i don't see how you could say that deism is a form of christianity based on the definition of deism you provided??? The part about "denies the revealed religion," right???
Glad someone liked it!! Shoot, i dont see why not. Various types may have a problem with it...............but they can shove it, really.
lol - welcome to corporate religion. lets get the m&a boys in for some religious consolidation. how about the jews & muslims. it makes economic sense - they live nextdoor to eachother, so there is less relocation expenses. they both share the same holy ground, so they can share the same hq. they look similar so there shouldnt be an identity problem. all they need to work on is a common branding which shouldnt be so hard cos God & allah are the same person. the corporate cultures will need some work though i think as they do have their differences, but once they realise they are arguing over different ends of the same stick, im sure it will work. can anyone think of a name? how about jelam? je(w)+ (is)lam!! any takers?
I doubt it somehow, but if their ever were a need for advertising execs to save the world, this is basically it. These things are so tied up in the prophets, it would be difficult to get around it. You need new titles, names for them altogether- Abrahmmed, maybe-no screw it, its impossible, their all clinically insane , a curious fact western legal technicality hasn't embraced for some strange reason. No wonder their strangely quiet on the matter, recognizing this fact would render britain entirely headless!! (in terms of a titular or actual head of state, should any religious belief suddenly be deemed at law non-compus mentis) Agree with one of your previous posts, not at liberty to state which one.
================= And on second thought ; forgive him his debts. Peace; peace/prosperity in your walls, peace in your gates.
I guess it depends on your definition. If by supernatural I mean things that are entirely in the realm of things outside our five dimensions of perception, then I agree with you. But the most common use of the word supernatural is that of things that of things that lie in other "dimensions" but manifest themselves in our five dimensions. And then I don't see your argument. Or is that what you even meant?
I suggest both of your definitions explain the supernatural as eliminating itself. By the first definition you describe, it appears we would both agree leaves the supernatural eliminating itself, "things that are entirely in the realm of things outside our five dimensions of perception" ... indeed results in a self-eliminating supernatural. The second definition, which you explain to be the most common usage of the word, "things that lie in other 'dimensions' but manifest themselves in our five dimensions" ...would mean the thing could no longer be supernatural in the first place. That they do âbut manifest themselves in our five dimensions" then they are by the definition you give, not supernatural. I think you actually need six dimensions to consider your second definition, under which circumstances literally everything and anything can be described as supernatural, so rendering the word meaningless. Which again is the supernatural eliminating itself. Would you agree?
I agree in a sense. But suppose that there really are other dimensions where other beings exist. And suppose just for a minute that they occasionally interact with our five. Obviously, any kind of interaction would be detectable since it touched our five. The question then becomes how much interation do they have? Do they leave enough of an evidence trail to learn a significant amount about them?