Yellum Notnef

Why does Jesus need morons to tell people that he loves them? Why can`t he just tell me himself?
Oh thats right,he doesn`t exist.

I`ve shoveled much more bullshit than snow this winter.

Jayjay

That's still the main connotation of the word "sin". We have perfectly good word to describe immorality, namely "immorality", and it's not as if most theists would shun using this term because it's too secular for their tastes. On the other hand, the word "sin" does have strong religious component, especially when talking in a predominantly secular/atheist forum, and coming from a christian in the context of a thread whose purpose is to complain about the atheists' worldviews.

Seems to me, that Radorth used the word quite deliberately (first in his "highlights" list, then in an attempt to label atheists as irrational) to provoke a particular response, and is now falling back to rarely used dictionary definitions to defend his position. But what really cracks me up is how he tries to paint his detractors as "legalistic" and "pedantic" while saying all this.

JJ

(Who'd much rather see Raddy give a serious reply to Jack the Bodiless' "what if hindus were right" scenario rather than engage in this silly whining about how mean us atheists are.)

Radorth

Hey, just trying to fit in.

That certainly sounds like another gratuitous insult to me, but I'm sure that by Daggah's or Fenton's highly technical standards, it wasn't really. Right Fenton?

Yeah, "legalistic" was a good choice I think.

You have a farm?

Rad

winstonjen

It was implied from your beliefs that god would send unbelievers to hell - not a very loving act.

Radorth

Do you claim that is the "consensus" among the Christians here as well, all the readers of my posts, or just the II Rad police? I know Christians don't like my style, but I seriously doubt any of them would describe me as "incoherent." It is a great marvel, isn't it, that the lowly Rad's incoherent posts require so many rebuttals. Surely one of you could answer a "moron," but it takes four at a time, who invariably ask insincere and rhetorical questions and then whine that I didn't get around to answering them.

I suggest you think, like too many fundy atheists, that the average reader is a moron who might believe another moron. There is no other explanation other than they just have lots of idle time to waste.

I suppose I should just stick you on an ignore list with the other three gangmembers and see if the readership drops off.

Rad

Radorth

But if he lets them continue to do injustice to the innocent, then he is loving. Only a lover of sin could call that "love." The question is not whether God loves you, but whether you could love him and serve him.

The answer is no because you are far more loving and righteous than any God that might exist and make a way to save a thief on his dying day Right?

Funny it doesn't show.

Rad

winstonjen

No, a loving god would prevent the innocent from being harmed, and convince the 'sinners' without resorting to afterlife blackmail.

I may not 'save' a thief on his dying day, but I would not punish him with eternal torment for a non-eternal crime. That would be much more merciful than your god who keeps torturing people in hell for his own sadistic glee.

Vicar Philip

Rad, any comment on this?

Vicar

spurly

As a Christian, I would tweak your definition just a little. Here is how I think the Bible defines sin:

Sin is doing something contrary to the character and nature of God. If what you do goes against who God is, then it is sin. Sin is a much deeper concept than simply "disobeying the will of god".

Kevin

Yellum Notnef

Who knows what the other Christians here think of you,but how they hardly ever come to your aid must tell you something.

A big problem with you is that you is that you see too many simple things as "great marvels". There is a simple reason why multiple people answer the lowly Rad and it`s because you just don`t listen when one person tells you something. So different people come along and keep repeating the same things to you again and again and again in hopes that you`ll finally get it,but you still don`t.
I really think this is a game to you because I can`t imagine how anyone could be this dense or difficult.
You have to be the all time worst witness for Jesus I`ve ever encountered so there must be another motive for your activity here.

This is funny coming from a guy who just today suggested new arrivals turn to page 6 to read your "thread highlights". And not to metnion all the times you`ve smugly remarked what "perceptive readers" will understand.
And I work at home so I often stop at the computer on my way to eat or take a bathroom break. I actually have a computer in my shop as well,but I don`t check this site on it.
Where do you find the time to rack up a record breaking 1500+ posts in just a matter of months? Sure sounds like somebody is hell bent on protecting the average reader from ideas presented on this site.

Suite yourself,but you know you won`t be able to ignore me.

BTW,
It makes no difference if you think of me as your personal troll who doesn`t ask many topic specific questions. It certainly doesn`t hurt my feelings any.
The most mature and intelligent people on this site have all taken a crack at serious discussions with you and have all found it to be a complete waste of time. So why should I or anyone else bother to do the same?
I can`t think of a single reason.