Today I was thrown out of church

islamispeace wrote: Caringheart wrote: No, no.... no backpedaling.  You want to speak of facts.  If these are facts you are presenting and not your opinions, then tell me, just where do your "facts" come from? Who's "backpedaling"?  We have seen the facts already.  You just don't want to to acknowledge them. So, you are still not stating, Where do your "facts" come from.  "Hence, you are only stating your opinions." which come of course from whatever studying you have done. You have claimed that the trinity doctrine can be found in the Bible.  I have shown that your claim is baloney.  Sorry, but you have shown no such thing, except to your own imagination and satisfaction.  Which is fine with me.  I am not asking you to accept it... just saying that I do, and the reasons why I do.  If you can not see it... well, then you don't. I showed you how the Bible contradicts itself on the baptismal formula and how the "father, son and holy spirit" formula is a later addition.  That has not been shown to be true either.  To your mind and your belief maybe, because the easiest way for muslims to deny Yshwe is to deny the Gospels as true... In fact the only way to deny the Divinity of Yshwe (since He Himself declared it many times) is to deny the Gospels. Tell me, why did "Jesus" contradict himself by saying in one place that he was sent only the "lost sheep of Israel" but in another, he told his disciples to go to all nations?  If you really seek my answer to that question, here is what it would be... Yshwe was sent to the people of Israel... but His disciples were sent to go and make disciples of all nations and peoples. You are a Christian apologist because you believe blindly in the Bible and refuse to acknowledge valid criticisms of it.  Haha - that made me laugh... thanks.  If you only knew.    I have many criticisms of my own of the Bible.  That is why I am able to discuss.  There is nothing yet, though, that has persuaded me from the Truth of Yshwe, and the Truth that is in the scriptures. Case in point: you completely ignored the issue I raised in the last post when I showed that the baptismal formula of Matthew 28 is a corruption of the early Gentile church.  If I don't respond it is because there is nothing to respond to.   You have shown me nothing.  I will go and read it again though just to be sure. Caringheart wrote: The argument could well be made then that every faith is a blind faith.  I have a broader perspective, as outlined above.  There are many factors that influence what we come to believe and to accept. I think it is very interesting that you don't even see your own 'blind faith', but have no problem accusing and attacking others.  I don't do that, nor would I ever feel the need to. There are glaring realities about your belief that you refuse to accept because you are comfortable with your faith.  And that is fine... we should each be comfortable with our faith... and then the Creator will decide. Meanwhile I only present to you what seems right to me, and why.  Can you present to me what seems right to you and why?  You are good about telling me why you don't accept my faith, but what about telling me why you do accept yours? What "blind faith" are you referring to?  Care to give an example?  I'm not the one calling it blind faith, that's why I put it in '  '.  As I said; " I have a broader perspective, as outlined above.  There are many factors that influence what we come to believe and to accept." You see, blind Christian fanatic, I have actually studied both my own religion and other religions, Christianity most of all.  Ohp, there's goes the name calling, and attempts at insults, to put me off again... but anyway... I too have studied many faiths.  It takes a whole lifetime to fully understand one's own religion, and even then... And yes, I do believe you have 'studied Christianity most of all' ... studied from one viewpoint, which is, not to seek the truth in it, but only to try and disprove it.  (You read the sources provided to support your thesis, without ever challenging your thesis, or beliefs by reading the side that supports the other viewpoint.) ... not from a well rounded viewpoint, but from a one-sided viewpoint.  I believe you have done more study to disprove a religion than you have done exploration into your own to see if your faith is well placed.  You have done what you have been taught to do.  You seem to believe that disproving one religion somehow makes yours correct.  I don't hold such views.  If yours is wrong, mine could just as easily be wrong.  I know and understand this.  I do not need to keep a closed mind.  Which is why I am able to discuss without mocking, or anger.  Which is also why I would never insist someone live according to my beliefs.  If I am going to hell, I'd rather not take others with me... and if you are going to hell, please do me the favor and not insist I go with you.  This is probably my most prevalent argument against islam.   In fact, I am so sure that if I were ever to come to "doubt" Islam (which has 0 probability), I would never even consider Christianity or the other religions as an alternative, now would I consider atheism.  The only alternative would be Deism, which even though I have some grievances about it, makes more sense to me than any other religion, with the exception of Islam.  This I can understand.

and again, you felt the need to end with attempts at insults.    *sigh
It does not help in any way to prove you are more knowledgeable than I.

You still have not said with any clarity why you accept your faith. 

asalaam,
Caringheart


Edited by Caringheart - 24 June 2014 at 8:06pm

I just googled "Blind Faith" and found out that it is an english blues rock band comprised of Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, Steve Winwood and Rick Grech.

I've lost the plot!  I don't exactly know what you two are arguing about and I'm going to have to reread the whole thread to figger it out!

I think I'm going nuts, today.  But, I'm OK.

Hey there Caringheart. Can I ask you, are you rejecting the idea of an alliance of religions because it is not of the Christian faith?  For example, do you think that the Shri Chinmoy organisation is evil because they don't accept Jesus as their saviour?

Because this idea of an alliance of individuals is a good constructive viewpoint and I agree with you - but without ruling out religious organisations as part of that equation.  There are individuals who have their own faith in God, but don't belong to any religious organisation.  There are other individuals whom you might term Secular Humanists who have an invested interest in world peace - but don't believe in God.  Yet they would accept the concept of "One God" symbolically, just to get in on the kumbaya and the good vibes of this alliance for their own personal altruistic sence of service to humanity.  And God has good use for people like that!

Caringheart, when I use the term "One God", I am not trying to harass you for believing in trinity, because at some point I need to accept and respect that you believe in trinity, even though I do not.  Instead, I'm using "One God" as a convenient point of unity for such an alliance within the diversity of human beings who would have an invested interest in such an organisation for the purposes of world peace.

After all, God is the ultimate unity within the diversity of creation!  Praise be!  Glory to God!  Holy, Holy, Holy!!!  Allahu Akbar!

Now, I'm going to copy and paste the previous four paragraphs into a new thread called: "One God Alliance".  O.K?

Ron Webb wrote: I was skimming through this discussion when I came across this -- and my jaw dropped! -- Caringheart wrote: Please give explanation... Why would anyone invent a story so hard to be accepted?  Who in your mind would have invented such a history and for what purpose?  If someone wanted to invent something, they would invent something easy to be believed. My goodness, this actually makes sense to you?  The more unbelievable a story is, the more you're inclined to believe it? IMHO a more reasonable question would be, why would anyone believe a story so hard to be accepted?   And why has a story so hard to be accepted endured through 2014 years? Perhaps you ought to be a Hindu.  The roots of Hinduism go back thousands of years before Christ, and their stories are at least as unbelievable as the Christian Gospel.

Hi Ron,

I should have replied to this.

You miss the rest of my post;

"The reason is clear... it has endured because it is God's Truth.  It is there in the scriptures.  When Yshwe disappeared from the tomb after having been seen placed there in death, and sealed in, and the entrance guarded...

when He appeared to many as the risen Christ... all became clear to those who witnessed these things.  It was then, they began to understand the words of Yshwe, all that He had been telling to them."

Peace and blessings to you,
Caringheart

I should also restate... that muslims have implied that the Gospels were created by man... and I say, to what purpose?  If they wanted to make converts they certainly would not have written something so difficult to be accepted... they would have written what would be easy to accept... so I say it is illogical to make the claim that the Gospels were created, or made up.

It's not the fact that 'it's unbelievable that makes me believe it'...
it's the fact that no one wanting to be believed would make up such a story.

So yes, you are correct...

"a more reasonable question would be, why would anyone believe a story so hard to be accepted?"

and the only reasonable answer... because they were witnesses to the events.


Edited by Caringheart - 29 June 2014 at 10:17pm

Caringheart wrote: So, you are still not stating, Where do your "facts" come from.

You must have trouble with reading comprehension.  I already stated that the facts come from studying scholarly sources.  In contrast, your "viewpoint" comes from your own opinions.

Caringheart wrote: Sorry, but you have shown no such thing, except to your own imagination and satisfaction.  Which is fine with me.  I am not asking you to accept it... just saying that I do, and the reasons why I do.  If you can not see it... well, then you don't.

What a typical apologetic response...

Thank you for proving once again that you are nothing more than a blind apologist.  Its no wonder that you haven't even responded to the point I raised.  You simply ignored it and then asserted (without explaining why) that I "have shown no such thing". 

Caringheart wrote: That has not been shown to be true either.  To your mind and your belief maybe, because the easiest way for muslims to deny Yshwe is to deny the Gospels as true... In fact the only way to deny the Divinity of Yshwe (since He Himself declared it many times) is to deny the Gospels.

 

Any person with an ounce of reason will know that the Gospels are false.  There is plenty of proof...the contradictions, the historical errors etc. all prove that the Gospels are false. 

Let us look at the verses in question again and see if there is a contradiction or not:

Matthew 28:19 - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."

Acts 2:38 - "Peter replied, �Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

Acts 8:16-16 - "When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, ¹⁶ because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 10:46-48 - "Then Peter said, ⁴⁷ �Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.� ⁴⁸ So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days."

Acts 19:4-7 - "Paul said, �John�s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.� ⁵ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. ⁶ When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tonguesb]">[b] and prophesied. ⁷ There were about twelve men in all."

Romans 6:3 - "Or don�t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"

Galatians 3:27 - "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, ²⁷ for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

So, on the on hand, "Jesus" purportedly told the disciples to baptize people in the name of the "Father, son and holy spirit", yet on more than one occasion, the disciples baptized people only in Jesus' name.  That is a contradiction.  Either that, or the disciples simply disobeyed Jesus. 

Caringheart wrote: If you really seek my answer to that question, here is what it would be... Yshwe was sent to the people of Israel... but His disciples were sent to go and make disciples of all nations and peoples.

Oh really?  So the people of Israel had the honor of having Jesus sent to them but us poor Gentiles have to make do with his disciples?  Something's wrong with this picture! 

Furthermore, you once again show how ignorant you are of your own scripture and expose yet another contradiction.  You claimed that the disciples "were sent to go and make disciples of all nations and peoples" yet this directly contradicts what Jesus himself said:

Matthew 10:5-8 - "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: �Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. ⁶ Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. ⁷ As you go, proclaim this message: �The kingdom of heaven has come near.� ⁸ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,a]">[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give."   

Caringheart wrote: Haha - that made me laugh... thanks.  If you only knew.    I have many criticisms of my own of the Bible.  That is why I am able to discuss.  There is nothing yet, though, that has persuaded me from the Truth of Yshwe, and the Truth that is in the scriptures.

Oh sure, sure.  I have yet to see your "criticisms of...the Bible".  And like I said before, anyone with an ounce of reason can see that your so-called "scriptures" are not the "Truth".  If you haven't been "persuaded", it's because you don't want to be persuaded. 

Caringheart wrote: If I don't respond it is because there is nothing to respond to.   You have shown me nothing.  I will go and read it again though just to be sure.

 

Oh how convenient! 

The reality is that you didn't respond because you were uncomfortable with the truth.  You remind me of a certain video clip.  I think I have shown this to you before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg_8knBHEyw

Guess which one you are?

Caringheart wrote: And yes, I do believe you have 'studied Christianity most of all' ... studied from one viewpoint, which is, not to seek the truth in it, but only to try and disprove it.  (You read the sources provided to support your thesis, without ever challenging your thesis, or beliefs by reading the side that supports the other viewpoint.)

Oh how you make me laugh!  Didn't I give you the opportunity to respond to the points raised by the Vermes source?  I asked you to respond, because I want to know how you would reconcile what appears to be an obvious contradiction.  You, on the other hand, have decided not to respond!  Is that my fault? 

And by the way, I have been discussing with Christians for over 10 years.  I have listened to the "other side", and I have found the counterarguments on that side to be weak and illogical.  The evidence against the Bible is overwhelming.  You just don't want to admit it. 

Caringheart wrote: You seem to believe that disproving one religion somehow makes yours correct.  I don't hold such views.  If yours is wrong, mine could just as easily be wrong.  I know and understand this.  I do not need to keep a closed mind.  Which is why I am able to discuss without mocking, or anger.  Which is also why I would never insist someone live according to my beliefs.  If I am going to hell, I'd rather not take others with me... and if you are going to hell, please do me the favor and not insist I go with you.  This is probably my most prevalent argument against islam.

Huh?!  This is your "most prevalent argument against Islam"?     

You do nothing but spread lies about Islam, and yet insist that you "would never insist someone live according to my beliefs".  If that is the case, then why do you speak against Islam like other fanatic missionaries?  Why do you refer to sources like Robert Spencer?  Also, the irony is that, just a few posts earlier, you stated the following:

"Peace unto you.  May you one day believe."      

If you don't "insist [that] someone live according to [your] beliefs", then why did you say "may you one day believe"? 

Caringheart wrote: and again, you felt the need to end with attempts at insults.    *sigh It does not help in any way to prove you are more knowledgeable than I. You still have not said with any clarity why you accept your faith.

I can't help it if you have trouble with reading comprehension.  I have already explained why I believe in Islam and why I believe Christianity is false.  I have even shown you proof of the latter.  If you want proof of the former, we can discuss it on another thread.  This thread is about the trinity doctrine, which is what Eoah's original post was about, or have you forgotten?  You still have not shown with any clarity where the Bible mentions the trinity.

Caringheart wrote: I went back to your earlier post, as I said I would, and if this is what you were referring to... I didn't respond because essentially it reads as so much nonsense. I could provide plenty of evidence to refute these statements but I know that you would not listen to anything anyway, so why bother.   I really don't have time and energy to waste.  I say this because I have provided other links at other times that you flatly refuse to consider.

Oooh, getting defensive are we?  There, there Caringheart.  It's okay. 

I said it before and I will say it again:

Blind.  Christian.  Fanatic. 

Oh, sorry...was I mocking again?  Darn it! I have to cut that out! 

I am all ears as to the "plenty of evidence to refute these statements..."  This is a discussion.  Either you can continue it or run away from it.  It's your choice.  I can have this same discussion with some other Christian.  If you are too afraid to comment on the contradictions regarding the baptismal formula, that is fine by me. 

Caringheart wrote: If you have any actual interest I recommend listening to this: http://www.catholic.com/audio-player/6837 It's what I came across as I was exploring into my own answers.

I'll check it out when I have more time.  Regardless, the contradictions in the Bible remain and you have yet to explain why you feel they are not contradictions.  Like I said, I am all ears.

Caringheart wrote: I actually take the time to look at any information regarding islam and Muhammad when it is presented to me.

Sure, sure.  I suppose all the inaccurate statements you make are the result of all the "time" you take to "look at any information" about Islam. 

Riiiight....


Edited by islamispeace - 25 June 2014 at 6:23pm