Then it appears that out of the thousands of gods you don't believe in, I just happen to disbelieve in one more than you do.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't believe in pantheons of gods. I believe in a creator who is referred to as God.
You see absolutely nothing that justifies the inference of a creator? Einstein did and many other noteworthy scientists did and still do. So your inability proves nothing except your incapacity to see.
He is called a god:This is the first time I have ever heard someone call the devil a deity. Also, unless deities share a name, it is more distinctive to call them by that name than to just call them God. In fact, you can tell a lot just by which name for the Abramic God a person chooses.
2 Corinthians 4:4New Living Translation (NLT)
4 Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.
Might be a quirk of certain bible translations. I haven't read the whole thing in years, though.He is called a god:
Might be a quirk of certain bible translations. I haven't read the whole thing in years, though.
Also, you are still the first person I have interacted with that labeled the devil a deity.
Corinthians 4:4 Translations
King James Version (KJV)
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
American King James Version (AKJV)
In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.
American Standard Version (ASV)
in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them .
Basic English Translation (BBE)
Because the god of this world has made blind the minds of those who have not faith, so that the light of the good news of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, might not be shining on them.
Webster's Revision
in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them .
World English Bible
in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them.
English Revised Version (ERV)
in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.
Alright. It would be weird if I remembered that detail; it's been more than 5 years since I have read the whole of the bible.No quirk:
BTW
Surgical removal of your coccyx would make normal movement for humans extremely difficult. Removal of a mere tail has no such effect.
Also, you are still the first person I have interacted with that labeled the devil a deity.
You have it backwards. People with coccygeal agenesis (no coccyx) have no trouble moving around at all. Such a condition is normally without any symptoms at all, and people who have it are normally unaware of it.
Significant neurological deficits are associated with the high sacral malformations, but isolated coccygeal agenesis is usually asymptomatic.
http://www.neurosurgery.tv/caudalagenesis.html
On the other hand, removal of a tail is a serious problem for most animals. It is used as a organ of balance and as a means of communication. So major issues there.
By Diane Eager
Diane Eager has a background in medicine, and was a lecturer in biomedical sciences at University of Canberra.
Why do we have a tail bone if we don’t come from apes?
One of our editors found the answer the hard way when he tore the ligaments attached to his’ tail bone’ whilst doing sports training. He writes about the experience: “ I knew something was badly wrong when I could only walk by shuffling each leg forward using my upper body strength. If I was standing up, that’s where I preferred to stay. It was too painful to try and sit down. If I was sitting down, I didn’t want to get up – shifting position was exquisite agony.”
Medical research has shown that the muscles which help us sit or stand, all gain their ability to move us only because they are attached to our fully functional and necessary so called ‘tail bone’ which of course means that human beings do not actually have a useless or even vestigial “tail bone”! The coccyx is fully functional part of the system of bones, ligaments and muscles of the pelvis, that protects and supports the pelvic organs, and contributes to our upright stance and walking.
It provides stable anchorage points for ligaments and muscles which is an essential function of all bones. Without this – we don’t move. Bones must never be considered in isolation, since they are part of an integrated musculoskeletal system that supports and protects body organs, and enables us to move.
http://askjohnmackay.com/why-human-tail-bone-if-not-from-apes/
Dualism was more common in Roman society, where some Christian groups became affected by Manichean notions of two Gods, or by gnostic ideas of an inferior creator, who was made by a higher being.
Can you please provide a source for that information. Thanks!In a move that angered some creationists, textbooks removed Haeckel's drawings and substituted actual photographs of embryos, which showed the same things.
Darwin Lobbyists Defend Using Fraudulent Embryo Drawings in the Classroom
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/darwin_lobbyist_1065151.html
BTW
Here is a relevant article:
Can you please provide a source for that information. Thanks!
So according to this view the person who wrote that scripture was contaminated by Gnostic influences?
Jesus referred to Satan as the ruler of this world. Was Jesus a Gnostic?
Revelation shows him battling God in heaven. Was the writer of the Revelation a Gnostic?
The Book of Job portrays him as challenging God in heaven.
Paul tells us that the devil walks about seeking to devour and to put on a spiritual suit of armor for protection.
Haeckel was a major 19-t-century scientist, Jimmy. He did a comparative study of the development of the fetus in humans and other animals. He noted how similar this development was. He also felt the development of the fetus mirrors the history of evolution. In modern times, some creation-science people started a rumor that he faked his findings, was fired, etc. Absolutely none of this is true. Three have been modern compassions down between photos of the fetus and Haeckel's woodcuts and the latter are amazingly right on.
Thanks Hoghead (and Barbarian). Whilst such work may have been pioneering and valuable at the time, I should imagine it's not really relevant in this day and age with modern imaging techniques and what not. Whether or not his studies are accurate, bringing 100+ year old drawings into the debate seems like straw-clutching at best.
There's only one God. And Old Scratch ain't Him.
Augustus Caesar is referred to as the ruler of the Roman Empire in the Bible. So you think Augustus was God?
Strawman
So if you oppose God, you're a god? How so?
Strawman
He was expressing doubt that Job loved God. C'mon. How does that make Satan a god?
Strawman
StrawmanLions are god? How so? You definitely do sound gnostic and dualistic.
He says he should imagine! That's a very typical modus operandi which is employed regularly when the need arises and the need arises very often within atheistic circles..I suppose that one does what one can with whatever one has.
I had based my conclusion on the following statements:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?