Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (18089)	5/19/2005 1:56:07 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361147

By declaring the ‘many’ you distinguish one from another. So, any one becomes limited by how it is not the others. That is in contradiction to the unlimited qualification. "beyond the limitations of the temporal entities of creation and without the limitations of time, and space" Nope. I don't see why many Gods couldn't have these very same qualities. Maybe reducing the Gods to one is just a step in the natural progression to NO God, no superstitions? ============================ ”Maybe reducing the Gods to one is just a step in the natural progression to NO God, no superstitions?” Our active existence is dependent on the ongoing presence of mystery. One man’s superstition is another man’s theory. If you conclude that belief in one of the many is unqualified, and you deduce that worshipping anyone is just as unfounded as worshipping any of the many, you can put them all into one category and conclude that they are all unworthy. However, if you begin with the perception of One that is not of the many you are bound by a different rationale.