dUSt Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 [quote name='Budge' post='1072187' date='Sep 22 2006, 09:33 PM'] And if we follow your logic, any god will do. Shiva, Krishna, Allah, Zoraster, Baal..... [/quote] Give me a break. NObody said "any God will do". How do you get my clear statement of "There is one true God" and distort it to "any God will do". Please explain. Basically, it comes down to this. You think that when two people disagree about God, two God's exist. A true God and a false God. The church teaches that when two people disagree about God, one God exists, but one of the people misunderstands Him. No additional God's are created.
Budge Posted September 23, 2006 Author Posted September 23, 2006 [quote]You think that when two people disagree about God, two God's exist. A true God and a false God. The church teaches that when two people disagree about God, one God exists, but one of the people misunderstands Him. No additional God's are created. [/quote] We definitely differ here. I believe the god of false religions is Satan himself as the inventor of them. In fact most false religions are based on Satan's lies in the garden. Here is where we definitely part ways in how we view these things. I do not believe there is a false 'God" I believe that is Satan.
Aloysius Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 I agree (with some qualifications, read my other posts)
musturde Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 (edited) [quote name='dUSt' post='1071360' date='Sep 22 2006, 12:29 PM'] This whole "contradiction" is based off of this claim: "In Regensburg he said the god of Islam is a god of will, violence, and forced conversions." Devastating to your argument, the pope never said that. Please read the speech here: [url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474"]http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474[/url] After you read it, please come back and point out to me where the pope said what you claim. God bless. [/quote] Thank you dUst. hahaha. The media blew everything out of proportion soo much. Even the parts of his speach that sparked controversy were mere quotations. I havent read all of it yet but out of what I've read (and continuing to read), people took what he said way out of context.... I continued reading the whole thread, everything you've stated is solid gold. peaze Edited September 23, 2006 by musturde
Budge Posted September 24, 2006 Author Posted September 24, 2006 Well in the world of Vaticanese, the language spoken with endless wiffle-waffle, endless outs, and 20 disclaimers...there tends to be a lot of these "misunderstandings".
Winchester Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 I'd say that happens everywhere but in your reality, but hey, what do we know?
Cam42 Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 [quote name='Budge' post='1073651' date='Sep 24 2006, 08:59 AM'] Well in the world of Vaticanese, the language spoken with endless wiffle-waffle, endless outs, and 20 disclaimers...there tends to be a lot of these "misunderstandings". [/quote] Why only 20 disclaimers? Why not 200 or 2000? I mean the Church has been around for 2000 years, why not give it one per year? Now show me the "wiffle-waffle." I would like for you to show me a statement where there is this and then I would like for you to cut through the "wiffle-waffle" and show the truth of the statement made. At that point I will refute your position, but until then your threats and attacks (ad hominem tu quoque) are empty shells.
NewReformation Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 [quote name='Budge' post='1072187' date='Sep 22 2006, 10:33 PM'] And if we follow your logic, any god will do. Shiva, Krishna, Allah, Zoraster, Baal..... [/quote] Uhhh...not to get off topic, but there is no god "Zoraster." Zoraster was a person who founded a false religion. And as to Ba'al, which Ba'al would you be referencing? Ba'al is merely a title meaning "Lord" and at one point in time was used as a title for YHWH until the Jews decided that the pagan connotation attached to it was too much of a distraction from the name of God. So they switched to "El."
Budge Posted September 26, 2006 Author Posted September 26, 2006 [quote]Ba'al is merely a title meaning "Lord" and at one point in time was used as a title for YHWH until the Jews decided that the pagan connotation attached to it was too much of a distraction from the name of God. So they switched to "El."[/quote] So Baal in your book equals God? {look at the truth not the semantics} [size=4] Jdg 2:13 And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. [/size]
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 [quote name='Budge' post='1075569' date='Sep 26 2006, 12:54 PM'] So Baal in your book equals God? {look at the truth not the semantics} [size=4] Jdg 2:13 And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. [/size] [/quote] Your post proves that you have no intimate knowledge of Scripture. Even the Pharisees could quote it, but could not explain or understand. You think Scripture is obvious, but Jesus Himself said it wasn't. Nobody said that Baal is God. Nobody.
NewReformation Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 [quote name='Budge' post='1075569' date='Sep 26 2006, 11:54 AM'] So Baal in your book equals God? {look at the truth not the semantics} [size=4] Jdg 2:13 And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. [/size] [/quote] Can I buy you a book on reading comprehension?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now