The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[shunyadragon]

Do you share the same concepts of moving on with those who insult me, you know, the people I reply to when they slander?

Still not the topic of the thread.

 

[Audie]

I either post facts or say "I think" or "if memory serves". Again, it is a crutch to believe that all evangelicals lie, it eases your path (for now).

Oh ho ho, no you do not.

And, tres amusant, you already did it again,
with no "I think" or other qualifier.

Made something up you did,


I have never said that all evangelicals lie, nor to
I think that. How would I know?
And how would you know that I say or think or believe
that? You-just-made-it-up.

The whole crutch, ease path thing is also simply
something you made up.

Speaking, as you did elsewhere, of " those who
insult me.... slander?"

The "again" indicates you did it before and will be
doing it some more.

Sometimes it seems to me that if you fellows would
stick to things that are real, you'd have nothing
at all to say. But heck, show I am wrong sometime.

 

[Audie]

Do you share the same concepts of moving on with those who insult me, you know, the people I reply to when they slander?

If you honestly believe you have been insulted and
slandered, please identify example (s), I am sure
you will get apology if it is as you say.

If fairness, of course, you may want to keep in mind
some of the things you say, and your own capacity
to apologize.

 

[Audie]

Still not the topic of the thread.

Sorry if your thread is, to you, derailed. But nobody
has proprietary control of a thread, you know?
You might just put anyone who wont cooperate on
ig, of course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The gospel is offensive to those headed for perdition. Those who hate the gospel include people like Hitchens, who said "substitutionary atonement is the most disgusting thing," as if suffering for others is on the level of say, paedophilia. Now there's hate! Don't go there, brother!

Your comment about the small suffering of Jesus relative to the universe is thoughtful, but misses how God was split and died (separated) for us.

No, the gospels are offensive to that that can think rationally. You and I will both end up in the same place so it would be best for you to drop the "perdition" nonsense. Let's try to be honest and not offend others. Okay?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you share the same concepts of moving on with those who insult me, you know, the people I reply to when they slander?

Don't forget that verse about the beam in your own eye. You just violated that in the one that I responded to. Don't insult others and they won't insult you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The gospel is offensive to those headed for perdition. Those who hate the gospel include people like Hitchens, who said "substitutionary atonement is the most disgusting thing," as if suffering for others is on the level of say, paedophilia. Now there's hate! Don't go there, brother!

Your comment about the small suffering of Jesus relative to the universe is thoughtful, but misses how God was split and died (separated) for us.

How is being honest hate? Substitutionary atonement is a disgusting comment. What you do not seem to understand that Christianity is an immoral belief where those that "sin" do not have to account for their sins. A child molester that says "I am sorry" in his head right before he dies can be "saved", yet a person living and almost flawless life as an atheist, who takes responsibility for his own wrong doings and corrects them, is headed for "perdition" according to you. That is an evil belief.

 

[Audie]

No, the gospels are offensive to that that can think rationally. You and I will both end up in the same place so it would be best for you to drop the "perdition" nonsense. Let's try to be honest and not offend others. Okay?

Now, subz, a lot of what is in the gospel is far from
offensive.

 

[ecco]

The gospel is offensive to those headed for perdition.

What do mean "headed for perdition"? People who you think are "headed for perdition" would be people like me - atheists. The problem with you "logic" is the people like me don't give a **** about your gospel. As such, it is not something we can hate or even consider offensive. As I said three days ago...

I don't hate the Gospel. I consider it nonsense, but I don't hate it.

---------------------------------------

What, exactly, was the cost to God for putting an infinitesimally small portion of himself on earth for the blink of an eye?

Your comment about the small suffering of Jesus relative to the universe is thoughtful, but misses how God was split and died (separated) for us.

First of all, I was talking about the impact on the totality of God. God did not die.

Your belief is that God is eternal. Your belief is that a portion of your God, in the form of Jesus, lived on earth for 30 years, mostly in obscurity. Then for as couple of years preached to the masses and died on a cross. Do you know how infinitesimally small 30 years is compared to eternity? Do you know how infinitesimally minor a day on a cross is to an omnipotent being? Consider seeing a mosquito land on your arm and allowing it to bite. The pain and suffering you inflicted upon yourself is untold times worse than the pain and suffering of "God's sacrifice". It's amazing that you cannot comprehend this.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh ho ho, no you do not.

And, tres amusant, you already did it again,
with no "I think" or other qualifier.

Made something up you did,


I have never said that all evangelicals lie, nor to
I think that. How would I know?
And how would you know that I say or think or believe
that? You-just-made-it-up.

The whole crutch, ease path thing is also simply
something you made up.

Speaking, as you did elsewhere, of " those who
insult me.... slander?"

The "again" indicates you did it before and will be
doing it some more.

Sometimes it seems to me that if you fellows would
stick to things that are real, you'd have nothing
at all to say. But heck, show I am wrong sometime.

It's simple, I use me as the measuring stick, I'm consistently honest and vulnerable with you and you consistently accuse me of lying and being self-deceived and other things. Therefore...

And if you think other EVANGELICALS ARE TELLING THE TRUTH, you can go ahead and stop taking opposing sides against Christians on religious forums, and simply turn to practicing Christianity elsewhere. Be consistent. Be real.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, the gospels are offensive to that that can think rationally. You and I will both end up in the same place so it would be best for you to drop the "perdition" nonsense. Let's try to be honest and not offend others. Okay?

So... you are verifying what I wrote. The gospel offends those who are opposed to it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Don't forget that verse about the beam in your own eye. You just violated that in the one that I responded to. Don't insult others and they won't insult you.

Matthew 7 is actually saying that Christians, who've had the beam of unbelief removed and deal with an occasional speck, can correct others.

But frankly, if you are going to say that Jesus JUDGED OTHER PEOPLE ACCURATELY AND DIDN'T HAVE THE BEAM IN HIS EYE HIMSELF, WHY DON'T YOU OBEY HIM?

 

[BilliardsBall]

How is being honest hate? Substitutionary atonement is a disgusting comment. What you do not seem to understand that Christianity is an immoral belief where those that "sin" do not have to account for their sins. A child molester that says "I am sorry" in his head right before he dies can be "saved", yet a person living and almost flawless life as an atheist, who takes responsibility for his own wrong doings and corrects them, is headed for "perdition" according to you. That is an evil belief.

You are strengthening my point. You feel:

1) Eternal Hell isn't "enough" for paedophiles. (Thank God, He patiently waits for everyone to repent instead and is less harsh than you.)

2) Atheists live almost flawless lives, even if they speak against their Maker and His followers, and that "almost flawless" means they can live in a flawless utopia, while denying the Savior who died for them and RUNS THE PLACE.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What do mean "headed for perdition"? People who you think are "headed for perdition" would be people like me - atheists. The problem with you "logic" is the people like me don't give a **** about your gospel. As such, it is not something we can hate or even consider offensive. As I said three days ago...

​

---------------------------------------




First of all, I was talking about the impact on the totality of God. God did not die.

Your belief is that God is eternal. Your belief is that a portion of your God, in the form of Jesus, lived on earth for 30 years, mostly in obscurity. Then for as couple of years preached to the masses and died on a cross. Do you know how infinitesimally small 30 years is compared to eternity? Do you know how infinitesimally minor a day on a cross is to an omnipotent being? Consider seeing a mosquito land on your arm and allowing it to bite. The pain and suffering you inflicted upon yourself is untold times worse than the pain and suffering of "God's sacrifice". It's amazing that you cannot comprehend this.

I previously mentioned that the man Jesus was of infinite smallness compared to God and the totality of the universe, and also that God was split or died/separated on the cross, which is in contrast, infinitely powerful.

Of course, you can show yourself how "trivial" the cross is choosing beatings, scourging and a crucifixion should the state execute you. It's "easy", right? It's amazing that you cannot comprehend having empathy here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So... you are verifying what I wrote. The gospel offends those who are opposed to it.

No, just because people are willing to correct some of the errors in the gospels does not mean that they are against it. Jesus's teachings were not totally worthless, as you seem to think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are strengthening my point. You feel:

1) Eternal Hell isn't "enough" for paedophiles. (Thank God, He patiently waits for everyone to repent instead and is less harsh than you.)

2) Atheists live almost flawless lives, even if they speak against their Maker and His followers, and that "almost flawless" means they can live in a flawless utopia, while denying the Savior who died for them and RUNS THE PLACE.

No, I am pointing out the terrible holes in your faith. According to your beliefs a pedophile that asked for forgiveness at the end of his life would go to heaven, where an atheist that led an almost "sinless" life would go to hell. simply because your God contradicts himself so much that no sane person can believe in him. You keep painting your God as an immoral monster.

No one is "denying" a savior that is too afraid to show himself. If anything Jesus denies himself. By your logic he should be in hell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Matthew 7 is actually saying that Christians, who've had the beam of unbelief removed and deal with an occasional speck, can correct others.

But frankly, if you are going to say that Jesus JUDGED OTHER PEOPLE ACCURATELY AND DIDN'T HAVE THE BEAM IN HIS EYE HIMSELF, WHY DON'T YOU OBEY HIM?

Nope, you misunderstand that verse, but thanks for playing.

 

[ecco]

First of all, I was talking about the impact on the totality of God. God did not die.

Your belief is that God is eternal. Your belief is that a portion of your God, in the form of Jesus, lived on earth for 30 years, mostly in obscurity. Then for as couple of years preached to the masses and died on a cross. Do you know how infinitesimally small 30 years is compared to eternity? Do you know how infinitesimally minor a day on a cross is to an omnipotent being? Consider seeing a mosquito land on your arm and allowing it to bite. The pain and suffering you inflicted upon yourself is untold times worse than the pain and suffering of "God's sacrifice". It's amazing that you cannot comprehend this.

.
Of course, you can show yourself how "trivial" the cross is choosing beatings, scourging and a crucifixion should the state execute you. It's "easy", right? It's amazing that you cannot comprehend having empathy here.

You either didn't read the above or you willfully failed to comprehend it.

You say I should compare it to me getting "beatings, scourging and a crucifixion". How silly.

I correctly compared Jesus "beatings, scourging and a crucifixion" to you getting a mosquito bite. You can't even show my analogy is wrong.

 

[Audie]

It's simple, I use me as the measuring stick, I'm consistently honest and vulnerable with you and you consistently accuse me of lying and being self-deceived and other things. Therefore...

And if you think other EVANGELICALS ARE TELLING THE TRUTH, you can go ahead and stop taking opposing sides against Christians on religious forums, and simply turn to practicing Christianity elsewhere. Be consistent. Be real.

Of course; try to turn it around and make your
errors into something wrong with me, suggesting
I am inconsistent, unreal(istic?) and of course,
so unjustly accusing you of lying.

I never said you are lying. I did say you
make things up.

I often enough have said so with the example in
hand.

Perhaps if you see enough more examples you will
finally notice what you have been doing.

Oh and you could quit trying to make something
of my position about "evangelicals" which is
neutral, as stated before, on whether they "lie".

 

[Audie]

You are strengthening my point. You feel:

1) Eternal Hell isn't "enough" for paedophiles. (Thank God, He patiently waits for everyone to repent instead and is less harsh than you.)

2) Atheists live almost flawless lives, even if they speak against their Maker and His followers, and that "almost flawless" means they can live in a flawless utopia, while denying the Savior who died for them and RUNS THE PLACE.

Why do you make things up?