A SIMPLE GOD QUESTION

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:37:33 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote:

>"V A P O L L U A N" <nerrat73@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:1159129254.723990.173440@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Bill M wrote:
>>>
>>> A very simple god question.
>>> There are thousands of gods and god beliefs.
>>> Why does not the real god tell us directly from his heaven that he is the
>>> real god and all the others are fakes?
>>> Why does he not smite and destroy the fake gods?

>>

> Why? And deprive you of your free choice to believe or disbelieve
>without feeling coerced?


The point you missed is our problem deciding how we choose when
there is no way to distinquish one claimed god from another (other
than by examining the claim to see if it is coherent and 'hangs
together as sensible.)

>So Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and
>love doesn't coerce.


Yer. yer we know all about your human emotions are gods concept.
That's just about the easiest claimed god to elimininate from the
vasty field of candidates.

As people who do not believe there is a god we constantly test
that view by looking for evidence. And what better souce of
evidence could there be but from the very people people who
claim these divers gods? We do not have to look very
far as you lot cannot keep away from our popular and lively
newsgroup. Yes here you are again crossposting like mad and
promoting your claim yet again. You just could not resist could you?

Yet all of you lot fail to bring it. Time after time visit after visit
and not one jot of evidence either direct or indiect. You surely
aught to know by now what it is we seek?

In other words it is you - yes you - who are the ones who
convince us we are right to be careful what we choose
to believe and right to withold that belief from the Christian
one. We will not be convinced by your hatred either.

Naturally the first hurdle the promoters have to climb in order to
convince is the test of coherence. Does the claim make sense
does it 'hang together'? Your claim failed that first test long ago:

An all loving god that murders the innocent first born of Egypt in
order to get its way when it could have choosen a much more
peaceful and loving solution? Love? That is not love that is hate.

" For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds,
Lilies that fester, smell far worse than weeds."
- Shakespeare Sonnet No. 94

If you want to learn about love Shakespeare is a far better
source of it than the hate filled Bible.

Even if the Christian claim did make sense the story is of
a vicious, nasty vindictive and venegeful god created in the
image of the people that invented it and not one that
is love. Where you get this notion it is love is beyond me.
A god that sends people to a terrible hell for all eternity is a
picture of a heartless and cruel being. Even the heaven
does not look attractive either as its inmates seem to
spend all their time at its feet in fawning worship. Yuk! Real
death looks a far more inviting prospect than either of these
and this is what I devoutly hope for.

Will the real god please stand up as its adherent are
failing it and badly.



--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
 
"Les Hellawell" <myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote in message
news:12h6j2punm90srlpodbjacr7gk26i4pdnf@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:37:33 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote:
>"V A P O L L U A N" <nerrat73@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>news:1159129254.723990.173440@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Bill M wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A very simple god question.
>>>> There are thousands of gods and god beliefs.
>>>> Why does not the real god tell us directly from his heaven that he is
>>>> the
>>>> real god and all the others are fakes?
>>>> Why does he not smite and destroy the fake gods?

>>
>> Why? And deprive you of your free choice to believe or disbelieve
>>without feeling coerced?

>
> The point you missed is our problem deciding how we choose when
> there is no way to distinquish one claimed god from another (other
> than by examining the claim to see if it is coherent and 'hangs
> together as sensible.)
>
>>So Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and
>>love doesn't coerce.

>
> Yer. yer we know all about your human emotions are gods concept.
>

Why would you assume love is just a "human emotion" sans action for
evidence? Did you omit loving and caring action because atheist doctrine
demands it?
>
> That's just about the easiest claimed god to elimininate from the
> vasty field of candidates.
> As people who do not believe there is a god we constantly test
> that view by looking for evidence. And what better souce of
> evidence could there be but from the very people people who
> claim these divers gods?
>

Pardon? Does atheists doctrine demand you forsake logic and reason for
straw men? I mean, why would we need a God (ideal) who is love to live up
to, if we were already loving and caring people?
>
> We do not have to look very
> far as you lot cannot keep away from our popular and lively
> newsgroup. Yes here you are again crossposting like mad and
> promoting your claim yet again. You just could not resist could you?
>

Ad hominem? Are you giving up on philosophical discussions/

> Yet all of you lot fail to bring it. Time after time visit after visit
> and not one jot of evidence either direct or indiect. You surely
> aught to know by now what it is we seek?
>

We also seek evidence, and Christ supplied the evidence of unconditional
love and care to the death, if need be.

> In other words it is you - yes you - who are the ones who
> convince us we are right to be careful what we choose
> to believe and right to withold that belief from the Christian
> one. We will not be convinced by your hatred either.
>

"hatred"? Are you gloing to start sreeching flames now, and are we
supposed to follow suit, or do you intend to perform for our amusement?

> Naturally the first hurdle the promoters have to climb in order to
> convince is the test of coherence. Does the claim make sense
> does it 'hang together'? Your claim failed that first test long ago:
>

"My claim"? You mean my Biblical quotes no doubt, for I made no
"claims". This is an academic discussion, divorced from your, or mine
personal pelief system.

> An all loving god that murders the innocent first born of Egypt in
> order to get its way when it could have choosen a much more
> peaceful and loving solution? Love? That is not love that is hate.
>

I see. You are a friend of slavers and regard all who fight against
slavery "murderers". You have a right to your opinion. Most would feel
justified to take action any way we can, against those who would enslave us.

> " For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds,
> Lilies that fester, smell far worse than weeds."
> - Shakespeare Sonnet No. 94
>
> If you want to learn about love Shakespeare is a far better
> source of it than the hate filled Bible.
> Even if the Christian claim did make sense the story is of
> a vicious, nasty vindictive and venegeful god created in the
> image of the people that invented it and not one that
> is love. Where you get this notion it is love is beyond me.
> A god that sends people to a terrible hell for all eternity is a
> picture of a heartless and cruel being. Even the heaven
> does not look attractive either as its inmates seem to
> spend all their time at its feet in fawning worship. Yuk! Real
> death looks a far more inviting prospect than either of these
> and this is what I devoutly hope for.
> Will the real god please stand up as its adherent are
> failing it and badly.
>

Like I said, you obviously like all those the Bible considers evil. But
then you could just as well be an automatic contrarian, no thought nor
reason required.
 
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:52:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

>On 26 Sep 2006 08:53:40 -0700, jason.woudsma@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>there would then be no need for faith

>
>Why is there "need for faith"? It's a dishonest attempt to turn the
>complete absence of any evidence, reason to believe etc , into a
>virtue - that believers then hide behind, after they have rubbed their
>belief in people's faces and been told to either put up or shut up.



Christians love their circular arguments. God does not reveal
himself as a test of faith, they say. Therefore it is must be
important to have faith. Pure faith is the ultimate goal. To totally
believe without any evidence of any kind is necessary for the
heavenly reward when their god eventually reveal itself and
show their faith was justified. Thus the very thing that makes us
atheist - no evidence - is the same thing that makes their faith in
what they believe stong.

--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
 
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:03:39 +0100, while bungee jumping, Les
Hellawell <myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> shouted
thusly:


>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:52:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><calee@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On 26 Sep 2006 08:53:40 -0700, jason.woudsma@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>there would then be no need for faith

>>
>>Why is there "need for faith"? It's a dishonest attempt to turn the
>>complete absence of any evidence, reason to believe etc , into a
>>virtue - that believers then hide behind, after they have rubbed their
>>belief in people's faces and been told to either put up or shut up.

>
>
>Christians love their circular arguments. God does not reveal
>himself as a test of faith, they say.


Yea, kind of like atheists with macroevolution.

--

Giant Waffle
<{{{><

My heart rejoices in the Lord; My horn is exalted in the Lord.
I smile at my enemies, because I rejoice in Your salvation.
- 1 Samuel 2:1
 
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:23:02 GMT, Giant Waffle
<_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:03:39 +0100, while bungee jumping, Les
>Hellawell <myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> shouted
>thusly:
>
>
>>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:52:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>><calee@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 26 Sep 2006 08:53:40 -0700, jason.woudsma@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>there would then be no need for faith
>>>
>>>Why is there "need for faith"? It's a dishonest attempt to turn the
>>>complete absence of any evidence, reason to believe etc , into a
>>>virtue - that believers then hide behind, after they have rubbed their
>>>belief in people's faces and been told to either put up or shut up.

>>
>>
>>Christians love their circular arguments. God does not reveal
>>himself as a test of faith, they say.

>
>Yea, kind of like atheists with macroevolution.


Yet again you demonstrate yourself both a liar and an idiot.
 
Giant Waffle skrev:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:03:39 +0100, while bungee jumping, Les
> Hellawell <myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> shouted
> thusly:
>
>
> >On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:52:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> ><calee@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On 26 Sep 2006 08:53:40 -0700, jason.woudsma@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>there would then be no need for faith
> >>
> >>Why is there "need for faith"? It's a dishonest attempt to turn the
> >>complete absence of any evidence, reason to believe etc , into a
> >>virtue - that believers then hide behind, after they have rubbed their
> >>belief in people's faces and been told to either put up or shut up.

> >
> >
> >Christians love their circular arguments. God does not reveal
> >himself as a test of faith, they say.

>
> Yea, kind of like atheists with macroevolution.


Actually your analogy is completely false - not to mention ludicrous.
 
On 20 Oct 2006 03:16:12 -0700, "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk>
wrote:

>
>Giant Waffle skrev:
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:03:39 +0100, while bungee jumping, Les
>> Hellawell <myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> shouted
>> thusly:
>>
>>
>> >On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:52:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>> ><calee@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 26 Sep 2006 08:53:40 -0700, jason.woudsma@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>there would then be no need for faith
>> >>
>> >>Why is there "need for faith"? It's a dishonest attempt to turn the
>> >>complete absence of any evidence, reason to believe etc , into a
>> >>virtue - that believers then hide behind, after they have rubbed their
>> >>belief in people's faces and been told to either put up or shut up.
>> >
>> >
>> >Christians love their circular arguments. God does not reveal
>> >himself as a test of faith, they say.

>>
>> Yea, kind of like atheists with macroevolution.

>
>Actually your analogy is completely false - not to mention ludicrous.


He's using a multiple lie as a tu quoque fallacy.
 
"Les Hellawell" <myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote in message
news:4tsfj2hcck27dtvep3ek89slmu7vo3nvqn@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:52:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
>>On 26 Sep 2006 08:53:40 -0700, jason.woudsma@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>there would then be no need for faith

>>
>>Why is there "need for faith"? It's a dishonest attempt to turn the
>>complete absence of any evidence, reason to believe etc , into a
>>virtue - that believers then hide behind, after they have rubbed their
>>belief in people's faces and been told to either put up or shut up.

>
> Christians love their circular arguments. God does not reveal
> himself as a test of faith, they say. Therefore it is must be
> important to have faith. Pure faith is the ultimate goal. To totally
> believe without any evidence of any kind is necessary for the
> heavenly reward when their god eventually reveal itself and
> show their faith was justified. Thus the very thing that makes us
> atheist - no evidence - is the same thing that makes their faith in
> what they believe stong.
>

Those are all atheist strawmen, for our Christian "God is love" (1 John
4:8,16) and love is knowable and visible in Jesus laying down His innocent
life for us condemned sinners, and therefore our God is evidenced by
everyone who shows love and care.
Hence atheists are being obtuse denying the ideal of love (God) exists,
lives and is active in us, or they are habitual contrarians, ...no thought
required.
 
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:untgj2hragp1kefv921ki03me1j5uq1g76@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:23:02 GMT, Giant Waffle
> <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:03:39 +0100, while bungee jumping, Les
>>Hellawell <myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> shouted
>>thusly:
>>>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:52:27 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>><calee@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 26 Sep 2006 08:53:40 -0700, jason.woudsma@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>there would then be no need for faith
>>>>
>>>>Why is there "need for faith"? It's a dishonest attempt to turn the
>>>>complete absence of any evidence, reason to believe etc , into a
>>>>virtue - that believers then hide behind, after they have rubbed their
>>>>belief in people's faces and been told to either put up or shut up.
>>>
>>>
>>>Christians love their circular arguments. God does not reveal
>>>himself as a test of faith, they say.

>>
>>Yea, kind of like atheists with macroevolution.

>
> Yet again you demonstrate yourself both a liar and an idiot.
>

How is it, that every one of your posts contains the same sentiments?
I.e. that every post you answer is authored by "both a liar and an idiot"?
Are you a gadfly?
 
Back
Top