Questions for those who don't believe in God

[Hobbit]

judge, yet forgive. Jesus never foresaw the complete moral erosion this phrase would be twisted to condone.

Actually, being Jesus, he did. He just knew that there was nothing that could be said that idiots with agendas wouldn't skew towards their own ends, so he said what needed to be said, and then stood back and waited for the numerous perversions of those statements, knowing that the truly faithful would always keep the true meaning alive.

 

[jAZ]

That slight change is consistent with what the word actually stands for, a measuring device for AIR PRESSURE. The addition of PHOBIA, to homo to reference "homopprobrium", thanks abbey, is completely out of place and IS an attempt to insert the concept of FEAR where it may or may not exist. THAT"S twisting speech for political ends, the ends, in this case, being the villification of those may merely JUDGE the gay lifestyle.

Air pressure isn't even remotely the same thing as gravity. Air pressure doesn't drive an object's weight. It's entirely unrelated. Far more unrelated than the concept of "sameness" is to two men.

It's a riot that people here are seriously advancing the argument that the word homophobia (fear of sameness) is some how a substantively concept than to "disdain for gay men".

Talk about letting your personal feelings block rational analysis of a situtation.

 

[jAZ]

ITs not the creation of the word homophobia that is attempting to insert fear where it doesnt exist, its the liberals who improperly apply it.

The word is fine, cmon, use your common sense, homopprobrium would never work. Words evolve as usage of them is easy. Im sure most, if not all the other phobias would have the same technical problems you are complaining about.

But those who wish to use the term homophobe improperly will jump on something else if it wasnt available. It isnt the word that is wrong, its the users of it.

I agree, though liberals are not the only ones misapplying it. It's common place in our society.

 

[jAZ]

Actually, being Jesus, he did. He just knew that there was nothing that could be said that idiots with agendas wouldn't skew towards their own ends, so he said what needed to be said, and then stood back and waited for the numerous perversions of those statements, knowing that the truly faithful would always keep the true meaning alive.

So much for the concept of "all mighty" then, I guess.

 

[dmp]

So much for the concept of "all mighty" then, I guess.

How do you figure? It's just not intellectually honest to take one aspect of God and apply it across a wide range. Of Course Jesus could have FORCED people to Love him, and do the right thing...but that is contrary to His nature. Id Est, 'Forced Worship/acceptance' is not LOVE.

 

[Hobbit]

So much for the concept of "all mighty" then, I guess.

See, this is exactly the kind of thing I was saying he knew would happen, no matter what he said.

Of course, this is a case of St. Thomas Aquinas omnipotence in which case God can do anything that is physically possible. Since it is physically impossible to say anything that somebody can never skew to mean something else, God cannot do it.

However, I subscribe to the Descartes' theory of omnipotence, which would conclude that God's decision to allow people to skew His word is probably associated with the gift of free will and the full reasoning behind it is beyond our capability to comprehend.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Air pressure isn't even remotely the same thing as gravity. Air pressure doesn't drive an object's weight. It's entirely unrelated. Far more unrelated than the concept of "sameness" is to two men.

It's a riot that people here are seriously advancing the argument that the word homophobia (fear of sameness) is some how a substantively concept than to "disdain for gay men".

Talk about letting your personal feelings block rational analysis of a situtation.

baro- can mean weight or pressure, a baro-meter DOES measure pressure, air pressure. Phobia or fear, totally has nothing to do with homopprobrium. THus one "example of bending" makes sense and is obviously an act done in FURTHERANCE of the actual meaning of that word, and the other one was done in a DISHONEST fashion, to assign other concepts to homopprobrium which CLEARLY are not there in a MAJORITY of cases.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Does jAZ have homomania?

 

[Kagom]

I would like to throw in what I believe, if you don't mind too terribly.

I believe that the world was created by a goddess (there's a joke to why a goddess and not a god, but I do believe that "god" is a female entity). She created mankind so that there'd be something going on in the endless void of the universe.

Why do I care if the human race continues on after my death: because I want people to experience the human experience: love, anger, death, beauty, taste, smell, touch, and humor.

So, why ARE we here? We're here just to take up space. That's it on the cosmic level. On the individual level, we're here to love, learn, and experience life. We get to experience everything a divine deity cannot truly experience because it is an intangible being who cannot touch, smell, and taste. It cannot truly murder someone just because. It can feel emotions, but we feel it much more intensely.

 

[jAZ]

Id Est, 'Forced Worship/acceptance' is not LOVE.

It isn't?

If you're the all mighty, nothing is unless you say so. Nothing is but what you make it.

Forced acceptance = love if you are the almighty and you say it is so. That's the after dinner mint of being the almighty.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It isn't?

If you're the all mighty, nothing is unless you say so. Nothing is but what you make it.

Forced acceptance = love if you are the almighty and you say it is so. That's the after dinner mint of being the almighty.

God doesn't pervert what words mean to get his way, like libs do. He knows the difference between love and coerced conformity.

 

[dmp]

It isn't?

If you're the all mighty, nothing is unless you say so. Nothing is but what you make it.

Forced acceptance = love if you are the almighty and you say it is so. That's the after dinner mint of being the almighty.

Of course it's not. If you argue it IS you're beyond all logic. There's no hope for you.

 

[jAZ]

God doesn't pervert what words mean to get his way, like libs do. He knows the difference between love and coerced conformity.

I'm sure he appreciates you telling him (or her for some of our posters here) what he can or can't do specifically. RWA = The All Mighty.

 

[jAZ]

Of course it's not. If you argue it IS you're beyond all logic. There's no hope for you.

Look, we aren't talking about evolution of human language or the changing usage of words like "love" and "acceptance" now (though we were in a sense earlier, but we've moved on). We are talking about the unlimited power of creation of everything. An All Mighty God actually created not just people, but the very concept of what "love" means. If God wanted, and God were All Mighty, then God could in fact do whatever the heck he wanted INCLUDING making people love him from the beginning.

If an All Mighty God created Free Will, and then set up the love me or suffer the consequences paradox, that's up to the All Mighty God. However, I wouldn't be so bold as to presume that IF you believe there is an All Mighty God, that you should go around telling him how he can or can not properly behave.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm sure he appreciates you telling him (or her for some of our posters here) what he can or can't do specifically. RWA = The All Mighty.

I'm not saying god CAN"T be intellectually dishonest about words,like libs are; I'm saying he chooses not to.

 

[dmp]

Look, we aren't talking about evolution of human language or the changing usage of words like "love" and "acceptance" now (though we were in a sense earlier, but we've moved on). We are talking about the unlimited power of creation of everything. An All Mighty God actually created not just people, but the very concept of what "love" means. If God wanted, and God were All Mighty, then God could in fact do whatever the heck he wanted INCLUDING making people love him from the beginning.

If an All Mighty God created Free Will, and then set up the love me or suffer the consequences paradox, that's up to the All Mighty God. However, I wouldn't be so bold as to presume that IF you believe there is an All Mighty God, that you should go around telling him how he can or can not properly behave.

Maybe God isn't All Mighty. There one important thing God can't do. God can't sin.
What you can't get your mind around is this: God IS Love. The very source of Love. God is perfect and cannot Lie. "Forcing" somebody to love Him is against who is says He is. As He can't lie, we must know He won't lie.

 

[jAZ]

I'm not saying god CAN"T be intellectually dishonest about words. like libs are; I'm saying he chooses not to.

So now you know the Mind of God. Amazing. Superhero indeed.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So now you know the Mind of God. Amazing. Superhero indeed.

And you think god is a lawyer-like word parser? Redefining words for political ends? That's satan's handiwork.

 

[jAZ]

And you think god is a lawyer-like word parser? Redefining words for political ends? That's satan's handiwork.

I guess George W. Bush is in fact doing Statan's work then.

Weird.

I always thought those who kept promoting that thought were just LW nutjobs.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I guess George W. Bush is in fact doing Statan's work then.

Weird.

I always thought those who kept promoting that thought were just LW nutjobs.

WHat words is bush redefining?