Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:I honestly can't tell if you're a very smart child or an arrogant fool.

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:I honestly can't tell if you're a very smart child or an arrogant fool.

and whether you realize it or not, or care even if you do, notice that you are sliding further and further into antichrist here, now suggesting that i am a fool, when all i ever did was ask for an honest witness of the fruit, a very Scriptural concept, that was of course attacked from every angle possible.

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:I honestly can't tell if you're a very smart child or an arrogant fool.

and whether you realize it or not, or care even if you do, notice that you are sliding further and further into antichrist here, now suggesting that i am a fool, when all i ever did was ask for an honest witness of the fruit, a very Scriptural concept, that was of course attacked from every angle possible.

Jac3510 wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:I honestly can't tell if you're a very smart child or an arrogant fool.

and whether you realize it or not, or care even if you do, notice that you are sliding further and further into antichrist here, now suggesting that i am a fool, when all i ever did was ask for an honest witness of the fruit, a very Scriptural concept, that was of course attacked from every angle possible.

Byblos, I think you owe birdman here an apology. It is simply inappropriate to suggest that he is a fool. Jesus says let our yes be yes and our no be no. He also says to tell the truth. So suggesting he's a fool would be unbiblical.

Nah. Just say it. He's a fool. Now that's a scriptural concept.

I actually haven't read one of his posts in forever. I know he's arguing against the trinity. Did I catch him right saying that Jesus was the Christ but isn't anymore because the church is? I saw something to that effect but could bring myself to try to understand the post. Unlike Rickybobby, I don't have a bowl handy to help with the pain. All I could think of was this:



I'M ONLY KIDDING!!!

Everyone's not dumber. That would just be mean. I'm not dumber.

ok maybe im kidding a little

Byblos wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:I honestly can't tell if you're a very smart child or an arrogant fool.

and whether you realize it or not, or care even if you do, notice that you are sliding further and further into antichrist here, now suggesting that i am a fool, when all i ever did was ask for an honest witness of the fruit, a very Scriptural concept, that was of course attacked from every angle possible.

Byblos, I think you owe birdman here an apology. It is simply inappropriate to suggest that he is a fool. Jesus says let our yes be yes and our no be no. He also says to tell the truth. So suggesting he's a fool would be unbiblical.

Nah. Just say it. He's a fool. Now that's a scriptural concept.

I actually haven't read one of his posts in forever. I know he's arguing against the trinity. Did I catch him right saying that Jesus was the Christ but isn't anymore because the church is? I saw something to that effect but could bring myself to try to understand the post. Unlike Rickybobby, I don't have a bowl handy to help with the pain. All I could think of was this:



I'M ONLY KIDDING!!!

Everyone's not dumber. That would just be mean. I'm not dumber.

ok maybe im kidding a little

I only wish I knew what his argument was. How could I? He can't even articulate it coherently. I only hear about fruits. Now I'm in the mood for an apple, from DC. I wonder if I'll need a passport to go there.

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:I honestly can't tell if you're a very smart child or an arrogant fool.

and whether you realize it or not, or care even if you do, notice that you are sliding further and further into antichrist here, now suggesting that i am a fool, when all i ever did was ask for an honest witness of the fruit, a very Scriptural concept, that was of course attacked from every angle possible.

I promise to buy you a fruit basket every week for a year if you proimse to never mention fruit again and start producing some semblance of a defense for your position. I won't hold my breath.

RickD wrote:Again, for the benefit of those following along, bbyrd is asking for the fruit of the doctrine of the Trinity.

And he claims it's biblical to look for fruit of this doctrine, even after he was shown that his "biblical " argument, was about the fruit of false teachers. And the fruit that the false teachers produce, is their false doctrine. Keep that in mind. Bbyrd is using scripture that talks about doctrine as the fruit, and he's trying to use that as a basis for fruit of the Trinity.

So, essentially when taking scripture out of context, bbyrd is literally looking for the doctrine of a doctrine.

Confused yet?

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:I honestly can't tell if you're a very smart child or an arrogant fool.

and whether you realize it or not, or care even if you do, notice that you are sliding further and further into antichrist here, now suggesting that i am a fool, when all i ever did was ask for an honest witness of the fruit, a very Scriptural concept, that was of course attacked from every angle possible.

I promise to buy you a fruit basket every week for a year if you proimse to never mention fruit again and start producing some semblance of a defense for your position. I won't hold my breath.

ha, now you are making promises? look, absent some other mention of the benefits of the doctrine, which is what sane people use to judge a concept by, i am not interested in your characterization where you imagine that you are holding some high ground that has not been demonstrated, when in fact the reverse is what has got you all hot and bothered, ok? You might reflect on this being so personally invested in such an amorphous doctrine, or any doctrine of men, for that matter, which can only damage your faith in the end; how can you come to believe all things, with this perspective? You cannot. Have a good evening.

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:nice. Can't disagree. Even a Muslim would be agreeable to this; which i believe is the rub, if i am not mistaken.

Unless You are Muslim -- Why do you bring up Muslims -- there's no 'rub' intended.

i bring up Muslims because a prevailing Christian pov is that they are all lost, even though they satisfy the requirements of the Bible, and since they do not hold with the common conception of Trinity, even if they would also accept a Trinitarian who manifested Christ--if that is even possible, i don't know--as a brother, the rub becomes apparent in the condemnation of a nation whose Book requires that an adherent "follow Christ or be doomed" (in one translation of "the Heifer;" et al), and the rub also becomes intended, when it is shown that Christ Himself does not testify to this Trinity concept, and in fact testifies quite a bit to the contrary, like, almost every time He opens His mouth, but regardless, the point being Trinity is hardly a settled issue, even among Christians, who are also being rubbed, yet Trinity is harnessed to divide and exclude other believers, even if the symbology does not present to you that way because you have a good heart.

Seriously, it is high time you put up or shut up. Present your case biblically as well as logically against the trinity and let's see what you've got. And don't give me this mumbo-jumbo talk about you accepting the trinity as it is clear that you don't.

seriously, go find a minion to order around, as the ball is in your court, to somehow attempt some fabricated, ridiculous denial of the harness of the trinity doctrine, when the fruit is only too apparent, my brother. Unless you can witness some other, good-tasting fruit? That my understanding of trinity is not already providing? ty

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Seriously, it is high time you put up or shut up. Present your case biblically as well as logically against the trinity and let's see what you've got. And don't give me this mumbo-jumbo talk about you accepting the trinity as it is clear that you don't.

so now, put up or shut up yourself; what is your reaction to the trinity that you pledge allegiance to, that i mentioned, and even showed you a flag for, those people in Wash DC that are not even a legal part of your country, what is your response to that, since you haven't bothered yet, and since that is the real one, the one with a flag of its own, the one you pledge allegiance to, yes? Present me your Biblical case for that one lol.

"Why do you call Me good? No one is good except the Father."

I honestly can't tell if you're a very smart child or an arrogant fool. You came to our house, you need to play by our rules so you first. Enough with talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Byblos, the subject is done, ok, and if Christ Himself does not persuade you, by His own mouth, then understand that i am not interested in continuing to manifest the only fruit of trinity doctrine that we have been able to discern on this thread--at least so far--with you, ok? I honestly can't tell if you are an idiot, or just truly deluded here (did i do that right?), imagining that there is no fruit, and then, when that becomes manifestly ridiculous, still neglecting to provide witness of any? Or acknowledge that we are manifesting its fruit right now?

So you can correctly be characterized as denying the fruit of an imaginary doctrine, while simultaneously pledging allegiance to another trinity that you enjoy the fruits of every day, but refuse to acknowledge the nature of, also, and would not see even if i brought the flag here again, and led you to links that verify that Washington DC is not legally a part of the US, which might seem like a different subject, but one is manifesting the other, the spiritual misunderstanding, developed for the express purpose of dividing and excluding, manifests the physical trinity, which is also not of this world, that you also pledge allegiance to.

And you have the nerve to characterize me as talking from both sides of my mouth? Do you even know what that means, or did it just sound good as a putdown in your mind? How has my story changed here? If you want to accept some trinity concept that your seeking of God has led you to, i have no problem with that, whether i get it or not. But that is not sufficient, is it? For the obvious reason that the point of the doctrine is to find and label an "us," and a "them," the same as your attempt to characterize everyone here as being behind you somehow, "our house," when they are not, and make me to be a "them," any way you can.

I honestly can't tell if you are a psychopath, or a scared little punk, desperate to justify your position with rhetoric, since the most obvious and simple test for judgement here, the fruit, has now failed you these many times. Why not get real about the earthly trinity, at least we would be talking about something real, that some actual fruit might come out of, rather than about your back-door doctrine to make yourself God?

In other words you got nothin. Got it, thanks.

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:I honestly can't tell if you're a very smart child or an arrogant fool.

and whether you realize it or not, or care even if you do, notice that you are sliding further and further into antichrist here, now suggesting that i am a fool, when all i ever did was ask for an honest witness of the fruit, a very Scriptural concept, that was of course attacked from every angle possible.

I promise to buy you a fruit basket every week for a year if you proimse to never mention fruit again and start producing some semblance of a defense for your position. I won't hold my breath.

ha, now you are making promises? look, absent some other mention of the benefits of the doctrine, which is what sane people use to judge a concept by, i am not interested in your characterization where you imagine that you are holding some high ground that has not been demonstrated, when in fact the reverse is what has got you all hot and bothered, ok? You might reflect on this being so personally invested in such an amorphous doctrine, or any doctrine of men, for that matter, which can only damage your faith in the end; how can you come to believe all things, with this perspective? You cannot. Have a good evening.

Dude you're in way over your head. Run along now.

crochet1949 wrote:...Go to all the world and preach the Gospel.

bbyrd009 wrote:

RickD wrote:Again, for the benefit of those following along, bbyrd is asking for the fruit of the doctrine of the Trinity.

And he claims it's biblical to look for fruit of this doctrine, even after he was shown that his "biblical " argument, was about the fruit of false teachers. And the fruit that the false teachers produce, is their false doctrine. Keep that in mind. Bbyrd is using scripture that talks about doctrine as the fruit, and he's trying to use that as a basis for fruit of the Trinity.

So, essentially when taking scripture out of context, bbyrd is literally looking for the doctrine of a doctrine.

Confused yet?

fine then go with that, ok? If you cannot judge by the results, and you want to characterize me as being a fool for suggesting as much, then fine. I am ok with my concept of trinity, wherein i am called to pick up my cross and follow, and i am the Body of Christ, and hopefully you are satisfied with your understanding of the trinity, too. I don't expect any of you to directly address why that might not be sufficient for you, or your perception of your allegiance to the physical trinity, or any of the other questions that might lead you to truth, that might be uncomfortable for you, ok? By all means consider those rhetorical, and continue on stoning me however you see fit instead.