It's not a blunder. God the good deity organised the evolution of language just like that of plants, animals and dance.
The words 'god' and 'good' are unrelated.
I thought that Archaic Divided People didn't believe in 'evolution'. If they do, then this would mean that their so-called good book (which is, in reality, very, very corrupt)is incorrect. This would then mean that this so-called good deity is fallible. How good is a fallible deity?
Please back up your statement that,"The words 'god' and 'good' are unrelated" with proof that they actually are unrelated, instead of stating this as a simple conclusion (in your own mind).
Please back up your argument with proof that the words 'god' and 'good' actually are related, instead of stating this as an incorrect etymological fact.
The following pages claim the words have unrelated origins:
A fallible deity makes a no good god. Some interpret the good book allegorically, which leaves room for an understanding of the evolution of language, animals and dance. The rest limit their rejection of evolution to the biological only. They do believe in cultural and linguistic evolution. They prefer to call it 'change'.
Please back up your argument with proof that the words 'god' and 'good' actually are related, instead of stating this as an incorrect etymological fact.
The following pages claim the words have unrelated origins:
(not shown)
A fallible deity makes a no good god. Some interpret the good book allegorically, which leaves room for an understanding of the evolution of language, animals and dance. The rest limit their rejection of evolution to the biological only. They do believe in cultural and linguistic evolution. They prefer to call it 'change'.
A question for creationists
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
It's not a blunder. God the good deity organised the evolution of language just like that of plants, animals and dance.
The words 'god' and 'good' are unrelated.
Johnny B.
You are a blunder.
--
suckonthis9
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I thought that Archaic Divided People didn't believe in 'evolution'. If they do, then this would mean that their so-called good book (which is, in reality, very, very corrupt)is incorrect. This would then mean that this so-called good deity is fallible. How good is a fallible deity?
Please back up your statement that,"The words 'god' and 'good' are unrelated" with proof that they actually are unrelated, instead of stating this as a simple conclusion (in your own mind).
--
jeebley
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Please back up your argument with proof that the words 'god' and 'good' actually are related, instead of stating this as an incorrect etymological fact.
The following pages claim the words have unrelated origins:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god
And this article:
http://blog.oup.com/2009/11/good-god-and-etymology/
Please provide proof to the contrary.
A fallible deity makes a no good god. Some interpret the good book allegorically, which leaves room for an understanding of the evolution of language, animals and dance. The rest limit their rejection of evolution to the biological only. They do believe in cultural and linguistic evolution. They prefer to call it 'change'.
You're an archaic divided people.
--
jeebley
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Please back up your argument with proof that the words 'god' and 'good' actually are related, instead of stating this as an incorrect etymological fact.
The following pages claim the words have unrelated origins:
(not shown)
A fallible deity makes a no good god. Some interpret the good book allegorically, which leaves room for an understanding of the evolution of language, animals and dance. The rest limit their rejection of evolution to the biological only. They do believe in cultural and linguistic evolution. They prefer to call it 'change'.
You're an archaic divided people.