Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

In case you were missing me..

Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 8:33:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am quite sure the 'In case...' is not the case here.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 8:37:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 8:33:09 AM, Marauder wrote:
I am quite sure the 'In case...' is not the case here.

Thats kinda mean lol
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 8:51:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 8:33:09 AM, Marauder wrote:
I am quite sure the 'In case...' is not the case here.

C_N was probably missing him.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 9:50:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 8:51:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:33:09 AM, Marauder wrote:
I am quite sure the 'In case...' is not the case here.


C_N was probably missing him.

I was feeling a little lost and empty yes.

Well good for you DAT, though I don't understand why someone who refuses to state what his faith is, refuses to defend his faith, or even fails to believe in his faith would actually bother to preach. Still good for you.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 10:20:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 9:50:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:51:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:33:09 AM, Marauder wrote:
I am quite sure the 'In case...' is not the case here.


C_N was probably missing him.

I was feeling a little lost and empty yes.

Well good for you DAT, though I don't understand why someone who refuses to state what his faith is,

He states it all the time.

refuses to defend his faith,

Have you not noticed the numerous debates he's been in as well as his forum debates?

or even fails to believe in his faith

Umm, DATC seems to have too much faith, where'd you get the idea he doesn't believe?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 10:31:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 10:20:57 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/22/2010 9:50:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:51:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:33:09 AM, Marauder wrote:
I am quite sure the 'In case...' is not the case here.


C_N was probably missing him.

I was feeling a little lost and empty yes.

Well good for you DAT, though I don't understand why someone who refuses to state what his faith is,

He states it all the time.

Nope, for instance I still don't know what his view of the trinity is.


refuses to defend his faith,

Have you not noticed the numerous debates he's been in as well as his forum debates?

For the entire time I have been here I have constantlly offered him debates on the forum and more formally, even in the one debate he accepted with me he failed to post an argument. He does not debate.

or even fails to believe in his faith

Umm, DATC seems to have too much faith, where'd you get the idea he doesn't believe?

He is unwilling to define and defend his faith, he often contradicts it. He is most likely a deeply repressed atheist.

Actually you and him seem to be identical, you both make grandiose claims and both refuse to debate him. With you it is more of a tendency to evade debate, with him it is a flat out refusal to debate.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2010 8:13:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 10:31:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2010 10:20:57 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/22/2010 9:50:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:51:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:33:09 AM, Marauder wrote:
I am quite sure the 'In case...' is not the case here.


C_N was probably missing him.

I was feeling a little lost and empty yes.

Well good for you DAT, though I don't understand why someone who refuses to state what his faith is,

He states it all the time.

Nope, for instance I still don't know what his view of the trinity is.

That's a non-essential facet of the christian faith. to say your faith is the christian faith does not require it. and second off DATC has clearly indicated he is trinitarien before. and before you ask, no I don't remember what thread. Just know your memory isnt in agreement with all that is on this site.


refuses to defend his faith,

Have you not noticed the numerous debates he's been in as well as his forum debates?

For the entire time I have been here I have constantlly offered him debates on the forum and more formally, even in the one debate he accepted with me he failed to post an argument. He does not debate.

formal debates are taxing on ones time. It's not that surprising someone would just argue on this sites forums from time to time. you don't have to set up character limits, think up specific resolution topics, commit to coming here at a later time to finish the debate. You just discuss or argue whatever threads are at the top of the religious forum and freely post whatever you have time to do and as much as you care too.
Formal debates are fun, but its not that big a deal if that's just not what floats his boat.

or even fails to believe in his faith

Umm, DATC seems to have too much faith, where'd you get the idea he doesn't believe?

He is unwilling to define and defend his faith, he often contradicts it. He is most likely a deeply repressed atheist.

Narcy, you the last person on this website qualified to say someone contradicts there faith. you have repeatedly demonstrated your failure to grasp something as simple as relevant applications of laws in Leviticus or Deuteronomy that are not the 10 commandments, or even recognize the consistent christian preaching against legalistic approach to the law and preaching for heeding the spirit of the law's. You constantly take a Christian's saying non-legalistic views about the laws and say 'aha your not really religiously believing in your bible, you contradict your faith!'

Actually you and him seem to be identical, you both make grandiose claims and both refuse to debate him. With you it is more of a tendency to evade debate, with him it is a flat out refusal to debate.

Unlike yourself right Narcy, who has his 'challenge to debate' option blocked off from anyone wanting to debate you.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 11:22:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/23/2010 8:13:41 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/22/2010 10:31:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2010 10:20:57 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/22/2010 9:50:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:51:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:33:09 AM, Marauder wrote:
I am quite sure the 'In case...' is not the case here.


C_N was probably missing him.

I was feeling a little lost and empty yes.

Well good for you DAT, though I don't understand why someone who refuses to state what his faith is,

He states it all the time.

Nope, for instance I still don't know what his view of the trinity is.

That's a non-essential facet of the christian faith.

Says who? Another Christian will claim it is an essential facet of their faith.

to say your faith is the christian faith does not require it. and second off DATC has clearly indicated he is trinitarien before.

Yes, and has never explained how he views the trinity.

and before you ask, no I don't remember what thread. Just know your memory isnt in agreement with all that is on this site.

My memory is fine and you know it.



refuses to defend his faith,

Have you not noticed the numerous debates he's been in as well as his forum debates?

For the entire time I have been here I have constantlly offered him debates on the forum and more formally, even in the one debate he accepted with me he failed to post an argument. He does not debate.

formal debates are taxing on ones time. It's not that surprising someone would just argue on this sites forums from time to time. you don't have to set up character limits, think up specific resolution topics, commit to coming here at a later time to finish the debate. You just discuss or argue whatever threads are at the top of the religious forum and freely post whatever you have time to do and as much as you care too.
Formal debates are fun, but its not that big a deal if that's just not what floats his boat.

Okay, then what is wrong with an informal debate?


or even fails to believe in his faith

Umm, DATC seems to have too much faith, where'd you get the idea he doesn't believe?

He is unwilling to define and defend his faith, he often contradicts it. He is most likely a deeply repressed atheist.

Narcy, you the last person on this website qualified to say someone contradicts there faith. you have repeatedly demonstrated your failure to grasp something as simple as relevant applications of laws in Leviticus or Deuteronomy that are not the 10 commandments, or even recognize the consistent christian preaching against legalistic approach to the law and preaching for heeding the spirit of the law's. You constantly take a Christian's saying non-legalistic views about the laws and say 'aha your not really religiously believing in your bible, you contradict your faith!'

Now you are just making stuff up, the fact that your faith is inconsistent has no bearing on my understanding of it.


Actually you and him seem to be identical, you both make grandiose claims and both refuse to debate him. With you it is more of a tendency to evade debate, with him it is a flat out refusal to debate.

Unlike yourself right Narcy, who has his 'challenge to debate' option blocked off from anyone wanting to debate you.

I have it open to everyone unless they have been specifically blocked for being retarded or being a troll, I am open to debate from all valid members.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 7:47:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 5:21:54 AM, feverish wrote:
Funny to hear DATC's voice and see him haranguing the general public rather than our own little community. More vids please!

The general public won't talk back, he can kid himself with delusions of superiority over them.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 8:06:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 11:22:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/23/2010 8:13:41 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/22/2010 10:31:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2010 10:20:57 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/22/2010 9:50:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:51:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:33:09 AM, Marauder wrote:
I am quite sure the 'In case...' is not the case here.


C_N was probably missing him.

I was feeling a little lost and empty yes.

Well good for you DAT, though I don't understand why someone who refuses to state what his faith is,

He states it all the time.

Nope, for instance I still don't know what his view of the trinity is.

That's a non-essential facet of the christian faith.

Says who? Another Christian will claim it is an essential facet of their faith.
that's probably just in the same sense I would say free will is 'essential' to the faith. if these other Christians your referring to that say trinity teaching are essential in the same sense I say essential in this thread corner them into saying if deviating from that teaching excluded a 'christian' from the ecumenical church. They will tell you though it is important it does not do that. If they really think it essential in the same sense I say the term here (like martin luther) than they would say it does exclude the those Christians from the ecumenical church

to say your faith is the christian faith does not require it. and second off DATC has clearly indicated he is trinitarien before.

Yes, and has never explained how he views the trinity.
So what if he hasn't. he still show's he is trinitarien.
Although I'm pretty sure I've heard him use the 'God isn't supposed to be small enough to fit in our box' explanation on this matter before, which is one of the most common takes on viewing the trinity for Christians. the second most common is the water analogy (it has three states but its all water)
and before you ask, no I don't remember what thread. Just know your memory isnt in agreement with all that is on this site.

My memory is fine and you know it.
I know nothing of the sort


refuses to defend his faith,

Have you not noticed the numerous debates he's been in as well as his forum debates?

For the entire time I have been here I have constantlly offered him debates on the forum and more formally, even in the one debate he accepted with me he failed to post an argument. He does not debate.

formal debates are taxing on ones time. It's not that surprising someone would just argue on this sites forums from time to time. you don't have to set up character limits, think up specific resolution topics, commit to coming here at a later time to finish the debate. You just discuss or argue whatever threads are at the top of the religious forum and freely post whatever you have time to do and as much as you care too.
Formal debates are fun, but its not that big a deal if that's just not what floats his boat.

Okay, then what is wrong with an informal debate?
nothing, and Dact does those. He argues in these threads.


or even fails to believe in his faith

Umm, DATC seems to have too much faith, where'd you get the idea he doesn't believe?

He is unwilling to define and defend his faith, he often contradicts it. He is most likely a deeply repressed atheist.

Narcy, you the last person on this website qualified to say someone contradicts there faith. you have repeatedly demonstrated your failure to grasp something as simple as relevant applications of laws in Leviticus or Deuteronomy that are not the 10 commandments, or even recognize the consistent christian preaching against legalistic approach to the law and preaching for heeding the spirit of the law's. You constantly take a Christian's saying non-legalistic views about the laws and say 'aha your not really religiously believing in your bible, you contradict your faith!'

Now you are just making stuff up, the fact that your faith is inconsistent has no bearing on my understanding of it.


Actually you and him seem to be identical, you both make grandiose claims and both refuse to debate him. With you it is more of a tendency to evade debate, with him it is a flat out refusal to debate.

Unlike yourself right Narcy, who has his 'challenge to debate' option blocked off from anyone wanting to debate you.

I have it open to everyone unless they have been specifically blocked for being retarded or being a troll, I am open to debate from all valid members.

really? how long I have I been blocked?

and if you think I am so retarded then you would have no problem accepting a challenge of some sort since it will be an easy win. Like that Christians should be doing all the things in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to be consistent with their faith. definitions can include that the bible itself, new testament and old is the primary source of our faith for the rest of our actions to need be consistent with. other sources allowed to be considered to exist of course cause they do. http://www.theopedia.com...
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 8:18:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 8:06:06 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/24/2010 11:22:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/23/2010 8:13:41 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/22/2010 10:31:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2010 10:20:57 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/22/2010 9:50:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:51:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/22/2010 8:33:09 AM, Marauder wrote:
I am quite sure the 'In case...' is not the case here.


C_N was probably missing him.

I was feeling a little lost and empty yes.

Well good for you DAT, though I don't understand why someone who refuses to state what his faith is,

He states it all the time.

Nope, for instance I still don't know what his view of the trinity is.

That's a non-essential facet of the christian faith.

Says who? Another Christian will claim it is an essential facet of their faith.
that's probably just in the same sense I would say free will is 'essential' to the faith. if these other Christians your referring to that say trinity teaching are essential in the same sense I say essential in this thread corner them into saying if deviating from that teaching excluded a 'christian' from the ecumenical church. They will tell you though it is important it does not do that. If they really think it essential in the same sense I say the term here (like martin luther) than they would say it does exclude the those Christians from the ecumenical church

And your poorly written point is what?


to say your faith is the christian faith does not require it. and second off DATC has clearly indicated he is trinitarien before.

Yes, and has never explained how he views the trinity.
So what if he hasn't. he still show's he is trinitarien.

So what? My point is confirmed. I could claim to hold to the doctrine of Christly discombobulation, if I fail to explain that I should not be taken seriously. By the same token though DATC may call himself a trinitarian we do not know that means to him.

Although I'm pretty sure I've heard him use the 'God isn't supposed to be small enough to fit in our box' explanation on this matter before, which is one of the most common takes on viewing the trinity for Christians. the second most common is the water analogy (it has three states but its all water)

The water analogy does not work.

Okay, then what is wrong with an informal debate?
nothing, and Dact does those. He argues in these threads.

He is a religious discussion what Godsand or Jharry is to a evolutionary one. Worthless trolling.

I have it open to everyone unless they have been specifically blocked for being retarded or being a troll, I am open to debate from all valid members.

really? how long I have I been blocked?

Months I think. When I want to discuss theology all you do is come along and post something like, "yew touch teh chilldren huh huh".


and if you think I am so retarded then you would have no problem accepting a challenge of some sort since it will be an easy win. Like that Christians should be doing all the things in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to be consistent with their faith. definitions can include that the bible itself, new testament and old is the primary source of our faith for the rest of our actions to need be consistent with. other sources allowed to be considered to exist of course cause they do. http://www.theopedia.com...

The problem is that Jesus states both that you should and should not follow such laws, and that Christians merely follow the laws that suit them. Why is pork permissable but homosexual sex is not? You can not present a consistent biblical argument on the matter, and you have been challenged several times.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 9:07:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 8:18:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 8:06:06 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/24/2010 11:22:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/23/2010 8:13:41 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/22/2010 10:31:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Says who? Another Christian will claim it is an essential facet of their faith.
that's probably just in the same sense I would say free will is 'essential' to the faith. if these other Christians your referring to that say trinity teaching are essential in the same sense I say essential in this thread corner them into saying if deviating from that teaching excluded a 'christian' from the ecumenical church. They will tell you though it is important it does not do that. If they really think it essential in the same sense I say the term here (like martin luther) than they would say it does exclude the those Christians from the ecumenical church

And your poorly written point is what?
Whatever his stance on the matter, it does not make him not a christian, whatever his view on the trinity is

So what if he hasn't. he still show's he is trinitarien.

So what? My point is confirmed. I could claim to hold to the doctrine of Christly discombobulation, if I fail to explain that I should not be taken seriously. By the same token though DATC may call himself a trinitarian we do not know that means to him.
It comes back to the box explanation. overlapping forms of existence that mentally cant fit in any pitcher we can imagine is acceptable for most Christians. for them trinity just means their is 1 god, who is 3 beings. the son is not the father, the father is not the spirit, the spirit is not the son. DATC's understanding of this matter will not interrelate to much to anything else that could ever come up in religious discussion so if he hasn't sought to form one farther than that so be it. he is still a christian.
Although I'm pretty sure I've heard him use the 'God isn't supposed to be small enough to fit in our box' explanation on this matter before, which is one of the most common takes on viewing the trinity for Christians. the second most common is the water analogy (it has three states but its all water)

The water analogy does not work.
He is still a christian, and we know the extent of his view.
Okay, then what is wrong with an informal debate?
nothing, and Dact does those. He argues in these threads.

He is a religious discussion what Godsand is to a evolutionary one. Worthless trolling.
.................well...........true. But that just reflects on how much he offers to a argument, it does not mean he does not argue at all (witch was your claim earlier in this thread). just not very skillfully.
I have it open to everyone unless they have been specifically blocked for being retarded or being a troll, I am open to debate from all valid members.

really? how long I have I been blocked?

Months I think. When I want to discuss theology all you do is come along and post something like, "yew touch teh chilldren huh huh".
that's like blocking someone from your email for occasionally sending a email with pitchers of cats or eggs with faces painted on them. I haven't made a pedo comment in at least a month now anyway. Besides its not like blocking me does any good, those handful of comments are in the threads, I never PM'd you a pedo joke or challenged you to a debate on the matter. they were made as light hearted jokes not serious accusations.

and if you think I am so retarded then you would have no problem accepting a challenge of some sort since it will be an easy win. Like that Christians should be doing all the things in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to be consistent with their faith. definitions can include that the bible itself, new testament and old is the primary source of our faith for the rest of our actions to need be consistent with. other sources allowed to be considered to exist of course cause they do. http://www.theopedia.com...

The problem is that Jesus states both that you should and should not follow such laws, and that Christians merely follow the laws that suit them. Why is pork permissible but homosexual sex is not? You can not present a consistent biblical argument on the matter, and you have been challenged several times.

I have been challenged? guess I don't remember the ones I didn't go through with and accept as much. must have been a time issue. I have time now though (given its a three day time limit for the rounds). you obviously have your case worked out, send the debate challenge, I take one with you now.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 9:57:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 9:07:43 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 8:18:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 8:06:06 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/24/2010 11:22:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/23/2010 8:13:41 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/22/2010 10:31:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Says who? Another Christian will claim it is an essential facet of their faith.
that's probably just in the same sense I would say free will is 'essential' to the faith. if these other Christians your referring to that say trinity teaching are essential in the same sense I say essential in this thread corner them into saying if deviating from that teaching excluded a 'christian' from the ecumenical church. They will tell you though it is important it does not do that. If they really think it essential in the same sense I say the term here (like martin luther) than they would say it does exclude the those Christians from the ecumenical church

And your poorly written point is what?
Whatever his stance on the matter, it does not make him not a christian, whatever his view on the trinity is

He does not appear to believe in Christ, he fails to follow Christ, we only have his unsunstantiated claim to go on.

So what if he hasn't. he still show's he is trinitarien.

So what? My point is confirmed. I could claim to hold to the doctrine of Christly discombobulation, if I fail to explain that I should not be taken seriously. By the same token though DATC may call himself a trinitarian we do not know that means to him.
It comes back to the box explanation. overlapping forms of existence that mentally cant fit in any pitcher we can imagine is acceptable for most Christians. for them trinity just means their is 1 god, who is 3 beings. the son is not the father, the father is not the spirit, the spirit is not the son. DATC's understanding of this matter will not interrelate to much to anything else that could ever come up in religious discussion so if he hasn't sought to form one farther than that so be it. he is still a christian.

He is not willing to state his view of the Trinity, he is not willing to state why he believes in Jesus, he is not willing to conform his behaviour to the ten commandments.

Although I'm pretty sure I've heard him use the 'God isn't supposed to be small enough to fit in our box' explanation on this matter before, which is one of the most common takes on viewing the trinity for Christians. the second most common is the water analogy (it has three states but its all water)

The water analogy does not work.
He is still a christian, and we know the extent of his view.

When he claims that the trinity is akin to water or that Jesus is to the Father what a Lady Gaga CD is to Lady Gaga but fails to address any further questions on the matter or follow through his own logic then I fail to take him seriously. He is not willing to honestly state what he regards the trinity to be, I do not take him seriously as a Christian preacher. Oh sure, I am certain that Christianity affords him a suitable vehicle for his morality, and enables him to feel superior to everyone, but in his heart he clearly does not believe.

Okay, then what is wrong with an informal debate?
nothing, and Dact does those. He argues in these threads.

He is a religious discussion what Godsand is to a evolutionary one. Worthless trolling.
.................well...........true. But that just reflects on how much he offers to a argument, it does not mean he does not argue at all (witch was your claim earlier in this thread). just not very skillfully.

I am reminded of the Monty Python sketch when they begin to argue over the definition of an argument.

I have it open to everyone unless they have been specifically blocked for being retarded or being a troll, I am open to debate from all valid members.

really? how long I have I been blocked?

Months I think. When I want to discuss theology all you do is come along and post something like, "yew touch teh chilldren huh huh".
that's like blocking someone from your email for occasionally sending a email with pitchers of cats or eggs with faces painted on them. I haven't made a pedo comment in at least a month now anyway. Besides its not like blocking me does any good, those handful of comments are in the threads, I never PM'd you a pedo joke or challenged you to a debate on the matter. they were made as light hearted jokes not serious accusations.

No they were made as vindictive attacks in order to cause pain and hurt. But regardless you proved yourself unworthy of a debate.


and if you think I am so retarded then you would have no problem accepting a challenge of some sort since it will be an easy win. Like that Christians should be doing all the things in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to be consistent with their faith. definitions can include that the bible itself, new testament and old is the primary source of our faith for the rest of our actions to need be consistent with. other sources allowed to be considered to exist of course cause they do. http://www.theopedia.com...

The problem is that Jesus states both that you should and should not follow such laws, and that Christians merely follow the laws that suit them. Why is pork permissible but homosexual sex is not? You can not present a consistent biblical argument on the matter, and you have been challenged several times.

I have been challenged? guess I don't remember the ones I didn't go through with and accept as much. must have been a time issue. I have time now though (given its a three day time limit for the rounds). you obviously have your case worked out, send the debate challenge, I take one with you now.

You have been challenged several times on the forum, you have never presented any form of argument. What really is the point? Sure it will be an easy win, but it will also be a boring waste of my time.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 11:20:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 9:57:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:07:43 AM, Marauder wrote:

He does not appear to believe in Christ, he fails to follow Christ, we only have his unsubstantiated claim to go on.
Everyone is going to have some flaws in trying to follow Christ. you dont have to be perfect to be forgiven.

He is not willing to state his view of the Trinity, he is not willing to state why he believes in Jesus, he is not willing to conform his behavior to the ten commandments.
When did DATC every refuse the 10 commandments? or are you judging from imperfect behavior.

When he claims that the trinity is akin to water or that Jesus is to the Father what a Lady Gaga CD is to Lady Gaga but fails to address any further questions on the matter or follow through his own logic then I fail to take him seriously. He is not willing to honestly state what he regards the trinity to be,...
That doesn't reflect his beliefs, just his endurance for bothering to be in heated discussion while getting no-where is short. that low stomach for that kind of thing is likely among the reasons he doesn't bother with the formal debates much.

.................well...........true. But that just reflects on how much he offers to a argument, it does not mean he does not argue at all (witch was your claim earlier in this thread). just not very skillfully.

I am reminded of the Monty Python sketch when they begin to argue over the definition of an argument.
that argument happens a lot on this sight.

No they were made as vindictive attacks in order to cause pain and hurt. But regardless you proved yourself unworthy of a debate.
Its ignorant statement's like this that shortens my endurance for talking with you. I have informed of what my intentions were with any name calling post, and they were not vindictive. near everyone else on this sight has at one time told you the names are not vindictive and no big deal. You can continue to make up reasons in your head for why others make jokes that's different then what they themselves have told you to fuel your hate, but I have spoken my peace on that matter and can do no more.

I have been challenged? guess I don't remember the ones I didn't go through with and accept as much. must have been a time issue. I have time now though (given its a three day time limit for the rounds). you obviously have your case worked out, send the debate challenge, I take one with you now.

You have been challenged several times on the forum, you have never presented any form of argument. What really is the point? Sure it will be an easy win, but it will also be a boring waste of my time.

no such thing on this sight. and second off you cant know its boring to debate with me until you do. send the challenge.
Or be evasive and show that you are all bark and no bite.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:13:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 11:20:49 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:57:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:07:43 AM, Marauder wrote:

He does not appear to believe in Christ, he fails to follow Christ, we only have his unsubstantiated claim to go on.
Everyone is going to have some flaws in trying to follow Christ. you dont have to be perfect to be forgiven.

You are at least meant to try.


He is not willing to state his view of the Trinity, he is not willing to state why he believes in Jesus, he is not willing to conform his behavior to the ten commandments.
When did DATC every refuse the 10 commandments? or are you judging from imperfect behavior.

The ten commandments are conditions on behviour.

When he claims that the trinity is akin to water or that Jesus is to the Father what a Lady Gaga CD is to Lady Gaga but fails to address any further questions on the matter or follow through his own logic then I fail to take him seriously. He is not willing to honestly state what he regards the trinity to be,...
That doesn't reflect his beliefs, just his endurance for bothering to be in heated discussion while getting no-where is short. that low stomach for that kind of thing is likely among the reasons he doesn't bother with the formal debates much.

You are claiming that he does debate, yet are now creating excuses as to why he does not debate...

Do you think your views on this matter represent your tribalistic instincts?


.................well...........true. But that just reflects on how much he offers to a argument, it does not mean he does not argue at all (witch was your claim earlier in this thread). just not very skillfully.

I am reminded of the Monty Python sketch when they begin to argue over the definition of an argument.
that argument happens a lot on this sight.

No they were made as vindictive attacks in order to cause pain and hurt. But regardless you proved yourself unworthy of a debate.
Its ignorant statement's like this that shortens my endurance for talking with you. I have informed of what my intentions were with any name calling post, and they were not vindictive. near everyone else on this sight has at one time told you the names are not vindictive and no big deal. You can continue to make up reasons in your head for why others make jokes that's different then what they themselves have told you to fuel your hate, but I have spoken my peace on that matter and can do no more.

You are either very humourless or incredibly dishonest.


I have been challenged? guess I don't remember the ones I didn't go through with and accept as much. must have been a time issue. I have time now though (given its a three day time limit for the rounds). you obviously have your case worked out, send the debate challenge, I take one with you now.

You have been challenged several times on the forum, you have never presented any form of argument. What really is the point? Sure it will be an easy win, but it will also be a boring waste of my time.

no such thing on this sight. and second off you cant know its boring to debate with me until you do. send the challenge.
Or be evasive and show that you are all bark and no bite.

You accuse me of past theological ignorance on the basis of conversations we have never had?

Anyways, would something along the lines of...

Anyway, what is your preferred wording? Christians are exempt from the laws of the old testament?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2010 9:38:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:13:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:20:49 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:57:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:07:43 AM, Marauder wrote:

He does not appear to believe in Christ, he fails to follow Christ, we only have his unsubstantiated claim to go on.
Everyone is going to have some flaws in trying to follow Christ. you dont have to be perfect to be forgiven.

You are at least meant to try.
Yes, We are, and do. Or at least I do. I know I can speak for myself but I cannot speak for or against if others are trying. Such as DATC, there's no reason to think he does not try. especially when all you know of him is his online attempt at debate.

He is not willing to state his view of the Trinity, he is not willing to state why he believes in Jesus, he is not willing to conform his behavior to the ten commandments.
When did DATC every refuse the 10 commandments? or are you judging from imperfect behavior.

The ten commandments are conditions on behviour.
Yes, So. Imperfection of performance does not indicate rejection of the principal.

When he claims that the trinity is akin to water or that Jesus is to the Father what a Lady Gaga CD is to Lady Gaga but fails to address any further questions on the matter or follow through his own logic then I fail to take him seriously. He is not willing to honestly state what he regards the trinity to be,...
That doesn't reflect his beliefs, just his endurance for bothering to be in heated discussion while getting no-where is short. that low stomach for that kind of thing is likely among the reasons he doesn't bother with the formal debates much.

You are claiming that he does debate, yet are now creating excuses as to why he does not debate...
Sorry I apologize. I thought he usage of the term 'debate' changing was clear from all the descriptive words in bold.

No they were made as vindictive attacks in order to cause pain and hurt. But regardless you proved yourself unworthy of a debate.
Its ignorant statement's like this that shortens my endurance for talking with you. I have informed of what my intentions were with any name calling post, and they were not vindictive. near everyone else on this sight has at one time told you the names are not vindictive and no big deal. You can continue to make up reasons in your head for why others make jokes that's different then what they themselves have told you to fuel your hate, but I have spoken my peace on that matter and can do no more.

You are either very humourless or incredibly dishonest.
It's humorless ; and no, not dishonest. scouts honor.

I have been challenged? guess I don't remember the ones I didn't go through with and accept as much. must have been a time issue. I have time now though (given its a three day time limit for the rounds). you obviously have your case worked out, send the debate challenge, I take one with you now.

You have been challenged several times on the forum, you have never presented any form of argument. What really is the point? Sure it will be an easy win, but it will also be a boring waste of my time.

no such thing on this sight. and second off you cant know its boring to debate with me until you do. send the challenge.
Or be evasive and show that you are all bark and no bite.

You accuse me of past theological ignorance on the basis of conversations we have never had?
You dont remember any arguments I have had with you or matt on community specific laws of the old testament?
Anyways, would something along the lines of...

Anyway, what is your preferred wording? Christians are exempt from the laws of the old testament?

that's sounds about right, but exempt is kind of a strong term. I'd go with the resolution "Christians need not concern themselves with obedience to the laws of Old Testament." with the laws being defined as the ones that are not the Ten Commandments In Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Also the condition clarified for the sake of keeping the relevance of the debate that the bible is the legit reasons for why a christian should or should not 'concern' themselves or 'do' something.

however many rounds you want, 3 days to respond time, character limit greater than 5,000 at least. I Pro and you Con.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2010 10:30:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/28/2010 9:38:07 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:13:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:20:49 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:57:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:07:43 AM, Marauder wrote:

He does not appear to believe in Christ, he fails to follow Christ, we only have his unsubstantiated claim to go on.
Everyone is going to have some flaws in trying to follow Christ. you dont have to be perfect to be forgiven.

You are at least meant to try.
Yes, We are, and do. Or at least I do. I know I can speak for myself but I cannot speak for or against if others are trying. Such as DATC, there's no reason to think he does not try. especially when all you know of him is his online attempt at debate.

That is my only source of evidence.


He is not willing to state his view of the Trinity, he is not willing to state why he believes in Jesus, he is not willing to conform his behavior to the ten commandments.
When did DATC every refuse the 10 commandments? or are you judging from imperfect behavior.

The ten commandments are conditions on behviour.
Yes, So. Imperfection of performance does not indicate rejection of the principal.

Utter rejection of the ten commandments suggests utter rejection of them.


When he claims that the trinity is akin to water or that Jesus is to the Father what a Lady Gaga CD is to Lady Gaga but fails to address any further questions on the matter or follow through his own logic then I fail to take him seriously. He is not willing to honestly state what he regards the trinity to be,...
That doesn't reflect his beliefs, just his endurance for bothering to be in heated discussion while getting no-where is short. that low stomach for that kind of thing is likely among the reasons he doesn't bother with the formal debates much.

You are claiming that he does debate, yet are now creating excuses as to why he does not debate...
Sorry I apologize. I thought he usage of the term 'debate' changing was clear from all the descriptive words in bold.

No they were made as vindictive attacks in order to cause pain and hurt. But regardless you proved yourself unworthy of a debate.
Its ignorant statement's like this that shortens my endurance for talking with you. I have informed of what my intentions were with any name calling post, and they were not vindictive. near everyone else on this sight has at one time told you the names are not vindictive and no big deal. You can continue to make up reasons in your head for why others make jokes that's different then what they themselves have told you to fuel your hate, but I have spoken my peace on that matter and can do no more.

You are either very humourless or incredibly dishonest.
It's humorless ; and no, not dishonest. scouts honor.

Humourless, honour, armour, lrn2spell.


I have been challenged? guess I don't remember the ones I didn't go through with and accept as much. must have been a time issue. I have time now though (given its a three day time limit for the rounds). you obviously have your case worked out, send the debate challenge, I take one with you now.

You have been challenged several times on the forum, you have never presented any form of argument. What really is the point? Sure it will be an easy win, but it will also be a boring waste of my time.

no such thing on this sight. and second off you cant know its boring to debate with me until you do. send the challenge.
Or be evasive and show that you are all bark and no bite.

You accuse me of past theological ignorance on the basis of conversations we have never had?
You dont remember any arguments I have had with you or matt on community specific laws of the old testament?

The ones you are now claiming to not exist...

Anyways, would something along the lines of...

Anyway, what is your preferred wording? Christians are exempt from the laws of the old testament?

that's sounds about right, but exempt is kind of a strong term. I'd go with the resolution "Christians need not concern themselves with obedience to the laws of Old Testament." with the laws being defined as the ones that are not the Ten Commandments In Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Also the condition clarified for the sake of keeping the relevance of the debate that the bible is the legit reasons for why a christian should or should not 'concern' themselves or 'do' something.

however many rounds you want, 3 days to respond time, character limit greater than 5,000 at least. I Pro and you Con.

My argument is pretty basic, it would be as I've never found a Christian to debate it with, so no more than 3 rounds I guess.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2010 11:32:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/28/2010 10:30:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/28/2010 9:38:07 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:13:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:20:49 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:57:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:07:43 AM, Marauder wrote:


You are at least meant to try.
Yes, We are, and do. Or at least I do. I know I can speak for myself but I cannot speak for or against if others are trying. Such as DATC, there's no reason to think he does not try. especially when all you know of him is his online attempt at debate.

That is my only source of evidence.
Then you have nothing substantial enough to form an opinion on the matter.

He is not willing to state his view of the Trinity, he is not willing to state why he believes in Jesus, he is not willing to conform his behavior to the ten commandments.
When did DATC every refuse the 10 commandments? or are you judging from imperfect behavior.

The ten commandments are conditions on behviour.
Yes, So. Imperfection of performance does not indicate rejection of the principal.

Utter rejection of the ten commandments suggests utter rejection of them.
How has he utterly rejected the ten commandments?

You are either very humourless or incredibly dishonest.
It's humorless ; and no, not dishonest. scouts honor.

Humourless, honour, armour, lrn2spell.
my spell check on Firefox disagrees. Humourless with a u shows up with a red underline and Humorless without a u and honor does not.

I have been challenged? guess I don't remember the ones I didn't go through with and accept as much. must have been a time issue. I have time now though (given its a three day time limit for the rounds). you obviously have your case worked out, send the debate challenge, I take one with you now.

You have been challenged several times on the forum, you have never presented any form of argument. What really is the point? Sure it will be an easy win, but it will also be a boring waste of my time.

no such thing on this sight. and second off you cant know its boring to debate with me until you do. send the challenge.
Or be evasive and show that you are all bark and no bite.

You accuse me of past theological ignorance on the basis of conversations we have never had?
You dont remember any arguments I have had with you or matt on community specific laws of the old testament?

The ones you are now claiming to not exist...
What? hang on I bet this is were thinking of what kind of argument were talking about differently again. what I doesn't exist is a debate with in my past debates that show up on my profile. the formal kind.
Anyways, would something along the lines of...

Anyway, what is your preferred wording? Christians are exempt from the laws of the old testament?

that's sounds about right, but exempt is kind of a strong term. I'd go with the resolution "Christians need not concern themselves with obedience to the laws of Old Testament." with the laws being defined as the ones that are not the Ten Commandments In Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Also the condition clarified for the sake of keeping the relevance of the debate that the bible is the legit reasons for why a christian should or should not 'concern' themselves or 'do' something.

however many rounds you want, 3 days to respond time, character limit greater than 5,000 at least. I Pro and you Con.

My argument is pretty basic, it would be as I've never found a Christian to debate it with, so no more than 3 rounds I guess.

sound's good! :)
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2010 4:03:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/28/2010 11:32:10 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/28/2010 10:30:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/28/2010 9:38:07 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:13:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:20:49 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:57:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:07:43 AM, Marauder wrote:


You are at least meant to try.
Yes, We are, and do. Or at least I do. I know I can speak for myself but I cannot speak for or against if others are trying. Such as DATC, there's no reason to think he does not try. especially when all you know of him is his online attempt at debate.

That is my only source of evidence.
Then you have nothing substantial enough to form an opinion on the matter.

He is not willing to state his view of the Trinity, he is not willing to state why he believes in Jesus, he is not willing to conform his behavior to the ten commandments.
When did DATC every refuse the 10 commandments? or are you judging from imperfect behavior.

The ten commandments are conditions on behviour.
Yes, So. Imperfection of performance does not indicate rejection of the principal.

Utter rejection of the ten commandments suggests utter rejection of them.
How has he utterly rejected the ten commandments?

You are either very humourless or incredibly dishonest.
It's humorless ; and no, not dishonest. scouts honor.

Humourless, honour, armour, lrn2spell.
my spell check on Firefox disagrees. Humourless with a u shows up with a red underline and Humorless without a u and honor does not.

American English is different than British English.
It's basically a horrible bastardization of it.
The word honor is spelled correctly, and so is the word honour.
Firefox is not the best universal standard to go by.
I miss the old members.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 5:15:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/28/2010 11:32:10 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/28/2010 10:30:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/28/2010 9:38:07 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:13:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:20:49 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:57:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:07:43 AM, Marauder wrote:


You are at least meant to try.
Yes, We are, and do. Or at least I do. I know I can speak for myself but I cannot speak for or against if others are trying. Such as DATC, there's no reason to think he does not try. especially when all you know of him is his online attempt at debate.

That is my only source of evidence.
Then you have nothing substantial enough to form an opinion on the matter.

Lets try an analogy for what you are saying,
Bill kicks the ball.
Tim sees Bill kicking the ball.
Tim has no evidencde to form an opinion on whether or not Bill has ever kicked the ball.

Seems a trifle retarded.


He is not willing to state his view of the Trinity, he is not willing to state why he believes in Jesus, he is not willing to conform his behavior to the ten commandments.
When did DATC every refuse the 10 commandments? or are you judging from imperfect behavior.

The ten commandments are conditions on behviour.
Yes, So. Imperfection of performance does not indicate rejection of the principal.

Utter rejection of the ten commandments suggests utter rejection of them.
How has he utterly rejected the ten commandments?

He does not follow them.


You are either very humourless or incredibly dishonest.
It's humorless ; and no, not dishonest. scouts honor.

Humourless, honour, armour, lrn2spell.
my spell check on Firefox disagrees. Humourless with a u shows up with a red underline and Humorless without a u and honor does not.

Seriously are you really that stupid?
You do know you get American English and UK English right?


I have been challenged? guess I don't remember the ones I didn't go through with and accept as much. must have been a time issue. I have time now though (given its a three day time limit for the rounds). you obviously have your case worked out, send the debate challenge, I take one with you now.

You have been challenged several times on the forum, you have never presented any form of argument. What really is the point? Sure it will be an easy win, but it will also be a boring waste of my time.

no such thing on this sight. and second off you cant know its boring to debate with me until you do. send the challenge.
Or be evasive and show that you are all bark and no bite.

You accuse me of past theological ignorance on the basis of conversations we have never had?
You dont remember any arguments I have had with you or matt on community specific laws of the old testament?

The ones you are now claiming to not exist...
What? hang on I bet this is were thinking of what kind of argument were talking about differently again. what I doesn't exist is a debate with in my past debates that show up on my profile. the formal kind.

Why do I have to repeat the same thing with you again and again?

Anyways, would something along the lines of...

Anyway, what is your preferred wording? Christians are exempt from the laws of the old testament?

that's sounds about right, but exempt is kind of a strong term. I'd go with the resolution "Christians need not concern themselves with obedience to the laws of Old Testament." with the laws being defined as the ones that are not the Ten Commandments In Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Also the condition clarified for the sake of keeping the relevance of the debate that the bible is the legit reasons for why a christian should or should not 'concern' themselves or 'do' something.

however many rounds you want, 3 days to respond time, character limit greater than 5,000 at least. I Pro and you Con.

My argument is pretty basic, it would be as I've never found a Christian to debate it with, so no more than 3 rounds I guess.

sound's good! :)

Jolly spiffing.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 9:42:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 5:15:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/28/2010 11:32:10 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/28/2010 10:30:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/28/2010 9:38:07 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:13:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:20:49 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:57:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:07:43 AM, Marauder wrote:


You are at least meant to try.
Yes, We are, and do. Or at least I do. I know I can speak for myself but I cannot speak for or against if others are trying. Such as DATC, there's no reason to think he does not try. especially when all you know of him is his online attempt at debate.

That is my only source of evidence.
Then you have nothing substantial enough to form an opinion on the matter.

Lets try an analogy for what you are saying,
Bill kicks the ball.
Tim sees Bill kicking the ball.
Tim has no evidencde to form an opinion on whether or not Bill has ever kicked the ball.

Seems a trifle retarded.

You've seen no one kick a ball; whats a trifle retarded is calling infrequent online post as evidence of DATC behavior. you can evaluate the intelligence of his post and their relevance to a conversation. But not his overall behavior from them. you actually have to hang out with people for realz to get any impression of what that part of their character is like.
It's humorless ;

Humourless, honour, armour, lrn2spell.
my spell check on Firefox disagrees. Humourless with a u shows up with a red underline and Humorless without a u and honor does not.

Seriously are you really that stupid?
You do know you get American English and UK English right?
The American kind is all that matters to me. if its from America that makes it better. But Atheism explained why firefox shows your spelling as wrong above.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:38:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 9:42:47 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/29/2010 5:15:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/28/2010 11:32:10 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/28/2010 10:30:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/28/2010 9:38:07 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:13:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:20:49 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:57:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:07:43 AM, Marauder wrote:


You are at least meant to try.
Yes, We are, and do. Or at least I do. I know I can speak for myself but I cannot speak for or against if others are trying. Such as DATC, there's no reason to think he does not try. especially when all you know of him is his online attempt at debate.

That is my only source of evidence.
Then you have nothing substantial enough to form an opinion on the matter.

Lets try an analogy for what you are saying,
Bill kicks the ball.
Tim sees Bill kicking the ball.
Tim has no evidencde to form an opinion on whether or not Bill has ever kicked the ball.

Seems a trifle retarded.

You've seen no one kick a ball; whats a trifle retarded is calling infrequent online post as evidence of DATC behavior. you can evaluate the intelligence of his post and their relevance to a conversation. But not his overall behavior from them. you actually have to hang out with people for realz to get any impression of what that part of their character is like.

So someone who violates the most basic tenets of their faith online everytime I have seen them post is in reality sincerely devout in real life?

It's humorless ;

Humourless, honour, armour, lrn2spell.
my spell check on Firefox disagrees. Humourless with a u shows up with a red underline and Humorless without a u and honor does not.

Seriously are you really that stupid?
You do know you get American English and UK English right?
The American kind is all that matters to me. if its from America that makes it better. But Atheism explained why firefox shows your spelling as wrong above.

It's not wrong.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 3:36:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 9:42:47 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/29/2010 5:15:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/28/2010 11:32:10 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/28/2010 10:30:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/28/2010 9:38:07 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:13:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:20:49 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:57:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:07:43 AM, Marauder wrote:


You are at least meant to try.
Yes, We are, and do. Or at least I do. I know I can speak for myself but I cannot speak for or against if others are trying. Such as DATC, there's no reason to think he does not try. especially when all you know of him is his online attempt at debate.

That is my only source of evidence.
Then you have nothing substantial enough to form an opinion on the matter.

Lets try an analogy for what you are saying,
Bill kicks the ball.
Tim sees Bill kicking the ball.
Tim has no evidencde to form an opinion on whether or not Bill has ever kicked the ball.

Seems a trifle retarded.

You've seen no one kick a ball; whats a trifle retarded is calling infrequent online post as evidence of DATC behavior. you can evaluate the intelligence of his post and their relevance to a conversation. But not his overall behavior from them. you actually have to hang out with people for realz to get any impression of what that part of their character is like.
It's humorless ;

Humourless, honour, armour, lrn2spell.
my spell check on Firefox disagrees. Humourless with a u shows up with a red underline and Humorless without a u and honor does not.

Seriously are you really that stupid?
You do know you get American English and UK English right?
The American kind is all that matters to me. if its from America that makes it better. But Atheism explained why firefox shows your spelling as wrong above.
Are you completely mental?
Either you are joking, badly, or you don't understand grammar at all.
I basically said C_N's grammar and spelling was correct.
And for the America makes things better, if you are not joking, then I must proceed to refer you to an asylum.
I miss the old members.