A moral God?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Original Message
From: David Flandry, dflandry@worldnet.att.net
To: <errancy@infidels.org>
Sent: 06-01-1999,
Subject: Re: A moral God?

Bell wrote:

Matthew Bell
Their sin was in their nature, i.e. being a sinner.

1. Sinners are at enmity to God and justly exposed to his wrath.
2. All human beings are born sinners.
3. Babies are humans.
4. Babies are sinners.
5. Babies are at enmity to God and justly exposed to his wrath.

RevGaud
You wouldn't care to back up these assertions, would you? I mean you
don't really think we'll just take your word for it, right Matt?

Matthew Bell
The syllogism was an expansion of my statement, which is arguing from the
Christian perspective. The question is whether it exresses a valid argument
expressing the Christian belief stated as the conclusion in 5.

Thanks
M.Bell

David Flandry:

Bell has proven by his own statements made on 5-22-99 and 5-27-99
that he is dishonest to the core. In this post he says that babies are
deserving of  whatever  wrath  "god"  feels like showing towards them,
because of  their sinful nature. And how did they acquire that nature?

>From their  Creator, YHWH, "god",  Biblegod.


A while back  I apologized for using the word "horseshit" in conjunction
with Bell's views.  I now retract that apology.  There is NO word to describe
the loathsome, detestable monster-god of Christianity, and its adherents.
And they KNOW  they worship a monster.

• Previous message: A moral God?
• Next message: A moral God?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]