• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reaction score

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • How do Hel and Eddic Hel differ? :D

    And I get you.
    You know, I think a PIE religion would be pretty cool... :D

    So do you believe Zeus is the God of the Olmpyians, Jupiter of the Romans (or do you consider them the same), etc?

    How are they organized? Generally by ancestry (and calling), so Odin calls to the children of the Germanic tribes (plus others He feels like), or nationhood, so Odin calls to the children of the Germanic nations, or a bit of both, or both historically but not now, or...?

    The last two lines; so wait, you think there may or may not be another "higher" Divinity which may or may not be aware of us? A kind of Deistic Deus otiosus?

    Do you think there is a "king of king of Gods" and/or a God closest to being termed "the Creator God" (still accounting for evolution, though, as I know we both accept it)?

    Am curious. :D
    That fruble wasn't for the message but for your profile picture. Majorahs mask!
    I wanted to frubal you for that story, but I couldn`t! XD Found the 'authoritative version' of that story, right in the heart of the Chaitanya-charitamrita, Madhya-lila, 9.93-107 (Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya-lila Chapter 9)

    I love how stories from India always have variations and get passed down, even when the original becomes lost. It just shows a sense of evolution and mystique! ^-^;
    Do you remember that I recommended a version of the Mahabharata that I loved? Well, it's available online for free. I'll post this in resources as well:
    Mahabharata By Kamala Subramaniam
    Theologians usually define omnipotence as the "capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs." As you were saying, I agree with this definition because it avoids such quasi-paradoxes: clearly, even an omnipotent being (so defined) can't create a rock it can't lift any more than it could create an Euclidean triangle with a number of sides other than three. It just isn't possible.

    I think the notion that an omnipotent being can do anything, even the illogical, is in itself illogical. It can't be asserted to be true because asserting so self-contradicts. Even Alvin Plantinga, brilliant theologian at Notre Dame, defends this position because otherwise you can have absurd positions such as an omniscient deity knowing that it doesn't exist and other nonsense like that.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…