Scared of being questioned!

[Hope]

There could be false premise in the question but it is not an unsubstantiated statement.

English teacher my arse.

And which question are you referring to, jaks.  Your second phrase therefore shows how lacking in judgement you are.

[ekim]

Hope, you can't answer the question I put on those two forums, you always fudge it!

The problem is that often what you call 'questions' are unsubstantiated statements, and often that is then complicated by the fact that you use terminology that is, at the best, ambiguous.

WHY IS THE DEITY CALLED A GOD OF LOVE? Is that ambiguous?

You still haven't had a reply, so I'll hazard a guess that it is based upon a Jesus saying: 'Just as God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on all no matter whether considered good or bad, so should you express your love to enemies as well as friends'.  It is an indiscriminate 'love' and not based upon punishment for misdemeanours.

[floo]

Hope, you can't answer the question I put on those two forums, you always fudge it!

The problem is that often what you call 'questions' are unsubstantiated statements, and often that is then complicated by the fact that you use terminology that is, at the best, ambiguous.

WHY IS THE DEITY CALLED A GOD OF LOVE? Is that ambiguous?

You still haven't had a reply, so I'll hazard a guess that it is based upon a Jesus saying: 'Just as God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on all no matter whether considered good or bad, so should you express your love to enemies as well as friends'.  It is an indiscriminate 'love' and not based upon punishment for misdemeanours.

You never get a proper answer to that question, just a load of excuses for the nastiness of the deity!

[jakswan]

There could be false premise in the question but it is not an unsubstantiated statement.

English teacher my arse.

And which question are you referring to, jaks.  Your second phrase therefore shows how lacking in judgement you are.

Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment!

[Hope]

WHY IS THE DEITY CALLED A GOD OF LOVE? Is that ambiguous?

The only questions of that sort I've known from you have been couched in negative terms and vitriol.

You never get a proper answer to that question, just a load of excuses for the nastiness of the deity!

Well, in view of the vitriolic phraseology that you always couch the questions in, and the obvious lack of understanding of the Bible that seems to inform the questions, the only so-called 'excuses' I've ever read are posts that are correcting your understanding.

[floo]

WHY IS THE DEITY CALLED A GOD OF LOVE? Is that ambiguous?

The only questions of that sort I've known from you have been couched in negative terms and vitriol.

You never get a proper answer to that question, just a load of excuses for the nastiness of the deity!

Well, in view of the vitriolic phraseology that you always couch the questions in, and the obvious lack of understanding of the Bible that seems to inform the questions, the only so-called 'excuses' I've ever read are posts that are correcting your understanding.

The deity is portrayed as evil in the Bible if the deeds attributed to it were factual, so it isn't any wonder I am vitriolic in my description of it.

[Samuel]

...and the obvious lack of understanding of the Bible that seems to inform the questions...

so we can't ask questions about god without understanding the bible? ...hmm there are many Christians that say one can't understand the Bible until one establishes a relationship with god.

That's the problem with circles Hope, just when you think you're getting somewhere you find yourself right back at the beginning again

[Hope]

so we can't ask questions about god without understanding the bible?

Not so, Samuel.  What I was pointing out is the way that Floo imposes specific ideas and meanings on the Bible and then effectively asks Christians here to defend those meanings, even though most Christians don't hold to them anyway.  I have no problem with questions being posed; what worries me is when they are posed in the form of a statement of fact.  On a number of occasions, both here and elsewhere, I and others have had to ask Floo to either clarify what she means by a given concept, or have had to point out that mainstream Christianity doesn't interpret or understand a given passage or section of the Bible in the way she has stated that it does.  Since almost all of her threads of this nature are critical of the Bible (something which, in itself, is perfectly legit.) criticising an understanding that may only be held by herself, and not by Christianity makes here criticism rather pointless.

Just about evcery time I read a passage of section of the Bible, I ask questions of it; most Christians here in the West probably do so the same.  I suspect that many outside of the West do so as well.

[jeremyp]

Hope, you can't answer the question I put on those two forums, you always fudge it!

The problem is that often what you call 'questions' are unsubstantiated statements, and often that is then complicated by the fact that you use terminology that is, at the best, ambiguous.

WHY IS THE DEITY CALLED A GOD OF LOVE? Is that ambiguous?

You still haven't had a reply,

Reply #11

[Hope]

Perhaps her daughter embodies a type of Christianity she approves of.

Said daughter is a CofE cleric, if I remember correctly from what Floo has said in the past.  Interestingly, as Floo has made very plain to the likes of Jim and several others, she is happy with the attitude that her daughter has - an attitude that I suspect mirrors the attitudes of most of the Christians here.

It would be interesting to explore what aspects Floo respects.

It most cases, it seems to be those aspects that are least like those she grew up with.

[Hope]

WHY IS THE DEITY CALLED A GOD OF LOVE? Is that ambiguous?

I've been looking back at the various places that you have posted anything remotely like a question like that, Floo, both here and elsewhere and have been unable to find a single post in which you have posed as straight-forward a question as this.  It is always couched in terms of 'If God/the deity is a loving God, why does he/it allow x or y?'  In pretty well every case, someone like Jim, or Alan or I have responded basically pointing out that a God of love allows things to happen - be they earthquakes, floods, other forms of natural disaster, illness, etc, and the suffering that goes with them - because some of these are natural events which we, as a human race, rely on for our continued existence, whilst others are 'unnatural' events resulting from choices that some humans have decided to make and which inevitably impact on others.  Then, there are instances - rather like the case of the recent Shoreham air disaster - which seem to make no sense but still occur, often without a real 'culprit' to blame.

Rather than taking those responses and trying to work through them in discussion, there have been a lot of occasions when you have started a fresh thread posing almost exactly the same question, just using slightly different language.

[floo]

WHY IS THE DEITY CALLED A GOD OF LOVE? Is that ambiguous?

I've been looking back at the various places that you have posted anything remotely like a question like that, Floo, both here and elsewhere and have been unable to find a single post in which you have posed as straight-forward a question as this.  It is always couched in terms of 'If God/the deity is a loving God, why does he/it allow x or y?'  In pretty well every case, someone like Jim, or Alan or I have responded basically pointing out that a God of love allows things to happen - be they earthquakes, floods, other forms of natural disaster, illness, etc, and the suffering that goes with them - because some of these are natural events which we, as a human race, rely on for our continued existence, whilst others are 'unnatural' events resulting from choices that some humans have decided to make and which inevitably impact on others.  Then, there are instances - rather like the case of the recent Shoreham air disaster - which seem to make no sense but still occur, often without a real 'culprit' to blame.

I have asked on many occasions why that evil entity in the sky is called a god of love, when its deeds give the lie to it being loving?

[Hope]

I have asked on many occasions why that evil entity in the sky is called a god of love, when its deeds give the lie to it being loving?

Precisely, Floo, you have asked a question in the form of a pre-determined assumption.  That is why the question is ambiguous, because - as others have explained to you - your examples of the deeds that 'give the lie to it being loving' are either based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the passage you are using or are based on the consequences of human action which - as you yourself have stated often enough - said actor(s) have to accept the consequences of. 

Your multiple threads about why a God of love allows people to live eternity without his presence - the 'Hell/heaven' threads - seem to display a contradiction to that same attitude that we have to accept the consequences of our actions/decisions.

[Gordon]

In pretty well every case, someone like Jim, or Alan or I have responded basically pointing out that a God of love allows things to happen - be they earthquakes, floods, other forms of natural disaster, illness, etc, and the suffering that goes with them

This must be a new bizarre use of the term 'love' then.

- because some of these are natural events which we, as a human race, rely on for our continued existence

I'm not sure that the now non-existence of the countless victims of major earthquakes, floods, droughts etc support this perverse view you have.

whilst others are 'unnatural' events resulting from choices that some humans have decided to make and which inevitably impact on others.  Then, there are instances - rather like the case of the recent Shoreham air disaster - which seem to make no sense but still occur, often without a real 'culprit' to blame.

All our own fault of course, but no doubt this too is all part of God's loving plan for his creation eh!

[jakswan]

WHY IS THE DEITY CALLED A GOD OF LOVE? Is that ambiguous?

I've been looking back at the various places that you have posted anything remotely like a question like that, Floo, both here and elsewhere and have been unable to find a single post in which you have posed as straight-forward a question as this.  It is always couched in terms of 'If God/the deity is a loving God, why does he/it allow x or y?'  In pretty well every case, someone like Jim, or Alan or I have responded basically pointing out that a God of love allows things to happen - be they earthquakes, floods, other forms of natural disaster, illness, etc, and the suffering that goes with them - because some of these are natural events which we, as a human race, rely on for our continued existence, whilst others are 'unnatural' events resulting from choices that some humans have decided to make and which inevitably impact on others.  Then, there are instances - rather like the case of the recent Shoreham air disaster - which seem to make no sense but still occur, often without a real 'culprit' to blame.

In each of those threads people have explained to someone like Jim, or Alan or you that these explanations make any sense at all. e.g. How do human beings rely on earthquakes and floods for our continued existence?

That two year little boys body was found drowned on the beach recently why did your god (defined as loving and all powerful) allow such a thing to happen?

Either the god is not all powerful, doesn't exist or isn't loving.

[Sassy]

Why do many extreme fundies/Biblical literalists seem so scared of being questioned about their faith?

Recently I have been on a couple of fundie Christian forums where I quite politely questioned why their deity was described as a god of love, and received the bum's rush very quickly.

I suspect if instead of blindly accepting it all as true, they allowed a question or two to creep in, they might find that their belief lacked any substance! I also suspect that a lot of fundies hang onto their faith as a form of fire insurance as they are terrified of the consequences if they kick it into touch! I think that applies to a few posters on this forum as well.

I suppose they know the person asking is not sincere just trying to stir a reaction as you did. But then again we have only your word that you did ask and receive that in return. Why not post it or a link... Bums rush not here...

[floo]

Perhaps her daughter embodies a type of Christianity she approves of.

Said daughter is a CofE cleric, if I remember correctly from what Floo has said in the past.  Interestingly, as Floo has made very plain to the likes of Jim and several others, she is happy with the attitude that her daughter has - an attitude that I suspect mirrors the attitudes of most of the Christians here.

It would be interesting to explore what aspects Floo respects.

It most cases, it seems to be those aspects that are least like those she grew up with.

Hope I NEVER talk about my daughter's views on Christianity. I am proud however of her deeds!

[floo]

Why do many extreme fundies/Biblical literalists seem so scared of being questioned about their faith?

Recently I have been on a couple of fundie Christian forums where I quite politely questioned why their deity was described as a god of love, and received the bum's rush very quickly.

I suspect if instead of blindly accepting it all as true, they allowed a question or two to creep in, they might find that their belief lacked any substance! I also suspect that a lot of fundies hang onto their faith as a form of fire insurance as they are terrified of the consequences if they kick it into touch! I think that applies to a few posters on this forum as well.

I suppose they know the person asking is not sincere just trying to stir a reaction as you did. But then again we have only your word that you did ask and receive that in return. Why not post it or a link... Bums rush not here...

I certainly got a reaction, but extremists like yourself hate being challenged, don't they!

[Hope]

Hope I NEVER talk about my daughter's views on Christianity. I am proud however of her deeds!

Sorry, Floo, you have certainly stated what branch of Christianity your daughter is a minister of in previous posts (though I'm not sure whether that was here or on Faithspace), and you have certainly stated here that you are happy with her attitude (after all, deeds are reflections of attitude).

[floo]

Hope I NEVER talk about my daughter's views on Christianity. I am proud however of her deeds!

Sorry, Floo, you have certainly stated what branch of Christianity your daughter is a minister of in previous posts (though I'm not sure whether that was here or on Faithspace), and you have certainly stated here that you are happy with her attitude (after all, deeds are reflections of attitude).

My daughter is an Anglican Priest, I have stated that many times, but I don't talk about her take on the faith, which would be wrong.

[Hope]

In each of those threads people have explained to someone like Jim, or Alan or you that these explanations make any sense at all. e.g. How do human beings rely on earthquakes and floods for our continued existence?

I assume that you are trying to tell me that other people like yourself have felt that they have had to explain to us why such natural disasters are important for our continued existence.  If that is the case, I'd disagree with your claim.  I was taught at school that natural 'disasters' where often related to the earth 'regenerating' itself.  For instance, earthquakes are related to plate movements that can themselves be related to the creation of new material - either underground or under the sea. 

That two year little boys body was found drowned on the beach recently why did your god (defined as loving and all powerful) allow such a thing to happen?

Are you saying that those who forced that family out of its home, or the people smugglers who ripped the family off and placed them in inadequate transport, shouldn't have to face the consequences of their actions?

Either the god is not all powerful, doesn't exist or isn't loving.

Or god accepts that s/he can't override the free will that individuals and groups choose to practice regardless of its consequences to other humans.  Is that what you would rather see?

[Hope]

...but I don't talk about her take on the faith, which would be wrong.

But you do, often directly, by contrasting her to Christians you regard as fundamentalists or whatever.

[floo]

...but I don't talk about her take on the faith, which would be wrong.

But you do, often directly, by contrasting her to Christians you regard as fundamentalists or whatever.

In what way?

[jakswan]

I assume that you are trying to tell me that other people like yourself have felt that they have had to explain to us why such natural disasters are important for our continued existence.  If that is the case, I'd disagree with your claim. 

No I have never tried to explain why natural disasters are important for our continued existence.   

You did though:-

earthquakes, floods, other forms of natural disaster, illness, etc, and the suffering that goes with them - because some of these are natural events which we, as a human race, rely on for our continued existence,

I was taught at school that natural 'disasters' where often related to the earth 'regenerating' itself.  For instance, earthquakes are related to plate movements that can themselves be related to the creation of new material - either underground or under the sea. 

I was never taught that.

Are you saying that those who forced that family out of its home, or the people smugglers who ripped the family off and placed them in inadequate transport, shouldn't have to face the consequences of their actions?

Nope.

Or god accepts that s/he can't override the free will that individuals and groups choose to practice regardless of its consequences to other humans.  Is that what you would rather see?

So if you saw a two year old boy drowning would you do nothing, shrug your shoulders and walk away?

If you were to I would suggest you were not loving but evil and culpable for his death, since you defined god as everywhere I fail to see how it escapes culpability.

[Andy]

I keep seeing this bullshit crop up - playing fast and loose with what free will is. Take free will as given, my little girl has been whining for candy floss all afternoon - she wants candy floss. She has chosen using her "free will" that she wants candy floss as opposed to not wanting candy floss, and I have no control over that choice. However, I have managed to physically stop her from having candy floss, regardless of her free choice to want it.

If you're going to state that the all powerful god can create all the physical stuff, intervene in it as and when - from raising dead people to helping find car keys, then hell yeah he should be able to stop my little girl from physically having candy floss even when she has freely chose to want it. Same goes for the paedophile priest who has freely chosen to rape little boys.