"The God Virus"

[pauro12]

Only a Christian can understand what it means to be a Follower of God. (Japan, U.S. U.K., etc.).

I guess this explains why he couldn't understand what I wanted to point out.. Though maybe my explanation itself wasn't that much convincing or shall we say invalid or not related with the topic..

 

[Mars Man]

I guess this explains why he couldn't understand what I wanted to point out.. Though maybe my explanation itself wasn't that much convincing or shall we say invalid or not related with the topic..

Paulo12, that's cheap. What I mean by that, is that what you are wanting to conclude is so obviously a falsehood, that it has no value at all. Of course, what Blackthorn had said is nonsense as well.

I understand what you had pointed out through what you had written, pauro12, and, it does appear, even better than you yourself can see what it is that you are involuntarily pointing out yourself. I do, again, very much appreciate your effort and work with the English. You are doing a great job in that extent. Now, what I wish you would make a whole lot more effort with, is logical and critical thinking. You will never be able to demonstrate to any satisfactory objective, third-party degree, that what you are asserting to know of as a reality of nature, is, in fact, a reality of nature simply because you think that it is. Especially is this so when you do not even understand the reality behind the information source which has provided you with that information in the first place. In other words, the whole concept is quite largely within the confines of your neural circumstance alone.

This can be shown by the fact that you seemingly (unless I have misread, or otherwise missed something) do not understand the matter of what heaven had been originally claimed to have been. You obviously do not understand the orignial earlier early Christian movement's publishing of the resurrection. You obviously have no idea at all of the historical development the several documents which had been compiled and published together in codex form. And, I could go on with a couple of more, I am sure.

I do hope that you answer to some of my earlier questions. For example, do you think Dagon is controlling you? You'll need to be specific. You have used the word form 'God,' and these is, actually, a quite specific reason for that particular form (as opposed to the common noun form 'god'), but even yet, if you are not meaning to refer to Yahweh, then you are referring to some other god. Can you clear spell that out in any exhaustive manner?

 

[pauro12]

It was Jesus the son of God whom I'am pertaining to.. He and his father are one as what he proclaims that made the people crucify him because they did not believe.. Okay, I have posted here that Christianity for me is not a religion, but is a relation.. I don't know that much about theology because it is not my profession, and thus not all of us, in fact most of us aren't really that much informative about the specific happenings in what we called now the Bible.. But what makes us faithful? it is not because of the specific teachings or whatsoever it is information that you want me to know first before dropping a conclusion that made us believe, but it is because of our experiences with him that makes us faithful.. This is what we mean of only a christian understand what it means to be a follower of God. Because we know very much about the so called relation part of being a christian (because we experience him with us) that disbelievers never had, as what disbelievers only have with them are those facts or opinion or any source that will defy or accept the claims that is by far known as RELIGION.. Those things that you wanted me to know are those claims or happenings that happened before that will satisfy the truthfulness or the falseness of the existence of God. Thus, relying only to this one won't make you a believer but just a wanderer that will only make you disbelieve or believe BASE on what facts can be provided, compared to us BELIEVERS who might have limited facts about him, but EXPERIENCING him with our lives will gives us faith that not even facts will disregard. It's like this one. "Do you believe in love? I used to believe because there is a testimony that he experienced it, but now I won't because there are facts that contradicts it", and this one "Do you believe in love? Yes, of course I do believe in love because I've experienced it myself.." So now let me ask you the same question, do you believe in love? And if you do and most probably that you really do, so my question is, "What makes you believe in love?"

 

[Mars Man]

I don't know that much about theology because it is not my profession, and thus not all of us, in fact most of us aren't really that much informative about the specific happenings in what we called now the Bible

And THIS, pauro12, is the source of a major problem. This is what was essentially kicked-off by the Dark Ages--when the Roman Catholic Church had taken full control of the major geographical block of Europe. This is really, I mean, really, a shame.

It was Jesus the son of God whom I'am pertaining to.

O.K. I have decided to work with helping you learn more detail, and to learn that detail with critical thinking applied. We all know that the English transliteration 'Jesus' primarily came from the Latin. The Latin was taking the Greek transliteration, which was a bad copy of the Hebrew name itself. That inaccurate tradition played a role is most obvious in that that actual name of the Jewish male who would have started the first Nazarene movement would have been Yeshua (or, Jeshua). This is the same name as the fabled warrior-leader of the Israelite tribes talked about in the scroll which had gone by that said person's name, Joshua. The name itself carries the meaning of 'Ya' is my savoir.' (Ya' is a shortened form of Yahweh.) Since the English has no problem with its transliteration of the Hebrew name in the Tanakh, we can see a bias Christian spin already. (The Latin does this too, but the Greek does not. The Greek LXX gives us Ἰησοῦς for the Hebrew name in the Joshua scroll, and the NT Greek ιησους for the name [here without capitalization[.)

The god which the Jews worshiped was יהוה (YHWH, or Yahweh). Yeshua, the historical person who would have been the leader of that movement, would have worshiped Yahweh. The terminology 'son of God' is an off-spin, of sorts, on the Hebrew idiomatic style of 'children of Yahweh or sons of Yahweh.' Of course, to argue at all for the assertion that a human had been born due to the intervention of some supernatural, non-physical being, especially if that said being was to have been Yahweh (the Jewish system's god), one is firstly going to have to convincingly support the argument that such said beings are actual entities of nature, out there, AND that that particular entity, Yahweh, is an actual existing supernatural being out there totally independent of human imagination. That, pauro12, is what you are going to have to do.

He and his father are one as what he proclaims that made the people crucify him because they did not believe..

At John 10:30, we have "εγω και ο πατηρ εν εσμεν ." The word εν (without breathing mark here) generally represents 'in unity' , or 'in agreement' in this context, as well as anything else. this is repeated at verse 38 too. If we look over at the ending of 17:11 (same document), we will find "...ινα ωσιν εν καθως ημεις." Here we also find the word εν, but this time it is talking about those disciples there present at that point in the narrative according to that document. Going a bit further, at the opening of verse 21, we will find, "ινα παντες εν ωσιν καθως συ πατηρ εν εμοι καγω εν σοι ." Here, the character Jesus of that narrative is said to be praying to Yahweh, and asking that all his followers (not just those there then, in that narrative [see verse 20]) would be 'in unity' or 'in agreement,' as he is in unity, or agreement, with Yahweh. We find this again in verses 22 and 23 too.

It's silly to think that any historical person would have been praying to Yahweh to make all those other humans Yahweh himself. The Gnostic view which had clearly worked into that troupe which produced that document, however had had that bearing. The original historical Yeshua would not have intended such a thing, although. This is actually a didactic tactic by the authorship to demand that the members of the congregations keep in doctrinal unity. It is much along the lines of Romans 12:5, 1 Cor 1:10, and other points. The Greek usage, and the far more likely intent of authorship at that point, was to encourage keeping in agreement on doctrinal matters. It is too bad that some have twisted that, or, through mere ignorance, have grossly misunderstood it.

So now let me ask you the same question, do you believe in love? And if you do and most probably that you really do, so my question is, "What makes you believe in love?"

This is just silly. If you were working in my ward, I'd be careful to remind you that we have a reality that we have to face day in and day out, and that we should pay most close attention to that. Love, pauro12, is an emotion. It is not an emotion that all are going to have to the fuller degree that others have because emotion exactly depends on brain build/state. You should have known that, but either you don't, or you are not being intellectually straight. We know that emotional processing is real. We know that amygdala calcification to a high degree can practically erase most emotional processing ability--and the emotion of love can be reduced too, in certain pathways (as in Capgras syndrome).

However, what is most clear, is that you are just deluding yourself. The testimonial evidence and circumstantial evidence for that, is very strong.

 

[pauro12]

Just answer my question, if you don't mind.. Do you believe in Love? or in the feeling of love? If you are thinking of me as someone who is deluding, then might as well you are pertaining to all believers like me that we do are deluding.. By the way, I'm really hoping that I would be able to grasp a yes or no answer from you about my question do you believe in love..

 

[Mars Man]

pauro12, I did answer your question. Why is it that you cannot see that I did? However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt once more, and work on the assumption that you are talking about a certain something which is not the emotion that is love. In that case, however, you will have to firstly define, in no uncertain terms, just what you mean by the world 'love.'

As far as some other points you have raised, I know that they are totally in spite of some very solidly confirmed facts. The fact that you, at least, seem to not want to deal with those, makes it hard for me to see anything other than your deluding yourself by yourself. If, on the other hand, you were to show care and concern about some of the facts and sound and valid knowledge that underlies, and denies, what you have said about a few biblical matters, then I would be able to see that you were really out to learn. Just reading portions of a Bible in your native tongue, is never going to give you the accurate knowledge you would need to make better reasoned out choices.

 

[BrianLewis]

Hey pauro12. Just thought I would chime in on my opinion. I made the mistake of debating too much here to closed minded individuals. It's grossly apparent to me that no matter if irrefutable evidence smacked some of these people in the face, they would still deny it using whatever word twisting they could. The reason why would be hard to say. I suppose pride might be an answer. As a Christian it's our obligation to start discussion, correct mistakes and help people come to a new realization. However, it's not our job to convince anyone. That is out of our hands.

There are 2 verses directly related to this sort of thing if you want to look them up: Matthew 7:6 and II Peter 2:10.

It's important to know when to give up on some and move on to others.

 

[Blackthorne]

I guess this explains why he couldn't understand what I wanted to point out.. Though maybe my explanation itself wasn't that much convincing or shall we say invalid or not related with the topic..

One either is or isn't a Christian in general- and a Catholic in specific. Sadly many Catholics nowadays are unaware of their own religion but the Catholics who are aware can simply do this "Pff" when some atheist, Jew, Muslim, Protestant, etc. drags out an argument that is almonst 2,000 years old. :? One does not have a "relationship" with Jesus Christ- this is the devil's child of the Reformation and liberalism. Either one believes that He is the Son of God, the Logos, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Son of Mary, or not. :?

A good Catholic is universal and considers the opinions of everyone, comparing and contrasting under the auspices of the Church (i.e. the Body of God). Atheists are no more to be feared than, say, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and so on.

The childish nonsense that contemporary haters of God spew is worth only contempt and mockery. It's fake and superficial. It owes more to the the radical philosophers like Voltiare, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, etc. than anything else.

Rejecting the belief in God (i.e. Christianity) is simply retrogression. Look at the world before God came into it. It was barbarism and paganism. Gladiatior games that the Christians ended. Slavery that the Christians ended. Infanticide. Human sacrifice. Polygamy. And so on.

Blah.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I made the mistake of debating too much here to closed minded individuals.

Your inability to understand and accept reason and logic does NOT make others close-minded.

It's grossly apparent to me that no matter if irrefutable evidence smacked some of these people in the face, they would still deny it using whatever word twisting they could.

Just because you INSIST on believing something does not make it irrefutable nor evidence.

Excuse me if I have missed something, but if so, could some one, ANYONE, point me to one single piece of "irrefutable evidence" concerning this topic posted by Brian Lewis??

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Look at the world before God came into it. It was barbarism and paganism. Gladiatior games that the Christians ended. Slavery that the Christians ended. Infanticide. Human sacrifice. Polygamy. And so on.

This is quite the jumbled mass of statements and concepts here.

Before God came? Are you saying he left??

Are you saying the slavery and polygamy of the Old Testament don't count? Are you saying the God of the OT and the God of the NT are different? Not that I even have any idea what the heck is so wrong with polygamy if all involved are willing, but, are you saying that all the dating, living together, and sex going on outside of marriage is NOT a technical state of polygamy that is a large and ever-growing reality of western Christian countries today?

Are you saying that thousands of years of slavery by Christians does not count because other Christians finally ended it only about 150 years ago?

Are you saying that its thanks to Christians that slavery, legal slavery anyway, ended in Muslim nations and in China?

Are you saying that human sacrifice was so widely practiced by so many different cultures and that they all stopped only because of Christianity??

Are you saying that no barbarism was ever ended by non-Christian cultures on their own?

Are you saying there is something fundamentally wrong with all pagan religions and that they are all barbaric and violent??

Are you saying that Christians are all gentle, non-violent people? Cause for the love of PETE, I seem to remember the last two World Wars were predominately Christians making war over most of the planet. Then there was U.S. involvement in Vietnam and making war on Iraq, both of which were led by Christians, fought by Christians, and absolutely need not have been.

Are you saying that war is nothing compared to gladiator games, slavery and polygamy??

To write what you wrote, I think you must have the most biased, culturally relative, tunnel vision views of history that I have ever witnessed anyone open their mouth wide enough for me to observe.

 

[Mars Man]

I wonder why BrianLewis is suddenly talking about himself like that... "irrefutable evidence," damn, does that ring a bell. For example, we have this irrefutable evidence. The text at Matthew (since someone wants to try to use proof-texts) is quoting from the Torah. The text itself, as it had been in the first century CE, is as follows:

ואהבת את יהוה אלהיך בכל-לבבך ובכל-נפשך ובכל-מאדך ​

Now, the irrefutable part is, which god is this talking about?

Then, speaking of the 2 Peter document, a letter to some people living in the latter part of the first century CE, there's something funny there, that is irrefutable as well. In chapter 3, the author is telling those who will read the letter to do something for a certain reason. What is irrefutable is the reason why the author had been writing to those folks in that manner.

I mean, if we want to pretend like we are being realistic, or something along those lines, then we'd better be--you know, practice what you preach.

 

[Mars Man]

Look at the world before God came into it. It was barbarism and paganism. Gladiatior games that the Christians ended. Slavery that the Christians ended. Infanticide. Human sacrifice. Polygamy. And so on.

I am finding it really, really hard to keep from describing this statement quoted above, in the best possible way. The reason for that, is that I do, from time to time, tend to want to say less, if I have no room for saying anything good about what some thoughtless people do and say.

It is most obvious, Backthorne, that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about what you want to pretend to be knowing. Good grief. 'Tis a say day when folks are so mind-controlled into broad, wide, and thick blanketism. (as in blanket statement mindedness beyond repair) The world before God came into it, Blackthorne, to your rebuttal, was well before 400 BCE, if not there's about somewhere. Of course I know that you have not been educated in this field, but must only be some church-goer, or something, so I would not expect better from you. I would hope for such, but...

While some things that you have mentioned, are in part, and to some degree, due to the spread of Christendom (not really, so much Christianity), there is one big, weighty matter which Christianity has spread with it, that you have forgotten to mention. That is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Look at the world before God came into it. It was barbarism and paganism. Gladiatior games that the Christians ended. Slavery that the Christians ended. Infanticide. Human sacrifice. Polygamy. And so on.

You claim these things ended. Of course you skip over the fact that the inquisitions and witch burnings began. You skip over the wars fought over little more than failure to kneel to the pope (did not capitalize on purpose) a figure that was never mentioned in either Bible but is now somehow "his holiness".

But slavery absolutely did not end nearly long enough ago to insist it is someone "unchristian". One of the worst periods and forms of slavery were uniquely Christian. I do not even know why bring up infanticide. Who did that? When do you think it was ended by Christians?

The gladiator games were done almost exclusively by one nation. They ended for many reasons, yes, including the influence of Christian Emperors, but its worth noting that Constantine ended them then started again.

One does not have a "relationship" with Jesus Christ-

In the context of what I know of scripture, I suppose that rings true. But I don't believe in scripture. What I believe in is the psychological effect religious beliefs have on people. This belief in a relationship with Christ is something that gives Protestants a sense of self worth. It seems to me that Muslim and Catholic beliefs truly make people about as valued to God as sheep in a flock, which makes people feel like they are just ants in his ant farm. What can we expect from such people?

I think Protestant views are at least uplifting rather than downtrodding, and I think it gives them an edge. It could go a long way to explaining the failure of the Spanish (Catholic) Armada in its attack on England in 1588. It could explain why the Protestants dominate North America. It could explain why the Catholic church is in serious decline.

 

[Mars Man]

In the context of what I know of scripture, I suppose that rings true.

While you had mentioned, MoZ san, a number of things which could, even, be expanded on (in the sense of putting more meat on those bones)--especially the infanticide thing... a good number of animals commit that act--I'd like to put you at ease on the above.

The original statement had mentioned Jesus Christ, so we'd only have the Christian Greek documents, pretty much, as the source of inquiry. The documents do not stress that in the way, and to the degree, that it has been by more recent (post 18th century CE) protestant Christian thinkers. It seems to me, especially in the USA. The emphasis on 'belief' which does very strongly come out in those first century Christian documents, is probably a psychological fill-in for the absence of a legal system.

The actual group itself, under Yeshua's leadership and leading, practiced the Mosaic Law, but seemingly had some problems with it--or with the political elements of it. Then, something happened to the leadership of that group. We don't know exactly what, due to the story-telling involved with the writing down the tradition--and probably the building of the tradition in the first place--but without a 'law' structure, and with the killing of James (Yeshua's brother who had taken over the leadership in Jerusalem), and due to the Jewish-Roman warring, things needed hope and faith and love--to stick together for the promised soon-to-come kingdom of Yahweh. That was to be ushered in by a supernatural Yeshua (probably later built up story element)--otherwise, the long before understood 'messiah' of the Jewish documents. I mean, wow... a person had to have faith because that was all they had for such a wild, far-flung and imaginative interpretation of a misapplied textual point in the first place (by the Jewish system). And it just got that much worse when Jerusalem fell and that system was further dispersed.

So no, the scriptures do not put much emphasis at all on the 'having a relationship with' Jesus. It does do a little more of that for Yahweh, however--although later early Christianity came to totally ignore that.

 

[BrianLewis]

Just because you INSIST on believing something does not make it irrefutable nor evidence.

I knew I would have to explain the "if" part of the statement to someone. Forget it, just look it up somewhere on a smart phone or something.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I knew I would have to explain the "if" part of the statement to someone.

Then you should have been more clear up front if you knew. Yes, I know what "if"means. But you don't seem to understand that it represents multiple concepts.

And I think you would find it a slim minority who would take it, as you wrote it, to mean anything but that you had offered irrefutable evidence or at least very strong evidence, and it was ignored, therefore the need to be "smacked in the face" with it.

Again, here is what you said:

It's grossly apparent to me that no matter if irrefutable evidence smacked some of these people in the face, they would still deny it using whatever word twisting they could.

How else would it be grossly apparent to you that irrefutable evidence would be ignored unless you had presented some previously and it was ignored?

What is it with you and simple logic?

 

[BrianLewis]

Forum experience. After 9 pages in this thread along it's incredibly obvious who's mind has been shut since the first letter was typed. People that attempt to learn ask questions and consider the response. Those that simply want to argue their point blindly ignore their opposition's meaning, unless there are grammar mistakes, are not interested in learning a thing.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Forum experience. After 9 pages in this thread along it's incredibly obvious who's mind has been shut since the first letter was typed. People that attempt to learn ask questions and consider the response. Those that simply want to argue their point blindly ignore their opposition's meaning, unless there are grammar mistakes, are not interested in learning a thing.

Sounds like someone here... who could it be?

I can tell you that my mind is made up, but its hardly closed. I still listen, it just seems I am in a cycle of hearing nothing new, in a new way, that is remotely convincing. Or if it is original, its also got more holes than a sieve.

 

[nahadef]

Forum experience. After 9 pages in this thread along it's incredibly obvious who's mind has been shut since the first letter was typed. People that attempt to learn ask questions and consider the response. Those that simply want to argue their point blindly ignore their opposition's meaning, unless there are grammar mistakes, are not interested in learning a thing.

Yup, some people argue a point blindly, their minds made up. Posters like BrianLewis...

 

[Mars Man]

After 9 pages in this thread...

Regardless, BrainLewis, of exactly what your intended purpose may have been in your having typed this, I just wish to point that I have had great exchanges in argument and debate, with nice volleys, of data and ideas, and angles of approach, and such, that have gone on for up to 25 to 30 pages. What made these so long was the detail dug down into, and presented. I mean, folks went out and did their homework. (At least enough did.)

People that attempt to learn ask questions and consider the response.

I agree. Also, I agree that seemingly more (not necessarily those participating herein) people than one would wish for, listen so as to think of how to respond, rather than listen so as to understand. However, most sadly, along with this immediately previous sentence, comes the understanding (through experience) that most people arguing for some sort of supernatural, human-like being that is there just for them, and for them alone, seldom have the cognitive acuity to get other substantial data and information through their divinely-set firewalls. In other words, they do not have room to formulate an understanding. That's sad.

Anybody can run their mouth, right? The thing we want to do, however, is put that hard cold cash on the barrelhead; wouldn't you agree? For example, we will always find (for example only here) native English speakers, who only know that language essentially, who'll pick up a copy of the King James Version down at the local Walmart, and start thinking that it is the actual original thing--the real thing. Some will do better and do some study, and find out more, but only to a point. Of course it's not an easy task, but is sure darn important, I'd think, if one has the inkling lifestyle choice is involved.

I could go on and on here. A person comes up and asks me if I believe in God. I am going to have to ask that person to please tell me all about what it is they are asking that I believe in. I have found to date, that some 90% (to be on the safe side) have no earthly idea at all of what it is they are not including in their spill which comes afterwards. Ignorance may be bliss, but it sure isn't a cure for fallacy. I wish all these folks would be willing to listen so as to understand, rather than listening so as to figure a cute come-back. Are you listening, BrianLewis, so as to understand? I would surely like to encourage that.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

The heck with irrefutable evidence. I'd settle for merely good evidence.

 

[Mars Man]

The heck with irrefutable evidence. I'd settle for merely good evidence.

Yes, that is a good point. We might consider, at the same time, that for good evidence, it could be argued that we need irrefutable data. The reason I would put that forward, is because the reasoning on data towards considering it (brute data) as evidence for, or against, a proposition, would more likely require rationalization, or reasoning. That would seemingly involve argument which tends to refute the competing propositions, thus leaving the irrefutable proposition remaining.

Nevertheless, it would surely be nice to have just good evidence in the sense of everyday, objective and without any room for error at all, demonstration. Seemingly so just right events which turn out for ones apparent benefit, while so many others never, or very seldom, experience such, is just not going to cut the mustard at all. Additionally, finding some document that someone had written in a totally different cultural-historical setting, reading it, and by having done that alone, accepts what had been written as a fact of nature, is simply not going to cut it either.

 

[AquaLung]

God, meaning the later Christian biblical god--which is built primarily upon the Yahweh god model-- has to be an actuality of nature, a real live being, to be experienced in a way that mentally active live beings are experienced, or, God has to be known to someone (having been fully exposed to the concept of such an idea) before any 'experiencing' of that very being thus described, can ever be experienced. It's just a fundamental fact of knowledge collection or actuality. I know that God is simply a figment of the imagination. Furthermore, I know that it is not the case that God is thus some external being (as described and prescribed being of superhuman power and nature--but otherwise human-like in mentality) who has participated in human activity since a certain point in time during the slow formulation of a particular nation state kingdom in the second millennium BCE.

Therefore, I know that it's not possible.

If I'm understanding you correctly, it appears that you are stating that God cannot reveal Himself to an individual without said individual already knowing that He exists?

I know that human beings are external actualities of nature at large. I know that I am a human being (H. sapiens species member) myself. I know the activity and mental range of human beings, and know that it will be a human being typing a certain degree of coherent, logical communicative response in exchange for communicated statements being directed towards the other party. I do not know the actual, particular human being who will be found to be logging in under the particular usernames used, but I know for a fact that it will be a human being--or possibly a number of human beings--communicating under that particular user name. (Consistency in communicative style will determine count.) There is no pragmatic and logically realistic reason to doubt that you, AquaLung, and BrainLewis, are human beings, as opposed to, and over and against, mere figments of the imagination.

Had you been born blind, deaf, paralyzed from head-to-toe (forgive possible insensitivity here as it's not the intention), would you know we were human beings?

It's wrong because there will have had to have been an absolute first. The sound and valid knowledge that we have accumulated has proven that wrong by the process of elimination. It is a fact that Yahweh was not always in existence in human thought, while yet human beings were alive and well and acting upon the face of the earth in that general Near East Area. Why do we not worship Enu? That god was said to be acting and controlling and making human history happen well before Yahweh had ever taken shape. Or, what ever happened to Horus? I mean, unless we simply hold that these beings which in English will be assigned the word 'god' in translation are just beings that come, and go... like spontaneous birth, and boasting and prancing and a jealous fight for supremacy and then sudden death. Was Yahweh any different? No. The test of time and accumulated knowledge have proven that wrong. Therefore, it is wrong.

The fact that Enu and Horus no longer exist, or no longer significant can also be a good indication that Yahweh is authentic.

You are obviously saying this due to knowledge which you hold in your brain. That knowledge however, has been otherwise demonstrated to be greatly lacking in soundness and validity. It cannot be the case that God does anything (beyond what he does in the stories) unless God is an actual, existing, external being who acts upon, and with, and through nature and with (or via) nature. That has been demonstrated to not be the case. (see above)

Regarding the matter of a belief, all belief is mental. There is not a single memory trace which is not derived through the common mental processing. If a person comes to have a locked-in emotionally tagged memory trace firing pattern, it can become (upon constant activation, or hypoactivity of inhibitory firing) very hard to alter. BUT, it can, in certain situations--such as in certain dementia types. This is something that some do not know about. Again, it is a fact, and one which needs to be stressed, so I will repeat it: a person cannot have a mental item of accessible, cognitively acknowledgeable knowledge or memory item without neuro-substrate processing. Therefore, all beliefs are only mental, and can be nothing more.

I'll have to wait for your response to #1 on this one.

Yes, and I was one of them. It had nothing at all to do with misconception that a certain emotionally tagged strength means that that memory trace is not something having to do with brain, but because of rational application on and through carefully searched out knowledge and observation. Also, the 'church,' per se, had nothing to do with it. I spent a good long while studying pretty hard, and worked to help others learn (conversion), but never failed to realize that if I had wanted a person to understand, so as to be able to tell them about God, then I had better sure darn well know myself, to the fullest possible extent. Wisdom was something I had often prayer earnestly for.

Was your prayer answered? Seriously! I'm not trying to be facetious. If you prayed, do you think your prayer was answered?

Now you have mentioned the messiah. That is even more of an easily demonstrated-to-be-so fallacy. Why do you think the later Jewish system came up with the messiah idea in the first place? It was not an idea that was there in the First Temple Period.

I am sure you have had some strongly tagged emotional experience, and I am sure you had known about the content of the Bible before that. I am sure that your experience had been within the confines of your brain, in compilation of sensory input, regardless of the actuality of natural circumstances. I also know, in the same way and to the same extent, that that notion of a messiah of Yahweh was a false notion. And in fact, the messiah notion that the earlier early Christians had pinned all, and I do mean all, their hopes and lives on, failed them. No messianic kingdom of Yahweh transpired.

I recall you mentioning that you are not an atheist, is that correct? Sorry for the short answers (actually questions) on some of these. But I think they are highly relevant.

This very much appears to be a contradiction. You here, seem to be asserting that you know something to be an actuality of nature at large (otherwise said to be a fact), and yet (based on all you have said so far) are insisting that a person cannot insist on another's embracing said 'truth,' simply because that first person had said so. Why in the world should we believe the people who got together and chose to worship one particular god out of the lot of them, and then develop that into an even more national protector, to be worth believing? You see, if we really, really want to assert that our emotional experiences about a certain said being (and these are of course mental, and only mental) are of a being who is an absolute external being (that is, they are a part of reality out there independent of whether any human beings are alive or not) as that described in the writings which became the Bible, then we will have to find evidence of that. It is here, were Yahweh, as well as all those gods and goddesses I had mentioned much earlier on, on this thread, have failed. They have failed to be proven to be the absolute external beings which their authors had claimed them to have been in the first place.

I think there's (usually or often) a lot more to the issue than merely does the God of the Bible exist. But again, I think we need to clear up the whole issue of your stance on God (or if you prefer, god) in general (atheist, agnostic, etc.).

I have no idea what exactly is happening on that scene in the USA, as I have not been looking into that in such great detail. I do not really think religion is the prime focus, however, but that a particular theist-involved religious belief system is.

Yes, correct. Bible-being-the-Word-of-God based theistic belief system. I prefer that term over fundamentalist to avoid political implications (although I don't recall seeing it ever used).

 

[AquaLung]

This was regarding the matter of the sun's revolving around the earth. It is a fact the Bible does teach (to use the common Christian wording which implicitly implies that anything written in the Bible is what the Bible 'teaches') that the sun revolves around the earth. It's actually a so-easy to miss, however, due to our wording in language which still persists, from the older linguistic formulations.

If we look in the Tanakh, we can see the sun rising and setting in a good number of places (Gen 15;12; 37:9; Ex 17:12; De 4:19; etc. etc.). Just as we still use the Aristotelian 'heart' to refer to emotional brain processing--even though the literal heart has practically nothing to do with it at all--we have the sun and moon setting. We know that it's figurative today, but at that time, they did not, and the better conclusion is that they held it to be literal. This is supported by Josh 10:12, 13; 2 Kings 20:10, 11; Isa 38:8. Also, the descriptive terms of the firmament support this. The early Israelites held the sun and stars to be fixed, running bodies of light within the vault of the dome which separated the land for the heavens--Yahweh's place of residence.

The geocentric theory was a pagan based scientific theory. The Bible doesn't teach either the geocentric theory or the heliocentric theory. What individuals recorded in the Bible believed is not of great relevance. In Daniel 4:10, 11 King Nebuchadnezzar seemed to suggest that the Earth is flat when describing a dream he had. This is merely a statement made by an individual in the Bible who may or may not have believed that (the dream being symbolic). But even if so, it doesn't suggest that the Bible teaches a flat earth.

As far as those passages go, they don't prove anything other than observational references which include the use of a sun-dial.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Yes, that is a good point. We might consider, at the same time, that for good evidence, it could be argued that we need irrefutable data. The reason I would put that forward, is because the reasoning on data towards considering it (brute data) as evidence for, or against, a proposition, would more likely require rationalization, or reasoning. That would seemingly involve argument which tends to refute the competing propositions, thus leaving the irrefutable proposition remaining.

Nevertheless, it would surely be nice to have just good evidence in the sense of everyday, objective and without any room for error at all, demonstration. Seemingly so just right events which turn out for ones apparent benefit, while so many others never, or very seldom, experience such, is just not going to cut the mustard at all. Additionally, finding some document that someone had written in a totally different cultural-historical setting, reading it, and by having done that alone, accepts what had been written as a fact of nature, is simply not going to cut it either.

We can talk about irrefutable evidence, or conclusive evidence, or preponderant evidence; I'll settle for the latter here. It's not possible to answer some questions with irrefutable evidence, and the existence of God is one of those. Nevertheless, it's a question which I personally would like to see answered, for myself, during my lifetime. So I'd settle for merely good evidence that isn't outweighted by other evidence, i.e., preponderant evidence.

For instance, if ancient documents were found in separate, culturally isolated regions of the earth, all saying the same thing, or even substantially similar things, about God, then to me that would be good evidence for a supernatural influence and thus a god or other supernatural being. And if all those documents spoke of Yahweh as the creator and Jesus our savior, then I'd see good evidence the doctrine is true.

But if on the other hand, we see documents written in different cultures expounding different theologies, with believers determined mainly by accident of birth, then that is evidence of nothing, except perhaps evidence by absence.