I don't really think it's fair to talk about someone who is away.

Voices in his head?

Are you suggesting that Abra is psychotic?

Lonleywalker, you should not take his statements personal and I think that is what you are doing. This is his experience with the doctrine and he studied it with a fine tooth comb like any mathmatician would, with the idea that he was going to teach it. It did not add up for him. That made him angry.

He is not angry at you or any Christian.

We already know you disagree with his assessment.
We already know what Christians believe.
We already know they feel compelled to preach the word.
We already know they feel persecuted and misunderstood.
We already know how happy they are about it.
We hear it all the time, over and over, not from just one person, but from every preaching Christian.

Be happy. Don't worry. You are right and everybody else is wrong. Have faith in that and sleep well.

Yours is a faith based doctrine. It can't be proven. Yet we are constantly looked at and preached at like we are the crazy ones for not believing it.

If we are crazy ... I can give you a guess what makes us crazy. Hearing the same old tired so-called truth about God over and over and being treated like we are crazy or heathens or lost souls headed for Hell, for not believing in something unreasonable.

Be at peace. Preach your gospel. Don't fret the non-believers. There is no reason to.

JB

According to Spider, biblical hate is simply disapproval of something. Clearly Christians disapprove of not believing in Jesus. Therefore by their own admission they hate all non-believers based on the biblical meaning of hate (assuming that Spider has a clue )

Yeah the spider is back!

We always talk about you when you are away, so don't stay away so long next time.

I don't really think it's fair to talk about someone who is away.

I never made that claim, you are misremembering.

"Hate", in Hebrew, can sometimes mean "reject", not "disapprove".

Miguel wrote:

I'm not spider my views and understandings of the Bible are far far from where Mr. Spider stands.

Miguel to JB:

you are so cute when you defend James. I even feel goosebumps.

you are so cute when you defend James. I even feel goosebumps.

Thanks for clearing up the definition. "reject" is much worse than "disapprove". The shame of it all.

What do you mean it's "worse"?

Well, to merely disapprove of someone suggest that you may still care about them.

To totally reject them implies that you don't care about them at all.

At least that would be my own person perception of these terms.

Semantics are never absolutes. They are always open to interpretation. You can never trust written words. They can mean whatever you subjectively take them to mean.

we already know you feel hated by christians.

According to Spider, biblical hate is simply disapproval of something. Clearly Christians disapprove of not believing in Jesus. Therefore by their own admission they hate all non-believers based on the biblical meaning of hate (assuming that Spider has a clue )

"Hate", in Hebrew, can sometimes mean "reject", not "disapprove".

First of all, and most important of all, both parties must know that the purpose of an argument (not a debate) is to provide the audience with both points of view in a subject, and not to debate each others points of view. Therefore, it follows that instead of sharing points of views the argument turns into an attack in each others points of view, then the argument is moot.

If we start with premises such you are delusional because of your point of view or you are evil (or a pack of vipers) then the argument also becomes moot.

No matter how ridiculous the other party's reasoning seems to me, I can't diminish or be derogatory towards to the other party.

For instance, I was reading in a thread that somebody has the theory the Holy Virgin was raped when she conceived Jesus, and that is why she kept it secret. In all honesty such train of thought seemed to me very ludicrous. However, I must respect the person who came to such conclusion. I don't know this person's reasons, it could have been ignorance, misconceptions who knows. It's not my mission to criticize this person, but to inform.

It isn't my mission either to try to change this person's mind. This individual can keep thinking as he/she so wish. But at least if this person is respectful enough to read my point of view (if I state it), and see and respect my position about the issue.

If there is not respect towards each party the argument is also rendered moot.

When my initial intention is to proselytize in either way (christian or atheist proselytism) the argument is also rendered moot.

It's such a waste of time trying to convert people, faith is a personal response of the individual, and it cannot be forced, as some fundamentalists pretend to do. Even worse when the means used to convert are hate and fear.

Finally, if my ego is bigger than my butt any statement coming from me is also invalid, ergo, my position is erroneous, and the argument is rendered moot.

TLW