How Christians and there god sound to me.

[Darkstar]

So, does this mean we can get back to Gooders point #3 and my critique of why it shouldn't be believed according to what is actually written?

Sure. Let's see...it was:

3. He only allows those who follow him without question to experience bliss and there rest get eternal punishment.

Though we should note:

This is my view of what Christians believe about their god, them and their book

Even if it isn't true (I can't say 100% one way or the other) if most Christians believe it, he is technically right...although we could debate what they should believe (according to what is written).

[Cato]

Your main flaw is bolded by me above. You need to reconcile the two statements without looking like a fool. The proper course is to admit the mistake and try again...

And I have acknowledged that "some" Christians believe things I do not. I find it amusing that an atheist acts likes he believes that pagan bullshit too.

Remind you of someone Catfish? How do you proclaim that Jesus didn't die for everyone's sins, get shown in your own book where you are wrong, and then proceed to deflect and ignore the simple logic?

I know how....you run all over AF accusing others of your own limitations. The proper course is to admit the mistake and try again! Hmmm, where have I heard this before?

Who exactly is looking foolish?

[Darkstar]

Just wondering, if Jesus isn't part of the trinity, then is he the metaphorical son of Yahweh, and a seperate god? (I doubt so, as you said the trinity was Pagan) Or maybe he is just another prophet like Moses (Wouldn't that be a Jewish idea?), but then why did he claim to be god, and if e lied why did god support him and never contradict him? (Or was the crucifixion punishment for impersonating a god? In which case he didn't die for our sins and we're doomed all over again...)

[catfish]

So, does this mean we can get back to Gooders point #3 and my critique of why it shouldn't be believed according to what is actually written?

Sure. Let's see...it was:

3. He only allows those who follow him without question to experience bliss and there rest get eternal punishment.

Though we should note:

This is my view of what Christians believe about their god, them and their book

Even if it isn't true (I can't say 100% one way or the other) if most Christians believe it, he is technically right...although we could debate what they should believe (according to what is written).

He has stated they were his own opinions, which is how I started this conversation. "Technically", he WAS right unless he was lying about his opinion. You can read back if you don't believe me... But we have moved past that and he has clarified what he wanted.

So, if you agree that I'm a Christian and I say that I disagree with point #3, how do we determine if my logic is valid? I say to check it for yourself, I'll even give you points to research. What will you actually do though? Is this where you tell me how it isn't worth your time, or do you take the 10 minutes to verify or disprove my claims?

As demonstrated with the trinity example, simply being a Christian isn't enough. And like I asked earlier, do we use the Bible as our standard?
.

---

Your main flaw is bolded by me above. You need to reconcile the two statements without looking like a fool. The proper course is to admit the mistake and try again...

And I have acknowledged that "some" Christians believe things I do not. I find it amusing that an atheist acts likes he believes that pagan bullshit too.

Remind you of someone Catfish? How do you proclaim that Jesus didn't die for everyone's sins, get shown in your own book where you are wrong, and then proceed to deflect and ignore the simple logic?

I know how....you run all over AF accusing others of your own limitations. The proper course is to admit the mistake and try again! Hmmm, where have I heard this before?

Who exactly is looking foolish?

I guess you are. Have I not made it clear that I do NOT have to believe the Bible is 100% true? Do you not know what my signature means? If you can find one verse that is clear that the Bible is 100% true, I'll consider it. Just remember for that one that you show me, I'll show you 5 that will contradict that.

Show me where Yeshua taught whatever pagan shit you want to claim as Christian, OK?
.

[Darkstar]

He has stated they were his own opinions, which is how I started this conversation. "Technically", he WAS right unless he was lying about his opinion. You can read back if you don't believe me... But we have moved past that and he has clarified what he wanted.

Okay.

So, if you agree that I'm a Christian and I say that I disagree with point #3, how do we determine if my logic is valid? I say to check it for yourself, I'll even give you points to research. What will you actually do though? Is this where you tell me how it isn't worth your time, or do you take the 10 minutes to verify or disprove my claims?

As demonstrated with the trinity example, simply being a Christian isn't enough. And like I asked earlier, do we use the Bible as our standard?

I don't know, but I get the idea that at leat most Christians use the bible as their standard. If the bible is not the standard, then where else do you draw information from? /not rhetorical
Or, are you saying that some of the bible is false, and some is true? In which case, how do you know which is which?
(P.S. I may have gotten off of the question you asked there, and I do not know if they must be unquestioning, but some theists act like it. I know "I don't have time" would be a cop-out, but I have something I should be doing now and don't know how to prove that people haven't questioned god and gotten away with it, but I haven't seen an example of questioning = death or not death...about that thing...I should get doing it...)

[catfish]

I don't know, but I get the idea that at leat most Christians use the bible as their standard. If the bible is not the standard, then where else do you draw information from? /not rhetorical

Some people just believe what they're told, some actually read the bible for themselves... Very few question their source...

Or, are you saying that some of the bible is false, and some is true? In which case, how do you know which is which?...

Yes, some false, some true, some history, some metaphorical, some parable, some outright forgeries...

I tend to try to not make too many "truth" claims. I am more likely to point out textual errors that can can be verified without needing to die.
It's ultimately up to the reader to decide what they believe. I just find it hard to believe that even an atheist will usually refuse to research what they themselves are arguing as a "point".

So, back to #3 (He only allows those who follow him without question to experience bliss and there rest get eternal punishment.)

I choose to challenge the "eternal" part because that is easily verifiable. the question then becomes, will you believe what 99% of "Christians" say about the Bible, or will you research it for yourself?
.

[catfish]

Of course I should have known better than to think anyone would or could actually research these things for themselves...

Thank you, come again...
.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would I care? Am I supposed to sift through the mounds of bullshit looking for single penny? I'll pass. Lets discard the bullshit entirely (it's unimportant to either you or I), metaphors and parables are nice (but they aren't dependent on the narrative for their impact, quite the opposite) so we don't have to discard those, but were free to source them from wherever we like. That leaves whats "true", and whats history. If you have any parts of the narrative that you feel are either, cough it up. Playing guess who with an apologist is pointless (especially one so openly committed to cherrypicking- how am I to know what you decided looked tasty-we still have the unanswered question of how you made the distinction between any of these things).

[Darkstar]

Or, are you saying that some of the bible is false, and some is true? In which case, how do you know which is which?...

Yes, some false, some true, some history, some metaphorical, some parable, some outright forgeries...

EXACTLY.

I tend to try to not make too many "truth" claims. I am more likely to point out textual errors that can can be verified without needing to die. So, back to #3 (He only allows those who follow him without question to experience bliss and there rest get eternal punishment.)

I choose to challenge the "eternal" part because that is easily verifiable. the question then becomes, will you believe what 99% of "Christians" say about the Bible, or will you research it for yourself?
.

http://carm.org/hell-eternal

The phrase "forever and ever" is used both of describing God's eternal worth and the duration of eternal damnation. The exact same Greek phrase is used in each of the verses in the table below.

Don't take their word for it, though.

---

Matthew 25:41-46
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

---

Translation comparisons for Matthew 25:46
The Greek
Definition of Greek word that was translated as 'eternal'

[catfish]

Matthew 25:41-46
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

---

Translation comparisons for Matthew 25:46
The Greek
Definition of Greek word that was translated as 'eternal'

From the site you linked to for the definition (did you bother to read this?): (emphasis mine)
aiónios - Definition: age-long, and therefore: practically eternal, unending; partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age, as contrasted with that which is brief and fleeting.


From the same site, the true Greek word for eternal:
aidios - Definition: eternal, everlasting.
.