[James Hutchins]

Re: Hello, all.

Because of God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence would have God desire to eliminate evil.

You still do not understand. What is with today's educational system.
Tell me, how YOU know what God wants?

Of course I don't *KNOW* if God exists, but then again, neither do any of you.

Of course we know He exists. He has touched us all. He is as real as you.

A theory and a scientific theory are different...

The commonly used definition of theory is the one you are using which is "an assumption with a lack of evidence. A scientific theory is an hypothesis with evidence supporting it. lol

A 'theory' and a 'scientific theory' are 'best guesses based on available information'. They are not facts. Did the example I give you go completely over your head? How old are you anyway? I bet not more than 15.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Hello, all.

If the Judeo-Christian God created evil, then God is not omnibenevolent.

Gee, it's almost like I said that myself.

Oh, wait. I DID.

And yes, I deny the work of any so-called "Christian philosopher" who claims God to be omnibenevolent, since he is putting qualities he desires onto God instead of reading what the Bible clearly says.

[MissKage]

Re: Hello, all.

Oh... *facepalm*

I just realized this was satire...

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Hello, all.

False, again. Omnibenevolence is "infinite benevolence," which would be infinite goodness, which would have the Judeo-Christian God the desire to eliminate evil?

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...Omnibenevolent

The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.

Now, if as you say, God is "infinitely benevolent", how could He also hate those who refuse to follow Him?

How is it "benevolent" to only love those faithful to you, and to resurrect those who refuse to obey to immortal bodies, and burn them alive in a lake of fire for all time?

(Revelation 20-22, read it.)

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Hello, all.

Oh... *facepalm*

I just realized this was satire...

There is nothing funny about the Word of God, Sparky.

All you have presented are tired memes about "omnibenevolence" and argument from popularity and argument from authority. I'm sure there are a few logical fallacies you've overlooked.

We have shown you what the Bible actually says. That's "satire" to you?

The only joke I see in this thread is your claim to desire "an intellectual discussion". All you've done is try to get us to agree to a straw-man definition of God, the one you imagine being omnibenevolent, so you can shoot it down.

How lame. How tiresome. How pathetic.

Go back to atheist school, kid.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Hello, all.

Why do atheists set up a straw god then disprove it?

God's not some self contradictory concept. He's the creator of everything and thus entitled to be as capricious and inscrutable as He wants to be. If you bothered to actually look at the evidence you'd see just how many seemingly senseless and arbitrary decisions God made and how many times He screwed up and was taken by surprise by the course of events.

God must have a reason for this but we aren't meant to understand or question Him.

Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Isaiah 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

[MissKage]

Re: Hello, all.

There is nothing funny about the Word of God, Sparky.

All you have presented are tired memes about "omnibenevolence" and argument from popularity and argument from authority. I'm sure there are a few logical fallacies you've overlooked.

We have shown you what the Bible actually says. That's "satire" to you?

The only joke I see in this thread is your claim to desire "an intellectual discussion". All you've done is try to get us to agree to a straw-man definition of God, the one you imagine being omnibenevolent, so you can shoot it down.

How lame. How tiresome. How pathetic.

Go back to atheist school, kid.

Your Wikipedia page claims the forum to be a form of Truth, and that the Church is real in a real town in Iowa:

"The Landover Baptist Church is a very Christian[1] Baptist church based in the gated community of Freehold, Iowa. The Landover Baptist web site and its associated Landoverbaptist.net Forum are a Truth of fundamentalist Christianity and the Religious Right in the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landover_Baptist&oldid=173411728&oldid=173411728&oldid=173411728_Church

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Hello, all.

Your Wikipedia page claims the forum to be a form of Truth, and that the Church is real in a real town in Iowa:

"The Landover Baptist Church is a very Christian[1] Baptist church based in the gated community of Freehold, Iowa. The Landover Baptist web site and its associated Landoverbaptist.net Forum are a Truth of fundamentalist Christianity and the Religious Right in the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...3411728_Church

It's not my page, as I live in Indiana, but did you not know that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody?

That page gets hacked all the time. So does Westboro Baptist's, and almost anyone who draws the ire of liberals. One time, Ann Coulter's page said she was a shemale dating a gay porn star!

(I suppose "hacked" isn't the right word, since anyone can edit it, but you get the point.)

Now, how about focusing on the Bible and God instead of trying to find a backdoor out of being wrong?

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Hello, all.

That's Wikipedia which can be relentlessly edited by our enemies to discredit and persecute us?

For someone who claims to be an intellectual giant you sure are gullible. You believe everything you read without intervening thought.

[James Hutchins]

Re: Hello, all.

Come on Kage (Sorry but you are far from a 'Master'). Admit all the information you have been saying is not based on a single original thought of your own. Have you no pride?
True Christians(tm) know Gods Majestic Truths(r). We have all given ourselves to Him and He has revealed Himself to us, in a totally heretosexual way.

[MissKage]

Re: Hello, all.

It's not my page, as I live in Indiana, but did you not know that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody?

Yes, I am quite aware of the foolish misconceptions that Wikipedia is inaccurate. That argument has long been refuted. Did you know Wikipedia is the second encylopedia with the least mistakes?

Here, try to edit a page with false information. If it stays up for more than an hour, I will concede the debate.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Hello, all.

Yes, I am quite aware of the foolish misconceptions that Wikipedia is inaccurate. That argument has long been refuted. Did you know Wikipedia is the second encylopedia with the least mistakes?

Here, try to edit a page with false information. If it stays up for more than an hour, I will concede the debate.

You just pointed out the ease with which the liberal conspiracy can eradicate the inconvenient Truth(r) from the Wikipedia menace. No matter how many times it is edited to show what's real the heathens with their agenda to convert everyone to sodomy change it back. This ability to change the written word is why it is so unreliable. And yet you cling to it as the one word of truth and don't acknowledge how it is so vulnerable to people with an agenda.

Are you incapable of critical thinking?

[MissKage]

Re: Hello, all.

Come on Kage (Sorry but you are far from a 'Master'). Admit all the information you have been saying is not based on a single original thought of your own. Have you no pride?
True Christians™ know Gods Majestic Truths®. We have all given ourselves to Him and He has revealed Himself to us, in a totally heretosexual way.

To be fair, nearly every idea, argument, and objection has already been created. It's like saying using an argument for God's existence (say the Kalam Cosmological argument) makes it automatically false, because you didn't create it.

Odd, don't you think?

[James Hutchins]

Re: Hello, all.

Yes, I am quite aware of the foolish misconceptions that Wikipedia is inaccurate. That argument has long been refuted. Did you know Wikipedia is the second encylopedia with the least mistakes?

Here, try to edit a page with false information. If it stays up for more than an hour, I will concede the debate.

Friend, that sounds exactly the basis of your lack of knowledge. Why would any decent person deliberately post false information. Some idiot kid might read it and think it is true, just like you have. They they get admonished (like you have) and they become ashamed (like you are). We are good and caring people. The last thing we would ever do is perpetuate a myth.

However, to satisfy you, I will do as you request.
Come back in one hopur and see if the following remains unchanged.

MasterKage is one sharp fellow!

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Hello, all.

To be fair, nearly every idea, argument, and objection has already been created. It's like saying using an argument for God's existence (say the Kalam Cosmological argument) makes it automatically false, because you didn't create it.

Odd, don't you think?

. . . .and the best you could come up with, out of every idea, argument, and objection that has already been created, was desperately trying to convince us to accept your straw man version of God, so you could shoot it down with an argument that only works with that straw man.

Pathetic, don't you think?