"Michael Gray" <mikegray@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pk20l3prij1tmp2d15f8im40ebvkvatvkl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:56:42 +0000, les_on_usenet
> <delete-unread@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>On 29 Nov 2007 23:13:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>wrote:
>>>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
>>
>>Love and caring is an essential part of all the higher evolved mammals
>>as we could not survive as a species without it. The most advanced of
>>mammals our young need care and nurturing into adulthood for
>>the longest time of any animal. This can only be achieved by stable
>>bonding between parents and off-spring and considerable sacrifice to
>>raise the child properly.
>>This above passage of his is quite a puzzler:
>>"Our God is the ideal we follow, which happens to be love
>>and care as exemplified in Jesus Christ, our God incarnate. "
>>So, he is telling us his God is an evolved human emotion we all
>>share (well most of are capable of love even though it is
>>dormant in some)
>>Incarnate means 'become man'
>
> Incarnate means "becomes flesh"
>
Or the ideal become reality.
>>So he is saying that a human emotion (love) became a human called
>>Jesus.
>
Only atheists will believe in love as an emotion, we Christians will
only believe, when that emotion is evidenced in loving and caring action.
Gods or devils are the ideals and their human manifestation we want to
live
up to, and the ideal of maximum love and care is Christ, who gave His life
for the love of us, ...and not only for those who deserve to be loved.
>>Does this make any sense to you? It makes none to me.
>>Heck humans have expressed love ever since we emerged as a
>>separate species over 100,00 years ago. You can see it
>>in the eye of every proud mother with her new born baby.
>>She would sacrifice her own life to protect it. That applies to all
>>the higher mammals too it is in our genes. We need no mythical
>>Jesus to show or teach us us that.
>>
Do you really believe exhortation and demonstration of loving and
caring for others are unnecessary? Only the human species kill each other
in
massive numbers.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
