Now, LostCause, I appreciate that you'd look out for me by letting me get in the last word. Still, don't you think it's fairer to also let Rust say his side of the story?

quote:This is not the main point of what I say. You are grasping at straws here.

This is not graping at straws. I'm replying directly to what you said. You said that because the bible was translated many times that that somehow mean that we would not be able to refute Christianity. I'm replying to that. If that's not your main paint, that still does not mean I was "grasping" at anything.

quote:The bible speaks about God in different places differently as different people thought different things about God. Some people see an omnibenevolent god and wrote that. That does not make it fact. For everytime you could find something about God's omnibenevolence in the Bible, I could find something contradicting that. Besides that, God is benevolent in the sense that he grants all good men paradise. If you let the holy spirit run through your body then you are blessed and will be included in God's magnificent golden city.

I already dealt with this completely. If we are to arrive at what is actually "Christian doctrine" then it would only be reasonable to conclude that what the vast majority of Christians believe now (and have believe since the birth of Christianity) is actual Christian doctrine. If are to arrive at a reasonable conclusion, it would be that 'god being purely good' is part of Christian doctrine, which means you were wrong initially.

That's even if we ignore the fact that if we take your argument as true, the statement "that doesn't disprove Christianity" would become meaningless as well. You could not say that at all precisely because "many people believe many different things". Your statement was worthless either way.

P.S. You should delete this thread after you read this (or even if you don't). I don't give a shit about you having the "last word" in the other thread.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

This is not graping at straws. I'm replying directly to what you said. You said that because the bible was translated many times that that somehow mean that we would not be able to refute Christianity. I'm replying to that. If that's not your main paint, that still does not mean I was "grasping" at anything.

What I said was kind of irrelevent. It's not my point rly.

quote:I already dealt with this completely. If we are to arrive at what is actually "Christian doctrine" then it would only be reasonable to conclude that what the vast majority of Christians believe now (and have believe since the birth of Christianity) is actual Christian doctrine. If are to arrive at a reasonable conclusion, it would be that 'god being purely good' is part of Christian doctrine, which means you were wrong initially.

That's even if we ignore the fact that if we take your argument as true, the statement "that doesn't disprove Christianity" would become meaningless as well. You could not say that at all precisely because "many people believe many different things". Your statement was worthless either way.

I don't really care what you say. Would you believe that if a class of mathematicians all believed that one and one made three, it is the accepted doctrine? What a worthless statement you made.

quote:P.S. You should delete this thread after you read this (or even if you don't). I don't give a shit about you having the "last word" in the other thread.

oh

I didn't see the original thread where you guys started this, but

niggersexual

- nothing's irrelevant. If you make a false claim about another's character, then they have a right to refute it. From what I can tell, you lied when you said Rust was graspin' at straws (or misunderstood the meaning of the saying).. so Rust had a sort of duty to correct that claim.

- why would you not care what someone says? If you're that stupid, then why are you here?