God must be apathetic.

He is neither good, nor evil. He just doesn't care.

oooh God is good, what kind of a person would love you still no matter what've done??
only GOD thats how good he is,

Free:

oooh God is good, what kind of a person would love you still no matter what've done??
only GOD thats how good he is,

What makes you think God loves you? If God doesn't care about you, and lets people into heaven or hell based on whether they followed certain rules, then maybe us stupid humans, we may think God loves us, when he really doesn't.

There are two people who are able to restrain themselves from destroying you in spite of yourself:

1) A person who truely loves you
2) A person who truely doesn't care about you.

There are two people who are able to restrain themselves from HELPING you when you are in mortal danger:

1) A person who truely hates you
2) A person who truely doesn't care about you.

Seeing as it is impossible to truely love and hate someone at the same time, the logical conclusion is that God is apathetic.

i know that loves GOD me dearly, he shows it everyday,

lets people into heaven or hell based on whether they followed certain rules

what rule the only rule he got bout that is do good and will go to heaven
do bad and you will go to hell, these are simple rules,

Allonym,

God does loves you!

You see because we are regular human beings we do not understand God, or his ways, when your a christian and you accept Jesus as your lord and saviour and the holy spirit comes into your heart, you will start understanding God more. When people feel the spirit they talk in tounges which sounds like jibberish to the human ears but a prayer from your soul, this helps you understand God more. Its very hard to explain but its real and God is real, and he loves you! You see the devil is very intelligent and he is making you feel this way and be blinded to Gods glory. If God didn't love you or care about you why would he send his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, Jesus Chist to DIE for your sins, in such a gruesome way?

[b]Rom 5:5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

Titus 3:4-5 But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.

Rom 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Psalm 145:7-8 The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.

Nahum 1:7 The LORD is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him,

Matt 11:28-29 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

JOHN 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him[/b]

You want more, ??

Anyone can make up stuff.

If I found a book which says God doesn't care about humanity and quoted from it, would that convince you of my position.

Probably not.

allonym:

Anyone can make up stuff.

If I found a book which says God doesn't care about humanity and quoted from it, would that convince you of my position.

Probably not.

The bible is not just a book. The bible is ALIVE and is holy spirit filled, when you read it when the holy spirit is present, it will feel so personalised, God will actually be talking to you. Its amazing, you can feel Gods love for you.

Softee:


The bible is not just a book. The bible is ALIVE and is holy spirit filled, when you read it when the holy spirit is present, it will feel so personalised, God will actually be talking to you. Its amazing, you can feel Gods love for you.

Says you. I have read the bible. Probably a hell of a lot more than you.

so ur just ignorant abi?

No,

Ignorance is when people pretend the bible is the end all for God's word, when the so-called bible has been edited and changed many times over the past few centuries.

So, no, I'm not ignorant.

Reading and understanding (believing, feeling) are two differen't things.

So, no, I'm not ignorant.

yes you are!!

Rhodalyn:

yes you are!!

Based on what?

based on everything that you've said

That doesn't make me ignorant. It just means I don't agree with you.

Ignorant - Africans run about naked and live in trees.

Not Ignorant - Tribe A traditionally based in the Niger region typically build their domiciles in trees.

I didn't mean to have such a disparity between the verbiage used by the ignorant and not ignorant examples.

alrighty then,

allonym:

What makes you think God loves you? If God doesn't care about you, and lets people into heaven or hell based on whether they followed certain rules, then maybe us stupid humans, we may think God loves us, when he really doesn't.

There are two people who are able to restrain themselves from destroying you in spite of yourself:

1) A person who truely loves you
2) A person who truely doesn't care about you.

There are two people who are able to restrain themselves from HELPING you when you are in mortal danger:

1) A person who truely hates you
2) A person who truely doesn't care about you.

Seeing as it is impossible to truely love and hate someone at the same time, the logical conclusion is that God is apathetic.

Er. . . allonym,

Your assumptions are really spiralling out of focus. Could I ask you a few things?

(1) What really is informing your bitterness against God? Just because you don't know the love of God for yourself does not mean others haven't experienced it for themselves. God is not apathetic simply because you've been launching so much petty logic against Him - logic which has failed on as many occasions.

(2) Where is it ever stated that God in the Christian faith both loves and hates someone AT THE SAME TIME? Just because you are averse to the love of God does not mean you should stretch things to such proportions and arrive at misrepresentations that are only too characteristic of your prejudice.

(3) What's wrong with God making rules for going to heaven and setting warnings against going to hell? If you complain about God setting rules at all, what happens to the rules you make and break and others you have to obey? There's a whole array of rules and laws we follow in our everyday experiences, and I don't see why you should be prejudised against God setting rules as prerequisites for heaven or hell. Let me share a few with you:

(a) There are computing rules you have to follow in order to login to the net and get on to Nairaland.com - username/ID and password. Please tell me why you don't get mad at the computer for having those simple rules and not just any other way to get on the net.

(b) Seun set rules for posting and sending messages on Nairaland and warned that not keeping to the rules means you could be "strictly penalized" or invite to yourself a "24 hour banning, probation, etc." Please tell me why you are not mad at Seun for making those rules and not allowing you use the Forum just anyhow.

(c) In everyday living expenses, you have to follow simple arithmetic rules in buying and selling so that no one is cheated in any transaction. Please tell me why you are not mad at your local grocery store for both "loving and hating" you 'at the same time' as to not let you shop lift.

(d) In whatever country you happen to be living at the moment, there are social laws for governing society. Please tell me why you're not mad at the Government for setting down rules against lawlessness and crimes (e.g. murder and armed robbery).

(e) Let me assume that you went to school/college and there were laid down rules for admissions and student life in your college. Please tell me why you didn't get mad at the school authorities for setting those rules and not letting you obtain your diploma by contravening those rules by examination malpractices.

(f.) In social interractions, you subconsciously make rules that you wish people would keep (whether you agree with me or not). Please tell me why you would react to someone being gruff with you if there was no need at all for some kind of social norms.

I truly find your insinuations or reasoning puzzling - intelligent people don't talk the way you do. If you obey social, economic, computing, and academic rules in order to get on with other people, what's your problem with God providing spiritual rules for entering His heaven and warnings against going to hell? You see, when you want to subject everything about God to your narrow logic, you find it an illogical tool in the long run.

Let me see how you challenge all the rules above. Tip: If you think Seun (a mortal) was bluffing in setting those rules, let's see you call his bluff by brazenly, blatantly, flagrantly breaking those rules on Nairaland while we sit back and watch the results that follow with interest. If you could not attempt my challenge (by whatever fancied excuses you'll think up), would it not be laughable that you're trying to question God's setting rules for heaven?

Your logic is waning and getting you further away from common sense. Take my advice - enjoy a good laugh with friends and save yourself all this garboil about what you really don't know much about.

You are assuming I am bitter or have something against God.

That doesn't make any sense, especially when taken in the light of my posts.

So far, I have indicated that God does not care about humans. If God does not care, the getting mad at God does me no good. So why would I waste time on such fruitless an endeavor?

You are over psychoanalyzing things here.

I'm not complaining about the rules, I'm even disputing that there is any "God" making "rules" in the first place.

On the other hand, Seun actually cares about this forum and adherance to the rules.

When someone breaks them, he attempts to punish these people. If he gets many complaints about an issue, the issue is resolved.

Lets see God try to do that. . . world hunger. . .aids . . . . peace on earth?

Stop trying to treat God both as a human and as God. When it is convinient, he's the almighty, cannot be questioned, etc etc. When it is convenient, he is like a child playing with ants, burning us with a magnifying glass one minute, giving us crumbs the next.

Just because I don't follow your mold, doesn't mean I harbor any bitterness.

Just because I voice my differences doesn't mean I don't like you or are bitter either.

I can't understand why emotions cannot be disassociated from argument or discussion.

Phew! That was eye-opening mlks_baby. I always admire your threads.

May I add the following observations: in other spheres of life, do clubs not make rules and set punitive measures for contravening those rules? Embassies and immigration authorities set requirements (again - laws, rules) for obtaining visas to alabéké (oyibo land) - I know wetin my eye see (tufiakwa!!). Then, all of a sudden, allonym comes on the scene to shakara for us. Abeg make I hear word. Logic kó, logic ni!



______________

PS. mlks_baby, U don marry?. . .b'cos, em. . er. .  (we go yan later!)  

But allonym, you really haven't answered her questions. No hard feelings, but something is getting twisted here. I'm really interested in where it is you find that God "truely love and hate someone at the same time"? And if you can't find it stated anywhere, why assume that therefore God must be apathetic?

Second, why are you complaining that God "lets people into heaven or hell based on whether they followed certain rules" What is so wrong with God doing that? You speak of Seun's punishing people - "When someone breaks them, he attempts to punish these people" - why does that look right to you but wrong if God punishes people for doing wrong or contravening His rules/laws?

And if you don't follow someone's mould, why all the 'garboil' you keep trumping up? If others are stating who God is to them, why has it been so hard for you to state your own 'mould' of 'God'? Why not invite others to your own thread to see something about your own version of apathetic 'God' instead of picking at other people's writeups?

welborn:


But allonym, you really haven't answered her questions. No hard feelings, but something is getting twisted here. I'm really interested in where it is you find that God "truely love and hate someone at the same time"? And if you can't find it stated anywhere, why assume that therefore God must be apathetic?

Reread my post, I never said that God truely loves and hates someone at the same time. I said that it is impossible to do so. Since some of God's actions are those a person who truely loves someone would do, and other actions are those a person who truely hates someone would take, then God must actually neither truely love or hate people.

welborn:

Second, why are you complaining that God "lets people into heaven or hell based on whether they followed certain rules" What is so wrong with God doing that? You speak of Seun's punishing people - "When someone breaks them, he attempts to punish these people" - why does that look right to you but wrong if God punishes people for doing wrong or contravening His rules/laws?

I was not complaining. I was responding to your post where you made the statement about God loving us. That was an example of how what may seem to be love can be shown to be apathy.

welborn:

And if you don't follow someone's mould, why all the 'garboil' you keep trumping up? If others are stating who God is to them, why has it been so hard for you to state your own 'mould' of 'God'? Why not invite others to your own thread to see something about your own version of apathetic 'God' instead of picking at other people's writeups?

If you want to say things where people CANNOT respond to you, then post in a journal. If you post things anywhere else, you are opening it up to discussion. In a discussion, it may sometimes happen, that someone's views will be contrary to yours. In any case, I'm just stating something, and looking for your response.

Also, this thread isn't asking for our thoughts on what God is. Additionally, even if it was, I can still talk about what someone else had said, in lieu of giving an orignal response to the topic. I thought that's what discussions were for.

Ultimately, I'm challenging something you say or believe, and looking at your justification. I'm also trying to see if there is someone who has a truely unique argument from the Christian point of view. Think about it, after having these conversations with me, aren't you better equipped to handle the next person who comes at you with the same stuff? Also, isn't it good to be able to see how other people can view the exact same situation? Whether or not you agree with it, I think its good to be able to understand both sides of an argument ( i suppose this only is valid to a certain degree.)

allonym:

Reread my post, I never said that God truely loves and hates someone at the same time. I said that it is impossible to do so. Since some of God's actions are those a person who truely loves someone would do, and other actions are those a person who truely hates someone would take, then God must actually neither truely love or hate people.

There's a problem with your presumptions. You don't seem to understand that some of God's actions are not on the same level as those of a person on the human level. If you try to presume things this way, you'll be taking the wrong course of reductionism - in this context, reducing God to human level. Even so, no human being (including you) could ever "truely love and hate someone at the same time" (your exact words). If that's the case, you're also apathetic since you could do neither at the same time; because that's clearly the conclusion you drew from your logic:

allonym:
Seeing as it is impossible to truely love and hate someone at the same time, the logical conclusion is that God is apathetic.

And so. . .

allonym:

I was not complaining. I was responding to your post where you made the statement about God loving us. That was an example of how what may seem to be love can be shown to be apathy.

First, you were not responding to my post - go check it out (you might be mistaking me for someone else). Second, if you were not complaining, you shouldn't have had that quote in your response. Seeing that you indeed stated it so, I'll reiterate that it is perfectly fitting that God should have rules for letting people into heaven.

allonym:

If you want to say things where people CANNOT respond to you, then post in a journal. If you post things anywhere else, you are opening it up to discussion. In a discussion, it may sometimes happen, that someone's views will be contrary to yours. In any case, I'm just stating something, and looking for your response.

You gravely misread me, allonym. . .and that's trash talk because I did not suggest that you could not respond to any post here or elsewhere. There's a difference between discussing a topic and picking on others' posts. For example, we may view God differently, but that is not the same thing as misrepresenting someone's faith. So far, you've only been sounding off against the Christian view of God, but have not given me any alternative ideas of your own 'God/goddess' by which I could investigate and challenge your own views. If to you, God is apathetic in the Christian faith, we respond by refuting that presumption and misrepresentation; but then, what view of 'God' do YOU hold? Just saying that God in Christianity is apathetic does not tell me anything about YOUR OWN 'God'.

That is why I threw you a challenge to invite others to a thread and preach your own version of 'God' (or whatever you believe in) so that others could respond appropriately. If you open another thread and still attack the Christian view of God, you'd again be failing to see the difference between a discussion and petty arguments. My view of 'God' does not satisfy you is different from you preaching your own 'God'. If your 'God' neither loves nor hates and is apathetic, all the better for you - but that is not the Christian God.

Just one more thing. You really should not be self-congratulatory about equpping anyone to handle 'stuff' - because you have neither helped me nor anyone here nor even yourself. It is obvious from the responses following your posts that, rather than jubilate, everyone has been complaining about your illogical logic and apathetic conclusions.

allonym:

Based on what?

thats for you to know and me to find out

welborn:

There's a problem with your presumptions. You don't seem to understand that some of God's actions are not on the same level as those of a person on the human level. If you try to presume things this way, you'll be taking the wrong course of reductionism - in this context, reducing God to human level. Even so, no human being (including you) could ever "truely love and hate someone at the same time" (your exact words). If that's the case, you're also apathetic since you could do neither at the same time; because that's clearly the conclusion you drew from your logic:

Hahaha. Actually, most of the time i'm involved in an argument, I strive to be apathetic. I don't care. To be honest, I could argue either side. I'm starting to see that many people here are more focused on attempting to somehow intimidate or influence me into being silent, rather than trying to respond to my statements.

In further response, I don't see how anyone can tell me anything about God in one breath, and then tell me that as a human, I cannot understand his nature. Strange to me how other humans on this thread seem to possess an ability to read God's mind.

welborn:

First, you were not responding to my post - go check it out (you might be mistaking me for someone else). Second, if you were not complaining, you shouldn't have had that quote in your response. Seeing that you indeed stated it so, I'll reiterate that it is perfectly fitting that God should have rules for letting people into heaven.

Ok, so, its ok that God should have rules for letting people into heaven. So what? I don't care. I was responding to whoever said that God loves us. If it wasn't you, great for you. . .

welborn:

You gravely misread me, allonym. . .and that's trash talk because I did not suggest that you could not respond to any post here or elsewhere. There's a difference between discussing a topic and picking on others' posts. For example, we may view God differently, but that is not the same thing as misrepresenting someone's faith. So far, you've only been sounding off against the Christian view of God, but have not given me any alternative ideas of your own 'God/goddess' by which I could investigate and challenge your own views. If to you, God is apathetic in the Christian faith, we respond by refuting that presumption and misrepresentation; but then, what view of 'God' do YOU hold? Just saying that God in Christianity is apathetic does not tell me anything about YOUR OWN 'God'.

That is why I threw you a challenge to invite others to a thread and preach your own version of 'God' (or whatever you believe in) so that others could respond appropriately. If you open another thread and still attack the Christian view of God, you'd again be failing to see the difference between a discussion and petty arguments. My view of 'God' does not satisfy you is different from you preaching your own 'God'. If your 'God' neither loves nor hates and is apathetic, all the better for you - but that is not the Christian God.

Just one more thing. You really should not be self-congratulatory about equpping anyone to handle 'stuff' - because you have neither helped me nor anyone here nor even yourself. It is obvious from the responses following your posts that, rather than jubilate, everyone has been complaining about your illogical logic and apathetic conclusions.

Ok, that is nice, except, what if I don't feel like preaching and I feel like responding to posts I don't like? That is not against the forum rules. I know at least one other person who does this: you. How have I misrepresented anyone's faith? What makes you the authority on christianity? How do you know you have the correct interpretation? Funny how so many people exactly know what christianity or what God thinks.

allonym:

Hahaha. Actually, most of the time i'm involved in an argument, I strive to be apathetic. I don't care. To be honest, I could argue either side. I'm starting to see that many people here are more focused on attempting to somehow intimidate or influence me into being silent, rather than trying to respond to my statements.

Attempting to somehow intimidate you? I couldn't hold my laughter! You're beginning to sound childish indeed. I challenged you to make some sense in your responses and all you get out of it was intimidation? Phew!
There just isn't any need to ask you to go back and re-read my rejoinder.

By your own admittance, you're apathetic - or, to be more specific, you STRIVE to be apathetic. Did I not say so before? Even then, God in the Christian faith in NOT apathetic. And that's why you have grossly misrepresented Him. If you're apathetic as you admit, there is a God who loves me - and you're NOT Him!

allonym:

Hahaha. Actually, most of the time i'm involved in an argument, I strive to be apathetic. I don't care. To be honest, I could argue either side.

So, you're neither here nor there? Inconsistency has been your trademark and so far it hasn't helped anyone to better understand you. You can't be both for and against something. . . not even the worst of politicians I know are typical of such inconsistency.

allonym:

Ok, so, its ok that God should have rules for letting people into heaven. So what? I don't care. I was responding to whoever said that God loves us. If it wasn't you, great for you. . .

Hmmm. . . I now sense and understand your fear that pushed you into feeling intimidated when in fact no one was attempting to frighten you. In response to your questioning why God would have rules for allowing anyone into heaven, others have given you sound replies.

allonym:

Ok, that is nice, except, what if I don't feel like preaching and I feel like responding to posts I don't like? That is not against the forum rules. I know at least one other person who does this: you. How have I misrepresented anyone's faith? What makes you the authority on christianity? How do you know you have the correct interpretation? Funny how so many people exactly know what christianity or what God thinks.

Responding to my posts is great and by all means do so as long as you make sense rather than sounding off against anyone's faith. And you really don't like some posts? - what gets you so upset about them that you'd have to admit that you don't like them?

What makes me an authority? Don't make me laugh some more. You surely don't expect me as a Christian to be ignorant of my faith - and careful study of the Bible provides answers to some of the questions I encounter daily in my commitment to Christ. Interpretations may differ even among Christians, but no Bible-taught Christian would concede to your view that God is apathetic as you try to make Him out to be.

If you're propagating your own faith/religion (what shall we call it now. . ) and your own 'God' is apathetic, fantastic for you! If you believe your version of 'God' is apathetic and I argue that he/she/it is not, then I have misrepresented your belief. In the same way, if I know that God in my Christian faith is loving and you try to surmise that He is apathetic, you have misrepresented my faith. There's a simple way round this: as long as we don't misrepresent anyone's faith (even when we disagree with their tenets), there'll be less confusion in discussions. Try that out and see the change for the better.

If you don't want to preach your own apathetic 'God' or religion where you STRIVE to be apathetic, you don't have to feel anyone is thereby intimidating you. What a laugh! By all means feel free to make up your own religion of apathy. But good to note that your 'apathy religion' is not the same as Christianity - they are worlds apart.

welborn:


Attempting to somehow intimidate you? I couldn't hold my laughter! You're beginning to sound childish indeed. I challenged you to make some sense in your responses and all you get out of it was intimidation? Phew!
There just isn't any need to ask you to go back and re-read my rejoinder.

Funny, I suppose the consistent attempt to pretend this is a christian forum and thus my ideas have no place here is not some way to get me to stop posting. Seriously, nobody is that stupid to believe that is not one of your motives.

welborn:

By your own admittance, you're apathetic - or, to be more specific, you STRIVE to be apathetic. Did I not say so before? Even then, God in the Christian faith in NOT apathetic. And that's why you have grossly misrepresented Him. If you're apathetic as you admit, there is a God who loves me - and you're NOT Him!

I never said I was God. And, I say you are wrong, the God in the Christian faith IS apathetic. All life on this planet points to that.

welborn:


So, you're neither here nor there? Inconsistency has been your trademark and so far it hasn't helped anyone to better understand you. You can't be both for and against something. . . not even the worst of politicians I know are typical of such inconsistency.

Actually, you can. I can be against racism and provoke discussion on the topic by assuming a pro-racist stance. I'm not a politician. I'm not trying to get you to vote for me. If I was, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

welborn:

Hmmm. . . I now sense and understand your fear that pushed you into feeling intimidated when in fact no one was attempting to frighten you. In response to your questioning why God would have rules for allowing anyone into heaven, others have given you sound replies.

I never questioned why God would have rules for allowing anyone into heaven. NOBODY has given any sound replies even to that imaginary question. Stop propagating lies.

welborn:

Responding to my posts is great and by all means do so as long as you make sense rather than sounding off against anyone's faith. And you really don't like some posts? - what gets you so upset about them that you'd have to admit that you don't like them?

What makes me an authority? Don't make me laugh some more. You surely don't expect me as a Christian to be ignorant of my faith - and careful study of the Bible provides answers to some of the questions I encounter daily in my commitment to Christ. Interpretations may differ even among Christians, but no Bible-taught Christian would concede to your view that God is apathetic as you try to make Him out to be.

On the contrary, it seems most of the Christians here are ignorant of their faith. Why should I expect you to be any different. You sure have not shown me you're any more educated than most others here. I like your generalizations about Christians, you are one of those who when they hear Jehovah's Witnessess say that on 140K people are going to heaven, your response is, they must not be christians.

What makes you think I'm upset about posts?

welborn:

If you're propagating your own faith/religion (what shall we call it now. . ) and your own 'God' is apathetic, fantastic for you! If you believe your version of 'God' is apathetic and I argue that he/she/it is not, then I have misrepresented your belief. In the same way, if I know that God in my Christian faith is loving and you try to surmise that He is apathetic, you have misrepresented my faith. There's a simple way round this: as long as we don't misrepresent anyone's faith (even when we disagree with their tenets), there'll be less confusion in discussions. Try that out and see the change for the better.

If you don't want to preach your own apathetic 'God' or religion where you STRIVE to be apathetic, you don't have to feel anyone is thereby intimidating you. What a laugh! By all means feel free to make up your own religion of apathy. But good to note that your 'apathy religion' is not the same as Christianity - they are worlds apart.

I didn't say I felt intimidation, I just said I noticed it. Come on, if you are walking down the street, and a little child walks up to you and says he has a gun, and you should walk away, whether or not you feel any fear, the idiot is trying to intimidate you. I'm not saying you are an idiot or a kid (at this point), I'm saying you were attempting to influence me into not posting here. I'm glad you've at least stopped that foolish track.

allonym:

Funny, I suppose the consistent attempt to pretend this is a christian forum and thus my ideas have no place here is not some way to get me to stop posting. Seriously, nobody is that stupid to believe that is not one of your motives.

I never said I was God. And, I say you are wrong, the God in the Christian faith IS apathetic. All life on this planet points to that.

allonym,

You'd have to be sane enough to be consistent in what you're saying to make some sense. No one was intimidating you - you felt intimidated out of nothing other than the challenge to make some sense in what you say. Was that too much for you to handle? FYI, I have no ulterior motives as you suppose. There's no one stupid enough to think so unless they haven't read my posts. If I wanted you to stop posting replies here or elsewhere, it would be clearly stated in my replies. Let me remind you of some of my statements:

"You gravely misread me, allonym. . .and that's trash talk because I did not suggest that you could not respond to any post here or elsewhere. There's a difference between discussing a topic and picking on others' posts."____"If you don't want to preach your own apathetic 'God' or religion where you STRIVE to be apathetic, you don't have to feel anyone is thereby intimidating you. What a laugh! By all means feel free to make up your own religion of apathy."____"Responding to my posts is great and by all means do so as long as you make sense rather than sounding off against anyone's faith."

If you felt you could not respond to any posts here because you felt incapable of doing so in one way or the other, why blame it on some imagined 'intimidation' when no one was frightening you? Nor was I asking you not to post replies here. How could you afford to be so childish to miss the point in my replies? This is an open thread where anyone is free to post a message or discuss a topic ('discuss', not misrepresent) - I have not claimed it is exclusively for Christians, so slow down on the falsehood. God in the Christian faith is not apathetic, and if you insist He is, you're welcome to be my guest and show how narrow you could get. Your statement: "All life on this planet points to that" - Is that how sad your life really is?

allonym:

I never questioned why God would have rules for allowing anyone into heaven. NOBODY has given any sound replies even to that imaginary question. Stop propagating lies.

So, what is the meaning of this statement in one of your replies: "If God doesn't care about you, and lets people into heaven or hell based on whether they followed certain rules,. . ."?? I'm not propagating lies. You stated that in your post and mlks_baby took you up on that. You're the same person who said: "I'm not complaining about the rules, I'm even disputing that there is any "God" making "rules" in the first place." Really? And what if actually God has set rules?

Let's make this simple: could you please give me your own views about God - if you're 'disputing that there is any God making rules in the first place', would I be correct in saying that you're atheistic? If no, then please say it as succinctly as you possibly could: where do you belong?

allonym:

On the contrary, it seems most of the Christians here are ignorant of their faith. Why should I expect you to be any different. You sure have not shown me you're any more educated than most others here. I like your generalizations about Christians, you are one of those who when they hear Jehovah's Witnessess say that on 140K people are going to heaven, your response is, they must not be christians.

Excuse me allonym, with all due respect I don't expect you at any level of intelligence to descend so low in your carping. I challenge that barefaced falsity you've just posted and request you to show where I've ever made generalizations about Christians, or subscribed to the Jehovah Witness teachings, or where I stated that 'they must not be christians', or that only 140k are going to heaven. This is a classic example of the sort of misrepresentation that I talked about in my rejoinders. As far as you don't misrepresent anyone or their faith, a good discussion is possible; as long as you miss the point and resort to making untrue statements, you don't make any sense.

I suppose that intimidate is not the correct word. . .you're trying to overwhelm me with bullshit.

Here is an example:

This is what I said:

allonym:

On the contrary, it seems most of the Christians here are ignorant of their faith. Why should I expect you to be any different. You sure have not shown me you're any more educated than most others here. I like your generalizations about Christians, you are one of those who when they hear Jehovah's Witnessess say that on 140K people are going to heaven, your response is, they must not be christians.

This is your response to that statement:

welborn:

Excuse me allonym, with all due respect I don't expect you at any level of intelligence to descend so low in your carping. I challenge that barefaced falsity you've just posted and request you to show where I've ever made generalizations about Christians, or subscribed to the Jehovah Witness teachings, or where I stated that 'they must not be christians', or that only 140k are going to heaven. This is a classic example of the sort of misrepresentation that I talked about in my rejoinders. As far as you don't misrepresent anyone or their faith, a good discussion is possible; as long as you miss the point and resort to making untrue statements, you don't make any sense.

I never said you were a Jehovah witness. . . obviously, you don't know too much about their beliefs, its the Jehovah Witness who believe in a fixed number going to heaven.

You would claim I have misrepresented someone or their faith if I ever made a statement where I expressed what I thought about the person or their faith and the person decided to disagree with me. I'm betting you're about to cite this as an example of me mispresenting you. , go ahead. . . prove me. . .RIGHT. . hahaha.

I'm tiring of this conversation with you. For now, I'll only respond to the really interesting parts of what you have to say. Try to excite me, ok?

The bullshit is yours. You were first to cry 'intimidation' when nobody was after you in anyway.

allonym:

On the contrary, it seems most of the Christians here are ignorant of their faith. Why should I expect you to be any different. You sure have not shown me you're any more educated than most others here. I like your generalizations about Christians, you are one of those who when they hear Jehovah's Witnessess say that on 140K people are going to heaven, your response is, they must not be christians.

You obviously were confused about me for you to have made such assertions. 'You are one of those. . . your response is. . . ' - I considered that really awkward. Where did you find me making the "generalizations about Christians" or the "response" you attributed to me?

And since you considered yourself so knowledgeable about the Jehovah Witnesses and their beliefs, ask and they'll correct you - the number is 144,000 (or 144K if you prefer); not 140K (or 140,000). If you've got issues mixed up, just ask before you blow your trumpet.

If you really need to amuse yourself, you could try this for size - I've reposted a question for your consideration as in my last reply:

welborn:


Let's make this simple: could you please give me your own views about God - if you're 'disputing that there is any God making rules in the first place', would I be correct in saying that you're atheistic? If no, then please say it as succinctly as you possibly could: where do you belong?

wow. . . 144,000 as opposed to 140,000. You're really blowing me away!

allonym:

wow. . . 144,000 as opposed to 140,000. You're really blowing me away!

Which one U no dey? You wanna start another argument on that now or what? Every Jehovah Witness knows the verse by heart -

Rev. 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

I'm not a JW - but there you have it: it's 144,000 - not 140,000.

wow, you've blown me away too