Frank Apisa wrote:Well...so far in the challenge...we have the one instance where the god was on the scene...and the thrust of his being there was not to threaten, punish, kill, or ask others to kill.
He allowed a woman, Sarah, to get pregnant.
Since when was the challenge about "the thrust of his being there"? Let's look back at your original question:
I have challenged every Christian (they claim the god is kind, compassionate, and loving of humankind) to offer passages that show their god to be possessed of those qualities rather than the qualities I say it displays. I've asked all of them to offer passages where the god is on the scene and is not threatening someone, killing someone, finding fault with someone, or asking someone to kill others.
There is no mention of "the thrust of his being there" in this challenge. There is simply a challenge to find examples of this god being loving and compassionate. Examples have been given, and you are dismissing them because
because
why are you dismissing them again? Is it because there are other examples in the same setting where this god does something you personally feel is barbaric?
Well, despite any claims to the contrary, it is apparent what you have done here. You have changed your challenge because it has been met, Frank. You *have* decided to get on the court to play the game, but when you didn't like the fact that the other team scored on you, you changed the rules of the game. That's weak, very weak.
Quote:Now Implicator and Intrepid have offered the story of the god in Eden...and the story of the God with Noah. And the band of brothers are gloating as though they have met the challenge to show the god as good, kind, and humanity loving...rather than being a barbaric, murderous monster.
There is only one reason we are "gloating" Frank, and that's because the challenge was met. The challenge wasn't to convince you that this god is not what you claim he is (I have no doubts that that would be next to impossible to do), but rather was to
offer passages that show their god to be possessed of those qualities rather than the qualities I say it displays. That's exactly what we did.
Quote:(Please excuse any spelling or grammatical errors in this post. It is very, very difficult to be careful when laughing as hard as I am.)
It is apparently difficult for you to be logical as well. Maybe you should stop laughing and concentrate on reasoning.
Quote:Implicator...Intrepid...
I'm here, Frank.
Quote:...the thrust of the story about Eden is that the god sets up Adam and Eve in a sting...puts them into a postion where they have absolutely no idea of what is right or wong...good or evil...(and in fact, denies them the information necessary to know those things)...and the god is going to allow these poor naive, innocents to be tempted by the Tempter of all Tempters...and then the god is going to punish all of humanity for all the rest of eternity for the fact that the two...in the sting...disobey one time.
Well don't just stop there, Frank
there is a whole lot more to Eden then you are sharing. This god then sends his son as payment for the sin that Adam committed in the garden, and that became part of the nature of all of us (according to this story). The *thrust* of Eden (since you have changed the rules, I will now adopt the new ones) was to be the first step in a demonstration of his love whereby he sends this son to pay for the sins these people committed. The fact that Jesus dies a terrible death at the hands of the murderous elite of the day is (according to the new rules) irrelevant, because the *thrust* of this god's sending his son was an action of love. Since the *thrust* of Eden is that it is the starting point of man's journey with god, which culminates in the sacrificial death of his son, the entire Bible is therefore an example of this god's love and compassion for his creatures.
Now, I expect you to draw boundaries around the garden, imposing an arbitrary timeframe with which to try to make your argument, but it won't fly. You asked for "passages" and we offered such. You then changed the challenge to include *overall thrust* of those passages, and I have just answered that challenge as well.
I expect you will dismiss my answers (to do anything other than that would be to admit you were wrong, which is apparently very difficult for you to do, even when you are), but I know (and you know) you have been bested once again. Perhaps you should find another game you are better equipped to play.
Quote:The thrust of the story of Noah is that the god is about to drown every man, woman, child, and animal on the planet (with the exception of Noah, his family, and the animals on his ark) for not living up to its expectations.
The *thrust* of the flood is a continuation of the garden, which I have already shown has a much greater and more loving *thrust* than you are willing to let on to.
Quote:And you folks want to offer these stories as instances where the god is good, and kind, and humanity loving????? You want to offer these stories as instances where the god is not excessive, not quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, not retributive, not vengeful, not petty, not murderous, not barbaric??????????
Want to? No Frank, we don't just want to offer them as such - we
have offered them as such.
Quote:Gimme a break!
Save your jubilation....it is a laugh here!
So far...you folks have exactly one item...which, I indicated existed.
Your god allowed woman to become pregnant. WOW!
Let's see if you can come up with some others.
Oh, my word. This is absolutely better than I thought it would be.
Your delusions are very entertaining Frank, I must admit. Your first challenge was answered succinctly, as was your revised challenge. I won't bother to move on to Exodus and share the plethora of examples in *that* book, until you come to grips with what has already been shared.
I
