What would actually be in a "magical creation" textbook? Beyond it isn't evolution.

[DrDoomNGloom]

there is no empirical observable evidence of an intelligent creator .
no gods bar code..

Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You said:
Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You have your answer in your own link:

The leaves on this plant are staggered in a spiral pattern to permit optimum exposure to sunlight.

Hello, knock knock. The answer is right there. After hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and discarding less efficient mans of collecting sunlight, plants finally made it to the most efficient arrangement. Welcome to evolution.

That doesnt make sense though. Who discarded it? That would mean a conscious act. A lab scenario so to speak. If plants started out with a non efficient system how did they survive?

So by that simple question it is clear that you do not understand survival of the fittest..........

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of modern day evolution that we can observe, now creationism is a whole different matter !!

Survival of the fittest is a lab.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of evolution but what gave it the ability to evolve?

GOD

 

[Asclepias]

Prove evolution took place by providing me with an actual picture of my direct line grandfather from 20,000 generations ago evolution supporters say I evolved from.

What's a Missing Link?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation

Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.

If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.

While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.

Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!

Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?

If you have ever studied the development of the human fetus it goes through those stages.

Oh really, fetus's go through stages if missing ancestors that we have not discovered that are indicative of us coming from apes??
I'm sure you have links to this??

By the way, you do realize those that have ape like genetics have a different hole placement in the skull which than humans, bi pedal locomotion requires a skull with the spinal cord exiting at the bottom instead of the rear ...........

So is this spinal cord / skull placement changing as the baby grows or just what would you have us believe??

I call BULL SHIT, sounds like you need Shitting Bull to come get your back!!

Dont get upset.

Embryos Show All Animals Share Ancient Genes Discovery News Discovery News

No one is upset, I am rolling on the floor laughing at your ignorant ass "shows characteristics, etc does not imply we got through those stages...
Comprehension is a major problem for you or the intellectual material is way above your pay grade, which is it??

THE GIST
Embryos for humans and other animals often look alike at certain developmental stages because they share ancient genes.

These ancient genes are expressed during a middle "phylotypic period" of embryonic development for all species.

Developing human, fish and other embryos therefore at times share features, such as tails and gill-like structures.

Human embryos resemble those of many other species because all animals carry very ancient genes. These genes date back to the origin of cells, which are expressed during a middle phase of embryonic development, according to two separate papers published in this week's Nature.

The findings help to explain why our embryos have a tail when they are a few weeks old and why human embryos retain other characteristics, such as fur-like hair and fish embryo similarities, seen in the developmental stages of other species.

"On average, the similarities will be even stronger for more closely related species," Diethard Tautz told Discovery News.

"However, it is indeed true that even fish and human embryos go through a phase that looks very comparable, while they are rather different before and after this," added Tautz, who co-authored one of the papers and serves as managing director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology.

He and colleague Tomislav Domazet-Loso tackled the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" puzzle. This expression means that a more advanced organism, like humans,

You wrote all that but you havent explained how we share ancient genes. How is that possible if there is no connection?

"
THE GIST
Embryos for humans and other animals often look alike at certain developmental stages because they share ancient genes.

These ancient genes are expressed during a middle "phylotypic period" of embryonic development for all species."

 

[Asclepias]

Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You said:
Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You have your answer in your own link:

The leaves on this plant are staggered in a spiral pattern to permit optimum exposure to sunlight.

Hello, knock knock. The answer is right there. After hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and discarding less efficient mans of collecting sunlight, plants finally made it to the most efficient arrangement. Welcome to evolution.

That doesnt make sense though. Who discarded it? That would mean a conscious act. A lab scenario so to speak. If plants started out with a non efficient system how did they survive?

So by that simple question it is clear that you do not understand survival of the fittest..........

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of modern day evolution that we can observe, now creationism is a whole different matter !!

Survival of the fittest is a lab.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of evolution but what gave it the ability to evolve?

GOD

Which one? Amma. Jehova, Allah?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

You said:
Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You have your answer in your own link:

The leaves on this plant are staggered in a spiral pattern to permit optimum exposure to sunlight.

Hello, knock knock. The answer is right there. After hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and discarding less efficient mans of collecting sunlight, plants finally made it to the most efficient arrangement. Welcome to evolution.

That doesnt make sense though. Who discarded it? That would mean a conscious act. A lab scenario so to speak. If plants started out with a non efficient system how did they survive?

So by that simple question it is clear that you do not understand survival of the fittest..........

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of modern day evolution that we can observe, now creationism is a whole different matter !!

Survival of the fittest is a lab.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of evolution but what gave it the ability to evolve?

GOD

Which one? Amma. Jehova, Allah?

They are all the same, there is only one God no matter what BRAND of RELIGION you choose!!

 

[Asclepias]

That doesnt make sense though. Who discarded it? That would mean a conscious act. A lab scenario so to speak. If plants started out with a non efficient system how did they survive?

So by that simple question it is clear that you do not understand survival of the fittest..........

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of modern day evolution that we can observe, now creationism is a whole different matter !!

Survival of the fittest is a lab.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of evolution but what gave it the ability to evolve?

GOD

Which one? Amma. Jehova, Allah?

They are all the same, there is only one God no matter what BRAND of RELIGION you choose!!

What about the Greeks? They believed in multiple gods. How can you prove there is only one god? What makes you right and someone else wrong. You dont have a stitch of evidence.

 

[BlindBoo]

Its the monotheistic version of polytheism truth be told. 1 main god with an assortment of little "gods".impacting life for humans.

Angels aren't little gods. Angels were created for a purpose and people don't become angels when they die.

Were the Angels alive when God created Adam and Eve?

im sure many were and some were born since.....they are all part of that super civilization i mentioned....

The angels weren't born.

Question: "When did God create the angels?"

Answer: Trying to determine when God created the angels is somewhat tricky because anything God did “before the foundation of the world” puts the event outside of time itself. Time and space are characteristics of our world, not God’s. He is not limited by hours, days and years as we are. In fact, the Bible tells us that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8).

We do know that God created the angels before he created the physical universe. The book of Job describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world: “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7).

If we consider the function of angels, we might conclude that God created the angels just prior to the creation of mankind because one of their duties is to be “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). We also know they existed prior to the Garden of Eden, because Satan, who was formerly the angel Lucifer, was already present in the Garden in his fallen state. However, because another function of angels is to worship God around His throne (Revelation 5:11-14), they may have been in existence millions of years—as we reckon time—before God created the world, worshipping Him and serving Him.

So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or billions of years before—again, as we reckon time—we cannot be sure.

When did God create the angels

So the answer is yes the Angels were alive, if such supernatural being can really be call alive in our sense of the word, but they existed when god created Adam and Eve.

Thank you.

 

[BlindBoo]

Were the Angels alive when God created Adam and Eve?

im sure many were and some were born since.....they are all part of that super civilization i mentioned....

The angels weren't born.

Question: "When did God create the angels?"

Answer: Trying to determine when God created the angels is somewhat tricky because anything God did “before the foundation of the world” puts the event outside of time itself. Time and space are characteristics of our world, not God’s. He is not limited by hours, days and years as we are. In fact, the Bible tells us that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8).

We do know that God created the angels before he created the physical universe. The book of Job describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world: “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7).

If we consider the function of angels, we might conclude that God created the angels just prior to the creation of mankind because one of their duties is to be “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). We also know they existed prior to the Garden of Eden, because Satan, who was formerly the angel Lucifer, was already present in the Garden in his fallen state. However, because another function of angels is to worship God around His throne (Revelation 5:11-14), they may have been in existence millions of years—as we reckon time—before God created the world, worshipping Him and serving Him.

So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or billions of years before—again, as we reckon time—we cannot be sure.

When did God create the angels

What makes that story more valid than this one since no one can prove it happened?

dogonmyth.html

"The creation of the world was the deed of the god Amma, the one god and image of the father who existed before all things. Following an unsuccessful initial attempt, from which he salvaged only the four elements (water, earth, fire, and air), Amma placed in the "egg of the world," or the original placenta, two pairs of androgynous twins in the form of fish . Their gestation inside the egg was interrupted by an act of rebellion: one of the male beings, Yurugu prematurely left the "mother" (the placenta), deserting both "her" and his female counterpart, thus prefiguring the birth of single beings even though Amma had envisaged twin births. The solitary being descended into space and primordial darkness, taking with him a piece of the placenta that became Earth. Aware of his solitude, he traveled through space, attempted to reascend to heaven to join his female twin again, and even sought her out in the bowels of Earth, an incestuous act that brought to a climax the disorder he had already introduced into the world by leaving the placenta. The piece of placenta rotted and thus death appeared on earth."

Prove evolution took place by providing me with an actual picture of my direct line grandfather from 20,000 generations ago evolution supporters say I evolved from.

The Genographic Project by National Geographic - Human Migration Population Genetics

Closest they can get.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

So by that simple question it is clear that you do not understand survival of the fittest..........

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of modern day evolution that we can observe, now creationism is a whole different matter !!

Survival of the fittest is a lab.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of evolution but what gave it the ability to evolve?

GOD

Which one? Amma. Jehova, Allah?

They are all the same, there is only one God no matter what BRAND of RELIGION you choose!!

What about the Greeks? They believed in multiple gods. How can you prove there is only one god? What makes you right and someone else wrong. You dont have a stitch of evidence.

The Greeks believed in Gods for the sky, marriage, sun, yada, yada ...........

Scientifically they were not as advanced as we are and used God's to explain unexplainable phenomena.

Which God do you think I am declaring is the one??

You know a Rose is a Rose by any other name, I have tried to convey to you that we are discussing a conceptual entity and depending on your perspective the same GOD you worship is the same GOD I worship though we have different names for him.

 

[Asclepias]

Survival of the fittest is a lab.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of evolution but what gave it the ability to evolve?

GOD

Which one? Amma. Jehova, Allah?

They are all the same, there is only one God no matter what BRAND of RELIGION you choose!!

What about the Greeks? They believed in multiple gods. How can you prove there is only one god? What makes you right and someone else wrong. You dont have a stitch of evidence.

The Greeks believed in Gods for the sky, marriage, sun, yada, yada ...........

Scientifically they were not as advanced as we are and used God's to explain unexplainable phenomena.

Which God do you think I am declaring is the one??

You know a Rose is a Rose by any other name, I have tried to convey to you that we are discussing a conceptual entity and depending on your perspective the same GOD you worship is the same GOD I worship though we have different names for him.

I understand what the Greeks believed. What I am asking is what makes their theory less valid than yours? People to this day use god to explain unexplainable phenomena. What evidence do you have that only one god exists? From your post I assume you have scientific evidence since thats your rationale for downplaying the polytheistic angle.

 

[Political Junky]

It would teach Bible, making the US a Theocracy, like Iran.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

GOD

Which one? Amma. Jehova, Allah?

They are all the same, there is only one God no matter what BRAND of RELIGION you choose!!

What about the Greeks? They believed in multiple gods. How can you prove there is only one god? What makes you right and someone else wrong. You dont have a stitch of evidence.

The Greeks believed in Gods for the sky, marriage, sun, yada, yada ...........

Scientifically they were not as advanced as we are and used God's to explain unexplainable phenomena.

Which God do you think I am declaring is the one??

You know a Rose is a Rose by any other name, I have tried to convey to you that we are discussing a conceptual entity and depending on your perspective the same GOD you worship is the same GOD I worship though we have different names for him.

I understand what the Greeks believed. What I am asking is what makes their theory less valid than yours? People to this day use god to explain unexplainable phenomena. What evidence do you have that only one god exists? From your post I assume you have scientific evidence since thats your rationale for downplaying the polytheistic angle.

Never ASSUME, you want be making an ass out of me, now you on the other hand ................

I never claimed to have proof, but you can go back through this thread and read where I have already stated religion takes faith and with out faith there is no religion. Never claimed to have proof, those were your words ..................

What I can do is ask some questions that without God you can not explain........

Where does life come from, how is life created??
Matter is neither created or destroyed, how did it first come into existence??
If man evolved where are the fossilized remains that would support the theory??

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

polytheism. Belief in many gods. Though Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic (see monotheism), most other religions throughout history have been polytheistic. The numerous gods may be dominated by a supreme god or by a small group of powerful gods.

Which CURRENT religion do you think meets this criteria and why did the Greek religion not continue on to modern times??

 

[Asclepias]

Which one? Amma. Jehova, Allah?

They are all the same, there is only one God no matter what BRAND of RELIGION you choose!!

What about the Greeks? They believed in multiple gods. How can you prove there is only one god? What makes you right and someone else wrong. You dont have a stitch of evidence.

The Greeks believed in Gods for the sky, marriage, sun, yada, yada ...........

Scientifically they were not as advanced as we are and used God's to explain unexplainable phenomena.

Which God do you think I am declaring is the one??

You know a Rose is a Rose by any other name, I have tried to convey to you that we are discussing a conceptual entity and depending on your perspective the same GOD you worship is the same GOD I worship though we have different names for him.

I understand what the Greeks believed. What I am asking is what makes their theory less valid than yours? People to this day use god to explain unexplainable phenomena. What evidence do you have that only one god exists? From your post I assume you have scientific evidence since thats your rationale for downplaying the polytheistic angle.

Never ASSUME, you want be making an ass out of me, now you on the other hand ................

I never claimed to have proof, but you can go back through this thread and read where I have already stated religion takes faith and with out faith there is no religion. Never claimed to have proof, those were your words ..................

What I can do is ask some questions that without God you can not explain........

Where does life come from, how is life created??
Matter is neither created or destroyed, how did it first come into existence??
If man evolved where are the fossilized remains that would support the theory??

Ok. Now we are getting somewhere. You say faith is required to make religion work. You also admit there is no evidence that there is only one god

Where does life come from?
It was created and endowed with the ability to evolve.

Matter is neither created or destroyed, how did it first come into existence??
It was created.and yes it is not destroyed but recycled. I pose this question in return. If it always existed where did it reside before the universe was created? It had to exist in some container.

If man evolved where are the fossilized remains that would support the theory??
In Africa. Probably in Ethiopia or Nigeria. Dinkinesh or what people call Lucy is the earliest known fossilized evidence and found in Ethiopia.. This is Australopithecus. There is a precedence set to know that Dinkinesh evolved from something as yet not discovered. This precedence shows clear evidence of the evolution from Dinkinesh to what we call modern man whose remains are also found in Ethiopia at Omo National Park.

Lucy Australopithecus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Anatomically modern humans - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Asclepias]

polytheism. Belief in many gods. Though Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic (see monotheism), most other religions throughout history have been polytheistic. The numerous gods may be dominated by a supreme god or by a small group of powerful gods.

Which CURRENT religion do you think meets this criteria and why did the Greek religion not continue on to modern times??

I would argue all religions are polytheistic. Its inherent in all religions I can think of. You have 1 main god and other deities all working invisibly to affect your life. Christianity for example has the father the son and the holy spirit. Clearly polytheism even though it will upset some people to hear that.

I dont think any religion has a real clue. I think the religions from the most ancient parts of the world are probably closer to the truth than present day religions. They would inherently be closer to the truth due to their proximity to the creation event. The Greeks beliefs morphed into the Romans.They were basically absorbed. Some even say the name Jesus is a mixture of Jupiter and Zeus. Christianity looks to have been created by man from the Egyptian belief in Isis, Osiris, and Horus. There are many elements that parallel each other and it appears they (the catholic church) addes what appears to me social control propaganda.

 

[Kondor3]

What would actually be in a "magical creation" textbook?

I dunno... didn't Genesis already cover this? Why do a re-write? If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

polytheism. Belief in many gods. Though Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic (see monotheism), most other religions throughout history have been polytheistic. The numerous gods may be dominated by a supreme god or by a small group of powerful gods.

Which CURRENT religion do you think meets this criteria and why did the Greek religion not continue on to modern times??

I would argue all religions are polytheistic. Its inherent in all religions I can think of. You have 1 main god and other deities all working invisibly to affect your life. Christianity for example has the father the son and the holy spirit. Clearly polytheism even though it will upset some people to hear that.

I dont think any religion has a real clue. I think the religions from the most ancient parts of the world are probably closer to the truth than present day religions. They would inherently be closer to the truth due to their proximity to the creation event.

I keep telling you this is above your pay grade ..................

Trinity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Father, Son, Holy Ghost", "Holy Trinity", and "Trinitarian" redirect here. For the album, see Father, Son, Holy Ghost (album). For other uses, see Holy Trinity (disambiguation), Trinitarian (disambiguation), and Trinity (disambiguation).

The "Shield of the Trinity" or Scutum Fidei diagram of traditional Western Christian symbolism.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold")[1] defines God as three consubstantial persons,[2] expressions, or hypostases:[3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7]

According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths,[8] there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".[9] Accordingly, the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single operation common to all three divine persons, in which each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father", "through the Son" and "in the Holy Spirit".[10]

Terms such as "monotheism", "incarnation", "omnipotence", are not found in the Bible, but they denote theological concepts concerning Christian faith that are believed to be contained in the Bible. Even the term "Bible" is not found in the Bible. "Trinity" is another such term.[11]

While the Fathers of the Church saw even Old Testament elements such as the appearance of three men to Abraham in Book of Genesis, chapter 18, as foreshadowings of the Trinity, it was the New Testament that they saw as a basis for developing the concept of the Trinity. The most influential of the New Testament texts seen as implying the teaching of the Trinity was Matthew 28:19, which mandated baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Reflection, proclamation and dialogue led to the formulation of the doctrine that was felt to correspond to the data in the Bible. The simplest outline of the doctrine was formulated in the 4th century, largely in terms of rejection of what was considered not to be consonant with general Christian belief. Further elaboration continued in the succeeding centuries.[12]

Scripture does not contain expressly a formulated doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, according to the Christian theology, it "bears witness to" the activity of a God who can only be understood in trinitarian terms.[13] The doctrine did not take its definitive shape until late in the fourth century.[14] During the intervening period, various tentative solutions, some more and some less satisfactory were proposed.[15] Trinitarianism contrasts with nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities), Unitarianism (one deity in one person, analogous to Jewish interpretation of the Shema and Muslim belief in Tawhid), Oneness Pentecostalism or Modalism (one deity manifested in three separate aspects).

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

One God
Main article: Monotheism
Christianity, having emerged from Judaism, is a monotheistic religion. Never in the New Testament does the Trinitarian concept become a "tritheism" (three Gods) nor even two.[51] God is one, and that God is a single being is strongly declared in the Bible:

• The Shema of the Hebrew Scriptures: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one."[Deut 6:4]
• The first of the Ten Commandments—"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."[5:7]
• And "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel and his redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."[Isa 44:6]
• In the New Testament: "The LORD our God is one."[Mk 12:29]

In the Trinitarian view, the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost share the one essence, substance or being. The central and crucial affirmation of Christian faith is that there is one savior, God, and one salvation, manifest in Jesus Christ, to which there is access only because of the Holy Spirit. The God of the Old Testament is still the same as the God of the New. In Christianity, statements about a single God are intended to distinguish the Hebraic understanding from the polytheistic view, which see divine power as shared by several beings, beings which can and do disagree and have conflicts with each other.

God in three persons
In Trinitarian doctrine, God exists as three persons or hypostases, but is one being, having a single divine nature.[52] The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As stated in the Athanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal without beginning.[53] "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not names for different parts of God, but one name for God[54] because three persons exist in God as one entity.[55] They cannot be separate from one another. Each person is understood as having the identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.[56]

For Trinitarians, emphasis in Genesis 1:26 is on the plurality in the Deity, and in 1:27 on the unity of the divine Essence. A possible interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is that God's relationships in the Trinity are mirrored in man by the ideal relationship between husband and wife, two persons becoming one flesh, as described in Eve's creation later in the next chapter.[2:22]

 

[Asclepias]

polytheism. Belief in many gods. Though Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic (see monotheism), most other religions throughout history have been polytheistic. The numerous gods may be dominated by a supreme god or by a small group of powerful gods.

Which CURRENT religion do you think meets this criteria and why did the Greek religion not continue on to modern times??

I would argue all religions are polytheistic. Its inherent in all religions I can think of. You have 1 main god and other deities all working invisibly to affect your life. Christianity for example has the father the son and the holy spirit. Clearly polytheism even though it will upset some people to hear that.

I dont think any religion has a real clue. I think the religions from the most ancient parts of the world are probably closer to the truth than present day religions. They would inherently be closer to the truth due to their proximity to the creation event.

I keep telling you this is above your pay grade ..................

Trinity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Father, Son, Holy Ghost", "Holy Trinity", and "Trinitarian" redirect here. For the album, see Father, Son, Holy Ghost (album). For other uses, see Holy Trinity (disambiguation), Trinitarian (disambiguation), and Trinity (disambiguation).

The "Shield of the Trinity" or Scutum Fidei diagram of traditional Western Christian symbolism.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold")[1] defines God as three consubstantial persons,[2] expressions, or hypostases:[3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7]

According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths,[8] there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".[9] Accordingly, the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single operation common to all three divine persons, in which each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father", "through the Son" and "in the Holy Spirit".[10]

Terms such as "monotheism", "incarnation", "omnipotence", are not found in the Bible, but they denote theological concepts concerning Christian faith that are believed to be contained in the Bible. Even the term "Bible" is not found in the Bible. "Trinity" is another such term.[11]

While the Fathers of the Church saw even Old Testament elements such as the appearance of three men to Abraham in Book of Genesis, chapter 18, as foreshadowings of the Trinity, it was the New Testament that they saw as a basis for developing the concept of the Trinity. The most influential of the New Testament texts seen as implying the teaching of the Trinity was Matthew 28:19, which mandated baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Reflection, proclamation and dialogue led to the formulation of the doctrine that was felt to correspond to the data in the Bible. The simplest outline of the doctrine was formulated in the 4th century, largely in terms of rejection of what was considered not to be consonant with general Christian belief. Further elaboration continued in the succeeding centuries.[12]

Scripture does not contain expressly a formulated doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, according to the Christian theology, it "bears witness to" the activity of a God who can only be understood in trinitarian terms.[13] The doctrine did not take its definitive shape until late in the fourth century.[14] During the intervening period, various tentative solutions, some more and some less satisfactory were proposed.[15] Trinitarianism contrasts with nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities), Unitarianism (one deity in one person, analogous to Jewish interpretation of the Shema and Muslim belief in Tawhid), Oneness Pentecostalism or Modalism (one deity manifested in three separate aspects).

I dont have a pay grade so it doesnt really matter what you keep saying. You cant have 3 distinct entities then pretend they are one philosophically so you wont be accused of polytheism. This requires some critical thinking so I understand its a hard concept for you to grasp. Once you add in all the angels and the devil (which is probably a European representation of Osiris) You just added more "gods".

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

polytheism. Belief in many gods. Though Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic (see monotheism), most other religions throughout history have been polytheistic. The numerous gods may be dominated by a supreme god or by a small group of powerful gods.

Which CURRENT religion do you think meets this criteria and why did the Greek religion not continue on to modern times??

I would argue all religions are polytheistic. Its inherent in all religions I can think of. You have 1 main god and other deities all working invisibly to affect your life. Christianity for example has the father the son and the holy spirit. Clearly polytheism even though it will upset some people to hear that.

I dont think any religion has a real clue. I think the religions from the most ancient parts of the world are probably closer to the truth than present day religions. They would inherently be closer to the truth due to their proximity to the creation event.

I keep telling you this is above your pay grade ..................

Trinity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Father, Son, Holy Ghost", "Holy Trinity", and "Trinitarian" redirect here. For the album, see Father, Son, Holy Ghost (album). For other uses, see Holy Trinity (disambiguation), Trinitarian (disambiguation), and Trinity (disambiguation).

The "Shield of the Trinity" or Scutum Fidei diagram of traditional Western Christian symbolism.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold")[1] defines God as three consubstantial persons,[2] expressions, or hypostases:[3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7]

According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths,[8] there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".[9] Accordingly, the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single operation common to all three divine persons, in which each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father", "through the Son" and "in the Holy Spirit".[10]

Terms such as "monotheism", "incarnation", "omnipotence", are not found in the Bible, but they denote theological concepts concerning Christian faith that are believed to be contained in the Bible. Even the term "Bible" is not found in the Bible. "Trinity" is another such term.[11]

While the Fathers of the Church saw even Old Testament elements such as the appearance of three men to Abraham in Book of Genesis, chapter 18, as foreshadowings of the Trinity, it was the New Testament that they saw as a basis for developing the concept of the Trinity. The most influential of the New Testament texts seen as implying the teaching of the Trinity was Matthew 28:19, which mandated baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Reflection, proclamation and dialogue led to the formulation of the doctrine that was felt to correspond to the data in the Bible. The simplest outline of the doctrine was formulated in the 4th century, largely in terms of rejection of what was considered not to be consonant with general Christian belief. Further elaboration continued in the succeeding centuries.[12]

Scripture does not contain expressly a formulated doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, according to the Christian theology, it "bears witness to" the activity of a God who can only be understood in trinitarian terms.[13] The doctrine did not take its definitive shape until late in the fourth century.[14] During the intervening period, various tentative solutions, some more and some less satisfactory were proposed.[15] Trinitarianism contrasts with nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities), Unitarianism (one deity in one person, analogous to Jewish interpretation of the Shema and Muslim belief in Tawhid), Oneness Pentecostalism or Modalism (one deity manifested in three separate aspects).

I dont have a pay grade so it doesnt really matter what you keep saying. You cant have 3 distinct entities then pretend they are one philosophically so you wont be accused of polytheism. This requires some critical thinking so I understand its a hard concept for you to grasp. Once you add in all the angels and the devil (which is a European representation of Osiris) You just added more "gods".

Get the grade school princess down the street to explain it to you, maybe she has some comprehension skills ................................

 

[Asclepias]

polytheism. Belief in many gods. Though Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic (see monotheism), most other religions throughout history have been polytheistic. The numerous gods may be dominated by a supreme god or by a small group of powerful gods.

Which CURRENT religion do you think meets this criteria and why did the Greek religion not continue on to modern times??

I would argue all religions are polytheistic. Its inherent in all religions I can think of. You have 1 main god and other deities all working invisibly to affect your life. Christianity for example has the father the son and the holy spirit. Clearly polytheism even though it will upset some people to hear that.

I dont think any religion has a real clue. I think the religions from the most ancient parts of the world are probably closer to the truth than present day religions. They would inherently be closer to the truth due to their proximity to the creation event.

I keep telling you this is above your pay grade ..................

Trinity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Father, Son, Holy Ghost", "Holy Trinity", and "Trinitarian" redirect here. For the album, see Father, Son, Holy Ghost (album). For other uses, see Holy Trinity (disambiguation), Trinitarian (disambiguation), and Trinity (disambiguation).

The "Shield of the Trinity" or Scutum Fidei diagram of traditional Western Christian symbolism.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold")[1] defines God as three consubstantial persons,[2] expressions, or hypostases:[3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7]

According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths,[8] there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".[9] Accordingly, the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single operation common to all three divine persons, in which each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father", "through the Son" and "in the Holy Spirit".[10]

Terms such as "monotheism", "incarnation", "omnipotence", are not found in the Bible, but they denote theological concepts concerning Christian faith that are believed to be contained in the Bible. Even the term "Bible" is not found in the Bible. "Trinity" is another such term.[11]

While the Fathers of the Church saw even Old Testament elements such as the appearance of three men to Abraham in Book of Genesis, chapter 18, as foreshadowings of the Trinity, it was the New Testament that they saw as a basis for developing the concept of the Trinity. The most influential of the New Testament texts seen as implying the teaching of the Trinity was Matthew 28:19, which mandated baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Reflection, proclamation and dialogue led to the formulation of the doctrine that was felt to correspond to the data in the Bible. The simplest outline of the doctrine was formulated in the 4th century, largely in terms of rejection of what was considered not to be consonant with general Christian belief. Further elaboration continued in the succeeding centuries.[12]

Scripture does not contain expressly a formulated doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, according to the Christian theology, it "bears witness to" the activity of a God who can only be understood in trinitarian terms.[13] The doctrine did not take its definitive shape until late in the fourth century.[14] During the intervening period, various tentative solutions, some more and some less satisfactory were proposed.[15] Trinitarianism contrasts with nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities), Unitarianism (one deity in one person, analogous to Jewish interpretation of the Shema and Muslim belief in Tawhid), Oneness Pentecostalism or Modalism (one deity manifested in three separate aspects).

I dont have a pay grade so it doesnt really matter what you keep saying. You cant have 3 distinct entities then pretend they are one philosophically so you wont be accused of polytheism. This requires some critical thinking so I understand its a hard concept for you to grasp. Once you add in all the angels and the devil (which is a European representation of Osiris) You just added more "gods".

Get the grade school princess down the street to explain it to you, maybe she has some comprehension skills ................................

Aww it seems as if you are getting upset. Dont do that. Finish it. If the father, son, and holy spirit are one why are they separated into 3? Wouldn't it be easier to simply say father and be done with it? Its amazing to me that my son is actually the same person I am.