Notices
Results 1 to 58 of 58
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By MrMojo1

Thread: Any gods like this?

  1. #1 Any gods like this? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    57
    With physical bodies but with a spirit so that they live forever?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    There appears to be no significant evidence for gods of this type. Also, just because they are immortal would this make them gods, or something more akin to an angel (or a devil)?

    Do you think there is any scientific evidence for such entities? Is so, what is it? If not what leads you to ask the question?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    Yep, The Christian God. Jesus was born immaculately from the seed of a woman. No human man was involved. Jesus was 100% eternal God and 100% temporal man. A spirit, in a physical human body. When Jesus' body died, his spirit walked the earth in a spirit body that could eat, drink, talk, walk through walls, and that people could touch for 40 days before he went back to heaven. That is the Christian position and the only God i know that fulfills the God youre looking for. Amazing isnt He?!

    Adam and Eve lived in a perfect world before eating the fruit and Adam lived to be 969 years old, the longest ever lived. In heaven, we will all be given new bodies, not physical ones that decay but eternal spiritual bodies that we can eat and drink in. That is the promise to the believer in Jesus Christ.

    I can only think of myths relating to other gods such as greek mythological demi-gods.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMichael View Post
    With physical bodies but with a spirit so that they live forever?
    Assuming you are not talking about reality, most religions have gods of this form. For example, all the old Greek and Norse gods, the many incarnations of Hindu gods and many others. I suspect western religion is unusual in being monotheistic and non-physical.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    That is the Christian position and the only God i know that fulfills the God youre looking for.

    ...

    I can only think of myths relating to other gods such as greek mythological demi-gods.
    Doesn't that contradict the earlier statement? And why only demi-gods, even Zeus took human form occasionally.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    Its not a contradiction because the first is real and the greek gods are myths.
    I only said demi gods because although they are 50% god and 50% mortal, Jesus was 100% of both.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    Its not a contradiction because the first is real and the greek gods are myths.
    They weren't myths to the people who believed in them and worshipped them, though. They would have considered them just as real as the Christian God is now.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    In the Bible, it tells us that an apostle looked at a statue on the areophagus and the inscription said 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD'. This shows us that the greeks didnt have the whole polytheistic philosophy fully worked out.

    Doesnt even Occams razor tell us that monotheism is more probable and realistic than polytheism.

    A god for the sea, a god for love, a god for fire etc etc, the list could go on forever and keep inventing new gods.

    During Babylonian times, Roman, Greeek etc etc there were multiple gods for each civilisation, but even in Israel there were people worshipping the one true God during those times.

    Nobody really worships any of these 'gods' anymore because it is unfeasible. The majority of polytheistic gods have just had their names changed over in a new civilization- Zeus to Jupiter, Ares to Mars...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    Doesnt even Occams razor tell us that monotheism is more probable and realistic than polytheism.
    That is an interesting use of Occam's razor; I haven't seen that suggested before. It does imply that even metaphysical entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. It doesn't say anything about the reality of those entities though.

    Nobody really worships any of these 'gods' anymore
    There are plenty of extant polytheistic religions.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    There are plenty of extant polytheistic religions.
    -in relation to Christianity, Judaism and Islam and atheist (agnostic) populations they are very few and I cant think of anybody who worships Athena or Zeus or any of the great pantheons of the past. These gods do not answer, ever, to people as they are idols. dumb and mute. and are done mainly for traditions sake.


    It doesn't say anything about the reality of those entities though.
    - the reality comes down to own personal faith in the entity of God so there is no point of trying to convince you if you dont have faith in it in the 1st place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    There are plenty of extant polytheistic religions.
    -in relation to Christianity, Judaism and Islam and atheist (agnostic) populations they are very few
    The obvious ones are Hinduism, Buddhism, Fat Rog, Shinto and other shamanistic beliefs. And of course there is a rise in Paganism in many countries. I have heard it said that the Christian trinity is a form of polytheism, but as I don't understand the ideas behind the trinity, I can't really comment.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    I havent heard of fat rog or shinto but agree that hinduism is still pretty big in India (although their gods are seriously overdue in caring for their people)(Have you been to India lately?)

    Yes the trinity is perceived as polytheism by people who havent read the Bible yet. God is 3 in 1. But they are all the same God, not seperate entities and share one mind. I didnt really understand the trinity when I first became a Christian, but someone explained it to me like this- I am a father, a son and a brother all at the same time. The 3 facets of God are the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. All distinctive but all connected. God became a man, through the Son, on the cross. The Holy Spirit and the Father cant assume bodily form, this is the Son, Jesus, who does it. The reason that Jesus could perform miracles while on earth was because the Spirit of God was inside him. That is why he could walk on water, because he created it. God created the whole universe and earth through Jesus, by Jesus and for Jesus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMichael View Post
    With physical bodies but with a spirit so that they live forever?
    Heracles. The Greek Demi-God ascended to Olympus after his body was burned on a pyre after he completed the 12 labors. As stated earlier, there are many fables and legends which are similar. There is no empirical evidence that these gods/demi-gods ever existed, but were worshiped by many cultures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post

    Yes the trinity is perceived as polytheism by people who havent read the Bible yet. God is 3 in 1.
    Is there a description/definition of the trinity in the Bible where it states this? If so where?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    God created the whole universe and earth through Jesus, by Jesus and for Jesus.
    This doesn't strike you as a trifle self indulgent?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    I havent heard of fat rog or shinto but agree that hinduism is still pretty big in India (although their gods are seriously overdue in caring for their people)(Have you been to India lately?)
    It's nice to know that disease and poverty don't exist in Christian countries.

    Never heard of Shinto? [Shakes head in despair.]
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    The word trinity is never used in scripture but is a modern word for the Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Another similar word is rapture, but it is never used in scripture.

    Self-indulgent? No, it is a Father displaying power through his only son. Everything he does is in his own good pleasure to do it.

    I havent seen any slums or favelas in western Christian countries as of yet, Strange. You have to admit that there is a significant difference between London and New Delhi surely. Having said that, Jesus loves everybody the same and he is in London as much as he is in New Delhi.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    The word trinity is never used in scripture but is a moderIn word for the Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
    Of course. It is a (realtively) modern invention. Like the concept of immaculate conception.

    I havent seen any slums or favelas in western Christian countries as of yet, Strange
    You haven't seen slums in western Christian countries? Really? You need to get out more.

    And I really don't understand your point about favelas. Are you saying that your God has abandoned the Christians in Brazil because they are not western? [Edit: actually, depending where you start from, I suppose Brazil is even more Western than Europe!]

    You have to admit that there is a significant difference between London and New Delhi surely. Having said that, Jesus loves everybody the same and he is in London as much as he is in New Delhi.
    Then why blame the difference on Hindu gods? Shouldn't your God be looking after the people in India as well as those in London? (Let's just forget about the poor and homeless in London for the moment, though.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I havent seen any slums or favelas in western Christian countries as of yet, Strange.
    No slums in London? Glasgow? Naples? Sydney? Dublin? Dozens of other cities in 'western Christian countries' spring to mind.

    The fact that these areas are much reduced from their ghastly extent a few generations ago doesn't change the fact that being western and Christian was no protection against overcrowded poverty, squalor and early death for centuries in the case of Naples, London and several other European cities.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    The word trinity is new. But the word Godhead is in the scriptures. The Godhead has existed since before the beginning of the world. Genesis says 'Let US go down and make man in OUR image' why would this be plural in the scriptures, even the original, if it wasnt meant for more than one being?

    Having said that, Jesus loves everybody the same and he is in London as much as he is in New Delhi. answers your question about favelas. I maybe shouldnt have put it across that Indians suffer because they dont believe in my God, that isnt how i wanted it to come across and there are many millions of Christians in India anyway.

    Nice to know that sarcasm is still alive and well in the world
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    The word trinity is new. But the word Godhead is in the scriptures. The Godhead has existed since before the beginning of the world. Genesis says 'Let US go down and make man in OUR image' why would this be plural in the scriptures, even the original, if it wasnt meant for more than one being?

    Because early forms of Judaism were polytheistic.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    The word trinity is new. But the word Godhead is in the scriptures. The Godhead has existed since before the beginning of the world. Genesis says 'Let US go down and make man in OUR image' why would this be plural in the scriptures, even the original, if it wasnt meant for more than one being?

    Because early forms of Judaism were polytheistic.
    I dont understand that. Early forms of Judaism (from Abraham to Moses to David to Christ) are by their definitions monotheistic. It all began with Abraham and he acknowledged a singular God. Which early forms oof Judaism do you mean exactly? Jews worship Jehovah alone and dont even believe in the trinity so how could it ever have been polytheistic at any point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    The Birth and Evolution of Judaism: The Pre-Mosaic Stage
    Early Hebrew religion was polytheistic; the curious plural form of the name of God, Elohim rather than El, leads them to believe that the original Hebrew religion involved several gods.
    I always wondered about why Elohim was plural.

    There is also a theory that God was once married to Asherah
    God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible -- Almost : Discovery News
    Jewish Atheist: Repost: Ancient Judaism was Polytheistic
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    The Jewish Bible itself has examples of worshiping other gods, and being scolded and punished for it.

    Israeli Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman published "The Bible Unearthed" which chronicles their findings. One of the many findings of their work was that early Judaism had YHWH paired with a consort named Asherah. There was a PBS documentary produced of some of their findings (NOVA | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible).

    There are videos of the The Bible Unearthed documentary which can be found via a easy search.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    God's Wife- This article is simply untrue and if you cant even grasp the idea of a God fully enough to believe in Him, then why add a wife to the cooking pot aswell when it has no scriptural evidence whatsoever. Ashteroh was a 'goddess' contrary to God, and he commanded many times to His people that the Ashteroh poless (altars) be cut down.
    In the article, someone writes:
    "You might know him as Yahweh, Allah or God. But on this fact, Jews, Muslims and Christians, the people of the great Abrahamic religions, are agreed: There is only one of Him," writes Stavrakopoulou in a statement released to the British media. "He is a solitary figure, a single, universal creator, not one God among many ... or so we like to believe."

    Early Hebrew religion was polytheistic; the curious plural form of the name of God, Elohim rather than El, leads them to believe that the original Hebrew religion involved several gods.
    - lok at the sentence 'curious plural form (a word) LEADS THEM TO BELIEVE. LEADS THEM TO BELIEVE is the critical phrase. They have turned away from God inspired scripture and are leaning on their own understandings of God. Creating a god that they are comfortable with in their own minds, who doesnt require judgement, is called idolatry in the Bible.

    The Jewish Atheist website sounds paradoxical to begin with but nevertheless an interesting article. It doesnt actually say that Judaism is/was polytheistic. It simply states that Jews merged, out of Gods will, in with other tribes and belief systems and attempted to reconcile them. By the very definition, a Christian and Jew worship the same, one and only God since he introducted himself to Adam and then Abraham. The only difference is that Christians believe that He had a son who died for them. Many Jews are becoming messianic which is encouraging. This website also gives a detailed, and contradictory, answer to the other article above about Gods wife. Both the articles give a different opinion of Ashteroth. Which one is then true?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    Even if archaeologists discovered evidence that early Jews associated a wife to God it doesnt make it that it is that way in reality. The archaeologists have found evidence of a theory of a wife. The very reason for their faith, the Old Testament, declares this not to be the case and in no wise mentions a wife for God. God is not man so dont bring Him down to our level like we can fully understand Him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    57
    I think there are people who believe in Greek gods even now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMichael View Post
    I think there are people who believe in Greek gods even now.
    Probably a few, yes. But a rational mind cannot believe myths created by man for man. We can only follow the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Probably a few, yes. But a rational mind cannot believe myths created by man for man. We can only follow the truth.
    Of course they can....and do by the billions still.
    Humans have amazing ability to comparmentalize their thinking into rational and irrational belief while tricking themselves into justifications for each side.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; June 12th, 2012 at 11:54 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    But a rational mind cannot believe myths created by man for man. We can only follow the truth.
    How does one go about knowing the truth? How would you know the difference between myth and factual events?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    But a rational mind cannot believe myths created by man for man. We can only follow the truth.
    Do you realise that people who believe in a different God (or gods) might say exactly the same about your beliefs?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    There is only one truth. By its very definition it can only be this way. I choose to believe that my God, Jehovah/YAHWEH of the Judeochristian Bible is who he says he is as he calls himself 'the Truth' and 'Light'. The Bible makes sense to me now I have put my trust and faith in it. A myth is something that is untrue, but sounds true. Factual events, such as the creation of our earth, are just those and require no further evidence.

    So you are saying that somebody who prays to Zeus for material gain is the same as a Christian praying to the creator do be able to do the creators will instead of his own is the same thing? There has to be something different about Judaism and Christianity for it to have existed and not been completely refuted for so many thousands of years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    God's Wife- This article is simply untrue and if you cant even grasp the idea of a God fully enough to believe in Him, then why add a wife to the cooking pot aswell when it has no scriptural evidence whatsoever. ?
    2 Kgs 23:4 "...And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest and the priests of the second order and the keepers of the threshold to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron and carried their ashes to Bethel..."

    Within the context of the literature, it seems that Josiah was to stop the worshiping of other gods in the Temple. Whether Baal was another name for Yahweh or Lord is an ongoing debate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    There has to be something different about Judaism and Christianity for it to have existed and not been completely refuted for so many thousands of years.
    This is the point that Strange is trying to make. Hinduism is one oldest organized religion to date. Worshipers could claim the same as you do and they have older historical record.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    TSo you are saying that somebody who prays to Zeus for material gain is the same as a Christian praying to the creator do be able to do the creators will instead of his own is the same thing? There has to be something different about Judaism and Christianity for it to have existed and not been completely refuted for so many thousands of years.
    I am just saying that someone who worships another God or gods would consider theirs to be the true religion and yours to be false. Obviously, or they wouldn't follow that religion.

    There are other religions that have lasted longer than Christianity so I don't think that is very relevant.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    mrmojo, I can cateqorically say that Baal is Satan and in every instance of Baal in the Bible it is a god who is opposed to Yahweh, a complete opposite and not synonymous with Yahweh in any way. In the case of Elijah, a servant of Yahweh, confronts 450 prophets of Baal as a true challenge to see who is the real God. Yahweh obviously put 'Baal' to shame in this instance.

    True, religions have lasted longer than Christianity, but Christianity is based in Judaism and which religions came before Judaism and are still present in the modern world today?

    I am just saying that someone who worships another God or gods would consider theirs to be the true religion and yours to be false. Obviously, or they wouldn't follow that religion.
    -that is their perspective and its akin to us believing Newtonian physics without acknowledging the more recent work of Einstein. As I said before, i do not deny that they believe in god/gods. but there can only be one truth and to me its clear what that truth is. Yes it is subjective, but if the truth isnt subjective, then what is it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    True, religions have lasted longer than Christianity, but Christianity is based in Judaism and which religions came before Judaism and are still present in the modern world today?
    Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastriansim, and probably many shamanistic religions.

    -that is their perspective and its akin to us believing Newtonian physics without acknowledging the more recent work of Einstein.
    Not really, because that isn't a matter of faith.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    If you research it, Judaism is the first religion 500 years before Hinduism:

    2,085 BC. Judaism-Abraham
    1,500 BC. Hinduism- no specific founder

    The Jewish idea of God is particularly important to the world because it was the Jews who developed two new ideas about God:[/h]
    • There is only one God
    • God chooses to behave in a way that is both just and fair.
    Before Judaism, people believed in lots of gods, and those gods behaved no better than human beings. The Jews found themselves with a God who was ethical and good and stuck with Him.

    It is the same, because issues such as evolution require blind faith because there is no substantial evidence to prove it.

    The NEWTON/EINSTEIN synonym is correct because the people are believeing something that they believe to be true when an aven greter truth has already been revealed. They choose to accept one definition over another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    If you research it, Judaism is the first religion 500 years before Hinduism:

    2,085 BC. Judaism-Abraham
    1,500 BC. Hinduism- no specific founder
    "...Some Indus valley seals show swastikas, which are found in other religions (worldwide), especially in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. The earliest evidence for elements of Hinduism are alleged to have been present before and during the early Harappan period.[59] Phallic symbols interpreted as the much later Hindu Shiva lingam have been found in the Harappan remains."

    Early Harappan Period -3300-2600BCE

    Jewish History - 1500 - 37BCE


    Indus Valley Civilization
    Periodization of the Indus Valley Civilization
    Jewish History
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    Judaism is where people from Abraham onwards started worshipping the Lord God of Israel as a people nation. Before Abraham, people still worshiped Jehovah, the God of the Jews and Christians. So just becasue Jewish history begins at around 1500 BC, doesnt mean that worship of the same God did not occur before that. Who did Noah worship? Who did Adam and Eve worship? Surely for Adam and Eve to worship God from the very beginning proves that there is only One God and the whole other pantheon of invented deities from Nimrod until now are false gods.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    You are correct, just because there is no historical record it doesn't disqualify an event occurred. It could have been earlier. Do you have an empirical evidence of Noah, Adam, and Eve existences and when they began worshiping Yahweh and adhering to the 613 Mitzvots?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    If you research it, Judaism is the first religion 500 years before Hinduism:

    2,085 BC. Judaism-Abraham
    1,500 BC. Hinduism- no specific founder
    I would be interested where you got those dates. Some of the Vedas appear to go back to about 4,000 BC (1) and some argue it goes back to 6500BC (2). Zoroastrianism is at least as old (3). Not that any of that means anything in terms of whose religion is "best".

    The Jewish idea of God is particularly important to the world ...
    Well, important to Jews, Christians and Muslims at least. Although that is probably just about the majority of the world's population.

    It is the same, because issues such as evolution require blind faith because there is no substantial evidence to prove it.
    Oh don't start on that. There is an enormous amount of evidence for (a) the fact that evolution happens (eaten any wheat recently? seen a pet dog?) and (b) the theory of evolution by natural selection. If you are suffering from creationism then the only cure is to learn.

    The NEWTON/EINSTEIN synonym is correct because the people are believeing something that they believe to be true when an aven greter truth has already been revealed.
    What on earth are you doing on a science forum? That is not about belief in a "revealed truth", it is about evidence and the theory that best explains it.


    (1) History of Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (2) Theories About the Origin of Hinduism
    (3) Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    You are correct, just because there is no historical record it doesn't disqualify an event occurred. It could have been earlier. Do you have an empirical evidence of Noah, Adam, and Eve existences and when they began worshiping Yahweh and adhering to the 613 Mitzvots?
    Empirical evidence. No. Unless the Old testament Torah and the New testament can be counted. As both of these provide generation after generation from the male line from Adam right up to Jesus. I believe this is how other christians calculate the approximate age of the earth. by adding 2012 years to the end of Jesus's lifetime. All the way down to Abraham, the muslim holy book lists the same people i believe.

    Are items of faith, ie belief in Adam and Eve, suitable to be subject to empirical evidence testing? You know very well that I have no empirical evidence of Adam and Eve, nobody does, because faith is believing what you have not seen. If nobody had faith, then everybody would just be in an endless stage of gathering empirical evidence. Much like this forum, there are threads on multiple subjects but they have not yet been reconciled together.

    Empirical evidence cannot be argued with. It exists as its own proof. The difference comes when that evidence is debated. Eg. we can see that fossils exist but evolutionists and creationists have completely seperate view on how a fossil came to be a fossil. It ranges from slowly over millions of years to a quick (1 year long) flood that buried everything 6000 years ago.

    Adam and Eve, I presume, must have been worshipping the Lord God from the moment they were created. The Bible says that Enoch, 7th from Adam, walked with God in a close relationship.

    Bear in mind that Enoch walked with God (YAHWEH) before there was a written Bible, before there were a nation of Jews, before Abraham was called by God, before the 10 commandments were written, before the 613 mitzvots were decreed, before the flood of Noah. In relation to that, your question, Adam and Eve or even Noah could have adhered to the 613 mitzvots because they had not been written yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    Posted twice
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    I said that evolution was not true. I did not say that natural selection was not true. In the cases of wheat, animal breeding for certain traits, this is not natural selection. This is human selection based on desired physical or personality traits and comes down to tampering with an already preprogrammed informaiton structure. However, Darwins theory was not called 'Evolution and Natural Selection'. It was called Origin of Species, which has a completely different meaning to natural selection. Darwin assumed and approximated that life must have come from a single cell organism and evolved slowly over time, millions + millions + millions of years slowly plodding on. The evolution of species and the origin of species are two completely different things.

    So however far we go back to see which religion is the earliest, if the Bible is true then man has been worshipping Jehovah from Day 1. (Well, from Day 6 really!) And during this time, many other false religions have arose as man turned away from God to the tangled, divided mess of religions of the modern world. Even Christianity has been split up into separate factions which hold different views but the truth remains and does not change.

    There is a 7.5 trillion dollar reward to anybody who can provide evidence in fossil form or any other form of a TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL. An actual transitional fossil between any two species.
    -The offer has been on the table for quite a while now, and other offers that have not been challenged for decades.
    Short Sharp Science: $7.5 trillion for a 'transitional' fossil?


    You either believe in creation or evolution. The two are irreconcilable.


    p.s I am in a science forum to discuss physics mainly but there are no threads that I am interested in there just yet so I prefer to talk about the creator and try and tell people about him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    I said that evolution was not true.
    If you want to discuss your ignorance of biology and, hopefully, learn something (if you are not too narrow minded) then I suggest you start a thread in Biology.

    So however far we go back to see which religion is the earliest, if the Bible is true then man has been worshipping Jehovah from Day 1.
    Well, it may seem odd, but every religion would say the same about their God(s).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMichael View Post
    With physical bodies but with a spirit so that they live forever?
    Mormons believe that about God. Their trinity is 3 distinct beings, of which two of them, the Father, and the Son are claimed to have physical bodies. The Holy Ghost doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    The word trinity is new. But the word Godhead is in the scriptures. The Godhead has existed since before the beginning of the world. Genesis says 'Let US go down and make man in OUR image' why would this be plural in the scriptures, even the original, if it wasnt meant for more than one being?

    Because early forms of Judaism were polytheistic.
    I dont understand that. Early forms of Judaism (from Abraham to Moses to David to Christ) are by their definitions monotheistic. It all began with Abraham and he acknowledged a singular God. Which early forms oof Judaism do you mean exactly? Jews worship Jehovah alone and dont even believe in the trinity so how could it ever have been polytheistic at any point?
    I think he means the forms that preceded those forms. Go even further back. Where did Abraham learn his notions of religion from? (Or maybe just go prior to Moses, since Moses is the point where we get the "no other gods besides me" rule.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    So however far we go back to see which religion is the earliest, if the Bible is true then man has been worshipping Jehovah from Day 1. (Well, from Day 6 really!) And during this time, many other false religions have arose as man turned away from God to the tangled, divided mess of religions of the modern world. Even Christianity has been split up into separate factions which hold different views but the truth remains and does not change.
    Since this is a science forum, we can't start with the assumption that the Bible is true, or even that it is perfectly transmitted/preserved from its original texts.

    Naturally, every new religious movement likes to claim, however spuriously, that it is the original and no other ideas ever existed before it. The other alternative is to co-opt a previous ideology. Like Christianity co-opting Judaism, even though Old Testament Judaism bears little if any resemblance to the ideology of Jesus Christ. Or also Islam claiming writings from there.

    Clearly Jehova from the Old Testament isn't described identically in both religions. Yet... they both claim to have been taught all the way into antiquity.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think he means the forms that preceded those forms. Go even further back. Where did Abraham learn his notions of religion from? (Or maybe just go prior to Moses, since Moses is the point where we get the "no other gods besides me" rule.)
    And then the oral and/or written tradition would have retconned the previous polytheistic practices into idolatry.
    adelady likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    even though Old Testament Judaism bears little if any resemblance to the ideology of Jesus Christ
    - That is clearly not true. Everything in the Old testament refers to Jesus Christ. People in the OT are archetypes of Jesus and Jesus is seen throughout the Old testament. There are so many, it cannot be denied that He is. And that very reason is why all the books of the Bible mesh together in a supernatural way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    Everything in the Old testament refers to Jesus Christ. People in the OT are archetypes of Jesus and Jesus is seen throughout the Old testament. There are so many, it cannot be denied that He is. And that very reason is why all the books of the Bible mesh together in a supernatural way.
    Okay, I'll bite.

    [Ezekiel 18:20-22]"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live: he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.


    [Leviticus 16:16-34] I'll paraphrase since it is a long passage. An atonement is made once a year (Yon Kippur) with a sacrifice of a bull and a goat as burned offerings. Two goats are presented for which dice is thrown to decide which is sacrifice and the other becomes the scapegoat. The sins of the community are placed on the scapegoat and it is set free.


    [Isaiah 43-10-15] "...“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. I have revealed and saved and proclaimed— I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “that I am God. Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?”

    The above passages are from the OT reflect Mosiac atonement of sin. They state who is responsible for their sins and how to remove sin from the community. There is no reference of savior being required to take on someone else's sin and die for them near the celebration Fesitival Of Unleven Bread.
    John Galt and adelady like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    [1 Samuel 15:2,3]

    "2 Therefore saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
    3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

    It's my personal favorite. I love how Jaweh is so vindictive that he even has them kill all the livestock.

    BTW, for context: It's a direct order being issued to King Saul by the prophet Samuel on behalf of Jaweh. Saul is later chastised because he didn't quite carry it out completely, but spared a few sheep and oxen, and took the King Agag alive.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    [1 Samuel 15:2,3]

    "2 Therefore saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
    3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

    It's my personal favorite. I love how Jaweh is so vindictive that he even has them kill all the livestock.

    BTW, for context: It's a direct order being issued to King Saul by the prophet Samuel on behalf of Jaweh. Saul is later chastised because he didn't quite carry it out completely, but spared a few sheep and oxen, and took the King Agag alive.
    I dont have time to write it all out, but the best explanation to your question can be found here if you really are interested, a biblical explanation from someone who knows more about the problems atheists have with this scripture than I have studied about:
    Protestantism: God command of killing, devil is a liar, gods existence
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    I am glad that you have brought these scriptures up, they are some of the best for examples of the foreshadowings of Jesus in the old testament.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    [Ezekiel 18:20-22]"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live: he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.


    According to the Bible, everyone who sins dies. Everybody has sinned. Everybody thus dies (as we see in the world today). The son and the father do not share guilt, each persons sins and trespasses are of their own makings and desires. The only man who never sinned even once was Jesus, the Christ. He was tempted at all points but never gave in and sinned. This is because he was the rightousness of God in human form. In Hebrews, it says that Abrahams FAITH, was accredited to him as righteousness. Nobody is righteous in their own right, as all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. As we first established, everybody has sinned. Therefore everybody is wicked and that wickedness will be charged against Him, as for the above passage. It tells us that we need to turn to God and his moral laws and statutes to be able to live. That sentence can be easily twisted by atheists and humanists by omitting 'and keeps all my decrees'. The verses you are talking about are talking of the 1st death (physical death), not the 2nd death where the separation of non-believers occurs and are thrown into Hell. The Bible teaches us that we cannot be just and right unless we have the power of God as he is the spiritual embodiment of those very attributes. Jesus took all the sins of the world, past/present and future. on the cross as punishment, so that none of the offenses commited by mankind will be remembered against him. In effect, he stepped in and took the punishment that we deserve so that we may go free and not die the second death, which leads me on to the next scripture where Jesus is evidently shown to the Jews as a foreshadowing of the future messiah.


    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    [Leviticus 16:16-34] I'll paraphrase since it is a long passage. An atonement is made once a year (Yon Kippur) with a sacrifice of a bull and a goat as burned offerings. Two goats are presented for which dice is thrown to decide which is sacrifice and the other becomes the scapegoat. The sins of the community are placed on the scapegoat and it is set free.
    An accurate paraphrase. So from this we can see that blood is needed to be spilt in order to cover sin. Life is in the blood the Bible tells us. Can you see how all the peoples sins are being transferred from themselves onto a sacrifice that is suitable to God? Can you see that it is apparantly in contradiction to the previous scripture you mentioned?- 'the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him '- their wickedness was not charged against them because the goat took the sins for them as an act of atonement. My friend, Jesus is the Lamb of God, who was slain in the same manner to atone for all our sins. The blood of sheep and bulls and goats COVERS SIN TEMPORARILY. The spilt blood of Jesus, God in bodily form, doesnt cover sin, it completely REMOVES it as God has taken the punishment we deserved and meted it out to his only son on the cross. Now we are no longer under condemnation because all our sins are atoned for.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    [Isaiah 43-10-15] "...“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. I have revealed and saved and proclaimed— I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “that I am God. Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?”
    I am not sure what you mean by quoting the above scripture as your defense, because what you have highlighted, 'apart from me there is no saviour', shows that God himself through Jesus, who is God, is the saviour of man from their sin. i.e no one other than God himself can save you. Which he did by being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, and giving himself freely to death that he might save us through His love for us.

    p.s all the scriptures of the OT refer to there being a coming messiah, Jesus of course fulfilled every last OT prophecy to the letter. yet they did not recognize him.
    Last edited by Unified3; June 14th, 2012 at 02:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    I dont have time to write it all out, but the best explanation to your question can be found here if you really are interested, a biblical explanation from someone who knows more about the problems atheists have with this scripture than I have studied about:
    Protestantism: God command of killing, devil is a liar, gods existence
    Having waded through all the crap about me being a liar (I am almost completely unable to lie because I blush and stammer and so it is blatantly obvious) all it says is that God wiped 'em out because he wanted to.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    64
    Almost completely? Almost? It still makes you a liar. You lie by denying the truth. Surely he which denies the only truth is a liar. A sinner can only come to God for forgiveness of sin if he first sees that he is a sinner at heart. Since you are so holy and faultless already, then you refuse to see your sin and therefore deceive only yourself.
    That site was a thorough explanation of the answer you required, yet you still says it isnt true and the issue is still presumably at stalemate. You are refusing to believe the truth through your own pride.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    It still makes you a liar.
    I assume you have never told a single lie in your entire life then, you perfect person. You truly are an angel. We should all bow down and kiss your feet.

    That site was a thorough explanation of the answer you required, yet you still says it isnt true
    I'm not sure what you think I am saying is "not true". And I don't know what Answer" you think anyone is looking for. Kojax quoted a passage from the Bible. No question was asked. The page you linked simply confirms exactly what kojax quoted: after wading through all that truly offensive text (did you write it by the way?) it finishes up with:
    Quote Originally Posted by some arrogant tool
    In short, God showed 400 years of love and mercy to the Amalekites, but they failed to repent, so He also showed His judgment because of He is Holy. So he wiped them out just as He said he would in Ex. and Duet.
    So, he just confirms that, in this case, the text quoted earlier means exactly what it says. Big deal. But thanks for confirming it.

    I am fascinated by the fact that that sorry excuse for a minister spends about half his time drawing unwarranted assumptions about the reason someone might ask a question and then making insulting comments about them. If the person raising the question had asked it from genuine curiosity, then I suspect they will have been put off religion by their encounter with such a vile bigot.
    Last edited by Strange; June 14th, 2012 at 04:16 PM.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    I am glad that you have brought these scriptures up, they are some of the best for examples of the foreshadowings of Jesus in the old testament.
    I must say your reply is unique, but it doesn’t explain your claim of foreshadowing.

    If it is believed that everyone was responsible for their own sin and it can be atoned directly to their God, then there is no requirement for a savior. It was believed that God resided in the Holy of Holies, so all it took was a trip to the Temple. Jesus’s mission would have been redundant if he was able to atone for others, which the passage states sin isn’t something that is passed down like inheritance tax.


    I think you missed the point that the scapegoat as the means for which the sins of the community are taken away. If you were to apply it as a metaphor in the context of the Passion narrative, it would have been Jesus Barrabas [1] (Greek: Iesous ton Barabbas) and not Jesus who is called Christ (Greek: Iesous ton legomenon Christon) that took away the sins for he was set free and lived. I don’t think this is point you want to make.


    The Feast of the Unleavened Bread is symbolically associated with liberation, not atonement.


    These points could be few reasons why those that practice Judaism are not convinced of the Christian interpretation of their texts.


    [1] http://www.christiananswers.net/dict...barabbas.html; Caesarean text-type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Unified3 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    [1 Samuel 15:2,3]

    "2 Therefore saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
    3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

    It's my personal favorite. I love how Jaweh is so vindictive that he even has them kill all the livestock.

    BTW, for context: It's a direct order being issued to King Saul by the prophet Samuel on behalf of Jaweh. Saul is later chastised because he didn't quite carry it out completely, but spared a few sheep and oxen, and took the King Agag alive.
    I dont have time to write it all out, but the best explanation to your question can be found here if you really are interested, a biblical explanation from someone who knows more about the problems atheists have with this scripture than I have studied about:
    Protestantism: God command of killing, devil is a liar, gods existence
    So, he wiped them out because they were bad (including the infants and sucklings, which clearly were bad also.)

    Interesting subpoint:

    Quote Originally Posted by Protestantism:God command of killing, devil is a liar, god's existence
    David Guzik tells us “hundreds of years before, the LORD said He would bring this kind of judgment against Amalek: Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this for a memorial in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.” And Moses built an altar and called its name, The-LORD-Is-My-Banner; for he said, “Because the LORD has sworn: the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” (Exodus 17:14-16). Deuteronomy 25:17-19 repeats the point: Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God. Therefore, it shall be, when the LORD your God has given you rest from your enemies all around, in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget.”


    Since they are still mentioned in the Bible and we're discussing them now, it seems Jehova still has yet to make good on his promise to "
    utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek".


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Could it be said that the bible has 2 gods
    By Always.Asking in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 5th, 2009, 04:04 AM
  2. gods?
    By scientstphilosophertheist in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 7th, 2007, 02:17 PM
  3. Gods or no GOds?
    By in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: November 24th, 2006, 04:21 PM
  4. Gods or God?
    By Marc A.C. in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 27th, 2005, 10:34 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •