How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[Subduction Zone]

That is called deflection since you cannot refute what he said. If he had no point you should be able to explain why he had no point, but you cannot do that so instead of debating you deflect.

And you just showed that you do not understand what deflection is. There was nothing there to refute. It did not help his claims at all. The argument was so weak that a "So what?" refuted it. Meanwhile you keep running away from an offered discussion. That is arguably deflection.

You should not use terms that you do not understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

Many here who say they're Christian will only say the Bible is filled with myths. They will not go into depth insofar as I have seen.

 

[Trailblazer]

LMAO!! I just offered to discuss it with you and you just ran away.

I never ran away. I have been here all along.

Once again are you open to discussion?

Yes, but a discussion goes back and forth and it has substance.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have been offering to do just that. You keep running away.

I never ran away.
Talk is cheap.
Can you explain why the arguments that @dybmh made failed?
Please break it down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many here who say they're Christian will only say the Bible is filled with myths. They will not go into depth insofar as I have seen.

People have tried to help you countless times. They have gone into depth. What does the Bible call it when one makes false claims about others?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never ran away. I have been here all along.

You are not participating in the discussion that I have offered. That is running away. You do that quite often.

Yes, but a discussion goes back and forth and it has substance.

Yes, and that is what I have been trying to start since neither of you two can understand why your arguments fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never ran away.
Talk is cheap.
Can you explain why the arguments that @dybmh made failed?
Please break it down.

And you continue to run away.

You need to agree to a discussion when you have been actively running away. I am not going to lecture into the air.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh and will bring up all sorts of criticism about the Bible even though they may attend church services.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you just showed that you do not understand what deflection is. There was nothing there to refute. It did not help his claims at all. The argument was so weak that a "So what?" refuted it. Meanwhile you keep running away from an offered discussion. That is arguably deflection.

You should not use terms that you do not understand.

When you say "there was nothing there to refute" instead of trying to refute what he said that is deflection.
He said something, he did not say nothing. You cannot refute what he said so instead you deflect.

"The argument was so weak that a "So what?" refuted it" is deflection, not refutation.
You should not use terms that you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you say "there was nothing there to refute" instead of trying to refute what he said that is deflection.
He said something, he did not say nothing. You cannot refute what he said so instead you deflect.

"The argument was so weak that a "So what?" refuted it" is deflection, not refutation.
You should not use terms that you do not understand.

The point is that there was nothing there to refute. It was mere handwaving that did not support him.

And you continue to run away. i am very amused.

I bet that you will deny running away again.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you continue to run away.

You need to agree to a discussion when you have been actively running away. I am not going to lecture into the air.

I never ran away. I'm right here, I have been all along. Everyone can see that.

So far, I have not seen you address what I said in post #1,000

That is what I consider 'running away' so you are projecting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never ran away. I'm right here, I have been all along. Everyone can see that.

So far, I have not seen you address what I said in post #1,000

That is what I consider 'running away' so you are projecting.

Since you have not agreed to the discussion that I offered that is running away. Haven't you ever seen a little child run away in circles? Just because one is running in circles does not mean that you are not running away.

And look! I made a prophecy and it was confirmed. I wonder if that makes me god? I sure hope not. It sounds like a lot of responsibility.

And you are forgetting that you demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of deflection.

 

[Trailblazer]

The point is that there was nothing there to refute.

There was something to refute, but apparently you cannot refute it so you run away.

@dybmh said:
You still didn't answer the question. My claim is below. Notice that no limitation on either God's omniscience or free-will has been produced.

When an individual makes a choice they are transferred into the timeline where the predetermined consequences occur.

Why can't you refute that? Why do you run away?

And you continue to run away. i am very amused.

I bet that you will deny running away again.

All you are doing is embarrassing yourself. I never ran away. Everyone on this forum knows I never run away from an argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was something to refute, but apparently you cannot refute it so you run away.

@dybmh said:
You still didn't answer the question. My claim is below. Notice that no limitation on either God's omniscience or free-will has been produced.

When an individual makes a choice they are transferred into the timeline where the predetermined consequences occur.

Why can't you refute that? Why do you run away?

All you are doing is embarrassing yourself. I never ran away. Everyone on this forum knows I never run away from an argument.

Thee is nothing there to refute. The silly claim does not help him. That is why it is a "So what?" argument. There was no need to refute it any more than that. It makes no difference if that claim is true or false. It does not help him in any way. He needs to show how that helps him even if it was true.

Meanwhile you continue to run away.

 

[Trailblazer]

Since you have not agreed to the discussion that I offered that is running away.

I did agree to that discussion last Sunday.

Here is the proof:
I went back and reviewed the posts and I can see that a discussion had started when it was interrupted.
I will be glad to continue the discussion. #359

However, you never came back for the discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did agree to that discussion last Sunday.

Yes, you did. But then we were rudely interrupted and you appear to be cheering that individual on. Was it because you knew that you were going to lose?

Here is the proof:
I went back and reviewed the posts and I can see that a discussion had started when it was interrupted.
I will be glad to continue the discussion. #359

However, you never came back for the discussion.

I have been offering to get back to it countless times but you continue to run away. All you have to agree is to continue.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thee is nothing there to refute. The silly claim does not help him. That is why it is a "So what?" argument. There was no need to refute it any more than that. It makes no difference if that claim is true or false. It does not help him in any way. He needs to show how that helps him even if it was true.

No, you have that backwards. @dybmh already did his work when he presented his argument Now instead of trying to refute what he said you say "So what?" There is no attempt at a debate, only running away from it.

Meanwhile you continue to run away.

Carry on. I guess you like to embarrass yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you did. But then we were rudely interrupted and you appear to be cheering that individual on. Was it because you knew that you were going to lose?

Who I was 'cheering on' is completely irrelevant so it was a red herring. I am afraid of nothing except God.

I have been offering to get back to it countless times but you continue to run away. All you have to agree is to continue.

I have never run away. Just look at all the posts I have posted on this thread!

 

[Trailblazer]

I have been offering to get back to it countless times but you continue to run away. All you have to agree is to continue.

I agree to continue, so now the ball is in your court.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you have that backwards. @dybmh already did his work when he presented his argument Now instead of trying to refute what he said you say "So what?" There is no attempt at a debate, only running away from it.

No, that was refuted. You and he did not understand the refutation. All he had was denial and he kept using his old refuted argument. He too is afraid to have a conversation that would show him to be wrong. You will note that you could not explain how that claim helped him at all. Like I said, it was a "So what?" argument.

Carry on. I guess you like to embarrass yourself.

Oh my. Now you are making false personal attacks. Have you forgotten how your own denial and inability to debate means that you are the one that should be embarrased.

But let's get started. If God is omniscient does that mean that he would know everything? Including which path a person would take in the weak claim of dybmh? He himself admitted that God would know, I just need your confirmation.