Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread

[I_am_not_mafia]

are you a clinton, seriously? I went line by line page by page for 10 weeks and 22 pages of monster dialog per thread, and never once did you address any of the failures in basic christian comprehension I posted.. You know the critical errors in understanding that would have you assume a paradox in logic or an error in critical thinking, when comparing an answer I gave against what you understand my belief to be.... 

To this you said I struggled after 22 pages and 10 weeks/2 and 1/2 months to which I retain the final word. Seriously? your best efforts amount in name calling and trying to make me out to to be a hypocrite, all the while I had one arm tied behind my back in that I was not allowed to ask you/redirect any questions to you which allowed you to be on the offense the whole time...

You are seriously deluded if you think you came out on top in that exchange. ask anyone on this web site who is not a devoted fan of yours if a 22 page 2 and a half month of onslaught where you were on the attack and I on the defense (by Rule other wise you would not 'debate') is an example of me struggling. And you left the debate and would not address your repeated errors in miscatorgrizing the form of Christianity I was representing. it seems to me you only know of Catholicism and everyone must be catholic if the are christian.. or rather that is the only way you could get your contradictions/onslaught to work. Ignore my corrections and just repeat the same question adnauism. till you gave up and stopped responding.

This was my final question

Why should anyone on this forum, or any other forum, bother debating with you if you omit vital information as above, are unable to admit to being wrong (p200, p202, p198, p209), are hypocritical (p205, p150), use strawman arguments (p205, p150), are condescending (p25, p156), avoid defending statements because they are 'taken out of context' (p54), avoid answering questions (p68, p70, p72, p78, p103, p105, p162, p176, p184, p186, p188, p190, p192, p196, p198, p202), answer other questions that were not asked instead that you want to answer (p72, p136), are inconsistent (p96, p159, p195, p197, p201), willing to say something 100% factually wrong and will stand by it even when asked (p128 & p130, p147, p156), will come up with the most feeble of excuses when shown your own inconsistencies (p200, p204), do not read the links that you post (p146, p156, p190), play word games and resort to definitions as a distraction (p149, p153, p204), attack the other person's methods as a form of distraction when the questions get tough (p156, p205, p207, p212) and do not understand the logical fallacies you accuse other people of committing (p190) ?

This is what you argued:

• Free will is an illusion (p19, p59)
  
• Thinks that people who died before Jesus who were not Jews are either in Hell or given another go around after Christ, i.e. reincarnation (p35)
  
• Worships a god who is not considered fair and merciful by most people because he does not depend on "logical fallacy" (Argumentum ad populum) to pick his god. (p42)
  
• Believes in absolutes (p49) but we should refrain from speaking in absolutes (p118)
  
• Hell is an alternative to forced slavery under God (p51), there will be jobs in Heaven (p53) and some will be doing heavy lifting / slave labour (p53). Believes being a slave labourer under God in Heaven for an eternity will be a pleasant experience because people elected this fare and were designed that way (p59)
  
• God can only find 1 our 3 individuals that have the design that he wants (even though God designed them) (p66)
  
• Can't say that being free in Hell is unpleasant except for those that want to be with God (p62, p78). Thinks that being entombed in Hell is better for some people and isn't trying to scare people about Hell (p83). Some will find Hell unpleasant, others won't, it depends upon how much they hate God (p80)
  
• Chose to love God because he experienced a nano-second of his love (p85) and before this he chose to not believe (p89). Had a choice about loving God before a/s/k'ing but not afterwards (p45)
  
• Thinks that his knowledge of God was experienced and verified through an outside source (p110)
  
• Thinks that he uses the scientific method for determining truth (p143) yet does not understand what the scientific method is (p145, p154, p156)
  
• Thinks A/S/K is not a general theory but a formula (p156)
  
• Thinks that formulas consist of parables (p168)
  
• Beating up christians was his way of honouring and seeking God. For Paul of the Bible it was hunting them down and killing them (p170, p180). God commanded him to do this (p180)