PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Why do you think so?I believe your use of pronouns is incorrect.
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!
Why do you think so?I believe your use of pronouns is incorrect.
let the humans earn their keep...carry the donkey!Terrible waste of a donkey, that. Let it earn it’s keep.
Maybe natural teleology.Sure it can be, and it also can be nature unfolding according to its properties in my view.
In order to have a sound logical proof of God I believe you need to rule out the later.
In other words turn your possibility into a probability.
There are some things that are known. Many thinkers have derived some attributes of the first cause. For example it exists necessarily (not contingently). So existence is its essence - pure being.Yeah, I do believe that. But I try to be honest and the first cause is unknown for anything other than being the first cause.
Of course not.I have noticed that poll's with this kind of question shows that most in this forum who are active are either Atheists or Agnostics. Actual religious people who believe in a God in a religious forum are the minority. It's not strange.
A belief in God is not absolutely due to a particular religion. It could also be based on reason and logic and it has been discussed for a long long time. Yet, it seems to be ignored and a lot of times the cart is shoved before the horse for whatever anti religious argumentation deemed needed.
Belief in God could stem from logical reasoning. Philosophical argumentation. Religions and scriptures are not absolutely necessary. I believe people should go to fundamentals rather than banking on peripherals to kill God. I think that's exactly what Nietzsche said being an Atheist with nihilistic tendencies.
What do you say??
What do you say??
I have noticed that poll's with this kind of question shows that most in this forum who are active are either Atheists or Agnostics. Actual religious people who believe in a God in a religious forum are the minority. It's not strange.
A belief in God is not absolutely due to a particular religion. It could also be based on reason and logic and it has been discussed for a long long time. Yet, it seems to be ignored and a lot of times the cart is shoved before the horse for whatever anti religious argumentation deemed needed.
Belief in God could stem from logical reasoning. Philosophical argumentation. Religions and scriptures are not absolutely necessary. I believe people should go to fundamentals rather than banking on peripherals to kill God. I think that's exactly what Nietzsche said being an Atheist with nihilistic tendencies.
What do you say??
Jesus was begotten. True. He is said to be the "only begotten."Since you're a Christian, John 1:14 is a statement of what I mean from a Christian perspective. The theological difference is that where Christians focus on Jesus, others focus on the Christ and count Jesus as one appearance of the Christ on Earth usually using the word "Avatar" instead of "Christ" In this viewpoint "only begotten" refers to the eternal Christ/Avatar.
" begotten "Jesus was begotten. True. He is said to be the "only begotten."
" begotten "
"typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction."
Isn't it an accusation of the Pauline NT Bible, an unreliable source, as I understand, on God, Mary and (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), please, right??
It is used for/to "sire", right, please?
Regards
I don't know where you get the information about "Pauline" NT Bible, so if you'd like to explain that, please go and do so. (Please, right?)" begotten "
"typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction."
Isn't it an accusation of the Pauline NT Bible, an unreliable source, as I understand, on God, Mary and (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), please, right??
It is used for/to "sire", right, please?
Regards
To add to the description of 'only-begotten,' it can refer to male or female. But let's get back to that description you have to the Pauline NT. please, right?" begotten "
"typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction."
Isn't it an accusation of the Pauline NT Bible, an unreliable source, as I understand, on God, Mary and (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), please, right??
It is used for/to "sire", right, please?
Regards
and what is that, please?To add to the description of 'only-begotten,' it can refer to male or female. But let's get back to that description you have to the Pauline NT. please, right?
You said "We don't actually know this." I believe "we" is too inclusive.Why do you think so?
What is what about that, please? thank you.paarsurrey said:
" begotten "
"typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction."
begotten - Google Search
Isn't it an accusation of the Pauline NT Bible, an unreliable source, as I understand, on God, Mary and (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), please, right??
It is used for/to "sire", right, please?
and what is that, please?
Regards
Some people use that type of expression a lot here.You said "We don't actually know this." I believe "we" is too inclusive.
John 1:18 is presented in the King James Version as, "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." The NIV translation, however, based on early third century texts, reads, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known," with a footnote indicating that "some manuscripts" read "the only begotten Son."I don't know where you get the information about "Pauline" NT Bible, so if you'd like to explain that, please go and do so. (Please, right?)
Then maybe we can go on to 'only-begotten.' (Please right again?)
Well, science is not absolute. So if you are referring to absolute knowledge about the beginning of the universe using science as your epistemology, it's true that we don't have absolute knowledge of "this"."The Universe had a beginning." - We actually don't know this.
The problem I have with the ToE is that there are no substantial facts showing the transition, for one thing, from fish to land dwellers, and yes, that includes the ideas about Tiktaalik as if somehow fish developed air breathing lungs and legs, scientists determining Tiktaalik is the answer. I just don't see it, doesn't matter how many people want to argue and tell me I'm ignorant, etc. and etc. Because for one thing, those who do cannot find any fish that have developed legs and air-breathing lungs.The ToE does not negate the possibility of divine creation.