(September 13, 2012 at 1:08 am)Lion IRC Wrote:

(September 12, 2012 at 10:48 pm)Drich Wrote:

I'm glad you're here Drich.

What's the point? I find superstitious Christians quite pathetic. You believe in a bogeyman in the sky, like any kid of 3 but when mature folks want to debate, you flee, taking the indwelling Holy Spirit with you. I think atheists must find most superstitious Christians very hilarious and they probably treat you people as clowns. But it's ok. It's good Christian love to provide entertainment and laughter to these cerebral, thinking, logical, rational atheists. You guys have a pivotal role to play in our society.

But as a rational Christian (as opposed to a superstitious Christian), I find superstitious Christians dishonest and pathetic. If they are so sure they are correct, they should at least agree to debate with rational Christians. We can agree to confine ourselves to the Bible. It should be a battle on your own turf since you fundies should know the Bible like the back of your hand. But NOT ONE dares to take up the challenge.

Why the embarrassing cowardice? Why such fear? I submit there is only one reason. They know they are wrong. They would rather remain in their delusion than to let the truth free them.

This is the best example of intellectual dishonesty. There is no point insisting that you are not dishonest, my dear superstitious Christians. The only way to prove you are not dishonest is to agree to a DEBATE with the greneknight. But I know you won't dare to.


EDIT:

To avoid confusion, here are the definitions:

A superstitious Christian is a Christian who believes in the superstitious or supernatural aspects of the faith such as the existence of God as a being with independent will and thought.

A rational Christian is a Christian who does not accept supernatural nonsense. Superstitious = supernatural. Anything that is supernatural or superstitious is rejected.

You called your opponents 3 year olds. And you want to debate them. Do you often pick fights with 3 year olds?
What was that about cowardice?

I like having debates.
The bible says God exists.
So fortunately, I have nothing to debate with someone who also agrees with the bible....
THAT GOD EXISTS.

(September 13, 2012 at 3:14 am)Lion IRC Wrote: You called your opponents 3 year olds. And you want to debate them. Do you often pick fights with 3 year olds?
What was that about cowardice?

I like having debates.
The bible says God exists.
So fortunately, I have nothing to debate with someone who also agrees with the bible....
THAT GOD EXISTS.

My opponents are probably more than double my age. I'm no coward. I didn't say I'd debate with 3 year olds. I'm saying my opponents are much older than me but they behave like they're 3 year olds. Huge difference there.

No, I don't agree with the Bible. I'm saying the Bible is wrong. I can prove it.

Wow, I fell way behind here... can I get a summary please?

God is a metaphor for goodness and truth.

--------

Sorry but that is nonsense - virtually every god - especially the one or the bible has been an example of what goodness is not. Any god who failed so horribly in creating his children that he decided to DROWN them all - including babies and children - is not good - and those that decide to overlook such claims acts are simply kidding themselves

THE basic problem with monotheisms - AND even a polytheism like christianity where there are three gods but only ONE creator - is that the god has to be the center of all evil -since NO other has the power to create it.

As far as truth - no god is proven to exist

THe biggest LIE is that there are "TRUTHS" about the supernatural claims of religions about gods - since they are NO MORE than unproven beliefs.

THe xtian church has had about 2000 years - with almost unlimited funds - at one times in almost complete control of most of the western world - and its science - and in using the very best bethods known - but they have failed to provide a single piece of testable and verifiable UNCONTESTED proof of a god - much less it is theirs

In that time - however - science has managed to disprove an ever increasing number of claims of religion as being simply nonsense - and more are done so every day. If the bible is an example of the "TRUTH" of god's word - it sure has a lot of NONSENSE in it that is NOT TRUE.

And even the myth of the christ has so many things that cannot be true - that it is clear that it is a fairy tale as well.

IT you have something supernatural about your god that you can prove is true - by all means post the proof -

(September 13, 2012 at 8:34 am)ThomM Wrote: God is a metaphor for goodness and truth.

--------

Sorry but that is nonsense - virtually every god - especially the one or the bible has been an example of what goodness is not. Any god who failed so horribly in creating his children that he decided to DROWN them all - including babies and children - is not good - and those that decide to overlook such claims acts are simply kidding themselves

THE basic problem with monotheisms - AND even a polytheism like christianity where there are three gods but only ONE creator - is that the god has to be the center of all evil -since NO other has the power to create it.

As far as truth - no god is proven to exist

THe biggest LIE is that there are "TRUTHS" about the supernatural claims of religions about gods - since they are NO MORE than unproven beliefs.

THe xtian church has had about 2000 years - with almost unlimited funds - at one times in almost complete control of most of the western world - and its science - and in using the very best bethods known - but they have failed to provide a single piece of testable and verifiable UNCONTESTED proof of a god - much less it is theirs

In that time - however - science has managed to disprove an ever increasing number of claims of religion as being simply nonsense - and more are done so every day. If the bible is an example of the "TRUTH" of god's word - it sure has a lot of NONSENSE in it that is NOT TRUE.

And even the myth of the christ has so many things that cannot be true - that it is clear that it is a fairy tale as well.

IT you have something supernatural about your god that you can prove is true - by all means post the proof -

Sorry, you have totally misunderstood me. I have said many times that I do NOT accept anything supernatural. If I say God is a metaphor for truth and goodness, that's not supernatural. If you say that is supernatural, it means you don't understand what a metaphor means.

(September 13, 2012 at 3:50 am)greneknight Wrote:

(September 13, 2012 at 3:14 am)Lion IRC Wrote: You called your opponents 3 year olds. And you want to debate them. Do you often pick fights with 3 year olds?
What was that about cowardice?

I like having debates.
The bible says God exists.
So fortunately, I have nothing to debate with someone who also agrees with the bible....
THAT GOD EXISTS.

My opponents are probably more than double my age. I'm no coward. I didn't say I'd debate with 3 year olds. I'm saying my opponents are much older than me but they behave like they're 3 year olds. Huge difference there.

No, I don't agree with the Bible. I'm saying the Bible is wrong. I can prove it.

You dont agree that the bible says God exists? WOW.
Its the very first four words in the book.

(September 13, 2012 at 8:34 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(September 13, 2012 at 3:50 am)greneknight Wrote: My opponents are probably more than double my age. I'm no coward. I didn't say I'd debate with 3 year olds. I'm saying my opponents are much older than me but they behave like they're 3 year olds. Huge difference there.

No, I don't agree with the Bible. I'm saying the Bible is wrong. I can prove it.

You dont agree that the bible says God exists? WOW.
Its the very first four words in the book.

Hey Lion, I don't know if English is your native language. Read what I wrote again: "No, I don't agree with the Bible. I'm saying the Bible is wrong. I can prove it."

When someone says he doesn't agree with the Bible and the Bible is wrong it doesn't mean he doesn't agree that the Bible says God exists. It simply means he doesn't agree with the Bible and he thinks the Bible is NOT correct. Do you understand the difference?

(September 13, 2012 at 8:34 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: You dont agree that the bible says God exists? WOW.

The bible is no authority of anything. I have a book that says Zeus exists. I have another that says a rabbit runs around checking his watch. And dozens that speak of faeries, goblins, leprechauns, etc.

(September 13, 2012 at 2:52 am)greneknight Wrote:

(September 13, 2012 at 1:08 am)Lion IRC Wrote: I'm glad you're here Drich.

What's the point? I find superstitious Christians quite pathetic. You believe in a bogeyman in the sky, like any kid of 3 but when mature folks want to debate, you flee, taking the indwelling Holy Spirit with you. I think atheists must find most superstitious Christians very hilarious and they probably treat you people as clowns. But it's ok. It's good Christian love to provide entertainment and laughter to these cerebral, thinking, logical, rational atheists. You guys have a pivotal role to play in our society.

But as a rational Christian (as opposed to a superstitious Christian), I find superstitious Christians dishonest and pathetic. If they are so sure they are correct, they should at least agree to debate with rational Christians. We can agree to confine ourselves to the Bible. It should be a battle on your own turf since you fundies should know the Bible like the back of your hand. But NOT ONE dares to take up the challenge.

Why the embarrassing cowardice? Why such fear? I submit there is only one reason. They know they are wrong. They would rather remain in their delusion than to let the truth free them.

This is the best example of intellectual dishonesty. There is no point insisting that you are not dishonest, my dear superstitious Christians. The only way to prove you are not dishonest is to agree to a DEBATE with the greneknight. But I know you won't dare to.


EDIT:

To avoid confusion, here are the definitions:

A superstitious Christian is a Christian who believes in the superstitious or supernatural aspects of the faith such as the existence of God as a being with independent will and thought.

A rational Christian is a Christian who does not accept supernatural nonsense. Superstitious = supernatural. Anything that is supernatural or superstitious is rejected.

So, you've dropped the Christian facade completely now, and gone with standard hate God hate Christianity thing?

---

(September 11, 2012 at 10:43 pm)greneknight Wrote: Romans 12:20: On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
Now, is it wrong for me to ask God to heap burning coals on people who wrong me?

Yes it is.

Where in Romans 12 does it say to ask God to heap burning coals on anyone's head? It says if you want to do this the feed and water an emny. Did you feed and water anyone?

Quote:Let's not be insane, my dear Drich. If God says we are to feed our enemies and in doing so, burning coals will be heaped on his head, is it wrong to ask God to do what he says he will do anyway?

Again where does it say burning coals will be heaped on anyone's head? Let look at the orginal greek shall we?
The word that is simply translated "heap" is: σωρεύω/sōreuō: metaph. to load one with the consciousness of many sins.

Quote:I submit, my Lord, that Drich, in saying this, is testifying to the fact that he thinks God is cruel and unjust. Even though God says he would pour burning coals on people's heads and he would burn souls with brimstone and fire, when greneknight asked God to do precisely what God has promised he would do, Drich maintains that greneknight is cruel. In fact, my Lord, it is my submission to this court that Drich is of the firm view that it is God who is cruel but he is, by virtue of his ridiculous faith, reluctant to so admit. Instead, he points the accusing finger on greneknight who is wholly innocent and, as Padriac has testified, is a perfectly guileless innocent lad. I urge this court to dismiss this baseless and vexatious action instituted by Drich against innocent greneknight.

I counter by pointing out that Greneknight has neither the wisdom nor authority to judge who is to be punished. For he has shown an inablity to even properly discern the passage he misquoted, let alone exhibit level of desernment needed to judge another man. That said I have absolutly no issue with hot coals being heaped on anyone so long as God deems it approeiate. However I do not accept the foolish judgement of a scorned liar, to be in a position to righteously call down hell fire on anyone, especially when he has burned himself with it.