[ilovetehjeesus]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

ilovetehjeesus, We follow the word of God, every word with out fail. We are also told that we must obey secular law. As we speak Godly Republicans across the Great Nation are fighting for a return to Gods law. By the Grace of God in November things will start to change. In the year 2012 Sister Palin and Brother Huckabee will be elected to the Office of President and Vice President of the US of A. Upon their taking of the oath it is our hope as well as a vast majority of all Christians that the pesky constitution and the bill of rights will be replaced with the Holy KJV1611 Bible. At that time we will be able to follow all of God's laws. Now I have a question for you, why do you hate Jesus?

I don't. It's very hard to hate something that doesn't exist.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

Firstly, please stop calling me 'friend'.

So this is how you approach someone who is nice to you. You probably do not realize this, but you have a big problem. You just hate and hate and hate and all the nice things and love around you is completely wasted. This way you pollute your environment with your negativity. Why not try to be a positive force instead of a negative one?

[James Dewitt]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

ilovetehjeesus, We follow the word of God, every word with out fail. We are also told that we must obey secular law. As we speak Godly Republicans across the Great Nation are fighting for a return to Gods law. By the Grace of God in November things will start to change. In the year 2012 Sister Palin and Brother Huckabee will be elected to the Office of President and Vice President of the US of A. Upon their taking of the oath it is our hope as well as a vast majority of all Christians that the pesky constitution and the bill of rights will be replaced with the Holy KJV1611 Bible. At that time we will be able to follow all of God's laws. Now I have a question for you, why do you hate Jesus?

[ilovetehjeesus]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

Why are you being so hostile, friend?

Firstly, please stop calling me 'friend'. You neither know, like, or trust me, and even if you did, they're not reciprocated. It is childish attempt at condescension.

Why should I waste time on you if I can find an atheist who actually read the entire KJV 1611 Bible and knows what he's talking about.

If, in your eyes, my validity on this entire matter, and therefore worth of conversing with, is based on my level of knowledge and understanding of the KJV 1611 Bible, then you're right. Why are you wasting your time?

But hey, don't let a lack of even a modicum of expertise hold you back from dismissing entire Christianity.

I'm afraid my misunderstanding of the KJV1611 Bible does not nullify any opinions I have on Christianity in general, as you yourself have specifically pointed out that 'True Christians' - e.g. those who follow the KJV1611 Bible - and regular Christians, are not one of the same.

Which keeps bringing us back to the point that secular law needs to be brought in line with Biblical law as was the case in Leviticus.

I will say this once more. Whether or not the secular law should be in line with Biblical law, it doesn't matter. In fact, if they were identical, what would be the point of highlighting the secular law, if God assumed that they would strictly follow the teachings of the Bible?

No, the point is that secular law and Biblical law, as it stands, are mutually exclusive. They do not agree with one another. They contradict. I don't know how else to say this; you cannot follow one, whilst following the other, at least in this specific example. Bringing in line secular law with Biblical law would solve this problem, yes, but that doesn't excuse the Bible of the current mistake I have outlined.

What's shameful is that a third-world country like Uganda is miles ahead of us in this regard. But, again: we are working on it!

The urge to address how exactly you are 'working on it' aside, stop deflecting. Each time you claim that 'you are working on it', you are yourself admitting that, since the secular law and Biblical law are not in line, the ability to follow one of the other doesn't exist. I know you will it would be rare for you to concede a point in this matter, but it is an issue that I have to address.

No, you want there to be a contradiction so that you can justify to yourself that your atheist lifestyle is OK.

I'll stop you there. To jump to conclusions like that is a very haphazard and erroneous, too childish, I propose, for such a serious discussion.

I did not enter this - for lack of a better word - argument with you to try and 'justify' my atheist lifestyle. You are assuming that, by getting you to you concede that there is a contradiction, my claim would therefore be validated and I would have 'disproved Christianity', therefore leaving atheism the only correct and logical religious option.

This cannot be further from the truth. You are not, as you seem to be believe, the be all and end all of Christian knowledge. Your acceptance or refusal of a claim against your religion does not hold any sway in the grander scheme of Christianity. You are not infallible, and therefore I cannot attribute your opinion with any gravity. Meaning, I cannot prove or disprove this Biblical contradiction with your final judgement. Even if you agreed with me, and allowed this one incongruity to pass, this ultimately would mean nothing, and would not act as evidence to the correct way of the atheist lifestyle.

No, God tells us to follow the law of the land, which in this case is secular law.

Entirely semantics.

Obviously, if secular law were to say "don't be Christian, you must reject God", then there would be an issue, but that's a hypothetical scenario not applicable to the USA.

I'm sorry, but you've just outlined the exact example I am making. What you're saying is, though God tells you to follow secular law, if secular law went against a previous teaching of God (in your case, to love God unconditionally, or something along those lines), then there would be a problem.

That is the precise situation we have here. God told us to follow secular law, yet the law is saying 'don't kill homosexuals'. And yet, that is the very thing God has previous commanded us to do; kill homosexuals. You detailed the same problem, but with different parameters, yet conceded that there would be the same problem only in that specific example.

You might have heard of a certain person called Jesus Christ who was crucified under the law of the land. Did He object? No. On the contrary, He forgave them.

That's fine, as long as you realise you're saying that, if it's fine for you not to kill homosexuals, it's fine for Jesus Christ to have died.

It is indeed obvious that you are merely being argumentative. You believe that if you can "own" a Christian in rational debate, then your atheist lifestyle is OK.

I'm sorry, can you please show me where I used that specific word, or implied any of the above? Please don't fabricate or falsify the truth.

All you're doing is running from God. I pray that God will catch up to you some day and you will realize your folly before it's too late.

Pretty sure that, with God being omnipresent and omnipotent, he should have both caught up to me and converted me into a Christian. Logically speaking, I should never have been created as an atheist, but that's a completely different point.

I am aware that the atheist faith is staunchly pro-homersexual, yes. At the same time, atheists on this very forum wished a violent and cruel death to Christians. So perhaps you guys a little hypocritical, eh? You're not against killing people as long as those people are Christians.

Well done for portraying yourself as ignorantly stereotyping. As if I need to point out the fallacies of this specific point.

On the contrary: it is you who failed to understand. And yet you refer to your own ignorance as proof that we are somehow mistaken.

Wow, please read carefully before you type. Not only did I not refer to my ignorance as proof for anything, but I didn't insinuate in that particular paragraph that you are mistaken. If we continue this at all, I'd like you to be able to understand what I say, then contribute effectively.

Ask yourself why you spend so much time on our forum trying to convince us. It's a chip on your shoulder, friend.

Again, please stop deflecting. If you're trying to dissuade me from continuing to put my thoughts across, try to appeal to my (non-existant) religious insecurities will not to it. And again, there is nothing akin to friendship between us.

An exercise in semantics and euphemisms doesn't change the fact that they are dead and never even had the chance to enjoy life to its fullest extent.

Actually it does. It depends on a combination of the publicly accepted and scientifically defined terms of both 'alive' and 'dead' for you to classify abortion as murder.

What was their crime anyway for which they deserved capital punishment? Oh, their existence was inconvenient to their atheist mother. I pray that vigilante atheists will not find Christians inconvenient!

And just to play devils advocate; maybe they were all gay.

The Bible consists of more than two verses. You take two different situations in two different areas and compare them as though they apply to exactly the same time and place.

Then please direct me to passages that settle this dispute. I have been repeatedly asking for someone to show me evidence that resolves the contradictions I have described and I have yet to see it.

Anything short of denouncing God will not be "satisfactory" to an atheist. So excuse me if I don't use your satisfaction (intellectual or otherwise) as the arbiter of Truth.

Again, congratulations for your generalization. While yes, you denouncing your God would certainly be satisfactory, as you will then share the view I have of religion (and by definition I would deem you correct), I would happily accept specific proof that this aforementioned contradiction in the Bible is not in fact a contradiction. So far you have instead danced around the subject and used insults and rhetoric to dissuade my probings, but have, in all intensive purposes, failed to offer a proper response.

Although of course I will return with more questions and difficulties, but I'd be temporarily content.

We are aware that the vast majority of people who call themselves "Christians" do not follow either the correct Bible or the entire Bible. For this reason, they will go to Hell.

How deliciously ironic.

I am sure you will be able to find "a Christian" somewhere who will agree with you, but he will not be a True Christian™. (notice the ™)

I think you have purposefully failed to recognize my use of 'True Christian' as you're term of 'True Christian™', for the sake of antagonizing me.

Are you sure that you're unbiased?

I'm sorry, but not having a faith is, theoretically, as unbiased as one can possibly be. The very act of adhering to a religion means you have principles, ideas, and motives that you do not waver from. You cannot accuse me of being the 'unbiased' one in this discussion when you yourself practically define your life by a doctrine of bias.

I have explained in detail that this is not the case. Then again: what's it to you? You reject the Bible anyway. Why is this so important to you?

I have lost count of the amount of time's you have ignored the issue at hand. Please stay on topic, even if you fail to address the problem.

We are working on bringing the law in line with the Biblical laws that God wrote down for us.

Your big text is very nice, but it's still a deflection.

The only way to go to Heaven is by being a True Christian™. Telling us that the only way to be a True Christian™ is by killing homersexuals is the same as telling us that we will only go to Heaven if we kill homersexuals.

Thus, you are responsible for any such illegal actions just like Osama bin Laden is responsible for the illegal actions of his followers.

Yeah, I am fully aware of that. Well, you missed a step, and that's to be a True Christian is to follow every aspect of the Bible, but yes, that would be the logic.

I see. So you're implying that, if you go out and kill a bunch of homosexuals, if you cite this conversation, I would go to prison, either in your stead or as well as you? I don't think I need to point out why that reasoning is incredibly flawed and ridiculous.

Not really. Abortion doctors walk free... mothers who've had abortions walk free. A doctor can kill a thousand babies and will not be punished under secular law.

Again, all about definition and what is considered murder. You consider abortion murder, I do not. If it was as clear cut as you say, then everyone would understand and these 'criminals' would be punished.

There's the familiar exit strategy. If this is what you truly thought, you would not have made such a long comment. Logic friend, logic.

If you had paid attention, I said 'unless'. The way the conversation was going was the equivalent of talking to a brick wall. I was hoping that at some point, with at least one of my replies, I would get a response that insinuated there was some reasoned logic behind your religious zealotry that would entice me to stay but if not, then I would leave. While this wasn't apparent, I did not want to leave with you thinking that I'm leaving with an "exit strategy". The only way for me to leave would be to a) concede that you're right, b) for you to concede that I am right, or for c) neither to admit anything and one of us to recognize this. I am not leaving thinking that either party has concluded this discussion, just that it's obviously an effort in futility to try.

[Mrs. Rogers]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

Maybe they aren't persons at all, but demons from Hell attacking these forums?

That wouldn't surprise me in the least. Satan is the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2): what is the "power of the air" if it is not the invisible communication between computers on the internets?

It only makes sense that all trolls are sent by Satan; demons armed with poor spelling, bad language and vile pictures. And in the Name of Jesus I shall rebuke them all the way back to HELL, amen.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

So what you're saying is that, not only does the [IMG]file:///C:/Users/ZACKGO%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-7.png[/IMG]Bible specifically say that you should follow secular law, but you should put it ahead of the instructions of God? Is there a verse in which this is outlined?

Love the attempt to link to your own hard drive. That's a clever one. Kinda tells us all we really need to know; that you think all answers are in your own "hard drive".

You understand it cannot merely be a paraphrasing of "follow the secular law", there must be some depiction of value; there needs to be a evident and clear instruction that Christians should follow the secular law even if it contradicts other Godly demands.

No need to paraphrase.

Romans 13:1-7

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Rulers are appointed by God, for His purposes. Even those rulers who contradict His Law are in power because He desires it. Therefore, we should obey them, or God will send us to Hell because disobeying the rulers is disobeying God.

And, though you may profess this will happen, both the American government and American public would never willingly allow the mass extermination of the second most prominent American sexuality.

The American government will be dominated by Christian Reconstructionists who will establish Biblical Law as the law of the land. Then, just like the Muslims, we will execute those who break God's Law:

A Lebanese man charged with sorcery and sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia is scheduled to be beheaded on Friday, the man's lawyer said Wednesday . . . Sibat is the former host of a popular call-in show that aired on Beirut-based satellite TV channel "Sheherazade." According to his lawyer, Sibat would predict the future on his show and give out advice to his audience.

I am fully aware of your attempts at shoving these verses down my throat. What you don't realise is that they did not follow my guidelines.

I suggested, that for your True Christian argument to be infallible, God must specifically say that you must honour the word of man above that of God. Only in that way can you justify not murdering homosexuals in cold blood.

However, in both of the books you suggested, the Bible merely details that you should follow the secular law. It in no way covers how to deal with contradictions. There is no guidance on whether you should listen God or the secular law when the two sources contradict one another, e.g. on the subject of killing gay people.

I think what I just quoted for you explains very clearly that we are to obey secular law because God has placed the rulers in power, whether we understand why or not. There is no contradiction, except in your own desperate, God-hating mind.

You hate God.

You construct arguments based on your own flawed logic to make it appear that His 2,000 - 6,000 year old Book is in error.

It is your "logic" that is in error, because you begin with the goal of finding a way to discredit your Creator.

These aren't guidelines in relation to religion, they're in relation to logic. The logic I have set out, which is based (if you cared to follow my argument) on sound reasoning pointed out that, for the Bible to not contradict itself, it needed to state that, when God's word and secular law opposed one another, we should follow secular law.

Christians have no difficulty understanding God's meaning. You cannot grasp it because you do not have understanding, and because you hate God.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear." You, sir, have plugged your ears and are shouting "LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!"

First off that infraction was pointless. The ible was written about 1,400 to 1,800 years ago.

Really? Please show us the evidence that the Old Testament, from which Jesus Himself quoted and which had been followed for thousands of years, was written after Jesus came and left.

Now, unless in the following responses there seems to be a progression in this discourse, rather than a repetition of faith, blind ignorance of the information and rationalities I have offered or loosely veiled insults, this may be where I end my part in this discussion.

In other words, if we don't agree with your flawed, God-hating, human "logic" and say the Bible is wrong, you'll storm out in a huff?

[True Disciple]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

Wow what a great thread. Some person who is clearly high on the devils weed forgets that HE changed his name to jellobarf. And the result is an onslaught of hate filled atheists and their demonic rantings. It does make one wonder why God created them in the first place. A test to all True Christians™ perhaps?

Maybe they aren't persons at all, but demons from Hell attacking these forums?

[James Dewitt]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

Wow what a great thread. Some person who is clearly high on the devils weed forgets that HE changed his name to jellobarf. And the result is an onslaught of hate filled atheists and their demonic rantings. It does make one wonder why God created them in the first place. A test to all True Christians(TM) perhaps?

[GOD=life]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

Sorry guys, but if you're going to write really long comments, I can only respond to one person at a time in-depth.

That is of course true but by no means justifies your sweeping generalisation of both Catholics and Muslims, ...

My "generalisation" is based on evidence, whereas yours is based on an unverified anecdote.

All groups of people, religious or secular, are liable to containing some members who commit crimes and paedophilia.

You assume equiprobability, which clouds the issue. If you don't care about coverups and witness intimidation, then that speaks volumes about your morals and ethics.

That still doesn’t change the fact that he never assumed all Baptists were child molesters.

Why not let him argue on his own behalf? Do you feel he's too weak to defend himself intellectually? You're not doing much better.

If you have an issue with me or this forum, I will be happy to address them, but for now, I'll let 'Barf do the speaking on behalf of 'Barf, OK? I'm sure you will see that as a "win", but I'll grant you that "victory"

..., you deliberately diverted the thread away from its intended purpose.

I did not ask "ilovetehjeesus" to start an argument with me. But hey, blame the Christian, not the fellow atheist. Typical.

I do not know the user now titled as ‘JelloBarf’, I simply sought to address an unjust situation.

Liar. If were truly unbiased, you would have considered the possibility that he had changed his name himself. Instead, you assumed he was 100% correct. You also jumped on the Mel story without bothering to ask any questions.

I don’t see why you should require these answers...

Because as True Christians™, we care about facts and evidence, not unverified anecdotes.

So let's start with this: where was Mel's camp located?

GOD=life you seem intent on deliberately misinterpreting points raised, ...

That's like calling a mathematician disingenuous for "refusing" to address why 1 + 1 cannot be 3.

have yet to have been satisfactorily addressed

Interesting - and similar - choice of words. Exactly how would it "satisfy" an atheist to address a theological argument?

largely because you have refused to directly confront the crux of his argument.

The crux of his argument is based on his own confusion, not mine. Additionally, I addressed the crux of his intent, which is to justify to himself that he was right about denouncing God. I can tell that the doubt is beginning to grow. I am proud to do God's work.

YIC

[Mrs. Rogers]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

1. God tells you to kill homosexuals.
2. God tells you to follow secular law (which at the time allowed the killing of homosexuals)
3. Secular law now tells you not to kill homosexuals.

It may seem to be a bit of a muddle, but it's God's way of ensuring we are paying attention. I hope that helps?

[GOD=life]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

Seems that whilst I was asleep you thought it fair to attack an unmanned argument.

Why are you being so hostile, friend?

I am not claiming to be an expert on the Bible.

Hence my point that I would rather listen to an expert on the Bible. There are atheist websites such as skepticsannotatedbible.com that do a much better job of analyzing the KJV 1611 Bible than you do. Why should I waste time on you if I can find an atheist who actually read the entire KJV 1611 Bible and knows what he's talking about.

In contrast, you did not read the entire KJV 1611 Bible. Thus, your exercise amounts to little more than mental masturbation and not a sound theological argument. But hey, don't let a lack of even a modicum of expertise hold you back from dismissing entire Christianity.

In short: I can respect an opponent in debate who knows what he's talking about. I will never respect either an opponent or ally in a debate who does not. As a Christian, I is my duty to demand a high level of rational discourse. Our future in Heaven depends on it.

Merely saying that 'God tells us to follow secular law' isn't good enough, because He tells you to do the exact opposite to what secular law is now saying.

Which keeps bringing us back to the point that secular law needs to be brought in line with Biblical law as was the case in Leviticus. God didn't say "be a vigilante", no, God said that those should be the laws of the land. And, again, that is what we are working for.

What's shameful is that a third-world country like Uganda is miles ahead of us in this regard. But, again: we are working on it!

Which is sad, because there's an obvious contradiction in your True Christian guidelines.

No, you want there to be a contradiction so that you can justify to yourself that your atheist lifestyle is OK. It's not. You will go to Hell and it will be your own choice. I can only ask you politely to reconsider. But, again: if you want to find supposed contradictions, go to skepticsannotatedbible.com. They have tons of criticism on the KJV 1611 Bible

1. God tells you to kill homosexuals.

No, God lays down the laws that should be the laws of the land.

2. God tells you to follow secular law (which at the time allowed the killing of homosexuals)

No, God tells us to follow the law of the land, which in this case is secular law.

3. Secular law now tells you not to kill homosexuals.

Which is why secular law should be amended to Biblical standards. Additionally, why should we kill them as vigilantes? The justice system should sentence them.

By following secular law you are suggesting you can pick and choose which order to follow, since at no point did He say to follow secular law when it contradicts a previous commandment of His.

It's not a commandment, it's a law that should be in place but currently isn't. Obviously, if secular law were to say "don't be Christian, you must reject God", then there would be an issue, but that's a hypothetical scenario not applicable to the USA. And this is also why we oppose activist judges.

Even suggesting that you should amend the secular law to abide with God's word is implying that secular law is wrong.

You might have heard of a certain person called Jesus Christ who was crucified under the law of the land. Did He object? No. On the contrary, He forgave them. We follow Jesus Christ, not some fanatic atheist interpretation.

This is just an example I chose for arguments sake.

It is indeed obvious that you are merely being argumentative. You believe that if you can "own" a Christian in rational debate, then your atheist lifestyle is OK. All you're doing is running from God. I pray that God will catch up to you some day and you will realize your folly before it's too late.

..., I would still do everything in my power not to.

I am aware that the atheist faith is staunchly pro-homersexual, yes. At the same time, atheists on this very forum wished a violent and cruel death to Christians. So perhaps you guys a little hypocritical, eh? You're not against killing people as long as those people are Christians.

Like I said, I chose this for arguments sake, and that the contradictions were more evident and easier (or so I thought) for you people to understand.

On the contrary: it is you who failed to understand. And yet you refer to your own ignorance as proof that we are somehow mistaken. Ask yourself why you spend so much time on our forum trying to convince us. It's a chip on your shoulder, friend.

And as for "millions of babies who have been killed", that entirely depends on the definition of 'babies' and 'killed', an entirely different argument altogether.

An exercise in semantics and euphemisms doesn't change the fact that they are dead and never even had the chance to enjoy life to its fullest extent. What was their crime anyway for which they deserved capital punishment? Oh, their existence was inconvenient to their atheist mother. I pray that vigilante atheists will not find Christians inconvenient!

You're refusing to accept, or even notice the fact that there is something wrong in terms of phrasing, if not definition, that creates an inconsistency in the Bible.

The Bible consists of more than two verses. You take two different situations in two different areas and compare them as though they apply to exactly the same time and place. That's an argument for the sake of an argument -- as you yourself admitted.

... but have given no satisfactory evidence to the contrary.

Anything short of denouncing God will not be "satisfactory" to an atheist. So excuse me if I don't use your satisfaction (intellectual or otherwise) as the arbiter of Truth.

Obviously, if you ask like-minded True Christians...

We are aware that the vast majority of people who call themselves "Christians" do not follow either the correct Bible or the entire Bible. For this reason, they will go to Hell.

I am sure you will be able to find "a Christian" somewhere who will agree with you, but he will not be a True Christian™. (notice the ™)

Before you start picking apart my argument as a whole, ...

There is a difference between seeing confusion (in others) and being confused (yourself). You are a little quick to jump on supposed contradictions, friend. Are you sure that you're unbiased?

You are right; if the law is in conflict with the Holy Bible, what are you supposed to do?

As I've said numerous times: what we're supposed to do is amend the law. Why do you keep ignoring that?

At the moment there's no clear cut way to navigate the confusing and opposing statements suggested in the KJV1611 Bible.

I have explained in detail that this is not the case. Then again: what's it to you? You reject the Bible anyway. Why is this so important to you?

If you do indeed follow God's word above secular law

We're going in circles here, friend. God did not tell us to follow secular law. God said that we should follow the laws of the land -- which in this case - for now - is secular law. And secondly, God did not tell us to be vigilantes, God laid down the proper laws that should be the laws of the land.

And....... for the very last time:

We are working on bringing the law in line with the Biblical laws that God wrote down for us.

Seeing as you do claim to be True Christians, the only logical thing to do would be to go and kill homosexuals, ...

Why is it logical when God tells us to follow the laws of the land. We know what the laws should be.

From the context, it is not that I "want" you to kill homosexuals, merely that it is the only rational course for a True Christian to take.

Aha, so Osama bin Laden cannot legally be brought to trial because he didn't commit his crimes himself? He merely told people that in order to go to Heaven, they needed to kill others.

The only way to go to Heaven is by being a True Christian™. Telling us that the only way to be a True Christian™ is by killing homersexuals is the same as telling us that we will only go to Heaven if we kill homersexuals.

Thus, you are responsible for any such illegal actions just like Osama bin Laden is responsible for the illegal actions of his followers.

I have always been fully aware that murder, in all cases, is against the law, and punishable by imprisonment and death.

Not really. Abortion doctors walk free... mothers who've had abortions walk free. A doctor can kill a thousand babies and will not be punished under secular law.

Conversation with you specific True Christians seems to be akin to talking to a brick wall, and that is a practice that will get me nowhere.

There's the familiar exit strategy. If this is what you truly thought, you would not have made such a long comment. Logic friend, logic.

What will get you somewhere good is praying to God. Try it.

[ArtificialWinter]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

The difference is that he can only present anecdotal evidence that we have no way of verifying, while the catholic church has been ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to victims of child molestation that happened by priests that they knew were child molesters.

That is of course true but by no means justifies your sweeping generalisation of both Catholics and Muslims, the vast majority of which of find the fiasco the Catholic Church is going through right now as disturbing as you or I. Neither does it allow you to wholly segregate Baptists from such crimes. All groups of people, religious or secular, are liable to containing some members who commit crimes and paedophilia.

Surely you don't expect a True Christian to accept a story just because someone tells it with conviction right? We care about facts and evidence.

John 20:29 “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believed.” It would seem that as ‘True Christians’ you should be perfectly happy to accept statements without facts or evidence to support them.

He said he wouldn't be surprised if I turned out to be one.

That still doesn’t change the fact that he never assumed all Baptists were child molesters. Example: I wouldn’t be surprised if this forum turned out to be a true religion but that doesn’t mean I make the assumption that all similar fundamentalist Christian forums are religious.

He called us ten year olds. Then I guessed his age and he admitted that I was off by only 1 year. That's an accurate assessment on my part, not his.

Actually, he asked whether changing someone’s username without a given reason wasn’t behaviour more acceptable for ten year olds. You, on the other hand, clearly tried to belittle him by assuming him to be much younger than yourself. His true age is irrelevant, the fact is that you specifically pointed out his youth to ridicule him.

Being a True Christian™ requires a level of intelligence and intellectual maturity that this child does not possess. It is like knowing someone is not a mathematician if he argues that 1 + 1 = 3.

While the Bible is typically ambiguous on the subject of what constitutes a ‘True Christian’, I’m fairly certain that nowhere does it specify either intelligence or intellectual maturity to be among the requirements. If you could highlight scripture that conclusively says otherwise I’d be happy to concede the point though.

On the contrary, I have been accurate and helpful and supported bringing justice to this Mel character.

I was making reference to your problem with the fact that the English language uses the word ‘you’ to refer to both individuals and groups of people. I am not under the impression that you genuinely have difficulty with the word’s use so the logical conclusion is that in this instance you were being deliberately antagonistic. His first post was quite clearly not addressed to any individual, other than the one specifically responsible for changing his username. That you failed to see this and seriously assumed he was speaking directly to you, or anyone who happened to read the thread, is just too ridiculous to be true. So instead of pointing him toward someone who might be able to better inform him about the issue or simply taking him up on other parts of his post you had problems with, you deliberately diverted the thread away from its intended purpose. Yes, his second post was less clear because he referred to both you specifically and those responsible for changing his name alternating, but it doesn’t take a genius to work out when he was referring directly to you and when he was not.

In contrast, you have signed up to this forum for no other purpose than to criticize me. Thus, your words apply to yourself and only to yourself.

I apologise if it came across that way. This only happened to be the first thread that caught my eye and I referred directly to you alone so as to avoid the ambiguity you seem to have taken such issue with. If you would like to know more about my intentions in joining this forum I’ve written a lengthy introduction in the appropriate section.

My guess is that the two of you already know eachother and that he complained that he was getting "0wn3d" and needed some support. But you turn out to be a poor supporter because your bias is obvious and your egregious use of fallacies reveals a poor grasp of rational discourse.

I do not know the user now titled as ‘JelloBarf’, I simply sought to address an unjust situation. Primarily, I wanted to bring the thread back round to the original question but that now seems to have gone out of the window entirely. I assumed neither the correctness of his position in this thread, nor the veracity of his story (although I have no reason to doubt it) – I assumed only that he had been treated unjustly by the person/persons who changed his username without apparent reason.

You are being disingenuous and you know it. He has purposely switched the aim of "you" several times to confuse the issue.

You are the only person to have take issue with what I see as a genuine lack of clarity which could easily have been overlooked along with the host of other typos and errors that litter any internet forum. Had you done so, the initial issue may have been resolved already.

Before we answer anything, we demand to know the following:

I don’t see why you should require these answers before resolving the initial dispute as the whole child molestation discussion arose after the question about his username had been raised and remains entirely separate to that issue.

But all of this appears to be a little irrelevant now that the discussion has moved considerably away from the original purpose of the thread. Ilovetehjeesus’s arguments seem to have highlighted something that I’ve pointed out – GOD=life you seem intent on deliberately misinterpreting points raised, creating issues where there are none so as to avoid the topic in hand. As it stands, Ilovetehjesus’s comments about the contradictory demands of the Bible on those who take it word for word when it comes to homosexuality have yet to have been satisfactorily addressed, largely because you have refused to directly confront the crux of his argument.

[ilovetehjeesus]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

Hello again. Seems that whilst I was asleep you thought it fair to attack an unmanned argument. But I'm back now, fret not little ones.

If I have to teach you such elementary facts about the Bible, then it's only logical that I don't regard you as an expert on the Bible, particularly when you admittedly haven't read said Bible.

I am not claiming to be an expert on the Bible. One does not need to be an expert to easily discover at least one of many inconsistencies inside. My argument is based on two opposing factors of the Bible's teachings, that aren't clarified at any subsequent point. That is the simplest way of putting this entire problem, and you have yet to offer an explanation for it.

That would be redundant. The only reason you require such an explicit statement is because you're trying to point out a perceived contradiction, no matter how weak.

Exactly. There needs to be an explicit statement for an explicitly obvious problem. No one has yet to offer evidence as to whether you should follow the secular law regarding not killing gay people above God's command of killing them. Merely saying that 'God tells us to follow secular law' isn't good enough, because he tells you to do the exact opposite to what secular law is now saying.

And yes, while this does seem like I'm harping on about one specific point, it's one that's still not been cleared up.

You are the only one who finds it confusing. None of us True Christians find it confusing.

Which is sad, because there's an obvious contradiction in your True Christian guidelines.

You are repeating yourself, friend. The reason we do not kill homersexuals is because it's not allowed by secular law, which God teaches us to follow. What should happen is that we should amend secular law to Biblical standards and that's something we're working on.

I'm repeating myself for a good reason; you haven't answered my question. I grasp every aspect of this entire situation.

1. God tells you to kill homosexuals.
2. God tells you to follow secular law (which at the time allowed the killing of homosexuals)
3. Secular law now tells you not to kill homosexuals.

By following secular law you are suggesting you can pick and choose which order to follow, since at no point did he say to follow secular law when it contradicts a previous commandment of his. Even suggesting that you should amend the secular law to abide with God's word is implying that secular law is wrong. Yet God is telling you to follow it, even after telling you also to commit crimes that the false law abhors?

Can you state then, for the record, that you do NOT want us to kill homersexuals and that you yourself do NOT encourage OR condone the killing of homersexuals in any way as long as secular law does NOT allow it?

This is just an example I chose for arguments sake. I couldn't care less whether the Bible was talking about homosexuals or how to properly pluck a chicken, just that it's completely unclear on what Christians must do in this case.

But I will still do you one better. I do not condone the killing of homosexuals, regardless of law. Even if, by some stroke of demented luck on your part, the law was amended so that killing homosexuals was mandatory, I would still do everything in my power not to.

It's ironic that you don't even bother to mention the many millions of babies who have been killed since Roe vs. Wade. You have nice priorities, friend.

Like I said, I chose this for arguments sake, and that the contradictions were more evident and easier (or so I thought) for you people to understand.

And as for "millions of babies who have been killed", that entirely depends on the definition of 'babies' and 'killed', an entirely different argument altogether.

I have no doubt that you, as an atheist, have a solution in mind to get rid of this problem and that this final solution involves my violent demise.

While I disagree with almost everything I have seen you profess, I do not wish death, or any other ill fate, upon you.

You keep repeating that the Bible contradicts. If you had a solid argument, you would have had to say it only once. Instead, you keep repeating it, hoping that it will stick. It doesn't.

I repeat because it hasn't been addressed. You assume you have addressed it, stating that "God tells us to follow secular law" and that you "I see no contradiction here", or that "God is abundantly clear as always", yet just because you don't see the contradictions, doesn't mean they are not there. You're refusing to accept, or even notice the fact that there is something wrong in terms of phrasing, if not definition, that creates an inconsistency in the Bible.

I have argued that we should not kill them. You have argued that we should.

Wrong. I have argued that, in light of what the Bible says, you should kill them. You haven't argued at all, or at least not with points that counter mine. Instead you've claimed ignorance, superiority in being and that my argument does not make sense, but have given no satisfactory evidence to the contrary.

Obviously, if you ask like-minded True Christians to view this entire escapade, they would no doubt fail to, or choose not to, see the contradictions that are so starkly evident, but I assure you that if you ask any other person, the likelihood is that they'd see my point (and yes, go ahead and assert that this is because a True Christian is the shining example of humanity and that your grasp of logic and reason is of a much higher caliber, I don't mind, it would only be a protest to your avoidance of the facts).

That sounds hateful on your part.

I merely responded in kind to the same attitude many others on this forum have towards 'unsaved trash'.

Is this where you do the victory dance to the applause of everyone who agrees with you (yourself) and leave? I've seen it time and again that an atheist loses the argument, then proclaims himself the victor and leaves, never to be heard from again.

No, that was in fact where I went to sleep. Unlike you superhuman entities, I still need a good 8 hours.

Please, provde me a link to your guidelines.
Thank you,
JH, True Christian ™

If you had been following this entire thread, you would clearly understand that logical guidelines I suggested.

But of course we see the confusion here. Unlike you we are not complete idiots.

Hang on. I believe GOD=life said:

You are the only one who finds it confusing. None of us True Christians find it confusing.

Before you start picking apart my argument as a whole, please make sure you are all in agreement to your position, as it at least makes your religion seem somewhat cohesive.

But if you would use your brain for once in your life you would see God did not cause this confusion. Liberals did cause this confusion by creating laws that are in conflict with the Holy Bible! Once we get a real president again who implements biblical law there will no longer be any confusion.

You seem to be arguing against GOD=life's point here. You blatantly point out that there is in fact confusion with the law that God provides. You are right; if the law is in conflict with the Holy Bible, what are you supposed to do? At the moment there's no clear cut way to navigate the confusing and opposing statements suggested in the KJV1611 Bible.

The question here is "hop to what?" It's obvious from the context that he wants us to "hop to" killing homersexuals even though it's currently contrary to secular law (which, again, God teaches us to follow). Then he started to deny that this was his intent, but only AFTER I patiently explained that he could get arrested for this.

I shouldn't need to spell this out. If you do indeed follow God's word above secular law (since we've already established that there is no decisive mention on whether to abide by the secular law when it contradicts a teaching of God), then you would have to kill homosexuals. If you went by secular law, then you'd be putting human law above the word of God, and therefore are not True Christians.

Seeing as you do claim to be True Christians, the only logical thing to do would be to go and kill homosexuals, which is where my 'hop to it' came into play. From the context, it is not that I "want" you to kill homosexuals, merely that it is the only rational course for a True Christian to take.

I have always been fully aware that murder, in all cases, is against the law, and punishable by imprisonment and death. I did not insinuate anything contradictory to my argument once I had been needlessly informed of that very fact.

Now, unless in the following responses there seems to be a progression in this discourse, rather than a repetition of faith, blind ignorance of the information and rationalities I have offered or loosely veiled insults, this may be where I end my part in this discussion. Conversation with you specific True Christians seems to be akin to talking to a brick wall, and that is a practice that will get me nowhere.

[GOD=life]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

I would like to quote this again:

If you so say that 'abomination' carries the clear weight of God's condemnation, then there is no dispute as to who's telling you to kill homosexuals. It's God, simple as that. So hop to it.

The question here is "hop to what?" It's obvious from the context that he wants us to "hop to" killing homersexuals even though it's currently contrary to secular law (which, again, God teaches us to follow). Then he started to deny that this was his intent, but only AFTER I patiently explained that he could get arrested for this.

Signed,

A God-Fearing law-abiding True Christian™

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Wow guys REAL mature

Semantics aside, yes there is confusion. God is telling you to kill homosexuals. God is also telling you to follow secular law. Secular law is telling you not to kill homosexuals.

But of course we see the confusion here. Unlike you we are not complete idiots.

But if you would use your brain for once in your life you would see God did not cause this confusion. Liberals did cause this confusion by creating laws that are in conflict with the Holy Bible! Once we get a real president again who implements biblical law there will no longer be any confusion.