24 Mar 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThis sounds like more of the standard Bizarro-world philosophy of evangelical Christians. In it, gentlemen endorse torture of lost souls, coercion does not include threats like "do this or you'll go to hell!", free will applies to decisions made under duress, and the gift is merely the right not to be harmed by the giver.
God is a gentleman. He always respects the excercise of your free will and wiould never coerce it. He has revealed
Himself to mankind (in the design and function of the natural world, The First Advent of Christ and in The Word
of Truth) and is offering you a free gift. You have a perfect right to ignore and/or reject it. Choice is up to you.
Add 5 more words to the Bizarro collection.
24 Mar 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHe appeared to mankind? That's not quite consensual, is it? I don't think he did.
God is a gentleman. He always respects the excercise of your free will and wiould never coerce it. He has revealed
Himself to mankind (in the design and function of the natural world, The First Advent of Christ and in The Word
of Truth) and is offering you a free gift. You have a perfect right to ignore and/or reject it. Choice is up to you.
A free gift? Does it involve losing by ability to use good sense and stop thinking logically? Then no, thanks.
24 Mar 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThat would have to qualify as the most twisted, sadistic, criminally insane offer of a free gift ever foisted upon mankind. Put me down as rejecting that offer, and please tell your God I thank Him for not existing.
God is a gentleman. He always respects the excercise of your free will and wiould never coerce it. He has revealed
Himself to mankind (in the design and function of the natural world, The First Advent of Christ and in The Word
of Truth) and is offering you a free gift. You have a perfect right to ignore and/or reject it. Choice is up to you.
24 Mar 08
Originally posted by SwissGambittrue.
This sounds like more of the standard Bizarro-world philosophy of evangelical Christians. In it, gentlemen endorse torture of lost souls, coercion does not include threats like "do this or you'll go to hell!", free will applies to decisions made under duress, and the gift is merely the right not to be harmed by the giver.
Add 5 more words to the Bizarro collection.
24 Mar 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby"God is a gentleman. He always respects the excercise of your free will and wiould never coerce it."
God is a gentleman. He always respects the excercise of your free will and wiould never coerce it. He has revealed
Himself to mankind (in the design and function of the natural world, The First Advent of Christ and in The Word
of Truth) and is offering you a free gift. You have a perfect right to ignore and/or reject it. Choice is up to you.
While I am making an assumption here with regards to your use of the word "your" being equally applicable to all humans at all points in time and place, I have to ask, does that include the time when he (the god you refer to) coerced the pharaoh in exodus and hardened his heart so that he would not let Moses' people go? (Ex. 9:12 - Ex. 10:1,20,27 - Ex. 11:10 - Ex. 14:4,8,17)
You know, so that he could get a few more plagues in for good measure?
Or is this yet another case of things being taken out of context?! 🙄
24 Mar 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe best analogy I heard for this view of god is as a mafia boss.
This sounds like more of the standard Bizarro-world philosophy of evangelical Christians. In it, gentlemen endorse torture of lost souls, coercion does not include threats like "do this or you'll go to hell!", free will applies to decisions made under duress, and the gift is merely the right not to be harmed by the giver.
Add 5 more words to the Bizarro collection.
"Hey, you know I'm a good guy, I wouldn't hurt ya. But if you don't help me out here, you're not really giving me any choice but to take your thumbs. Can't you see what a bind you're putting me in here? Look, it's up to you whether you help me help you... it's all up to you, it's a free country, ain't it?"
This is generally followed by a jovial laugh and a friendly though creepy pat on the back as he surreptitiously slips a hand into his overcoat pocket with one eybrow raised imploringly. Why do you think Sicilians are so religious?!
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
24 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonPerhaps God killed the Egyptians gently.
[b]"God is a gentleman. He always respects the excercise of your free will and wiould never coerce it."
While I am making an assumption here with regards to your use of the word "your" being equally applicable to all humans at all points in time and place, I have to ask, does that include the time when he (the god you refer to) coerced the pharaoh in for good measure?
Or is this yet another case of things being taken out of context?! 🙄[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Mar 08
Originally posted by agrysonI always thought that the angel of death passing over the houses was alike to genocidal euthanasia. The story did not seem violent, but gentle.
lol
You wanna bet?!
Admittedly, the Book of Exodus is not a flattering portrayal of the moral virtues of God. I have a lot of sympathy for all those lambs slaughtered. Clearly God was never an animal activist. Not very gentleman-like at all.
25 Mar 08
Originally posted by Conrau KIf you are going to be the grammar and word police, you ought to be knowledgeable about
He is the subjective pronoun: He stole my eggs.
Him is the objective pronoun: It was him who stole my eggs.
As the pronoun is in the objective state, the correct expression is therefore "You are not Him." You are correct, however, that the verb is uninflected.
EDIT: You could say, "He is not you." But then the verb is inflected.
grammar and words.
Nemesio
25 Mar 08
Originally posted by Conrau KFunny, I didn't know it was god killed all those lambs and people, I would have sworn it was people. It always seems to boil down to people killing people and rationalizing it all away in the name of some god or other. Why do you suppose it is this god would allow such deadly opposed religions to spring up around the world? It couldn't be because this 'Gentleman' god of yours just doesn't exist or if it does, it never comes to this part of the universe, having real fish to fry elsewhere?
I always thought that the angel of death passing over the houses was alike to genocidal euthanasia. The story did not seem violent, but gentle.
Admittedly, the Book of Exodus is not a flattering portrayal of the moral virtues of God. I have a lot of sympathy for all those lambs slaughtered. Clearly God was never an animal activist. Not very gentleman-like at all.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI have no intention of being the grammar-police. Muppyman made a statement that I believed false, and thus I challenged - as I (and you) would on any issue (whether grammatical, spiritual, or political.) He gave a lucid refutation of my challenge, and consequently, I politely conceded that I was wrong. If I had not commented, I would not have learnt something but have privately persisted in syntactical error. By questioning his statement, I learnt something.
If you are going to be the grammar and word police, you ought to be knowledgeable about
grammar and words.
Nemesio
That is how people should argue.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Mar 08
Originally posted by sonhousePossibly by "gentleman" Grampy Bobby meant in the narrow sense of "English Gentleman" - that imperial stereotype of old-style elitists who hunt foxes and condescendingly call other cultures primitive and savage.
Funny, I didn't know it was god killed all those lambs and people, I would have sworn it was people. It always seems to boil down to people killing people and rationalizing it all away in the name of some god or other. Why do you suppose it is this god would allow such deadly opposed religions to spring up around the world? It couldn't be because this 'Gent ...[text shortened]... if it does, it never comes to this part of the universe, having real fish to fry elsewhere?
If so, it makes sense that God would stuff the world up.
25 Mar 08
1 edit
PASCAL"S WAGER
Blaise Pascal entertained all of these same preliminary questions,
logical contradictions and obstacles as well. Perhaps you're already
familiar with the classic conclusion of his life long search for absolute
truth, referred to by scholars for centuries as "Pascal's Wager"...
#1. If I believe in God as revealed in the person of Christ and it turns
out to be a cruel hoax and there is no god... I have nothing to lose.
#2. If I believe in Christ and His claims are true and His spiritual death
actually provided the option of salvation, I have everything to gain.
Bottom line: Life on earth is a fleeting vapor trail. Your body is only
a mortal tent to live in temporarily. Your soul is the real you and is
immortal. Yes, you will live at one of two addresses for all eternity.
Choice is up to you.
25 Mar 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyUhm the bottom line of Pascals wager was actually that sicne you've nothing to lose by worshipping god, but everything to gain, then you may as well worship.
PASCAL"S WAGER
Blaise Pascal entertained all of these same preliminary questions,
logical contradictions and obstacles as well. Perhaps you're already
familiar with the classic conclusion of his life long search for absolute
truth, referred to by scholars for centuries as "Pascal's Wager"...
#1. If I believe in God as revealed i ...[text shortened]... tal. Yes, you will live at one of two addresses for all eternity.
Choice is up to you.
You're reinterpretation has no linnk whatsoever with the original argument and doesn't even make sense within the context of the argument. You simply started Pascals wager, then halfway through jumped to an article of your personal faith!
In any case, Pascals wager has long been discredited (he never mentioned Jesus, just a general god like thingy) due to its unworkability. The eternity of paradise assumes that its only requirement is belief, yet the crux of the argument is that if you don't believe, you should LIE and this god thing might not realise.
As for the "Choice is up to you", you did read my mafia analogy, didn't you? Just up there, near the top of this page...