Posts from God... Truth or fiction? Auto-translated

Yes, that's true, the music inspired it. In general, I've recently drastically changed my attitude towards gods. Now I simply don't have any attitude towards them, since I have no idea how to do that. And there are also demiurges, forces that create specific manifestations of the supernatural.
Maybe God is a force that moves continents. Or maybe God is a butterfly on a flower. It's better not to guess.

Very good suggestion, Alex... :smile12: :smile12:

Alexey, you have a sound position. I respect that. I'm more inclined to agree with you than with atheism. Because believing in a bearded old man in the sky with a bunch of angels is something only children can do.

Nowizard, what if these miracles are a manifestation of the actions of an alien intelligence? :D Personally, I've seen UFOs many times and can confidently say that I believe in them!

And to think that the Christian God is an old man with a bunch of angels is something only children can do, who have read at most two lines in the Bible and say they know it!:p

What if this UFO is just an ordinary comet, a helicopter with flashing lights, or a trash can lid suspended on a fishing line in some low-budget studio or by an amateur photographer wanting to make some money. Anything can be mistaken for a UFO. If you want, tomorrow I'll become a witness to three flying saucers:)

P.S.:p

"There is no God, because none of the people have seen Him, and the scientists who have studied the entire universe have not found Him."

In his memoirs, Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov) recounts the following story: "There was an incident in the seminary. In the mornings, around 7 o'clock, after prayers, we would go to the cafeteria to get our portion of half a loaf of bread. One day, we gathered earlier than usual and had to wait. Out of boredom, some began to joke around... One of the guys, Misha T., who had never been known for his free-thinking before, suddenly blurted out:

"But who has seen God?"

We either didn't want to argue, or we didn't even like such chatterboxes, or we just couldn't object to him - and we remained silent. The assistant to the treasurer, who was somehow called "the commissar," named Vasily, was also present. Seeing our silence, he turned to Misha with a question:

"Sir! (that's what we were called then by the staff)."

"What?"

"So, you're saying that if you haven't seen God, then He doesn't exist."

"Yes!"

"Have you seen my grandmother?"

"N-no," Troitksy replied hesitantly, sensing some kind of trap.

"Well! And she's still alive!"

This story involuntarily comes to mind when you hear lighthearted denials of God's existence, based on the fact that no one has seen God. Do the authors of these objections really think they are stating something new? After all, the Bible clearly tells us: no one has ever seen God (1 John 4:12; cf. John 1:18). But the same Bible calls every denier of God's existence a fool (see Psalm 13:1).

If we assume that from "self-developing" matter, the entire universe appeared by itself, without the participation of Divine Mind and Will, up to the brilliant representatives of science and art, then we must abandon the principle of causality, that is, the position that everything has its cause. But it is precisely from this that materialists do not want to give up - and this leads to a contradiction.

I would be more cautious about the text of the Bible. Firstly, it was written at different times by different people. Secondly, a significant part of the writings were not included in it (apocrypha). Thirdly, its writing pursued certain goals. I am not saying that everything in it is a lie, nor am I saying that everything is true. I just ask that you approach it critically.
In general, there is no need to provide any evidence of the existence of gods. Because they cannot be verified. Perhaps flying saucers are the thoughts of a god, and people are the god's ideas about the world. You can say anything, but you cannot prove anything.

maybe paladins are Catholics? )

damn, it's far to travel to France... but if it weren't, I would... =)

P.S. move all the posts about paladins to the paladins topic =))) I know it's possible, I'm a moderator on the forum myself =

Interesting, are there helicopters with cylindrical flashing lights that fly in sharp zigzags and then collapse into a point? I knew that our weaponry has advanced far ahead, and they are deceiving us, saying that there is nothing more perfect than a nuclear missile and a laser satellite :D

Nowizard, I hope you don't think that biblical stories are true? And that we all originated from Adam and Eve?

Your arguments are still not convincing. I can say that the Universe was created by Mr. Radish, but I won't be able to prove it, just as you won't be able to disprove his existence :rolleyes:

Unlike Mr. Rediski (:D), there is a lot of evidence for the existence of God. If you don't want miracles, here's a historical fact: since you have a higher education in history, you should know that archaeologists found a tombstone with the inscription "Pontius Pilate is buried here." I may not know enough to "bombard" you with facts, but you can't deny history. Explain to me, a naive Christian, why the Germans stopped when they were approaching Moscow?:rolleyes:

Actually, the Germans didn't stop. They began to retreat. The reason for this was the severe frost, the exhaustion of the German army, and the help of fresh Siberian divisions in the defense of Moscow. That's it! Stalin didn't build a Portal of Glory or hire archangels to revive fallen soldiers :D

And what does Pontius Pilate have to do with it? He is a perfectly historical figure, and there is nothing surprising about finding his tomb. I wouldn't be surprised if they found the remains of Jesus Christ.

P.S. You kept telling me that the existence of God cannot be proven, just as it cannot be disproven, right? So, it means that the existence of Mr. Rediski can also be proven ;)

Don't you realize that your argument with Mr. Reddish is completely baseless? I didn't say that the existence of God cannot be proven. Don't twist my words. I said that it's impossible to explain it scientifically.

Yes, it’s a complete fabrication. But if I had lived 2-3 thousand years ago, with a certain zeal, I could have easily fooled many people into believing in the great Mr. Rediska. And there would be one more religion, or one more branch of religion.

In reality, creating your own religion is quite easy. It’s just that now there are few sheep that can be converted to it. I have a friend who studies religious studies, and I consulted with her in detail about creating a sect. The principles of brainwashing haven’t changed much since ancient times.

And after that, you claim to have a higher education in history?:) In ancient times, there were NO non-believers at all. There were different religions, different interpretations of the origin of the world, but one religion or another was sacred to EVERYONE. There were no "Mugaevs," and besides, you yourself said that people associated everything they couldn't explain with a divine origin, and at that time, there was a lot that was inexplicable to humans, oh so much. Or do you think that there have always been atheists with higher education who "knew that there was no God in reality:)"? There were no such people. And they burned, crucified, and impaled Christians on stakes for refusing to renounce God in the name of Mars and Neptune.

And after that, you claim to have a higher education in history?:) In ancient times, there were absolutely no non-believers. There were different religions, different interpretations of the origin of the world, but one religion or another was sacred to EVERYONE. There were no "Mugaes," and besides, you yourself said that people connected everything they couldn't explain with a divine origin, and at that time, there was a lot that a person couldn't explain, oh so much. Or do you think that there have always been atheists with higher education who "knew that there was no God in reality:)"? There were no such people. And they burned, crucified, and impaled Christians on stakes who refused to renounce God in the name of Mars and Neptune.

Where did I say anything about "non-believers in ancient times"? Please provide a quote. There were people who honestly deceived their fellow tribesmen.

Understand, back then, religion wasn't a way to gain power. There simply couldn't have been people who deceived others with a fabricated religion. Don't judge everyone by your own standards; morals were different back then. Everyone at that time wondered where they would end up after death. And they were horrified by the mere thought of what Set and Anubis would do to them if they tried to impose an unpleasant religion on people.

Well, I wouldn't say that. People readily converted to other religions. Entire states converted. The Persians, for example, adopted Zoroastrianism instead of their traditional polytheistic religion. And the reform was led by the king himself. You know, the powerful of this world were not very concerned with higher matters even then. Or, for example, the first attempt to adopt monotheism was in Ancient Egypt. The pharaoh wanted to replace the traditional worship of Osiris and Ra with the worship of the solar disk Aten. He didn't care what Anubis would do to him.

Appealing and simply manipulating people are completely different things, and you know that. But what's the point of manipulating people who are already under his control? He is a king. Even more than that. In Egypt, pharaohs were considered gods. So why would he complicate things for himself, to his own detriment? Hmm?:) You are wrong to think that people of the past were complete fools. I don't remember exactly where I heard it, but I really liked this verse: "They say that our ancestors were not people, but puppets." I disagree with this statement. Our ancestors were people, and they also pondered the meaning of life, the purpose of man in the world, and whether their religion was true. I don't know what the pharaoh was thinking, but it seems that after much thought, he came to the conclusion that there is only one God (notice how insightful the pharaoh was;)). And he shared his IMHO with the world. It didn't work out. As a result, he played the role of that very Muhais, but in reverse. This is just as much a hypothesis as Saruman's statement about the Absolute. You wouldn't call Saruman just another person trying to "grab a piece of the pie" at the expense of religion, would you?:D Saruman is a thinking person, like any other, and in his reflections, he came to the conclusion that the universe was created by the Absolute, while still being a believer. Similarly, the pharaoh, being a follower of the religion of ancient Egypt, came to his own, correct, in his opinion, conclusion about God; he simply had more opportunities to share his interpretation with the masses.

But to convert someone from one religion to another, you need to really mess with their head.

Or do you think that the prophet Muhammad woke up one morning and said, "And suddenly it occurred to me that there is only one God, and his name is Allah. But this is just my humble opinion, so don't pay attention to it." If that were the case, Islam wouldn't have spread beyond Muhammad himself.

P.S. You still haven't answered me. So, do you believe in the biblical stories? ;)