To the Moderators, please!

[System of Solace]

As you will recall, the reason for this debate is I called myself a CHristian and you objected to that. So you are saying it's not legitimate for me to call myself a CHristian if I don't believe in a God being which I don't. I have made it clear I reject the supernatural entirely.

So the motion of the debate should read:

"It is not legitimate for a person who does not believe in the supernatural to call himself a Christian".

You will propose the motion and I'll oppose it. We'll use an assortment of medieval weapons.

If you are agreeable to that, let's decide on the other details eg timing. I am ok with that - it depends on what kind of timing you want. How many rounds should each party have?

Oh, this is so exciting!!!! Finally, Sir Greneknight gets to go into battle. My battle horse was getting tired of the inaction.

For God and Queen!

Sir Greneknight, Knight of the Round Table.

Great, I have diabetes now.

greneknight Wrote:
I don't care what the Bible says because the Bible is a seriously flawed collection of ancient books.
Yes, the film "God on Trial" is extremely moving. With each utterance, God is buried deeper and deeper in his own sin, evil and degradation.
I don't think I "believe" in Christianity. I just accept it because I was raised a Christian.

A quick search through your threads and posts shows a lot of contrast. How are you a Christian if you don't believe in Christianity nor do you believe in the supernatural (i.e. God, Jesus)?

Oh wait, you've said yourself that you're still a Christian not because you believe in God but because you were raised that way and it's cultural. And you have a nice feeling in church. And you know what? You're not a Christian. You're somebody who doesn't believe in God and doesn't accept the bible as truth but claims to be a Christian. THEN, we have you saying you enjoy watching WLC destroy people in arguments, but later say he lies.

Quote:
For me personally, although I'm an altar boy, I can't accept in my head a supernatural being. I think of God as a metaphor for goodness but he (although we use a personal pronoun and that's purely language), does not exist as an entity any more than goodness exists as an entity.

But, in that forum, you wrote:
Quote:
One point we should note is that Jesus himself is God. Jesus was the one the rich young ruler directed his “good teacher” at. Strictly speaking, Jesus is good because he is God.

In the former, you said that you think of God only as a metaphor for goodness and that he doesn't exist as an entity. In the latter (in the other forum), you're saying that Jesus himself is God, which logically negates your belief that God is just a metaphor since you know that Jesus is not a metaphor, but a living entity.

Just wanted to know how you would reconcile the two statements above.

^Said by Rayaan. Your response then made no sense.

"But they would expect me to go through the rituals as a part of tradition and culture. That's precisely how I see Christianity anyway."




tl;dr You're claiming to be a Christian because it's tradition. Like it's meaningless. You've said that God is just a metaphor and that the bible is full of shit. You don't believe in the supernatural, but you say Jesus is God, contrasting your previous claim that God is a metaphor.