An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[madaz]

But you think the parts about genocide are correct?

Only in the same sense that the accounts of Mickey Mouse being an anti hero are correct. His actual existence is irrelevant.

 

[Michael]

Only in the same sense that the accounts of Mickey Mouse being an anti hero are correct. His actual existence is irrelevant.

MATTHEW CHAPTER 5

Ok, so tell me where you get the idea that God is some sort of "anti-hero" for me based on some *relevant* texts:


The Sermon on the Mount
Matthew 5-7

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
The Beatitudes
Matthew Chapter 5 : 1

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

[madaz]

Ok, so tell me where you get the idea that God is some sort of "anti-hero" for me based on some *relevant* text

I consider the scripture from the Bible to be *relevant* text, so I did that, and in Post#600 you agreed with me.

Then you later admitted to ignoring parts of the Bible.

I could just as easily "smokescreen" you with good accounts of Mickey Mouse and ask you to point out the evidence of him being an anti-hero. But I wouldn't insult your intelligence.

Anyway, it's obviously pointless for me to argue with a Christian about accounts in the Bible when the said Christian ignores certain accounts from "Gods word".

 

[Michael]

I consider the scripture from the Bible to be *relevant* text, so I did that, and in Post#600 you agreed with me.

Then you later admitted to ignoring parts of the Bible.

I could just as easily "smokescreen" you with good accounts of Mickey Mouse and ask you to point out the evidence of him being an anti-hero. But I wouldn't insult your intelligence.

Anyway, it's obviously pointless for me to argue with a Christian about accounts in the Bible when the said Christian ignores certain accounts from "Gods word".

There's quite an irony in being "preached at" about the "value of scripture" by a guy that rejects every single claim in that book.

Apparently you have not read that book all that well because John makes it very clear that *Jesus Christ* is the "Living Word of God", not some lifeless book.

I'm not "ignoring" anything technically, I'm simply *rejecting* claims that do not square with the teachings of Jesus. Every Christian does that in their own subjective way.

You ultimately will have to admit that your "argument" depends on the person at the other end of the conversation *agreeing* to the concept of Biblical infallibility for your argument to hold any water. The problem in this particular case is that you never bothered to *ask* me if that particular belief system even *applied* to me personally, before you just *assumed* it to be true. You then got all bent out of shape over the fact that I wouldn't agree to your personal *slant* on how the Bible should be "interpreted", and specifically I personally *reject* any concept of idol worship that involves replacing the *real* 'Word of God' with a lifeless book.

For future reference you could avoid a lot of unnecessary confusion by *asking* the individual if they subscribe to the concept of Biblical infallibility *before* you attempt to "spring your trap" on them.

 

[madaz]

There's quite an irony in being "preached at" about the "value of scripture" by a guy that rejects every single claim in that book.

Apparently you have not read that book all that well because John makes it very clear that *Jesus Christ* is the "Living Word of God", not some lifeless book.

I'm not "ignoring" anything technically, I'm simply *rejecting* claims that do not square with the teachings of Jesus. Every Christian does that in their own subjective way.

You ultimately will have to admit that your "argument" depends on the person at the other end of the conversation *agreeing* to the concept of Biblical infallibility for your argument to hold any water. The problem in this particular case is that you never bothered to *ask* me if that particular belief system even *applied* to me personally, before you just *assumed* it to be true. You then got all bent out of shape over the fact that I wouldn't agree to your personal *slant* on how the Bible should be "interpreted", and specifically I personally *reject* any concept of idol worship that involves replacing the *real* 'Word of God' with a lifeless book.

For future reference you could avoid a lot of unnecessary confusion by *asking* the individual if they subscribe to the concept of Biblical infallibility *before* you attempt to "spring your trap" on them.

Michael if anyone else points out scripture that doesn't suit your own personal god concept you simply deal with it using denial. You have fabricated your own religion, a "Michaelinity" as it were, one where you choose to ignore parts of scripture that you don't like and accept parts of scripture that you do like. You justify this "picking and choosing" behaviour by wrongly renaming it to "personal/subjective interpretation". This method of justifying your cognitive dissonance is your problem not mine.

 

[Michael]

Michael if anyone else points out scripture that doesn't suit your own personal god concept you simply deal with it using denial.

Excuse me? You're the one living in absolute and pure denial if you think that "love your enemy" is the same moral teaching as (equal to) genocide.

You have fabricated your own religion, a "Michaelinity" as it were, one where you choose to ignore parts of scripture that you don't like and accept parts of scripture that you do like.

So you're *only now* discovering that you can't pigeonhole every Christian into *exactly the same* belief system? You don't think you're not doing *exactly the same thing* in terms of your "picking and choosing"?

You justify this "picking and choosing" behaviour by wrongly renaming it to "personal/subjective interpretation".

Ever notice how many different denominations there are of "Christianity"? Why do you suppose there isn't just one Catholic religion?

This method of justifying your cognitive dissonance is your problem not mine.

You're a little fast on the cognitive dissonance claim particularly since you can't rationally take that quote from Matthew 5 and justify genocide from it, can you?

It seems to me your just all uptight because your "one size fits all" one trick pony routine doesn't work on *every Christian*. You're therefore more than eager to *demand* that I personally accept the belief system that genocide is the same moral belief system as "love your enemy". Otherwise you apparently intend to berate me for not living up to your personal expectations about what it means to be a "Christian".

You and I will both answer to Christ at the end of our lives IMO, but only one of us openly and publicly honors his teachings. You have no right to judge me in any way, shape or form. Get over yourself already.

 

[madaz]

Excuse me? You're the one living in absolute and pure denial if you think that "love your enemy" is the same moral teaching as (equal to) genocide.

You are lying again Michael, I never said that.

So you're *only now* discovering that you can't pigeonhole every Christian into *exactly the same* belief system? You don't think you're not doing *exactly the same thing* in terms of your "picking and choosing"?.

What am I "picking and choosing"?

Ever notice how many different denominations there are of "Christianity"? Why do you suppose there isn't just one Catholic religion?.

What is your point?

You're a little fast on the cognitive dissonance claim particularly since you can't rationally take that quote from Matthew 5 and justify genocide from it, can you?.

Please explain where/how there could be cognitive dissonance with Matt 5?

It seems to me your just all uptight because your "one size fits all" one trick pony routine doesn't work on *every Christian*. You're therefore more than eager to *demand* that I personally accept the belief system that genocide is the same moral belief system as "love your enemy". Otherwise you apparently intend to berate me for not living up to your personal expectations about what it means to be a "Christian".

That's just not true Michael. Your making things up again.

You and I will both answer to Christ at the end of our lives IMO, but only one of us openly and publicly honors his teachings. You have no right to judge me in any way, shape or form. Get over yourself already.

Yet do you constantly judge me?

 

[Michael]

You are lying again Michael, I never said that.

Why do you go all personal at the drop of a hat like that? If we're going to play the liar game, you lied when you said that *I* was in denial of anything. I don't deny the content of the book. I simply don't subscribe to the concept of Biblical infallibility and neither do you! Apparently you intend however to simply *berate* me for believing *more* of the book than you do! You can't justify genocide based on the teaching of Jesus and you know it!

What am I "picking and choosing"?

You're choosing to believe genocide is the will of God apparently.

What is your point?

My point is that you can't square the actions of the OT based on the teachings of Jesus anymore than I can.

Please explain where/how there could be cognitive dissonance with Matt 5?

You've yet to demonstrate how Matthew 5 is congruent with genocide. Until you do, you're making up your brand of "god" just like everyone else.

That's just not true Michael. Your making things up again.

You've been *consistently* "making up" beliefs about God which I do not hold, then *blaming* me because *I* don't agree with you.

Yet do you constantly judge me?

Why not? You're the one accusing me of denial, and claiming to read my personal thoughts about God. You've been judging me for not agreeing with *your* interpretation of a specific book. You've been *judging* me since day one while playing the role of the judge of God as well. What makes you so special?

 

[madaz]

Why do you go all personal at the drop of a hat like that? If we're going to play the
liar game, you lied when you said that *I* was in denial of anything. I don't deny the content of the book. I
simply don't subscribe to the concept of Biblical infallibility and neither do you! Apparently you intend
however to simply *berate* me for believing *more* of the book than you do! You can't justify genocide based
on the teaching of Jesus and you know it!

Here we go again, your asking me to justify why Donald Duck is guilty of Mickey Mouse's crime?
You know darn well I never cited Donald Duck (Jesus). I dont berate you believing, I berate you for calling OT scripture *madaz's interpretation*.

You're choosing to believe genocide is the will of God apparently.

No I am not, the slaughter of the canaanites at the command of God is not a belief of mine, it is an event depicted in your Holy Bible. An event you admittedly choose to ignore.

My point is that you can't square the actions of the OT based on the teachings of
Jesus anymore than I can.

And why would I? The teachings of Jesus are entirely irrelevant. So your point is not only pointless, it is a diversion tactic you constantly use.

You've yet to demonstrate how Matthew 5 is congruent with genocide. Until you do,
you're making up your brand of "god" just like everyone else.

Why would I? That would be like me choosing a recent episode of Mickey Mouse and asking you to demonstrate how this recent episode is congruent with Mickey Mouse being an anti-hero. You simply can't and I wouldn't insult your intelligence by asking you to do so. So please respect mine.

Anyway you failed to explain to me how there could be any cognitive dissonance with Matt 5?

You've been *consistently* "making up" beliefs about God which I do not hold, then
*blaming* me because *I* don't agree with you.

I never made up any beliefs about God, nor did I blame you for not agreeing with said beliefs, that is simply
not true. I didn't even recite any passages about God. I simply refered you to the location in the Holy Bible.

Why not?

Straight after you tell me that I have no right to judge you in any way, shape or form I ask you why you judge me and you answer-

Why not?

Michael you being hypocritical.

You're the one accusing me of denial,<snip>?

Because you are in denial. So in denial you are in denial of your denial.

<snip> and claiming to read my personal thoughts about God.

That is not true.

You've been judging me for not agreeing with *your* interpretation of a specific
book.

I've been judging you for blatantly ignoring parts of the Bible, which you confessed you do. This has nothing
to do with my interpretation of "a specific book".

Why do you keep referring to the Holy Bible as just a book. Are you distancing yourself from it?

You've been *judging* me since day one while playing the role of the judge of God as well. What makes you so special?

What makes you so special to tell me that I have "no right to judge you in any way, shape or form" but you
see no reason why you cant Judge me?
I do have the right to judge you, you equally have the right to judge me also. I have no objection to that.
Anyway you claiming that you "don't subscribe to the concept of Biblical infallibility is just your way
of justifying your chronic denial.

Regardless, you agreed with me regarding point 3 in post #600, so I have already made my point.

 

[Michael]

Here we go again, your asking me to justify why Donald Duck is guilty of Mickey Mouse's crime?
You know darn well I never cited Donald Duck (Jesus). I dont berate you believing, I berate you for calling OT scripture *madaz's interpretation*.

You've never demonstrated that your "interpretation" is any better than mine. You *assume* Moses told the truth. It's not even your *actual* interpretation however. In *reality* you don't believe that God even exists, let alone that he orders genocide. You're not even being consistent in the way you apply anything, nor are you espousing what you *really* believe, but you're insisting that I agree with a claim that you personally believe is *false* to begin with! What a head trip you're being on this point. You've never demonstrated that God orders genocide, and in fact you personally don't even believe that statement to be true in the first place!

No I am not, the slaughter of the canaanites at the command of God is not a belief of mine,

Apparently it is because you keep claiming God did it. It's certainly not a belief that *I* hold, so it must be *your* belief, not mine.

it is an event depicted in your Holy Bible. An event you admittedly choose to ignore.

You're ignoring it too! You don't believe God exists, so you do not *actually* believe God orders genocide. Do you automatically believe everything you read in every book you read? So what if humans blamed God for their evil deeds? How is that God's fault?

And why would I? The teachings of Jesus are entirely irrelevant. So your point is not only pointless, it is a diversion tactic you constantly use.

Boloney. The *only* parts of that particular book that *I personally* put any faith in are the words attributed to Christ. You won't touch them, but nothing else in that book is even relevant to me personally. I don't put any value in those OT stories that you keep harping on in the first place.

Why would I? That would be like me choosing a recent episode of Mickey Mouse and asking you to demonstrate how this recent episode is congruent with Mickey Mouse being an anti-hero. You simply can't and I wouldn't insult your intelligence by asking you to do so. So please respect mine.

You are personally insulting *both* of our intelligence at this point since you don't believe the claims that you are making in the first place! You don't believe in God, so you can't possibly believe that God orders humans to do anything, let alone orders them to commit genocide. Your entire *game* here is to *ignore* my beliefs entirely, while you burn some imaginary strawman Christian who apparently must believe in Biblical infallibility.

Anyway you failed to explain to me how there could be any cognitive dissonance with Matt 5?

Loving your enemy doesn't jive with the notion of slaughtering them wholesale and you know it.

I never made up any beliefs about God, nor did I blame you for not agreeing with said beliefs,

Yes you do. You *interpreted* a book, in this case the Bible. You *insist* that the OT characters were somehow reliable witnesses. I hold none of those beliefs to be true. Those are *your* beliefs, not mine.

that is simply not true. I didn't even recite any passages about God. I simply refered you to the location in the Holy Bible.

You did *exactly* what I said you would do the first time. You fixated on the OT, and you ignored the NT entirely just as I assumed. You didn't actually cite an actual passage, nor did you explain why you simply *assumed* it was true!

Straight after you tell me that I have no right to judge you in any way, shape or form I ask you why you judge me and you answer-

Michael you being hypocritical.

PFFT! The only hypocritical claim is yours. You don't believe in God. You don't believe that God orders genocide either. You're *making it up* and then *stuffing it down my throat*. You then got all upset and nasty because I wouldn't *eat your nonsense*. That's the hypocritical part.

Because you are in denial. So in denial you are in denial of your denial.

You are the one living in denial of *my personal* beliefs. You're the one living in denial of the fact that I"m not obligated to believe everything I read. You're the one in denial of the fact that your game doesn't work on me because I don't believe in Biblical infallibility. You're in denial of the fact that I have a *right to my own beliefs about Christ* regardless of what you think.

That is not true.

It's true. You're just upset because you've got only one "trick" to work with apparently, and it doesn't apply to me. You're now intent on trying to stuff it down my throat anyway, regardless of what I *actually* believe.

I've been judging you for blatantly ignoring parts of the Bible, which you confessed you do.

I confessed to rejecting Moses' claims, just like you did! You're blatantly ignoring Matthew 5 too, and you *cannot* justify genocide based on the teachings of Christ. You're effectively blaming me for doing *exactly* what you did with respect to Moses's statements.

This has nothing
to do with my interpretation of "a specific book".

Yes is does. You read the OT. Even though you personally believe exactly none of it, you're insisting that I must believe it to be true! Why?

Why do you keep referring to the Holy Bible as just a book. Are you distancing yourself from it?

Not at all. I appreciate the texts associated with Jesus. I'm not emotionally or personally attached to any of the rest of it. I've made that abundantly clear to you. FYI there are also parts of the Qur'an and the Bagavad Gita that I like and agree with too. That doesn't mean I believe everything written in either of those two books either.

What makes you so special to tell me that I have "no right to judge you in any way, shape or form"

You aren't a "Christian" so you have no right to judge me as one.

but you
see no reason why you cant Judge me?

If you going to call me a liar every day, I'm going to point out where you're making your error. I'll judge that action of yours when you choose to *misrepresent* my statements and *ignore* my statements and then attempt to stuff *your* beliefs down my throat. I will not accept that irrational behavior.

I do have the right to judge you, you equally have the right to judge me also. I have no objection to that.
Anyway you claiming that you "don't subscribe to the concept of Biblical infallibility is just your way
of justifying your chronic denial.

Do you have *any* idea how ironic that sounds coming from a guy that reject the whole text? You give *yourself* the right to reject *the whole* thing if you like, but no "Christian" apparently has that right in your book.

Regardless, you agreed with me regarding point 3 in post #600, so I have already made my point.

The only point you're making is that your behaviors are based on pure bigotry. You haven't allowed me to be a "unique individual" with "unique" beliefs. Instead you've tried to apply your "one size fits all" argument to me personally without asking me any questions before hand, and then you keep berating me for not living up to *your personal* standards of what it supposedly means (to you) to be a "Christian".

Your attitude is pure bigotry on a stick.

 

[madaz]

Michael you sure have got your knickers in a twist this time havent you? I must have touched on some uncomfortable truths, almost your entire post is an attack on my character. This is an obvious sign you have some insecurities.

It seems obvious to me that you live inside a bubble that you call reality. Anything that contradicts your "reality" you perceive as a theat.You deal with these "threats" by ignoring/denying and retaliating.

This is not the type of behaviour I would expect from an authentic follower of Jesus teachings.

Lighten up.

 

[Michael]

Michael you sure have got your knickers in a twist this time havent you? I must have touched on some uncomfortable truths, almost your entire post is an attack on my character. This is an obvious sign you have some insecurities.

It seems obvious to me that you live inside a bubble that you call reality. Anything that contradicts your "reality" you perceive as a theat.You deal with these "threats" by ignoring/denying and retaliating.

This is not the type of behaviour I would expect from an authentic follower of Jesus teachings.

Lighten up.

I'll be happy to.

FYI, it would definitely help me to stay "lightened up" if you would cease and desist from calling me a liar, accusing me of denial, and from *insisting* that you can pigeonhole every Christian the way you're trying to do with that Biblical infallibility gig.

FYI, I gave up my "discomforts" in terms of embracing my Christianity many decades ago. IMO the only one I'm going to answer to is Christ himself, and I'll be more than happy to meet him *without* accusing him of ordering humans to commit genocide against other humans.

IMO the whole problem began when you insisted on assigning me personal ownership of some "deity" that you personally "interpret" from the Bible. You compounded the problem by insisting that I fit personally some stereotype that you call a "Christian", by trying to berate me into submission.

I don't deny that Moses made any number of *claims* about God or that *Moses* committed genocide. Like you however I *doubt some of Moses' statements*. I simply do not discount *all* of them as you do. That's really the only difference between us. I'm not obligated to live up to your personal expectations of what it means to be a "Christian" with respect to what I *must* believe in terms of the contents of that book. Like you, I'm free to interpret it as I see fit, and like you I *do reject* some statements made in that book.

 

[madaz]

Michael as far as justifying (my point 3) I am satisfied, so let us move on to what you are interested in namely Jesus Christ. If that is ok with you?

Now you have inferred numerously that it is wrong of me to just arbitrarily accept anything that is written in the Bible as actually being true.

So therefore I will assume you have a method of dicerning the truth from fiction.

Since you are a self described "Jesus follower" I will presume you have derived most of your knowledge of Jesus from the gospels of Mark, Matt, Luke and John.

So I will also presume you accept the accounts of Jesus as depicted in these four gospels as truth am I correct?

 

[Michael]

Michael as far as justifying (my point 3) I am satisfied, so let us move on to what you are interested in namely Jesus Christ. If that is ok with you?

Now you have inferred numerously that it is wrong of me to just arbitrarily accept anything that is written in the Bible as actually being true.

So therefore I will assume you have a method of dicerning the truth from fiction.

Since you are a self described "Jesus follower" I will presume you have derived most of your knowledge of Jesus from the gospels of Mark, Matt, Luke and John.

So I will also presume you accept the accounts of Jesus as depicted in these four gospels as truth am I correct?

I have no idea why you feel satisfied about demonstrating your claim, but in terms of of focusing on the text attributed to Jesus, that does seem like a step in the right direction from my vantage point.

 

[madaz]

I have no idea why you feel satisfied about demonstrating your claim,<snip>

Translation- I am in complete denial of (#600) where I agreed with madaz that God as depicted in scripture could not be all-benevolent.

<snip>but in terms of of focusing on the text attributed to Jesus, that does seem like a step in the right direction from my vantage point.

Translation-I would rather discuss Jesus as depicted in scripture because I dont like focusing on God as depicted in scripture.

 

[Michael]

Translation- I am in complete denial of (#600) where I agreed with madaz that God as depicted in scripture could not be all-benevolent.

Er, does this mean that you've dropped that irrational need you have to assign me personal ownership of of "Biblical infallibility god"?

The "denial" claims aren't helping your case, particularly since you've been trying to associate my personal beliefs with the concept of Biblical infallibility. Does this mean you're in denial of the fact that I don't subscribe to that point of view, or are you still clinging to that claim?

Translation-I would rather discuss Jesus as depicted in scripture because I dont like focusing on God as depicted in scripture.

Translation: As I told you originally, I don't put any great value on the OT, I don't subscribe to the concept of Biblical infallibility, and I don't believe Moses committed genocide because it was the will of God anymore than you do.

You really are making this conversation unnecessarily personal and unnecessarily complicated when you talk about denial, yet you've never admitted to the fact that I have *never* ascribed to the concept of what amounts to idol worship of some particular text you selected.

If you *ever* finally get around to talking about *my* beliefs about God as it relates to that particular book, you will need to start quoting the "Living Word" of God from that book.

 

[Inan3]

Michael you sure have got your knickers in a twist this time havent you? I must have touched on some uncomfortable truths, almost your entire post is an attack on my character. This is an obvious sign you have some insecurities.

It seems obvious to me that you live inside a bubble that you call reality. Anything that contradicts your "reality" you perceive as a theat.You deal with these "threats" by ignoring/denying and retaliating.

This is not the type of behaviour I would expect from an authentic follower of Jesus teachings.

Lighten up.

What is the type of behaviour of an authentic follower of Jesus' teachings? Do you know His teachings? I'm sure not all, and especially sure you do NOT understand or comprehend them in truth because you CANNOT you are not born of God and therefore cannot understand God.

As another believer I find no fault in Michael's responses. He seems to be answering you in truth and quite obviously touching a few tender spots within your soul. You have turned to the typical atheists survival attack. When someone speaks the truth and does not back down to your rhetoric you come out swinging and the accusations fly. We know the drill. It is your same response to God. You don't like what He has to say so you shut Him down. You deny His existence but you cannot stop the truth with your methods. You only keep yourself from it.

Let God in and you will know the truth.

 

[madaz]

Michael since you believe parts of the Bible are false, why do you believe the accounts of Jesus are true?

 

[Inan3]

An Empirical Theory Of God
“In the end you will know that I am in you, you are in me and we are all one in God.”

The entire physical universe is God. The universe is alive and aware and actively involved in “creation”. Just as the electrical circuits in our physical forms give rise to awareness and consciousness in our brains, so too the macroscopic “circuits” of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale. These myriad of interlaced and interwoven circuits of energy, and quantum interaction, give rise to an awareness and consciousness far greater and more powerful than the microscopic variety of awareness found on Earth. Awareness is therefore an intrinsic feature of the universe. Its presence and expression at the microscopic level of life on Earth is a direct result of the existence of awareness at the macroscopic level.

God is the sum total of everything that exists in nature and every physical thing in the universe. We live our entire physical lives inside the body of God, sustained by the body of God. The dirt we walk on, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the chemicals of our body, the sunshine that sustains life on Earth, all of it belongs to and is a part of a living being that humans call God.

The Electrical Nature Of Living Organisms.

Scientific research into living organisms demonstrates that the intricate structures of the brain give rise to awareness. The electrical exchange of energy between neurons, the circuits of the brain create a kind of ‘quantum awareness’ that is the sum total of the thinking processes, of an organized structure, over some period of time. The various exchanges of electromagnetic energy inside the brain provide “awareness” with a place to reside and function. The unique and specific arrangement of neurons, life experiences, and current flows of each individual give rise to an individual sense of awareness, a unique sense of identity.

This rise of awareness in humans has led to experiences of God and a belief in a creator in virtually every culture on Earth. Many cultures consider nature to be “sacred’. We must ask ourselves: Why?

The Electrical Nature Of The Universe.

Scientific research into nature and cosmology demonstrates that electromagnetic energy and current flows are not only an integral part of life on Earth, they are an integral part of the functions of the Universe. From the electrical discharges we observe in our own atmosphere, to the electrical discharges we observe in the solar atmosphere, to electrical discharges that generate solar wind, to high speed “cosmic rays” all the objects in space are bathed and electromagnetic energy. The EM field permeates space and time, far beyond the boundaries our solar system, it exists everywhere we look in space. We find direct evidence of magnetic fields that indicate the flow of current in cosmic scale structures large and small.

Only in past 100 years of so have we begun to understand and appreciate the electrical nature of our universe. Kristian Birkeland was one first scientist to seriously study the Northern Lights. He surmised that these events were related to electrical processes in the Earth’s atmosphere. To prove his theory, he hiked extensively through the northern polar region to setup stations to measure the magnetic field of the Earth during solar storms. He also created extremely sophisticated empirical experiments, with various control mechanisms to test various aspects of his theories. Over time he and his friends gathered extensive evidence of the changing magnetic field during solar storms that gave rise to aurora. In his terella experiments he demonstrated that aurora were caused by the bombardment of Earth with high speed charged particles. In his experiments, he bombarded a metallic sphere in an evacuated chamber with a cathode ray. In this manner he was able to replicate the aurora around the poles of his sphere.

Naturally his next question turned to where these high speed charged particles originated, and he then created a series of ‘solar” experiments by turning his metallic sphere into a cathode and giving it a plasma atmosphere. In these cathode sphere experiments he was able to replicate and predict many important solar system phenomenon. He was the first scientist to predict high speed solar wind. His experiments also predicted high energy coronal loop discharges, high speed polar “jets” and many solar features not observed until modern satellites made direct observations of the solar atmosphere beyond the atmosphere of Earth.

Irving Langmuir was one of the first scientists after Birkeland to work with “plasma” in controlled laboratory conditions. Langmuir was in fact responsible for giving the forth state of matter its scientific name. As a biologist, he was inclined to compare the behaviors of ionic plasma to the plasma of human blood. He saw that plasma isolated itself from charged surfaces via double layers, and he saw many similarities between the behaviors of plasma and plasma in the blood, hence the name he came up with to describe the forth state of matter.

In the 1940 and 50’s, Dr. Charles Bruce documented and demonstrated a link between “electric discharge theory” and many observed phenomenon in the solar atmosphere and in space.

Nobel Prize winning author, Dr. Hannes Alfven wrote extensively about the circuits and electromagnetic processes in solar activities and in space, culminating in a book called “Cosmic Plasma” that describes these processes via magneto hydrodynamic theory, or MHD theory.

All of these predictions of electrical discharges in space have been verified by modern satellite imagery.

Like our brains, the release of energy of the sun at the highest energy wavelengths is not constant, rather it is variable and prone to frequent changes over time. It exhibits 11 year “cycles’ of energy release patterns, the next major cycle to peak in 2012-2013. Particularly during active phases the sun’s energy exchanges with the heliosphere become highly variable and electrically active.

As we look further out into space we find that all galaxies have strong electromagnetic fields. We find evidence of “Birkeland currents” in very large structures over vast distances of spacetime.

All of these pieces of empirical evidence point us toward the possibility that everything around us is a part of a living being called God.

By Michael

 

[Michael]

Michael since you believe parts of the Bible are false, why do you believe the accounts of Jesus are true?

You still seem to be a bit confused as to my position. It's not so much the historical content of the Bible that I doubt. For the most part it's the *claims* of the various characters that I may or may not believe to be true, or to *actually* be representative of "God's will".

As Jesus stated, the Holy Spirit does indeed "testify" for the authenticity of the teachings of Jesus in my experience. The Holy Spirit has taught me many times about the value of love, forgiveness, ego death, and selfless services to others for instance, but it's never asked me to commit genocide.