From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:50:05 GMT

Gordon Storga writes:
>>>Stephen Buckley writes:
>>>>Gordon Storga writes:
>>>Note: these questions were a sample of the questions I had asked at bible
>>>study as a youth.  I no longer ask these questions, having determined that
>>>I was merely questioning a fable.
>>
>>[[a whole bunch of gordon's questions, my responses and gordon's responses
>>        deleted.]]
>>
>>>>  in asking the above questions we're going to have to accept [at least
>>>>for the sake of argument] the premise that God(tm) exists as he is known
>>>>in the bible.  i've answered the above questions based on that assumption.
>>
>>>I understand that.  But the god you believe in is so contradictory and
>>>profane, and illogical I can't possibly believe that such a being would
>>>exist.
>>
>>  i'm sorry if this sounds insensitive, but i'm not going to continue
>>answering your questions when you so consistently do not accept my premise.

>I'll gladly discuss these issues with you using your basis that a god
>exists.  That doesn't mean I *accept* that a god exists.  Also, please
>note that I wasn't supplying these questions expecting you to answer them.
>You had asked me what questions I had asked of "god" long ago that were
>not answered to my satisfaction.  I supplied them.  That didn't mean you
>had to try to answer them yourself.

  i wasn't asking you to believe the premise, just accept god exists and
is knowable through the bible for the sake of argument.  but all your
responses indicated, essentially, a critique of the unacceptability
of the premise, which meant the rest of the conversation moot.

>>  you think the bible and god are a fable and you do not respect those
>>sources as worthwhile, yet you ask me all these questions, and i answer
>>them and i state my premise of where there based.  

>I understand that.  But I was only listing the questions in a rhetorical
>way.  Now, I'm willing to discuss your answers using the premise of a god
>existing.  But all the conclusions I reach through your answers to my
>questions is that this god can't possibly exist as described by mainstream
>Christianity.

  then there's no need to go back several posts ago and go through all
the questions and answers.  because while you find god unacceptable based
on how he presents himself in the bible, i will accept him and we
just agree to disagree right there.

>>                                                   i also say that for
>>the sake of discussion you're going to have to hypothetically accept
>>this assumption/premise for a discussion to be meaningful.  but your
>>responses to my answers consistently indicate that you do not accept
>>my sources for my answers.  very simply, you don't accept my premise
>>even for the sake of conversation, so it would be a waste of my energy
>>to answer them all again from the same sources for you to poke the same
>>holes in once again.  

>Even using your premise there are holes big enough to drive a Mack truck
>through.  It's not your fault personally.  Far more informed people than
>you have tried to answer my questions satisfactorily.  None have been able
>to do so.

  and i've come to believe you do not believe there are acceptable 
answers to your questions--no matter how good the answers are.

  and that looks like the end of this thread.

			- 30 -
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc