BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> What makes a God a God ?, Choose Your Own Top Three Godly Attributes
-J-
post May 15, 2004, 05:01 AM
Post #1


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 424
Joined: Apr 28, 2004
From: Mauchline, Ayrshire, Scotland
Member No.: 2189



Dear fellow mind-brainians,


If any of you have followed the material I have posted here and in the poetry forum, you will gather that I search for answers. In time honoured fashion I found the best way to achieve this is by asking questions.

This thread is a sort of poll, but I do not wish to constrict you by only giving a specific list to work from. Real answers come when you allow people the entire spectrum of a question to choose from.

So with this in mind and without any prompting from me about how I could wish you would answer, here is the question :

What three attributes do YOU think a God/deity MUST have as a requirement to be justly called a God/deity ?

The floor is yours ladies and gentlemen of the forum

J
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
-J-
post May 15, 2004, 09:31 AM
Post #2


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 424
Joined: Apr 28, 2004
From: Mauchline, Ayrshire, Scotland
Member No.: 2189



Come on bill Play fair !

Your top 3 please (rolf)

J
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unknown
post May 15, 2004, 10:13 AM
Post #3


Unregistered









God needs but one attribute: Totality
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unknown
post May 15, 2004, 10:15 AM
Post #4


Unregistered









John, you're probably thinking along the lines of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, but these are all parts of the Whole, of the Totality that is God. There is but one God, and that God encompasses all, is contained within all, and is the Totality.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
-J-
post May 16, 2004, 02:48 AM
Post #5


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 424
Joined: Apr 28, 2004
From: Mauchline, Ayrshire, Scotland
Member No.: 2189



Ok !

This is so typical !
Everybody reads the question, but doesnt understand it, they all start to think the way they would have put the question and answer that instead.

Look, dear members, I will ask you again, but this time read what I write and not what you think I have written.

what makes A god, A god ? STOP ! 3 attributes !

I am not asking what you know "The Almighty" has to be to be considered a God. Read the question and then aswer JUST the question.

Highly educated people ALWAYS think they have to come up with complex answers for simple questions, well stop it, please.

omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience is of course the three I was looking for but in another forum the answers are so different.
To be able to perform miracles
To heal
To smite their foes with the wave of a hand
To create life
etc....

I ask questions, and I receive answers, all theatres have different expectations. I am sorry to say this forum is victim to its invisible but never the less vividly apparent false expectation.
Maybe I should have written a list to choose from, it seems as if, when the entire spectrum is available, people avoid the question.

Thanks for replying

J
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post May 16, 2004, 04:53 AM
Post #6


Unregistered









That tautological premise has been exploded for a long time. The pubescent arrogance of this is almost insulting to the writer.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mike
post May 16, 2004, 08:19 AM
Post #7


Unregistered









god is love ,forgiveness,humility
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
-J-
post May 17, 2004, 01:09 AM
Post #8


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 424
Joined: Apr 28, 2004
From: Mauchline, Ayrshire, Scotland
Member No.: 2189



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ May 16, 04:53 AM)
That tautological premise has been exploded for a long time. The pubescent arrogance of this is almost insulting to the writer.

Hi Bob,

Nice to see you, if you felt insulted a "big grown up fella" like yourself would have shown restraint and not bothered to post, but as this seems to be your "thing" to put down others, then at least here you have the right.

Have a nice day Bob, I am sure that there are other forums where your brilliance can shine, if not, you could always put them down too ! I cant help wondering, was 3 attributes too much to ask for ?

wink.gif J

I thought of deleting this posting but leaving here serves a better purpose, it surely goes to show what a fool I can be.

This post has been edited by -J-: May 17, 2004, 02:05 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
-J-
post May 17, 2004, 01:12 AM
Post #9


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 424
Joined: Apr 28, 2004
From: Mauchline, Ayrshire, Scotland
Member No.: 2189



QUOTE (mike @ May 16, 08:19 AM)
god is love ,forgiveness,humility

Thank you -Mike-

Your reply is exactly what I had hoped for

smile.gif John


Edited : Uncalled for arrogance based on a false premise, Sorry Bob !

This post has been edited by -J-: May 17, 2004, 02:03 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unknown
post May 17, 2004, 07:47 AM
Post #10


Unregistered









J, why ask questions if you only want ppl to confirm your expected answers?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post May 17, 2004, 08:41 AM
Post #11


Unregistered









The anthropomorphed ego God or Bible thumpers are delusional.

You say:

Nice to see you, if you felt insulted a "big grown up fella" like yourself would have shown restraint and not bothered to post, but as this seems to be your "thing" to put down others, then at least here you have the right.


I said it is an insult to THE WRITER - I have spent a long life listening to proselytes and debating them - they make me laugh and do not insult me even though they try. Next thing you'll say will go something like claiming I am the Devil Incarnate as you refuse to address the facts.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
-J-
post May 17, 2004, 01:46 PM
Post #12


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 424
Joined: Apr 28, 2004
From: Mauchline, Ayrshire, Scotland
Member No.: 2189



Dear Bob,

It seems as if I owe you an apology, I mis-read and mis-interpreted you post

For that I apologise for my pubescent arrogance. I am human and by god I make mistakes.

I know I am pathetic at times and this has been one of them.

As for calling you the Devil Incarnate, no, too many people have thrown that around in my direction wink.gif

wacko.gif

J
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
-J-
post May 17, 2004, 01:58 PM
Post #13


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 424
Joined: Apr 28, 2004
From: Mauchline, Ayrshire, Scotland
Member No.: 2189



Dear -Unknown-

QUOTE
J, why ask questions if you only want ppl to confirm your expected answers?


Please understand in setting the questions I have certain expectations and when they become realised I write it as such.
I became somewhat disheartened at the first replies I got as I didnt think the question itself was being answered, I thought the premise was clear,a table of three attributes, what I received was not what I asked for.

The question wasnt set to confirm my expected answers, it just turned out thát way, call it a hunch or a lucky guess on my behalf.

Now will you do me the honour of giving me your three attributes ?

J
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post May 17, 2004, 02:08 PM
Post #14


Unregistered









Apology accepted.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 17, 2004, 09:51 PM
Post #15


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (-J- @ May 15, 06:01 AM)
What three attributes do YOU think a God/deity MUST have as a requirement to be justly called a God/deity ?

'god' must be the 'original' being, preexisting mine and all others
'god' must be responsible for the creation of my (and all others) being
'god' must be necessary for the maintenance of my (and all others) being


'deity' must be a 'metaphysical' being, not subject to ordinary physical constraints
'deity' must have the capacity to cause action in mysterious ways (i.e., their 'wishes' must simply come true)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unknown
post Nov 05, 2004, 04:09 PM
Post #16


Unregistered









What makes a god a god? well, if you view god in the polytheistic way a god is simply a being who has 2 main attributes: immortality(or at least eternal youth), & dominion or control over 1 aspect of reality( fire, water, etc).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
insanejester
post Nov 05, 2004, 08:03 PM
Post #17


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
From: U.S.A.
Member No.: 3948



QUOTE (-J- @ May 15, 05:01 AM)
Dear fellow mind-brainians,


If any of you have followed the material I have posted here and in the poetry forum, you will gather that I search for answers. In time honoured fashion I found the best way to achieve this is by asking questions.

This thread is a sort of poll, but I do not wish to constrict you by only giving a specific list to work from. Real answers come when you allow people the entire spectrum of a question to choose from.

So with this in mind and without any prompting from me about how I could wish you would answer, here is the question :

What three attributes do YOU think a God/deity MUST have as a requirement to be justly called a God/deity ?

The floor is yours ladies and gentlemen of the forum

J

....Anyone can be a god.. all you need is somone ignorent enough to believe in you...

I suppose for a person to be a god... they would need to be able to promise (this promise doesn't have to be the truth mind you... simply believable.. then again.... some people will believe anything) reward after death, punishment for disobediance, and that everything will be ok... and somone stupid enough to believe you... and there you have it... your a god.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
emoneydawg
post Nov 10, 2004, 05:53 PM
Post #18


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Member No.: 3997



god is a power, god is the ability to comprehend what goes on, and why it happens. God has knowledge, and has proof. That is god (in my opinion)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Nov 11, 2004, 11:12 AM
Post #19


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE (Dan @ May 17, 10:51 PM)
'god' must be the 'original' being, preexisting mine and all others
'god' must be responsible for the creation of my (and all others) being
'god' must be necessary for the maintenance of my (and all others) being

By these three criteria, as stated, there are no gods.

Taking the third attribute of a hypothetical god, if one presupposes that one's own existence proves that maintenance of existence is continuing, and that further, this maintenance is necessary to existence (an active god), then by definition god exists, but this god is a trivial byproduct of the existence of the universe. Therefore, the universe is greater than its trivial byproduct god, contradicting the second attribute, creation, which implies that god be greater than the universe it creates. This completes the proof that there is (are) no god (gods).

Also see Spinoza's proof that god is the universe itself.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Nov 11, 2004, 11:37 AM
Post #20


Unregistered









Excellent analysis. But is there a Purpose or collective which meets the criteria that man has called god and some men have always known was a mere 'representation' for the uninformed who will not study?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Nov 11, 2004, 01:27 PM
Post #21


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



Yes. The humanist view is that an individual's purpose ought to be the purpose of mankind, and extending this view, the individual's purpose is the purpose of life in general, and extending it further, as life is an extension of the universe, the purpose of man is the purpose of the universe. That is (to sum up) life is good and more is better. Or to paraphrase the US Army recruiting slogan, be all you can be.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Nov 11, 2004, 03:05 PM
Post #22


Unregistered









Dear Rick

I suppose I should chuckle at your response which avoids the question I posed.

Philosophy and man will not get to Purpose through simple values or ethical constructs such as social studies and humanists. Rather they will get there through seeing the Design in all as per Dembski or other research into what really is collecctively and affinitely available through the application of energy and the ways it interacts with Intelligence (or something akin to that).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Nov 11, 2004, 03:26 PM
Post #23


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



So are you saying that "seeing the design" and the ways it interacts with intelligence isn't humanistic? Humanism merely holds that man is able to know everything worth knowing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Nov 11, 2004, 04:25 PM
Post #24


Unregistered









The definition you use for humanism is foreign to me (the alchemists were called Humanists and still are). Man can not know all that is and certainly the claim is arrogant at a minimum.

I am saying the 'DESIGN' is science in action which follows Laws of energy and purpose.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Nov 12, 2004, 10:32 AM
Post #25


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



From Dictionary.com, humanism is defined as:

"A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth."

Centering on man, and taking infinite evolution into consideration, our capacity is without comparative limit: anything that can be known, can be known by man, eventually. Pride is human, but arrogance is a vice.

I understand what you mean by the term "design" but what are the laws of purpose? The humanist view is that man is the measure of all things, including purpose.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Nov 12, 2004, 10:57 AM
Post #26


Unregistered









Dear Rick

Don't tell me you think dictionaries are adequate reference too. Please.

For one thing - they take only current usages and language is ever-changing.

Let me try to illustrate what your words communicate to me.

Centering on man, and taking infinite evolution into consideration, our capacity is without comparative limit: anything that can be known, can be known by man, eventually. Pride is human, but arrogance is a vice. {This statement proves the arrogance of man's anthropomorphic self-centeredness. Although it is a remote possibility that man in some billions of years from now when he is far different than he is at present - that some collection of men would know most of what could be known - it is arrogant in itself. I will go get you some MIT scholars who write a book called Darwinism Evolving to illustrate some of the underlying humanistic richness missing in your world view and relative to the topic of what is para (there is no such thing - but that does not mean we know it all).}

I understand what you mean by the term "design" but what are the laws of purpose? The humanist view {Says who? Your dictionary? The Humanists or sages are all alchemists and they were not so arrogant as you can tell from the Socratic method - questioning.} is that man is the measure of all things, including purpose.

PURPOSE is like Divine Providence at its Convergent apex or zenith wherein all that IS is known.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Nov 12, 2004, 11:01 AM
Post #27


Unregistered









EVOLUTION: More surprising to me as I consider where my intellectual head-space has been on this issue, which is central to theological ideal; is the fact that I have become more of a creationist. Skeptics may say that God doesn't exist and I am inclined to agree he/she isn't within our purview to limit and say we know; HIM, or even what it is that really goes on, in the world about us. It would be difficult to say there is any one humanistic discipline or theology that fits with my perception. Teilhard de Chardin's 'templates' and 'quantum many worlds' join Lamarckian science, that requires uncertainty and values mystery and uncertainty principles with purpose. In the final analysis you can put me in whatever 'cubby-hole' you want and there’ll be agreement and respect for the truth therein expressed. I see a lot of people sounding like they disagree and yet I see little difference except when they seek personal gain by it. Surely science has given a great deal of support to the concept of consciousness existing in the very smallest parts of energy, and in the ways it performs what was once considered miraculous, or magical. Here are the thoughts of two very scientifically oriented people from MIT in a book called 'Darwinism Evolving':


"They also made it harder for the scientific worldview to be received with equanimity by other sectors of culture. Indeed, since the reducing impulse undermines fairly huge tracts of experience, people like Wallace, who feel deeply about protecting phenomena they regard as existentially important, frequently conclude that they have no alternative except to embrace spiritualism, and sometimes even to attack the scientific worldview itself, if that is the only way to protect important spheres of experience that have been ejected from science's confining Eden. In response, scientists and philosophers who feel strongly about the liberating potential of a spare, materialistic worldview began to patrol the borderlands between the high-grade knowledge scientists have of natural systems and the low-grade opinions that in the view of science's most ardent defenders, dominate other spheres of culture and lead back toward the superstitious and authoritarian world of yesteryear. 'Demarcating' science from other, less cognitively worthwhile forms of understanding was already a major feature of Darwin's world. A line beyond which the Newtonian paradigm could not apply was drawn at the boundary between physics and biology. We have seen how hesitant Darwin was to cross that line and what happened when he did. Twentieth-century people are sometimes prone to congratulate themselves for being above these quaint Victorian battles. They may have less reason to do so, however, than they think, for the fact is that throughout our own century, the same sort of battles, with emotional overtones no less charged, have been waged at the contested line where biology meets psychology, and more generally where the natural sciences confront the human sciences. Dualisms between spirit and matter, and even between mind and body, may have been pushed to the margins of respectable intellectual discourse. But methodological dualisms between what is covered by laws and what is to be 'hermeneutically appropriated' are still very much at the center of our cultural, or rather 'two cultural', life. Cognitive psychologists and neurophysiologists are even now busy reducing mind-states to brain-states, while interpretive or humanistic psychologists are proclaiming how meaningless the world would be if mind is nothing but brain. Interpretive anthropologists are filled with horror at what would disappear from the world if the rich cultural practices that seem to give meaning to our lives were to be shown to be little more than extremely sophisticated calculations on the part of self-interested genes. Conflicts of this sort would have given Darwin stomachaches almost as bad as the ones he endured over earlier demarcation controversies.


The rhetorical pattern of these battles is still depressingly similar, in fact, to Huxley's confrontation with Wilberforce. Hermeneuts ridicule scientists like Hamilton, Dawkins, and Wilson when they suggest that nothing was ever known about social cooperation until biologists discovered kin selection. Reductionists in turn criticize hermeneuts, now transformed largely into 'culturists,' for bringing back ghosts and gods, just as their nineteenth-century predecessors were taxed with being 'vitalists' every time they said something about the complexity of development. Humanists identify scientists with an outdated materialist reductionism. Scientists insist that hermeneutical intentionality is little more than disguised religion.


Perhaps, a way out of this fruitless dialectic between the 'two cultures', can be found if each party could give up at least one of its cherished preconceptions {Or just give up the science that rejects certain facts in favour of convention or the 'Toilet Philosophy'.}. It would be a good thing, for example, if heirs of the Enlightenment would stop thinking that if cultural phenomena are not reduced to some sort of mechanism; religious authoritarianism will immediately flood into the breach. They should also stop assuming that nothing is really known about human beings until the spirit of scientific reductionism gets to work. Students of the human sciences have, after all, been learning things alongside scientists ever since modernity began. Among the things they have learned are that humans are individuated persons within the bonds of culture and cultural roles, and that as recipients and transmitters of cultural meanings, they are bound together with others in ways no less meaningful and valuable than the ways promoted by strongly dualistic religions. By the same token, it would be helpful if advocates of the interpretive disciplines would abandon a tacit assumption sometimes found among them that nature is so constituted that it can never accomodate the rich and meaningful cultural phenomena humanists are dedicated to protecting, and that therefore cultural phenomena 'ought never' to be allowed to slip comfortably into naturalism. Humanists seem to have internalized this belief from their reductionist enemies, whose commitment to materialism is generally inseparable from their resolve to show up large parts of culture, especially religion, as illusions. These opponents, we may safely say, take in each other's laundry." (7)


Ego and protecting territory abound in the internecine warfare that academics who seldom DO anything, often fight over. Meanwhile the real DOERS explore the boundless and awesome 'waves of the marvellous'. (8) We should accept even the ridiculous possibilities that come to mind as having merit or avenues to understand, rather than constantly fighting to make black and white answers that support our ego and limit the people who put forward possibilities. The real rule should be something along the line of 'if it hurts no one, why not enjoy the possibility? There are ample evidences that every supposed correct point of view or paradigm is short-lived unless backed by force and some kind of authority that limits rather than supports god and his/her purpose. Then an open-mind obtains new insight and finds the templates of reality even in exploring what first appears to be utterly absurd. I admit I often have found the idea of creationism absurd, and yet as I said at the start of this entry I am now on the side of creationists through evolutionary forces with intentional creative inputs in the Intelligent Design or Interventionist mode. The next entry will seem absurd to most people and few will think it deserves inclusion in a segment purporting to have anything to do with science. I must include it in honest presentation despite the ridicule most people will attribute to it, and me.


EXORCISMS: - No, I don't believe it has anything to do with devils and those who project such evil images and intents. These people are the ones who claim only they can exorcize the very devils they manufacture, in the hallucinatory and delusional or vulnerable people they treat. 'The Devils of Loudon' by Aldous Huxley exposes these Catholic masters of the art of deception. That doesn't mean there are no spirits or dimensional entities with consciousness. To say such a thing would fly in the face of all the science we have presented. The soul would have no immortality as the Keltic Creed and Mandukya Upanishads that Eugene Wigner thinks explains quantum reality tells us is real. To deny such phenomena is the kind of thing reductionists in love with logic and certain of their omniscience will assure us they know. How can shamans create herbal concoctions that chemists can't create? How can we doubt the actual results of the 'dowsers' and Tesla's great achievements from visions or his 'non-force info packets' which allow such 'free energy' to be manufactured in something called a vacuum. NASA assures us the ingredients of life are ‘everywhere’ and that could even include a vacuum. What kind of avoidance of fact or 'easy answers' do you have to find in order to explain away reality and what you can observe with your own eyes? You would have to attribute the construction of 'henges' or the Nazca Lines to aliens or gods!


We don't reject these possibilities but they would only serve to enhance the probability of spirits that can possess our physical and complex body with all of its conscious atoms and coordinated centers of energy known as chakras. The science and medicine of the ancients assures us that these things exist and these scientists have a solid track record of performance. They DO the things others can't explain - then they explain how 'chhi' or Shakti is in every part of everything in the universe, and have suffered the guffaws of know-it-alls who are usually wrong. This energy with consciousness is open to direction and will avail the trapped or confused soul without awareness and unwilling to go on with life, an opportunity to hang on as ghosts or in the bodies of those they have shared life with. Sorry to disappoint the authors of 'Darwinism Evolving' but I knew this was fact even before 500 watts were extracted from a vacuum by machines built on the principles of Tesla. Those of us who have first hand knowledge of 'the waves of the marvellous' like Bucky Fuller and Einstein need no peer approval from those who deny god, the soul and ESP.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Nov 12, 2004, 11:03 AM
Post #28


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



So are you saying that the human quest is hopeless, give up?

The humanist tradition goes back to the ancient Greeks, including Socrates, and I would characterize it more as optimistic than arrogant. "Man is the measure of all things" is a quote from one of the early Greek philosophers.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Nov 12, 2004, 11:21 AM
Post #29


Unregistered









Dear Rick

You have bought the farm.


Socrates was not the first alchemist or sage.

For example - Pythagoras was in the Bardic Tradition's University System headed by Abaris the Druid (abaris means Rabbi). By this time it was already watered down and spitting into various systems that Divine Kings were trying to control. You can see that one of those offshoots is the Rabbinical or Pharisaic. The Pharisees were well respected throughout the Roman and Parthian Empires.

The Druids and their Tree of Knowledge and other shamanic arts are also found all over the whole world which was becoming more and more under control of elites who wished to keep people in Dark Age type of worship. For example after they fought in 19 separate theatres of war in the Trojan era there is a known 400 year Dark Age. Back and forth the forces of Empire have railed against Brotherhood and often within the same families.

Michael Grant is the top Historian of the area and in The Rise of the Greeks he notes (and I have put it here) that the Thoth/Hermes and Imhotep/Asklepios syncretic systems were the paramount intellectual systems in the millennia before Jesus. The family of Jesus always has a top alchemist since the time of ML (chi) zadok. They are ML or Milesians like the Stuarts and Bruttii and you find their name on the translation paid for by Cosimo De Medici in the 15th C of the Corpus Hermeticum. And yes, Hermes and his namesake Hermes Trismegistus are far older still.

Asklepios is a Gnostic writer of the Gaedhilic Alexandrian Schools of Christology. Chriost long pre-dates Jesus who probably accept the Jesus title but did not accept the Chriost title.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Nov 12, 2004, 11:25 AM
Post #30


Unregistered









Further

Pythagoras learned from the Great Pyramid of Iesa (Jesus) in a time before Socrates and moved to get away from the Divine King elitists to a city called Bruttium in Italy. Bruttium and Bruttii are also the Brix and thus the name of the title of that book translating the Corpus - De Brix.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th July 2017 - 08:46 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles