Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[teeny]

Originally Posted by mjw47 View Post

And what does any of that matter?

 

You obviously have no concept whatsoever of how religious theology works do you?

 

My upbringing gave me an insight into the way the 'One Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church' to give it it's full title thinks.

 

Taught by man so there for is faulty because of our nature ,the study of the nature of God and religious belief.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...,d.bGQ&cad=rja

 

Your view is based upon ignorance, which is perfectly illustrated and proven by your inane remark " they got you good".

 

Of my own free will, with no outside coercion I turned my back and walked away from Catholic teaching and doctrine.

 

Do you know what the result of that action of mine will mean upon my death according to Catholic belief?

 

Eternal damnation and hellfire is what they believe I am in for.

 

Oh yes they 'got me good' alright!

 

But that a lie as the bible says in John 3 v 16 for God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son , so who ever believes in him shall have eternal life, so look at what the bible says and not the church of today , If you believe that then the church has bound you in theology , Christ came to set us free !!!

[flamingjimmy]

But that a lie as the bible says in John 3 v 16 for God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son , so who ever believes in him shall have eternal life, so look at what the bible says and not the church of today , If you believe that then the church has bound you in theology , Christ came to set us free !!!

 

Hey teeny, I was wondering what are your views on the idea of there being a 'one true church'?

 

D'you think you've found it, or are you happy to consider other denominations as Christian too but just think they might've got some of the details wrong?

[mjw47]

That sounds like a very small dictionary

 

 

I accept it, they're called gnostic atheists.

 

Yes very amusing, you weren't able to answer that question either were you?

 

No they're not, I have never had anyone describe themselves to me in that way in my life.

 

When the question is asked people either say " I'm a " and name their particular religion, or they say " I'm an Atheist or I'm Agnostic "

 

Anyone describing themselves as an Atheist would be assumed by the majority of normal people to be someone who did not believe in God(s).

Full stop, end of conversation.

 

It is only people like you and a few more on here with your bizarre fascination with semantics and your preposterous arrogance which leads you to assume that you can tell someone that they are mistaken when they have explained exactly what their belief is that needlessly confuse the issue.

 

It is because of your nonsensical obsessional nit picking that people 'feel the need' to expound on their position.

 

And yet, despite your self delusional belief in your linguistic brilliance you fail to be able to answer a very simple straightforward question.

 

Statements are made with certainty ' everyone is either a Theist or an Atheist ' ( no mention of Gnostic there )

 

But when asked to explain if that is so, why are there three separate words, all referring to the subject and each with a separate definition in every English dictionary none of you can come up with an explanation?

 

Why do you suppose that is?

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 18:05 ----------

 

Not at all, I just don't think you've done that at all. I think you're carrying a lot of baggage and bias to this topic.

 

 

I've already answered that question without needing you to prompt me, as part of one of the arguments that I made that you steadfastly ignored on this thread, directly and with unambiguous language, in a vain attempt to get you to actually engage me in debate.

 

You are only confirming to me that you did not read and understand my posts properly. Here I'll quote myself for you:

 

I don't read your posts too closely it's true, repetitive nonsense can have a somewhat dulling effect on the senses.

 

So, did you ever get around to answering the ' How come there are three differing definitions for three separate words' question?

 

And if you ever did meet up with such a person how exactly do you think he/she would describe themselves?

[teeny]

Hey teeny, I was wondering what are your views on the idea of there being a 'one true church'?

 

D'you think you've found it, or are you happy to consider other denominations as Christian too but just think they might've got some of the details wrong?

 

I believe that there are many Christians in these churches whatever denomination they come under , i used to attend a baptist church and did for many years I now go somewhere else dont get me wrong i am not a church hopper , I felt uncomfortable with churches here and chose a church like that in Bulawayo where they take teaching and loving one another seriously and its not superficial its real .

I personally don't believe we know it all , but it doesn't mean we cant learn and yes there's plenty wrong in churches today just as there is in the world because we are human.

 

One true church exists in heaven where it will be perfect

[flamingjimmy]

But when asked to explain if that is so, why are there three separate words, all referring to the subject and each with a separate definition in every English dictionary none of you can come up with an explanation?

I can answer that, very easily. But don't see why I should when you have not answered a single question from me nor addressed any of my arguments. That is why I became repetetive, it was to highlight your refusal to address any of my points.

 

Seriously, I'm all about directly answering questions, I'll even type out an answer, just waiting to hit post when you finally address one of my points.

[mjw47]

I can answer that, very easily. But don't see why I should when you have not answered a single question from me nor addressed any of my arguments. That is why I became repetetive, it was to highlight your refusal to address any of my points.

 

Seriously, I'm all about directly answering questions, I'll even type out an answer, just waiting to hit post when you finally address one of my points.

 

No you won't , because you can't, your telling porkies aren't you?

 

You made a ridiculous statement that everyone is either a Theist or an Atheist and you can't back it up because it's not true.

 

You can't simply ignore a word which is accepted throughout the world because it doesn't fall in with your strange way of looking at things.

 

Prove me wrong, it's very easy, all you have to do is prove that that word shouldn't exist and needs to be removed from every dictionary.

 

Should be a piece of cake for a man of your intellect.

[RootsBooster]

Yes very amusing, you weren't able to answer that question either were you?

 

No they're not, I have never had anyone describe themselves to me in that way in my life.

 

When the question is asked people either say " I'm a " and name their particular religion, or they say " I'm an Atheist or I'm Agnostic "

 

Anyone describing themselves as an Atheist would be assumed by the majority of normal people to be someone who did not believe in God(s).

Full stop, end of conversation.

 

It is only people like you and a few more on here with your bizarre fascination with semantics and your preposterous arrogance which leads you to assume that you can tell someone that they are mistaken when they have explained exactly what their belief is that needlessly confuse the issue.

 

It is because of your nonsensical obsessional nit picking that people 'feel the need' to expound on their position.

 

And yet, despite your self delusional belief in your linguistic brilliance you fail to be able to answer a very simple straightforward question.

 

Statements are made with certainty ' everyone is either a Theist or an Atheist ' ( no mention of Gnostic there )

 

But when asked to explain if that is so, why are there three separate words, all referring to the subject and each with a separate definition in every English dictionary none of you can come up with an explanation?

 

Why do you suppose that is?

I already answered in posts #149 through to #156, you chose to ignore it though.

 

If your posts are genuine (which I don't believe they are) then you are stuck on some very basic but subtle points.

You keep talking about 3 different words with 3 different meanings as though you can only be one of them. The terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist have been explained to you many different times on many different threads, with evidence and further explanations from established sources.

The former two refer to possibility (or absence) of knowledge while the latter refer to belief (or absence of).

Either word from the former two are compatible alongside either word from the latter two.

 

Your biggest problem is that rather than listen and think, you prefer to strut around the thread with your fingers in your ears while throwing insults.

 

Throughout the thread you have jumped to new definitions and abandoned your previous ones whenever you've run out of excuses, done the same with your sources as and when it suits your needs (OED is fine for one thing but look elsewhere if it disagrees with you), you've given false quotes, changing the context, you've declared that definitions don't matter and now you've gone back to demanding that people explain the definitions of words.

 

All the above amount to you having no argument.

Edited January 21, 2015 by RootsBooster

[mjw47]

 

If your posts are genuine (which I don't believe they are) then you are stuck on some very basic but subtle points.

You keep talking about 3 different words with 3 different meanings as though you can only be one of them. The terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist

 

Your biggest problem is that rather than listen and think, you prefer to strut around the thread with your fingers in your ears while throwing insults.

 

 

And you appear to only pay attention to what you want to.

 

I have always stated that I am an agnostic and that the definition provided by Huxley and Rowe fits in with my view, I don't care if the words can be used togetwer to explain some nuance or other.

 

It is of no interest to me that some people say they are more than one of them.

 

It has been explained to you three musketeers time and again that as far as I'm concerned the term agnostic applies to me and requires no further embellishment, but it appears to be beyond your capacity to understand this point.

 

All of you are under the apparent belief that none of the three words can be used in isolation.

 

It is apparent to me that you and your mates are suffering from a form of monomania coupled with definite signs of sophomania which is why I retort to you as I do when people are suffering a form of delusion there is little point in attempting rational dialogue.

 

You can have a bit of a laugh though.

[flamingjimmy]

No you won't , because you can't, your telling porkies aren't you?

Not at all I already have, it's literally sitting there in the tab right next to this one waiting for me to click 'post reply'.

 

Seriously, like I said, just make a reply to one of my points, and I will click it.

[mjw47]

Not at all I already have, it's literally sitting there in the tab right next to this one waiting for me to click 'post reply'.

 

Seriously, like I said, just make a reply to one of my points, and I will click it.

 

You are a liar.

 

Prove me wrong, all you have to do is click the button and if your explanation makes sense then I will accept it and apologize.

 

So, there you have it, the perfect opportunity to prove how clever you are, go for it my little delusional monomania/sophomania pal.

 

Lets see the cut of your jib, prove to everyone's satisfaction that you know better than the OED, go for it, you know it makes sense.