Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

"In a way that befits His majesty"

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

No

So when you look up at the sky, is God above it?

9 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Firstly, I get it from language, power and knowledge are distinct things. These terms have definitions that are separate from each other.

So when Allah جل جلاله says “I know what is in your heart” He obviously does not intend to say “I am powerful what is in your heart”, and when He says “I am the Possessor of Quwwah (Power, Strength)” He does not intend with these Words “I am the Possessor of Knowledge”.

A number of problems with your response:

You misunderstood my position. My position is not that these terms are identical. Did you not read the part where I explicitly explained why these terms are not synonymous? You probably read it, but because you are a deceiver, you still want to misrepresent my position and act like I think they just mean the same things.

Yes, power and knowledge are distinct in us and thus our conception of these terms are different. But that was not my question. My question was: Where did you get the belief that, in God, power and knowledge are distinct? 

Quote

Well, I guess you’ve already answered that: the Christian Thomas Aquinas.

Nope, this is standard Shi'i theology. For example, Shaykh Muzaffer says in his book which is commonly used in the hawza,:

Quote

Although these attributes hold different meanings and notions, their realities and existence are the same. If these attributes were different in existence—and then they were supposedly eternal and necessary in existence just like His essence—then the Necessary Self-Existent would be plural and the actual Divine Unity would be blunted. Of course, this is in violation of the doctrine of monotheism.

But let me for the sake of argument say that all of us Shia who hold this belief got it from Aquinas lol. So what? Don't commit the genetic fallacy. Why don't you actually address the arguments of Aquinas or the other philosophers who proved that God's attributes of essence must be identical to God? Why are you scared to see your theology crumble? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Nevertheless, he is one of your theologians, considered a member of your sect, a companion of your Imams, and a trustworthy narrator that has been praised. My original point was that the accusation of

Do you believe God is above us, such that if I look towards the sky, God will be there if I keep going up? Also, in a previous discussion you said God's power and knowledge are distinct. Where di

He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is All-Seeing by no visual means. He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is All-Hearing by no hearing means. He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) hears what He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) see

Posted Images

13 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

My position is not that these terms are identical. Did you not read the part where I explicitly explained why these terms are not synonymous? You probably read it, but because you are a deceiver, you still want to misrepresent my position and act like I think they just mean the same things.

Look how you are back peddling now that you have just realized that you’re trapped. It was you who made the distinction between identical and synonymous, affirming that God’s Attributes and Essence are identical but not synonymous. The following are your words:

Quote

Therefore, His hearing just is His sight, which just His knowledge, which are just all identical to Him

See here for example where Aquinas, who holds that all of God's attributes are identical to God, still does not hold that the different terms are synonymous.

Even the philosophers, the ones who prove that God's attributes are all identical to God

Although, God does hear with what He sees, and He sees with what He Hears i.e. His essence. His hearing is His seeing, which are both identical to His knowledge, which are all just identical to Him.

His knowledge (which is identical to God)

You said "identical" at least five times, then accuse me of deception when I say you believe the Attributes are identical to each other! And so when I describe your position as believing God’s Attributes are identical (not synonymous) to each other and to His Essence, you have suddenly accused me of being a deceiver. Where is the deception?

To me, identical and synonymous are identical and synonymous (no pun intended), but even going by your bit of sophistry for now to differentiate these terms, you still affirmed identical while denying synonymous. Then when you realized it will make no difference, you’re still caught, you start accusing me of deception so you can wiggle out of the net!

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

My question was: Where did you get the belief that, in God, power and knowledge are distinct? 

Such a belief is the default, the asl when these Attributes are affirmed for God, as they are affirmed in the Scriptures. The one who makes a claim that is contrary to the default is not necessarily wrong, but the burden of proof is on him to justify such a claim. So it’s futile for you to ask me why I believe in something that is the default. I am in my right to ask you on what basis do you believe these Attributes are identical to each other and to God’s Essence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

Your explanation is strange, because if God simply said “I know what she said” the meaning is not changed according to you and it can still be understood from our human perspective. By saying “I have heard what she said” it appears that God is deliberately creating confusion and controversy as people will naturally understand from this that God has an actual faculty of hearing and not simply that God has knowledge of all that is audible. Needless to say, your theology is often confronted with the dilemma of having to force a far fetched explanation on the Text which doesn’t flow from it naturally.

Is your explanation that God received sound waves or that in order for God to hear, the person must first make a sound? So creation affects God and God hears in a receptive way? 

If God simply said “I know what she said”, the meaning is changed according to my view, because again, the terms 'hears', 'knows' and 'sees' are not synonymous. 

Quote

God is deliberately creating confusion and controversy as people will naturally understand from this that God has an actual faculty of hearing and not simply that God has knowledge of all that is audible. Needless to say, your theology is often confronted with the dilemma of having to force a far fetched explanation on the Text which doesn’t flow from it naturally.

This is your problem. You think that when I say "A man hears" and "God hears", the term hears is being used univocally, in the same sense. Therefore when scripture mentions God hears, that must mean God has a distinct attribute called hearing, which receives sounds, which is different attribute to knowledge and seeing, because all these properties are distinct in us. But as I have already explained, this is not my view. God hears, but doesn't need to receive sound waves and so does not even need anything to exist in order to hear. 

My position is that God has an attribute (faculty, as you put it) of hearing, but His hearing is far more excellent than ours. His hearing just is His knowledge, which just His is essence. 

Our hearing is limited insofar as we need things to make sounds so that sound waves reach us. So, for us to gain knowledge of sounds, we need a distinct attribute of hearing because we are limited. God does have the perfect of hearing, but His hearing is not limited in such a way like ours.

This is not a far fetched interpretation. It should be expected that God's attributes are radically different to ours. Given that God is uncaused, and we are caused, it should be expected that God is different to us in many ways. 

 

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Look how you are back peddling now that you have just realized that you’re trapped. It was you who made the distinction between identical and synonymous, affirming that God’s Attributes and Essence are identical but not synonymous. The following are your words:

You said "identical" at least five times, then accuse me of deception when I say you believe the Attributes are identical to each other! And so when I describe your position as believing God’s Attributes are identical (not synonymous) to each other and to His Essence, you have suddenly accused me of being a deceiver. Where is the deception?

To me, identical and synonymous are identical and synonymous (no pun intended), but even going by your bit of sophistry for now to differentiate these terms, you still affirmed identical while denying synonymous. Then when you realized it will make no difference, you’re still caught, you start accusing me of deception so you can wiggle out of the net!

Yes, you are a deceiver, because you made it seem like I believed that these attributes are synonymous.

The attributes are identical to each other, in God, but they are not synonymous. You did not say this in your post. Instead, you said that I think these "terms" are identical, which implies that I think these terms have no difference in meaning. Which is false, again, they have different meanings. But in God, they are the same. 

So yes, you are a deceiver. I am not back peddling at all. You did not catch me in anything. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

The attributes are identical to each other, in God, but they are not synonymous.

And did I use the word “identical” or “synonymous”?

Once again you are affirming “identical” and denying “synonymous”. Yet when I described your position as saying “identical” you assumed (read my mind) I meant “synonymous” and then unjustly accused me of deception.

I think the audience can decide whether I’m guilty of deception in this matter, or whether you are guilty of making a false accusation, and then when that accusation was exposed, pride disallows you from admitting and forces you to compound your blunder with another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Such a belief is the default, the asl when these Attributes are affirmed for God, as they are affirmed in the Scriptures. The one who makes a claim that is contrary to the default is not necessarily wrong, but the burden of proof is on him to justify such a claim. So it’s futile for you to ask me why I believe in something that is the default. I am in my right to ask you on what basis do you believe these Attributes are identical to each other and to God’s Essence.

No where in scripture does it say that, in God, His power is distinct from his knowledge. 

The asl is not that these attributes are distinct in God. This is only the case for those who believe God has attributes exactly like how we have attributes (those who hold to univocal use of language.)

But why should we go with univocal use? God tells us He is not like creation, and we should expect that He is different to us in many ways as He is uncaused, and we are caused. 

So again, where did you get the belief that in God, His knowledge and power are distinct things which inhere in Him. Go on. Don't run away from the question again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Cherub786 said:

And did I use the word “identical” or “synonymous”?

Once again you are affirming “identical” and denying “synonymous”. Yet when I described your position as saying “identical” you assumed (read my mind) I meant “synonymous” and then unjustly accused me of deception.

I think the audience can decide whether I’m guilty of deception in this matter, or whether you are guilty of making a false accusation, and then when that accusation was exposed, pride disallows you from admitting and forces you to compound your blunder with another.

You said I believe the "terms" are identical. I do not believe the terms are identical. I believe the terms have different meanings. The attributes are identical.

Additionally, you clearly were implying in the post that you think that the terms have different meanings, while I do not. 

Everyone can see how deceitful you were.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

No where in scripture does it say that, in God, His power is distinct from his knowledge. 

Where does it say they are identical?

If things are mentioned with separate meanings, it is the default to assume they are distinct not identical.

Quote

The asl is not that these attributes are distinct in God. This is only the case for those who believe God has attributes exactly like how we have attributes (those who hold to univocal use of language.)

Ironically, it is an example of univocal thinking to imagine that in order to affirm that God’s attributes are “radically different” from human attributes, His attributes must necessarily be identical.

Quote

So again, where did you get the belief that in God, His knowledge and power are distinct things which inhere in Him. Go on. Don't run away from the question again.

Where did you get the belief they are identical?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Cherub786 said:

Where does it say they are identical?

In the narrations of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (a) and from reason, which you lack. I previously presented one to you before.

2 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

If things are mentioned with separate meanings, it is the default to assume they are distinct not identical.

In us, they are distinct. But just because they are distinct in us, where did you get the belief that in God they must also be distinct?

3 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Ironically, it is an example of univocal thinking to imagine that in order to affirm that God’s attributes are “radically different” from human attributes, His attributes must necessarily be identical.

You don't understand what the univocal use of language is. 

Your position is univocal. That because the attributes are distinct in us, they must be distinct in God. 

My position is just because they are distinct in us, does not follow that they are distinct in God. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

Is your explanation that God received sound waves

No

Quote

in order for God to hear, the person must first make a sound? So creation affects God and God hears in a receptive way? 

Yes, our God is a personal God Who interacts with His Creation.

Consult the neutral, secular scholars who study the Scriptures without any preconceived bias or theological perspective. They will all affirm this is the type of God that is taught in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic Scriptures.

Quote

If God simply said “I know what she said”, the meaning is changed according to my view, because again, the terms 'hears', 'knows' and 'sees' are not synonymous. 

Back peddling. Again.

Quote

I would interpret hearing in this verse as God having knowledge of the caller

Now here’s what I find interesting. You specifically interpreted God’s hearing of the woman’s saying as His knowledge of what she said. You said that is from His perspective, but from our perspective, mentioning hearing was for our comprehension. That still doesn’t make sense, because we can also comprehend the idea of God knowing what someone said without Him having to say “I heard what she said”. Nevertheless, let me move forward on this point. Why did you specifically interpret it as God knows what she said, and not God sees what she said, or God powers (?) what she said, or God wills what she said? According to you, from His perspective, all these attributes are identical, one and the same. But you specifically interpreted as knowledge. I would like an explanation for this.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

A belief in omnipresence necessitates place, or more accurately “every place”, for God, and you have affirmed that God is omnipresent, so it follows you apply places to Him, and are in fact guilty of that which you accuse me of.

That's why I was saying He is present but not absent because God is not relative to places, wheres, ins & outs. 

In fact, it is the best way to accept the "La-Makaniyat" of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to believe He is AllPresent. Otherwise you would believe that he is absent from somewhere and present somewhere. Like you believe He is up there, literally sitting on the throne. By this you not only ascribe for Him direction, place but also a body too. 

And other complications would also arise which would make your belief more ridiculous which it really is.

3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

On the contrary, we deny that God is present in such places that are not befitting of His Personal presence.

Please explain what do you mean by "Person" here. If God is not allpresent, it automatically means He is absent. Don't you believe Him as Al-Basir, Al-Sami when you are defecating in toilet? And while you are defecating facing any of the direction, Wajhullah becomes absent for you?

 

وَلِلّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ فَأَيْنَمَا تُوَلُّواْ فَثَمَّ وَجْهُ اللّهِ

3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

We believe God is Holy (Quddus, Subbuh) and Pure (Tayyib). The property of Holiness and Purity of God means it is impossible for Him to be Personally present in places that are impure and unholy.

So by this logic, God cannot create & sustain things which "you understand as najis". Or do you believe that the things which "you understand as najis" are created & sustained by someone else?

Or God is mohtaj (na'uzobillah) of angels  or anyother beings for creating & sustaining things which looks impure & unholy to you? 

3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Likewise, we believe it is not befitting His Majesty for Him to manifest the presence of His Glory Jalal in places that are impure and unholy.

The Quran teaches that when Allah manifests the presence of His Glory in this world, that part of the world cannot persist and is annihilated (Surah 7:143).

Yet you believe that God is Personally present in the sewer معاذ الله in stark contrast to what the Quran teaches.

Good example, lets take the same case, was God absent while Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) was talking to Him and asking Him that He want to see Him? Do you understand He was not present there and then suddenly came from somewhere and tried to sit or stand on a mountain which then collapsed? 

This verse is not dictating the absence of God at all. So please stop giving ridiculous interpretations in defense of your false belief. 

وَلَمَّا جَاءَ مُوسَىٰ لِمِيقَاتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ قَالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنْظُرْ إِلَيْكَ ۚ قَالَ لَنْ تَرَانِي وَلَٰكِنِ انْظُرْ إِلَى الْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرَانِي ۚ فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّىٰ رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا وَخَرَّ مُوسَىٰ صَعِقًا ۚ فَلَمَّا أَفَاقَ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ {143}

[Shakir 7:143] And when Musa came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: My Lord! show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee. He said: You cannot (bear to) see Me but look at the mountain, if it remains firm in its place, then will you see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble and Musa fell down in a swoon; then when he recovered, he said: Glory be to Thee, I turn to Thee, and I am the first of the believers.

So if God is not manifesting His "Tajalli", that would means He is absent? 

So interestingly, with this logic the words of God are false (na'uzobillah) where He said:

و هو معكم اين ما كنتم

Why اين ما كنتم is there? And how you understand the معيت of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? 

And the following too:

قَالَ لَا تَخَافَا إِنَّنِي مَعَكُمَا أَسْمَعُ وَأَرَى

20:46 

So He said He is with them, listening & watching them. 

As long as you believe God is listening & watching you whether you are daficating or living in the sewer, how can you deny the معيت of Allah?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

No

 

If you say God doesn't need to receive sound waves, then things don't need to make sounds in order for God to hear them. But then you contradict yourself in your next answer, when you admit that you think God's hearing is receptive i.e. God receives the sound.

3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

our God is a personal God Who interacts with His Creation.

I didn't ask if God was personal, I asked if God's hearing requires that a creature first makes a sound and then God hears the sound that the creature made.

3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Back peddling. Again.

No back peddling, just you misunderstanding. Again.

My position from the start has been: God's attributes are identical to God, but they are not synonymous.

3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Now here’s what I find interesting. You specifically interpreted God’s hearing of the woman’s saying as His knowledge of what she said. You said that is from His perspective, but from our perspective, mentioning hearing was for our comprehension. That still doesn’t make sense, because we can also comprehend the idea of God knowing what someone said without Him having to say “I heard what she said”.

Yes, God could have said He knows what the lady was saying, but then the meaning would have been different. Again the difference in meaning only arises because these properties are distinct in us and thus our conception of them is distinct. Knowing and hearing are different for us, for example, I know what you are discussing with me, but I do not hear what you are discussing with me. I would say that for us, hearing is a type of way to gain knowledge, but knowing something is not limited to hearing it. Therefore, in us, knowing is distinct from hearing. For us to gain knowledge of the sounds an audible thing makes, we must hear it as we must receive the sound waves. So God used the term 'heard' in the verse because for us to gain knowledge of the sounds of audible things — in the case of the verse, the sound of a lady speaking- we hear the sound. If God said He knew what the lady was saying, then from our point of view knowing does not necessarily mean hearing and so knowing doesn't have to be related to sounds. God would just be saying He knows the contents of what the lady was saying, like I know what you are saying to me in this discussion, although I do not hear the sounds you are making.

3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

 Why did you specifically interpret it as God knows what she said, and not God sees what she said, or God powers (?) what she said, or God wills what she said? According to you, from His perspective, all these attributes are identical, one and the same. But you specifically interpreted as knowledge. I would like an explanation for this.

Yes, all the attributes are identical in God, God's hearing is His seeing, which is His knowledge, which is His power, which are all identical to Him. But they are not synonyms. They are our different finite points of view in signifying one and the same thing.

The reason I interpreted the verse as God having knowledge, is because for us having knowledge of the sounds audible things make comes from a distinct attribute, hearing. The attribute in us of hearing is thus related to our knowing, as it is the way for us to have knowledge of the sounds an audible thing makes. The attribute of power and seeing in us has nothing to do with sounds.

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
5 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

 

5 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

A gross misrepresentation of our theology. On the contrary, it is quite evident that this is your belief, that if it is affirmed Allah hears He must have ears, and if it is affirmed He speaks, He must have a tongue. So you are projecting your own psychology and anthropotheistic tendency on us, quite unjustly if I may say so.

Now it is quite evident who the real anthropotheist and literalist is. You are unable to conceive of the faculties of sight, hearing, and speech without corporeality, limbs, physicality, etc. But we can conceive of these faculties as not involving or necessitating such things. This goes to show that your mind is limited.

Hahaha. Thats so funny. You must have forgotten my earlier comments about your belief and my belief. 

The purpose of this topic is the salafi belief in a " in a human-like God ". Clearly, as shias we do not believe as such. You are countering our belief meaning you believe in a physical God - limbs, organs, eyes, ears, tongue, etc.

 

5 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

But we follow the moderate, true path, affirming that God does hear, see and speak, which is clearly evident in the Quran, while not affirming limbs and organs for God.

If that is your stance, then why are we on page 4 of this discussion about the salafi belief in a physical God?

Looks to me that between Page 1 and Page 3-4, you have altered your beliefs and now will preach to us about God not having limbs and organs. Can you confirm if Allah has all 5 senses? Additional senses?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
23 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Okay, so you deny God speaks.

When Allah condemns the Israelites for having worshiped the golden calf, why did He say:

اَلَمۡ یَرَوۡا اَنَّہٗ لَا یُکَلِّمُہُمۡ

Did they not see that it spoke not to them

(7:148)

Why did Allah criticize them for worshiping a “god” that can’t speak, but according to you, God isn’t suppose to speak, as speech is a defect and “anthropomorphic” quality not befitting for God?

Next question; When father Abraham عليه السلام broke the idols, leaving the largest one untouched, and they asked him what happened, why did he say to them:

کَبِیۡرُہُمۡ ہٰذَا فَسۡـَٔلُوۡہُمۡ اِنۡ کَانُوۡا یَنۡطِقُوۡنَ

Here is their chief (idol). But ask them if they can speak

(21:63)

And consider their their answer:

ثُمَّ نُکِسُوۡا عَلٰی رُءُوۡسِہِمۡ ۚ لَقَدۡ عَلِمۡتَ مَا ہٰۤؤُلَآءِ یَنۡطِقُوۡنَ

And their heads were made to hang low for shame and they said, ‘Certainly thou knowest well that these do not speak.’

(21:65)

Why were they ashamed their gods can’t speak? According to you, they should be proud, because according to you speech isn’t a worthy attribute of God, it is a defect and “anthropomorphic”.

Finally, let me ask you, why did Abraham say to them when they told him their “gods” can’t speak:

قَالَ اَفَتَعۡبُدُوۡنَ مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ مَا لَا یَنۡفَعُکُمۡ شَیۡئًا وَّ لَا یَضُرُّکُمۡ

He said, ‘Do you then worship instead of Allah that which cannot profit you at all, nor harm you?

اُفٍّ لَّکُمۡ وَ لِمَا تَعۡبُدُوۡنَ مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ ؕ اَفَلَا تَعۡقِلُوۡنَ

Fie on you and on that which you worship instead of Allah! Will you not then understand?’

(21:66-67)

So according to Abraham, if a god can’t speak he’s not worthy of being worshiped.

The imaginary god you worship who can’t speak is like these idols that are condemned in the Quran precisely because they are unable to speak.

Sorry, I missed this...

Before I answer though, can you confirm you belief Allah actually spoke to these people - booming voice'n'all?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Actually, I don’t say God is a body or has a body.

Hmm, yet you have written on your webpage "literally sitting upon throne"

Quote

So I believe that Allah Most High occupies the Throne, it is filled with His Glory, and His Presence dwells there. He is settled upon it, and it may be said that He is sitting upon it

Not only that, you believe coming & going of your God too:

Quote
Among the divine attributes of Allah Most High are:
الإتيان والمجيء
al-Ityān wal-Majī
These are attributes of activity or صفات الفعلية and they basically mean that Allah comes, as He says:
 
هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّآ أَن يَأْتِيَهُمُ ٱللهُ
Do they wait but that Allah should come to them
(Surah 2:210)
 
وَجَآءَ رَبُّكَ
Your Lord has come
(Surah 89:22)

And here you are not thinking that what would happen if He manifest His tajalli to the place where you alleged His coming. 

:hahaha: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

On the contrary, it is quite evident that this is your belief,

 We have shown u Hadiths that refute ur weak arguments and imam Ali has explained Tawheed to us once gain ur on nothing but just weak arguments and you once again keep on shooting urself if ur God somewhere then he has some type form and has a place which shows how delusional you are by saying you also agree with 2 chronicles 2:5 and 6:18. 

Edited by THREE1THREE
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I think the audience can decide whether I’m guilty of deception in this matter,

Yes you are in such discussions you have to be elaborate and not try to play games as you have been doing so far. 

Edited by THREE1THREE
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...