20 Jan 11
Originally posted by Agergno he does not accept the actions of the God of the Bible, that is something entirely different and unconnected with my interpretation, sooo Agers, you are way out on this one, see what happens when you hang out with those who oppose Gods morality, bad associations spoil useful habits!
He doesn't accept your false Bible and false interpretation of his...this doesn't give you grounds to put his God on trial.
Do you think yourself better than God!?
20 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethat's pure bumf, it merely attempts to mask the scenario in terms of objectivity and subjectivity and FAILS because it makes no account of the practice for either [you] are subjecting the God of Scripture, that is the personality revealed to [Zahlanzi] in scripture to [your] own standards of morality, or they are not.
no he does not accept the actions of the God of the Bible, that is something entirely different and unconnected with my interpretation, sooo Agers, you are way out on this one, see what happens when you hang out with those who oppose Gods morality, bad associations spoil useful habits!
----------
For the purposes of this argument, God has revealed itself Zahlanzi and assured him the Bible, as a work of primitive man, trying to approximate His nature (shackled by the chains of their own backward morality) with their own words, need not be taken as 100% infallible. Assured him that He is good, and that your false god is bad!
Again, do you put yourself on the same level as God!?? 😕
:]
20 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNow you went totally off topic. Does that mean that you agree with me about the bastardness of your god? That the flood never was there, that it just was a myth, a legend? Good for you. You've learnt something.
weak , whimpy and watered down, yes lets water down the scriptures, pansies!
Christ says of Gods word, 'your word is truth', and i believe that Christ did not utter a single lie! perhaps you can point out where Christ uttered a lie? No so its either your word, or the word of Jesus, mmmm, Fabian or Jesus, difficult that one!
and i notice tha ...[text shortened]... commenting on the Biblical text, until you do so, you can have no recourse to serious debate!
20 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergGod has not revealed himself to Zhalanzi, its his own vision that he is portraying ! a fairy cake sugar coated bubble gum munching God that he bought at the spiritual convenience store!
that's pure bumf, it merely attempts to mask the scenario in terms of objectivity and subjectivity and FAILS because it makes no account of the practice for either [you] are subjecting the God of Scripture, that is the personality revealed to [Zahlanzi] in scripture to [your] own standards of morality, or they are not.
----------
For the purposes of ...[text shortened]... that your false god is bad!
Again, do you put yourself on the same level as God!?? 😕
:]
20 Jan 11
Originally posted by FabianFnasChrist or Fabians words, Christ or Fabians . . . . mmm
Now you went totally off topic. Does that mean that you agree with me about the bastardness of your god? That the flood never was there, that it just was a myth, a legend? Good for you. You've learnt something.
20 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI take it you can prove that...if not then you will of course retract your statement here as it is a groundless, baseless projection of your own bias and desire to impose on us all your own backward sense of what is right and proper. You would seek to juxtapose your own morality with God!!!
God has not revealed himself to Zhalanzi, its his own vision that he is portraying ! a fairy cake sugar coated bubble gum munching God that he bought at the spiritual convenience store!
This is something similar to what you would say isn't it? (though with words like "bumf" and whatever thrown in for good measure) :]
20 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou can read my words, can't you? The words of Jesus is not more than hearsay, written down decennia after the death of him. Do you rather believe in a mythical figure, well - it's your religion.
Christ or Fabians words, Christ or Fabians . . . . mmm
Jesus - son of a bastard...
20 Jan 11
Originally posted by Agergyou need only read his text for it to become self evident that he ascribes all the good parts to god and rejects all the bad parts! I seek nothing, for i am not trying to establish my own originality, merely to uphold that which has already been written.
I take it you can prove that...if not then you will of course retract your statement here as it is a groundless, baseless projection of your own bias and desire to impose on us all your own backward sense of what is right and proper. You would seek to juxtapose your own morality with God!!!
This is something similar to what you would say isn't it? (though with words like "bumf" and whatever thrown in for good measure) :]
20 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat you posted here is no proof that
you need only read his text for it to become self evident that he ascribes all the good parts to god and rejects all the bad parts! I seek nothing, for i am not trying to establish my own originality, merely to uphold that which has already been written.
God has revealed itself to Zahlanzi and assured him the Bible, as a work of primitive man, trying to approximate His nature (shackled by the chains of their own backward morality) with their own words, need not be taken as 100% infallible. Assured him that He is good, and that your false god is bad!
is false! Perhaps you should fetch your naked emporer a hot water bottle...he must be feeling pretty cold at the moment! :]
20 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiea, so you admit there are bad parts?
you need only read his text for it to become self evident that he ascribes all the good parts to god and rejects all the bad parts! I seek nothing, for i am not trying to establish my own originality, merely to uphold that which has already been written.
20 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergZhalanzi is condemned by his own words, he has created his own convenience store sugar coated God, that is self evident and no amount of metaphorical posturing can negate that reality. Let it stand as a warning to all those who would supersede the majesty of the Most High!
What you posted here is no proof that
God has revealed itself to Zahlanzi and assured him the Bible, as a work of primitive man, trying to approximate His nature (shackled by the chains of their own backward morality) with their own words, need not be taken as 100% infallible. Assured him that He is good, and that your false god is bad!
is false! ...[text shortened]... d fetch your naked emporer a hot water bottle...he must be feeling pretty cold at the moment! :]
20 Jan 11
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo he isn't, at least not for the purposes of this argument: on the left we have God_{Robbie Carrobie} and on the right we have God_{Zahlanzi}
Zhalanzi is condemned by his own words, he has created his own convenience store sugar coated God, that is self evident and no amount of metaphorical posturing can negate that reality. Let it stand as a warning to all those who would supersede the majesty of the Most High!
You frequently say that anyone who challenges God_{Robbie Carrobie} is placing themselves on a higher moral pedestal than "God" yet fail to acknowledge that when you challenge God_{Zahlanzi} the claim can be made you are putting yourself on a higher moral pedestal than "God".
You both have differing interpretations of the Bible; Zahlanzi sees it as an ancient text, representative of some true "God" but not penned by this entity and so prone to the errors and bias of ancient people that did write it. Whilst you on the other hand see the Bible as being something that was transcribed verbatim from the word of "God".
It remains for you to show why Zahlanzi's formulation of "God" is worse than yours with an argument that is independent of your own bias. [1]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1) I.e. don't just assume "God" should have the properties you hold to be true to deduce your formulation of God, that has these properties, must be true! 😵
20 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Agergoh Agers, great learning is also driving you mad! Zhalansis action of superseding the morality of God is completely independent of any interpretation that i may hold, thus your attempt to make it a my god (my interpretation), verses your interpretation (Zhalanzis God) becomes null and void. Why? Simply because my evaluation is not based on my interpretation, but Zhalanis dismissal of, or rather claims that, the scriptures contain lies. Now either God did destroy Jericho or he did not, whereas the Bible says that he did. It therefore becomes, not a comparison of ideals as you have erroneously attempted to assert, but simply of superseding the actuality of events, with a denial that any such event occurred, simply because the severity of that event is hard to understand from a human perspective. Now whether an event occurred or not is not an interpretation, it is simply a statement of fact. Zhalanzi by his assertion that it did not happen, is superseding the morality of God, as revealed in scripture, independent of my interpretation, for he would deny it regardless of what i proffer making any comparison and attempt by you to formulate a my God verses your God scenario, untenable!
No he isn't, at least not for the purposes of this argument: on the left we have God_{Robbie Carrobie} and on the right we have God_{Zahlanzi}
You frequently say that anyone who challenges God_{Robbie Carrobie} is placing themselves on a higher moral pedestal than "God" yet fail to acknowledge that when you challenge God_{Zahlanzi} the claim can be made you a ue to deduce your formulation of God, that has these properties, must be true! 😵
I therefore have the unpleasant duty of telling you, that well, its all to no avail in this instance, Robbie is scot free and crowing upon the thread as a cockerel does upon a fence post in the morning sun!
20 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGod must really like me for my critical words about him. He hasn't punished me yet. He never will. And you know why.
Zhalanzi is condemned by his own words, he has created his own convenience store sugar coated God, that is self evident and no amount of metaphorical posturing can negate that reality. Let it stand as a warning to all those who would supersede the majesty of the Most High!