164 replies to this topic

[TheAvengerLever]

I was a Christian for many years; that's how I learned to debate. I understand your solution, but I don't think it helps. It's kind of presumptuous, and again goes back to what I said in my first couple of posts in the thread. I'll quote it below:

"If God exemplifies all of these virtues that He created (as most Christians would tell you) or if He is all-powerful and the originator of everything (as every Christian should tell you), then we have no basis from which to say that God leans toward any of these qualities. Even love; to say that God is all-loving is to marginalize the infinite magnitude of God. Sucks to be bound by the parameters of perfection. To be honest, it sounds contrived to me. When the Bible has so many conflicting views of God (between the Old Testament and New Testament, not even counting all of the Mormon stuff), answers crop up out of nowhere with the same sort of suddenness as making up rules in a made up game to ensure your friend doesn't win, and you do. "Oh, you can't hit one of the light colored bricks with the ball, it's a foul. My point!"

The Bible can be used to justify literally anything that you feel strongly about. Are you against Gay Marriage? The Bible supports you. Are you for Gay Marriage? The Bible supports you. Are you for peace? The Bible supports you. Are you for just killing every mother fucker you want? The Bible supports you.

People have different focal points about God because Scripture's descriptions of God are so vast that they're vague. It's hard to get a sense of the 'true' personality of an infinite God. But, at the same time, to insist that God has a particular personality (as the linchpin of Christianity says that God is Love) is to circumvent God and laugh at his infinite personality and insist that God can only exemplify one aspect of it. That one aspect though is something that changes according to personal desire. Personal prejudices, social standards, etc. and these all change with time.

Who we think God is has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity. It has to do with us and what people want to believe. Which is blasphemy. Everyone focuses on a certain aspect of what they think God is, that they insist that every other quality is 'wrong,' and in some extreme cases, 'evil.' Hence why people think Satan is "evil." "


Hope that helps with you understanding the difficulty here.

Are you trying to say that it's confusing having to deal with Christians and peoples alike labeling God certain terms that could only limit his omniscience to you? I want to make sure before I answer.

It helps, sure. But like I said, maybe it says more about the Christians I know instead of the Bible. But then again, it's not really a good, concrete example. Peter didn't do a whole hell of a lot, but admittedly, it was all of the work that a human could do in that situation. So I'm wanting to press the issue a little further, its still pretty vague. Can you extrapolate the situation to something more applicable and something a little less downright epistemologically absurd?

At the moment no, because as of right now I'm a little preoccupied. I'm sorry. Perhaps someone else could better answer this or maybe if it's okay with you we could come back to this later?

[Reflectionist]

Suitable for Poore's argument and analogy, not for mine. Technically that's a strawman.

Regardless, your argument is flawed because you aren't thinking in terms of the big picture. Let's pose a hypothetical. You are an amazingly skilled surgeon. Two people have diseases which will kill them very soon at the same time, one heart disease and the other say, brain cancer. The person with brain cancer has a 0% chance of survival. Absolutely no way will he live. So does the heart disease patient. The only difference is, if the patient gets a heart transplant, the recovery rate goes up to close to 100% The brain cancer patient's heart is perfectly healthy. Let's say that the heart transplant must take place within seconds of the donor dying. You, as the surgeon, don't know either patient; you have no personal involvement with either one. Do you perform the operation, killing a man who was going to die anyway to save the life of another, or do you let them both die? The parallels should be obvious. God, being God, knew that (obviously to claim knowledge of God's thought processes is stupid, so the following is merely conjecture) (to cite one specific example) the inhabitants of the land of Canaan would corrupt the Israelites into idol worship etc, killing any chance they had to spend eternity with God instead of apart from him. Those inhabitants, however, would not have been converted by their contact with the Israelites, and would have had to spend eternity away from God regardless. So, the most logical thing to do is to save the ones that can be saved at the expense of the ones who could not anyway.

This I think is what Poore was trying to get at. What may look like being against God's benevolent nature in the long run is in fact an illusion, because we, as mortals, cannot see the end effects of events.

Regardless, this thread is really quite off topic at the moment.

See, I'm out of my skin anyway because I don't believe there is a 'big picture,' here. My allowances in this argument as per what I believe already are pretty generous. I'm assuming quite a bit as it is for the sake of your arguments... Especially when an example you pose is admitted 'merely conjecture.'

Sure, you may call Straw Man on that argument, but I had hoped that what I was saying with Poore was close enough to what I am going to say with you. Apparently not. That's fine. Let's try this again, the, shall we?

The point I was trying to make is that any 'big picture' analogy that you try to make is necessarily contrived. Poore's example was contrived because it's quite obvious that there are no lessons to be learned (or, at the very least, put into practice) after you're dead. So if God kills you, you have no chance at all to learn this lesson. It sounds like God plays favorites. The New Testament says he does not. The Old says he does. Your example is contrived because there's no way to know if the Canaanites would've corrupted the Israelites. There's absolutely no way to verify any of these examples, and further still, there's no reason to assume that they're correct, unless you just want to. That's what I was saying.

Sure. It's possible that it's the case. But it's equally possible that it is not the case. And as long as you're a Christian, you're going to say that it's true. The Christian necessarily has to be in a certain "God-Centered" mindset, so it appears impossible to him that his advances and apologetics are wrong. He takes it for granted that God exists, and like Egann always likes to say, God becomes the axiom from which everything is drawn. For the atheist, it is the exact opposite, except there's nothing offered by atheism. No promise of an afterlife, no hope; nothing. So they couldn't possibly be in it 'for the money' so to speak.

That's why I give that position more crediblity when it comes right down to the either / or scenarios, like this one, and the one Poore gave. They may be the best illustrations in the world, but they're not objective, so I can't possibly take them as seriously as you do. And sure, it's off topic, but the initial topic was addressed and people couldn't agree on it. Details had to be ironed out, and that's what we're doing now. It's a necessary tangent.


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

Are you trying to say that it's confusing having to deal with Christians and peoples alike labeling God certain terms that could only limit his omniscience to you? I want to make sure before I answer.

No. It's not confusing; it's blasphemous. Saying "God is Love" is blasphemy, because God is necessarily infinite. It gives equal validity to saying "God is Hate." Love and Hate are opposites, so God cannot be completely one of them... God must have equal parts both, else... it's off balance. Imperfect. Finite. Not divine.

It helps, sure. But like I said, maybe it says more about the Christians I know instead of the Bible. But then again, it's not really a good, concrete example. Peter didn't do a whole hell of a lot, but admittedly, it was all of the work that a human could do in that situation. So I'm wanting to press the issue a little further, its still pretty vague. Can you extrapolate the situation to something more applicable and something a little less downright epistemologically absurd?

At the moment no, because as of right now I'm a little preoccupied. I'm sorry. Perhaps someone else could better answer this or maybe if it's okay with you we could come back to this later?

Sure. Take your time, man.

Edited by Reflectionist, 16 December 2008 - 08:48 PM.

[Steel Samurai]

Suitable for Poore's argument and analogy, not for mine. Technically that's a strawman.

Regardless, your argument is flawed because you aren't thinking in terms of the big picture. Let's pose a hypothetical. You are an amazingly skilled surgeon. Two people have diseases which will kill them very soon at the same time, one heart disease and the other say, brain cancer. The person with brain cancer has a 0% chance of survival. Absolutely no way will he live. So does the heart disease patient. The only difference is, if the patient gets a heart transplant, the recovery rate goes up to close to 100% The brain cancer patient's heart is perfectly healthy. Let's say that the heart transplant must take place within seconds of the donor dying. You, as the surgeon, don't know either patient; you have no personal involvement with either one. Do you perform the operation, killing a man who was going to die anyway to save the life of another, or do you let them both die? The parallels should be obvious. God, being God, knew that (obviously to claim knowledge of God's thought processes is stupid, so the following is merely conjecture) (to cite one specific example) the inhabitants of the land of Canaan would corrupt the Israelites into idol worship etc, killing any chance they had to spend eternity with God instead of apart from him. Those inhabitants, however, would not have been converted by their contact with the Israelites, and would have had to spend eternity away from God regardless. So, the most logical thing to do is to save the ones that can be saved at the expense of the ones who could not anyway.

This I think is what Poore was trying to get at. What may look like being against God's benevolent nature in the long run is in fact an illusion, because we, as mortals, cannot see the end effects of events.

Regardless, this thread is really quite off topic at the moment.

See, I'm out of my skin anyway because I don't believe there is a 'big picture,' here. My allowances in this argument as per what I believe already are pretty generous. I'm assuming quite a bit as it is for the sake of your arguments... Especially when an example you pose is admitted 'merely conjecture.'

Sure, you may call Straw Man on that argument, but I had hoped that what I was saying with Poore was close enough to what I am going to say with you. Apparently not. That's fine. Let's try this again, the, shall we?

The point I was trying to make is that any 'big picture' analogy that you try to make is necessarily contrived. Poore's example was contrived because it's quite obvious that there are no lessons to be learned (or, at the very least, put into practice) after you're dead. So if God kills you, you have no chance at all to learn this lesson. It sounds like God plays favorites. The New Testament says he does not. The Old says he does. Your example is contrived because there's no way to know if the Canaanites would've corrupted the Israelites. There's absolutely no way to verify any of these examples, and further still, there's no reason to assume that they're correct, unless you just want to. That's what I was saying.

Sure. It's possible that it's the case. But it's equally possible that it is not the case. And as long as you're a Christian, you're going to say that it's true. The Christian necessarily has to be in a certain "God-Centered" mindset, so it appears impossible to him that his advances and apologetics are wrong. He takes it for granted that God exists, and like Egann always likes to say, God becomes the axiom from which everything is drawn. For the atheist, it is the exact opposite, except there's nothing offered by atheism. No promise of an afterlife, no hope; nothing. So they couldn't possibly be in it 'for the money' so to speak.

That's why I give that position more crediblity when it comes right down to the either / or scenarios, like this one, and the one Poore gave. They may be the best illustrations in the world, but they're not objective, so I can't possibly take them as seriously as you do. And sure, it's off topic, but the initial topic was addressed and people couldn't agree on it. Details had to be ironed out, and that's what we're doing now. It's a necessary tangent.

I agree, to a point. Every one of these discussions essentially boils down to whether you accept the axiom of God's existence or no, and this is part of the reason I don't post here very much. The discussions always end with
"God exists."
"No he doesn't."
"Yes he does."
etc. However, I strongly disagree about atheism offering nothing. Atheism offers no eternal responsibility for your actions. Atheism offers the chance to do whatever you damn well please without worrying about the consequences to others as long as it doesn't affect you. Atheism offers the chance to control your fate. It's amazingly tempting in the short run. But I refuse to believe that everything in life is purposeless and ultimately futile. Much like Puddleglum in The Silver Chair, I don't know but as they may be right, and there is no God, but it seems to me that my world with a God who cares about me and each person on the planet is a sight better than their world with no purpose or plan. So I'm going to act like there's a God, and keep looking for signs of his existence in the world, and when I die, either I'm wrong and I don't exist any more, or I'm right and know for sure. It's not a logical argument, but humans aren't now, nor, I think, ever will be completely logical creatures. With that, my piece is said on this subject.

[TheAvengerLever]

No. It's not confusing; it's blasphemous. Saying "God is Love" is blasphemy, because God is necessarily infinite. It gives equal validity to saying "God is Hate." Love and Hate are opposites, so God cannot be completely one of them... God must have equal parts both, else... it's off balance. Imperfect. Finite. Not divine.

I think God can be both and it doesn't have to be balanced. I can believe that perfectly fine because I realize I'm talking about a being that defies human logic and natural laws, and though I can't understand completely what he is (hence when I saw I can believe he is both and it not be balanced) it's only because I am only able to understand as much as I am allowed by my logic.

But I'm glad I finally understand your thoughts on the matter.

As to your other question, I'll get to that later. I'm sorry I keep putting it off.

[Selena]

Atheism versus Christianity shouldn't be too big an issue here. If you're going to properly examine the characters of Satan and God, or anyone in the Bible, you sort of have to stick to the source material whether you believe in it or not. You can obviously include outside but relevant sources, if appropriate. But if you're trying to argue the nature of God or Satan from a completely non-religious viewpoint, then no, none of it will ever make much sense. In the same way that Gandalf doesn't make much logical sense outside of Lord of the Rings, as a much more limited comparison.

--

The Bible might be able to support many different claims now, but that's only if you try to apply the Bible to ways of life that never would have existed in the time and region it was written down in. Making a religious claim about a very modern problem is most often done by citing some line in the Bible that is so general it could apply to a number of things, or it's something that has been taken out of context in order to further a point. So yes, the Bible could be made to defend a number of conflicting viewpoints. However, when it comes to certain characters within the Bible, such as Satan or Michael, that's a somewhat different matter. Everything about their characters are limited to the book. It should theoretically hold up.

The only major rift in the Bible space-time-characterization continuum occurs in the shift between the Old Testament and the New Testament, which are separated by many years and a different culture. The storytelling is much different from a literary viewpoint. It's at that point that you have to determine which version is the one that holds the most 'truth.' Obviously, if you're a member of any religion stemming from Abraham, you're going to pick whichever one you follow. I don't believe in any, which might be useful or a detriment depending on your view of things. I apply the same reasoning to this matter as I do to other beliefs (namely mythology) that change over time.

The later versions might be more detailed and the 'classic' version, but it's usually the oldest one that is the purest, for lack of a better term. All the original intentions and themes are there, and those are things that can be lost with time (such as when Christianity came about, and especially when later Christian branches formed). Hecate is seen as a goddess of magic and the crossroads in the late Greek version of her stories, but if you dig deeper, you'll find out she was really just an Anatolian goddess adopted by the Greeks and given new themes to fit their culture. If that can be used as a decent comparison to how I'm going about looking at Satan.

So with that explained, I look at the Jewish version as holding the most weight as far as characterization goes. In that family tree of religion, it's the oldest. Especially Genesis and the other earliest books. To me, God is as wrathful as he is loving. Satan just seems to be an evil toward humans, not necessarily toward God. We're obviously going to think he's a force for all bad things in the world, but we're biased. He's probably just one of God's many agents, responsible for pushing humans toward their spiritual breaking point in order to test the strength and purity of their faith. When you transition into Christianity, you run into a few potholes.

1. Satan takes a turn for the very rebellious and malevolent, when before he just seemed to be a part of the grand scheme of things, if a cruel part.
-- 1a: However, to be fair, I would have to note the Second Book of Enoch. In 2 Enoch, Satan is lord of the Grigori, a branch of fallen angels that started screwing women left and right and fell from heaven due to their perverted ways and cruelty. Satan even got a little action from Eve, apparently, mostly because it seems as if he was angry at the creation of man and wanted some kind of revenge or attack. It's an apocryphal text, usually considered part of Jewish apocrypha. It came late, though, supposedly near the time of Christianity and from a sect of Judaism that wasn't widely acknowledged. In theory. It's possible that while the Jewish church tossed it out, some of the themes were then used for the infant Christian religion. Still, either way, it's a much later document than the early Jewish books, so it is subject to the same shifts in literary purity.

2. Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost seemed to become so ingrained with western culture that their embellishments and fiction are sometimes considered truth. I've seen Christians take elements from both stories and try to pass them off as actually being part of the Bible, even when the text doesn't really seem to support some of the claims. It's possible that such writings have influenced things in a way they shouldn't have. The war in heaven is especially played up, considering the biggest source of it is from Revelations, which takes place at the end of all things, not early on. The fire and brimstone days of the Catholic church may also be of some less than accurate influence on matters.

Regardless, things get played up to a level they weren't on before, and certainly not in the oldest texts. Either way, God, being omnipotent and whatnot, could have easily gotten rid of him. He did so in Revelations, which seemed like a giant ass whupping and not a lengthy struggle between two equal forces. So it's very possible that while Satan may have considered himself an outcast or rebel, God continued to use him as a chess piece of sorts. Or maybe Satan was willing to take on the guise of being the bad guy. Or maybe it's just humans who paint him as evil, considering the nature of his job.

...

As for God being cruel, I'm with Steel in that you just have to deal with it and accept it as part of the religion. God may or may not have good intentions about it. That doesn't matter much either way. And if you take Judaism into regional and historical context, God being just as destructive as he is loving makes absolutely perfect sense. Almost every leading god in that region and time period was capable of bestowing great gifts upon humanity... but was also capable of massive destruction and plagues. And they made no apology for it. In the historical context, God being cruel fits in with the themes going on during that era. But that's from a more distant viewpoint on multiple religions. May not be appealing to people now, but that's the way it was. And God only called one Deluge. Enlil called a lot of them! So the Old Testament isn't even necessarily the most destructive, as far as they all go.

God being JUST love seems to be a product of megachurch pop preaching, a way for salesmen pastors to attract newcomers. Because he doesn't come across as being only love and goodness in the texts.


Sorry. I think I rambled there for a while.

[Egann]

Every one of these discussions essentially boils down to whether you accept the axiom of God's existence or no, and this is part of the reason I don't post here very much. The discussions always end with
"God exists."
"No he doesn't."
"Yes he does.

Atheists and theists start with such different assumptions about the nature of thought that this is pretty much required by the nature of the case. (Spoiler-brackets because this is a tangent. If further digression is warrented, I'll make an new thread.)

Atheists start with Descart's observation "I think, therefore I am." Essentially, I can doubt everything except I exist. This is intuitively obvious because we are self-aware, but logically (despite the fact this argument can be reorganized into a proper transcendental argument) it is invalid because it is viciously circular ("I" or the premise in question is on both sides of the syllogism, so it's an observation and not a logical syllogism.)

A theist starts with the assumption that to prove the self, we shouldn't look to ourselves, but to a higher axiomatic system to serve as a proof-system (this argument was not properly formulated until after Goedel formulated his theorems.) Basically, without God to serve as a Goedelic proof system, logic cannot be known to bear any weight. (The problem here being that God has to serve as a proof-system for Himself, which would be circular...it IS possible to avoid being viciously circular, however, given the Trinity.)

The two positions are like oil and water because they both start from the same observation of "I am" and go in completely opposite directions.

No. It's not confusing; it's blasphemous. Saying "God is Love" is blasphemy, because God is necessarily infinite. It gives equal validity to saying "God is Hate." Love and Hate are opposites, so God cannot be completely one of them... God must have equal parts both, else... it's off balance. Imperfect. Finite. Not divine.

God being JUST love seems to be a product of megachurch pop preaching, a way for salesmen pastors to attract newcomers. Because he doesn't come across as being only love and goodness in the texts.

Love is one of God's attributes, and, contrary to popular opinion, so is Hate. God Loves what is Good, and Hates what is Evil...and because those are defined by God's own character, if God did not Love Good and Hate Evil, it could not be said that either Evil or Good existed...even given Theism.

Unfortunately, as you (plural) point out, there's a bit of a blurring here for modern preaching. Saying "God is Love" is incorrect theologically because the actual statement should be "God is Loving" to make it an adjective just like the statement "God is Omniscient." To say "God is Love" with both being nouns makes it a logical identity statement identical to "Love is God."

I won't say that's blasphemy, but in that form it's pretty obvious that it's at least heretical.

Edited by Egann, 17 December 2008 - 12:34 PM.

[Arturo]

Saying "God is Love" is incorrect theologically because the actual statement should be "God is Loving" to make it an adjective just like the statement "God is Omniscient." To say "God is Love" with both being nouns makes it a logical identity statement identical to "Love is God."

It might be as theologically incorrect as you want, but it's in the Bible.

Edited by Arturo, 17 December 2008 - 12:58 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Saying "God is Love" is incorrect theologically because the actual statement should be "God is Loving" to make it an adjective just like the statement "God is Omniscient." To say "God is Love" with both being nouns makes it a logical identity statement identical to "Love is God."

It might be as theologically incorrect as you want, but it's in the Bible.

Can I make a motion that this post be added immediately, automatically, every time Egann posts?

Egann, stick to your premises, d00d. I don't care how logical you think you are... you really don't have any right to just dispose of premises or redefine them at your whim, as you have done in every single post in this thread. Look, your arguments may be internally consistent, and I'm sure they are, but the second you start going for that over what the Bible says, you are no longer arguing for Christianity. You're arguing for Idolatry.

Edited by Reflectionist, 17 December 2008 - 04:31 PM.

[Alardonin]

God, being God, knew that (obviously to claim knowledge of God's thought processes is stupid, so the following is merely conjecture) (to cite one specific example) the inhabitants of the land of Canaan would corrupt the Israelites into idol worship etc, killing any chance they had to spend eternity with God instead of apart from him. Those inhabitants, however, would not have been converted by their contact with the Israelites, and would have had to spend eternity away from God regardless. So, the most logical thing to do is to save the ones that can be saved at the expense of the ones who could not anyway.

If I remember correctly, there was also a punishment in the old testament that was composed of repercussions done to later generations, in response to actions(sins) exercised by their respective predecessors. Though I could be mistaken, for the reasons told in my previous post. Regardless, there were examples more difficult to make a conclusion than the above. In the end, I agree with the point, I can definitely understand your reasoning above, and you definitely made it clear that it was conjecture.

I definitely agree with your perspective on the whole subject to a point. And your argument of good and evil concerning an overall perspective from the religion in itself, is, imo, pivotal to the argument. Still, the meaning of good and evil you presented, can only be seen as a subjective argument, in other words an argument seen from the point of the religion in question. My point is that the words evil and good have objective meanings put into them. Objective meanings that have nothing to do with those founded either in the old or new testament.

The arguments you presented are making a very strong connection between the words good and evil in relation to the words right and wrong. While both can be seen in the same light, they do have specific distinctions. Those specific distinctions definitely, should also have a say in this argument.

[Egann]

Saying "God is Love" is incorrect theologically because the actual statement should be "God is Loving" to make it an adjective just like the statement "God is Omniscient." To say "God is Love" with both being nouns makes it a logical identity statement identical to "Love is God."

It might be as theologically incorrect as you want, but it's in the Bible.

Can I make a motion that this post be added immediately, automatically, every time Egann posts?

Egann, stick to your premises, d00d. I don't care how logical you think you are... you really don't have any right to just dispose of premises or redefine them at your whim, as you have done in every single post in this thread. Look, your arguments may be internally consistent, and I'm sure they are, but the second you start going for that over what the Bible says, you are no longer arguing for Christianity. You're arguing for Idolatry.

Question: Would responding to that qualify as feeding a troll? I hope not, but I'll tread lightly nonetheless.


Both Aurturo's and my own claims are unsourced, as of yet. Of course, the absence of citing scripture does not prove that they do not exist. In my case, at least, it just means I regard scriptural interpretation as too complex a matter for me to really think that citing scripture against you (or the reverse) will do anything but unneedingly complicate the thread without actually changing anything. But if you really want to press that challenge, be my guest.

Unfortunately, the Bible does NOT teach that "God is Love," or any permutation of such. Not only did God tell the Israelite in the Old Testament to exterminate the Amalekites (and by exterminate, I mean "Kill their men. Kill their women. Kill their children. Kill their cows.") but even if you aren't a theonomist and don't think the Old Testament is relavent any more, Jesus drove vendors from the Temple. (1 Samuel 15:2-3 and Matthew 21:12-13 respectively.) If you think these are from a God who "is love"...I'd really hate to see what you'd call hate.

Edited by Egann, 17 December 2008 - 06:17 PM.

[Arturo]

Unfortunately, the Bible does NOT teach that "God is Love," or any permutation of such.

4:8, 1 John, straight from King James Bible:

He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Cry, debate, invent all you want, the Bible still says "Deus caritas est", no matter how marvelous your debating skills are, the Bible will continue to say "ὁ θεòς ἀγάπη ἐστίν".

Dios es amor, la Biblia lo dice.

[Reflectionist]

Question: Would responding to that qualify as feeding a troll? I hope not, but I'll tread lightly nonetheless.

Both Aurturo's and my own claims are unsourced, as of yet. Of course, the absence of citing scripture does not prove that they do not exist. In my case, at least, it just means I regard scriptural interpretation as too complex a matter for me to really think that citing scripture against you (or the reverse) will do anything but unneedingly complicate the thread without actually changing anything. But if you really want to press that challenge, be my guest.

Unfortunately, the Bible does NOT teach that "God is Love," or any permutation of such. Not only did God tell the Israelite in the Old Testament to exterminate the Amalekites (and by exterminate, I mean "Kill their men. Kill their women. Kill their children. Kill their cows.") but even if you aren't a theonomist and don't think the Old Testament is relavent any more, Jesus drove vendors from the Temple. (1 Samuel 15:2-3 and Matthew 21:12-13 respectively.) If you think these are from a God who "is love"...I'd really hate to see what you'd call hate.

Unfortunately, I actually brought up a valid contention. You responded by... calling me a troll. And then proceeded to regurgitate the same point that I've been trying to make, as if it really, really supported your position. I'm not meaning for this to be pejorative (completely), but do you have a God complex, or something? You know, I would think that a Christian would hold the Bible to be the axioms by which he draws all of his arguments and premises from. Every other Christian I know does that. I did that when I was a Christian. But with you, it's very different.

Instead of the inherent reverence of the belief you hold that should be inherent in all Christians, I see a blatant disdain and disregard for the ONE source you have to define your position. You make up your own definitions for words, you argue against the Bible more often than you think (most, if not all of my arguments that I see as hypothetical are usually always Biblically sound, but you still argue against them, even if I don't tell you the verses in particular; ergo, you pretty much always argue against your own position).

This post marks the loss of the one aspect of your argumentation that I find admirable and that is consistency. Not that your position is any more Biblical, nor any more compelling, nor any more logical... but now it's not even consistent. I fail to see how I'm a "troll." Trolls are stupid, and brainless... I've disproved every single one of your arguments in this thread. Or is this another definition you've fabricated?

[Selena]

Question: Would responding to that qualify as feeding a troll? I hope not, but I'll tread lightly nonetheless.

I won't say troll, but it does qualify as leading into unwanted bickering.

Both of you need to stop with your little 'comments' to each other. Debate the issues, not each other. If the other person isn't debating to your liking, oh well. And if the other person isn't citing anything or backing up their arguments, so be it. Count it as a win and move on to more fulfilling discussion.

[Reflectionist]

Question: Would responding to that qualify as feeding a troll? I hope not, but I'll tread lightly nonetheless.

I won't say troll, but it does qualify as leading into unwanted bickering.

Both of you need to stop with your little 'comments' to each other. Debate the issues, not each other. If the other person isn't debating to your liking, oh well. And if the other person isn't citing anything or backing up their arguments, so be it. Count it as a win and move on to more fulfilling discussion.

Yes, ma'am. That's four wins for me, then.

[Goose]

I"d count it as a loss for both of you. You both look like little kids teasing eachother, getting upset and then wondering why.

Topic closed, because GG's question has been answered in full, and the topic has gone way off course.