Jamest is right!

[Seth]

And what does this have to do with trolling/troll-bait anyway? Is this another fine example of your "reasoning"? I don't hurl abuse because I am troll-bait, I hurl abuse because idiots who think they are smart offend me. Because they are idiots, normal debating techniques like logic and reasoning are wasted on them. Although, I even grant you the courtesy of deconstructing your failed logic. You're welcome.

To be trolled, one must have inferior wit to the one doing the trolling. That's why men troll for fish, because fish intellects are inferior and they will rise to a pretty bait and get hooked by their intellectual superiors. It's the same on the Internet. Intellectually superior persons like me put forth arguments that cause inferior intellects to foam at the mouth and be entirely unable to control themselves, resulting in them spewing all sorts of emotional drivel in response to a pretty lure dangled by the Zen Master Troll.

Persons of intelligence, wit and rationality are easily able to resist being hooked and reeled in and are able to debate subjects rationally and dispassionately, even when they have strong feelings about the subject. To respond to a statement with abuse is not a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of lack of intelligence, lack of self control, bigotry, hatred and intellectual poverty. The intelligent debater is able to respond to a provocative statement with reason and logic and refute the claim without resorting to insult. Which lets you out of that category.

As Aristotle said, "The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it."

You seem to have quite a bit of trouble with that concept.

[Seth]

You do understand the definition of the word, right? Nothing at all wrong with being an apologist.

Of course I understand the word and I'm applying it exactly as you think. The problem with being an apologist is that it biases your thinking. Which is exactly what Ani and I are saying about you.

Clearly you do NOT understand the definition of the word, despite my having posted it for your edification.

You're a troll, plain and simple. You have REPEATEDLY castigated us with a no-true-Christian fallacy, and now that it's turned back on you with Muslims, you claim you never said it. Fuck off, troll.

Wrong. A Christian who stones an adulteress to death is not a Christian because the New Testament specifically says not to do that.

Who says the New Testament is more authoritative than the Old Testament? Seriously, you've dodged this question once already in another thread. Answer it.

Christians. And since it's their religion, they would be the resident experts in the absence of commentary from the author himself.

A Muslim who stones an adulteress to death is in conformance with Muslim theology, which says specifically to do that.

Who says?

The Koran says. Duh.

Who says the Koran is the be all and end-all of being a follower of Allah??

Strawman. Muslims, however, say that the Koran is their guide to proper Muslim behavior. And since they actually follow the Koran (well, some of them anyway) and do things like stone people to death and saw off their heads in front of video cameras, who am I to tell them they are doing it wrong?

[pErvinalia]

Hey, you're the one who insists on majority rule, not me. The point being that your definition of "religious torment of innocent children" is hardly a universal one. In fact it's at best an opinion from one particularly intolerant boob that conflicts with the beliefs and opinions of the overwhelming majority of human beings alive today.

Just because you think it's "religious torment" doesn't mean it actually is, or are you incapable of understanding that simple fact?

The logic you can't seem to grasp is that you AGREED with me that it's undesirable to base a civilised society on harmful practices founded in un-evidenced belief.

Did I? Sorry, I don't recall doing so. Therefore I must deny your assertion.

Fuck off troll. I specifically pointed out where you did it.

You rightly agreed that we don't allow people who commit uncivilised acts to go back and do what they were doing just because they fervently believe they were acting righteously, without any evidence to back that up the alleged righteousness, and then in the next fucking sentence made an exception for theists because of an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Besides, it's only you who claims that such beliefs are "un-evidenced." Christians see plenty of evidence to support their beliefs. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're right.

Avail yourself with a dictionary, Illogical-man. You agreed with me that harmful un-evidenced commitment to belief is anathema to a civilised society. Stop wriggling, you dishonest twat.

[pErvinalia]

And what does this have to do with trolling/troll-bait anyway? Is this another fine example of your "reasoning"? I don't hurl abuse because I am troll-bait, I hurl abuse because idiots who think they are smart offend me. Because they are idiots, normal debating techniques like logic and reasoning are wasted on them. Although, I even grant you the courtesy of deconstructing your failed logic. You're welcome.

To be trolled, one must have inferior wit to the one doing the trolling. That's why men troll for fish, because fish intellects are inferior and they will rise to a pretty bait and get hooked by their intellectual superiors. It's the same on the Internet. Intellectually superior persons like me put forth arguments that cause inferior intellects to foam at the mouth and be entirely unable to control themselves, resulting in them spewing all sorts of emotional drivel in response to a pretty lure dangled by the Zen Master Troll.

Persons of intelligence, wit and rationality are easily able to resist being hooked and reeled in and are able to debate subjects rationally and dispassionately, even when they have strong feelings about the subject. To respond to a statement with abuse is not a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of lack of intelligence, lack of self control, bigotry, hatred and intellectual poverty. The intelligent debater is able to respond to a provocative statement with reason and logic and refute the claim without resorting to insult. Which lets you out of that category.

As Aristotle said, "The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it."

You seem to have quite a bit of trouble with that concept.

You're a troll, we all know it. We troll you, you haven't apparently worked this out yet.

[pErvinalia]

You do understand the definition of the word, right? Nothing at all wrong with being an apologist.

Of course I understand the word and I'm applying it exactly as you think. The problem with being an apologist is that it biases your thinking. Which is exactly what Ani and I are saying about you.

Clearly you do NOT understand the definition of the word, despite my having posted it for your edification.

You're a troll, plain and simple. You have REPEATEDLY castigated us with a no-true-Christian fallacy, and now that it's turned back on you with Muslims, you claim you never said it. Fuck off, troll.

Wrong. A Christian who stones an adulteress to death is not a Christian because the New Testament specifically says not to do that.

Who says the New Testament is more authoritative than the Old Testament? Seriously, you've dodged this question once already in another thread. Answer it.

Christians.

Which Christians?!? And who says they are an authority on God's word?? Do you remember making the exact same rebuttal yourself in previous encounters, dimwit?

And since it's their religion, they would be the resident experts in the absence of commentary from the author himself.

You can't even argue straight between threads. You have specifically said in past threads that only God is an expert on God's word. Why are you so dishonest?

Who says the Koran is the be all and end-all of being a follower of Allah??

Strawman. Muslims,

If it's a strawman, it's the same strawman you've been using against us for years.

And which Muslims?? And who says they are an authority on God's word?? Do you remember making the exact same rebuttal yourself in previous encounters, dimwit?

however, say that the Koran is their guide to proper Muslim behavior. And since they actually follow the Koran (well, some of them anyway) and do things like stone people to death and saw off their heads in front of video cameras, who am I to tell them they are doing it wrong?

Exactly. Who are we to tell Christians that persecute gays and minorities and burn Hindu's in India that they are doing it wrong? You really REALLY haven't given this a moment's thought, have you?

[Seth]

Hey, you're the one who insists on majority rule, not me. The point being that your definition of "religious torment of innocent children" is hardly a universal one. In fact it's at best an opinion from one particularly intolerant boob that conflicts with the beliefs and opinions of the overwhelming majority of human beings alive today.

Just because you think it's "religious torment" doesn't mean it actually is, or are you incapable of understanding that simple fact?

The logic you can't seem to grasp is that you AGREED with me that it's undesirable to base a civilised society on harmful practices founded in un-evidenced belief.

Did I? Sorry, I don't recall doing so. Therefore I must deny your assertion.

Fuck off troll. I specifically pointed out where you did it.

Did you? Sorry, I don't recall. Feel free to cite the specific passages again if you like.

You rightly agreed that we don't allow people who commit uncivilised acts to go back and do what they were doing just because they fervently believe they were acting righteously, without any evidence to back that up the alleged righteousness, and then in the next fucking sentence made an exception for Christians because of an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Oh, that. Well, your problem is that I didn't agree to what you thought I agreed with. Here's the exchange:

I'm not sure I buy that. A person who rapes their own child could be doing it with the belief that they are doing it out of love.

And that mens rea will have an effect on how they are judged. If they are incapable of understanding the nature of the crime they committed, then they can be absolved by the justice system.

But that doesn't mean we just let them go back to doing what they were doing. We say that we think that belief is unacceptable behaviour in an evidence based civilised society. And that's the same thing we should do with the religious torment of innocent children.

Your mistake is in thinking that I agreed that religious education of children constitutes "religious torment" and can therefore be equated with incest, which is a crime.

When I said "of course" I was referring to incestuous parents, not religious education. It was you who made the incorrect assumption that I was agreeing with your assessment of religious education as "torment." You were quite wrong to think so.

Besides, it's only you who claims that such beliefs are "un-evidenced." Christians see plenty of evidence to support their beliefs. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're right.

Avail yourself with a dictionary, Illogical-man. You agreed with me that harmful un-evidenced commitment to belief is anathema to a civilised society. Stop wriggling, you dishonest twat.

I explain your error above. And the point is that only YOU think that religious belief is "harmful un-evidenced commitment to belief." I, along with 85% of the rest of humanity, seem to disagree with you. And not just because we don't agree that religious beliefs are necessarily harmful, but also because theists disagree that their beliefs are "un-evidenced."

As I said, your skepticism regarding such evidence is not proof that no such evidence exists. It might just mean you're ignorant.

[Seth]

And what does this have to do with trolling/troll-bait anyway? Is this another fine example of your "reasoning"? I don't hurl abuse because I am troll-bait, I hurl abuse because idiots who think they are smart offend me. Because they are idiots, normal debating techniques like logic and reasoning are wasted on them. Although, I even grant you the courtesy of deconstructing your failed logic. You're welcome.

To be trolled, one must have inferior wit to the one doing the trolling. That's why men troll for fish, because fish intellects are inferior and they will rise to a pretty bait and get hooked by their intellectual superiors. It's the same on the Internet. Intellectually superior persons like me put forth arguments that cause inferior intellects to foam at the mouth and be entirely unable to control themselves, resulting in them spewing all sorts of emotional drivel in response to a pretty lure dangled by the Zen Master Troll.

Persons of intelligence, wit and rationality are easily able to resist being hooked and reeled in and are able to debate subjects rationally and dispassionately, even when they have strong feelings about the subject. To respond to a statement with abuse is not a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of lack of intelligence, lack of self control, bigotry, hatred and intellectual poverty. The intelligent debater is able to respond to a provocative statement with reason and logic and refute the claim without resorting to insult. Which lets you out of that category.

As Aristotle said, "The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it."

You seem to have quite a bit of trouble with that concept.

You're a troll, we all know it. We troll you, you haven't apparently worked this out yet.

Work it out? rEv, getting you to engage me is my reason for participating here. It would be desolate and lonely indeed if no one was willing to take the bait. But I know that there are enough folks here who will respond, despite their own self-professed distaste for doing so, that it's safe to assume that someone will rise to the bait. You're among the most predictable prey here.

[Seth]

You do understand the definition of the word, right? Nothing at all wrong with being an apologist.

Of course I understand the word and I'm applying it exactly as you think. The problem with being an apologist is that it biases your thinking. Which is exactly what Ani and I are saying about you.

Clearly you do NOT understand the definition of the word, despite my having posted it for your edification.

You're a troll, plain and simple. You have REPEATEDLY castigated us with a no-true-Christian fallacy, and now that it's turned back on you with Muslims, you claim you never said it. Fuck off, troll.

Wrong. A Christian who stones an adulteress to death is not a Christian because the New Testament specifically says not to do that.

Who says the New Testament is more authoritative than the Old Testament? Seriously, you've dodged this question once already in another thread. Answer it.

Christians.

Which Christians?!?

The ones who don't to evil stuff and abide by the principles espoused in their guiding religious documents.

And who says they are an authority on God's word??

They do. You certainly don't.

Do you remember making the exact same rebuttal yourself in previous encounters, dimwit?

Of course, but the context, and therefore the conclusions to be drawn, are completely different.

And since it's their religion, they would be the resident experts in the absence of commentary from the author himself.

You can't even argue straight between threads. You have specifically said in past threads that only God is an expert on God's word. Why are you so dishonest?

Did I? I rather doubt it, that doesn't sound like something I'd say. I suspect you're incorrectly paraphrasing me, which leads you to a mistaken conclusion because you have quote-mined a single statement out of context and have therefore drawn mistaken conclusions in making your present argument.

Who says the Koran is the be all and end-all of being a follower of Allah??

Strawman. Muslims,

If it's a strawman, it's the same strawman you've been using against us for years.

Do you understand which part of your statement is the strawman?

And which Muslims?? And who says they are an authority on God's word?? Do you remember making the exact same rebuttal yourself in previous encounters, dimwit?

Ibid.

however, say that the Koran is their guide to proper Muslim behavior. And since they actually follow the Koran (well, some of them anyway) and do things like stone people to death and saw off their heads in front of video cameras, who am I to tell them they are doing it wrong?

Exactly. Who are we to tell Christians that persecute gays and minorities and burn Hindu's in India that they are doing it wrong?

Christians don't persecute gays or burn Hindus. Those who persecute gays and burn Hindus are not therefore Christians, notwithstanding their assertions that they are.

You really REALLY haven't given this a moment's thought, have you?

However much thought I've given it, it's an infinity more thought than you have.

[pErvinalia]

Hey, you're the one who insists on majority rule, not me. The point being that your definition of "religious torment of innocent children" is hardly a universal one. In fact it's at best an opinion from one particularly intolerant boob that conflicts with the beliefs and opinions of the overwhelming majority of human beings alive today.

Just because you think it's "religious torment" doesn't mean it actually is, or are you incapable of understanding that simple fact?

The logic you can't seem to grasp is that you AGREED with me that it's undesirable to base a civilised society on harmful practices founded in un-evidenced belief.

Did I? Sorry, I don't recall doing so. Therefore I must deny your assertion.

Fuck off troll. I specifically pointed out where you did it.

Did you? Sorry, I don't recall. Feel free to cite the specific passages again if you like.

You rightly agreed that we don't allow people who commit uncivilised acts to go back and do what they were doing just because they fervently believe they were acting righteously, without any evidence to back that up the alleged righteousness, and then in the next fucking sentence made an exception for Christians because of an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Oh, that. Well, your problem is that I didn't agree to what you thought I agreed with. Here's the exchange:

I'm not sure I buy that. A person who rapes their own child could be doing it with the belief that they are doing it out of love.

And that mens rea will have an effect on how they are judged. If they are incapable of understanding the nature of the crime they committed, then they can be absolved by the justice system.

But that doesn't mean we just let them go back to doing what they were doing. We say that we think that belief is unacceptable behaviour in an evidence based civilised society. And that's the same thing we should do with the religious torment of innocent children.

Your mistake is in thinking that I agreed that religious education of children constitutes "religious torment" and can therefore be equated with incest, which is a crime.

When I said "of course" I was referring to incestuous parents, not religious education. It was you who made the incorrect assumption that I was agreeing with your assessment of religious education as "torment." You were quite wrong to think so.

Well that's a reading fail on your part as I was intending to make a generalised point about harmful unevidenced beliefs. So, you don't agree with me. The problem for you is that it still paints you in a sociopathic light. It doesn't really change the crux of the argument. That is, fervent belief in the lack of evidence should never be an excuse to do something harmful to another person.

Besides, it's only you who claims that such beliefs are "un-evidenced." Christians see plenty of evidence to support their beliefs. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're right.

Avail yourself with a dictionary, Illogical-man. You agreed with me that harmful un-evidenced commitment to belief is anathema to a civilised society. Stop wriggling, you dishonest twat.

I explain your error above. And the point is that only YOU think that religious belief is "harmful un-evidenced commitment to belief." I, along with 85% of the rest of humanity, seem to disagree with you.

argumentum ad populum fallacy.

As I said, your skepticism regarding such evidence is not proof that no such evidence exists. It might just mean you're ignorant.

Skepticism is healthy. As we have repeatedly asked in this thread: show us the evidence! We're waiting.

[pErvinalia]

And what does this have to do with trolling/troll-bait anyway? Is this another fine example of your "reasoning"? I don't hurl abuse because I am troll-bait, I hurl abuse because idiots who think they are smart offend me. Because they are idiots, normal debating techniques like logic and reasoning are wasted on them. Although, I even grant you the courtesy of deconstructing your failed logic. You're welcome.

To be trolled, one must have inferior wit to the one doing the trolling. That's why men troll for fish, because fish intellects are inferior and they will rise to a pretty bait and get hooked by their intellectual superiors. It's the same on the Internet. Intellectually superior persons like me put forth arguments that cause inferior intellects to foam at the mouth and be entirely unable to control themselves, resulting in them spewing all sorts of emotional drivel in response to a pretty lure dangled by the Zen Master Troll.

Persons of intelligence, wit and rationality are easily able to resist being hooked and reeled in and are able to debate subjects rationally and dispassionately, even when they have strong feelings about the subject. To respond to a statement with abuse is not a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of lack of intelligence, lack of self control, bigotry, hatred and intellectual poverty. The intelligent debater is able to respond to a provocative statement with reason and logic and refute the claim without resorting to insult. Which lets you out of that category.

As Aristotle said, "The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it."

You seem to have quite a bit of trouble with that concept.

You're a troll, we all know it. We troll you, you haven't apparently worked this out yet.

Work it out? rEv, getting you to engage me is my reason for participating here. It would be desolate and lonely indeed if no one was willing to take the bait. But I know that there are enough folks here who will respond, despite their own self-professed distaste for doing so, that it's safe to assume that someone will rise to the bait. You're among the most predictable prey here.

Well, if I knew you loved abuse so much, I would have given you more in spades.

[pErvinalia]

You do understand the definition of the word, right? Nothing at all wrong with being an apologist.

Of course I understand the word and I'm applying it exactly as you think. The problem with being an apologist is that it biases your thinking. Which is exactly what Ani and I are saying about you.

Clearly you do NOT understand the definition of the word, despite my having posted it for your edification.

You're a troll, plain and simple. You have REPEATEDLY castigated us with a no-true-Christian fallacy, and now that it's turned back on you with Muslims, you claim you never said it. Fuck off, troll.

Wrong. A Christian who stones an adulteress to death is not a Christian because the New Testament specifically says not to do that.

Who says the New Testament is more authoritative than the Old Testament? Seriously, you've dodged this question once already in another thread. Answer it.

Christians.

Which Christians?!?

The ones who don't to evil stuff

"Evil"?? What's that? Sounds suspiciously like you are committing a circular argument fallacy. You really cover them all, don't you?

and abide by the principles espoused in their guiding religious documents.

Why are the "guiding religious documents" authoritative? You are engaging in a circular argument. Please learn how to debate properly.

And who says they are an authority on God's word??

They do.

So all of a sudden self-reporting is reliable? Who gives a fuck if they think they are an authority on God's word? As you've repeatedly argued in other threads, only God is the authority on God's word.

Do you remember making the exact same rebuttal yourself in previous encounters, dimwit?

Of course, but the context, and therefore the conclusions to be drawn, are completely different.

Absolute bullshit. Explain how they are different. Of course, you can't, or you would have. This is just a typical wriggle.

And since it's their religion, they would be the resident experts in the absence of commentary from the author himself.

You can't even argue straight between threads. You have specifically said in past threads that only God is an expert on God's word. Why are you so dishonest?

Did I?

You know you did, Troll.

I rather doubt it,

Fucking liar.

that doesn't sound like something I'd say. I suspect you're incorrectly paraphrasing me, which leads you to a mistaken conclusion because you have quote-mined a single statement out of context and have therefore drawn mistaken conclusions in making your present argument.

Prove it, liar.

Who says the Koran is the be all and end-all of being a follower of Allah??

Strawman. Muslims,

If it's a strawman, it's the same strawman you've been using against us for years.

Do you understand which part of your statement is the strawman?

No, because it's NOT a strawman. It's a perfectly valid question to someone who claims that a specific book is the word of Allah.

And which Muslims?? And who says they are an authority on God's word?? Do you remember making the exact same rebuttal yourself in previous encounters, dimwit?

Ibid.

Prove it, liar.

however, say that the Koran is their guide to proper Muslim behavior. And since they actually follow the Koran (well, some of them anyway) and do things like stone people to death and saw off their heads in front of video cameras, who am I to tell them they are doing it wrong?

Exactly. Who are we to tell Christians that persecute gays and minorities and burn Hindu's in India that they are doing it wrong?

Christians don't persecute gays or burn Hindus. Those who persecute gays and burn Hindus are not therefore Christians, notwithstanding their assertions that they are.

You are the king of logical fallacies. This one is the begging the question fallacy. You assume your conclusion in your premise. The premise under contention is whether the New Testament, or any fucking text you would like to point to, is what defines a Christian. You can't address that point by essentially claiming that it defines a Christian because you (or Christians) say so.

[rainbow]

Get a room, you two!

[Seth]

"Evil"?? What's that? Sounds suspiciously like you are committing a circular argument fallacy. You really cover them all, don't you?

Evil in my book is initiating force or fraud upon another.

and abide by the principles espoused in their guiding religious documents.

Why are the "guiding religious documents" authoritative? You are engaging in a circular argument. Please learn how to debate properly.

Because those who follow them say they are. And yes, it is circular in that beliefs don't require an external authority to validate them. It's not like being certain of the length of your meter bar, which can be verified by measuring X number of wavelengths of a light of frequency Y, which is an objective measurement based in observable and unchangeable physical characteristics of the universe we inhabit.

And who says they are an authority on God's word??

They do.

So all of a sudden self-reporting is reliable?

Who said anything about "reliability?"

Who gives a fuck if they think they are an authority on God's word?

They do. Christians, unlike Muslims, don't demand that you respect that authority however.

As you've repeatedly argued in other threads, only God is the authority on God's word.

So what? We're talking about belief here, which as I say above, requires no external authority for validation.

Do you remember making the exact same rebuttal yourself in previous encounters, dimwit?

Of course, but the context, and therefore the conclusions to be drawn, are completely different.

Absolute bullshit. Explain how they are different. Of course, you can't, or you would have. This is just a typical wriggle.

You'd have to repost the entire thread in which you assert that statement was made so that I might analyze the context and respond appropriately here, not that I'm particularly interested in doing so. I know full well what you're doing and I'll only play along for as long as it amuses me to do so.

And since it's their religion, they would be the resident experts in the absence of commentary from the author himself.

You can't even argue straight between threads. You have specifically said in past threads that only God is an expert on God's word. Why are you so dishonest?

Did I?

You know you did, Troll.

I don't think so.

I rather doubt it,

Fucking liar.

You're free to provide the quotes and links if you like, not that I'll be arsed to respond.

that doesn't sound like something I'd say. I suspect you're incorrectly paraphrasing me, which leads you to a mistaken conclusion because you have quote-mined a single statement out of context and have therefore drawn mistaken conclusions in making your present argument.

Prove it, liar.

Why?

Who says the Koran is the be all and end-all of being a follower of Allah??

Strawman. Muslims,

If it's a strawman, it's the same strawman you've been using against us for years.

Do you understand which part of your statement is the strawman?

No, because it's NOT a strawman.

Yes, it is. Reexamine your statement and perhaps you can discern the strawman part of the argument. It's fairly obvious if you look closely.

It's a perfectly valid question to someone who claims that a specific book is the word of Allah.

No, it's a strawman argument.

And which Muslims?? And who says they are an authority on God's word?? Do you remember making the exact same rebuttal yourself in previous encounters, dimwit?

Ibid.

Prove it, liar.

No.

however, say that the Koran is their guide to proper Muslim behavior. And since they actually follow the Koran (well, some of them anyway) and do things like stone people to death and saw off their heads in front of video cameras, who am I to tell them they are doing it wrong?

Exactly. Who are we to tell Christians that persecute gays and minorities and burn Hindu's in India that they are doing it wrong?

Christians don't persecute gays or burn Hindus. Those who persecute gays and burn Hindus are not therefore Christians, notwithstanding their assertions that they are.

You are the king of logical fallacies. This one is the begging the question fallacy. You assume your conclusion in your premise. The premise under contention is whether the New Testament, or any fucking text you would like to point to, is what defines a Christian. You can't address that point by essentially claiming that it defines a Christian because you (or Christians) say so.

[/quote]

Show me in the New Testament where burning Hindus is authorized.

And yes, I can do exactly that because as I said, Christians don't burn Hindus, and therefore anyone who burns Hindus is not a Christian, and yes, this is based on Christian theology as expressed in the New Testament, and yes, Christians are perfectly justified in defining the parameters of their beliefs by referencing the New Testament. That's what a belief is. If God were to manifest as an old man with a white beard sitting on a cloud dispensing supernatural justice to every apostate or sinner who violated his ordinances then it wouldn't be a belief as much as an observable fact, like the Supreme Court.

Christianity, like Islam, is a private club that makes it's own rules and rituals that determine membership. If you don't abide by the rules and don't participate in the rituals, you aren't a member of the club.

[Seth]

Get a room, you two!

We have one. We're in it. Why don't you fuck off if your voyeurism isn't being satisfied.

[pErvinalia]

Seth, my only hope is that when you reread what you've written here in a few weeks (months?) time, you'll realise how atrocious your "rebuttals" are. There's no point me continuing. Your rebuttals don't even make sense, and you are never going to accept logic and reasoning. You are a dog's breakfast. Your arguments on the same point change from thread to thread. You are either a liar, or utterly bonkers and don't realise what you are doing. Either way, that's not an enticing invitation to engage you in debate.