Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge

[Drich]

Persecution complex much? Who said anything about coming "to shut you down" (as if that we're possible)?

An appeal to ignorance? or just personal denial? If your efforts were not meant to show me and your peers that your views were 'right.' Then why the need for the last word? Why not let it all go? If it is as you say you believe, (that the bible is all fiction) then why so much effort to prove those who believe in it wrong? Why follow me over from AF.com? Why spend time writting and responding to this thread?

If right is right that should be enough. For instance I do not believe that any other religion is right, but I do not spend my time argueing with those who believe in their false gods. Why? Because I can live and let live, I do not need or feel a need to shut down the faith of others. But you on the other hand do not seem to share this philosphy.

And also, I know you struggle with the definition of words sometimes, but technically you wouldn't be able to view my post as slander it would be libel. This is also impossible if you are posting behind an anonymous handle, so I can ignore all of these sleight of hand attacks.

Watch this: _______________________. That is my response to you on this paragraph. Why? Not because I agree with what you said, but because I do not feel a need to shut you down or shut you up. I am content in remaining silent, because i do not see a need to 'shut you down/shut you up.'

My main example is your entire contribution to AF.com whilst you were there, specifically all the contradictory hogwash you repeatedly posted and subsequently ignored after you were repeatedly called on it (I am more familiar with your posts there than here by virtue of me being more active over there, but I read very little variation on here):

You have to be a member to view the posts you left. It was my understanding that all threads I started there were completely deleted.

I also just chose this post from that thread as an example, but just scrolling through the thread, there are loads:

On AF.com I was warn/threaten repeatdly from preaching. Over there it meant the use of ANY Scriptural/Religious material of any kind. You and other seemed to be on a mission to ask question that demanded answers from religious texts that were ban. This is ultimatly what got me ban there. (Providing scripture for those who asked for it even after being told it was forbidden.)

Patronizing us will not give us any means to accept your point of view as valid. The only thing that will is EVIDENCE. So you've made the claim about 'agape' love; fine. Whatever works for you. You do however realise that you're on an atheist forum where 99.9% of the people don't believe in any form of god and that any claim citing god as real will be asked for conclusive proof that the claim is true, right?

Which again points back to the NEED you have to shut down those who Speak of Him. It is not enough to not believe, no one else can either or at least no one else can with out being riticuled and attacked.

You repeatedly re-define words to suit your own twisted lexicon (SEE: post and reply to esquilax that precedes this post).

Have you taken the time to explore these definations? Have you looked up or even asked where they come from or why there is such contrast from what is popularly accepted and what I am repersenting from the bible? No I can say you have not. You just assume that what your standing on is solid ground and that the definations you use have always been defined in the way you use them. If you can just look at an old dictionary from generation ago, you would notice a dramatic change. Now multiply that need to change our lexicon to suit our 'sacred sins' over 2000 years and across 3 different languages. Only a FOOL would assume that there could not be any changes in how one perceives or speaks of a concept like 'morality' or any of the others that have been discussed.

Every single reply I made to you on the AF.com thread was met with non-replies and tangential remarks, a waste of everyone's time.

Can you verify this claim? As ALL Of my Threads have been completely erased. I know that I would have ignored a great majority of your questions if I felt they were baiting me to get myself ban. there were a few who would bait a question that demanded a scriptural reference and then flag or report the post to the mods for preaching. again as i do not keep a score card I do not know who said what, but i was told by a mod this was going on.

You even went as far forward to claim you were teaching us about the bible, when what you really meant was you were trying to tell us that your interpretation of the bible was true and that we should accept it hook line and sinker.

Again no. this is just a stereotypical view of how 'christians' system of belief works. I left a link in my last post to you stating how and why I believe that all forms of Christ centered christianity are legitmate. In other words my view of the bible is one of many. That said your paragraph is a good example of what I identified as a slanderous remark. You are attempting to defame my name (real or not) by misrepersenting me and what I have gone to great lengths to establish.

Denomination? I never mentioned denomination.

interpertation begets systems of belief, hence Denomination.

I said your interpretation (which can be exclusive to an organized religion) is always forwarded as factual. Really? You're asking for evidence for something you do in this very reply (see: your Romans reply below, full of just interpretation which could be presented a myriad of ways to mean a whole boatload of nonsense depending on the reader)?

I left the entire Chapter for you to read. (With no commentary) If I do not leave a commentary on Romans 7 then how is it that I "Forward my interpertation as factual?" I haven't interpereted anything when I give you a chapter and say read it. i am simply pointing to a chapter in the bible that answers the Question you specifically ask. It speaks for itself no interperetation needed.

Don't re-frame my post to insinuate I was talking about a denomination of Christianity. I am talking specifically about your interpretation of your specific holy book.

WHICH IS TIED TO THE CHURCH/DENOMINATION I AM APART OF.

Your appeals to slander are falling apart. Did you see how that was done? I made an assertion and then backed it up with EVIDENCE. Oh,The Irony Here! the Christian who uses Evidence to trump something an atheist wants people to take on blind faith.

Nonsensical non-reply. Ignored.

do you wish for me to explain it to you as if you were a child?

This does not compute. Divine authority is different from...authority? Ok.

Divine:1
a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love>

b: being a deity <the divine Savior>

c: directed to a deity <divine worship>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divine

In short Divine Authority is God's Personal Authority over us.

The other Authority I was speaking of was the Authority of Religion over us to be an intermeidate step between God and man/ The worship of Man. Being under the authority of tradition,rules, laws cermony, rituals, observance of Religion and those who lead it in general.

We are Free from The authority of institution of religion, but still must submit to God.

And I'm assuming you mean the pope. Ok, but again, interpretation presented as factual (based on what Christ said, in the bible). Entirely your opinion.

then show me. Show me in the bible where the Church is given over to one man.

I don't want the bible quoted to me I want your thinking process, same with the adjoining statement that "I am a slave to the law of sin".

You also wanted to know it was possiable to be a slave to God's law in you mind. (that got deleted)
Paul is recognizing the division between soul, and body. The spiritual and the Physical. The Physical body is a being in of itself. It has wants needs and desire apart from the spirit/soul. The Body is a slave to sin. It needs and wants things that God does not want for us, but because it is a slave to sin will follow it's master. However the Soul/spirit can completely give all of itself over to God. Hence Paul's want to do good. But because the Soul is tied to this sinful body in this life, and because the body is a slave to sin. The person will eventually sin. Hence the dual nature being explained here. It is when the body and spirit are in agreement to sin, will a soul be condemned to eternal seperation from God.

Paul says there is a war between body and soul, and the best we can hope for is a stale mate under our own efforts. That is why the bible tells us there are no 'good people.'

Also, I do love the part where Paul supposedly says that nothing good resides in the part of him that isn't spiritual.

so do i

Maybe I should just die now because I'm all bad

-or- Maybe you should seek attonement as the passage offers.

The Law only serves to convict us of sin, that is it's only purpose. Once we see the conviction then those who wish to be with God for eternity are provided with a way to attone for sin, so they are no longer bound by the law.

Yeah, run out of questions...

At the time there was almost 2 weeks where their was little to do here.