God does not love you...

[Gambit]

My argument is juvenile, in the face of arguments which rely on faith as their basis. Let me just elaborate on my argument, it's very simple. You prove that God exists, then you can interpret what the words in his holy book mean. Surely the being comes before his words? So, surely it is not unreasonable of me to ask for proof of the existence of the very source of the words that you are relying on, in your opening post. Without that source you are only arguing semantics in a book, written by ancient men, for no other reason than that they didn't understand the world around them.

[Welsh cake]

If you do not believe God exists then why enter a discussion about the nature of His love? That fact that you are willing to discuss the nature of God's love places you in a position where you have to acknoweledge He exists.

Don't be so puerile please. People don't believe the Hulk really exists yet that's not going to stop them getting into discussions about the nature of his powers.

Especially not since the new Avengers movie came out. Ugh, I hate the Marvel universe.

[Minimalist]

If you do not believe God exists then why enter a discussion about the nature of His love?

Because idiots keep showing up here insisting that their fairy tales are real.

[Reforged]

2. So you're saying Peter didn't love him completely?

No that is not what I said. For I do not know what "Complete love" is, so i would not use that term.

What I did say is that all the gospels tell us that Peter had a strong relationship with Christ upto that point where He faltered, as such he was well covered under the Agape Christ offers.(Because of the existing relationship.) Which means even though peter had a moment of weakness Grace was extended to him because once Covered by Agape that love is limitless.

Why on earth are you using it as an example then. What *would* support Boundless Agape is if Peter wasn't written as denying him in the first place there by placing his life in danger for the sake of his friend.

Remember We do not have to offer Agape it is God who offers it to us. The verses from the end of the book of John prove. We know from that example, Peter's fullest expression of love results in Philia, yet he received Agape from Christ.

I find it alittle odd you wouldn't pick up on that but then what can I expect from a fundamentalists interpretation of love?

Because you did not take the time to fully understand what it is you are arguing against.

5. A Christian misrepresenting someone words, shocking. Also rather sad you can't see the irony in that last statement.

See if i did not smile at this i would be so distraught at the ignorance to your own hypocrisy in this comment, It would force me to have you own your own foolish attempt to misrepresent me.

How did you last post start?
"Drich's Guide to a good argument" If I am not mistaken.

The smile should say to you I see your huge mistake, but I am not going to make a big deal of it, but at the same time I want you to know that I see it, but decided to let it go with just a minor correction. Instead of making you look like an idiot for holding me to a standard that you obviously can not measure up to yourself.

That is unless you need a complete explanation and run down of each time I use that emoticon.

1. Wow, that went mysteriously missing huh?

2. "For I do not know what "Complete love" is, so i would not use that term." But you know what "Boundless Agape" is? You're talking out of your ass. The fact Christianity *stole* the word from the Greeks and then attempted to tweak its meaning only serves to make your arguement look all the more suspect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

3 and 4. I understand your entire arguement has served only to justify the betrayl of friends and the cerimonial sacrifice of ones son. I think I understand your arguement more than you do and if this is what your interpretation of "love" or "agape" or whatever you're deciding to call it then I think I speak for everyone here when I say you and your fictional twat of a God can shove it.

5. I hold myself to a standard that is hard to obtain as do many of us, you hold yourself to a standard that requires nothing but blind obediance, dogma and barbarism. If my life should be spent pursuing my standard and not acheiving it then it is a small price to pay so that I am never making quite the ass of myself you are. I don't think I could misrepresent you if I tried and I really don't need an explaination as to your smiling, your entire arguement is based on a concept you obviously have no real idea about and when all is said and done a smile is all you have.
A smile, a grammatical error and nothing else but a stolen word from long since passed greek scholars who would no doubt be horrifyed to see what you have turned it into.
No, I don't think thats a standard I could ever quite convince myself to sink to. You've definitely outdone me there.

[Drich]

And ten pages in, there is no compelling argument that agape is different from philia.

Except that what is found in Koine Greek to english lexicons (4 of them to be precise.)

---

[quote='gringoperry' pid='283807' dateline='1336627128']
My argument is juvenile, in the face of arguments which rely on faith as their basis. Let me just elaborate on my argument, it's very simple. You prove that God exists, then you can interpret what the words in his holy book mean. Surely the being comes before his words? So, surely it is not unreasonable of me to ask for proof of the existence of the very source of the words that you are relying on, in your opening post. Without that source you are only arguing semantics in a book, written by ancient men, for no other reason than that they didn't understand the world around them.

Ok then please eloborate on what "proof" would be sufficient for you.

[fuckass365]

Accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that atones for sin, and that we forgive those who sin against us as we sin against God. Once those criteria have been met, then we can experience boundless Agape' love.

How does the blood of a dead jew atone for anyone's actions? You people just love your blood.

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't we all?

[Drich]

Don't be so puerile please. People don't believe the Hulk really exists yet that's not going to stop them getting into discussions about the nature of his powers.

Which is my point. If you are going to have an argument about the Hulk then for the sake of the argument you accept the parameters that define the character or individual you are discussing. What the new guy is doing is this: I can not win a "hulk" based argument so I will demand to see proof that the hulk exists. Which is fine for him, but is not what is being discussed.

Especially not since the new Avengers movie came out. Ugh, I hate the Marvel universe.

as apposed to what? DC or dark horse?

---

2. "For I do not know what "Complete love" is, so i would not use that term." But you know what "Boundless Agape" is? You're talking out of your ass. The fact Christianity *stole* the word from the Greeks and then attempted to tweak its meaning only serves to make your arguement look all the more suspect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

Greek was the written language at the time what other language did you expect them to use?

Plus you do know wiki is not a legitmate reference material do you not?

5. I hold myself to a standard that is hard to obtain as do many of us, you hold yourself to a standard that requires nothing but blind obediance, dogma and barbarism. If my life should be spent pursuing my standard and not acheiving it then it is a small price to pay so that I am never making quite the ass of myself you are. I don't think I could misrepresent you if I tried and I really don't need an explaination as to your smiling, your entire arguement is based on a concept you obviously have no real idea about and when all is said and done a smile is all you have.
A smile, a grammatical error and nothing else but a stolen word from long since passed greek scholars who would no doubt be horrifyed to see what you have turned it into.
No, I don't think thats a standard I could ever quite convince myself to sink to. You've definitely outdone me there.

---

Accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that atones for sin, and that we forgive those who sin against us as we sin against God. Once those criteria have been met, then we can experience boundless Agape' love.

How does the blood of a dead jew atone for anyone's actions? You people just love your blood.

The short answer is God said so.

[fuckass365]

The short answer is God said so.

Considering god has yet to be shown to exist, this is an empty statement and therefore not even an answer.

[Gambit]

Which is my point. If you are going to have an argument about the Hulk then for the sake of the argument you accept the parameters that define the character or individual you are discussing. What the new guy is doing is this: I can not win a "hulk" based argument so I will demand to see proof that the hulk exists. Which is fine for him, but is not what is being discussed.

Ah, you see that is the problem, you are changing the parameters. By changing the accepted meaning of the word 'love', you are in effect changing God. So, let's say you were to tell me that the Hulk now shoots laser beams out of his ass, I'd want to see the comic/cartoon/movie as proof. What I am basically arguing is that without proof of God's existence you can just change what ever you want about his nature, start a discussion about it, then demand that people remain within the parameters that YOU set. Don't you see how manipulative and dishonest a position that is?