>Protestantism is true because... I presuppose it>Catholicism is true because... I presuppose it>Eastern Orthodoxy is true because... I presuppose it>Islam is true because... I presuppose it>Hinduism is true because... I presuppose it
>>18242881Apologetics and polemics are written to deal with hostile retards ipso facto the style obscures the substance of spirituality.No one with a brain and certain knowledge would waste his time on endlessly debating retards speaking in bad faith. Rather they'd be exploring the peaks of mystic (or initiatic) spirituality.
>>18242881Presups exist but they are the bottom of the barrel. I cite historical evidence.Since Christmas is right around the corner let's look at some of the historical evidence for it. There's really strong historical corroboration for the Star of Bethlehem.There have been other miraculous stars besides the Star of Bethlehem. Josephus records in his Jewish War, Book 6 (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm#link6noteref-20) that prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, "there was a star resembling an enormous sword, which stood over the city", among many other such signs.Just like the Star of Bethlehem was about fulfilled prophecies of the Messiah's birth, this Sword-Star of Jerusalem was about coming fulfilled prophecies of Jerusalem's death. In Luke 21:11, Jesus had stated that prior to Jerusalem's coming destruction, "great signs from heaven there shall be". What's a greater warning message about a coming army than a star like a sword hanging above your city?So those Christmas stars you see everywhere this time of year point to something real.
>>18242974>there was a star resembling an enormous sword, which stood over the citySo a comet?
>>18242974Meanwhile Muslims presupposing their dogmas say a mountain ridge on the Moon is evidence of Muhammad having split it
>>18242881Well if they all think it's true then they are probably all right.We should just combine all the religions into one big happy religion.
>>18242881I believe what I believe because it seems like common sense, by the logic of it, to me.
>>18243564>Muslim oral traditions Who writes down what is accepted or not? I guess this kind of thing is in the twilight of historical recording. Everyone knows the moon can not split, except maybe in the eyes of a schizophrenic.
>>18243601>Who writes down what is accepted or not?Your question is a little ambiguous. Do you mean who determines which sources are reliable and which are unreliable? Luckily we don't need to presuppose anything there: we can develop a historical methodology for evaluating sources, and then measure it against archeology to see how well it does at really telling us about the past.
>>18242974Heal all Thetans.
No idea why my posts were deleted. Reposting.>>18243047We have the Chinese records of comets that took place around this time that rule that out. Check out https://books.google.com/books?id=Umxbb68tmZMC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=%221P/66+B1%22&source=bl&ots=QJO4SGam0n&sig=ACfU3U2Auqml_X90I6pORRPkAt2aWW8Xxg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6zNKorZ_6AhWHFFkFHZJXC_84ChDoAXoECBQQAw#v=onepage&q=%221P%2F66%20B1%22&f=falseThat comet event labeled 1P/66 B1 is what some say this was. But we can tell Josephus is describing something different since according to that the comet was no longer visible after 50 days. Yet Josephus says that this swordstar was there "ἐνιαυτὸν", for a year. Look at it and through all the others there around this time: none for anything like that duration!
>>18243554What's more, never say never, but despite extensive searching on my part I have never seen the word ἄστρον used to refer to what we would call a comet. They do use ἀστήρ but not ἄστρον that I have been able to find.This is quite significant. You can read Josephus’ report of the star like a sword in its original Greek at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0147%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D289. As you can see there the Greek word Josephus uses translated “star” there is “ἄστρον”, which is a less common variant of the more common Greek word for “star”, “ἀστήρ”.Fortunately we have some ancient Greek sources themselves that tell us the difference between these two words and what one means vs. another. The Greek text is at https://books.google.com/books?id=wutbHS9rN1MC&pg=PA194 , which is translated at http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/TGH-v3/th310.html#fr_170. As it says:"The stars (ἀστέρες plural of 'ἀστήρ' see https://www.definify.com/word/%E1%BC%80%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AE%CF%81), however, differ from the star-groups ('ἄστρα', plural of the word 'ἄστρον' Josephus uses, see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CF%83%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B1). The stars are they which sail in heaven; the star-groups, on the contrary, are fixed in heaven’s frame, and they are borne along together with the heaven,—Twelve out of which we call the Zodiac.”In other words, he uses the word specifically for a fixed star(s). Which of course would be what describes a luminous body in the sky hanging over a specific city.So this was, so far as I have been able to find, the word you would use if you want to emphasize that a star remained in one position. It was not a moving object like a comet, but fixed above the city. Just like the Star of Bethlehem over where Jesus was.
