Search results

I realise that that is what you believe.. ..but it can't be proved. It's interesting that you think we can know more about Origen now, than they all did back in the day. 😐 No, not accused of heresy due to confusion .. a political mess, yes!

It can .. but that would contradict the fact that G-d is not part of the Creation. It makes no sense that He would be. i.e. He is eternal They exist .. but are not physical concepts .. they are spiritual ones.

As opposed to "In the beginning, the heavens and earth just happened to be". :)

I wouldn't say so.. Why does G-d have to have a location? Some people say that G-d is everywhere .. others say not .. I say that G-d created the universe and is not part of it. That would suggest that G-d is "somewhere" that we are not aware of at present. ..and as I say .. "G-d is closer to...

G-d is not a person .. human activity affects the weather, amongst other things. ..and G-d affects human activity. ( the minds/souls ) He is closer to us than our jugular vein. :) ..and regards afterlife .. it is not empirically provable one way or another. We will have to see when we die. I...

I think mankind are very good at "mucking up" the weather. :(

Well, what does one mean by "evidence". I mean, as G-d is not of the universe, then how could one detect Him?

That does not answer the question, you know. Give some examples, perhaps..

I don't even know what that means :oops:

The last post in this thread was in 2009.. Surely, we have had many Valentines days since. Where have you been? :)

Ooo .. my favorite scholar ;) I won't ask you whether he was an "Arian", of course .. because that is controversial.

What evidence would you expect to see if they exist?

Of course it is .. we are all part of reality, so our thoughts are part of it. Whether it is meaningful as applied to G-d, is another matter. :)

I'm not sure that I have met her. :D

Oh .. and I thought that it was just me. ;)

RJM and myself acted to preserve the whole site in its entirety. ..but I'm not that bothered .. whatever the "gaffer" wishes. :)

No .. it is more a case of talking at cross purposes. It is similar to the argument about whether we are responsible for our actions. I say "yes, we sure are" .. but of course, there are those with diminished responsibility as well. ..but we can't have it both ways.. eg. we are safe enough to...

I cannot see what neuroscience has to do with whether we have a choice to lie or not. :)

Well, if Trump comes on the news, I usually turn it off. :) No, it's not okay .. but it depends on the lie. eg. if your life really depends on it .. not just more money etc. Again, it depends if people's lives are at risk.. Yes, indeed.

Have you ever considered, you might have got it all wrong? :) Literal translations often have to be thought about in context. Clearly, in this context it refers to soured milk product (as is butter or buttermilk, for example).