How Can There Be Multiple Gods and Multiple Truths?

[ChrisL]

Whenever a discussion of "God" or "heaven" occurs half the time no one agrees with what they mean by either word, "God" or "heaven".

And "heaven" would insinuate there is an "after life."

And people who are god and heaven believers think an after life is eternal. Nothing in the universe is eternal, but people believe in spite of evidence to the contrary.

They have a hard time dealing with facts. Facts make them angry.

 

[Dhara]

Whenever a discussion of "God" or "heaven" occurs half the time no one agrees with what they mean by either word, "God" or "heaven".

Easy. A "god" is some form of higher power.

God
ɡäd/
noun

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
   synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
   
   
   
   
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
   "a moon god"

That's a definition, but there are faith definitions too. I remember one from my childhood, "God is the supreme being who made all things."

It's pretty much the same as the definition I posted above though. "A superhuman being or spirit, worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes"

Well, Chris I think there are some differences in the definitons. A superhuman being or spirit that has power over nature and human fortune isn't the same as "creator god" which is what catechism in my childhood claimed.

God as superman.

 

[Dhara]

Whenever a discussion of "God" or "heaven" occurs half the time no one agrees with what they mean by either word, "God" or "heaven".

And "heaven" would insinuate there is an "after life."

And people who are god and heaven believers think an after life is eternal. Nothing in the universe is eternal, but people believe in spite of evidence to the contrary.

They have a hard time dealing with facts. Facts make them angry.

I'd say faith challenges make some people angry. Discussing religion and politics makes people angry.

 

[ChrisL]

I suppose someone will come back with some obscure link that disagrees with 99.9% of the scientific community. Lol. Anyway, I have to log off. TTYL!

 

[peach174]

What do you think the the Behemoth and Leviathan are?

Why don't you tell me? Do you believe humans were around during the time of the dinosaurs?

There is some evidence of it in fossils but non believing scientists dismiss it.

Links please.

Images
Human footprints along with dinosaur foot prints.

Human hand print with dinosaur foot print

Indian carvings in the Grand Canyon.

Errr, that could be the footprints of anything. Do you have a LINK to a valid scientific source?

What part of- There is some evidence of it in fossils but non believing scientists dismiss it did you not get?
So no there is no scientific source because they don't believe in God.

 

[Dhara]

And an old priest said, "Speak to us of Religion."

And he said:

Have I spoken this day of aught else?

Is not religion all deeds and all reflection,

And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom?

Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations?

Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for God and this for myself; This for my soul, and this other for my body?"

All your hours are wings that beat through space from self to self.

He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked.

The wind and the sun will tear no holes in his skin.

And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage.

The freest song comes not through bars and wires.

And he to whom worshipping is a window, to open but also to shut, has not yet visited the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn.

Your daily life is your temple and your religion.

Whenever you enter into it take with you your all.

Take the plough and the forge and the mallet and the lute,

The things you have fashioned in necessity or for delight.

For in revery you cannot rise above your achievements nor fall lower than your failures.

And take with you all men:

For in adoration you cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair.

And if you would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles.

Rather look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children.

And look into space; you shall see Him walking in the cloud, outstretching His arms in the lightning and descending in rain.

You shall see Him smiling in flowers, then rising and waving His hands in trees.

Khalil Gibran

 

[Dhara]

I suppose someone will come back with some obscure link that disagrees with 99.9% of the scientific community. Lol. Anyway, I have to log off. TTYL!

Night Chris, nice talking to you.

 

[peach174]

I suppose someone will come back with some obscure link that disagrees with 99.9% of the scientific community. Lol. Anyway, I have to log off. TTYL!

Good night Chris.

 

[Boss]

We have MANY common ancestors with apes and monkeys. You people need to get a better grasp on the theory of evolution. It's obvious that it was never taught to some of you in school. What a shame.

There is some evidence that humans may have evolved from a common Homo ancestor... We are of the Homo genus, along with homo neanderthalensis and homo erectus. THAT is a supportable theory but it conforms to the micro-evolution model that we know happens in nature. That's where a blue fish becomes a yellow fish... a black bear becomes a polar bear... a red fox becomes a silver fox.... a white owl becomes a spotted owl... etc.

But this does not explain where the Homo genus evolved from. There is no scientific evidence to support anything on that. It is theorized we came from Homininis but there is no evidence and as I pointed out about the DNA changes, there is no time for such an evolution to happen. They once believed the Australopithecus was the proverbial "missing link" until they discovered the homo genus existed along the same time.

I'm sorry, but I can post links to prove you wrong all day long.

Human Evolution 101

All you posted is an article stating things as facts that aren't supported with science data. It's speculation and conjecture passed off as "science fact" when it's not. I could post links to a theologian who rejects all of that as utter nonsense. But that's one opinion vs. another opinion. I prefer to deal with what science has proven. \

Show me a link to legitimate science research where they have proven one genus taxa emerged from another and let me see the science. I'll save you some trouble, there isn't any. I've studied this for years, I am fascinated by it and I know what I am talking about. They make these assumptions based on similar DNA structure but current DNA research suggests that it's not a possibility and similar DNA doesn't mean as much as has been presumed. Even a minor 1% change in DNA requires dozens of amino acids and enzymes which don't just magically materialize because they're needed. And IF they do, well, that's MORE of a miracle than God!

 

[sealybobo]

Are all species related?

Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related.

This is bullshit. No evidence to support it... NONE!

If you were a scientist you'd know you're wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

Wouldn't it be fair to teach evolution and "creation science" and/or "intelligent design" in public schools?

The Federal courts have ruled that....

The federal courts have ruled that....
slaves are property.
women can be beaten by their husbands with a stick no wider than the thumb (rule of thumb)
native americans have no constitutional rights
japanese americans can be interned
blacks can't attend white schools
women can't vote


With the internet and modern technology... smart phones, social media... I think our kids are going to learn about creationism whether or not we teach it in schools. I don't think it's ever wise for us to censor what is taught.

It's important to know the past. To build on it. Those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

Science and our federal government aren't perfect but creation science is?

 

[sealybobo]

We have MANY common ancestors with apes and monkeys. You people need to get a better grasp on the theory of evolution. It's obvious that it was never taught to some of you in school. What a shame.

There is some evidence that humans may have evolved from a common Homo ancestor... We are of the Homo genus, along with homo neanderthalensis and homo erectus. THAT is a supportable theory but it conforms to the micro-evolution model that we know happens in nature. That's where a blue fish becomes a yellow fish... a black bear becomes a polar bear... a red fox becomes a silver fox.... a white owl becomes a spotted owl... etc.

But this does not explain where the Homo genus evolved from. There is no scientific evidence to support anything on that. It is theorized we came from Homininis but there is no evidence and as I pointed out about the DNA changes, there is no time for such an evolution to happen. They once believed the Australopithecus was the proverbial "missing link" until they discovered the homo genus existed along the same time.

I'm sorry, but I can post links to prove you wrong all day long.

Human Evolution 101

All you posted is an article stating things as facts that aren't supported with science data. It's speculation and conjecture passed off as "science fact" when it's not. I could post links to a theologian who rejects all of that as utter nonsense. But that's one opinion vs. another opinion. I prefer to deal with what science has proven. \

Show me a link to legitimate science research where they have proven one genus taxa emerged from another and let me see the science. I'll save you some trouble, there isn't any. I've studied this for years, I am fascinated by it and I know what I am talking about. They make these assumptions based on similar DNA structure but current DNA research suggests that it's not a possibility and similar DNA doesn't mean as much as has been presumed. Even a minor 1% change in DNA requires dozens of amino acids and enzymes which don't just magically materialize because they're needed. And IF they do, well, that's MORE of a miracle than God!

Give us a link showing us your opinion has been peer tested by the scientific community. I'll save you the trouble, there is none.

 

[sealybobo]

One person's fact is another person's bullshit when it comes to a lot of things.
Don't let it drive you mad.

Well not when it comes to Science. She did good when she posted the definition of theories but there is no evidence to support the theory all life is related. Now.... I supposed you could say that we are related in the sense we are all comprised of the same stuff... carbon, oxygen, potassium, calcium, etc. And we are related in that we're living organisms. We're all made of atoms... We all have DNA... but related in the sense that we all came from the same original single cell? Nope... no evidence to support that.

What's your theory and where's your evidence?

 

[sealybobo]

How do we know that?

There is evidence in papyrus scrolls
BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: Galit Dayan: "Jews" Lived in Dynastic Egypt
It describes the plagues;
In each of the Egyptian manuscripts Dayan discussed, the same familiar characters are mentioned: Moses (“an Egyptian name”), Pharoah, the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds (“Yam Suf” in Hebrew), Hebrews, Israelites and the presence of slaves in Egypt.

In one manuscript, known as the Ipuwer papyrus, there is an eerie description of chaos in Egypt: “Plague is throughout the land,” Dayan’s translation reads, “blood is everywhere — the river is blood ... and the hail smote every herd of the field ... the land is without light and there is a thick darkness throughout the land ... the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt — from the firstborn of Pharoah that sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the prison. ...”

That is not scientific evidence of the existence of any gods though. It is just some written words by men . . . ??? It is well known that there is no scientific evidence for the theory of creationism. I didn't make that up.

I was talking about if Moses really existed.
There is now evidence outside of the bible for the exodus, then there must have been Moses.

I think scientists would probably disagree that it qualifies as evidence other than superstitious belief system.

Just because they think it is superstitious does not make it true either.
That is also a pretty big insult to believers who know and feel Gods presence and guidance.
It is pretty incredible that those who think it's superstitious can't see that Revelation is happening right before our very eyes.

Oh you feel it? That's different. Why didn't you just say so. Now I believe

 

[sealybobo]

Are all species related?

Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species. While the tree's countless forks and far-reaching branches clearly show that relatedness among species varies greatly, it is also easy to see that every pair of species share a common ancestor from some point in evolutionary history. For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real. Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.

It is important to realize that describing organisms as relatives does not mean that one of those organisms is an ancestor of the other, or, for that matter, that any living species is the ancestor of any other living species. A person may be related to blood relatives, such as cousins, aunts, and uncles, because she shares with them one or more common ancestors, such as a grandparent, or great-grandparent. But those cousins, aunts, and uncles are not her ancestors. In the same way, humans and other living primates are related, but none of these living relatives is a human ancestor.

That is what I am wating for, the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees. Which has not been found yet.
Evolution can only happen within its own species and many of us think that humans evolved with other humans just like all of the other species.
If we were actually related to apes then we would still be able to mate with them but we can't.
Just like a dog can't mate with a cat.

But you will believe a theory with NO scientific evidence instead?

To believers he is not a theory.

Whatever. It IS a theory with no solid evidence to support it whatsoever, and ALL evidence of our past and history points to evolution and NOT gods. If you want to remain ignorant, so be it. There is nothing I can do about that. You have to want to face the truth.

God isn't even a theory. At least not a scientific one. At best its a hypothesis

 

[sealybobo]

We have MANY common ancestors with apes and monkeys. You people need to get a better grasp on the theory of evolution. It's obvious that it was never taught to some of you in school. What a shame.

There is some evidence that humans may have evolved from a common Homo ancestor... We are of the Homo genus, along with homo neanderthalensis and homo erectus. THAT is a supportable theory but it conforms to the micro-evolution model that we know happens in nature. That's where a blue fish becomes a yellow fish... a black bear becomes a polar bear... a red fox becomes a silver fox.... a white owl becomes a spotted owl... etc.

But this does not explain where the Homo genus evolved from. There is no scientific evidence to support anything on that. It is theorized we came from Homininis but there is no evidence and as I pointed out about the DNA changes, there is no time for such an evolution to happen. They once believed the Australopithecus was the proverbial "missing link" until they discovered the homo genus existed along the same time.

I just heard the other day that humans and neanderthal mated 50,000 years earlier than we once thought. We know so little

 

[Boss]

One person's fact is another person's bullshit when it comes to a lot of things.
Don't let it drive you mad.

Well not when it comes to Science. She did good when she posted the definition of theories but there is no evidence to support the theory all life is related. Now.... I supposed you could say that we are related in the sense we are all comprised of the same stuff... carbon, oxygen, potassium, calcium, etc. And we are related in that we're living organisms. We're all made of atoms... We all have DNA... but related in the sense that we all came from the same original single cell? Nope... no evidence to support that.

What's your theory and where's your evidence?

How can I show you evidence for something that never happened? You can't prove a negative. I don't know what to tell ya boob, it's not up to me to show you evidence you're wrong.

 

[Boss]

I just heard the other day that humans and neanderthal mated 50,000 years earlier than we once thought. We know so little

And I doubt we ever mated with neanderthals. If we ever did, it was certainly early on. Neanderthals are in our same genus taxa, Homo. As I have repeatedly said, the only evidence for evolution is within a genera.

 

[Indeependent]

We have MANY common ancestors with apes and monkeys. You people need to get a better grasp on the theory of evolution. It's obvious that it was never taught to some of you in school. What a shame.

There is some evidence that humans may have evolved from a common Homo ancestor... We are of the Homo genus, along with homo neanderthalensis and homo erectus. THAT is a supportable theory but it conforms to the micro-evolution model that we know happens in nature. That's where a blue fish becomes a yellow fish... a black bear becomes a polar bear... a red fox becomes a silver fox.... a white owl becomes a spotted owl... etc.

But this does not explain where the Homo genus evolved from. There is no scientific evidence to support anything on that. It is theorized we came from Homininis but there is no evidence and as I pointed out about the DNA changes, there is no time for such an evolution to happen. They once believed the Australopithecus was the proverbial "missing link" until they discovered the homo genus existed along the same time.

I just heard the other day that humans and neanderthal mated 50,000 years earlier than we once thought. We know so little

I just heard the other day that ugly women look better when you're drunk.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do you agree with the following:

There is 1 God, with one path to Heaven.
There are multiple Gods, and many paths to Heaven.
Doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe in something?

If there are multiple Gods, who gets to decide what?
Why do they "disagree"?

There have always been and still are multiple truths

You have to realize that your truth may not be my truth and that truth can be subjective