Re: Definition of God

[Dan Wood]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:x-udnaDmK_U3LWLZnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "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?
>
I think you are confusing me with someone else. These are not my sentiments.
>
Best Wishes,
Dan Wood
>
>
>

 

[Dan Wood]

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:c5stf2p772bpbiaefvi8ulgs16bm2lpciu@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
> >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.
>
The laws of physics break down at 10^-43 sec after the Big Bang.
For this reason we cannot extrspolate beyond Planck Time with the same
degree of confidence.

Best Wishes,
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: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.
>
Our understanding changed. But there was a change. A new covenant
was made with man.

Best Wishes,
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]

"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4m8bnaF4jggiU1@individual.net...
>
> "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...
>
No, not at all!

Dan
>
> --
> 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]

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:t6utf2t1reda25v1ni565sn917j0mkeiri@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
Ok, Chris exactly what logic are you in reference to? And what were my
fallacies?
>
> >>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.
>
The laws of physics do break down at Planck Time. If these laws
Prior to 10^-43 seconds is a period of
unknown" physics.
>
> He also said that he concluded "God did it".
>
I challenge you to show where I wrote the phrase, "God did it".
I absolutely refrain from making such assinine statements. Frankly
I've never read this statement except by atheist mocking Christians.

Dan
>
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.

 

[Dan Wood]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157578700.345844.199960@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Steve O wrote:
> > I've seen a pink elephant.
>
> were you wearing your rose colored glasses at the time?
>
There is another axium which I like: If you think the
world is dirty you need to clean your glasses.

Dan

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:x-udnaHmK_UBLWLZnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "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_

IF it's not an argument, it's not the argumentum ad ignorantium.

Try again.

 

[Virgil]

In article <x-udnaHmK_UBLWLZnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "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

It does if Septic wants to call it what is it is not.

The majority of Septic's labored misrepresentations and lies I have
snipped, as there is no one here still stupid enough to believe them.

 

[Lizz Holmans]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:23:37 -0400, herb z <herbzet@gmail.com> wrote:


>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?

Excellent! So few people take up my little trivia challenges that it
gives me great pleasure to award thee one shiny virtual dime.

Carry it proudly.

Lizz 'now, can anybody spare a dime?' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

 

[Steve O]

>><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.
>

Thank you for answering.
At least you believe that the bible is NOT the inerrant word of God.
People like that can be dangerous.

> NOw please answer my questions.
>
> What is the difference between the Old and the New Testaments,
> or why the New Testament was necessary?

One was written before the other, and I don't think the new testament was
necessary at all.
If you want a better answer, you'll have to expand on the question.


--
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?"

 

[Steve O]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
newstOLg.48368$w7.20204@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "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.
>>
> Our understanding changed. But there was a change. A new covenant
> was made with man.
>
I see- a new covenant with the same old bloodthirsty killer.


--
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?"

 

[Robibnikoff]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9GJLg.1114$yz4.925@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "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

snip[
>> >>
>> >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?

Then why all the bitching about being slandered?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557

 

[Bob]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 14:59:51 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>the same old bloodthirsty killer.

Why do you consider self defense to be bloodthirsty?


--

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

 

[Siobhan Burke]

In article <nvttf2121f55tppbolfk1deqhtv7q49pea@4ax.com>,
dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk says...
> 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.

I'm thinking of the scene in "Ship of Fools", where the Nazi
says something along the lines of "You must admit that the Jews
have caused most of the problems in the world." and the little
Jewish man says "Yes, yes, the Jews and the bicycle riders."
"Why the bicycle riders?" the Nazi asks, puzzled.
"Why the Jews?" the little man counters.

Lovely scene.

--
Siobhan - alt.atheism list #2201

hellflower.alMayne@earthlink.net (Now a real address, if you ice
the alMayne.)

Just keep walking, preacher-man. --River Tam

 

[thepossibilities]

Bob wrote:
> 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.
>

this is getting a bit heavy for me, i must admit i hadn't begun to
think on this level until now. however in the Bible it states we live
in the body of Christ (insert Supreme Being here). Which lends support
to this statement.

 

[Dan Wood]

"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4mamp8F5433aU1@individual.net...
>
> >><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.
> >
>
> Thank you for answering.
> At least you believe that the bible is NOT the inerrant word of God.
> People like that can be dangerous.
>
> > NOw please answer my questions.
> >
> > What is the difference between the Old and the New Testaments,
> > or why the New Testament was necessary?
>
> One was written before the other, and I don't think the new testament was
> necessary at all.
> If you want a better answer, you'll have to expand on the question.
>
Ok, so you have no idea! In all due respect, how then can you
criticize that which you do not understand?

Dan
>
> --
> 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]

"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4mamv4F5bppvU1@individual.net...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> newstOLg.48368$w7.20204@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "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.
> >>
> > Our understanding changed. But there was a change. A new covenant
> > was made with man.
> >
> I see- a new covenant with the same old bloodthirsty killer.
>
Sorry, but as I trieed to explain before, our understand of the
nature of God changed. The Old Testiment depicted God as
a wrathfull, spiteful, cruel being who demands sacrifices by man.

But not the God of New Testiment. It pctures God one of love,
understanding, kindness and a God one who sacrificed himself
on behalf of man.
>
Best Wishes,
Dan
>
> --
> 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]

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4maphqF5c381U1@individual.net...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9GJLg.1114$yz4.925@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "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
>
> snip[
> >> >>
> >> >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?
>
> Then why all the bitching about being slandered?
>
It's unfair! But you concede the point, it was slander. As
you probably know the one who resorts to personal attacks,
demeaning the opposition, slander and character assination
has lost the debate. This is a futile attempt to shift topics
and in order to "save face".
>
Best Wishes,
Dan
> --
> Robyn
> Resident Witchypoo
> #1557
>
>

 

[Lizz Holmans]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:35:28 GMT, Siobhan Burke
<hellflower.alMayne@earthlink.net> wrote:


>
> I'm thinking of the scene in "Ship of Fools", where the Nazi
>says something along the lines of "You must admit that the Jews
>have caused most of the problems in the world." and the little
>Jewish man says "Yes, yes, the Jews and the bicycle riders."
> "Why the bicycle riders?" the Nazi asks, puzzled.
> "Why the Jews?" the little man counters.
>
>Lovely scene.

Indeed. It seems I'm going to have to find yet another virtual dime.

Oh, there one is, behind the cup holder on my computer. It's a little
sticky...let me try...oh, dear.

Lizz 'what do you mean it's not a cup holder?' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

 

[Robibnikoff]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnXLg.39994$y7.19144@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:4maphqF5c381U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9GJLg.1114$yz4.925@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "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
>>
>> snip[
>> >> >>
>> >> >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?
>>
>> Then why all the bitching about being slandered?
>>
> It's unfair! But you concede the point, it was slander.

I never said it was slander - I said that you were bitching about being
slandered - Not that that means that you actually were.

As
> you probably know the one who resorts to personal attacks,
> demeaning the opposition, slander and character assination
> has lost the debate.

That's just your opinion.

This is a futile attempt to shift topics
> and in order to "save face".

So what? No one is forcing you to read the newsgroup and post responses.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557