What someone thinks of heaven net

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 16 2009,05:24)

T8, you are postulating. For example, when I say the word “Deity” in reference to Jesus, you know exactly what I mean. So their statement is in know way a lie or slanderous. Maybe you should practice your own words.

WJ, I like to stick to facts and not tradition.

deity is a word that means divine among other things, and is applied to God and to other gods too.

I have never said Jesus wasn't divine or of the Deity. It is written that he existed with divine nature or in the form of God. And I believe that Jesus is of God and had divine nature. Remember that this person said that I denied the deity of Christ, not that he was the Deity. I object to him being THE Diety/Divine/God. That is what you teach and that is not what scripture says.

I am sticking to the facts. You may say I am postulating but I am not letting tradition form the base of my view that is all. I know all to well what you believe. But I will still stick to that which is fact, truth, and what is written. So if something is incorrect, I am not going to say it is correct by putting on a pair of tradition glasses. Tradition doesn't make it right. Simple.

If I stick to the facts, then you cannot accuse me, or at least make an accusation stick.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 16 2009,05:24)

I do not need to defend my actions t8, for I have done nothing wrong. If I have, I invite you and anyone else to show me specifically where I have been. It seems to me you are judging me on a response I hadn’t even made until now. Again, you seem to have this need for someone to apologize to you when they do not agree with you. My heart and conscience is clear, though you are making judgment that it is not. Blessings WJ

How about an apology for this statement?

“Heck you have even called Trinitarians ministers of satan.”

I have never said this. It is slander and bearing false witness.

If I have said it I will repent publicly in this discussion.

[Stu]

Really sad to see intelligent human beings coming to blows over things that are not real.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Isn't accusing someone over something that they didn't say, real Stu or is it not real because you can't hold it in your hand?

Also, if it is sad, then surely you should stop saying much of what you say as it too isn't real and you have certainly thrown your fair share of blows against those that believe even without provocation.

But I do agree with one thing that you said, the intelligent part.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ May 15 2009,19:47)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 16 2009,05:24) I do not need to defend my actions t8, for I have done nothing wrong. If I have, I invite you and anyone else to show me specifically where I have been. It seems to me you are judging me on a response I hadn’t even made until now. Again, you seem to have this need for someone to apologize to you when they do not agree with you. My heart and conscience is clear, though you are making judgment that it is not. Blessings WJ How about an apology for this statement? “Heck you have even called Trinitarians ministers of satan.” I have never said this. It is slander and bearing false witness. If I have said it I will repent publicly in this discussion.

Hi t8

You know what, I do appologise for making that statement for it is not “exactly” your words! For that I am sorry.

I guess it has been implied by you so many times (even in this thread) that I believed you actually said it.

So now you have my sincere appology! Please forgive me!

And also t8 I forgive you for statements you have made without even asking you to repent.

Love in Christ!

Blessings WJ

[kejonn]

Odd when people take offense over differences of interpretations of mythology.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ May 17 2009,13:07)

Isn't accusing someone over something that they didn't say, real Stu or is it not real because you can't hold it in your hand? Also, if it is sad, then surely you should stop saying much of what you say as it too isn't real and you have certainly thrown your fair share of blows against those that believe even without provocation. But I do agree with one thing that you said, the intelligent part.

All I have really done is argued that none of these things are real, and by repeatedly stating that my anger towards your god is mock anger because it would be madness if it were real, I show that I am not putting up a supernatural argument against a supernatural one AND making it a point of bitter contention, which I think is complete madness.

It is not real because it is completely reasonable to conclude that there is no such thing. It is not as if it is really perverse to deny all gods. You do exactly the same, save one.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 17 2009,13:30)

Quote (t8 @ May 15 2009,19:47) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 16 2009,05:24) I do not need to defend my actions t8, for I have done nothing wrong. If I have, I invite you and anyone else to show me specifically where I have been. It seems to me you are judging me on a response I hadn’t even made until now. Again, you seem to have this need for someone to apologize to you when they do not agree with you. My heart and conscience is clear, though you are making judgment that it is not. Blessings WJ How about an apology for this statement? “Heck you have even called Trinitarians ministers of satan.” I have never said this. It is slander and bearing false witness. If I have said it I will repent publicly in this discussion. Hi t8 You know what, I do appologise for making that statement for it is not “exactly” your words! For that I am sorry. I guess it has been implied by you so many times (even in this thread) that I believed you actually said it. So now you have my sincere appology! Please forgive me! And also t8 I forgive you for statements you have made without even asking you to repent. Love in Christ! Blessings WJ

Much appreciated WJ. I do not have never believed that Trinitarians are ministers of Satan.

Now I can see that this is resolved, the mockers that came rushing in here might be a bit disappointed. Funny how they like to accuse and say how trading blows is futile and in doing so trade blows.

If they came rushing to commend something good as well, then they might have some credibility. But they only know attack and persecution thereby giving away their motives which are not for good, but for persecuting that which they do not like or is different.

[Stu]

34,000 versions of christianity and counting. The territorial battles for what god wants make most other conflicts look pale by comparison.

They say you should pick your fights. Why pick one in defense of an Imaginary Friend?

Stuart

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Stu @ May 17 2009,05:27)

34,000 versions of christianity and counting.  The territorial battles for what god wants make most other conflicts look pale by comparison.   They say you should pick your fights.  Why pick one in defense of an Imaginary Friend? Stuart

Hi stu

In some bizarre way it seems that you are making yourself all knowing.

How can you possibly know if God is an “imaginary friend” to millions of witnesses to the contrary?

Are you exercising faith again?

You would have to dwell in the hearts of millions and be looking through their eyes to see if God is imaginary or not.

That would make you God!

WJ

[Proclaimer]

That is right WJ. To say that you can know for sure that God doesn't exist, you must be all knowing.

So at the end of the day, all he has is a belief and no proof, not even experiential evidence.

But that doesn't stop him from defending his religion.

[Stu]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 18 2009,11:05)

Quote (Stu @ May 17 2009,05:27) 34,000 versions of christianity and counting.  The territorial battles for what god wants make most other conflicts look pale by comparison.   They say you should pick your fights.  Why pick one in defense of an Imaginary Friend? Stuart Hi stu In some bizarre way it seems that you are making yourself all knowing. How can you possibly know if God is an “imaginary friend” to millions of witnesses to the contrary? Are you exercising faith again? You would have to dwell in the hearts of millions and be looking through their eyes to see if God is imaginary or not. That would make you God! WJ

Yes it would be a bizarre thing to claim that I was saying I am “all knowing”. Correct me if I have misunderstood, but you have just finished a discussion with t8 in which you appear to have misrepresented his position, and now you seem to be doing the same to me.

Your god has every single one of the existential attributes of any child's imaginary friend. Are you saying all those children are actually talking about someone real when they ask you not to sit on a particular chair for fear of squashing their imaginary friend? I suppose that is the equivalent of the blasphemy laws for adults.

I followed the advice of Saul of Tarsus and put the things of childhood behind me. It seems some still need the security blanket of inventing a friend that cannot be disproved as one.

I think it is not simply a matter of taking on face value witness testimonies without considering natural explanations for what those millions claim to have seen, and there are plenty of explanations for why people believe in all sorts of gods.

You would seem to know everything yourself if you know all those other gods do not exist.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ May 18 2009,17:22)

That is right WJ. To say that you can know for sure that God doesn't exist, you must be all knowing. So at the end of the day, all he has is a belief and no proof, not even experiential evidence. But that doesn't stop him from defending his religion.

Agree on all but two points. My conclusion that there are no gods is based on all the evidence we have, and I do not have a religion.

Stuart

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Stu @ May 18 2009,19:17)

Quote (t8 @ May 18 2009,17:22) That is right WJ. To say that you can know for sure that God doesn't exist, you must be all knowing. So at the end of the day, all he has is a belief and no proof, not even experiential evidence. But that doesn't stop him from defending his religion. Agree on all but two points.  My conclusion that there are no gods is based on all the evidence we have, and I do not have a religion. Stuart

Stu,
What “evidence”?

thinker

[Stu]

Quote (thethinker @ May 18 2009,20:02)

Quote (Stu @ May 18 2009,19:17) Quote (t8 @ May 18 2009,17:22) That is right WJ. To say that you can know for sure that God doesn't exist, you must be all knowing. So at the end of the day, all he has is a belief and no proof, not even experiential evidence. But that doesn't stop him from defending his religion. Agree on all but two points.  My conclusion that there are no gods is based on all the evidence we have, and I do not have a religion. Stuart Stu, What “evidence”? thinker

Well it is a good point you raise, because no christian has ever actually said what would be true if there was no god, and there would be no agreement amongst god-believers about that anyway so we would not necessarily know what positive evidence would look like, but I mean there is no observable fact or sequence of facts that necessitates the existence of any gods. We also now have a significant body of recorded evidence, and no matter what turns up, gods are not indicated by any of it.

Stuart

[KangarooJack]

Stu said:

Quote

Well it is a good point you raise, because no christian has ever actually said what would be true if there was no god, and there would be no agreement amongst god-believers about that anyway so we would not necessarily know what positive evidence would look like, but I mean there is no observable fact or sequence of facts that necessitates the existence of any gods.  We also now have a significant body of recorded evidence, and no matter what turns up, gods are not indicated by any of it.

Stu,
You did not answer my question. What is the evidence agsainst the existence of God? You speak like an intellectual and then evade questions.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

t8 said:

Quote

I have never said Jesus wasn't divine or of the Deity. It is written that he existed with divine nature or in the form of God. And I believe that Jesus is of God and had divine nature. Remember that this person said that I denied the deity of Christ, not that he was the Deity.

The statement above by t8 is just more of the same Unitarian double speak. If it is written that Jesus existed in the form of God then he was truly and properly God. It is written that he became in the form of man. This means that became was truly and properly man.

Form of God = God
Form of man = man

Kathi also engages in the same kind of double speak. On another thread she referred to Jesus as “God the Son”. Then she said that He is not co-eternal and co-equal with God. Go figure.

It is good for us that God is patient with our confusion.

thinker

[Stu]

Quote (thethinker @ May 19 2009,02:17)

Stu said: Quote Well it is a good point you raise, because no christian has ever actually said what would be true if there was no god, and there would be no agreement amongst god-believers about that anyway so we would not necessarily know what positive evidence would look like, but I mean there is no observable fact or sequence of facts that necessitates the existence of any gods.  We also now have a significant body of recorded evidence, and no matter what turns up, gods are not indicated by any of it. Stu, You did not answer my question. What is the evidence agsainst the existence of God? You speak like an intellectual and then evade questions. thinker

I said that my conclusion of atheism is based on all the evidence we have. That does not mean I am saying there is evidence to disprove your god. It is just that absence of evidence leads to one provisional conclusion. That is allowed in science, I'm not sure what rules apply to religious fantasy proofs.

Stuart

[KangarooJack]

Stu said:

Quote

I said that my conclusion of atheism is based on all the evidence we have.  That does not mean I am saying there is evidence to disprove your god.  It is just that absence of evidence leads to one provisional conclusion.  That is allowed in science, I'm not sure what rules apply to religious fantasy proofs.

Stu,
Your statement above makes no sense at all. If there is no evidence to disprove my God then your evidence for athiesm is tentative at best. Your “provisional conclusion” is NOT scientific. You are interpreting the evidence in accordance with your presuppositions just as the creationist interprets according to his presuppositions.

thinker

[wild_olive_branch]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 15 2009,10:28)

Quote (t8 @ May 14 2009,07:04) Thanks wild_olive_branch. And I never saw the word “tri nit arian” like that before. It even has the word Arian in it. It could mean that this is what the Arians called themselves when they were converted to the truth!     WJ

point taken, not accepted

so why the 'nit' ?  …………. 'nit pick'………hummm

and the 'tri'…..well you have tried to place a camel through the eye of a needle on that one many times…

much love

rene

[Author]

Posts