i found out recently that michelangelo's painting of adam on the sistine chapel depicts him without a belly button.
i had never noticed this before and it makes sense that neither adam nor eve would have belly buttons, not having been born in the usual way.
then i realized all the first animals were created rather than born, according to the religious views of the origin of life.
ThomasMore:
Her great depth gives me hope for enlightenment when I reflect on the passage of time which must be considered as time passes and moves from where we were to where we are going, and the significance of change from where we were to where we might be as time passes in a day or days which represent the duality of change and the passage of time from where we were and where we could be as time passes and it's significance.
Would chicken or egg go best with that word salad?
i found out recently that michelangelo's painting of adam on the sistine chapel depicts him without a belly button.
i had never noticed this before and it makes sense that neither adam nor eve would have belly buttons, not having been born in the usual way.
then i realized all the first animals were created rather than born, according to the religious views of the origin of life.
peacefulpete:
I did say semantic paradox.
Yes. I wasn’t objectingg to the way you framed your comments, I was talking about the broader issue that some of these types of ‘philosophical’ quandaries aren’t really as deep as they sound.
i found out recently that michelangelo's painting of adam on the sistine chapel depicts him without a belly button.
i had never noticed this before and it makes sense that neither adam nor eve would have belly buttons, not having been born in the usual way.
then i realized all the first animals were created rather than born, according to the religious views of the origin of life.
jwundubbed:
I get why scientists and atheists would still question which came first, but I would also expect them to acknowledge the religious point of view, if only to reject it. I've never heard anyone use a religious point of view to answer this philosophical question.
I think we all already know that the Bible's creation myth suggests chickens were made before eggs, but it scarcely warrants further attention. That particular 'religious point of view' is incorrect (and not representative of all religious views anyway so it isn't 'the religious view'), and the 'philosophical' supposed paradox is tedious. Both positions are a demonstration of ignorance about how eggs evolved and how chickens were domesticated.
i found out recently that michelangelo's painting of adam on the sistine chapel depicts him without a belly button.
i had never noticed this before and it makes sense that neither adam nor eve would have belly buttons, not having been born in the usual way.
then i realized all the first animals were created rather than born, according to the religious views of the origin of life.
peacefulpete:
What came first the chicken or the chicken egg?
The chicken egg.
sea breeze: @nicolau,i stated my case rather succiently, which you failed to address.
if you have a better solution to the problem of evil than what jesus offers, then why don't you present that in a new topic?.
pathetic diversion.
Halcon:
indeed... here's another fun Bible verse I cherry picked for you, Proverbs 27:15
🙄
You’re really not my type.
sea breeze: @nicolau,i stated my case rather succiently, which you failed to address.
if you have a better solution to the problem of evil than what jesus offers, then why don't you present that in a new topic?.
pathetic diversion.
Halcon:
imagine me accepting I've 'failed' because jeffro said so ...
Especially when you have the much easier option of cherry picking verses that make you feel better and pretending you’re pleasing an imaginary friend who will never tell you otherwise.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
What is there to know personally about Jehovah?Indeed. We have facilities for people who hear back from God (or Jesus).
Can a person legitimately say they know Jehovah if they have never communicated with Him?
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Rattigan350:
Matt 28:19 says to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy spirit. But just 10 days later Peter was saying to baptize in the name of Jesus and he left off the Father and holy spirit. So I don't believe that Matt 28:19 says to baptize in the trinity.
The Bible is vague about what the Holy spirit is, but is clear that it isn’t just ‘god’s power’. Acts 19:2; 2 Corinthians 6:6-7.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Rattigan350:
Genesis does not mention a snake. It was a serpent.
🤦♂️
Revelation ties them all together.
Revelation, written much later, reinterprets the story by applying Christian ideas to the original tropes in the story.
Also, it is well known and accepted that Jesus is that seed.
No, it is only accepted by Christians. Circular reasoning is circular. 🤦♂️ It hasn’t been demonstrated to be anything more than an element in a borrowed folktale.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
slimboyfat:
I can’t understand the mentality of people who are not interested in a topic themselves so want to stop it.
I didn’t try to stop anything. You’re entirely welcome to provide evidence for angels whenever you like. And you’ve continued to ignore my actual point that I elaborated on after that.
