Its common sense and truth - that life comes from life.this is a logical fallacy. if life comes from life, then god must have followed the same rule and come from life, ergo he was not the creator.
God is the Supreme life. - being first cause and the continual intelligent spiritual principle that is maintaining all that is now - and for ever more - to eternity.
if god is not alive, then life can come from non-life and your premise is disrupted.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by VoidSpiritthumbs up.... Also the observation that life comes from life doesn't preclude life coming from not-life.
this is a logical fallacy. if life comes from life, then god must have followed the same rule and come from life, ergo he was not the creator.
if god is not alive, then life can come from non-life and your premise is disrupted.
So that's two logical fallacies.... at least.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritGod came from life according to the Holy Bible. He came from His Father.
this is a logical fallacy. if life comes from life, then god must have followed the same rule and come from life, ergo he was not the creator.
if god is not alive, then life can come from non-life and your premise is disrupted.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritEveryone knows that God is first cause.
this is a logical fallacy. if life comes from life, then god must have followed the same rule and come from life, ergo he was not the creator.
if god is not alive, then life can come from non-life and your premise is disrupted.
Because God is God he can be the first cause.
No one else can except God.
Originally posted by DasaEveryone knows that God is first cause.
Everyone knows that God is first cause.
Because God is God he can be the first cause.
No one else can except God.
FALSE
At least one person (me) does not know this.
Because God is God he can be the first cause.
And because Bart Simpson is Bart Simpson he can .... what nonsense!
No one else can except God.
How do you know? If there is one supernatural creature out there isn't it likely there are more? What human experience would deny that?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by wolfgang59Actually on the last point polytheism makes a lot more sense than monotheism.
[b]Everyone knows that God is first cause.
FALSE
At least one person (me) does not know this.
Because God is God he can be the first cause.
And because Bart Simpson is Bart Simpson he can .... what nonsense!
No one else can except God.
How do you know? If there is one supernatural creature out there isn't it likely there are more? What human experience would deny that?[/b]
Many of the conflicts inherent in all the posited monotheistic gods are due to them being
amalgamations of many gods.
When they were many it made perfect sense for them to not always agree and sometimes
be in conflict with each other.
However when you make it one being in conflict with itself.... Then you have trouble.
Also the polytheists tend to be more tolerant of other peoples gods because if you already
have many gods adding or acknowledging that there might be others is no big stretch (and
doesn't undermine your religion)
Monotheists however start by asserting that all other gods are false/non-existent.
And get upset if anyone suggests otherwise.
And back to dasa's assertions... I don't even acknowledge there was, or has to be, a first cause.
Let alone attribute it to an invisible/imaginary/non-existent deity.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgenot true as a general rule. the assyrians and hebrews were polytheists, but first, the assyrians declared ashur to be the supreme god above all other gods, then the hebrew royal families followed suit and did the same thing with their tribal deity, yahweh. and they were very nasty about the dominance of their particular gods.
Also the polytheists tend to be more tolerant of other peoples gods because if you already
have many gods adding or acknowledging that there might be others is no big stretch (and
doesn't undermine your religion)
there was also some nasty intolerance in rome before they converted to state christianity, though the conversion didn't end their intolerance.
as a general rule, when it comes to religion as a tool of statecraft, there will be intolerance when competing religions (whatever they may be) try to assert their dominance.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritAttitudes to foreign religions changed throughout the time of the Empire but the general attitude was one of assimilation (an advantage of polytheism). I guess it was impossible to assimilate a Christian god (although check out Sol Invictus for some interesting comparisons with Christ)
not true as a general rule. the assyrians and hebrews were polytheists, but first, the assyrians declared ashur to be the supreme god above all other gods, then the hebrew royal families followed suit and did the same thing with their tribal deity, yahweh. and they were very nasty about the dominance of their particular gods.
there was also some nast ...[text shortened]... l be intolerance when competing religions (whatever they may be) try to assert their dominance.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Its strong influence is why the Roman Catholic Church adopted
Attitudes to foreign religions changed throughout the time of the Empire but the general attitude was one of assimilation (an advantage of polytheism). I guess it was impossible to assimilate a Christian god (although check out Sol Invictus for some interesting comparisons with Christ)
December 25 as the birthday of Christ and renamed it Christmas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus
Originally posted by RJHindsLearn your history sparky.
Its strong influence is why the Roman Catholic Church adopted
December 25 as the birthday of Christ and renamed it Christmas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus
25th December was a pagan festival long before Jesus walked the earth.