i have been doing a lot of research on the bible and its roots so to speak and its becoming clearer that the jews like other races took gods and stories from others and made them their own.
its also become clear that many of the books were written later then stated, like daniel probably written about a hundred years before christ and some of it maybe even after.
but what i don't get is the prophecies.
Discussing/conjecturing as to Hitchen's final destination is not Bible prophecy and would further take this thread off topic.
And yet, literally in the sentence before this one you did just that. Self-awareness is not something you seem to get.
They are the "wandering stars" (planets) Mercury, Venus, and Mars.
And this is why prophecy is ridiculous. Supposedly people had all of this knowledge about future events but couldn't tell the difference between a planet and a star.
if you do a little research there are many physics forums, discussions, and books about this.
it's a bit challenging to grasp but it's very interesting.
if there is life on this higher dimensions, they could see us yet we would be unable to see them.
People that try to co-opt science, add woo and make it sound like the Bible are doing a disservice to both religion and science.
many ancient believers of god used cognition to 'think' their way from belief to atheism.
what initially seems a silly question to reason over, can actually destroy a whole theology.. here is a question made famous by 'saint' thomas aquinas, believers in a almighty god with unlimited ability, please have a think about this..... the omnipotence paradox:.
"could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?
One of the most disturbing conclusions I have ever read !!!!!!!!!!!!
All mean all, not "all except when you don't like it".
So ruthless power is true power then ?
That would be a stupid thing to say. Show me a a quote of who said that (besides you, of course) and I'll happily correct them. You can show that quote, right?
any objective reading of the gospels makes it plain that jesus believed his parousia would happen within the lifetime of his generation.. his followers believed in his imminent return until the day of their deaths.. his false prophecy damaged the lives of his disciples in a similar way to that done by the lies of modern cults like the watchtower.
peter and others walked out on their wives, children and businesses to follow him around palestine.
jesus taught them to put their families and other normal concerns in second place to their task of spreading his message - which turned out to be false.. the question is what he was up to?.
That's a lot of obfuscation to make it sound like Jesus knew what he was saying.
In reality, he was wrong on almost everything.
many ancient believers of god used cognition to 'think' their way from belief to atheism.
what initially seems a silly question to reason over, can actually destroy a whole theology.. here is a question made famous by 'saint' thomas aquinas, believers in a almighty god with unlimited ability, please have a think about this..... the omnipotence paradox:.
"could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?
I see God as "almighty ", rather than simply "all powerful" because I fear that term ignores
How is one different than the other?
I fear that term ignores God's other balancing qualities Love, justice, wisdom ( note power is listed last )
If God's power is limited by his love, then he most certainly is not all powerful or almighty.
any objective reading of the gospels makes it plain that jesus believed his parousia would happen within the lifetime of his generation.. his followers believed in his imminent return until the day of their deaths.. his false prophecy damaged the lives of his disciples in a similar way to that done by the lies of modern cults like the watchtower.
peter and others walked out on their wives, children and businesses to follow him around palestine.
jesus taught them to put their families and other normal concerns in second place to their task of spreading his message - which turned out to be false.. the question is what he was up to?.
For one, around that time, the Levant was filled with people that were doing the same thing and thinking they were special. We see the same thing today. People that buy into their own hype have certain qualities that other don't, for instance, it's rarely about gaining material things. OTOH, people like Jim Bakker and Joel Osteen, it's all about the money money money.
any objective reading of the gospels makes it plain that jesus believed his parousia would happen within the lifetime of his generation.. his followers believed in his imminent return until the day of their deaths.. his false prophecy damaged the lives of his disciples in a similar way to that done by the lies of modern cults like the watchtower.
peter and others walked out on their wives, children and businesses to follow him around palestine.
jesus taught them to put their families and other normal concerns in second place to their task of spreading his message - which turned out to be false.. the question is what he was up to?.
Personally, I lean towards delusion and buying into his own hype.
many ancient believers of god used cognition to 'think' their way from belief to atheism.
what initially seems a silly question to reason over, can actually destroy a whole theology.. here is a question made famous by 'saint' thomas aquinas, believers in a almighty god with unlimited ability, please have a think about this..... the omnipotence paradox:.
"could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?
By Viviane's logic a husband could bind himself to moral faithfulness to his wife but it's not really a bind at all because he could go out and commit adultery at any time of his choosing.
Of course that's not my logic, don't be silly. Your attempt to change my example is flawed from the first because you are taking the nature what what something is and attempting to conflate it with what someone says.
The question is specifically related to the nature of and what it means to be all powerful.
Moral law is a binding of the mind and spirit which in turn binds the flesh for humans
Not really the issue here and not true for everyone or every society. What is "moral" can vary from person to person and from culture to culture.
Likewise God can bind or restrain himself for a benefical purpose
That's well and good, but it in no way addresses the paradox.
many ancient believers of god used cognition to 'think' their way from belief to atheism.
what initially seems a silly question to reason over, can actually destroy a whole theology.. here is a question made famous by 'saint' thomas aquinas, believers in a almighty god with unlimited ability, please have a think about this..... the omnipotence paradox:.
"could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?
As some others have stated, the question is absurd, but it does have an answer. Obviously the answer is yes. God can choose to limit himself in any way he desires, such as deciding that he will not be able to lie, or deciding to confine himself to some rule of the universe he created, like gravity. There's no paradox here.
There still is. If god can choose to confine himself to a rule and then choose to unbind himself to that rule, he really isn't bound by it at all. That's no different that saying "Viviane can choose to lock herself in an inescapable room, but could choose to simple walk through the walls if she needs out." By definition, the room cannot be the first thing if the second thing is true. Paradox remains.
many ancient believers of god used cognition to 'think' their way from belief to atheism.
what initially seems a silly question to reason over, can actually destroy a whole theology.. here is a question made famous by 'saint' thomas aquinas, believers in a almighty god with unlimited ability, please have a think about this..... the omnipotence paradox:.
"could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?
Caliber, First, you are now making an assertion that I merely glanced at what you wrote. That's not true. Secondly, you are claiming it's too difficult to explain why it's wrong and that is ALSO not true. What you asked for in your previous post was to explain what the uncertainty principle is. I didn't do that and I am still not going to do that. You have access to Google if you really want to know. My job isn't "explain things to Caliber that he/she won't bother to lookup".
