re: Passing a law designating Islam as a political movement

quote:

---

Boom33

---

You seem to be running out of steam here. Instead of explaining yourself, you've been reduced to simply saying "dogma" to everything. That's some lazy work there.

quote:

---

All you do is post Dogma which requires people to blindly accept that the bible is the word of God.

You spend a lot of time demonstrating that you are unable to justify or debate anything outside that context and you default back to marketing pamphlets.

---

You keep using that word "blindly". I'm not saying any such thing. However, when I'm calling the blind, like yourself, to repentance, I have to use the shorthand version, because I can't launch into a defense of why the Bible ought to be believed every time.

That said, if you want a more reasoned defense of Christianity, then I'd be happy to oblige, but only if you promise to stop responding with "dogma". That's not helpful.

quote:

---

More arbitrary and subjective than your standards? Let me guess "The bible is the word of God" dogma response incoming.

---

Actually, no. Your standard is arbitrary and subjective necessarily so, because it is not grounded in any objective reality beyond the human mind, and you haven't demonstrated otherwise.

You used the phrase "common decency" as a standard if not the standard for human morality, but you didn't define what that means or where that comes from. The word "common" gives us a hint, though: it's what human beings generally agree on. That's arbitrary, because it could be different. You could ground your morality in what is uncommon, or you could ground it common indecency and many people do. You could say that morality is whatever helps me to survive and thrive, rather than the human species. You could say it's whatever satisfies my desires, rather than whatever maximizes happiness and human flourishing while minimizing human suffering. You could come up with any number of moral standards that humans adhere to, but you chose "common decency".

Where does that standard come from if not from the minds of subjects (human beings) that can and do change from person to person, location to location, and time to time?

quote:

---

If you owe me $20 I don't need to sacrifice $20 of my own money in order to accept your debt as paid. Doing so would just increase the amount of money you've taken from me. Somehow in your fricked up world you think it cancels it out.

---

That's not how it works, though. In a previous example, I described it like this: if you owe $20, someone else can step in and pay that debt for you and you'll be free. That's very different from what you described. Are you struggling to follow along?

quote:

---

From God.

---

How do you know?

quote:

---

You are in school now, that's what this earth is. You don't know shite.

---

Sounds like "dogma" to me.

quote:

---

I gave you detailed specific reasons. You just claim it's just because "The bible is the word of God and the bible says so", aka dogma.

---

No, you didn't give me reasons, but premises that you didn't provide reasons for. You said God was evil for creating someone for their eternal torture. You never supported why that was evil, but you only asserted that it was. I responded in great detail how not only is your assertion an incomplete description, but how God is not evil for creating anyone for destruction.

So again, you have yet to ground your assertions in anything concrete. You've only been providing your arbitrary opinions.

quote:

---

It's blind and you just applied circular logic to prove it's blind. That is dogma. The keyword there is "ACCEPT". You "ACCEPT".

---

It's not blind. I have many reasons for why I believe the the Bible is trustworthy and speaks truthfully. A blind acceptance is to take it on face value without any reasons other than it is said to be so. One of the primary reasons I trust the Bible as true is that the claims it makes about God correspond to reality, namely that if what the Bible says is true, it provides clear supporting rationale for the existence of any and all things, the uniformity of nature, the existence of immaterial realities, and the existence of a transcendent moral authority, among other things.

When you get to the point of an ultimate authority, reasoning necessarily becomes circular, as well. You seem to be complaining about circularity because you don't understand this concept, and yet if I pressed you to justify what you believe to be true, you would eventually get to a reason that is self-supporting, and you cannot appeal to anything greater or more basic, in which case you would then start arguing in a circle.

quote:

---

You mean you provided alternative context definitions that do not match the actual way it's being used here?

---

No, I provided definitions that describe exactly how Christian "dogma" is being used. You are refusing to see reason here, in spite of me telling you exactly what I believe and why. Repeating the accusation of "blind" faith is not going to work, for the reasons I provided previously.

quote:

---

Oh, so him saving you over someone who sins less and punishes them for all eternity glorifies God?

Does this mean if I go out and beat the shite out of other women it glorifies the love for my wife?

---

1. You keep framing God's election as Him choosing someone more deserving. That is NOT the Christian doctrine, and I've already said as much. You are getting to the point where I cannot conclude anything else than you are willfully lying.

2. In addition to wrongfully thinking this is about more deserving vs. less deserving, your example of hitting another woman makes me think you don't understand what justice actually is. You are arbitrarily coming up with examples that do not accurately describe the Christian doctrine in an attempt to show how unreasonable it is. I think that's the definition of a straw man fallacy.

quote:

---

Neither of them is correct. The perspective you speak of is that of man with limited knowledge of the actual world. Because that's all it is, a book written by men.

Or I guess God in his perfect word was unable to know that in the future people would know the real order.

---

You made an accusation of an internal contradiction, and I've explained that Christians have not interpreted it that way historically, but that chapter 2 is zooming in and focusing on a particular aspect of creation. I even linked to a more thorough explanation of it previously, to which you didn't even attempt a rebuttal. God is not at fault for your inability to understand it. You're willfully blind at this point, because you don't want to accept you are wrong about it.

quote:

---

It says on that day he would die. I don't think you have a clue what it means to die spirtually.

---

The question is not what was said, but how it was meant. If you kick my dog and I respond to you with the words, "you're a dead man", that doesn't mean I think you are literally dead. It means either I intend to kill you, or hurt you mercilessly for your action.

In the Bible, there are two kinds of death described: physical and spiritual. In fact, eternal punishment is specifically called "the second death", though it's referring to the suffering of people who are "alive". Jesus teaches that He brings life, and He said that to people who were still physically alive. Of course, Jesus was talking about spiritual life.

quote:

---

Like using the wrong context for the definition of dogma?

---

Why are you dodging my statement?

quote:

---

So what's my marketing? That you can't have it and I can't give it to you?

---

Literally, yes. You are making a truth claim without supporting it

Which part? Are you saying Christianity isn't full of pagan traditions? Are you claiming Jesus doesn't also represent the sun to appease those traditions? You think Christmas has anything to actually do with Jesus b'day? No, it's about the winter solstice and the representation of Jesus as the sun. The walking on water, the crown of thorns - all references to the Sun to appease pagan religions/traditions.[/quote]I'm not arguing for later Christian traditions that may or may not have assimilated pagan traditions. I'm talking about the Bible. Also, the walking on water and crown of thorns are historical realities, not pagan Sun god worship. They are not connected in such a way or for that purpose. You'll have to do more than assert it.

quote:

---

Are you further claiming that the story itself isn't based on an archetype that has been repeated in multiple cultures?

---

Correct, I'm not claiming that at all. Whether other cultures have elements of similarity is irrelevant. You might as well say that all concepts of "God" are just borrowed from someone or something else, because other religions also had spiritual beings they worshipped. You need to make the necessary connection, not just assert similarities.

quote:

---

You idol worship.

---

I do not. I worship the one, true God. You worship an idol since you reject the one, true God.

quote:

---

You believe in human sacrifice as a saving mechanism.

---

I believe that death is required for sins against God as an act of justice. You keep referring to the one-time self-sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as "human sacrifice", as if that's a normative thing, likely to ridicule the belief that self-sacrifice is a noble thing.

quote:

---

Because it was written by men trying to unite people under their control.

---

right? Because Paul, Peter, and the other apostles lived such glamourous lives as cult leaders. Get out of here with that nonsense.

quote:

---

The books of the bible weren't even written by the people around Jesus.

---

Some were, actually.

quote:

---

They aren't a direct account.

---

Again, some books were, and others were written from eye-witness testimonials.

quote:

---

Pointing out dogma is not dogma

---

It is when you blindly accept a narrative that some "dogma" is wrong just because it is "dogma". You apparently haven't even investigated these claims, but are only repeating what you've heard and read from other skeptics of Christianity. That's "dogma", for sure, both in the real sense, and in your fake sense of the word.

quote:

---

No, you claim it's a choice. In fact, you keep telling me over and over I only need to make the choice to join your religion and beliefs.

Remember - I need to accept the "gift". Well, I have that choice, billions of others different. But it's still my choice you claim.

---

Accepting the gift doesn't mean you are deserving of the gift in the first place. You keep wanting to pretend that Christianity teaches that salvation is given to those who deserve it, and that's not what the Bible teaches at all.

quote:

---

I never said anything about salvation or works based or anything else. What the frick are you talking about? You are literally now making up positions and debating them.

---

You spoke of "common decency" and life being about learning previously. Those are works, aren't they? Those are things we are supposed to do, are they not?

quote:

---

Life is the result of limitations.

---

Explain this dogma, please.

quote:

---

Pretty shite way to choose such a thing really.

---

According to what standard? Your own opinions?

quote:

---

Never mind that it has no real purpose and means life only exists for the purpose of sinning.

---

Guilt of sin is a legal thing. It has meaning in our day-to-day life just as it does for spiritual realities.

Life does not exist only for the purpose of sinning. Christianity teaches that the purpose of life is to glorify God, who made us and is worthy of it.

It's shocking to me how much you are criticizing Christianity when you can't even steel-man it. You can't even get in the same ballpark.

quote:

---

Now it's my choice again.

---

You have been offered the free gift of eternal life and pardon for your sins by accepting that Jesus died on the cross to pay the debt sinners owe God. If you reject that, that's on you.

quote:

---

Your claims of God make him unjust.

---

You have yet to explain how, while I've explained how it does make Him just. It's your turn to prove your point.

quote:

---

You claim you are given preferential treatment, calling it a pardon. Even against people who have much less sin to you.

---

How is it preferential treatment when the offer is extended to every person who hears it, and none deserve it?

You also keep talking about sin as if even one sin doesn't deserve eternal judgement. Even if I sinned less than you, I would still deserve Hell just as much as you do.

quote:

---

You try to justify this by claiming it's to glorify God to do this. By pushing people who are more innocent than you are, it glorifies the mercy of God. You're fricking insane.

---

You still don't understand the concept here, even though I've explained it in detail. While I accept that it could be a "me" problem, it seems more that you refuse to accept what I'm actually saying so you can reject a straw man.

No one is "more innocent" than another, because all sin deserves eternal judgement. That is the Christian teaching. You keep attacking a straw man.

quote:

---

And your last sentence is just a shitty attempt at getting me to accept your dogma. That is what you want, you want me to debate you while accepting the bible is the word of God. Not happening. It's not the word of God, not going to pretend that it is.

---

You've been debating the entire time in this thread. All I'm trying to get you to do is justify your assertions. So far, you haven't. You've just said that what I believe is "dogma", "crazy", and "evil", without justifying why. Even your definition of "dogma" was arbitrary and not how I'm using it, because I've explained how.

quote:

---

I pointed out the flaws over and over while allowing you to explain in your own words and the only response you can give is the dogma. That's the bottom line.

---

I've pointed out how the "flaws" you have been stating are not actually flaws according to the very "dogma" that you are referring to. You have utterly misunderstood and misapplied the teachings of the Bible that you are trying to attack in order to form a straw man. You have been nothing but intellectually dishonest this entire time.

quote:

---

They rejected him because he didn't do what they claimed the Messiah would do. The pharisees represent people who lack understanding but know the words very well.

---

The Pharisees were condemned by Jesus because of their rejection of Him as the Messiah promised by God. Jesus even said they had understanding but sought to kill Him anyway. They were condemned for moral reasons, not intellectual ones (e.g., John 9:39–41; Matthew 12:22–32; John 11:47–53)

quote:

---

I never said any such things about God's favor being based on being a good person or anything else you assumed.

---

It's the logical outcome of what you've shared so far. You clearly believe some sort of moral standard exists and that you can use it to judge others (including the God of the Bible). You even seem to have experienced some sense of God's favor, yourself, by claiming you've seen God when others have not. You use moral and gracious categories of favor and duty while complaining about the biblical view of grace and works. If you object to what Christianity teaches on that topic, it's because you are either ignorant, or you have a different conception of acceptance, such as by works.

quote:

---

I'm not Presbyterian and I believe all this too.

Jesus is Lord!

---

Amen

quote:

---

This is the way around the 1st amendment

---

No, it would be stopped by the First Amendment at the very first stage:

quote:

---

Passing a law designating Islam as a political movement

---

quote:

---

You seem to be running out of steam here. Instead of explaining yourself, you've been reduced to simply saying "dogma" to everything. That's some lazy work there.

---

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at.

When all you do is post dogma, there is no actual response that can be made. You demand I accept the dogma with you and it's not going to happen.

I already knew you were stuck in this which is why I told you I had no interest in debating with you to start with.

quote:

---

You keep using that word "blindly". I'm not saying any such thing. However, when I'm calling the blind, like yourself, to repentance, I have to use the shorthand version, because I can't launch into a defense of why the Bible ought to be believed every time.

That said, if you want a more reasoned defense of Christianity, then I'd be happy to oblige, but only if you promise to stop responding with "dogma". That's not helpful.

---

You've not launched into a defense of the bible even once. When pressed it always comes back to the same dogma. No matter what God it's justifying because God and the bible is the word of God because the bible says it is.

And if your goal is to defend Christianity you've done a terrible job thus far because you are the reason I'm more hostile. I previously was pretty sympathetic towards Christians, because I like Jesus, but then you reminded me people like you exist with your dogmatic ignorance and satanic cult.

quote:

---

Actually, no. Your standard is arbitrary and subjective necessarily so, because it is not grounded in any objective reality beyond the human mind, and you haven't demonstrated otherwise.

You used the phrase "common decency" as a standard if not the standard for human morality, but you didn't define what that means or where that comes from. The word "common" gives us a hint, though: it's what human beings generally agree on. That's arbitrary, because it could be different. You could ground your morality in what is uncommon, or you could ground it common indecency and many people do. You could say that morality is whatever helps me to survive and thrive, rather than the human species. You could say it's whatever satisfies my desires, rather than whatever maximizes happiness and human flourishing while minimizing human suffering. You could come up with any number of moral standards that humans adhere to, but you chose "common decency".

---

You would claim it impossible for any human to keep my standards. Thus my standards are higher than yours. Common sense also isn't always common, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

quote:

---

That's not how it works, though. In a previous example, I described it like this: if you owe $20, someone else can step in and pay that debt for you and you'll be free. That's very different from what you described. Are you struggling to follow along?

---

You claim Jesus is God. Thus Jesus paying a debt to God is God paying a debt to himself.

Yes your beliefs are dumb.

quote:

---

How do you know?

---

Understanding.

quote:

---

Sounds like "dogma" to me.

---

Except for the fact it's what your entire life has been.

quote:

---

No, you didn't give me reasons, but premises that you didn't provide reasons for. You said God was evil for creating someone for their eternal torture. You never supported why that was evil, but you only asserted that it was. I responded in great detail how not only is your assertion an incomplete description, but how God is not evil for creating anyone for destruction.

So again, you have yet to ground your assertions in anything concrete. You've only been providing your arbitrary opinions.

---

You would call someone evil if they did the same things, yet you pretend like such a thing isn't "grounded in anything concrete".

You're just trying to spin up excuses and divert attention away from the actions.

quote:

---

It's not blind. I have many reasons for why I believe the the Bible is trustworthy and speaks truthfully. A blind acceptance is to take it on face value without any reasons other than it is said to be so. One of the primary reasons I trust the Bible as true is that the claims it makes about God correspond to reality, namely that if what the Bible says is true, it provides clear supporting rationale for the existence of any and all things, the uniformity of nature, the existence of immaterial realities, and the existence of a transcendent moral authority, among other things.

---

Except it doesn't do those things.

quote:

---

When you get to the point of an ultimate authority, reasoning necessarily becomes circular, as well. You seem to be complaining about circularity because you don't understand this concept, and yet if I pressed you to justify what you believe to be true, you would eventually get to a reason that is self-supporting, and you cannot appeal to anything greater or more basic, in which case you would then start arguing in a circle.

---

Circular logic is a failure in reasoning and evidence that you have blindly accepted things rather than coming to such a thing by reasoning.

quote:

---

No, I provided definitions that describe exactly how Christian "dogma" is being used. You are refusing to see reason here, in spite of me telling you exactly what I believe and why. Repeating the accusation of "blind" faith is not going to work, for the reasons I provided previously.

---

No, you didn't. You merely used another definition than it was being used in. Of which isn't even really a definition but rather an attempt at justification.

quote:

---

1. You keep framing God's election as Him choosing someone more deserving. That is NOT the Christian doctrine, and I've already said as much. You are getting to the point where I cannot conclude anything else than you are willfully lying.

2. In addition to wrongfully thinking this is about more deserving vs. less deserving, your example of hitting another woman makes me think you don't understand what justice actually is. You are arbitrarily coming up with examples that do not accurately describe the Christian doctrine in an attempt to show how unreasonable it is. I think that's the definition of a straw man fallacy.

---

You were the one who claimed God burning people in hell glorifies his mercy for those who saved. I just applied your ignorance in another context to point out how fricking stupid your claim is.

quote:

---

You made an accusation of an internal contradiction, and I've explained that Christians have not interpreted it that way historically, but that chapter 2 is zooming in and focusing on a particular aspect of creation. I even linked to a more thorough explanation of it previously, to which you didn't even attempt a rebuttal. God is not at fault for your inability to understand it. You're willfully blind at this point, because you don't want to accept you are wrong about it.

---

Once again neither is correct. You claim it's God's word but then have to make excuses for God when he is wrong. It claims the earth came before the sun. Even plant life that requires the sun to grow comes before the sun.

And now it's my fault the creation myth you claim comes from God is wrong?

quote:

---

Correct, I'm not claiming that at all. Whether other cultures have elements of similarity is irrelevant. You might as well say that all concepts of "God" are just borrowed from someone or something else, because other religions also had spiritual beings they worshipped. You need to make the necessary connection, not just assert similarities.

---

You are just ignoring history because it doesn't suit your narrative.

quote:

---

I do not. I worship the one, true God. You worship an idol since you reject the one, true God.

---

No, you worship an idol.

I was taught to never do that. That is Day 1 stuff. Minutes into Day 1 even. Because you end up replacing that which it is supposed to represent, and in the process, you forget and/or never learn beyond it.

Which is why you say Jesus this and Jesus that, and yet I do not see any connection between you and Jesus.

quote:

---

I believe that death is required for sins against God as an act of justice. You keep referring to the one-time self-sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as "human sacrifice", as if that's a normative thing, likely to ridicule the belief that self-sacrifice is a noble thing.

---

A rose by any other name still smells the same.

Jesus was murdered by his government and religious leaders because they thought he was a threat to their power on earth. Which is to say the truth was a threat to the lie they lived by.

You worship the actual death and claim that death is what saves you. You even make images of him on the cross, or even just the cross itself and everything else and believe it's his blood that saves and all kinds of other human sacrifice and satanic ritual type shite.

It has nothing to do with "self-sacrifice".

quote:

---

right? Because Paul, Peter, and the other apostles lived such glamourous lives as cult leaders. Get out of here with that nonsense.

---

They didn't write the bible.

quote:

---

Some were, actually.

---

quote:

---

Again, some books were, and others were written from eye-witness testimonials.

---

I'm assuming you are claiming testimonials to say it was based on what other people had previously claimed rather than it being written by the actual eye-witnesses?

Which books are you making this claim about exactly?

quote:

---

It is when you blindly accept a narrative that some "dogma" is wrong just because it is "dogma". You apparently haven't even investigated these claims, but are only repeating what you've heard and read from other skeptics of Christianity. That's "dogma", for sure, both in the real sense, and in your fake sense of the word.

---

I did not force you to repeat dogma. You were and have been given the chance, in your own words even, to provide reasoning and such. You just aren't able to do it. When you are actually pressed you can only go back to the dogma.

That is not my fault.

How can I both have not investigated claims and also only be repeating what I heard from others?

And what have I blindly accepted?

quote:

---

Accepting the gift doesn't mean you are deserving of the gift in the first place. You keep wanting to pretend that Christianity teaches that salvation is given to those who deserve it, and that's not what the Bible teaches at all.

---

It's not a gift, it's selling your soul for a false promise.

What you claim is I become deserving of is eternal life and not burning in hell.

quote:

---

You spoke of "common decency" and life being about learning previously. Those are works, aren't they? Those are things we are supposed to do, are they not?

---

No. Such may be likely to follow, but no.

quote:

---

Explain this dogma, please.

---

You mean explain to you once again what dogma is? Because that's not dogma. There is no argument being made that claims itself as the reason. If you want to ask me more information about the claim, then that is fine. But to claim its dogma is just you once again not knowing what the word means.

Experiences are defined by limitations. If you play a game, what do you do? You limit yourself to a set of laws/rules in order to have the experience. Play a game of cards, are you physically unable to see the other side of a face down card? No, you can at any time just pick it up and look at it if you want too. However, the requirement for the game is that information is unknown and limited to you. If you remove those limitations the game ends.

Life is the result of limitations.

quote:

---

According to what standard? Your own opinions?

---

According to the results in which you claim billions of people (or more) are spending eternity in hell. Or as the bible would put it - look at the fruits the tree produces, aka the results.

quote:

---

Guilt of sin is a legal thing. It has meaning in our day-to-day life just as it does for spiritual realities.

Life does not exist only for the purpose of sinning. Christianity teaches that the purpose of life is to glorify God, who made us and is worthy of it.

It's shocking to me how much you are criticizing Christianity when you can't even steel-man it. You can't even get in the same ballpark.

---

You claim everyone is born guilty and deserving of eternal hell. And the only way to except this is just believing Jesus died for you.

This is what you call justice and the basis for a legal system.

It's absurd.

quote:

---

You've been debating the entire time in this thread. All I'm trying to get you to do is justify your assertions. So far, you haven't. You've just said that what I believe is "dogma", "crazy", and "evil", without justifying why. Even your definition of "dogma" was arbitrary and not how I'm using it, because I've explained how.

---

You have to first have a sense of what justice might actually look like in order for me to justify something to you. You are a person who claims God can do the evillest things imaginable and it's justified. Not even just justified, but glorifies him as well.

You can't reason with someone who didn't come to their opinions by reason in the first place. You simple just say "Well God can do whatever" as your justification. In what way can anyone make any reasonable response that can show you a justification in the other direction?

I can just say "My God said So" and be on equal justification with you.

quote:

---

The Pharisees were condemned by Jesus because of their rejection of Him as the Messiah promised by God. Jesus even said they had understanding but sought to kill Him anyway. They were condemned for moral reasons, not intellectual ones (e.g., John 9:39–41; Matthew 12:22–32; John 11:47–53)

---

You're just proving what I said...

quote:

---

It's the logical outcome of what you've shared so far. You clearly believe some sort of moral standard exists and that you can use it to judge others (including the God of the Bible). You even seem to have experienced some sense of God's favor, yourself, by claiming you've seen God when others have not. You use moral and gracious categories of favor and duty while complaining about the biblical view of grace and works. If you object to what Christianity teaches on that topic, it's because you are either ignorant, or you have a different conception of acceptance, such as by works.

---

What do you think god's favor is exactly?

I've never once said it had to do with being a good person or anything else you've claimed.

quote:

---

Claiming someone can die the spiritual death before the death of flesh is interesting because it's basically to claim someone becomes a robot/AI. That is clearly not what happened to Adam.

---

It's not that sort of claim at all.

The claim of spiritual death is what the doctrine of "original sin" teaches: that man suffers from spiritual guilt of sin as well as corruption of the body and soul. In this case, someone who is spiritually dead cannot understand life-giving truth and believe it, and they are judicially guilty and destined for the "second death" of everlasting damnation in their current state. It's this sort of thing that Jesus was talking about when He said He gives life to the living (in body), by taking away guilt for sin and granting His righteousness to them to give them everlasting life in Heaven.

You really need to learn some basic Christian theology if you're going to be so antagonistic against it. You should know what it is you irrationally hate.

quote:

---

You tried to justify things based on excuses for God.

---

Not quite. I was talking about the actual teaching of the Bible and how that teaching is applied logically. The reason that is important is because your accusations are against the teaching of the Bible. Since you are condemning those teachings (as you understand them), it is necessary to first correct your understanding before showing how they apply consistently.

quote:

---

I mean with such low standards for your beliefs, what can I say? I can point out the dogma and there isn't much else to say about it.

---

What do you mean there isn't much else to say? You are making mere claims about what I believe to be true without supporting them. If you don't think you need to support your claims, then you aren't rational at all. You can say whatever you want, and so can I. Rational discussion is not possible if you ignore logic and reason.

Second, you continue to criticize my "dogma" while sharing your own, even if only a little. You are being hypocritical.

Third, you don't even understand my "dogma", as evidenced by your false claims and inability to steel-man it. Instead, you continually straw-man what I believe and I have to repeat myself multiple times.

quote:

---

You are asking me to accept your dogma and debate within the constraints of your dogma and I'm not going to do it.

---

You are already debating what I believe based on your own understanding (or misunderstanding) of it. I'm just responding in-kind. I'm clarifying what Christianity actually teaches according to the Bible. If you're going to criticize something (the Bible), you ought to know what it is you are criticizing. So far, you've only shown ignorance, and possibly even willful ignorance at this point.

quote:

---

I don't need to offer an alternative to show something else is false.

---

You still need to show that something if false, though. You can't just say it's false and then wipe your hands and pretend you've won an argument. You need to do better here.

quote:

---

You are just ignoring history because it doesn't suit your narrative.

---

Can you point anything in the Bible that explains that walking on water or the crown of thorns was related to any other religious myth? Or, are you just assuming that based on supposed similarities? If you are just assuming it, then you can't call that "history".

As I keep saying, you need to justify your claims.

quote:

---

No, you worship an idol.

I was taught to never do that. That is Day 1 stuff. Minutes into Day 1 even. Because you end up replacing that which it is supposed to represent, and in the process, you forget and/or never learn beyond it.

Which is why you say Jesus this and Jesus that, and yet I do not see any connection between you and Jesus.

---

You were taught that by whom? And according to what standard?

The Bible provides the 10 commandments, with the first one being against idolatry. Jesus and the Father are one (essence), so therefore it is not idolatry to worship Him.

You don't see any connection between me and Jesus because you are ignorant of the Bible. You've shown that over and over again.

quote:

---

A rose by any other name still smells the same.

---

No, you need to be specific here, since you are describing something that isn't true.

quote:

---

Jesus was murdered by his government and religious leaders because they thought he was a threat to their power on earth. Which is to say the truth was a threat to the lie they lived by.

---

"The truth was a threat to the lie" Oh, I remember you now. You're that guy who claims to have a secret revelation from God and kept saying that the truth is killed by a lie, or something like that. You're going to lecture me on my beliefs?

quote:

---

You worship the actual death and claim that death is what saves you. You even make images of him on the cross, or even just the cross itself and everything else and believe it's his blood that saves and all kinds of other human sacrifice and satanic ritual type shite.

It has nothing to do with "self-sacrifice".

---

I don't worship death. I worship a person. In fact, I worship three persons (Father, Son, and Spirit). It's not Jesus' death alone that saves, but He saves through His life and death. It's important to understand these distinctions.

No, I don't make images of Jesus on the cross. That's a violation of the 2nd commandment.

Yes, it has everything to do with self-sacrifice. Jesus voluntarily gave His life for others.

quote:

---

They didn't write the bible.

---

They wrote portions of it. Christians were persecuted and killed for the first several hundred years of the Church.

quote:

---

I'm assuming you are claiming testimonials to say it was based on what other people had previously claimed rather than it being written by the actual eye-witnesses?

Which books are you making this claim about exactly?

---

The gospel accounts, other than John. Luke specifically says that his gospel account was based on eye-witnesses that could be questioned for the truthfulness of his writing.

quote:

---

You were and have been given the chance, in your own words even, to provide reasoning and such. You just aren't able to do it. When you are actually pressed you can only go back to the dogma.

---

You should go back and re-read what I've written, then. I've answered you, fool, according to your folly, by explaining the Scriptures that you criticize, and then I've shown logical conclusions of both your reasoning and mine outside the Scriptures.

quote:

---

How can I both have not investigated claims and also only be repeating what I heard from others?

---

It's the same thing you are accusing me of. You claim that I only have my "dogma" that I blindly follow without investigating it (not having reasons for believing it). Follow your accusation to its natural conclusion and then point the finger back at yourself.

quote:

---

And what have I blindly accepted?

---

The criticisms you've leveled against my beliefs.

quote:

---

It's not a gift, it's selling your soul for a false promise.

---

So says your dogma.

quote:

---

What you claim is I become deserving of is eternal life and not burning in hell.

---

No, deserving is not the word I've been using. It's what you've been using. I specifically said it's receiving what you don't deserve (eternal life).

quote:

---

No. Such may be likely to follow, but no.

---

So you don't have to do anything but have some intellectual knowledge from a god that doesn't reveal himself to anyone but you? You have it but I don't, and can't get it? Isn't that what you said before?

quote:

---

You mean explain to you once again what dogma is? Because that's not dogma. There is no argument being made that claims itself as the reason. If you want to ask me more information about the claim, then that is fine. But to claim its dogma is just you once again not knowing what the word means.

---

I want more information about what you are dogmatically claiming is true. Whether you believe it "blindly" or not is irrelevant, as I keep telling you.

quote:

---

Experiences are defined by limitations...

---

That doesn't mean anything. All you're saying is that there are limitations on everything in some sense, and no one is arguing that.

quote:

---

According to the results in which you claim billions of people (or more) are spending eternity in hell. Or as the bible would put it - look at the fruits the tree produces, aka the results.

---

You keep missing it. The results are just a data point. You are making a moral claim about how evil it is. You need to define your standard to make a interpretation of the data, not just call attention to the data points.

If you're going to call people going to Hell "evil", you need to explain why it's evil according to your worldview, otherwise you're just sharing your personal opinion.

quote:

---

You claim everyone is born guilty and deserving of eternal hell. And the only way to except this is just believing Jesus died for you.

This is what you call justice and the basis for a legal system.

It's absurd.

---

Explain how it's absurd. We currently allow forms of this in our existing legal system. I've given examples already. One person may pay the price of another to satisfy justice in some examples.

quote:

---

You have to first have a sense of what justice might actually look like in order for me to justify something to you.

---

Not true. All I'm saying is that you need to provide logical argumentation to support your claims, otherwise they are just your opinions.

quote:

---

You are a person who claims God can do the evillest things imaginable and it's justified. Not even just justified, but glorifies him as well.

---

Not true. I'm saying He doesn't do anything evil at all. I'm asking you to provide your standard for defining anything as "evil" in the first place, and you can't. I'm not going to agree to your moral judgement if you can't even provide the basis for your judgement.

quote:

---

You can't reason with someone who didn't come to their opinions by reason in the first place. You simple just say "Well God can do whatever" as your justification. In what way can anyone make any reasonable response that can show you a justification in the other direction?

---

You can argue according to the text that you are criticizing, doing an internal critique of it and showing how it is irrational by its own claims. You aren't doing that. You are just saying it's stupid, crazy, and evil, and expecting me to just take your word for it.

quote:

---

I can just say "My God said So" and be on equal justification with you.

---

You can try, but then I'd want you to justify how you know your god said so, and why that god should be trusted over and against the God of the Bible.

quote:

---

You're just proving what I said...

---

Prove it.

quote:

---

Passing a law designating Islam as a political movement

---

We need to be passing a law designating Islam as a terrorist organization and exile them before it`s too late!