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.
Wait a minute. Isn't God supposed to be 3 gods in one. You know the trinity. Why not a quaternar? God. A quad God. Why not 7 or 10 or 20?
I already answered that. We have more than one fundamental force, and each of the forces is responsible for the creation that we observe.
Are you saying: the forces? or the gods?
I think you accidentally show the fox tail. Your gods are not needed. Only the forces would be good enough. With the gods or without the gods, the forces would work the same way, and the world would have the same thing.
Your theology does not pass the first step of examination.
So you are suggesting that we need not invoke the intervention of supernatural agents in order to explain natural phenomena, such as the fundamental forces? Again, this sounds very atheistic! Do you apply this same standard to every other theology, including your own?
No. It is not atheistic. It is scientific. When you talk about Na + Cl, you do not need to talk about God.
How do you use your forces idea to tell what is "good"? In that case, science would not be enough, and you need the God to answer it.
There are many things for which we need not invoke supernatural agencies, but for which religious people continue to do so. So why is that problematic for my theology? Everyone else is doing it!
Don't be silly. The Gods of the Forces have no interest in moral affairs. They're too busy sculpting the universe, keeping your feet firmly on the ground, keeping the stars alight, etc.
Good question. Why 3 and is yet 1? Not 4, and not 2.
There ARE logic reasons. Anything other than 3 and 1, the whole theology simply won't work.
Well there you go. You've answered your own question "what's wrong to have only one?". The theology wouldn't work with just one.
If you do silly things at the beginning, you do not get to establish a sound (theology) system. Many Christians danced around the Scripture, but they do that based on an established sound theology, that is fine. But for you who is trying to set one up, then to fool around is not a meaningful thing to do. You do not work on your theology because others abused their theology. You do it for yourself. If you do not need a god or a theology, then you can simply save time and forget about it.
And you touched another fundamental problem in any theology. A God in a theology MUST interact with human. Otherwise, the theology is meaningless, useless and does not need to exist. You have those gods for forces. But how do they interact with human directly? ANY theology MUST have that part.
Why can't I fool around with it? You acknowledge that others do so, so why can't I?
Why is the interaction with humans necessary? It's not necessary for my theology.
Good question. Why 3 and is yet 1? Not 4, and not 2.
There ARE logic reasons. Anything other than 3 and 1, the whole theology simply won't work.
Some others fooled around a well-established theology. You do not have that. So your fooling around is much much less meaningful.
That is a good question. May be you can replace the human by life in your question. If a theology has anything to do with life, then it must have something to do with human. A theology has nothing to do with life, is a theology we do not need to consider. Because it can not answer any question about life.
Your theology of Forces is closely related to life. You MUST be able to say something about the meaning of your theology to life forms.
What makes their theology "well-established"?
I suppose. Perhaps the Gods are beginning to teach us how to use the forces for our own betterment. Perhaps that is what they always intended.
First apparent criteria: contents (how many pages on the written documents).
First apparent criteria: contents (how many pages on the written documents).
I'm not sure but I think the Urantia book has more pages than the Bible. I guess it is true since we now determine the truth by the number of pages it is written down in. How about the Hindu scriptures. How many pages is that?
I think that the number of pages written down signifies little to nothing about how "well-established" a theology is. It merely tells us that many people have written about it. Yet going by this criteria, the theology I have devised is becoming "more established" with every post, even if the post adds nothing new!
That's true. And if anyone questions it you could just say "you just have to have faith" and "you have to look with spiritual eyes".
I intend to. Watch out Christianity, my theology is well on it's way to becoming an established religion. Every time I repeat the same assertions they become weighed with ever greater truth and significance.
Don´t forget to predict early that you and your religion are going to be hated, ridiculed and persecuted.I intend to. Watch out Christianity, my theology is well on it's way to becoming an established religion. Every time I repeat the same assertions they become weighed with ever greater truth and significance.
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?