@caissad4 saidIt's rather tragic to be honest. Every day he mingles with colleagues, friends and probably family members who are atheists and have no idea he views them all as ''carnal, wicked desires like the spineless, unprincipled, dishonest, selfish cowards that you all without fail."
You indeed have hate for people.
Your hatred of yourself is evident.
Tragic. Praise Jesus.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI quoted what Jesus said about hating everyone else to serve Him. Now you're in the unenviable position of having to call Jesus hateful or admit that your lack of understanding of what He meant is a result of your own wickedness. hahahahaha. go ahead, call Jesus a bad guy. man, when you think of only yourself above everyone else, you end up looking so dumb! to say nothing of what you have to fear from God, since naturally He will not endure such selfish wickedness forever!
It's rather tragic to be honest. Every day he mingles with colleagues, friends and probably family members who are atheists and have no idea he views them all as ''carnal, wicked desires like the spineless, unprincipled, dishonest, selfish cowards that you all without fail."
Tragic. Praise Jesus.
Praise Jesus.
@darfius saidYes sir, you are just like Jesus. 😵
I quoted what Jesus said about hating everyone else to serve Him. Now you're in the unenviable position of having to call Jesus hateful or admit that your lack of understanding of what He meant is a result of your own wickedness. hahahahaha. go ahead, call Jesus a bad guy. man, when you think of only yourself above everyone else, you end up looking so dumb! to say nothin ...[text shortened]... fear from God, since naturally He will not endure such selfish wickedness forever!
Praise Jesus.
How about growing a pair and answering the question as to whether or not you view colleagues, friends and (probably) family members who are atheists as ''carnal, wicked desires like the spineless, unprincipled, dishonest, selfish cowards that you all without fail'?
Currently, you are being kicked around this forum by one atheist after another. How very embarrassing for you.
@darfius saidYou are trying to fend off what I am saying without engaging it, but you might as well be referring to your own religious beliefs. The difference though is that, while your religious beliefs are basically your personal subjective "opinions" which are based on "unsubstantiated claims" [i.e. "faith"], I do not mean these things as 'barbs'; I do not think your religious beliefs are "worthless".
All opinion, unsubstantiated claims and therefore worthless.
@fmf saidDoes no atheist on this forum understand how to string together a logically sound argument?
You are trying to fend off what I am saying without engaging it, but you might as well be referring to your own religious beliefs. The difference though is that, while your religious beliefs are basically your personal subjective "opinions" which are based on "unsubstantiated claims" [i.e. "faith"], I do not mean these things as 'barbs'; I do not think your religious beliefs are "worthless".
@darfius saidWell that is a definition of infinite you will not find in any dictionary.
An infinite being is a being that is infinite, ya know, boundless? Infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite presence, infinite love. Playing ignorant won't save you from the judgement seat of Christ.
Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent usually do the trick.
And I will not accuse you of playing ignorant - I think you are genuine.
@darfius said1. We could debate that, you may have a point.
1. An infinitely present being must necessarily be present in all "universes." Fail.
2. Two minds cannot have the exact same thoughts or they are the same mind. And since with omniscience and omnipotence there is no difference between thought and being, two infinite minds which disagree is an impossibility. Fail.
3. There cannot be two all-knowing beings. They would ea ...[text shortened]... desires like the spineless, unprincipled, dishonest, selfish cowards that you all without fail are.
2. You are putting a restraint on an omnipotent being. FAIL
3. Again you are limiting the omnipotent beings. FAIL
4. Not a good argument. FAIL
How many Logic courses have you taken at
degree level or higher and as part of what qualification?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAnother capitulation for you darfius, hey?
How about growing a pair and answering the question as to whether or not you view colleagues, friends and (probably) family members who are atheists as ''carnal, wicked desires like the spineless, unprincipled, dishonest, selfish cowards that you all without fail'?
Currently, you are being kicked around this forum by one atheist after another. How very embarrassing for you.
1 edit
@wolfgang59 saidLogic is not a "restraint", it's simply the way things are. God cannot "make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it" because the idea itself is meaningless, not because of a limitation.
1. We could debate that, you may have a point.
2. You are putting a restraint on an omnipotent being. FAIL
3. Again you are limiting the omnipotent beings. FAIL
4. Not a good argument. FAIL
How many Logic courses have you taken at
degree level or higher and as part of what qualification?
Your question is an example of the logical fallacy of "argument from authority." My qualifications are irrelevant. Only my arguments need be considered.
@darfius saidAnd the award for the most idiotic post ever in this forum goes to...
That little old lady doesn't exist. In reality her "help" is unsought, unneeded, ineffective and carried out to fulfill her own need for control, attention and thrill. I don't hate anyone, but I certainly hate what they allow themselves to become.
1 edit
@darfius said1. I have not said "Logic is a restraint" and to say "it's simply the
Logic is not a "restraint", it's simply the way things are. God cannot "make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it" because the idea itself is meaningless, not because of a limitation.
Your question is an example of the logical fallacy of "argument from authority." My qualifications are irrelevant. Only my arguments need be considered.
way things are" is meaningless.
2. How am I arguing from authority? I have not cited anyone's opinion!
Do you know what an "argument from authority" is? Do you know
what a "logical fallacy" is? I do not think you do - look both up.
3. You lack of qualifications is relevant. If you bandy about
"Logic" we should know what your background in it is. It
seems you have not studied it at all.
4. Your arguments are being considered. And refuted.
@wolfgang59 saidThe laws of logic are the axioms we must presuppose to live in a rational world. They literally are "simply the way things are."
1. I have not said "Logic is a restraint" and to say "it's simply the
way things are" is meaningless.
2. How am I arguing from authority? I have not cited anyone's opinion!
Do you know what an "argument from authority" is? Do you know
what a "logical fallacy" is? I do not think you do - look both up.
3. You lack of qualifications is relevant. If you bandy about ...[text shortened]... . It
seems you have not studied it at all.
4. Your arguments are being considered. And refuted.
Attempting to refute what I say by citing my lack of qualifications is a variation on the fallacy of arguing from authority. The inversion of citing an "expert" is dismissing a non-expert without considering what is said.
My "qualifications" have nothing to do with the logic itself. You're not smart.
You've refuted nothing. Stick to playing bad chess.