God does not love you...

[Epimethean]

What I know, my delusional friend, is that you have no more knowledge of such a creature than I do, save by means of your fervent imagination's insistence. We have read the same scriptures, and I attended the churches for long enough to realize that the foul taste superseded and outlasted the crappy flatbread.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Sing everyone! (in the melody of Barney the purple dinosaur's "I love you" song)

God hates you
You hate God
We're just one sorry lot of beings
If you're not one of the elect
You can just burn and rot in hell
Unless you're lucky and God choose you!

[genkaus]

Are you being Obstainate or ignorant? One I can help you over come the other I can not.

Neither. I'm just pointing out the corrupt nature of your god as evidenced by his purported actions.

[Drich]

What I know, my delusional friend, is that you have no more knowledge of such a creature than I do, save by means of your fervent imagination's insistence. We have read the same scriptures, and I attended the churches for long enough to realize that the foul taste superseded and outlasted the crappy flatbread.

At least in attempt 5 you have taken the time to rethink your general dismissal. However a bad Sunday school understanding of God, is not the same as an indepht exegesis of scripture.

Maybe for attempt number six you can just stick with "I just do not want to believe because I want to do this: _________, rather than give myself to God." (If you are honest with yourself and me their is nothing more for me to say.)

[Welsh cake]

If he loved his son he wouldn't have allowed him to be nailed to a fucking cross.

Again the Love being expressed by God is not what you seem to understand love to be.

He allowed his beloved son to be nailed to a fucking cross.

His son was without fault or error, already was the recipient of this "boundless love" you speak of, and yet god still allowed him to be put to open shame, and suffer a slow agonising death by being crucified.

All this all-powerful deity had to do was just *forgive everyone*, its not particularly hard and doesn't require sacrifice, like so "I forgive you mankind, let's move on". See? Easy.

Your god is an ass.

If we don't accept the disturbing offer of sacrificing an innocent for our "crimes" then his wrath falls upon us? Really?

Yes it does. Maybe you should have asked why instead.

There is only the void of oblivion after death. You yourself, with your own theology believe the wages of sin are death. There's no wrath in the eternal state of nothingness.

[Reforged]

Your life here is to prepare you for an eternal life later. Hardship forces you to grow spiritually. The more you grow now the greater responsiablity/experience you will have later.

So wait, we'll have to accept more of the same unjust punishment when we die regardless of our actions?
How is that heaven any different from hell then? Sounds like they should rename "Heaven" as "Really?", "Hell" as "Well, this is unpleasent." and if you're *really* bad they can make a new place called "Oh come on now, this is alittle bit extreme".

[Epimethean]

What I know, my delusional friend, is that you have no more knowledge of such a creature than I do, save by means of your fervent imagination's insistence. We have read the same scriptures, and I attended the churches for long enough to realize that the foul taste superseded and outlasted the crappy flatbread.

At least in attempt 5 you have taken the time to rethink your general dismissal. However a bad Sunday school understanding of God, is not the same as an indepht exegesis of scripture.

Maybe for attempt number six you can just stick with "I just do not want to believe because I want to do this: _________, rather than give myself to God." (If you are honest with yourself and me their is nothing more for me to say.)

How cute of you to try to assess knowledge. I do love it when the "true" believers suggest they understand scripture better than the academics. Oh, and on your suggestion about giving oneself to a god: You would have to be a theistic idiot to think that.


Pats you on the head and gives you an unleavened cookie and some goatmilk.

[el_presidente]

"He doesn't love you in the traditional sense of the word." I'll say. Creating a universe with child rape isn't very loving or even responsible.

But it's all for a purpose of course. Let's look at the Greek translation some more and ignore the larger points. Carry on! It's good work you're doing.

[Drich]

Are you being Obstainate or ignorant? One I can help you over come the other I can not.

Neither. I'm just pointing out the corrupt nature of your god as evidenced by his purported actions.

Unless your intention is to argue a straw man then may I suggest that you go back and reread what has be "purported."

---

His son was without fault or error, already was the recipient of this "boundless love" you speak of, and yet god still allowed him to be put to open shame, and suffer a slow agonizing death by being crucified.

It should be obvious to you that Christ was not the recipient but the giver of this "boundless love."

All this all-powerful deity had to do was just *forgive everyone*, its not particularly hard and doesn't require sacrifice, like so "I forgive you mankind, let's move on". See? Easy.

He did.

---

Your life here is to prepare you for an eternal life later. Hardship forces you to grow spiritually. The more you grow now the greater responsiablity/experience you will have later.

So wait, we'll have to accept more of the same unjust punishment when we die regardless of our actions?
How is that heaven any different from hell then? Sounds like they should rename "Heaven" as "Really?", "Hell" as "Well, this is unpleasent." and if you're *really* bad they can make a new place called "Oh come on now, this is alittle bit extreme".

How did you derive any of what you said from the quoted section of my post?

---

How cute of you to try to assess knowledge. I do love it when the "true" believers suggest they understand scripture better than the academics.

An "academic" who came into this discussion not knowing what a lexicon and/or a concordance was. Who first 3 attempts to dismiss this whole premise was based on the fact he did not know Koine Greek was a dead dialect.

It seems you have mislead yourself in your "academic" abilities, because you are not fooling anyone else.

---

[quote='el_presidente' pid='282198' dateline='1336397601']
"He doesn't love you in the traditional sense of the word." I'll say. Creating a universe with child rape isn't very loving or even responsible.

But it's all for a purpose of course. Let's look at the Greek translation some more and ignore the larger points. Carry on! It's good work you're doing.

what larger points?

[Shell B]

Then why argue the nature of his love?

It seems to me if you can attest to the love of God, you most certainly believe you know something of God.

No, I do not attest to the love of god. I am contesting your biased interpretations of your own holy book. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is a good reference, one apparently you did not read in it's entirety.
For it does not support your position.

Actually it does. My position is merely that you are wrong in your assessment. As this source does not support your assessment, it upholds my position. You are redefining words to suit your needs.

No, this would be considered a commentary. Do you not understand the contrast between the authority of reference material, and the conjecture found in personal or even an official commentary?

Pity that you don't understand that literally everything you read is commentary. Whether it is based on facts or not is the crux of it.

again no. This is not reference material. It is just a definition that does not support your assertion.

A definition is reference material. Of course, given that you don't bother with them, I completely understand that you were not aware of it. Now, it does support my "assertion," which is that you are full of shit.

Do you not find it amusing a four year old's argument has the ability to deconstruct and dismiss all of your perfectly spelled out and grammatically correct responses?

I would find that amusing, if it were true. It isn't.

I have always found that when people like you run out of relevant material to argue, the conversation appeals to their education as an attempt to accomplish what their well worded but poorly supported argument could not.

I did not mention your education. I mentioned your competency. I would be remiss if I used education as a crutch, given that you have almost certainly obtained more of a formal education than I have.

As if somehow the legitimacy of the argument is tied to how you spell.

Oh, neglecting to read what I wrote? I was not questioning the legitimacy of your argument based on your ability to spell. My complaint was that you are elevating yourself enough that you feel comfortable looking upon those who argue with you with derision whilst hacking at your keyboard like a chimp on crack. That has nothing to do with your argument. It has everything to do with your undeserved attitude.

I have also found this to be true: Those who can do, Those who can't teach. Those who can't teach grade posts, rather than address the topic being discussed.

I did address the topic being discussed. I don't see how you could have missed it, as you responded to it.

Really, I have never understood why some people can't seem to follow what just fucking happened.