Blindness or religious logic?

A debate with a religious lunatic.

Step 1. Agreeing on the definitions of abstract such concepts like 'hypocricy', 'condemnation' and 'unconditional'.
Step 2. The debate.

Lunatic: God's love is unconditional.
Me: Unconditional as in no matter what a person did God loves them anyway.
L: Yes.
M: And you preach God's unconditional love, not Man's conditional love.
L: Yes.
M: So you don't condemn other people?
L: No. I'm a sinner and can't condemn others, only God can.
M: Okay. So if you were a priest would you bless gay marriages?
L: Of course not! The bible says a marriage is only allowed between a man and a woman! It would go against my faith! Gays are perverts!
M: You just not thirty minutes ago yu can't condemn anyone.
L: *baffled* I didn't.
M: You just called me a perv. Which part of that is *not* condemning?!
L: (Hate the sin, not the sinner.) The act is a perversion.
M: Following your own logic, God created every single human being himself. So are you saying that God made a mistake creating me the way you say he did?
L: Of course not! God is omnipotent and all-powerful and etc.
M: With that logic it follows that either God made a mistake creating me lesbian or then your "theory" of God's unconditional love sucks. So which one is it?
L: Neither! God does have unconditional love to all humans and he doesn't make mistakes. It's the *act* that he finds as an abomination.
M: So you're saying God's a mean kid? Waving a piece of meat in front of a dog and pulling it away just when the dog reaches out for it again and again?
L: Of course not! God's omnipotent... blah blah blah...

So. Why is that people like him are fucking idiots when it comes to logical thinking in religious matters?

Earlier last year (somewhere near the blogging of another of his kinsmen on 6th of October):

"What Lot did to his daughters [= instead of giving the male angles which were complete strangers to him to the mob outside, offered his virgin daughters to them "for you to do them whatever you will"] was a M I S T A K E."

During the debate he stated the following:
L: It was a mistake (note the choice of words) of me to say it. I'm sorry."
M: A mistake?!
L: It was a slip.
M: A freudian slip?
L: Yes! Exactly!
M: So now you're apologising for saying that, not for thinking it's wrong? [He believes the bible is god's word literally.]
L: Well...
M: And for your edification: A freudian slip is something that I think fits you perfectly. The concept doesn't mean it was a slip as such but a slip which reflects the way you really think about the matter but don't say out loud for one reason or another. But feel free to see the catch in that: you dont' say it out loud because you *do* know there's something wrong approving that; you not sayign it out loud is in fact your conscious choice. But thanks for proving me right about men. I'm sure your sisters and mother must be so very happy to have someone like you as their close relative.
L: Yes, they are. I love mo mother and sisters-
M: I was being sarcastic.

Also, whenever confronted with actual religious dilemmas such as "on what basis do you decide which parts of the bible are 'old-fashioned' [I know, I didn't expect hearing that word either] or allegories instead of the literal truth?" [after he actually changed his view of the bible being a literal truth through and through] or "how can you derive your moralities from the bible when in fact you don't" or "the bible is self-contradictory: there are rules given out that you don't follow now and rules that order the exact opposites and rules that are so ambiguous that regrdless of what one wants to justify with the bible anyone can do so through interpretation?" [he seems to dismiss some of the practical rules as 'old-fashioned', "God gave them to Isrealites, not us" but on the other hand embrace the abstract commandments as their semantics are more easily twisted].... when confronted with these questions the answer is always the same: "That is a very good question, very good question indeed! You are so intelligent, I've told you that so many times and I feel I still haven't told you that many enough times. And then you're also so pretty and beutiful-" "The answer?" and then he scribbles some bullshit. He won't admit it but deep down he knows he a buillshitter. And a fucking coward to add to that. The general definition of a Christian.

He dismissed my suggestion to read Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' based on the title. When reminded that he himself said he can't condemn others, he just said the title is "blasphemous". I pointed out our definition of 'condemnation' applying to all humans again, and what does he do: "You're so intelligent and you have an amazing memory..." I don't think I'm the only one seeing through that he's in deep shit and that he knows it.

Step 3. He walks away and thus tries to declre himself the winner of the debate. Hardly. But then again, this is a very famous tactique amongst the religious lunatics; how many times TJT has declared himself a winner and fled when he realises he's tangled in his own web of lies and shot himself in the foot and that those that he debates with know it as well.

.... Fucking idiots.

------

The answers to questions he didn't know the anwers to about his own country (despite me telling him that these are the questions you shouldn't have to think about statistics but for the answer to be 'never' and 'everyone') from UNICEF (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/nigeria_statistics.html):

The amount of women circumcised annually in Nigeria (despite the "law" to appease the Westerners):
19 %.

The percentage of female illiteracy in Nigeria:
33 %.

The percentage of women having a skilled attendant at deliveries:
35 %.

The percentage of child marriages:
42 % in total, 52 % in rural areas (a child=under 18 years old)

Female education:
- primary school: attendance 95 %, graduating 64 %
- secondary school: attendance 33 %, graduating 25 %

The age on consent: 13 years old.
~ http://www.ageofconsent.com/nigeria.htm

http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR148/09Chapter09.pdf: see page 127, table 9.9:
- number of decision to which woman has final say: 0 decision - 1,616 women (5 - 489; there should me no such question in a decent world)
- Number of reasons wife beating is justified: 5-6 reasons - 1,220 women

I am so sending this study to the fucking idiot who pretends to care... although I'm sure he won't read it.

He asked me how could he possibly do anything about that. He reminds me of these African preachers with Rolex watches and silk suits with this disgusting smile on their faces saying something like "It doesn't matter his son died at the age of seven. He can come to me and I'll find him a virgin bride and we can pray together for another son." Makes me want to throw up or beat him up right there until he sees reason!