I'm a hardcore Christian - Let's play.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

I didn't mention anything about being omnipotent. Is that the best you can do?

You claimed to be "god", no? Or do you have your own special definition for that term?

Besides considering the varying definitions of god, there is no such definition that suggests god must be omnipotent in a sense of awareness. Those are purely for certain religions.

You must have a very good sense of humor if you actually believe God can be overcome by any object or person He created.

Think of it this way, if a book has all the knowledge of the universe in it and it existence is required for reality to exist, it's an omnipotent god then isn't it? Because it hold the potential to shape reality in any way it sees fit, yet it has no mind to do so itself. Then there's a being that has no mental capacity to be sentient or intelligent, yet it governs the nature of reality at all times, is that not god? Even though it is the sole creator and shaper of reality?

I've never seen any object (let alone a book) create and shape reality in the way you're describing. Have you?

Heh, Christianity harbours such primitive concepts on how god somehow suffers the affliction of the human condition. You fail to comprehend even remotely that should a god exist, it would have motivations, emotions and behaviours completely alien to us. Faith would mean nothing as we would be nothing more than molecular machines to it's eyes.

Ok, "god". Have you figured out what my family name is? Or do you still need more time?

If you can't even know what my family name is (a very simple request for a "god" like you to do), then why should I trust what you speculate here?

I mean why rely on faith, unless of course, god is a mere abstraction that depends on the existence of faith in him. Should such faith be lost, god would then be destroyed. This would then mean god is destructible, hence not really a true god.

What kind of reasoning is this? If you have faith in someone (not God), does this mean his existence depends on your faith in him?

I mock the word god because it either suffers the issues of paradoxes or redundancy when you spend time thinking about it.

Ok, keep mocking that word. I won't stop you. I promise.

Predictable behaviour. You selective ignore segments while addressing others in a way purely to bounce them off as you cannot directly reply to them with a reliable answer, and you're better than me because? So I wouldn't accuse me of such behaviours since you're clearly doing it too. I was hoping you'd make that mistake.

Besides, substitute the word object to god in that one question and I can ask that right back at you. Which I doubt you can answer without citing the bible or giving concise instruction like, "He's over there".

As for faith, since empirical science seems to fail to account for god, it seems faith is the only alternative to explain his existence. So take your pick, faith or science, and since the latter fails to prove his existence, then god must rely purely on faith then. I'm not sure if you were smart enough to see the subtle reference and piss take of your delusional state of mind when I wrote that. 

[Calavera]

This shit is absolutely no better when Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron do it.  

It is because I like discussing stuff with MACV. 

Same here. I've been enjoying my interactions with you all thus far.

Jesus Christ brings joy to all of us ... if we allow Him to do so.

[Calavera]

Do you believe dinosaurs existed? If so, how are dinosaurs reconciled with creation in genesis and with the age of the earth?

Yes, I believe they existed. They were created with the other animals on the sixth day of creation.

I don't see any issues here. God's Word is absolutely true.

Why yes it is, in all its' contradictory glory.

What's "contradictory glory"? You really don't make sense at times.

[Calavera]

Do you believe dinosaurs existed? If so, how are dinosaurs reconciled with creation in genesis and with the age of the earth?

Yes, I believe they existed. They were created with the other animals on the sixth day of creation.

I don't see any issues here. God's Word is absolutely true.

The dinosaurs were created the same day as man?

If they truly did exist, then it must've been on the sixth day (and, also, on the fifth day depending on what one means by "dinosaur").

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Do you believe dinosaurs existed? If so, how are dinosaurs reconciled with creation in genesis and with the age of the earth?

Yes, I believe they existed. They were created with the other animals on the sixth day of creation.

I don't see any issues here. God's Word is absolutely true.

Why yes it is, in all its' contradictory glory.

What's "contradictory glory"? You really don't make sense at times.

Oh nothing, maybe the whole, "I'll will kill you all and send you to hell for not believing in me" then "I love you so much and welcome all to my kingdom" attitude for starters. Then there's all those contradictions in the bible, but then that's understandable, it was written by people so fair enough.

But man, he sounds like he's bipolar and a hypocritical tyrant.

[Osensitive1]

Do you believe dinosaurs existed? If so, how are dinosaurs reconciled with creation in genesis and with the age of the earth?

Yes, I believe they existed. They were created with the other animals on the sixth day of creation.

I don't see any issues here. God's Word is absolutely true.

The dinosaurs were created the same day as man?

If they truly did exist, then it must've been on the sixth day (and, also, on the fifth day depending on what one means by "dinosaur").

Seemingly intelligent believer must not avoid making the statement of dinosaur walking the earth with man.

[Calavera]

Yes I always thought that, strictly speaking, they are very heretical. But the question still stands.

If we are eventually resurrected back to earth when jesus is king of earth, we get a "Second chance" at life why should we strive perfection now ?. If we are going to be resurrected then why do we need the blood of jesus to enter into heaven ? And I did see scripture before, dont know anything about it. I read that only a few hundred thousand people actually get into heaven and everyone else goes to paradise earth after the resurrection. So, if this is true,

why do our actions on earth matter ?

Because the resurrection of the dead isn't to give condemned sinners a second chance. They are resurrected only to be condemned.

John 5:28-29
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

[Calavera]

This shit is absolutely no better when Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron do it.  

Come on, scrap. Give him one. Have already got my second one in queue. It's a really good one. Will wait though; someone else might think of it too since it's already been slightly mentioned.

OK, I'll give it a try and pray for lulz to ensue.

Here's my question:

What the fuck is Genisis 6:2 supposed to mean when it says "The sons of God looked down upon the daughters of men and saw that they were hot assed beotches and hoes and they said 'Mmm I wants to get me a piece of dat fine monkey ass' and they married those beotches 'n shit." ??

And on chapter 4, it says:"Yo! There was some giant assed NBA playin muthafuckahs bach then, when the sons of god came unto the daughters of men and they doggie fucked the shit outa dem hoes and bore them many children. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown".

Sorry, but I didn't come here to entertain and play games with you guys. I seriously want you all to be saved.

Genesis 6:2-4 says that the sons of God mated with the daughters of men, and the Nephilim were born as a result.

Any serious concerns with the passage?

[Calavera]

Predictable behaviour. You selective ignore segments while addressing others in a way purely to bounce them off as you cannot directly reply to them with a reliable answer, and you're better than me because? So I wouldn't accuse me of such behaviours since you're clearly doing it too. I was hoping you'd make that mistake.

When did I say I was better than you? And what mistake again?

Besides, substitute the word object to god in that one question and I can ask that right back at you. Which I doubt you can answer without citing the bible or giving concise instruction like, "He's over there".

Easy. Somebody had to bring this reality into being. Somebody really powerful enough to do so. We call Him God.

A book is so limited in structure and function it can't even respond to your nonsense. And you expect it to create reality?

As for faith, since empirical science seems to fail to account for god, it seems faith is the only alternative to explain his existence. So take your pick, faith or science, and since the latter fails to prove his existence, then god must rely purely on faith then. I'm not sure if you were smart enough to see the subtle reference and piss take of your delusional state of mind when I wrote that. 

But science does point to the Creator. I'm sorry you choose to deny this.

[Calavera]

Oh nothing, maybe the whole, "I'll will kill you all and send you to hell for not believing in me" then "I love you so much and welcome all to my kingdom" attitude for starters.

It's your sinful perception that sees it that way.

God never said he'll kill and send people to hell for not believing in Him. If you believe He did, please point to the Bible passage that says so.

Then there's all those contradictions in the bible, but then that's understandable, it was written by people so fair enough.

What contradictions? The Bible is God's Word. How can there be any contradictions in it?

But man, he sounds like he's bipolar and a hypocritical tyrant.

May the Lord forgive you for these terrible accusations of Him ...

[Calavera]

Seemingly intelligent believer must not avoid making the statement of dinosaur walking the earth with man.

I never said I was intelligent.

But I don't mind stating that the dinosaurs once walked the earth with man.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Predictable behaviour. You selective ignore segments while addressing others in a way purely to bounce them off as you cannot directly reply to them with a reliable answer, and you're better than me because? So I wouldn't accuse me of such behaviours since you're clearly doing it too. I was hoping you'd make that mistake.

When did I say I was better than you? And what mistake again?

Besides, substitute the word object to god in that one question and I can ask that right back at you. Which I doubt you can answer without citing the bible or giving concise instruction like, "He's over there".

Easy. Somebody had to bring this reality into being. Somebody really powerful enough to do so. We call Him God.

A book is so limited in structure and function it can't even respond to your nonsense. And you expect it to create reality?

As for faith, since empirical science seems to fail to account for god, it seems faith is the only alternative to explain his existence. So take your pick, faith or science, and since the latter fails to prove his existence, then god must rely purely on faith then. I'm not sure if you were smart enough to see the subtle reference and piss take of your delusional state of mind when I wrote that. 

But science does point to the Creator. I'm sorry you choose to deny this.

There you go again. If I weren't mistaken, I'd say you're playing hard to get, flirting with me like that. Oh so pseudo-intellectual, meeeeow.

Come on let's not deny it any further and go full gay on each other, but oh wait, god hates fags for no reason; what a shame, we'd make a great couple.

Anyway, the book is an analogy by the way, to how ridiculous and flawed the definition of god can be. Also it funny because I can substitute that book with god and it raises the exact same nonsense. Can't help you fail so hard at reading between the lines. Also, science actually points to a set of rules governed by mathematically observable behaviours in a space-time environment, so you're saying god is nothing more than a computer then? If so, awesome, I shall worship HAL-9000, true creator of us all.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Oh nothing, maybe the whole, "I'll will kill you all and send you to hell for not believing in me" then "I love you so much and welcome all to my kingdom" attitude for starters.

It's your sinful perception that sees it that way.

God never said he'll kill and send people to hell for not believing in Him. If you believe He did, please point to the Bible passage that says so.

Then there's all those contradictions in the bible, but then that's understandable, it was written by people so fair enough.

What contradictions? The Bible is God's Word. How can there be any contradictions in it?

But man, he sounds like he's bipolar and a hypocritical tyrant.

May the Lord forgive you for these terrible accusations of Him ...

Oh but god is all loving, well... as you obey his tyrannical rule, and accept how he loves the shit out of someone to an itch of their life.

God can bill me the legal costs of a lawsuit. But damn he's too sensitive to handle a bit of criticism by a inferior being lol, he sounds emo. Makes you wonder if God's trolling us for lulz.

[Calavera]

There you go again. If I weren't mistaken, I'd say you're playing hard to get, flirting with me like that. Oh so pseudo-intellectual, meeeeow.

Of course not! Why would I even entertain the thought of flirting with a fellow man?

Come on let's not deny it any further and go full gay on each other, but oh wait, god hates fags for no reason; what a shame, we'd make a great couple.

God never said He hated "fags". It's not you He hates, it's your sins.

Anyway, the book is an analogy by the way, to how ridiculous and flawed the definition of god can be. Also it funny because I can substitute that book with god and it raises the exact same nonsense. Can't help you fail so hard at reading between the lines.

I don't see how it raises the exact same nonsense. Doesn't mean I'm the one who failed here.

Also, science actually points to a set of rules governed by mathematically observable behaviours in a space-time environment, so you're saying god is nothing more than a computer then? If so, awesome, I shall worship HAL-9000, true creator of us all.

God is not a computer. That is just silly. God is the ultimate Creator who brought forth those rules and behaviours that you speak of.

[Calavera]

Oh but god is all loving, well... as you obey his tyrannical rule, and accept how he loves the shit out of someone to an itch of their life.

Not sure what you're talking about here. But don't waste your time speculating with vain philosophies. Please submit yourself to the Lord!

God can bill me the legal costs of a lawsuit. But damn he's too sensitive to handle a bit of criticism by a inferior being lol, he sounds emo. Makes you wonder if God's trolling us for lulz.

God cares about you. Doesn't mean He's emotionally weak. He's unaffected by what you have to say. You are the one who is affected by what God says.