(February 25, 2019 at 5:41 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Because you need proper philosophy. Your god is indistinguishable from a super advanced alien.

Meaning when you said religion is invented by man, and I asked why then is the God of the bible not intuitively taught the way I/the bible teaches, you said because the teaching are not based in man's philosophy hence the need for a course in philosophy?!?!
Are you so stupid to not understand you just contradicted yourself? If God is man's creation then why does one need to study how man perceives God to change the god of the bible to fit man's idea of what God is supposed to be? Do you understand if man created the God of the bible should the God of the bible not fit man's philosophy automatically?
Because the God of the bible does not fit the philosophical profile of what man seeks in God... (by your own admission) shows that God's nature is different than what man would create. I know you are not smart enoug to understand but you just refuted your own objection. you just falsified the idea that God is a creation of man.
Quote:The Catholic god is an underlying conceptual framework without which nothing can exist, for it is the very concept of existence (among many other things).the catholic version of God can't even work his way past simple paradoxes of being an almighty being. not to mention the problem of evil nor can he resolve creation with evolution or even how adam and eve's children got married and had kids of their own without resorting to incest. So yeah I see a huge difference in that the catholic god is full of flaws you all like to pat yourself on the back when you point them out to eachother over and over again as if it where the first time those objection where made... then you have the God of the bible which no little paradox of litature can bind no question of orginans can't be anwered or is lost to explain how adam and eve children got married with resulting to incest.
Can you spot the difference?
You are so transparent in that you need the catholic God to be relevant with your objections and your insults. as your mind is not flexible enough to roll with the punches of a God based in the bible. especially when you are still arguing for aramaic/non Greek translations. (you have yet to properly concede the whole topic.
(February 25, 2019 at 3:41 pm)Drich Wrote: the only thing that get twisted is you little perception of a great God and an explanation of a book that has chewed you up and spit you out today.
Quote:Your great god is puny.said the douche that just learned that romans primary spoke and wrote greek in the first century in the middle east.
Quote:Your book was written by people, for people, drawing upon notions and stories that were floating around in the...wait for it... popular mythology.not according to you.. you just said the reason this book does not follow the teaching of man is because it lack basic philosophy.
Quote:What I learned about the book was that it would be written in Greek if the purpose was to disseminate it throughout the larger region of Asia Minor and Eastern Mediterranean. Many people wrote Aramaic with Greek characters and, if it would be for popular and local consumption, your book would have been written like that.Aramaic was not an offical language. it was the scribblings of malcontents and barbarians. as such there were or are surviving text in aramaic but they are know translations from the greek. many speculate the aramaic was translated from the greek as a means to speak to the aramaic only as an outreach.
Quote:no back then they had access to the people who where there. which in that culture is far more believable than anything that could have been written
As it is, it had the clear purpose of convincing people that were not around and could not in any way verify the stories.... except through faith... It was a propaganda device... well.... I should say "they", not "it". There were many gospels and similar texts floating around. All with the same goal: propaganda.