Originally posted by chillmeistergen
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.
what multiple conspiracy theorys do i believe in? there is only 1. The conspiracy is so big that it filters down and effects everyone and everything. Thats why it seems there are numerous conspiracys, but in fact there is only one.
if other peoples work can explain something better than i can, i will post extracts from that work. It doesnt mean i cant think for myself.
i never said i believes in reptillians. Im suggesting anything is possible
people find it hard to belive because we associate reptiles with little creatures on our own earth. so when someone talks about reptillians, it is easy to laugh about it.
all researchers are saying is that these aliens look reptilian.
the credo mutwa interviw is amazing excellent.http://metatech.org/credo_mutwa.html
''Now, you can see that the Zulu people in South Africa were aware of the fact that you can travel through space-not through the sky like a bird-but you can travel through space, and the Zulus claim that many, many thousands of years ago there arrived, out of the skies, a race of people who were like lizards, people who could change shape at will. And people who married their daughters to a walking (extraterrestrial), and produced a power race of Kings and tribal Chiefs, there are hundreds of fairy-tales, sir, in which a lizard female assumes the identity of a human princess and poses as her, and gets married to a Zulu Prince.''
''Throughout South Africa, amongst many tribes, you’ll find stories of these amazing creatures who are capable of changing from reptile to human being, and from reptile to any other animal of their choice. And these creatures, sir, do really exist. No matter where you go throughout Southern, Eastern, Western, and Central Africa, you’ll find that the description of these creatures is the same. Even amongst tribes which never, throughout their long history, had contact with each other at all.
So, there ARE such creatures. Where they come from, I will never claim to know, sir. But they are associated with certain stars in the sky, and one of these stars is a large group of stars which is part of the Milky Way, which our people call Ingiyab, which means “The Great Serpent”. And there is a red star, a redish star, near the tip of this huge rim of stars which our people call IsoneNkanyamba.''
Originally posted by Deano
people find it hard to belive because we associate reptiles with little creatures on our own earth. so when someone talks about reptillians, it is easy to laugh about it.all researchers are saying is that these aliens look reptilian.
the credo mutwa interviw is amazing excellent.http://metatech.org/credo_mutwa.html
''Now, you can see that the Zulu people in South Africa were aware of the fact that you can travel through space-not through the sky like a bird-but you can travel through space, and the Zulus claim that many, many thousands of years ago there arrived, out of the skies, a race of people who were like lizards, people who could change shape at will. And people who married their daughters to a walking (extraterrestrial), and produced a power race of Kings and tribal Chiefs, there are hundreds of fairy-tales, sir, in which a lizard female assumes the identity of a human princess and poses as her, and gets married to a Zulu Prince.''
''Throughout South Africa, amongst many tribes, you’ll find stories of these amazing creatures who are capable of changing from reptile to human being, and from reptile to any other animal of their choice. And these creatures, sir, do really exist. No matter where you go throughout Southern, Eastern, Western, and Central Africa, you’ll find that the description of these creatures is the same. Even amongst tribes which never, throughout their long history, had contact with each other at all.
So, there ARE such creatures. Where they come from, I will never claim to know, sir. But they are associated with certain stars in the sky, and one of these stars is a large group of stars which is part of the Milky Way, which our people call Ingiyab, which means “The Great Serpent”. And there is a red star, a redish star, near the tip of this huge rim of stars which our people call IsoneNkanyamba.''
Or it could be the product of human imagination. The reason they are similar is because people have emphasized the similarities and down played the differences.
Wow, 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.
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.
and no, my last statement is logic. if an1 claims transcendance, they are falling prey to the negetive evidence fallacy or the russel's teapot fallacy. ofcourse, ANY and ALL contradictions can be dealt with by introducing trancendance, the claim in itself doesnt mean anything if such a trancendant entity exists only in hypothesis and has no evidence to back up its existance + its trancendant atttributes.
I'm still waiting for you to show me how my version (which I haven't even mentioned) is inconsistent with the Bible. And when did I mention anything being time dependent?
Lol wut?
Again, when did I talk about time dependence? And what have I supported? Nothing. I have only stated that omnipotence is a useless term.
And finally, [quote[Our deficiencies in scientific knowledge do not equate to lack of reality in any way.[/quote] Are you suggesting that we should be able understand transcendence with our current technology and that we have reached the pinnacles of logic? I hope not.
I'm still waiting for you to show me how my version (which I haven't even mentioned) is inconsistent with the Bible. And when did I mention anything being time dependent?
i have already explained this. you said that almighty and omnipotent isnt the same thing. at the very least almighty> creation of the almighty.
even if the almighty can not do EVERYTHING{i.e. as u stated, trancend the concept of contradicting ideas} he is still above whatever he has created. this is contradicted by the fact that christianity assumes that god created everything, including concepts. and if god is subserviant to the concept of contradiction/paradoxes, than not only is he NOT omnipotent, but he isnt ALMIGHTY{as the bible DEFINATELY claims} either, even that hypothesis doesnt hold.
Lol wut?
semantics, popular beleif, persistance of the paradox by people quite learnt in the bible, inability of the greater christian community to come up with a solution which gets rid of the paradox beyond god trancending his own created rules{already mentioned by zeal}, on top of your solution having very little or no credible mention as a significant solution of the paradox endoresed by christian sects or seen as a consistant and possible solution to the paradox.
Again, when did I talk about time dependence? And what have I supported? Nothing. I have only stated that omnipotence is a useless term.
you supported zeal's statement. of god nulling his own omnipotence with his power, hence omnipotence being a time dependant property. sumtimes existing, and sumtimes not. it is not true. and omnipotence is not a useless term. just because it is evidence against christianity and the vast majority understands almighty= omnipotence, stil doesnt make it useless. it is just inconvenient for you, as the lack of transitional fossils might be inconvenient to a hardline darwanist/evolutionist.
Are you suggesting that we should be able understand transcendence with our current technology and that we have reached the pinnacles of logic? I hope not. [/QUOTE]
And finally, [quote[Our deficiencies in scientific knowledge do not equate to lack of reality in any way.
not at all. and i am very sure you are smart enough to understand that i wasnt. what im saying is that there is no REASON to beleive in such trancendance and your very specific tailor made christian concept. there is a lot of contradiction and wrong thigns in the bible as it is. that alone nulls the whole ideology. plus claiming that we are not advanced enough to understand trancendance and higher levels of logic mean nothing if your claim of the existance of such a trancendant entity has no evidence to even SUGGEST IT.
you see the problem. if there was REASON to beleive that such a thing existed but cudnt be understood by our current understanding, then we cud atleast brush off any contradictions and inconcistencies aside and atleast say that MAYBE it shud be understood in the future. but if there is no REASON to beleive in the existance of such a hypothetical entity than it shud not be considered a possibility any more than the invisible purple unicorn.
No, I didn't say that at all. You are jumping to conclusions. Again, I haven't supported anything.
No I didn't. I haven't supported anything. How is idea of omnipotence evidence against Christianity? You analogy fails simply on the fact that one is important and one is claimed at all by the other.
This is a wonderful non-answer.
out of words i guess. dont worry, thats what happens when you support incomplete hypothesis, you ability to argue is still quite good.
1. yes you did. if not, explain what you mean by ALMIGHTY, ill be very surprised if it isnt what i mentioned
2. i have explained this. the paradox is strong evidence against christianity.
3. it is not a NON answer. the invisible purple unicorn has spoken.
Hardly.
1) Prove it. Oh, wait you can't. I may or may not get around to it. I don't have the resources on hand to do it.
2) No, you failed miserably at applying it to Christianity because you have yet to show a shred of evidence that omnipotence has any relevance to Christianity. So, I'm still waiting for that evidence, this being the third time I've asked you.
3) Yes, it was. It didn't address what I said with anything relevant. Simply because it's a dead end.
disprovem
1. riiiigh, you dont have the resources at hand to type out YOUR definition of almight lol
2. false, paradoxes have been elaborated upon and you have neither dealt with them nor sum up with a better excuse than lack of resources at hand
3. yes it did, the probability of such a trancendant entity existing is as much as an invisible purple unicorn. that is evidence against thr existance of such a thing. there is no need to beleive sumthing exists without evidence. its a dead end for YOU
1) Not my definition at all. You see, I try not to impose my own definitions upon the Bible. That is something you are trying to do. Once I have looked in the Rabbinical literature, the Hebrew and the corresponding Greek, I'll get back to you on the matter.
2) You have yet to show a shred of evidence that omnipotence has any relevance to Christianity. So, I'm still waiting for that evidence, this being the third time I've asked you.
3) That is not at all relevant to "our deficiencies in scientific knowledge do not equate to lack of reality in any way." It's a dead end period. There is no where to go from there. It's beyond the current capabilities of mankind to solve. Therefore, there is no point in debating it. You are committing the negative-proof logical fallacy.
1. nellinater doesnt know his own definition and yet claims that it nulls the omnipotence paradox. lmao
2. most christians take almighty = omnipotent. if most christians beleif has no bearing on christianity then i suppose your right my friend. lol
3. lol, says the person who already committed the negetive proof fallacy warranting my answer. please, i never denied the statement, but my point was that to USE the statement as evidence FOR the existance of such an intity is nonsensical as the trancendant attributes of god which wud null the omnipotence paradox and which are part of your explanation have never been hinted upon in the bible. hence there is no reason to assum that your definition is anything more than a flight of fancy, it definately has nuthing to do with biblical definitions and hence you cant say there is no point in debating it, simply because, such a statement would imply that the arguments for and against have 50/50 validity, which they DONT, there is infact an infinitesmal small probability of the existance of a non contrdicting entity as you describe it. as much as the invisible purple unicorn, so its you citing negetive proof not ME.
1. and you cant recall it, lol.
2. and they beleive what they hear by christians who do or people in the church or preachers, also, the names of the gospels are not as important as a fundamental attribute of what people call GOD
3. i have, and i see nuthing but you trying to say there is no point in debating it {implying 50/50 probability either way} as we dont have the tools necessary to deal justice to it. i dont think i misconstructed THAT.
1) Not perfectly.
2) Hardly. I don't think you understand the extent of nominal Christianity in North America. 90% of Christians quite literally know nothing about Christianity other than Jesus died on a cross. Most churches are filled with watered down sermons because the pastors aren't well versed themselves. They know nothing of the attributes of God.
3) No, you haven't. But I haven't denied the existence of anything.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Hardly. I don't think you understand the extent of nominal Christianity in North America. 90% of Christians quite literally know nothing about Christianity other than Jesus died on a cross. Most churches are filled with watered down sermons because the pastors aren't well versed themselves. They know nothing of the attributes of God.
I agree.
Sadly, a very large percentage of Christians in North America know almost nothing about thier actual religion, and/or the Bible. They only know what they hear from other Christians, particularly on television and in church, and much of
the time they only apply it politically, socially, or culturally.
I admire those Christians who use thier religion as a personal means of change (as in reforming thier own behavior, even though some say that is not the point of Christianity). I think more people should actually read and investigate the Bible before they make positive or negative decisions about it.
The only thing I disagree with in your statement is that you claimed many of these pastors and people know nothing of the attributes of God.
How would you know that ?
1) What makes thier intepretation of God any more or less valid than yours ?
2) Is the Bible the only way to know God ? Isn't God beyond the Bible ? How can one book possibly define him (or her) or his attributes ?
3) It's not like the Bible is very clear and vivid about the nature of this God. God can easily be a gentle compassionate all forgiving father, and at the same time be an angry, egotistic sadist. Two people can worship entirely different entities, and still claim it is the same "god".
* Please keep in mind Nellinator, this is not a Jab at you, but I want you to question some of the statements you make before you have such conviction in them. Not just you, anyone of any faith or lack thereof. I'd always appreciate if you do the same for me.