Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-01-2012, 12:29 PM #85
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Well, I wouldn't necessarily word it as proving a negative as much as disproving something, which can be done through contradictions and the like. There are methods to disprove, just as there are methods to prove a negative (though the latter is more functional with mathematical logic than anything else).

I think Paper Cut has yet to discern the difference between the belief in a God and the belief in a theistic God or any certain "understanding" of God and God's behavior/interactions.
Contradictions only work for theory and theology. Gravity is what it is. What we think about what it is can be completely wrong, but that doesn't invalidate its existence. But yeah basically what you said. There is a grand difference between theology and the thing it studies.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 01:19 PM #86
Paper_Cut
Keyboard Warrior
 
Paper_Cut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Annual Supporting Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Please do so.
Pick a war, chances are religion was involved 9 times out of 10, and it seems the more horrible a war was, the more influence a war had. Maybe WWII, you have Hitler, a man who believed he was doing the work of God because God blessed his race and the "Jesus killers" had destroyed the German economy and needed to be gotten rid of.
Religion rids people of the need to be accountable for their actions and allows them to do horrible things without the need for conscious.

The fact is the world works perfectly fine without any god and whenever a God get involved bad things happen. Whether there is a god is doubtful, but what I am sure of is that god is not deserving of any respect much less worship.

Treghc: I'm not sure what you want me to prove, but I can't prove god isn't real and I never tried to. I can prove that the human race would be better off without any god to poison our reason and demand tragedy and suffering.
Paper_Cut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 01:48 PM #87
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Treghc: I'm not sure what you want me to prove, but I can't prove god isn't real and I never tried to. I can prove that the human race would be better off without any god to poison our reason and demand tragedy and suffering.
Please do so then. I reordered your post to counter this very argument of yours.

I'll state my argument: This world would be exactly the same with or without religion. Sure, art and culture and the like would be different, but as a whole, the human race wouldn't act any differently. We'd still kill. We'd still steal. We'd still find reasoning and search for moral rights and wrongs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paper_Cut View Post
Pick a war, chances are religion was involved 9 times out of 10, and it seems the more horrible a war was, the more influence a war had. Maybe WWII, you have Hitler, a man who believed he was doing the work of God because God blessed his race and the "Jesus killers" had destroyed the German economy and needed to be gotten rid of.
Religion rids people of the need to be accountable for their actions and allows them to do horrible things without the need for conscious.
That's not religion's fault. That's man's fault. It's the ideology that can transcend past mere religious reasoning that is to blame. People like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong and the like didn't use religion as their basis for the slaughtering of millions. It's not as black and white as religious and non-religious. It's the mindset of these individuals that can be linked together to find various forms of psychopathy. It would do you well to study a bit of psychology and try to not make blanket statements. People kill with our without God being the reason.

Religion ridding people of the need to be accountable isn't religion's fault because that simply isn't true. The vast majority of religious followers will hold murderers accountable for their actions, for it's the person's fault, not the religion. Anyone saying murder is excusable because of religion is imply ill-informed and the great majority of religious followers will agree with this.

Quote:
The fact is the world works perfectly fine without any god and whenever a God get involved bad things happen. Whether there is a god is doubtful, but what I am sure of is that god is not deserving of any respect much less worship.
You'll have to define which God you're referring to here. There are an infinite number of "understandings" of God. The impact that religion has had on the world has been largely positive. Try to be honest and steer away from sensationalism.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 01:50 PM #88
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paper_Cut View Post
Pick a war, chances are religion was involved 9 times out of 10, and it seems the more horrible a war was, the more influence a war had. Maybe WWII, you have Hitler, a man who believed he was doing the work of God because God blessed his race and the "Jesus killers" had destroyed the German economy and needed to be gotten rid of.
Religion rids people of the need to be accountable for their actions and allows them to do horrible things without the need for conscious.

The fact is the world works perfectly fine without any god and whenever a God get involved bad things happen. Whether there is a god is doubtful, but what I am sure of is that god is not deserving of any respect much less worship.
How is this proof that God is imaginary?
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

Last edited by TheSilentAssassin : 08-01-2012 at 01:53 PM.
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 01:56 PM #89
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Treghc, are you feeling alright? Or am I in another universe?
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 02:04 PM #90
LOL Renegade
 
 
LOL Renegade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paper_Cut View Post

The fact is the world works perfectly fine without any god and whenever a God get involved bad things happen. Whether there is a god is doubtful, but what I am sure of is that god is not deserving of any respect much less worship.
Regardless of what Communistic anti-theists say, I'm pretty sure it all depends on your beliefs.
LOL Renegade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 02:28 PM #91
Paper_Cut
Keyboard Warrior
 
Paper_Cut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Annual Supporting Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Please do so then. I reordered your post to counter this very argument of yours.

I'll state my argument: This world would be exactly the same with or without religion. Sure, art and culture and the like would be different, but as a whole, the human race wouldn't act any differently. We'd still kill. We'd still steal. We'd still find reasoning and search for moral rights and wrongs.
True, but every time religion has fallen, art and learning has increased, and vice versa. When Europe became very pious, Europe fell into dark ages, and during that time from around 800-1100 Arabia became the center of learning, until Al-Ghazali came by and told everyone that math and learning was the work of the devil (or the Islam equivalent) and plunged the middle east into a chaos that they still haven't fully recovered from.
The Renaissance came around when the grip of the church loosened slightly at which point science and learning once again exploded. Further back we see the same thing, Egypt, Rome, China, all began their downward spiral when they found god(s).

Quote:
Originally Posted by treghc
That's not religion's fault. That's man's fault. It's the ideology that can transcend past mere religious reasoning that is to blame. People like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong and the like didn't use religion as their basis for the slaughtering of millions. It's not as black and white as religious and non-religious. It's the mindset of these individuals that can be linked together to find various forms of psychopathy. It would do you well to study a bit of psychology and try to not make blanket statements. People kill with our without God being the reason.

Religion ridding people of the need to be accountable isn't religion's fault because that simply isn't true. The vast majority of religious followers will hold murderers accountable for their actions, for it's the person's fault, not the religion. Anyone saying murder is excusable because of religion is imply ill-informed and the great majority of religious followers will agree with this.



You'll have to define which God you're referring to here. There are an infinite number of "understandings" of God. The impact that religion has had on the world has been largely positive. Try to be honest and steer away from sensationalism.
You act as if religion and human nature are two separate things, whatever positive things you see that religion has done I fail to see it. I can't see someone being able to offset the whole-sale slaughter of thousands of people at a time and the destruction of decades of scientific and academic learning by feeding a few poor people a meal or two.
Compound that with in cases such as Hindu and the untouchables, they are only poor because religion says they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
How is this proof that God is imaginary?
Does it matter whether or not he exists? Like I said, he has not shown him worthy of respect or worship and I am not going to change my mind if I simply find out he exists.


EDIT: btw, I am not trying to troll, I am only posting my honest opinion because I was asked about it.

Last edited by Paper_Cut : 08-01-2012 at 02:35 PM.
Paper_Cut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 02:35 PM #92
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paper_Cut View Post
Does it matter whether or not he exists? Like I said, he has not shown him worthy of respect or worship and I am not going to change my mind if I simply find out he exists.
So you admit that you do not know whether or not he exists and that the assertion that he is imaginary is simply your belief, nothing more?
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 02:37 PM #93
licence_to_kill
Bizarro World
 
licence_to_kill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: good ol' So Cal
licence_to_kill is reppin' sidebar 4 life
licence_to_kill has perfected Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
licence_to_kill has perfected Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
licence_to_kill has perfected Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
licence_to_kill supports DLX Technology
allah's ****in up his believers chances at the olympics
__________________
SAN DIEGO
CHARGERS

"Most Ron Paul supporters are domestic terrorists and racist liberal nazis." - John Elway
licence_to_kill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 04:35 PM #94
Eric the Fish
 
 
Eric the Fish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
So you admit that you do not know whether or not he exists and that the assertion that he is imaginary is simply your belief, nothing more?
So God has a gender? Not to get pissy but if god exists then he/she/it would probably not be a old white guy with a long beard up in the sky.
Eric the Fish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 04:42 PM #95
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Fish View Post
So God has a gender? Not to get pissy but if god exists then he/she/it would probably not be a old white guy with a long beard up in the sky.
Let's get through the issue of whether he/she/it exists before we start talking about it's gender. I used he because typing he/she is annoying to read and type. English lacks the proper pronoun. But back on the point. I'm waiting for papercut to admit that his beliefs about the existence (or lack of) God is simply a belief and no more backed by evidence than anyone else's.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 05:16 PM #96
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paper_Cut View Post
True, but every time religion has fallen, art and learning has increased, and vice versa. When Europe became very pious, Europe fell into dark ages, and during that time from around 800-1100 Arabia became the center of learning, until Al-Ghazali came by and told everyone that math and learning was the work of the devil (or the Islam equivalent) and plunged the middle east into a chaos that they still haven't fully recovered from.
The Renaissance came around when the grip of the church loosened slightly at which point science and learning once again exploded. Further back we see the same thing, Egypt, Rome, China, all began their downward spiral when they found god(s).
Again, these problems stem from control, not from the religion. Religion can be used as tool to obtain certain things, but so can damn near anything else. I will agree, however, that there is a level of influence that religion claims to have in scientific communities that should be pushed away. For instance, we need science taught in schools and scientific understandings to model the physical world. But that's simply because science deals with the physical world and religion deals with the non-physical.

Your second paragraph holds little weight, unfortunately. What about the industrial revolution? What about our modern age of scientific, medicinal, and technological progress that takes place in a largely Christian nation? We've had multiple booms of scientific advancement. This isn't because of lack of religion, but rather because of religious and cultural tolerance.

Quote:
You act as if religion and human nature are two separate things, whatever positive things you see that religion has done I fail to see it. I can't see someone being able to offset the whole-sale slaughter of thousands of people at a time and the destruction of decades of scientific and academic learning by feeding a few poor people a meal or two.
Compound that with in cases such as Hindu and the untouchables, they are only poor because religion says they are.
You'd have to explain what you mean by human nature. Religion is a part of human nature, sure. But what I'm getting at is these people that have waged war and/or slaughtered millions have similar traits of psychopathy; a deficiency in the brain that allows one to feel no remorse for the pain and suffering of others. This isn't religion's fault as much as it is the neurological makeup of these people.

Now, I will go on to say that religion can provide a pathway for excuse for actions within these people. But, again, that's the person's fault; it's just how they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
Treghc, are you feeling alright? Or am I in another universe?
I've found God.
he lives in my shoe.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien

Last edited by Treghc : 08-01-2012 at 05:25 PM.
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 05:34 PM #97
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Haha that'll be the day.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 06:49 PM #98
Status Quo (Banned)
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
I'd buy a shoegod.
Status Quo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 06:51 PM #99
Status Quo (Banned)
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status Quo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 07:00 PM #100
The Abstract
Reject Diversity
 
The Abstract's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Treghc has it pretty spot on, but Paper Cut also has some valid points. For a while, religion didn't do anything but divide, but religion doesn't take physical form and do anything. It's the people who divide themselves, no different than the thousand other philosophies people will use to divide themselves. And if Paper Cut thinks the only good religion has done was "feed a few mouths", than he is retarded. And you do realize that the Islamic Golden Age was brought forth by the introduction of Islam into the broader Middle East, because Islam facilitates and encourages scientific research. Al Ghazali did nothing but stress the importance of Islamic philosophy. The decline of Islamic civilization has nothing to do with the stress of Islamic philosophy (he lived and died during the Golden Age), as the earlier Islamic societies that flourished during the Golden Age were more religious than the ones that came after the decline. The decline was due to a number of things, mainly the Mongol invasion (remember the Mongols? They held no official religion but destroyed Islamic libraries and schools), the Crusades, and poor governance by the Caliphate.
__________________
FREE PALESTINE
I Hate Supras!
PbNation Mods Are Definitely NOT Racist
The Abstract is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 09:54 AM #101
spracks21
Zap Rowsdower
 
spracks21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lincoln, NE
spracks21 plays in the PSP
spracks21 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
spracks21 plays in the APPA D3 division
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Let's get through the issue of whether he/she/it exists before we start talking about it's gender. I used he because typing he/she is annoying to read and type. English lacks the proper pronoun. But back on the point. I'm waiting for papercut to admit that his beliefs about the existence (or lack of) God is simply a belief and no more backed by evidence than anyone else's.
Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to define said God as much as we are able to first, then examine the validity of that specific entity. Maybe not, but with the perception of God being such a moving target, depending on many factors, it could be potentially helpful to only talk about proving/disproving the existence of 1 idea of God at a time.

I'm sure you can understand, it is difficult to form a thorough argument against the existence of (Or lack of cause to believe in) a God, when Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and all of the Islamic sects envision God differently. Again though, maybe not. Just a thought.

Also, out of curiosity, what languages that you're aware of do have the proper pronoun for the gender for God? Any modern languages?

And lastly, just a question, as I know we have already discussed this topic, would you consider, "There is no God" to be a positive statement? I wonder, because you could also make the statement, "There are no invisible apples in my basket." And if someone heard that, then said, "There is 1 invisible apple in your basket." Who would have made the positive claim? Who is obligated to support their claim? Who should society put more belief in?

Assuming the burden of proof should be placed on the one making a positive claim. I forget if you agree to that much or not.
__________________
Aimless Factory
#21

Last edited by spracks21 : 08-02-2012 at 09:57 AM.
spracks21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 11:52 AM #102
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by spracks21 View Post
Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to define said God as much as we are able to first, then examine the validity of that specific entity. Maybe not, but with the perception of God being such a moving target, depending on many factors, it could be potentially helpful to only talk about proving/disproving the existence of 1 idea of God at a time. I'm sure you can understand, it is difficult to form a thorough argument against the existence of (Or lack of cause to believe in) a God, when Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and all of the Islamic sects envision God differently. Again though, maybe not. Just a thought.
I am not attempting to prove God exists. If I were, I would define what I mean by God when I do so. However, Papercut is claiming to have proof that God doesn't exist. Therefore, it would probably be wise of him to define the God he is wishing to disprove.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spracks21 View Post
And lastly, just a question, as I know we have already discussed this topic, would you consider, "There is no God" to be a positive statement? I wonder, because you could also make the statement, "There are no invisible apples in my basket." And if someone heard that, then said, "There is 1 invisible apple in your basket." Who would have made the positive claim? Who is obligated to support their claim? Who should society put more belief in?
Claiming that "God doesn't exist" is also claiming that "the universe exists without a God". It's like adding a negative. If you are claiming something not to be there, you are also claiming that something exists without that thing. I would argue that the statement "I don't believe there is sufficient proof to believe that God exists" is fine, but once you cross into the realm of "God doesn't exist" and "God is imaginary" (which would require even more proof) you need to start providing evidence.

Regarding that apples, if either is claiming something to be true, they must then provide evidence of the sort. So, in that scenario, both would have the burden of proof to back their assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spracks21 View Post
Also, out of curiosity, what languages that you're aware of do have the proper pronoun for the gender for God? Any modern languages?
I was meaning more than we don't have a word to cover he/she when you don't know if its a he or a she but isn't an it. For example, if i saw that someone forgot something i can either say a) he forgot it b) they forgot it c) he/she forgot it d) it forgot it.

A is not a gender neutral and could be considered offensive
B is just not accurate (although it is commonly used in speech but not writing)
C is annoying to say and just feels weird
D is not accurate and border-line insulting.

I didn't mean we need a divine pronoun. I meant we need a singular gender neutral pronoun.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 03:59 PM #103
spracks21
Zap Rowsdower
 
spracks21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lincoln, NE
spracks21 plays in the PSP
spracks21 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
spracks21 plays in the APPA D3 division
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I am not attempting to prove God exists. If I were, I would define what I mean by God when I do so. However, Papercut is claiming to have proof that God doesn't exist. Therefore, it would probably be wise of him to define the God he is wishing to disprove.
Got it.


Quote:
Claiming that "God doesn't exist" is also claiming that "the universe exists without a God". It's like adding a negative. If you are claiming something not to be there, you are also claiming that something exists without that thing. I would argue that the statement "I don't believe there is sufficient proof to believe that God exists" is fine, but once you cross into the realm of "God doesn't exist" and "God is imaginary" (which would require even more proof) you need to start providing evidence.
I agree that if you say, "God is imaginary" or "God was made up by humans" (Although this one would still not necessarily disprove God per se) then that would likely put the burden of proof on the non-believer.

I'm open to considering "There is no God" a statement in need of being supported by the one making this "claim," but I still think that since God was the idea brought into the whole equation by theists, an atheist (Who obviously has no belief in God) is within his/her right to dismiss the concept until it is accompanied by some sort of evidence.

I might not be saying that as clearly as I want to, but basically because an atheist did not conjure the concept of a god, they are beyond obligation of proving the existence/lack of existence of the entity that they don't believe in. I can make the statement, "Santa Claus is not real" and I doubt I would be asked/expected to prove that statement. And just because God has more believers, making up most of the world, I don't think that is cause to grant any further validity. It just means it should be looked into/studied more, in my opinion.

Not trying to be offensive, just thinking out loud.

Quote:
Regarding that apples, if either is claiming something to be true, they must then provide evidence of the sort. So, in that scenario, both would have the burden of proof to back their assertion.
Fair enough. But I guess the example might have been better if it was, "My basket has nothing in it/is empty" and "You have 5 invisible apples in your basket." Does that change anything for you? Who would have the burden of proof here?

Quote:
I was meaning more than we don't have a word to cover he/she when you don't know if its a he or a she but isn't an it. For example, if i saw that someone forgot something i can either say a) he forgot it b) they forgot it c) he/she forgot it d) it forgot it.

A is not a gender neutral and could be considered offensive
B is just not accurate (although it is commonly used in speech but not writing)
C is annoying to say and just feels weird
D is not accurate and border-line insulting.

I didn't mean we need a divine pronoun. I meant we need a singular gender neutral pronoun.
Ah, got it. I was just curious if like Aramaic or some other language had such as pronoun that was used to refer to God in the Bible. Thanks for the clear up though.
__________________
Aimless Factory
#21

Last edited by spracks21 : 08-02-2012 at 04:03 PM.
spracks21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 04:26 PM #104
Eric the Fish
 
 
Eric the Fish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Single gender neutral pronoun? Sounds very much my latin classes back in HS.
Eric the Fish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 05:07 PM #105
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by spracks21 View Post
I agree that if you say, "God is imaginary" or "God was made up by humans" (Although this one would still not necessarily disprove God per se) then that would likely put the burden of proof on the non-believer.

I'm open to considering "There is no God" a statement in need of being supported by the one making this "claim," but I still think that since God was the idea brought into the whole equation by theists, an atheist (Who obviously has no belief in God) is within his/her right to dismiss the concept until it is accompanied by some sort of evidence.

I might not be saying that as clearly as I want to, but basically because an atheist did not conjure the concept of a god, they are beyond obligation of proving the existence/lack of existence of the entity that they don't believe in. I can make the statement, "Santa Claus is not real" and I doubt I would be asked/expected to prove that statement. And just because God has more believers, making up most of the world, I don't think that is cause to grant any further validity. It just means it should be looked into/studied more, in my opinion.

Fair enough. But I guess the example might have been better if it was, "My basket has nothing in it/is empty" and "You have 5 invisible apples in your basket." Does that change anything for you? Who would have the burden of proof here?
I think we are basically agreeing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spracks21 View Post
Ah, got it. I was just curious if like Aramaic or some other language had such as pronoun that was used to refer to God in the Bible. Thanks for the clear up though.
I don't know aramaic, but hebrew is interesting. They have a thing called a divine conjugation where the tense of the verb implies that God was the one doing the action.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump