• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Define God

Where do you see conditions or exclusions within that definition of love?

I'll say it again. Context. There are four words in that Bible that mean love. What does it mean that God is love? Which love? Love to who? Why isn't God love, because God isn't 1 Corinthians chapter 13. The Bible says God exists? Does he? The Bible says God is love? Is he? The Bible says a snake talked, did it? The Bible says that the witch of Endor summoned the "spirit" of Samuel, the Bible says Samuel had died, that God and Sameul refused to talk to Saul prior to that, that summoning a spirit medium was a capital offence and that when we die, we aren't conscious of anything, we're worm food? But the Bible says it. Right there!

Uninformed Christians aren't the only ones misrepresenting the Bible in ignorance.
There are well more than four words for love in "the Bible", but doesn't surprise me that you are forgetting the Hebrews and their language in your diatribe. Who remembers Jacob anymore, he's old hat! Why bother to so much as remember the words G-d once used to describe His love for him?
 
What makes you think he once had a love for blood?
Because, of course, he said that he did. Over and over. They were the security for the first covenant, the one you dismiss as the old testament and thus non-binding on you. Indeed, the very first betrayal among men was the murder of Abel -- over God's favoritism for his blood offering over Cain's vegerables. God hates broccoli, but he loves flesh.
 
Last edited:
Okay. Why do you think the atheists created such a God?
The Romans did call the early Christians "atheists", bit that was more in reference to their lack of piety toward the gods in general, they were not atheists in the modern sense. Christians have always been monolatrous or monotheistic as we use those terms now, worshipping a god they usually refuse to name directly but called "THE God" in imitation of the Platonists/Philo.
 
You tell us. You are the believer. You know what the 'words of god' in the bible mean. Don't you?

Yes, I do. But why should I tell you? You don't care. You just can't stand it that people are allowed to believe what you say isn't real anyway? Wah! God isn't love. God doesn't love people who fuck goats in the ass or kill babies when they fuck the humans they want to fuck! Trump is Satan! He's trying to ruin democracy? Democracy, love and God is what I say they are. Boo-hoo.
But god does require humans to bend over and take it on command....

My first impression of you stands, a fundamentally unhappy person. Without people like is to contented with you would have nothing but words in an old book.

You have no answer for the question I asked, so you respond with random nonsense. Very Trump like.

Despite his money and fame Trump also is fundamentally unhappy. He takes it out on others.

At its best religion is about peace of mind in a chaotic world.
 
More Trump like irrelevant to the discussion random pivots.
 
There are well more than four words for love in "the Bible", but doesn't surprise me that you are forgetting the Hebrews and their language in your diatribe. Who remembers Jacob anymore, he's old hat! Why bother to so much as remember the words G-d once used to describe His love for him?

G-d? I don't get the atheist mentality.
 
There are well more than four words for love in "the Bible", but doesn't surprise me that you are forgetting the Hebrews and their language in your diatribe. Who remembers Jacob anymore, he's old hat! Why bother to so much as remember the words G-d once used to describe His love for him?

G-d? I don't get the atheist mentality.
I'm not an atheist, nor is the tradition of exempting the middle vowel from G-d's title an atheist custom, but rather a Jewish one. The faith and the people whose history you owe your foundational philosophy and mythology to, but keep pointedly forgetting the existence of. For someone who presents themselves as a Socratic pedagogue come to school us all in matters of faith and critical thinking, you seem remarkably unfamiliar with the scope and chronology of the Abrahamic faiths. Don't they teach these things in school anymore?
 
I'm not an atheist, nor is the tradition of exempting the middle vowel from G-d's title an atheist custom, but rather a Jewish one. The faith and the people whose history you owe your foundational philosophy and mythology to, but keep pointedly forgetting the existence of. For someone who presents themselves as a Socratic pedagogue come to school us all in matters of faith and critical thinking, you seem remarkably unfamiliar with the scope and chronology of the Abrahamic faiths. Don't they teach these things in school anymore?

I've probably said a dozen times or more that I have little interest or knowledge in religion and the associated nonsense, that atheists probably know more about that than I do. Of course, I can't expect you to have read everything I've written here. I sure can't.
 
I'm not an atheist, nor is the tradition of exempting the middle vowel from G-d's title an atheist custom, but rather a Jewish one. The faith and the people whose history you owe your foundational philosophy and mythology to, but keep pointedly forgetting the existence of. For someone who presents themselves as a Socratic pedagogue come to school us all in matters of faith and critical thinking, you seem remarkably unfamiliar with the scope and chronology of the Abrahamic faiths. Don't they teach these things in school anymore?

I've probably said a dozen times or more that I have little interest or knowledge in religion and the associated nonsense, that atheists probably know more about that than I do. Of course, I can't expect you to have read everything I've written here. I sure can't.
I have noticed that claim of yours, yes. But also that you are spouting a bunch of reigious nonsense. I'm not offended by religion, but I am offended by ill-considered or ignorant religion, so your pride in not knowing very much about Jewish and Christian history and culture is neither surprising nor admirable from my perspective. Not knowing the history of where your beliefs come from is not the same thing as having beliefs without a history.
 
I am thinking this may be a kind of diminished capacity for lack of a better term.

It's used to argue that a defendant, while not necessarily insane, lacked the capacity to fully comprehend the nature of their actions...

DLH repeatably says hr rejects religious nonsense, yet is a bible believer. The 2nd coming of Jesus. Apocalyptic end tines prophesy.

Or
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state of discomfort that occurs when a person has conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. It can also happen when a person's actions don't match their beliefs.


Types of cognitive dissonance:
Belief disconfirmation:
When new information contradicts an existing belief
Induced compliance:
When an outside force compels someone to act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs
Hypocrisy:
When someone chooses to promote a behavior they don't practice themselves


Effects of cognitive dissonance
Cognitive dissonance can lead to misperception or misinterpretation of information. It can also cause physical tension and stress.

Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's behavior and beliefs do not complement each other or when they hold two contradictory beliefs. It causes a feeling of discomfort that can motivate people to try to feel better. People may do this via defense mechanisms, such as avoidance.

Contradictory beliefs.. Religious ideology is nonsense and I reject it, but I believe in the Jewish god and promote a bible based egregious ideology.
 
I have noticed that claim of yours, yes. But also that you are spouting a bunch of reigious nonsense. I'm not offended by religion, but I am offended by ill-considered or ignorant religion, so your pride in not knowing very much about Jewish and Christian history and culture is neither surprising nor admirable from my perspective. Not knowing the history of where your beliefs come from is not the same thing as having beliefs without a history.

I've heard that sort of thing from hypocritical overeducated ignoramuses before. Jewish and Christian history is pretty much Alexander and Constantine the great's influence over other overeducated ignoramuses of their own time. Keep digging through the privies of the past and you come up with shit.
 
I am thinking this may be a kind of diminished capacity for lack of a better term.

It's used to argue that a defendant, while not necessarily insane, lacked the capacity to fully comprehend the nature of their actions...

DLH repeatably says hr rejects religious nonsense, yet is a bible believer. The 2nd coming of Jesus. Apocalyptic end tines prophesy.

Or
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state of discomfort that occurs when a person has conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. It can also happen when a person's actions don't match their beliefs.


Types of cognitive dissonance:
Belief disconfirmation:
When new information contradicts an existing belief
Induced compliance:
When an outside force compels someone to act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs
Hypocrisy:
When someone chooses to promote a behavior they don't practice themselves


Effects of cognitive dissonance
Cognitive dissonance can lead to misperception or misinterpretation of information. It can also cause physical tension and stress.

Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's behavior and beliefs do not complement each other or when they hold two contradictory beliefs. It causes a feeling of discomfort that can motivate people to try to feel better. People may do this via defense mechanisms, such as avoidance.

Contradictory beliefs.. Religious ideology is nonsense and I reject it, but I believe in the Jewish god and promote a bible based egregious ideology.

Oh, come on for fuck's sake you've had enough time to come up with something better than that.
 
Because, of course, he said that he did. Over and over. They were the security for the first covenant, the one you dismiss as the old testament and thus non-binding on you. Indeed, the very first betrayal among men was the murder of Abel -- over God's favoritism for his blood offering over Cain's vegerables. God hates broccoli, but he loves flesh.

Both were acceptable. One took the best of his flock, the other picked the rotten fruit lying on the ground. To the former the sacrifice was important, to the other it was a convenient disposal.
 
Because, of course, he said that he did. Over and over. They were the security for the first covenant, the one you dismiss as the old testament and thus non-binding on you. Indeed, the very first betrayal among men was the murder of Abel -- over God's favoritism for his blood offering over Cain's vegerables. God hates broccoli, but he loves flesh.

Both were acceptable. One took the best of his flock, the other picked the rotten fruit lying on the ground. To the former the sacrifice was important, to the other it was a convenient disposal.
Inventing details again, hm?
 
Back
Top Bottom