A small thanks to the resident Theists..

[Cyberman]

There certainly are atheists who accept Jesus-as-preacher, without all the supernatural baggage. You may as well debate the historicity of Tony Stark without Iron Man.

I prefer Superman without the powers. Or the Visible Man.

[John V]

Find me an atheist who believes in Jesus-as-deity-incarnate. I won't hold my breath.

There certainly are atheists who accept Jesus-as-preacher, without all the supernatural baggage. You may as well debate the historicity of Tony Stark without Iron Man.

Then it's incorrect to interpret the passage as referring to atheists, and catfish's point stands. You can't have it both ways.

[Jackalope]

Find me an atheist who believes in Jesus-as-deity-incarnate. I won't hold my breath.

There certainly are atheists who accept Jesus-as-preacher, without all the supernatural baggage. You may as well debate the historicity of Tony Stark without Iron Man.

Then it's incorrect to interpret the passage as referring to atheists, and catfish's point stands. You can't have it both ways.

I don't recall taking a position on that matter.

[Airyaman]

Find me an atheist who believes in Jesus-as-deity-incarnate. I won't hold my breath.

There certainly are atheists who accept Jesus-as-preacher, without all the supernatural baggage. You may as well debate the historicity of Tony Stark without Iron Man.

Then it's incorrect to interpret the passage as referring to atheists, and catfish's point stands. You can't have it both ways.

Are you a Christian who does not understand what "Christ" means? (Hint: it wasn't his last name).

[Mystical]

[catfish]

[John V]

I don't recall taking a position on that matter.

It was a general or collective "you." To clarify, those saying that the John passage refers to unbelievers can't have it both ways.

[Mystical]

I'll take a look at it later catfish. He's not my boyfriend, he's the love of my life. big diff

[catfish]

My answer has absolutely no bearing on the passage itself and also does not effect the actual meaning of the passage. In any case, I looked at the context, and there is absolutely nothing that disqualifies the verse from saying what it says, that deceivers, according to the author, are those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. That would cover about any atheist I know.

You're right, that answer has no direct bearing on what is actually written there. However, your answer will affect how I view your intelligence from here on out.

Now, if you can't demonstrate that you understand the context of your own words, why should I have confidence in your ability to understand the context of others'?

[Airyaman]

My answer has absolutely no bearing on the passage itself and also does not effect the actual meaning of the passage. In any case, I looked at the context, and there is absolutely nothing that disqualifies the verse from saying what it says, that deceivers, according to the author, are those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. That would cover about any atheist I know.

You're right, that answer has no direct bearing on what is actually written there. However, your answer will affect how I view your intelligence from here on out.

Now, if you can't demonstrate that you understand the context of your own words, why should I have confidence in your ability to understand the context of others'?

In the end, I really don't give a damn about what you think. I can see from just a few exchanges that your posts will likely be passed on by with my mouse wheel in the future because I already waste enough time as it is.