An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[Michael]

Michael, If you asked me a specific question about Mickey Mouse and I insisted on responding about Donald Duck, what would that suggest?

Evasion!

Now you know exactly how *I* feel when I want to talk about Jesus, and you insist on discussing Moses!

 

[madaz]

Now you know exactly how *I* feel when I want to talk about Jesus, and you insist on discussing Moses!

One only needs to read what I said to confirm you are lying.

 

[Michael]

One only needs to read what I said to confirm you are lying.

Let's discuss cognitive dissonance for a moment, since you did bring up the subject.

I do *not* identify myself as a "Mosesian", I identify myself as a "Christian". This means that I personally identify with the moral teaching and precepts of Jesus Christ, my personal Lord and savior. Moses was a hypocritical egotistical putz IMO. I have no idea why he became so "popular" in ancient Judaism, he just did. Jesus however preached a message of peace, and love and loving your enemy. He lived a *very different life* than Moses. Jesus never killed anyone. He never used violence as a political tool to achieve any political end as did Moses.

IMO you're comparing poisonous Mosiac Apples to Loving juice filled *Christian* Oranges and expecting me to eat your poisonous apple, apparently because you fancy yourself as a better 'interpreter" of some ancient text!

If you're going to use terms like 'my God', at least have the common courtesy to discuss *my personal* beliefs, not your own definition of "Christianity". I love and honor Jesus. You don't. Give it a break already.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Now you know exactly how *I* feel when I want to talk about Jesus, and you insist on discussing Moses!

Madaz asked you a question about God and you responded to him about Moses.

He then pointed out to you (step by step) how you are evading his question by introducing Moses.

You then respond to him with a big rant about Moses and then lie about what Madaz actually said.

Last time I checked, followers of Jesus are not liars, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper.

 

[bhsmte]

Madaz asked you a question about God and you responded to him about Moses.

He then pointed out to you (step by step) how you are evading his question by introducing Moses.

You then respond to him with a big rant about Moses and then lie about what Madaz actually said.

Last time I checked, followers of Jesus are not liars, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper.

I have encountered ardent followers of Jesus, who lie at will.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

I have encountered ardent followers of Jesus, who lie at will.

The OP has left a trail of lies (recorded forever) for everyone to see, however smart Christian liars will only lie when there is no hard evidence to catch them out.

 

[Davian]

Michael - quick, use the "liar liar pants on fire" defence!

 

[Michael]

Madaz asked you a question about God and you responded to him about Moses.

Actually, no, Madaz made a *statement of faith* in a belief that I do not happen to share with him:

Originally Posted by madaz

3. The bible demonstrates your god is not
omnibenevolent.​

He then continued with his personal statements of faith:

Shifting the focus of how malevolent your god is, by
blaming Moses or any other OT character of the Bible for that matter is evading my point.

Never *once* has he bothered to *demonstrate* that A) I personally claimed to own God, B) the God that I believe in, or the Bible demonstrates that God is malevolent. When and where was Jesus ever malevolent?

He then pointed out to you (step by step) how you are evading his question by introducing Moses.

He's never bothered to explain to anyone *why* he makes his statements of faith. Granted, I *assumed* he would rant on about something in the OT, but until he spills the beans on how God is malevolent, he's simply making a sweeping statement with exactly *zero* supporting evidence.

You then respond to him with a big rant about Moses and then lie about what Madaz actually said.

Ya know....

It's not uncommon for me to misread a post, or a sentence in a post. It's not uncommon for me to not fully grasp a point someone is trying to make. I don't however go out of my way to "lie" or anything of the sort.

Until you or Madaz can explain how God is malevolent, the only liar around here is you.

Last time I checked, followers of Jesus are not liars, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper.

Then explain to us all now how God is malevolent as Madaz claimed. I'm all ears.

 

[Michael]

FYI, I've also made it *abundantly* clear that until and unless he or you addresses the religious concepts that deal with *placement*, he's still just *ranting* without any supporting evidence!

 

[Michael]

The OP has left a trail of lies (recorded forever) for everyone to see, however smart Christian liars will only lie when there is no hard evidence to catch them out.

Really? Get specific for us and round a few of them up, along with some evidence that God is malevolent. Will you demonstrate your claim or run?

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Really? Get specific for us and round a few of them up, along with some evidence that God is malevolent. Will you demonstrate your claim or run?

I never claimed that the Christian God is malevolent, I made the claim that you lied about what Madaz said. These lies are noted.

I will wait and see if Madaz responds, but until then, I want you to ponder on these.

James 1:26

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

Proverbs 19:5

A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape.


Proverbs 19:9

A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.


Proverbs 12:22

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.


Psalm 101:7


No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.


1 John 2:4
Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,


Luke 8:17

For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.



Exodus 20:16

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.


Psalm 58:3

The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.

 

[Michael]

I never claimed that the Christian God is malevolent, I made the claim that you lied about what Madaz said. These lies are noted.

You've yet to pick out any actual *lies* by me, and Madaz has yet to even *discuss* the basis of *his claims* about God. Until he does, both of you can take a hike.

I will wait and see if Madaz responds, but until then, I want you to ponder on these.

James 1:26

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

So when you butt into a conversation that you really haven't even been involved in, and the very first thing you do is attack the *individual*, you don't see the absolute irony of then posting such a quote?

I'm still waiting for you to show me a line I posted where I actually *lied* as you claimed. If you can't produce any such thing, well, that tells us who's really lying, now doesn't it?

 

[bhsmte]

You've yet to pick out any actual *lies* by me, and Madaz has yet to even *discuss* the basis of *his claims* about God. Until he does, both of you can take a hike.

So when you butt into a conversation that you really haven't even been involved in, and the very first thing you do is attack the *individual*, you don't see the absolute irony of then posting such a quote?

I'm still waiting for you to show me a line I posted where I actually *lied* as you claimed. If you can't produce any such thing, well, that tells us who's really lying, now doesn't it?

Michael,

I haven't followed all these posts close enough to know whether someone has lied or not and I don't have the motivation to do so.

What I will say is this;

I actually enjoy some of your posts, while other posts, make me want to bang my head against the wall. IMO, you tend to answer direct questions like a politician and you either evade it altogether or you go into another topic that has little to do with the original question. From what I have observed, this is what causes the frustration amongst the other posters.

 

[Michael]

Michael,

I haven't followed all these posts close enough to know whether someone has lied or not and I don't have the motivation to do so.

What I will say is this;

I actually enjoy some of your posts, while other posts, make me want to bang my head against the wall. IMO, you tend to answer direct questions like a politician and you either evade it altogether or you go into another topic that has little to do with the original question. From what I have observed, this is what causes the frustration amongst the other posters.

Do you think I'm the only human that does that, or the only human that misses the point of someone's post occasionally?

For instance: I *hate* it when atheists run around talking about "my God". I don't claim to own God anymore than I own the universe. I have unique and even *non standard* beliefs about the universe that we live in, but it's still the same universe that everyone lives in. I don't own my own universe, I own my own ideas *about* the universe. Likewise I don't *own* God. There's a lot of subtle psychological nonsense that goes on from both sides of the isle, including irrational personal attacks from left field that are completely off the wall.

 

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Michael

Which specific point do you believe that I failed to address?
​

Specifically this point. It was point 3 from post 512-
Originally Posted by madaz

3. The bible demonstrates your god is not
omnibenevolent.


​

Since everyone seems so hot and bothered over this series of claims you're making, I'll go back and try one more time to see if I can get you to support them with some *evidence*. Now I *assume* you aren't going to mention Moses or the OT because apparently that not what you want to talk about. So go ahead then and explain to me how the bible demonstrates that *my* (I still have no idea I suddenly ended up owning God) God is not omni-whatever.

You seem to expect me to agree with you, but I don't. Explain to me then why I should agree with your claim.

 

[madaz]

Let's discuss cognitive dissonance for a moment, since you did bring up the subject.

I do *not* identify myself as a "Mosesian", I identify myself as a "Christian". This means that I personally identify with the moral teaching and precepts of Jesus Christ, my personal Lord and savior. Moses was a hypocritical egotistical putz IMO. I have no idea why he became so "popular" in ancient Judaism, he just did. Jesus however preached a message of peace, and love and loving your enemy. He lived a *very different life* than Moses. Jesus never killed anyone. He never used violence as a political tool to achieve any political end as did Moses.

IMO you're comparing poisonous Mosiac Apples to Loving juice filled *Christian* Oranges and expecting me to eat your poisonous apple, apparently because you fancy yourself as a better 'interpreter" of some ancient text!

If you're going to use terms like 'my God', at least have the common courtesy to discuss *my personal* beliefs, not your own definition of "Christianity". I love and honor Jesus. You don't. Give it a break already.

Michael it has only now become clear to me that you have created your own personal religion, a religion you masquerade as christianity. You appear to deny Jesus is god and god is Jesus (correct me if I'm wrong) and deny Moses holy status. You cherry pick the parts of the bible you like, and ignore/deny the parts you do not. You claim Jesus is the messiah of Judaism, you accept reincarnation and claim Moses committed mass murder.
You justify your denial by renaming "cherry picking" to "personal interpretation". You justify your cognitive dissonance regarding your god's morality by blaming Moses, blaming my interpretation of the bible, and attacking my character. When I queried you about your god's malenovance, you responded with denial and a smoke screen. When I attempted to clear the smoke screen, you created another, when I attempted to clear that, you promptly lied by claiming it was me who insisted on discussing Moses. You also altered the context of my point by substituting words. When I pointed out some of your apparently deceitful shenanigans you failed to acknowledge them. You were just manipulating semantics as part of your "smokescreen" distraction. You claim you are a follower of Jesus but you were bearing false witness against me. Making a claim that you never used the word "omnibenevolent" is not a defence . I could have easily substituted "omnibenevolent" for "all good", that would not have affected my point or altered the context whatsoever. Michael I never said you personally claim to own your god, this irrelevant claim appears to be a distraction. I'm agnostic towards the majority of gods, so in that respect your atheism is much stronger than mine (id est. You reject exceedingly more gods than I do), so I simply refer to your god as "your" god. I'm not inferring ownership, I'm just making the clear distinction between "your" god and all the other gods, many of which I concur are "all good" as depicted. I do not utilise faith for anything, faith and belief is not a necessary component for my perspective of life. Faith and belief more often than not lead me astray as it did "believing" you were mainstream christian.

 

[Michael]

Michael it has only now become clear to me that you have created your own personal religion, a religion you masquerade as christianity.

It's somehow news to you that I'm a unique individual with unique personal beliefs, and you can't just shove your beliefs down my throat?

You appear to deny Jesus is god and god is Jesus (correct me if I'm wrong)

I certainly don't deny that Jesus and God are/were one via the presence of the the Holy Spirit. It's not a mutually *exclusive* relationship according to Jesus in John 17.

and deny Moses holy status.

If by 'holy status' you mean personally infallible, no. He was just another violent guy from my perspective.

You cherry pick the parts of the bible you like, and ignore/deny the parts you do not.

Who doesn't? You?

You claim Jesus is the messiah of Judaism,

Yep.

you accept reincarnation

It would be more accurate to suggest that I accept the *possibility* of reincarnation. I've never had anything occur in my own life to support that idea, but I have seen evidence to support it.

and claim Moses committed mass murder.

Do you deny it?

You justify your denial by renaming "cherry picking" to "personal interpretation".

Again, who doesn't do both?

You justify your cognitive dissonance regarding your god's morality by blaming Moses,

I simply don't blame God for the sins of humans like you're trying to do, just because some human tells me "God told me to do it". What "cognitive dissonance"? Do you believe everything everyone tells you? Do *you* even believe that God personally ordered Moses to commit genocide? Yes or no?

blaming my interpretation of the bible,

You're blaming mine apparently. Is your interpretation any less subjective than mine?

and attacking my character.

Actually, no, you started that routine when you took the low road with the liar liar pants on fire routine, and your comments about cognitive dissonance, all of which were *personal attacks*! If you can't take it, stop dishing it out.

When I queried you about your god's malenovance, you responded with denial and a smoke screen.

I denied your statement was true and you have yet to demonstrate it is true. What evidence do you have to support assertion #3? I'm still waiting with baited breath by the way.

When I attempted to clear the smoke screen, you created another, when I attempted to clear that,

First of all you lumped *several* claims including my personal ownership of some mythical bible god into one mixed bag and you started making ridiculous claims about my beliefs about God and about the Bible itself. We can start unraveling the nonsense the moment you stop trying to assert my personal ownership of God. I own my own *beliefs* about God, but I don't own God.

you promptly lied by claiming it was me who insisted on discussing Moses.

I *assumed* that would be the basis of your unsupported claim. You've yet to make your case, so I have no idea if I was correct or incorrect in that *assumption*. I'll give you that much.

You also altered the context of my point by substituting words.

You altered the context by giving me personal ownership of a God I apparently do not believe in that you think has something to do with the 'Bible'. I'm still all ears anytime you'd like to make your case.

When I pointed out some of your apparently deceitful shenanigans you failed to acknowledge them.

Whatever "shenanigans" you believe were deceitful weren't any such thing. The *worst* you could accuse me of is *assuming* you were talking about events in the OT. Guilty as charged. I still haven't a clue then what you're even talking about if that wasn't what you were talking about in reference to the "Bible".

You were just manipulating semantics as part of your "smokescreen" distraction.

Boloney. You started the semantics and smoke screens the moment you gave me ownership of God, and the moment you claimed things about the Bible in relationship to my personal beliefs. You mixed your own claims as mine and then handed me ownership of them. I'm not pleased or amused.

You claim you are a follower of Jesus

I am.

but you were bearing false witness against me.

How could I possibly know that since you've yet to explain what evidence you intend to present to support *YOUR* (not my) claims about *my* God?

Making a claim that you never used the word "omnibenevolent" is not a defence .

Yes, admittedly it's a minor point, but yes it is. I never used that term in the first place, yet you asserted it as some sort of attribute and then tried to associate it with *MY* God. You're right in the sense that you can speak use any term, but it might help if you *asked questions* before making assumptions about my beliefs. You haven't so far.

I could have easily substituted "omnibenevolent" for "all good", that would not have affected my point or altered the context whatsoever.

When you've been around the OMNI-block a few times you get tired of atheists even using such terms to start with. Count me out of the OMNI claims.

Michael I never said you personally claim to own your god, this irrelevant claim appears to be a distraction.

You are spending an *inordinate* amount of time talking about *my* God, and how bad he is as demonstrated in the Bible, yet you have *never provided a shred of empirical evidence* to support it. When can I expect you to do so?

I'm agnostic towards the majority of gods, so in that respect your atheism is much stronger than mine (id est. You reject exceedingly more gods than I do),

There you go again making more assumptions about my beliefs about religions, and confusing religions with "gods". Ok, since you seem to be clairvoyant, which 'gods' do I personally reject?

so I simply refer to your god as "your" god.

It's not *my God*. You're talking about *my beliefs*, not *my God*. If we were discussing cosmology theory, we would be discussing *my beliefs* about the universe, not *my universe* or *your universe*. It's pure nonsense to use the term 'my god' when you're *actually* discussing *my beliefs*! That's at *least* half the problem.

I'm not inferring ownership,

Yes you did. You said "your God". You specifically and intentionally used that term. I lack belief in the whole concept of "my God". That an *atheists* belief, not mine.

I'm just making the clear distinction between "your" god and all the other gods,

You're blatantly ignoring the whole concept of monotheism. There aren't any other "gods", just other 'religions'!

many of which I concur are "all good" as depicted. I do not utilise faith for anything,

Really? Nothing at all? You don't even have *faith* in your own subjective opinions (like gods plural)?

faith and belief is not a necessary component for my perspective of life.

I have no idea how you use a computer without beliefs, but beliefs and faith are an integral part of life IMO.

Faith and belief more often than not lead me astray as it did "believing" you were mainstream christian.

I never professed to be a "mainstream' Christian, in fact if you follow my link, I specifically identify myself as a *Universalist Christian*. I don't even reject other religions wholesale the way you do, and Christianity has *many* sects, not just one.

You're right though, you will have to treat me as a unique individual, just like everyone else. I'm not obligated to meet your personal criteria of a "Christian" anymore than you're obligated to meet my personal criteria of agnosticism.

 

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Michael

Which specific point do you believe that I failed to address?
​

Specifically this point. It was point 3 from post 512-
Originally Posted by madaz 3. The bible demonstrates your god is not
omnibenevolent.

Please provide evidence of claim 3 now so we can proceed logically.

I *strongly* urge you reword you statements to *exclude* the term "my" in relationship to the term "God". You may discuss my beliefs (as long as you do it accurately to the best of your ability), but you can't discuss *my God" because I personally lack belief in owning God even if you assert it as *truth*.

 

[Michael]

FYI....

The sentence: "God as described in the Bible is not omni-benevolent." doesn't push my personal buttons, and it's a statement that you *might* hope to be able to demonstrate.

The sentence "The Bible demonstrates *your* God is not omni-benevolent" asserts *a ton of various baggage* about my beliefs that is unwarranted and inaccurate, and you could never hope to demonstrate that claim without reading minds.

 

[madaz]

Michael, do you believe in a god?