To the Moderators, please!

[greneknight]

This is rubbish. I have asked you to look at this post but you persistently refuse to: http://atheistforums.org/thread-14612-po...#pid336363. So I'll spell it out.

This is what godschild says:


Whereupon, if you look at that post, I responded with this:


godschild, from his post, clearly intends to debate with me. He has gone so far as to say that I have ducked under the table to evade a debate. To say he had no intention to debate with me is a dreadful lie. I have come here specifically to debate with these cowardly Christians and the last thing I would do is to forgo the opportunity of a debate. I showed enthusiasm immediately and asked what the motion should be. Since godschild has claimed that I'm not a "scriptural" or "biblical" Christian, I suggested a debate on the Bible that he holds so dear. I clearly said "I suggest...". Before that, I asked what the motion of the debate should be. Did he come back with a reply of an alternative motion? Did he say the motion I suggested was not something he wants to debate on because he can't defend against my very truthful accusation that the Bible contains untruths and deliberate lies? No, he said nothing.

If godschild insists that I'm NOT a Christian because of a document, surely to defend myself, I am allowed to discredit the document? Since godschild says I'm not a Christian because of the Bible the correct approach to solve this matter is for me to bring the Bible into question. It's for him to defend the Bible which he is, after all, using to say I'm not a Christian.

For some reason, RaphielDrake, you seem to be totally blind to this.

I have already looked at it very carefully. At no point does he actually agree to a formal one on one debate. At no point.
Only you do. End of.

Whatever point you were originally making to Godschild, no matter how valid, has been completely buried under your boasting, your arrogance and your dishonesty. You have wasted everyones time including my own with this long, boring and delusional thread and if you had any sense you'd shut the fuck up and hope this fades from memory.

Thats not me being nasty, thats me actually giving you the best advice you could get right now to shorten this excruciatingly embarrassing situation you have brought on yourself. Nothing you can type right now is going to make this any better and every post you make keeps this thread in "todays posts" meaning more and more people will see this and think "What a twat". I'm not feeling the usual mix of bemusement, sarcasm and sadism. No, I'm feeling a very heavy sense of tedium that slightly depresses me mixed with the kind of guilt I imagine would come from beating a small injured animal to death with an old shoe.
Stop typing.

Godschild says this: "The little boy was the one who challenged me to a debate on scripture, I let him know what swords I would bring to the debate. He took a dive under his round table when he saw the translations I would use. Then he deflects his original statement with this junk. I use the NASB and the ESB because they are recognized as two of the best translations of scripture." and that's not a challenge to have a debate?

You are either stupid or perverse. You disgrace yourself with your ridiculous stand. You should really shut the fuck up if you have nothing further to say that is remotely rational.

[Reforged]

I have already looked at it very carefully. At no point does he actually agree to a formal one on one debate. At no point.
Only you do. End of.

Whatever point you were originally making to Godschild, no matter how valid, has been completely buried under your boasting, your arrogance and your dishonesty. You have wasted everyones time including my own with this long, boring and delusional thread and if you had any sense you'd shut the fuck up and hope this fades from memory.

Thats not me being nasty, thats me actually giving you the best advice you could get right now to shorten this excruciatingly embarrassing situation you have brought on yourself. Nothing you can type right now is going to make this any better and every post you make keeps this thread in "todays posts" meaning more and more people will see this and think "What a twat". I'm not feeling the usual mix of bemusement, sarcasm and sadism. No, I'm feeling a very heavy sense of tedium that slightly depresses me mixed with the kind of guilt I imagine would come from beating a small injured animal to death with an old shoe.
Stop typing.

Godschild says this: "The little boy was the one who challenged me to a debate on scripture, I let him know what swords I would bring to the debate. He took a dive under his round table when he saw the translations I would use. Then he deflects his original statement with this junk. I use the NASB and the ESB because they are recognized as two of the best translations of scripture." and that's not a challenge to have a debate?

You are either stupid or perverse. You disgrace yourself with your ridiculous stand. You should really shut the fuck up if you have nothing further to say that is remotely rational.

Oh fuck me, you really are determined to commit intellectual suicide aren't you?
No, its not. Its called boasting or perhaps mocking. Possibly a combination of the two and as he says; you were the one who challanged him.
Not the other way round. He never actually accepts. He just boasts that you had thought twice afterwards.
The words "I challenge you to a debate" or "Hey, fancy a one on one debate?" or anything that actually expresses consent to a formal debate would qualify. Through not understanding this simple concept and making an ass of yourself in a very public way you now look like more of an asshole than he does.
Do you have any idea how hard that is to do? You deserve some kind of an award or something.
Stop typing.

[Mystic]

I would...is different then I will.

I would means he would have if he debated you.

[Reforged]

Some more orange people to cover your folly.





Don't mention it.

[greneknight]

I would...is different then I will.

I would means he would have if he debated you.

Hi MysticKnight,

I know what you are saying but let's look at what godschild said:

The little boy was the one who challenged me to a debate on scripture, I let him know what swords I would bring to the debate. He took a dive under his round table when he saw the translations I would use. Then he deflects his original statement with this junk. I use the NASB and the ESB because they are recognized as two of the best translations of scripture.

He said "would" because it's in the past tense. "The little boy was [past tense] the one who challenged me.... I let [past tense] him know what swords I would [past] bring to the debate." He could not have written "will" because of what grammarians call "concord" or "agreement of tenses". He was in fact saying he would have a debate with me (he distinctly said he would bring to the debate his silly Bible versions NASB and ESB). That quotation means precisely what it says as clearly as the blazing sun but RaphielDrake refuses to see this because he has a personal vendetta against me from a previous post. Even genkaus saw Raphiel's error and tried to correct him earlier in the thread (if you would look past the dross strewn by RaphielDrake on this thread).

[Mystic]

I let him know what swords I will bring to the debate. (sounds perfectly fine).

If he said that, it would've meant that he still agrees to debate you.

But saying what I would bring, is at best unclear, and at worse in your case, given that he rejected your proposal to debate you, given that context, it seems rather he meant it the sense what he would've done had he debated you.

And if it was past tense, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't it be:

"I let him know what I would have brought to the debate...." (but even that it would be unclear)

because "I would bring to the debate" is present tense as well, and the words "I will bring to debate" would've meant he still agrees to debate you...

As I said it's unclear at most, and at worse, the context shows he meant something else.

[Godscreated]

I would...is different then I will.

I would means he would have if he debated you.

Hi MysticKnight,

I know what you are saying but let's look at what godschild said:

The little boy was the one who challenged me to a debate on scripture, I let him know what swords I would bring to the debate. He took a dive under his round table when he saw the translations I would use. Then he deflects his original statement with this junk. I use the NASB and the ESB because they are recognized as two of the best translations of scripture.

He said "would" because it's in the past tense. "The little boy was [past tense] the one who challenged me.... I let [past tense] him know what swords I would [past] bring to the debate." He could not have written "will" because of what grammarians call "concord" or "agreement of tenses". He was in fact saying he would have a debate with me (he distinctly said he would bring to the debate his silly Bible versions NASB and ESB). That quotation means precisely what it says as clearly as the blazing sun but RaphielDrake refuses to see this because he has a personal vendetta against me from a previous post. Even genkaus saw Raphiel's error and tried to correct him earlier in the thread (if you would look past the dross strewn by RaphielDrake on this thread).

I never said I would have a formal debate with you, I said I would debate (argue) the biblical definition of a Christian with you and that's all. So take your lies and deceptions, go to the edge of a cliff and jump. I like everyone else am tried of you, grow up.

[Reforged]

Ok, seriously if this carrys on I'm just going to copy and paste the same picture of an umpa lumpa over and over again because finding enough different orange people to cover up the many layers of crap grene is producing is just exhausting.

[greneknight]

I let him know what swords I will bring to the debate. (sounds perfectly fine).

If he said that, it would've meant that he still agrees to debate you.

But saying what I would bring, is at best unclear, and at worse in your case, given that he rejected your proposal to debate you, given that context, it seems rather he meant it the sense what he would've done had he debated you.

And if it was past tense, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't it be:

"I let him know what I would have brought to the debate...." (but even that it would be unclear)

because "I would bring to the debate" is present tense as well, and the words "I will bring to debate" would've meant he still agrees to debate you...

As I said it's unclear at most, and at worse, the context shows he meant something else.

Hi MysticKnight,

No, I'm afraid you are confusing a past participle with a past tense. "Would have brought" is a past participle. If he had said "I let him know what I would have brought to the debate", it means there was a debate in the past but it got aborted. The speaker is then saying this is what he would have brought to the debate had the debate gone on.

Anyway, I don't want to argue further. If godschild says he had no intention of having a debate with me, that's fine. One would have thought if someone had the gall to call someone else a non-Christian by biblical standards, he should at least be prepared to defend the Bible if the person so accused wanted to discredit the Bible in the first place. But no, my experience so far has been Christians love proclaiming that the Bible is so wonderful and others get their morality from the God of the Bible etc but when someone is willing to debate any issue on the Bible, these same Christians just back off. It's like this in other forums too.

With that, I bid you guys farewell. I will take it that none of the Christians here is willing to debate me on the Bible. Rayaan, thanks for the suggestion that I should engage Drich, but as you can see, they're all the same. The word of God that they so proudly badger everyone with is so delicate it cannot withstand the heat of a debate. They should stamp "FRAGILE" on the covers of all Bibles.

Cheerio, you won't hear from me again unless one of the Christians here changes his mind and would like to engage me in a debate. I'll suddenly spring to life again, I assure you that. And it matters not to me if ten of you wish to debate with me alone.

And now, it's goodbye for good!!!!!!!!

[Mystic]

You know I am having a nice calm discussion about 28 Issues (two of them I solved) I had with Quran over here: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?...ith-quran/

I don't know about Christians, but Shia Muslims, my experience with them, is they are not afraid to debate and have someone challenge their faith.

You can stick around here, I suggest you do. Just tone it down a bit and everyone will love you again.