May 10, 2012 -- 11:38PM, MMarcoe wrote:

May 10, 2012 -- 11:49AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

May 10, 2012 -- 10:27AM, MMarcoe wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 9:36PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

I'd sure like to see Marco's biblical basis for his claims that heaven is NOT a place, but right here, predating form blah blah blah.

Well Marco?  Please back it up with some "scripture" and of course leave your "Buddhist" nonsense out of it as not only does it have no place on this board, but it's irrelevant.  Funny you never post on the Buddhist board, I wonder why.

I've given you quotes about heaven not being a place. Others have, too. The quotes are abundant. They are even on this thread. So you should be satisfied.

Which quotes were those?  At least direct me to the post?  I saw one quote from Hebrews I believe that I don't recall even mentioned Heaven.  I've given the "abundant quotes", I haven't seen one from you.  Avoidance is the opposite of Confidence marco, either you can or you cannot.  If you can, then prove it.

Look for them yourself, for crying out loud. I've noted them more than once on threads you participated in. And don't hand me this crap about avoidance and confidence. I need not prove anything of my worth to the likes of you.

In any debate you most certainly do need to back up your points-in this case with scripture.  Either you can or cannot, if you can then you must, or you forfeit.  If you cannot, then honesty allows the loss dignity.   I prefer you either stay and back up your point or honestly admit you cannot.   The worst choice is to claim you can but refuse to do so, there is no more cowardly way for you to lose.  I hope you win or lose with dignity instead, your choice.  And hiding behind claiming I'm not worth your time (while you could have provided 2 quotes now in the same time as your 2 avoidance posts now), is just a lowly ad hominem.  Surely you can do better.

May 13, 2012 -- 10:38AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

May 10, 2012 -- 1:04PM, lope wrote:

May 10, 2012 -- 11:51AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

May 10, 2012 -- 10:28AM, lope wrote:

May 9, 2012 -- 11:44PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

May 9, 2012 -- 10:37AM, lope wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 9:36PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

I'd sure like to see Marco's biblical basis for his claims that heaven is NOT a place, but right here, predating form blah blah blah.

Well Marco?  Please back it up with some "scripture" and of course leave your "Buddhist" nonsense out of it as not only does it have no place on this board, but it's irrelevant.  Funny you never post on the Buddhist board, I wonder why.

Heaven is where God is.  God is not limited to a place.  The description of heaven is about lights and colours and is symbolic.  The description of the New Jerusalem is about a city 1500 miles square sitting on the surface of the earth.  To insist this is literal is nonsense.

Feel free to give an interpretation for all my quotes-if you wish to make your claim.  Then offer further citations from this book to illuminate your position.  But just shaking your head is the disagreement of a coward, it is just rhetoric.   Until you offer a real rebuttal, my point continues to stand supreme.  Oh and be sure to address my R.I.P. and second coming arguments as it is necessary to refute them to move ahead in this disagreement.

What is your point that stands supreme?

I appreciate the childish games, but the point is clear-even little marco gets it.  Either you can do the above or you cannot.  Since you've thrown in a distraction instead of rising to the challenge, I think you've said all you need to.

I ask a simple question, but you cannot answer it.

I have answered it, a few posts ago no less-at least read back the last page or two and offer an intelligent question that I have NOT answered.  But since you must play dumb:  My quotes all reveal that heaven is elsewhere, certainly not here and now and show how it cannot be.  You must address all those quotes as requested to refute that.  Playing games only sidetracks a debate you're now losing on 2 threads.

And lope-do you notice that in our dialogs, everytime you screw up the quoting selfishly...  doesn't happen to me anywhere else, just with you.  Knock it off and just respond AFTER my quotes if you don't know how to block them into chunks eh?  It ain't all about you.

First chapter of Mark.  Jesus says the kindom of heaven is here.  That was the good news.

May 14, 2012 -- 1:02PM, lope wrote:

May 13, 2012 -- 10:38AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

May 10, 2012 -- 1:04PM, lope wrote:

May 10, 2012 -- 11:51AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

May 10, 2012 -- 10:28AM, lope wrote:

May 9, 2012 -- 11:44PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

May 9, 2012 -- 10:37AM, lope wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 9:36PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

I'd sure like to see Marco's biblical basis for his claims that heaven is NOT a place, but right here, predating form blah blah blah.

Well Marco?  Please back it up with some "scripture" and of course leave your "Buddhist" nonsense out of it as not only does it have no place on this board, but it's irrelevant.  Funny you never post on the Buddhist board, I wonder why.

Heaven is where God is.  God is not limited to a place.  The description of heaven is about lights and colours and is symbolic.  The description of the New Jerusalem is about a city 1500 miles square sitting on the surface of the earth.  To insist this is literal is nonsense.

Feel free to give an interpretation for all my quotes-if you wish to make your claim.  Then offer further citations from this book to illuminate your position.  But just shaking your head is the disagreement of a coward, it is just rhetoric.   Until you offer a real rebuttal, my point continues to stand supreme.  Oh and be sure to address my R.I.P. and second coming arguments as it is necessary to refute them to move ahead in this disagreement.

What is your point that stands supreme?

I appreciate the childish games, but the point is clear-even little marco gets it.  Either you can do the above or you cannot.  Since you've thrown in a distraction instead of rising to the challenge, I think you've said all you need to.

I ask a simple question, but you cannot answer it.

I have answered it, a few posts ago no less-at least read back the last page or two and offer an intelligent question that I have NOT answered.  But since you must play dumb:  My quotes all reveal that heaven is elsewhere, certainly not here and now and show how it cannot be.  You must address all those quotes as requested to refute that.  Playing games only sidetracks a debate you're now losing on 2 threads.

And lope-do you notice that in our dialogs, everytime you screw up the quoting selfishly...  doesn't happen to me anywhere else, just with you.  Knock it off and just respond AFTER my quotes if you don't know how to block them into chunks eh?  It ain't all about you.

First chapter of Mark.  Jesus says the kindom of heaven is here.  That was the good news.

Good, then you can do as requested and take all the quotes I gave you and give me the correct interpretation.  If all we have is a contradiction, then the one with the MOST evidence wins.  So far my claim is winning by about 20 quotes :)  Unless you can show where they are all interpreted wrong?

For example, by my claim... yes I agree, jesus says it WILL BE HERE.  (thus the RIP on headstones, the whole 2nd coming... but you haven't addressed either of those issues either), but WILL BE proves my point which said "It is not here and now".

So... since the bible is ambiguous, it boils down to "preponderance of evidence", just like in civil law.  Which means he with 51% or greater evidence prevails.  So far again, it's about 95% in my favor.  But the trial ain't over, please proceed.

i was thinking you could easily put heaven in the fourth dimension, no need to postulate higher dimensions than that.  If you define faster = up and slower = down then heaven is in some faster place.  Because it is 'up' above the 'sky'.  And all you have to do to pin it down still further is figure out what a 'sky' might look like in the fourth dimension.

Actually, i find it easy to read the bible as a 3D guide to 4D with those same definitions.  A lot of things make more sense than you might think if you ponder on it for a while...  especially if you also make the hop to the other side of the wave/particle duality and start thinking in terms of 'faster' and 'slower' vibrational states.  {some insights come from reviewing the mathematics we have created around vibrations and seeing how to create and/or decompose various 'waveforms'}.   My fav of course was to rewrite the 'tower' of babel into the 4th dimension.  Well on that, it did say god saw them making a 'tower' 'up' to 'heaven' so as far as that goes we are still consistent with heaven being in a higher i.e. faster place... 

{note that all this implies taking the 4th dimension as if it were terrain, e.g. a kind of spatial dimension.  instead of something much much less quantifiable.  This is easily resolved if for example you postulate it as a terrain that has been specifically arranged to make an object lesson about what the concept of 'time' might mean and then push 'real' time out to somewhere else.  Because as some kind atheist pointed out to me once upon a time when I was feeling argumentative, any time something is changing you can define a measurement of the change in a way similar to the way we use clocks, and then call that measurement 'time'}.

Of course if you ever get into vibrational states and get a sense of 'what' can vibrate you might eventually also be tempted to start thinking 'light' and 'darkness' can be similarly remapped to something else we already know about, and gain insight into that as well.  For example in such a remapping 'darkness' might be less of something and 'light' might be more of the something. So to say that the people who lived in darkness have seen a great light might not mean what you think...  or the valley of the shadow of death might not have to do with lack of sunlight, at least not in terms of how we define the sun :)  But that is a much different topic...

note that I am NOT saying take a common word like 'root' and change it into an only nominally related word like 'branch' without further support.  I am saying there are entire sets of things in the bible that can be remapped from one set of concepts to another by using similarities between one type of thing and another, and the new meanings are just as supportive of each other as the old ones were...  with the added benefit that such endeavors can either as a happy accident or a deliberate setup sort of map out certain terrains most people haven't even figured out exist.

but that is just me.

May 15, 2012 -- 2:46AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

May 14, 2012 -- 6:04PM, lope wrote:

The kingdom of heaven is about who is the most serving.

Creepy!

Is being concerned about others creepy?