mdd344

hatsoff, when you said, " because by definition an objective discussion requires you to put aside your pre-existing beliefs" I had to laugh. Not at you btw.

This forum is made up of people whose existance is founded upon a pre existing belief that God does not exist, cannot exist, will never exist. That is the biggest problem this site faces. You guys are no more objective than anyone else, despite your claims to the contrary.

diana

I didn't, of course, say it "wouldn't be treated fairly." Either you have very poor reading comprehension or you are deliberately misrepresenting my words. Which is it, preacher?

Specifically, when you sent me the links asking for me to read them so I could see the "truth" of what you said and claiming you did "not want some of the more absurd posters to get these and begin to abuse them," I said:

You're making the COC look....so good. Keep going.

d

diana

Interestingly, they claim both: there was an unbroken chain but it doesn't matter. They have to claim the "unbroken" chain because the Bible says the "kingdom" will last forever. Since they interpret the "kingdom" as "Church of Christ," they must perforce claim that it has existed since the 1st C (and the Catholic church, of course, doesn't count because it wasn't the True Church).

I don't expect to get through to him. I've had countless discussions with such folk. I know I'm spinning my wheels. I'm just enjoying smelling the burning rubber at this point. Plus, I'm annoyed at his blatant dishonesty (the COC prides itself on being honest and righteous whereas The World is not).

Yeah. I'm just disgusted, really.

d

Sauron

And as we've told you multiple times, you are wrong.

The majority of people here were Christians at one point, started asking questions, and wound up not believing any longer. They started with your position, examined the evidence, and had to finally reject your position.

There is nothing "pre-existing" about that process.

But go ahead - keep repeating that baseless accusation a couple dozen more times, if it makes you feel good about your weak debating position on Daniel.

mdd344

Diana,
In the first place, I spoke about the Koran in our previous discussion. I did not avoid it then. I stated specifically that I had my reasons for NOT believing in it, and also that I did not have time to delve into a study of it here. That hasn't changed.

Your charge about identifying with whomever makes our point is just absurd. I stated that there doesn't even have to be an unbroken chain to establish 'who' a group is. God demands that we know who is and who is not following His Word and avoid those who will not repent of it. So yes, we must point that out at least to ourselves, so that we too are not led astray by Satan's devices. Of which, btw, instruments are one.


Regarding your latest post, where you put in private correspondence, let me say that I sent YOU two links because I THOUGHT those two were the strongest that MIGHT help YOU realize the truth.

I barely used the link by Holding that I sent you after reading what you wrote. I did not want my efforts to be ruined by bias before it had a chance to be read. I did use Conklin link quite a bit, because he wasn't holden, even though it was on the Tektonics sight. I had never heard of 'Turkle.' And prior to this site, I had never heard of Holden either.

As to the 'not be read fairly' that was my take on what you told me. I will stipulate you didn't say that specifically, but that is how I took it. Obviously, I did not accept what you said about Holden at face value, since I believe you have a bias against him and those like him (including me). I didn't tell you THAT because I didn't see the point of arguing over it. It would go nowhere.

cjack

This is where you are most spectacularly wrong.

For one, there are many people in this community who believe in God. Many of them would call themselves Christians, though you would no doubt disagree.

For another thing, if you'd taken the time to read the "Atheist's Testimony" thread before coming here and spewing apologetics, you'd note that many...perhaps even a majority...of the people here at one time were devout Christians just like yourself, but slowly (and often painfully) "deconverted" after being lifelong believers. I'd recommend you read "A Salvation Story"...perhaps the best example here of how such a deconversion happens.

You yourself have a "pre-existing belief" about who posts here and why...a belief which is dead wrong.

mdd344

Diana,
Glad to see your 'true' feelings. You stated, "They have to claim the "unbroken" chain because the Bible says the "kingdom" will last forever."

That is YET ANOTHER completely off base comment. The kingdom, which is the church, will always be in existence, EVEN IF NO PERSON IS A MEMBER OF IT ON THIS EARTH. Again you demonstrate how little you know about the Bible and what it teaches regarding the church.

hatsoff

There are people like that, and they are present on this board. Johnny Skeptic, if you search for his posts, is a dogmatic atheist, and my chief opponent on this board.

However, most of us are not atheists. We are simply unimpressed by Christianity.

Moreover, you have attacked us without defending yourself. Suppose we aren't objective. Let's say for the sake of argument that you're right about us, and that we are all tools of humanistic dogma. That still says nothing about yourself, or your own inobjectivity.

mdd344

cjack,
Alright, then I'll stipulate that the ones of whom I speak are the majority of those who have posted to me most often. I certainly didn't mean every single person on this site, as I have surely not talked to them all. I would btw, take issue with the term 'devout Christians.' I doubt either was true as the Bible teaches it.

mdd344

hatsoff,
I will certainly say that anytime I hear anyone take the Bible out of context to "prove" that it is false I form a thought about that individual. I try and give the benefit of the doubt, but after a while one gets the picture.

Now some on this board have been very nice, and fair. I could name them but what is the point. I appreciate their honest questioning.

But there are equally some who, as they have explained, would not believe in God were He to appear before their eyes. Others have indicated by their arguments that they never intend to change their beliefs. It is these who are not objective in the least, yet they claim to be 'objective' and 'logical' and 'rational.' I don't buy it. And I surely haven't seen it.