Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

cicerone imposter wrote:

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

Talk about god's pettiness. He not only penalizes the "sinner," but also his children and his children's children going on for several more generations. Doesn't he scare you shetless? LOL

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

Simple...curb the hate and you curb the verse.

0 Replies

You can't hate something that doesn't exist. Logic gets lost when you try to defend a comic book character. At least Superman is more contemporary than your god. LOL

0 Replies

BTW, Superman has a much better humanistic character than your god. With his super-power, he did good for man, and has a much sweeter personality. Your god uses his power to exact tyranny on humans, and makes people fear him. You should devote your life to Superman.

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

The charge is vengeance, and I will repeat what I said earlier about this particular charge:

vengeful
adj.
1. Desiring vengeance; vindictive.
2. Indicating or proceeding from a desire for revenge.
3. Serving to exact vengeance.

vengefulness
n
1. a malevolent desire for revenge

I admit without reservation that the god of the Bible is, according to my understanding of the definition of the terms in question, both vengeful and given to vengefulness, with the following clarifications/exceptions:

1) That my admission is contingent upon the definitions given above, found at dictionary.com.

2) That the definitions above are based upon the following definition of "vengeance", also found at dictionary.com:

"Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution."

2) That the use of "vindictive" in definition 1 (adj) above does not apply to the god of the Bible, as it carries the connotation of "evil".

3) That the use of "malevolent" in definition 4 (n) above does not apply to the god of the Bible, as it carries the connotation of "evil".

I

I am happy to provisionally accept these definitions as a description of God. What other charges do you have question marks over?

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Implicator wrote:
I am the one who challenged you to support one of your assertions made in this thread. I assumed (and maybe this was my mistake) that our debate would involve things like logic and proof, and would avoid such irrationality as arbitrariness. Apparently that is not the case. Apparently I have stumbled upon a person who is only interested in sharing their personal opinion, but not in actually backing it up.

Implicator...here is the assertion you challenged:

Quote:
In several different threads, during polite, civilized discussion with resident Christians...I have offered the opinion that the god described in the Bible is one of the most reprehensible gods ever offered up for consideration. The god is, I have noted, jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric.

I have offered support and evidence of each of those items...using direct quotes from the Bible. Word for word.

You have offered evidence, to which I already agreed. But the notion of offering "support" entails a logical argument - that, you have not done.

Well...I have, but you seem unable to accept that I have. In any case, I see dj feels he can get past all this nonsense by being logical...and by unnecessarily acceding to your arbitrary requirements (and your arbitrary standards) for discussion with you...so I think I will sit on the sidelines for a bit until after dj discovers this won't work...and then I will come back in and finish this job.

I do want to offer words of appreciation to you for your attempts to paint the god of the Bible as something other than what it is...a jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, barbaric serial killer. At least you realize what a disgusting god that kind of god would be.

Now...if only you could see that the god of the Bible is exactly that...and that no amount of tortured logic and transparent rationalizing will ever change that one iota.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You can't hate something that doesn't exist. Logic gets lost when you try to defend a comic book character. At least Superman is more contemporary than your god. LOL

Don't get frustrated, ci...this will all resolve itself shortly.

Implicator is arguing from desparation...and that is going nowhere.

He has been given plenty of evidence...and (what he terms) support...in the form of words directly from the Bible. The Bible, no less!!!!

And the arguments I have made in support of my propositions have been reasonable.

Implicator will just ignore the stuff he realizes he cannot handle and just stonewalls the stuff he does deign to deal with. dj will see that soon...and realize that there is no chance of dealing with this solely in a logical, reasonable way...because despite all the protestations coming from Implicator, the last thing in the world he is interested in is reason and logic. (That is probably why there is so little of it in his content.)

In any case...the best way to go with someone like Implicator is to have a bit of fun with the interaction. He will never argue anything more compelling than the least educated of the compulsive Christian apologists...stuff like "god can do no wrong"...and seeing him try to make that argument seem logical and erudite by using lots of words can provide entertainment.

As Implicator acknowledges...all he is trying to do is to stop me in my tracks!!!! (I hope you enjoyed that comment from him as much as I did!) But as you can see...what he is actually doing is to provide an extended forum for what I have to say.

BOTTOM LINE: Enjoy the remainder of this farce as it plays out. Do not feel any frustration. Watching the desparation all Christians feel when dealing with the god Jesus worshipped...can be even more amusing when exhibited the way Implicator exhibits it.

0 Replies

Hey Joe Nation.

Thanks for your comments.

(Thursday night at the Pan. I'll be in touch. )

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

If you contest any of the other descriptive statements, please say which ones, and we can discuss them one at a time.

Djbt -

Here is a quick response to each of the accusations that have been made. I think I hit them all, but if I missed any, please let me know. Additionally, I am more than happy to delve into more detail on any of these, if you so desire. It may seem like I am simply dismissing these, as I don't spend more than a sentence or two on each, but believe me, I am not doing that at all - I am simply starting out with as little as possible, as I know how much time we are likely to spend on one or more of these.

Jealous: The Bible is fairly clear on this one - this god is most definitely jealous. However, there are 5 different definitions I find in the dictionary for this term, 3 of which I don't agree with, and 2 that I do. So, since there are a number of definitions here, I would ask you to define for me specifically what you mean by this term, and I will address what you have to say.

Vindictive and vengeful: I don't see the Bible describing this god as one who seeks revenge simply for the sake of revenge, or because he simply wants to hurt. I do see it describing one who seeks revenge in return for something done wrong against him.

Petty: I expect you are referring to "meanness or lack of generosity, especially in trifling matters" If you mean something else, let me know. But as to this particular definition, I would say no to the meanness part, because that connotes spitefulness, which I don't believe the Bible would agree with.

Excessive: This one is tougher, as it involves a judgment call on whether this god "goes to far" with what he does. Like any other judgment (not moral) it requires a standard, so I think the resolution of this demands a standard to be justified first.

Quick-to-anger, Slow-to-forgive: Well, the Bible actually says just the opposite about this god. Besides, statements like "quick" and "slow" are highly subjective. Quick relative to what, exactly?

Tyrannical: There are a variety of definitions here, all fairly similar. I would agree with one who maintains "A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power." and "The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler." However, in order to consider whether this power is used unjustly one needs, you guessed it, a standard of justice.

Serial Killing: This seems to me like an attempt to revisit murder, only under a different guise, due to the general way the term is used amongst society today. That is, I can't think of a single person classified as a "serial killer" who didn't murder those he killed. So I think I will just toss this back to you and ask for you to provide me with a specific definition that doesn't reference "murder", as we have (so I've been told) moved beyond that one.

Thanks for your patience I look forward to working through each of these!

I

0 Replies

"Jealous: The Bible is fairly clear on this one - this god is most definitely jealous. However, there are 5 different definitions I find in the dictionary for this term, 3 of which I don't agree with, and 2 that I do. So, since there are a number of definitions here, I would ask you to define for me specifically what you mean by this term, and I will address what you have to say."

Gee, he wants your definition of "jealous." It's such a common word, I'm not sure what kind of nuance he's looking for, but he now wants to play word games.

He already disagrees with 3 out of the 5 he was able to find. What a dork.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Implicator wrote:
I am the one who challenged you to support one of your assertions made in this thread. I assumed (and maybe this was my mistake) that our debate would involve things like logic and proof, and would avoid such irrationality as arbitrariness. Apparently that is not the case. Apparently I have stumbled upon a person who is only interested in sharing their personal opinion, but not in actually backing it up.

Implicator...here is the assertion you challenged:

Quote:
In several different threads, during polite, civilized discussion with resident Christians...I have offered the opinion that the god described in the Bible is one of the most reprehensible gods ever offered up for consideration. The god is, I have noted, jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric.

I have offered support and evidence of each of those items...using direct quotes from the Bible. Word for word.

You have offered evidence, to which I already agreed. But the notion of offering "support" entails a logical argument - that, you have not done.

Well...I have, but you seem unable to accept that I have. In any case, I see dj feels he can get past all this nonsense by being logical...and by unnecessarily acceding to your arbitrary requirements (and your arbitrary standards) for discussion with you...so I think I will sit on the sidelines for a bit until after dj discovers this won't work...and then I will come back in and finish this job.

First, I appreciate dj's willingness to be logical, as you have failed to be entirely logical in your responses to me. It will, no doubt, be a breath of fresh air.

Second, it is ironic that you would accuse me of arbitrariness, as you are the one who has claimed you are just judging according to your own standard. Apparently you don't recognize this as the hallmark of arbitrariness, but hopefully others do.

And third, it is probably best that you do return to the sidelines and rest. If past performance is any indication of your ability to argue, you will need all the energy you can muster to "finish the job", as you so bravely put it.

********

Quote:

I do want to offer words of appreciation to you for your attempts to paint the god of the Bible as something other than what it is...a jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, barbaric serial killer. At least you realize what a disgusting god that kind of god would be.

Well, I don't really know what you mean Frank, as I have only just addressed the remainder of the charges being leveled against this god. I haven't attempted to paint him as anything in regard to these charges until just a few moments ago in my response to dj.

I

0 Replies

dork (dôrk)
n.
Slang. A stupid, inept, or foolish person: "the stupid antics of America's favorite teen-age cartoon dorks" (Joshua Mooney).
Vulgar Slang. The penis.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Jealous: The Bible is fairly clear on this one - this god is most definitely jealous. However, there are 5 different definitions I find in the dictionary for this term, 3 of which I don't agree with, and 2 that I do. So, since there are a number of definitions here, I would ask you to define for me specifically what you mean by this term, and I will address what you have to say."

Gee, he wants your definition of "jealous." It's such a common word, I'm not sure what kind of nuance he's looking for, but he now wants to play word games.

He already disagrees with 3 out of the 5 he was able to find. What a dork.

Wow, what an amazing grasp of the language you have! "Dork". That's very cute! Smile

As to my disagreement, let me clarify what I mean specifically for you. I don't disagree that these 3 definitions mean (in present-day, common use of the term) what is recorded in the dictionary - I just don't agree with the implied charge that they apply to the god of the Bible.

I

0 Replies

What you said was "...since there are a number of definitions here, I would ask you to define for me specifically what you mean by this term, and I will address what you have to say."

I stand by my post - your post-mortem explanations and all.

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

First, I appreciate dj's willingness to be logical, as you have failed to be entirely logical in your responses to me. It will, no doubt, be a breath of fresh air.

Second, it is ironic that you would accuse me of arbitrariness, as you are the one who has claimed you are just judging according to your own standard. Apparently you don't recognize this as the hallmark of arbitrariness, but hopefully others do.

And third, it is probably best that you do return to the sidelines and rest. If past performance is any indication of your ability to argue, you will need all the energy you can muster to "finish the job", as you so bravely put it.

Quote:

Well, I don't really know what you mean Frank, as I have only just addressed the remainder of the charges being leveled against this god. I haven't attempted to paint him as anything in regard to these charges until just a few moments ago in my response to dj.

:wink:

Don't worry, Implicator...I'll be here for you.

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

- I just don't agree with the implied charge that they apply to the god of the Bible.

This deserves its own :wink: !

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

Quote:

Petty: I expect you are referring to "meanness or lack of generosity, especially in trifling matters" If you mean something else, let me know. But as to this particular definition, I would say no to the meanness part, because that connotes spitefulness, which I don't believe the Bible would agree with.

So does this!

In fact, this rates two....one for the thought...and one for the poorly worded rendition of the thought. :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:

First, I appreciate dj's willingness to be logical, as you have failed to be entirely logical in your responses to me. It will, no doubt, be a breath of fresh air.

Second, it is ironic that you would accuse me of arbitrariness, as you are the one who has claimed you are just judging according to your own standard. Apparently you don't recognize this as the hallmark of arbitrariness, but hopefully others do.

And third, it is probably best that you do return to the sidelines and rest. If past performance is any indication of your ability to argue, you will need all the energy you can muster to "finish the job", as you so bravely put it.

Quote:

Well, I don't really know what you mean Frank, as I have only just addressed the remainder of the charges being leveled against this god. I haven't attempted to paint him as anything in regard to these charges until just a few moments ago in my response to dj.

:wink:

Don't worry, Implicator...I'll be here for you.

Nah, you are here for *you*, Frank.

I

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Implicator wrote:

First, I appreciate dj's willingness to be logical, as you have failed to be entirely logical in your responses to me. It will, no doubt, be a breath of fresh air.

Second, it is ironic that you would accuse me of arbitrariness, as you are the one who has claimed you are just judging according to your own standard. Apparently you don't recognize this as the hallmark of arbitrariness, but hopefully others do.

And third, it is probably best that you do return to the sidelines and rest. If past performance is any indication of your ability to argue, you will need all the energy you can muster to "finish the job", as you so bravely put it.

Quote:

Well, I don't really know what you mean Frank, as I have only just addressed the remainder of the charges being leveled against this god. I haven't attempted to paint him as anything in regard to these charges until just a few moments ago in my response to dj.

:wink:

Don't worry, Implicator...I'll be here for you.

Nah, you are here for *you*, Frank.

I

Haven't we argued before, Implicator.

I know your posts have been showing you as a Newbie (now an "enthusiast in training")...but I am almost certain that I have gone through this kind of thing with you previously.

The pig-headedness, the pretend, tortured logic, and the need to disagree with everything...even a gesundheit after a sneeze...is much too familiar to be merely coincidence.

Were you here before...or was it over at Abuzz before that forum went under?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Haven't we argued before, Implicator.

I know your posts have been showing you as a Newbie (now an "enthusiast in training")...but I am almost certain that I have gone through this kind of thing with you previously.

The pig-headedness, the pretend, tortured logic, and the need to disagree with everything...even a gesundheit after a sneeze...is much too familiar to be merely coincidence.

Were you here before...or was it over at Abuzz before that forum went under?

We have crossed paths once before, on this board. You thought I was someone else for some reason - maybe because they pointed out the same flaws in your reasoning process that I have.

No, I have never been to Abuzz.

I

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Haven't we argued before, Implicator.

I know your posts have been showing you as a Newbie (now an "enthusiast in training")...but I am almost certain that I have gone through this kind of thing with you previously.

The pig-headedness, the pretend, tortured logic, and the need to disagree with everything...even a gesundheit after a sneeze...is much too familiar to be merely coincidence.

Were you here before...or was it over at Abuzz before that forum went under?

We have crossed paths once before, on this board. You thought I was someone else for some reason - maybe because they pointed out the same flaws in your reasoning process that I have.

You haven't pointed out any flaws in my reasoning process here, Implicator...so I doubt that's it.

My guess is it is the pig-headedness...or the tortured logic you use...but I will acknowledge that I do not know for sure. I just knew we had done battle before.

I would love to see the post where I mentioned I thought you were someone else. That might help me. And I cannot help but wonder who I thought you might be.

Quote:

No, I have never been to Abuzz.

Too bad, Implicator. It was a great forum...and I'm sure you would have enjoyed it.

And I was there! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know