(July 26, 2011 at 7:03 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(July 26, 2011 at 6:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually, I went back and looked in the "Prayer" thread you are referring to, and I never cited Wikipedia there.

Who said I was referring to that thread? I'm not sure which thread it happened in, but I am almost certain it was you.

That was the thread you said you had never been in a discussion with an atheist who used Wikipedia but if you had you would have called him on it. So I assumed that was the thread you were referring to. Feel free to point out where I have used Wikipedia to prove a point.

---

(July 26, 2011 at 7:03 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 26, 2011 at 6:33 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Claiming to be a Christian does not make you one. I did do my research, and I have concluded that CIM is far from Biblical Christianity, just like most people would conclude.

Thank you Herr Inquisitor Statler. Good to know christians still root out the heretics. Will there be any burnings?

Nah, we just believe that defintions of terms matter, which apparently you do not.

Continuing along the line of 2+2=4, congratulations, you've gotten the concept of reproducible evidence. I too have added 2 and 2 together, it appears the answer is 4. Now formulate god within the same parameters.

(don't even start down the definitions matter road with me, because they don't, not to you. The only definitions that matter to you are your own)

(July 26, 2011 at 7:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Continuing along the line of 2+2=4, congratulations, you've gotten the concept of reproducible evidence. I too have added 2 and 2 together, it appears the answer is 4. Now formulate god within the same parameters.

There is no proof of God's existence that takes the form of a mathematical proof, I am sure you already knew that though. Although if we limited our beliefs to only those things which have deductive proofs we would not believe in much now would we?

(July 26, 2011 at 7:06 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That was the thread you said you had never been in a discussion with an atheist who used Wikipedia but if you had you would have called him on it. So I assumed that was the thread you were referring to. Feel free to point out where I have used Wikipedia to prove a point.

That is rather unnecessary, considering you have already admitted to doing so in this thread. It's no biggy, Stat. You just have a double standard. You aren't the only person with one of those.

Back to the topic, I don't understand why it would matter to you if he was Christian or not, which he most likely was. Let's not get caught up in what other people say about him. Let's stick to what he says about himself. Oh, and he wouldn't be the first Christian to have pagan sympathies or rip off pagan ideas, now, would he. No, he wouldn't.

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. He killed a heap of people. There are Christian terrorists. No one would think less of you if you came on and said, "That guys was disturbed whether he was Christian or not." There is no reason to try to relabel him. You are not accused of his crimes, nor is Christianity, per se. Why have such fear of bad guys being labeled Christian? This is a very common theme with you. You seem to think every Christian on the face of the planet is incapable of inhumanity.

The intellectual bank is lenient regarding it's policies on bounced or floating checks.

(July 26, 2011 at 7:14 pm)Shell B Wrote:

---

(July 26, 2011 at 7:06 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That was the thread you said you had never been in a discussion with an atheist who used Wikipedia but if you had you would have called him on it. So I assumed that was the thread you were referring to. Feel free to point out where I have used Wikipedia to prove a point.

That is rather unnecessary, considering you have already admitted to doing so in this thread. It's no biggy, Stat. You just have a double standard. You aren't the only person with one of those.

Back to the topic, I don't understand why it would matter to you if he was Christian or not, which he most likely was. Let's not get caught up in what other people say about him. Let's stick to what he says about himself. Oh, and he wouldn't be the first Christian to have pagan sympathies or rip off pagan ideas, now, would he. No, he wouldn't.

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. He killed a heap of people. There are Christian terrorists. No one would think less of you if you came on and said, "That guys was disturbed whether he was Christian or not." There is no reason to try to relabel him. You are not accused of his crimes, nor is Christianity, per se. Why have such fear of bad guys being labeled Christian? This is a very common theme with you. You seem to think every Christian on the face of the planet is incapable of inhumanity.

---

I just took your word for it that I had used it in an argument, after going back and checking it looks like I actually never have, so it seems that contrary to what you claimed I have been very consistent on that matter. Even if I had used it, I do not believe that would have been hypocritical, just like VOID using AIG didn't really make him a hypocrite, I understood why he used it.

I do not believe there is any evidence this guy was a Christian, so I am sorry but I am not going to just roll over on that point. Self proclaiming to be something does not automatically make a person that thing (even though it's even disputable whether this guy ever claimed to be a Christian).

Sure there have been Christians who have made mistakes and wronged their fellow men, but the point is that when they did this they were acting in a manner that was contradicting their religion, not a manner fueled by it, which is what atheists always want to try and argue to further their anti-religion agenda.

---

(July 26, 2011 at 7:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The intellectual bank is lenient regarding it's policies on bounced or floating checks.

Are you on drugs? What are you even talking about?

How are we to determine if a religious fanatics actions aren't supported by his faith, when the faithful can't agree on what is supported by their faith?

(July 26, 2011 at 7:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: How are we to determine if a religious fanatics actions aren't supported by his faith, when the faithful can't agree on what is supported by their faith?

We (Christians) agree on most things, and one of those things is that we should not mow down 68 unarmed people including women and children. So again, that's just another red herring.

(July 26, 2011 at 7:27 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sure there have been Christians who have made mistakes and wronged their fellow men, but the point is that when they did this they were acting in a manner that was contradicting their religion, not a manner fueled by it, which is what atheists always want to try and argue to further their anti-religion agenda.

So, if a police officer kills someone in anger, even though he has sworn to protect the public, he is not a police officer. Sorry, Stat. That argument is a sieve. As for "furthering their anti-religion agenda," I'm not anti-religious, yet I use a person's self-identification in matters of religion, politics, etc. In those issues, it really doesn't matter how you behave, it is what you relate to that matters. You have no way of knowing if the "holy spirit" was in that man or that god willed whatever he did, so how can you possibly strip him of his own label? We've had this conversation before. You don't have Christ-dar, so who are you to say someone who identifies as a Christian is not Christian?

---

(July 26, 2011 at 7:35 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: We (Christians) agree on most things, and one of those things is that we should not mow down 68 unarmed people including women and children. So again, that's just another red herring.

Hmmm ..., if I remember correctly, god seems to disagree with Christians, if the above is true. Isn't everything part of "his" plan? Hasn't "he" himself ordered slaughters, massacres and various other atrocities?

(July 26, 2011 at 7:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: So, if a police officer kills someone in anger, even though he has sworn to protect the public, he is not a police officer. Sorry, Stat. That argument is a sieve. As for "furthering their anti-religion agenda," I'm not anti-religious, yet I use a person's self-identification in matters of religion, politics, etc. In those issues, it really doesn't matter how you behave, it is what you relate to that matters. You have no way of knowing if the "holy spirit" was in that man or that god willed whatever he did, so how can you possibly strip him of his own label? We've had this conversation before. You don't have Christ-dar, so who are you to say someone who identifies as a Christian is not Christian?

Did you read what I wrote? I said there are Christians who have wronged other people. I just do not believe there is any evidence this man was a Christian. Claiming to be a police officer does not make you one either, just to play along with your analogy.
Scripture says there are certain finger prints of the Holy Spirit's saving work, and those are the fruit of the spirit. This man doesn't seem to display any of those things, so it's a safe bet that he does not possess saving grace at this time. We will never agree on this matter though because we have completely different ideas of what it means to actually be a Christian.

God's declared will is for men to love their enemies, not commit murder and to forgive others, so it's obvious this man was violating God's legal will.