"The God Virus"

[Mars Man]

Read the book yourself. ... The Bible has one of these wonderful jewels every other page. Profound philisophical truth is evidence for me. ... Faith doesn't bring the answers. Faith comes from studying, and studying accompanied by faith brings a greater understanding of multiple meanings, the broader picture and a "feeling" when there are mistranslations that would confuse a beginner. (from post number 116)

Now, you had earlier written as though you were concerned about mistranslations from the original tongues. Do you fairly understand the orginal tongues. (from post number 122)

Should I dignify this with an answer? It's not usually considered polite to put words into other peoples' mouths. In fact, I would call it unethical.

It is clear that you have either expressed what I have asked you about, or, that you do not know the difference between 'translate' and 'interpret.' Therefore maybe I should have ask you if you had actually known your word choice to have been the correctly intended one, or not. It really looks to me as though you are quite lost on most of the detail that one must be aware of to make a better developed understanding about biblical things.

The soundness of philosophical ideas is dependent on a person's opinion, not history, math, science, etc.. Do you consult history when making dinner?

First of all, to answer your silly question, why of course I consult history when I cook dinner, and you, BrianLewis do too, so why ask such a silly question unless...

However, I fully understand now, you have no earthly idea what makes formal, academic philosophy at all. You have been using the word just to mean 'a person's emotional outlook on things, formulated in opinions and self-refecting ideas.' My suggestion would be that you not try to use this to demand a person to take your attempt to uphold any statement you make about any biblical literature matter, or theist-involved religious belief system matter, serious.

 

[Mars Man]

Yes you were right with regards to FACTS, and I guess it is agreeable that none of us all knows all facts in this world, ...

Yes, that is a given. All reasonable thinkers fully understand, and agree, that it's nonsensical to hold that the human brain can hold all the facts in its knowledge banks, and furthermore, that there is even any need to worry about it. We work on learning what we can, within the framework of being the organisms that we are, in this environment that we are in, with the best methodological processes we have. As a practicing nurse, you should know that.

... or is in need to learn for facts before we will be aware that there is such kind of fact existing.

This is a very true point, as well. In fact, it is so true a point, that your having even typed it out totally undermines what you have been saying otherwise. For example, see the below.

...This is what I mean when I said that sooner or later we will know who's right or wrong, because I've already had found some facts about him that I have discovered by myself, and judging on how you disapprove proves that you haven't had found your own convincing facts about him.

You keep saying 'him.' Who is this man you keep talking about? Are you trying to assert that you have found some facts about this man, and wish to publish that what you have come to know represents actual facts? But why would you do that? Just tell me about this man so I can ask him about himself, myself.

But wait a second. Are you trying to say that you have discovered a fact about Yahweh? Is that what it is? How in the world can you come to learn anything at all about Yahweh? Please tell me that, firstly, becuase it looks quite absurd to me.

So as pertaining to facts, let me replace what I have posted, "We will soon be seeing who is right or wrong, base on the very last fact that we will be able to discover or will know in our entire life."

This doesn't seem to make sense. The very last fact that we will be able to discover, or that we will come to know in our entire life, is going to be what? I guess there are a whole bunch of probable choices, but perhaps you want to stress that we will then know the fact of the experience of dying--as long as that processes is accessible to and phenomenally cogntively acknowledged consciously. If you want to say something else, please do explain why you hold that to be true. (AND... hint, hint you are going to have to tell us how it is you have even come to be able to talk about this 'him.'

 

[AquaLung]

Yes, there are two good points here. For one, we do have the known event of what is now specifically called 'clinical death.' In this state, a person is not of the 'somatically death' state, which is absolutely fatal--full cell death with the hair and nail cells being the last to survive to the very end. (Yes, strange as it may seem a fully dead corpse can grow a face fuzz.)

Also, there is the case of medula, pons, or upper brain stem structure damage which can result in the temporary state of what is called 'locked-in syndrome (LIS).' This is the state (and some few patients have it permanently, due to major, unrepariable damage) in which a person will have full consciousness, and yet lack total motor control other than (in most cases) eye lid control. Of course, with careful checking for pulse, heart beat, and so on, a person can see that the LIS patient is not dead; but back then... it had probably been missed some. At any rate, temorary damage (even by a certain illness which affects that area of the brain stem) can cause this for a short period. Further more, we do have reports in the Greco-Roman literature about certain religious men bringing the dead back to life.

Then, since we have this certain amount of sound and valid empirically accumulated knowledge, which has stood the test of sample space and time scale, we know that a dead cell cannot be reactivated after a certain threashold of time. Especially is this true for brain cells and the matrix of connectivity that is required for proper cognitive function. Three days of having been in the state of somatic death is a 'closed case.'

We don't know exactly when an apparent death is officially a closed case. As hard as it is for many humans to admit, we don't know where exactly that cut-off point is. We know this for one because any case where death is made absolutely official, and someone resuscitates irregardless, it's not going to classify as a miracle. We may classify a mummy in a museum coming back to life a miracle, but anyone pronounced officially dead who resuscitates will merely reveal man's need for further research.

(Only quoting this much, but answering towards that general block) Yes, this line of general take--namely, that a lot will be involved--is quite better from a good methodological approach, I would agree. The general concept of this 'resurrection' theme, of course, was quite specifically Jewish in origin. We can find traces of it in the Tanakh. (2 Kings 13:20, 21; Dan 12:1-3) Also the authors of NT wanted to make it clear that the Sadducee sect did not hold that there was any truth in that resurrection theme. (Mt 22:23, 31; Mr 12:18; 20:27) Therefore, we would have to check out how it came about in the Second Temple Period system, or earlier, which led to its being within the mental framework of Judaism itself, as of the beginning of the first century CE.

After having come to see that, we can see how it had been applied in the doctrine of the earlier early Christians. Then, as for what is reported on in the historical contextual setting, we have claims to know of a said event. We can test these claims. However, we have to do so within the bounds of what is known. However, I will say here, as I think you may be beginning to see come together in our exchanges, it will have to go back to eventually testing the claim to know that the said god Yahweh can stand up to the test of time. As I have said before (of course, by means of a great summary statement, because of the involvement in presenting it all in detail...which to a degree can be done on an internet forum formate, and which I'd be willing to do, over time), however, this god too has failed.

O.K. gotta go now, without fully developing what I had wanted to say here. Maybe will get back tomorrow, or on Thursday. Sorry.

The only references to the biblical God failing I've ever heard or read was due to the idea that He failed to give empirical evidence of His existence. Because the majority of the globe does not recognize Jesus as God. However, If God's intention was never to force belief, then He never failed. He certainly didn't fail as far as believers are concerned. In fact, under these terms, God is ultimately successful. The Bible maintains that there will always be followers, and there always has been.

 

[AquaLung]

In other words, you seem to simply be asserting to know, and at the same time are suggesting that you know simply because you claim to know, and there is nothing else left to do--if one opens themselves to believing without thinking about it at all, then they will believe.

Do you think it's possible that God could reveal Himself to someone personally in such a way that there is no question as to His existence? I don't think you question Brian Lewis', or my existence, correct? Assuming this to be the case, why not?

And, by believing, they have thus come to know for a fact that what they have believed simply by believing it, is more than just a belief, but has become actual, external reality

. Nope. That's dead wrong.

Why is that wrong? When God reveals Himself to someone, it becomes far more than intellectual belief. In intellectual belief, one can change their mind. In divinely revealed belief, there is no turning back. This is what a lot of people don't understand. There are believers who can change their mind and become atheists, agnostics, or turn to other religions like Buddhism, because the belief was intellectual. And then when the church disappointed them, or they found something they thought better, they were able to change their mind. A believer who has had a no-turning-back encounter with Christ cannot do that. They can choose not to follow God's leading. They can choose to what the Bible calls backslide. I know, I've tried to do both. That paradoxical living is no fun, I can tell you.

And it really doesn't matter if something comes across as more appealing. That doesn't change the fact of what I know to be truth. However, I can't insist on another embracing my belief because I make the claim.

However, as I mentioned before, when all-too-familiar diatribes are made about religion and Christianity, then we have to question where underlying dangers may exist due to many who are not able to discern issues involving religion. In the U.S., many are being programmed to believe that the danger is from religion. That some sort of historical European type of theocracy will force people to convert to Christianity. However, while we're certainly not anywhere near to being a secular-police State, people are making fraudulent claims, attempting to create laws, etc., that limits the freedoms of Christians. I can provide examples if need be.

And for the life of me, it's amazing how many just want to overlook atheistic atrocities in history. Once a scape-goat is being manufactured as a source of the world's problems, as we're seeing today using this book as an example, danger lurks around the corner. Reasoning, which is supposed to be a comrade of anti-theists, is being closely pursued by the prefix "un", "non".

 

[AquaLung]

"Witness testimony is accepted in court."

And often discredited by cross-examination in court. See "My Cousin Vinny."

"The Bible has wisdom in it, but you do have to acknowledge that it is ALL human wisdom." - My words here.

This is actually not correct...but it may depend on how we look at this. Jesus, for instance, gave us wisdom on how to conduct a perfect society. Now, either humanity does not know how to do this, as we are obviously far from flawless, or we refuse to act on wisdom that we would already supposedly have. I would go with the former than the latter, because I don't think many see the wisdom in many of Jesus' teachings, or completely misunderstand them (i.e, Jesus teaches body mutilation, tells us to hate our parents, etc.).

"I am not an athiest, so why do I have to?" - Brian Lewis

Because truth is truth. NONE of the information in the Bible is super-human or beyond the time and place of its writing. There are no instructions for, say, building an airplane or operating a computer. No information even as to other parts of the world in the same era. No words about the Emperors of China or Japan, or the natives of S. America.

The Bible also doesn't instruct us on how to destroy the planet with the push of a button.

No revelation that the sun does not go around the earth, but vice versa.

This is not taught in the Bible. This was the scientific theory traced back to ancient Greece, but stretched out as least as far as China. It was later embraced as part of scriptural doctrine by the Catholic church. The Bible does not actually make any claim to such a theory.

Such super-human revelations would in fact be good evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired. But there is not ONE thing that was not already known or believed by people of the Middle East 2,000 years ago.

I'd like to know your opinion on this man:

George Washington Carver reputedly discovered three hundred uses for peanuts and hundreds more for soybeans, pecans and sweet potatoes. Among the listed items that he suggested to southern farmers to help them economically were adhesives, axle grease, bleach, buttermilk, chili sauce, fuel briquettes (a biofuel), ink, instant coffee, linoleum, mayonnaise, meat tenderizer, metal polish, paper, plastic, pavement, shaving cream, shoe polish, synthetic rubber, talcum powder and wood stain. Three patents (one for cosmetics; patent number 1,522,176, and two for paints and stains; patent numbers 1,541,478 and 1,632,365) were issued to George Washington Carver in the years 1925 to 1927; however, they were not commercially successful.[42] Aside from these patents and some recipes for food, Carver left no records of formulae or procedures for making his products.[43] He did not keep a laboratory notebook.

Carver's research was intended to provide replacements for commercial products, which were generally beyond the budget of the small one-horse farmer. A misconception grew that his research on products for subsistence farmers were developed by others commercially to change Southern agriculture.[44][45] Carver's work to provide them with resources for more independence from the cash economy foreshadowed the "appropriate technology" work of E.F. Schumacher.

He didn't learn this directly from the Bible as in receiving literal instruction, but here's what he had to say:

George Washington Carver believed he could have faith both in God and science and integrated them into his life. He testified on many occasions that his faith in Jesus was the only mechanism by which he could effectively pursue and perform the art of science.[57] George Washington Carver became a Christian when he was ten years old. When he was still a young boy, he was not expected to live past his twenty-first birthday due to failing health. He lived well past the age of twenty-one, and his belief deepened as a result.[23] Throughout his career, he always found friendship with other Christians. He relied on them especially when criticized by the scientific community and media regarding his research methodology.[58]

Carver viewed faith in Jesus as a means of destroying both barriers of racial disharmony and social stratification.[59] He was as concerned with his students' character development as he was with their intellectual development. He compiled a list of eight cardinal virtues for his students to strive toward:
A monument to Carver at the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis

* Be clean both inside and out.
* Neither look up to the rich nor down on the poor.
* Lose, if need be, without squealing.
* Win without bragging.
* Always be considerate of women, children, and older people.
* Be too brave to lie.
* Be too generous to cheat.
* Take your share of the world and let others take theirs.[41]

George Washington Carver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mars Man]

Do you think it's possible that God could reveal Himself to someone personally in such a way that there is no question as to His existence?

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.

I don't think you question Brian Lewis', or my existence, correct? Assuming this to be the case, why not?

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.

Why is that wrong?

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.

When God reveals Himself to someone, it becomes far more than intellectual belief. In intellectual belief, one can change their mind. In divinely revealed belief, there is no turning back.

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.

This is what a lot of people don't understand. There are believers who can change their mind and become atheists, agnostics, or turn to other religions like Buddhism, because the belief was intellectual.

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.

A believer who has had a no-turning-back encounter with Christ cannot do that. They can choose not to follow God's leading. They can choose to what the Bible calls backslide. I know, I've tried to do both. That paradoxical living is no fun, I can tell you.

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.

That doesn't change the fact of what I know to be truth. However, I can't insist on another embracing my belief because I make the claim.

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.

However, as I mentioned before, when all-too-familiar diatribes are made about religion and Christianity, then we have to question where underlying dangers may exist due to many who are not able to discern issues involving religion.

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.

 

[Mars Man]

This is not taught in the Bible. This was the scientific theory traced back to ancient Greece, but stretched out as least as far as China. It was later embraced as part of scriptural doctrine by the Catholic church. The Bible does not actually make any claim to such a theory.

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.

 

[Elayne]

I won't get into any debates here, but a bit of my opinion:
-Good and Bad come from both religious and non-religious. Saying every bad thing comes from religious fanatics I would have to respond:
Than Shwe, Kim Jong Il, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin
-there is no "magic," only science. That doesn't mean God doesn't use/follow science.
-saying unbaptized children go to some fiery unpleasant place, or anyone else for that matter, is wrong. (Multiple scenarios I could think of if that were not so, God would be unjust)
-The Bible translations were not perfect. Well-meaning translations, but not perfect.
-persecuting people for their religion, lack of one, or making wild generalizations is wrong.

 

[Mars Man]

I won't get into any debates here, but a bit of my opinion:

Do wish to convey the message that you do not think your opinion worth trying to defend when it's obvious incorrect, or encourage further when it's obviously correct?

-Good and Bad come from both religious and non-religious.

This is exactly correct. People are of a continuum of dispositions, just as all animal species are. All religions, and religion at large, are themselves due to human disposition. Therefore, both activities of any religion, be that a non-theist-involved religion (such as patriotism, nationalism, etc., span the entire range, basically. Some will be far more with a milder (good?) range than others, some (such as Nazism) will not.

-there is no "magic," only science. That doesn't mean God doesn't use/follow science.

In the broadest sense, there is only scientific method involved in learning (please note, in the broadest sense). It does not follow from that fact that we can say anything about some supposed supernatural being that we cannot know empirically through scientific method without the information source which has informed us of that particular being in opposition and over and against other such supernatural beings.

-saying unbaptized children go to some fiery unpleasant place, or anyone else for that matter, is wrong. (Multiple scenarios I could think of if that were not so, God would be unjust)

This is correct. The development of the hell idea is neither earlier early Christian, nor is Jewish. It came from elsewhere.

-The Bible translations were not perfect. Well-meaning translations, but not perfect.

On what grounds do you say this? Do you too understand the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek fairly well enough to be able to understand that a certain translation, or version, is not perfect, or accurate enough?

-persecuting people for their religion, lack of one, or making wild generalizations is wrong.

Yes, I agree with this, except for the word usage. I am not sure that 'wrong' is so fitting here. Perhaps 'fallacious' might be better, or 'negative and far less productive-in-outcome' might be better.

 

[BrianLewis]

I would go with the former than the latter, because I don't think many see the wisdom in many of Jesus' teachings, or completely misunderstand them (i.e, Jesus teaches body mutilation, tells us to hate our parents, etc.).

Ah, something to contribute to. Look up "hate" in this instance, and it should say "love less" in the original text. Also, the mutilation thing could be easier to understand if you consider "the body" might be referring to a social group rather than a person (removing a bad influence that causes the rest to be tempted to sin). Of course it's up for personal interpretation.

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.

When you leave your house, do you "go out" or "come out?"

On what grounds do you say this? Do you too understand the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek fairly well enough to be able to understand that a certain translation, or version, is not perfect, or accurate enough?

There is a book called a "Strong's Concordance" that allows a person with fairly little knowledge of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic to trace words back to their origins. You don't need a degree to fact check. If you feel like you can't trust that book alone, there are others to compare the results to.

 

[pauro12]

@ Mars Man: Yes I'am a nurse, and just so you know as a nurse I do, I mean we do maybe not all but most of us do believe in God's miracle. There are lots of cases that we have been into situations that a patient of ours should have been dead, but is risen; or terminally ill patients that recovers and who survived his/her disease. There is science, in fact tons and tons of science in our profession I believe, but there are still things that science (evidently related to the science of our profession) couldn't explain. A human brain is considered dead when there's no oxygen supply on it for more than 20 minutes, and there are super rare cases that this SCIENCE had been defied. Anyways, I wasn't pertaining to this one as my PERSONAL DISCOVERED FACT ABOUT GOD(HIM), because it wasn't my experienced being dead there for almost 24hrs and been back into life. I have my own personal experience of GOD that I believe we will all have as well, maybe not now but someday.. So I'm stressing this out again to you in other words again - someday there will be a time in your life that you will remember this thread, saying unto yourself "OH MY GOD."

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"Ah, something to contribute to. Look up "hate" in this instance, and it should say "love less" in the original text. Also, the mutilation thing could be easier to understand if you consider "the body" might be referring to a social group rather than a person (removing a bad influence that causes the rest to be tempted to sin). Of course it's up for personal interpretation."

If the Bible is a guide to salvation, then why would it by up for personal interpretation? If you're God, why would you want to be cryptic about such important a matter?

Could an honest, but mistaken, interpretation land you in hades for eternity?

 

[pauro12]

Christianity is not merely just a religion but is mostly a relation. God will always consider what is in your heart, rather than what is it that you have done. Either way, God will neveｒ bring you to hell without you being given all that you need for salvation, so it's all up to you if you will ignore it or accept it. God will always let you realized what is it to be known before you will do the wrong thing, just have a good relationship with him and love him and one day you will just realized to yourself, "oh, I'm doing the right thing God want me to do." Anyways, for those of you who doesn't believe in him; just an advice though, that just out of curiosity try to read the Bible. I mean, I'm not imposing things up here, but why not just try reading the bible. Give yourself or shall we say waste some one hour of your time just to spend reading the first few pages. I guess it will not be a waste to spend one hour if you will find something contradictory to us believers regarding this debate.

 

[BrianLewis]

If the Bible is a guide to salvation, then why would it by up for personal interpretation? If you're God, why would you want to be cryptic about such important a matter?

The book is meant to be studied, not read. The purpose being that people supply effort, and then God would reward that effort with the ability to understand. Is there a specific verse that you think would condemn a person to hell for misinterpretation here? Misinterpretation might lead a pervert to blind himself. But I have not heard of anyone who has done so because of this verse. Perhaps because people know instinctively that there is something wrong with their interpretation. If something feels wrong, it's necessary to find out why.

just an advice though, that just out of curiosity try to read the Bible. I mean, I'm not imposing things up here, but why not just try reading the bible.

That's how I started, to some degree. I felt a responsibility to myself to read the most published book of mankind. I felt that I would be robbing myself of something important if I never got around to it. It should be #1 on the required reading for people that seek to be educated in literary studies. However, most people probably don't want to be burdened with constant ridicule for becoming Christian, that's probably why they never get around to it; they fear forum attack topics, losing friends, and the odd chuckle from 20 year old children, over greater obligations and blessings to humanity and oneself.

 

[pauro12]

True, I have relatives outside my native country and they told me that you will sort of be ridiculed if you talk about God as a Christian there. They've stated that only oldies do go to church there. Anyways, that is well said.

 

[nahadef]

It should be #1 on the required reading for people that seek to be educated in literary studies. However, most people probably don't want to be burdened with constant ridicule for becoming Christian, that's probably why they never get around to it; they fear forum attack topics, losing friends, and the odd chuckle from 20 year old children, over greater obligations and blessings to humanity and oneself.

This is such utter clown-shoes. People are free to their religion, but fear of being mocked on a web-forum is not why the number of educated, first-world Christians is shrinking. For many, many people, reading the Bible is the thing that makes them disbelieve in it. My parents are Christian, and half the reason is they never read the nonsense contained within. They just took the word of the local pastor. Conversely, my understanding of the Bible is why I think it's silly.

The quoted post above is so condescending, no wonder it requires living in a bubble.

 

[pauro12]

This is such utter clown-shoes. People are free to their religion, but fear of being mocked on a web-forum is not why the number of educated, first-world Christians is shrinking. For many, many people, reading the Bible is the thing that makes them disbelieve in it. My parents are Christian, and half the reason is they never read the nonsense contained within. They just took the word of the local pastor. Conversely, my understanding of the Bible is why I think it's silly.

The quoted post above is so condescending, no wonder it requires living in a bubble.

Read.... I said try reading it yourself, not anyone reading it for you. And by the way, open your mind to the thoughts, not to the biases that you have in your mind.

 

[nahadef]

Read.... I said try reading it yourself, not anyone reading it for you. And by the way, open your mind to the thoughts, not to the biases that you have in your mind.

Oh, I read it myself. That was the problem. If I only had pastors reading the nice bits, I would be far more likely to be capable of believing.

If God wrote the Bible, then God has some serious problems with himself. The Bible is full of inexcusable passages. Sorry if you think they are the word of God, but, well, people will have a difference of opinion. I will never try to rob you of your book. Please don't feel attacked or under pressure from my total disbelief.

 

[pauro12]

Nah, it's okay.. I was doing the opposite to you though. I was trying to make you believe, but feel free to do whatever outcome my effort may do to you. Anyways, as what I have just said before, it is a relation not just a religion. You don't need a pastor to know that much about God, pastors and priest were just guides(in my own perspectives) anyways. So if you really are curious about his existence, you were the only one who would be able to answer that question to yourself, anyways sounds like you don't as of now to start with though,

 

[Mark of Zorro]

If God wrote the Bible,

Sorry if I am jumping in and have missed something...but who said "God wrote the Bible"?

I would never claim the Bible is perfect or consistent, not the OT nor the NT either. But as far as I know it was written by men, and that explains a lot.

Not to say I am a believer or anything, but just working within the constraints of this particular fantasy.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

There is science, in fact tons and tons of science in our profession I believe, but there are still things that science (evidently related to the science of our profession) couldn't explain.

Its much more like no one bothered trying; particularly since trying would most likely entail cutting off that person's oxygen supply for 20 minutes and see if he survives again. Then dissect him.

And there is also the simple fact that figuring out why one individual brain survived a bit longer without flowing oxygen won't really accomplish anything worthwhile.

There is great variety in biology, even within a species. Some people can eat like horses and never gain weight. Some eat like birds and grow as big as a horse. Some have brains that can survive longer without oxygen. There is NO precise figure on that but generally, its about 20 minutes. Why no precise figure? Because everyone is different. Some people's brains use oxygen more efficiently than others. Then you have factors such as blood pressure, and salt, water and sugar content of the blood and also body temperature.

I am sure that if we allow scientists to start experimenting on people without remorse or hesitation, they could give us a fairly precise figure for permanent brain death for lack of flowing oxygenated blood for each individual at what temperature, oxygen content of the room, time of year, etc. But does anyone want it that bad?

Nobody said it was scientifically and medically impossible for anyone in any circumstance to survive more than 20 minutes without pumping lungs and beating heart. And if someone does it might be miraculous, but that does not mean its a miracle from God.

Science does not need to explain every little thing or every little random chance to be valid or for the only answer left to be God. Science has debunked so much of this God business already that its not really hard to see a general pattern. The church tells us a bunch of things, and each time science debunks one, the church adjusts and says "Well, the rest is true!" until the next debunking.

And not even to say science is perfect and makes no mistakes because I am not. But it is evident that religions pretty much just make things up as they go.

 

[BrianLewis]

If God wrote the Bible, then God has some serious problems with himself. The Bible is full of inexcusable passages. Sorry if you think they are the word of God, but, well, people will have a difference of opinion. I will never try to rob you of your book. Please don't feel attacked or under pressure from my total disbelief.

As I have said many times before, passages you believe are in error are simply mistranslated or misunderstood. A simple study into the matter could resolve the issue. However, I have a feeling that you are speaking from memory and don't care to correct a wrong impression, and are content to ridicule others for it and call them lazy or uneducated for it, when you are the one unwilling to supply the effort. I mean, every time on this forum when I ask for specifics as a reply to this exact type of comment, there is no reply. That's just defamation through ignorance.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

As I have said many times before, passages you believe are in error are simply mistranslated or misunderstood.

And all other possibilities are null and void because...because...because...you want to believe?

I am perfectly ready to accept that some things are mistranslated or misunderstood... like "thou shalt not kill" is actually "thou shalt not murder" and its a totally different ball game. But just discard the possibilities of ridiculous, impossible, conflicted, two-faced, irrational, unjust, reactionary etc. etc.? Nope. Ain't doing that. Forget it. I do that and I may as well believe every politician, every tabloid article, every propaganda poster, every TV commercial, and every used car salesman.

 

[nahadef]

As I have said many times before, passages you believe are in error are simply mistranslated or misunderstood. A simple study into the matter could resolve the issue. However, I have a feeling that you are speaking from memory and don't care to correct a wrong impression, and are content to ridicule others for it and call them lazy or uneducated for it, when you are the one unwilling to supply the effort. I mean, every time on this forum when I ask for specifics as a reply to this exact type of comment, there is no reply. That's just defamation through ignorance.

Sure, how about this: the God of the Bible requires belief in Him to go to Heaven. An absolute bullying concept of existence. I'd rather burn in Hell than believe in a fascist deity. Luckily, the Bible was written by people claiming to speak for God.

Or the Bible's rules for slavery. There are lots of slavery rules. What other proof do you need that the book was written by primitives.
And your attitude is wholly anti-Christian. Who are you to call someone you don't know ignorant? I guess you just like casting the first stone. You sound like the kind of Christian that make so many people dislike Christians. Not that Christians are bad at all, just your arrogant attitude, that's all.

Anyway, this isn't about the God Virus, so I'll drop back out, and Brian Lewis can continue with his deep understanding of his tribal instruction manual, feeling superior to others, and whinging that others misjudge it, without a lick of honest knowledge of those he judges.

 

[pauro12]

Sorry if I am jumping in and have missed something...but who said "God wrote the Bible"?

I would never claim the Bible is perfect or consistent, not the OT nor the NT either. But as far as I know it was written by men, and that explains a lot.

Not to say I am a believer or anything, but just working within the constraints of this particular fantasy.

With all due respect sir, but I just can't accept your explanation because it is so far from what I have been pointing out, and wrong if you are to compare it with the situation. Blood pressure you say? The doctor announced the patient dead! Who is a stupid doctor who will announce a patient dead if he/she still has a blood pressure? A person who has a blood pressure means he/she still has heartbeat, meaning there is still an input coming from the patient into the cardiac monitor. How could you still say about having a blood pressure? And I wasn't pointing out that the patient had been announced dead for like 20 minutes only, but is more than HOURS already. Just so you know, there's a case here in the Philippines that a dead body had been long lying in a coffin for several days, and had been risen alive and healthy up to this date. So I guess, knowing this won't give you any explanation on how did this happened, isn't it? So we can consider this a miracle, so who else gives miracle? The doctor who studied for 10 long years and wasn't able to explain it? By the way, considering that you told us that religion were just making things up. So we can consider that you were also stating that Jesus Christ's resurrection is just a make up story isn't it? Then how about those patient who have had those type of miracles? is it a make up story? Would National News make up stories? Or shall we say, my eyes who had seen the miracle itself would make up stories? Seriously and I'm stressing this one out once again - This may not be the time for you to know him, but soon you will."