?"  Wise words.  I wish I'd heeded them more often, in my angrier, more belligerent, post-Christian days. Therefore, if it's my place to offer you any advice, perhaps it might be better to ease up on arguments about the Bible with your dad?  He's still your dad and even if you don't (or can't) agree about that book, surely winning any argument about the age of the Earth isn't worth it if that drives a wedge between you and him?

 

And... there may well be another, better way for you to behave toward him.

Now, I don't know if devout Christians in NZ are much like the ones we have here in the US - but it's possible that what I'm about to describe might also work for you, as well as working here.  Christian thought about apostasy in America today runs, more or less, like this.  If you reject Jesus you don't only go to hell, but you also lose your moral compass and become prey to the sinful, unregenerate desires of the flesh.  An apostate will automatically become an immoral and degenerate slave of Satan.  They will lie, steal, cuss, fight, mix with bad company, engage in sexual immorality, become lovers of money and so on.  

 

But I know differently!  And so do many of the Ex-Christian members of this forum.

It's my honor and pleasure to tell you, LogicalFallacy, that I have good friends here who are highly moral, compassionate and... good ...people.  They exhibit kindness, patience, faithfulness and gentleness in abundance.  They are trustworthy, reliable and honorable.  They value truth and honesty and have no time for deception or chicanery.  They behave like this and demonstrate moral goodness without having Jesus in their lives.  So all of those Christian ideas about how apostates become hopelessly immoral sinners just aren't true.  And this is that 'better way' I was referring to earlier.

 

Rather than argue at length about Christianity and the Bible with your dad, why not try this, 'better way'?

As well as fearing for your immortal soul, your dad might also be worried that you will become a bad person.  That he will see the signs of moral degeneracy in your life and behavior.  After all, the Bible says that the unsaved cannot help but behave immorally.  Therefore, if he is proceeding on that expectation, here is your chance to prove him wrong.   LF, you should try to show him that you are still exactly the same person that you were when you were a Christian.  That you can be just as moral and just as good as you were when you believed.  That the absence of Jesus in your life has made no difference whatsoever to who and what you are.  Doing this will demonstrate to him that your morality and goodness do NOT (and did not) come from Jesus.  

 

It's my considered opinion that if you do this, it will have a much more dramatic effect on your dad than any evidence-based argument you could try on him.

 

I hope that you won't consider this message too forward and too prescriptive.  My aim here is to encourage and to help.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

p.s.

I went to FreeThinkerNZ's profile page to see if she might be able to link up with you.

But, I see you got there first.  Sorry, but I don't know if she's a North or South island Kiwi.  

Anyway, here's some hyper-links that might be of interest to you.  http://journeyfree.org/resources/links/

 

 

p.p.s

On the back of Ironhorse's Israel thread and your mention of notable Kiwis in history, I'd just like to pass this snippet on to you.

I'm an avid reader of tales of exploration and adventure, with a great interest in the epic journeys into the Egyptian and Libyan deserts.  In WW2, when the Italians invaded Libya and advanced toward British-held Egypt a special force was assembled in Cairo, under the leadership of a Major Ralph Bagnold.  During the 1930's he'd explored the trackless wastes of the Great Sand Sea, so he planned to use his knowledge and expertise to take raiding parties far behind enemy lines, travelling in motorized convoys across what the Axis forces considered to impassable desert.  This was the Long Range Desert Group or LRDG.   Of the initial batch of volunteers, Bagnold chose many New Zealanders.  Simply put, Kiwis from the farms in NZ were adept at driving, servicing and repairing all kinds of machinery in difficult conditions. They were tough, self-reliant and resourceful.  Just right for the job!

 

http://www.lrdg.org/

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

 

Remember this, LF..?

 

Posted 31 October 2016 - 02:55 PM

This could be interesting, LF.

If Ironhorse is true to form you'll soon get to see just how much integrity and honesty there is in this sincere, trustworthy and truth-loving Christian.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

Aye, I do

 

 

Well there's his integrity and honesty.

He did give a clear and definitive answer to you on the incest issue in Genesis, saying that Adam's line was genetically pure.  But when the example of Noah and the Romans passage that refuted his answer were shown to him, he didn't want to be held accountable to his answer and didn't want to be seen to be in error about scripture and didn't have the integrity and honesty to admit that he was wrong.  So he backpedaled on it, changed his tune and now tells us that he was... just speculating.  Why?  Because if he's 'just speculating' then he knows he can't be seen to be in error and can't be held accountable for giving a clear and definitive answer to you that was wrong.  That's why.  

 

So, you're right, LogicalFallacy.

Ironhorse did know that starting up a new thread was going to start up some hefty discussion.  As the Prof has mentioned, this is true to his form.  Starting the Israel thread was a calculated move on his part to re-direct our attention away from your thread and from mine.  He knows he screwed up in yours on the incest issue and he knows he cannot answer my questions in this one.  So he's tried to cut and run from both our threads, using his Israel thread as cover.

.

So if we can get Ironhorse abandoning a thread we can declare 'victory'? Seems a bit of a pyrrhic win to have posted so much and what I hoped was decent quality to not have an official I surrender post.  

.

Ummm...no, LF. 

As I said to Ironhorse recently, our interactions aren't about winning or losing.  They are about relentlessly pursuing the evidence and the data, no matter where it leads us.  Naturally, he won't do that because for him, all questions and all answers must arrive at the conclusion he wants.  Any possibility that his beliefs are false is filtered out, ignored or just dropped.  As we have just witnessed over the past 72 hours.  He tried to answer your question about Cain by referring to genetic purity and incest, but when you and I refuted his argument, he didn't do the honest thing and admit that he couldn't give you a scripturally-sound answer.   He realized that there was no scriptural way to explain who it was that Cain was in fear of nor who Cain's wife was. His literal reading of Genesis 4 forces him to believe that the only human beings alive at that time were Adam, Eve and Cain.  Nobody else to find Cain and do violence to him and no other females for Cain to marry.  In the face of this Biblical contradiction Ironhorse didn't face up to it... he ran and hid from it.  It's a threat to his all-important beliefs and the bottom line of Ironhorse's long tenure in Ex-C is that his beliefs mustn't ever be threatened!  Which explains why he's prepared to change his tune, backpedal, dissemble, obfuscate and refuse to answer or participate further in any given thread.

 

But please don't be too upset by the outcome, LF.

This actually isn't a pyrrhic victory.  The great thing about the Den is that it's often visited by lurkers and those who are seriously considering leaving Christianity.  They are ordianry folks like you and me, but who have just a little further to go on the road of their deconversion.  So, even if you and I can never persuade Ironhorse to face up to the flaws, the inconsistencies and the contradictions of Christianity, our rational, reasoned and logical efforts to do so will be anonymously observed by many other people.   They will take note of his behavior - his lack of personal integrity, his lack of honesty and his unwillingness to pursue the truth.  His actions will be the cause of many leaving Christianity and rejecting Jesus as a false god.

 

Fyi, years ago I messaged him privately and predicted that if he continued to behave as he did, he would actually be conducting a kind of negative Christian ministry.

Instead of bringing people to Christ in Ex-C, he would actually be driving them away from the foot of the cross.  I recall that long ago one member even posted a message, personally thanking Ironhorse and his dishonest behavior for being the last straw that broke the back of that members faith.  (I'll see if I can find it to show you.)  And yet he hasn't changed one iota - which tells me (and the watching lurkers) that his presence here is ultimately a selfish one.  

 

I did think about it not being about winning, but more the reasoned argument after I posted. It's very true what you say about helping others that we may not know about. I will keep the potential wider audience in mind for when we are having these debates. Even if we can get people to just start thinking for themselves that's a good start.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Btw, since you've just come out to your folks, do they know that you're a member of Ex-C..?

I ask because if they do, then you could show them how honest and sincere Ironhorse's behavior has been toward you.  How he loved the truth so much that he stood to be counted when you showed him to be wrong.  That he didn't dodge or try to weasel his way out, but acted like a trustworthy and faithful Christian, ready to do the principled and moral thing when it mattered.  I wonder what their reaction would be if they saw how he'd behaved toward you?

 

No, my parents don't know of Ex-C that I'm aware of and I'm planning to keep it that way. It's possible because they know I have been talking to atheists and Christians on the net that they may look for, and may possibly find, Ex-C and identify me, but unlikely. Ex-C I feel is my place I can come and express full opinion, be as hard and undiplomatic as I like in debates without having to worry about causing real life relationship problems. (Obviously I take online relationships seriously too which is why I was hasty to clarify things with TRP in the Israel thread)

 

Ok LF,

I understand your situation better now.  And thanks for sharing that with me, btw.  

 

You are welcome. I have certainly enjoyed reading your posts and joining in reasoned debate with you. It's amazing what opens up when you read someones else perspective. I can be thinking of a argument along X lines, and you come in and show it along lines y and z as well.

 

Sadly BAA, I feel my father may be much the same as Ironhorse when I have discussions with him - which discussions he wants. Ultimately, so far, no matter what I've shown him he comes down to either 'I'm thinking to much', or GODDIDIT. Why can't you believe the bible??? Well, um *Points to evidence showing Aboriginal settlements 49,000 years old* Errr um the earth isn't 6000 years old Dad... like you believe. Sadly Dad has already flipflopped on the age of the earth and evolution in the very short time I have come out. First he was yeah yeah that doesn't contradict the bible, to now some NASA engineer has proven how 4.7 billion years is too long for the solar system to have formed.. not too short.. too long, therefore the earth and man is only 6000 years old! Have you heard this 'too long theory' before?

 

So yeah I need this place and you guys to keep me sane - no pressure, but you guys are the sole non Christian contact I have of any serious note.

 

 

 

 

LogicalFallacy,

 

If I were to suggest any advice to a newly-deconverted Ex-Christian who is having difficulty with his family, it might be this.  

An old friend once put a few questions to me about the consequences of arguing.  "Which is better?" he asked. "To win friends or to win arguments?" He went on to explain.  "Is it really the best outcome if, by winning the argument, you lose the friendship of the person you were arguing with?  Surely alienating and antagonizing friends and family is too high a cost to pay for the winning of any argument?"  Wise words.  I wish I'd heeded them more often, in my angrier, more belligerent, post-Christian days. Therefore, if it's my place to offer you any advice, perhaps it might be better to ease up on arguments about the Bible with your dad?  He's still your dad and even if you don't (or can't) agree about that book, surely winning any argument about the age of the Earth isn't worth it if that drives a wedge between you and him?

 

I will certainly keep this in mind. I have tended to be a very much win at all costs type of person. Very competitive and possibly dismissive when someone is saying stuff that I know is wrong.... worse when its batshit crazy . So I probably need to dial things back a touch.

 

However, this could be a challenge as it is him wanting to have all these discussions, and try and.... help me believe again I guess. An interesting observation, I mentioned he flip flopped. So the first night I came out he was like "well that doesn't contradict, and I've always understood how evolution could be... and the earth, well God could have taken millions of years". A week goes by and he has reversed that by researching stuff that 'proves' the literal reading of genesis. My observation is that after the initial shock and challenge to his beliefs (My leaving his church in itself is a challenge to him) he has actually doubled down and reinforced. A highly undesirable outcome as I was hoping that our discussions would be around "well evolution is true, but still God you know" But now they are going to be "the earth is 6000 years old. This guy proves it".............. I promised him I'd keep an open mind about what scientific evidence he will present... not sure how that will turn out. At least he won't come up with flat earth stuff... I squashed that one a few years ago while still in church.

And... there may well be another, better way for you to behave toward him.

Now, I don't know if devout Christians in NZ are much like the ones we have here in the US - but it's possible that what I'm about to describe might also work for you, as well as working here.  Christian thought about apostasy in America today runs, more or less, like this.  If you reject Jesus you don't only go to hell, but you also lose your moral compass and become prey to the sinful, unregenerate desires of the flesh.  An apostate will automatically become an immoral and degenerate slave of Satan.  They will lie, steal, cuss, fight, mix with bad company, engage in sexual immorality, become lovers of money and so on.  

 

This is fairly the same opinion of Dads, and one of the things that made me start questioning. The "World" was all drugs, immoral sex, no hope, no life etc... I looked around me and didn't see that. In fact I already told him the first night, that I wasn't go and do drugs, go round having wild sex, drink myself to oblivion (I don't like our booze culture here in NZ, I have a fundamental... sorry for the expression drink lovers, dislike of intentionally pouring an known dangerous substance down me.)

 

However, there are going to be subjects which he considers moral issues that we will disagree on and reinforce any thought he may have of me losing my moral compass. These include homosexuality, abortion, sex before marriage etc. There will be others, that as I form a new world view I'm sure things I thought were moral I think about and conclude they were not. Homosexuality would be the big one off the top of my head. He might say I've "flip flopped" on the issue... but naturally I've been giving it a great deal of thought.... and that thought will definitely lead into moral conflict with him.                                      

 

But I know differently!  And so do many of the Ex-Christian members of this forum.

It's my honor and pleasure to tell you, LogicalFallacy, that I have good friends here who are highly moral, compassionate and... good ...people.  They exhibit kindness, patience, faithfulness and gentleness in abundance.  They are trustworthy, reliable and honorable.  They value truth and honesty and have no time for deception or chicanery.  They behave like this and demonstrate moral goodness without having Jesus in their lives.  So all of those Christian ideas about how apostates become hopelessly immoral sinners just aren't true.  And this is that 'better way' I was referring to earlier.

 

Rather than argue at length about Christianity and the Bible with your dad, why not try this, 'better way'?

As well as fearing for your immortal soul, your dad might also be worried that you will become a bad person.  That he will see the signs of moral degeneracy in your life and behavior.  After all, the Bible says that the unsaved cannot help but behave immorally.  Therefore, if he is proceeding on that expectation, here is your chance to prove him wrong.   LF, you should try to show him that you are still exactly the same person that you were when you were a Christian.  That you can be just as moral and just as good as you were when you believed.  That the absence of Jesus in your life has made no difference whatsoever to who and what you are.  Doing this will demonstrate to him that your morality and goodness do NOT (and did not) come from Jesus.  

 

It's my considered opinion that if you do this, it will have a much more dramatic effect on your dad than any evidence-based argument you could try on him.

 

I will certainly be doing this. I have always considered I have a strong moral compass, and inbuilt leaning towards honesty and integrity. A dislike of deception etc. That has, if anything strengthened since not believing in God. In fact I find myself not worried about burning in hell, but compassionate towards the suffering of humanity and concern for our future. I was nearly in tears at work when I saw a picture on the news of a 4 year old girl dying of cancer. This would not have affected me before.... maybe because I thought oh well she'll go to heaven type of thinking? Like I said above, some of my moral compass may have been off... like we were literally of the type of thinking homos should be stoned kinda people.... so as soon as I say... "that's not right" I'm going to get 'you are losing your morals' thrown at me. At that point I guess the best I can do is calmly explain that I have thought about it and that the moral position to take is that homosexuals should not be stoned. 

 

I hope that you won't consider this message too forward and too prescriptive.  My aim here is to encourage and to help.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Not at all BAA. I very much appreciate the time and effort you are putting in to helping me. Thank you very much. And you, dear sir, are certainly achieving your aim! I can only hope that one day I too will be able to help de-converting people.

 

 

 

p.s.

I went to FreeThinkerNZ's profile page to see if she might be able to link up with you.

But, I see you got there first.  Sorry, but I don't know if she's a North or South island Kiwi.  

Anyway, here's some hyper-links that might be of interest to you.  http://journeyfree.org/resources/links/

 

Thanks... I probably should message her... I just checked out the profile.

 

 

p.p.s

On the back of Ironhorse's Israel thread and your mention of notable Kiwis in history, I'd just like to pass this snippet on to you.

I'm an avid reader of tales of exploration and adventure, with a great interest in the epic journeys into the Egyptian and Libyan deserts.  In WW2, when the Italians invaded Libya and advanced toward British-held Egypt a special force was assembled in Cairo, under the leadership of a Major Ralph Bagnold.  During the 1930's he'd explored the trackless wastes of the Great Sand Sea, so he planned to use his knowledge and expertise to take raiding parties far behind enemy lines, travelling in motorized convoys across what the Axis forces considered to impassable desert.  This was the Long Range Desert Group or LRDG.   Of the initial batch of volunteers, Bagnold chose many New Zealanders.  Simply put, Kiwis from the farms in NZ were adept at driving, servicing and repairing all kinds of machinery in difficult conditions. They were tough, self-reliant and resourceful.  Just right for the job!

 

http://www.lrdg.org/

 

That is interesting. I knew we had many honorable feats during both wars, and we are very proud of our part in fighting for freedom. I wasn't aware of our guys involved in the North African desert . My Nana and Granddad on mums side both fought in the war. She was a nurse, he was on a sub. They met after the war after they both moved here from England. Give a kiwi a piece of number 8 wire and we'll fix anything!

 

 

PS, apologies to other Ex-C members, I've taken this thread somewhat off topic. However, I'm sure it will be beneficial - both for me, and anyone reading who is in a similar situation.

[bornagainathiest]

Don't fret, LF.   

 

I'll bring this thread back on track sometime soon.

 

Cheers,

 

BAA.