http://aramis.obspm.fr/~heydari/dictionary/A_v1.html
Neat relationships of words near the bottom of the link.
Jesus was an astronaut
Originally posted by Deja~vu
http://aramis.obspm.fr/~heydari/dictionary/A_v1.htmlNeat relationships of words near the bottom of the link.
Jesus was an astronaut
They need to raise the age level on this forum. 😆
Originally posted by lord xyz
It is possible that Thomas Paine is wrong, highly unlikely, but still. That's the responce you would get.
its just that some people think the jesus sun connection was made up within the last few years or somethin
its been known by many people for thousands of years that religion is a sham.
Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD, one of the first Christian historians and defenders wrote: “When we say that He, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven we propound nothing different from what you believe those who you esteem regarding the sons of [the god] Jupiter.”In a different writing Justin Martyr said: “He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of [the god] Perseus.” According to the myth, Perseus’ mother was impregnated by Zeus via rays of light.
It was obvious that Justin, and other Christian writers, realized how similar Christianity was to the pagan religions. However, Justin had a solution. As far as he was concerned the ‘devil did it.’ He specifically wrote: “The Devils…craftily feigned that Minerva was tha daughter of Jupiter not by sexual union.” This is of course similar to how the devils made phony bones to make people think dinosaurs walked the Earth. Although, some will tell you that God put them there to test one’s faith. This Devil and this God are essentially the same entity as it were anyway, but you get the point.The Devil had the foresight to foresee the coming of Christ, and mimmick his characteristics in the ancient world - this was their explanation
this is what you are getting right here on the forum. when you argue with someone who has a belief system to defend(a silly one at that). the nonsense you hear is fascinating
Originally posted by Deano
yeh ive looked into the christian religion and my ideas are the same of many other level headed people.any open minded person who is free of dogma will come to the same conclusion
Yeah the trouble is, you are too open minded. You believe in multiple conspiracy theories, one including reptilians. You then see fit to quote other people's pieces of journalism and musings without ever injecting the opinions you've formed. You can have an opinion without reading about it first, though it could be a conspiracy that you in fact can't, don't quote me on that.
Originally posted by Nellinator
You are assuming that God is bound by His creation? I never said that. I'd leave it open that He can supersede the logic paradoxes, but I'd also say that it is perfectly reasonable to assume He works within His creation.How can I possibly do that when the religion never claimed that. Again.
If it was claimed you will prove. I am, in fact, using every scripture that calls God almighty while ignoring the ones that call Him omnipotent (which don't exist).
no it is not. it wud null omnipotence{power to do ANYTHING} as it wud nul being almighty{ to be greater than all CREATED things as i see you defining it}, since ideas are also supposedly his creation. therefore he can not work with his creation, bound by its laws. either way, almighty or omnipotent, it is inconsistant.
if relegion never claimed it then i guess every1 who came up with the paradox was and is just stupid 🙄 . and i suppose the fact that most people think almighty = omnipotent has no significance either right? 🙄 .. no no, only YOU and like mided individuals are the authority on christianity. or are you really going to make me look for places where it is claimed by christian schools of thought that god can do ANYTHING??? 😆 really, your WAYYYYYY of if you think you can get away by introducing non existance technicalities where no1 in christianity claimed it .
almighty is the same as omnipotent in the books of the overwhelming majority{ scholars etc}, the only ones who dont see it as such are a few christian;/non christian theoligians. who stick by and introduce differences in the right usage of words semantics etc. also, can you confirm that the words used in the original roman/greek mean ALMIGHTY and not OMNIPOTENT and are not infact the closest thing to omnipotence{as a concept. seeing as a lot of people wont even know the meaning of omnipotence, which is a lot more like jargon/technical words used to define concepts as opposed to ALMIGHTY which is sumthing most people relate to}
also. i think zeal hit it on the spot, god can supercede his rulse and paradoxes as even you admit is possible{which contradicts ur previous statement where u said it isnt possible hence coming up with the alternate explanation} . but ofcourse, such a diety wud have no reality unless there is evidence for such a claim of trancendant nature, which there isnt, much less proof.
Originally posted by leonheartmmWow, you only see in dichotomies don't you. Why don't you puzzle your way through what I said and you might see a third option, which is in fact, what I believe. So, no it is not inconsistent. And even if it were, you certainly didn't show it there.
no it is not. it wud null omnipotence{power to do ANYTHING} as it wud nul being almighty{ to be greater than all CREATED things as i see you defining it}, since ideas are also supposedly his creation. therefore he can not work with his creation, bound by its laws. either way, almighty or omnipotent, it is inconsistant.if relegion never claimed it then i guess every1 who came up with the paradox was and is just stupid 🙄 . and i suppose the fact that most people think almighty = omnipotent has no significance either right? 🙄 .. no no, only YOU and like mided individuals are the authority on christianity. or are you really going to make me look for places where it is claimed by christian schools of thought that god can do ANYTHING??? 😆 really, your WAYYYYYY of if you think you can get away by introducing non existance technicalities where no1 in christianity claimed it .
almighty is the same as omnipotent in the books of the overwhelming majority{ scholars etc}, the only ones who dont see it as such are a few christian;/non christian theoligians. who stick by and introduce differences in the right usage of words semantics etc. also, can you confirm that the words used in the original roman/greek mean ALMIGHTY and not OMNIPOTENT and are not infact the closest thing to omnipotence{as a concept. seeing as a lot of people wont even know the meaning of omnipotence, which is a lot more like jargon/technical words used to define concepts as opposed to ALMIGHTY which is sumthing most people relate to}
also. i think zeal hit it on the spot, god can supercede his rulse and paradoxes as even you admit is possible{which contradicts ur previous statement where u said it isnt possible hence coming up with the alternate explanation} . but ofcourse, such a diety wud have no reality unless there is evidence for such a claim of trancendant nature, which there isnt, much less proof.
Argumentum ad populum. I probably can, I get back to you on that.
Also I'm still waiting for the proof. Prove it please because you are arguing against no one until you have to argue against.
It doesn't contradict anything I said before. I haven't definitely said anything. I'm not closed on the idea because it is a vague concept and possibly beyond our ability to understand. And your last statement is idiocy. Our deficiencies in scientific knowledge do not equate to lack of reality in any way.