God does not love you...

[Reforged]

Drichs guide to a good arguement:

1. Smile!

Because if I did not I would cry.

2. Insert mention of Peter,

as having a solid relationship with Christ as per all of the Gospels to this point.

as loving Christ completely,

Straw man

conveiniantly overlook he supposedly denied him three times

Which supports the "Boundless Agape" offered by Christ.

To put it simply Peter Had a relationship that allowed Him to find the forgiveness needed for denying Christ. Those who do not have this relationship do not have this option.

3. Imply opponent is in no position to debate you

in the exegesis of scripture if you ignore the context in which the scripture was originally written.

4. Insert Bible passage

Because your opponent is misrepresenting said scripture and only a quote from scripture will straighten out what he has muddled.

as if it were evidence for anything and hope opponent doesn't have a solid grasp of religious texts. For those who don't:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Which again points to the condition of God's Love. "Whoever believes in Him..."

5. Attempt to

Show how little of

your opponents evidence

supports his assertion.

1. I guess deluding yourself can be a pretty taxing job, maybe you should take a holiday from it every once and a while.

2. So you're saying Peter didn't love him completely? 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. I find it alittle odd you wouldn't pick up on that but then what can I expect from a fundamentalists interpretation of love?

3. If we ignore the context according to *you*. Your religion can't agree amongst themselves what the correct interpretation of most things in their little book is. Do you think you're special somehow? Do you deserve preferential treatment from the rest of your flock? It should be enough your opponent knows the scripture, he shouldn't have to tolerate your audacity in saying he hasn't even the right to debate over it. If you don't like your particular interpretation being questioned then perhaps you should avoid debating altogether.

4. Your quotes are questionable at the best of times and whether he is muddling or not I'm rather certain he can't possibly cock it up half as much as the many denominations already have. Your job in debating him is to prove him wrong, not simply state he is wrong because your interpretation differs. By the way, we have names for people who sacrifice their sons in the name of a supposed debt which could otherwise be resolved without bloodshed, none of them positive and none of them praising their loving nature.

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