Stephen Fry calls God an ‘evil, capricious, monstrous maniac’

We all get to use this 'free will'. We can all not change anything ever about what is already known about us or anything in the entire world. So go about freely changing your will to the thing that you have to do.

 

[h=1]Proverbs 19:21New International Version (NIV)[/h] [SUP]21 [/SUP]Many are the plans in a person’s heart,
but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails.

 

do you genuinly not understand what Fry was doing?

the man was commenting on the sheer awfulness of a deity which is claimed by many to be pure goodness, and worthy of not only worship, but active imposition upon others. effectively, he said "your god is an abject a$ shole, yet you think he's good, and you would have the rest of the world think the same.

 

What is your point?

 

Just my humble little attempt in giving you a little assistance in making your point from a theists perspective.

 

That the lords purpose prevails? Goes against your 'free will'.

 

Not hardly. As you pointed out ... God made free will and we are free to use that free will.

 

Do you not understand what I am doing? Pointing out the inconsistencies in Fry's rants.

Unless you live in the Middle East no one is required to believe in or love God, so I'm not sure what his problem is.
Christian charities help millions of people all over the world so maybe he is angry at a God whose followers
make life better for the multitudes.

I get that Fry doesn't believe in God. I don't understand his unreasoning anger and juvenile tantrum.

 

Disclaimer: Notice all readers:
cupid dave has used terms such as "our god" in conjunction with another term "we" and placing both those terms in relation to the declaration "Reality is our god" and "Reality did create the universe." etc. Be it known that cupid dave does not in any way speak on my behalf in making such statements.

On another side of another coin, I will say that his courage is above average in providing him the ability to make such expressions.

 

Incorporeal, I think we all know that cupid dave doesn't speak on your behalf.....

given even you don't do that.

 

Given even that I don't do what?

 

Speak for yourself, Incorporeal......you don't stand FOR anything. Just against things other people say.

 

If the things that other people say are things that I do not believe to be true then I positively take a stand against them. That is taking a stand and therefore your accusation is self defeating.

 

We already know from history that there were many floods in that region. The world-wide flood the bible talks about with the ark and the pairing of animals never happened. Nobody here is saying a flood never happened, just the flood decribed in the bible (which many people still believe).

 

The most unnoticed thing about the NT story has now become this one fact: that Christ represented himself to stand for the ideal we call Truth.

He explains this in John 14:6-11 with great detail.

That idea explains what the Jews never could do, i.e.; define God.
They do this day say say "God is ineffable, too complex to describe with words.
But once Christ said he was the son-of-God and the acted in the ideal of Truth, the definition of God was immediately defined as Reality.

Truth IS the son-of-Reality. (John 10:36)
Truth is the image of Reality. (Gen 1:26)

This concept then explains the idea of Trinity.

1John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

For mankind, Truth and Reality are the same thing, because one explains the other, and images the other, and truth is born out of the Reality which unfolds, so men can not tell one from the other.
That is a Trinity.

 

Do you stand against Truth?
Do you deny that only one Reality exists for us all?
Do you agree that Truth is born out of Reality as reality unfolds moment by moment?
Do you deny that Truth is the image of Reality?
Do you recognize that Reality is separated from our mind by the senses?
Do you agree that only by our senses are we allowed to discover Facts about this partner that is always with us,... i.e.; Reality?

 

Those are all nice opinions cupid dave, however, the private interpretation is simply a private interpretation. The term ineffable, IMHO, would be more politically correct because it does not attempt to put God in a box restricted to a finite definition... ie.. reality.. Of course the term 'reality' also opens another philosophical can of worms without placing an absolute (all inclusive) and irrefutable and unambiguous definition on that term.

 

Define 'truth'.

Define "Reality".

See above two requests.

See above two requests.

Define mind and see above two requests.

Fact = something believed to be true or real. Define partner in terms other than "in example". See first two requests.

 

As I said, the ONLY thing you actually "stand" for....is opposing what other people believe.

Let's try.....name five things you believe in-

 

That's exactly what I said, is it not?

 

I believe that the 'Bible' is a great book.
I believe that the weather outside right now is a little on the cool side.
I believe that the sun will give the appearance of rising above the eastern horizon tomorrow morning.
I believe that I am having fun on this forum.
I believe that my community friends appreciate the things that I have done for them.

 

To do exactly as is already known. Your verse points that out. The lord's purpose prevails.
But I agree, we are free to make any already known choice and can't deviate from that already known choice. That is the definition of 'free will' in this case.

 

Well, I detect that there is still a small variance in what you believe in that subject matter and what I believe in that same matter; however, that is a trivial, insignificant, and possibly a semantic difference. No need to worry about it.

 

Sure, in much the same way as a little girl may look upon her cute little doll as her child.

I exercise my free will to denounce a selfish, egotistical, immature god. I would never waste my time offering praise or worship to such an entity. If you showed me absolute proof of the existence of this god, I would denounce it even more loudly than I do now.

 

What if we demonstrated the same actions as a judge, or police officer? That's not our position.

God's in the position to kill people (natural disasters, sickness). It's not our position to do the same.