[Zateel]

And on goes the thread... Now I'm one step closer to understanding the concept of Eternity! (pretend I inserted a smiley using colons here)
.

(I, myself, give. I see the lines drawn in the sand and the foxholes wherein each side is emtrenched. As the pages mount, it might appear that the "Christians" believe in the Trinity, and the "Atheists" do not. It seems the "Athiests" believe that being "nice" and obeying *most* of Biblical law is satisfactory and good. Interestingly enough, I have read "Athiests" not condemn religeon, while myself (call me Christian, for debates sake, although perhaps we don't understand the term the same, as in Fljotsdale's example of the colors) have little taste for it at all.
.
I am here to publicly claim ignorance of the nature of God, all the while laughing at the idea that others believe that they understand. If one doesn't believe in God, how would one claim to know "the facts" of what he is? Perhaps in a way that one would understand a character in a book of fiction? Debates are fun to some. Facts, opinions, and statistics are organized and arguments won, but does that mean that the winner of the debate is RIGHT? Perhaps in the trancendentalist world many live in, it is. For a Christian, however, right is right, whether or not the Christian knows it. His thoughts do not control the universe, and he is not the center, God is.
.
Thoughout the debate, whether outrightly mentioned, or egocentrically implied without knowledge of doing so, posters have limited God by time(especially the possibility of free will included within a set destiny), puposes of action (for that poster *knows* why God does what he does, etc.), physical principles (including coexistence and individuality) and personal views of right, wrong, and justice( especially that forgiveness of sin is promised without death PRE Jesus). Who mentioned forgiveness of sin without death pre-flood (bye-bye sinning children). Is it wrong because you think so? Do you understand God's innermost thoughts? To argue within the context of "The Bible" is a great parameter for a debate, but perhaps leaves out (a lot of) truth. To argue outside the Bible gives way to speculation (which this all is anyway- who here has had tea with God one on one, raise his hand). And so, the standoff of "yes it is", "no it isn't" remains.
.
Even if one had *ALL* the knowledge there is, and knew God's most intimate secrets, that would be useless to a Christian in comparison to believing that Christ died without sin, and because of this act we will not be required to, were a choice between the two necessary. I can only speak for myself, so let my definition of a Christian be connotative.
.
I have a small request that Christians not be addressed as "xtians". Christians do not follow "x", and all that the term does is to contribute to inflaming others, as feedback to posts has already shown. If one can write incredibly lengthy posts such as I have read, a few more letters should not fatigue the hand while typing.
.
To restate the point which prompted me to type this, "Why are people using the Bible as a reference tool to ARGUE, when by their own admission they do not believe it?" Let me clarify before the long timers who read my first posts eat me up: I believe that nothing (thematic or principle-wise) in the Bible is wrong, although I did question its place as a sacrosanct mystical holy nessecary part of a Christian, and that it is without error from man. The fact that I believe that flaws exist, that scriptures were chosen by men perhaps injudiciously were we to "recanonize" the Bible or that material relevant to our formation of dogma is missing does not in the least deter me from believing any part of a scripture which I would quote. If one belives it fiction, how can it be used to argue truth?

A believer,

Zateel