Should we all be a little Antichrist?

[Infinityloop]

And Hebrew 1:6?
"And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”

Hebrews is just another polemical letter (often attributed to Paul).

Actually the following verses paint a different story:

And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
- Hebrews 1:7-9

In Revelation, IIRC, the angel prevents John from worshipping him claiming that God alone is to be worshipped. Yet all of heaven and Earth is later said to worship"The Lamb".

Well the Apocalypse of St John is in fact the most cryptic book of the Bible, for starters, seemingly entirely open for interpretation (just see the extensive Christian history of exegesis of that book, lest I forget to mention all the doomsday cults).
Beside that, misinterpretation of symbols of what the early Church excelled at. The concept of "the lamb", as you mention, is another example of an allegory that became later taken as a depiction of Jesus himself. It's awfully sneaky. Besides, look for Lambs mentioned in the Old Testament.

 

[Robin]

Hebrews is just another polemical letter (often attributed to Paul).

Actually the following verses paint a different story:

And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
- Hebrews 1:7-9

In these verses, the author of Hebrews is quoting a passage from the Old Testament (Psalm 45:6-7). Although this psalm might be taken in one sense to be spoken to, and in praise of, an earthly king, it is also revealed in these verses from Hebrews to be a prophetic writing addressed to the Messiah whom God had promised to send to Israel.
I'm aware that there are different interpretations surrounding that chapter but what is your commentary on it?

Well the Apocalypse of St John is in fact the most cryptic book of the Bible, for starters, seemingly entirely open for interpretation (just see the extensive Christian history of exegesis of that book).
Beside that, misinterpretation of symbols of what the early Church excelled at. The concept of "the lamb", as you mention, is another example of an allegory that became later taken as a depiction of Jesus himself. It's awfully sneaky. Besides, look for Lambs mentioned in the Old Testament.

Why do you consider it sneaky? At least to me, it makes sense that Jesus would be foreshadowed by the symbol of a lamb in the OT when taking the events of the NT into consideration. Granted, I'm new to the faith but I'm trying to look into these things and study more deeply. If I find the time I'd like to answer a few of the questions you posed in the other thread regarding the integrity of the bible and the Christian faith.

 

[Infinityloop]

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.
You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day.
Deuteronomy 6:4-6

Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: Israel is My first-born son.
I have said to you, “Let My son go, that he may worship Me,” yet you refuse to let him go. Now I will slay your first-born son.’”
Exodus 4:22-23

And on top of that, the obvious desperate defense mechanism to the reality that the idolatrous doctrine is heretical and abominable by the Old Testament is to double-down by both claiming that anybody that rejects (and for good reason) the trinity or deification of Jesus is a follower of Satan (initially aimed at Jews for not even accepting Jesus as a Prophet), and to completely pervert the prophetic terminology of the Old Testament in order to create the false impression of "look, the OT is hinting at Jesus here and here and here, look how stupid Jews are", along with this there is the typical opposition of Christians towards the Oral Torah (Talmud) in order to self-validate the authority of the Early Church (of which even that! you now reject, lmao) and sever ties to an actual, directly passed down understanding of what it all even is - both textually and legalistically.

It's mightily clever, I give you Christians that, but you were never very bright enough to conceal all your deception - which is very deep, I will give you that. Revelation 3:9 and all.
Too bad you're too divorced from the sources that your New Testament derived from to understand what it is often very cryptically referring to. Christianity is very much a history of covering up pot-holes with paper, rather than mending major issues.

 

[Robin]

And on top of that, the obvious desperate defense mechanism to the reality that the idolatrous doctrine is heretical and abominable by the Old Testament is to double-down by both claiming that anybody that rejects (and for good reason) the trinity or deification of Jesus is a follower of Satan (initially aimed at Jews for not even accepting Jesus as a Prophet), and to completely pervert the prophetic terminology of the Old Testament in order to create the false impression of "look, the OT is hinting at Jesus here and here and here, look how stupid Jews are", along with this there is the typical opposition of Christians towards the Oral Torah (Talmud) in order to self-validate the authority of the Early Church (of which even that! you now reject, lmao) and sever ties to an actual, directly passed down understanding of what it all even is - both textually and legalistically.

It's mightily clever, I give you Christians that, but you were never very bright enough to conceal all your deception - which is very deep, I will give you that. Revelation 3:9 and all.
Too bad you're too divorced from the sources that your New Testament derived from to understand what it is often very cryptically referring to. Christianity is very much a history of covering up pot-holes with paper, rather than mending major issues.

Honest question, you seem to have only come into contact with the sort of intellectually dishonest and condescending sort of Christian that tainted your view of Christianity altogether. There is a lot of generalisations and, dare I say, misrepresentation in your comments.You seem very invested in this topic for reasons I don't really understand. But if you were to try to have a proper debate on Christianity, would you be open to it or would you just shut down any attempts at sorting through these issues with insults and snark? And I say this full well knowing there are Christian posters here who do the same thing to followers of other religions. But I would appreciate it if, in the interest of intellectual discourse, things are kept amicable.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.
You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day.
Deuteronomy 6:4-6

https://www.vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/echad-or-yachid.4500/

 

[Infinityloop]

https://www.vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/echad-or-yachid.4500/

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.
וְאָהַבְתָּ, אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ, וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ.
וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם--עַל-לְבָבֶךָ.​

 

[Infinityloop]

Honest question, you seem to have only come into contact with the sort of intellectually dishonest and condescending sort of Christian that tainted your view of Christianity altogether. There is a lot of generalisations and, dare I say, misrepresentation in your comments.You seem very invested in this topic for reasons I don't really understand. But if you were to try to have a proper debate on Christianity, would you be open to it or would you just shut down any attempts at sorting through these issues with insults and snark? And I say this full well knowing there are Christian posters here who do the same thing to followers of other religions. But I would appreciate it if, in the interest of intellectual discourse, things are kept amicable.

Actually, I love Jesus and have a massive appreciation of the Bible. I just hate the kind of condescending (correct characterization) and arrogant Christians as found on forums like this one.
I know that there are intelligent Christians out there too, I've had all kinds of great conversations with them. People with actual honesty, morality and integrity. People who are open to knowledge and who don't let their fallible beliefs get in the way of comprehending even basic things. People who don't speak of you like: "All your words are false. You are believing the lies of Satan being planted in your head. He is the accuser of Christians and you are being used like a pawn on a chessboard." when they are reminded of their intolerant behavior.
For speaking up against bullying and arrogant behavior rooted in superiority complex.
No snark from me, not even displeasure, I'm just waiting for the Christians here to start acting like proper Christians, as well as to learn how to respect people and have a conversation in good-will, good-nature, with good intentions, not spiteful, malicious spreading of hatred, ignorance and the Antichrist spirit.
I do agree to that last sentence, yes, I too wish that myself, at least we think alike there.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.​

וְאָהַבְתָּ, אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ, וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ.​

וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם--עַל-לְבָבֶךָ.​

God's Name - Was it Revealed in Scripture?

How wonderful that our God has loved us enough to reveal His personal name to us, and let us know that we can call Him by name! How satisfying to serve the personal God of Christianity and the Bible, rather than the impersonal "Cosmic Force" of the Eastern Hinduistic religions.

GOD REVEALS HIS NAME

The revealing of His name was done personally by God Almighty Himself, as HE spoke to the prophet Moses. Moses was preparing to go in before Pharaoh to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. Exodus 3:13 and 14 records,

"Then Moses said to God, "Behold I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you" Now they may say to me, "What is His Name? What shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM" and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you."

Notice that in direct response to the question, "What is your name?" God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say "I AM" has sent me unto you." God first gave Moses a name he could "say" or "speak", and then He proceeded to give him another name. Read on to verse 15 of Exodus chapter three.

"And God furthermore said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, "YHWH, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob has sent me unto you."

God ends this giving of the two names, by concluding,

"THIS is MY NAME forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations."

No person apparently did say the second revealed name of God, for it is the four consonants YHWH. It has no vowels [A, E, I, O, U] which are necessary for speech. The Israelites got around this by writing "YHWH", but when reading scriptures aloud, they said "ADONAI" or "LORD", and many Bibles today put in "LORD" in all capitals to signify the translation of "YHWH". There is no evidence that any attempt to pronounce "YHWH" was ever made by the Israelites, the early church, or by Jesus Christ.

WHAT ABOUT "JEHOVAH"?

Some people in recent years have used the name "JEHOVAH" in place of "YHWH". According to the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses, this name was first recorded in 1270 A.D. more than a thousand years after the death of Christ, by a Catholic Monk, Raymundus Martini. [See Aid to Bible Understanding, pages 884, 885].

Scholars recognize that this "patched-up" name of God invented a mere 700 years ago, with the vowels from "ADONAI" inserted between the consonants "YHWH" and then further altered with the letters, "J" and "V" is incorrect.

The following encyclopedias consider the name "JEHOVAH" to be FALSE Merits Student Encyclopedia; Encyclopedia Americana; The Jewish Encyclopedia; Encyclopedia International; The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible; The New Catholic Encyclopedia; The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, and many more.

In addition to revealing His name as the "I AM" and "YHWH", God also tells us that His name is "JEALOUS" [Exodus 34:14], and "HOLY" [Isaiah 57:15].

SALVATION IN GOD'S NAME

The Psalmist cried out, "Save me O GOD, by thy NAME! [Psalm 54:1], and also, "Help us, O GOD of our Salvation, for the Glory of thy NAME, and deliver us and forgive our sins for Thy NAME's sake." [Psalm 79:9].

YHWH stated in Isaiah 43:11, "There is no Savior besides ME". In Zechariah 12:10, YHWH prophesied that "they will look upon Me whom they have pierced." In Zechariah 11:12,13, YHWH revealed that HE HIMSELF would be sold for 30 pieces of silver. YHWH further promised that one day He would be King over all the earth and that His name would be the only one. [Zechariah 14:9]

How would this come about? The Virgin Mary was told that, "Behold the Virgin shall be with Child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call his name "Emmanuel", which translated means "GOD WITH US". [Matthew 1:23].

Jesus, whose name means "YHWH'S SALVATION" had come! Jesus revealed to the Jews that HE was the "I AM'", taking the memorial NAME of God to all generations, and applying it to HIMSELF! (John 8:58). This truth is very evident in all translations with the exception of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures published by the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses.

In the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, it was necessary for the Translation Committee of the Watchtower Society to drastically alter this text in John 8:58, since their polytheistic theology (belief in more than one true god) does not allow for Jesus to be Jehovah. They mistranslated "Ego Emi" into "I have been" instead of the correct, "I AM".

In 1950 they claimed it was in the "perfect indefinite tense". There is no such tense. In 1961, they changed it to "the perfect tense indicative", which is impossible for the verb "to be". They tried again in 1969 with a footnote reading "perfect tense". All are incorrect.

Witnesses can check out their Kingdom Interlinear Translation and find the words, "I am" under "Ego Emi" on the Greek/English side of the page. Reputable scholars agree that Jesus was here quoting Exodus 3:14, claiming to be the "I AM" or "YHWH" of the Hebrew scriptures. The J.W.'s likewise altered the text in Exodus in an attempt to prevent this revealing connection.

After stating in no uncertain terms that He was the "I AM", Jesus also said "Unless you believe that "I AM" you shall die in your sins." [John 8:24]. Salvation had come in the Name of God! Listen to Jesus' words in John 17:11,12,

"And I am no more in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to Thee, Holy Father, keep them in THY NAME, the NAME WHICH THOU HAST GIVEN ME, that they may be one, even as We are. While I was with them, I was keeping them in THE NAME WHICH THOU HAST GIVEN ME".

No wonder Acts 20:28 says that

"God purchased the Church WITH HIS OWN BLOOD!"

Will you turn to the NAME OF GOD and be saved? Acts 4:12 says of JESUS [YHWH'S Salvation],

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is NO OTHER NAME under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

The Gospel message of salvation is clear
Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
No one comes to the Father except through Him.

Source

 

[Infinityloop]

God's Name - Was it Revealed in Scripture?

How wonderful that our God has loved us enough to reveal His personal name to us, and let us know that we can call Him by name! How satisfying to serve the personal God of Christianity and the Bible, rather than the impersonal "Cosmic Force" of the Eastern Hinduistic religions.

Lot's of copy + paste filler there.

You do underestimate the Hindu tradition, really.

Anyway, for God to actually have an objective name would be atheism, for God cannot have a name, any name is merely going to be human language. YHWH, the tetragrammaton (יהוה) is a great formula and all, but you are denying God once you restrict it to one word from one isolated culture in one language. This is the thing that (non-kabbalistic) Jews and (you mainstream) Christians often lack perspective on. You've named it, so you think by giving it a name you have defined it from "names that are not God's name") but you have in fact denied it by doing so.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, then perhaps this thread might be bumped in a few years and you will read my words and be taken back by the clarity of what I am saying.

YHWH is God but God is not YHWH. You work that out for yourself.


As for 'Hinduistic religions', I'd love to hear your interpretation of them, it might even be amusing. Hinduism has a dual dichotomy of understanding God, a more sophisticated understanding than you Christians have. See, for you take a face/symbol/word and God-itself to be one thing but you do not realize that only one is God and the other is your perception of God.


Anyway, your attempt to refute me did not work. You fail to comprehend the idea that the Old Testament might not agree with your own interpretation of the New Testament. This causes failure on many counts, even if you yet do not notice them specifically.

 

[Robin]

Actually, I love Jesus and have a massive appreciation of the Bible. I just hate the kind of condescending (correct characterization) and arrogant Christians as found on forums like this one.
I know that there are intelligent Christians out there too, I've had all kinds of great conversations with them. People with actual honesty, morality and integrity. People who are open to knowledge and who don't let their fallible beliefs get in the way of comprehending even basic things. People who don't speak of you like: "All your words are false. You are believing the lies of Satan being planted in your head. He is the accuser of Christians and you are being used like a pawn on a chessboard." when they are reminded of their intolerant behavior.
For speaking up against bullying and arrogant behavior rooted in superiority complex.
No snark from me, not even displeasure, I'm just waiting for the Christians here to start acting like proper Christians, as well as to learn how to respect people and have a conversation in good-will, good-nature, with good intentions, not spiteful, malicious spreading of hatred, ignorance and the Antichrist spirit.
I do agree to that last sentence, yes, I too wish that myself, at least we think alike there.

The thing is that people don't always reflect the values of the creed they follow. This is true for every belief system. That's why separating individual character from content is important. I wasn't sure whether or not I even wanted to engage with you on certain topics because, to be fair, you've also responded to that sentiment with harshness of your own. Again, I'd like to rehash some of the points you brought up in the other thread when I get time. All I ask is mutual respect and an open mind.

 

[Infinityloop]

The thing is that people don't always reflect the values of the creed they follow. This is true for every belief system. That's why separating individual character from content is important. I wasn't sure whether or not I even wanted to engage with you on certain topics because, to be fair, you've also responded to that sentiment with harshness of your own. Again, I'd like to rehash some of the points you brought up in the other thread when I get time. All I ask is mutual respect and an open mind.

Sure thing. Remember respect is not a one way street ("if you can't take it, then don't dish it out" as the saying goes), and the past few days in this subforum are evidence of that. I don't take to lightly to condescension, I also don't get angry or even slightly upset at all by it. I say what needs to be said and don't say what doesn't need to be said. If I come off strong, it's likely because [you] (or the person I'm talking to) needs it, even if they don't yet realize it themselves.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Lot's of copy + paste filler there.

You do underestimate the Hindu tradition, really.

Anyway, for God to actually have an objective name would be atheism, for God cannot have a name, any name is merely going to be human language. YHWH, the tetragrammaton (יהוה) is a great formula and all, but you are denying God once you restrict it to one word from one isolated culture in one language. This is the thing that (non-kabbalistic) Jews and (you mainstream) Christians often lack perspective on. You've named it, so you think by giving it a name you have defined it from "names that are not God's name") but you have in fact denied it by doing so.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, then perhaps this thread might be bumped in a few years and you will read my words and be taken back by the clarity of what I am saying.

YHWH is God but God is not YHWH. You work that out for yourself.


As for 'Hinduistic religions', I'd love to hear your interpretation of them, it might even be amusing. Hinduism has a dual dichotomy of understanding God, a more sophisticated understanding than you Christians have. See, for you take a face/symbol/word and God-itself to be one thing but you do not realize that only one is God and the other is your perception of God.


Anyway, your attempt to refute me did not work. You fail to comprehend the idea that the Old Testament might not agree with your own interpretation of the New Testament. This causes failure on many counts, even if you yet do not notice them specifically.

I wasn’t “attempting to refute you”, simply sharing some of the nuances in the name of God and the error the JWs fall in to. I tend to prefer sharing positive reasons for my faith in Jesus. Now I could skip work today and write an original piece or share something probably written by a better writer than me. You don’t have to read it if you don’t like it though @Infinityloop

 

[Infinityloop]

And for the record, @Red Sky at Morning There are many names in the Old Testament to refer to God than simply just the tetragrammaton.

 

[Infinityloop]

I wasn’t “attempting to refute you”, simply sharing some of the nuances in the name of God and the error the JWs fall in to. I tend to prefer sharing positive reasons for my faith in Jesus. Now I could skip work today and write an original piece or share something probably written by a better writer than me. You don’t have to read it if you don’t like it though @Infinityloop

I did read it, I didn't disagree particularly with anything, I just didn't think it proved anything.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Yes, well in their four specially chosen biographies of Jesus, this does come through alot. It is a stark contrast.

The strange part is whether he was really one or the other, he spawned a cult that literally worships the dead.

True.

On the many Jesus' issue, literalists forget that the bible was written as a book of wisdom that is a consolidation of many thinking systems from older religions. For consistency, given that the original authors of the wisdom was not known, they put everything in Jesus' mouth. One good example of this is the Golden Rule.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Your usual position, should be a cake walk for you..lol!

You have forgotten that I quote the Gnostic Christian Jesus from your bible.

Don't hold a grudge just because your apologetics is so inferior as compared to mine. That is not lady like and shows a poor loser.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Old Testament is about God and His chosen people the Jews. New Testament is about God and Christians.

What was that line?

Neither Jew or gentile etc.

Strange that a Christian would think that an all powerful god would end in saying that only some of his children are worth while the rest are not because your god created them in some other tribe than his preferred.

You forget that religions are supposed to unite people, not divide them.

That unity is shown by Gnostic Christians and that is why you should get in the right ideology and drop your genocidal prick of a god.

Or at least try to do decent apologetics for him instead of the garbage you do.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Before you get too buddy-buddy with each other, I will be nice and prove that this poster used to be as anti-Muhammad as he is anti-Christ (of the Christian bible).

You started these threads in just ONE forum GCB ! https://www.forumgarden.com/forums/search.php?searchid=797146

Relevant beginning sentences:
"Let us be honest. Islam�s ideology is immoral to its core. Should we ask the Haigue and U.N. to rule on the free world's first duty to the world. Should we declare war against this immoral ideology?"

"Yahweh never promised 72 virgins after death but Allah does."

"Jihadist are inadvertently sowing the seeds of thought that will, perhaps for the final time, awaken in secular hearts, the reality of the fact that religions must never rule and that only secular forces can bring the world to any lasting peace. Jihadists are thus, in the longer range picture, going to destroy all the war mongering religions that follow imaginary gods that have plagued freedom loving people forever."

'Trump is right. Islam and Sharia do not belong is the U.S.A.. ...
If they did not have their no-criticism of Mohamed rules, the Western press would have published the Hebdo cartoons without fear.
That intimidation of our freedom of speech is what makes the West incompatible with Islam."

-----
Probably the best one of all is this one though - just had to quote it IN FULL:

Why have Muslim men lowered themselves to be babysitters for women?

Why have Muslim men lowered themselves to be babysitters for women?

As I understand it, many Muslim men have decided to become babysitters and chauffer to grown women by insisting that they be accompanied by a man when going out.

I also understand that Muslim men have taken on the womanly duty of teaching girls how to dress and a grandmother�s duty of teaching women how to dress and what is appropriate to wear.

In Canada, our customs are more of women accompanying women as they do their various chores and sorties and not having to bother men for such menial tasks as driving them about like a chauffeur, nor have Canadian men place ourselves in a grandmother�s position of determining what women�s fashions will be.

Our gays are into such things but not usually heterosexual men.

It seems to me that Muslim men are treating their women like immature children who cannot get around without them and who need to be told what to wear. This is quite a demeaning position for both Muslim women and especially Muslim men.

Where is a Muslim man�s honor in his lowering himself to be a babysitter, companion/chauffeur and a woman�s fashion coordinator?

Regards
DL​

------
Your troll threads used to be as anti-Muhammad/ Islam as Christianity - are you getting scared in your old age? Have too many Muslims moved into your neighbourhood?

P.S. all it took was one Google search: "Gnostic Christian Bishop" Islam Muhammad to find your results.

Thanks for being one of my groupies and advertising for me buddy.
That is you deflecting from the issue of Jesus and I don't blame you for not being able to do decent apologetics for him.

I have not hidden my dislike of both Christianity and Islam and have used the following almost like a signity on occasion.

Read it and weep groupie.

Let me know if you want to receive my weekly newsletter.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Is that a challenge or a genuine request?

It is a genuine request.

If I win a discussion, I gain nothing, as I do not learn anything new or worthy.

If I lose, I gain one of the real pleasures in life. A new perspective.

So far, that has only come from my apotheosis where god himself did the teaching. His minions could not enlighten even the most immoral person because they are following a genocidal moral monster that you could not sell to a fool.

That is why your ilk and religion could only grow with the use of inquisitions and murder.

Are you proud of your heritage or do you feel the shame you should feel?

Regards
DL

 

[Lisa]

You have forgotten that I quote the Gnostic Christian Jesus from your bible.

Don't hold a grudge just because your apologetics is so inferior as compared to mine. That is not lady like and shows a poor loser.

Regards
DL

No grudges...lol! Its just that you don’t really have apologetics you’re an insulter and belittler and nothing else. Say some off the wall stuff and anyone who comes by you attack them and what they believe personally, can’t call that apologetics.