Atheist, are under Gods wrath, no attempts should be made to convert them.

Now, back to the debate. You have made it clear that you are a non-denominational Christian, not a Catholic. More specifically, you state that you are not religious, so I assume you are, as your name states, a "follower of Christ. " This clears up a lot of what you are trying to pass on to me, so I wish you would've stated this before hand. Unfortunately, this is a contradiction of the Merriam Webster dictionary definition of Christianity: "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies" [1]. If you do not agree with this definition, namely, "the religion" part, than what exactly is Christianity? A cult? A club? No, it is a religion, and therefore one who follows it must be considered "religious". I also find it queer that the Pro says he is not religious, yet he put this debate under the category of "Religion. " You are non-denominational, which means you are "not restricted to any particular or specific religious denomination. " [2] Therefore you can choose the Bible and the Bible alone if you want and say that anything else is false doctrine. But if you live by the Bible alone, then you should just say "read the Bible", because you defending the Bible is technically false doctrine (at least according to your definition. ) Here you say "When is it okay to be disobedient to scripture of God? " Never, but I never said it was okay. I have admitted that I have been disobedient, I didn't say it was right. Another very humorous contradiction of yours is when you say I continue to follow Saints. I think you confuse following with worshipping. I honor them, just as I honor you for being a one of Jesus's followers. I do NOT follow you, though. But the contradiction that confuses me greatly is when you quote 1 Corinthians 3:4 saying how you shouldn't follow Paul. .. if that's the case, then why do you have a picture of Paul as your avatar, not Jesus? The answer is because you honor but do not worship. The same is with me, although you claim otherwise. Right now, the argument over non-denominational and Catholicism is not the main topic of the debate. I intend to challenge you on it in a different debate, but not right now. I will say again though that the Catholic Church was founded in 33 A. D. by Jesus on the Last Supper, where he instituted the Eucharist and commanded us to do the same in remembrance of him. Catholics continue this Sacrament of Jesus, as did all twelve apostles who spread Catholicism around the world. Bishops of the Catholic Church can be traced directly back to the original 12 Apostles. Also, what church do you think Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16: 18? "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. " Jesus did establish the church with Peter as its first leader (pope), and did not intend for Christians to be non-denominational, clearly stated by the Bible. But enough of that now, I need to get back to the topic at hand, that will be for later. The Bible does denounce denominations as you proclaim. However, it supports Judaism which was founded by God the father through the Old Testament and it supports Catholicism, the "New Covenant" founded by Jesus in the New Testament. Salvation is definitely attainable by every person whoever existed, however some will not attain it. Atheists who deny God's existence can be saved but usually decline it (But since there is still a chance, we must at least try. ) However, you claim that you are saved alone just by believing in God. But I quote, and you have probably heard this many times, James 2:26, "Faith without works is dead. " You claim that anyone will get into Heaven by believing in God. Yet even the Devil believes in God. .. but is he in Heaven? Sinners believe in God, but unless they repent and do good, they will go to Hell. You claim special privileges, a throne for those who denounce denominations. You site Revelation 3:21 as proof of this, but does is read ""To him that overcometh denominations will I grant to sit with me in my throne" or "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne? " You believe in the Bible alone, yet is does not answer your points. What the Bible means to overcome is sin, but of course, interpret it how you want! Here you say "BUT to SIT on a Throne, you MUST OVERCOME like whom? Does it say like saint this or that? Does it say Like Paul, Peter, John ". . NO! LIKE Him? And Christ overcame what? THE WORLD. Sigh, so much to do, so Little time left! " According to your standards, first of all, that's false doctrine that you are teaching and you are implying that the Bible says overcome the world. Your entire debate is a huge contradiction and is really hard to debate because of that. "Damn is used in scripture to denote eternal punishment. Never anger and frustration" I concede defeat on this point (but this point alone, which has almost no pertinence to the debate. " I realized it when I said it, but I was counting on you ignoring or skipping over it like you usually do to my points. I apologize for this statement, I know the difference in context between mine and the Bible's use of the word "damn". I should've not brought that up. It was evident to me of course, I don't know why I said it. But you caught me ONE fault while I have caught you on multiple. Let's get back to those. Another massive, unexplainable contradiction on your part is that earlier in your last debate round, you stated "God doesn"t speak to closed minds regardless of your denomination. " And yet you are arguing that the only way atheists can be saved is by God alone, no human intervention. But I have quoted you in which you state that atheists, who are close minded, can apparently not be saved in any way. Later on you state "I never implied they [atheists] could not be [converted], you said that. " Yes, but I have CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED that you do in fact imply that atheists are unable to be converted! You say atheists are close minded, and then say "God doesn"t speak to closed minds"! !! It is here where you are wrong. The simple fact is that even closed minds are capable of being saved by God, and if need be by human intervention. Just a massive blunder on your part, and this one, unlike the damn error on my part, actually pertains to the debate. You continue on that Catholics are saved, but cannot attain thrones. Refer to my Round 4 paragraph 8. Wow, hear you state "Uhhhh and that the popes are not Jewish doesn't bother you? Cause everyone KNOWS that Peter WAS A JEW! Went to ancestry. com did they? Could you be any more gullible? Peter WAS NOT ITALIAN! He was JEWISH! ". .. sigh. .. if you were Catholic, you would know that not all popes are Italian. The pope before our current on was German. There have been African, Dutch, French, Polish, Italian (Yes, there has) but also Syrian, English, and much more races of popes. Although the first few were Jewish, race is no factor in who is pope. Here is a full list of popes, and you'll notice they descend from Peter, Jesus's apostle [3]. You say "Hehe I"m not the one who CLAIMS the prophets were CUSSING in Bible text. Everybody knows who"s clueless here. " Once again, my bad, but I was not clueless, I knew it could be easily refuted and should've not brought it up. Here you go again "And I am also NOT the one trying to pass off forbidden false doctrines to an unsuspecting crowd. " According to you, yes, you are with this debate. Another quote of yours: "The popes where NOT present in Gods day. " Yet Peter was a pope and was given leadership of the Catholic Church by Jesus in Matthew 16:18. Pro- "I don"t know why you just make excuses to deny truth. " Please show me one of my excuses, if you can. All I do is give rebuttals to your supposed false doctrine, not excuses. And yes, I am fully aware of Peter's denying and then redemption. I have no idea why you even brought that up though. Pro- "Con-I like your verses about not adding to the Bible. That is true, but" . .. I am confused here. Now rebuttals to my questions. 1. good job. 2. awful job, again you have failed to explain yourself because you CAN'T explain yourself. 3. You say "By the way, neither of THEM WERE Religious" Completely false, they were both Jews and Christians, which are religions. 4. You continue to claim that a non-believer and an Atheist are different, but by Merriam Webster definition an Atheist is "a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" [4] Notice the word disbelief, basically the same thing as non-believers. You claim atheists are incapable of being penetrated, and yet we know this is false because, again, look at my list. You are completely blind on this subject. 5. Pro- "What I have been saying is do not spend countless hours debating those who cannot be saved with religious words. Seek those who search. " I have heard what you are saying, and I disagree with it. You have dodged the question though, is the prayer not beneficial to your prayer life? Your last paragraph is by far the strongest part of your whole debate because you have relied on the intellect God has given you and not relied on Bible verses that do nothing for your argument (with an exception for a few). While your scenario displays strong logic, it fails to comply with your point of view. I have already demonstrated that you believe atheists (the dead) are un-savable (see my tenth paragraph of this round). And------- Since you resorted using the comment section for further use of characters, I'll finish my points on there as well. Sources: 1. . https://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . https://www.merriam-webster.com...