Tweet
Re: Wow guys REAL mature
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Entirely semantics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well done for portraying yourself as ignorantly stereotyping. As if I need to point out the fallacies of this specific point.
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.
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.
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.
And just to play devils advocate; maybe they were all gay.
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.
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.
How deliciously ironic.
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.
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 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.
Your big text is very nice, but it's still a deflection.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by GOD=life
View Post
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.
But hey, don't let a lack of even a modicum of expertise hold you back from dismissing entire Christianity.
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.
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!
No, you want there to be a contradiction so that you can justify to yourself that your atheist lifestyle is OK.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 ™)
Are you sure that you're unbiased?
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?
We are working on bringing the law in line with the Biblical laws that God wrote down for us.
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.
Thus, you are responsible for any such illegal actions just like Osama bin Laden is responsible for the illegal actions of his followers.
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.
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.
Comment