Well, if you don't care to prove you have knowledge, don't get offended when people think you ignorant.  

Point taken. Now I know that I should just avoid you in the future. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go "embarrass myself" elsewhere.

I wouldn't say you should avoid me so much as you should avoid making foolish comments you are not prepared to defend. 

That would make sense if my comment was actually foolish.

You made no replies in reference to my quotations, you made replies in reference to my occurrences which renders your "out of context" entirely obsolete, which is why I ignored a rebuttal that made no sense. I thought this was very easily understood...by anyone, I suppose I was mistaken.

You seem to not be following this procession of events at all I'm afraid.

Your claim: "Thus, if a so called Christian says "God hates X" they are either not a Christian, or at the very least sinning themselves."

Was refuted by:

1) Quite a few quotations which evidence that several things are hated as per the Bible. 

2) The number of occurences within the Bible that hate is used.

Your efforts at refuting 2) were a complete failure due to the argument itself being a non-sequitur. Namely "IFF Christ/Jesus are mentioned more than hate, then no hate exists".

No effort has been made to address 1) at any point in time until now. These efforts currently stem from nothing at all. Read the passages that contain these quotations in their entirety...nothing is taken out of context here. Feel free to look them up, surely you know where they are?

Oh dear...if you can't see the clear and marked distinction between my argument and yours, you truly are way out of your depth here.

My argument is as follows:

P1) If hate is mentioned in the bible, "god" hates something. 

P2) Hate is mentioned in the bible.

C) Ergo, god hates something.

*P1 could very easily be amended to state: "If the bible mentions that god/lord/Jesus hates X, then god hates X" based upon ample quotations of such.

Your argument:

P1) If Jesus/Christ are mentioned in the bible more than hate, then "god" doesn't hate anything. (clearly inept)

P2) Jesus/Christ are mentioned more in the bible than hate.

C) Ergo, "god" doesn't hate anything.

Hopefully this clears up your confusion since you seem wildly confused about the procession of events.

It was incredibly foolish. A scientific theory has a specialized definition that does not lend it to be analogous with "theory" in any other field of study.

And indeed it was.  A scientific theory is a type of theory?  Sure.  But that doesn't mean you could ignore the word scientific.  A scientific theory is a special case of a theory, and therefore should be treated differently.  To imply that all theories are on equal ground (which you implied even if you did not say) is foolish.  To imply that we shouldn't teach scientific theories in science class even more so.

Similarly a domesticated dog and a dog are two very different things.  Just like with different types of theories, you'd probably be ok with one being in your child's classroom, but not the other.

You're under no obligation to respond.  If you feel you have better places to embarrass yourself, then go ahead and don't allow me to stop you.  But if you're going to bring something up in a public forum, don't get upset when people challenge it.

Not religious, but I'm going to put this here for further debates for yall.

so when people say Amen after their prayer, most of them are actually calling this god without knowing it?

I hope you don't mind me jumping in. I haven't read this whole thread but I would like to say a couple things.

a. You should replace your arguments P1 with the amended version, as the logic of P1 without the amendment doesn't make sense. Obviously, the context of the word "hate" is important. A statement such as (this is not a passage from the bible, merely an example): "The men hated and stoned and cursed the heathens, but Jesus stepped forth and asked 'why do you throw stones at those who have not experienced God's glory? Should you not instead attempt to open their eyes to the glory of God's love?". Such a statement would obviously not support your argument.

b. Hate in the bible (judging from those passages you posted) is reserved for ideas, not for people. From that, "God hates sin" is a valid statement whereas "God hates sinners" is not. This also creates a distinction between the emotion of hate and the expression of hate. Reading between the lines, the OP seems to have been discussing hate of a group of people and not hate of an idea, however it was expressed poorly. A better thread title would likely be something along the lines of "Christianity is opposed to the expression of hate".

Clearly there is no point in talking to you. I was simply defending Spurge, because someone said he was embarrassing himself for using the word theory instead of scientific theory. What Spurge said was certainly correct and he most definitely did not "embarrass himself". A scientific theory is a subclass of theory, which means Spurge did nothing wrong. "I drove my vehicle to work today". "I drove my car to work today". Car is a subclass of vehicle, therefore, neither statement is incorrect, one is just more specific. Whoopdeefuckingdoo.