Tony1 loves to thump the Bible, well here thump through this:

KalvinB...This forum is not a sitcom!

This debate cannot be solved in 30-60 minutes. Therefore, practice what you preach, take it one contradiction at a time. PROVE it is not a contradiction. If you can sufficiently end that debate, move on to the next. Why do you need Godless to choose one. Many were posted, you can use the eenie-meenie-minie-mo method if you want. If you are going to attack the original post, why not do it by disproving them one at a time. "DON'T GET MAD, GET EVEN"

Godless...Long winded post tend to get boring quick. I've don't it also, but I think one of your long post still equal two of mine. You seem to turn people off to your arguement when they stop reading midway through and skip to the next post. You can't get your point across if people aren't waiting around for "THE BOTTOM LINE"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quit whining, KalvinB

What Would Jesus Do?

This is part of the reason why, two-thousand years later, Christianity is a crock; by dealing with "one contradiction at a time", it's easy to compartmentalize, and what's to stop Christians from consistently contradicting their own reasoning (as happens frequently, even at Sciforums)? After all, to attempt to address a logical conclusion in light of another logical conclusion is its own contradiction that pertains to two other contradictions simultaneously, and that makes three contradictions within a single issue, which is apparently too much for an intellect blessed with Christian faith to deal with.

See, Christians have no problem answering any given single issue; what they do seem to have problems with is the idea of recalling those answers while other issues are on the plate.

You're right, KalvinB--if the topic is bigger than you're capable of comprehending, what Christian duty do you have to be civil? After all, the Way of Jesus is condemning, vitriolic, and spiteful, isn't it?

Get over yourself. I thought Christians were supposed to strive to be like Christ; since most of them can't walk on water or change water into wine, we might speculate (and soundly) that this emulation should be of Christ's beatific compassion. Why is it that so many Christians choose to emulate that tantrum he threw at the moneylenders? Bearing this in mind, I can't recall when Jesus said, "Call 'em whiny bitches; that oughta do it."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What would Jesus do?

I dunno, maybe use such phrases as "brood of vipers," or tell someone they're hell bound. I dunno.

Jesus was a very compasionship person sure but when it came to the pharasees he was one angry person and rightfully so.

There are MANY people who have dealt with ALL the contradictions. I have never dealt with them all but am capable of doing so.

If you don't wish to take the time to go one by one then I don't have the time to either.

"Pick one"

I'm sorry but you're going to have to clean this mess up first. The absurdity of some of the contradictions demonstrates just how unwilling Godless is to oh I dunno, do an ounce of thinking on his part.

Anyway I have to go. I really don't have anything else to say until there is a new thread and one contradiction.

Ben

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's the spirit

But it was important enough to chime in and call Godless a whiny bitch .... Fair enough.

But you have the time to call someone a whiny bitch?

You know, that does it ... I'm converting to Christianity; one can be delusional and insulting ... what a perfect deal. I mean, really: if I convert to Christianity, I receive the commission from God to demonstrate myself both intolerant and impatient, as well as devoid of any intellectual responses to those things that displease me.

So do you disagree with any of those contradictions? Even one? Go on, pick one, and have your say on it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It only took a minute to call Godless a whiny little bitch, it would take days or months to go through every alleged contradiction in an orderly fasion.

So yes, I did take the time to call him a whiney bitch, and no I'm not too motivated to take the time to examine the contradictions if Godless et al aren't willing to.

Being Christian doesn't prevent me from having my own opinions.

How am I dillusional?
How am I impatient?

If Godless could demonstrate he actually wanted an answer to those contradictions he'd

a) Be less of an ass in his presentation
b) Search the internet and see that those have been answered numerous times, it's pretty hard to miss

What's unique about Christ's resurrection? Why can God kill people and we can't (unless ordered by God)?

Hmm..let's think for a second. Who called Christ from the grave? Why can the government bomb the shit out of whoever attacked the US but we the casual citizen can't even if they had bombs?

Where do you get this shit? Oh I know. Nevermind. The fact Godless even posted those shows what an ignorant mindless little troll Godless is.

Why should I be patient?

Ben

 

http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b08.html

Godless, go there, find an answer to a contradiction you are not satified with and post it here. You're probably very familiar with the responses to alledged contradictions so you should have no problem with this task.

Since it's apparently a hard concept....post 1 (one) and only 1 (one) unacceptable answer (and your reasons for not liking it)along with the contradiction and I'll see what I can do.

You prove to me you can use your brain to reason instead of just for mindless cut and pasting and I'll take the time to take your objections seriously.

Ben

 

But it does demand that you be less aggressive in your opinions

Delusional: Well, you seem to subscribe to Christianity, which is in itself is as philosophical as any other religious proposition. But the whole bit that comes with this particular religion--original sin, born into sin, whatever you wish to call it, and also the idea of redemption and punishment/deprivation/forfeiture is a massive delusion. The presumptuous arrogance derived from the Christian religion is among the foremost examples of its dysfunction.

Impatient: The best you could come up with was Whiny bitch. Why didn't you just take one issue, respond to it, and advise that it's a lot of information and that if one wants better attention given to the plethora of issues, it would be wiser to present it in smaller, more relevant portions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's examine your initial response to the topic:

* You decline to posit an answer, choosing instead to employ sarcasm: Way to go. Post a thousand objections in hope you hit the target.

* You employ a second paragraph of sarcasm: I'm shaken! Look at all those verses!

* You then become insulting: You are an idiot.

* You then assert your own standards for debate: Focus on one and you will be taken seriously. Cut and past many and forget it.

* You then admit that you cannot address the issues (and, for lack of your trying, we might assume you're incapable of picking one, per your own advice which you would repeat): How are we supposed to respond in an orderly fasion to that?

* And then you wrap up with proper indignance: You just vomit the crap you've been fed and expect us to clean up the mess?

Let's see: two forms of sarcasm, an insult, a demand for adherence to your terms of debate, a confession of inadequacy, and then you become indignant.

Let me guess, when you grow up you want to be like Jesus? Why not start today?

Not much, unless you'd care to fill us in on what I'm missing about the uniqueness of Christ's resurrection.

As near as I can tell, it's because people believe what's written in the Bible, even though "God ordered it" is merely an excuse given to justify the human slaughter.

Nobody, if you ask me; God, as I understand the Christian perspective. It seems a matter of simple disagreement.

Because that's how We, the People, decided our government should be.

Kurt Cobain, despite his songwriting talents, has little, if anything, to do with the present discussion.

And what does your response say of your intolerant petulance?

I thought the Bible was clear on that:

or

There is, of course, the wisdom that Patience is a virtue, but, like believing in one's redemption after death, such an idea is subjective and can easily be rejected such as you have demonstrated.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hmm, I see most of the explanations are done in a large article manner. I don't see any difference between those long pages and Godless' one. So you want Godless list one at a time while pointing him to read a long list of items?

 

What is it with your cowardly demands, KalvinB?

You sound to me like a political candidate who says, Yeah, I'll debate, but only if you don't ask me any hard questions, and only if we restrict the opposition.

In other words, you want to refute contradictions in the Bible, but only if people submit them to you according to your terms of submission.

Whatever.

Quit whining or else address the topic. What rule says you can't, oh, pick one from the list? What, is ordering off a menu at a restaurant difficult for you?

Waiter: Can I take your order?
KalvinB: Shut up you whining bitch. You should present the menu one item at a time!
Waiter: I beg your pardon, monseuir?
KalvinB: You are an idiot! One at a time. If you present your menu all listed like this, you don't deserve my respect.
Waiter: Forgive me, monseuir. Would you like a hamburger?
KalvinB: No.
Waiter: Very well. Would you like a cheeseburger?
KalvinB: No.
Waiter: Would you like a bacon burger?
KalvinB: No I would not, you ignorant, mindless little troll.
Waiter: Would you like a California burger?
KalvinB: What is that?
Waiter: (sighs) It is a hamburger with avocado on it, and it comes with french fries.
KalvinB: Whoa, whoa, whoa! I said one at a time ... what's the matter? Are you afraid to do an ounce of thinking on your own?
Waiter: Would you like an orbit-burger?
KalvinB: You're an idiot. What's that?
Waiter: It is a hamburger with cheese, lettuce, onion, tomato, bacon, ham, hard-boiled egg, and thousand-island dressing.
KalvinB: Whoa! What is your problem, you mindless troll? Where do you get this shit? You pick an ingredient and ask me if I want it! Why do you ask me if I want all these unrelated ingredients? ....

I could go on like this, but what's the point? I haven't even gotten to the fish & chips (too many ingredients to decide!), the souvlaki, the pastas, or the pizza options; good heavens, if the restaurant has a bar, how long would it take you to order a beverage? (Waiter: Would you like Sex on the Beach? Or a Long Slow Screw Against the Wall, perhaps? Or a Duck Fart? How about a Brain Hemorrhage?)

I would suggest that you eat nothing but wheatgrass, but you might take it to be two separate words, and call me an idiot for presenting you with too much information.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have not had an answer to this and currently none of the issues have been attacked. There were some quibles by by KalvinB but these must be dicarded due to their lack of any coherent thought. When KalvinB can answer using language beyond the petty taunts of idiot and mindless troll. These are not valid retorts.

 

"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4

"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10

Wow!!! That is pretty bad. If that is not a contradiction than I cannot think of something capable of satiating your need for direct evidence.

It gets worse:

"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

Again direct contradiction. Just a few more to chew on:

"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1

There KalvinB, that's a measily parsel of 4. Can you handle that?

 

Ok here's one I read in Your gospelcom

I'll make it short and simple for you: here's the objection on "faith"
this is what the apolegetic had to say:

First, here is a classic mis-definition. Faith DOES NOT mean jumping to a conclusion without examining the evidence. It means trusting in that of which you don't have full knowledge. When a man sits in a chair for the first time, he doesn't know with no doubts that the chair will hold his weight. He observes the chair, judges it sound based on what he sees and his past experience, then sits down. He has faith that the chair will support him. Everyone exercises faith every day. The question is whether the evidence upon which that faith is based is sound.

This is silly comparing faith in meaningless things as a chair, supports my weight or not, when we all know that the subject of faith here is suppose to be faith in the unexplainable nature of the omnipotent extraterrestial being. Let me quote Ayn Rand on *Faith*
Faith, designates blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by **feelings** in the absence of evidence or proof. Ayn Rand

Even in your own bible it states that god is that which man can never comprehend. This would make us some tipe of poor feeble mindless creatures in the light to your uncomprehencible god!. News flash, if it is uncomprehencible, why have faith in it? why have faith in that which no one can prove if it exists or not!.

Alien; who is god
Thiest; he's the creator of the universe, an omnipotent being.
Alien; how can a beign create the universe and be within the universe, where does he come from?
Theist; well you have to have "faith" of what i tell you is true
Alien; "faith" what is that?
Thiest; faith is the feelings you must feel in order to believe that god is the supreme being.
Alien; Let me see, so you base your beliefs, of a supreme being by feelings? which you call faith? this does not seem *****Logical***** to me. Why have faith, in something which you could never prove the existence of?

 

God has proven his existance time and time again you just don't accept that the Bible is an actual record of that.

I believe in God because I believe the universe was caused into existance. To deny God is to say that scietists are correct that the universe was formed "out of nothing" (Just like the Bible also says) but that God had nothing to do with that.

What takes more faith, the infinit existance of an intelligent being or absolute nothingness turing into everything for no reason?

Well, I guess we're on the same page aren't we?

Why put faith in what science can never prove? Something out of nothing with no cause. They only put that theory forth now because without God it's the only option. They're far from proving it. It took then at least 3000 years (Dead Sea Scrolls) to figure out what the Bible has been saying about "out of nothing." I don't have faith in science that they'll prove God doesn't exist because for that reason. At least 3000 years to catch up with the first half of Genesis 1:1 (no other religion has the concept of "out of nothing")

How many 1000s of years do you think it will take before they disprove the second half? How much FAITH do you put in science to beable to do that?

Anyway, I said Bible contradiction. Your insistance of not believing in God has nothing to do with that. It's a trite argument that you know can't be won. The existance of God can neither be proven or disproven. Try again.

Besides the "out of nothing" thing which is just interesting I see more control in my life then "chance" could ever offer. That's also why I believe in God.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. God sent his prophets, we killed them. God came himself, we killed him, he wrote a book, we burned it. He performed miracles we denied them.

What more do you want? You've pretty much eliminated all His options. When he shows himself that's it.

Why have faith in something you can't comprehend? Another trite question. If you'd read the Bible instead of trolling with Skeptic material you'd find there is much of God we do understand.

What don't we understand about God that you think we should before we can know enough to justify believing in Him?

Ben

 

Tiassa, what you describe is something completely different. Ordering is not a debate but a debate is an orderly thing.

On a menu I'm given information regarding ONE issue "what am I going to eat?" All information is relative to the issue.

When I select what I'm going to eat the issue becomes "what do I want on it?" If the waiter was listing toppings available for a pizza and I said I wanted a hamburger, yeah I'd call them on it.

You can ask a tough question I don't care. Posting multiple topics in one thread it absurd. Especially when each topic is a long discussion in itself.

You need to think harder about your analogies. Your restaurant one makes no sense in the context of this discussion. I'm a good tipper at restaurants. I worked the food business for many years. I'd never treat a waiter/ess like that.

From the site I mentioned

"Rather than tackle a whole list in one sitting, deal with one issue at a time. Ask the poster to pick the first issue. Once you've discussed it, you pick the next issue. "

It's common sense to limit the discussion to one idea or it'll just be chaos. This isn't some strange concept I came up with to try to avoid the discussion.

Obviously Teg is still too dense to understand what I'm trying to do. "It's only 4." This is me shaking my head. What is wrong with you?

Ben

 

In the bible you are given information on ONE issue "what are you going to believe?" All information is relative to the issue. Therefore, Godless did the same.

First, see my above statement as far as the context issue.
Secondly, you've been a "christian" how many years? Are you not a good christian? You treat Godless in an unchristian-like manner.
Third, the original post was directed at Tony1, why are you getting irritable

 

Absolutly amazing. Why don't I cut and paste the encyclopedia as well so we can discuss what it says. It's all ONE issue "What's in the world?"

"UnChristian like"
I've been a "Christian" quote unquote. You doubting my beliefs because sometimes I speak harshly to others? Jesus wasn't a very good Christian either because he told people they were going to hell and even ripped up a temple.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Sure it was directed at Tony1 and he responded...once. If he wants to come in and take over fine. I just thought I'd give Godless a piece of my mind.

I am allowed to do that. Or do you want to be a good submissive little Christian and just keep it to myself?

Not gonna happen. If I'm thinking something I might as well say it. If you don't like it ignore me. It was directed at Godless, why do you care?

Ben

 

Where did you learn to be so Christlike, KalvinB?

However, the uniform attribute that helps both of those along is respect, sir, which is something you seem to lack. You seem to have advised Devildog to ignore you if he doesn't like it. What is so problematic with adhering to your own standard? If you didn't think the topic was worth responding to, why did you bother? What, you just couldn't resist the chance to call someone an idiot and a whiny bitch?

Kind of like the one issue, "What contradictions are there in the Bible"?

What, is this Flakey Jake's? Sure, whatever you like. Of course, as I recall, FJ's gave you a burger and a bun and turned you loose on a condiment bar.

So in other words, it's absurd to ask you to read? As I see the website you've provided, it's even more convoluted than what you're complaining about, so what's your problem? And if the discussion's too long, that's your own problem to cope with; one of the reasons these ideas are never particularly clear is the tendency of the Christian response to reduce the non-Christian objection to an easily-manipulated conceptualization. If the discussion is too much for your brain to handle, I would advise then that you either avoid it altogether or else ... ah, just avoid it altogether. Had you done that, we would have had to assume negative aspects of your faith to assign to you, and that would be wrong of us. However, you have supplied us with a picture of faith that is as intolerant and condescending as some of us expect.

In other words, only debate someone if you get to "control" the debate? Gee, didn't I mention something about that a post or two ago? Thank you for clearing that up for me. So ... when your answer to one Biblical contradiction creates a contradiction with your answer on the next issue you've chosen, does the other debater get to call you on that? Or does that make too many issues for your intellect to handle?

Indeed, thank you for clearing up that you are incapable of considering multiple issues at once. Do you reflect this concept when you vote? If you were, say, voting on an abortion law, would you consider the social factors involved in abortion? Or is it too difficult to wonder about more than one aspect of the issue? If you're voting on, say, whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to participate in society (per Oregon), do you merely consider God's classification of homosexuality as an abomination? Are the rights of people in your society too many factors to consider?

Funny, I always thought the central message of Jesus' ministry had to do with "Do unto others", "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and other compassionate factors. Blessed are the meek? Well, I guess you've chosen not to be blessed, eh? Of course, since you're only able to consider one thing at a time and therefore cannot perceive the composite of Jesus' ministry, it is perfectly understandable that the only applicable part of the Bible is the one that best justifies your chosen behavior. I have, in the past, accused Christian faith of being an excuse to behave badly. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

If that's what Christian faith does to one's mind, then I'm quite happy I got out when I did.

Any number of reasons. Namely that you're setting a new low in our standards; I don't even resort to calling people whiny bitch.

Tell you what, KalvinB: do you go to church? Or are you the televangelist type that stays at home? (We've had a few of those through here ....) So what I propose is that you print out this thread, document your role in it, and ask your preacher for his advice. Or is that how he talks to you, calling you a whiny bitch and a mindless troll?

All you're accomplishing with your justifications of your conduct is reiterating the notion that Christianity is bad for humanity.

And we thank you for your efforts to that end; many of us have known this for a long time, but we are grateful to you for admitting it in the demonstrative fashion you have.

Now, will all the Christians please crawl back into their churches and let the rest of us get on to what's important in the world?

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let's see. First off, I havn't been to church in quite a while. I havn't gone regulary in a few years now. Ever since I experienced first hand what it's capable of doing to people. I cringe at the thought of Televangelists.

"Respect"
Yes I know I've shown no respect towards Godless. Maybe I should. Maybe I don't feel I have a reason too. I respect those who I feel deserve it. If you don't think I deserve any respect then fine.

"Control"
I felt that Godless was out of control and of course I wanted to correct it. So? We could generalize the issue so much that it was okay for Godless to post as much as he did. Go for it. I didn't think this is such a hard concept to grasp.

How about I start a debate against evolution? I'll go to the most documented site I know and post everything from thermodynamics to moon dust to the fossile record (and at least 20 objections in between). How effective of a discussion is that? FOCUS. It's not control it's FOCUS.

What's so unreasonable about that? Are you afraid that if I "gain control" I'm going to somehow trick you or something?

I want a focused debate. Wow, what a concept. I got into a huge debate on another site with a number of issues being raised and I got accused of dodging issues. There were just too many to respond to in any orderly fasion. It's like talking to 20 people at once about 20 different things. By focusing this debate it's pretty hard for me to dodge anything now isn't it?

"one of the reasons these ideas are never particularly clear is the tendency of the Christian response to reduce the non-Christian objection to an easily-manipulated conceptualization"

Have I?

"So ... when your answer to one Biblical contradiction creates a contradiction with your answer on the next issue you've chosen, does the other debater get to call you on that?"

Absolutly. My friend has been trying to get me to contradict myself for quite a while. I think I've demonstrated I'm very straight forward about what I think.

"Convoluted site"

Probably. One thing I've found is that most Christians aren't particually good at web design. I just wanted Godless to read through some explainations before jumping on here about contradictions. Is it really that wrong to expect someone to research BOTH sides of any issue before comming at the other side?

When I was talking to the LDS missionaries I brought up a contradiction. They paniced and began madly flipping through their Book of Mormon. I calmly turned to the back of my copy. "Oh, here it is." I found the answer for them.

I see the same contradictions over and over and over and...over like they're new and that this time the person they present them to won't be able to explain it. At least I was nice enough to attempt to resolve issues on my own and sometimes successfully.

I was never interested in arguing with someone over something I knew the answer to. Therefore before bringing an issue into any of the mailing lists I would research it thouroughly myself first. Get both sides and then ask questions.

Godless just assumed those contradiction didn't have answers to them and that's why I called him on it. Tony asked "where are the contradictions?" because Tony as well as I know there are no contradicting verses. Only contradictory interpretations. I've been through that many times. But I can't very well prove it if you can't focus the discussion.

Maybe "whiny little bitch" wasn't appropriate. His rebuttal to Tony with more "contradictions" would probably be more properly tagged as "pompous ass" or "ignorant." I believe I used those as well later.

I read his contradictions until I hit the ones I knew were just filling and had well known and solid answers to. That's pretty much when I decided he deserved no respect. And neither do the skeptic sites who still post those.

Ben

 

Wow, you're Satanic, too

When Anton LaVey sat down and wrote his 9 Statements of Satan, which are the conduct platform for members of his Satanic church, he included exactly the concept you have expressed. I wonder if Tony1 is paying attention; he likes to give me crap about having been a Satanist, and generally feels I still am one. Hey, now he's got a practicing Satanist to talk to.

Why bother? It's been done here before.

I assert that's a pale excuse on your part, and I'll even cite why.

This is your own citation. You have changed the terms of the debate by asking the poster to restrict his question, and furthermore by picking the next issue. So there you go ... it's a matter of control.

It's not particularly unreasonable; it's merely disrespectful. You obviously want to answer the issues, but will only do so on your terms. And it's generally known that if a Christian "gains control" of a debate, nothing will be resolved because Christians only have a certain number of philosophical avenues acceptable to their own interpretation of the Bible. The problem is that those faith points are generally the subject fo the debate. So by restating the issue, a Christian has answered the issue. It's pretty stupid, if you ask me. But you didn't, so don't worry about it.

Actually, it's easy for you to dodge. It allows you to take the issues in the manner of your preference, and thus avoid the interrelations between issues.

Um ... you need to respond to the issue at hand before I can assess whether or not your response reduces the objection.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is a result of faith that you will not see contradictions where others see them. This is part of the debate, and why you need to be capable of understanding another's questions instead of demanding that they be restated until they are acceptable to your intellectual palate.

Well, you could try responding yourself, but I understand that it's much easier to let other people speak for you; didn't that site on controlling the debate you provided advise about finding out whether the objector is citing his own issues or someone else's? What, is the advice at that page hit-miss, so that you take what you think is a good idea? Did you learn math that way? ("I don't feel like learning fractions today.")

So why did you ask in the first place? To see the looks on their faces? No, don't bother answering; I don't actually care.

About the Bible or the Book of Mormon? I've learned to never assume what the grammar indicates at this site. In the case of the Bible, I'd assert what I've mentioned above that it is a point of faith to see no contradictions where another might see them. Of the Mormons, that still begs the question of why you bothered asking them in the first place, and no, I still don't care.

Hmm ... thank you for demonstrating that it is a point of faith to see no contradictions where others might see them. Like you said, it's a matter of interpretation. And, uh ... what is it about Thou shall not kill that isn't written into the commandments that makes it appropriate to kill an entire nation of people when God says so? It's in the Bible, but not the exception. Despite Thou shall not kill, I see no footnote that reads, "Unless you think God tells you to."

So I should classify you as pathetic intellectual turd for your inability to answer the issues and merely complain about the questions? Mind you, I will if that's the appropriate way to make conclusions, but despite your repeated demonstrations that it is, I tend to think such crap is useless.

And you went out of your way to demonstrate that. Do you feel better now?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you'd like to call me a "pathetic intellectual turd"...um go for it. You're not Christian so there's no reason for you to be nice. I have no reason to get on your case about it since you don't care what Jesus would do.

I've never picked the issue. I go with whatever someone wants to go with. I'd sometimes lead a discussion by a series of questions but that's about as much control as I have. I ask a question and then ask another based on the response.

"nothing will be resolved because Christians only have a certain number of philosophical avenues acceptable to their own interpretation of the Bible"

That's an assumption. You have yet to take me personally on with a contradiction. I responded to two of them with questions.

"Unless you THINK God tells you to."
I never said that. The Bible doesn't imply it. When God speaks you KNOW. If you want to know how you can test a self proclaimed prophet you have to check the OT:

You ask them to prophecy. If they prophecy and it comes to pass you can trust them. If they prophecy and it doesn't come to pass you kill them. That is if you want to play by OT rules. If they are not 100% accurate they are not from God and not to be trusted. If they give some personal "prediction" which usually can also be found in the Bible (classic, see every modern prophet) you might as well let them know that hell has a seat for them and then walk away.

You can fear that I'll take control and twist the issue into oblivion and skip this issue, we can continue to pursue this "why can God kill and we can't" issue or pick another.

I don't care. As long as we stick with one. I have a lot going on these days. I can't talk to 20 people at once about 20 different things at this time. Since apparently I'm Satanic, I'll try to get some of my buddies involved and maybe I will beable to talk to 20 people at once. That'd be great.

Ben