Who's really at fault?

The correct answer depends on the requirements and teachings of both worldviews.

In most religions there are many subdivisions and sects that split on their teachings. While I usually advocate to place responsibility on the individual, I still leave room for doubt if someone belongs to a “group” that potentially corrupts not only it’s followers but otherwise innocent ideas and values displayed by the mass majority outside of them.

That is a good way to be usually. The thing is, should only that subdivision be held accountable or should the whole group get tarred with the same brush? I say the former.

Except in many cases, Atheism is not an organization of beliefs and ideas but more a broad term.

Not only that, but your generalization unrealistically labels people guilty by association without any real substantial proof other than association.

Again, if the individual subscribes to specific tenants that are fundamental to his institutional beliefs, you have a case. Without that, then it’s purely speculative whether or not it contributes to the individual’s crimes.

I could say you're doing the same labeling people guilty by association when talking about specific tenants and tarring all religions and/or religious people with the same brush. Many people do this (for example; tarring all Christians, or just Baptists, with the same brush as the Westboro Baptist Church - never mind that the leaders of the Baptist denomination have officially denounced them, or tarring all Christians, or just Catholics, with the same brush as the Spanish Inquisition - never mind that they were disbanded over 180 years ago and all the people involved have been dead for over 100 years).

It's the same as tarring all atheists with the same brush, and to claim otherwise is a double standard. The only exception is IF the atrocities are endorsed or mandated by said religion's teachings. For example; the holy book of Islam, the Qu'ran, mandates subjugating or killing non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam so that criticism can apply to Islam (though thankfully most Muslims don't follow that command). So too does the Bible not command Christians to convert people through violence (and commands peaceful co-existence where possible with no exceptions - Romans 12:18), so Christians who try to convert by force should not be held against all Christians or all Christianity (plus that happened over 150 years ago and the vast majority of us don't do that today).

The problem with atheism is that anything goes; there's no safeguard against immorality in that worldview beyond what the individual atheist invents. The Stalins and Pol Pots are just as valid as the George Carlins and Joss Whedons.

Except I don’t label people guilty by association. You mean to say, the people who do this are wrong. Please, don’t presume my position.

The main similarities between the Quran and the Bible is that there are many rules and sayings that have been tossed aside in favor of more lenient punishment. To single out any religion, or lack thereof, in a denomination that finds these quaint teachings irrelevant is ludicrous. Only denominations that quote them as fundamental can be argued to be potentially dangerous.

Atheism requires no safeguard beyond the presence of a rational mind. Morals can be absorbed through other material that doesn’t necessitate religion, church, or tradition. Authority should be enough, as the church is a nice example of divine authority. Does the authority have to come from the unknown for a rational person to make good decisions? No. Does a person have to believe in divine authority to make oneself feel happy with themself? No.

Except Joss Whedon and George Carlin did not kill people. Well, real people. Fictional people perhaps. But I’m sure you’re not arguing that they’re mass murderers of fictional people allows them enough association to be condemned because of their atheism. And if you are, I am afraid I can say I disagree and hope many disagree with you.

I should also add. There is a key difference between criticism and condemnation. Criticism has the potential to change something, especially if it’s constructive. Condemnation requires a thing to be banned, dissolved, stopped, made illegal. Christianity has gone through many iterations and deviations which is why it has so many denominations. If someone had successfully prevented Martin Luther or King James or any other figure that had a critical thought against the church, would Christianity have developed into what it is today?

To me it sounded like you were making excuses to justify using guilt by association against religious people while saying why that shouldn't also be done to atheists; I'm glad that's not the case.

When you say that rules and sayings are tossed aside in favor of more lenient punishment, what examples can you cite? On a side note, old/quaint does not equal obsolete, that's the Appeal to Novelty Fallacy (accept it because it's new or dismiss it because it's old; architecture's old, shall we dismiss that too? Of course not. It annoys me when people say that religious rules being old is a reason - actually an excuse - to disregard them).

A rational mind is not an effective safeguard; many people - religious or not - who do evil use rationalizations to validate their actions. ("The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9) I never said the non-religious are incapable of morals, that's not true, and Jesus also points that out; "If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" Matthew 7:11

One of the problems I'm pointing out is that the lack of a unified belief system makes the morality of atheists more fractious than that of the followers of any religion (even Dawkins said uniting atheists for or against anything was like herding cats).

Feeling happy with oneself does not always equal goodness, as I think you know; a thief or a serial killer can feel happy with themselves about their crimes. I know that George and Joss didn't kill people, I used them as examples of benevolent atheists (in hindsight I shouldn't have used George Carlin; he was no murderer but was prejudiced and vindictive). I'm saying that if, for example, ISIS can be used to tar Muslims with the same brush or the Spanish Inquisition for the Catholic Church, the same should be done for atheists with Stalin and/or Pol Pot; tar both or neither to do otherwise is illogical a double standard and a sign of bigotry.

The iterations have not changed the core message, but in case you mean something else, what iterations are you talking about? Also, criticism is fine, singling out one group for criticism when other groups do the same or worse is not.

Obsolete was the word I wanted but failed me. I was thinking obsolet but could not think of the English word. Silly me to forget.

Yes, it does seem we agree. I’m not a fan that if one group does it then it’s okay for the other group to do it too.

But I think now, rereading you before, you were merely trying to point out hypocrisy without labeling it as such.

That is what I was trying to do.

Also, your English is good, it's not uncommon for people to struggle to remember a word in even their own language.

What evidence do you have for that claim?

I mean what is the evidence for your claim that the Bible refers to something called "Babylon the Great" and not God?

Necro thread; what evidence do you have that Babylon the Great refers to all religions? Especially since it comes FROM THE TEACHING OF A RELIGION.

Wow! You literally just answered the question I had been asking about the spirit of Babylon. I had always thought it to be speaking to a specific group of people, but this makes much more sense.

I'd fact check this guy. I'm very suspicious this is some double-think anti-religious sophistry.

I pointed out your jumping back and forth between the Old Testament and New Testament because you're grabbing any verse that you think reinforces your own views, even if they're about different events and situations.

The point I made about Luke 24:39 was it was about Jesus walking on Earth in human form compared to God's meeting with Moses in Exodus.

I know what cherry-picking means, and that is what you are doing. I disagree that the verses are purely manmade. What originals are you talking about? Can you provide evidence for what you claim to be the originals?

Just because you can't understand and reject the notion of God being the Holy Trinity "three in one" doesn't make it false; that's the comprehension fallacy and the Muslims are guilty of it too. "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." 1 Corinthians 2:14

When I said God is in the physical realm I didn't say he was solid/corporeal. Spirits can be seen without being touched, as can things like light, heatwaves and smoke. Can you punch a ray of light (or a hologram)? No. Can you pull heatwaves emitting form a hot surface or object? No Can you pull on smoke by grabbing it? No. Can you see light, heatwaves and smoke, yes. Even then, being spirit does not stop God from taking on a physical form, be it corporeal or incorporeal.

I know, I've done my research. Revelation is just one of the most complex books ever created. There is no error in the book except for our misinterpretations.

And here you have answered without waiting for me. I did acknowledge my impatience in this as a failing on my part. I will concede that maybe I should have said you are quote-mining instead of saying you are cherry-picking. Quote-mining is quite common when I’ve argued with non-believers here; especially since you’re essentially saying to me “only believe the Bible verses I tell you to believe” and disregarding ones that don’t fit your worldview.

"You keep projecting and strawmanning me; for one, by assuming I’ll say – complete with a mocking tone - "Bu...bu...bu...PAUL baptised! John baptised!! Jesus baptised!!""

I did not bring up baptism there, but I prove the necessity and importance of baptism in Christianity with the Great Commission from Jesus Himself. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28:19 Also, the same Paul you quote-mine baptized a royal courtier (see Acts 8:26-39 for the full account).

Where is your evidence against this? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I can keep going for as long as you can.

While you have a point about disobedience, I have already explained that it does not make me a non-believer. You have no evidence against the Holy Trinity or evidence that it is pagan.

When you cited Revelation 3:15 “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." …that is the verse I meant when I said there is a better one you could have cited to justify being an atheist over an insincere believer.

This comment is where we start to see how hollow your arguments really are. If there is counterfeit Christianity, there is genuine Christianity. But didn’t you say that Christianity is the abomination Babylon the Great?

A believer can be ignorant about history, but that doesn’t make them no longer a believer; also “ignorant about history” is something I’m not. I also explained that while I agree a few false teachings have slipped into some denominations, that doesn’t invalidate the rest of the message, especially where Jesus is concerned; in a previous reply, I pointed out that is where you’re committing the Fallacy Fallacy.

I never said that to distinguish from Jews was good enough reason to disregard the Fourth Commandment (your claim I’ll say “only for the Jews” is where you answer without listening), I was explaining the origin of going to church on Sunday. We are not commanded to celebrate Jesus’ birth or resurrection, but that alone does not make them pagan. That’s quite a leap of logic on your part.

The English word Easter parallels the Anglo Saxon/Germanic word Ostern. I’ll repost the link to the video where the idea that Easter is a pagan holiday is debunked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e1QktCoNpc
Worst case scenario, Easter is a Christian holiday with two pagan aspects, one of which is repurposed to be Christian, added to it. The idea of the word Easter originating from the name of the Goddess Eoster is close to the level of the Christ Myth Theory. The only source talking about a goddess called Eoster comes from a misunderstanding by the 8th century Monk called Bede in his book The Reckoning of Time. He said, and I quote, “In the month of Eoster, the Anglo-Saxon pagans used to worship a pagan goddess called Eoster.” Historians who studied Anglo-Saxon paganism have found no festivals during this time; Bede was mistaken.

The only part of your argument that was correct is the pagan roots of the Easter bunny and Easter eggs, which is not found in Scripture or required to celebrate Easter (in fact numerous churches disapprove of making the Easter bunny and Easter eggs part of Easter).

Sophistry is, and I quote the dictionary definition “the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.” Or “a fallacious argument”. Both are things you have done.

I know and agree that it is wrong to add pagan elements. But that does not make Christianity false. It just means any pagan elements need to be removed from the church; the only pagan parts of Easter are Easter eggs and the Easter bunny.

It’s funny that you cite 2 Timothy 4:3 (“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” ) when you buy into the false teaching that Easter originated form the supposed pagan goddess Eoster.

While Jesus did not specify that communion is something to do in perpetuity, neither did Jesus say it was temporary or pagan to do so even after his resurrection. The disciples indwelt by the Holy Spirt and who saw Jesus still maintained it. “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 They even taught against taking communion improperly; “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 11:27

Your claim that Jesus wasn’t initiating a ritual to be done is nothing but your own baseless interpretation.

I don’t see how pointing out you’re doing what you condemn me for doing is trying to salvage my pride, especially since I acknowledged you were right about that rather than deny or deflect.

You are quote-mining; your style of response in your comments has been to take parts of of my response – either a sentence, part of a sentence or a few sentences - and then rip into it. Me accusing you of quote-mining doesn’t mean I said you disregarded the verses I mentioned. You also ignore that I have quoted numerous verses you haven’t; for one of several examples you didn’t quote 1 Corinthians 2:14

I said you denied Jesus is the Son of God was based on how you said you were not a believer. I accused you of debunking the Bible because you have been quote-mining Scripture to say that Christianity is wrong and should not be followed and that the Bible is flawed. I did not brush aside those accusations because of being caught in a lie, but because I was uncertain and had to reassess your argument and intention to be sure. Now that I have I can see your falsehood for what it is. I now ask two new questions; do you believe that Jesus as described in the Bible is true and real? Or did you only mean that Jesus is God is truly what the Bible says and not something you yourself believe?

You prove that you’re selectively using the Bible to try and justify your worldview by calling The Great Commission from Jesus Himself a spurious passage.

Before I address your argument, I have to repeat a question you have yet to answer (and I checked and have confirmed you haven't answered this question yet); when quoting the Bible here, why haven't you ever cited the Book, Chapter, and Verse?

Now to address the argument you presented in this comment; When citing 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, you claim Paul doesn’t remember who he baptized, but he actually said he can’t remember who he baptized… APART FROM THE HOUSEHOLD OF STEPHANAS, who he baptized and remembered doing so. “Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that I do not remember if I baptized anyone else.” 1 Corinthians 1:16 You’re just trying to re-interpret it for your own agenda.

Even denominations such as Pentecostal and Baptist are human inventions, that does not invalidate Christianity or make all Christianity a human invention. We are to avoid foolish and stupid arguments, but my argument is neither foolish nor stupid, and I suspect you only accuse me of that to try and deflect. “The weapons of our warfare are not the weapons of the world. Instead, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We tear down arguments and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God; and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” 2 Corinthians 10:4-5

I already explained why failing to obey does not automatically make one a non-believer. You’re just making an excuse here to try and dismiss what I’m saying.

The Holy Trinity is mentioned in the Bible is mentioned by Jesus in The Great Commission (the so-called “spurious passage”), where Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We also have 2 Corinthians 13:14 “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”

The Holy Trinity is God as Three in One.

Since you made the claim of Tertuillian having pagan practices, the burden of proof is on you to share what they are. I checked commentary on him from a few sources, even from a pro-atheism/anti-religious website and found nothing about pagan practices there; you could accuse Tertuillian of a few things but not paganism (also, he was strongly against Gnosticism).

I never said your failure to cite Revelation 3:15 when I though it wouldn’t strengthened your point invalidates everything you said; you’re putting words in my mouth/attacking a strawman argument of your own devising. I never said that there is such a thing as an insincere believer; the problem is you define any failure on a believer’s part as proof that they’re not a true believer, moving the goalposts to selfishly “validate” your arguments.

I repeat some of my arguments to try and make them sink in; the same reason you're repeating your arguments.

The only thing that would have to be done is for us Christians to not have or eat Easter eggs or have anything to do with the Easter bunny. That's it. It doesn't make Christianity false or us Christians counterfeit believers.

It's funny how you bring up how late it is, because in past arguments people I've argued with have said that when they've actually lost the argument and are giving up but are trying to save face. Having said that, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're going to come back with actual evidence next time. Goodnight.

I never pretended to be God, again you gaslight. Not to mention you prove yourself false; after reading your comments to myself and others (including a person who deleted their comment), you denied Jesus being the Son of God and admitted that you choose to live as an unbeliever and accept the consequences.

You have outed yourself as a deceiver spouting heresy and gaslighting to try to lead people astray. You cherry-pick the Bible's teachings, rejecting those that don't appeal to your personal tastes. Answer the question you keep avoiding, I want to hear a more recent answer than the one you gave in the other comment; who do you say Jesus is?

You said that Satan's greatest stronghold is false love. If there is a counterfeit, then there is a genuine article.

By the way; when God said "No man may see God and live" is not the correct verse; again you are caught out in cherry-picking. The actual verse says; "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Exodus 33:20 It's only seeing God's true face (face in the literal sense) that does this to mortal beings. The next verses of Exodus 33 say; "The LORD continued, “There is a place near Me where you are to stand upon a rock, and when My glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away, and you will see My back; but My face must not be seen.” Exodus 33:21-23 The experience left Moses face glowing with light - as in becoming a literal source of light and Moses had to hide it behind a veil because some of the Israelites were scared of the sight.

I admitted my mistake about what you were saying regarding people pretending to be God.

Gaslighting is not just about trying to convince someone they are crazy, gaslighting can also be used to try and convince someone through deception that the victimizer's ideas are correct and true, which is what I accuse you of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting#Characteristics

I highly doubt you have the correct understanding of the Third Commandment, but I'll hear you out on what you think it means. What do you say the Third Commandment refers to?

You say counterfeits make such accusations of heresy against people telling them the truth, and you have made those accusations against me... (on a side note; gaslighting is a term that originated less than 100 years ago).

While Bibliolatry is a real risk, there is a place for the Bible as it contains teachings of God; "Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Ephesians 6:17 The sword of the Spirit/the word of God is Scripture.

It's funny that one minute you quote the Bible and then when I quote it and accuse you of cherry-picking here you respond by bringing up Bibliolatry, especially since you run the risk of committing it as well, especially as an avowed non-believer in light of 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Impatience is not confusion or religious confusion. It is that person's folly and shame but does not prove them a false believer (again, it is something you have also done). You merely disagreed when I explained that it's not the sign of a counterfeit; you provided no evidence for that view.

I asked in previous posts and you didn’t seem to be responding. You keep projecting and strawmanning me; for one, by assuming I’ll say – complete with a mocking tone - "Bu...bu...bu...PAUL baptised! John baptised!! Jesus baptised!!"

How does me believing that Jesus is God and the Son of God make me not a believer? Just because you reject the Holy Trinity? There’s a better verse you could’ve cited to try and justify better an atheist than a false believer, but you didn’t use it, which further shows how wrong your argument is.

You cited the verses; "When the LORD your God cuts off before you the nations you are entering to dispossess, and you drive them out and live in their land, be careful not to be ensnared by their ways after they have been destroyed before you. Do not inquire about their gods, asking, “How do these nations serve their gods? I will do likewise. You must not worship the LORD your God in this way, because they practice for their gods every abomination which the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods." That’s Deuteronomy 12:29-31. It refers to pagan religions of the time, not Christianity.

What evidence do you have that Christmas, Easter, communion and baptism are pagan? Going to church on Sunday originated from early Christians distinguishing themselves from Jews; the Sabbath is Saturday and some Christians use that day (for a specific group of Christians who honour that are the Seventh Day Adventists). As for Easter, check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e1QktCoNpc

What evidence do you have that Easter is a pagan holiday? That Christmas is pagan? You've shown no evidence, just sophistry. You think repurposing elements of pagan tradition (such as the concept of eggs and the Easter bunny – which did not originate from the Bible or Christian teachings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Bunny) makes Easter a pagan holiday; it doesn't. At worst, a pagan element was added. You can celebrate Easter without eating Easter eggs or using the Easter bunny (as I don't).

You have been taken in by lies and conspiracy theories of the same type as the Christ Myth Theory – which is as reliable as Flat Earth Theory and anti-vaxxers.

Jesus wouldn't have said take communion in remembrance if it was temporary. “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19

Again you cherry-pick; you jump back and forth between the Old Testament and the New Testament to pick any verse you think you can twist that reinforces your worldview.

"For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Luke 24:39 That was Jesus showing the disciples that He had truly resurrected from death.

When you said "God is Spirit" you cherry-picked, as not even the full verse. The full verse, and the one before it, say; "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”" John 4:23-24 Here the Holy Trinity is cited. If I was to use your logic for a second; just because God took on a form that could be seen doesn't mean it was a physical form that could be physically touched; note, I never used the word "physical" I used the word "literal".

Part of the sophistry is how you're trying to frame all religions as the abomination Babylon the Great. I was pointing out that the warning of Babylon the Great comes from the teachings of a religion; the warning comes form Christianity, from the books of the Bible that you cited. Do you or do you not think all religion is the Babylon the Great abomination?

Your explanation is not based on what the Scripture says, but on your imagination and twisting of the verse. Purple was associated with royalty more than clergy, so it sounds more it's referring to politicians and monarchs than clergy. You have no evidence beyond a baseless assumption that the blasphemous names the verse refers to are the names of denominations. Enough of your godless gaslighting and heresy.

You might want to look this up, because this is scant stuff I heard ages ago, but something like the 7 heads represent the 7 hills of Rome and the 10 horns represent 10 Seleucid kings -
2 different (successive) empires which had ruled the region.

So yeah, a composite, but one encompassing transition of one into the other over time - same story, same beast, same enemy, so to speak,,,

Won't let me respond through your other comments. I was thinking of how the Vatican is spending millions on space exploration, has a hidden library that hides quite a few secrets, made money off the deaths of the jews, and how Francis is prophesied to be the very last pope by Malachy.

Space exploration?
Oh wow, was it that 1 tomb spot left for Popes thing? I remember talk about that back during John Paul, that there was just 2 left and then the world ends, something like that.

Anyways, the Church has always been corrupt. They even laundered cash, etc, for the Mafia.

Yeah, people don't really know the underline incentive to their space exploration. The Vatican does not hide the fact that they believe that extraterrestrial life out there. I personally believe they are awaiting the antichrist.

The Vatican is a rich corporation more intent on making money, I would doubt they are awaiting the antichrist.

Sorry, from what I am researching, the Vatican does not fund Nasa. I had a few friends that told me otherwise and I took their word for it. They do have connections to Nasa though.

I have no idea what connections they have to NASA or to what purpose.

I'd have to look into that on the space exploration.

I do know they are funding NASA because the government defunded them awhile back.

Just a weird detail, but I noticed that NASA's logo has the shape of a forked tongue of a snake.

That doesn't make sense, them funding NASA.

True, I just don't see why they would invest their time in the exploration of space.

The reason I think they are awaiting something darker is the fact that they also have connections with CERN. I would definitely suggest looking the organization up.

Again, makes no sense.

Yo! That's crazy, I just found that out today! There seriously is something going on with the Vatican.

Going on in which way?

I have debated over whether it is Catholicism or the world's morality. Then I realized that God says his word speaks in multitudes so he may be speaking of more than one thing.

Context, what words or phrases may have signified during the period they were written, translation, vague language subject to interpretation, etc, all contribute to confusion in understanding them.

If you really enjoy studying Revelation, I would definitely suggest listening to Chuck Missler's "Revelation Study in 24 Hours" if you haven't already. His insights are quite amazing.

I've really not explored it in decades tho.

Sorry... I can be a bit scatterbrained. What part doesn't make sense?

You do know the people killing God's prophets at the time this was written were followers of the polytheistic Roman religion right. Also, you condemn fake religious people in this sentence, but tar all religious people with the same brush in previous responses and try to assume that religion itself is the great evil; that's some major double-think right there. Apart from the Bible passage, this sells like sophistry to me. Rulers and royalty sounds more like politicians than clergy.

Do you consider any religion genuine? What religion if any do you follow? Do you believe in God?

Reply to your comments on 20/04/2020
Part 2
The denominations have the truth of Jesus correct is what I meant. The contradictions are mostly on minor issues (eg; some accept infant baptism while Baptists only accept adult Baptism) and the denominations agree on the important issues (that baptism is a required part of Christianity). And then there’s non-denominational Christians.

You made some baseless accusations when claiming I am a counterfeit; you assume I celebrate birthdays even though I never said anything about birthdays (you put celebrating Christmas and celebrating birthdays in different points) & assumed my failure to obey is wilful disobedience (and didn’t make this distinction until I pointed it out to you). I never bragged about an ability to argue endlessly; when I asked if you’re arguing for the sake of arguing I said I can go on for as long as you can (and wouldn’t mean arguing endlessly unless you can); on that note, when you cited 2 Timothy 2 for that point about arguing I think you should’ve cited the relevant verse instead of just listing the chapter and book. Also, what accusations have I made that you consider false?

I avoid quoting you as much as possible because I can see you’d accuse me of quote-mining if I did (I’ll consider using screenshots for this discussion). Also, you said calling me out on false accusations and calling them irrelevant are not mutually exclusive; my original quote was pointing out how you got riled up by those accusations then turned around and claimed they’re irrelevant after getting riled up (and after I started explaining how and why they applied to you).

I avoided the profanity because of actual teaching, not false piety; “But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.” Colossians 3:8 To be fair, I understand your objection to my criticism of you jumping between the Old and New Testaments; that criticism is because you pick the verses that seem to support your views and dismiss those that don’t; note how I’ve never dismissed any of the verses you presented but you claim some of them are spurious passages including Matthew 28:19 of The Great Commission which just so happens to contradict your view of baptism.

In reply to your latest comment; I apologize for not treating you with gentles and respect, though that does not mean I can’t call you out or disagree. You state the definition of Jesus, but admit that you are a non-believer, but thanks for clarifying your definition of Jesus again.

Your definition of religion is wrong because it contains the baseless assumption that all of it is separate from God.

Please tell me which questions of yours I haven’t answered. Impatience isn’t the mark of a counterfeit; we at times fail to do God’s will and that’s where grace comes in and why Jesus died for our sins, because we cannot always do it right on our own. You have also given answers before listening, so while I concede I’ve been impatient at times and apologize for it, that criticism applies to you too.

I consider every denomination of Christianity to be true about Jesus – except for the Jehovah’s Witness and the Mormons if you consider them Christian. I also say that while right about Jesus, some denominations have some added a few wrong teachings to the truth, such as the Catholic Church praying to saints. Assuming that because part of it is flawed the whole position is wrong is where you commit a logical fallacy; in this case the Fallacy Fallacy https://effectiviology.com/fallacy-fallacy/

While you correctly cited that verse from Peter (by the way, why do you – unlike me - never cite the Book, Chapter and Verse when quoting from the Bible?) trying and failing to live up that teaching does not make one a counterfeit. Since you have stated you are non-believer, I think you are misapplying Bible verses to try and manipulate believers for your own ends.

I do believe in the Son and strive to keep God’s commandments; trying and failing to do so doesn’t make me false. “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” 1 John 1:8

Reply to your comments on 22/04/2020 (last reply for the day)
Part 1
I got your message about why you’re still engaging in this discussion the first time, but I doubt it’s honest because you keep contradicting yourself. You say you’re only doing it for these reasons, but then you say other things which indicate otherwise; such as your claim that reasoning with me is a waste of time but you still try to refute (at least one of) my arguments anyway.

I said you were correct when you identified that I consider your use of profanity to be vitriol; you mistakenly assumed that I was flip-flopping about whether the profanity was vitriol. I proceeded to point out that you’re wrong about me considering your use of caps vitriol and elaborated on how you’re being vitriolic.

It’s also ironic that you accuse me of misconstruing when you have done so much misconstruing throughout this discussion. As for saying that my criticism that you use five words where two suffice is subjective, that can go either way, so it’s not a point in your favour or mine.

I have no idea why you keep referring to profanity as naughty words. I could come up with a theory, but if I told you my theory would you accuse me in some way of being presumptuous, such as assuming without listening?

Reply to your comments on 22/04/2020 (last reply for the day)
Part 2
You claim to disagree with my arguments, but without citing your reasons, it looks like you’re just going into denial and pretending your arguments haven’t been refuted. Disagreeing with facts doesn’t make them false.

It is strange that you said, “You can do your "I know you are, but what am I?" all you want.”, especially considering that’s what you’ve been doing (such as when you started to accuse me of sophistry after I pointed out your use of it). To get literal, I also never asked for your perspective of me. Besides, when I say I know what you are, it is in relation to this discussion and based on observations of what you’re saying and how you say it.

Reply to your comment about Easter on 22/04/2020
When you said, “You quote with no understanding. Where in this passage is Paul saying he "still committed sins"...? Nowhere.” Paul actually said so right in the passage I cited Romans 7:7-9, right there in verse 8; “But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead.” Romans 7:8 Here in this verse Paul is acknowledging sin within himself.

Thank you for finally addressing one of my arguments. I haven’t been ignoring it because I’m wrong, I’ve asked you to address it several times and until now you avoided doing so. There’s two problems with your case and the source you quoted from the website https://www.etymonline.com/word/Easter . The first is that it says, ”…perhaps originally of sunrise…” regarding the supposed pagan goddess, admitting there is uncertainty as to whether there is a connection between her and sunrise; something your case hinges on by assuming that this goddess is also the origin for the word Ostern. On a side note, despite your source admitting to uncertainty on the matter, you wield it as if presents a verified and irrefutable fact.

Back on topic; the second problem is that this originates from Bede, and his reliability in this is questionable. Even if the pagan goddess Eostre was an actual part of that pagan pantheon, it’s even less likely that she was a goddess of sunrise as well as a goddess of spring and fertility, which makes it more unlikely she's the origin of the word Ostren. More on that here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ēostre#Bede's_Eostre

Reply to your comments on 22/04/2020 (last reply for the day)
Part 3
Believe me or not, I had you figured for a “get the last word” guy, which I suspected was another reason you continued this discussion; I admit, we can apply the saying “takes one to know one” here.

Since you said God as real, when I figured you weren’t gaslighting regarding that, I figured that I’m not dealing with an atheist, but instead a misled theist (maybe Jewish as in a follower of Judaism, am I right?). That's why - much earlier in the discussion - I cited this verse; “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder.” James 2:19 I cited that verse to explain that just because you simply believe in God doesn’t mean you’re on the right path, that the teachings you denounce as pagan are pagan and that Christianity is wrong. I also wondered what makes you think you're following God's path, since I say you are sorely misled.

It’s funny you consider me too proud to walk away when I could say the same about you. In light of your admission about being a last word guy, and this could apply to me too, I say that you don’t care about addressing or acknowledging where I refuted you, you just want to get the last word in for this argument and will consider that victory. I may be wrong about you arguing for the sake of arguing, so it may or may not be in conjunction with that. I’ll consider whether to give you that victory of getting the last word.

Reply to your comments on 20/04/2020
Part 8

Why do you criticize me as someone who plays semantics, splitting hairs when you do the same while also gaslighting and tone-policing me?

I will risk an accusation of quote-mining and of hypocrisy to make this point (especially since by your own logic this approach isn’t quote-mining); where you say “And the counterfeit persists in using "intelligent sounding phrases" to puff up his argument, like "quote-mining", but uses them incorrectly, not understanding what they mean.” You accuse me of using the term quote-mining incorrectly, even though I provided the definition of the term in a previous comment; your accusation here makes no sense.

Going by how quick you were to dole out accusations it looks like you didn’t acknowledge the difference because it was something you could twist to your advantage, when you spoke earlier, you spoke as if I was deliberately rebelling even before you had any indicator either way.

To go off on a tangent before getting back on topic, why are you taking about me in the second person, saying “cover his own bad arguments” instead of “cover your own bad arguments”? You speak like you’re putting on a show for someone; whatever reason you’re doing it for, go ahead, I was just curious why you’ve adopted that speaking pattern when referring to me. Also, when you call me crafty, could I construe that as you using flattery on me, since the word crafty implies cleverness? Of course not, because apart from the word crafty denoting deceptiveness, you did not mean to compliment me, just like me saying you’re smart enough to figure something out isn’t flattery. Gentleness and respect should be part of my interactions with everyone, yes, and there are times I’ve failed to do that. To assume that makes me a counterfeit is tone-policing, which can be surmised as “Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument, and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem (personal attack) and antidebate tactic based on criticizing a person for expressing emotion. Tone policing detracts from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself.” (more on what tone-policing is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing ). A counterfeit can display that, but depending on circumstance, that alone does not make a counterfeit.

As for when you call me an arrogant pendant, remember when you point a finger at someone, three are pointing back at you.

Reply to your comments on 20/04/2020
Part 4
Boasting and bragging are words so synonymous using both is redundant. Even in that scenario, me admitting wrong-doing after being caught doing it is more than you’ve done (you’ve been either denying or trying to justify your wrong-doing here).

You’ve repeatedly claimed to hold yourself to the standards of Christianity compared to me despite being a non-believer, but it’s clear your true colours are showing and this claim of yours is false.

When I said you’re smart enough to know something, that wasn’t flattery or intended as such; you assumed it was flattery because I said something you interpreted as a compliment. You clearly have some knowledge of the Bible and some sophisticated sophistry, so I was saying that to get you to admit the point I thought you could figure out, and acknowledging that you appeared capable of doing so.

As katharizō isn't used in a specific tense, that doesn’t mean the future tense doesn't apply; if that’s what you were saying, that paragraph of yours is a self-defeating argument. Also that paragraph does not mention two gods (only in your mind does it say that). Plus you have no evidence my sins regarding this discussion are wilful; you assumed they’re wilful to try and use these against me.

The words printed on the page of the Bible are from God; The Great Commission is from Jesus Himself. Of course you twist and disregard whichever verses you want. While in the original Greek the verse said to make disciples, the instructions to “go,” “baptize,” and “teach” are indirect commands—participles in the original. We make disciples by baptizing them and teaching them all that Jesus commanded. “Make disciples” is the primary command of the Great Commission. “Going,” “baptizing,” and “teaching” are the means by which we fulfill the command to “make disciples.” On a related note, Jesus taught about the Holy Spirit on numerous occasions, such the one who comes after Him (John 14:26), and the Holy Spirit isn't the Father or Jesus Himself.

Have you ever accepted Jesus as Lord and received the Holy Spirit? According to your own words, no. As a result, there are some truths you either cannot or will not see; “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned through the Spirit." 1 Corinthians 2:14

Reply to your comments on 22/04/2020
If you think it’s a waste of time to reason with me, why try? If it’s fun to argue with me, why the vitriol? You said in a comment, and I quote “That was fun! It's nice taking down pompous, religious fools. Thank you!” With your own words you claim to be having fun. You are contradicting yourself and making mutually exclusive claims. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? Because it looks like you are.

I don't mind being proven wrong and being the first to walk away from this argument, even if it proves my claim "I can do this for as long as you can" wrong. If you're not going to engage the substance of the argument and admit your mistakes, I can and will walk away and you can tell yourself whatever makes you feel better if I do. I await your next comment full of ranting and personal attacks.

Reply to your comments on 21/04/2020
Part 3
Your paragraph about the Aorist tense just proves my point “You fail to understand: it is in the Aorist tense, which means there IS NOT ANY past, present, or future about it. English grammarians "solve" this dilemma by usually making it PAST tense; making it FUTURE tense would destroy the meaning of the passage (and since you refuse to quote the context of my comments, I'm referring to 1 John 1:9.)” I pointed out the lack of past, present and future tense.

In a previous comment of yours, you said Paul (or Tertullian, that paragraph of yours wasn’t clear) mentions two gods. Which words are spurious words? Referring to the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19. You speak as if there’s others, and on that note, accusations of being spurious are another thing you wield to aid in cherry-picking from the Bible for your own convenience. When you say you rely on God to know which verses are spurious, let me ask you a couple of questions that I know the answers for, but I want to hear yours; how would you know when God is telling you which verses are spurious? How would you know you’re not being misled by other people (such as those who espouse the idea that Easter originated from the supposed pagan goddess Eostre)? How would you know whether or not you’re not being misled by your own pride or selfish desires? How would you know whether or not you’re being demonically misled?

By the way, you said that in the Bible God warns three times not to add or take away from His words. THREE times. Citation needed. Also this search of those words turned up four results; two of which were said by God and two were said by one of His followers https://www.bing.com/search?q=verse+do+not+add+or+take+away+from+bible&qs=RI&pq=do+not+take+away+from+&sc=8-22&cvid=1DDEE1C6FE9648F1A1E49DCDD5698DCB&FORM=QBRE&sp=1

The capital letters for The Great Commission aren’t worshipping ideas rather than God. That is wrong. Its importance comes from God, who gave The Great Commission, and capital letters are to denote the importance of the command due to God being the one who gave it and the significance of it in our lives. And you abuse John 21:25 if you’re using that verse as justification to ignore parts of the Bible.

As for your claim that it baptism is not a physical act… in addition to my previous arguments, read Acts 8:26-40 and notice what Phillip does regarding the eunuch court official.

Reply to your comments on 20/04/2020
Part 3
What makes you think only one denomination is true? Especially since you as a non-believer dismiss them all. I disagree with your answer of none; if you had really considered the Bible and reached out to God, you would be a believer. But you are not a believer and have therefore missed the point. In all your talk of denominations, you never addressed non-denominational Christians.

I didn’t cite them after you called me out on a lack of citations, I cited those verses before and repeated the verses I had previously cited after you “called me out”. If it was really ultimately irrelevant you wouldn’t have bothered calling me out.

I said there is sin that is failure and sin that is wilful disobedience/rebellion; and that is a distinction you didn’t make until I called you out on it repeatedly. Your analogy doesn’t work because that’s not how all sin occurs and that’s not how the sins you accuse me of doing in this discussion (both the ones you correctly accused me of and falsely accused me of) played out.

I think your agenda is to undermine Christians; despite quoting Scripture, when you do so you don’t speak to repent, pursuing God properly and improving out conduct, you use it as a bludgeon to try and undermine our beliefs, make us doubt or disparage us. What contradictions of doctrine are you talking about? Also, what do I say to your statement “everyone will be saved”? I say where did you get that from assuming you didn’t just make it up to troll me (given how you gleefully expect this to trouble me and it's not a Bible verse https://biblehub.net/search.php?q=everyone+will+be+saved , I think its trolling). The closest verse I could find to that Romans 10:13 "for, Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."

Reply to your comments on 20/04/2020
Part 9

The statement I was referring to is from a previous comment where I responded to you criticizing my use of Matthew 7:15 to call out your use of Bible verses to try and undermine my faith and Christianity.

It wasn’t my intention to speak to you as if you’re an opposing religious person; I know you’re a non-believer and spoke to you the way I did because you were citing Scripture and religious sources along with making out my understanding of the Bible was wrong, even when I quoted verses proving otherwise such as refuting your claim that baptism should not be part of Christianity anymore.

When I said your true colours were showing, I was referring to showing your dishonesty and trolling despite trying to drag people down despite trying to pass yourself off as an enlightened person making airtight rational arguments (I said trolling here because you took satisfaction when you thought you were causing me discomfort and doubt and doubled down on what you were saying in an attempt to provoke me). By your own words every Christian is a counterfeit; in this comment where I'm posting to reply due to the length of our discussion, you say "All religious people are fake religious people."

but at least you’re honest that you’re not trying to help anyone, you are part of the problem. I recommend if you want to help people, offer constructive criticism and point to a true path rather than vindictively tearing people down and actually reconsidering what the Bible says, and not revelling in negative emotions you engender or think you engender in others.

“The Son of God” and “God, the son” are two of the different titles for Jesus and either can be used. And there’s more than two For example; “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6

In response to your 6 most recent comments:
PART 1
You did accuse me of refusing to answer a question. You claim that I am not a Christian, and I am explaining how that claim is false while admitted I have still failed in ways. Also, you obviously care despite claiming to not give two hoots (“hoots” because I cleaned up your language), since you’ve written such verbose responses.

It’s funny that you went from getting worked up about my accusations against you to saying they’re irrelevant. Then you flip-flop and try to justify your quote-mining by saying focus on the substance of what you’re saying. And by now I have answered your questions from the previous posts. I have cited numerous Bible verses, such as 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Matthew 28:19, which debunks your claim that I have cited virtually nothing.

I explained how failure to obey does not automatically equal an unbeliever; you just reject that explanation and barrel on with your idea that any failure on the part of a Christian means they’re not a true Christian because it suits your agenda.

I already conceded your point about denominations while explaining how that doesn’t invalidate or debunk Christianity. It’s strange how you consider all denominations Babylon the Great, since you don’t believe in that anyway; showing you’re just using Scripture as a weapon to bludgeon any Christians you disagree with to suit your own agenda. The contradictions are not about Jesus, there are differences, such as Presbyterians which entails having a council of elders when most denominations don’t and an emphasis on predestination, which doesn’t disqualify from salvation.

Reply to your comments on 20/04/2020
Part 10
How is it boasting to say I have accepted what God offered? It is not.

This is another example of a quote-mine from you; you take those three words "...I have accepted..." form a longer sentence and use those three words to claim I'm boasting about myself. This fits the definition of quote-mine; "to take a quote out of context in order to make it present a point of view that isn't compatible with the original quote."

The full sentence I typed with those three words is as follows; "When you said wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked… the only difference between you and me is that I have accepted the choice that I can only make by His Grace." (to make an addendum; I add that I'm no longer blind like I was long before this debate thanks to God).

The credit is to God because without Him I wouldn't have been able to even make that choice. I would be blind and unable to make that choice if God in his grace hadn't enabled me to make it.

I'll concede that referring to typed text as verbal was a poor choice of words when saying you'd given a verbal dismissal. The point, and the rest of what I stand in that comment, remains valid.

In response to your 6 most recent comments:
PART 2
Denying Jesus is the Son of God is what makes someone a non-believer. I say you’re a non-believer because you said you are one several times, even trying to cite Scripture to say how you think this is the superior path. Even if I made an assumption, there’s a difference between making an assumption and telling a lie. Also, unlike you, I have admitted my wrong-doings here while you pretend you have done no wrong in this discussion when you have avoided questions, projected, quote-mined used sophistry. Own it.

We are talking about Christianity, so the context of what a believer is should be clear. You’re smart enough to know that. While you are right about what happens to those who don’t obey the Son, it is also written; “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9 While I do not need to justify myself to you, since it’s a teachable moment and introspection can be healthy I’ll keep responding.

Explain what you consider to be genuine Christianity. I am leery of what an avowed non-believer considers genuine Christianity when you claim God deliberately put spurious passages into the Bible and includes the Great Commission among those so-called spurious passages. You are a wolf in sheep’s clothing, using the Bible to try and undermine the faith of Christians. “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” Matthew 7:15 You know Satan tried to do the same to Jesus, though you and I are a far cry from Jesus’ goodness and Satan’s wickedness.

Strange that use the analogy of a bit of dog poo on food regarding the church. That isn’t reason to dismiss all Christianity because some churches have these practices.

Reply to your comments on 20/04/2020
Part 5
I wasn’t calling you a prophet, I was comparing you to those false prophets, given how you’ve been trying to use the Bible against me while simultaneously claiming that you follow it better than I do despite being an unbeliever.

You think that I’m making “false” accusations against you because I’m scared. Again you show your true colours by savouring the fear you think I have rather than trying to help improve my conduct or encourage me to follow God (calling it good and very good that you think I’m frightened and disturbed by questioning; thank you for proving me correct when I said in a previous comment that your goal is to discomfort and undermine Christians); ironically you show how judgemental you’re being – a criticism often thrown at us. You think I’m questioning my faith and wondering whether Christianity may be wrong. Though I don’t think you’ll believe me when I say this; “you wish”, and “no I am not”. You should instead be encouraging me to be a better Christian, not trying to gaslight me into thinking it and me are lost causes and I should give up.

It is true little leaven leavens the whole bunch; the solution is to cleanse it and remove the wrong doing, not throw it away like you’re saying to do. The plate the turd was on can be washed, although a piece of cutlery is a poor analogy for an institution.

You said you’re not a believer; do you believe that God is real/actually exists? Do you believe that Jesus is real/actually exists? For all I know, when you say Jesus is God you could actually mean “yes that’s just what the words in the Bible say” rather than “yes this is the real-life truth”. Saying Jesus is the Son of God is not wrong; He is God and the Son of God.

P.S. The fact that there are many denominations is proof that people emphasize different things; it is not evidence of God not being involved with them.

Reply to your comments on 20/04/2020
Part 6
I wasn’t calling you a prophet, I was comparing you to those false prophets, given how you’ve been trying to use the Bible against me while simultaneously claiming that you follow it better than I do despite being an unbeliever.

You think that I’m making “false” accusations against you because I’m scared. Again you show your true colours by savouring the fear you think I have rather than trying to help improve my conduct or encourage me to follow God (calling it good and very good that you think I’m frightened and disturbed by questioning; thank you for proving me correct when I said in a previous comment that your goal is to discomfort and undermine Christians); ironically you show how judgemental you’re being – a criticism often thrown at us. You think I’m questioning my faith and wondering whether Christianity may be wrong. Though I don’t think you’ll believe me when I say this; “you wish”, and “no I am not”. You should instead be encouraging me to be a better Christian, not trying to gaslight me into thinking it and me are lost causes and I should give up.

It is true little leaven leavens the whole bunch; the solution is to cleanse it and remove the wrong doing, not throw it away like you’re saying to do. The plate the turd was on can be washed, although a piece of cutlery is a poor analogy for an institution.

You said you’re not a believer; do you believe that God is real/actually exists? Do you believe that Jesus is real/actually exists? For all I know, when you say Jesus is God you could actually mean “yes that’s just what the words in the Bible say” rather than “yes this is the real-life truth”. Saying Jesus is the Son of God is not wrong; He is God and the Son of God.

I didn’t say you specifically said it was the superior path; look how easy it is to misinterpret someone’s words. You clearly think your way is superior, otherwise you wouldn’t hold the view and be arguing so much with me about it.

You assume I merely engage in lip service, even though you’ve never seen me in person or know anything about me apart from what’s on this website (and maybe the country I live in). Do you know whether or not I give to charity? Do you know whether or not I confess my sins outside of this website? How can you; we've never met, may not have the same social circles or even live in the same country. I've only said things about you in relation to your words here, you assume much more about me.

Reply to your comments on 22/04/2020
Part 1
The point I was making when you said “"It's nice taking down pompous, arrogant fools" as "it's nice TALKING DOWN TO pompous, arrogant fools"” is that you claim to be having fun, but judging from your words you’re not acting like it.

You also claim to have stopped trying to reason with me several days ago, “This question is the result of your arrogant inattention to detail. I stopped trying to reason with you several days ago.” But less than 24 hours ago you responded to my argument anyway, which doesn’t make sense if you’re not trying to reason with me. Based on the evidence, you’re either lying or getting mixed up. Even if that wasn't the case, then you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Now who is answering without listening? You are. You answered without listening by assuming I consider profanity and you using all caps as vitriol. At best you are only partially correct, and that's regarding the profanity. I do not consider using all caps as vitriol. I consider your verbal diarrhoea in some of your past comments (using five words where two would suffice and needlessly repetitive name-calling) along with your use of profanity (by the way, why you keep referring to profanity as "naughty words"?) to be vitriol.

The following criticism can be applied to you: “Again: if you can't be bothered to READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WROTE THE SAME DAY, how can you possibly be expected to understand what was written 2,000 and more years ago...?” So says the person who refused to acknowledge several points I made throughout the discussion, such as the Theophilus point, ideas on the nature of God’s encounter with Moses in Exodus and proof of baptism’s importance and necessity in Christianity.

Why do you say my pride won't let me walk away? Considering that you've supposedly given up trying to reason with me, and my doubts about your claim that you're (I say supposedly) having fun (I say supposedly) talking me down, it also looks like you're the one who can't just walk away due to pride.

What are you basing this on; your claim that all religious people are fake; what is your evidence for that? There are non-religious institutions and creeds that have killed God's prophets (check out the track record of Marxist regimes). What's your stance on Jesus? “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Matthew 7:15

It sounds like you assume your way is better because you believe in God but aren't religious. The same Bible that you cherry picked from also says "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder." James 2:19 Believing in God alone is not enough.

As for the verse you took from 1 Corinthians 3, let's have a look at it with some of the verses after it. "What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Read that again; "For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 3:11

Also check out these two verses; “Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” Acts 11:25-26

Your attempt to use the Bible to debunk and discredit the Bible - you saying "Christianity and every other religion is wrong because the Bible says so" - is looking like some major heresy and gaslighting on your part.

Reply to your comments on 20/04/2020
Part 7

When you said wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked… the only difference between you and me is that I have accepted the choice that I can only make by His Grace. The grace to accept the truth is available to you as well, it’s a choice; you’ve chosen to reject it and built up a stronghold to defend that rejection. The same grace is why I’ve accepted the truth, which stands strong regardless of how well or how poorly I or others present it. You say I think everyone else is bragging and boasting because you think I’m doing that in a discussion with you; that’s a major assumption.

Your quote-mining is in almost all of your comments, as each comment has the following structure; 1) take a fraction of what I said – ranging from part of a sentence to part of a paragraph and put it in quotation marks 2) verbally dismiss or mock that quote-mined section 3) offer rebuttal 4) if personal attacks weren’t included in step 3, add them here 5) rinse and repeat the first 4 steps (and you’re not the first person I’ve seen use this method). You project by accusing me of being a false believer as you are, project by accusing me of false accusations when I said that of you of using sophistry after I pointed out how you do it and accusing me. If I specifically cited where you did this, I suspect you’d accuse me of quote-mining too. For one example of sophistry; you only cited the Eostre argument for Easter being a pagan holiday and made no mention of my point about the Germanic word Ostern or the video link I sent you discussing that; you just doubled down on the Eostre point.

In response to your 6 most recent comments:
PART 3
Just because “Books”, “Chapters”, and “Verses” are manmade parts doesn’t invalidate them. They’re for ease of reference when sharing the word of God between each other and with non-Christians given our fallible human minds – as well as to prove what we’re saying is really in the Bible in case people try to accuse us of lying about what’s in the Bible. I didn’t mention trying and failing to live up to the example because I thought it didn’t have to be said and that you were either smart enough or not so biased that you’d use any mistake a Christian made to declare they are not a true Christian. I think that your ends are to confuse Christians and either cause us distress, undermine our faiths or makes us apostatize entirely.

Because we fail, because sin dwells in us, that is why Jesus died on the Cross, because we cannot do it on our own. That is why failure to live up to the teachings does not make a person a non-believer. When Jesus said to us to be perfect, Jesus was saying the standard we are to meet; but if we could meet that on our own steam he would not have had to die for our sins. That is why Jesus said;
“"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.” Mark 10:18
“Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:16

Also about how a person can be saved despite our wrongdoings, using the example of the rich young man who Jesus met and the rich; “When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”” Matthew 19:25-26

I know the verse "If we claim we have never sinned, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."; I even cited that one earlier.

Reply to comments on 20/04/2020
Part 1
I know that you’re not actually trying to help; I’m continuing this argument because it’s a teachable moment for you, me via fact-checking you and anyone else who reads this.

The blindness Jesus was referring to in Matthew 13 is blindness to seeing the truths he was sharing. Lack of knowledge about historical Christians doesn’t equal the blindness you’re talking about. Show me your sources for your claims about Tertullian. Where did the apostles warn the Trinity had been taken over by the pagans?

While I saw Tertuillian was guilty of a few pagan behaviours after fact-checking, here’s what’s wrong with your argument; Jesus Himself said in the Great Commission to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and Tertullian lived decades after The Apostle Paul and the Twelve Disciples (I say twelve citing Matthias, Iscariot’s replacement) had died/been martyred. Plus, the New Testament possesses a "triadic" understanding of God and Theophilus of Antioch was actually the one who made the first recorded use of the word Trinity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch

Even when quote-mining me, you still get it wrong (though props for making me aware of my poor grammar in that sentence). The difference between “shows how wrong your argument is” and “invalidates everything you said” is the former refers to something like a link in a chain while conceding you said a few correct things, and the latter would be a complete dismissal of everything you said.

In the midst of your argument, you said a few things that were true, such as the Bible verses you shared. Now please show me where I said there is such a thing as an insincere believer. Funny how you now acknowledge there is a difference between failure and wilful rebellion after you assumed my failure to always answer you with gentleness and respect was a wilful rebellion.

When I said a tenant of communion and Jesus laying down the tenants, I was speaking colloquially about Jesus establishing communion. You also avoided the rest of the argument with the weak excuse of poor grammar; even with my grammatical flubs in that comment, the point is still able to be understood. Claiming that a person shouldn't be taken seriously because they use bad grammar is an Ad Hominem argument (it also reminds me of concern trolling).

It's also a misuse of Matthew 5:48 to assume it's a strike against me because I didn't use correct grammar at points. It makes you come across as the type of person who watches us Christians, or any religious people or for that matter, and as soon as any out us makes a mistake you come out raving that it proves we're a false follower of our religion, which is a puerile and crazy thing to do.

Reply to your comments on 21/04/2020
Part 1
Thank you for pointing out my use of the wrong “tenet”. At least you’ve finally moved away from quote-mining me, now you just need to step back from strawmanning me. I knew you were calling me out on my use of the wrong word, the problem is rather than address the rest of my argument, you ranted about the mistakes I made while presenting it and said you weren’t

When I discussed Matthew 5:48 means, I should’ve been clearer. I should’ve said the point I was trying to make; that poor grammar is not a sin, though good grammar should be strived for to the best of one’s abilities. We disagree on interpretations, though given what you’ve been saying it’s ironic that you ask whether I question if my interpretation is accurate; I do consider that, do you ever consider that?

Ad Hominen attacks are more than the definition you gave (in fact, you’ve been making several against me). For example, you cited poor grammar as a reason not to take me seriously; that is an ad hominem argument because it attacks me and my grammar rather than the argument (you were able to determine what the argument was despite my poor grammar). Here’s a more comprehensive list of what ad hominem is https://effectiviology.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/#Examples_of_ad_hominem_arguments By that logic, once the poor grammar is resolved, the issue is moot (and addresses the point raised in Luke 16:10).

While you have a point about trust, in this situation and others you’ve been hostile and trying to undermine from the beginning, so it’s not as if there was trust to begin with. Plus, earlier in the discussion. you ignored how I proved that baptism is an important and required part of Christianity and instead went on diatribes about my argument and trying to prove I’m a counterfeit.

By the way, I think you keep saying counterfeit as a cover to hide the fact that my case is having more of an effect on you than you want to admit, and in an attempt unbalance me. If you’re so convinced of my status as a counterfeit, why keep saying it? It makes you come across as insecure; a person confident in something doesn't need to keep repeating it.

You're right about factionalism being wrong, but that doesn't debunk Jesus being the Son of God and the only way to salvation (by the way, you didn't answer my question on what Jesus is to you. Who do you say Jesus is?) nor does it discredit Christianity as being correct. "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is LORD," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:8-9 It doesn't matter if some of the people who do that call themselves The Church of England and others call themselves Baptists or Presbyterians, if they meet that condition they are saved (of course a saving faith produces works).

In what way do you dispute the fact that non-religious people have killed God's prophets? How do you define religion/what do you define as a religion? I cited Marxism, which is an atheistic political ideology.

That fact that a person who's projecting is accusing me of projecting, and a liar accusing me of lying, is telling. You also have no evidence to assume that the Bible is referring to religions as an abomination in Revelation 17; all you did was say "You're wrong, religions are the abomination" and keep repeating that without providing evidence. Again I ask you, Timber1972, who do you say Jesus is?

In response to your 6 most recent comments:
PART 4
Yet Paul still committed sins. “What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead.” Romans 7:7-9

“We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.” Romans 7:14-20

2 Timothy 4 is not talking just about believers but people in general. As the verse you cited and the two before it say; “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

I already explained that Easter came from the Anglo Saxon/Germanic word Ostern, and the single account that gave rise to the erroneous claim about Eostre made by the monk Bede; an explanation you have been avoiding.

You're just saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence. I am a Christian sharing Christianity.

What you describe - saying "all religions are true" is omnism, which is a major exercise in double-think.

I am not an omnist. I am a Christian, and say Christianity is true as Jesus is the Lord, the Son of God who rose form the dead and the only way to salvation. I ask you again, who do you say Jesus is?

You've given no evidence beyond your own cooked-up interpretations, while simultaneously avoiding several questions I've asked which are relevant to the discussion; who do you say Jesus is? What do you define as a religion?

I know you weren't saying "all religions are true", I went on a tangent to explain why that view doesn't work.

I will humor you and ask; since you think I am a counterfeit, what or who do you consider genuine?

In reply to your comments on 21/04/2020
Part 5
I referred to your wrongful use of Tertullian to try and prove the Holy Trinity a pagan concept because it was part of your argument against Christianity. And you still haven’t acknowledged your error regarding Theophilus; why?

You think that just because I’m a Christian that I should just let you heap abuse on me, but if I call it out, then I’m a counterfeit and not a true Christian. Now that is funny. Pointing out someone else’s shortcomings isn’t an un-Christian thing to do. Ironically, every criticism you levelled at me can be applied to you, and you don’t get a pass on doing these things just because you’re an unbeliever. People generally don’t like these traits regardless of who does them.

For someone who says, “It's quite difficult...which certainly fills you with pride...to have a discussion with people who make hysterical claims.” You’re still able to make some lengthy replies (also, you said I was fun earlier, looks like you’ve had a change of heart). I already showed where my accusations came from, thus I’m not violating the 9th Commandment in this discussion. Worst case scenario there’s a difference between making a mistake and knowingly speaking falsehood.

You’re right that it’s possible to say “Jesus is Lord” in a hollow and ritualistic way, but it is also possible to say it in an authentic way as stipulated in the Bible.

In reply to your latest Easter comment on 22/04/2020
In Romans 7:8 Paul speaks of covetousness. Covetousness is a sin, as per the 10th Commandment. Further proof of sin can be found in this passage; “So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.” Romans 7:21-25

The uncertainty in your source does matter. The source states this is not verified, but you speaks as if it’s fully verified, when it clearly says its not. When you said “So...do you think it is a COINCIDENCE that "Ostern" and "Easter" and "Austron" and "Eostre" are all SIMILAR WORDS, and have to do with the DAWN...?” You completely ignore that Eostre is not a verified example. Also, the religious celebration called Easter has different names and wasn’t originally called such. To quote Wikipedia; “The festival that early Christians celebrated was called in Greek Πάσχα (Pascha), a transliteration of the Aramaic word פסחא, cognate to Hebrew פֶּסַח (Pesach). The word originally designated the Passover feast of Exodus 12.” Source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter#Etymology For the sake of argument, let’s say you’re completely right about the origin of the name. Then we can simply not celebrate Easter and make up a new holiday to commemorate this will fully Christian origins; we do not have to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Your attitude appears to be going all over the place. At one point you say “This is just one of the reasons why trying to reason with you is a waste of time. So, I'll just expose your religious hypocrisy.” Then in the next comment you address my argument. You also use lots of name-calling and profanity, which comes across as angry raving throughout your comments, then in the last comment you say it’s fun talking down to me. You’re being very contradictory. If you think it’s a waste of time to reason with me, why try? If it’s fun to argue with me, why the vitriol? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

Reply to your comments on 20/04/2020
Part 7
How is it haughty, arrogant and condescending to say I know you’re not trying to help and that it’s a teachable moment for you, me and everyone who sees this (especially in light of you taking pleasure when you think I’m discomforted). What makes you I consider myself my god? By the way, if anyone else reading this wants to contribute, feel free to do so.

It’s hypocritical to accuse me of dragging the argument into different tangents to argue given your repetition and making claims without providing sources of information. You assume I won’t do research

This is an example of your sophistry; you claim the trinity is found nowhere in the Bible, then follow up by citing the Shema, which is part of the Pentateuch while neglecting to mention passages such as when Jesus talks about the Holy Spirit or affirming when Peter referred to Jesus as the Christ and Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16). Your claim that no serious Bible scholar disputes this is weasel words. It’s also wrong to assume I won’t do research; especially in light, for example, of how you claimed Tertullian was the first to use the term trinity when the first recorded use was actually Theophilus of Antioch you completely disregarded Theophilus, or the fact that he came before Tertullian – therefore you were wrong about Tertullian’s position - and said I’ve been taken captive by “philosophers”. You claim that had someone talked about the trinity to the Apostles they would’ve been driven away, why?

You did a grievous wrong when you claimed to quote Jude and left out part of the verse; you said only part of Jude 1:4. The full verse is “For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” You left out the part that says “…and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord”.

In reply to your comments on 21/04/2020
Part 6
I only addressed your remark about the Shema because you brought it up first. By the way, do you think you have a spiritual understanding? What do you think of the Gospel of Judas, by the way?

You think that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. God is three in one, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, they are not each other and carry out different roles but they are God. The Holy Spirit dwelled in Jesus, the Holy Spirit is not Jesus, they are different aspects of God. We don’t have to pray to each of them separately but they have different roles; just because you can’t wrap your head around the concept of the Holy Trinity doesn’t make it false. If – and I say IF - that is the reason behind your view of it, you’ve committed the Comprehension Fallacy here.

I showed you the sequence of events that led to the conclusion you’re engaging in sophistry; I stared with your claim about the Bible then shared parts of the Bible that prove your claim false. That’s showing the supporting evidence, not begging the question. This is how the fallacy works; https://examples.yourdictionary.com/reference/examples/begging-the-question-fallacy-examples.html The accusation of sophistry was because you made that claim and neglected to mention certain relevant Bible verses. Of course, I hope you don’t just move the goalposts and say you really meant the Trinity and that.

Reply to your comments on 21/04/2020
Part 4
Thank you for clarifying that it was Tertullian who mentioned two gods. Remember that I proved how and why using Tertullian as an argument against Christianity is wrong (because Tertullian wasn't the first to use the term "Trinity", and lived after Paul and the 12 Disciples - except for John who died in exile of old age, and Judas Iscariot the traitor - were martyred).

Tellingly, you're addressing less and less of my arguments as the discussion goes on.

In response to your most recent message on 22/04/2020
Part 1
When you tried to invoke a double standard regarding this issue; “That's correct (addendum: you criticizing my grammar is a strike against me, but me doing similar is playing semantics). But you don't understand why, because you're deeply deluded.” I understand that you’re being a hypocrite and trying to troll me. Your explanation to try and justify the double standard was dishonest; a strawman rooted in cherry-picking.

I’ve criticized you numerous times in this discussion, but you claimed I'd only done irrelevant, petty jabs at you. I also explained the reasons behind them along with facts that verified my case and facts that you got wrong, but for so long you’ve ignored those and gone on diatribes about anything that is, or appears to be, a jab at you.

By the way, you’re not even addressing my arguments now, even the ones where I’ve clearly proven you wrong. It would help your credibility if you admitted you were/are wrong about Tertullian (and everything else you’re wrong about here), just as I admitted I was wrong to get impatient with you and not show gentleness and respect.

In response to your 6 most recent comments:
PART 5
The Bible is spiritual and also deals in physical practices. When Jesus lay down the tenants of communion He used physical bread and physical wine. More on that here where you can read 1 Corinthians 11 in its entirety; https://www.biblica.com/bible/niv/1-corinthians/11/

I never said everything I disagree with is baseless, I merely pointed that out at times when you made assumptions without evidence to back them up. I will thank you for this discussion, this has been thought-provoking and helped me learn even more.

Now I ask you, why do you, being a non-believer by your own admission, care about how I practice my faith? Don’t say you don’t care; if that were true you wouldn’t have gone on with the discussion for this long. And since you don’t believe it’s clearly not to make me a better Christian. What are you hoping to accomplish with this?

Reply to your comments on 21/04/2020
Part 2
Strange that you accuse me of playing semantics (such as when I pointed out saying bragging and boasting is redundant) given your own scrutinizing. To quote you, “An EXCELLENT example of the counterfeit playing semantics! This statement is thoroughly unnecessary, serves no part of advancing the discussion, and is just said to "get a dig in" because the counterfeit thinks he can.” So, when you critique my grammar, it’s supposed to be taken as a strike against me, but when I do something similar, it's playing semantics.

You're wrong to claim that accepting Jesus as Lord and receiving the Holy Spirit is pagan philosophy, a magic formula or incantation; now that’s actual blasphemy. Here is proof that what you’re saying is wrong;
“But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans 10:8-9
You said, “But you will find no such idea anywhere in the New Testament.” But the aforementioned passage is an example from the New Testament.

Out of love for us, God respects our free will, that is why acceptance is required (a self-imposed limit by God); it’s not a question of subservience or subordination, but the regard God has for us due to love.

You’re using the concept of bibliolatry and your own interpretations as excuses to cherry-pick parts of the Bible you want to use to justify your own worldview or attack others. As for examples of you not admitting your own wrongness throughout this discussion… in previous replies, I proved where you were incorrect regarding baptism and Tertullian, but you glossed over it.

Regarding what you said here; “LOL! Not even remotely. I said *I*...a NONBELIEVER...hold myself to higher standards than you, a supposed "christian." Just because you resent being exposed as a counterfeit doesn't make my statement false.” I was refuting your claim that you were doing a better job of following Christian standards than me in relation to this discussion. Also, to reiterate another point, when I said you’re smart enough to know something, that was an observation, not flattery. Would it be flattery to say the late Prof. Stephen Hawking was smart? (for the record, I consider you below his intellectual level, and I’m uncertain how much intelligence you have).

In response to your comments on 21/04/2020
Part 7
In regards to this section, and I quote; “Here, I'll put it BACK in context, since you did precisely what you've (falsely) accused me of doing, which is to rip that statement out of its context to distort what I said: "The words "in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit" were NOT in Matthew 28:19 originally, and were ADDED to it. No serious Biblical (not "Bible", because that's poor grammar) scholar disputes this."” I said you used weasel words because you didn’t specify any Bible scholars, and given that you consider all religious people false religious people, I wonder what your criteria for a serious Bible scholar is.

The fact that I addressed your claims about the supposed pagan goddess Eostre, that Tertullian wasn’t the first to use the term Trinity and proved that baptism is still an important part of Christianity shows I’ve done research and that this claim of yours, and I quote, “No one assumed you won't do research; it was obvious that you hadn't.” That claim of yours is wrong.

I said you took pleasure when you think I’m discomforted when you accused me of lashing out because you think I’m false based on one of your comments where you explained your intentions to rattle (what you see as) counterfeit Christians saying if I was feeling discomfort it was “good” and “very good”; it’s ironic that you quoted Yoda’s “do or do not…” quote earlier, because there you reminded me of Palpatine. While looking through the comments I’ve been unable to find that part that prompted me to say "especially in light of you taking pleasure when you think I’m discomforted”. While you may have deleted that comment for this very purpose, due to being unable to find it I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and end that matter here.

I’ve shared several facts with you; what you do with them is your call. Just because someone says, "this is a teachable moment." doesn’t make them a counterfeit just because that doesn’t appeal to you personally. It’s arrogant of you to say ““God's messengers, those He sends to actually teach, would never say something as arrogant as "this is a teachable moment."”

In response to your comments on 21/04/2020
Part 8
If you’ll dismiss something as truth from God for such a petty reason as “they made a presumption” or “they called someone out in a humorous way”, it sounds like you're looking for teachings that tickle your ears. Imagine how you’d react if Jesus Himself called you a blind fool; “You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? Matthew 23:17 Here, Jesus referred to some people as blind fools, does that mean He’s not the Son of God? No, He’s still the Son of God.