Christians Unite

[TubbyTubby]

Of course, we don't actually know how many heavens there are. Presumably the christians don't want to be mixing with the islamists so they must have a seperate heaven.

Maybe there are 40,000 different christian heavens, that would at least cut down the petty squabbling (for a while at least).

[rexbeccarox]

Of course, we don't actually know how many heavens there are. Presumably the christians don't want to be mixing with the islamists so they must have a seperate heaven.

Maybe there are 40,000 different christian heavens, that would at least cut down the petty squabbling (for a while at least).

Yep, and they'd just break into 40,000 more sects per the existing 40,000 ad infinitum.

[robvalue]

For some reason I've had trouble gathering any hard data on where heaven is, what happens there and whether there is more than one.

I tentatively conclude that, like God, heaven exists in the mind of the believer. I have my own heaven in my head which I retreat to in difficult times, or just for fun. And it's way better than the piss ant versions I've been hearing about where you polish an old man's ring hole for eternity.

[MilesAbbott81]

My OP prophecy is proven.

Now, the interesting thing will be to see whether the other theists bite their tongues and allow Miles to have the last say. The alternative is to prove my point further by asserting that their own particular belief is truer than what Miles believes.

After that it continues ad infinitum "no, your belief is wrong because your interpretation is wrong. What I believe is actually proven true by my personal interpretation of scripture"....

There are a couple of problems with your assessment.

For one, you lump me in with those who are divided into these "40,000" sects. I don't belong there, because I am not a part of any organized religion. I do not attend church, I do not tithe to any church, and there is not a single official sect of which I am aware is in agreement with my doctrine. All true Christians are outside of organized religion, which is Mystery, Babylon the Great, the harlot.

All organized religion has been deceived by Satan:

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Second, you say that we disagree based on different interpretations, which is true to an extent, but the difference is that my doctrine will never and can never be contradicted by other Scripture. Truth does not contradict itself, ever. It is those who are confronted with contradiction they cannot explain who are obviously in error.

Christians love to claim that there is strength in numbers, i.e. that because so many "Christians" agree on certain points that it must be the truth, pointing to church "fathers," who are simply men deceived along with the rest. It's a herd mentality against which the Bible warns us:

Matthew 7:13
Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

[Norman Humann]

All true Christians are outside of organized religion, which is Mystery, Babylon the Great, the harlot.

I assume you're not familiar with the No True Scotsman fallacy, mr. True Christian™, so educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[MilesAbbott81]

I assume you're not familiar with the No True Scotsman fallacy, mr. True Christian™, so educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I'm growing tired of your pseudo-intellectual babble. You apply all of these cliche argument fallacies to my arguments when none of them apply, condescendingly asserting that I am unaware of such fallacies when it is you who are too thick to understand when and where to apply them.

What I did was contradict Professor with Scripture and ideas of my own, to which he hasn't replied. I then made the claim that I can never be contradicted, which no one else has yet to attempt. So, until someone actually refutes my claims, and until I refute their claim with "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm the true Christian," then your "No true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply.

[Norman Humann]

I'm growing tired of your pseudo-intellectual babble.

Ditto.

You apply all of these cliche argument fallacies to my arguments when none of them apply,

Can you explain how the fallacy doesn't apply to your argument? What makes it so special?

condescendingly asserting that I am unaware of such fallacies when it is you who are too thick to understand when and where to apply them.

So, you choose when it's a fallacy and when it isn't? Do enlighten me how.

What I did was contradict Professor with Scripture and ideas of my own, to which he hasn't replied. I then made the claim that I can never be contradicted, which no one else has yet to attempt. So, until someone actually refutes my claims, and until I refute their claim with "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm the true Christian," then your "No true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply.

I was referring to this particular part of your post:

All true Christians are outside of organized religion, which is Mystery, Babylon the Great, the harlot.

Bold mine.

Are you not saying that these other christians are wrong (Babylon the Great, the harlot) because they are not true christians?

[MilesAbbott81]

Bold mine.

Are you not saying that these other christians are wrong (Babylon the Great, the harlot) because they are not true christians?

You have to take context into account. You conveniently ignored the context because you read "no true Christian," a light bulb went off in your head and you said "AHA! GOTCHA!" without thinking it through.

My second point was directly related to the first point and the claim therein. If someone has the truth, they can never be contradicted by the source of that truth, that being the Bible in my case. Because I was able to contradict Professor, my claim that all organized religion is the harlot is valid until I myself can be contradicted with substance.

If Professor were to come back with "only true Christians believe in eternal torment" and not back up his claim, THEN the "No true Scotsman" fallacy would apply. If he backed up his claim with Scripture, then the argument could continue, each claiming he was right until irrefutably contradicted.

Say I WERE actually irrefutably contradicted, and then I said "You're wrong, because no true Christian would believe that," then the fallacy would apply.

You can't apply it when there isn't even opposition to the point, because it's not even an argument yet.

In other words, you are deliberately trying to be an asshole. Good job, you are succeeding.

[Norman Humann]

You have to take context into account. You conveniently ignored the context because you read "no true Christian," a light bulb went off in your head and you said "AHA! GOTCHA!" without thinking it through.

My second point was directly related to the first point and the claim therein. If someone has the truth, they can never be contradicted by the source of that truth, that being the Bible in my case. Because I was able to contradict Professor, my claim that all organized religion is the harlot is valid until I myself can be contradicted with substance.

The context is irrelevant. You said the only true christians are outside of organised religion, meaning that christians in organise religions aren't true christians. That is a fallacy.

If Professor were to come back with "only true Christians believe in eternal torment" and not back up his claim, THEN the "No true Scotsman" fallacy would apply. If he backed up his claim with Scripture, then the argument could continue, each claiming he was right until irrefutably contradicted.

Say I WERE actually irrefutably contradicted, and then I said "You're wrong, because no true Christian would believe that," then the fallacy would apply.

You can't apply it when there isn't even opposition to the point, because it's not even an argument yet.

The fallacy does not necessarily need to be used within an argument. It can be a statement in itself. You do not need to present an argument in order to say that there aren't any real/true christians in organised religion and you do not need to present an argument along the statement for it to be fallacious.

In other words, you are deliberately trying to be an asshole. Good job, you are succeeding.

Yes. Thanks.

[professor]

I happened to come back here, and see that Miles did not like my answer back a few pages.
If we take the Young's expository definition of Ages, and the understanding of Miles, perhaps we also ought to take what the bible says about the Age to Come- An age without end.
We are in the conclusion of the Church Age, immediately ahead, is the millennium Age or the Age of Messiah.
After that is the Eternal Age.
Hang around long enough and you end up there.

What I stated was that the AC and FP will have the "Forever" trip.
I can't state that for the rest of the wicked. I do not know (not really my issue).

When the apostle said that all die in Adam and all live in Christ- one must actually BE in Christ for that to happen.

When it says the beast (Obama) deceives (coming to a world system near you) the whole world-
it, in context with the rest of the bible, means those whose allegiance, and whose dwelling is in the System and NOT in Christ.

The great Prostitute (In whom was found the blood of the saints) is Roman Catholicism, which has done exactly that, and could be included in as a daughter of the initial Babylon and pagan systems from Day one.
Either way, Rome is IT and this pope (the final one) is going down with the ship.

Miles, I perceive you have a Titanic load of pride- the very thing God resists.
The call has gone out to repent before the ship of Noah II is boarded.
We are going to see who has heeded that call.