Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
I don’t mean some poor gardening decisions on earth. I’m talking about a third of angelic beings rebelling in heaven.Well the deity of the bible couldn't even put a forbidden tree out of harms way.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I don’t mean some poor gardening decisions on earth. I’m talking about a third of angelic beings rebelling in heaven.Well the deity of the bible couldn't even put a forbidden tree out of harms way.
Sheldon said: ↑
Well the deity of the bible couldn't even put a forbidden tree out of harms way.
I don’t mean some poor gardening decisions on earth. I’m talking about a third of angelic beings rebelling in heaven.
Israel doesn’t get to lecture anyone on apartheid and genocide.
So not one of the Abrahamic deities then?
Deities plural? Abraham had more than one God?So not one of the Abrahamic deities then?
The Bible seems to track the beliefs of the Hebrews from polytheists to monotheists.Deities plural? Abraham had more than one God?
I explained it in both of my native tongues. (Multi-linqual childhood) Besides, you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. Yet, I agree that you don't have to.
Actually, it does matter. You claimed that Torath Mosheh Jews don't consider the Galuth to still be in effect. I showed evidence that ALL Torath Mosheh Jews do. You have haven't countered it with anything show Torath Mosheh Jews who claim the Galuth is over. Done deal.
Here is a list:
Hah! More evidence that God is an American!An omniscient omnipotent deity, whose message is hampered by being able to communicate only as a monoglot? That doesn't make much sense now does it.
You don't seen to understand that the burden of proof for your particular beliefs need to be supported and you have not done that.
So, you are just making random assertions for no good reason.Actually, the burden of proof is on no one here. I am not trying to prove anything to you personally just like you are not trying to prove anything to me.
So, you are just making random assertions for no good reason.
So you claim that an expert translator, fluent in both source and target language, and with knowledge of the relevant field is necessary. A layman with no such expertise attempting to translate a text themselves would be foolish.I can't speak for Greek, but one can definately understand incorrectly a text without knowing the language it was written in.
If one wants to understand "correctly" the text as the author intented one would defiantely need to understand how the language (which a part of the philosophical concepts and historical context) they wrote it in works.
I.e. the only way ancient Hebrew as used by Jews is understood modernly because of how it was described in the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Geonim, the Rishonim, etc. and of course people who know all of these and read the language have the proper tools to understand it and investigate elements of it not found or covered by those who try to translate the "philosophical concepts and historical context."
Everyone else is simply using what those translate modernly what they are able to try and "help" a preson who is illeterate in said language to under the "philosophical concepts and historical context." Of course the illterate in said language are at the mercy of whether or not those they rely on got the "philosophical concepts and historical context" correct.
So, we can definately agree on that. Great comment.
Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, and any derivations thereof worship Abrahamic deities. These are traditionally considered to be both omniscient and omnipotent.No such thing as an Abrahamic deity here.
Deities plural? Abraham had more than one God?
Anytime one asserts something to be the case, or to be true, which is effectively the same thing, they have a burden of proof. Though this will vary according to the nature of the claim. A belief is an acceptance that something is the case or is true, again I see no relevant difference there, and so a belief expressed publicly would carry an epistemological burden of proof, most especially in a public debate forum.Actually, the burden of proof is on no one here. I am not trying to prove anything to you personally just like you are not trying to prove anything to me.
Anytime one asserts something to be the case, or to be true, which is effectively the same thing, they have a burden of proof.
When women were pregnant, and the baby was delivered, they didn't deliver the baby, or cut the umbilical cord, for fear of infection?No idea what you are talking about or how it relates to my point.
Nothing there says anything about a medical consensus. So I guess you just imagined it, and wrote it. Right?You saved me the bother as your quote says that the NHS do not provide non-medical circumcisions.
Even when there is a medical issue, circumcision is the last resort...
"circumcision will only be recommended when other, less invasive and less risky treatments have been tried and haven't worked." (www.nhs.uk)
So not only does the NHS consider routine circumcision to have no appreciable health benefits, it considers even medical circumcision to be a risky treatment to be avoided if possible.
Those who want to circumcise their infant can do so, without the fear of killing them, or injuring them.There is clearly no good reason for the routine circumcision of infants. I think that puts the issue to bed, yes?
Incomplete = not perfect. Thank you.Very few are. It is because of incomplete fission of a single zygote.
Personal attacks seem to be your strong point, but there are useless in debates.Oh dear god, there is seriously something wrong with you.
There are, yes. That's similar to why some women are born without a vagina, or one that's not fully formed, and need an operation to correct what is a defect... obviously.Do you genuinely believe that conjoined twins are because of someone's "sinful actions"?
You would lose that bet.I bet you'd love to torture a confession from a witch and then burn her.
There are no words...
So you think it's natural for animals to live on with healthy bones and teeth... some even living for millennia, while ours rot, and get fragile... and we can hardly live past a meager 120 yearsOf course it is. What are you on about?
Correct. Actually it's a promise made by one who does not lie. Isaiah 33:24 I believe it.I suppose you believe that a person free of sin will never age.
Where exactly did I claim "that circumcision is necessary to avoid serious health problems"? Post number please.You claim that circumcision is necessary to avoid serious health problems, and that foreskin removal has no negative effects.
Therefore the inclusion of the foreskin on the human body was a mistake, a design fault.
God did not design the human body with a design fault. So please get your facts straight before you ask these loaded questions... and resorting to patting yourself on the back.So once again, why did god design the human body with a design fault? Was it deliberate (if so why), or was god just incompetent?
(And once again, you will avoid addressing this key issue, because you have no response)
Sheldon said: ↑
Anytime one asserts something to be the case, or to be true, which is effectively the same thing, they have a burden of proof.
If someone is doing what you stated with the intent that someone in particular who doesn't beleive them believes them then yes. If someone has no concern if a particular person or persons accepts it then no.
Discussion done.
So you claim that an expert translator, fluent in both source and target language, and with knowledge of the relevant field is necessary. A layman with no such expertise attempting to translate a text themselves would be foolish.
Again, I agree with you.
That is odd. He does not appear to agree with you.