Re: Definition of God

[Steve O]

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>
>>"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
>>news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>>> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>>> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
>>> >
>>> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. If
>>> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless you
>>> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.
>>>
>>> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one needs
>>> to
>>> read the Christian bible.
>>> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and wrathful
>>> killer.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament.
>>> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and innocent
>>> >>people.
>>> >
>>> > That would be the God of the Chosen People.
>>>
>>> And that God is different from the Christian God in what way,exactly?
>>>
>>> >
>>> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy named
>>> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.
>>> >
>>> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both.
>>> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, or
>>> did
>>> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments?
>>> >
>>No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the
>>New Testiment which contained the New Covenant.
>
> No change then.

I think he's trying to say that God became a born again Christian when Jesus
arrived on the scene...


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[Lizz Holmans]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:59:07 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:


>Christianity; corruption, murder, deception, ignorance, prejudice,
>hypocrisy, greed, pride, theft, lies, torture, enslavement, and more.

Stoney, Stoney, Stoney, thee knows better than this. All these things
existed before Christ and exist where no one has ever heard the name
of Jesus, and if thee is honest with thyself, thee will admit it.
>
>Morality like that isn't something to be proud of.

Most of human history isn't very pretty. Christianity can be misused
as well as any other ideal----like, oh, Homeland Security, or
Communism, or bicycle riding (1).
>
>
>
>In my newsgroup it's mostly Christian crap.

At least it's Friendly crap.

Lizz 'the Yakult of sci.skeptic' Holmans

(1) who can tell me the joke that goes with this reference? There's a
dime riding on it.
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

 

[Lawson English]

DanWood wrote:
> <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156227178.495729.118180@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> God is a concept some humans use as a lever
>>> [crutch-lever?].
>> Okay. But with some 6 billion people on the planet,
>> this isn't exactly going out on a limb.
>>
>> I mean, try to imagine if some aliens visited the
>> Earth from another planet, and not knowing a lot
>> about us they asked me about sex, what it is we
>> do. At this point I tell the aliens that some people
>> are masochistic, that they get a sexual thrill out
>> of having pain inflicted on them.
>>
>> I'd be leaving them with a pretty misleading view
>> of human sexuality, would I not?
>>
>>> If evolutionary theory is correct, people with
>>> particular religious instincts survived and the
>>> atheists died.
>> There is absolutely no reason to believe this.
>>
>> None.
>>
>> How are you arriving at this claim?
>>
> There are people who go to their deaths completely
> assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they
> will live again a much better life. Atheist, however,
> have none of this assurance.
>
> Dan Wood, DDS
>
>

So atheistic Buddhists don't exist?

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:04:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:39:21 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:js7rf291da1hksvjhrcr10db4e552nlbov@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:07:59 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >snip
>>> >>>
>>> >> In other words you can make false slanderous statements in a newsgroup
>>> >> with impunity. If you were worth anything I might be inclined to test
>>it.
>>> >
>>> >Oh brother. You need to go to alt.religion.christian.baptist and look up
>>> >one john "porno boy" weathery. He's also fond of threatening people with
>>> >law suits - And sounds just slightly a bit more stupid than you do.
>>>
>>> Remember, this is the sanctimonious hypocrite who hid behind accusing
>>> others of moral depravity rather than address his own fallacies when
>>> they were pointed out.
>>>
>>That was the problem Chris assumed a position of superiority
>>(or it seemed to me) and presumed to tell me or point out
>>what he/she decreed were my fallacies.
>>That is why I considered this pontificating. On occasions I
>>believed we were essentially saying the same thing.
>
>He.

And he was lying instead of acknowledging his fallacies. It's logic,
not the "decree" he is again lying about.

>>Chris, otoh, thought we were miles apart. One example:
>>in applying the laws of physics we can go to go back to
>>Planck Time. But, where we disagreed, imho, was the
>>period beyond Planck Time. My position was that while
>>some kind of physics was at work during this epoch i.e.
>>T0 - 10^-43 secs. This was were no modern laws of
>>physics as we understand them.
>
>I would agree about 'no modern laws...' but am uncertain about if 'some
>kind of physics' is even a player.

That's not what he originally said. He said the laws of phycics broke
down, implying the physics itself, not out understanding of the
physics - and I wasn't the only person to read it that way from its
context.

He also said that he concluded "God did it". Which is where his
fallacies came in. Because "God" is a presumption not a conclusion. It
cannot be derived from logic or evidence.

At which point he lied about "pontificating" rather than address what
was said.

 

[Bob]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:22:10 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>> I know that you are not a true atheist because you can't even define
>> the God you claim does not exist.

>It's not me who defines your God, dumbass - your God is defined in your
>bible.

Gotta pick on someone else's God, dontcha. Don't have a God of your
own to deny the existence of, do ya.

You're pathetic.

Now get your own God and deny its existence and leave everyone else's
God alone. If people want to believe their God exists, it's not your
place to bully them. Their God may not exist for you, but it surely
exists for them. You have no right to claim their God does not exist
when they are convinced that it does.

<jeez>


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Bob]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:25:39 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>> I know that you are not a true atheist because you can't even define
>> the God you claim does not exist.

>Since when do YOU get to define what an atheist is or is not?

It's what I do.

Get used to it.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[The Chief Instigator]

stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:

>On 03 Sep 2006 23:14:34 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
>wrote in alt.atheism

>>"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes:

>>>"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
>>>news:szk64g5atls.fsf@fnord.io.com...
>>>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

>>>> >No, you have slandered me.

>>>> I'm looking forward to seeing the court put that on the docket...they'll
>>>> appreciate the laugh from your legal (ahem) expertise.

>>>I'm not unfamiliar with trials having had 3 cases brought against
>>>me over the years. I won one, lost one, had one thrown out of
>>>court. Insurance paid off the one I lost. My brother is an
>>>attornet and a partner in a law firm. But I don't intend to do
>>>anything about you, chances are you have nothing anyway!
>>>But don't be so nasty in the future.

>>Pointing out your arrogance and lack of basic legal knowldge is "nasty"?
>>(There's an obvious reason you can't sue -anyone- for slander, if it's in a
>>newsgroup. Have fun figuring that out.)

>Notice the christian; compassion, empathy, and the rest of the stuff
>'Jesus' 'said.'

Dan's going to amuse a court, somewhere down the road. If he's really serious
about it, he'll be getting a vacation from his "calling", too.

--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35

 

[Bob]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:31:25 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>> There is one and only one thing that you as a conscious individual
>> knows with absolute certainty, namely that you exist. You cannot prove
>> that to me or anyone else - only you know it for certain. Therefore
>> you are intimately aware of Being - existence. You know at a very deep
>> level that you exist and therefore you know that Being exists
>> (tautology).
>
>So far, I'll give you that.

If you did not give me that, we could not have a discussion.

>> So when I claim that the Supreme Being is the source of all existence,
>> that should not cause you any problem in terms of understanding what
>> is said.

>Yes, it does cause a problem.
>How do you leap from your own existence to a Supreme Being?
>What evidence do you have that there is one?

Read what I said. I said that you should not have a problem relating
to the existence of something. I did not say that you had to believe
that something exists, only that you know enough about existence to
understand a discussion about it.

What I am doing here is to tell you that you can use your own personal
experience of existence to proceed. That's all.

>>You may not agree with the statement, but you cannot claim
>> ignorance about what it means.

>I certainly wouldn't do that.

Then we are back on track as I originally intended.

>But what you have done here is take a belief in your own existence, and
>turned it into the belief of the existence if a Supreme being, with no
>evidence whatsoever.

I did not do that. I said that IF I claim that the Supreme Being
exists you should not have any problem understanding what existence
means. I did not say you had to believe the Supreme Being exists.

>The only evidence you have is that YOU exist.

Correct. Now we are going to use that to show that the Supreme Being
must exist.

>>You know what existence is from direct
>> experience, so if you accept the principle of causality, you will
>> arrive at the conclusion that existence must have a source.

>I would certainly conclude that there is a source,

Then you agree that the Principle of Causality is operate at the
ontological level. It doesn't have to be - the ontological level could
be completely unordered. But if that is the case then there is no
source fo the existence of things and we have some serious
contradictions. But those go away when you agree that there is a
source of existence, so I won't go into them.

>but why should I conclude
>that source is a being, let alone a Supreme One?

Don't let the term "Supreme" throw you. It just means "ultimate", the
highest in a heirarchy.

You agree that there must be a source of existence. Can you
characterize that entity by specifying its essence? I can.

The essence of the Being who is the source of all existence is
existence. That's the only way it can be. The essence of the Supreme
Being is existence.

>> That source must be a certain kind of entity.

>Why?

Because heirarchically existence is the ultimate act. There can be no
act that is more fundamental than existence. Therefore the source of
all existence must occupy a special place in the ontological order -
the ultimate or supreme position.


>> Causality demands that if an
>> entity is the source of anything, it must possess that property as its
>> essence. You can't give what you don't have yourself. Therefore the
>> source of existence has existence as its essence.

>But you are arssuming that the first cause IS an entity.

I do not use terms like "first cause" because they imply a temporal
order at the ontological level, and we know that the ontological level
is outside time and place.

>> But pink elephants do not exist,

>How do you know that?

The essence of an elephant includes the specification for the genes
that produce its skin color. Nowhere in that specification is there
anything that would result in pink skin color. Therefore what we know
as an elephant can't be pink, otherwise it would no longer be an
elephant.

What do you get when you cross an elephant with a prostitute? A 5000
pound whore who will **** for peanuts.

Now maybe that's as close as we get to pink-skinned elephants, but
that is not really an elephant, it's a hybrid.

>I don't want to convince you of anything.
>It is your claim that God exists, not mine.
>All you need to do is prove it.

If you accept the tenets of Existential Realism, such as Perception of
Being, Principle of Consistency, Principle of Causality, then the
existence of the Supreme Being defined as that Being whose essence is
existence follows immediately when you consider what the source of
existence must be.

The Universe (totality of the material world) is mutable. Therefore it
cannot have existence as part of its essence, or else it would be
immutable. If the specification for an entity includes existence, then
that entity is forced to BE what it is for all eternity. It cannot BE
anything else because existence in its essence forces it to BE what it
is. Therefore the Universe is not the source of all existence.

The only entity that can meet the requirement of eternal immutability
is the Being whose essence is existence, which we named the Supreme
Being.

>I do not make that claim - my claim is that your God is a figment of your
>imagination.

The source of existence must exist in the realist objective
ontological world. It is not a concept - it is a real entity.

Being is an act, not a thing. It is the energy that causes realist
objective ontological substances to exist. It constitutes itself by
asserting itself. It asserts the existence of substances. That is not
a figment of my imagination, unless you have lapsed into solipsism.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Bob]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:34:01 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>> It all starts out when God told Moses "I am who am". That is the same
>> as saying that God's essence is existence. That's all you really need
>> to understand - all the rest is there to keep the barbarian masses
>> somewhat civilized.

>So, if I told you that "I am who I am", or if you read somewhere in a book
>that said, "Steve O pronounced to Moses, "I am who I am"" then you would
>automatically conclude that I am the Supreme Being?

>Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

Do you have dyslexia?

I did not say "I am who I am". Read what I said: "I am who am". That's
what "Yaweh" means.

You have a serious problem of reading what you want and not what
someone says.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Bob]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:38:09 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>Christianity; corruption, murder, deception, ignorance, prejudice,
>>hypocrisy, greed, pride, theft, lies, torture, enslavement, and more.

>Stoney, Stoney, Stoney, thee knows better than this. All these things
>existed before Christ and exist where no one has ever heard the name
>of Jesus, and if thee is honest with thyself, thee will admit it.

>>Morality like that isn't something to be proud of.

>Most of human history isn't very pretty. Christianity can be misused
>as well as any other ideal----like, oh, Homeland Security, or
>Communism, or bicycle riding (1).

The root of all evil is govt. It is the primary source of all
corruption. And it uses religion for its own ends.

If man only had the courage to implement tyrannicide...

But unfortunately the great apes ****ed sheep and mankind is what we
have to show for it - a species of cowards.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Steve O]

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:44fefdbe.100129562@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:31:25 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> There is one and only one thing that you as a conscious individual
>>> knows with absolute certainty, namely that you exist. You cannot prove
>>> that to me or anyone else - only you know it for certain. Therefore
>>> you are intimately aware of Being - existence. You know at a very deep
>>> level that you exist and therefore you know that Being exists
>>> (tautology).
>>
>>So far, I'll give you that.
>
> If you did not give me that, we could not have a discussion.
>
>>> So when I claim that the Supreme Being is the source of all existence,
>>> that should not cause you any problem in terms of understanding what
>>> is said.
>
>>Yes, it does cause a problem.
>>How do you leap from your own existence to a Supreme Being?
>>What evidence do you have that there is one?
>
> Read what I said. I said that you should not have a problem relating
> to the existence of something. I did not say that you had to believe
> that something exists, only that you know enough about existence to
> understand a discussion about it.
>
> What I am doing here is to tell you that you can use your own personal
> experience of existence to proceed. That's all.

Okay, so what's next, and when are you going to get to the point?

>
>>>You may not agree with the statement, but you cannot claim
>>> ignorance about what it means.
>
>>I certainly wouldn't do that.
>
> Then we are back on track as I originally intended.
>
>>But what you have done here is take a belief in your own existence, and
>>turned it into the belief of the existence if a Supreme being, with no
>>evidence whatsoever.
>
> I did not do that. I said that IF I claim that the Supreme Being
> exists you should not have any problem understanding what existence
> means. I did not say you had to believe the Supreme Being exists.

Okay, carry on then.

>
>>The only evidence you have is that YOU exist.
>
> Correct. Now we are going to use that to show that the Supreme Being
> must exist.

Off you go then.

>
>>>You know what existence is from direct
>>> experience, so if you accept the principle of causality, you will
>>> arrive at the conclusion that existence must have a source.
>
>>I would certainly conclude that there is a source,
>
> Then you agree that the Principle of Causality is operate at the
> ontological level. It doesn't have to be - the ontological level could
> be completely unordered. But if that is the case then there is no
> source fo the existence of things and we have some serious
> contradictions. But those go away when you agree that there is a
> source of existence, so I won't go into them.

Of course there us a source for existence.
In my case, my parents.
Carry on.

>
>>but why should I conclude
>>that source is a being, let alone a Supreme One?
>
> Don't let the term "Supreme" throw you. It just means "ultimate", the
> highest in a heirarchy.

Okay, so why should I conclude that the source is an ultimate being?
And for that matter, where does the ultimate being come from and to whom
does it answer, if anyone?

>
> You agree that there must be a source of existence. Can you
> characterize that entity by specifying its essence? I can.

I'm still waiting for you to do it.
>
> The essence of the Being who is the source of all existence is
> existence. That's the only way it can be. The essence of the Supreme
> Being is existence.

Riiiiight....
You're saying that God is existence itself.
That makes me God, right?

>
>>> That source must be a certain kind of entity.
>
>>Why?
>
> Because heirarchically existence is the ultimate act. There can be no
> act that is more fundamental than existence. Therefore the source of
> all existence must occupy a special place in the ontological order -
> the ultimate or supreme position.

Ojay... so if it's hierarchical, and existence itself is an entity,then who
is over and above the Supreme Being?
Your argument here sounds a little like Dukes, but he starts off with cows
and stuff, working his way up to God in the pecking order.
Each and every level of existence having a higher authority, with each lower
level ignorant of the true existence of the other, higher entity.
The only problem with that argument is, who has authority over God?

>
>
>>> Causality demands that if an
>>> entity is the source of anything, it must possess that property as its
>>> essence. You can't give what you don't have yourself. Therefore the
>>> source of existence has existence as its essence.
>
>>But you are arssuming that the first cause IS an entity.
>
> I do not use terms like "first cause" because they imply a temporal
> order at the ontological level, and we know that the ontological level
> is outside time and place.
>
>>> But pink elephants do not exist,
>
>>How do you know that?
>
> The essence of an elephant includes the specification for the genes
> that produce its skin color. Nowhere in that specification is there
> anything that would result in pink skin color. Therefore what we know
> as an elephant can't be pink, otherwise it would no longer be an
> elephant.
>

I've seen a pink elephant.

> What do you get when you cross an elephant with a prostitute? A 5000
> pound whore who will **** for peanuts.
>
> Now maybe that's as close as we get to pink-skinned elephants, but
> that is not really an elephant, it's a hybrid.
>
>>I don't want to convince you of anything.
>>It is your claim that God exists, not mine.
>>All you need to do is prove it.
>
> If you accept the tenets of Existential Realism, such as Perception of
> Being, Principle of Consistency, Principle of Causality, then the
> existence of the Supreme Being defined as that Being whose essence is
> existence follows immediately when you consider what the source of
> existence must be.

So what entity has authority over the Supreme Being?
>
> The Universe (totality of the material world) is mutable. Therefore it
> cannot have existence as part of its essence, or else it would be
> immutable. If the specification for an entity includes existence, then
> that entity is forced to BE what it is for all eternity. It cannot BE
> anything else because existence in its essence forces it to BE what it
> is. Therefore the Universe is not the source of all existence.

Don't be silly.
Of course it is.
either that, or it was the Great Green Arkleseizure, who sneezed everything
into existence.

>
> The only entity that can meet the requirement of eternal immutability
> is the Being whose essence is existence, which we named the Supreme
> Being.

Or the Arkleseizure, or Supreme Being, or any other mythological creature
you care to dream up.

>
>>I do not make that claim - my claim is that your God is a figment of your
>>imagination.
>
> The source of existence must exist in the realist objective
> ontological world. It is not a concept - it is a real entity.

Prove it.

>
> Being is an act, not a thing. It is the energy that causes realist
> objective ontological substances to exist. It constitutes itself by
> asserting itself. It asserts the existence of substances. That is not
> a figment of my imagination, unless you have lapsed into solipsism.
>

Your Supreme, or Ultimate Being, is as much a figment of your imagination as
any other God.


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[thepossibilities]

Steve O wrote:
> I've seen a pink elephant.

were you wearing your rose colored glasses at the time?

 

[thepossibilities]

Steve O wrote:
> I've seen a pink elephant

actually, maybe it was you perceiving it to be a pink colored elephant
but nobody else could see it.

 

[Bob]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:33:10 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>Okay, so what's next, and when are you going to get to the point?

Never.

Go talk to yourself.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Dan Wood]

"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4m77miF4sp7hU1@individual.net...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%9lLg.47597$e9.18923@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> > news:4m61jvF4phnaU1@individual.net...
> >>
> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:uZiLg.24118$ry2.16574@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:4m5rfqF4ndv5U1@individual.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:nXgLg.24101$ry2.5506@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> >> >> >> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O"
<sendspam@here.com>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not
me.
> > If
> >> >> >> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me,
unless
> > you
> >> >> >> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one
> > needs
> >> > to
> >> >> >> read the Christian bible.
> >> >> >> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and
> >> >> >> wrathful
> >> >> >> killer.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament.
> >> >> >> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and
> > innocent
> >> >> >> >>people.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That would be the God of the Chosen People.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And that God is different from the Christian God in what
> > way,exactly?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy
> > named
> >> >> >> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You seem to know less about your own religion than the average
atheist
> >> > here.
> >> >> That happens a lot.
> >> >> If, according to your book of myths, Jesus is part of the trinity,
and
> > is
> >> >> also God whilst at the same time being manifested as a man, that
would
> >> > make
> >> >> him the same God as the Old Testament God, would it not?
> >> >> BTW, don't blame me for the confusion, it is your crazy book which
> > throws
> >> > up
> >> >> all of these sorts of problems.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both.
> >> >> >> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New
Testament,
> > or
> >> > did
> >> >> >> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the
> >> >> > New Testiment which contained the New Covenant.
> >> >>
> >> >> So you agree that Jesus is the same killer God described in the Old
> >> >> Testament, then?
> >> >> Or, perhaps do you differ from Christian doctrine because you
believe
> >> > Jesus
> >> >> was not fully man and God?
> >> >> Which is it?> >> >>
> >> > I think there was a great deal of misunderstanding and
miscomprehension
> >> > of the essence of God in the Old Testament. God didn't change, our
> >> > perceptions of God changed in the New Testament.
> >> >
> >> Now wait a minute, if the bible is supposed to be the word of God, both
> > old
> >> and new, how can God, who is supposed to be infallible, make the
mistake
> > of
> >> misrepresenting his own essence in the old Testament.?
> >> Are you saying here that God is infallible, or are you saying that you
do
> >> not believe that the bible is the word of God?
> >> Do you see now how crazy doctrines like this are taken with a pinch of
> > salt
> >> by atheists?
> >> None of it holds up to any real scrutiny at all.
> >>
> > Actually I do not. Based upon your questions and statements you
> > do not understand ?
<Snip>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Steve O
> >> a.a. #2240
><snip>
> I certainly do understand the difference, having read both.
> All you have done is dodge two perfectly reasonable questions.
> So I'll try again.
> 1. If your God is infallible, how can he misrepresent his own essence in
his
> own bible, as you suggest?
> 2.Is Jesus, as part of the trinity, the same God as the God of the old and
> new testaments?
> Please dodge them again if you feel it is necessary.
>
Ok, I answer your questions as best as I can. Response to questions:
1- God _is_ infallible, but man is not. God did not misrepresent
himself, the fault lay with man.. Man failed to understand God. If I
suggested God misrepresented himself, I was wrong. It certainly
wasn't my intent. If it is difficult for humans to sometimes understand
each other, it isn't very difficult to see how we can mistake the will
of God.
2) Yes. Jesus is part if the Trinity. There is only one God, but in
three distinct manifestations, God the Father, God the Son and
Holy Ghost. Jesus was God made flesh. The same God is
depicted in both the Old and the New Testaments, however, the
N.T. gives a much better and more accurate presentation of God
than the Old.

NOw please answer my questions.

What is the difference between the Old and the New Testaments,
or why the New Testament was necessary?

Best Wishes,
Dan Wood


>
> --
> Steve O
> a.a. #2240
> "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the
way
> that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"
>
>
>

 

[Dan Wood]

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:0iqtf293bd6rrqs4i8hsq5kdpv5mvk625j@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 09:45:29 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> >
> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> >news:di4jf2l4g5a87597jkbkf4pehe1rc5gh8g@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 19:11:45 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> >> wrote in alt.atheism
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:k4rgf2ti0v4q21vpdh1huaqejsnim6ip2f@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:49 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:khjef29jc6dhsh5mofj8i7qd3blljp1p2b@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:41:33 -0400, "Dan Wood"
<danwood34@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news8abf2d1pomubs5q5u80dftfvk4n8t6q5k@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:34 -0400, "Dan Wood"
> ><danwood34@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood"
> >> ><drwood@bellsouth.net>
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >> >> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling
theist.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there
is
> >> >> >> >something
> >> >> >> >> >wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus
> >Christ.
> >> >> >> >> >I could never deny him.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Deny who? A fictional character or Mr. Heilman?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > I could never deny Jesus Christ, your fictional character who
is
> >> >> >> >real to me!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Take your meds, Dan.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Thanks, but so far I've been able to get along just fine without
> >> >> >any meds.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's a common statement amongst the psychotic.
> >> >>
> >> >Are you acousing me of being psychotic???
> >>
> >> Guilty conscience I see.
> >>
> >> >If so this is liable.
> >>
> >> You're liable to be psychotic?
> >>
> >> Please make up your mind.
> >>
> >No, you have slandered me.
>
> You really should see a doctor about your paranoia. Nothing can be done
> about your lack of cognitive aptitude though. [shrug] That's your
> personal problem.
>
No one is after me or is out to harm me in any way, except
maybe my ex., so what is your problem?

Dan
>
> --
> Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
> shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
> at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
> be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Dan Wood]

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:94rtf2tr95j4dagv7o033cr6bdchri6v8i@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:12:32 -0400, herb z <herbzet@gmail.com> wrote in
> alt.atheism
>
> >
> >
> >Dan Wood wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >[...]
> >>
> >> I'm going to turn over a new leaf. No more returning insults to those
> >> who insult me. In the future I will attempt to carry on a civil,
forthright
> >> even friendly discourse. Insults only cloud the issue preventing honest
> >> and sincere discussions.
> >>
> >> I hope you've had a wonderful day,
> >> Dan
> >
> >Bravo, Dr. Dan. This is a better argument for Christianity
>
> Christianity; corruption, murder, deception, ignorance, prejudice,
> hypocrisy, greed, pride, theft, lies, torture, enslavement, and more.
>
Such is bound for punnishment.
>
> Morality like that isn't something to be proud of.
>
>
> >than any of the crap I've been reading here in sci.logic
> >recently, or anywhere else for that matter.
>
> In my newsgroup it's mostly Christian crap.
>
> []
>
>
> --
> Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
> shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
> at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
> be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote

> >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote

> >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell
> >> > > exclusively in the brain?
> >> > > No one knows for certain.
>
> How does that turn into an argument?

It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ that there might be consciousness outside the brain because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false,
logical fallacy for which you theists are famous, as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:UkhLg.24103$ry2.4204@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:TZidnUZXJ-k5AWHZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> lied
> >
> > > Christ said he was going to reform the Old Testament
> >
> > What was actually said:
> >
> > Matthew 5:17
> > [ The Fulfillment of the Law ] "Do not think that I have come to abolish
> the
> > Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill
them."
> >
> I don't know what this means to you.

Same thing it means to you, it means you were mistaken when you said,
"Christ said he was going to reform the Old Testament" does it not?
'Fulfill' does not mean reform, does it?

 

[herb z]

Lizz Holmans wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:59:07 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
>
> >Christianity; corruption, murder, deception, ignorance, prejudice,
> >hypocrisy, greed, pride, theft, lies, torture, enslavement, and more.
>
> Stoney, Stoney, Stoney, thee knows better than this. All these things
> existed before Christ and exist where no one has ever heard the name
> of Jesus, and if thee is honest with thyself, thee will admit it.
> >
> >Morality like that isn't something to be proud of.
>
> Most of human history isn't very pretty. Christianity can be misused
> as well as any other ideal----like, oh, Homeland Security, or
> Communism, or bicycle riding (1).
> >
> >
> >
> >In my newsgroup it's mostly Christian crap.
>
> At least it's Friendly crap.
>
> Lizz 'the Yakult of sci.skeptic' Holmans
>
> (1) who can tell me the joke that goes with this reference? There's a
> dime riding on it.
> --
> Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta


Hitler is giving a speech: The Jews are responsible for inflation! The
Jews cause moral corruption! The Jews invented Communism! etc., etc.

Goldberg shouts out: And the bicycle riders, too!

Hitler pauses, and speaks into the mike: Why the bicycle riders?

Goldberg shouts: Why the Jews?!?

==============

Do I get a cut of that dime?

--
hz

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com