Re: Definition of God

[Dan Wood]

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4mb2upF5dchuU1@individual.net...
>
> "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.
>
One would expect on alt religion at least some Christians would be there.
Instead there are primarily minions of the anti-Christ, and others who hate
the very idea of God. \

Dan
> --
> Robyn
> Resident Witchypoo
> #1557
>
>

 

[Robibnikoff]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:yLYLg.14625$IM1.13637@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:4mb2upF5dchuU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:XnXLg.39994$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.
>>
> One would expect on alt religion at least some Christians would be there.
> Instead there are primarily minions of the anti-Christ, and others who
> hate
> the very idea of God. \

Couldn't say as I'm on alt.atheism - Not alt.religion.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557

 

[Dan Wood]

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4mb6dtF5e0q3U1@individual.net...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:yLYLg.14625$IM1.13637@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> > news:4mb2upF5dchuU1@individual.net...
> >>
> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:XnXLg.39994$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.
> >>
> > One would expect on alt religion at least some Christians would be
there.
> > Instead there are primarily minions of the anti-Christ, and others who
> > hate
> > the very idea of God. \
>
> Couldn't say as I'm on alt.atheism - Not alt.religion.
>
Ok, but this thread at some point was addressed to alt.religion.

Dan
> --
> Robyn
> Resident Witchypoo
> #1557
>
>

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:3QOLg.7597$bM.1036@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "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

Wake up, it is an argument, moron, it 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]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> "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

[unsnip]

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.]

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:s-OdnfGFWJR5b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3QOLg.7597$bM.1036@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "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
>
> Wake up, it is an argument,

1. If it's not an argument.
2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
3. And it is not an argument.
4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>> "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
>
> [unsnip]
>
> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the argument

1. If it's not an argument.
2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
3. And it is not an argument.
4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[Virgil]

In article <s-OdnfGFWJR5b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:


> it is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that
> there might be consciousness outside the brain because there is no proof
> that hypothesis is false

Except that only Septic is making THAT argument. Which, by the way is
not an argumentum ad ignorantiam at all, but even if it were, Septic
would be the only ignoramus involved.

Septic has this stupid notion that when one says that something might
be, one is denying, rather than admitting, that it also might not be.

Any statement that a thing 'might' be automatically carries with it the
implication that the thing 'might not be', and vice versa.

So Septic is in effect objecting to someone saying that something might
not be the case because there is no evidence against it.

And Septic's only justification for that idiot position is his unfounded
argument that that something MUST not be the case because there is no
evidence that cold be the case.

Now THAT is a true argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[Virgil]

In article <s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:


> 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:

"Might" implies the possibility of "might not" and vice versa.

One does not say "it might rain" unless it also might not rain.

So the actual argument to which Septic objects is
There might or might not be some thing because there is no evidence that
there must not be that thing.

But Septic's own argument is that there must not be that thing because
there is no evidence that there is such a thing.

Now Septic's argument IS, and has always been, an argumentum ad
ignorantiam by anyone's standards, but the ones he labels as such are
not, at least by any standard but his own.

 

[Dutch]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>>> "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
>>
>> [unsnip]
>>
>> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the argument
>
> 1. If it's not an argument.
> 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> 3. And it is not an argument.
> 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.

It appears to be couched as a question. If he had said "We know that
consciousness does not dwell exclusively in the brain because nobody has
proven that it does." that would be argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> "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
>>>
>>> [unsnip]
>>>
>>> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the argument
>>
>> 1. If it's not an argument.
>> 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
>> 3. And it is not an argument.
>> 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
>
> It appears to be couched as a question. If he had said "We know that
> consciousness does not dwell exclusively in the brain because nobody has
> proven that it does." that would be argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Precisely!!! Thank you.

>
>

 

[Steve O]

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:450039c8.53490140@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> 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?

Pay attention- it is you old testament God which is depicted as a
bloodthirsty killer in your own book o' blood.


--
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?"




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

 

[Steve O]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5XLg.39946$y7.36098@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "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?
>
I haven't made a criticism, I made an observation.
I pointed out to you that the same old bloodthirsty killer God depicted in
the Old Testament is the same God that you worship.
You seemed to disagree, and argued the point first of all that the Old
Testament God is not the same God as the new Testament God, then later
weaselled out of that position by then claiming that it was man's
misinterpretation of God in the Old Testament that caused the problem.
Jeez..... a slippery lot,aren't you?



--
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
news:bdXLg.39963$y7.4621@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> news:4mamv4F5bppvU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> newstOLg.48368$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

So basically, you think that the bible (Old Testament) was wrong.
That's okay, there are some Christians who wouldn't be prepared to admit
that.


--
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:4mddblF5n7gbU1@individual.net...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d5XLg.39946$y7.36098@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "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?
> >
> I haven't made a criticism, I made an observation.
> I pointed out to you that the same old bloodthirsty killer God depicted in
> the Old Testament is the same God that you worship.
>
Your observation doesn't take into account that people often
misconstrue and fail to understand each other, to say nothing
of misunderstanding the written word found within the pages
of the Bible. There is often disagreement among dedicated
Christians regarding the meaning of the messages contained
within the Bible's pages.
>
> You seemed to disagree, and argued the point first of all that the Old
> Testament God is not the same God as the new Testament God,
>
Nowhere have I argued this. I do not accept this.
>
then later
> weaselled out of that position by then claiming that it was man's
> misinterpretation of God in the Old Testament that caused the problem.
> Jeez..... a slippery lot, aren't you?
>
This has been my position all along. The differenence is not different
Gods, but different human impressions of God's nature . The
New Testament does not depict God as vindictive, cruel, wrathful
God demanding sacrifices as does the Old Testament: rather the
N.T. pictures God as kind, loving giving and self-sacrificing.
And this has been my view all along - no reason to weasel.

You have shown that you have very little idea as to the difference
where the Old and the New Testament is concerned. All you
seem to know is that one was written before the other and the
New Testament was unnecessary.
It's obvious that you know next to nothing about the Bible.
But that doesn't prevent you from commenting. How can
one take you seriously?
>
Thanks,
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:4mddeuF5lpdeU1@individual.net...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bdXLg.39963$y7.4621@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> > news:4mamv4F5bppvU1@individual.net...
> >>
> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> newstOLg.48368$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
>
> So basically, you think that the bible (Old Testament) was wrong.
> That's okay, there are some Christians who wouldn't be prepared to admit
> that.
>
The Old Testament concept of God was fundamentally wrong. I'm of
the opinion, this was one reason for the coming of Christ and the
New Testament - to correct the image of God created in the Old.
Most mainline Churches claim to be a New Testament church.

There is a reason for that. Do you have any idea as to why that is?

I do not believe that prophets in the O.T. literately sat around
taking dictation from God. Rather they were moved by the spirit.
And they often got it wrong. The New Testament has no prophets.
John the Baptist was the last of the old line of prophets they had
no purpose in the New Testament.

Thanks,
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?"
>
>
>
>

 

[Bob]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:29:50 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>> Why do you consider self defense to be bloodthirsty?

>Pay attention

Upu pay attention. I asked you a question, and you did not answer it.

>it is you old testament God which is depicted as a
>bloodthirsty killer in your own book o' blood.

Bloodthirsty is good when you are defending yourself.


--

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

 

[Dan Wood]

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:45019f89.145075437@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:29:50 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Why do you consider self defense to be bloodthirsty?
>
> >Pay attention
>
> Upu pay attention. I asked you a question, and you did not answer it.
>
> >it is you old testament God which is depicted as a
> >bloodthirsty killer in your own book o' blood.
>
> Bloodthirsty is good when you are defending yourself.
>
People too often see what they want to see.

Dan Wood, DDS
>
> --
>
> "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
> --Mark Twain
>

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

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

> It is not an argument.

Wake up, it is an argument, moron, it 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]

"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >>> "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
> >>
> >> [unsnip]
> >>
> >> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the argument
> >
> > 1. If it's not an argument.
> > 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> > 3. And it is not an argument.
> > 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
>
> It appears to be couched as a question.

"No one knows for certain" is not a question, knucklehead, it 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.]