(27-03-2024, 05:58 PM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]The Catholics claim that I cannot use that analogy?? but my denomination is Lutheran..nothing to do with the Catholics.
If you lay in support for their claim..surely you also believe in the Trinity. 
Nothing to reconcile with that statement that "Jesus god in the flesh said the Father is the only true god
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-in-the-flesh.html
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I took that article from a Catholic site but it is not just a Catholic thing. That heresy first appeared in the 2nd century.
There are many heresies in Christendom. When it comes to the Trinity, the harder you try to explain it, the more heresy you will be committing, as demonstrated by you when you tried to explain the Trinity using the h2o analogy.
(27-03-2024, 06:12 PM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]In case you are lazy to read
In John 14:9-10, Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."
I'm still looking for a good explanation as to why the authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke didn't report those important statements of Jesus.
(27-03-2024, 06:51 PM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]I don want to go in circles anymore my friend. You believe in the trinity or not doesn't bother me.. I am tired, pls spare me. But if you want to continue, make no mistake that I will unleash the kung-fu master Oyk without hesitation
His kung-fu is real.
Ok friend.
I won't give you more headaches, for now.
Let's hope OYK will pick up the baton.
(27-03-2024, 10:55 PM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry for the misunderstanding. I took that article from a Catholic site but it is not just a Catholic thing. That heresy first appeared in the 2nd century.
There are many heresies in Christendom. When it comes to the Trinity, the harder you try to explain it, the more heresy you will be committing, as demonstrated by you when you tried to explain the Trinity using the h2o analogy.
Hey no need to apologise my friend....I'm just trying to put it as simple as possible with my understanding but of cos my analogy cannot be the correct one!
(27-03-2024, 11:11 PM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]Hey no need to apologise my friend....I'm just trying to put it as simple as possible with my understanding but of cos my analogy cannot be the correct one!
Feel free to question me about my faith, just like how I question your faith.
(27-03-2024, 11:03 PM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]Ok friend.
I won't give you more headaches, for now.
Let's hope OYK will pick up the baton.
This kung-fu master has vast knowledge that far exceeded his young age...
You will be in good hands.
An engrossing debate I must say, one that's hard to disengage from. There's a lot of heat but some seem to be at their best when the heat is on. I believe most of you discussing theological issues here have an unshakable belief in your own faith and would not let anyone sway you or convert you to their way of thinking. It's just so you are irked by the vulgarization of your sacred texts which you consider a sacrilegious act even if it is done civilly.
Now will anyone be helping police with their inquiries? Not likely I think, unless a sacrilege has gone overboard and a police report has been made. I feel that it's difficult to put an accurate interpretation on blasphemy. Comments that could be construed as blasphemous include trying to point out the "inaccuracies" or "fallacies" of popularly held beliefs, preaching dangerous heresies and of course the more clear-cut blatant mockery of sacredly held beliefs. A case in point is pastor Ronny Tan of Lighthouse Evangelist. He referred disparagingly to Taoism as idolatrous worship that would incur God's wrath, and he went on to urge the congregation he was preaching to to dismantle any Taoist altar they might have. It was big news. He was then condemned by the public for uttering blasphemies and was taken to task.
Our forum resident OYK's case wasn't so clear-cut to many. For him, it was an article of faith that Mohammed and Buddha need Jesus to be saved from sin and evil. His laconic remark was based on the biblical premise that all mortals are sinful and need salvation through Christ Jesus. Both Mohammed and Buddha are no exception since both are members of Homo sapiens. In no way was he disparaging other's faith. For that he was put to a vote, and was voted by his many detractors as having committed blasphemy - an expectable reaction.
(27-03-2024, 11:19 PM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]Feel free to question me about my faith, just like how I question your faith.
Sure..every now and then we can discuss these matters.
(27-03-2024, 11:23 PM)S I M T A N Wrote: [ -> ]An engrossing debate I must say, one that's hard to disengage from. There's a lot of heat but some seem to be at their best when the heat is on. I believe most of you discussing theological issues here have an unshakable belief in your own faith and would not let anyone sway you or convert you to their way of thinking. It's just so you are irked by the vulgarization of your sacred texts which you consider a sacrilegious act even if it is done civilly.
Now will anyone be helping police with their inquiries? Not likely I think, unless a sacrilege has gone overboard and a police report has been made. I feel that it's difficult to put an accurate interpretation on blasphemy. Comments that could be construed as blasphemous include trying to point out the "inaccuracies" or "fallacies" of popularly held beliefs, preaching dangerous heresies and of course the more clear-cut blatant mockery of sacredly held beliefs. A case in point is pastor Ronny Tan of Lighthouse Evangelist. He referred disparagingly to Taoism as idolatrous worship that would incur God's wrath, and he went on to urge the congregation he was preaching to to dismantle any Taoist altar they might have. It was big news. He was then condemned by the public for uttering blasphemies and was taken to task.
Our forum resident OYK's case wasn't so clear-cut to many. For him, it was an article of faith that Mohammed and Buddha need Jesus to be saved from sin and evil. His laconic remark was based on the biblical premise that all mortals are sinful and need salvation through Christ Jesus. Both Mohammed and Buddha are no exception since both are members of Homo sapiens. In no way was he disparaging other's faith. For that he was put to a vote, and was voted by his many detractors as having committed blasphemy - an expectable reaction.
Alamak..my number 1 kung-fu master was put to the sword..
Sing hallelujah to the Lord! Sing hallelujah to the Lord!
(27-03-2024, 11:23 PM)S I M T A N Wrote: [ -> ]An engrossing debate I must say, one that's hard to disengage from. There's a lot of heat but some seem to be at their best when the heat is on. I believe most of you discussing theological issues here have an unshakable belief in your own faith and would not let anyone sway you or convert you to their way of thinking. It's just so you are irked by the vulgarization of your sacred texts which you consider a sacrilegious act even if it is done civilly.
Now will anyone be helping police with their inquiries? Not likely I think, unless a sacrilege has gone overboard and a police report has been made. I feel that it's difficult to put an accurate interpretation on blasphemy. Comments that could be construed as blasphemous include trying to point out the "inaccuracies" or "fallacies" of popularly held beliefs, preaching dangerous heresies and of course the more clear-cut blatant mockery of sacredly held beliefs. A case in point is pastor Ronny Tan of Lighthouse Evangelist. He referred disparagingly to Taoism as idolatrous worship that would incur God's wrath, and he went on to urge the congregation he was preaching to to dismantle any Taoist altar they might have. It was big news. He was then condemned by the public for uttering blasphemies and was taken to task.
Our forum resident OYK's case wasn't so clear-cut to many. For him, it was an article of faith that Mohammed and Buddha need Jesus to be saved from sin and evil. His laconic remark was based on the biblical premise that all mortals are sinful and need salvation through Christ Jesus. Both Mohammed and Buddha are no exception since both are members of Homo sapiens. In no way was he disparaging other's faith. For that he was put to a vote, and was voted by his many detractors as having committed blasphemy - an expectable reaction.
I'd like to vote on OYK's case. His belief with regard to our prophet is not offensive nor blasphemous to me, especially if he sincerely believes it but we cannot check on sincerity. He has a God-given right to believe what he wants to believe.
(27-03-2024, 11:23 PM)S I M T A N Wrote: [ -> ]An engrossing debate I must say, one that's hard to disengage from. There's a lot of heat but some seem to be at their best when the heat is on. I believe most of you discussing theological issues here have an unshakable belief in your own faith and would not let anyone sway you or convert you to their way of thinking. It's just so you are irked by the vulgarization of your sacred texts which you consider a sacrilegious act even if it is done civilly.
Now will anyone be helping police with their inquiries? Not likely I think, unless a sacrilege has gone overboard and a police report has been made. I feel that it's difficult to put an accurate interpretation on blasphemy. Comments that could be construed as blasphemous include trying to point out the "inaccuracies" or "fallacies" of popularly held beliefs, preaching dangerous heresies and of course the more clear-cut blatant mockery of sacredly held beliefs. A case in point is pastor Ronny Tan of Lighthouse Evangelist. He referred disparagingly to Taoism as idolatrous worship that would incur God's wrath, and he went on to urge the congregation he was preaching to to dismantle any Taoist altar they might have. It was big news. He was then condemned by the public for uttering blasphemies and was taken to task.
Our forum resident OYK's case wasn't so clear-cut to many. For him, it was an article of faith that Mohammed and Buddha need Jesus to be saved from sin and evil. His laconic remark was based on the biblical premise that all mortals are sinful and need salvation through Christ Jesus. Both Mohammed and Buddha are no exception since both are members of Homo sapiens. In no way was he disparaging other's faith. For that he was put to a vote, and was voted by his many detractors as having committed blasphemy - an expectable reaction.
Not by many detractors
It's by a few members with several user ids aka clones here.
Incidentally, someone just caught Bastardlor2 with his panty down when he started a thread and then posted with another user id and forgot to tuck his tail in.
(27-03-2024, 11:23 PM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]Sure..every now and then we can discuss these matters.
Don't go down that road because you will slip very quickly into a trap. As an open forum, you'd never know who clicks on this www, and lodge a report about your comments.
We Christians are a very forgiving peepur. If you blaspheme the Holy Spirit, call Jesus a prophet, or draw graffiti on an image of Him using software, we just pray for you knowing that God is merciful and long-suffering and He will give you time to repent. Better still is that day, if it does come, when you surrender yourself to Christ.
That bugger knows that. He knows we will not report him to the authorities. He takes that to be a license for him to mock and taunt. He read up a bit, and use his evil "knowledge" to bully others online.
He had so many quarrels at (it's at and not with) Christians who kept calling him "My friend" out of fear, and not "My brother" out of a clear understanding that Christians are brothers in Christ, while that bugger is not in Christ but in someone else.
If you take up his challenge to debate Islam and Muhammad.... and someone...an online reader....may report you to the authorities.
Miriam sister of Moses who spake against Moses and what happened to her?
Why Jesus asked his disciples to baptize Christians in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit?
(28-03-2024, 08:35 AM)Oyk Wrote: [ -> ]Don't go down that road because you will slip very quickly into a trap. As an open forum, you'd never know who clicks on this www, and lodge a report about your comments.
We Christians are a very forgiving peepur. If you blaspheme the Holy Spirit, call Jesus a prophet, or draw graffiti on an image of Him using software, we just pray for you knowing that God is merciful and long-suffering and He will give you time to repent. Better still is that day, if it does come, when you surrender yourself to Christ.
That bugger knows that. He knows we will not report him to the authorities. He takes that to be a license for him to mock and taunt. He read up a bit, and use his evil "knowledge" to bully others online.
He had so many quarrels at (it's at and not with) Christians who kept calling him "My friend" out of fear, and not "My brother" out of a clear understanding that Christians are brothers in Christ, while that bugger is not in Christ but in someone else.
If you take up his challenge to debate Islam and Muhammad.... and someone...an online reader....may report you to the authorities.
Right! Paging for Thread starter VictorTan !! Paging for ah Tan!! Please delete this gay thread as it has reached the end of its shelf life...
Please delete so that no one will need to go drink kopi with the authorities.
Please keep the pussy cat Oyk safe...you know he's just been resurrected..Don want him to be put to a vote again
(28-03-2024, 09:09 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]Right! Paging for Thread starter VictorTan !! Paging for ah Tan!! Please delete this gay thread as it has reached the end of its shelf life...
Please delete so that no one will need to go drink kopi with the authorities.
Please keep the pussy cat Oyk safe...you know he's just been resurrected..Don want him to be put to a vote again
Yap please delete the dangerous thread that pachik uses it to bait Christians.
No see Ali online....he kena tangkap by the authorities already ah?
(28-03-2024, 11:35 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]No see Ali online....he kena tangkap by the authorities already ah?
He has No more questions to ask only merry go round,giddy faint Liao.
Time to go ..
(28-03-2024, 08:35 AM)Oyk Wrote: [ -> ]Don't go down that road because you will slip very quickly into a trap. As an open forum, you'd never know who clicks on this www, and lodge a report about your comments.
We Christians are a very forgiving peepur. If you blaspheme the Holy Spirit, call Jesus a prophet, or draw graffiti on an image of Him using software, we just pray for you knowing that God is merciful and long-suffering and He will give you time to repent. Better still is that day, if it does come, when you surrender yourself to Christ.
That bugger knows that. He knows we will not report him to the authorities. He takes that to be a license for him to mock and taunt. He read up a bit, and use his evil "knowledge" to bully others online.
He had so many quarrels at (it's at and not with) Christians who kept calling him "My friend" out of fear, and not "My brother" out of a clear understanding that Christians are brothers in Christ, while that bugger is not in Christ but in someone else.
If you take up his challenge to debate Islam and Muhammad.... and someone...an online reader....may report you to the authorities.
Ok. Go away then. Leave this thread. I have no interest in quarreling with you coz you're a pigeon.
(28-03-2024, 11:35 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]No see Ali online....he kena tangkap by the authorities already ah?
I'm sure you're disappointed that OYK won't have a discourse with me.
I'm hoping to have a discourse with a learned Christian too but I guess OYK is not one of them.
Elisha went up from there to Bethel. While he was on his way, young juveniles* came out from the city and mocked him, saying, ‘Go up, bald-head! Go up, bald-head!’ When he turned back and saw them, he cursed them in the name of YHWH. Then two female bears came out from the forest and what happened?
”Saying, Touch not mine anointed, And do my prophets no harm.“
Psalm 105:15 KJV
(28-03-2024, 11:50 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure you're disappointed that OYK won't have a discourse with me.
I'm hoping to have a discourse with a learned Christian too but I guess OYK is not one of them.
Yeah..looks like he is finished!
(28-03-2024, 11:45 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. Go away then. Leave this thread. I have no interest in quarreling with you coz you're a pigeon.
I love to eat roast pigeon...some say it is better than chicken
(28-03-2024, 12:11 PM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]I love to eat roast pigeon...some say it is better than chicken
I don't think I've eaten a pigeon.
I have tried quail though and it's quite nice.
I don't like ducks which is a favorite in east java. I spent a lot of time there but never developed the taste for ducks.
(28-03-2024, 12:11 PM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]I love to eat roast pigeon...some say it is better than chicken
(28-03-2024, 12:17 PM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think I've eaten a pigeon.
I have tried quail though and it's quite nice.
I don't like ducks which is a favorite in east java. I spent a lot of time there but never developed the taste for ducks.
I had eaten quails before in KL lah!
![[Image: IMG-20220831-WA0012.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/C2KPs42/IMG-20220831-WA0012.jpg)
![[Image: IMG-20230210-WA0001.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/gFKXH85/IMG-20230210-WA0001.jpg)