Jacob Wrestles With God

[Doubting Thomas]

Evil is the opposite of God, it wasn't created, it had always been, it just wasn't active.

So you're saying that from infinity in the past until God decided to create Satan, evil still existed? Evil. Still existed. Even though supposedly the only thing which existed was an all-perfect deity named God. Even though he's all-perfect and nothing else exists but him, evil exists but is dormant.

So by this you're claiming that God activated all the evil in the universe, which is basically no better than saying that God created evil.

I appreciate the mental hoops you make yourself jump through, but if you expect me or other nonbelievers believe this nonsense you're going to have to come up with something better, something more logical.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Evil is the opposite of God, it wasn't created, it had always been, it just wasn't active.

So you're saying that from infinity in the past until God decided to create Satan, evil still existed? Evil. Still existed. Even though supposedly the only thing which existed was an all-perfect deity named God. Even though he's all-perfect and nothing else exists but him, evil exists but is dormant.

So by this you're claiming that God activated all the evil in the universe, which is basically no better than saying that God created evil.

I appreciate the mental hoops you make yourself jump through, but if you expect me or other nonbelievers believe this nonsense you're going to have to come up with something better, something more logical.

It sounds like he's on the verge of platonism

[Esquilax]

You should learn what the scriptures say before trying to express them, what kind of reasonable person would do what you are doing.

GC

I'm quietly wondering to myself just how many times GC needs to post the same insulting non-answer before he runs afoul of our spamming or flaming rules.

Because, let's be clear here: this is not an answer with content. It's not an answer at all, and GC rarely posts anything of substance anymore.

[Lion IRC]

Careful Godschild.
They are setting you up for a ban.

You gotta be careful that what you post exactly meets their ...yes Sir, no Sir, 3 bags full Sir, definition of a correctly formulated answer to your superiors.

Do the clicky heels thing. Maybe obsequiousness will save you.

[Ryantology]

You should learn what the scriptures say before trying to express them, what kind of reasonable person would do what you are doing.

GC

I'm quietly wondering to myself just how many times GC needs to post the same insulting non-answer before he runs afoul of our spamming or flaming rules.

Because, let's be clear here: this is not an answer with content. It's not an answer at all, and GC rarely posts anything of substance anymore.

I would not object to making it a requirement that the theist has to explicitly cite verses instead of just saying something vague and telling us "It's in the bible, look it up". We can even call it "The Lion IRC Rule", after the dishonest chickenshit who will forever be associated with this particular activity in my mind.

[Lion IRC]

Closely related to the Ryantology Rule which says its OK to completely ignore answers and dismiss them as non-answers and waste ppls time by demanding they provide citations
you have NO INTENTION OF READING!

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

I'm quietly wondering to myself just how many times GC needs to post the same insulting non-answer before he runs afoul of our spamming or flaming rules.

Because, let's be clear here: this is not an answer with content. It's not an answer at all, and GC rarely posts anything of substance anymore.

I would not object to making it a requirement that the theist has to explicitly cite verses instead of just saying something vague and telling us "It's in the bible, look it up". We can even call it "The Lion IRC Rule", after the dishonest chickenshit who will forever be associated with this particular activity in my mind.

But in order to be fair, you'd have to require everyone to provide citations and explain why they are relevant, for every assertion. You can't just pick on the theists.

I don't like it. It would make posting far too laborious. Hell, it would make reading posts too laborious.

[Esquilax]

Careful Godschild.
They are setting you up for a ban.

Oh, fuck off.

It's clearly labeled in the rules: posts made without content, repeated insults, and posts made without a care for the conversation in the thread, are spamming and flaming. All GC does is insult our intelligence and makes posts that have no connection to anything that's said to him. I don't think "please come to our conversation forum and have a conversation" is much of an unreasonable rule.

But hey, if you'd rather play the persecution card, that's fine. Be a whiny bitch: it's making you into such a credible source of information and opinion, here. Because let's be clear: you haven't been banned, GC hasn't been banned, nobody has been banned for expressing christian views. You can't produce a single instance of persecution, some of the mods here are not atheist, and if I really had an issue here, I wouldn't have said anything, I would have just reported it.

GC's probably going to ignore what I've said. That's fine, he's entitled to: breaking the rules is still breaking the rules, and by conducting himself in the manner he is now, he's only engendering an atmosphere of hostility.

[Ryantology]

But in order to be fair, you'd have to require everyone to provide citations and explain why they are relevant, for every assertion. You can't just pick on the theists.

I don't care if they bother explaining the verse to me, but if someone who claims to know the Bible says that something is in it, why should it be up to the other person to dig through the whole thing trying to find it?

For example, what I mentioned with Lion above. I asked where the Bible mentions God endowing humans with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. His response was "Ever read Galatians?" When I asked for specific verses, he refused to offer any. "Galatians 2:12" or something along those lines would have been satisfactory. I could have read the verse, and then we could have hashed out the meaning together. Instead, I'm not only told to go find it myself, but I'm also expected to figure out, on my own, which part Lion interprets as agreeing with the DoI, as I already know that the DoI's exact phrasing did not come from the Bible.

It's not asking much.

[Lion IRC]

...[Lion IRC's] response was "Ever read Galatians?" When I asked for specific verses, he refused to offer any. "Galatians 2:12" or something along those lines would have been satisfactory. I could have read the verse, and then we could have hashed out the meaning together.

YAY. You found one of the verses. I knew you could do it.
I told you they were there.
Keep looking.
Theres TONS more.