Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Shad]

You could of easily read what I provided in my first post. I shared it as I am currently exploring these ideas. You are not interested in a dialog, you just are looking for yes men.

 

[Bunyip]

I have put you on ignore because I choose not to enter into confrontational exchanges with you. I have some very good acquaintances on here who have not, as yet, put you on ignore. Whenever you become odiously crass and caustic I usually get a pm to that effect, otherwise you do not exist to me.

You did say that natural laws break down pre-bigbang. Here is just one of your quotes to confirm it.



And again you said it here

Um......dude! Neother of those quotes suggest that natural law breaks down pre big bang. You have proven yourself a liar by posting quotes that do not say what you claimed they did.

If you actually believe this then may I suggest you read the book "Mien Kampf"

Now please, back to the ignore list where you belong. Tattletale are too dangerous to communicate with.

I repeat, stop bearing false witness against me by lying about what i have said. You are acting like a fourth rate con artist. Supplying quotes that do not support your fraud was just pathetic.

 

[Bunyip]

Thank you, I just spilt my coffee laughing.

Indeed, sadly you seem to be incapable of shame.

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

I ask again that you stop repeating the lie that I claimed natural law breaks down pre big bang.

You have provided quotes that say no such thing, although apparently do not care for honesty.

 

[Bunyip]

Ouch.
So the fact is he did NOT say that they break down.

One wonders if you are still going to promote that particular bold faced lie.

I know, it's actually pretty shocking. He has provided quotes that prove himself wrong, but has not the wit to see it.

 

[Shad]

I find it amusing that he liked my last comment in which he is only looking for yes men not a dialog. 1) It confirms my view thus this thread should be in DIR not debates. Debates have two sides not one side agreeing with each other. 2) He didn't ignore me as he wouldn't be able to see my post nor like it. 3) Proving he is in fact a liar by 1 and 2.

 

[Serenity7855]

I find it amusing that he liked my last comment in which he is only looking for yes men not a dialog. 1) It confirms my view thus this thread should be in DIR not debates. Debates have two sides not one side agreeing with each other. 2) He didn't ignore me as he wouldn't be able to see my post nor like it. 3) Proving he is in fact a liar by 1 and 2.

How very ostentatious and fustian of you. The "like" was just me being humorously facetious. My accusation, in previous posts, that you are a narcissist makes you the person who insists on having "yes" men. And lastly, I did not say that I had put you on my ignore list, so you presume incorrectly. I said that "I think that is just about enough now of having to expose my eyes to any further eloquent guttersnipe rhetoric.There is no reason why I should maintain conversing with someone intent on being obnoxiously crass and extensively rude". I then said "I thought that as a result of your last barrage of verbal offence and abuse that I put you on my ignore list as a unsavoury rancorous character more interested in exalting himself then in any kind of debate. I cannot think why I didn't as you are on a par with the malevolent Sapiens and tattletale post of Bunyip, without a shadow of a doubt. Never mind, no harm done and it is all over and done with now. A classic demonstration of the asinine inability that you have in comprehending sufficiently enough to be in a position to debate here accurately, which then results in your acrimonious and offensive grandeloquence. You then go running to your team mates, tail tucked between legs, whimpering about me. How very sad. Did you notice that you did not get any support from him.

 

[Shad]

I thought that as a result of your last barrage of verbal offence and abuse that I put you on my ignore list as a unsavoury rancorous character more interested in exalting himself then in any kind of debate. I cannot think why I didn't as you are on a par with the malevolent Sapiens and tattletale post of Bunyip, without a shadow of a doubt. Never mind, no harm done and it is all over and done with now.

Nevermind, which implies forget the former before it especially followed by "no harm done", "it is all over". As in your previous unwillingness to ignore me has been corrected. Obvious harm was done as you wouldn't respond to my evaluation of your rather than any of my arguments about causality or your "sources" The harm to your ego must of dug deeply.

Support from whom? I put out a general notice about your dishonesty to all members not the names you happen to pick yourself. I never once mentioned anybody to you directly. I only responded to one other person besides yourself. I never invoked so called supported support of the masses like you have, what people thought of me, etc. That was you. You attempted to rally some sort of support when you couldn't form a counter-argument. Likewise it is you seeking yes men by repeated mentioning of those that agree with you, those that think you are intelligent, etc. Heck you brought up Hawking' cosmology while unaware his theory placed God as impossible. You equivocated my rebuttals of your arguments as "attack on Christianity" rather than attacks on your arguments for Christianity.When this didn't work you now attempt to switch to guilt by association. You seem to think that I hold the same opinion of these people as you do thus should feel concern about your comparison, I do not.

I still wonder when you will actually address any argument instead of attempting to repair your damaged ego.

 

[Serenity7855]

Nevermind, which implies forget the former before it especially followed by "no harm done", "it is all over". As in your previous unwillingness to ignore me has been corrected. Obvious harm was done as you wouldn't respond to my evaluation of your rather than any of my arguments about causality or your "sources" The harm to your ego must of dug deeply.

Typical of a philosopher, you read into things that which is not there. You delude yourself and in doing so try to delude others.

Support from whom? I put out a general notice about your dishonesty to all members not the names you happen to pick yourself. I never once mentioned anybody to you directly. I only responded to one other person besides yourself. I never invoked so called supported support of the masses like you have, what people thought of me, etc. That was you. You attempted to rally some sort of support when you couldn't form a counter-argument. Likewise it is you seeking yes men by repeated mentioning of those that agree with you, those that think you are intelligent, etc. Heck you brought up Hawking' cosmology while unaware his theory placed God as impossible. You equivocated my rebuttals of your arguments as "attack on Christianity" rather than attacks on your arguments for Christianity.When this didn't work you now attempt to switch to guilt by association. You seem to think that I hold the same opinion of these people as you do thus should feel concern about your comparison, I do not.

This is simply verbose nonsense in your attempt to exonerate yourself. Your post came directly after Bunyip giving the impression that you were indeed conversing with him, as you did not state that you were addressing all posters in general, one must assume that it was Bunyip, the previous poster, who you were addressing.. If you were addressing everyone then why didn't you address it everyone?

 

[Shad]

Typical of a philosopher, you read into things that which is not there. You delude yourself and in doing so try to delude others.



This is simply verbose nonsense in your attempt to exonerate yourself. Your post came directly after Bunyip giving the impression that you were indeed conversing with him, as you did not state that you were addressing all posters in general, one must assume that it was Bunyip, the previous poster, who you were addressing.. If you were addressing everyone then why didn't you address it everyone?

Still not addressing any of my arguments only my evaluations of you.

A thread follows a linear system, old to new. So it is not out of the ordinary for a newer post to follow an older post. When I wish to address a certain person I use the reply system which automatically provides a quote. When I make a general statement I do not.

 

[Serenity7855]

Still not addressing any of my arguments only my evaluations of you.

A thread follows a linear system, old to new. So it is not out of the ordinary for a newer post to follow an older post. When I wish to address a certain person I use the reply system which automatically provides a quote. When I make a general statement I do not.

An you expect everyone to know your system of posting. You should state to whom you are posting so we all know. Your system, like most of your opinions and beliefs, are in error and are misleading. Just like my other thread, and just like the narcissist that you are, the last say must be yours, well, go right ahead and take it.

 

[crazyrussian]

"He said that he found himself in the presence of God. Now, anyone who knows scriptures would know that it is impossible for a Spirit to be in the presence of God, pre-judgement. Anyone who is familiar with the Plan of Salvation would also know that his claim was fallacious. .

Don't Christians claim Jesus is God? Were not the disciples in his presence while he was on earth? This of course begs to question how one of the apostles of Jesus said he could see Jesus sitting at the right hand of the father as he was being stoned.. Stephen I think...

Sounds like a bunch of acid trippers that got to much attention to me.

 

[McBell]

An you expect everyone to know your system of posting. You should state to whom you are posting so we all know. Your system, like most of your opinions and beliefs, are in error and are misleading. Just like my other thread, and just like the narcissist that you are, the last say must be yours, well, go right ahead and take it.

Are you ever going to address the arguments?

 

[Shad]

An you expect everyone to know your system of posting. You should state to whom you are posting so we all know. Your system, like most of your opinions and beliefs, are in error and are misleading. Just like my other thread, and just like the narcissist that you are, the last say must be yours, well, go right ahead and take it.

It is not my system of posting. This is how a debates are done, how one examines and evaluates a view as justified or unjustified. You should of learned this in post-secondary institutions, if in fact you went to one. It is taught at high-school up here... Whom I am talking to is clear, when there is a quote I am talking to someone. When I am not direct or talking in general I do not use quotes. This is your defense now? You can not tell the difference between a post with a quote and one without? You will find any hole you can find in order to avoid defending or admitting your sources were not studies but random Goggle hits. What is hilarious is that you cry ad hominem so you do have a basic idea behind arguments however misapplied your crying wolf is. So really your whining is just another dodge to avoid defending points you made.

 

[Serenity7855]

Don't Christians claim Jesus is God? Were not the disciples in his presence while he was on earth? This of course begs to question how one of the apostles of Jesus said he could see Jesus sitting at the right hand of the father as he was being stoned.. Stephen I think...

Sounds like a bunch of acid trippers that got to much attention to me.

Can I just make one point crystal clear for you. God is a logical, rational being. A being of order and structure. There is no errors in his Plan of Redemption. There is no magic involved in what he does. He is the master scientists and everything that we now know comes directly from him, through his Holy Ghost, who influences the hearts and minds of our scientists, who then thank him by claiming he does not exist. What you read in his scriptures is his literal word having no hidden elucidation or connotations. It was compiled for everyone, regardless of their level of intellect, to read and understand without looking for hidden meanings.

If, as you say, Stephen saw Jesus sat on the right side of God, as he looked into the vision of heaven, and you are correct, it was Stephen, so if we believe in the literal word of God, which I do, then that account must be true and accurate, well then how on earth could Jesus and God be the same person if Stephen saw two separate and distinct personages? Surely that is illogical and clearly not the case. God is logical in his dealing with mankind so it seems that someone has gotten something wrong. Who could that be. Well, it is the nicene creed, created by the founding forefathers, that is completely and utterly wrong, and was obviously caused by the influence of the devil. It is nothing short of false doctrine and anyone who claims it to be true does not have the spirit of God with them, or the spirit of discernment.

Jesus Christ's and God's words are plain and simple, even when they speaks in allegories and parables. If it does not say that eating bananas is bad for you then it is not. It does not say anywhere in his words that He and his son are one entity. That is man's interpretations, or extrapolations, of his word. By following that idea is not keeping to the teachings of Christ, which is a prerequisite to claiming the title of being a Christian. If you take this to be true then taking acid is exactly what you have been doing. It is not true, it is false doctrine and anyone who actually believes in such fantasy is not a Christian.

 

[Serenity7855]

It is not my system of posting. This is how a debates are done, how one examines and evaluates a view as justified or unjustified. You should of learned this in post-secondary institutions, if in fact you went to one. It is taught at high-school up here... Whom I am talking to is clear, when there is a quote I am talking to someone. When I am not direct or talking in general I do not use quotes. This is your defense now? You can not tell the difference between a post with a quote and one without? You will find any hole you can find in order to avoid defending or admitting your sources were not studies but random Goggle hits. What is hilarious is that you cry ad hominem so you do have a basic idea behind arguments however misapplied your crying wolf is. So really your whining is just another dodge to avoid defending points you made.

When I am talking to someone I to use the quotes, within which is the exact person name to whom I am addressing. When I am talking in general I do not use the quotes but I address my post to "everyone" or "to whom it may concern" so that there cannot be any mistake to whom I am talking to. It is just a matter of being polite and exact. I have never had a single complaint using that method in the five years I have been debating. Could that be that I have never conversed with someone quite as pernickety as you are or is it a narcissistic trait?

Please be aware. I am in the UK. Our education system is superior in many ways to that of Canada because it has, or had, a different structure. I went to university in 1995 as well. I left Secondary Mondern in 1970. Lastly, there is no such thing as "post-secondary institutions" in Great Britain.

If you did not use so many ad hominems and not try quite so desperately to dishonestly discredit and ridicule me, I would not complain, but your post is riddled with very odiously malicious and churlish grandiloquence so I feel that i need to draw attention to it for the sake of other posters that you may come into contact with. You need to remove that chip from your shoulder and start to talk to christians, in particular, with a higher degree of courtesy and decorum. May be a course on anger management may be of benefit to you?

 

[Shad]

My post was clearly to the general audience that was reading.

Post-secondary is the last 4 years, usually, of formal education. Collage, academies, university, etc all fall under post-secondary. These are all over the UK.

Your inability to spot fallacious reasoning followed about the amount of complaining rather than considering why led to me questioning your abilities. You took any level of scrutiny to be an attack on your religion rather than your ability to argue a point. This was also true for your science claims. When investigate, actual studies not websites, the conclusion being put forward did not match the conclusion on the websites. Instead of analysis the scrutiny you became defensive again. I attempted to talk with a neutral tone in my first post. You respond completely off-topic and never even looked at the work of the people I cited. You employed a use of a double-standard. When science bolstered your faith it was acceptable. If it did not suddenly science is not in this thread. Your hypocritical and inconsistence arguments led to my conclusions of you I have no anger issues as I was able to stay on topic while evaluating your character. You on the other hand only responded to the evaluation. While not an anger issue this is defiantly a sign that you can not separate your emotions from your arguments and that of your religion.

 

[Serenity7855]

My post was clearly to the general audience that was reading.

Post-secondary is the last 4 years, usually, of formal education. Collage, academies, university, etc all fall under post-secondary. These are all over the UK.

Your inability to spot fallacious reasoning followed about the amount of complaining rather than considering why led to me questioning your abilities. You took any level of scrutiny to be an attack on your religion rather than your ability to argue a point. This was also true for your science claims. When investigate, actual studies not websites, the conclusion being put forward did not match the conclusion on the websites. Instead of analysis the scrutiny you became defensive again. I attempted to talk with a neutral tone in my first post. You respond completely off-topic and never even looked at the work of the people I cited. You employed a use of a double-standard. When science bolstered your faith it was acceptable. If it did not suddenly science is not in this thread. Your hypocritical and inconsistence arguments led to my conclusions of you I have no anger issues as I was able to stay on topic while evaluating your character. You on the other hand only responded to the evaluation. While not an anger issue this is defiantly a sign that you can not separate your emotions from your arguments and that of your religion.

Same reply applies. I do not value your opinions so anything dishonestly and falsely said about my person is irrelevant to me. I know different and I know that you are a troll

When I am talking to someone I to use the quotes, within which is the exact person name to whom I am addressing. When I am talking in general I do not use the quotes but I address my post to "everyone" or "to whom it may concern" so that there cannot be any mistake to whom I am talking to. It is just a matter of being polite and exact. I have never had a single complaint using that method in the five years I have been debating. Could that be that I have never conversed with someone quite as pernickety as you are or is it a narcissistic trait?

Please be aware. I am in the UK. Our education system is superior in many ways to that of Canada because it has, or had, a different structure. I went to university in 1995 as well. I left Secondary Mondern in 1970. Lastly, there is no such thing as "post-secondary institutions" in Great Britain.

If you did not use so many ad hominems and not try quite so desperately to dishonestly discredit and ridicule me, I would not complain, but your post is riddled with very odiously malicious and churlish grandiloquence so I feel that i need to draw attention to it for the sake of other posters that you may come into contact with. You need to remove that chip from your shoulder and start to talk to christians, in particular, with a higher degree of courtesy and decorum. May be a course on anger management may be of benefit to you?

 

[Bunyip]

This thread is a catastrophy

 

[McBell]

Are you ever going to address the arguments?

Good thing we are not holding our breath waiting for you to address the arguments.