Jonathan H. B. Lobl

I'm amazed. I didn't think that my opinion of you, could possibly be worse than it already was. I stand corrected. Now, I do think even less of you. With a little effort on your part, My opinion of you might drop again. Care to try?

I didn't think that my opinion of you could get any worse. I was mistaken. My opinion of you just got much worse. I'm done here. Proverbs 26:11 [Full Chapter] As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. Do not be confused. That was me, insulting you, with Scripture.

What can I say? He gets to me. I must do a better job of letting go.

To be clear, you mean the God that fits your cultural parameters. You do not mean the God of Pantheism, as understood by Spinoza of Amsterdam. You do not mean anything revealed by science, such as the God demonstrated by quantum mechanics. You do not mean the God of Deism, as understood by Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. You do not mean the God of Islam, as understood by over a billion Millions. Nor do you mean the God of Judaism, which has nothing to do with Jesus. You do not mean Brahma the Creator, as understood by millions of Hindus. Neither do you reference the gods, as understood by countless Polytheists. No. You mean your God. So much for spiritual discernment. Your narrow minded bigotry floweth over.

1. Alright Dan. You say you don't understand. Perhaps this is true. It seems unlikely -- to me -- that you're that stupid. It seems more likely -- to me -- that you are simply dishonest. 2. "What I'm saying"? Don't put your words into my mouth. Moving on. It is not the Bible that I find highly offensive. It's you, that I find highly offensive. 3. My non-belief is not an issue. You have weaponized Scripture. You use Scripture as a weapon. That is what I find offensive. I think that I'm done here. Unless you want to keep this going. To any moderators who might be on the job: I have been deeply offended by this exchange. If you think that I have gone over the edge -- I am ready to take the consequences. I'm not taking anything back. Jonathan Lobl

Well, I'm bored. I hate arguing with dishonest Fundies.

Do your ears hear what your mouth is saying? Yes. It's your game and it's what you do. You throw an insulting Scripture. You then announce that it wasn't insult. It was Scripture. Then you act innocent while you hide behind that Scripture. I marvel that you can't be honest about something so basic.

Your analysis is correct. I think that you are making things more complicated than you need to. The insult here, is that Dan is claiming that he has spiritual discernment -- and we don't. How then should we regard this insult? Do you remember the story of the "Emperor's New Clothes"? A clever tailor tells the foolish Emperor, about a wonderful new fabric. Only the truly discerning can see the cloth. The Emperor wants a whole outfit made of this miracle fabric. Of course, the Emperor can't admit he doesn't see the clothes. That would mean he lacks discernment . So he wears the non-existent outfit and he's very happy. That is, until a foolish child calls out -- "Hey! The Emperor is naked!" What lesson do we learn from this? Never let a weaver of tales (tailor) sell you a set of invisible garments -- or sell you an invisible friend. If nobody can see it, maybe it's not real. Or we can remember, all the times -- that Dan has insisted that faith is a choice -- and Dan has faith. In the manner of Linus, telling Charlie Brown about the Great Pumpkin. The Great Pumpkin only visits the children who believe in him. Blind, obedient faith with no doubt at all. Charlie Brown's downfall is he listens to Linus -- and spends a night in the Pumpkin Patch. You know. Just in case. (Pascal's Wager) At least those silly stories only wasted a night of Charlie Brown life. Not his whole life. Remember. We are not insulting Dan. We are only making reference to famous stories. A man would have to be paranoid, to feel insulted by popular stories. Wouldn't he?

I go by intent and your intent is clear. You find Scripture that express your thoughts -- then you hide behind it. It's the game you play. It's what you do. I'm aware of your arguments. All based on the fact, that you project your own ideas onto Agnostics and Atheists. Your understanding in these matters is limited. You are mistaken. I have been hearing the music of your mind for years. I know the tune.

Just an opinion? Posting here, that no finite mind can really be an Agnostic? That's not an opinion. That's an attack. I returned his gift. My regret is that the sender didn't receive it. If pious bullies want to post here, they can take the consequences. As for your pithy -- "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14). You insist on hiding your insults behind Scripture. I'm done with being walked on. I have no reason to cede moral ground. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

I have been going over this thread. It began with a snide attack on Agnostics. What ever became of the original poster? Just another drive by, from another pious intellectual, crap for brains. I'm in a bad mood. Not at all charitable. When these attacks on Agnostics and Atheists cease, I will try sweetness and light. Until then, I'm giving back what I'm getting.

Of course, genocide is bad. A mind that has been corrupted by Scripture -- and faith -- might try to argue that genocide is permissible. We know better.

I hope you mean that you oppose genocide.

I suspect I'm going to regret asking. What do you mean by "objective moral standard"? You must know that I am not under Scripture. If this is where you're going; you're wasting both our times with a futile argument.

It would be difficult, to find a group whose motto is "harm, evil and destruction". If such a claim were made, I would expect it to be propaganda.

Well? Despite what you seem to think, I have done my best to answer your questions. I don't know what you want.

What are you looking for? What do you want me to say?

By what moral standard is God good? Aside from the fact that Scripture says that God is good. As to the objective part -- all Scripture was created by people. Like it or not -- objectivity has cultural deficits. The people who created these Scriptures, projected their moral deficits onto their God. My morals are better than God's. I at least know that slavery is wrong -- and that women and gay people are fully Human. I also know that rape is not a property crime, against a woman's father. Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

I read the Book. Let us count the ways. Genocide is not good. Neither is slavery. Or Homophobia. Or Women as property. Or Sadism. Or blood lust.

What would you like me to say? If we are speaking in the abstract, of a god, we might have something to discuss. You're not. You mean the Bible God. If this entity were real -- it would be a monster in any context.

If you reject God in this life wouldn't God be tyrannical if he didn't respect your wishes in the afterlife and forced you to be with him? Your statement is pure supposition. We have no objective, verifiable facts about God. None at all. What then, are we even discussing? It is sad enough, when adults have invisible friends. Invisible enemies is pathetic. For the rest, I can only reject something that exists.

You are speaking of credibility. The threat of Hell Fire is not credible. It is irritating. My concern is not with the possibility of damnation -- but the attempt at intimidation through an imposed fear of Hell. A distinction which you pretend not to see. I have spent much of my life being threatened in this manner. The threat has not been successful. It has been annoying. As to those who do believe in God -- many are clearly acting out of genuine terror. Your mocking does not disguise the obvious fear in others.