Christianity Debunked - SciForums.com

truestory

11-03-99, 03:44 AM

Here's a key question, and feel free not to answer it, as usual.

As far as I'm concerned, these type of remarks serve no useful purpose other than to continue to expose a not-so-pleasant part of the personality of the one making such remarks. Does one actually find enjoyment in engaging in this type of behavior?

Suppose you grew up on an isolated island, in solitude, ever since you can remember. Do you think you would have found "God" on your own, with nobody to teach you? I don't think so! But, if God is truly out there, and cares about all, and wants to teach all -- surely he/she/it would have contacted you anyway, and revealed the truth. Which never happens!

Boris,

I don't know what has led you to conclude that God does not contact people and reveal the truth. Maybe it has not happened to you yet but, it has happened to others. I'm sure that you have read and heard that this has happened to people. Isn't it fair to say that you just choose not to believe them?

Both you and Tiassa have indicated on a number of ocassions that you believe that I grew up as a religious person. I have indicated on a number of ocassions that I did not. God revealed himself to me, fully, just a few years ago while I was on a sight-seeing tour in New York City. The message I was given was this: "Spread the word. It is not too late. All things can be forgiven. Behold the Son. Through Him, all good things will come."

It was AFTER that contact from God that I started studying the Bible, most notably, the life of Jesus Christ (that would constitute less than one tenth of my lifetime to date). Had I studied science before that? Yes. Had I studied math before that? Yes. Had I heard about and considered the concept of God before that? Yes. Had I heard about and considered the concept of religion before that? Yes. Had I heard about and considered the concept of atheism before that? Yes. Had I heard about the existence of the Bible before that? Yes.

I suppose that if I grew up on an isolated island in solitude ever since I can remember, out of all of the above, the one experience that I would have most likely have had before the others is contact from God.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 03, 1999).]

666

11-03-99, 03:44 AM

Lori,

I tried to hold this back, but I failed. Your blind to common senes and blind to you own religion.

qoute (from the bible):

St. Matthew, Ch.6 verses 1-7

1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But wen thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward you openly.
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and they Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

In other words shut up.

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited November 02, 1999).]

truestory

11-03-99, 03:58 AM

Can someone explain to me what is up with so many people on this board claiming to not have the ability to control themselves when it comes to posting nastiness?

Boris

11-03-99, 04:33 AM

truestory,

I suppose that if I grew up on an isolated island in solitude ever since I can remember, out of all of the above, the one experience that I would have most likely have had before the others is contact from God.

Thanks for answering. Most people just tend to dodge. But I must say, that's a truly intriguing answer.

First of all, if you've been out of contact with others for your entire life, you wouldn't even have a concept of God, or of Son, or of sin, or of death (and thus afterlife). Much less the concept of spreading the word, etc.

Secondly, if God indeed personally contacts individuals, then why do we need all of the priests and preachers (even like yourself)? Why do we need a book? Why do we need rituals?

Thirdly, if God indeed engages in one-to-one conversations with individuals, Judaism would not have abruptly emerged and spread smoothly from an "epicenter"; it would have sprang up in the very first humans, and all world populations, isolated or not, would have maintained an exactly identical religion from the word go.

If you claim that to hear God one must first believe in him, you've got a vicious circle on your hands. Had you lived in solitude, you would not have been able to believe in God until you heard him/her/it. Are you claiming that God communicates universally to believers and unbelievers alike? In which case, why does anybody come to this forum in the first place?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

truestory

11-03-99, 05:05 AM

Boris,

If you claim that to hear God one must first believe in him, you've got a vicious circle on your hands. Had you lived in solitude, you would not have been able to believe in God until you heard him/her/it. Are you claiming that God communicates universally to believers and unbelievers alike? In which case, why does anybody come to this forum in the first place?

I don't think that I have ever claimed that to hear God one must first believe... If I have, I would amend that statement... I think it is more a matter that one has to be open to the possibility of God... I would not say that I was either a believer or a non-believer a few years ago. As a matter of fact, looking back at that time, I would have classified myself as "apathetic" to the existence of God... To look at solitude in another way, perhaps one in solitude would not have any external limits placed on the possibility of anything and would hear and recognize God even more clearly and readily than those of us who have to deal with all the "noise" about God?

Why anybody comes to this forum is a good question. I firmly believe that everything happens for a reason, even though at the time that various events transpire in our lives, we don't always understand the reason. Many times, we understand them later, after we see the cumulative effects of our experiences. Laugh as you might, my gut feeling tells me that I was guided to this forum by the Holy Spirit to spread the word as I was instructed by God. Do you have a special reason for coming to this forum, Boris?

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 03, 1999).]

Mock

11-03-99, 08:15 AM

Come back Lori. This board needs your unwavering Christian commitment ... and your humour.

Boris

11-03-99, 08:21 AM

truestory,

Now, that was not exactly a straight answer.

First of all, no matter how averse one is to the idea of God (or in fact if one is ignorant of the idea of God altogether) -- one cannot fail to perceive, or deny perceiving, a straight-out communication. The begging question here is: why aren't we atheists hearing God's voice in our heads? Since God is all-powerful, it is surely no bother for him/her/it to communicate directly to all humans, atheist or not, for all time past and present, hourly. That God doesn't do this, are we to conclude that atheists are left in the dark intentionally? How do you reconcile the real world with your beliefs?

Secondly, I'll ask you to review all of the problems I posed earlier (in the "First...", "Second...", and "Thirdly..." paragraphs). Failing to answer them is tantamount to conceding that God does not personally communicate with all, or in fact (for some questions) with any number, of humans.

The reasons I come to this board are many. One, is a sort of morbid curiosity as to the mindsets and foundations of faith. Another, is to watch for an occasional post or link worth reading. Then, there is the faint hope that somebody might actually benefit from my input (yeah, right...) Next, to sharpen my tongue -- because I strongly suspect that I will have to deal with plenty of zealotry in the future. Finally, for some reason I actually find this fun. Twisted, aren't I? :)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 03, 1999).]

Lori

11-03-99, 02:56 PM

666,

Make me shut up. If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, then why are you attempting to preach it to me? And if you're going to preach the word of God, it's very important to be in touch with the Holy Spirit, otherwise you may misinterpret things. For instance, I pray in my bedroom, alone, and not while anyone is watching or listening. I don't even attend church. The verses that you cited are talking about people who use prayer and their relationship with God to promote themselves, or to glorify themselves, or to set themselves apart. I am no different than anyone. I do not set myself apart from others, as we all face the same ultimate choice in life. I am not boasting when I talk about the Holy Spirit. I was merely trying to engage in the discussion, and offer up a very important premise that happens to be made very clear in the Bible, and happens to be very clear to me personally. The Holy Spirit not only exists and influences people and deserves to be offered up as support of the faith in addition to the Word, AND not only that, but is also the INTERPRETER of that Word.

Thanks TS, I've been busy, busy. I miss you guys! See what I mean now about being tough? It's a jungle out here, and that is written. Pray, pray, pray for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth!

Boris,

If you were on an Island, God would communicate with you and so would Satan. God is fair and loving, and there is always a choice. There are almost two different sets of circumstances, in that every day in every circumstance you make decisions and every single one of them is like having an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other, just like the little cartoon. Usually the devil's choice is more tempting, but there's that voice inside that tells you to do what's right. And there are a lot of times, in my life at least, that what I really thought was right wasn't, and there are plenty of issues that we could argue today where that is evident. Some of the things that we justify doing in this society today, globally, with what we thought was good intent, we find that it really isn't working out. Why? I had to ask myself that question. I asked the question regarding myself, and my own life, but got the only answer for anyone. I was exposed to the church when I was very young, and really just went to appease my grandma honestly, and I was turned off by a lot of it. I was much more interested in boys and make-up and shopping malls and such. My parents didn't talk about religion. I ignored the whole thought of it for a long time, til I messed around with those spiritual laws enough to have it pretty much slap me in the face. I didn't find anything inside myself but humility. Jesus made the change in me. People's lives don't change like this without Him. So I even tried getting into everything else first, before I'd go back to the Bible. I was under the impression at that time that there had to be a God, but I didn't buy into the exclusivity of Christianity at the time, and thought that all religions were probably basically the same and that they all pretty much directed people's behavior in the same way. Which in a lot of ways, is true. I did find that the resulting behaviors of different religions are basically the same, and the motivation is even the same, to know the truth and to know God, but the attribution is not the same. I found that the Bible was the final Word. Since Jesus was born, it's been about attribution. It's either of Him, or it's of Satan, and that's it. I'm not saying that people who do not believe Jesus is God come in the flesh are evil, or that the works of those people are bad. But we all have a responsibility to look at the Bible and the fulfilled prophecy and the perfection in the teachings, and see other religions for what they are. Christianity is the only world religion that is based upon the Son of God. Wow, did I go off on a tangent or what? And that is the second set of circumstance...the Bible and Jesus. I mean some of this you sense, inside you. Makes you question things, like you are. Then once you do, and you've been given the Word, you have to make a choice. Some people are exposed to Christianity at different levels it's true, but it's not always in the right way. You are lucky if you have those who walk with God around you and to pray for you, but ultimately, you can sit in that church pew til the day you die, and not get it. It's a personal decision. I refused to just take a leap of faith. If I was searching for truth, I wanted truth, whether or not it was the Christian faith. Honestly Boris, it just made the most sense to me. So I prayed to God in the name of Jesus, and I asked to be forgiven, and for Him to help me see the truth in my life, and for the Holy Spirit, and to change my life into what He wanted it to be. And He is. It's amazing how differently you see the world, and how clear the line between good and evil becomes. I've been shown things that I would have never perceived before. You just realize things like, duh, that's so obvious, then you look around, and not many other people think it's so obvious. It's frustrating in a way, but it's good to know the truth about things, and to know Jesus. It's like that little angel voice on your shoulder getting louder and louder, and He always steers you in the right direction, and pretty soon the little devil doesn't look all that tempting because you see him for what he really is. Wow, I am soooo rambling. Thanks for reading if anyone got to the end of this one. Nighty-night.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited November 03, 1999).]

truestory

11-03-99, 05:04 PM

Secondly, I'll ask you to review all of the problems I posed earlier (in the "First...", "Second...", and "Thirdly..." paragraphs). Failing to answer them is tantamount to conceding that God does not personally communicate with all, or in fact (for some questions) with any number, of humans.

Boris,

You can't be serious about this. Not to answer every point made on this board now equates to "conceding"?... Does this mean that you concede any point which I make by virtue of not responding to it? Although I don't know you very well, I'd say NOT.

Besides the fact that I don't necessarily agree with the premise of those statements, I took those paragraphs to be more rhetorical in nature and decided to focus on the question which was directed to me, personally...

Are you claiming that God communicates universally to believers and unbelievers alike?

If my memory serves me correctly, you and I have been down this path before, Boris. My answer is yes. However, communication is a two-way street. A true atheist cannot communicate with God because a true atheist DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD (not "knowledge" of God - that is agnostic). So, even when faced with communication from God, a true atheist would deny it, because a true atheist would not be open to communication from something which he/she firmly believes does not exist.

Because it seems important to you, I will go back and review the three points from your previous post which you would like me to respond to. In the future, all you have to do is ask... :)

truestory

11-03-99, 05:59 PM

First of all, if you've been out of contact with others for your entire life, you wouldn't even have a concept of God, or of Son, or of sin, or of death (and thus afterlife). Much less the concept of spreading the word, etc.

Boris,

First of all, the solitude example is fictional. However, God is not just a "concept" - For those who have had direct communication "with" God, they cannot deny that God exists. One in solitude would not be firmly rooted in atheism and therefore would most likely hear communication from God and readily understand that God exists.

Secondly, if God indeed personally contacts individuals, then why do we need all of the priests and preachers (even like yourself)? Why do we need a book? Why do we need rituals?

Personally, like many others, I do not need a book or rituals to know that God exists. The priests and preachers and the "book" are used by God to inform mankind of God's plan for eternal salvation beyond the world which we observe and get caught up in on a daily basis. We, in our human egotism, are many times tempted by the temporal and have a tendency to ignore and fall away from the infinite wisdom of God. God would like to share in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit with as many souls as possible, however, seeing the general depravity of mankind, God promised to send a savior and came to us in the flesh in the form of Jesus Christ to show us the way to salvation. God's promise of salvation through the new covenant with mankind is a reality and a gift that can be extremely difficult for mankind to understand and accept. The priests and preachers, the "book," and even at times the rituals, are used as teaching tools to show us the way.

Thirdly, if God indeed engages in one-to-one conversations with individuals, Judaism would not have abruptly emerged and spread smoothly from an "epicenter"; it would have sprang up in the very first humans, and all world populations, isolated or not, would have maintained an exactly identical religion from the word go.

If man were perfect and did not have an ego and if we were not given the free will to either accept or reject God's ultimate gift of salvation, then I might tend to agree with your third statement. However, as I explained above, that was and is not the case. The depravity of mankind created the "need" for a savior and our most merciful God obliged.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 03, 1999).]

666

11-04-99, 01:25 AM

Lori,

I can't make you shutup, I can only ask. I think you took me a little wrong. My intentions were not to preach, but to point to a passage that I feel many Christians / Catholics seem to forget about all together.
It is verry interesting how you have interpited the words to suite you needs just like many Christians have done before you.

TrueStory,

I have recently become aware of the fact that I on many occasions (here and in everday life) have right out of the shoot come of verry harsh. After seeing this I didn't want to continue with it, becuase I reilized that it can prevent fruitfull arguments from taking place. Some times we make bad choices, last night happened to be one of them.

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited November 03, 1999).]

truestory

11-04-99, 02:17 AM

Hey, 666... I hope you don't think I was picking on you. Your post just happened to be one of a number which I have recently read where people said something to the effect that they just couldn't resist or that they couldn't help themselves, etc...

Hope there are no hard feelings!

SkyeBlue

11-04-99, 01:50 PM

I wonder, in this "modern" world, what if God really is talking to a lot of us? I always see these people walking around talking to themselves & labeled them mentally as "crazy". Sure, some of them probably are unbalanced, but wouldn't it just be a hoot to find out they're conversing with God? What would have happened if Jesus had come to Earth this year? He probably would have been labeled a "cult leader" and harrangued as such, or perhaps labeled "crazy" and given medication to stop the voices in his head. What if a second messiah has come to earth, but we gave him shock treatment back in the sixties to 'bring him peace'?? Talk about ironic! And a claim of virgin birth would have been laughed out of the hospital.

Plus, there's so many illusionists and 'magicians' out there - would a real miracle go unnoticed amonst all the fakery? I've seen some pretty darn impressive magic tricks - if I were any less skeptical it would probably freak me out. I don't know about you guys, but if I came accross some weird guy claiming to be the son of God and promising miracles, it would probably make me reach for the mace. Or, I might just back away slowly... "sure, okay. Yah, I believe you! No problem buddy. You just stay right there.." RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

Okay, I'm being a little silly, but what do you guys think - would a new messiah be belived in, or reviled as some kind of freak?

Flash

11-04-99, 02:21 PM

I think there might be mixed feelings regarding this at first. But in time the majority would believe.

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited November 04, 1999).]

Lori

11-04-99, 02:38 PM

It says in the Bible that everyone will know, that it will be obvious when Jesus returns. Even to the non-believers, which is all that will be left upon His return to defeat the Antichrist. It is the Antichrist that you are speaking of Flash, the one who will come before the Son to deceive. He will not be obvious like Jesus, but will deceive many anyway, with his power, and claim to peace and love and enlightenment.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Flash

11-04-99, 02:42 PM

Yeah..ok
That is your opinion, yes? Yes!

Lori

11-04-99, 05:34 PM

Not an opinion, but Biblical prophecy!!!! You keep pretending like you don't already know that. Didn't you used to teach Sunday school? *BG*

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited November 04, 1999).]

666

11-05-99, 01:10 AM

Truestory,

No hard feelings. I just thought your question merited a vaild respones.

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born

Flash

11-05-99, 12:17 PM

cute...real cute, Lori.
To be honest I never taught on it because even back then I thought it was a piece of you know what.
So..that is what the bible says..but only
time will tell, huh? You will see, Lori- you WILL see.

Boris

11-07-99, 04:41 AM

truestory,

You have certainly answered my questions, but somehow you failed to really answer them. What do you think was the reason all of those questions were asked? What was the unifying point I was trying to make?

The "solitude example" was trying to show you that every single religious concept you are in possession of, came from humans and not from God. You are only aware of souls, Christ, afterlife, heaven, hell, or God, because you grew up amidst a crowd that passed those words, definitions, and beliefs unto you. You absorbed a popular belief system -- and it is that "folk", "cultural" set of ideas that you claim to be your own and that you hold so dear. You are ascribing to a dogma, and dogma is the source of your "faith".

The second "question" tied in with the first one. If God personally communicated with you, why would you need all the other humans to teach you all the religious concepts that you command now? Why would there be an instruction book? Why do you have to read it, or have somebody else read it to you, or have somebody else describe or represent it to you -- to get your "knowledge"? If God truly communicates with individuals, then surely God would be capable of giving you all of the necessary religious knowledge! You should just come into the world already aware of all the commandments, all the rules, all the "spiritual laws". You should need no religion to teach you, or "save" you, or "enlighten" you -- you would already possess all of the knowledge, before you could even form the first skeptical question. Why does God not invoke such a direct and sure-fire way, and instead chooses to rely on the grapevine game to convey his "truth" to the people -- so that by the time the "truth" arrives, it is distorted and maimed and embellished beyond all recognition? And the more time passes since God's last "legitimate" contact, the worse the corruption gets, with no end in sight?

Now, we arrive at the third point. This was the question:

(This was my challenge)
if God indeed engages in one-to-one conversations with individuals, Judaism would not have abruptly emerged and spread smoothly from an "epicenter"; it would have sprang up in the very first humans, and all world populations, isolated or not, would have maintained an exactly identical religion from the word go.

(This was your answer)
If man were perfect and did not have an ego and if we were not given the free will to either accept or reject God's ultimate gift of salvation, then I might tend to agree with your third statement. ... The depravity of mankind created the "need" for a savior and our most merciful God obliged.

First of all, you don't even address the question. Yet, this is the weakest link in your entire argument. Judaism existed long before Jesus. Which means, at least an entire small tribe on this Earth did not need a "savior" to find their way to "God". Which begs the question of why in no other place on Earth, among thousands and thousands of cultures and civilizations, an identical to Judaism religion never arose? It begs the question of why, from emergence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens at least 50,000 years ago, Judaism never came around, and only appeared (allegedly) about 6500 years ago? Why did God wait so long to make "first contact"? Why did God only make "first contact" with a tiny tribe in the middle of a desert? Why did the countless other individuals go "un-enlightened" all that time all over the world?

Secondly, are you alleging that all other religions in the world exist only due to their adherents' egos?!! I am reminded many times that in my atheist stance I seem to discard the opinion of 95% of the world. Well, you seem to come pretty close to my record, in stating that the 4/5 of the world's population are all misled by their egos, while your "Truth" is the real thing!

<hr>

The overarching point is that Christianity is a human phenomenon that has nothing to do with the supernatural. It does not nearly possess the high pedestal that its proponents seem to imagine. Just like all other human religions and cultures, it had its limited and rather earthly origins -- and it will bite the dust just as surely as did the coutless thousands of other religions before it. And even more religions are possibly yet pending (assuming humanity survives that long, and doesn't learn to differentiate reality from wishful fantasies.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 07, 1999).]

truestory

11-07-99, 06:52 PM

Boris,

The "solitude example" was trying to show you that every single religious concept you are in possession of, came from humans and not from God.

I understand what you were TRYING to do, Boris. However, based on my experiences, it does not hold muster with me.

You are only aware of souls, Christ, afterlife, heaven, hell, or God, because you grew up amidst a crowd that passed those words, definitions, and beliefs unto you. You absorbed a popular belief system -- and it is that "folk", "cultural" set of ideas that you claim to be your own and that you hold so dear. You are ascribing to a dogma, and dogma is the source of your "faith".

We have been down a similar path before, Boris. Although we both may have first "heard" of the existence of "souls, Christ, afterlife, heaven, hell, and God" from some amongst the crowd that we grew up with, some of your other life experiences and mine have been very different. As I have explained to you on many ocassions, I have, in fact, had independent experiences which substantiate the existence of "souls, Christ, afterlife, heaven, hell, and God." You see, Boris, based on my experiences, I cannot deny that God exists and would have to rely on a "cultural" set of ideas from you and other humans to convince me otherwise.

The second "question" tied in with the first one. If God personally communicated with you, why would you need all the other humans to teach you all the religious concepts that you command now? Why would there be an instruction book? Why do you have to read it, or have somebody else read it to you, or have somebody else describe or represent it to you -- to get your "knowledge"?

As I have explained previously, Boris, although I had previously heard of both God and atheism, of both spiritual and earthly things, I was fortunate enough to have had the truth revealed to me independent of other humans. As I have also explained previously, I was also fortunate enough not to have needed an instruction book prior to this revelation. However, many people are still lost and are looking for the answers about God and salvation. In accordance with God's promise to mankind, God has given us the knowledge we need for salvation through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ which are well-documented for the benefit of mankind.

If God truly communicates with individuals, then surely God would be capable of giving you all of the necessary religious knowledge!

God does communicate with us, God is certainly capable of giving us all of the knowledge we need for salvation and God has already done so. We were also given a free-will to accept or reject this communication and knowledge. Therefore, there are some of us who accept it and some of us who reject it.

You should just come into the world already aware of all the commandments, all the rules, all the "spiritual laws". You should need no religion to teach you, or "save" you, or "enlighten" you -- you would already possess all of the knowledge, before you could even form the first skeptical question. Why does God not invoke such a direct and sure-fire way, and instead chooses to rely on the grapevine game to convey his "truth" to the people -- so that by the time the "truth" arrives, it is distorted and maimed and embellished beyond all recognition? And the more time passes since God's last "legitimate" contact, the worse the corruption gets, with no end in sight?

Boris, you claim that we SHOULD just come into the world with all of the knowledge which has been communicated to us by God throughout history? Boris, this premise seems to beg the question, "Which came first?"

Mankind and its relationship with God did come first and we knew all we needed to know for eternal salvation. However, throughout history, mankind made a mess of this most important relationship with God and jeopardized its salvation through such human flaws as egotism, greed, short-sightedness and concern only for that which is temporal... The mess which we created necessitated the need for help from God which God chose to send via such things as the ten commandments and a savior so that as many as souls as possible would be saved.

The birth, life and teachings of Jesus Christ in the flesh is certainly considered by many to be a direct communication. The truth which Jesus Christ perfected for us is relatively simple. It is skepticism and some of our other non-perfect human conditions which causes the truth to become complicated. What is it that you would consider to be God's last "legitimate" contact? You, being an atheist, I would venture to guess would say "none"?

Boris, you restated your question in the form of a challenge:

(This was my challenge)
if God indeed engages in one-to-one conversations with individuals, Judaism would not have abruptly emerged and spread smoothly from an "epicenter"; it would have sprang up in the very first humans, and all world populations, isolated or not, would have maintained an exactly identical religion from the word go.

Then, Boris, you posted what I consider to be a manipulation of my answer:

(This was your answer)
If man were perfect and did not have an ego and if we were not given the free will to either accept or reject God's ultimate gift of salvation, then I might tend to agree with your third statement. ... The depravity of mankind created the "need" for a savior and our most merciful God obliged.

You see, Boris, you left out the all important statement which I made which was: "However, as I explained above, this was and is not the case."

After you left this all important satement of mine out, in an apparent attempt to give the false impression that I somehow avoided your question, you go on to say:

First of all, you don't even address the question. Yet, this is the weakest link in your entire argument.

To be fair and reasonable, I will reiterate my answer in its entirety:

If man were perfect and did not have an ego and if we were not given the free will to either accept or reject God's ultimate gift of salvation, then I might tend to agree with your third statement. However, as I explained above, that was and is not the case. The depravity of mankind created the "need" for a savior and our most merciful God obliged.

Now, Boris, I would suggest that you re-read your question and my answer as it was "truely" addressed without trying to kid yourself or anyone else.

Although God has communicated with man from the beginning, the fact is that Judaism originated from God's contact with man which specifically addressed man's "need for" and God's "promise of" a savior. It was the first stage of God's plan under the new covenant to prepare mankind for the coming of Jesus Christ, Boris. It was not God's first contact with mankind.

I am being forthright and honest in my debate with you, Boris. There is nothing for me or anyone else to avoid in your questions. Why you insist on continuing to twist, twist, twist... only you can answer.
(Hey, are you Chubby Checker?) :)

Boris

11-07-99, 10:05 PM

truestory,

It is amusing to hear you accuse me of "twisting", since I am the one who should be making such accusations. Though I concede, you beat me to the punch.

<hr>

First, you agree that 'we both may have first "heard" of the existence of "souls, Christ, afterlife, heaven, hell, and God" from some amongst the crowd that we grew up with'. But then, you state that 'I have, in fact, had independent experiences which substantiate the existence of "souls, Christ, afterlife, heaven, hell, and God."'

For one, you cannot call your experiences "independent" -- because you interpreted them within the "folk" framework to which you admit. You did not approach these experiences impartially; you already had a background against which to view them. Consider the fact that, had you adhered to Hinduism instead, you would have interpreted your experiences quite differently, and they would have served to similarly "substantiate" a Hindu framework instead of a Christian one. Therefore, your alleged experiences do nothing to serve as a proof of Christianity; rather, they serve to demonstrate an ontological fallacy that you committed. You see, theories are not tested by "substantiation" -- they are tested by measurements which serve to emphatically contrast them against other theories. As far as I can tell, there was nothing in your experiences which argues specifically for Christianity, and which prevents interpretation in terms of any other religion.

<hr>

You state 'I was fortunate enough to have had the truth revealed to me independent of other humans.' Then you say, 'However, many people are still lost and are looking for the answers about God and salvation.'

Now, isn't it amusing that you were "fortunate enough" to have experienced a direct revelation, while 4 billion other people remain "lost"?? How do you account for such extreme preferential treatment?

But wait, then you say 'In accordance with God's promise to mankind, God has given us the knowledge we need for salvation through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ which are well-documented for the benefit of mankind.' First of all, if you experienced a direct revelation, at least you have no use for the "life and teachings of Jesus Christ". It serves no "benefit" to you. You already know the truth, "independent of other humans", remember? Which means, independent of all documentation, as well. So again, I ask the question, what makes you so special? Why shouldn't everyone experience direct revelations from God? Why should anyone need "documentation" to "benefit" them? Why couldn't everyone obtain all the right knowledge "independent of other humans" -- through direct contact with God? Please note that by "direct contact" I mean personal, contemporaneous, individual, one-on-one contact -- not "contact" through allegations of one's ancestors.

<hr>

God does communicate with us, God is certainly capable of giving us all of the knowledge we need for salvation and God has already done so. We were also given a free-will to accept or reject this communication and knowledge. Therefore, there are some of us who accept it and some of us who reject it.

Really? I've never had God communicate with me! Nor with anyone I directly know!

Unless by "communication" you mean the humans passing on religion from generation to generation. Sorry, but I don't consider a monk's sermon to be putting me in communication with God.

Boris, you claim that we SHOULD just come into the world with all of the knowledge which has been communicated to us by God throughout history? Boris, this premise seems to beg the question, "Which came first?"

'beg the question, "Which came first?"'?! (keep reading...)

Mankind and its relationship with God did come first and we knew all we needed to know for eternal salvation. However, throughout history, mankind made a mess of this most important relationship with God and jeopardized its salvation through such human flaws as egotism, greed, short-sightedness and concern only for that which is temporal...

Excuse me, but I am NOT talking about "mankind" -- I am talking about me, and you! I am talking about individuals! Who cares what happened in human history? When I am born, I should be directly contacted by God, and be made aware of all I need to know. I should not rely on other representatives of "mankind" to teach me; I should be directly taught by God. I come first, as far as my own conscious existence is concerned. Everything I subsequently learn, comes later.

Again, why does God not personally contact each and every one of us? Why does not each and every one of us have revelations? Why must we rely on a grapevine to claim to represent, and indirectly speak for, God? Why can't God speak for him/her/itself?

The birth, life and teachings of Jesus Christ in the flesh is certainly considered by many to be a direct communication.

Well, I certainly do not consider it "direct"! It may have been direct to those people who actually lived alongside with Christ. But, obviously, we do not! This is classically indirect communication, where the source is allegedly God, but the medium of communication is religion! Religion, the Bible, the priests -- these are all middle men, all corruptible and demonstrably corrupt! How could you possibly call this "direct communication"?!

What is it that you would consider to be God's last "legitimate" contact? You, being an atheist, I would venture to guess would say "none"?

Interesting play on words. Of course, as an atheist I do not believe in "miracles". However, taking your point of view, I would argue that there were indeed cases of "legitimate" contact from God. God did directly speak to Abraham, and to Moses, and to the 12 apostles, and to many many others, did he not? God did part the seas, and flood the world, and rain mana, did he not? So, where's God now? Why doesn't he directly talk to us? Why does God's communication always take the form of "documented" past events?

I do not consider religious legacy to be a "legitimate" form of communication -- merely because we all agree that such a source, even if stemming from a true origin, is not a high-fidelity communications medium. I've repeatedly made the analogy to the game of grapevine. This is not legitimate communication. In legal terminology, this is "hearsay". I want something more than just hearsay! Don't you? Doesn't anyone?

<hr>

Finally, you made quite a mess of my "third" challenge, rather than answering it satisfactorily. I will re-state it yet again:

if God indeed engages in one-to-one conversations with individuals, Judaism would not have abruptly emerged and spread smoothly from an "epicenter"; it would have sprang up in the very first humans, and all world populations, isolated or not, would have maintained an exactly identical religion from the word go.

I did indeed abridge your response, but not in an attempt to "manipulate" it! I just wanted to make it more concise. But fine, here's your complete reponse this time:

If man were perfect and did not have an ego and if we were not given the free will to either accept or reject God's ultimate gift of salvation, then I might tend to agree with your third statement. However, as I explained above, that was and is not the case. The depravity of mankind created the "need" for a savior and our most merciful God obliged.

You still do not address the question! Not even with this:

Although God has communicated with man from the beginning, the fact is that Judaism originated from God's contact with man which specifically addressed man's "need for" and God's "promise of" a savior. It was the first stage of God's plan under the new covenant to prepare mankind for the coming of Jesus Christ, Boris. It was not God's first contact with mankind.

This time, I kindly ask you to reread my challenge. Where did I mention "mankind"? I was talking about individuals! I was arguing that if God was in contact with everyone from the word go, that if every single human experienced one-on-one conversations with God, revelations, or whatever you want to call it -- then there would not be such a diversity of religions and cultures in the world. Furthermore, if every human always had direct contact with God, then Judaism would have been born with the first human, and it would never have been corrupted, degraded, etc -- because it would not be propagated from person to person; it would be propagated directly from God to every person. There would be no need for mass religion, because every individual would already inherently embody the religion, through direct communication with God. With this clarification, go back and yet again reread my challenge. How do you reconcile history with God?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris

11-08-99, 06:34 AM

Lori,

I'm sorry, but I didn't notice that big thing you edited into your Nov 3 post, until now.

You have said repeatedly in many posts that your chief reason for the faith is that it "works". My very simple counterargument to this is to ask the following questions: does it work because God exists, or does it work in the same way a visit to a shrink works? Is the direction, reinforcement, comfort and structure you find in your life due to God, or to your faith? Could the "goodness" be actually coming from you, and not from some divine source? Could it be that through "faith" you merely found a way to get more in touch with yourself, to buffer yourself against "interference" that comes from the external world? To this end, I would like to point out that a great many atheists live in a similar state of comfort and moral rectitude -- with no need for God, mind you. If your religion is merely a matter of finding a purpose -- then I must say that you bought into a rather shabby way of accomplishing that goal, given the wide selection available.

As to the claim of enlightenment, that many things seem "obvious" now that you've got your faith, consider the following analogy.

A long time ago, the sky mystified humans. It pristinely, almost transcendently, presided over the world, and featured powerful and enigmatic objects like the Sun, the Moon, and weird phenomena like shooting stars, comets, planets, stars and the Milky Way. The best people could do is to give various objects names, and to try to discern or invent any pattern to their behaviors. The first theories were rather crude, and like most primitive "science", they employed animistic approaches to ascribe human properties, motivations, and emotions to any and all objects, so as to explain "behaviors" of the world. This was not very satisfactory, until somebody observed that the entire heavens seemed to undergo a coherent motion. With a spark of inspiration, the idea of an ever-rotating "heavenly sphere" was born. Imagine the glee and delight, when such a powerful simplification suddenly injected so much sense and order into the mystery. Imagine further elation, when the idea of the rotating sphere was further extended and embellished by Aristotle, to eventually employ a sophisticated machinery of nested rotational mechanisms -- to accurately describe the motions of not only the stars, the Sun and the Moon, but the Planets as well! Such clarity was taken as a surefire signal that the idea of heavenly spheres was the key to revelation, a piece of truly divine wisdom. It was amazing to the followers of Aristotle that nobody had come up with such a simple, elegant and obvious description of the heavens much earlier. The theory opened eyes, it gave deep insight, it enabled astronomical predictions of unprecedented clarity. It truly was a revelation. Little wonder that the Christian church took it as such, and elevated it to the status of practically divinity.

What a joke it was, in retrospect. For centuries now, armed with Copernican theories, it has been hard for many to comprehend how the anscients managed to err so egregiously. Knowing the true nature of celestial objects, it is almost impossible to look at a crescent Moon, and not to see a three-dimensional sphere illuminated from a side by the light of the Sun. Climbing a mountain and watching the horizons expand, it is almost impossible to comprehend how the anscients missed the "obvious" fact that the Earth is a sphere as well! Knowing of gravity, it is nearly ridiculous that the anscients could not fathom its "obvious" existence.

So... Was Newton's "revelation" truly the inspired one, the final leap of comprehension, the real understanding of the workings of the heavens (not to mention the rest of the universe)? Judging by the conviction, elation and enthusiasm of its adherents, it surely must have been, right? It made so many things obvious, which were not obvious before. It brought to attention many phenomena which were not even observed readily in nature, and only could be "conjured up" in arcane laboratory equipment. The evidence for the world-view was overwhelming, the merit of the framework was unquestionable, its methods became second-nature to a great many people, it expanded horizons, pointed ways to solutions, resolved paradoxes, brought order and astonishing clockwork clarity to the world. By God, it must have been the real Truth. Yet notice that the ultimately-Newtonian framework entirely and nonchalantly threw out all of the concepts and precepts of Aristotle's divine theories, without exception. Not even a vestige of the old music of the heavens, of the magical epicycles, remained.

And given that, Newtonian proponents should have been more cautious about their own conviction. For their fate exactly mirrored that of the Anscient Greeks. Of course, from the modern perspective, the clockwork universe of yore is laughably primitive. We have done and threw away most of the deeply entrenched, seemingly inescapable Newtonian concepts and beliefs already, and we are on the verge of throwing away the rest. Are we then on the brink, finally, of Ultimate Truth? One could, of course, foolhardedly edify the modern theoretical corpus as the ultimate achievement, and enjoy a long-delayed and well-deserved sigh of relief. However, one mindful of the past would rather take notice of the recurring paralleles. It is not only possible, but in fact likely, that despite all of our revelations, and all the pieces that have fallen into place, and despite all the "confirmations" we are getting from the external world -- we are not even close to approaching the ultimate Truth with a capital T.

The moral of this excursion? Your belief in God is entirely analogous to a belief of any of the past philosophers in their respective cosmologies and metaphysical frameworks. In fact, your faith is indeed in itself just a metaphysical framework. Hence, you should be far more cautious in your elation at all the "confirmations" and "clarifications" that your religion has enabled you to make. It is much more likely (and in fact, evident) than otherwise, that your fundamental concepts are catastrophically wrong, that your modus operandi is systematically flawed, and that your "insights" are merely spurious and fruitless misinterpretations.

There are many reasons why many very smart people, having deeply analyzed the precepts and methods of religions, and the relationships between all other fields of human knowledge and religious metaphysics, arrive at the conclusion that religion is merely pseudoscience, a bad theoretical formulation, a miscarried child of the strife to comprehend. I do not ask you to take their word for it, but to actually seek out their word and judge for yourself. The depth and scope of such discourse would demand a full-time devotion to a philosophical doctorate; however, libraries and bookstores are stacked with modern accounts of materialism and arguments against dualism. Rather than watch tabloid TV programs, or browse the babbling popular texts, perhaps it could truly be a horizon-expanding experience for you to actually try to tackle an account at the level of the academia.

All this is to say that you are much too hasty and uncircumspect to jump to your conclusions, and embrace your "confirmations" (which, by the way, are not a valid method of acquiring or testing knowledge), as part and parcel of The Ultimate Truth. History truly does repeat itself, and social phenomena, such as religions, are not excepted from that rule. From my own perspective, having already seen too many ill-fated self-deceptions in the name of understanding, you are obviously enough yet another sore example.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Searcher

11-08-99, 09:49 AM

Get over yourself, Boris.

truestory

11-08-99, 05:58 PM

Boris,

You seem to be experiencing a great deal of anxiety and are asking the same questions over and over which I have already answered. If the term "mankind" is a problem, maybe I should tell you that I believe that mankind includes individuals.

Maybe it would help if we consider just you and I for a moment, Boris:

As individuals, the difference between us with regard to this subject is this... As an atheist, you cannot recognize, participate in or understand direct communication "with" God because you deny the existence of God. I have had direct communication with God and understand it.

PS... Just something you might want to reflect upon, Boris... Were you born "Denying the existence of God?"

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 08, 1999).]

Boris

11-08-99, 10:10 PM

truestory,

anxiety? Hardly. Exasperation would be closer to the truth. I'm beginning to suspect that you are beyond all reason. If you are not intentionally so, then my sincere condolences. Otherwise, whom do you think you are fooling?

But fine, let's talk about just you and me. Are you "mankind", or are you "truestory"? Do you see yourself as a civilization, or as an individual? I should hope for the latter, though strangely, you have been arguing from the point of view of the former all this time. Consider: when I ask why every single human individual that ever lived or will live (including even me and you), is not in personal communication with God, you answer with broad statements about mankind, egotism, and events of the distant past. Personally, I don't consider these to be "answers", since they do not actually address the questions -- which is why I keep asking them again and again.

Despite evading the historical and anthropological evidence to the emphatic fact that God does not directly communicate with even a significant number of humans (not to mention all), you have personally expressed the belief that God communicates with everybody, even atheists. Yet now, you state in utter self-contradiction that, 'As an atheist, you cannot recognize, participate in or understand direct communication "with" God because you deny the existence of God.' Pardon my open sneer, but this is just utterly ridiculous. Suppose I denied the existence of hand grenades, and one just happened to land right next to me -- do you think I would not perceive the effects merely because of my prior convictions? Do you seriously think that if God appeared before me as a burning bush or a tower of smoke, and spoke to me in his customary booming baritone, I would be oblivious of such communication because of my prior convictions? Come on! Is this the best you can do?

Just something you might want to reflect upon, Boris... Were you born "Denying the existence of God?"

LMAO. Oh yeah, I should really be the one pondering such a question. Thanks for asking indeed! So how about it, do you seriously believe that I was born denying the existence of God? Obviously not; I was born with no knowledge whatsoever, just as were you. Why do you think I became an atheist? Do you think it was because God just wouldn't leave me alone, with all his chatter? Please!

P.S. It would do you a lot of good, if you at least pretended to be logically consistent, and stopped contradicting yourself all the time.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 08, 1999).]

Lori

11-08-99, 10:16 PM

No shit, searcher. Sometimes getting through those posts of yours Boris, is like having a tooth pulled. All that, and you just don't get it still. It's not like that at all. Listen, I've heard all of the arguements; I've read it all, and for a while I believed it, or at least thought it was probable. Listen, I'm not trying to "explain the heavens", Ok? I'm not trying to scientifically account for anything. I could really care less at this point. I attribute science TO God. And no, it's not the same thing as finding peace within myself, or going to a psychologist. I can find peace within myself when I get stoned. It's different from what you think it is. It's EXACTLY like this....all your life you've had a very bad vision problem, but you never went to the doctor, and somehow you got through school and no one caught it, and you just thought everybody saw things that way. As a matter of fact, lots of people needed glasses, and say they just didn't have prescription eyewear at that time, so no one could see shit. Then someone finally figures out how to make glasses, and you put yours on for the first time. THAT'S how it is. You're not necessarily going to see things you didn't see before, it's just that your perspective is entirely changed, and things are a lot more clear. And that in a way, doesn't necessarily make your life easier. At first, it's actually kind of difficult, and I still struggle with cynicism sometimes. But the peace you find in salvation and in faith is unparalleled and totally worth the effort! How about this? You do a little mental excercise and get back with me on your thoughts. And I really want you to give this some honest thought, and humor me. Pretend like there is a God. And pretend like He made us, and He made the earth and everything on it and in it. When we got here, the whole place was a beautiful garden of lush veggies, fruits, nuts, clean water, and fresh air. Ok, now what the hell are we doing? How do you justify what you spend most of your time doing nowadays, because I'll tell you how I spend mine, but remember our assumed perspective. I get up at the f'ing crack of dawn to some screeching alarm clock. I rush around the house half asleep trying to get myself presentable and feed the animals and guzzle some coffee, and then fly out the door with coffee in tow. I spend 45 minutes in my car in rush hour traffic and arrive at my job, where I sit chained to a PC all day long counting someone else's money, and putting it into little "buckets", and help management decide how to squeeze every little last dime out of the company while they all stare at my boobs (because, of course, they're all old white men). I get 45 minutes for lunch in which I GET OUT OF THERE and snarf down some fast food. At the end of the day, when my brain is toast, I spend another 45 min behind some cement truck on the way home, with a guy in my rear-view about 1 inch from my bumper looking like he wants to kill someone. I get home mentally drained, let the dog out, maybe feed myself, take a shower, answer my e-mails, and oops look at that, it's time for bed. I get to go to bed alone every night now since AFTER we got married my husband decided that it was ok if I paid ALL of the bills and developed a fancy for pornography, and upon realizing this, I threw all his stuff out the front door and sent him back to mommy's. I guess if I want some exercise NOW, I'll have to go to some INDOOR gym and run and lift weights on MACHINES, while I watch all of the little yuppies in their spandex butt-thongs admiring themselves. How hideous.

I mean, take sex for example. What's it for? Making babies, right? I mean, are there any biologists here that could back me up on this? So what do WE USE it for? Just about everything but. We make our babies in test tubes now, you know since by the time we get around to the college degree, and the house the suburbs, and the 2 1/2 car garage, and hey, do ya think you can find a man who won't screw around on ya? Gooooood luck. It's possible! By the time you meet him and get all the stuff, you may have had an abortion, or a STD or two, and you're so old that your eggs are all shribbled up and he can't get it up anymore! LMAO! No, see in today's society, sex is no big deal, shit, it's bought and sold! And what are you going to do with a kid anyway? Stick it in a daycare so someone else can raise it? You know, while you go to work everyday at some place that makes a bunch of shit that no one really needs anyway, so you can make a bunch of money to buy your childcare and a bunch of other shit that no one really needs anyway? See what I mean about the cynicism? Hey, but it's all A.O.K., cause NOW and only now do I see the truth, and I see all of this muck for what it truly is. Ok Boris, now you try on those glasses, and tell me what you see.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Boris

11-08-99, 11:00 PM

Lori,

My sincere condolences. I understand that we all have different lives, and cope at different levels. I won't go into details, but my life is not nearly (not even by a moon shot) as distressing as yours. Neither do I plan for it to be...

But, your religion is a theory. Remember expounding on all the "spiritual laws" you discovered? Remember attributing science to God (strange, since it was developed entirely by humans)? Remember wondering what comes after death? In truth, you found not a savior, but a whole lot of answers to questions. I.e., a theory. And a conspicuously bad one at that (which is why you still have all the bouts of cynicism.) And your "changed perspective" is still entirely suited to the analogy I provided earlier. You found AN explanation, A perspective, ONE way to cope. You did not, of course, find THE explanation, THE perspective, or THE way.

You are aware, of course, that when humans "got here", the earth was not a beautiful garden, but an incredibly hostile place that nearly drove humans to extinction? Such an early near-extinction event has recently been found recorded in the human genome. Not to mention that all inference, from archeological to cosmological, is constantly pointing to God's non-reality. If God actually is real, it sure made a big deal of covering up all evidence of its own existence. Almighty God, the Ultimate Deceiver?

As to what the hell we are doing -- that's a question each of us should ask themselves on a personal level, and hopefully on a daily basis. I, for one, know exactly what I am doing.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

truestory

11-09-99, 01:31 AM

Boris,

I'll try it another way...

You originally asked if God communicated "to" everyone. My answer was, and still is, yes.

Again, however, communication is a two-way street. In this case, God is the "sender" and you are the "receiver". However, the atheist "receiver" is shut down and cannot recognize, participate in or understand God's communication.

Summary: No matter how many messages God sends to you directly and no matter how hard God tries to communicate with you directly, Boris, as long as you continue to deny God's existence, (as long as you are shut down) you cannot communicate "with" God.

PS

I am seriously happy that you will be willing to accept Jesus Christ when he comes again... when God is revealed to you like the hand-grenade in your example. Therefore, I pray that you live long-enough to witness the revelation, because then, you will end up sharing in everlasting happiness with God.

During the first coming, Jesus Christ told us that whoever is first will be the last and whoever is last will be the first.

Unfortunately, he also told us that there will still be those who, regardless of the revelation, will still not believe. I am glad that you will not be one of them, Boris!

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 08, 1999).]

Lori

11-09-99, 11:28 AM

Boris,

What a cop out. You didn't do the exercise. And don't feel so bad for me. Lot's of people have lives just like mine or worse (better?), I question because they like their lives like that, or at least they convince themselves they do. People admire me, and look up to me, and sometimes envy me for what I have and the life I've led. I'm the American feminists dream. I've been Ms. Buy-in for crying out loud. Defining myself against society's standards, and excelling to the nth degree. The difference is that a lot of those achievements don't add up to a hill of beans in the Kingdom, and many of the things I've done in life have been for the wrong reasons, I just didn't really know it at the time. It's like I knew something was wrong or missing, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. I looked around all the time and by society's standards, I was pretty impressive actually. I mean what's reallly important nowadays? Money has to be first. I dare anyone to argue that one. Sex, education, and entertainment? That sounds about right. Well, I've worked since I was 16. Graduated with Honors. Independent financially since age 18. Paid my own way through college. Got straight A's in calculus, and I swear I took the entire class stoned to the bone. Speech too. I've been described as a little human computer. Nothing I've ever attempted to learn has been the slightest bit challenging for me mentally. That's why I had the freedom to play around as much as I have. Bought my own home at age 23. That's not bad. Financial Analyst, $50K a year at 32. Not bad, especially considering I'm totally bored with what I do! I've never had to be dependent on a man for anything except you know, and I haven't taken any shit from them either. Out the door you go, mister wrong. No biggie. There's plenty more where that came from. There are a ton of women out there right now laying down good money to look like I do. I can have a guy's pants around his ankles within 10 minutes of a dare, on a bad day. Single, married, gay, straight, doesn't matter (unless they're saved in Christ). God help those women, but that's honestly what they think is important. And why? Well, Boris, do you live on the same planet that I do or what? You tell me. So don't feel bad. Most people look at my job, education, car, house, checking account, the way I look, and my past sex life, and say, "geez, what more could you possibly ask for???!!!" I just don't buy it anymore. Believe me, I gave it my best shot, but it just didn't work. Jesus works.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

SkyeBlue

11-09-99, 12:30 PM

Lori -

Hello! I don't believe I've ever posted a reply to you before, despite your infamy... :)

I can't resist though - I just don't understand your point in this last post. You have worked hard, you're a genius, you're independent...what does that have to do with religion? You say yourself you did most of these things before you found your faith...what was your point again??

I must say my story is similar to yours, at least in part. I too worked since I was 15 years old. In high school I had 3 jobs, plus taking advanced college-level courses, I was supporting my family due to my father's job collapsing under him. I have lived through hell and high water. I have woken up suprised to be still alive, and yet somehow God never gave me a bit of support, real or imagined. Nowadays, I am happily married (by the way, God wasn't at our wedding either - He wasn't invited, His name was not invoked), my husband & I have a healthy relationship despite all the internal garbage I brought to the relationship. We have worked through everything, we are financialy independant, we are buying a house. I am 24. Which is all fine and dandy, but pretty irrelevant to our relious beliefs! Would my life be any better, or any different if I believed in God? Nope, I don't think it would be any better. Different? Well, maybe the sex wouldn't be as good, that's the only difference I can imagine. :)

I was raised with a Catholic mother. She tried and tried to "put the fear of God" into me as a child. I worried as a kid that thinking about sex would damn me to hell. I worried that if I was mean to my little sister, God would get pi$$ed and smite my childish butt. But then I realized that I needed to figure out for MYSELF what was right, and wrong, and mean, and good. I had to decide, it was all up to ME. Once I realized that, I put together my OWN set of morals and beliefs, and they have apparently served me quite well. These "lessons" that "God wanted me to learn" were just my mother's own beliefs and morals that she was trying to pass on to me. Which, of course is what all mothers do. But each and every one of us has had to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong.

Belief in a God has never benefitted me. When I was 16, I had something happen to me. I don't like to talk about it much, but let me just tell you that I lost lots and lots and LOTS of blood, and I was alone in a remote place. I couldn't stand, I was finally unable to even crawl anymore. I had nobody to help me. I began to feel drowsy, and I believed I was dying. Did I pray to God? NO. Why? Because I knew that was futile. What did I do? I thought about my family, and how much they might miss me - I knew my worries were about to be over forever. Then I closed my eyes, expecting to slip into oblivion. Imagine my suprise when I woke up the next morning! The sun rose, and woke me. Did I praise God for keeping me through the night? No. Did I weep like a baby, grateful that I had made it through the night? You Betcha!!

What's my point? If I had prayed to God, would that have changed anything? Would it have brought me peace of mind? Nope. I don't think so. I made it through that night because my body was healthy enough to withstand the damage. Praying to God might have made me feel a little better, but you can kid yourself into a lot of things for your own peace of mind. That doesn't make them any truer.

Boris

11-09-99, 02:29 PM

Lori,

Of course I didn't do the exercise! You know, it may be a serious thing to you, but to me believing in God is very akin to believing in Santa Claus. The day I catch myself doing that, I'll have my head examined.

My point still stands, though. Even if you don't recognize it, all religions are but poor theories. Incidentally, that's the real reason why, in my estimation, religion cannot coexist with science. Bad theories get dumped when better theories come along... If the only statement of any religion was existence of supernatural, then I wouldn't have such a problem -- since that is only (a rather arbitrary, but) an uncontested theory. However, when religions expand into metaphysics, origin, morality, mind, social dynamics, ecology, cosmology or what have you -- that's when I draw the line. Any religion that crosses the line, in my view, effectively cuts its own throat.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris

11-09-99, 03:22 PM

truestory,

Don't jump the gun. If God does indeed present to me, it will still be a long time before I choose to accept that it's indeed God and not something else. Remember, I don't believe in God, and in my view God is not any more likely to exist than the seven dwarfs.

As for communication, I'm sorry for a misunderstanding. In my lingua, "communicate to" denotes two-way communication (communicate == exchange information). I distinguish "communicate to" from "communicate with" only in the sense that the first unilaterally initiates communications, while the latter participates in a bilaterally-initiated exchange. If it was one-way, I would say something like "transmit", or "send". And by the way, I did double check, and this is indeed the correct usage of words. So how about the free English lesson? :D But no matter, you are still not making sense.

No matter how many messages God sends to you directly and no matter how hard God tries to communicate with you directly, Boris, as long as you continue to deny God's existence, (as long as you are shut down) you cannot communicate "with" God.

First of all, you are taking a rather limited view of God's powers. Don't you think that if God wanted to communicate with me, it could easily make me pay attention? You are painting God as some kind of a broadcast station, to which we, as receivers, have to be tuned. A bit inflexible, and a tad too limited, isn't it?

Secondly, it's not just atheists who seem to be deaf to God's "communication". Take any agnostic. Take any Massai, Wiccan, Taoist, Animist, Sikh. In fact, take any of the people in this world who do not recognize the judaic God. So what is it that is common to all these people, that makes them unable to communicate with God? The only answer: they are not Christians, Muslim, or Jewish. So, apparently atheism has nothing to do with it after all, does it?

Finally, you still never answered the question of why, until some 6000 years ago, not even a single human was apparently in communication with God. And how did God manage to make its first contact with the human race, if at some point none of the people on earth believed in God (though I wager at that point none of them were atheist, either)?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

truestory

11-09-99, 05:42 PM

Boris,

Did you ever hear the expression that goes something along the lines of: "Talking 'to' him/her is like talking 'to' a wall"...?

I realize that we have gotten into semantics here. I realize that one can (attempt to) communicate "to" another. However, the communication system only works if there is an interchange of sending AND receiving.

Again, Boris, with regards to your question:

Finally, you still never answered the question of why, until some 6000 years ago, not even a single human was apparently in communication with God. And how did God manage to make its first contact with the human race, if at some point none of the people on earth believed in God (though I wager at that point none of them were atheist, either)?

Again, Boris, I disagree with your premise. I will restate my answer:

1. The promise of a savior was not the first communication that God had with humans. God has communicated with humans from the beginning.

2. The communication which you speak of above was a communication from God which "specifically addressed" God's plan for salvation through a savior.

3. Prior to that, although God communicated, too many people had turned away from God and would not be able to share in all eternity with God according to God's plan. This created the need for a savior.

4. Since God wants to share in all eternity with as many souls as possible, God sent a savior.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 09, 1999).]

SkyeBlue

11-09-99, 06:53 PM

If I may butt in a little here - true' - this brings me back to one of my old questions - #4 says God wants to share with as many souls as possible. Why not send yet another savior then? Surely God realizes that nobody that knew his first incarnation remains!

truestory

11-09-99, 10:08 PM

SkyeBlue,

I believe we have been down this road before, too. :)

What is it that a "different" savior could do for you other than to offer you salvation which is already yours for the taking?

Would a "different" savior satisfy your individual egoism? If God did send a "another" savior, what would have to occur in order for you to believe that they were truly a savior? What form would they have to take? Human, just like us? Alien, like the little green/gray beings? Would the "different" savior have to perform specific "tricks" for you on demand before you would believe that it was in fact, a savior? Do you think that there would immediately be more believers based on the savior's performance of the tricks which you prescribe? Or, would there be those who insist that the savior was just a good illusionist? Would the savior have to perform different tricks for everyone? Would there be those who would want the savior dead? Would another "crucifixion" occur? Would we then have to have an autopsy of the savior and microscopically analyze the savior's body? If the savior came in the form of a human, would we need to study the savior's DNA to determine if it was the same/different from that of humans? If it was the same, would there be more believers or would there be those who say that it was just another human who could perform good tricks? If the DNA was somewhat different, would there be more believers or would there be those who say that the savior is another life form from another planet? If the savior came in a form different from ours, such as that of a green/gray alien, how would we determine whether it was a savior sent from God or just another life-form visiting from another planet?

If God sent a "different" savior, other than Jesus Christ, would there then be those that say, "Hey, God. Wait just one minute here! For centuries you've been telling us that Jesus Christ was THE savior and that He would come again. Now, you send a 'different' savior!?" Would a "different" savior truly alleviate human skepticism? Or, would it create more human skepticism?

A "different savior" could only offer the gift of salvation... which is already ours for the taking, SkyeBlue. Some of us choose to accept it and some of us choose to reject it. If you need the savior to be with you always, SkyeBlue, using your free will and accepting Jesus Christ into your life would fully satisfy that need.

God has a plan for our salvation. Although it might be different from what you would do if you were God, God has been kind enough to share the plan with us for centuries. God came to us in the form of a savior, THE savior, Jesus Christ, who WILL come again. Although we, personally, might not have seen Him in the flesh as of yet... The time that He did spend with us is well-documented (in accordance with God's plan) and we do know of Him. He is also here for us and with us now in the form of the Holy Spirit. We will see Him again. But, we must accept Him as our savior before we can share with Him for all eternity.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 09, 1999).]

Boris

11-09-99, 11:01 PM

truestory,

1. The promise of a savior was not the first communication that God had with humans. God has communicated with humans from the beginning.

And the reasons why you believe this is so, are...?

<hr>

On a sidenote, I've got a couple of new questions.

Since you are (presumably) one of those with whom God is supposedly in communication right now -- what forms does the "communication" take?

Is it possible for you to discuss the existence of God without assuming the existence of souls, or afterlife? (Note: for me, those are assumptions whose credibility is also just about at the level of the seven dwarves. So if we argue the point of God's communication, I would like to stay away from other unknowns; otherwise the argument becomes entirely too defocused and circular.)

<hr>

Also, God obviously must have communicated with humans, as otherwise you would have to consent invalidity of Zionism, the Old Testament, etc. So... If God was able to communicate with humans before Christ, why did he need Christ to come about? It seems the communication was already working. There was already a Torah, and the 10 commandments. The word was out, for people to hear and accept or reject. So it seems "God's plan" is totally unjustified!

Also, if God was in communication with humans, once again, why does Judaism not stretch back to the Neanderthals, at the latest? If God wanted to surround itself with more souls, why did it only start to actively woo them with a small tribe in the middle of a desert thousands of generations after humans had already spread all over the world?

Not to mention that your broadcaster/receiver model of uni-directional contact with God sounds implausible even to a believer.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 09, 1999).]

truestory

11-10-99, 03:59 AM

Boris, you wrote:

Not to mention that your broadcaster/receiver model of uni-directional contact with God sounds implausible even to a believer.

Uh... Well... Since you did mention it, Boris... My position is that: If a message (in this case God's) is sent but not received because the receiver (the atheist in this case) is shut down, then the communication process could not be completed. What's so implausible about that? And, who is/are the believer/believers who, as you claim, find this to be implausible?

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 10, 1999).]

JMitch

11-10-99, 04:53 AM

truestory--

What you have just described is similar to another *theory* out there. Several new age authors, notably Lyssa Royal, have said that the minds of two individuals must converge in order for telepathic communication to result. I assume you have never read or looked into any new age stuff. But, there is something that is starring you dead in the face that you either haven't taken into consideration or are ignoring because of your religious bias. The aliens with whom you've had contact with spoke to you telepathically right? Then why, truestory, have you been so quick to accept the source of your subsequent communications to be God? And please don't say you *know* because of what it said.(behold the father... etc)

Ps- I am being sincere.

SkyeBlue

11-10-99, 01:42 PM

true' - leaving my personal salvation out of this... my point is simply that if God really does want AS MANY SOULS AS POSSIBLE to join him in eternal bliss, he needs to get off his all-powerfull duff and start intervening. Surely he knows his creations are flawed, fickle beings? And, if there is such a God, surely he could send a messiah that could convince even the most stodgy non-believers. Or, maybe he doesn't even need to send a messiah. Howabout appearing in person once in a blue moon? Why doesn't He pop on in and visit the Pope every once in awhile? Too busy? Too snobby?

As far as contradicting himself by sending a messiah that wasn't Jesus...why not usher the new guy down to Earth and give a little orientation. "Yah, I know, I said I'd send Jesus back, but he's on vacation right now, so here's Bob. You guys needed an extra hand, and Bob here's willing to pitch in for the next 40 years or so." Surely God is allowed to change his mind? Would the faithful throw up their hands in disgust - "well, I can take all the other contradictions in the bible, but this is just TOO MUCH! I'm going to go worship Satan now."

Boris

11-10-99, 03:13 PM

truestory,

What's impossible about it is that you are reducing God to a passive transmitter. Quite a curtailment of the almighty powers for a creator of the entire universe, whose capabilities and motivations are beyond any human comprehension! You've managed to reduce the supposedly incomprehensible to an electrical engineering problem! (The believers consist of two Christians and one Baha'i with whom I work.)

Btw, thanks for trying to address the last sentence of my post. Now, how about the rest of it?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

truestory

11-10-99, 04:26 PM

Boris,

As you know, it was an analogy put forth in an attempt to have you understand why you are not hearing the "communication". Think about a message being put forth by the most powerful television broadcast known to man. If Boris' television is turned off, Boris is not going to receive the message. If Boris has questions about the message, Boris can only rely on the words of others who have seen.

PS:

In due time, Boris... So many questions, so little time. It might help if you turn your TV on... :)

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 10, 1999).]

truestory

11-10-99, 05:33 PM

JMitch,

Actually, I have read about "new age stuff". And yes, although the aliens were of solid physical form, they spoke with me telepathically. One of the things that they instructed me to do was to lie about my experience with them. I did not do what they asked because, even at the age of five, I knew it was wrong. Religious or not, I think that most of us probably grew up in households where we were taught not to lie to our parents?

A few years ago, God appeared to me and instructed me to spread the word. Contrary to what you insist about a previous religious bias, as I have stated before, I was not "religious" prior to this experience. Yes, over the years, I had various unsolicited experiences with what some consider to be paranormal. I had various revealing premonitions and warnings and I even had my mother's spirit manifest itself to me in a translucent, physical form which I could see. These experiences did show me evidence of an afterlife, however, I did not necessarily associate these experiences with God. Like many, I had questions, but I just accepted my experiences and went on with my usually mundane life. As of a few years ago, I was actually apathetic about the existence/non-existence of God and, although I had heard about it, I had never read the Bible. It was only after this particular communication did I take the path of studying and following the life and teachings (the word) of Jesus Christ.

As I said, I was sightseeing in New York City. All of a sudden, there came a physical force sending excruciating pain through my body. I was getting the message that there was "something" that wanted me to move away from my physical location. I also quickly sensed that the "something" was not good (and I never did like bullies) so I stood my ground. Next, a multitude of horrible, SCREAMING spirits flew at and by my head, in what I sensed was another attempt to get me to move from that spot. I sensed that something good was going to happen which these spirits did not want me to see. Again, I stood my ground. After what seemed forever (but it was actually only about ten to twenty seconds), the pain, the chaos, the screaming and the "bad" spirits disappeared. I had a clarity of vision and I was engulfed with a feeling of peace when the spirit of a woman manifested itself to me (again, translucent) in a manner that I could see. With mouth moving (not that it should make much difference), the woman said, "Behold, the Father." Next, the spirit of an ancient male manifested itself to me in the same manner. I immediately "knew" that it was God, "The Father," before the message was even given. The message itself confirmed what I already knew to be true. When God, the Father said, "Behold, the Son," the spirit of an infant was also manifested in the same manner. The message was clear, pure and loving and I "knew" the Son to be Jesus Christ... "Through Him, all good things will come."

After this communication, as I said, I started studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. It is no coincidence that the message I received was reiterated throughout Biblical history and during the life of Jesus Christ. The magnificence of the message and our God who sent it cannot be denied.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 10, 1999).]

Lori

11-10-99, 06:59 PM

God will not and can not offer up another Saviour. He is not the author of confusion. If He were to offer another Saviour, then all of us who read and follow the Bible would be inclined to think this person was the Antichrist. Which he will be. Watch. The master teacher, with support from the aliens. The new age teachings that I've read ALL about are the one-world religion of the end times that the Antichrist and the aliens will foster. The reason that new agers can get into astral projection and telepathy and all else is because these spiritual laws actually exist. They never deny that, they can't, or they would be known to be fraudulent. All they do is take the laws that God made, and do exist, and attribute them to themselves, or to ourselves. The number of the beast is the number of man.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

666

11-11-99, 02:08 AM

My T.V. was on but all I got was snow. Why didn't he ever talk me when I was willing?

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited November 10, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited November 10, 1999).]

Flash

11-11-99, 03:10 AM

Lori,
Ok... let's have it. I want to know how you know that you are not deceived? I am being serious here..very serious. How do you know that God of the Bible is who it says he is?
How do you know that this antichrist is the master teacher which will deceive all? If
Satan's goal is to deceive people all for the sake of them going to hell..why doesn't he just have all the non-believers killed
right away. I mean..the bible says if one has not accepted Jesus as their Lord then they will go to hell..basically. So, why go through all this trouble of having the aliens to deceive the non-believers? You say the rapture will happen..that is when the christians will be taken off this planet..right? Well, that would leave only
non-believers..so if they would die instantly..then all will go to hell.
It just doesn't make sense... see what I am trying to say?

JMitch

11-11-99, 03:27 AM

Truestory,

I did not do what they
asked because, even at the age of five, I knew it was wrong. Religious or not, I think
that most of us probably grew up in households where we were taught not to lie to
our parents?

In my original post, I tried not to imply a connection with God to aliens from your abduction. In fact, I didn't. You did. ;) No need to defend something I haven't brought up.

Next, the spirit of an ancient male manifested itself
to me in the same manner. I immediately "knew" that it was God, "The Father,"
before the message was even given. The message itself confirmed what I already
knew to be true. When God, the Father said, "Behold, the Son," the spirit of an infant
was also manifested in the same manner. The message was clear, pure and loving
and I "knew" the Son to be Jesus Christ... "Through Him, all good things will come."

Truestory, I specifically asked you to offer something else as a rationale. If you don't want to use that brain of yours, I'm certainly not going to pound the keys trying to make you.

Like it or not, you have accepted these apparitions (the positive ones) to be God without testing them. And as the bible says to test spirits, you haven't. I know that in your shoes I would be on my knees praying as well. But you're guilty of the fallacy we are all taught in college logic classes called appeal to authority. That; we both know of. As an outsider, I'm only trying to get you to think for a minute. And please note that questioning and denying are not the same.

If there's ever anything you'd like to ask me in these forums to counter my own beliefs, please do so. I enjoy being humbled. But in the meantime, my question stands.

truestory

11-11-99, 07:34 AM

Boris,

One reason that I believe that God has communicated with humans from the beginning is that God has defined a relationship with man, from the beginning, throughout recorded Biblical history.

A second reason is that I have personally shared in this relationship.

A third reason is that there is evidence of man's spiritual nature and belief in an afterlife and heaven prior to God's covenant with man concerning a savior.

In the areas of Latvia and Lithuania, for example, archeologists have found the dwelling sites established 11-12 thousand years ago by Paleolithic man. Although art-finds from this period are rare, there are some which reflect the spiritual world of the ancient Paleolithic Age. For example, heaven is shown as an extension of earth with animals inhabiting the stars. Burial grounds from the Paleolithic Age have also survived. The fact that these ancient people were found to be buried together, with their clothes, decorations and arms, witnesses their belief in an afterlife.

This was approximately 8,000 years before God's covenant with Moses concerning a savior.

truestory

11-11-99, 08:40 AM

JMitch,

You actually think I'm going to respond to your latest behavior? Think again, bro.

JMitch

11-11-99, 09:12 PM

truestory-

No, I didn't really expect you to respond. Asking you nicely has proven to be totally pointless. My second post was more to show how stubborn you are being. This really has little to do with "my behavior"(sorry Mom!)

But really though, It's your life and not my business...enjoy.

[This message has been edited by JMitch (edited November 11, 1999).]

Boris

11-12-99, 08:57 AM

truestory,

Actually, I've been involved in rather a bloody scrap about "evidence for God" on this board with someone called Dumaurier last summer. The poor guy probably left because he coldn't take it any more. So I warn you, tread lightly. ;)

I will understand if the justification you find for your beliefs is not nearly as important as the beliefs themselves. Yet, I just love pointing out to people that they have no basis whatsoever in their religious doctrine. The whole rationality vs. irrationality angle makes for quite a home field advantage...

<hr>

One reason that I believe that God has communicated with humans from the beginning is that God has defined a relationship with man, from the beginning, throughout recorded Biblical history.

This is unclear. What do you mean by "defined a relationship"? Are you referring to the "definition" present in the Bible? In that case, you are arguing circularly. Since I'm doubting the very fact that God ever communicated with humans, it doesn't do much good to refer to the Bible, since you end up assuming the very result in question. On the other hand, if one indeed accepts the evolutionary story of humankind's emergence, there's no relationship with God inherent in it; just "simple" genetic games. From yet another perspective, given your assumption how do you account for the pre-judaic religions (the Egyptian, the Hellenic, the Druid, etc.)? What about pre-biblical history? So, I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say here.

A second reason is that I have personally shared in this relationship.

This may sound presumptious or even patronizing, but it needs to be said. You are most likely wrong in your interpretation of whatever experiences you had. Humans are atrociously bad at interpreting novel situations, or their own internal states. So forgive me when I say that your testimony carries absolutely no weight. You are not an impartial, nor an objective, not an independent, nor even a reliable, observer. Much less are you a reliable interpreter.

Your testimony would carry more weight if at least we all had the same reference point. I.e. if we all had similar experiences, and could at least relate to what you are talking about. Unfortunately, even that is not the case. So sorry, but personal testimony simply does not cut it any way you slice.

A third reason is that there is evidence of man's spiritual nature and belief in an afterlife and heaven prior to God's covenant with man concerning a savior.

This is the fun part. You are claiming that a universal belief in a spiritual realm is indicative of that realm's actual existence. Not good. Not good at all. To brightly illuminate your fallacy, consider another universal belief that turned out to be false: that the earth is stationary in an absolute sense. Not only does the Earth move about on its various orbits, but it also spins about its own axis. Yet, they all used to firmly believe otherwise. Examples like this are too numerous to mention, and even too numerous for me to think of them all.

So... Is the belief in spirituality an indication of spirituality, or merely another faulty anscient theory? As I've mentioned elsewhere, humans are notoriously apt to anthropomorphize absolutely everything they come in contact with. This can actually be viewed as an evolutionary trait, since it seems to be a natural extension of the assumption of other minds. (The other minds problem is a notorious philosophical conundrum: how do you know that anyone other than yourself has a mind? In an even more extreme solipsistic version, how do you even know anything except yourself even exists?) We seem to just naturally assume that other humans have minds akin to our own. Unfortunately, we don't stop there and proceed to assume that absolutely everything has a mind. You find this simple animistic assumption at the core of most "primitive", and certainly all "pagan" religions. As you can see, it is rather easily explained by an obvious failure of our inherent "theories", with no need for divine communication.

Now, if we are to realize that animism is a natural outgrowth of the human mind, it is easy to see how mystical universal gods are a similarly natural outgrowth. After all, many mystical universal events do occur (e.g. change of seasons, astronomical phenomena, volcano eruptions, etc). So if one is to attribute a mind to each of those phenomena, one ends up with somewhat abstract and mysterious gods of nature. This is also fairly common to all "primal" human cultures, and it is so natural that I am convinced it could never fail to arise in any newly-isolated population of initially naiive individuals.

Now, once you've got gods of nature, it is not too big of a leap to eventually look at the universe as a whole, and postulate a single God-in-charge-who-created-it-all-in-the-first-place. For Greeks, it was Zeus, Egyptians, Hindus, and many others have their own primary Gods. The next step taken by judaism is to discard all the "lesser" gods and just believe in the master God.

As you can see, there is nothing unnatural or mysterious about this chain of thought. In fact, I can't see how it could go any other way. And, we see plenty of evidence for this process, as even now there are societies all over the world, whose cultural/religious heritage occupies one of the stages in the "ladder" I proposed. Most obviously, this mundane explanation requires no divine communication. In fact, it casts all religions merely as bad theories at the outset, getting progressively worse with time.

As to the afterlife, perhaps it's too obvious a thing to even wander about. In fact, it is hard to conceive of one's own inexistence. It is actually impossible to "imagine" it, as long as one actually exists and is conscious of oneself. Thus, a rather simplistic conclusion that one's existence, once began, will go on forever. Yet another anscient line of thought, so simplistic, and so belonging with all the other anscient fallacies that have been exposed as humanity's knowledge progresses.

So... Nothing you cite constitues evidence for God or communication therewith. In fact, there is no evidence! There is only wishful and rather selective interpretation.

On the other hand, my questions are much more pointed than you seem to have assumed. I question specifically the judaic God, the Jehovah. While the overall pattern of human cultures spanning the spectrum from animism to monotheism is consistent, the individual religions are not. And, if one assumes the anthropological evolution I briefly sketched above, no two distinctly originating religions in the world could actually be expected to closely resemble each other! Which means that the variety and uniqueness of religions in the world argues strongly for my "bad theory" explanation. If, on the other hand, all religions of the world, even if they arose independently within isolated populations, were highly alike -- then we would have evidence for divine communication (or otherwise, high dependency of thought on genetics). As it stands, there is precisely none of such evidence present. Which strongly argues against God's communication with any significant fraction of humans at any moment. (And, if you tie God's communication with God's existence, the above strongly argues against God's very existence as well.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.