What Heaven is Like

[Aiza]

lol you people. Too funny.

Pew Research Center is a very large non-partisan, non-religiously affiliated think tank. Remember that poll that said "atheists know more about religion than Christians?" that came from the Pew Research Center:
http://www.pewforum.org/

I love how refuting them basically boils down to "nuh uh theres no way that can be right! they must be wrong!" Yep, thats sure how science works alright. Don't shoot the messenger, get mad at some 21% of self-identified atheists for believing in God.

---

It's one of many, as I already pointed out. And all your rambling doesn't change change the fact that it is bleeding out its membership.

Yes it does, because it isn't "bleeding out its membership", its losing a bunch of cultural Catholics whereas traditional Catholicism is undergoing a pretty strong growth and Catholicism itself is growing worldwide.

And eh, yeah there is a priest shortage sure? They can get new clergy, just they need more. That doesn't mean its in its "death throes" or whatever you are on about.

And higher worldwide estimates of its membership = attempts to exert influence by appeal to the Herd -- which is exactly what you are trying to do here.

Hmm? I never heard anyone "appeal to the herd" at all. You're obviously not a part of the Church.

It says "God". It doesn't say "pantheon of lesser beings that resemble gods but are pitied for their indulgent natures, which how the Buddha portrayed extant beliefs of gods as he was shuffling them out the door.

Yep, it just says "God" and not "creator god" or "patheon of lesser beings" or whatever else you are on about.

Also, re: Dhammapada:
>The Dhammapada is a versified Buddhist scripture traditionally ascribed to the Buddha himself. It is one of the best-known texts from the Theravada canon.[2]

---

Um, that's exactly what I'm referring to. If true, permanent death isn't an option, clearly God doesn't have a problem with restricting our choices.

That's like saying that God limits our choices because we can't teleport. When we talk about freedom of choice, we mean freedom of to follow our own consciences or go against them.

What you actually said is that your view represents the view of the majority of Christians here. GC is here, too.

If I said that I didn't mean on this forum. I could 2 Protestants, 1 Swedenborgian, and me.

If you told me the Karfnugen sect isn't composed of Christians because they deny the divinity of Jesus, reject all his miracles, and think he gave spectacularly bad advice; I'd agree they don't fit the definition of Christian.

Would you? I just tend to think of Christian as a pretty watered-down label at this point, and going down that path results in "no true scotsman" accusations pretty quickly so eh.

---

So god allowed his son to be crucified by men, just so you get to worship him even more?

So I can know him more perfectly than any creature and partake of the divine essence, to be more fully unified to God through the teachings of Christ even unto his death. This knowledge of God and adoration of him is what brings his creatures (his devout creatures) no greater happiness. But yes, yes so I can worship and adore him all of the more.

"God became man so that man might become God."--St. Athanasius

You haven't acknowledged your god's apparent omnipresence (please tell me if that's not what you believe as opposed to being cryptic) and how the hell does god have a face?

I do acknowledged God's omnipresence, but that doesn't mean I see him as he is. We have an imperfect knowledge of God in this world, and we worship him imperfectly. And yes, God does have a face:



http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.co...0Face.html

I've made no fallacious statement. You invoked "hearts" not in the figurative sense but as in the 'core/spirit thingy' of our being, and I reject that as hogwash. Hearts pump blood. They do no thinking or anything else that the brain is responsible for.

The word "heart" has multiple meanings. It is very much a fallacy (fallacy of equivocation) to pretend like they all go back to the "organ" definition when its obvious from context what was being referred to.

And yet you don't care if your god decided to slay that man for simply refusing to do as he was told.

Even if you took that passage 100% literally (and I don't see why I would because it sounds very much like a common turn of phrase), we have God allowing him to be eaten by a lion. The way God allows anyone to die within Christianity (save possibly Enoch, Elijah and the Blessed Virgin Mary), the same way he also allowed himself to die.

Either way it seems you aren't trying to argue that God kills everyone who doesn't do as he says.