Everyone sometime may be flawed for some reason, it's thoughts, actions, an imprint of mentality, upbringing etc, it is important to recognize, chronically flawed estestvenno say no, no it's not about me and I from another test)).
on this website you can not ask such questions.
the very fact that sitting on NG - well, you understand
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
Colleague, let's define some terminology. If in the image and likeness - it was Elohim, that is plural, as recorded in the Torah (the Lord God in PGM-version), because the let us make man in the image and likeness (Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 26), plus FREEDOM of the WILL, yeah.
In principle, I can't answer that because I don't understand religions so well as you or any theologian. I have a General idea about it: one God (without a name, because names are many, and the religious teachings of a few) that created the Earth and life on it.
Who are Elohi I don't know how funny this title may seem 8) So here's you're explain what it was. For example, why in some PGM-version God is one person, and in the original (correctly I understand?) he's not one, but several? And why is the"PGM-version he became one God-person?
Further, about the plural. In my picture of the world all agree: God is certainly not one, for us It is one, the alpha and omega and all that, but the Universe is not one. A lot of them. Probably so, our way and not my way ;]
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
And divine spark" - is fucking a journeyman by the name of Yahweh
It is my own soul called for beauty, lol 8) spark or not does not matter. What does Yahweh do not understand, the soul is not in the image and likeness of God created, it was about the person.
about dusoi soul is quite another. It is dynamic, changes shape, grows and develops with the passage of the cycles of life on the planet in the body of living beings. Gradually, from small, primitive animals (worms, etc.) to more complex organisms. Gradually progressing in development and already placed in the human body, it's her final way. After the death of the human body, the soul goes further into the body of the new man and so on, is already developing, passing only the cycles of human life.
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
breathed into his face the breath of life; and man became a living soul
Man became a living soul: do you really want me here tried to decode it? ^_^
Man is a biological body, the soul is the astral body, the individual living entity. The soul is required to undergo periodic life cycles within the biological body, and the more developed the soul, the more, so to speak, free time she has there *upstairs* there.
After the death of the human body, the soul goes to another world (another world) where you can spend a year or more, and then again in earthly life. And so many, many times. That is my picture of the world includes elements of the official Christianity, and Buddhism (reincarnation).
That is? )) If you want to convince me, it makes no sense to limit only one Bible. Moreover, I believe the Bible is the true book, but with encryption. It carries a simple text, and the text is sometimes a cipher. The idea is not mine, by the way, but I liked the idea, because I know the point of view of atheists, Oh yeah 8) They do not sometimes just quote the Bible... terrible things happen! But if God is right and I am a believer, it means WE misunderstand the book, but it is not wrong. This is the basic position, by the way, there is nothing to argue about in principle. This is my vision of the book and the universe is my picture of the world.
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
So you decide - or You are given the right to choose, and then You are created in the image and likeness of one of the Elohim, or Your ancestor breathed soul, and then You are in the image and likeness, and therefore the right choice, as free will is not given.
I have all been defined. About the soul above all painted.
About free will: God gave man free will. What is not clear here? -)
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
was Jericho, was the anger of Moses on those who in his absence had come to worship Mammon (Mammon) and the Golden calf, the APIs - because the second commandment otmelivaetsja not to violate don't do yourself an idol, or any likeness of anything in heaven above, on earth beneath or in the water under the earth. Not bow down to them or serve them Ad automatically. Yes, for all who GMP and who worships painted planks and wears a crucifix
Heard about it and not just from atheists. If only one option whitewash religious believers (I do not belong to them, by the way) to say that the worship of the divine personalities (see, there can be neponyatki with the same terminology), well, there are Holy every one that is not a sin because they are Holy, that is close to the Lord. That is the exception to the rule.
True or not? But that is another question ;] doctrine of God cannot contain what is not pleasing to God, logical? Hence the conclusion. But that's not all: how relevant is the idea that the sins of a soul in Hell, sends, especially automatically? I think it's an oversimplification. This simplification probably when it was clear to all, but now... I would say, some points require revision in view of the fact that people in General on Earth in the 20th century have become smarter. Science tried ;] That is, something like loves Kirkorov and Hell, for he is his idol is not a ride, it sounds like bitter nonsense. Still, it is believed that the lightning Zeus throws.
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
Well, karoch, You poneli. ;)
Fully understand you. Heard the arguments of atheists against the Bible. Moreover, I watched an entire series of funny videos from the user DarkMatter2525 on youtube. Count, right? 8) Sights, it's worth it ^_^
MORE 000 wrote:
Bravo . Washed him.
When something probably would have washed, now wash figs ;] Ask, I will answer on the subject of faith.
MORE 000 wrote:
Old soldier you have become lazy-but I remember the hell you were.. You're tired .. give place to the young..
Let's start with the fact that I'm older Soldier two times, and five times lazier, but due to the fact that they live longer and much as right now, remember, I know almost everything, yeah. ;)
But it was fun to read. Thank You, neighing.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
one God (without a name, because names are many, and the religious teachings of a few) that created the Earth and life on it.
Who are Elohi I don't know how funny this title may seem 8) So here's you're explain what it was. For example, why in some PGM-version God is one person, and in the original (correctly I understand?) he's not one, but several? And why is the"PGM-version he became one God-person?
Ecumenical Council 1492, the year decided to make Mary a virgin at the time of her birth of Jesus, and abolished the father, the Son and the Holy spirit as individuals, declaring the Trinity. At the same time under the hot hand in 1551, the year Stoglavy Cathedral declared that boomeraction before the Lord everyone who loves geometry, ord. This dogma and accepted all followers PGM - schism there, nicholsina and other bloody crap.
The Jews as all the old Torah they live (well, because of the Torah-I as we all know), and no single God they do not pray to their God and Creator Yahweh El, one of the Elohim, but not those who participated in the creation of all things, piss and sucking, because those four plus the demiurge the name Lucifer, yeah.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
Further, about the plural. In my picture of the world all agree: God is certainly not one, for us It is one, the alpha and omega and all that, but the Universe is not one. A lot of them. Probably so, our way and not my way ;]
In our Universe the first type as such, there is no God and there cannot be a probability of existence equal 127х10 in the degree of 50,000,000 (fifty million zeros after 127, ord), which means that it can not be in six neighboring Universes of the first type, as well as in all known Universes of the fourth type in a physically perceived by us in the ranges of wave fluctuations. So safely back in the Slavic cosmology, smile and wave.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
Heard about it and not just from atheists. If only one option whitewash religious believers (I do not belong to them, by the way) to say that the worship of the divine personalities (see, there can be neponyatki with the same terminology), well, there are Holy every one that is not a sin because they are Holy, that is close to the Lord. That is the exception to the rule.
Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets: do not disturb I am come, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, till pass away the heaven and earth, not one iota or one tittle will not pass from the law till all be fulfilled.
<...>
Do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren;
and the father does not call anyone on earth, for you have one Father Who is in heaven;
and do not be called teachers; for one is your master, even Christ.
<...>
You still heard, that is told ancient: do not break an oath, but execute before God your oaths.
But I tell you: do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne;
nor by the earth, because it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
nor by your head do not swear, because you can neither make one hair white or black.
But let your communication be, Yes, Yes; no, no; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
<...>
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven.
<...>
But when ye pray, use not repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that in their verbosity will be heard;
do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need even before you ask Him.
So any Orthodox Christian VIOLATES the first commandment:
1. I am the Lord, your God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage You shall not have other gods before My face. (did El Yahweh, so we must pray to him first, and then only to his son, and they pray in the best case to Jesus, and even some old man that didn't even know Jesus!)
2. Not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters under the earth. Not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord thy God, a jealous God, for the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands [of childbirth] of those who love Me and keep My commandments. (well, the painted boards and of the crucifixion, of course. Jews have an image of El Yahweh in the Torah, but not pray to him!)
3. Do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold unpunished who takes His name in vain. (that is, any woman screaming in orgasm OH! the machine will go scream in the frying pan to Hell!)
4. Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as Jehovah commanded you the Lord your God. Six days you shall labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Do not do [that] any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy servant, nor your servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey nor any of your livestock, nor your alien that you have to rest your servant, and your servant like you. And remember, [you] were a slave in the land of Egypt, but the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and an outstretched because commanded you the Lord your God, to observe the Sabbath day. (and, hence, do not raise anything heavier than PMH and fork with a spoon, and certainly not to go to the store for booze and don't do PORK!)
Well, then somehow works - all sorts of do not kill, do not steal, do not covet, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, and honor your parents, though too frequent excesses, which understands not already a NT pop and UK, so in many ways, Knishka already stupidly outdated even for Pgmnutye what they focus not know and continue to cling to ancient junk.
In any case - they all burn in hell, blasphemers-heretics-of the wicked, together with their teachers, spiritual fathers and their despicable mortals, whom they elevated to their idols! ;)
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
True or not? But that is another question ;] doctrine of God cannot contain what is not pleasing to God, logical? Hence the conclusion. But that's not all: how relevant is the idea that the sins of a soul in Hell, sends, especially automatically? I think it's an oversimplification. This simplification probably when it was clear to all, but now... I would say, some points require revision in view of the fact that people in General on Earth in the 20th century have become smarter. Science tried ;] That is, something like loves Kirkorov and Hell, for he is his idol is not a ride, it sounds like bitter nonsense. Still, it is believed that the lightning Zeus throws.
AND GOD GIVES A SHIT. He is a God, isn't it? That there is science that there is a man GOD SHIT. He sort of created everything and can arrange all kirdyk. Science??? What is this science???? And elevated the Lord in the Land of arch, solid as a polished mirror, and he charted the stars to Shine, and sat above the circle of the Earth. © the book of the prophet Ezekiel, according to the Synodal translation is included in the Pentateuch. And, I recall, is a figure ON the PLANE, yeah. OVER the ball or spheroid the geoid to sit is impossible - everything is relative, depending on the three-dimensional figure turns, what kind of place ;) Then, there's also whales classified as fish, and bats to birds. Now it is clear from the bird's milk? From bats!! :D And it's all-knowing, omniscient, all-seeing and all-powerful o hoppade bojinka Yahweh said to his people, yeah. So, number three school subjects! What is that God-the Creator with the most basic unsatisfactory according to God's disciplines?? Plus boomershoot descriptive geometry, yeah. Plus: REASON IS the GREATEST ENEMY of FAITH; IT IS NOT a HELPER IN SPIRITUAL matters AND OFTEN STRUGGLES AGAINST the DIVINE WORD, MEETING ALL EMANATING FROM the LORD WITH CONTEMPT. © Martin Luther.
About Muslims their Hadiths finally another story!
OK, how would say the great Ivan Pavlov: I am a seminarian and as most students already at school, became an atheist, an atheist In the sense that those who read Knishka, nor in what the Lord hoppade bulynko to believe you can't.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
When something probably would have washed, now wash figs ;]
Cho and now go unwashed???? Well you, a pancake, give... © General Ivolgin, K\f peculiarities of national hunting ;)
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
Ecumenical Council 1492, the year decided to make Mary a virgin at the time of her birth of Jesus, and abolished the father, the Son and the Holy spirit as individuals, declaring the Trinity.
It's funny because people can say anything, to change the meanings, correct doctrine, but the truth they change not in a condition ) And still in fact many now feel the same way as I do: that God is one and His Son is, excuse me, son, (but here neponyatka with the term son), and the other person. Lower in rank of the Father, so to speak. Why would I think otherwise? Just because some Council deems it necessary to unite to someone? What about the case when the ROC lost its credibility for me? Well, the case when the king made Holy ^_^
As I hinted, I'm not a religious believer, so the councils and gatherings of priests, and so can decide what you want, to me it is purple.
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
At the same time under the hot hand in 1551, the year Stoglavy Cathedral declared that boomeraction before the Lord everyone who loves geometry
Well, that's about it 8) Seriously... how can they listen if such nonsense?
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
one of the Elohim, but not those who participated in the creation of all things, piss and sucking, because those four plus the demiurge the name Lucifer, yeah.
That is, Diablo is not a fallen angel, and is the main God that created the Earth? In both )) No, not heard.
"the probability of existence equal..."
Hard, Yes? =] Smiled. The probability of God... ahem ^_^
"In our Universe, first type"
Never heard of this.
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
Do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren;
and the father does not call anyone on earth, for you have one Father Who is in heaven;
and do not be called teachers; for one is your master, even Christ.
You can see the problem with a literal understanding of the Bible text. The mentor, the teacher... a school who? Teachers do not teach children? That is, all children are sinners and need to learn? ^_^ The same insanity. And the conclusion I have stated...
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
So any Orthodox Christian VIOLATES the first commandment:
In pritsnipe reasoning is perfectly right, all right you say, I ask, outraged 8) But it's not me, I'm not a priest and my picture of the world only partly involves something from there and here.
Reminded just what I have. Atheists and why they laugh at the Bible. They understand perfectly, lol )
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
And, I recall, is a figure ON the PLANE, yeah. OVER the ball or spheroid the geoid to sit is impossible - everything is relative, depending on the three-dimensional figure turns, what kind of place ;)
And you (or you to go?) did not think that God stands outside of three-dimensional space, and therefore can do everything, and everywhere, knows and hears everything and etc ? For example, being a two-dimensional world cannot perceive the fullness of three-dimensional, it will only see the circle where actually the ball, and the very concept of a ball that is inaccessible physically...
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
Plus: REASON IS the GREATEST ENEMY of FAITH
The mind is the enemy of naivety, stupidity. You can add a religion but here is controversial. Religion exist to control the masses, and how you will manage it all, being naive/stupid ? )
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
And you (or you to go?) did not think that God stands outside of three-dimensional space, and therefore can do everything, and everywhere, knows and hears everything and etc ?
I'll start with this, because it is significant, Cola their biology, astrophysics and other key to any o hoppade of bovinity science it is not fixed, so how can there be can do everything, and everywhere, knows and hears everything etc???? HOW EMPTY SPACE MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING???? IT EVEN CAN NOT EXIST!!!!
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
Hard, Yes? =] Smiled. The probability of God... ahem ^_^
There is no ahem, a colleague - You don't know the term as such? As such, this is the type with the stated abilities or inherent characteristics and characteristics. In this context, as such is according to the description and estimated performance characteristics, with absolutely any declare for this position a hypothetical creators, in whom believes roundnose livestock family of the great apes and which considers their gods. THESE STUPID CAN'T BE, according to the physical laws and structure of our Universe first type. Because you don'T NEED SUCH, that's what lol. Here nature is, and it exists as the self-organization vysokosfokusirovannogo matter, as it does not tolerate emptiness, and frills, and therefore it is all the universal laws just would not spend so much of energy and matter to produce anything similar to even some NT o hoppade bovince, - the HIGHER MIND is GENERALLY IMPRACTICAL AND TOO CUMBERSOME IN the CREATION AND FURTHER MAINTENANCE IN PARTICULAR. It's not growing the watermelons on trees, although the branches and can withstand more weight - because stupid why? Different You think of their personalities or one is nothing more than an imaginary friend of any of the schizoid placed due to his illness in psychosis because his imaginary friends can be dangerous: you never know what they whisper to him, you know. A very famous joke on this topic:
"I'm the son of God.
- We believe you, Jesus!
<...>
- I am the son of God!
- Yes, Igor, calm down, here are your pills.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
The mind is the enemy of naivety, stupidity. You can add a religion but here is controversial. Religion exist to control the masses, and how you will manage it all, being naive/stupid ? )
The mind is always the question why? And faith is always the answer so, shut up, don't get clever, curious cat die! To control the mass mind is not needed, otherwise all the thieves and fraudsters would be accepted geniuses in all possible Sciences, the main thing is that it was not and someone want to cheat! Do we need the mind of a cave man during a thunderstorm with lightning? He seriously considered themselves God's chosen - after all, God left his life in his anger! - and seriously thought that everyone else now needs it for it is the best meat, the best women, the warmest place at the fire. If he understood the nature of lightning? YES IT IT WAS SHIT! Because shit, because God of his power not ask, and then he can be punished for such disrespect! Well, unless someone from judging that of Copernicus, which Bruno that Galileo knew anything of astronomy or Geophysics? Magellan is separate from the Church - how he became poor and was forced to pester, to raise money for the world, but so and his family I still, understand the truth of his words: the Church tells us that the Earth is flat, but I can see the Earth's shadow on the moon, and I'd rather believe the Earth shadow on the moon, than the words of our Church? YES, IT WAS SHIT - THEY ALL DID THEIR SLAVES AND SEVERELY PUNISHED DISSENT. So much shit that the Vatican only in the 1990s, admitted his mistake and repented for the execution of Bruno and Copernicus, by accepting that the Earth is a spheroid, rotating around its axis, in orbit around our star. But the ROC did NOT RECOGNIZE THIS UNTIL NOW, but priests are constantly hanging around our launch sites - a disgrace! That's really really we're Sorry, Yura, we are all fucked!
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
You can see what problemslong understanding of the Bible text.
The Bible is the word of God, the Bible was written by God, Bible - about God, the Bible true. This is the DOGMA. This means that ONLY LITERALLY - God is infallible and never wrong, He is the truth, the beginning and the end, alpha and omega. Interpretation of the words of God - then what about faith? What to believe, if God's law is everyone can interpret in their own way, and then no kill will be watching someone, thou shalt not steal, be despite how much, and so on? View brilliant stand-up George Carlin on this subject - he was there all laid out on shelves, including God's plan. So understanding the Bible text literally is not the problem, it's the raison d'être of both the Bible and faith, and religion in General. Or, as said by George Carlin: What's the point in the Divine plan, if any fool with a prayer for the dollar will be able to cancel it, just praying? Want easier? Very well: You can argue with the electrician? Easily. And with a sign danger! on a NT transformer box? Here pop is an electrician, and the God whom he serves, is a transformer box; and yet all believe in the sign danger!, God is still God. And then comes a theoretical physicist who knows the device synchrotron, calmly walks into the transformer box AND it was EMPTY! And not because this electrician everything is passed to the metal, but because there is nothing never happened, that box is not useful, just an ancient foreman forgot to remove plaque! Well, what this physics after this opening words to an electrician about the fact that one should worship the sign danger!, or you will catch a terrible death!?
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
That is, Diablo is not a fallen angel, and is the main God that created the Earth? In both ))
Diablo fell only at El Yahweh anywhere else about the fall of Lucifer there. He is not an angel, he is the Archangel-the Creator, the demiurge, and he worked together with the Elohim, and the pieces of dirt, bat El, Yahweh, considered dirt, not people, as expressed Elohim. But as it was not El Lucifer, the Elohim listened to him, but doing nothing did not - they had plenty of other things, they also Land much more that was built, and therefore left the Earth under Yahweh El thesis project, though, and went back to those once made in his image and likeness. Lucifer, by virtue of lack of qualification not having the ability to stop the sabotage of the passed object, left in the dead of the opposition to catch inept El Yahweh on the cheating and take him Elohim in the act. And shining with the divine light angel-the demiurge is the patron Saint of many ethnic groups in other parts of the world where the analogue of the El Yahweh is just the same aszczepa synonymous with Satan in hell, yeah. Well, for example, Slavic Yarilo stands on the side of Perun Svarozic against the insidious Velez, cow son. OK, not so simple in the world of lucre.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
Well, the case when the king made Holy ^_^
The Holy king did not so much clergy - I remember that the previous Patriarch refused to participate in the canonization and reburial, as even he was not enough evidence, yeah, - how many heirs of the Germans Romanovs and personally aunt Hohenzollern. And it was so after the collapse of the Union people at once dulled, that no one is jarred to the realization that the Russian Empire rules the brother of the English king, married to a German woman!!!! And if you remember how many hospitably made this bloody Nikolashka, - in any other European country it would be for less to the guillotine or the firing squad would be sent! Vopschem, I *ueyu in this zoo.
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
The Holy king did not so much the clergy...
no matter who made it, "the Royal Martyr", the important fact of deification as a symbol of power, which undoubtedly was the Russian Tsar. thus the flock and plant the faith in the inviolability, the sacredness and infallibility of the authorities. there was a king, then a series of long-lived General secretaries (temporarily puck went to accomo soton), is now the President (DAP there? read much 20 years soon to be).
the funny thing is that lying preserved the mummy of the leader of the world proletariat, on whose orders, sobsno, and was put to death, the Royal family continues to lie quietly in the main square of the country.
heh, heh... probably just in case. you never know, suddenly the need arises in the next change of ideology.
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
I'll start with this, because it is significant, Cola their biology, astrophysics and other key to any o hoppade of bovinity science it is not fixed, so how can there be can do everything, and everywhere, knows and hears everything etc???? HOW EMPTY SPACE MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING???? IT EVEN CAN NOT EXIST!!!!
What is indicative is that? Here is your answer and demonstration ) Demonstration funny.
Here we argue the way I do not understand? If you deny the existence of God, and to talk about ^_^ And I thought, now would be an interesting argument, gipotenzivne... Disappointed!
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
the family of great apes
Highly self-critical, given that atheists are descended from apes ;]]
Heh 8)
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
according to physical laws
According to what our civilization roundnose primates knows about the world and the Universe.
Probably not mistaken if I assume that a hundred or two hundred years ago, some scientists believed that the world perceive ) And nothing new will be...
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
as does not tolerate emptiness, and frills, and therefore it is all the universal laws just would not spend so much of energy and matter to produce anything similar to even some NT o hoppade bovince
By the way, kapslok, you should not use it lamerstvo. Better emphasize the text or highlight in bold.
With regard to waste energy on viewissue creature, this is too funny. No wonder I hinted that God stands outside of the three-dimensional material world...
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
The mind is always the question why?
Exactly. I asked a question about evolution and received insults instead of attempting justification ) was Compensated by this other user, that deigned to carry on a conversation as an adequate person, not vysokogornyy upstart. But I've not seen here (that normally communicates).
But Yes, if the religious fanatics to ask the question why, the answer can be obtained either insults (the worst option), or banal God. And although this is true from a position of Faith and undeniable, to me that's not enough (lol), and because I can't take and accept any religious teaching. They are, simply put, obsolete =]
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
And faith is always the answer so, shut up, don't get clever, curious cat die!
It is immediately clear: you don't know what faith is. Elementary. I would have thought would understand. And so... your reaction to the faith, your way of explanation is nothing more than an emotional release. The level of the school, in short. And it's too funny. Me ;]
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
To control the mass mind is not needed, otherwise all the thieves and fraudsters would be accepted geniuses in all possible Sciences
In the Sciences? Well, except that in the science stealing ) relatively speaking, there are just scientists, right?
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
Do we need the mind of a cave man during a thunderstorm with lightning? He seriously considered themselves God's chosen - after all, God left his life in his anger!
It seems to me that cavemen were not sufficiently advanced to come up with the gods of the elements ) Early and they still until that moment.
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
Well, unless someone from judging that of Copernicus, which Bruno that Galileo knew anything of astronomy or Geophysics?
Didn't understand. But they had the power, and the scientists had no power. The result is sad for the scientists.
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
But the ROC did NOT RECOGNIZE THIS UNTIL NOW
What the Earth is like a ball? Not heard, recognized or not, are not aware of.
What the Bible says? That it is flat? -)
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
The Bible is the word of God, the Bible was written by God, Bible - about God, the Bible true. This is the DOGMA. So, ONLY LITERALLY
So – from the perspective of a specific religious doctrine. That is why atheists amuse myself with the text of the Bible ) because There are horrible things...
My version is a little bit different: Yes, the Bible from a position of true Faith and nothing else, but hence also the conclusion that I stated earlier. If it is true, then everything that contradicts it is false, it is a basic law of logic ) But if in the real world, something contradicts it, then what? Ha ha ) about Reality? ^_^ Of course not. One contradicts the other, the result is: a paradox. The solution I gave, but that's a little beyond the scope specifically Christianity. Should be free of paradoxes: a paradox is food for doubt and denial (of religion, etc.).
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
Interpretation of the words of God - then what about faith?
The interpretation of words so that words do not contradict reality (if you don't want to stop and consider the Bible to be true). It is inevitable, and therefore it is not sin or bad, if you argue, excuse me, clearly.
The Bible says that the text should be taken literally? Something I do not remember.
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
What to believe, if God's law is everyone can interpret in their own way
Common sense is universal, but for the adequate interpretation of the need, excuse me, intelligence 8) faith alone is not enough, it is necessary to delve into the essence of things. Do you really think that all believers are stupid? Lol ^_^ It's a cliche... exposes you just the same stupid, you will forgive me, comrades.
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
What's the point in the Divine plan, if any fool with a prayer for the dollar will be able to cancel it, just praying?
Stone in Catholicism, if that. They have taken to atone for the sins psychic chat. How it technically works, I don't know, but if a person can lie to another man (pastor, priest)... God he does not lie ) And too not gonna lie. Hence the conclusion: to repent, the Church/temple is not required.
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
Lucifer, by virtue of lack of qualification not having the ability to stop the sabotage of the passed object, left in the dead of the opposition to catch inept El Yahweh on the cheating and take his Elohim red-handed
Sounds a little more complicated than a typical text from the Bible, but still too easy. So primitive that no words ^_^ Well Yes, the Gods, beings of at least 4-dimensional with knowledge of the Universe, able to manipulate as giant objects like stars and planets and in elementary particles, suddenly sink to the level of man in their vain attempts to annoy each other? Nonsense ^_^
Mythology Olympian Gods here best demonstrates the wretchedness of these the gods themselves -- or their primitive perception of the people. Some people intentionally or unintentionally lowered gods down to their level everyday, this is ridiculous...
But it's rhetoric)
PS
And if divine power was emphasized to the ROC, why *all* the kings are not raised to the rank of saints? 8)
I with anybody do not communicate, so no one will tell me about my flaws.
Himself flaws do not see, for to me the inferiority of such a thing... I don't know what it is defined.
A. Soldier of Light
Colleague, I'm not even going to respond point by point to You decide to complain about me to the admins of the forum, I don't have enough warning, especially since I'm not going to recruit them, arguing with typical true believer from the category of modern pre-PGM, never knishka not read, but better than the o hoppade of bovinity know what he wanted to say a particular phrase, even if the wording of a phrase kneski directly contrary to their interpretations, (sorry, but true faith climb literally from each of Your phrases). Want religion - flag in hand, toward the train, a drum around his neck, a pen in the ass and a fair wind, yeah. And I have no time to engage in the educational program, and finally not Imperial this business.
Here's the last, spelling and punctuation of the original source preserved.
Evidence of the absence of God. (article from the media).
The topic for discussion.
The law of God pop always put the Pavel five. All the hymns, New and old Testament knew it by heart: knew what day that made God. Pavel decided to ask father Basil. At the first lesson of the law, barely pop sat down in the chair, Pavel raised his hand and, having obtained permission to speak, said: - Father, why the teacher in the senior class says that the earth is a million years worth, and not as in the law of God five thousand... - and immediately the donkey from the shrill cry of father Basil: What did you say, bastard? Here's how you teach the word of God.
Who needs to prove
Historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I only believe in one God less than You. When You understand why You reject all other possible gods, You will understand why I reject your". Before talking about the evidence of God, you must define the term. Anyway, what does God do? Every denomination, every religion defines their God in their own way (assigns some properties) and in no way disagree on the interpretation of competitors.That's why this word is meaningful only within the dogma of a particular religion and its critics.
In accordance with the dogma of all Christian churches: God is Spirit, eternal, omnipresent (dwelling everywhere), omniscient, - righteous, all-perfect, sadourny (in no need), the Almighty. If we would want to generate its definition as an abstract, "philosophical" God, then we immediately get into trouble. There are those of religion, from the point of view which is a creature of God will not be. Consequently, the "philosophical" God again becomes one of many, ie, rises in the ranks of the gods on a common basis.
In accordance with the dogma of all Christian churches: God is Spirit, eternal, omnipresent (dwelling everywhere), omniscient, - righteous, all-perfect, sadourny (in no need), the Almighty. Therefore it is impossible to prove the existence/lack of such an entity as "God" (a God, a God), but you can prove the existence/absence of a particular God (the God der God). Hence, an important skill of an atheist. When you ask me for evidence of the absence of God, the first question should be "what God, in the interpretation of what religion and what kind of properties?"
Evidence of the existence of God
In LOGIC there is something called the law of sufficient reason. It reads: everything you think, everything you speak you should think and speak only on sufficient evidence. If this judgment has no basis or the basis is there, but it's not enough, you have no logical right to consider this judgment to be true. How do you know whether this statement as a sufficient reason?
Here comes to the aid of the proof procedure. The one who defends this judgment must prove its truth, and if the opposing party is unable to refute this evidence, the judgment should be true.
...Argues the thesis that says that God exists. This thesis needs to be proven, and if the proof would be impeccable, then we can assume that the thesis is correct. Here I am, however, anticipate one objection. It is possible, someone will say, translate the question into another plane — why is it necessary to prove that God exists? Just try better to prove that there is no God! Here again we will have to turn to logic.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF, OR WHO HAVE TO PROVE?
Exists in logical theory concept called “burden of proof”, the burden of proof. This duty rests on who asserts, not on who denies. Incidentally, the logical rule of the burden of proof adopted in the law. If someone, for example, is accused of committing a crime, the obligation to prove the truth of the charges lies with the one who accuses, who claims that the citizen has committed a crime, and to deny this is proof of the case of the accused. If someone says that he can, for example, to raise one hundred pounds, you are not required to prove that he is not able to do it, and he is obliged to prove the truth of his claim.
...Before, however, proceeding directly to consideration of possible evidence for the existence of God, we have to clarify the thesis. What does it mean God exists? What do you mean God? If we do not specify the meaning of the thesis, then it may be that all our reasoning was vain, for, perhaps, one understood by the word “God” one another... we Must first agree on the meaning we attribute to the concept, which is the subject (subject) of the discussion of the thesis.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN GOD?
The interpretation of the concept of God in different religious teachings, and different people have very contradictory and very controversial. I'm not going to speak today about God in his Bible — the old Testament or even new Testament understanding. It is not difficult to prove that there is no God mentioned in the old Testament, that God, in whose image man was created, that God strolling in the cool of the evening in the garden, which sits, when it was burning a hole, walking generally takes place in space; it can, as described in the Bible, go to earth to visit Abraham, may suffer, to wonder, to rejoice and to be offended (he's very touchy, this God of the Bible); it can dwell in the Bush, can stay in the cupboard from acacia wood, can join the fray with forefather Jacob and thus be unable to overcome him.
About such a God a lot to say nothing. Will do a more subtle concept of God, referring to the content, which is embedded in the concept of supporters to a higher degree of religious views, less conspicuous for his awkwardness and apparent failure
Mountains of paper scribbled theologians, trying more or less intelligible to explain what God is. The task proved beyond their strength, and not because they are insufficiently intelligent or educated, but because in itself the concept of God in sound logical reasoning can not reveal. The impotence of theology to overcome this difficulty found expression in the existence in ancient times, since the Dam, along with the concept of positive theology and the concept of negative theology, or apophatic. Negative theology is not what is God and what are its properties and what God is, what properties it has. For example, as determined by God the famous “blessed” Augustine: “God is not a body, not earth, not sky, not the moon, not the sun, not the stars, not the body, because if it is not heaven, especially not of the earth.”
As you know, God is considered the spirit. But this definition does not satisfy Augustine — it's definitely for him too, it requires more than vague, slippery, elusive in its meaning. “I am, "he says," of course, I confess, and must confess him in spirit, because the gospel says: God is spirit. However, rise above all mutable spirit, rise above the spirit...” in short, God cannot be considered, and spirit: it is neither one nor the other, nor the third, nor the tenth, he is unknown! This, of course, convenient for defenders of religion, so he gives them a formal opportunity to escape from unpleasant questions. But one thing that theologians have to resort to it, shows their complete inability a little bit to explain clearly what they encourage people to believe.
In one of the basic fundamental works of Christian theology in the work of Dionysius Lukeophile “names of God” (VI century) argued that God is not only Express, not only skazhem, not only not knowable — it goes without saying, but he supremacism, that is, cornercase, verhneportovaya, he is not only perfection, but also sverhskorostey, he's not even a God, and aribag, you see, he is above all definitions, he is think about these words — “suppressexternal uncertainty”. The impression that people just casts a shadow on a clear day. To say something intelligible about God, he can not, because the building of such phrases that just makes no sense.
Let's try to formulate those characteristics that are typically attributed to God by the representatives of various religions and theology.
The first of these signs is that God is a personal being living outside the universe, above it, while at the same time in some strange way it is and within the universe.
Secondly, it is that same being that created the universe.
Thirdly, it is the being that controls the universe. (There is, however, a religious-philosophical direction of deism, which denies this sign; the Deists claim that God only created the universe but does not control it).
Fourth, it is a creature that embodies all imaginable perfection, all absolutely highest level of power, mind, feelings, will. It is an absolutely perfect being. God is omnipotent, benevolent, omniscient, all merciful and omnipresent.
And finally, this creature of which the person to know until the end not.
Now let's see how it proves that the universe, or rather, outside of the universe, the universe there is such a creature?
WHO CREATED GOD?
In ancient times a philosopher-idealist Plato had put forward a cosmological proof of the existence of God. It comes from the concept of reason and at first glance rather simple and even as if convincing: since the universe exists, it must have its cause; God plays the role of this root cause — he created the world.
...Materialist philosopher of the seventeenth century Spinoza was called the cosmological argument is the refuge of ignorance. People do not cease, he said, to ask about the cause of causes as long as they do not indicate imaginary cause and will not give such a way to hide their ignorance. For Spinoza, no root cause outside of nature does not exist, because nature is the cause of itself.
The French materialists of the eighteenth century also recognized the cosmological proof is completely unfounded. Holbach dismantled this proof in the form that gave him an English theologian Samuel Clarke. The latter proceeded from the proposition that something something had to exist from the beginning.
Right, agree with this Holbach, but there is no reason to believe it was God existing from this century the first elements. That “something existed from the beginning”, Holbach recognizes “the obvious and doesn't need any evidence”. “But what, he asks further, something that has existed forever? Why not admit that it is rather the nature or matter, of which we have the performance than a pure spirit or some active principle, which we cannot have any understanding”. (cut off by Occam's razor).
...In fact, resorting to this argument in favor of God's existence, the defenders of religion do a rather awkward maneuver. On the question of the nature, they do not give the answer, but only the appearance of the response actually pushes the response to the side. The “logic” of their arguments is this: everything that exists must be someone created, then, nature needs to be something created. But the same logic must apply to God if he exists, someone had to create.
One of two things: either something can be the cause of itself, nothing is never created, or it is impossible. If we assume that something can exist forever and infinitely, nobody has never created, what we have reason to deny that it is the nature in which we live, of which we ourselves form part, what it exists infinitely and eternally. Why do we push the issue for a single instance forward, to reach God and say that this is the end? Any reason to push this new instance? No logical basis, no material grounds for this. The nature we see, feel, do “are in her state,” we are working on materials that take in nature, its existence iamgine confirmed by the practice. As for God, no evidence of his existence we do not see or feel I've never seen or felt.
Stories about the miraculous signs that supposedly give people the opportunity to directly experience the divine presence, in the vast majority of cases represent a conscious fiction, and sometimes the result of hallucinations. No indication that “behind” of nature, outside of nature, there is some other world does not exist. It was never created, never disappear can not exist forever.
And “evasion” cosmological evidence about the fact that nature is created by God, completely exposed with a single question that could not intelligibly answer any one theologian to recognize the inconsistency itself the problem of the “cause of causes”. This question reads: who created God?
“WISDOM TOOTH, FOR TOOTHACHE”...
....The essence of the teleological evidence is the reference to the utility of all existing and the conclusion that the reason for this expediency can only be reasonable and good power, leading the world.
Teleological proof operates an idyllic picture of how everything in the world is good and beautiful: the sun was created to warm us and illuminate us; there is no sun in the sky — the moon or stars highlights; the rain is that the grass growing; grass grows, so the cow ate it; the cow exists is so man milk If the eyes can see, ears to hear, mouth to eat and speak, is in the eyes of the defenders of religion should serve as proof that the world is reasonable arranged and, therefore, is guided by an intelligent agent. Against the teleological proof was made by FR. Bacon, Spinoza, Kant and the French materialists.
Give pertinent arguments Holbach.
In the world, he wrote, indeed, there are phenomena that impress us with their apparent discipline, orderliness and expediency. But there are phenomena and of the opposite order. Every living being is a harmonious combination of elements and organs. But we cannot ignore the fact that this harmony during the life of the organism definitely is broken and in the end the body always dies. “What it boils down then wisdom, intelligence and goodness of the imaginary causes, which attributed the origin of this illustrious harmony? Where is the wisdom, the goodness, the foresight, the persistence of vision the employee, who seemed just so busy that spoils and breaks down the mechanisms to which we point as the masterpieces of his power and art?.. If he lets the machines that he has given the ability to feel, suffer, he is deprived of goodness.
....The fact of the abundance of suffering we have to endure people and all other living beings, always baffled the advocates of God. In fact, where is the universal expediency? Where is the grace of the all-merciful and Almighty God blessed all the living creatures? A famous story about how a certain pious mother walking with her child, tried to raise him in a religious spirit.
Referring to the upholder of religion, Heinrich Heine demanded:
Throw his parables
And hypotheses are the saints.
On the vexed questions
Give us a straight answer!
Why under the burden of the cross
Covered in blood, dragging right?
Why do all dishonest
Met with honor and glory?
Who's to blame? Or God
On the ground, not all available?
Or he's playing us? —
IT IS DESPICABLE AND CRIMINAL!
— Listen, — she said — like a bird singing? She God a lot of gnats and midges gave food, so she thanks him.
And inquisitive child interested in:
— Midges and mosquitoes, too, thank God for it?...
...When the defenders of religion try to explain these phenomena absolutely inconsistent with the doctrine of the appropriateness of all existing, they are forced to say very awkward things. In one of his letters Darwin cited an interesting example of this explanation: “the other day, — he wrote — was a very good review (on the book of the Duke Argyle “Realm of law”) with a new explanation... regarding rudimentary organs, namely, that economy of labour and material was a great guiding principle with God (and ignored the loss newsasia seed, the existence of young monsters, etc.); the creation of a new plan of structure of animals is thought and thought is work, so God adhered to a uniform plan and did not destroy the rudiments. It is not an exaggeration. In short, God is even smarter than us.” How such explanations can be linked to the idea of God as omnipotent and omniscient being, no one theologian can't explain.
... What is the feasibility of that in the tropical zone people suffering from the heat, and polar — from the cold?
... And what is the feasibility of the storms, earthquakes, floods, storms, droughts? You can answer this, that all these troubles God punishes people for their sins. But, unless sinners are killed by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions? Can vouch for the theologian because, for example, gradaute comprehends only the fields sinners? The same applies to all other “God's punishment”: it would seem, since to punish, so guilty, not of all indiscriminately?
These questions can't leave the people to prove the existence of reasonable and perfect management world. In theology there is a special section called “Theodicy” or “the justification of God.” Almighty and merciful God, the embodiment of all conceivable perfections, needs, is, in justification.
Leibniz devoted to this important work of justification God is one of their main works, which is called “Theodicy”. But the justification is pretty funny. Evil, says Leibniz, it is necessary in the world in order that man might better understand the good. It is a sort of mustard to the meat or vinegar to some other dish. This is the price that God charges the man for what he teaches is to understand good. It is impossible however not to see the artificiality of this argument. Intelligent power controlling the world, of course, could do to people.understood good, not plates for it such suffering. If he is exposed to them, either because this power is unreasonable, either because it is not. Any of these solutions refutes the thesis of the existence of God.
THE ONTOLOGICAL PROOF, OR FAITH IN THE GREAT HARE
...That the wording as it is given from Anselm: “Even a madman must agree that in his mind there is a view on the substance above which it is impossible to imagine anything...
...His contemporary monk Gaunilon ...spoke in defense of the “madman”, which does not agree with the ontological proof. The ancients, he says, was the idea of a perfect island, lost somewhere in the vastness of the ocean. Is it possible that on this basis we must assume that a taxi is all-perfect island exists?
..You never know in the mind to just notions, but one thing — the concept and another thing is the reality that could serve as a source of this concept
...Given here to the arguments against the ontological proof can be added the consideration that this “proof” is based on gross overexposure. We are talking about the existence of God but not the existence of the concept of God. But in the course of reasoning to prove a thesis is replaced by another, and, thus, committed the error or fallacy, known in logic under the name of “substitution thesis”.
From the ontological proof derives some sort of proof of the existence of God, might be considered as independent; in some cases it's called historical evidence, others psychological, in the third — anthropological.
The point of this proof is as follows. Time in the minds of people there is the concept of God and if it's so common, then where did this notion in their minds, if it were not God himself?
...More English philosopher of the eighteenth century David Hume had shown that this argument is untenable, because the roots of an idea does not necessarily mean to seek out human consciousness, they can be found in the mind. The illusory idea of God originated in the mind of the people a completely natural, earthly conditions and circumstances. The belief in the supernatural exists in many forms, not only in the form of the idea of God. For example, the Indians of North America was in the past is very widespread cult of the Great Hare, the huge sizes and the greatest, though supernatural power. Can we assume that the source of this idea was a real Great Hare? Reason for this is just as much reason for the “psychological” proof of God's existence. It may be objected that the belief in the Great Hare has such a wide distribution, as faith in God. But to separate these two ideas there is no reason: the Great Hare — God. And, by the way, such different gods in the minds of different tribes and peoples have always existed countless. What they all really exist and are the source of faith in them? Or, maybe it's just the privilege of the biblical, i.e. Jewish and Christian God? And what can be based a religion? The great Hare and the Judeo-Christian Yahweh basically similar and the main thing: neither one nor the other does not exist.
GOD AND MORALITY
...Instead of evidence recognized by the insolvent, Kant put forward a new, which he wanted to draw a more solid Foundation for religious faith: moral or moral proof.
In each person, according to Kant, living the so-called categorical imperative — an inner command to act morally, honestly, to do so, “that the Maxim of thy conduct can become a norm of universal law”. Where did this human desire to live morally? What power invested in his soul the moral standards? Not only as God. This is one side of the case. The other side looks like, according to Kant, so: there is in the world the contradiction between morality and happiness; the contradiction someone or something must accept that the person is not sought in any cost to achieve their goals, not paying attention to the interests of other people; it is reconciled to God. Kant's moral proof does not hold water especially in light of the indubitable fact that there is no immutable morality laid down from time immemorial in the hearts of people that the norms of morality and the historicity of every historical epoch gives rise to its characteristic morality.
... What was the morality of those people who in the XVII—XVIII centuries, have turned Africa, in the words of Marx, in the conservation field for hunting black people to drive them like cattle for sale
... There is no single waitoriki of criteria that would be defined behavior. As to the contradictions between the pursuit of happiness and duty, and it is impossible to discern any proof of the existence of God. To think that someone has to reconcile this contradiction (and this “someone”— God) means to be like Khlestakov, who demanded to be fed without money on the basis that he's got something there, otherwise he can lose weight! The contradiction between happiness and duty may remain unreconciled, often it happens.
The facts for proof of God's existence
Relevant is only the question of the SIMULTANEOUS us of the existence of God. If God exists here and now, he needs to prove himself in the world. We know that lots of things can happen without God's intervention (the so-called natural order of things), therefore, the presence of God will speak the obvious and clear violation of causality. We all know what it's called, the miracle.
The issue is that we don't know causality absolutely all the world events. This leaves room for maneuver to all lovers of the divine, and all sorts of mysticism. As a rule, as "proof" of God's intervention present events, the result of which is not definitely predict or outright good type of tear icons. It is a question about whether to build their actions with the expectation of divine intervention, and is a principal in the dispute between the atheists and believers.
I personally to prove the existence of God, the man jumps from the roof of a 22-story building without safety equipment and is at the bottom in one piece – God is. Another option: overnight and unexplained freezing of the waters of the red sea at 3 meters depth when the air temperature is 50 degrees Celsius – a miracle, definitely.
So, we need a miracle that Almighty God should not make any work. However, it was just a miracle, not hocus-pocus a La Holy fire, a miracle must:
1) be simple;
2) to exclude the possibility of its reconstruction with the help of technology known to mankind.
Example - the freezing of the waters of the red sea at 3 meters depth when the air temperature is 50 degrees Celsius. Just? Just. Humanity has the technology to do such a thing? No.
Another example is the emergence along the equator of the moon large, readable from Earth with the naked eye, the inscription of the mountains "I, Jesus (Allah, Yahweh of hosts, more to Your taste) – the God of this world" in Russian. Agree, easy job for the Almighty. Moreover, the Christian God, for example, is obliged to do, if he is all-good. I doubt he believes negative available the unbelief of the people in itself, then for the sake of victoriastevent it should manifest such a miracle to know all about it. Since he is omniscient, he must know that atheists will take a miracle (at least, one of the authors of this book). The inscription on the moon – the Almighty is not something that is not a burden, but a joy. Well, there was an inscription? No? I knew it!
Believers often claim that in the religious sphere logic is useless. But religion is not only a system of values. Every religion embodies certain assertions, fidelity or infidelity which can be proven - at least theoretically.
One more observation. Usually atheists it is easy to imagine what they need the evidence to prove the existence of God. But believers usually can't tell what they need proof of the absence of God. Another would be: what if the atheists present – and what now, to abandon faith in God?
PySy: Stop being gentle with the believers © Richard Dawkins
CpaHblN 4onNk wrote:
Colleague, I'm not even going to respond point by point to You decide to complain about me to the admins of the forum
And you write normally, and argue without insults, and problems at anybody will not be any =]
Users, according to this criterion are divided into two categories: those who normally communicates and who should certainly trolling, that is, to provoke with insults, why so is another question, it let the psychiatrists define ), I believe that I normally talk on the forum, so to me there can not be claims.
So there you go. And Yes, the points and the quotes, because it's more convenient. Although it is necessary to make one remark: we are talking slightly off topic. We are talking about faith and religion, and for this there is another topic...
Perhaps, I'll answer by giving you here a link where to read my answer to you and where, accordingly, answer it:
Do you believe in God?
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
And you write normally, and argue without insults, and problems at anybody will not be any =]
Users, according to this criterion are divided into two categories: those who normally communicates and who should certainly trolling, that is, to provoke with insults, why so is another question, it let the psychiatrists define ), I believe that I normally talk on the forum, so to me there can not be claims.
So there you go. And Yes, the points and the quotes, because it's more convenient. Although it is necessary to make one remark: we are talking slightly off topic. We are talking about faith and religion, and for this there is another topic...
Perhaps, I'll answer by giving you here a link where to read my answer to you and where, accordingly, answer it:
Do you believe in God?
A. Soldier of Light, I'm glad You have understood what got the whole discussion wrong way, the topic is not about Your beloved o hoppade bulynko how would You yourself did not invent. Insults?? Where are the insults??? Only a statement of facts, all strictly on the merits, nothing more. Well, maybe I get a little emotional, but as a biochemist I am forgiven - I know a little more about the laws of nature, yeah. You know, one day some pop Posner asked why he doesn't believe in the Christian God, Posner said, I'm a biologist, for me, belief in any deity seems to be the height of absurdity, almost to the point of mental disorder; to believe in your or any God at all, I have to turn off your brain, and I don't know how to live, forgive, I don't understand how anyone could live like that, how can you call it life :) Multiply it by at least 50 - that's my opinion about all sorts o hoppade bulynko. The theme of inferiority, so I strictly on the topic: for me, any belief in any supernatural being is flawed.
Finally:
Faith in God is the belief in our own helplessness. © Master Shou-Dao Lee Ng.
CpaHblN 4onNk
Charles Babbage Charles Babbage (1791 - 1871)
Augustin-Louis Cauchy Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789 - 1857)
Bernard Bolzano Bernard Placidus Johann Nepomuk Bolzano (1781 - 1848)
Carl Friedrich Gauss Johann Carl Friedrich Gauß (1777 - 1855)
thrid Wilhelm Leibniz Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646 - 1716)
Christiaan Huygens Christiaan Huygens (1629 - 1695)
How do these people and many others have lived without knowing the statements of the Minister.