[geocentrism] Re: Zeitgeist : Jesus-Christ assumed to be a false God
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:21:46 +1000
They can't all be right. The logical answer is that none are.
Paul D
Then to be logical, you would have to include your own notion, and as they are
all still then contradictory, none is right.. I do not call that logical.
A contradiction between a lie and a truth does not negate the truth.
I also disagree with your assertion, "That they all contain error is just as
readily demonstrable." I'll just stick to a Bible.. Name a specific error
thats readily demonstrable?
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:34 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Zeitgeist : Jesus-Christ assumed to be a false God
John R and Philip M -- greetings.
No -- I assure you I am not having a dig at you. (Congrats on use of 'dig'. I
assume that it is not native to your roots -- you're becoming acclimatised!)
But I confess I did mean to stir the pot. What I said I meant literally and it
does not stop at just the Bible believing groups. Since I started to listen and
think for myself, I've come to understand the origins of religions and I don't
see it as a believable or a pretty picture. While I'm not disinterested in an
answer, I don't wish to become involved in any lengthy debate since you won't
be swayed any more than I will be swayed. The problem with all religions is
that their position is an argumentum ad verecundiam -- an argument from
authority and if required to substantiate their position from first principles
will all fail. That all the 'holy books' contain good advice is readily
demonstrated. That they all contain chauvinistic advice is readily
demonstrable. That they all contain error is just as readily demonstrable. They
all claim to be, if not the only, then at least the most recent and supplanting
version of the Truth. They can't all be right. The logical answer is that none
are.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Roodt <johnroodt@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 20 October, 2008 11:53:52 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Zeitgeist : Jesus-Christ assumed to be a false God
Hi Phil, and Paul
I'm in Sydney, Phil.
Also, I wasn't angered or offended by the word "brainwashed" -- it was
amusing. I'm not surprised that you and Marc consider me as brainwashed -- and
vice versa. But isn't that what deception implies? One or other party is
sincere and almost right. But a miss is a miss? The tragedy of deception is
that the victim sincerely believes that he is correct -- but isn't?
It's understandable that Paul wonders at the conflict amongst the different
groups who share the same Bible. I'd respond to Paul but I think he's having a
dig at us and probably isn't interested in an answer.
Am I right Paul?
John
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 7:58 PM, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On second thoughts, Paul, though I am reluctant to print during my happy
hour, and this has been a four hour binge, I was nevertheless inspired to make
a comment immediately.
Your question is exactly the same in principle, as that thrown at Jesus on
the Cross.. "If you are God, then deliver yourself from the cross and we will
believe you..."
Now how far do you think christianity upon which the calandar you use today
was based , would have lasted if He had done that, and came down off the cross?
He did better... He rose from the dead as promised, on Sunday, your first
day of the week, before many and enough witnesses.. That is what started it.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:13 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Zeitgeist : Jesus-Christ assumed to be a false
God
Greetings all
I usually pass over the theology stuff but this one seems tailor made for
me.
We are told God not only exists but is Omniscient, Omnipotent and
Omnipresent. You'd think that He would be capable of protecting Himself from
the efforts of His detractors but it seems that this is not so since the only
way these detractors come to grief is if His followers visit harm upon them.
Oddly, many of these detractors claim also to be His followers. One would think
this OOO God would have been able to communicate His needs unambiguously to His
creatures so that they would know, and could demonstrate unequivocally, who was
a detractor and who a follower.
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
