Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Infrablue,

I am not taking your bait.

Frank,

So, even if I don't answer a question you are still going to tell me what I think, feel, and believe?

Momma Angel wrote:

Infrablue,

I am not taking your bait.

Frank,

So, even if I don't answer a question you are still going to tell me what I think, feel, and believe?

You know me! If I see an animal with feathers paddling away on pond saying "quack, quack"...you are likely to hear me say "That is a duck!"

I find it sad that someone seemingly so intelligent cannot understand how someone might not like you "in essence" calling them a liar when they tell you something about how they think, feel, or believe.

Yet, we seem to be expected to take you at your word. Why is that Frank? Because you know what is best for me and everyone else? You seem to think so in the case of religion and Christianity.

You accuse Christians of thinking we know what is better for humanity and you flat out make it clear you are the one that knows what is best.

Why would I want to answer your question?

It's supposed to be a discussion, an exchange of ideas, not a Frank is right and others are all wrong because they disagree with him.

I'd like to ask you a question though. Of course, you need feel no obligation to answer it.

If you want freedom FROM religion so badly, why do you surround yourself with it?

I find it sad that someone seemingly so intelligent cannot understand how someone might not like you "in essence" calling them a liar when they tell you something about how they think, feel, or believe.

Yet, we seem to be expected to take you at your word. Why is that Frank? Because you know what is best for me and everyone else? You seem to think so in the case of religion and Christianity.

You accuse Christians of thinking we know what is better for humanity and you flat out make it clear you are the one that knows what is best.

Why would I want to answer your question?

It's supposed to be a discussion, an exchange of ideas, not a Frank is right and others are all wrong because they disagree with him.

I'd like to ask you a question though. Of course, you need feel no obligation to answer it.

If you want freedom FROM religion so badly, why do you surround yourself with it?

Frank,

I am not getting into this with you again.

I believe you are trying to taunt and goad me into telling you something that you and I both know you will not accept as any kind of proof or evidence.

For me, I know there is a God. For me, He is a loving God, for me I have a personal relationship with Him and for me He makes His presence known in my life.

Well, I guess since you have stated you feel it is your duty to rid mankind of religion, I discern from that the fact you seem to know what is best for mankind.

I will die defending my Lord and my right to do so!

Momma wrote:

I will die defending my Lord and my right to do so!

Hi! Of course you have the right to defend whom you want, but if you are so secure in your belief in your "Lord", why do you think that he needs defending? And why would you want to die defending this deity?


@#$*&, I promised myself that I would not get into these discussions anymore!!!!

Frank,

"Well...it didn't take you long to change your mind, did it?"

In reference to this statement of yours, I said I believe. I said I believe. I owned it as mine. Not as that is what you said.

Frank, I am not getting into this with you again.

Okay.

I believe you are trying to taunt and goad me into telling you something that you and I both know you will not accept as any kind of proof or evidence.

Well...it didn't take you long to change your mind, did it?

A bulldog? You betcha! You will never get me to join you, Frank. I will die defending my Lord and my right to do so!

Have a good day!

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

MA...a few questions, if I may:

Do you "believe" that your god may choose to reward certain people by giving them "eternal life" in Heaven?

Do you "believe" that your god may choose to punish certain people by placing them in Hell....a place of excruciating, unrelenting torture....for all the rest of eternity?

Frank,

I can answer those questions very easily. God wants everyone to live in eternity with Him. He offers us the gift of salvation. He has given us the free will to accept it or not. Just like with any gift from anyone, you have the choice to accept it or not.

Frank, just as the legal system has consequences for committing crimes, this decision is up to the individual. The legal system doesn't decide who suffers the consequences of breaking the law. Individuals do that for themselves when they commit the crimes.

The point of my questions, MA, were in response to your insistence that you are not in fear of the monster.

But here you have acknowledged that the monster has complete control over your eternity...and can give you what you consider the greatest present ever conceived...or the most horrendous punishment any sick mind has ever devised.

In effect...you are saying that this monster has a gun not only pointed at your head...but at the head of every person on this planet whom you love...

...and you are trying to convince us that you are not in dread of it???

C'mon, MA.

Be real.

Any intelligent, reasonable human being would be in terrifying dread of that monster and that situation.

Either that...or so in dread that severe delusion takes control.

Your choice.

I don't know MA that well, but from what I can glean so far, it seems to me as if she is a Christian. If this is true, then she does not believe that this god can (any longer) give her this "punishment", as Christians believe they will receive the "present" instead.

You are playing off a situation that does not apply to MA (the potential of spending an eternity in hell), in order to claim that she should fear this god.

Maybe MA feels those who are unsaved should fear this god (I haven't read through all her responses), but I see no reason as to why *she* should fear him.

Quote:

In effect...you are saying that this monster has a gun not only pointed at your head...but at the head of every person on this planet whom you love...

...and you are trying to convince us that you are not in dread of it???

C'mon, MA.

Be real.

If MA has "saving faith", then this god no longer is holding the gun to her head. Why would she be afraid?

Quote:

Any intelligent, reasonable human being would be in terrifying dread of that monster and that situation.

Either that...or so in dread that severe delusion takes control.

Your choice.

Either that, or she doesn't fear him, because he isn't holding the gun to her head anymore.

Frank,

Truce.

Implicator...if MA feels she has no problems in this regard...isn't there the possibility that she might be "guilty" of the "sin" of "pride?"

Wouldn't it be "prideful" to assert that you have already "earned" your way into Heaven...and do not have to worry about Hell?

It seems to me a good case could be made that it would be!

And it needn't be mentioned (although as you can see, I will) that "pride" is a particularly offensive "sin" to the god Christians worship....one of the "seven" most deadly, if I am not mistaken.

So I hope MA does not indulge herself as you suggest. She might find herself losing out if she did.

In any case, as Christians are so fond of pointing out...we really should observe the (extended) sentiments expressed in Pascal's Wager. Why not try to insure one has attained Heaven...by avoiding even the appearance, if the not the reality, of prideful behavior.

And being prideful????

MY GUESS: All Christians are in absolute dread of this monster god....and a huge percentage of them are so in dread they cannot even let their conscious minds acknowledge it...for fear of arousing the wrath of the god.


But thank you for offering those observations, Implicator.

Honestly. I appreciate the opportunity to consider them...and to respond to them.

Implicator wrote:

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

Implicator...

...a sea of words is not going to hide the fact that the challenge has not been met.

So far...you have offered the fact that the god allowed a woman to get pregnant (at an advanced age, no less) as evidence that the god is kind, compassionate, and humanity loving.

You and Intrepid then offered the scenario of the garden of Eden...and the encounter with Noah....as examples of the god being on the scene and not punishing, threatening, killing, or asking others to kill...when the whole purpose of those scenarios deal with violent, inappropriate, murderous, barbaric punishment and killing.

Now you are faulting me for not accepting this as meeting the challenge.

True enough...I did not use the specific words..."where the god is on the scene and the thrust of the event does not include punishing, threatening, killing, or asking others to kill"....but my use of the words "...on the scene" pretty much establishes that the scene is what I am talking about.

In any case...in the previous thread...the challenge did include that information...as the challenge has included it when I have made it in other places. (Fact is, I think I did make that revision in this thread early on...but I have not been able to locate it and I have no inclination to spend a lot of time looking for it. You know the thrust of the scene is important...and I will have to be content enjoying you looking for an out on this thing.)

You have struck out, Implicator.

Keep trying. Perhaps you will find a scene where this pathetic, murderous, barbaric god actually does show some of the qualities the theists want to pretend it has. Perhaps you will find scenes in which the god is not punishing, threatening, killing, or asking others to kill...but I doubt it.

I have no doubts though that you will continue to pretend you have.

But every scenario you have presented, with the exception of the impregnation of Sarah, has the god being the scumbag I have painted it to be...and none has truly shown the god as kind, compassionate, or loving of humanity.

Live with it.

I don't know MA that well, but from what I can glean so far, it seems to me as if she is a Christian. If this is true, then she does not believe that this god can (any longer) give her this "punishment", as Christians believe they will receive the "present" instead.

You are playing off a situation that does not apply to MA (the potential of spending an eternity in hell), in order to claim that she should fear this god.

Maybe MA feels those who are unsaved should fear this god (I haven't read through all her responses), but I see no reason as to why *she* should fear him.