| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Vacendak" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2004 03:53:01 PM |
| Object: |
A god who plays mind games |
That's how i see it.
You can't detect him with any of our 5 senses, and yet we still have to
believe in him. Because if we don't, we all get sent to hell to be tortured
for all eternity.A god who punishes people for making an honest mistake, by
reading the wrong sacred text or by calling him the wrong name.
"A god who puts out traps for people, invites them to sin, and allows them
to sin and commit crimes he could prevent. Only to finally get the barbarian
pleasure to punish them in an excessive way, of no use for himself, without
them changing their ways and without their example preventing others from
committing crimes." Baron d'Holbach (Systeme de la Nature, 1789)
Why should i believe in a god like this?
.
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
03 Oct 2004 03:18:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:46:36 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
(keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0410021637.18c98c99@posting.google.com:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<2iktl0p5a0asra4eois3dnvn1578450e1t@4ax.com>...
On 2 Oct 2004 07:24:26 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<2tisl0l8drbcl10hmf2bnqmi6vevo7evgo@4ax.com>...
On 1 Oct 2004 16:10:24 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomasagain@yahoo.dk (Thomas P.) wrote in message
news:<58f199d9.0410010312.26e4a55f@posting.google.com>...
(keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409300524.4da40110@posting.google.com>...
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<4kkkl0dubca30d0bodc9ibu66ngu1k37fo@4ax.com>...
snip
(snip)
You have made it up.
No I didn't. I got the idea that God is merciful and just from
passages that explicitly say God is merciful and just, passages
that *don't* say that God mandated any genocides.
That is not where you got the idea from. If it was, you would
have no reason to reject passages that contradict that idea and to
accept those that did not.
You are mistaken. Ehen I was an atheist I had still seen the bible
and I knew that the Bible explicitly claimed God was merciful and
just. When I began to believe in God, I found myself believing those
passages. Thus the idea that God was merciful and just didn't just
creatively pop into my mind.
And you still have given no objective reason for rejecting parts of
the Bible that you do not like.
1. It;s not about what I like or not, it's about what I think is true.
2. I did too give an objective reason for rejectong the parts of the
Bible I think aren't true--they prima facie conflict with God's being
merciful and just.
That same reason would support rejecting the entire thing even better
than it supports rejecting your least favorite parts.
Or one could reject the parts Keith accepts because they conflict with
God being cruel and arbitrary. Keith has no objective reason for his
choice but appears to be emotionally incapable of comprehending or
admitting it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
03 Oct 2004 01:20:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:18:04 +0200, thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:46:36 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
(keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0410021637.18c98c99@posting.google.com:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<2iktl0p5a0asra4eois3dnvn1578450e1t@4ax.com>...
On 2 Oct 2004 07:24:26 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<2tisl0l8drbcl10hmf2bnqmi6vevo7evgo@4ax.com>...
On 1 Oct 2004 16:10:24 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomasagain@yahoo.dk (Thomas P.) wrote in message
news:<58f199d9.0410010312.26e4a55f@posting.google.com>...
(keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409300524.4da40110@posting.google.com>...
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<4kkkl0dubca30d0bodc9ibu66ngu1k37fo@4ax.com>...
snip
(snip)
You have made it up.
No I didn't. I got the idea that God is merciful and just from
passages that explicitly say God is merciful and just, passages
that *don't* say that God mandated any genocides.
That is not where you got the idea from. If it was, you would
have no reason to reject passages that contradict that idea and to
accept those that did not.
You are mistaken. Ehen I was an atheist I had still seen the bible
and I knew that the Bible explicitly claimed God was merciful and
just. When I began to believe in God, I found myself believing those
passages. Thus the idea that God was merciful and just didn't just
creatively pop into my mind.
And you still have given no objective reason for rejecting parts of
the Bible that you do not like.
1. It;s not about what I like or not, it's about what I think is true.
2. I did too give an objective reason for rejectong the parts of the
Bible I think aren't true--they prima facie conflict with God's being
merciful and just.
That same reason would support rejecting the entire thing even better
than it supports rejecting your least favorite parts.
Or one could reject the parts Keith accepts because they conflict with
God being cruel and arbitrary. Keith has no objective reason for his
choice but appears to be emotionally incapable of comprehending or
admitting it.
But WAIT!!
It's not in the **definition of gawd** to be cruel or arbitrary.
QED.
Keith: 1. The nose on your face: 0.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
03 Oct 2004 09:00:28 AM |
|
|
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<a4cvl09brrc6780sfkn2mjndecm4luf3mb@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:46:36 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
(keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0410021637.18c98c99@posting.google.com:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<2iktl0p5a0asra4eois3dnvn1578450e1t@4ax.com>...
On 2 Oct 2004 07:24:26 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<2tisl0l8drbcl10hmf2bnqmi6vevo7evgo@4ax.com>...
On 1 Oct 2004 16:10:24 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomasagain@yahoo.dk (Thomas P.) wrote in message
news:<58f199d9.0410010312.26e4a55f@posting.google.com>...
(keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409300524.4da40110@posting.google.com>...
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<4kkkl0dubca30d0bodc9ibu66ngu1k37fo@4ax.com>...
snip
(snip)
You have made it up.
No I didn't. I got the idea that God is merciful and just from
passages that explicitly say God is merciful and just, passages
that *don't* say that God mandated any genocides.
That is not where you got the idea from. If it was, you would
have no reason to reject passages that contradict that idea and to
accept those that did not.
You are mistaken. Ehen I was an atheist I had still seen the bible
and I knew that the Bible explicitly claimed God was merciful and
just. When I began to believe in God, I found myself believing those
passages. Thus the idea that God was merciful and just didn't just
creatively pop into my mind.
And you still have given no objective reason for rejecting parts of
the Bible that you do not like.
1. It;s not about what I like or not, it's about what I think is true.
2. I did too give an objective reason for rejectong the parts of the
Bible I think aren't true--they prima facie conflict with God's being
merciful and just.
That same reason would support rejecting the entire thing even better
than it supports rejecting your least favorite parts.
Or one could reject the parts Keith accepts because they conflict with
God being cruel and arbitrary.
If you believed that to be the case, you *would* do exactly that.
Keith has no objective reason for his
choice but appears to be emotionally incapable of comprehending or
admitting it.
What you should have argued is that I have no objective reason to
believe *any* parts of the Bible. For if I have an objective reason to
believe the "merciful and just" parts--and if that reason is
sufficiently justified--that would justify my dismissing the
conflicting parts. That would have been a decent response to my
argument. Do you want to go on that direction?
keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
07 Oct 2004 12:38:06 PM |
|
|
On 3 Oct 2004 07:00:28 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<a4cvl09brrc6780sfkn2mjndecm4luf3mb@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:46:36 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
snip
1. It;s not about what I like or not, it's about what I think is true.
2. I did too give an objective reason for rejectong the parts of the
Bible I think aren't true--they prima facie conflict with God's being
merciful and just.
That same reason would support rejecting the entire thing even better
than it supports rejecting your least favorite parts.
Or one could reject the parts Keith accepts because they conflict with
God being cruel and arbitrary.
If you believed that to be the case, you *would* do exactly that.
God is described as being merciful, just, cruel and arbitrary in the
Bible. Whatever may or may not be the truth concerning this god
clearly the book is useless as a source of knowledge about it.
Keith has no objective reason for his
choice but appears to be emotionally incapable of comprehending or
admitting it.
What you should have argued is that I have no objective reason to
believe *any* parts of the Bible.
You do not decide what I should or should not say.
For if I have an objective reason to
believe the "merciful and just" parts--and if that reason is
sufficiently justified--that would justify my dismissing the
conflicting parts. That would have been a decent response to my
argument. Do you want to go on that direction?
I have stated why your position is purely subjective.
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
08 Oct 2004 08:01:49 AM |
|
|
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<4bvam0prn5bg7j7oqmtt7b3sr4p5p7vkij@4ax.com>...
On 3 Oct 2004 07:00:28 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<a4cvl09brrc6780sfkn2mjndecm4luf3mb@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:46:36 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
snip
1. It;s not about what I like or not, it's about what I think is true.
2. I did too give an objective reason for rejectong the parts of the
Bible I think aren't true--they prima facie conflict with God's being
merciful and just.
That same reason would support rejecting the entire thing even better
than it supports rejecting your least favorite parts.
Or one could reject the parts Keith accepts because they conflict with
God being cruel and arbitrary.
If you believed that to be the case, you *would* do exactly that.
God is described as being merciful, just, cruel and arbitrary in the
Bible. Whatever may or may not be the truth concerning this god
clearly the book is useless as a source of knowledge about it.
The book? The Bible is a collection of writings written by different
authors; if one author says one thing and a different author says
another, that doesn't damage the credibility of *both*.
Keith has no objective reason for his
choice but appears to be emotionally incapable of comprehending or
admitting it.
What you should have argued is that I have no objective reason to
believe *any* parts of the Bible.
You do not decide what I should or should not say.
I don't get to decide what you *do* say, but why can't I have an
opinion about what you *should* have said?
For if I have an objective reason to
believe the "merciful and just" parts--and if that reason is
sufficiently justified--that would justify my dismissing the
conflicting parts. That would have been a decent response to my
argument. Do you want to go on that direction?
I have stated why your position is purely subjective.
Like all matters of judgment are subjective. You haven't epxlained why
my judgment is not accurate though.
Keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
08 Oct 2004 02:24:21 PM |
|
|
On 8 Oct 2004 06:01:49 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<4bvam0prn5bg7j7oqmtt7b3sr4p5p7vkij@4ax.com>...
On 3 Oct 2004 07:00:28 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<a4cvl09brrc6780sfkn2mjndecm4luf3mb@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:46:36 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
snip
1. It;s not about what I like or not, it's about what I think is true.
2. I did too give an objective reason for rejectong the parts of the
Bible I think aren't true--they prima facie conflict with God's being
merciful and just.
That same reason would support rejecting the entire thing even better
than it supports rejecting your least favorite parts.
Or one could reject the parts Keith accepts because they conflict with
God being cruel and arbitrary.
If you believed that to be the case, you *would* do exactly that.
God is described as being merciful, just, cruel and arbitrary in the
Bible. Whatever may or may not be the truth concerning this god
clearly the book is useless as a source of knowledge about it.
The book? The Bible is a collection of writings written by different
authors; if one author says one thing and a different author says
another, that doesn't damage the credibility of *both*.
You are truly amazing.
Keith has no objective reason for his
choice but appears to be emotionally incapable of comprehending or
admitting it.
What you should have argued is that I have no objective reason to
believe *any* parts of the Bible.
You do not decide what I should or should not say.
I don't get to decide what you *do* say, but why can't I have an
opinion about what you *should* have said?
For if I have an objective reason to
believe the "merciful and just" parts--and if that reason is
sufficiently justified--that would justify my dismissing the
conflicting parts. That would have been a decent response to my
argument. Do you want to go on that direction?
I have stated why your position is purely subjective.
Like all matters of judgment are subjective.
That nonsense again. It is always your position in the end. It is an
argument of desperation.
You haven't epxlained why
my judgment is not accurate though.
I have pointed out why it is purely subjective. It is based on
nothing outside of yourself. There is no objective reason for anyone
(including yourself) to take it seriously.
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
09 Oct 2004 09:39:09 AM |
|
|
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<vipdm0hkhd3rrict59hd270nr41jnkur84@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 06:01:49 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<4bvam0prn5bg7j7oqmtt7b3sr4p5p7vkij@4ax.com>...
On 3 Oct 2004 07:00:28 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<a4cvl09brrc6780sfkn2mjndecm4luf3mb@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:46:36 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
(snip)
Or one could reject the parts Keith accepts because they conflict with
God being cruel and arbitrary.
If you believed that to be the case, you *would* do exactly that.
God is described as being merciful, just, cruel and arbitrary in the
Bible. Whatever may or may not be the truth concerning this god
clearly the book is useless as a source of knowledge about it.
The book? The Bible is a collection of writings written by different
authors; if one author says one thing and a different author says
another, that doesn't damage the credibility of *both*.
You are truly amazing.
I'm serious Thomas; why don't you just tell me *what* it is you object
to in my above comment? Why are you angry? Why don't you just see our
dispute as a disagreement about an issue between 2 people?
Keith has no objective reason for his
choice but appears to be emotionally incapable of comprehending or
admitting it.
What you should have argued is that I have no objective reason to
believe *any* parts of the Bible.
You do not decide what I should or should not say.
I don't get to decide what you *do* say, but why can't I have an
opinion about what you *should* have said?
For if I have an objective reason to
believe the "merciful and just" parts--and if that reason is
sufficiently justified--that would justify my dismissing the
conflicting parts. That would have been a decent response to my
argument. Do you want to go on that direction?
I have stated why your position is purely subjective.
Like all matters of judgment are subjective.
That nonsense again. It is always your position in the end. It is an
argument of desperation.
How is it nonsense? How is your *judgment* anything *but* subjective?
And why did you even bother to post if all you were going to do is say
my post was nonsense?
You haven't epxlained why
my judgment is not accurate though.
I have pointed out why it is purely subjective. It is based on
nothing outside of yourself. There is no objective reason for anyone
(including yourself) to take it seriously.
All judgments are one's subjective response to objective facts--if you
call this claim of mine nonsense you are illustrating how *your*
judgment wrt that claim is different from mine, which illustrates the
point. Being subjective doesn't make a judgment inaccurate. If you
don't agree, please tell me why; please don't just say "that's
nonsense". Such comments don't help further the discussion. If you
think I'm an idiot, that's not my business--why would you fell
compelled to let me and evryone else *know* you think that? We don't
have to be uncivil in this discussion; we *can* just disagree.
Keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
09 Oct 2004 10:13:14 AM |
|
|
(keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0410090639.61c4b99d@posting.google.com:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<vipdm0hkhd3rrict59hd270nr41jnkur84@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 06:01:49 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<4bvam0prn5bg7j7oqmtt7b3sr4p5p7vkij@4ax.com>...
On 3 Oct 2004 07:00:28 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<a4cvl09brrc6780sfkn2mjndecm4luf3mb@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:46:36 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
(snip)
Or one could reject the parts Keith accepts because they
conflict with God being cruel and arbitrary.
If you believed that to be the case, you *would* do exactly that.
God is described as being merciful, just, cruel and arbitrary in
the Bible. Whatever may or may not be the truth concerning this
god clearly the book is useless as a source of knowledge about it.
The book? The Bible is a collection of writings written by different
authors; if one author says one thing and a different author says
another, that doesn't damage the credibility of *both*.
You are truly amazing.
I'm serious Thomas; why don't you just tell me *what* it is you object
to in my above comment? Why are you angry? Why don't you just see our
dispute as a disagreement about an issue between 2 people?
Keith has no objective reason for his
choice but appears to be emotionally incapable of comprehending
or admitting it.
What you should have argued is that I have no objective reason to
believe *any* parts of the Bible.
You do not decide what I should or should not say.
I don't get to decide what you *do* say, but why can't I have an
opinion about what you *should* have said?
For if I have an objective reason to
believe the "merciful and just" parts--and if that reason is
sufficiently justified--that would justify my dismissing the
conflicting parts. That would have been a decent response to my
argument. Do you want to go on that direction?
I have stated why your position is purely subjective.
Like all matters of judgment are subjective.
That nonsense again. It is always your position in the end. It is
an argument of desperation.
How is it nonsense? How is your *judgment* anything *but* subjective?
And why did you even bother to post if all you were going to do is say
my post was nonsense?
You haven't epxlained why
my judgment is not accurate though.
I have pointed out why it is purely subjective. It is based on
nothing outside of yourself. There is no objective reason for anyone
(including yourself) to take it seriously.
All judgments are one's subjective response to objective facts--if you
call this claim of mine nonsense you are illustrating how *your*
judgment wrt that claim is different from mine, which illustrates the
point. Being subjective doesn't make a judgment inaccurate. If you
don't agree, please tell me why; please don't just say "that's
nonsense". Such comments don't help further the discussion. If you
think I'm an idiot, that's not my business--why would you fell
compelled to let me and evryone else *know* you think that? We don't
have to be uncivil in this discussion; we *can* just disagree.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Subjectivist+fallacy
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
10 Oct 2004 03:31:46 AM |
|
|
On 9 Oct 2004 07:39:09 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<vipdm0hkhd3rrict59hd270nr41jnkur84@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 06:01:49 -0700, (keith) wrote:
snip
I have stated why your position is purely subjective.
Like all matters of judgment are subjective.
That nonsense again. It is always your position in the end. It is an
argument of desperation.
How is it nonsense? How is your *judgment* anything *but* subjective?
And why did you even bother to post if all you were going to do is say
my post was nonsense?
Why it is nonsense has been explained to you by many repeatedly. Why
should anybody bother to explain it once again?
You haven't epxlained why
my judgment is not accurate though.
I have pointed out why it is purely subjective. It is based on
nothing outside of yourself. There is no objective reason for anyone
(including yourself) to take it seriously.
All judgments are one's subjective response to objective facts--
No Keith, some judgments are subjective responsess to objective facts.
Some judgments, such as yours here for example, are based on no
objective facts. They are purely subjective.
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
10 Oct 2004 09:35:48 PM |
|
|
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<sishm01sdkp2s7rnb9adn8fkpqoburodu1@4ax.com>...
On 9 Oct 2004 07:39:09 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<vipdm0hkhd3rrict59hd270nr41jnkur84@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 06:01:49 -0700, (keith) wrote:
snip
I have stated why your position is purely subjective.
Like all matters of judgment are subjective.
That nonsense again. It is always your position in the end. It is an
argument of desperation.
How is it nonsense? How is your *judgment* anything *but* subjective?
And why did you even bother to post if all you were going to do is say
my post was nonsense?
Why it is nonsense has been explained to you by many repeatedly. Why
should anybody bother to explain it once again?
You are entitled to your opinion about the success of previous
attempts to rebut my point about subjective judgments; I don't agree
with your assessment. But your comment raises the question: why do you
bother to call my claims *nonsense* over and over if you aren't going
to bother to explain yourself. I've been civil to you guys, and if you
don't agree with me you could either make your argument or--if you
think you've argued your point well enough already, you could just not
bother to respond to my posts.
You haven't epxlained why
my judgment is not accurate though.
I have pointed out why it is purely subjective. It is based on
nothing outside of yourself. There is no objective reason for anyone
(including yourself) to take it seriously.
All judgments are one's subjective response to objective facts--
No Keith, some judgments are subjective responsess to objective facts.
Some judgments, such as yours here for example, are based on no
objective facts. They are purely subjective.
You are entitled to believe yuor bald assertion here, but you surely
recognize you have no evidence to support it.
keith
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
11 Oct 2004 01:47:04 PM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2004 19:35:48 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<sishm01sdkp2s7rnb9adn8fkpqoburodu1@4ax.com>...
On 9 Oct 2004 07:39:09 -0700, (keith) wrote:
snip
All judgments are one's subjective response to objective facts--
No Keith, some judgments are subjective responsess to objective facts.
Some judgments, such as yours here for example, are based on no
objective facts. They are purely subjective.
You are entitled to believe yuor bald assertion here, but you surely
recognize you have no evidence to support it.
I surely recognize that you have presented no objective evidence for
your religious beliefs. Perhaps you actually have some but have
decided to keep it secret. That must be it. No, wait a minute; I
remember now. You redefined an opinion as evidence and then used it
to establish an objective fact. You will have to excuse me; I forgot
about your special ability to redefine terms to fit your needs. With
such a wonderful talent there is no way you could possibly be mistaken
about anything, since everything is just a matter of opinion - your
opinion that is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
12 Oct 2004 07:18:14 PM |
|
|
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<7eklm01jq0i1tjkldv7f7tcrk7m4ocreal@4ax.com>...
On 10 Oct 2004 19:35:48 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<sishm01sdkp2s7rnb9adn8fkpqoburodu1@4ax.com>...
On 9 Oct 2004 07:39:09 -0700, (keith) wrote:
snip
All judgments are one's subjective response to objective facts--
No Keith, some judgments are subjective responsess to objective facts.
Some judgments, such as yours here for example, are based on no
objective facts. They are purely subjective.
You are entitled to believe yuor bald assertion here, but you surely
recognize you have no evidence to support it.
I surely recognize that you have presented no objective evidence for
your religious beliefs.
Whether or not my religious beliefs are *true* is completely unrelated
to the discussion. The debate has been about the alleged inconsistency
in believing part of the bible as opposed to believing all of it and
about whether or not judgments are by nature subjective.
Perhaps you actually have some but have
decided to keep it secret. That must be it. No, wait a minute; I
remember now. You redefined an opinion as evidence and then used it
to establish an objective fact.
No I didn't.
You will have to excuse me; I forgot
about your special ability to redefine terms to fit your needs. With
such a wonderful talent there is no way you could possibly be mistaken
about anything, since everything is just a matter of opinion - your
opinion that is.
Your sarcasm notwithstanding, you are complete wrong in your claim
that I have redefined anything. And you are quite uncivil as well;
there's realky no call for that.
keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
13 Oct 2004 01:27:05 PM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2004 17:18:14 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<7eklm01jq0i1tjkldv7f7tcrk7m4ocreal@4ax.com>...
On 10 Oct 2004 19:35:48 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<sishm01sdkp2s7rnb9adn8fkpqoburodu1@4ax.com>...
On 9 Oct 2004 07:39:09 -0700, (keith) wrote:
snip
All judgments are one's subjective response to objective facts--
No Keith, some judgments are subjective responsess to objective facts.
Some judgments, such as yours here for example, are based on no
objective facts. They are purely subjective.
You are entitled to believe yuor bald assertion here, but you surely
recognize you have no evidence to support it.
I surely recognize that you have presented no objective evidence for
your religious beliefs.
Whether or not my religious beliefs are *true* is completely unrelated
to the discussion. The debate has been about the alleged inconsistency
in believing part of the bible as opposed to believing all of it and
about whether or not judgments are by nature subjective.
Perhaps you actually have some but have
decided to keep it secret. That must be it. No, wait a minute; I
remember now. You redefined an opinion as evidence and then used it
to establish an objective fact.
No I didn't.
It is my opinion that you did. After all it is just a matter of
opinion, right?
You will have to excuse me; I forgot
about your special ability to redefine terms to fit your needs. With
such a wonderful talent there is no way you could possibly be mistaken
about anything, since everything is just a matter of opinion - your
opinion that is.
Your sarcasm notwithstanding, you are complete wrong in your claim
that I have redefined anything. And you are quite uncivil as well;
there's realky no call for that.
I actually try my best to be civil. It is difficult, because you are
consistently dishonest, although I do realize that you may be lying to
yourself as much as to others; but it is still dishonesty. Dishonesty
is, in my opinion, one of the worst forms of rudeness. Have a truly
nice day in what ever universe you have created for yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
13 Oct 2004 11:19:48 PM |
|
|
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<ilsqm0p8b0tu6mf36hfpc1gegch92s7ikq@4ax.com>...
On 12 Oct 2004 17:18:14 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<7eklm01jq0i1tjkldv7f7tcrk7m4ocreal@4ax.com>...
On 10 Oct 2004 19:35:48 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<sishm01sdkp2s7rnb9adn8fkpqoburodu1@4ax.com>...
On 9 Oct 2004 07:39:09 -0700, (keith) wrote:
snip
All judgments are one's subjective response to objective facts--
No Keith, some judgments are subjective responsess to objective facts.
Some judgments, such as yours here for example, are based on no
objective facts. They are purely subjective.
You are entitled to believe yuor bald assertion here, but you surely
recognize you have no evidence to support it.
I surely recognize that you have presented no objective evidence for
your religious beliefs.
Whether or not my religious beliefs are *true* is completely unrelated
to the discussion. The debate has been about the alleged inconsistency
in believing part of the bible as opposed to believing all of it and
about whether or not judgments are by nature subjective.
Perhaps you actually have some but have
decided to keep it secret. That must be it. No, wait a minute; I
remember now. You redefined an opinion as evidence and then used it
to establish an objective fact.
No I didn't.
It is my opinion that you did. After all it is just a matter of
opinion, right?
You will have to excuse me; I forgot
about your special ability to redefine terms to fit your needs. With
such a wonderful talent there is no way you could possibly be mistaken
about anything, since everything is just a matter of opinion - your
opinion that is.
Your sarcasm notwithstanding, you are complete wrong in your claim
that I have redefined anything. And you are quite uncivil as well;
there's realky no call for that.
I actually try my best to be civil. It is difficult, because you are
consistently dishonest, although I do realize that you may be lying to
yourself as much as to others; but it is still dishonesty. Dishonesty
is, in my opinion, one of the worst forms of rudeness. Have a truly
nice day in what ever universe you have created for yourself.
Well, I have *not* been dishonest, not at all. You can imagine that
you can read my mind and tell that I have been lying to myself if you
want to. But you're wrong. And you have not *been* civil; if you've
been trying to be civil I would suggest you take lessons from Ted and
Jim.
Keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
14 Oct 2004 07:51:22 AM |
|
|
(keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0410132019.7bd91bbc@posting.google.com>...
snio
Well, I have *not* been dishonest, not at all. You can imagine that
you can read my mind and tell that I have been lying to myself if you
want to. But you're wrong. And you have not *been* civil; if you've
been trying to be civil I would suggest you take lessons from Ted and
Jim.
Sorry Keith, but it is my opinion that you have been dishonest. After
all, as you say so often, it is all just a matter of subjective
opinion. Therefore, using your logic, it is established; you are
dishonest.
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
14 Oct 2004 09:54:52 PM |
|
|
(Thomas P.) wrote in message news:<58f199d9.0410140451.48026ce1@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0410132019.7bd91bbc@posting.google.com>...
snio
Well, I have *not* been dishonest, not at all. You can imagine that
you can read my mind and tell that I have been lying to myself if you
want to. But you're wrong. And you have not *been* civil; if you've
been trying to be civil I would suggest you take lessons from Ted and
Jim.
Sorry Keith, but it is my opinion that you have been dishonest. After
all, as you say so often, it is all just a matter of subjective
opinion. Therefore, using your logic, it is established; you are
dishonest.
This shows how much you have misunderstood my point; I have *never*
argued that "X is my opinion, therefore X is true". I take you at your
word that you think I've been dishonest--you've proved your ability to
misunderstand things.
keith
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
15 Oct 2004 09:39:15 AM |
|
|
(keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0410141854.19e41a5b@posting.google.com:
thomasagain@yahoo.dk (Thomas P.) wrote in message
news:<58f199d9.0410140451.48026ce1@posting.google.com>...
(keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0410132019.7bd91bbc@posting.google.com>... snio
Well, I have *not* been dishonest, not at all. You can imagine that
you can read my mind and tell that I have been lying to myself if
you want to. But you're wrong. And you have not *been* civil; if
you've been trying to be civil I would suggest you take lessons
from Ted and Jim.
Sorry Keith, but it is my opinion that you have been dishonest.
After all, as you say so often, it is all just a matter of subjective
opinion. Therefore, using your logic, it is established; you are
dishonest.
This shows how much you have misunderstood my point; I have *never*
argued that "X is my opinion, therefore X is true".
You usually argue that "X is my opinion, therefore I see no reason to
consider whether X might be false".
I take you at your
word that you think I've been dishonest--you've proved your ability to
misunderstand things.
keith
Thomas P.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
15 Oct 2004 12:44:29 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95836C620F83Bfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0410141854.19e41a5b@posting.google.com:
thomasagain@yahoo.dk (Thomas P.) wrote in message
news:<58f199d9.0410140451.48026ce1@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0410132019.7bd91bbc@posting.google.com>... snio
Well, I have *not* been dishonest, not at all. You can imagine that
you can read my mind and tell that I have been lying to myself if
you want to. But you're wrong. And you have not *been* civil; if
you've been trying to be civil I would suggest you take lessons
from Ted and Jim.
Sorry Keith, but it is my opinion that you have been dishonest.
After all, as you say so often, it is all just a matter of subjective
opinion. Therefore, using your logic, it is established; you are
dishonest.
This shows how much you have misunderstood my point; I have *never*
argued that "X is my opinion, therefore X is true".
You usually argue that "X is my opinion, therefore I see no reason to
consider whether X might be false".
That's also not accurate. Generally my arguments aren't even *about*
my religious beliefs. But when I have talked about my specific
beliefs, my position has been "X is my opinion, and the reasons you
offer to think my opinions are false are fallacious reasons".
keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
15 Oct 2004 01:05:51 PM |
|
|
(keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0410150944.866b03b@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95836C620F83Bfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
(keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0410141854.19e41a5b@posting.google.com:
thomasagain@yahoo.dk (Thomas P.) wrote in message
news:<58f199d9.0410140451.48026ce1@posting.google.com>...
(keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0410132019.7bd91bbc@posting.google.com>... snio
Well, I have *not* been dishonest, not at all. You can imagine
that you can read my mind and tell that I have been lying to
myself if you want to. But you're wrong. And you have not *been*
civil; if you've been trying to be civil I would suggest you
take lessons from Ted and Jim.
Sorry Keith, but it is my opinion that you have been dishonest.
After all, as you say so often, it is all just a matter of
subjective opinion. Therefore, using your logic, it is
established; you are dishonest.
This shows how much you have misunderstood my point; I have *never*
argued that "X is my opinion, therefore X is true".
You usually argue that "X is my opinion, therefore I see no reason to
consider whether X might be false".
That's also not accurate. Generally my arguments aren't even *about*
my religious beliefs. But when I have talked about my specific
beliefs, my position has been "X is my opinion, and the reasons you
offer to think my opinions are false are fallacious reasons".
I've only been observing you for years, keith. It's quite accurate.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
15 Oct 2004 01:56:45 PM |
|
|
On 14 Oct 2004 19:54:52 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomasagain@yahoo.dk (Thomas P.) wrote in message news:<58f199d9.0410140451.48026ce1@posting.google.com>...
(keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0410132019.7bd91bbc@posting.google.com>...
snio
Well, I have *not* been dishonest, not at all. You can imagine that
you can read my mind and tell that I have been lying to myself if you
want to. But you're wrong. And you have not *been* civil; if you've
been trying to be civil I would suggest you take lessons from Ted and
Jim.
Sorry Keith, but it is my opinion that you have been dishonest. After
all, as you say so often, it is all just a matter of subjective
opinion. Therefore, using your logic, it is established; you are
dishonest.
This shows how much you have misunderstood my point; I have *never*
argued that "X is my opinion, therefore X is true". I take you at your
word that you think I've been dishonest--you've proved your ability to
misunderstand things.
You certainly have a right to your opinion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
15 Oct 2004 09:27:04 AM |
|
|
On 14 Oct 2004 05:51:22 -0700, (Thomas P.) wrote:
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0410132019.7bd91bbc@posting.google.com>...
snio
Well, I have *not* been dishonest, not at all. You can imagine that
you can read my mind and tell that I have been lying to myself if you
want to. But you're wrong. And you have not *been* civil; if you've
been trying to be civil I would suggest you take lessons from Ted and
Jim.
Sorry Keith, but it is my opinion that you have been dishonest. After
all, as you say so often, it is all just a matter of subjective
opinion. Therefore, using your logic, it is established; you are
dishonest.
He's objectively demonstrated his dishonesty myraid times through the
years which have been thoroughly documented and remain in the
archives. Solipism, termianl inhumanity, gross ignorance, along with
an inability or unwillingness to learn are rampant in the archives, as
well. There is no communication or discussion with him which is why
he's generally ignored.
Thomas P.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
15 Oct 2004 01:56:45 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:27:04 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 05:51:22 -0700, (Thomas P.) wrote:
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0410132019.7bd91bbc@posting.google.com>...
snio
Well, I have *not* been dishonest, not at all. You can imagine that
you can read my mind and tell that I have been lying to myself if you
want to. But you're wrong. And you have not *been* civil; if you've
been trying to be civil I would suggest you take lessons from Ted and
Jim.
Sorry Keith, but it is my opinion that you have been dishonest. After
all, as you say so often, it is all just a matter of subjective
opinion. Therefore, using your logic, it is established; you are
dishonest.
He's objectively demonstrated his dishonesty myraid times through the
years which have been thoroughly documented and remain in the
archives. Solipism, termianl inhumanity, gross ignorance, along with
an inability or unwillingness to learn are rampant in the archives, as
well. There is no communication or discussion with him which is why
he's generally ignored.
He does get to be tiresome after a while. I pretty much ignored him
for quite a while after my first attempt, and I believe I am ready to
take another break from his insanity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
17 Oct 2004 03:54:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:56:45 +0200, thomas p
<thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:27:04 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 05:51:22 -0700, (Thomas P.) wrote:
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0410132019.7bd91bbc@posting.google.com>...
snio
Well, I have *not* been dishonest, not at all. You can imagine that
you can read my mind and tell that I have been lying to myself if you
want to. But you're wrong. And you have not *been* civil; if you've
been trying to be civil I would suggest you take lessons from Ted and
Jim.
Sorry Keith, but it is my opinion that you have been dishonest. After
all, as you say so often, it is all just a matter of subjective
opinion. Therefore, using your logic, it is established; you are
dishonest.
He's objectively demonstrated his dishonesty myraid times through the
years which have been thoroughly documented and remain in the
archives. Solipism, termianl inhumanity, gross ignorance, along with
an inability or unwillingness to learn are rampant in the archives, as
well. There is no communication or discussion with him which is why
he's generally ignored.
He does get to be tiresome after a while. I pretty much ignored him
for quite a while after my first attempt, and I believe I am ready to
take another break from his insanity.
Once in a while I read responses to him and even less often make a
comment.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
15 Oct 2004 12:49:22 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<m8nvm01908u008kkhs3la4hp3vg9ac93jm@4ax.com>...
On 14 Oct 2004 05:51:22 -0700, (Thomas P.) wrote:
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0410132019.7bd91bbc@posting.google.com>...
snio
Well, I have *not* been dishonest, not at all. You can imagine that
you can read my mind and tell that I have been lying to myself if you
want to. But you're wrong. And you have not *been* civil; if you've
been trying to be civil I would suggest you take lessons from Ted and
Jim.
Sorry Keith, but it is my opinion that you have been dishonest. After
all, as you say so often, it is all just a matter of subjective
opinion. Therefore, using your logic, it is established; you are
dishonest.
He's objectively demonstrated his dishonesty myraid times through the
years which have been thoroughly documented and remain in the
archives.
You are of course wrong about that; your use of the Bush tactic of
misrepresenting your opponent is noted.
Solipism, termianl inhumanity, gross ignorance, along with
an inability or unwillingness to learn are rampant in the archives, as
well. There is no communication or discussion with him which is why
he's generally ignored.
You are also wrong about this. You misconstrue my position as
solipsism when it is the opposite, and the *intelligent* folks around
here *do* discuss things with me. I have demonstrated my willingness
to learn, but I have also demonstrated my *unwillingness* to swallow
the nonsensical arguments promoted by the atheists who give themselves
numbers.
keith
Thomas P.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
17 Oct 2004 03:53:09 PM |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2004 10:49:22 -0700, (keith) wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<m8nvm01908u008kkhs3la4hp3vg9ac93jm@4ax.com>...
On 14 Oct 2004 05:51:22 -0700, (Thomas P.) wrote:
(keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0410132019.7bd91bbc@posting.google.com>...
snio
Well, I have *not* been dishonest, not at all. You can imagine that
you can read my mind and tell that I have been lying to myself if you
want to. But you're wrong. And you have not *been* civil; if you've
been trying to be civil I would suggest you take lessons from Ted and
Jim.
Sorry Keith, but it is my opinion that you have been dishonest. After
all, as you say so often, it is all just a matter of subjective
opinion. Therefore, using your logic, it is established; you are
dishonest.
He's objectively demonstrated his dishonesty myraid times through the
years which have been thoroughly documented and remain in the
archives.
You are of course wrong about that; your use of the Bush tactic of
misrepresenting your opponent is noted.
Nah, I leave that stuff to dishonest fucks like you, Keith. My
statement is quite accurate. Sucks for you. Same for the rest of
your droolings.
Solipism, termianl inhumanity, gross ignorance, along with
an inability or unwillingness to learn are rampant in the archives, as
well. There is no communication or discussion with him which is why
he's generally ignored.
You are also wrong about this. You misconstrue my position as
solipsism when it is the opposite, and the *intelligent* folks around
here *do* discuss things with me. I have demonstrated my willingness
to learn, but I have also demonstrated my *unwillingness* to swallow
the nonsensical arguments promoted by the atheists who give themselves
numbers.
keith
Thomas P.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
03 Oct 2004 03:18:02 AM |
|
|
On 2 Oct 2004 17:37:37 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<2iktl0p5a0asra4eois3dnvn1578450e1t@4ax.com>...
On 2 Oct 2004 07:24:26 -0700, (keith) wrote:
snip
You are mistaken. Ehen I was an atheist I had still seen the bible and
I knew that the Bible explicitly claimed God was merciful and just.
When I began to believe in God, I found myself believing those
passages. Thus the idea that God was merciful and just didn't just
creatively pop into my mind.
And you still have given no objective reason for rejecting parts of
the Bible that you do not like.
1. It;s not about what I like or not, it's about what I think is true.
2. I did too give an objective reason for rejectong the parts of the
Bible I think aren't true--they prima facie conflict with God's being
merciful and just.
Chuckle!
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
03 Oct 2004 08:53:05 AM |
|
|
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<c2cvl0t8gfr05tpn9r5f3miv8rrn57h689@4ax.com>...
On 2 Oct 2004 17:37:37 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<2iktl0p5a0asra4eois3dnvn1578450e1t@4ax.com>...
On 2 Oct 2004 07:24:26 -0700, (keith) wrote:
snip
You are mistaken. Ehen I was an atheist I had still seen the bible and
I knew that the Bible explicitly claimed God was merciful and just.
When I began to believe in God, I found myself believing those
passages. Thus the idea that God was merciful and just didn't just
creatively pop into my mind.
And you still have given no objective reason for rejecting parts of
the Bible that you do not like.
1. It;s not about what I like or not, it's about what I think is true.
2. I did too give an objective reason for rejectong the parts of the
Bible I think aren't true--they prima facie conflict with God's being
merciful and just.
Chuckle!
Nice respomse.
keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
03 Oct 2004 02:18:19 PM |
|
|
On 3 Oct 2004 06:53:05 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<c2cvl0t8gfr05tpn9r5f3miv8rrn57h689@4ax.com>...
On 2 Oct 2004 17:37:37 -0700, (keith) wrote:
snip
And you still have given no objective reason for rejecting parts of
the Bible that you do not like.
1. It;s not about what I like or not, it's about what I think is true.
2. I did too give an objective reason for rejectong the parts of the
Bible I think aren't true--they prima facie conflict with God's being
merciful and just.
Chuckle!
Nice respomse.
It was sincere. There is not much more to say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArWeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
03 Oct 2004 03:45:26 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:kdh0m0tjs0uis21giigunbdk8dcsp4hip0@4ax.com...
On 3 Oct 2004 06:53:05 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<c2cvl0t8gfr05tpn9r5f3miv8rrn57h689@4ax.com>...
On 2 Oct 2004 17:37:37 -0700, (keith) wrote:
snip
And you still have given no objective reason for rejecting parts
of
the Bible that you do not like.
1. It;s not about what I like or not, it's about what I think is
true.
But the entire thing is supposed to be God's word. Why do you get to
reject part of it? Are you better than 2000 years of Biblical scholars?
Are YOU better than your God?
2. I did too give an objective reason for rejectong the parts of
the
Bible I think aren't true--they prima facie conflict with God's
being
merciful and just.
Chuckle!
It was sincere. There is not much more to say.
Are you always this wrong?
--
ArWeInsane
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
04 Oct 2004 08:11:26 AM |
|
|
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<FxZ7d.23717$QJ3.21473@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
"thomas p" <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:kdh0m0tjs0uis21giigunbdk8dcsp4hip0@4ax.com...
On 3 Oct 2004 06:53:05 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<c2cvl0t8gfr05tpn9r5f3miv8rrn57h689@4ax.com>...
On 2 Oct 2004 17:37:37 -0700, (keith) wrote:
snip
And you still have given no objective reason for rejecting parts
of
the Bible that you do not like.
1. It;s not about what I like or not, it's about what I think is
true.
But the entire thing is supposed to be God's word. Why do you get to
reject part of it? Are you better than 2000 years of Biblical scholars?
Are YOU better than your God?
Better than God? Obviously not. But I don't believe the bible is the
inerrant word of God.
Better than 2000 years of bibliocal scholars? There is no scholarship
that can determine that God is the author of every word of the Bible.
There have been many scholars who agree with me about inerrancy, but
that doesn't really matter. Inerrancy is not a scholarly conclusion,
it is a religious belief. I don't share that particular belief.
2. I did too give an objective reason for rejectong the parts of
the
Bible I think aren't true--they prima facie conflict with God's
being
merciful and just.
Chuckle!
It was sincere. There is not much more to say.
Are you always this wrong?
Who are you talking too here?
Keith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
