God does not love you...

[Reforged]

tell you what ralphie since you did cop out of this discussion with some obscure meme reference, you can go ahead and call this a win unless you want to gloat. then of course we can continue on repeating ourselves for the next 10 pages offering no new information like you did just with your last post.

Pfft, yeah. I'm coping out. I did offer information except apparantly the source isn't good enough... oh except when you use it. Then its *great*. If its you using it then its golden. (Page 4 by the way, incase you missed it)Apparantly those are the rules we're going by now. The only "information" you've offered comes from mostly questionable sources and to top it off doesn't even prove "divine love" is a concept that exists anywhere but in the minds of the indoctrinated. I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself if you actually addressed *any* of my arguements with anything less purile than "oh well thats the language they used in the day". I'm *aware* of that, what gave Christianity the right to change an important and eloquent word used in philisophical writing to mean whatever they wanted? Does this give Christianity free licence to "Christianize" the important words we use today? Maybe they should do the same thing with one of our words for love or perhaps they'll get more creative and make gravity the force that pulls us towards Gods grace. If you mean "divine love" then ay "divine love", have more self-respect than to use a pilfered word that stands testament to religions ability to corrupt even the most basic of concepts. Then point to any evidence outside reference to The Bible that such a thing even exists.
This has been a waste of time for almost everyone concerned and has served only to confirm what we all already know; You've got nothing.
We're done here.

[Drich]

which post number did you say I quoted wiki on page 4? (Besure to read the post before you even more foolish when you give your answer)

[Reforged]

which post number did you say I quoted wiki on page 4? (Besure to read the post before you even more foolish when you give your answer)

Go on page 4 and sift through your own crap you lazy cretin, to your credit it is the only time you quote from a reliable and moderated source.

[Drich]

I tried to let your foolish comprehension and complete lack of understanding go several times, but the pride you have in your own ignorance is far too great to go unanswered. So I will state this very plainly so that even to slowest child can comprehend: If you would have taken the time to read the post in question (Like I have urged you from the beginning) you should have been able to quickly discern that it was not my usage of wiki (On page four nor anywhere else in this thread) but me pointing out the illegitimate use of wiki to another on the topic of this thread. Just like I have done with you. Or did you think you were the first to have to goto wiki to tell you what to think about what was being discussed? Matter of fact I think you were the 3rd or 4th person to goto wiki to try and disprove this argument.

[Reforged]

I tried to let your foolish comprehension and complete lack of understanding go several times, but the pride you have in your own ignorance is far too great to go unanswered. So I will state this very plainly so that even to slowest child can comprehend: If you would have taken the time to read the post in question (Like I have urged you from the beginning) you should have been able to quickly discern that it was not my usage of wiki (On page four nor anywhere else in this thread) but me pointing out the illegitimate use of wiki to another on the topic of this thread. Just like I have done with you. Or did you think you were the first to have to goto wiki to tell you what to think about what was being discussed? Matter of fact I think you were the 3rd or 4th person to goto wiki to try and disprove this argument.

If you had taken the time and care to properly quote it then that wouldn't happen. The fact four people made that mistake based on your error should tell you the extent of your failiure to communicate properly.
It also means I will have to retract the credit given as you now have *no* reliable, moderated secondary sources.
Oh dear.

[Gambit]

Hehe, I noticed the broken quote when I went to check that out. Do I get Christian points for that? Anyway, regardless of the intention of the word in Christian texts, I feel my points still stand. I also believe that RaphielDrake has made the same points. If a great majority of Christians are not grasping the correct context of words in the bible, doesn't that make it a very unreliable source for enlightenment? Or, are you saying that there are very few true Christians; and that, only people like yourself who have studied and scrutinized the book are worthy of the name? I'm genuinely interested to know, because to me, you have really only further proven that the vast majority of Christians misrepresent the supposed teachings of the bible.

Now, since you have corrected my thinking on this particular matter, I will concede that you are correct in your original post. I'll give you this, you have prompted me to study the texts more closely. It was on my to-do list anyway, but I guess I'm going to have to bump it up the list a bit. However, it hasn't done anything to make me feel closer to the Christian God. So what did you hope to achieve from this thread? Enquiring minds want to know.

[Drich]

Hehe, I noticed the broken quote when I went to check that out. Do I get Christian points for that? Anyway, regardless of the intention of the word in Christian texts, I feel my points still stand. I also believe that RaphielDrake has made the same points. If a great majority of Christians are not grasping the correct context of words in the bible, doesn't that make it a very unreliable source for enlightenment? Or, are you saying that there are very few true Christians; and that, only people like yourself who have studied and scrutinized the book are worthy of the name? I'm genuinely interested to know, because to me, you have really only further proven that the vast majority of Christians misrepresent the supposed teachings of the bible.

This is answered from a biblically based christian perspective in the OP of a thread i did a few weeks back "Why there are so many denominations"
http://atheistforums.org/thread-12406.html

Now, since you have corrected my thinking on this particular matter, I will concede that you are correct in your original post. I'll give you this, you have prompted me to study the texts more closely. It was on my to-do list anyway, but I guess I'm going to have to bump it up the list a bit. However, it hasn't done anything to make me feel closer to the Christian God. So what did you hope to achieve from this thread? Enquiring minds want to know.

If you look there are a few different threads challenging the atheist idea of an Omni benevolent God. I decided to clear a few things up.

[Gambit]

OK, thanks for the link, I'll go over there and have a look. Do you mind if I quote your original post from this thread for an article I am writing?

[Drich]

Not if you do not selective edit, or change the meaning of what was orginally said in anyway.

[Gambit]

Not if you do not selective edit, or change the meaning of what was orginally said in anyway.

I will quote it verbatim and I'll even send you the link for your approval. How's that?