Pastor Frank wrote:
> "bob young" <alaspectrum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:474E41D8.240850C1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Bill M wrote:
> >>
> >> Your information makes sense. I appreciate it.
> >> From my stand point, I interpret words as they are defined in the
> >> dictionary - not as they are defined by individuals. You have
provided
> >> evidence he is creating his own personal definitions of words. Either
> >> that
> >> or I am completely misunderstanding him
> >
> > But from my recollection this is a fairly recent tack and one which PF
did
> > not
> > use eighteen months ago.
> > his new line is his efforts to get out of having to prove that his god
> > exists.
> > He can't of course so he adopted this love creation as the next best
> > thing.
> > As I have just asked PF, since his god was supposed to have created
the
> > universe, without humans on it [they came later] how could he have
done so
> > if
> > he required human love in the first place to actually perform as a
god?
> > Over to you PF.
> >
> Like I said: Our God is the ideal we follow, which happens to be
love
> and care as exemplified in Jesus Christ, our God incarnate. Only love
and
> care makes life worth living, all else is mere commentary.
>
[How was this god supposed to have created the universe,
without humans on it [they came later] how could he have done so
if he required human love in the first place to actually perform as a
god?]
Always the same dealing with religionists, they have one thing in common,
a
brushed well practiced skill at 'dodging the issue'
What a waster
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
