(November 12, 2013 at 10:51 am)Cinjin Wrote: All evidence points to the contrary. You asked for me to quote you. I did. Now shut the fuck up. No one cares to hear you back-peddling through your own contradictions.

You quoted something that did not support your point at all, and I've spent a number of posts explicitly arguing that a desire does not indicate a need.

You screwed up, and you're not man enough to admit it, or at least drop it.

Quote:Spending time and money is NOT the SAME FUCKING THING as willfully allowing people to suffer so that I can then derive pleasure from it ... and that's EXACTLY WHAT YOU FUCKING WROTE YOUR GOD DOES!!!

No it isn't. I noted that god does not derive pleasure from the suffering, he derives pleasure from the obedience or faithfulness. I supported this by noting that Job did indeed suffer, yet at the end, God was not pleased.

Quote:I'm fucking sick of your god damn shit. We all are.

OK, if you're all sick of me, I'll go away. Bye-bye.

If I had known it was that easy I would've lost my temper with him a long time ago.

.... I gotta go find Drich.

If it's that easy, I have a new course of action to take on the in-laws.

(John... ...really, dude?)

He still looks like the asshole because he never owned up to his own bullshit. And playing the martyr wins no brownie points around here.

I got angry because he constantly contradicts himself and then simply uses some "rephrasing" to "clarify" what he meant.


You're all very welcome.



Here's to hoping he keeps his word.

(November 12, 2013 at 9:36 am)John V Wrote: No, the donut would have sated a desire for something sweet. I didn't substitute another sweet item, I just did without.

You have not come close to addressing my contention, you've just restated your original position, as if that carries any weight.

(November 12, 2013 at 9:58 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You have not come close to addressing my contention, you've just restated your original position, as if that carries any weight.

Does he EVER address it?

Please. The man is not here to address anything. He's here to perfect a cyclical march through conversations.

well shit Cinjin. If we don't have a disagreed among the bunch, what will we therefore talk about now? The reason I come into convos like this is for a better understanding of why someone would or could support the idea of a just god. Granted I still don't understand but that's part of it. Figuring what goes on in an individuals head when they have a total opposite viewpoint than yours, and whether common ground can be found is why I enjoy this forum.

---

(November 13, 2013 at 12:15 am)Cinjin Wrote:

(November 12, 2013 at 9:58 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You have not come close to addressing my contention, you've just restated your original position, as if that carries any weight.

Does he EVER address it?

Please. The man is not here to address anything. He's here to perfect a cyclical march through conversations.

What if..... he's actually here trying to address stuff?

---

JohnV Wrote:Just avoiding hypocrisy.

In Job, God derives pleasure and glory from Job's obedience. He allows Job to suffer, as obedience through suffering is greater than obedience with reward, and so would bring God greater pleasure.

I don't judge god for doing this because I do the same thing. So do you, and probably everyone on here. We place our own pleasure and glory above the suffering of others all the time. The difference between me and you is that I admit it, but you'll attempt to rationalize it.

I read this and addressed this. oh and the donut thing

So firstly I never got a reply about my post stating that there's always a need of some kind for a donut. Counter argument? Maybe with scientific evidence that we want things without fulfilling a need in the want or fulfillment of the want?
Next, do you believe god did or did not know the outcome of Jobs test beforehand?
Doesnt the Bible quote the events Job endures are enacted by god?

(November 12, 2013 at 8:07 pm)Cinjin Wrote: I got angry because he constantly contradicts himself and then simply uses some "rephrasing" to "clarify" what he meant.

Here's to hoping he keeps his word.

Attempting to rationalize your loss of self-control??? (Irony much?)

Let loose an angry emotional response at John V (rather than an intellectual response) and there's an upside???

...yay, we got rid of him...that's how ya get things done around here!!!...big round of applause...bet we showed him a thing or two about how much more rational we are than those @&!#%!! Christians

The really surprising thing I see a LOT at atheist fora is the;
...we all think this... we all agree that... everyone here says... we can all bid a troll....

If I were an independent, free-thought community skeptic/atheist, I would hate like hell to have someone appointing themself
as spokesperson on my behalf - especially if they lacked the ability to have a civil conversation using reason and logic
instead of invective and abusive Ad Homs.

Wanna loosen your deathgrip on the persecution card, Lion? I'm sure there are actual minorities that would like to use it, if you're done with it?