First  Prev  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  Next  Last
What if it was -proven- that God -does- exist?
4559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 8/18/08 , edited 8/18/08

zendude wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:

I really am stunned. Your only objection to my logic was to say that because you could type out an incorrect equation my use of logical syntax is invalid. We're done here.


Say whatever you want to say. I don't think you'll be convincing anybody at all.
Why, for all I care I can say this is a duck and convince people that it's true.


To Pibb:
Sorry that I have to say this Pibb, but neither did you. All I heard what a bunch of psuedo intellectual premises from both of you.

And about science not being the answer to everything, I have to agree. But science is probably the only thing we have in this world apart from "GOD."

To YouAreDumb and Pibb consider this (my version of the Schrödinger's cat):
"The concepts of true nature does not lie in set rules, but a probability map that does set common patterns that could be followed. This is the truth, for as nature in it self started in a random event that is too far unmeasurable by any means of human science. Everything and anything only exist for the reasons of being, in layman's terms, lucky (or by God, who is tipping the scales for us)."


Well I'm not the perfect apologist. I am a Christian but that doesn't mean I understand all of it, or at least can explain it all. YAD hasn't even cracked the Bible from what I see.

As for science, how about religion? (altough religion can equal God) Can't humans rely on that too? Not everything we do is (at least completely) based of science or religion. What about Language Arts or History?

For probability, it doesn't imply randomness. Randomness is something that is completely out of anyone's/anything's control. Saying that something is a little random is not possible. The world is either defined (with purpose) or completely random. I think that there was purpose in making this world. Theism implies that you believe the world had a purpose. Think about it.
Just because humans cannot comprehend something or comprehends that something in the wrong way doesn't mean it can't function. Law of gravity and the heliocentric theory wasn't accept until only a couple of centuries ago.

EDIT:
Might I add that people have the freedom to do as they please, whether it be to accept a form of logic or not. That DK duck thing wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. It was a sarcastic remark.
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 8/18/08

zendude wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:

I really am stunned. Your only objection to my logic was to say that because you could type out an incorrect equation my use of logical syntax is invalid. We're done here.


Say whatever you want to say. I don't think you'll be convincing anybody at all.
Why, for all I care I can say this is a duck and convince people that it's true.


To Pibb:
Sorry that I have to say this Pibb, but neither did you. All I heard what a bunch of psuedo intellectual premises from both of you.
Please identify which of my premises was such or retract this insult.

1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 8/18/08 , edited 8/18/08

For the record, I consider our debate finished. I will, however, explain some thing you do not understand.


crunchypibb wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


Well you're pretty damn quick. Maybe you can explain these unsupported assertions to me if you really know better than me.


crunchypibb wrote:
Applause!!! Such a wonderful conclusion! Now that we don't have a God, what now? Our lives are now purposeless because all that our end will ever be will be is nonexistance. It doesn't matter how much fun we have now, once we hit nine feet under all that won't matter anymore. Wonderful.
But, it seems as if you have forgotten quite a number of factors. Sorry, I take my applause back. Let me quickly list them:

1. other invisible entities exists
Unsupported assertion


Want do you want me to do, give you a third eye so you can see them? If you don't think they exists please explain why I'm on the third rock from the sun. Also explain why humans are here in general. Also explain what happens to us when we die. Actually, explain to me why some of the saints bodies don't corrupt, it's completely unnatural.

So what, is the bible a lie? Is God an invention? Was the Bible made up? Did the Holocaust really exist? Some say otherwise but don't you still think the events happen even if they were denied? Have you even considered reading the Bible?
I have read it in different translations. I think that it is made up based upon the internal contradictions and historical errors.








2. the chaos of an 'all-good' world on earth
Unsupported assertion which ignores the fact if evil has to come into existence on Earth god would never create it.


Of course God didn't create it. All that is good was created by God, it did not include evil.
This is not the theological view that is Orthodox in the Catholic Church, which holds to all things being contingent on god.








3. God is not like humans
4. Why God lets evil exist on earth
5. perfect =/= free will
True but in the context we are using we establish free will would exist with just god in reality so that one may not object and claim that it is needed and that is why god created us.

Run by me again, your run on sentence was really hard to read.




6. God generally speaking is the name of the creator of earth so God and creation are not in different categories.

7. to add to (6) self creation is not possible on earth.
Self creation is never possible anywhere.

Your point?




8. Heaven is seperate from earth for a reason
Which is?
9. to add to (8) the reason for Purgatory

Which is no longer a point of Catholic dogma.

Where did you get that idea? Go look for the book of Maccabees on the internet and you tell me about purgatory. Besides, the Catholics dogmas are not like the constitution, you can't make a dogma to erase a previous one. I think your idea of what a dogma is happens to be wrong. Dogmas are the ultimate explainations/answers for contravertial christian topics at the time. They can't be reammended. Seriously, someone else said the same thing to me. Where's your source coming from?




10. the agreed definition of something does not change it's essence.
You agreed to the definition already and thus can not now object to it's usage.

Wtf are you saying? So if we decide that the role of the sun is to emit cold and not hot, will it emit cold? Watch what you're saying.


11. Your reality=God equation is retarded, especially in how you explained it.
In what way?

I kind of already addressed how dumb it was with simple arithmatic but I'll also add, since you asked, that you devalued one variable so that another could fit. Math, words and numbers, doesn't go that way. Take my advice which I had addressed to you.



12. You're an athiests, of course this makes sense to you with the possessed knowledge and logic you have. But since you forgot the above eleven (and possibly more) your ideas are debunk.
It must be nice to assert things without arguments or evidence to back up your assertions.

Did you read the whole arguement before quoting all this? I'll repeat myself and say that I had specifically told you that you should read the whole arguement before responding back.




Now let me have some fun, but first I want to say...


Anyways, now that's out of the way. I'm gonna explain my points in the order I feel like explaining them in, so I can leave room for you to screw up in the rebuttal.
(8) heaven is not on earth, although it would be very nice. You said something like this:

Heaven is assumed to be a place free of the influence of evil but if all of those in Heaven (other than God) will be contingent and the emergence of evil is logically necessary amongst contingencies with free will and he cannot make us non-contingent how can he eradicate evil without violating free will?

-First, not all 'evils' are neccessary, as I will explain in my next point. Second, Purgatory exists for a reason despite how many people seem to reject the idea, evidence of it is found in Maccabees which is a book Protestants removed from their versions of the bible because of such evidence. This will also be later explained. "How can he eradicate evil without violating free will?" wtf are you talking about? God already solved that, Jesus died for us for a reason (plus there's still purgatory).

-To explain shortly, when we confess our sins to Jesus, best through a priest, and we really want to put our sins behind, Jesus removes the spiritual stains that the sin has caused us and will erase the record of it happening like when the police scrap small crimes that you did during your juvenile years. However, you still suffer the earthly consequences, it's just the ultimate spiritual consequence that has been erased. Whatever happened still happened but you are fully forgiven by Jesus so that, he paid your debt for you. If you still don't understand just read the entire rebuttal, so I don't have to respond to half-baked complaints.

(2) Without specific 'evils' the earthly world would be in chaos ironically. You said something like this:

The problem of evil asks us why a good god allows bad things to occur. Free will is the answer most often given.

-I'll quote it later but the next two paragraphs after that violate my points 5 and 6. Now a good friend of mine John Hick, who follows what Thomas Aquinas says, came up with a very good arguement to this. I will not quote his entire arguement but the entire point was that without a world full of natural evils (physical pain and internal suffering) there would be no consequences to such faulty actions. If I decided to stab you and you didn't die, I technically commit murder since my intent was to kill you but since you didn't die I can never learn that. All in all, the earth was specifically created for human development by God's intent so that we would learn from these evils that we commit, intentionally or unintentionally.
A meaningless objection. If god was able to create us morally perfect we would never commit evil with the need to learn from it. If we have to commit evil be existing given my above argument god would never create us.

We don't have to commit evil, it's our choice to do so. Just because we have free will doesn't mean we won't trip up. In Genesis, Adam and Eve were actually sinless until they ate the forbidden fruit. That sin passes on generation to generation like the same way diabetes or seizures are passed down through the family. How those sins are forgiven is through baptism, so that we can start clean when we become Christians.
As for morally perfect beings, God has angels but they don't have free will. And btw, people don't become angels when they go to heaven, they're just people in heaven.



(3) God is God for a reason. He's not an amplified human. You entire arguement in general seems to make God faulty like his humans which he created but you have to consider one thing, God is a divine creature. On that note I would also like to add that a lot of people confuse Jesus as a human but that is not so. Jesus is a divine creature but has two natures, a divine and a human nature. As a rectangle is a square and a square is not a rectangle, we are comparable to God but God is not entirely comparable to us.
This has nothing to do with my argument. I even stress that people argue that god is ontologically different from humans in my argument.

I mentioned this because most (pretty much all) of your arguement didn't support what you just said. If God made fault he wouldn't be God, he'd just be an amplified human spirit. Do you comprehend?




(4) I kind of already explain this point with (2) but like I didn't mention yet there are other spiritual entities out there. So I'll explain that first.

(1) Ha, and you thought this should have been the first since this was #1. Whatever, I like to mix things up. Again I really don't have any specific reference to your arguement about this point but in general you seemed to think demons didn't exists. WRONG.
Throughout the whole bible in general demons were given reference to.
And as we all know that proves that they exist. Not.

Again you can choose to deny history. Seriously, with that kind of rebuttal that really tells me you're gonna argue against a book you've never read, wtf.




Some to bluntly describe Jesus (he was compared to Bezulbub by some skeptics at the time) and some that were shortly exiled by Jesus. Why God lets them run around, I can only guess from my point of knowledge. As far as I'm concerned, demons can't enter heaven so for everyone up there they're fine. Demons got their place too, on earth, but like that crabby roomate or annoying neighbor of yours, all you can really do is ignore them. If however they decide to invade your space, it's because they want to pick on you specifically for a reason or you just let them trample all over you. If you are demon possessed or bothered by a demon, pray to God to help you get rid of it and just continue to fight back until God tazzers them and imprisons and/or exinguishes it. That's what I've got to say.

(4) Yay back to 4. You want an explaination, read 1.

(11) Word equations are sketchy. If they were all true then, your cat = my penis, but that is not so. In general, I can't even begin to rebuttal what you trying to say from your word equation because there is no real point to rebuttal against. It's just stupid, especially how you added creation to the equation.

1. Prior to creation "reality = God".
2. Post creation "reality = God + creation".

If God is the greatest possible being then we have ...

1. Prior to creation "reality = greatest possible being".
2. Post creation "reality = greatest possible being + creation".

Look, I'm just gonna rebuttal with arithmatic. Look, 1+2=3 right? But if you want to add 4 to the equation you can't do this: 1+2+4=3 or 1+2=3+4. You have to add 4 to both sides so it makes sense: 1+2+4=3+4.
Go to pre-k and learn how to count again.
I am a math major. Your rebuttal is stupid because my argument follows logically and 1+2=3+4 does not. You seem to be saying that one can not make use of logical axioms which demonstrates that you have never read a book on logic whatsoever. Do you know what an axiom is? You should thank your god I did not use formal logic on you.

I DID NOT SAY 1+2=3+4. You're just reading too damn fast. Even worse, you're putting words in my mouth. That really dirty play on you. Boo to you.
Not using formal logic? Isn't that something your sopposed to bring to a debate? Why did you start being illogical on me? Did you think I wouldn't catch it?



(6) It kind of explains itself but I'll just quote you again anyways.

One objection I can see being put forward to the above is that God is a necessary being whereas we are contingent. God and creation are in different categories ontologically speaking. It may be possible that a necessary being can possess free will yet never do evil whereas contingent beings are incapable of possessing free will and that evil will never emerge. Ergo, the emergence of evil is logically necessary (and inevitable) amongst contingencies who possess free will.

No more really needs to be added about this point.

Ya I know, your whole arguement totally debunks that. Did I not say that God is generally the accepted label given to the creator of creation? What do you want to call the creator of creation, James Brown? Comprehend yourself first before comprehending others, it helps.
Lols, James Brown.




(7) To add to 6, if God so to speak wasn't the creator then who was? Us? Self creation is not possible, Your Wii or whatever game system you have was created by something and did not construct itself at the local Walmart. As for God, the best explaination out there is that he is uncreated. For if he was created he wouldn't be God, the entity that created created Him would be God and that one would be uncreated. But that wouldn't make sense because otherwise we would reach the problem of infinite regress if you didn't accept that God was uncreated.

(9) Yes I skipped from 7 to 9 and passed 8, deal with it. As I talked about in 8, heaven is an entirely different place from earth. How we get there, we have to be pure in spirit. The problem, 99% of us aren't like that when we die. Only Jesus and specific saints go straight to heaven. And because our God is a merciful God, we can cleanse our souls in purgatory. That is, if God knows that we have the potential to go to heaven. If not we go to hell and stay there for an eternity. All this is determined in how we lived our lives, so if you really care what happens to you when you die I'll recommend that you convert to Christianity asap.

(10) Again the statement I made kinda explains itself and again I will quote you:

God (as we are discussing him) attains to the highest levels of perfection with respect to his power, knowledge and morality. In the context of this argument I use the terms "perfect" and "greatest possible" interchangeably (synonymously) so God possesses the greatest possible power, the greatest possible knowledge and the greatest possible morality. Consequently, God is the greatest possible being by definition. He also has free will.

Some people say God is perfect, some say He's "greatest possible being", they both mean the same thing if you really think about what you said. However, I got the inference that you think definitions of God can be used interchangeably. Definitions in general are used interchangeable, like the definition of light (a wave and a particle) since it has properties of both, but I just want to point out that two subjective definitions for anything may not be interchangeable and one of the definitions may be wrong. I addressed this because your logic within the whole arguement in general tends to contain some faulty truths. But I have no time to point out specifics.
What are these faulty truths?

Oh for the love of God, what do you think I've been rebuttaling against? I'll say it a 3rd time, Comprehend my friend.





(5) 10/2 = 5, so let's go ahead and talk about it. Go find 11 yourself.

But free will is a weak defense if you are talking about the Christian god. If god has free will and is perfect, why can humans not also be perfect and have free will?

There is a slight difference in perfection and free will that isn't very slight at all. Perfection, as a definition it generally means faultless. Free will means that we can do whatever the hell we want despite what people say, but you will still suffer consequences. We can still be faulty with free will but perfection alongside with free will means God can't be faulty. While you are reading this, I would like to say your logic is as straight as a rainbow, no lie.

(12) Your an athiest, there is no one who can say your right or wrong since there is no God from your standpoint so go play chicken on a busy freeway. You won't die if you convince yourself that death is relative right? Tell me when you come back from doing what I asked ya to do.

If you need me I'll be back in reality. Oh damn I have the urge to say this again:


You provided no objections to my argument. I shall take this as a concession.

Fine then, if you want to say that then I can say that you are done my friend and you in fact are the one who conceded. We'll let the audience decide. Besides, if I was to explain everything I wanted to say it would have taken way to damn long, you would have ignored it anyways. I bet you didn't play play chicken on the highway yet.
Anyways SCIENCE IS NOT THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING!!! It answers how and what questions but it doesn't answer why questions. If you ask a scientist why water evaporates, a smart scientists will shurg and smile at you. Try to read some philosophy, metaphysics would really help you think.
Oh ya, you have no sense of humour whatsoever.


Formal logic is logic which uses abstract symbols to represent phrases such as "it is casually possible that". I have read hundreds of books on philosphy and theology, so don't presume to tell me what to read.
2274 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Narnia
Offline
Posted 8/18/08
theres a reason why people say there is such a thing as faith......faith is believing without seeing, i mean u cant see trust, u have to believe it, if people didnt believe in things where would the world be now?
4559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 8/18/08

Sai-Yuri wrote:

theres a reason why people say there is such a thing as faith......faith is believing without seeing, i mean u cant see trust, u have to believe it, if people didnt believe in things where would the world be now?


Thank you. That's one thing I wanted to point out to dumbo. Faith, even scientists need it in their findings.
4559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 8/18/08 , edited 8/18/08

YouAreDumb wrote:

For the record, I consider our debate finished. I will, however, explain some thing you do not understand.

Well if you really think this debate is over then don't respond back.

I have read it in different translations. I think that it is made up based upon the internal contradictions and historical errors.

Have you ever tried the Greek bible? It's the closest one to the original. You can disregard the other ones. There's always a margin of error in any translation in general; language barrier.


Formal logic is logic which uses abstract symbols to represent phrases such as "it is casually possible that". I have read hundreds of books on philosphy and theology, so don't presume to tell me what to read.

Hundreds? Can you give me the author's names and what subjects they were on?



This is not the theological view that is Orthodox in the Catholic Church, which holds to all things being contingent on god.

-Well you said that the the dogma about Purgatory was dismissed but I explained to you that dogma's aren't taken back. I'm no longer gonna argue about whether God created evil or not. I think your intent was to show that God has an evil side. True, he does declare wrath as an evil and says He will release it on doomsday but that doesn't change who He is. But His intentions are not evil. This wrath He will release will destroy all the evils and place them in hell, and He will save everyone who has potential for heaven. So with this claim God is not evil.
-Actions do not neccessarily define the intent of the action-maker. Soldiers kill but they do not murder; their intent it to get to their objective. Drinking wine is not an evil, that is if you do not intend to get drunk. Wine actually destroys fats in the bloodstream and explains why asians live longer, so drinking wine isn't always an evil.
-All in all, most of your base arguement was based on your subjective definition of evil and what you think is labeled as evil. You realize that right? I'm not saying mine is better, I just think it's just more supported. Everything else you addressed is also confused as I tried to point them out to you. That's just what I see. This arguement did question if God was so to speak evil but they were based on what you thought evil was. If you care to move on with this debate we can scrap the previous debate posts (since it will never end anyways), and talk about what evil really is. Let me know.
4559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 8/18/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


zendude wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:

I really am stunned. Your only objection to my logic was to say that because you could type out an incorrect equation my use of logical syntax is invalid. We're done here.


Say whatever you want to say. I don't think you'll be convincing anybody at all.
Why, for all I care I can say this is a duck and convince people that it's true.


To Pibb:
Sorry that I have to say this Pibb, but neither did you. All I heard what a bunch of psuedo intellectual premises from both of you.
Please identify which of my premises was such or retract this insult.



It's a general remark. How can I specify that? The DK duck insult, that was to show how twisted a debate can be. The winner is not always the one who is correct.
4559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 8/18/08

zendude wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


zendude wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:

I really am stunned. Your only objection to my logic was to say that because you could type out an incorrect equation my use of logical syntax is invalid. We're done here.


Say whatever you want to say. I don't think you'll be convincing anybody at all.
Why, for all I care I can say this is a duck and convince people that it's true.


To Pibb:
Sorry that I have to say this Pibb, but neither did you. All I heard what a bunch of psuedo intellectual premises from both of you.
Please identify which of my premises was such or retract this insult.



It's a general remark. How can I specify that? The DK duck insult, that was to show how twisted a debate can be. The winner is not always the one who is correct.


Yeah, what Pibby said.

You guys have already decided on what to believe in, so lets just leave it at that.

I think that all of us deserve this:

That is what this exactly this feels like.


omg are you part of that counter-spam group? That poster is retarded in itself.
1510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 8/18/08

zendude wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


zendude wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:

I really am stunned. Your only objection to my logic was to say that because you could type out an incorrect equation my use of logical syntax is invalid. We're done here.


Say whatever you want to say. I don't think you'll be convincing anybody at all.
Why, for all I care I can say this is a duck and convince people that it's true.


To Pibb:
Sorry that I have to say this Pibb, but neither did you. All I heard what a bunch of psuedo intellectual premises from both of you.
Please identify which of my premises was such or retract this insult.



It's a general remark. How can I specify that? The DK duck insult, that was to show how twisted a debate can be. The winner is not always the one who is correct.


Yeah, what Pibby said.

You guys have already decided on what to believe in, so lets just leave it at that.

I think that all of us deserve this:

That is what this exactly this feels like.


i actually agree with you on that one dude, having an arguement on the internet is like having a fight with a pile of wet gum, after you get mad and step on it you lose time and effort trying to scrap off the shame of the time you had already waisted by arguing in the first place.

lols, that's funny though. Your part of the counter spammers right? Can I join?


4559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 8/18/08 , edited 8/18/08

zendude wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


zendude wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:

I really am stunned. Your only objection to my logic was to say that because you could type out an incorrect equation my use of logical syntax is invalid. We're done here.


Say whatever you want to say. I don't think you'll be convincing anybody at all.
Why, for all I care I can say this is a duck and convince people that it's true.


To Pibb:
Sorry that I have to say this Pibb, but neither did you. All I heard what a bunch of psuedo intellectual premises from both of you.

And about science not being the answer to everything, I have to agree. But science is probably the only thing we have in this world apart from "GOD."

To YouAreDumb and Pibb consider this (my version of the Schrödinger's cat):
"The concepts of true nature does not lie in set rules, but a probability map that does set common patterns that could be followed. This is the truth, for as nature in it self started in a random event that is too far unmeasurable by any means of human science. Everything and anything only exist for the reasons of being, in layman's terms, lucky (or by God, who is tipping the scales for us)."


Well I'm not the perfect apologist. I am a Christian but that doesn't mean I understand all of it, or at least can explain it all. YAD hasn't even cracked the Bible from what I see.

As for science, how about religion? (altough religion can equal God) Can't humans rely on that too? Not everything we do is (at least completely) based of science or religion. What about Language Arts or History?

For probability, it doesn't imply randomness. Randomness is something that is completely out of anyone's/anything's control. Saying that something is a little random is not possible. The world is either defined (with purpose) or completely random. I think that there was purpose in making this world. Theism implies that you believe the world had a purpose. Think about it.
Just because humans cannot comprehend something or comprehends that something in the wrong way doesn't mean it can't function. Law of gravity and the heliocentric theory wasn't accept until only a couple of centuries ago.

EDIT:
Might I add that people have the freedom to do as they please, whether it be to accept a form of logic or not. That DK duck thing wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. It was a sarcastic remark.


Points (Same things that I said to YouAreDumb at another thread about the Bible):
- I said "social commentary" as in the Bible is full of the problems that we have today: from corruption, sex (I could name some many of this), money, etc (you know as much as I do how twisted most of the people in the Bible are, even the righteous, King David)-- so basically the fall of man from grace. You get the idea.

-No doubt the some of the parts of the Bible is questionable, as it is, of course written by men's hands (not to mention manipulated and revised and etc. [Mostly, we got the Catholic Church to thank for that. Oh, how I hate dogmas.]). But, this is is a "But," we can learn from it from not making the same mistakes again and again, but of course, this is highly improbable as we humans fall again and again; "history repeats itself," and it is only natural for us to sin.

- I actually take practical advice from the Bible, rather question its authenticity (but at times this is important too). I believe, pray, and practice to be good, trying to follow the steps of Christ, but of course, I am only human as well, as I stumble from day to day, but I am gradually getting stronger and better at my faith.

- Are we better than the people of the Bible, "NO," except for Christ of course. We are better at technology (it is only natural to evolve), but not in the practice of righteousness and selflessness, which to me is one of the big points of the Bible. We are as immoral today as the people of the Bible.

Consider (with a sense of literalism) this about the people of the Bible and God:
- The Israelites when they where out in the desert. Even in the presence of God, even when they saw God's miracles and wonders with their eyes, even when they heard His voice, even after they were free from the Egyptian, they totally disregarded God. So is it God that has forsaken us, or did we forsake Him?

I have that this would suffice your comment about me not cracking a Bible. I do read it, but probably not as much as you guys did.


That wasn't pointed towards you. YAD=YouAreDumb, the user I'm referring to. YAD wasn't a fancy way of saying you. I never had doubts that you read the bible. Sorry for the confusion. That poster of yours, totally would piss of any debator. I know what kind of people it's referring to (spammers) but I think you used it wrong. I'm doing my best against YAD, but his arguement was too fricken long. I actually wish that he would just narrow it down before posting it.
5598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / living life as i...
Offline
Posted 8/18/08
just a reminder....

when doing debates...keep and open mind to all the possibilities in the world.....
it may be proven or not....

a wise man opens up to allow more possibilities of learning...

if you debate for the sake that this person may not belive,,,, or so the person may believe....

i tell you...many years will pass... all you have said will be rot to nothing.

make your point stand up for it.. but if you deny or disregard what your opponent has to say.. then dont argue at all...
cause it will be fruitless..

respect and be respected in return.. to christians out there..say what you have to say..and pray. :)

gokigenyo


4559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 8/19/08

zendude wrote:


Rei_008 wrote:

just a reminder....

when doing debates...keep and open mind to all the possibilities in the world.....
it may be proven or not....

a wise man opens up to allow more possibilities of learning...

if you debate for the sake that this person may not belive,,,, or so the person may believe....

i tell you...many years will pass... all you have said will be rot to nothing.

make your point stand up for it.. but if you deny or disregard what your opponent has to say.. then dont argue at all...
cause it will be fruitless..

respect and be respected in return.. to christians out there..say what you have to say..and pray. :)

gokigenyo




Probably the only that made sense out of this thread.

Are you a zenmaster as well? "LAWL"

I will go pray now. Thanks.


Yes, this is all true since the only people you may convince is the audience. I will add thou, although a wise man opens up to allow more possibilities of learning, he has all the rights to question them but can still consider them until it's completely bunk.
First  Prev  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.