Question to Atheists

[razeontherock]

if you see someone growing without being educated into a certain religion, and let that person go study, by the time he's 14 he will never be converted.

By intellect, no one is converted. If the person you describe actually meets G-d, they are!

Jesus didn't teach such a thing.

This is not a reasonable statement, since you are referring to Love. You don't even develop this idea, but merely deflect. How is this respectable? There's not that much to read, to acquaint yourself with the concepts.

I mean, are you talking about Matt 7:1,2 where the judging of other is forbiden? Or are you talking about 1 Cor 6:2-4 where it's allowed?
Are you seeing the problem with the Bible's teachings? They kinda contradict themselves.

No they don't, you just haven't yet applied yourself to understanding it.

Christ also told his followers that they should not fear being killed (Luke 12:4) and then he fears being killed (John 7:1).

C'mon, this isn't that hard to understand. How do you conflate the right time to die, with fear?

Not to talk about all the unbased [sic] descrimination [sic] (that in some cases go as far as torture and killings by order of God) against gays, prostitutes and whiches. Or am I supposed to ignore that?

Torture? You don't find that. Neither do you find discrimination. What you find, is prohibited practices. And you don't know why, do you? And yet you come away from the test convinced you have understanding of it? How does this get confused for integrity? You can do better.

since Jesus and God are equals.

This is not a comment that comes from understanding

 

[razeontherock]

Christianity - it's the only religion whose God can't actually exist.

LOLWUT? You know you can't get by with a cheap shot like that. You do realize we're not just talking theology here, but we are people who actually know G-d, right? In a literal life and death sense?

-> I avoid a certain place out of fear and fear only. If it was widsom, the same widsom could be used to ally whoever was in there. It's fear. "After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him". It's pretty clear. It's fear.

That is what is called a "just so" argument. It is a logical fallacy. You also make no sense because He did exactly what you say He was afraid of. Back to the drawing board ...

-> "Do not judge, or you too will be judged". Sounds like judging isn't allowed to me.

How is this understanding the contradiction you complain of? Are you assuming this was originally written in English? We are not to condemn, but we are to discern. That was really above your intellectual capacity? (I don't believe that) I mean, if you just don't get it, and you don't want to put the time in to find it, fine. But then to pretend you understand it and dismiss it on that basis of ignorance?

And yes, my science says there are no things that can be one and separated at the same time. It hasn't been logically/phyisically proven possible. So your trinity is still a contradiction. And "not knowing how it works" doesn't support it is possible. If you don't know how it works, and it can't be proven real, it can't be considered real.

Same concept applies. You don't understand it, therefore "it can't be!"

Do you have any idea what the doctrine of Trinity is even for? What happened to you addressing the question, which is do you criticize Jesus' teaching on Love?

-> Matt, Mark (not sure I'm getting the names right, as I don't owe an english bible version. I'm searching the Internet one but I'm not sure if I'm getting this right) and Lucas agree that Jesus died in a Friday. John says it was in the day before.

We could spend 100 pages discussing this, and it's got NOTHING TO DO WITH anything that matters! Everyone agrees Jesus was killed at the same time as the Passover Lambs, and seen by those in the process. Various calendars were in use at the time, each with their own problems, none of which relate to our modern calendar, and for good reason.

How bout dealing with the topic at hand, which is the Love of Jesus? Matthew chapter 5. John 17.

-> Lucas and Matt don't agree about Jesus' birth; both the town where he was born and the town to which his family ran are different in both cases.
-> All the four disagree when they talk about who was with Mary when she left the empty Tomb.

So what? You have different witnesses, some details will differ. All this shows is the record has been preserved with the utmost integrity.

-> All the sexual abuse; child abuse and slavery in the Old Testament.

1) None of this has anything to do with what was asked, which is the Love that Jesus taught. How can you feel qualified to opine, when you don't know how to distinguish between the old and new Covenants?

2) Engaging all arguments at once is not productive. There are entire threads on each of these subjects, if you want to understand what is being said.

a group of Jesus' followers hides in a cave. They don't know how to write so they start sharing Jesus' stories between them, orally, while waiting for Him to come back.

What do your morbid fantasies have to do with the thread, or anything else?
Oh, and then:

These are historical facts.

No, that is ignorance.

]Matthew 6:5-6 [/B]Jesus says there can be no public prayer.

No He doesn't. Your problem is you're confusing the Covenants. You are mistakenly trying to reduce the Gospel to law, so instead of understanding what is said you merely deduce a rule.

Salvation doesn't come by following rules! This is a spiritual condition

 

[razeontherock]

The doccument Codex Vaticanus is the oldest copy of the Bible and has some reports of errors on its pages.

the death of Jesus happened about 50 copies after the Codex Vaticanus. It's fake.

That's LATIN. The Bible was never translated into Latin for 100's of years You do realize there are people on this very forum, who's native language is the same that the NT was written in, right?

All of what you've said has been traced to the brain. It's proved.

This is not disputed, neither does how the wonderful way we are made address the topic at hand, which is that you have no idea of Jesus' central teaching.

When it's divinely inspired, everything must be perfect. Otherwise either your God isn't perfect or He doesn't exist.

This is a horrible distortion of logic! Our perception will never be better than our understanding, which will always be limited. You can not arrive at your conclusion w/o being unreasonable! You can grow in understanding though. And examining Jesus' teaching on Love is a very good place to start.

 

[Grizzly]

LOLWUT? You know you can't get by with a cheap shot like that. You do realize we're not just talking theology here, but we are people who actually know G-d, right? In a literal life and death sense?

The comment that the Christian God can't exist is not a cheap shot - it's actually seen as one of the most common logical problems in Christianity (as seen by outsiders).

For example, it's not possible to be omniscient and omnipotent. It's also not possible to be 100% man and 100% God at the same time and in the same respect, because man and God have properties that are mutually exclusive.

Oh, its also not possible to be all-merciful and all-just at that same time either. Because sometimes justice and mercy require different actions. So a being (even God) cannot be simultaneously both all-merciful and all-just.

 

[razeontherock]

For example, it's not possible to be omniscient and omnipotent.

Pure and utter nonsense, that has been refuted so many times already. You really insist to beat this dead horse? How many clubs do we need?

Omnipotent doesn't mean capable of doing what is logically impossible. That alone is really all it takes to overturn your canard.

It's also not possible to be 100% man and 100% God at the same time and in the same respect

That's why He's not G-d in the same sense He's man. That's really too hard for you to grasp?

because man and God have properties that are mutually exclusive.

No, we don't. This is the significance of the Incarnation, which really IS beyond your capacity to grasp, so I'll cut you some slack on this one. Faithful and devout Christians can pursue this for their whole lives, with more yet to learn; don't let that stop you from starting the process though!

 

[Grizzly]

Pure and utter nonsense, that has been refuted so many times already. You really insist to beat this dead horse? How many clubs do we need?

Omnipotent doesn't mean capable of doing what is logically impossible. That alone is really all it takes to overturn your canard.

You misunderstand - its not possible to be omniscient AND omnipotent. At the same time.

That's why He's not G-d in the same sense He's man. That's really too hard for you to grasp?

You may as well have just typed gibberish. The only way an entity can be God and Man at the same time is to redefine either God or man. Then words lose their meanings and you may as well just type nonsense.

No, we don't. This is the significance of the Incarnation, which really IS beyond your capacity to grasp, so I'll cut you some slack on this one. Faithful and devout Christians can pursue this for their whole lives, with more yet to learn; don't let that stop you from starting the process though!

It's not just beyond my capacity to grasp. It's NOT GRASPABLE. I would pity anyone who would waste the one life they had trying to ponder the square circle. Truly worthy of pity.

 

[Grizzly]

Oh and there's so much more.

Can an God be all-merciful and all-loving if he designed existence so that Hell exists where souls are tortured forever? I know raging sinners that are more loving than that.

 

[LostWarrior]

As part of your case to disprove God, you are using bible verses. Now you say you don't even need to know what you are talking about to prove your point?

This is certainly not the science you boasted about earlier.

I'm confused, is this strong atheism or weak atheism?



I don't know what you mean by "taking your case as a whole". Age is not something you should hide behind if you say something irrational.



I strongly suspect these are not your own conclusions, but the conclusions of others which you agree with. I don't have a problem with that, except when I ask you for more details, you are not able to give them, because they are not your conclusions.

For example, who made these "reports"? If the documents are locked away in the vatican, how could someone report them? Is it okay to question these reports as "man-made stories" since they are also the witness of men, much like the bible?

What are the reported errors? Do these errors go beyond anything more significant than the difference between Thursday and Friday or what someone had for breakfast as opposed to lunch 2000 years ago?



This is vague, to say the least. What does "50 copies after the codex" mean? HOW does that prove the death of Jesus to be fake? Can you see how you've given nearly zero details?

Sure, I could race off to search for all these details on the net, but why should I try to make your point for you?



I was not questioning where our thoughts come from. I was questioning why you overlook huge issues like greed and love, so that you can focus on minor details like days of the week in order to discredit the teachings of Jesus.

For example, lets say I agree to give a donation to a specific charity on Thursday. Afterwards, it is reported in the charity's newsletter that I gave the donation on Friday. Is it a lie? Should people logically conclude that the donation never actually happened?

Should people reasonably conclude that I don't exist?



Ahh, how delightfully ironic; God is not allowed to exist unless he meets the requirements of a person who doesn't acknowledge his existence anyway!

If I tell you my life story, and you later feel inspired to write it into a book so that you can share it with others, but you get a few of the details wrong, does that mean I failed to inspire you, or that you were never inspired by me?

"Inspired" does not mean "infallible". I sometimes feel inspired when I post on this forum, but that does not mean I do so perfectly, without any mistake. Sometimes I am unclear, or impatient, or proud, or foolish, but I can still be inspired, too.

No. You see, the problem with trying to disprove God through Bible is that you can't. I'm only proving that God is immoral. If I wanted to disprove him, I'd never talk about the Bible - I'd wait until you did and then ask you to support its existance. And guess what, you wouldn't be able to.

No, age isn't something to hide behind. But there are lots of more experienced atheists with the respective education that can destroy your arguments in a matter of seconds. What I'm saying is that comparing my lack of experience with them is foolish.


The doccuments are locked away but with enough qualifications and contacts you can photograph and have access to them. Lots of Bishops have and took pictures and copied it. The errors are simply words in Hebraic that don't have any proper translation to other languages. So they create an aproximate word and the problem begins...
Of course that when a doccument older than the Codex including new stories, and those stories aren't writen in the same way that the rest of the book (this happened with Paul and Matt), the stories are considered fake. Such thing has happened to the death and the "back to life" (missing the word) of Jesus.

I'll give you my source for all of this: "The Priests who Betrayed Jesus". It was writen by a cult of priests that are part of the people who edit and create the Bible. Does that qualify as enough to you?

Are you joking now? If you are an all-powerful, all-good being and you tell me a story of your life where you give away VERY wrong details along with HUGE ammounts of immorality... Yea, I think I'd start to wonder about your qualities...

 

[razeontherock]

You misunderstand - its not possible to be omniscient AND omnipotent. At the same time.

I do not misunderstand. You fail to take into account any sensible definition. You might as well saying red can't be a ladder. Besides, the Bible doesn't teach omnipotence in the first place! Your assertion really is pure canard

The only way an entity can be God and Man at the same time is to redefine either God or man.

It's called "transcendance," in some circles. The reality is you don't know what either IS. (Especially the G-d part)

It's not just beyond my capacity to grasp. It's NOT GRASPABLE. I would pity anyone who would waste the one life they had trying to ponder the square circle. Truly worthy of pity.

It's not an impossibility at all, but you are allowed to your own opinions. What you're not allowed to do, is come onto CF to bash Christians. Sometimes people pine away for the lost days of GA, which you walked straight into that rule violation. This little foray makes me see why policy changed; you can't even go 2 posts w/o stooping to this?

Can an God be all-merciful and all-loving if he designed existence so that Hell exists where souls are tortured forever?

1) G-d is not all merciful

2) G-d is not all loving

3) Judgment is real, even when it's harsh. This is a strong and repetitive theme throughout the Bible; not really any way to miss that.

4) Eternal torment (ET) has never been accepted across all of Christendom, so you've got yourself more canard there. Maybe you can make yourself a custard with it or something? It's not good for much else

 

[LostWarrior]

By intellect, no one is converted. If the person you describe actually meets G-d, they are!



This is not a reasonable statement, since you are referring to Love. You don't even develop this idea, but merely deflect. How is this respectable? There's not that much to read, to acquaint yourself with the concepts.



No they don't, you just haven't yet applied yourself to understanding it.



C'mon, this isn't that hard to understand. How do you conflate the right time to die, with fear?



Torture? You don't find that. Neither do you find discrimination. What you find, is prohibited practices. And you don't know why, do you? And yet you come away from the test convinced you have understanding of it? How does this get confused for integrity? You can do better.



This is not a comment that comes from understanding

How can one meet God? Are you saying he is a person? You do realize what comes with that right?


You lost me with that "love" talk. If I say you to judge others, there is no love.
Simple, isn't it?

When you "you just haven't yet applied yourself to understand it" you are now drifting away from the Bible. Are you a fundamentalist? If you are, you can't do that - it's right there, black in white.
If you aren't, then I don't know why we are considering the Bible in the first place. In a formal debate, I would now ask you to support that the Bible is true.
Also, robbery is commanded through the Bible. By the same logic, am I able to say "Yea, God said you can't rob, but then he commands it and forgives it. So he wasn't truly saying you can't rob. You just haven't applied yourself enough to -"?

If my father was an all-powerful being, owner of the Universe, and I was his son, with infinite widsom, would I need to be afraid enough of death not to go to a town.
Nahh... I don't find torture in Egypt (that is, if you ignore all the plagues). I don't find torture in houses of prostitutes that were (thanks to God) shattered down in the Old Testament.

And about Jesus and God being equals... I gave you the verse. Go check it out.

 

[candle glow]

HI razed,

Thanks for those comments. Maybe I can be the softy now!
hi lost,

You've been given a lot of criticism in a short time. Two against one isn't all that fun, either but I think you could significantly reduce those criticisms by trying to be a bit more reasonable in your arguments, or limit your arguments to 2 or 3 of what you feel are your strongest arguments.

By doing it this way, we can have a decent exchange without tripping off in all directions on a large variety of issues. I did this when I questioned you about any teachings of Jesus you feel that you CAN agree with, specifically regarding teachings about love.

For me, I feel this is an area where I have the strongest case so of course it is what I want to discuss.

My reasoning is that a theological belief in God is not necessary to practice showing love towards others. If we can find some common ground in showing love towards others, then we have a basis for discussing Jesus' teachings quite apart from divinity etc.

My purpose is not to convert you ( or anyone, really) to Christianity in the traditional sense, but to encourage a greater appreciation for the practical teachings of Jesus on HOW to show love.

So, we both come to the table with our most significant arguments. I've expressed mine, but I'm not quite sure what yours are. Shall we try it this way?

 

[candle glow]

seems a lot of posting is happening at the same time.

I'll wait for lost to respond to me previous post to see where we should start.

That's why He's not G-d in the same sense He's man. That's really too hard for you to grasp?

Personally, I also have a difficult time trying to grasp the concept of being 1 and 2 at the same time.

However, I don't feel that my inability to understand it is reason enough to dismiss it as impossible or whatever.

It's not consistent with a science based approach to dismiss something as impossible simply because we do not have an explanation for how it is possible. It begins to look like the respectability of science is used more as a convenient way to dismiss the unknown than to explore it.

Perhaps it's part of the "winning through losing" concept Jesus was so keen on, that a Christian can say "I don't know" but an atheist cannot.

ps bedtime now so I won't be back 'till tomorrow. Thanks for the chat everyone.

 

[LostWarrior]

LOLWUT? You know you can't get by with a cheap shot like that. You do realize we're not just talking theology here, but we are people who actually know G-d, right? In a literal life and death sense?



That is what is called a "just so" argument. It is a logical fallacy. You also make no sense because He did exactly what you say He was afraid of. Back to the drawing board ...



How is this understanding the contradiction you complain of? Are you assuming this was originally written in English? We are not to condemn, but we are to discern. That was really above your intellectual capacity? (I don't believe that) I mean, if you just don't get it, and you don't want to put the time in to find it, fine. But then to pretend you understand it and dismiss it on that basis of ignorance?



Same concept applies. You don't understand it, therefore "it can't be!"

Do you have any idea what the doctrine of Trinity is even for? What happened to you addressing the question, which is do you criticize Jesus' teaching on Love?



We could spend 100 pages discussing this, and it's got NOTHING TO DO WITH anything that matters! Everyone agrees Jesus was killed at the same time as the Passover Lambs, and seen by those in the process. Various calendars were in use at the time, each with their own problems, none of which relate to our modern calendar, and for good reason.

How bout dealing with the topic at hand, which is the Love of Jesus? Matthew chapter 5. John 17.



So what? You have different witnesses, some details will differ. All this shows is the record has been preserved with the utmost integrity.



1) None of this has anything to do with what was asked, which is the Love that Jesus taught. How can you feel qualified to opine, when you don't know how to distinguish between the old and new Covenants?

2) Engaging all arguments at once is not productive. There are entire threads on each of these subjects, if you want to understand what is being said.



What do your morbid fantasies have to do with the thread, or anything else?
Oh, and then:


No, that is ignorance.



No He doesn't. Your problem is you're confusing the Covenants. You are mistakenly trying to reduce the Gospel to law, so instead of understanding what is said you merely deduce a rule.

Salvation doesn't come by following rules! This is a spiritual condition

Christians give their God qualities that contradict themselves. The Christianity has within itself several groups with different believes. The Christianity has a God that contradicts his own Holy Book. Therefore, Christianity is based on nothing and is easily destroyed.

I've went through that Jesus and fear part 3 times. I think it's enough.

I lol'ed at the part where you say we can't get the literal meaning of a non-English translation. You have just gave everyone a free pass to ignore the Bible - since nothing in it was originally writen in english .

The part of "You don't understand it, therefore it can't be" got me lost too. I don't truly understand gravity. I don't truly understand Quantum Mechanics and its relationship with General Relativity. Therefore nothing exists, right?
No! You can prove - and see the effects of - athoms, and General Relativity (which has a lot to do with gravity). If you were to unite this three in a Theory of Everything (so far we have String Theory; still to prove) you would still be able this 3 things are one by the effects it has in our world. Even if you didn't understand it, it would be provable. That doesn't happen with trinity.

Topic at hand is the Bible. You don't get to chose what to talk about just because some parts of it don't fit your model of your perfect Holy Book. If you have 3 persons that are followers of a man perfoming miracles and 1 of them disagrees with the other 2 about a date, then something is wrong - and it isn't the calendeers.
In a search for a perfect Holy Book, I'd recommend you become a Buddhist

"Some details differ" wait... Whaa? So the son of the creator of the Universe is born in two different places and his family runs away for two different places... And this doesn't matter at all? Guess what. If a plane crashes today in Mexico and there are 3 people watching, I doubt one of them would say the plane actually crashed in Washigton. It would be kinda funny, tho.

Again, you don't get to chose the topics, especially because you were not even included in this particular discussion.

Yea, so I read books writen by priests and people that agree with you and they are actually the ones saying this. And you come and say "bunch of ignorants". Well done. Well done.

Also, when Jesus teaches, it is supposed to be a Law. Otherwise you are going to have to go, as a Christian, to all those threads created by theists who are afraid of Hell because something Jesus taught, and tell them what they deserve to hear.

 

[LostWarrior]

That's LATIN. The Bible was never translated into Latin for 100's of years You do realize there are people on this very forum, who's native language is the same that the NT was written in, right?



This is not disputed, neither does how the wonderful way we are made address the topic at hand, which is that you have no idea of Jesus' central teaching.



This is a horrible distortion of logic! Our perception will never be better than our understanding, which will always be limited. You can not arrive at your conclusion w/o being unreasonable! You can grow in understanding though. And examining Jesus' teaching on Love is a very good place to start.

I'd like you to go to Vatican imediatly and tell them you actually found a copy older than the Codex and that's not writen in Latin. Hurry!


Stop chosing the topics that fit you. Next time you see a debate on TV and they are talking about the Bible, if they stop and tak about love but then keep moving, you can't tell them "Hey, guys, what's wrong with you? Stop debating about everything and let's all get stuck in a circular argument about this particular thing. Don't worry; I'm not in a rush".

"You can't arrive at your conclusion without being unreasonable". You surely have your way with words.

 

[LostWarrior]

HI razed,

Thanks for those comments. Maybe I can be the softy now!
hi lost,

You've been given a lot of criticism in a short time. Two against one isn't all that fun, either but I think you could significantly reduce those criticisms by trying to be a bit more reasonable in your arguments, or limit your arguments to 2 or 3 of what you feel are your strongest arguments.

By doing it this way, we can have a decent exchange without tripping off in all directions on a large variety of issues. I did this when I questioned you about any teachings of Jesus you feel that you CAN agree with, specifically regarding teachings about love.

For me, I feel this is an area where I have the strongest case so of course it is what I want to discuss.

My reasoning is that a theological belief in God is not necessary to practice showing love towards others. If we can find some common ground in showing love towards others, then we have a basis for discussing Jesus' teachings quite apart from divinity etc.

My purpose is not to convert you ( or anyone, really) to Christianity in the traditional sense, but to encourage a greater appreciation for the practical teachings of Jesus on HOW to show love.

So, we both come to the table with our most significant arguments. I've expressed mine, but I'm not quite sure what yours are. Shall we try it this way?

I've responded to you a while back. I'm not at home so I'm acceding through my mobile, which makes it hard to quote small pieces at a time. I'm quoting the whole post

And my take on love and morality is simple: you learn it by growing in an animal community like ours, where friendship and love are necessary. Just like fishes of the same species love and protect each other by instint and need, we are no different.
Take care and have a good night

 

[razeontherock]

How can one meet God? Are you saying he is a person? You do realize what comes with that right?

I most certainly do, considering I have known him for almost twice as long as you've been alive. You need to look into the definition of "person," to realize it is not restricted to a human being.

And yes, He became a human being. Today we celebrate His day in the tomb.

You lost me with that "love" talk. If I say you to judge others, there is no love.
Simple, isn't it?

Not as simple as you'd like it to be, no. We are commanded not to condemn. That doesn't violate Love, at all. We are also commanded to discern, such as not inviting a robber / rapist / murderer to dinner with your wife. That doesn't violate Love, either.

When you "you just haven't yet applied yourself to understand it" you are now drifting away from the Bible. Are you a fundamentalist? If you are, you can't do that - it's right there, black in white.

Ok, so now we know you don't know what fundamentalism is. Google the history of the term before you try using it again, ok? Being in black and white does no good until you understand it, and you haven't even read the NT (New Testament) In fact, you've approached the Bible the worst possible way, which is to start at the beginning and try reading it straight through just like it was any other book.

If you aren't, [a fundamentalist] then I don't know why we are considering the Bible in the first place.

This is not a reasonable statement to make, but again; you need to educate yourself on terms before you go around using them. Fair enough?

In a formal debate

What? You've already said you don't have training in formal debate, and this isn't a formal debate. Just try to discuss the topic, eh?

I would now ask you to support that the Bible is true.

This is a nonsensical statement, in that there is no way for it to have meaning. People either believe the Bible, or they do not. EVERY STATEMENT you have made about it, has been uninformed, except for those that have been misinformed. That's ok, you've only begun reading it, and haven't had the time to even learn how to learn about it, let alone do any learning. But things everyone values like integrity and honesty dictate that you need to reserve judgment on the subject, until such time as you can make an informed opinion.

My goal is for you to form your own conclusions, based on good info

Also, robbery is commanded through the Bible.

You are still making the same mistake, of "all arguments at once." You should more than recognize by now that any nonsense you can come up with, WILL BE met with the truth of the matter here. Common decency says you don't go on making absurd allegations when you haven't addressed those things you've already raised, nor the main topic. Isn't that reasonable?

And about Jesus and God being equals... I gave you the verse. Go check it out.

That's really no attitude to take here, got it? Just about any Christian poster on CF could lecture you for hours on any such thing; don't pretend to know what you obviously don't. Learn some humility; there's a lot you don't understand yet. That's ok

 

[razeontherock]

Personally, I also have a difficult time trying to grasp the concept of being 1 and 2 at the same time.

But what was said is Jesus being man and being G-d, both in the same sense. I pointed out He is NOT both in the same sense. Jesus is man in a very different sense than He is G-d.

And yes, it is a challenging concept

It's not consistent with a science based approach to dismiss something as impossible simply because we do not have an explanation for how it is possible.

It's actually a logical fallacy to do so

 

[razeontherock]

Christians give their God qualities that contradict themselves.

You're right, some do. Count "giving G-d qualities" among the horrible things Christians have done

The Christianity has a God that contradicts his own Holy Book. Therefore, Christianity is based on nothing and is easily destroyed.

This is not an informed position. I would suggest you have no idea yet what Christianity even IS

I've went through that Jesus and fear part 3 times. I think it's enough.

Repeating your same mistake and stubbornly refusing to learn won't ever be productive

I lol'ed at the part where you say we can't get the literal meaning of a non-English translation. You have just gave everyone a free pass to ignore the Bible - since nothing in it was originally writen in english .

Again, you are missing the point. Is that your only intent?

some parts of it don't fit your model of your perfect Holy Book.

Again, your conclusion is based on lack of info. That's not a strong position

In a search for a perfect Holy Book, I'd recommend you become a Buddhist

You can rest assured that before you were born, I was applying more of Buddhism than you are aware of now.

Also, when Jesus teaches, it is supposed to be a Law.

You're not getting it, and really have no exposure to the Gospel. You read the beginning of the Bible, and you saw that people in a perfect environment with ONE law could never follow it.

 

[Grizzly]

I do not misunderstand. You fail to take into account any sensible definition. You might as well saying red can't be a ladder. Besides, the Bible doesn't teach omnipotence in the first place! Your assertion really is pure canard

Well, if you don't believe God is omniscient, then there's not much sense in us arguing about it. Although there are plenty of Christians who DO believe it.

It's called "transcendance," in some circles. The reality is you don't know what either IS. (Especially the G-d part)

Naming a square circle doesn't make it possible for it to exist.

It's not an impossibility at all, but you are allowed to your own opinions. What you're not allowed to do, is come onto CF to bash Christians. Sometimes people pine away for the lost days of GA, which you walked straight into that rule violation. This little foray makes me see why policy changed; you can't even go 2 posts w/o stooping to this?

It will be 10 years this July that I have been posting here at CF. I've also been a site supporter for 5 years. I don't need your interpretation of the rules - I am pretty familiar with them. I've bashed no Christian or Christians here. I've respectfully made logic arguments that you are free to refute.

1) G-d is not all merciful

2) G-d is not all loving

If you don't believe that God is All Loving or All-Merciful, then we don't have anything to argue about there either.

 

[razeontherock]

Naming a square circle doesn't make it possible for it to exist.

But if you have false ideas about what either or both are, you will reach a false conclusion about what a "square circle" is, and misidentify it as such.