Pauligirl,
Have you read the New Testament? Just read the Beatitudes for a start. I hardly think that you can consider God nasty in those verses.
Look, it is perfectly okay for you or anyone else to believe God is what you believe or think He is. What is not okay, is to make judgments on anyone else about them or their beliefs.
Hmmmm. Is there a prize for the best guess?
Maybe Frank thinks he is God. He advocates killing babi...errr fetuses as he claims God did.
Implicator wrote: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.
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.
Quote: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?
If MA "has 'saving faith'"...she may very well be expressing pride...and as I noted above...that is one of the supposedly seven deadly sins.
Quote:
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.
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.
Momma Angel wrote:Pauligirl,
Have you read the New Testament? Just read the Beatitudes for a start. I hardly think that you can consider God nasty in those verses.
Look, it is perfectly okay for you or anyone else to believe God is what you believe or think He is. What is not okay, is to make judgments on anyone else about them or their beliefs.
Have you read the last book of the New Testament (Revelations)? God intends to do some extremely nasty things to the world, kill billions of people and cause untold suffering. If you believe what the Bible says, that is.
[ I offered this as one of many examples of scripture showing this god doing something that could be considered to be loving, compassionate, or kind.
Quote: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.
Hold on here, Frank. You haven't shown this god to be inappropriate, barbaric, or murderous. The charge of "violent" is new, but I have no problem accepting that. You gave up showing this god to be those things in lieu of letting dj or Terry do so. If you want to reintroduce them into the argument again, that's fine - but be prepared to back up what you say.
Quote:Now you are faulting me for not accepting this as meeting the challenge.
I answered the challenge as I perceived it to be shared. If you want to clarify for me what you were trying to say, that's fine. I will consider your clarification and respond appropriately.
Quote: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.
By using the phrase "the thrust" in combination with your own arbitrary boundaries for "the scene", you will always be able to include God acting on his attribute of holiness and justice (what you confuse with barbarism). Therefore, you can always choose "a scene" that includes this god's justice and sovereignty alongside his love and compassion, because this god demonstrates both constantly. No surprise, given the fact that these are his attributes as described in the Bible.
Based on your "clarification", I have absolutely no problem in stating that this god constantly shows his justice and sovereignty, just as he constantly shows his love and grace, at the same time, during the same "scenes".
Quote: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.
There are examples galore of this god showing the qualities that these theists say it has. Most of these examples, however, can be shown to also demonstrate qualities of sovereignty and holiness, as this god has them all (according to the Bible).
In short, whether or not anyone can sufficiently demonstrate to you a "scene" where the "thrust" is love (other than Sara's child), your implied conclusion (that this god is horrible) is a non-sequitur.
Quote:I have no doubts though that you will continue to pretend you have.
Your attempt to poison the well of any of my future responses has been identified and rejected.
Quote: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.
You aren't very good at painting, Frank - your portraits look nothing like the original.
Frank Apisa wrote:Implicator wrote: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.
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?
Does MA feel that she has "earned" her way into Heaven, Frank? I'm not privy to whether she is one who believes she is "saved by faith" or "saved by works". If she is saved by faith, then why would you equate this with pride?
Furthermore, why introduce the red herring of pride, as this discussion is about whether she really fears this god or not?
Quote:It seems to me a good case could be made that it would be!
Yet it would be entirely irrelevant as to whether or not she fears this god.
Quote: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.
Yet it would be entirely irrelevant as to whether or not she fears this god.
Quote:
Quote: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.
More fishies? What does (your horrible mangling of) Pascal's Wager have to do with MA's fear or lack thereof?
I did not mangle Pascal's Wager I merely pointed out the extended version of it applies. Sorry you are unable to see that to be the case, but that is your problem not mine.
Quote:
Quote:Quote: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?
If MA "has 'saving faith'"...she may very well be expressing pride...and as I noted above...that is one of the supposedly seven deadly sins.
I know what you noted, as I already pointed out how it is irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.
And I have pretty much pointed out that you are wrong.
Quote:
Quote:Quote:
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.
And being prideful????
LOL. Really Frank - it doesn't matter how many times you re-introduce this red herring into the conversation, I am going to continue to point out that is smells of rotten, fallacious fish.
And I will continue to point out that you are wrong.
Quote:
Quote: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.
So they are afraid of this god, yet they won't admit it?
Obviously you had a reading comprehension problems here, Implicator. Re-read what I wrote and if you want to comment on what I wrote I will respond.
Quote:
Sort of like how Christians say that all people believe in this god, yet some suppress that truth in unrighteounsness?
If you can provide a translation of this into comprehensible English I will attempt to respond.
Implicator wrote: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.
The problem for Christians is that they can never be certain that God won't change his mind, as they believe he did with the Jews when he revoked the original Covenant he had with them.
Terry wrote:Momma Angel wrote:Pauligirl,
Have you read the New Testament? Just read the Beatitudes for a start. I hardly think that you can consider God nasty in those verses.
Look, it is perfectly okay for you or anyone else to believe God is what you believe or think He is. What is not okay, is to make judgments on anyone else about them or their beliefs.
Have you read the last book of the New Testament (Revelations)? God intends to do some extremely nasty things to the world, kill billions of people and cause untold suffering. If you believe what the Bible says, that is.
Terry,
Yes, I have read the Book of Revelation (not Revelations). Is there a reason you left out why these things are going to happen?
Implicator,
I can clear up that question for you. I am saved by faith. But, faith without works is dead. I believe I have to put my faith to good work.
Implicator wrote:[I offered this as one of many examples of scripture showing this god doing something that could be considered to be loving, compassionate, or kind.
So far you and Intrepid together have offered that the god got an old woman pregnant.
Nothing else except for the story of Eden and the Noah story which in both cases have the god punishing TO EXTREME which does not meet the challenge.
Quote:
Quote: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.
Hold on here, Frank. You haven't shown this god to be inappropriate, barbaric, or murderous. The charge of "violent" is new, but I have no problem accepting that. You gave up showing this god to be those things in lieu of letting dj or Terry do so. If you want to reintroduce them into the argument again, that's fine - but be prepared to back up what you say.
I have backed up everything I've said and you have not managed to refute what I have presented.
Your bravado is laughable.
Quote:Quote:Now you are faulting me for not accepting this as meeting the challenge.
I answered the challenge as I perceived it to be shared. If you want to clarify for me what you were trying to say, that's fine. I will consider your clarification and respond appropriately.
If you want to play this silly game go play it with someone else. You have not met the challenge and you know it.
Quote:
Quote: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.
By using the phrase "the thrust" in combination with your own arbitrary boundaries for "the scene", you will always be able to include God acting on his attribute of holiness and justice (what you confuse with barbarism). Therefore, you can always choose "a scene" that includes this god's justice and sovereignty alongside his love and compassion, because this god demonstrates both constantly. No surprise, given the fact that these are his attributes as described in the Bible.
Based on your "clarification", I have absolutely no problem in stating that this god constantly shows his justice and sovereignty, just as he constantly shows his love and grace, at the same time, during the same "scenes".
When you finally get ready to show the scenes in which this cartoon god is not engaging in threats, punishments, killing people or requiring other so to kill for it
start doing it. If you are going to continue to pretend that you have then you are simply going to be laughed at.
Quote:
Quote: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.
There are examples galore of this god showing the qualities that these theists say it has. Most of these examples, however, can be shown to also demonstrate qualities of sovereignty and holiness, as this god has them all (according to the Bible).
In short, whether or not anyone can sufficiently demonstrate to you a "scene" where the "thrust" is love (other than Sara's child), your implied conclusion (that this god is horrible) is a non-sequitur.
C'mon. Maybe the guys down at the bowling alley are impressed with this kind of nonsense but this is not the bowling alley.
If you have some passages where the god of the Bible is on the scene and the thrust of the action is not to threaten, punish, kill, or ask others to kill present them.
Quote:Quote:I have no doubts though that you will continue to pretend you have.
Your attempt to poison the well of any of my future responses has been identified and rejected.
When you have some passages where the god of the Bible is on the scene and the thrust of the action is not to threaten, punish, kill, or ask others to kill present them.
Quote:
Quote: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.
You aren't very good at painting, Frank - your portraits look nothing like the original.
You'd be amazed.
But that is not important. What is important is that I have challenged you to present scenarios from the Bible where the god of the Bible is on the scene and the thrust of the action is not to threaten, punish, kill, or ask others to kill.
If you can find any present them. If not stop trying to pretend you have in this silly war of words that you are waging .because it ain't gonna work.
Implicator wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Implicator wrote: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.
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?
Does MA feel that she has "earned" her way into Heaven, Frank? I'm not privy to whether she is one who believes she is "saved by faith" or "saved by works". If she is saved by faith, then why would you equate this with pride?
Furthermore, why introduce the red herring of pride, as this discussion is about whether she really fears this god or not?
If it is a red herring keep in mind that you brought it up. The reason why it is here is because you asked me some questions and it was necessary to use this material in my response.
You do want me to respond to you, don't you, Implicator?
Frank Apisa wrote:Implicator wrote:[I offered this as one of many examples of scripture showing this god doing something that could be considered to be loving, compassionate, or kind.
So far you and Intrepid together have offered that the god got an old woman pregnant.
Nothing else except for the story of Eden and the Noah story which in both cases have the god punishing TO EXTREME which does not meet the challenge.
You aren't paying attention, Frank. Those examples (as I stated) were given based upon a certain perception of what your challenge was. As you have clarified your challenge, I have changed (appropriately) my response to you below. What was initially offered to you is now irrelevant, except as evidence for my initial perception of your challenge.
Quote:Quote:
Quote: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.
Hold on here, Frank. You haven't shown this god to be inappropriate, barbaric, or murderous. The charge of "violent" is new, but I have no problem accepting that. You gave up showing this god to be those things in lieu of letting dj or Terry do so. If you want to reintroduce them into the argument again, that's fine - but be prepared to back up what you say.
I have backed up everything I've said and you have not managed to refute what I have presented.
Your bravado is laughable.
Your presentation crashed and burned just as soon as you admitted you were judging this god according to your own personal standard. It's ashes then disintegrated when you indicated to me that you could think of no reason why I should use that same standard in my evaluation. Your presentation reduces to subjectivism, and therefore skepticism, yet you continue to believe it is true. They have a word for that, and it is spelled "a-r-b-i-t-r-a-r-y".
********
Quote:Quote:Quote:Now you are faulting me for not accepting this as meeting the challenge.
I answered the challenge as I perceived it to be shared. If you want to clarify for me what you were trying to say, that's fine. I will consider your clarification and respond appropriately.
If you want to play this silly game go play it with someone else. You have not met the challenge and you know it.
What's this? You aren't having fun anymore? You want me to go play somewhere else?
Not a chance, Frank.
********
Quote:Quote:
Quote: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.
By using the phrase "the thrust" in combination with your own arbitrary boundaries for "the scene", you will always be able to include God acting on his attribute of holiness and justice (what you confuse with barbarism). Therefore, you can always choose "a scene" that includes this god's justice and sovereignty alongside his love and compassion, because this god demonstrates both constantly. No surprise, given the fact that these are his attributes as described in the Bible.
Based on your "clarification", I have absolutely no problem in stating that this god constantly shows his justice and sovereignty, just as he constantly shows his love and grace, at the same time, during the same "scenes".
When you finally get ready to show the scenes in which this cartoon god is not engaging in threats, punishments, killing people or requiring other so to kill for it
start doing it. If you are going to continue to pretend that you have then you are simply going to be laughed at.
Just as long as *you* continue to define for us what constitutes a "scene" in the Bible, I will most likely show you examples of this god's holiness as well as his compassion, with few exceptions. That owes itself to the nature of the god in question, in conjunction with your "stacking the deck" in how you divide up the Bible.
And as I said last time, whether you find humor in this or not is irrelevant to whether you have made your case. The two are not related in the least.
********
Quote:Quote:
Quote: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.
There are examples galore of this god showing the qualities that these theists say it has. Most of these examples, however, can be shown to also demonstrate qualities of sovereignty and holiness, as this god has them all (according to the Bible).
In short, whether or not anyone can sufficiently demonstrate to you a "scene" where the "thrust" is love (other than Sara's child), your implied conclusion (that this god is horrible) is a non-sequitur.
C'mon. Maybe the guys down at the bowling alley are impressed with this kind of nonsense but this is not the bowling alley.
If you have some passages where the god of the Bible is on the scene and the thrust of the action is not to threaten, punish, kill, or ask others to kill present them.
I'm not here to impress you, Frank - I am here to do just what I am doing, refute your silliness with real argumentation.
Hey, I know - let's see if anyone can find a "scene" in this thread where Frank isn't making a fool of himself. But I will warn you in advance, I get to define when a scene starts and when it ends! I also get to determine what is foolish and what is not, that's only fair, no?
********
Quote:Quote:Quote:I have no doubts though that you will continue to pretend you have.
Your attempt to poison the well of any of my future responses has been identified and rejected.
When you have some passages where the god of the Bible is on the scene and the thrust of the action is not to threaten, punish, kill, or ask others to kill present them.
Repeat it over and over again, Frank - the foolishness of your challenge has been exposed.
********
Quote:Quote:
Quote: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.
You aren't very good at painting, Frank - your portraits look nothing like the original.
You'd be amazed.
Yes, I would be veryamazed, considering the "skill" you have demonstrated so far.
********
Quote:But that is not important. What is important is that I have challenged you to present scenarios from the Bible where the god of the Bible is on the scene and the thrust of the action is not to threaten, punish, kill, or ask others to kill.
If you can find any present them. If not stop trying to pretend you have in this silly war of words that you are waging .because it ain't gonna work.
I know you don't like lots of words, especially those which demonstrate where you have failed. That's what I have provided, and that's what I will continue to provide.
Oh, and by the way - let me bring out most important point made above, as you simply tried to dismiss it.
There are examples galore of this god showing the qualities that these theists say it has. Most of these examples, however, can be shown to also demonstrate qualities of sovereignty and holiness, as this god has them all (according to the Bible).
In short, whether or not anyone can sufficiently demonstrate to you a "scene" where the "thrust" is love (other than Sara's child), your implied conclusion (that this god is horrible) is a non-sequitur.
There ya have it, Frank. This is yet another rebuttal your initial claims in this thread. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Go back and see if you can come up with something better.
I
Implicator wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Implicator wrote:[I offered this as one of many examples of scripture showing this god doing something that could be considered to be loving, compassionate, or kind.
So far you and Intrepid together have offered that the god got an old woman pregnant.
Nothing else except for the story of Eden and the Noah story which in both cases have the god punishing TO EXTREME which does not meet the challenge.
You aren't paying attention, Frank. Those examples (as I stated) were given based upon a certain perception of what your challenge was. As you have clarified your challenge, I have changed (appropriately) my response to you below. What was initially offered to you is now irrelevant, except as evidence for my initial perception of your challenge.
Quote:Quote:
Quote: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.
Hold on here, Frank. You haven't shown this god to be inappropriate, barbaric, or murderous. The charge of "violent" is new, but I have no problem accepting that. You gave up showing this god to be those things in lieu of letting dj or Terry do so. If you want to reintroduce them into the argument again, that's fine - but be prepared to back up what you say.
I have backed up everything I've said and you have not managed to refute what I have presented.
Your bravado is laughable.
Your presentation crashed and burned just as soon as you admitted you were judging this god according to your own personal standard. It's ashes then disintegrated when you indicated to me that you could think of no reason why I should use that same standard in my evaluation. Your presentation reduces to subjectivism, and therefore skepticism, yet you continue to believe it is true. They have a word for that, and it is spelled "a-r-b-i-t-r-a-r-y".
********
Quote:Quote:Quote:Now you are faulting me for not accepting this as meeting the challenge.
I answered the challenge as I perceived it to be shared. If you want to clarify for me what you were trying to say, that's fine. I will consider your clarification and respond appropriately.
If you want to play this silly game go play it with someone else. You have not met the challenge and you know it.
What's this? You aren't having fun anymore? You want me to go play somewhere else?
Not a chance, Frank.
********
Quote:Quote:
Quote: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.
By using the phrase "the thrust" in combination with your own arbitrary boundaries for "the scene", you will always be able to include God acting on his attribute of holiness and justice (what you confuse with barbarism). Therefore, you can always choose "a scene" that includes this god's justice and sovereignty alongside his love and compassion, because this god demonstrates both constantly. No surprise, given the fact that these are his attributes as described in the Bible.
Based on your "clarification", I have absolutely no problem in stating that this god constantly shows his justice and sovereignty, just as he constantly shows his love and grace, at the same time, during the same "scenes".
When you finally get ready to show the scenes in which this cartoon god is not engaging in threats, punishments, killing people or requiring other so to kill for it
start doing it. If you are going to continue to pretend that you have then you are simply going to be laughed at.
Just as long as *you* continue to define for us what constitutes a "scene" in the Bible, I will most likely show you examples of this god's holiness as well as his compassion, with few exceptions. That owes itself to the nature of the god in question, in conjunction with your "stacking the deck" in how you divide up the Bible.
And as I said last time, whether you find humor in this or not is irrelevant to whether you have made your case. The two are not related in the least.
********
Quote:Quote:
Quote: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.
There are examples galore of this god showing the qualities that these theists say it has. Most of these examples, however, can be shown to also demonstrate qualities of sovereignty and holiness, as this god has them all (according to the Bible).
In short, whether or not anyone can sufficiently demonstrate to you a "scene" where the "thrust" is love (other than Sara's child), your implied conclusion (that this god is horrible) is a non-sequitur.
C'mon. Maybe the guys down at the bowling alley are impressed with this kind of nonsense but this is not the bowling alley.
If you have some passages where the god of the Bible is on the scene and the thrust of the action is not to threaten, punish, kill, or ask others to kill present them.
I'm not here to impress you, Frank - I am here to do just what I am doing, refute your silliness with real argumentation.
Hey, I know - let's see if anyone can find a "scene" in this thread where Frank isn't making a fool of himself. But I will warn you in advance, I get to define when a scene starts and when it ends! I also get to determine what is foolish and what is not, that's only fair, no?
********
Quote:Quote:Quote:I have no doubts though that you will continue to pretend you have.
Your attempt to poison the well of any of my future responses has been identified and rejected.
When you have some passages where the god of the Bible is on the scene and the thrust of the action is not to threaten, punish, kill, or ask others to kill present them.
Repeat it over and over again, Frank - the foolishness of your challenge has been exposed.
********
Quote:Quote:
Quote: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.
You aren't very good at painting, Frank - your portraits look nothing like the original.
You'd be amazed.
Yes, I would be veryamazed, considering the "skill" you have demonstrated so far.
********
Quote:But that is not important. What is important is that I have challenged you to present scenarios from the Bible where the god of the Bible is on the scene and the thrust of the action is not to threaten, punish, kill, or ask others to kill.
If you can find any present them. If not stop trying to pretend you have in this silly war of words that you are waging .because it ain't gonna work.
I know you don't like lots of words, especially those which demonstrate where you have failed. That's what I have provided, and that's what I will continue to provide.
Oh, and by the way - let me bring out most important point made above, as you simply tried to dismiss it.
There are examples galore of this god showing the qualities that these theists say it has. Most of these examples, however, can be shown to also demonstrate qualities of sovereignty and holiness, as this god has them all (according to the Bible).
In short, whether or not anyone can sufficiently demonstrate to you a "scene" where the "thrust" is love (other than Sara's child), your implied conclusion (that this god is horrible) is a non-sequitur.
There ya have it, Frank. This is yet another rebuttal your initial claims in this thread. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Go back and see if you can come up with something better.
I
It is my contention that with the single exception of the Sarah story in Genesis...every time the god of the Bible is on the scene...the thrust of the action is the god threatening, punishing, killing, or asking others to kill for it.
I have challenged you to produce any scenarios where this is not the case...and the only one you have come up with so far is the Sarah story...where this god allows a ninety year old woman to become pregnant.
You are now in a snit because you realize that my challenge cannot be met and you are attempting to finesse your way through this misadventure of yours with a sea of words.
Your arguments are laughable, Implicator.
If you actually have any scenes from the Bible where the god is on the scene and the thrust of the action does not involve the god threatening, punishing, killing, or asking others to kill for it .present it.
If not stop pretending that you have met the challenge or that you have "won" something here.
We both know that you cannot produce the material because it just isn't there.
The god is a barbaric monster and, with the exception of that one instance, is always threatening, punishing, killing, or asking others to kill for it.
But I must say I am enjoying you pretending that you have succeeded because it corroborates just how right I am in this matter...and how the information impacts on people like you.
If you hadn't come along, Implicator I'da tried to invent you.
So absolutely no effort to answer this at all?
So far...the only passage you and Intrepid have produced...is the scene in Genesis where the god allows a 90 year old woman to get pregnant!!!!
We produced them Frank. You dismissed them as not acceptable to you!
Frank wrote:So far...the only passage you and Intrepid have produced...is the scene in Genesis where the god allows a 90 year old woman to get pregnant!!!!
I don't know where you are coming from, but if I were 90 and pregnant, that sure would seem like some sort of punishment to me!!! :wink:
Frank,
You have been given instances and you have dismissed them.
You can deny it all you want, but it has been shown to you.
And considering Sarah wanted a child, I would say that was a good thing for her, wouldn't you?
