What is a Christian?

[Betrayer0fHope]

Well, this is a fairly simple question. Come on, tell me, what makes a Christian a Christian? And if someone says, We're all Christians, but some of us haven't accepted it, I'm gonna smack you.

[(Q)]

A Christian is one who explicitly obeys their god and their doctrines. There can be no other type of Christian. Hence, there are probably very few Christians.

[Betrayer0fHope]

What is their god and what are their doctrines?

[(Q)]

The god of Abraham, of course. The same god worshiped by Jews and Muslims. I know it sounds silly, but there it is.

[JDawg]

There are different interpretations of that doctrine, Q. That's why Christianity is so divided. Some believe the Bible is literal, while others believe it isn't--which in itself leads to further division, because the Bible is then open to interpretation...which isn't universal.

So I think being a Christian is slightly more than your definition.

[(Q)]

There are different interpretations of that doctrine, Q.

Exactly. But, whose interpretation is correct? By what authority? I would suspect if Christians believe their god exists, then their god is the ultimate authority, hence whatever words are written in the bible must be taken literally.

That's why Christianity is so divided. Some believe the Bible is literal, while others believe it isn't--which in itself leads to further division, because the Bible is then open to interpretation...which isn't universal.

Agreed, so I would suspect it is those Christians who take the bible literally are the true Christians, the others would be hypocrites in that regard.

So I think being a Christian is slightly more than your definition.

Fair enough, could you build on that?

[JDawg]

Exactly. But, whose interpretation is correct? By what authority? I would suspect if Christians believe their god exists, then their god is the ultimate authority, hence whatever words are written in the bible must be taken literally.

The problem with that is the words weren't written by God. Some do take it literally, others see that it could simply be the fallible work of man (granted, with divine inspiration).

So it is left up to the Churches to interpret it. In the Catholic faith, they have the Pope to decree what is and what isn't.

Agreed, so I would suspect it is those Christians who take the bible literally are the true Christians, the others would be hypocrites in that regard.

Not particularly. I think the only Christians that take it completely literally are the Amish.

Fair enough, could you build on that?

I'm not the authority on that. Whenever a theist tries to define what an atheist is, I view it as a conflict of interest, and that they lack the ability to do so. In turn, I don't believe, since I don't have faith, that I'm in a position to define it for them.

[(Q)]

The problem with that is the words weren't written by God. Some do take it literally, others see that it could simply be the fallible work of man (granted, with divine inspiration).

So it is left up to the Churches to interpret it. In the Catholic faith, they have the Pope to decree what is and what isn't.

That's the part I don't buy. If a god were in fact revealing a message to ALL mankind, he wouldn't do it knowing his message would be interpreted in so many ways. The message would be crystal clear and would be known by all.


I'm not the authority on that. Whenever a theist tries to define what an atheist is, I view it as a conflict of interest, and that they lack the ability to do so. In turn, I don't believe, since I don't have faith, that I'm in a position to define it for them.

So, we are left with Christians defining themselves, whatever and whenever they feel the notion to do so. That would be hypocrisy at it's finest. And, the rest of us are left holding the bag.

[swarm]

All those billions of theists worshiping the "prince of peace" and yet they can't find peace with both hands and a shovel.

You've got to imagine your god hasn't been back in 2000 years purely out of shame.

[Betrayer0fHope]

So is there nobody who can be identified as a Christian, because we don't know what one is? Or can someone come up with a solid definition?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

<sigh> I have stated this repeatedly. A christian believes:A)They are sinful B)They have been forgiven through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Let me define that further for you. Sin is not doing what God wants us to. Because we are not just controlled by thought, but also emotion and instinct, it's very hard to avoid sinning. It has been suggested in the new testament writings of Paul that what is sin to Joe may not be a sin to Bob, however if Bob is aware of Joe's sensitivity, there is no reason for Bob to flaunt his freedom in Joe's face. I think it's in Romans, but I can't remember.

Anyhoo, Sinful, Forgiven through Christ's Death, Belief in God is necessary as well, Christ's Resurrection.... That's it. Everything else from Creationism to the Big Crunch is unnecessary.

[(Q)]

<sigh> I have stated this repeatedly. A christian believes:A)They are sinful B)They have been forgiven through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So, we can toss the bible out and go with YOUR simplistic version of Christianity? What would your god think of that?

Let me define that further for you. Sin is not doing what God wants us to. Because we are not just controlled by thought, but also emotion and instinct, it's very hard to avoid sinning.

Are you saying it's difficult for you to hold back killing and stealing? Funny, I have no such urges to do to others what I wouldn't want done to me.


Anyhoo, Sinful, Forgiven through Christ's Death, Belief in God is necessary as well, Christ's Resurrection.... That's it. Everything else from Creationism to the Big Crunch is unnecessary.

So, we have one version of Christianity that defies the bible. Any others?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I'm sorry, if Q has said something of value, would someone let me know? I've got him on ignore right now, he's been particularly venomous lately.

[(Q)]

I'm sorry, if Q has said something of value, would someone let me know? I've got him on ignore right now, he's been particularly venomous lately.

Theists are very good at hiding their heads in the sand at the most opportune times.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Most opportune times? They are in a constant state of it.

[Betrayer0fHope]

<sigh> I have stated this repeatedly. A christian believes:A)They are sinful B)They have been forgiven through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Let me define that further for you. Sin is not doing what God wants us to. Because we are not just controlled by thought, but also emotion and instinct, it's very hard to avoid sinning. It has been suggested in the new testament writings of Paul that what is sin to Joe may not be a sin to Bob, however if Bob is aware of Joe's sensitivity, there is no reason for Bob to flaunt his freedom in Joe's face. I think it's in Romans, but I can't remember.

Anyhoo, Sinful, Forgiven through Christ's Death, Belief in God is necessary as well, Christ's Resurrection.... That's it. Everything else from Creationism to the Big Crunch is unnecessary.

Who is Jesus Christ?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Jesus Christ was this dude that was born like 2000 years ago. He was God incarnate. The whole trinity thing gives me a bit of a headache, but I'll try this on anyway. There's God, right? Then there's Jesus. Jesus is considered God's son. Jesus is also God. Then there's the Holy Spirit, which is also God. The Holy Spirit is the one who gives christians power beyond themselves. I'm sure there are websites that do a better job of explaining it, but that is my understanding.
Why did I say all that? Anticipation of the follow up, I guess. Yes, I know, God was his own Dad then God died and God resurrected himself. It's a mind screw, believe me.
Who was he? Average Jew dude, carpenter maybe, probably liked to fish.

[Betrayer0fHope]

Jesus Christ was this dude that was born like 2000 years ago. He was God incarnate. The whole trinity thing gives me a bit of a headache, but I'll try this on anyway. There's God, right? Then there's Jesus. Jesus is considered God's son. Jesus is also God. Then there's the Holy Spirit, which is also God. The Holy Spirit is the one who gives christians power beyond themselves. I'm sure there are websites that do a better job of explaining it, but that is my understanding.
Why did I say all that? Anticipation of the follow up, I guess. Yes, I know, God was his own Dad then God died and God resurrected himself. It's a mind screw, believe me.
Who was he? Average Jew dude, carpenter maybe, probably liked to fish.

So must a Christian believe all of that is true?

[Simon Anders]

What is a Republican?

[one_raven]

We're all Christians, but some of us haven't accepted it

[one_raven]

Jesus Christ was this dude that was born like 2000 years ago. He was God incarnate. The whole trinity thing gives me a bit of a headache, but I'll try this on anyway. There's God, right? Then there's Jesus. Jesus is considered God's son. Jesus is also God. Then there's the Holy Spirit, which is also God. The Holy Spirit is the one who gives christians power beyond themselves. I'm sure there are websites that do a better job of explaining it, but that is my understanding.
Why did I say all that? Anticipation of the follow up, I guess. Yes, I know, God was his own Dad then God died and God resurrected himself. It's a mind screw, believe me.
Who was he? Average Jew dude, carpenter maybe, probably liked to fish.

Not all Christians have beleived that Jesus was God incarnate.
Not all Christians believe in the Trinity.

[Simon Anders]

We're all Christians, but some of us haven't accepted itMore please. I mean I laughed, but then....I don't know....please go on.

[one_raven]

A Christian is one who follows Christ.

It's really as simple as that.
The one who calls himself a Christian IS - he defines the term and detrmines in what way he is to best follow Christ.

I can make a case for someone validly referring to himself as a Christian, yet having no belief in Abraham's God.

[Betrayer0fHope]

...if someone says, We're all Christians, but some of us haven't accepted it, I'm gonna smack you.

We're all Christians, but some of us haven't accepted it

Damn it dude. Well, could you please explain what things you must believe, what things you do, and what things you don't believe and don't do that make you a Christian?

The simple idea that you are what you say you are is silly.

[one_raven]

The simple idea that you are what you say you are is silly.

I disagree.
Who determines what a Christian is?
The Pope?
You?

No one can decide what a Christian is, but the one who claims to be Christian.

Of course, if someone claims to be a Christian and acts in a way which betrays what Christ taught, it would be fair to call that person a hypocrite.

What did Jesus teach?
Read his words.

People who say a Christian is this or that based on the words of anyone BUT Christ (whcih includes the apostles and church founders and leaders) is full of shit.

[Simon Anders]

A Christian is one who follows Christ.
Or wishes they could and thinks it is the right thing to do - but fails all the time or in some way does not manage to follow. (just quibbling, but 'follows' can be interpreted a number of ways.)

[one_raven]

Or wishes they could and thinks it is the right thing to do - but fails all the time or in some way does not manage to follow. (just quibbling, but 'follows' can be interpreted a number of ways.)

Following someone does not mean you have the ability to keep pace.
If you are genuinely trying, you are following.

[Betrayer0fHope]

I disagree.
Who determines what a Christian is?
The Pope?
You?

No one can decide what a Christian is, but the one who claims to be Christian.

Of course, if someone claims to be a Christian and acts in a way which betrays what Christ taught, it would be fair to call that person a hypocrite.

What did Jesus teach?
Read his words.

People who say a Christian is this or that based on the words of anyone BUT Christ (whcih includes the apostles and church founders and leaders) is full of shit.

Do people decide your life for you?

[one_raven]

Do people decide your life for you?

No.
I do.
That's the point.

[Simon Anders]

Following someone does not mean you have the ability to keep pace.
If you are genuinely trying, you are following. I was thinking of the Christians who have given up on themselves. The damned - from their perspective. Your definition could be seen as saying that all Christians are good - from a Christian perspective - or possibly even saved or destined to reach Heaven. But I would hesitate to say someone who believes Jesus is the way, but cannot even seem to try any more is still a Christian. Belief not acts. I'm not a Christian so this is outsider speculation. Further Christians could be hypocrites if they go against Christ, but still be Christians, sweating about the upcoming doom - again from their perspective.

[one_raven]

Your definition could be seen as saying that all Christians are good - from a Christian perspective - or possibly even saved or destined to reach Heaven.
This I disagree with, but...

But I would hesitate to say someone who believes Jesus is the way, but cannot even seem to try any more is still a Christian. Belief not acts. I'm not a Christian so this is outsider speculation. Further Christians could be hypocrites if they go against Christ, but still be Christians, sweating about the upcoming doom - again from their perspective.
I get your point.

[Simon Anders]

This would mean, however, that the outsider would have to judge whether the person is trying. Which is not something easy to judge. In fact I think even judging that about oneself can often be in error. Later on you realize you were though you thought you weren't. Later on you realize you weren't though you throught you were. I have had these realizations - though not about the following Christ issue.

[one_raven]

"Follows", in this case, means "believes in the the teachings of"

[one_raven]

This would mean, however, that the outsider would have to judge whether the person is trying.

Why?

It is not up to the outsider to judge at all.
Why must someone prove themselves to Christian?

[Betrayer0fHope]

No.
I do.
That's the point.

Are these people, these self-proclaimed Christians part of your life? Or are they completely separate, a part of something called "their life"?

[one_raven]

Are these people, these self-proclaimed Christians part of your life? Or are they completely separate, a part of something called "their life"?

My life?
I'm not a Christian.

[Betrayer0fHope]

My life?
I'm not a Christian.

Are they, the Christians, involved in your life, in any way?

[one_raven]

No person is completely separate.
Does that mean I should be able to judge their claim that they are Christians?

What's your point?

[Simon Anders]

Why?

It is not up to the outsider to judge at all.
Why must someone prove themselves to Christian?Good point. You can be right about what a Christian is and yet not be claiming you can determine case by case.

[Betrayer0fHope]

No person is completely separate.
Does that mean I should be able to judge their claim that they are Christians?

What's your point?

Eh, I'm dropping it. I was going to say, that person is in your life, you decide what you are, and what others affects what you are. You decide who and what everything and everybody is, not themselves. Maybe for themselves they do, but not for you.

[one_raven]

True, others define who we are in a sense.

One man can be a father, husband, accountant, teacher, student, lover, leader or follower to different people. Each one of those people will define him based on the role he plays in his or her life. Even your name was given to you by other people.

On the other hand, this isn't a case of defining someone's role in life, it is a case of attempting to dictate philosophical beliefs and judging others by determining if they are truly attempting to live up to those beliefs being dictated by others.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Are so blind as to not see the obvious here?

Believing is seeing.

A Christian is one who follows Christ.

Like lemmings.

I disagree.
Who determines what a Christian is?
The Pope?
You?

No one can decide what a Christian is, but the one who claims to be Christian.

Of course, if someone claims to be a Christian and acts in a way which betrays what Christ taught, it would be fair to call that person a hypocrite.

What did Jesus teach?
Read his words.

People who say a Christian is this or that based on the words of anyone BUT Christ (whcih includes the apostles and church founders and leaders) is full of shit.

No 1, not even the pope, can say what a christian is except each individual who claims to be christian but church leaders are a factor???
Anyone who claims to be a christian is a christian?

Why?

It is not up to the outsider to judge at all.
Why must someone prove themselves to Christian?

Yeah! Why must people prove themselves to be what they claim to be? It really bugs me that people question my claim to be Hera! Why can't they just take my word for it!?! And being unable to fix anything doesn't mean I'm not a mechanic.

“If a blind person leads another blind person, they will both fall into a ditch.”

[swarm]

Seems like Jesus said the ones who just say they are xtians, but fail to follow in his foot steps are not xtians after all. He seems more of an acts guy, not an empty belief type.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

So must a Christian believe all of that is true?

hmmm, I'd have to say no. The previously stated basic beliefs are the requirements. I personally believe in the trinity and the old testament God, but I can see where someone could not believe in either, but without the abrahmic God some leaps which appear awkward to me would have to be made.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

swarm, is someone who claims to be a republican, but toes the democrat party line, a republican?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

one raven-It's pretty common knowledge that thosse who are not christians are the harshest judges of them. A christian states,"It's not raining that hard." Steps outside, then comes in, drenched. "I thought you were a christian" is almost guaranteed to be someone's comment. It sounds crazy, but it's true. It appears that a christian is expected to prove to the non-christian that he is one, when in truth, the proof is between him and God that matters. I am not expecting to have to face stranger in the final judgement, thus I'm not stressing his derision or silly put downs. I will probably pray for him, for I fear for his soul, but I try to keep that sort of thing private, posted here for example purposes.

[swarm]

Mr. Hamtastic
swarm, is someone who claims to be a republican, but toes the democrat party line, a republican?

1)Some one who checks [] Republican on the party affiliation portion of their voter registration card, is a republican until they declare otherwise.

2)Some one who pays their dues to the republican party, is a member of the republican party, but not necessarily a republican.

3)Some one who runs on the republican ticket, is a republican until they declare otherwise.

Any one who fails to meet 1 or 3, is not a republican even if they are otherwise sufficiently idiotic enough to qualify.

A good example is Lieberman, who smells like a republican, but is still actually a democrat.

[swarm]

But really this isn't a political party. The theory is there really is a guy named JC and the bible really has some of his words. His words make it painfully clear who is a xtian and who is not...you will know the servant because he follows in his master's foot steps, pick up your cross, acts not words, know them by their love, easier to thread camel than get a rich man into heaven, and man do the false xtians squirm under those words!

It almost makes me want to believe so I can fantasize about the shocked look on the vast majority of american "christians'" faces when they are too fat to make the needle.

Who is a false xtian? Every one who says he isn't.

[Carico]

Well, this is a fairly simple question. Come on, tell me, what makes a Christian a Christian? And if someone says, We're all Christians, but some of us haven't accepted it, I'm gonna smack you.

A Christian is someone who has been born again of the Holy Spirit and can then know that Jesus is who he says he is. Once he received the indwelling Holy Spirit, he has personal knowledge of Jesus himself. That doesn't mean that he is Jesus or knows everything about Jesus or God. It only means that he has met Jesus through the Holy Spirit. And since once we meet someone we can never then deny he exists, only born again Christians can never lose our salvation.

False "Christians", on the other hand, which comprise the vast majority of people who claim to be Christians, haven't been born again. They simply honor Jesus with their lips and hope and pray that he exists. These people think that faith comes from themselves instead of from God as Eph. 2:8-9 explains. These are the ones who fill our churches hoping that going to church will make then good people and thus enter heaven by their goodness. Jesus tells us the opposite because that's what the Pharisees thought. ;)

[(Q)]

God died and God resurrected himself.

Gods can't die, hence the resurrection was a facade and a scam.

[(Q)]

I disagree.
Who determines what a Christian is?
The Pope?
You?

No one can decide what a Christian is, but the one who claims to be Christian.

Of course, if someone claims to be a Christian and acts in a way which betrays what Christ taught, it would be fair to call that person a hypocrite.

What did Jesus teach?
Read his words.

People who say a Christian is this or that based on the words of anyone BUT Christ (whcih includes the apostles and church founders and leaders) is full of shit.

So, that's it then, anyone can stand up and state they are a Christian and are free to build churches which I have to pay the taxes? I then have to put up with whatever they deem reality, and then I am forced give their beliefs respect?

And what about when they do start waving the bible around whenever it suits their agenda?

Sorry, pal. I don't buy it. That is crock of shit, raven.

[(Q)]

Why?

It is not up to the outsider to judge at all.
Why must someone prove themselves to Christian?

It isn't about proving anything, it's about following a religion based on the scriptures and the god who commands this obedience. Hence, a person who simply states they are Christian is a hypocrite if he doesn't obey the commands of his god. Simple, really.

[S.A.M.]

are free to build churches which I have to pay the taxes? I then have to put up with whatever they deem reality, and then I am forced give their beliefs respect?.

Why do you live in a religious society? Why not live in an atheist society?

[(Q)]

swarm, is someone who claims to be a republican, but toes the democrat party line, a republican?

There are no Republican scriptures, or Republican afterlife, or Republican eternal hellfire, ...etc. In other words, no gods are commanding strict obedience.

You're talking apples and oranges.

[(Q)]

Who is a false xtian? Every one who says he isn't.

Damn straight! :thumbsup:

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Gods can't die, hence the resurrection was a facade and a scam.

Ditto! Also the whole idiocy of anyone dying for humans' sins so that humans can be forgiven is an absurd crock of crap.

Why do you live in a religious society? Why not live in an atheist society?

I CERTAINLY WISH I COULD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

[JDawg]

That's the part I don't buy. If a god were in fact revealing a message to ALL mankind, he wouldn't do it knowing his message would be interpreted in so many ways. The message would be crystal clear and would be known by all.

Sorry that I'm late on the reply, and this may have been addressed already, but here goes...the problem with any in writing is that it is never "crystal clear". Even our Constitution, which we all know is so great, is vague on many key issues.

You seem to want to get into a debate over whether or not the Bible is actually the word of a god...I'm not going there, because I don't believe it is. But that wasn't the question. The question was what defines a Christian, and I believe that it is up to them to decide for themselves, since the Bible is open to interpretation--which is evident by the many different sects within Christianity.


So, we are left with Christians defining themselves, whatever and whenever they feel the notion to do so. That would be hypocrisy at it's finest. And, the rest of us are left holding the bag.

What's wrong with Christians defining themselves? What would you rather have? And how are we holding the bag?

I think you need to calm down on the anti-theism for a moment, and consider how ridiculous you sound right now.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Atheist society-you would have loved communist soviet union!!!!

Did Q say something useful yet? Or is he still rabidly foaming at the mouth. Don't worry Q, when you calm down we'll start a thread about the validity of the bible.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I guess no 2 people will agree 100% of the time.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient god who wants me to know something, it should tell me clearly. The Holy Babble does not do the job. The Holy Babble turns the water into sludge.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Atheist society-you would have loved communist soviet union!!!!

Absurd strawman.

Did Q say something useful yet? Or is he still rabidly foaming at the mouth. Don't worry Q, when you calm down we'll start a thread about the validity of the bible.

That is useful?

[JDawg]

I guess no 2 people will agree 100% of the time.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient god who wants me to know something, it should tell me clearly. The Holy Babble does not do the job. The Holy Babble turns the water into sludge.

That's not really on topic, but I do agree.

What people like Hamtastic should realize is that banging on Q for being jerk doesn't give you the right to troll.

[(Q)]

Sorry that I'm late on the reply, and this may have been addressed already, but here goes...the problem with any in writing is that it is never "crystal clear". Even our Constitution, which we all know is so great, is vague on many key issues.

Perhaps, but if a god were to provide a message to all mankind, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a message that was "crystal clear?" If the message were open to interpretation, then we would have... well, the exact situation we are faced with today, thousands of religions all purporting different messages.

And, I'm not sure whether or not it's fair to compare scriptures to other documentations.

You seem to want to get into a debate over whether or not the Bible is actually the word of a god...I'm not going there, because I don't believe it is.

I would tend to agree with you, but it is the Christians who claim the bible IS the word of god, hence we must work within their claims. So, if Christians claim the bible is the word of god, why do they not follow it to the letter as commanded by their god? That is the debate I'm working on.

But that wasn't the question. The question was what defines a Christian, and I believe that it is up to them to decide for themselves, since the Bible is open to interpretation--which is evident by the many different sects within Christianity.

That is where I wouldn't agree with you. If Christians require a definition of themselves, it should be up to their god to make that definition, not them. Christians are subservient to their god, and anyone who is subservient to another cannot define their subservience, it would obviously be their masters who would.


I think you need to calm down on the anti-theism for a moment, and consider how ridiculous you sound right now.

Perhaps, I haven't been making myself clear. A group who wishes to be defined by their beliefs simply cannot begin to define themselves however they wish, that has already been achieved through their scriptures, hence by their god.

Is it not the scriptures that tell Christians how to live, what to think and who exactly they should be worshiping? If these things are already stated emphatically on pain of eternal hellfire, how can Christians simply define themselves and ignore what has already been stated?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Sorry, I'll drop the personal beef with q. Sorry, q.

Since the soviet union tried to be atheist and you stated your desire to live in an atheist nation I don't see how that is either absurd or a strawman. Which someone will have to explain to me. I mean saying a statement is meaningless or idiosyncatic or absurd, I get that. A strawman? Like a scarecrow? That's like calling a statement a cockatoo.

[CheskiChips]

You're all close but way off....

Christian = "A person who believes the messiah came"

"Christian" is an adjective, not a noun.

The varying doctrine all have this in common.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Whups! looked at Q's post. Q-I am an American. You are, I think British. Because you are british and act the way you do, should I assume that all british are like you? I have another british friend who is staggeringly homophobic. I joked with him once about homosexuality, I thought he was going to beat the shit out of me. I knew him better than I know you, perhaps I should judge all british by him? I mean, that is the way you are doing things, is it not?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

love is a verb not a condition or a hole, why does anybody say they fall in it?

christian is however you use it.

[(Q)]

Whups! looked at Q's post. Q-I am an American. You are, I think British. Because you are british and act the way you do, should I assume that all british are like you? I have another british friend who is staggeringly homophobic. I joked with him once about homosexuality, I thought he was going to beat the shit out of me. I knew him better than I know you, perhaps I should judge all british by him? I mean, that is the way you are doing things, is it not?

Are there scriptures referring to exactly how Brits should act? Is there a place in which Brits will burn for an eternity if they don't follow those scriptures? You tell me.

[JDawg]

Perhaps, but if a god were to provide a message to all mankind, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a message that was "crystal clear?" If the message were open to interpretation, then we would have... well, the exact situation we are faced with today, thousands of religions all purporting different messages.

Dude, again, that's not the question of the thread. You're arguing a point that isn't relevant to the discussion. I don't disagree with you at all, by the way, but it's just not relevant.

I would tend to agree with you, but it is the Christians who claim the bible IS the word of god, hence we must work within their claims. So, if Christians claim the bible is the word of god, why do they not follow it to the letter as commanded by their god? That is the debate I'm working on.

Because by reading it, the message is not always so clear. There are parables and such, and some things are fairly vague. Our government and legal systems are supposed to adhere to the letter of the Constitution, correct? How many debates have people had about that document just in your lifetime? Exactly.


That is where I wouldn't agree with you. If Christians require a definition of themselves, it should be up to their god to make that definition, not them. Christians are subservient to their god, and anyone who is subservient to another cannot define their subservience, it would obviously be their masters who would.

So now you want a god that you don't believe to exist providing a definition? First of all, how? Second, if you ask a Christian, they will tell you that their god has made it perfectly clear to them, and that their interpretation is the correct one.

And let's be fair about this...if you want to make the equation to the master/servant scenario, then consider that in reality the only party you have the opportunity to speak to is, in fact, the servant. So if I had to choose between hearing your definition of what a Christian is, and an actual Christian's definition, knowing that I can't ask God himself, I'd go with the Christian.

Perhaps, I haven't been making myself clear. A group who wishes to be defined by their beliefs simply cannot begin to define themselves however they wish, that has already been achieved through their scriptures, hence by their god.

And perhaps I haven't made myself clear. The problem with your answer arises when one interprets the text. Some see it one way, some see it another. Because it is only text, and there is not central authority (save Catholicism), then the text is open for interpretation. For as wonderful a document as the Constitution is, it still requires a Supreme Court to constantly define and uphold it. Since the Pope is the only figure in all of Christianity able to define the Bible, you have a lot of others taking it upon themselves to.


Is it not the scriptures that tell Christians how to live, what to think and who exactly they should be worshiping? If these things are already stated emphatically on pain of eternal hellfire, how can Christians simply define themselves and ignore what has already been stated?

They don't ignore it. They interpret it that way.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

There's one thing in the bible that I take as absolutely literal. In the beginning, there was God. That's it. The gospels have to be combined and then considered. Wait. I believe literally Micah 6:8 He has shown you, oh man, what is good, and what does the Lord require from you? But to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God. I can do literal on that one as well, although what humbly, mercy, and justly actually mean are up for interpretation. :)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

There's one thing in the bible that I take as absolutely literal. In the beginning, there was God. That's it. The gospels have to be combined and then considered. Wait. I believe literally Micah 6:8 He has shown you, oh man, what is good, and what does the Lord require from you? But to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God. I can do literal on that one as well, although what humbly, mercy, and justly actually mean are up for interpretation.

In the beginning of WHAT??? It doesn't say.
It hasn't shown me a damn thing.
Love mercy? Like your vengeful jealous conceited insecure bully god?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Yes, like my perfect God. In the beginning of everything, of course.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Yes, like my perfect God.

Your perfect insane god.

In the beginning of everything, of course.

It doesn't even imply that.

[tim840]

So, we can toss the bible out and go with YOUR simplistic version of Christianity? What would your god think of that?

I would say that his was a pretty accurate definition of a Christian. One who recoghnizes that they are sinful, that they can never be perfect, but that they do not have to be because if they believe in and have faith in God, he will forgive them.

Are you saying it's difficult for you to hold back killing and stealing? Funny, I have no such urges to do to others what I wouldn't want done to me.

No, of course he's not. Most people have no such urge to commit crimes. But the less drastic things - lying, cheating, stuff like that. Things that everyone has done at one time or another.

So, we have one version of Christianity that defies the bible. Any others?

I fail to see how Hamtastic's definition has defied the Bible... :shrug: it seems 100% compatible to me. So please explain.?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Meh, your insults are subjective. What does it imply, then? In the beginning, after the things before it? Even I don't think that remotely makes sense.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

My comments are subjective but yours aren't.
Again, I'm sorely tempted to insist you figure it out. It's 1 of the few things that clear in the Holy Babble.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Stranger,

Look, I am sorry that you hold some personal grudge against christians and christianity in general. Insulting my God is insulting me. It's similar to me saying that your mom is or was a stupid bitch. I don't know her, I know you. You OBVIOUSLY do not know my God, you know me. Referencing Thie Bible as the Babble is equally insulting, like suggesting your dictionary was written by Dr. Seuss. Tell you what, from now on, if you can refrain from insulting me in your posts, I'll pay them enough heed to respond. For now, your previous post only points to your own lack of insight, and doesn't deserve an inappropriately succinct response. :)

[Carico]

Stranger,

Look, I am sorry that you hold some personal grudge against christians and christianity in general. Insulting my God is insulting me. It's similar to me saying that your mom is or was a stupid bitch. I don't know her, I know you. You OBVIOUSLY do not know my God, you know me. Referencing Thie Bible as the Babble is equally insulting, like suggesting your dictionary was written by Dr. Seuss. Tell you what, from now on, if you can refrain from insulting me in your posts, I'll pay them enough heed to respond. For now, your previous post only points to your own lack of insight, and doesn't deserve an inappropriately succinct response.

Great post.:) I find it interesting that so many people feel the need to insult a God they claim is imaginary. :bugeye: I wonder if they ever get mad at zeus that way. :D

[SkinWalker]

If those deluded by Zeus cults were attempting to impose their delusions on the rest of society; or if Zeusians were proclaiming this a nation founded in Zeusianity, they'd get all the attention they deserved.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Stranger,

Look, I am sorry that you hold some personal grudge against christians and christianity in general. Insulting my God is insulting me. It's similar to me saying that your mom is or was a stupid bitch. I don't know her, I know you. You OBVIOUSLY do not know my God, you know me. Referencing Thie Bible as the Babble is equally insulting, like suggesting your dictionary was written by Dr. Seuss. Tell you what, from now on, if you can refrain from insulting me in your posts, I'll pay them enough heed to respond. For now, your previous post only points to your own lack of insight, and doesn't deserve an inappropriately succinct response. :)

I don't hold any grudges. Theists do. Theists have insulted me for longer than you've been alive. Yet I'm not just responding in kind rather I'm simply telling the truth. I cannot insult something I don't know exists. The god described in The Holy Babble IS INSANE. THAT IS THE TRUTH. I call it The Holy Babble because it's mostly nonsense! THAT IS THE TRUTH.
Christians believe I should suffer horribly for ETERNITY because I don't believe the "right" thing. That's monstrously cruel & inhumane. I don't appreciate it 1 bit. I don't appreciate being unable to live 1 day among humans without your damn superstition being shoved into my face.
Insight hell! You wouldn't know insight if it bit your face off. For whatever reason you've come to believe something & no amount of facts, reasoning, study, discussion or logic will make any difference to you. That's your problem & should be yours alone but theists make it everyone's problem.
It is up to you to prove your claims in order to be due any respect. You haven't proven anything. YOU haven't made much sense. You go on&on about what you "know" the truth to be but never show any evidence, logic or INSIGHT.
If I refrain from telling the truth & explaining things in a logical manner, it will be because I'M SICK&TIRED of dealing with such idiocy.
You don't know me. You're probably unable to.
You can respond or not respond.
You can't handle the truth.

[JDawg]

Like Skinwalker said, if fringe Christians were not trying to turn the United States into a theocracy, then they would not be getting heat from clear-minded people.

And if insulting this God character insults you, then you need some serious self-esteem help. There is nothing about your faith that anyone here holds sacred, nor should they. Faith is not a free pass to walk around and say that a spirit in the sky will take your soul to heaven after you die without getting called a psycho.

If someone posted here today that Zeus was the god to believe in, then you'd all call him crazy. Fact of the matter is, there is no difference between that god and your god. Toughen up.

[(Q)]

Dude, again, that's not the question of the thread. You're arguing a point that isn't relevant to the discussion. I don't disagree with you at all, by the way, but it's just not relevant.

It was you making the comparison between documents written by men and documents containing the word of god. Of course, it's relevant.

Because by reading it, the message is not always so clear. There are parables and such, and some things are fairly vague. Our government and legal systems are supposed to adhere to the letter of the Constitution, correct? How many debates have people had about that document just in your lifetime? Exactly.

Again, you're fallaciously comparing documents written by men and documents containing the alleged word of god. If the word of god is vague, it cannot be considered useful as it tends to create the exact situation we have today, multiple religions with multiple messages.

You're comparing apples with oranges.

So now you want a god that you don't believe to exist providing a definition? First of all, how? Second, if you ask a Christian, they will tell you that their god has made it perfectly clear to them, and that their interpretation is the correct one.

I never said I wanted a god to exist. Which one of the thousands of different Christian sects do your refer and which one is correct?

And let's be fair about this...if you want to make the equation to the master/servant scenario, then consider that in reality the only party you have the opportunity to speak to is, in fact, the servant. So if I had to choose between hearing your definition of what a Christian is, and an actual Christian's definition, knowing that I can't ask God himself, I'd go with the Christian.

Why not simply refer to the bible, that is where you'll find the authority as to what a Christian should be defined, it isn't me or the Christian who has that authority. I've been saying this over and over to you yet you continue to make the claim that it is my definition. Why do you persist?

And perhaps I haven't made myself clear. The problem with your answer arises when one interprets the text. Some see it one way, some see it another. Because it is only text, and there is not central authority (save Catholicism), then the text is open for interpretation.

GOD IS THE AUTHORITY! I hope I don't have to keep repeating this. Those who interpret the bible are NOT the authorities.

[(Q)]

I would say that his was a pretty accurate definition of a Christian. One who recoghnizes that they are sinful, that they can never be perfect, but that they do not have to be because if they believe in and have faith in God, he will forgive them.

What about the bible?

No, of course he's not. Most people have no such urge to commit crimes. But the less drastic things - lying, cheating, stuff like that. Things that everyone has done at one time or another.

Everyone? Speak for yourself, please.

I fail to see how Hamtastic's definition has defied the Bible... :shrug: it seems 100% compatible to me. So please explain.?

The definition is not from the bible, it is his own definition. He is defying the bible by not using it to define himself.

[(Q)]

Stranger,

Look, I am sorry that you hold some personal grudge against christians and christianity in general. Insulting my God is insulting me.

So, here we have a another good example of the hypocrisy of Christians. First, they define themselves however they wish, ignoring their gods word, until someone criticizes their god and they're ready for fisticuffs.

[JDawg]

It was you making the comparison between documents written by men and documents containing the word of god. Of course, it's relevant.

I'm not sure when you're referring to...

Again, you're fallaciously comparing documents written by men and documents containing the alleged word of god. If the word of god is vague, it cannot be considered useful as it tends to create the exact situation we have today, multiple religions with multiple messages.

You're comparing apples with oranges.

It is most certainly not apples to oranges. As far as I understood, it had been accepted among Christians of all sects that men had written the Bible, not God. And one more time, since the point seems to keep flying over your head, you are arguing irrelevant points. The discussion is what makes a Christian a Christian; You, on the other hand, are trying to argue what makes Christianity false.

And please, can you not even see that you are assuming God's attributes? You are assuming that this god would have to think and act a certain way, and that it's message would "naturally" be clear and concise. You don't think for a second that perhaps it wouldn't be.

I never said I wanted a god to exist. Which one of the thousands of different Christian sects do your refer and which one is correct?

Again, I can't see what about this you don't understand. That is not the point of the thread. I say that they all think they are correct, you ask me which one is correct...can you not see how ridiculous and off-topic that is?

Why not simply refer to the bible, that is where you'll find the authority as to what a Christian should be defined, it isn't me or the Christian who has that authority. I've been saying this over and over to you yet you continue to make the claim that it is my definition. Why do you persist?

They do, Q. They do refer to the Bible. Unfortunately, some of them have different interpretations on what the Bible means. Remember, the Bible did not just POP into existence. It had to be constructed.

GOD IS THE AUTHORITY! I hope I don't have to keep repeating this. Those who interpret the bible are NOT the authorities.

But if they believe they are properly interpreting the word of god...? This is what you can't seem to comprehend. Or refuse to.

No wonder Simon thinks you're a twit. Wow.

[SetiAlpha6]

A Christian usually believes that they are right and that everyone else is wrong.

A Christian usually believes that everyone else deserves to be killed right now and after that deserves to be tortured for all eternity. That is what the Bible plainly teaches them to believe.

Fortunately for the world, most live in open rebellion to God and disobey His direct commands (in the Law) to kill the imperfect, sinful people they encounter all around them. Those faithful that have obeyed the commands of God to kill offenders are usually put in prison when caught and found guilty.

Unfortunately this can be very real. There was a guy in my own town that was killing off prostitutes in his "faithful" service to God. It would not be that surprising, in this alternate reality of the mind, to find that this guy is self-righteously sitting in his prison cell right now feeling persecuted for his faith.

Kinda makes me sick to think about how bad this can actually get!

[(Q)]

It is most certainly not apples to oranges. As far as I understood, it had been accepted among Christians of all sects that men had written the Bible, not God.

Yeah, I get that. He's omnipotent yet couldn't write a book. He can make stone tablets, but couldn't write a book. He also had written for him a book (OT) but decided to change his mind and came out with a different version (NT).

I know the bible was written by men and that it was divinely inspired. Of course, I think that's all rubbish, but the point is that whatever is written in the bible is considered the word of god by those who follow. So, it would make sense that Christians would define themselves based on these words.

And one more time, since the point seems to keep flying over your head, you are arguing irrelevant points. The discussion is what makes a Christian a Christian; You, on the other hand, are trying to argue what makes Christianity false.

Again, one more time and hopefully the last time, I am not doing any such thing, I am simply pointing out that the bible defines Christians, regardless of whether or not it was written by men or by aliens.

And please, can you not even see that you are assuming God's attributes? You are assuming that this god would have to think and act a certain way, and that it's message would "naturally" be clear and concise. You don't think for a second that perhaps it wouldn't be.

I'm not assuming anything about god. He is claimed by those who follow him that he's omniscient. Being clear and concise in delivering a message isn't an assumption, it's obvious.

Again, I can't see what about this you don't understand. That is not the point of the thread. I say that they all think they are correct, you ask me which one is correct...can you not see how ridiculous and off-topic that is?

No, I don't.

They do refer to the Bible. Unfortunately, some of them have different interpretations on what the Bible means. Remember, the Bible did not just POP into existence. It had to be constructed.

Yes, I know that.

But if they believe they are properly interpreting the word of god...? This is what you can't seem to comprehend. Or refuse to.

*sigh* I get that.

No wonder Simon thinks you're a twit. Wow.

WTF is that about? You've decided to be prick, now?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

SetiAlpha, I'm sorry, what biblical passages say I should come and kill you right now so that you will go to hell? I've read the bible several times, I've somehow missed that.

JDawg-I have Q on ignore, so I'm just going by your post. Q is insistant that the inspired word of God, relayed through man's brain, into whatever language, would be exactly what God had in mind. Yet he won't look at how Paul admonished believers not to throw their own freedoms they felt they had in the face of other believers who do not feel similarly. Yes, there were divisions even then, the gnostic beliefs being the most well known. What he was saying was if Joe feels like he needs to obey the Jewish Laws to honor God, that Jack shouldn't show up on his doorstep with a nice chunk of ham, even though Jack doesn't feel any call to follow Jewish Laws. Thus, I believe that murder does not mean execution, and I favor the death penalty, while Ophelia Butts may think it is murder and be against the death penalty, yet we can both be christians. Q seems to have a hard time with this. He wants to put christians in a christian box, and say they are all the same. Isn't that called prejudicial thinking? As a member of a group that has faced alot of prejudice, I'd think he would not want to incur it on anyone else.

[JDawg]

Yeah, I get that. He's omnipotent yet couldn't write a book. He can make stone tablets, but couldn't write a book. He also had written for him a book (OT) but decided to change his mind and came out with a different version (NT).

Yeah, that's the story.

I know the bible was written by men and that it was divinely inspired. Of course, I think that's all rubbish, but the point is that whatever is written in the bible is considered the word of god by those who follow. So, it would make sense that Christians would define themselves based on these words.

Yes. But when you have only words, you are left with no authority, and thus the words are open to interpretation. When I earlier made the comparison between the Bible and the Constitution, it was a sound one; consider again that the Constitution, though being, one would think, fairly plain on many subjects, is still interpreted differently by different people, which is why we have a Supreme Court that has to on so many occasions uphold their interpretation of it.

Take the 2nd Amendment, for example; The right to bear arms. Now, does that mean I have a right to personally own a gun, or that I, along with my community, have a right to maintain a militia? Or, as Family Guy proposed, does it simply mean that I have a right to mount a pair of bear arms on my wall?

Again, one more time and hopefully the last time, I am not doing any such thing, I am simply pointing out that the bible defines Christians, regardless of whether or not it was written by men or by aliens.

Agreed. But it is up to the people who read it to interpret the words within. This is circumvented in Catholicism by the Pope, who is the human authority on that matter.

I'm not assuming anything about god. He is claimed by those who follow him that he's omniscient. Being clear and concise in delivering a message isn't an assumption, it's obvious.

No, being clear and concise implies motive. If such a being existed, you have no way of knowing why it did what it did.

No, I don't.

Well, that is a problem you should remedy.

Yes, I know that.

Apparently you don't. Nothing in your argument displays this.

*sigh* I get that.

Again, if you did, then why is it not reflected in your argument? You constantly say that the words should be the authority, but refuse to comprehend that words can be interpreted differently by different people. I cited the Constitution as an example, and you dismissed it on the bogus, irrational notion that they are "apples and oranges" because they don't discuss the same subject (?).



WTF is that about? You've decided to be prick, now?

Dude, I had defended you to the others, but now that I've experienced your debate style first-hand, I have to say that you are one of the more frustrating non-theists I've encountered. You argue illogically, and more of than not you're arguing a completely different topic than me, yet completely oblivious of it even when it's pointed out to you. I don't know if it is, as Simon said (hehe...Simon Said), intentional diversion, or your IQ...but whatever it is, it's really annoying. Having an opinion is one thing, but this is ridiculous.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Dude, I had defended you to the others, but now that I've experienced your debate style first-hand, I have to say that you are one of the more frustrating non-theists I've encountered. You argue illogically, and more of than not you're arguing a completely different topic than me, yet completely oblivious of it even when it's pointed out to you. I don't know if it is, as Simon said (hehe...Simon Said), intentional diversion, or your IQ...but whatever it is, it's really annoying. Having an opinion is one thing, but this is ridiculous.

I knew there was some smart people group meeting in secret! Proof!:eek:

[JDawg]

I knew there was some smart people group meeting in secret! Proof!:eek:

Ex squeeze me?

[(Q)]

Q is insistant that the inspired word of God, relayed through man's brain, into whatever language, would be exactly what God had in mind.

Hammy is clearly reaching at straws if he claims that the bible isn't exactly what god had in mind, hence by his own logic, no one can make a claim as to what god actually did have in mind. And if his god cannot relay a message as to what he did have in mind, then the bible isn't the word of his god, but the word of the men who wrote it. Hypocrisy seems to know no bounds with Hammy.

Q seems to have a hard time with this. He wants to put christians in a christian box, and say they are all the same. Isn't that called prejudicial thinking? As a member of a group that has faced alot of prejudice, I'd think he would not want to incur it on anyone else.

More hypocrisy and contradictions. How can Hammy place himself in a "group that has faced a lot of prejudice" when the members of that group are all different in how they interpret the bible? The differing sects of Christianity prejudice each other by definition.

[JDawg]

Hammy is clearly reaching at straws if he claims that the bible isn't exactly what god had in mind, hence by his own logic, no one can make a claim as to what god actually did have in mind. And if his god cannot relay a message as to what he did have in mind, then the bible isn't the word of his god, but the word of the men who wrote it. Hypocrisy seems to know no bounds with Hammy.

Why is it reaching at straws? Again, you simply assume that you know what God had in mind.

Hold up...I honestly can't believe I'm arguing on behalf of Christianity here, but let it be effen known that I'm here in the trenches defending against this particular atheist's ignorance, OK? I expect a favor in the future from you Bible Thumpers! :D


More hypocrisy and contradictions. How can Hammy place himself in a "group that has faced a lot of prejudice" when the members of that group are all different in how they interpret the bible? The differing sects of Christianity prejudice each other by definition.

There are some sects that have taken more of a beating than others. Did you think that they all got equal treatment?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I wasn't clear obviously. I was saying that Q was a member of a group that had faced an inordinate amount of prejudice, being homosexual and all. Here's some more contradictions, just for fun. I'm patently bisexual. I believe in evolution and the big bang. I think cars and computers are good things. I don't give too much of a shit about the environment. I'm pro-choice, pro death penalty, and pro gay marriage. The only reason my kids go to church is that it teaches them some good ethics, although every sunday, after church, Daddy discusses what the children learned, and whether they think it's just a nice story or the word of the Lamb of God written in his own blood, Daddy works with them to make sure they think about the things they are learning, and choosing for themselves, with as little prejudice as possible. They believe what I do, believe in God and Jesus, go to heaven, be good to say thanks in advance. That's what my 7 year old said anyway.

JDawg-if I'm right, and you're wrong on the whole eternity thing, I'll try to bring you an air conditioner. :)

[JDawg]

JDawg-if I'm right, and you're wrong on the whole eternity thing, I'll try to bring you an air conditioner. :)

:) Deal. And if I'm right, I'll try to get you a free membership to the Oblivion Fitness Club.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Sweet! What do we do if SAM is right?

[(Q)]

Yes. But when you have only words, you are left with no authority, and thus the words are open to interpretation.

The authority is the Christian god, and that god lives day to day with Christians, who also claim they speak and listen to their god. We see these types of posts here almost every day. So no, we are not just left with words. In the minds of Christians, their god is very much here.

When I earlier made the comparison between the Bible and the Constitution, it was a sound one; consider again that the Constitution, though being, one would think, fairly plain on many subjects, is still interpreted differently by different people, which is why we have a Supreme Court that has to on so many occasions uphold their interpretation of it.

There is a clear distinction between scriptures and other documentations in which comparisons cannot be drawn. The bible is the word of god, hence cannot be misconstrued or debated, although we see this all the time. The Constitution was clearly written by men for men, with no authority other than what those men decided. Their decisions were not made by their god.

Agreed. But it is up to the people who read it to interpret the words within. This is circumvented in Catholicism by the Pope, who is the human authority on that matter.

I understand that, which is exactly the problem. Humans aren't the authority on the word of god, the god is the authority.

No, being clear and concise implies motive. If such a being existed, you have no way of knowing why it did what it did.

The motives are clear, worship and obedience of god.

And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
- Bible, I Samuel (ch. XV, v. 22)

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
- Bible, I Samuel (ch. XV, v. 22)

Whether it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God, to whom we send thee; that it may be well with us, when we obey the voice of the Lord our God.
- Bible, Jeremiah (ch. XLII, v. 6)

The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.
- Bible, Proverbs (ch. XXX, v. 17)

Well, that is a problem you should remedy.

Again, if you did, then why is it not reflected in your argument? You constantly say that the words should be the authority, but refuse to comprehend that words can be interpreted differently by different people. I cited the Constitution as an example, and you dismissed it on the bogus, irrational notion that they are "apples and oranges" because they don't discuss the same subject (?).

And, I keep telling you that I get that. What you don't seem to get is the fact that the Christian god is the authority and that the word of god is the bible, according to the claims of Christians. I repeat: These are NOT my claims!

I also get the fact that these words have been interpreted in a number of ways by Christians, that's why we have so many different sects. I repeat: I get that!

What you don't seem to get is that the interpretation of the word of god in so many ways allows Christians to define themselves any way they want, hence the fact we have so many different sects. That is why Christians cannot define themselves based on whatever interpretations they've contrived from the bible. Hence, it is only the "fundamentalist" who follows the bible word for word, unfettered by interpretations, who is the true Christian.

Dude, I had defended you to the others, but now that I've experienced your debate style first-hand, I have to say that you are one of the more frustrating non-theists I've encountered. You argue illogically, and more of than not you're arguing a completely different topic than me, yet completely oblivious of it even when it's pointed out to you. I don't know if it is, as Simon said (hehe...Simon Said), intentional diversion, or your IQ...but whatever it is, it's really annoying. Having an opinion is one thing, but this is ridiculous.

I can't apologize for your "interpretation" of my posts. Try reading them word for word, instead. :D

[JDawg]

Sweet! What do we do if SAM is right?

Then we will die like the infidels that we are.

Quick question...if she were to do a suicide bombing, does she get 72 virgin dudes? If so...why bother?

[(Q)]

Why is it reaching at straws? Again, you simply assume that you know what God had in mind.

I don't assume anything, I am using the bible as my source. You aren't using a source, at all. You're the one making empty assumptions.

[(Q)]

I wasn't clear obviously. I was saying that Q was a member of a group that had faced an inordinate amount of prejudice, being homosexual and all. Here's some more contradictions, just for fun. I'm patently bisexual. I believe in evolution and the big bang. I think cars and computers are good things. I don't give too much of a shit about the environment. I'm pro-choice, pro death penalty, and pro gay marriage. The only reason my kids go to church is that it teaches them some good ethics, although every sunday, after church, Daddy discusses what the children learned, and whether they think it's just a nice story or the word of the Lamb of God written in his own blood, Daddy works with them to make sure they think about the things they are learning, and choosing for themselves, with as little prejudice as possible. They believe what I do, believe in God and Jesus, go to heaven, be good to say thanks in advance. That's what my 7 year old said anyway.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds in Christianity, as does indoctrination and abuse of children. Very sad, indeed.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

No, they've misread that, it's 72 virginians. They didn't know what the hell a Virginia was back then. Easy mistake. Sucks for them though, we Virginians are well known for our patriotic fervor.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

You know Q, you can be a startling ass hole. Must have been raped by a priest or something.

[JDawg]

I don't assume anything, I am using the bible as my source. You aren't using a source, at all. You're the one making empty assumptions.

And this is why nobody on this forum can stand you. Baseless accusations such as this, and the refusal to accept when you might be wrong about a subject. How can a person who so readily bashes the religious for being illogical and irrational be a caricature of that himself?

[(Q)]

Must have been raped by a priest or something.

Is that from first hand experience?

[JDawg]

No, they've misread that, it's 72 virginians. They didn't know what the hell a Virginia was back then. Easy mistake. Sucks for them though, we Virginians are well known for our patriotic fervor.

Ohhhhhhh, that makes sense now! Doesn't get much better than a midsummer night at the ballpark catching a Tides game, does it?

[(Q)]

And this is why nobody on this forum can stand you.

Or, is it because you can't hold yourself in an argument, that you have to rely on fallacious examples rather than the sources themselves?

Baseless accusations such as this, and the refusal to accept when you might be wrong about a subject. How can a person who so readily bashes the religious for being illogical and irrational be a caricature of that himself?

I don't need to accept your version of who is right and who is wrong. When you actually start referring to the source of this discussion; the bible, then perhaps you can comment on what is illogical and irrational in how Christians define themselves. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Not familiar with the Tides, used to catch the Richmond Braves every now and then. They are moving though.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Q-Just so you know, there is a large number of christians that believe that worshipping the bible to the point you suggest is making it an idol, and thus sinful-thou shalt have no other gods....

[Mr. Hamtastic]

JDawg, notice how he quotes a little of what you say, takes it out of context, responds to it, and blithely ignores the rest? lol He is a tiring simp.

[SetiAlpha6]

SetiAlpha, I'm sorry, what biblical passages say I should come and kill you right now so that you will go to hell? I've read the bible several times, I've somehow missed that.


Since you know the Bible, which I do not doubt, you certainly already know that the "Law of God" commands, over and over again, that you must kill even your very own children and friends "without mercy" when they sin. I will find the references for you if you wish, but there are many and you really should already know them. In the Bible, in the Law, even picking up sticks on the Sabbath is punishable by death. And if your daughter is found to not be a virgin on her wedding day you are commanded to kill her. How can anyone ever justify this? This is just plain sick! But what choice do you have but to say Amen, Praise the Lord, Alleluia, God's will be done? Could someone please hand me another stone so I can help? You had to kill your own neighbors, friends, brothers, daughters, mothers, fathers, sons, sisters...

You should also already know that Jesus Himself clearly taught that the "Law of God" would remain in force untill the end of this earth. And, as I look out my window, the earth is still here.

Only Christians are protected from the penalty of the Law, and no one else. Right? So it would seem that only Christians can break the Law without penalty while everyone else must die.

Regards

[Mr. Hamtastic]

ohhhh. The Jewish law stuff. Interesting. It's like God was breaking a horse, showing the Jews he could be right mean, or he could be kind. Thought provoking stuff. It's as interesting to me as Hammurabi's Code. Wild stuff. Thank goodness he sent his only son to die on a cross for me. Hoo. Don't have to do that stuff, or sacrifice animals, or any of it, really.

[(Q)]

Q-Just so you know, there is a large number of christians that believe that worshipping the bible to the point you suggest is making it an idol, and thus sinful-thou shalt have no other gods....

Should we care what those Christians "believe" or should we look to their bible for that guidance? You keep making the same error as Jdawg does, in that you both assume this is about me, when in fact it's about the bible and what is contained there.

Please show me a passage in the bible that follows the logic of the Christians you refer?

[S.A.M.]

And this is why nobody on this forum can stand you. Baseless accusations such as this, and the refusal to accept when you might be wrong about a subject. How can a person who so readily bashes the religious for being illogical and irrational be a caricature of that himself?


Umm pot, kettle, black?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[SetiAlpha6]

ohhhh. The Jewish law stuff. Interesting. It's like God was breaking a horse, showing the Jews he could be right mean, or he could be kind. Thought provoking stuff. It's as interesting to me as Hammurabi's Code. Wild stuff. Thank goodness he sent his only son to die on a cross for me. Hoo. Don't have to do that stuff, or sacrifice animals, or any of it, really.


How is it that, according to Jesus, the "Law of God" is still in force today, Laws that command that you must personally kill these people, and yet you are telling me that you do not have to do any of this stuff???

How does this work? What am I missing?

Thanks

[Mr. Hamtastic]

law of God. okay. you win. no idea where that comes from. Can I have a hint? I suspect it's in one of the gospels, but I could be wrong. Wait. Is that from Revelations maybe? After the New Jerusalem tango? Help me out here , Seti.

[(Q)]

Have you actually read the bible, Ham?

[SetiAlpha6]

law of God. okay. you win. no idea where that comes from. Can I have a hint? I suspect it's in one of the gospels, but I could be wrong. Wait. Is that from Revelations maybe? After the New Jerusalem tango? Help me out here , Seti.


Here is one example of many such teachings to be found in the “Law of God”. The Law is described in the Bible as being both “perfect” and “eternal.”

Deuteronomy 13:6-9
6"If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods' (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, 7of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), 8you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. 9"But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

This is how you turn the hearts and minds of an entire nation to Stone and Ice.

And below we have Jesus telling us that He did not come to abolish the Law at all.

Matthew 5:17-20
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

According to Jesus, you are supposed to “practice” and teach the Law to others.

And the earth is still here. So?

[Carcano]

What a Christian is has changed a lot over the centuries.

In the middle ages being a Christian meant obeying the Church, being chaste, giving alms, dunking witches, burning heretics, and slaughtering infidels.

Now, if you listen to Christian rock, its more of a gimme gimme gimme thing.

There is less emphasis on the authority and unity of the church and more emphasis on a personal relationship to Jesus...as the hippie who loves everybody.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Here is one example of many such teachings to be found in the “Law of God”. The Law is described in the Bible as being both “perfect” and “eternal.”

Deuteronomy 13:6-9
6"If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods' (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, 7of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), 8you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. 9"But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

This is how you turn the hearts and minds of an entire nation to Stone and Ice.

And below we have Jesus telling us that He did not come to abolish the Law at all.

Matthew 5:17-20
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

According to Jesus, you are supposed to “practice” and teach the Law to others.

And the earth is still here. So?

Jesus was saying he was here to be the only man to ever fulfill the law, and he was here to fulfill the prophecies of the messiah.

Actually, I was asking for references to the Law being eternal.

[SetiAlpha6]

Jesus was saying he was here to be the only man to ever fulfill the law, and he was here to fulfill the prophecies of the messiah.

Actually, I was asking for references to the Law being eternal.


Sure, no problem... Here are a few...

Exodus 31:
16'So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.'

Psalm 111:
7 The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy. 8 They are steadfast for ever and ever, done in faithfulness and uprightness.

Psalm 119:
160 All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.

[SetiAlpha6]

Jesus was saying he was here to be the only man to ever fulfill the law, and he was here to fulfill the prophecies of the messiah.


Jn 14:15 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Jn 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me

1 Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments

1 Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

2 Jn 6 And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

Rev 12:17 who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Rev 14:12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

Romans 2:13
for it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.


So do you practice the Old Testament Law and teach others to obey it, just as Jesus commanded, or have you rejected His words?

[JDawg]

Should we care what those Christians "believe" or should we look to their bible for that guidance? You keep making the same error as Jdawg does, in that you both assume this is about me, when in fact it's about the bible and what is contained there.

Please show me a passage in the bible that follows the logic of the Christians you refer?

It's too funny--and a direct indictment of your level of intelligence--that you keep insisting that everyone else here is making the mistake, and that you are right. Wow.

What do you not understand about words being open to interpretation? Every scholar, Biblical and non, will tell you the same. The reason there are so many different branches of these religions is because the Bible is a collection of words that can be--and have been--interpreted differently by different people. You keep ignoring the point I bring up about the Constitution; why? Because it displays where you lack understanding? Or simply because you like being a pest, and you do everything in your power to ignore points that land against you?

[Simon Anders]

It's too funny--and a direct indictment of your level of intelligence--that you keep insisting that everyone else here is making the mistake, and that you are right. Wow.

What do you not understand about words being open to interpretation? Every scholar, Biblical and non, will tell you the same. The reason there are so many different branches of these religions is because the Bible is a collection of words that can be--and have been--interpreted differently by different people. You keep ignoring the point I bring up about the Constitution; why? Because it displays where you lack understanding? Or simply because you like being a pest, and you do everything in your power to ignore points that land against you?
I can't see our darling Q anymore except in the reaction posts of others, but I think witness testimony can be used as an analogy.

Courts can decide (and historians) and, well, just people, that certain testimony has the ring of truth, even though the witnesses may have contradictions in their testimony and even though witnesses are fallible.

The story that gets built up from listening to or reading these testimonies can generate a belief about what really happened with varying degrees of certainty about certain portions of the story.

We do this all the time.

One can argue that this is poorly done, often. One can argue that in this or that case you should not have believed the testimony, especially given what it made you do, or the importance of the conclusions, or whatever.
One can argue that there are better methods for getting at truth, though perhaps these are unavailable in certain circumstances, it should be noted.

One cannot say that those who say they are believers via such a method are not really believers but hypocrites

because really they must believe every single word of the testimonies.

Well, no.

(and obviously I am not disagreeing with you JDawg, just putting it in my own words)

[JDawg]

I get the analogy.

I may have to put Q on my list, as well, considering how he refuses to even argue the same subject that I'm on. He's absolutely the most ridiculous poster here. I'd rather banter with Dan. Seriously.

[(Q)]

It's too funny--and a direct indictment of your level of intelligence--that you keep insisting that everyone else here is making the mistake, and that you are right. Wow.

As levels of intelligence go, you're not attaining any. Are you here to fling insults now?

What do you not understand about words being open to interpretation?

Nothing, I understand completely.

Every scholar, Biblical and non, will tell you the same. The reason there are so many different branches of these religions is because the Bible is a collection of words that can be--and have been--interpreted differently by different people.

You're repeating yourself that which I completely understand and have told you so several times. I believe your not reading my posts or your comprehension skills are in the toilet.

You keep ignoring the point I bring up about the Constitution; why?

Because it is irrelevant.

Because it displays where you lack understanding? Or simply because you like being a pest, and you do everything in your power to ignore points that land against you?

I understand completely that your points are irrelevant.

[(Q)]

I get the analogy.

I may have to put Q on my list, as well, considering how he refuses to even argue the same subject that I'm on. He's absolutely the most ridiculous poster here. I'd rather banter with Dan. Seriously.

It looks like both you and Simon have no arguments, and are putting your heads in the sand, and your both welcome to it. You make a damn good theist. :D

[JDawg]

As levels of intelligence go, you're not attaining any. Are you here to fling insults now?

No, I'm just in utter disbelief that you can't comprehend basic logic.


Nothing, I understand completely.

Then what makes you bang the same "God is the authority, how dare they see it differently" drum? If you understand, you would know the answer to your own question.

You're repeating yourself that which I completely understand and have told you so several times. I believe your not reading my posts or your comprehension skills are in the toilet.

You've said over and over again that you understand, but you've also kept displaying that you clearly don't.

Because it is irrelevant.

In what way? Please, elaborate. I really need to hear this.

I understand completely that your points are irrelevant.

So you dismiss them without so much as an explanation?

[(Q)]

No, I'm just in utter disbelief that you can't comprehend basic logic.

Your one-dimensional line of thinking wouldn't recognize logic.


Then what makes you bang the same "God is the authority, how dare they see it differently" drum? If you understand, you would know the answer to your own question.

I've read the bible, clearly you haven't.


You've said over and over again that you understand, but you've also kept displaying that you clearly don't.

I do understand as I understand your lack of comprehension skills.

In what way? Please, elaborate. I really need to hear this.

You don't appear to be reading my posts.

So you dismiss them without so much as an explanation?

See, once again, you're not reading.

Or, not comprehending.

[JDawg]

I've read the bible, clearly you haven't.



Clearly I have. Now what I've asked is why is it impossible for people to interpret the words differently? Why is that so blasphemous in your eyes? What about the text do you see that allows for no interpretation other than the original?

[(Q)]

Clearly I have. Now what I've asked is why is it impossible for people to interpret the words differently? Why is that so blasphemous in your eyes? What about the text do you see that allows for no interpretation other than the original?

If you have read the bible and other posts on this thread quoting the bible, you wouldn't need to ask those questions, as the answers are IN THE BIBLE!

[JDawg]

If you have read the bible and other posts on this thread quoting the bible, you wouldn't need to ask those questions, as the answers are IN THE BIBLE!

Ah, so you haven't read the Bible, nor do you have an answer that fits your argument.

OK, cool. I guess I win.

[Lori_7]

Well, this is a fairly simple question. Come on, tell me, what makes a Christian a Christian? And if someone says, We're all Christians, but some of us haven't accepted it, I'm gonna smack you.

well, i would consider myself a christian because i believe that jesus is the christ, and god (whatever that is) has used the bible to show me things. but in the same regard, god has used a whole host of things to show me things. most of the time religion is just another institution. may as well be a member of a country club or a political party or a cult. labels and clubs aren't cool. just be, live, learn, experience. why does everyone got to be indoctrinated?

[(Q)]

well, i would consider myself a christian

How can YOU consider yourself a Christian unless you follow the bible explicitly? It is your gods command to do so.

[(Q)]

Ah, so you haven't read the Bible, nor do you have an answer that fits your argument.

OK, cool. I guess I win.

And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
- Bible, I Samuel (ch. XV, v. 22)

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
- Bible, I Samuel (ch. XV, v. 22)

Whether it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God, to whom we send thee; that it may be well with us, when we obey the voice of the Lord our God.
- Bible, Jeremiah (ch. XLII, v. 6)

The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.
- Bible, Proverbs (ch. XXX, v. 17)

We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

"If you love me, you will obey what I command. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.(John 14:15-24)

[JDawg]

And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
- Bible, I Samuel (ch. XV, v. 22)

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
- Bible, I Samuel (ch. XV, v. 22)

Whether it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God, to whom we send thee; that it may be well with us, when we obey the voice of the Lord our God.
- Bible, Jeremiah (ch. XLII, v. 6)

The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.
- Bible, Proverbs (ch. XXX, v. 17)

We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

"If you love me, you will obey what I command. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.(John 14:15-24)

So which website did you get that from? :rolleyes: Biblequotes.org?

And not one of those messages is so absolute that it can be without differing interpretations. They are, at the end of the day, just words. Without an authority to make them absolute, they can be interpreted differently by different people. If you had a brain in your head, you would understand the connection I drew between this and a document like the Constitution, which requires a court to hold it up. It's the same thing. That's why Catholics have the Pope.

[Betrayer0fHope]

Random unrelated question for y'all, if a "Christian" thinks God is a woman, does that make them a Christian still, even though according to The Bible they're wrong?

[Enmos]

Random unrelated question for y'all, if a "Christian" thinks God is a woman, does that make them a Christian still, even though according to The Bible they're wrong?

I think the writers of the bible books just assumed.

[(Q)]

And not one of those messages is so absolute that it can be without differing interpretations. They are, at the end of the day, just words. Without an authority to make them absolute, they can be interpreted differently by different people.

It matters not how you "interpret" my post, those quotes confirm my argument and make yours look ill informed.

If you had a brain in your head, you would understand the connection I drew between this and a document like the Constitution, which requires a court to hold it up. It's the same thing. That's why Catholics have the Pope.

Focusing on the fallacious and irrelevant, again. Well done. :bravo:

Now, be a good boy, run along and do your homework. :D

[swarm]

As much as god obviously likes sex, I'd say god plays both sides. Shemale!

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

As much as god obviously likes sex, I'd say god plays both sides. Shemale!

Hermaphrodite?

Wait! God likes sex??? Huh?

[Betrayer0fHope]

God is all powerful, he likes everything at the same time.

[JDawg]

It matters not how you "interpret" my post, those quotes confirm my argument and make yours look ill informed.

How do they confirm it?

Focusing on the fallacious and irrelevant, again. Well done. :bravo:

Now, be a good boy, run along and do your homework. :D

Here's what I've asked before and received no response, so I'll try one more time just to see if you can be bothered to answer.

What makes the Constitution point fallacious and irrelevant?

[swarm]

StrangerInAStrangeLa
God likes sex???

Haven't you noticed? Everything that can have sex, does.

[Simon Anders]

As much as god obviously likes sex, I'd say god plays both sides. Shemale! Now you are moving into my theology. Well, male and female in any case, with the occasional overlap. And certainly sex. Any immanent God must be involved in sex. And any transcendant God is limited.

[JDawg]

Notice Q doesn't have a response to my question. As usual.

[swarm]

Simon Anders
male and female in any case, with the occasional overlap. And certainly sex. Any immanent God must be involved in sex.

Without a doubt one of the most obvious refutations of monotheism.

[(Q)]

Notice Q doesn't have a response to my question. As usual.

Do your homework so you don't look such a fool. And, quit stalking me, weirdo.

[jayleew]

well, i would consider myself a christian because i believe that jesus is the christ, and god (whatever that is) has used the bible to show me things. but in the same regard, god has used a whole host of things to show me things. most of the time religion is just another institution. may as well be a member of a country club or a political party or a cult. labels and clubs aren't cool. just be, live, learn, experience. why does everyone got to be indoctrinated?

I agree, doctrine is a faith-killer. Any time people try to draw a box around something they don't understand is just stupid. Most people of fanatical faith are insecure in their beliefs and grab hold to things that appear to be grounded in solid reason to make themselves feel better.

[JDawg]

Do your homework so you don't look such a fool. And, quit stalking me, weirdo.

Says the guy who has posted after me in 9 different threads only to offer invalid counter-points to my own. :rolleyes:

But once again, excellent job at ducking the question you can't answer.

[(Q)]

Says the guy who has posted after me in 9 different threads only to offer invalid counter-points to my own. :rolleyes:

Your a comedian, too?

But once again, excellent job at ducking the question you can't answer.

It's been answered, but you're too dense to get that as you flip-flop back and forth yourself on the issue, which I pointed out in those other threads. You call it stalking, of course, as would anyone who needs constant corrections in his false assumptions.

Again, go do your homework, little boy.

[JDawg]

It's been answered, but you're too dense to get that as you flip-flop back and forth yourself on the issue, which I pointed out in those other threads. You call it stalking, of course, as would anyone who needs constant corrections in his false assumptions.

It hasn't been answered. All you've said is "It isn't relevant". That's all you've said. When I asked you to elaborate, your answer was "One is about God, one isn't". Hell of a line of logic you got there, kid.

Hey...what are you doing home from school?

[JDawg]

But seriously, I'll take that as an "I don't know". Welcome to the ignore list, young son.

[(Q)]

But seriously, I'll take that as an "I don't know". Welcome to the ignore list, young son.

Ignoring is your strong suit. Well done.

[(Q)]

It hasn't been answered. All you've said is "It isn't relevant". That's all you've said. When I asked you to elaborate, your answer was "One is about God, one isn't". Hell of a line of logic you got there, kid.

Putting a lack of words in my mouth isn't as low as you can get, but I'm sure you're working towards those sub-levels.