Christmas Star Explained

Sorry you missed it. I haven't had a problem with the starship bumping into The Babel Heaven for many posts now. It was cleared up when you said that it became non semi-solid several posts ago. It just took an absurd amount of posts for enough clarity to be sure of your position. Because this Heaven is a complete unknown in your story. It was certainly around at the time of the starship. Unless you are saying it was created after Jesus' birth and then upgraded shortly after his death. How can I be sure that its not relative when you refuse to give its location, height, etc? Why not? You haven't objected to examination of your story until I reached this portion of it. This mystery Heaven is much more intriguing than all the other Heavens combined! I got the other ones once you finally decided to clarify. Need I quote again that the frog story was created for the purpose of placating your need for me to have an alternate story? Its not a belief, its a story. Keep repeating it though, it does add a lot to your side of the debate. No you didn't. You did specify that the Babel Heaven was 2-3000 feet above the ground, de-natured in the time of Peleg, previously semi-solid in nature, and had the ability to grant eternal life to anyone who could climb up to it. THAT is the specifics that I am curious about, sadly it took so many posts to get to that point but we made it! The mysterious Heaven V2 has not been clarified.Being that it is unclarified I am unable to decide if this Heaven is in conflict with any other portion of your story. Its attributes appear to only be "seperate" and possibly "spiritual". The longer you avoid answering these questions the more curious I become, this Heaven really sounds like reading material. The other Heavens have attributes that can be specified but this one cannot? I can accept that if that is the position you wish to present. Its not that I don't get your position, it just takes so long to get there. We are making progress, just this last speedbump and I think your story is fleshed out. Sure I can. You said it right here: *Emphasis added.Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Are you trying to say now that Jesus build something 4400 years before he was born? I was comfortable with your old version, but this new one is simply bizarre. If you arent saying that, then clarify what Heaven you are talking about. You had said: See the problem yet? Perhaps now you can understand why I stress the need for terms that you will use consistantly for the duration of this thread?Babel Heaven (4400 years ago) --> Mystery Heaven V2 ---> New JersualemThis is how you have presented the timeline from the onset of this discussion. Now, as I have shown in the quote, you have changed the timeline in such a way as to make everything fall apart. Its not good for the story. Correct. I am reading your interpretation that you have attempted to say is fact. I am debating your interpretation because I think you have pulled it out of your ass. I am not presenting/debating/discussing/preaching my interpretation because I am not presenting it as fact. At this point I see your interpretation as having just as much to do with reality as purple frogs. We are both able to pull stories out of our ass, I however do not pretend mine to represent reality. Do you need further clarification on my position? I have said why I am unable to percieve the answers. I don't understand why discussing one version of Heaven is suddenly off topic while all the others did not merrit the same fate. I suspect that its because this version may have gotten in the way of your starship so its best to just rule the whole mess off topic. No need then to specify its location or elevation then is it! Its a cheap victory, but a victory non the less right? Us? Your a plural now? Almost done yea. Just these last little bits that I expect to take 20 or 30 posts for you to address. I don't know about happy though, somewhat drawn out by the absurdity of repeating things so many times. We are up to six on the attributes of V2 I believe. Great - What are the attributes of the Heaven that Jesus ascended to after his death? How high up was it? Was it semi-solid or totally spiritual? I am trying to, answer the questions. You ruled out Babel though clarity in its attributes, why the reluctance to do the same with V2? ( The Heaven that jesus ascended to after his death, and not the one he created after he got there)

Yup, try as I might its difficult to remain coherant with my brains leaking out but thanks for expressing concern. Sure that works for me. Its then nothing like the Heaven at the time of Babel but more like the New Jerusalem that came shortly after. No thanks, your desription is adequate. Thats correct, so may I suggest you refrain from calling it a "belief"? You may lead readers to believe that you actually think I created that as a religion and not pure fiction. No need for you to take responsibility, I am not only capable of creating fiction but able to take credit for it. Some are some aren't. If they had been all the same or had not changed in some form then I would not be asking. Unless you are suggesting at this point in the thread that they all shared the same qualities throughout history and your previous claims are false?I have not stated my beliefs. Unless you mean that part where I said I thought you pulled this whole story out of your ass? Yea, I believe that - but its not like a religion for me. Again?! Here goes: I know that, I even bolded that statement from your original quote from the other thread. I have stated it repeatedly and made great leaps for you to not confuse the Heaven Jesus created with the Heaven he ascended too in the discussion - that was the whole reason for me creating the term "Version 2" as a means to sepparate them in the discussion and reduce the confusion, repeated quotes and repeating of the same questions. Now you suggest that I forgot?Now as for the timeline that you have now presented: That just does not mesh with anything you have said in the past.

Pre-Babel Heaven has not been introduced at all in this thread. I challenge you to provide a single quote that even begins to suggest this.

Babel till Jesus went there has now merged two Heavens into one!

​

Babel Version writes:

​

2-3000 feet above the ground, de-natured in the time of Peleg, previously semi-solid in nature, and had the ability to grant eternal life to anyone who could climb up to it.

​

The Heaven that Jesus ascended too writes:

​

Too high for man to reach, beyond the physical, in another dimension, way beyond mans abilities, etc

​

Previously it was:

​

Babel Heaven (4400 years ago) --> Mystery Heaven V2 ---> New Jerusalem

​

We can adjust the chronology to introduce this new Heaven if you wish:

​

Pre-Babel Heaven --> Babel Heaven --> Heaven Jesus ascended to --> New Jerusalem

​

But merging the two heavens is unacceptable. I have been led to believe from the onset of this discussion that these are two different Heavens and I am prepared to show this from your posts and mine. I have questioned you on both versions repeatedly and now you are attempting to suggest they are the same thing? How dare you! This discussion could have been finished 5 pages back had you simply said that they are one in the same.

​

Oh, so YOU call the heaven before NJ v2. Don't blame me. I was clear.

​

So was I, each time I used it as a simpler way of saying "The Heaven that Jesus ascended too after his death.

​

In message 214:

Vacate writes:

​

Message 214
Unless you wish to provide an alternate I would choose to use Heaven V2 from this point on

My first mention of it in Message 192:

Vacate writes:

​

Message 192
at this point I suppose you could state that this Heaven V2 is 14,000 + feet up and I will no longer claim your story is illogical

Also here in Message 236:

Message 236
You have settled to my satisfaction the Heaven that Jesus created after his death once he ascended to the mysterious version two

​

Possibly others, but I am sure I have established that you have no excuse for not understanding that Heaven V2 was MY abreviation for the Heaven that Jesus ascended to after his death and before he created New Jerusalem and not to be confused with Babel Heaven. Even when I make a dedicated attempt to provide clarity to this discussion you make more attepts to confuse. Remember when I said:

​

Further attempts to confuse, switch, or blend these seperate discussions is simply dishonest.

​

I have now established your dishonest tactics again in this thread. This is fast going from dishonesty to outright lies.

​

No, thanks. You admit to reality being a stranger to you.

​

No I didn't. I said that I am debating your interpretation of the bible and weaving a story that you have pulled out of your ass. Thats why I said "At this point I see your interpretation as having just as much to do with reality as purple frogs."

​

I think many already knew that ... Hey, how are the frogs doing??? We care. really.

​

Oh? How many times have you confused a story I made up as something I believe in? I count four times; are you so sure that other readers will miss my point that many times? I have doubts. If the readers express as much concern as you do I will re-visit the fact that I made it up just in case you all forget.

​

I was being overly nice. But when you misuse my good nature, I must lower the boom. I already gave it to you as simple as 1,2,3.

​

Overly nice? Wow, your sleazy debate tactics are what you call nice? Well go ahead and "lower the boom". I have already shown your 1,2,3's as distortion and if you persist I intend to quote each instance where I spoke of these as seperate Heavens and not once did you attempt to correct my misunderstanding. To pretend that a misunderstanding on my part has just come to your attention either shows that you are incapable of holding a converstation or your are deliberately being dishonest.

​

Yes, I am not the only one that reads this stuff. Surprise.

​

It may be foolish to assume that all the readers on this board agree with what you are presenting. If you think that using "we" and "us" has any effect on me that would also be a foolish assumption. Please carry on using this new tactic however, I find it quite funny.

​

That all you got?? Piece of cake.

​

There you go making assumptions about me again. In context though, thanks for finally getting around to answering the question. (Too bad you went and screwed it all up with your dishonest chronology)

​

Give us a break. Pitiful.

​

I have doubts that readers will bother to muddle through this thread to see what I have attempted to show. My banal and repeated questioning did have a greater purpose other than to provide myself with frustration. I have decided at this point to summarize my position.I must first define the terms I intend to use. It has occurred many times that Simple has misunderstood the terms and questions I have raised while using them. For this summary I include the following:

Semi-solid - The combination of both physical and spiritual simultaneously.

De-Natured - The change in state from Semi-solid to totally spiritual. This is in reference to 101 years after the flood when God changed the nature of Heaven at the time of Babel.

Version - The varieties of Heavens presented by simple, they differ either in location or in physical/spiritual characteristics

​

Contradictions?

​

My original stance was that the Heaven at the time of Babel was contradictory to Simples UFO as this particular Heaven was 2-3000 feet above ground but the UFO was 14,000 feet above ground. This appeared contradictory due to what I assumed was a physical Heaven that remained until Jesus created a new one (called New Jerusalem). I claimed that God was best to remain in Heaven and thus be closer to the birth of Jesus than had he remained in his flying saucer.

​

Upon further clarification however this is not the case. The Heaven at the time of Babel was in fact semi-solid in nature and also de-natured before the events took place at the time of Jesus’ birth. No contradiction.

​

Through the conversation however another version of Heaven appeared. The Heaven that Jesus ascended to after his death. This one was a mystery for quite some time, I was unable to know if this heaven was physical or if it existed not only at the time of Jesus death but also at his birth - I was unable to conclude if this was perhaps the contradiction that I had originally seen in the Heaven at the time of Babel Heaven. This was also not the case: This heaven was to be described as too high for man to reach, beyond the physical, in another dimension, way beyond mans abilities, etc (even though Jesus made attempts to show he was still human after his death). Given the nature of this Heaven it is also safe to conclude that it is not in contradiction with Simples story of the UFO.

​

As such I now conclude that there is no contradiction with either of these versions of Heaven that Simple has presented.

​

The Bigger Picture - Occam’s Razor dies a slow death

​

In Simples story he has knowingly or unknowingly brought in the following plot thickeners:

​

Jesus lived at least three times in history. In Sodom, in the garden, and during his more well known years. ( Message 45 of Language and the Tower of Babel)

​

At least four versions of Heaven existed or currently exist throughout history.

​

Version one - Heaven at the time of Babel, This version had the unique attribute of being both physical and spiritual for a short time. It was 2-3000 feet above the ground and if it could be reached it granted eternal life to sinners. This version was short lived and was de-natured 101 years after the flood. ( Message 15 of Language and the Tower of Babel)

​

Version two - The Heaven that Jesus ascended to . This was a purely spiritual realm in a different dimension. It had the unique ability to transport a levitating Jesus from Earth to a distant realm. ( Message 50 of Language and the Tower of Babel)

​

Version three - New Jerusalem This 1500 square mile Heaven was created by Jesus after he ascended to version two. Soon to land on Earth this place is the new location for those that have been saved ( Message 50 of Language and the Tower of Babel)

​

Version four - Paradise under the Earth. The temporary resting place of souls before they had gone to the real Heaven. Currently not in use it seems. ( Message 182 of Christmas Star Explained and Message 208 of Christmas Star Explained)

​

Hell is a real location below the Earth, presumably also below Paradise under the Earth ( Message 50 of Language and the Tower of Babel *note the “non-heavenly spirits under the earth)

​

God is unable to contract a scribe to accurately describe a UFO and thus causing 2000 years of misunderstandings by Christians regarding the events described in the bible about the birth of Jesus

​

God zips around in a physical universe of his creation in a UFO. Unable to view his creation in total he must fly around like teens cruising on a Friday night. Though not stated - the imagery of long hair and sunglasses is unmistakable.

​

The laws of physics that God created are not within a realm of study by humans. These laws are not constant and have changed in the past. The majesty of Gods creation is unknowable.

​

God was unable to predict humans gaining knowledge about the location of Heaven 2-3000 feet above the Earth. Presumably the information was passed on from an angel that married a woman, as the only alternative is God informing them himself which is nonsensical.

​

The results of the discussion have lead me to conclude that Simple has not made contradictory statements regarding the nature of his Heavens being lower than his UFO. He has however managed to created a bumbling godlet unable to make one creation and stick to it. Four Heavens, three Jesus’, shifting laws of physics, and a poorly understood bible have done nothing to show the omnipotence and power that the Christian God is supposed to be.

​

If this thread were meant to be a work of fiction then I would have no issue. Given that simple is trying to assert that what he has written is representative of reality - I feel shame for those that could follow such a trivial religion.

​

Matthew 2:2 writes:

​

Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

​

I think it was a star, because it says so.

​

Edited by Vacate, : Punctuation

Thats fine. I however wanted to use my terms for the purpose of that post thats why I said "I must first define the terms I intend to use." Yes we do. You defined the Heaven at the time of Babel as being both spiritual and physical (thus fitting the definition of my term semi-solid). You stated that it became spiritual during the time of Peleg making it unattainable to tower builders (thus fitting the definition of my term de-natured) No, I suppose it does not. That is why I stated that I no longer see it as a contradiction. I don't wish to draw out the precise attributes of the heaven that Jesus ascended to after his death any more than it already has so I am comfortable with simply calling it spiritual (as I stated within the summary) I simply said "in the garden" because though I suspected you meant the garden of Eden I didn't want to state that and be accused of distorting your position. I will now include "Eden" to stay with your clarification. As for Jesus being around for the start of creation you can add that as another appearance if you wish. Good, that means I don't need to edit as I said "Not currently in use" Thats fine also, but we can conclude that it was not semi-solid it nature due to people being unable to walk up mountains and gain eternal life. This was only possible during the time of Babel and was changed as you stated in this thread. It must not share the same attributes because the mountains in your story formed during the time of Babel (or thereabouts) so obviously pre-date the timeframe of the Heaven that Jesus ascended to after his death. It must have been by default spiritual in nature, correct? I am quite sure you did, yes. This however is not in contradiction with my definition of de-natured as both fit the criterea of becomming unattainable to tower builders. Becomming spiritual (de-natured) and "separated" derive the same conclusion. I can however include this in my definition of de-natured if you so choose. I am not abject to it at all. No, I am only using the details that you have provided. If you have other suggestions to add to the list that is fine as long as they do not introduce contradictions. The details I provided on Hell for example are slim simply because our conversation did not include this area. Yes, I have shown concern that in your story a great misunderstanding has occured as the result of God not ensuring the details of the "star of Bethlehem" being properly described. If people learn the truth after they die it kind of makes this all a moot point doesn't it? But you didn't get this from the Bible did you? You sorta made this stuff up don't you think? The laws of physics had to have been "created" at the time of "creation", so yes I do assume they were "created". Since they have changed I can also say they are not "constant". We cannot know how the laws work due to the fact that they have changed in the past and will change again in the future. The study of science relevant to any portion of history becomes impossible as we cannot be sure that these states have not changed. You can't fault me for giving the benefit of the doubt. Ok, I retract that angels could be to blame, we are left with a visible Heaven or God informing humans of Heavens location and then becomming upset that they tried to reach it. And God is not omnipotent (in your story). He did not predict that humans would mess up so he didn't prepare a Heaven in advance that humans could not reach. He needed a variety of laws of physics, changing lifespans, introduction of languages, spreading out of populations, shifting continents and rising mountains all in an attempt to controll his faulty creation. Don't fault me for coming to the conclusion that your God can't many things correct the first time. No fault of mine, its the story you have presented. Others however have a much nicer version that provides lasting appeal. It can't. As such I conclude that the person who wrote this event down misunderstood what had happened. How then can any valid conclusions come about when the writer of the event got the information wrong? What else is incorrect about the event when the writer could not accurately desribe even its most basic components? Reply to post 251Sorry to merge the two, its my fault due to having two posts you that you wished to address. Yes, I did say that "I believe it was a small cloud of bluish purple frogs ..." in Message 201You failed to note however I also said, in the same post So its safe to conclue that from when I posted my story and every post after that mentioned my story that it was in fact a story and not a representation of my religion or something I have stated as fact. To answer your question, no - none of my answers are lies or fiction; both ones that require honest answers and ones that don't. Care to provide a different case? This one is a bust. No, I just want to point out that all the ones on my list have or once had different qualities than the others. Heaven, by your standards, is not one specific "thing" but something that requires multiple qualities to describe for any given timeframe or location. Twice, when I said that I think the story descibes a star, and when I think that you pulled your story out of your ass. Besides that I said "believe" when introducing my story, though this was perhaps a mistake on my part, I certainly showed that its not a religion within the same post - and all others from that point on. Sadly my mistake was not saying "I am now entering story mode" for those that cannot understand the difference between a simple attemt at a humourous idea and a belief. When asked to do so, certainly. Also note that I said this in the same post your are accusing me of lying about: No no, you mistunderstand. I find it hilarious that you are often posting as if you are several people at once. We get great amusement from this, every one of us. Me, myself, and I included.Edited by Vacate, : Formatting

And also the part that was 2-3000 feet above babel that was both physical and spiritual in such a way that people could build a tower too it and gain eternal life. Don't forget that part. Thats really the key element and thats why I called it Version one and used your descriptions of it for the definition. Let me know if you have forgot that part, I can show where you have stated it in this thread and the tower of Babel thread for a refresher if you want. How short your memory appears to be. Its importance is right above on the same page. Let me repeat it once again. What it has to "do with anything" is the fact that God, in your story, must provide a savior not once but three times. Sadly, once again, the writers of the bible where caught unawares and the public has remained ignorant until you cleared it all up. But I do have some idea. I know what information you have provided thus far. It could be said that its "not currently in use for its previous purpose" - does that better describe what you want to say? (In reference to the Paradise beneath the Earth, I hate for you to misinterpret what I am saying again.) Ahh, ok. Then I would be better to describe the Babel Heaven as "moved to a different location" than actually changed in any way. Exactly my point. Obviously the Heaven that Jesus ascended to did not have the same qualities as Babel Heaven given that people walking up mountains could not gain eternal life. I don't know why this is still under discussion as we appear to agree and I specifically stated this was not an issue in my summary. My summary covered my points quite well. I am sorry you are unable to absorb what I have written for any length of time but I cannot quote all my previous statements for each and every post. Here it is once again but try to keep up with that note taking please: Once again, this is my point. In your stort the bible writers did not accurately describe the events that took place and mistakenly called the UFO a star. Who inspired them to write the bible and how did a mistake arrise? I am paying attention, when I said "You sorta made this stuff up don't you think?" I was leaning a lot towards the parts that you "spruced up a bit". Zipping around the universe for the fun of it - Provide a quote from the bible or stop saying I am not paying attention. Now I see. The laws may have been eternal, I had not considered that. But they still changed in the Universe and will change again in the future. I don't see any change in my original arguement, quibble over the small stuff but I still have a point: I would now say the the laws of physics are as eternal as God, but now they are not constant (in our universe), but will be constant someday. Still puts a damper on learning anything about Gods creation as we cannot ensure that these eternal laws arent changing again and again until they finally revert back to the previous eternal state. Unknowable. Something sure changed because you insist that we cannot accurately describe what happened in the past because the laws are not the same!
"Our laws are what we are left with", can be changed to "our laws are what we are left with from previous", logically this leads to "previously laws where not the same as the present" and concludes that "our laws have changed from the past". I am not assuming they changed you have said once again that the did. And this is the basis for one of my concerns I brought up in the summary. Had he been aware of this concern before the issue presented itself (omnipotence) he could have created/moved Heaven long before he even made earth let alone man! He was only concerned about us after we discovered a loophole in his rules to reach Heaven. (by building a tower to heaven instead of being saved by Jesus) An omnipotent God would not have needed to move it in the first place. He would not have had to create languages or move populations. Seems to me this is also the time you place for rampant mountain building. All needless consequences of a Godlet unable to create something and get it right. And took it away by first temping easy access to Heaven and then removing it, creating languages, spreading out the populations, and causing the shifting of continents and creation of mountains. Kind of puts a damper on the free will concept. So providing man with the temptation to reach Heaven and then removing Heaven, creating languages, spreading populations, shifting continents and creating mountains is not a form of control? So you really are saying that other Christians, the ones who dont share the view you have presented in this thread, believe that God is dead? So you instead conclude that the person who wrote this event down mistinterpreted what had happened. Instead of wondering what else is incorrect about the event you state that it must be a UFO because the writer could not accurately describe the events most basic components.Wow, its amazing how different your outlook is from mine! Don't worry though, since I don't feel the need for the Bible to be infallible, I don't believe that its Hogwash at all. You mean change what the bible says as a means of creating a work of fiction? Yes I accuse you of that! Is it really so hard to understand? If you are stuck believing that I would base my religious outlook on a work of fiction by Stephen King merged with the bible you are truly beyond help. Seriously.Its no matter to me, each time you attempt to imply that I presented a work of fiction as my stated religious beliefs you make yourself out to be more of a fool. Its like you are trying to force me to believe a work of fiction so that you may have some clincher in your arguement. Lets not forget the above quote also. It sort of makes it tough to make a case. Take a really close look, read it several times, at some point you may see that I said "story". As in, not a true historical document, taken in context with Stephen King being my inspiration... well I could make a coloring book for you if that would simplify the problem enough for you to finally get it. You memory is fading again. You insisted that I need to have an alternate story to take part in this debate. I created a work of fiction to satisfy you, now you insist that this work of fiction is my stated belief. You are correct to say this is all off topic - I however have only defended my position ever since you began insisting this was my stated belief after first insisting I present an alternate story. You are off topic so stop wasting my time repeating this same bullshit over and over again.Read my summary once again. I am dealing with the topic, you simply cannot comprehend for any length of time the words that I am writing. It does not hurt my side as I am capable of providing quotes each time your memory slips. I call my absurdities "fiction" hows yours holding up? Re-read my summary, the whole thing is a case for the topic.**ABE: Behold! He is in the garden. Behold! He is in Sodom!
Are you the decieved or the deciever?Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.Edited by Vacate, : Behold simpleEdited by Vacate, : Can't make quote boxes at 7 am.

I only know what you have said so far. Do you now object to my choice of wording? ("both physical and spiritual in such a way that people could build a tower too it and gain eternal life") How is it that you think I am pretending to know anything beyond what information you have provided? That is not my postition. Quit attempting to distort what I have clearly said about my position. I think you are trying to make the bible and God look silly, I have demonstrated why I think you have done this and now you are insisting that my summaries of your position somehow become my ideas and its my fault God appears the fool. Stop guessing then and read what I have written. My suggestion about the qualities of the star as decribed in the bible are sufficient as my stance in this discussion. My stance is not the purpose of this discussion. This thread, and my purpose here is to analyse your position and see if it justified as a valid stance to take. I have stated why I think its invalid and you seem unable to comrehend this distinction. I will add this to the list of additions you have made that are not supported by a person who reads what is written in the Bible. Good, then my summary of your position is accurate and my "clue" is not nessesary for this discussion as I have stated many times now. Had old laws, has current laws, will have old laws again. I hope that you all can take note of this. I did, I looked back at what you have posted and accurately described the position you have taken. Do not accuse me of misrepresentation when its clear that you have said this repeatedly. Again in this post. Had old laws, has new laws, will have old laws again. "The created laws changed" - thats a pretty accurate desription of the statement I made about your statement. Now that we have ran it around in a complete circle its obvious we do agree on this change - and hence my original problem with this is that science cannot study and understand the incredible beauty that God created for us. (according to your story, not mine.) I have proved it several times now. This very post has you just saying "The created laws changed" and thats what I have issue with. Once the cows come home I am hoping that you will finally admit to the position you keep taking and denying in the same breath. Hence my postition that your stance is stupid. Why (in your story) did God bother to give us a brain if we are not meant to use it? No, and I will repeat as many times as required. I blame you for misinterpreting the bible in an effort to make things up, in the act of twisting the bible into a work of fiction you have created a fictional God that is petty and foolish. Yes, why do you instist on making God look like hes mildly retarded instead of omnipotent and infinitely powerfull? Had he been aware of this concern before the issue presented itself (omnipotence) he could have created/moved Heaven long before he even made earth let alone man! He was only concerned about us after we discovered a loophole in his rules to reach Heaven.So you are suggesting that Angels wanting to marry women and conduct business was more important that creating one version of Heaven that did not require modification or relocation? Not having the temptation 2-3000 feet above those poor souls heads would have alleviated the need for relocation, creation of languages, shifting of continents and rampant mountain building. The solution is obvious even if you or the God of your story cannot comprehend it. So God found it nessesary to have Heaven 2-3000 feet above these wicked people to tempt them and see if they really would be wicked? Was he unaware that these wicked people would try to reach Heaven and gain eternal life? Was he not quite omnipotent enough to get it? Aye, your version of God. This wee little Godlet is easy to point fingers at and laugh. One with forsight and compassion would not have stuck a giant neon light above Babel saying "sinners loophole to Heaven located here". ( This is figurative, and I suggest that you not use it as something I have proposed as fact. ) You mean if they can suggest an alternative to a UFO flying little Godlet unable to make one creation and stick to it? I have seen this from many posters on this board and as I said before - It provides a much longer lasting appeal. Sure if you want. This is your story and you are free to add what you wish. You won't need to visit the supermarket for a while, you have just suggested a viable method of wiping your arse. Its a shame that you would suggest wiping asses with the bible but that is your choice. Correct, you could look back and see that I quoted from the bible and made the decision to read what it had said as what it meant to say. So what? This thread is not about my story anyways, this is your mess and I have repeated the reasons that I do not agree with your version of events. Are you now also going to carry on about this also? Why this need to hear my side of the story just to test the validity of yours? Yes, its my belief and I have the rights to do with it as I please. Had I wished for my beliefs to come under question I would have proposed a new thread! Starting to sink in yet? Resorting to pure speculation to fluff up your side? Its no wonder I find you so amusing. Though I initially refused to specify what I felt the bible was saying about the “star of Bethlehem” as I felt it was off topic in a discussion about your story, I later presented a fictional story based on a Stephen King story as an attempt at humor in hopes of it alleviating your need for my alternate story even though it was off topic. It was clearly not a factual account of my faith, belief, or religion and I did specify that it was a baseless story concocted from a modern day fictional horror story.You have since made repeated assertions that this was a statement of my faith based on my poor choice in the use of the word “believe” that I have since quoted, elaborated, and clarified. Its plainly obvious that I do not deny the use of the word, but it is also obvious that you have attempted to use this situation as some form of grounds to accuse me of lying. I have not lied, I have made many attempts to show that I have not lied and you simply will not accept my clarification about this situation. I have asked for nothing from you but clarification of your position but you continue to attempt to misrepresent mine on one issue.Your misrepresentation is further evidence of your continued underhanded tactics that you have used throughout this discussion. Though I have made some errors in my understanding of your position I have repeatedly asked for clarification and have adjusted accordingly. The story in question is yours and asking for clarity on your stance to alleviate misunderstandings has been my main goal. You however are obviously not interested in the same tactic. Misrepresentation is your prime goal on this one issue and you have not one single time shown any effort to change this tactic.Further attempts to use misrepresentation about the story I presented will not be addressed and I will simply quote the above statement. Further attempts to portray me as a liar due to my mistaken use of the word “belief” will not be addressed and I will simply quote the above statement. I do not expect you to retract as you have not done so at any point in time so far, as such I will no longer waste my time on this particular off topic accusation and obvious dishonest behavior - I will simply quote the above statement.I am also not "throwing stones at the Bible", I am throwing stones at your butchered interpretations of the bible. At some point I hope that this will sink in. Right. Four Heavens, three Jesus, a UFO and a petty God with limited powers. Keep on bustin'!

So you are guessing that people could build a tower to this version of Heaven and attain eternal life, or some such quality. I don't really care if its "something less than eternal life", what is important is that man could interact with it somehow and thereby required God to move it away to prevent them from reaching Heaven and attaining some mysterious quality that your story no longer defines. So instead you assert that the writers of the bible could not get the story correct and "as far as you can tell" god is inept and silly. That supports my point.My outlook however is that though there was a misunderstanding about the event that took place there is no need to blame God. Since the bible is not an absolute word for word chronicle of events that we should base our reality upon there is no need to deem God as "silly" - we just don't understand Him. (According to my story) I am not making denials, quote me making denials. You are not understanding my position and you are running out of excuses to do so. Thats what I am attempting to do each time I tell you that this thread is not about what I think happened its what you think happened. My unknown belief is not up for discussion and you have had plenty of opportunites to read this and understand it. Finally it appears you understand this and will avoid bringing it up in the future. Its not my story, you prove it. "Many realize that Jesus likely did visit man in the old testament." - Its your story, prove it. Right, so why do you keep denying your position and asserting it in the same breath? . Unknowable. Right, so why do you keep denying your position and asserting it in the same breath? Changed. Unknowable. So I conclude that by looking at the present state and making conclusions based upon it leads people to incorrect ideas based on the fact that the laws have changed in the past, left no evidence of the change, and result in man being unable to learn anything due to the shifting of fundemental laws in our universe. Thanks to your God, in your story, we got brains but cannot use them. Why bother, they aren't working right anyhow. (according to your story) So he instead created a flood and killed everyone, later allowed nuclear bombs to be made and kill everyone again?From what I know, nuclear bombs do not depend on decay for the reaction to take place. Feel free to show me where I am wrong however, I haven't read much on the subject. (don't just assert that your right, a relevant quote from a reputable site would be wonderful) No, see we cannot reach the stars of Orion today. Its impossible. The people of Babel however could reach the Heaven of the time, thats why God had to remove it remember? It was only 2-3000 feet up, not light years away. Great arguement! Add that to the list of "great things the flood brought to mankind". You really think slime and bricks is a good way to make a tower anyhow? Sounds kind of stupid for people who had superior intelligence. Good thing your around to explain it then. Is the Disney reference a requirement or just biblical sources? So its a must have situation that I present an alternate story. The God is omnipotent and infinitley powerful so he doesnt need to make four heavens, ufo's, repeating Jesus', and changing laws of physics just to get his creation to work right alternate viewpoint I have suggested could be the "tester" your looking for. Now who do we assign as judge for my "testers" legitimacy and when would you suggest I create a new topic to discuss it? I don't know, I guess my mistake was thinking that you could comprehend for one second that its not a stament of belief, faith, or religion. That was my other mistake I suppose, not spelling shit out to absurd detail so you can grasp an obvious work of fiction. Its beyond the point of spelling shit out in absurd detail now but you still don't get it. Its wierd, its like you are a complete retard, but you still manage to type. From start to finish, yes I have been honest about the fact that this was not a statement of belief, faith, or religion. Perhaps you could finally let that sink in. If all you have to hammer back to my court is blatant continued misrepresentation, accuasations of lying, and childish behavior by continuing this line of debate - why not face up to the fact that its not getting you anywhere? You want me to lighten up? You are still trying to misrepresent my position, accusing me of lying. Yes you are beyond the point of pissing me off on this issue because you keep forcing me to explain something that anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension and honor would have dropped and appologized for way before I needed "lightening up". I am. I can see that you wish to continue this line of discussion as a method of keeping the on-topic discussion riddled with off-topic blather. I am well aware that, though sleazy, it does have the effect of giving you something to "hammer back to my court". I am sorry this is the only thing you have to attack me with, this can happen in debates; that your opponent is an unknown. Though I have clarified on many occations even after I said I would not address this issue, I find myself forced to defend against a tactic that makes you look like a dishonorable, manipulating, slow witted Christian. Though I, myself, choose not to speak for others, I will say that I personally find you to be a horrid example of what christanity is supposed to stand for. Correct, its baloney or "a work of fiction". You accused me of lying that it was not a statement of belief, faith, or religion. I have explained again and again to the point of absurdity that this is not the case. The fact that you still do not get it brings into question why I continue to debate with you. You tactics are low and your comprehension is limited. It was news to me before I started on this thread. Just for the record, again, I think this makes your God look like a Godlet. If you can finally find some focus to your side perhaps we can get further into this and provide some detail. For now however seem determined to keep any "hammer" you can and use it however you feel. Amazing! I can totally see now how you get UFO's from the bible, crystal clear now that you have shown how Clouds=UFO's. (Hammer #2!)

Yet you continue to misrepresent me by insisting that it was a stated belief, faith, or religion. Glad you got it finally. Still bringing it up though I see. WOW! You mean each and every time I told you it was a work of fiction I hadn't made you think otherwise somehow? Interesting that my stating this repeatedly each and every time you feigned ignorance was actually a clever ploy on my part to pull one over on you. *almost had you there didn't I? wink wink*No, it does not make me feel any better. Now you finally admit that you had known this was not my stated belief and your repeated misrepresentation was in fact a lie about your lack of understanding in addition to your misrepresentation. Good. Then I will be glad to repeat it - I will say that I personally find you to be a horrid example of what christanity is supposed to stand for. No you aren't starting to get it. I did not present "some beliefs that were false" - you know that but choose to continue to lie about it. You still don't grasp that anyone can look back at this thread and see that there is not a single post where I tried to fool anyone. You still lie about my position regardless of how many times I instist that you stop. I cannot believe that your insistance on this has not gotten you a suspension. I don't think others have a comprehention problem, I just think your an idiot who cannot form a logical debate and has to resort to lies to "hammer something into the other court".I am done. You win. I will not take part in this debate any longer. All attempts to make my point have been avoided by your twisting of your story, denying claims you have made, and outright lies about my position. Until I get a retraction and apology from you about this repeated slander I am done. Take your victory, I hope you enjoy it.Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.