My debate in Christian Forums in full swing

[greneknight]

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?

You are a real fundy. When have I put on a facade? When have I given up my religion? To you, dropping superstition is dropping CHristianity and hating God and hating Christianity?

It's because you are a superstitious Christian that you can't see Christianity without superstition. You think the moment someone gives up his superstition, he gives up the religion. Thank goodness my priests understand religion better than you. If I were in your fundy church, I'm sure they'd have excommunicated me by now.

[Drich]

I'm glad you're here Drich.

Me too!

Especially when I am afforded the oppertunity to help 'good people' like Greneknight here. For how else would his prayers to God for correction be answered so quickly and directly in terms he can easily understand?

---

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

You are a real fundy. When have I put on a facade? When have I given up my religion? To you, dropping superstition is dropping CHristianity and hating God and hating Christianity?

It's because you are a superstitious Christian that you can't see Christianity without superstition. You think the moment someone gives up his superstition, he gives up the religion. Thank goodness my priests understand religion better than you. If I were in your fundy church, I'm sure they'd have excommunicated me by now.

We are commanded to expell the immoral brother if he will not listen to reason. if/when presented by several brothers on several different occasions.

That said I believe you made a perfect statement here. "Your religion." You are like a practicing Mormon. you call what you do 'christianity' even though it has nothing to do with established biblical Christianity. It's 'christianity' rather YOUR VERSION of it.

[greneknight]

I'm glad you're here Drich.

Me too!

Especially when I am afforded the oppertunity to help 'good people' like Greneknight here. For how else would his prayers to God for correction be answered so quickly and directly in terms he can easily understand?

What help am I getting from the Christians here? Look at this thread:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14612-po...#pid335898

I asked four questions in that thread, and Godschild (a professed CHristian) replies: "I refuse to discuss scripture with a hairless little kid". Is this the sort of answer that will help me to think that there is something truthful about superstitious Christianity? The four questions I asked are below. If you can answer them, I will be most obliged:

1. what made you choose your Protestant Bible with 66 books?

2. Which Church Council do you accept as legitimate for your Canon of Scriptures?

3. What basis have you got for rejecting the other Church Councils?

4. Have you examined and researched on the legitimacy of the claims of the RCC for their canon and the claims of the Orthodox churches on their even larger canon?

Anyway, Drich, you did say you would be happy to answer any questions I might have and you probably won't give me Godschild's reply.

[Drich]

1. what made you choose your Protestant Bible with 66 books?

Why do you suppose I only chose the protestant bible with 66 books?

2. Which Church Council do you accept as legitimate for your Canon of Scriptures?

The one that settled with the 66 known books of the protestant bible.

3. What basis have you got for rejecting the other Church Councils?

none.

4. Have you examined and researched on the legitimacy of the claims of the RCC for their canon and the claims of the Orthodox churches on their even larger canon?

Nooope

Anyway, Drich, you did say you would be happy to answer any questions I might have and you probably won't give me Godschild's reply.

As you can see I did not Give you Godschild's response. Nor did I give you the legalistic response you were looking to argue either.. so what did i do? Am I so foolish as to not know what I believe, nor where it came from? or am i setting you up to make a seemingly easy/homerun assertion, that will make you look foolish??? Or am I giving you an oppertunity to ask more questions... Maybe it's all three, maybe it none of the above.. Let see what you do next!

[Lion IRC]

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.

LOL
ESL?
Look who is talking.

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.

No, I dont ever not misunderstand not never at all.

Can you say yes to these?

1. I agree with the biblical statement "God exists".

2. I agree with the statement "God exists".

3. I agree that the bible does state that "God exists".

[IATIA]

1. No
   
2. No
   
3. Yes, albeit hearsay.
   

[greneknight]

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.

LOL
ESL?
Look who is talking.

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.

No, I dont ever not misunderstand not never at all.

Can you say yes to these?

1. I agree with the biblical statement "God exists".

2. I agree with the statement "God exists".

3. I agree that the bible does state that "God exists".

I don't see why you find it so difficult to understand. The Bible is bunkum. It's full of errors and untruths. It's full of fables. Yes, it does assume fairies, unicorns, God, Satan, angels, demons, bogeymen, etc exist. Although the Bible assumes God and fairies exist, the Bible is bunkum. No, God doesn't exist as a being. I do sometimes understand the term God to be a metaphor for goodness and if you take that to mean I think God exists, then yes, I think Kindness exists. I think Honesty exists. But do I think God exists as an independent being capable of thought? Of course not. Goodness can't think, it's only a quality. Same thing with God. So, when I say "I believe in God", I mean it in the metaphorical sense, just like I believe in Goodness, in Truth, in Honesty. It's just that culturally, I adopt the poetry of my people and we speak of goodness as if it's a "person". We personify God or goodness. That's poetic. That's not reality.

Do you understand now? If you don't, please let me know. And when can we have the debate? I've agreed to your proposal to have the whole lot of you versus me alone. So when can we start?

[Minimalist]

To you, dropping superstition is dropping CHristianity

Xtianity IS superstition. Without it there is nothing left.

As H. L. Mencken observed....

"There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense."

Lacking evidence of any "resurrection" I go with sheer nonsense.

[greneknight]

To you, dropping superstition is dropping CHristianity

Xtianity IS superstition. Without it there is nothing left.

As H. L. Mencken observed....

"There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense."

Lacking evidence of any "resurrection" I go with sheer nonsense.

I have no doubt Jesus didn't rise from the dead. But we talk about him rising from the dead in order to teach a lesson. In other words, his rising from the dead is only metaphorical. Like Aesop's Fables. But you don't have to throw the baby with the bath water. Get rid of the superstition but we can keep the culture and the stories of our ancestors. Yes, the stories are a bit screwed up but aren't all ancient stories like that?

---

To avoid confusion, I will use this font size for my reply.

1. what made you choose your Protestant Bible with 66 books?

Why do you suppose I only chose the protestant bible with 66 books?

It's obvious. There's no reason to hide. Since you do use the Protestant Bible with 66 books, you might as well come clean and admit it.

2. Which Church Council do you accept as legitimate for your Canon of Scriptures?

The one that settled with the 66 known books of the protestant bible.

I know of no church council that settled on only the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. Can you tell me which church council that is? Come on, if it's a council you accept, surely you'd know the name of it.

3. What basis have you got for rejecting the other Church Councils?

none.

If you have no basis to reject the other Church councils, can I assume that you accept ALL church councils? If not, are you then admitting that you reject church councils without basis? What makes you choose which church councils to accept then?

4. Have you examined and researched on the legitimacy of the claims of the RCC for their canon and the claims of the Orthodox churches on their even larger canon?

Nooope

I thought so. Thanks for your honest reply.

Anyway, Drich, you did say you would be happy to answer any questions I might have and you probably won't give me Godschild's reply.

As you can see I did not Give you Godschild's response. Nor did I give you the legalistic response you were looking to argue either.. so what did i do? Am I so foolish as to not know what I believe, nor where it came from? or am i setting you up to make a seemingly easy/homerun assertion, that will make you look foolish??? Or am I giving you an oppertunity to ask more questions... Maybe it's all three, maybe it none of the above.. Let see what you do next!

[Drich]

It's obvious. There's no reason to hide. Since you do use the Protestant Bible with 66 books, you might as well come clean and admit it.

Actually I have used, debated and included passages from the books of Macabees, Quoted from the wisdoms of Soloman, and referenced passages from susanna when teaching a study on the book of Daniel. So again why do you assume that I am limited to the 66 books of the Cannon of the 'prodestant' bible?

I know of no church council that settled on only the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. Can you tell me which church council that is? Come on, if it's a council you accept, surely you'd know the name of it.

Father Athanasius may have provided the orginal list, but he did not have the authority to close the canon of scripture on his own. If you really want to know what council he was apart of then do a google search Maybe you will find something there.
*Note just because History credits one man with an event or feat of some kind does not mean he did it alone.

If you have no basis to reject the other Church councils, can I assume that you accept ALL church councils?

Noope.

If not, are you then admitting that you reject church councils without basis? What makes you choose which church councils to accept then?

Noope, again. Why do you assume that I have accepted or denied anything???