God does not love you...

[Reforged]

You can go around trumpeting about the types of love, but the texts do not support it in any consistent way. This is just another instance of christians mucking about with things they know nothing about in trying to make special the contractual love they have for their god and he for them. Give it a fucking rest. You're as annoying-and out of touch-as the shyster who wrote this:

http://www.5lovelanguages.com/learn-the-...languages/

[Drich]

You didn't read the entirety of the link I sent you, Drich.

In the bible itself, you are able philein Jesus, and you can agapan him, interchangeably. You are able to agapan your family and friends, and philein them-interchangeably. If you would have caught on to that, you would have understood why I mentioned the connection between Attic and Demotic Greek with Koine and Katharevousa in between as mediums of exchange. In Demotic Greek, the common word for love is agapoun, and in Attic, agape was actually a less powerful form of love than philos or eros. It was only when christians wanted to have a "special" kind of jesus love that they decided to claim that agape was special-especially as they sadly tried to divorce the eros, or physical love, from the text. Agapan basically means "to value or esteem" in ancient Greek and slowly becomes conflated with philein, which is a much more intense word. God is said to philein jesus rather than agapan him in John 5:20 and Jesus warns his followers in Matthew 10:37 that anyone who philon his family more than Jesus is not worthy of him.

Strongs Concordance states rather clearly regarding the relationship between philos and agape, that philos means

"to love, to have affection and regard of a very high order, not unlike agape and overlapping in meaning in some contexts"

You can go around trumpeting about the types of love, but the texts do not support it in any consistent way. This is just another instance of christians mucking about with things they know nothing about in trying to make special the contractual love they have for their god and he for them. Give it a fucking rest. You're as annoying-and out of touch-as the shyster who wrote this:

http://www.5lovelanguages.com/learn-the-...languages/

What you seemed to haved missed in that passage is that "Peter" was already a believer and had a relationship that allowed him to Love Christ to the fullest extent of his ablity to love no matter what that look like,( whether it be philia or Agape.) You however are not in such a position, as you have not accepted the Agape offered. Remember John 3:16. It is the gateway for the expressive ablity to Love God to the limits of your ablities. You can not simply disregaurd it just because you have derived an understanding found later on in the same book.

[Reforged]

What you seemed to haved missed in that passage is that "Peter" was already a believer and had a relationship that allowed him to Love Christ to the fullest extent of his ablity to love no matter what that look like,( whether it be philia or Agape.) You however are not in such a position, as you have not accepted the Agape offered. Remember John 3:16. It is the gateway for the expressive ablity to Love God to the limits of your ablities. You can not simply disregaurd it just because you have derived an understanding found later on in the same book.

Drichs guide to a good arguement:
1. Smile! If you smile at the start it makes it seem like you have the upper hand by promoting an air of unwarrented smugness.

2. Insert mention of Peter as loving Christ completely, conveiniantly overlook he supposedly denied him three times.

3. Imply opponent is in no position to debate you because they do not completely agree with your beliefs, refuse to note obvious paradox.

4. Insert Bible passage as if it were evidence for anything and hope opponent doesn't have a solid grasp of religous 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."

5. Atempt to belittle opponents evidence for not accepting your interpretation by stating it just happens to be part of the same book... which you also believe is the word of a timeless and all-knowing presence that you tirelessly quote from; God.

6. Rest and feel the satisfaction of a job well done.

[Epimethean]

Drich is big into masturbation, and he does not mind an audience-so long as we don't tell him where the money shot has to go.

[Drich]

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.

[Epimethean]

Sometimes the sheer lunacy of a god having to insist that you believe in him makes the whole dumbfuckery of religion pure hilarity to contemplate.

OK, more often than sometimes.

[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.

[Drich]

2. So you're saying Peter didn't love him completely?

No that is not what I said. For I do not know what "Complete love" is, so i would not use that term.

What I did say is that all the gospels tell us that Peter had a strong relationship with Christ upto that point where He faltered, as such he was well covered under the Agape Christ offers.(Because of the existing relationship.) Which means even though peter had a moment of weakness Grace was extended to him because once Covered by Agape that love is limitless.

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.

Remember We do not have to offer Agape it is God who offers it to us. The verses from the end of the book of John prove. We know from that example, Peter's fullest expression of love results in Philia, yet he received Agape from Christ.

I find it alittle odd you wouldn't pick up on that but then what can I expect from a fundamentalists interpretation of love?

Because you did not take the time to fully understand what it is you are arguing against.

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

See if i did not smile at this i would be so distraught at the ignorance to your own hypocrisy in this comment, It would force me to have you own your own foolish attempt to misrepresent me.

How did you last post start?
"Drich's Guide to a good argument" If I am not mistaken.

The smile should say to you I see your huge mistake, but I am not going to make a big deal of it, but at the same time I want you to know that I see it, but decided to let it go with just a minor correction. Instead of making you look like an idiot for holding me to a standard that you obviously can not measure up to yourself.

That is unless you need a complete explanation and run down of each time I use that emoticon.

[Gambit]

Let me just end this all right here and now. How come all these interpretations and explanations are always counter arguments to the fallacies found in the bible? So, all those true Christians who preached a completely different angle were wrong, right? Which would mean that any of those Christians who have passed away are now in hell, right? Providing answers after the contradiction is sound reasoning, right? Incidentally, there are Christian apologists who claim that the words in the bible, which refer to homosexual sex, are actually misinterpretations of the word rape. So, gay marriage is all good, right? Right, I get it now.

[Drich]

Let me just end this all right here and now.

with a series of questions???

How come all these interpretations and explanations are always counter arguments to the fallacies found in the bible?

I'm not sure what you mean by fallacies found in the bible. But, if your asking why is the bible used to answer biblically based questions, I should hope the answer is obvious.

So, all those true Christians who preached a completely different angle were wrong, right?

We are all wrong to a degree so yes.

Which would mean that any of those Christians who have passed away are now in hell, right?

No not necessarily, because being 100% "right" is not a prerequisite of salvation unless you hold others to that standard yourself.

Providing answers after the contradiction is sound reasoning, right?

Begs the question.

Incidentally, there are Christian apologists who claim that the words in the bible, which refer to homosexual sex, are actually misinterpretations of the word rape.

does not matter because Homosexuality is described in several different way, all of which are still defined as being a sin.

So, gay marriage is all good, right? Right,.

Again no because even if you remove or choose to ignore all the instances that directly describe Homosexuality as being a sin you still do not have a command or precedent allowing for same sex marriage. Now because all sex outside the covenant of marriage (even the thought of it) is a sin. Homosexuality is still considered a sin.

I get it now

Glad to be of service.