Guest mejercit@hotmail.com Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 Bob wrote: > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:12:48 +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. > > So you DO imagine that you can read my mind, eh. > > That is not my God. Do strive to understand that. > > >The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and wrathful > >killer. > > More leftist queer whining. > > >> 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 the Old Textament is not the same as the God of the New > Testament. Jesus Christ said otherwise. Michael Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-4C642B.19130825082006@news.usenetmonster.com... > In article <5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote: > > > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > > > > > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > > > news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... > > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> >There are people who go to their deaths completely > > >> >assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they > > >> >will live again a much better life. Atheist, however, > > >> >have none of this assurance. > > >> > > >> Neither do some theists. > > >> > > >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a > > >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer > > >> exists. > > >> > > >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There is > > >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function > > >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible. > > >> > > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell > > > exclusively in the brain? > > > No one knows for certain. > > > > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are famous. > > Then Tutor must be declaring I am not declaring anything, moron, just pointing out the logical fallacy in the Wood's argument, understand? Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:5eSdnRvvBOYeOGHZnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:virgil-4C642B.19130825082006@news.usenetmonster.com... >> In article <5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, >> "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> > news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net... >> > > >> > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >> > > news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >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. >> > >> >> > >> Neither do some theists. >> > >> >> > >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a >> > >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer >> > >> exists. >> > >> >> > >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There >> > >> is >> > >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function >> > >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible. >> > >> >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell >> > > exclusively in the brain? >> > > No one knows for certain. >> > >> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists >> > are > famous. >> >> Then Tutor must be declaring > > I am not declaring anything, moron, just pointing out the logical fallacy > in > the Wood's argument, understand? We understand that you have not pointed out a logical fallacy since we understand that you've once again misapplied the argumentum ad ignorantiam . To simply point out a question, such as Wood did above, is not to make any kind of argument whatsoever, let alone the argument from ignorance for which anti-theists like yourself have become famous. > > Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:40:16 -0700, in alt.atheism "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in <ncSdndCsAaX8AGHZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>: >"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote > >> I don;t agree with princeton > >Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ > ><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! Every time you post that quote you remind us once again that you don't understand what Copi was telling you. If you passed a class using that textbook, you should demand that you be failed and allowed to take the class again. > >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.] > > Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:7M1Lg.3225$v%4.248@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:5eSdnRvvBOYeOGHZnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:virgil-4C642B.19130825082006@news.usenetmonster.com... > >> In article <5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > >> "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote: > >> > >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > >> > news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > >> > > > >> > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > >> > > news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... > >> > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> >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. > >> > >> > >> > >> Neither do some theists. > >> > >> > >> > >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a > >> > >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer > >> > >> exists. > >> > >> > >> > >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There > >> > >> is > >> > >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function > >> > >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible. > >> > >> > >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell > >> > > exclusively in the brain? > >> > > No one knows for certain. > >> > > >> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists > >> > are > > famous. > >> > >> Then Tutor must be declaring > > > > I am not declaring anything, moron, just pointing out the logical fallacy > > in > > the Wood's argument, understand? > > We understand that you have not pointed out a logical fallacy Yes I have, moron. Let me explain it for you again. Arguing as Wood does that there might be consciousness dwelling outside the brain because there is no proof that hypothesis that 'might be theist conjecture) is false is argument _ad ignorantiam_, 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.] Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:szky7t0gp6o.fsf@fnord.io.com... > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes: > > >"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message > >news:szkslj8i7yt.fsf@fnord.io.com... > >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes: > ><SNIP> >> >> >If so this is liable. > > >> >> >> You're liable to be psychotic? > > >> >> >> Please make up your mind. > > >> >> >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.) > > >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. > > If you're too full of yourself to pay attention, I look forward to you finding > out the hard way. (I won't be a party to it.) > 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 > -- > 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 Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:AuSdndMIcbGrL2HZnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:7M1Lg.3225$v%4.248@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:5eSdnRvvBOYeOGHZnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message >> > news:virgil-4C642B.19130825082006@news.usenetmonster.com... >> >> In article <5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net... >> >> > > >> >> > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >> >> > > news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> >> > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" > <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> >> > >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >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. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Neither do some theists. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a >> >> > >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no >> >> > >> longer >> >> > >> exists. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". >> >> > >> There >> >> > >> is >> >> > >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function >> >> > >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer >> >> > >> possible. >> >> > >> >> >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell >> >> > > exclusively in the brain? >> >> > > No one knows for certain. >> >> > >> >> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists >> >> > are >> > famous. >> >> >> >> Then Tutor must be declaring >> > >> > I am not declaring anything, moron, just pointing out the logical > fallacy >> > in >> > the Wood's argument, understand? >> >> We understand that you have not pointed out a logical fallacy > > Yes I have, moron. Let me explain it for you again. Arguing as Wood does > that there might be consciousness dwelling outside the brain because there > is no proof that hypothesis that 'might be Except he didn't do that. As usual, YOU added on the supposed argument, tacking it onto a comment that didn't include an agument. Here's what he actually said. >> > > 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? Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:47:53 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> 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. "Don't waste your time in pissing contests with skunks." -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 "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. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> sni[p >> > 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, I hope you get bent. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire #1557 Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 "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. 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?" > > > Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 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. Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 "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. You certainlly did not explain your views. Christ came to fulfill rather than destroy. What did this mean and why did he do it? In what way did Christ fulfill the Law and the Prophets? What was the effect of the fulfillment? Regards, Dan Wood > Quote
Guest mejercit@hotmail.com Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 Dan Wood wrote: > "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. So why did not God fully explain Himself on Mount Sinai? Michael Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 "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. 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. Dan Quote
Guest thepossibilities Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 mejercit@hotmail.com wrote: > Steve O wrote: > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > > news:44fc09fb.2847125@news-server.houston.rr.com... > > > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:21:54 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >>Anyone who follows a psychotic God must be a little psychotic, at least, I > > >>reckon. > > > > > > It's good to be back on topic again. > > > > > > Define "psychotic God". It sounds like an oxymoron. > > > > > > Also, convince us you are not projecting. > > > > A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God, particularly > > as described in the Old Testament. > > A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and innocent people. > > > He killed those people to show His power. > > > Michael i think God created the flood to teach all those non-believers a lesson Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 "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? -- 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?" Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 "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. 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?" > > > Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:44fc8bce.5877109@news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:12:48 +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. > > So you DO imagine that you can read my mind, eh. Not in the least. Why would you think that? > > That is not my God. Do strive to understand that. You do not believe in the God of the Old Testament? Congratulations - you are on your way towards returning to sanity. It would be a shame if you believed in some other strange God, though. > >>The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and wrathful >>killer. > > More leftist queer whining. I am neither leftist nor queer. I suspect you are projecting. And please explain to me WTF the Old testament has to do with political beliefs or sexual preferences? Why do you people always associate a lack of a belief in a God or Gods with either politics or sex? > >>> 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 the Old Textament is not the same as the God of the New > Testament. Really? So there are TWO different Gods then? > >>> 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? > > Christ happened. He said he was going to reform the Old Testament, > which he did. It is you who is confused about which God you are > talking about. > I am not in the least confused. If you nbelieve that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God are two different entities, then it is you who is confused, not me. Please read your bible again. Nowhere does it claim that your God changed identities between testaments. >>"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?" > > In your case, I would not count on it. > Neither would I, considering that God is a figment of the imagination. -- 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?" Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1157406473.716597.84710@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Bob wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:12:48 +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. >> >> So you DO imagine that you can read my mind, eh. >> >> That is not my God. Do strive to understand that. >> >> >The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and wrathful >> >killer. >> >> More leftist queer whining. >> >> >> 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 the Old Textament is not the same as the God of the New >> Testament. > Jesus Christ said otherwise. > These people are so confused, they don't even understand the basic tenets of their own faith -- 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?" Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 "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. -- 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?" Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:30:58 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote: >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. Neither does anything the atheist believes. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:05:58 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote: >You do not believe in the God of the Old Testament? No. That is a myth. >It would be a shame if you believed in some other strange God, though. OK, then I won't believe in any strange Gods. The God of Existential Metaphysics (aka "Scholastic Philosophy"), known as the Supreme Being, is not strange at all. >So there are TWO different Gods then? There are as many Gods as there are definitions of God. That's what this thread is all about - to show that God is whatever you want to define it as - if you can define what you mean by God at all. When atheists claim that God does not exist, the first thing I ask is for them to define this God they claim does not exist. If they can't, then they are not claiming any more than pink elephants don't exist. Can you define the God you claim does not exist? Or is it a pink elephant too? >considering that God is a figment of the imagination. Is that the pink elephant God? -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:07:54 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote: >These people are so confused, they don't even understand the basic tenets of >their own faith No more confused than atheists. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 "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 the difference between the Old and the New Testaments, or why the New Testament was necessary. > > -- > 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?" > > > > Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.