Y Chromosome

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
And when i said 'could be argued' I was of course speaking with Catholics in mind.

Yes I know, I was contending with you over your use of the word "could", which implied that you were in (theological) agreement. I don't think it can be argued that it means what the Catholics say it ideas. I'm aware that you personally don't argue that point as I'm aware you are an atheist.

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes I know, I was contending with you over your use of the word "could", which implied that you were in (theological) agreement. I don't think it can be argued that it means what the Catholics say it ideas. I'm aware that you personally don't argue that point as I'm aware you are an atheist.

Along with the concept of the Trinity, Immaculate conception has scant biblical support and requires considerable re-interpretation of texts.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Along with the concept of the Trinity, Immaculate conception has scant biblical support and requires considerable re-interpretation of texts.

I thought we would agree on this, thanks for clarifying.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Along with the concept of the Trinity, Immaculate conception has scant biblical support and requires considerable re-interpretation of texts.

How much biblical support is there for atheism ?
Talking about "considerable re-interpretation of texts."

Originally posted by sonship
How much biblical support is there for atheism ?

Are you seriously asking this question. Surely your tongue is firmly in your cheek, yes?

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you seriously asking this question. Surely your tongue is firmly in your cheek, yes?

He might pull a muscle in his mouth if he pouts like this AND has his tongue in his cheek.

So, I reckon it's just pouting.

Originally posted by divegeester
I thought we would agree on this, thanks for clarifying.

Would you have agreed with Ghost if he used the word Godhead, instead of Trinity?

Originally posted by sonship
How much biblical support is there for atheism ?
Talking about "considerable re-interpretation of texts."

Quite a considerable amount. Do you require biblical references to Gentiles and non-believers? (The bible of course doesn't seek to recommend atheism, but certainly acknowledges clearly the existence of non believers. I think you'd struggle to say the same for the Trinity).

Feel free to retract the question.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Quite a considerable amount. Do you require biblical references to Gentiles and non-believers? (The bible of course doesn't seek to recommend atheism, but certainly acknowledges clearly the existence of non believers. I think you'd struggle to say the same for the Trinity).

Feel free to retract the question.

Quite a considerable amount.
-----------------------------------------------

You seemed to be concerned suddenly about what and what not the text of the Bible supports. So if you are concerned about that, I would ask you to consider God's very existence is probably the first thing strongly upheld in the text of the Bible.

God is the explanation of where everything else has its origin - Genesis 1:1.


Do you require biblical references to Gentiles and non-believers? (The bible of course doesn't seek to recommend atheism, but certainly acknowledges clearly the existence of non believers. I think you'd struggle to say the same for the Trinity).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the most basic level, the Trinity is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. That is not too difficult to see in the Bible text.

Do you think that all that is needed to derive truth from the Bible is a good educated and well reasoning mind ?

This has not been my experience. Rather where God gives some light and truth He observes what you will do with that. If you obey then He will grant you some more truth and light.

He says to him who has will more be given. But to him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. If you receive some light from the pages of the Bible, you should go to God with that little bit of light to see how He would have you act upon it. The positive response toward Him will result in FURTHER light from the Bible being granted to you.

It is not just dependent upon how clever or nimble your intellect is.
The response of your conscience is crucial because God is into changing us.


Feel free to retract the question.
---------------------------------------------

That is generous. However, this is what I would advise. If I were you, AND I were seeking the truth, I would pray and ask God something like this:

"God, if You have given me something of truth, remind me this week just what it is that You gave me. I want to respond to THAT. In case you have MORE You want to give me, God, show me one little way in which I may cooperate with You.

And God, if You have taken away the little bit that I had, I ask your mercy to entrust it to me again."

Originally posted by chaney3
Would you have agreed with Ghost if he used the word Godhead, instead of Trinity?

His post would not have made much sense if he had.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] Quite a considerable amount.
-----------------------------------------------

You seemed to be concerned suddenly about what and what not the text of the Bible supports. So if you are concerned about that, I would ask you to consider God's very existence is probably the first thing strongly upheld in the text of the Bible.
...[text shortened]... have taken away the little bit that I had, I ask your mercy to entrust it to me again." [/quote][/b]

It's not in the Bible sonship. The word doesn't even appear, let alone with the fake authority of the capitalised T that you use. It's not in there, anywhere. Nor is the phrase "eternal son" by the way.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] Quite a considerable amount.
-----------------------------------------------

You seemed to be concerned suddenly about what and what not the text of the Bible supports. So if you are concerned about that, I would ask you to consider God's very existence is probably the first thing strongly upheld in the text of the Bible.
...[text shortened]... have taken away the little bit that I had, I ask your mercy to entrust it to me again." [/quote][/b]

God has already changed a lot of people. There are some however, like you, who are are not actually a changed person, and still stuck on talking about being changed. You have been talking this talk for over ten yrs now and who knows how long before that, and who knows how long you will continue this same talk. Paul advised Christian saints to move ahead from talk about Christ and move to righteousness because those who just talk are babes and are not skilled in the ways of righteousness and good .works.

Originally posted by divegeester
His post would not have made much sense if he had.

Why would his post not have made sense if he chose the word/belief of Godhead?

It is YOUR interpretation of Biblical text that has you believing in Godhead AND rejecting Trinity.

Originally posted by chaney3
Why would his post not have made sense if he chose the word/belief of Godhead?

It is YOUR interpretation of Biblical text that has you believing in Godhead AND rejecting Trinity.

Acts 17:29 (KJV)

'Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.'

Can you provide biblical reference to the trinity?

Originally posted by chaney3
Why would his post not have made sense if he chose the word/belief of Godhead?

It is YOUR interpretation of Biblical text that has you believing in Godhead AND rejecting Trinity.

Godhead is just a term for sovereign entity of god himself. Trinity is an attempt at dividing that godhead into three. The word "Godhead" is not a teaching or doctrine.