So I don't believe in God...

[Jetavan]

   http://nuwaubian-hotep.net/docs/yah/hebrew_egyptian_moon_god_yah.jpg

I know the Nuwaubians. You might want to find another source.

 

[JamesR]

You would have to then assume 50/50 that the Pixie fairy lords are the true GODS and that yours is a false idol...

It is a 50/50 chance. Essentially every premise can be reduced to 50/50. Either A is true or A is not true.

Here you are now running the risk of eternal torture of the Pixie lords if you continue to worship this false Idol.

Your point? Appeal to emotion much?

However, everyone knows the Pascal wager is essentially nonsense

Only when you isolate it, view it apart from its context which is clearly given in Pensees and try to act all big and bad mocking it in an atheist echo chamber forum online.

 

[orthonorm]

It is a 50/50 chance. Essentially every premise can be reduced to 50/50. Either A is true or A is not true.

James stop this please.

I don't "believe in" the law of the excluded middle, but that doesn't matter here.

James in a standard deck of playing cards, what are the odds of you picking the ace of spades blindly?

You will either pick it or you won't, right?

You can't both pick and not pick it?

But would you give me even odds on your not choosing it?

To be clear, would you let me bet that money you are saving for your laptop that you are NOT going to pick the ace of spades blindly with even odds?

If you pick it, you get $800.
If you don't, I get $800.

If you are willing to make such wagers, please let me know. Achronos will hold our money and take 10% vig on the loser, OK?

 

[Dan the Man]

EDIT: Hmm, nevermind. Don't think I want to get caught up in this.

 

[JamesR]

Wait, so you're telling me that the law of the excluded middle is fake?....,I guess I'll just leave this thread before I make an even bigger fool of myself

 

[biro]

Pascals wager is silly.. You would have to then assume 50/50 that the Pixie fairy lords are the true GODS and that yours is a false idol... Here you are now running the risk of eternal torture of the Pixie lords if you continue to worship this false Idol. However, everyone knows the Pascal wager is essentially nonsense.

Well, the Pixies are awesome. So you're right about that.

 

[Ashman618]

And not one point there is true.

Yeah, except I actually have citations and links in my posts, and in my posted articles that back me up. But I am not surprised at that blanketed statement / response. I can go much deeper into the subject btw concerning Jesus himself. But those two articles I posted are well supported and do go over the shasu, Abraham, and many other issues.. Most of you don't get how intertwined that region of the world was.. I will come back later tonight and provide a lot of information regarding the origins of the Jesus Christ and where much of that comes from.. And much of that deals with Egyptian mythology... Not entirely, but a good chunk of it does. And I am not talking about the common debunked parallels you might be thinking of as I understand very well that Christianity is a mixed mutt of various Pagan beliefs ect....

The germinated serenity returns my colonel's shirt. Fermenting, for a moment, the zoo, you can marinate the filter with a protruding habit. Still, parallel blankets match a sampling of giggling torsos.

This is an interesting thought however I would like to see some citation on this.

I would also like to point out to give the director a serpent deflector, a mudrat detector, a ribbon reflector, a cushion convector, a picture of nectar, a viral dissector, a hormone collector. Also you gotta set the gearshift to the high gear of your soul and run like an atelope, out of control.

The following link should provide accurate citation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZIV365B7aQ

 

[Nathanael]

In all truth, Christianity is essentially a mixed mutt of usurped pagan oral traditions, religions, gods, beliefs, rituals, philosophy, and culture..  It's why we can look at it and scoff at it's supposed validity even when concerning the "orthodox Church" to whom are essentially just Panentheists / pantheists using the Christian religion as a foundation for their beliefs

Well, when christianity has some "pagan" elements, that doesn't mean automatically that it used it for his religion. So you wish that the truth religion should be free from pagan elements? You can never find such a religion! The pagan culture before Christ was born, was so manifold and large, that you cannot wish: "I'll believe in God, if he gives me a religion which is free of pagan stuff!". nope. Christianity has some elements, which are similiar to pagan culture, but that doesn't mean that they inherited it.

 

[biro]

If we throw out everything we inherited from pre-Christian times, there goes the Greek alphabet. Yeah, that's going to go over really well at my parish. 

 

[sheenj]

If we throw out everything we inherited from pre-Christian times, there goes the Greek alphabet.

And the Roman alphabet as well...

 

[Nathanael]

If somebody don't believe in God he should ask himself: how should God create this world(without breaking the free will of man) so that he could believe in him.......

 

[TheJackel]

I wouldn't believe it unless I saw it with my own eyes: someone has actually made the Jehovah Witnesses look rational and well thought out.

That would be quite the Irony of a statement on this board.. However, the information I provided is cited to which includes the Hieroglyphic Dictionary.. Whether people can deal with that is up to them... But the next time you yell out Hallelujah , or Halleluyah, be sure to remember what it actually means.  However we aren't on board where anyone really cares about the facts concerning the history of the Christian religion, or realize that it is entirely of Pagan origin.. You aren't using the names El Elyon, El, or EL Shaddai for no reason, and you would have to be severely woeful in ignorance to think it's not Pagan.. But hey, you can believe whatever you want to believe.. But as one has said here, facts don't change regardless what you believe..

And I don't see anyone providing any real rebuttal, you can go look those up if you need to.  Heck here's a link concerning Mount Sinai:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13766-sinai-mount

It is evident that, long before the promulgation of the Law, Mount Sinai was one of the sacred places in which one of the local Semitic divinities had been worshiped. This is clearly indicated in Ex. iii. 5: the ground was holy, for it was Yhwh's special dwelling-place. The expression "and brought you unto myself" (Ex. xix. 4) means that Yhwh brought the Israelites to His mountain. The two names of Sinai and Horeb, meaning respectively "moon" and "sun,"

In this case giving Sin and Yah being moon gods, it's appropriate that Mount Sinai means moon Mountain..

Horeb is thought to mean glowing/heat, which seems to be a reference to the sun, while Sinai may have derived from the name of Sin, the Sumerian deity of the moon,[2][3] and thus Sinai and Horeb would be the mountain of the moon and sun, respectively.[2]

^ a b Jewish Encyclopedia, Mount Horeb
^ a b c "Mount Horeb". Jewish Encyclopedia.

Which fits pretty well with a volcano Mountain GOD even if the deities Yah and Sin were originally moon GOD's from the Egyptians and the Sumerians.  You can reference this here:

(Akkadian: Su'en, Sîn) or Nanna (Sumerian: DŠEŠ.KI, DNANNA) was the god of the moon in the Mesopotamian mythology of Akkad, Assyria and Babylonia. Nanna is a Sumerian deity, the son of Enlil and Ninlil, and became identified with Semitic Sin. The two chief seats of Nanna's/Sin's worship were Ur in the south of Mesopotamia and Harran in the north.

And there are plenty of other citations regarding Mt Sinai:

http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T4424

(mownt ssi' nay i) Mountain in the south central part of a peninsula in the northwestern end of Arabia. God made many significant revelations of Himself and His purposes to Israel there. The meaning of the name is unclear; but it probably means “shining” and was likely derived from the word sin, a Babylonian moon god. The suggestion that it means “clayey” does not in any way fit the nature of the terrain.

You add all this evidence up and it's pretty damn clear.. Even the Sinai dessert is likely named after the Sumerian moon god "Sin"  as "Sin" is entirely Sumerian in origin.. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and the Akkadians took the word Suen and transformed it into the word Sin as their favorite name for the Moon-God. As Prof. Potts pointed out, "Sin is a name essentially Sumerian in origin which had been borrowed by the Semites. "

In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon. The sun-goddess was the wife of Sin and the stars were their daughters. For example, Istar was a daughter of Sin. Sacrifices to the Moon-god are described in the Pas Shamra texts. In the Ugaritic texts, the Moon-god was sometimes called Kusuh. In Persia, as well as in Egypt, the Moon-god is depicted on wall murals and on the heads of statues. He was the Judge of men and gods. The Old Testament constantly rebuked the worship of the Moon-god (see: Deut. 4:19;17:3; II Kngs. 21:3,5; 23:5; Jer. 8:2; 19:13; Zeph. 1:5, etc.) When Israel fell into idolatry, it was usually the cult of the Moon-god. As a matter of fact, everywhere in the ancient world, the symbol of the crescent moon can be found on seal impressions, steles, pottery, amulets, clay tablets, cylinders, weights, earrings, necklaces, wall murals, etc. In Tell-el-Obeid, a copper calf was found with a crescent moon on its forehead.

And we even find the same connection in Islam:

The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day. Prof. Coon goes on to say, "Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being."

It gets much more obvious when you also note that the Isrealites worshiped the image of the Golden Calf.. To which of course, and I quote someone else here:

The golden calf was a common Near Eastern symbol of the moon god. In the Bible, we see the Israelites worshipping the golden calf during the Exodus, then next during the reign of Jeroboam, the first king of the northern Hebrew kingdom. Although few references have survived in the Bible, the moon god was clearly an important part of ancient Israelite culture.

And here:

According to the Hebrew Bible, the golden calf (עֵגֶּל הַזָהָב ‘ēggel hazâhâḇ) was an idol (a cult image) made by Aaron to satisfy the Israelites during Moses' absence, when he went up to Mount Sinai. The calf was intended to be a physical representation of the God of Israel, and therefore was doubly wrong for involving Israel in idolatry and for ascribing physicality to God.

In Hebrew, the incident is known as ḥēṭ’ ha‘ēggel (חֵטְא הַעֵגֶּל) or "The Sin of the Calf". It is first mentioned in Exodus 32:4

So its without a doubt that Yahweh originates from the Sumerian and Egyptian Moon GOD's.. And equated to Ba'al in regards to the Babylonian, and as one of the Sons of EL.. In fact we can see this directly when Yahweh is being equated to El Elyon to which is attested to Ba'al and EL of the Canaanite Pantheon.. And we know now that the Israelites and the Canaanites were the same people and that Yahwism was simply a pagan monotheistic movement intended to usurp the entire Pantheon into one GOD.. Hence the whole conflict was essentially Pagan monotheism vs Pagan Polytheism. And we can see Yahweh being equated to El Elyon quite clearly here:


From the dead sea scrolls:

   "When El Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of El. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance."

This was of course edited to what you find in the duet:

   Deuteronomy 32:8-9:

   "When the Most High (EL ELyon)(Either EL or Ba'al) divided their inheritance to the nations,
   When He separated the sons of Adam,
   He set the boundaries of the peoples
   According to the number of the children of Israel EL.
   For the LORD’s (Yahweh's) portion is His people;
   Jacob is the place of His inheritance."

I fixed it so you can see where it was edited..And is further supported by:

"son of EL" as this Ugarit Canaanite text (KTU 1.1IV 14):

Source:

   The Israelites in history and tradition Niels Peter Lemche - 1998 - 246 "Maybe also the Ugaritic passage KTU 1.1:IV:14-15 should be included in the discussion: sm . bny . yw . ilt, translated by Mark S. Smith in Simon B. Parker, ed., Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 89 "of the son of god, Yahweh."

Hence translated as: "son of EL" as this Ugarit Canaanite text (KTU 1.1IV 14) shows: sm . bny . yw . ilt: "The name of the son of god, Yahweh."

This is further supported in the Psalms:

   Psalm 82:1:

   "Ascribe to Yahweh, O sons of EL, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength."

   Psalm 89:6:

   "For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh, who among the sons of EL is like Yahweh"

And supported here as well to where Yahweh stands in a council of GODs in Psalms:

   Psalm 82

   A psalm of Asaph.

   1God presides in the great assembly;

   he gives judgment among the “gods”:

   2“How long will you defend the unjust

   and show partiality to the wicked? Selah

   3Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;

   maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

   4Rescue the weak and needy;

   deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

   5“They know nothing, they understand nothing.

   They walk about in darkness;

   all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

   6“I said, ‘You are “gods”;

   you are all sons of the Most High.’

   7But you will die like mere men;

   you will fall like every other ruler.”

   8Rise up, O God, judge the earth,

   for all the nations are your inheritance.

You can also see the Threat Yahweh makes to the assembly of GOD's in Psalms to over throw the throne and be claimed King, and the GOD MOST HIGH. And this assembly of the GOD's can still be found in Genesis 1:26 below, and during Yam's and Ba'als conflict:

   26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them crule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

And just so you know.. Israel orginally had nothing to do with "Yahweh".. Israel has to do specifically with the Canaanite GOD "EL"..

The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious usage, to refer to the biblical Kingdom of Israel or the entire Jewish nation.[27] According to the Hebrew Bible the name "Israel" was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel, Isrāʾīl; Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ Israēl; "struggle with "EL"[28])

It's not struggle with Yahweh, it's struggle with "El".. And they didn't use EL's name in generic form, and nor would they name their city using a generic name.. Even Adon is attestested to "EL"...

*In Canaanite (Ugaritic) tradition, ʾadn ilm, literally "lord of gods" is an epithet of El
* Hebrew tradition makes Adon "lord" or Adonai "my lord" an epithet of the God of Israel, depicted as the chief antagonist of "the Ba`als" in the Tanakh.

Also:

refers to El, Mardikh, Yaqar or Yarikh.[3][4] ʾAdn ʾilm (meaning "the Lord of Gods") also appears in the texts to refer to El, and when Yam is described in at being at the height of his power, he is proclaimed ʾadn or "lord (of the gods).[4]

Ugarit family households were modeled after the structure of the divine world, each headed by an ʾadn (meaning in this context "master" or "patron"). Generally, this was the patriarch of the family and there may be some relation between ʾadn and the Ugarit word for "father", ʾad.[5]

^ Van Dijk-Hemmes et al., 1996, p. 211.
^ a b van der Toorn, 1999, p. 532.
^ Cook et al., 2001, pp. 48-49.

And anyone that thinks that Christianity doesn't have a clear foundation of Pagan mythology is simply very ignorant of the history behind it..  All Christianity is, is a modern version of , and a mixed breed of Pagan mythology, and I didn't even have to go into the Egyptian aspects from which Christianity takes a lot from, especially the Coptics to which had a lot to do with the evolution of Christianity. And if you need a more obvious in the face examples, pictures are worth a thousand words:

: http://www.whale.to/c/ev219twtoroboros.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/954qoyfhcatholictriad.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/8vguxme7cross.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/church2.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/church21.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/eye_s.36.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_38.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/church35.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/church64.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_51.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/church41.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/eye_s.68.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_43.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_44.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_45.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_46.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_47.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_49.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/1i5nd3xt.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/eye_s.69.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/eye_s.73.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/eye_s.74.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/eye_s.5.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/b/false_67.jpg
: http://www.whale.to/c/ev219twtoroboros.jpg

And all Orthodox Christianity really is, is Pantheism riding on the backs of Christianity and Pagan mythology.

 

[TheJackel]

Also, if you need even more evidence of the fact of yahweh's moon GOD origins and Israelite worshiping of this moon GOD, You can also look note this:

Khirbet Kerak (Arabic: Khirbet al-Karak, "the ruins of the castle") or Beth Yerah (Hebrew: בית ירח , "House of the Moon (god)") is a tell located on the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee in modern day Israel.

Early Bronze Age (3300/3500-2200 BCE) - The 2009 discovery at the tell of a stone palette with Egyptian motifs, including an ankh,[9] points to trade/political relations with the First dynasty of Egypt, at approximately 3000 BCE.[10][11] Excavators have identified four levels of occupation from the Early Bronze Age (EB). Architectural development shows the procession from (sometimes oval) pit dwellings (I) to mud-brick (II), to basalt foundations with mud-brick (III), and then on to basalt structures (IV), over approximately 1000 years. The basalt houses belong to the same phase as the Khirbet al-Kerak pottery, dated to the Early Bronze Age III. From the earliest phases, the settlement was protected from the south and west by a city wall (the north and east facing the Sea of Galilee). The wall consisted of three connecting parallel walls, forming a massive wall, 25 feet (7.6 m) thick, built of mud-bricks. The gate was on the south and was built of basalt.[12] Evidence of an urban, orthogonal layout was found, dating to the EB II,[13] supporting the claim that the city was one of the regional urban centers of the period.[14]

Bet Yerah

Beth Yerah means "House of the Moon (god)".[16] Though it is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible or other Bronze or Iron Age sources,[2] the name preserves part of the Canaanite toponym of Ablm (Heb. Abel), "the city/fort (qrt) of his-majesty Yarih" (also Ablm-bt-Yrh) which is mentioned in the 14th century BCE Epic of Aqht and is thought to be a reference to the Early Bronze Age structure extant at Khirbet Kerak.[17]

The name Bet Yerah has generally been accepted and applied to the site of Khirbet Kerak, though the evidence for its being located there is circumstantial.[18] Established in the Hellenistic period (c. 4th century BCE)

^ a b c Negev, Avraham, ed. (2001). Beth Yerah. pp. 88–89. ISBN 0-8264-1316-1.
^ a b Greenberg, Raphael (2005-03-30). "Tel Bet Yerah". Excavations and Surveys in Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority.
^ Encyclopedia of Prehistory, p.97
^ Encyclopedia of Prehistory, p.92
^ Milgrom, p. 638.
^ Baruch Margalit (1989). Baruch Margalit. ed. The Ugaritic poem of Aqht: text, translation, commentary. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 0-89925-472-1, 9780899254722.
^ Douglas L. Esse (1991). Subsistence, trade, and social change in early Bronze Age Palestine (Illustrated ed.). Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. p. 35. ISBN 0-918986-66-4, 9780918986665.

And interestingly associated with Al-Sinnabra:

During the Roman period, a fortress was built there and the place became known and named for this feature.[2] The Jerusalem Talmud mentions Bet Yerah as sitting alongside Sinnabri (al-Sinnabra), describing both as walled cities,[1][3][4] but also uses the name Kerakh to refer to Bet Yerah.[2]

1^ a b c Milgrom, Jacob; Wright, David Pearson; Freedman, David Noel; Hurvitz, Avi (1995). Pomegranates and golden bells: studies in biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern ritual, law, and literature
2^ a b c L. SUKENIK. "The Ancient City of Philoteria {Beth Yerah)". Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society. p. 107.
3^ Gil, 1997, p. 78, footnote #5.
4^ Lightfoot, John (2007). From the Talmud and Hebraica, Volume 1. Cosimo Inc. p. 142. ISBN 978-1-60206-406-5.

In Greek sources the name is transcribed as Sennabris. The name stems from Sinn, the Mesopotamian moon god. During this period, like many ancient cities in the region, it was given a Greek name, Philoteria, by Ptolemy II Philadelphus for his sister, as indicated by remains dating to the Ptolemaic rule (3rd century BCE). - Rafi Greenberg.

And concerning the "House of the moon GOD", you still have strict Yahwists out there under "The House of Yahweh" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Yahweh

And like the Jews, they would see Christianity worshiping a false idol, or a prophet of Yahweh wrongly as an Idol, or as Yahweh..  And I would actually agree with them here.. Christ is not Yahweh anymore than why Yahweh was Not "EL", "El ELyon", or more importantly "El Shadai".. Exodus 6:3 is only seen really as an attempt to equate Yahweh to them by the Yahwist monotheistic cult movement.  This is how usurping works, and has been done for centuries... My second article even touches up on that subject regarding the Sumerian GODs ect..

 

[FatherHLL]

Please tell me why you believe He (or She) is actually there.

If possible, it would be nice to have fairly concise replies.
Thank you guys.

Because I have met Him.  You, on the other hand, I have not. 

 

[TheJackel]

Please tell me why you believe He (or She) is actually there.

If possible, it would be nice to have fairly concise replies.
Thank you guys.

Because I have met Him.  You, on the other hand, I have not.  

I wasn't in that conversation, but If this is about supposedly meeting GOD, I call nonsense and just another appeal to ignorance / absolute negative.. :/  Testimonials really aren't worth anything in terms of argument or evidence. But if this was a claim about meeting god, well you are free to believe that, but I doubt very much you could substantiate that.. It would be curious to tell us how you made a positive Identification.. Though giving the bible's description, just going to go watch an erupting volcano would suffice to fit perfectly in as the "Moon Mountain" the abode of this moon GOD that is essentially a Volcano deity..   But if this wasn't about meeting GOD, just disregard this post..

 

[PeterTheAleut]

And not one point there is true.

Rather than so blithely dismiss what TheJackel has to say, would you be willing to actually counter his claims with an attempt at a cogent, point-by-point defense of our point of view?

 

[JamesR]

I wasn't in that conversation, but If this is about supposedly meeting GOD, I call nonsense and just another appeal to ignorance / absolute negative.. :/

On what grounds? YOU are making a claim by accusing a witness of falsehood, back it up. In a court-of-law if you oppose a testimony, then it is your duty to challenge it. I call your bluff. 

Testimonials really aren't worth anything in terms of argument or evidence.

That's your own problem as well as the entire problem with empirical Scholasticism; you reduce all evidence down to that which could be measured in a test-tube, when in reality, history and witnesses are just as much evidence as what you could measure in a test-tube. Rather than promoting knowledge, you butcher knowledge by reducing it down to a single aspect and ignoring all of the other elements of knowledge and evidence. It would be like a court-of-law rejecting the testimonies of witnesses and all other forms of evidence and just accepting the forensic element.

But if this was a claim about meeting god, well you are free to believe that, but I doubt very much you could substantiate that..

Jumping to premature conclusions much eh? Rejecting the man before he even makes his testimony?

It would be curious to tell us how you made a positive Identification

You wouldn't understand unless you prepared yourself for it. Meeting and/or experiencing God is not something that everyone can experience at any time. If you were to experience Him in an unworthy state, it would literally be Hell. You must prepare yourself first, live the life of the Church, and then hope to behold God. I would suggest following Fr. Thomas Hopko's ten step challenge. But, if you are not willing to make the initial effort, then I am afraid you will not experience anything. And that is because of His mercy upon you--so that you do not experience Hellish pain from His presence in an unworthy state.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Mr. Jackel, what do you have to say about the veracity of the historical accounts of Christ's resurrection from the dead?

 

[JamesR]

I'm not a history buff so I won't comment on your historical hypothesis mr Jackal, but it may be worth to mention to you that most of your arguments are somewhat irrelevent because being Orthodox Christians, we use the Greek Septuagint Old Testament, not the Masoretic texts. Most of your arguments seem to be centered around Hebrewic dialects and documents--which we do not use.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Dude James why

Yes, James, I do have to agree with these sentiments. No one had posted on this thread for close to two years. Why the need to wake the sleeping dragon (i.e., TheJackel) by replying to him so long after he last posted here? Couldn't you have just let this thread stay dead?

 

[TheJackel]

On what grounds? YOU are making a claim by accusing a witness of falsehood, back it up. In a court-of-law if you oppose a testimony, then it is your duty to challenge it. I call your bluff.

It's not my responsibility to prove his claim wrong.. Snake salesmanship is not impressive.  He can claim what ever he wants, but it has not credulity just because you can make the claim.. Hey, I met the Pixie fairy lords we talked about earlier..

That's your own problem as well as the entire problem with empirical Scholasticism; you reduce all evidence down to that which could be measured in a test-tube, when in reality, history and witnesses are just as much evidence as what you could measure in a test-tube. Rather than promoting knowledge, you butcher knowledge by reducing it down to a single aspect and ignoring all of the other elements of knowledge and evidence. It would be like a court-of-law rejecting the testimonies of witnesses and all other forms of evidence and just accepting the forensic element.

Court cases are rarely decisive based on "testimonials".... Testimonial evidence is considered the weakest form of evidence, and all it does in on this board is just represent another absolute negative claim to which doesn't progress establishing anything. There is no reason to take such a claim seriously..

Jumping to premature conclusions much eh? Rejecting the man before he even makes his testimony?

Feel free to substantiate the existence of GOD..  I know the the Pantheists can establish their GOD to which is existence itself, so should everyone here not start converting to pantheism? After all, What is GOD without existence? And why must you rely on the Pantheist GOD to even have a concept or belief in your GOD regardless if fact or fiction?  Worse yet, the concept of GOD is entirely nothing more than a concept of opinion and title of opinion anyways.. So I don't see you or him converting to pantheism now do I?  

But hey, this is usually a fun thing to do to which includes addressing the problems with the fount of knowledge..:

Paradoxal Atrributes of GOD: Victims of Self-refutation

Worse yet.. there are 3 questions that show why the concept of GOD is moot to which even challenges the Pantheists:

1. What is GOD without existence (this includes all definitions)
2. If Existence is GOD, what in and "OF EXISTENCE" are we to not to consider GOD?
3. If Existence is not GOD, What in and "OF EXISTENCE" are we to consider as GOD?

Well, the answers to these show exactly why the concept of GOD is moot:

1. Without Existence, there is no GOD PERIOD!..END OF STORY..  It would be irrelevant, meaningless, pointless, and entirely non-existent..

2. If Existence is GOD, this would effectively make everything GOD as Existence is the totality, quality, essence, property, and the mode of existence of everything.. Everything is of existence itself as existence is the Universal Set of all Sets... And as in question one points out, you can't exist, function, be, or do anything without it.. You can't have any value, purpose, or meaning without existence either..

3. If Existence is not GOD, then there is essentially nothing in or of existence to consider as GOD.. Hence there would actually and technically be no GOD.. And the only possible GOD of existence could only be that of Existence itself.. Hence it's all or nothing! And it's moot regardless of which you choose!..  And that doesn't even go into how opinion alone also makes the concept of GOD moot.  Hence, there is no reason what-so-ever for me to consider anything a GOD..

You wouldn't understand unless you prepared yourself for it.

This is avoiding the question.. And it's because you know you have no actual reply.. Hence your reply again is another absolute negative and appeal to ignorance.. And it's rather funny that Pantheists don't seem to have this problem.. Your excuse is not impressive or a reason why I should bother to take you seriously.

Meeting and/or experiencing God is not something that everyone can experience at any time. If you were to experience Him in an unworthy state, it would literally be Hell.

You obviously haven't met the Pixie lords.

You must prepare yourself first, live the life of the Church, and then hope to behold God. I would suggest following Fr. Thomas Hopko's ten step challenge. But, if you are not willing to make the initial effort, then I am afraid you will not experience anything. And that is because of His mercy upon you--so that you do not experience Hellish pain from His presence in an unworthy state.

Oh, you mean just believe and magically he exists!..That's a nice little Jedi trick. I used to play that game to when I was a Christian.. However, I stopped being that dishonest.. Besides, anything that thinks it's a GOD, is an Ego Centric Narcissist.. And reading the bible it's clearly depicted as such.. And sorry, Narcissism isn't on my high priority list for criteria to consider bowing down to, or worshiping..  

But this is what I can offer, as in something actually plausible.:

1. The gods of ancient religions isn't what you would be looking for.
2 The above does not reject the idea of higher intelligent beings that may be capable of inducing big bangs, or creating life ect.. No need to believe in magic to see that as plausible.. But that would be a matter of opinion for you to consider such as a GOD.  

 

[Cyrillic]

And not one point there is true.

Rather than so blithely dismiss what TheJackel has to say, would you be willing to actually counter his claims with an attempt at a cogent, point-by-point defense of our point of view?

Proverbs 26:5.

 

[LBK]

And not one point there is true.

Rather than so blithely dismiss what TheJackel has to say, would you be willing to actually counter his claims with an attempt at a cogent, point-by-point defense of our point of view?

Proverbs 26:5.

And Matthew 7:6.

 

[TheJackel]

Religious Dogmatic replies aren't impressive.. I get that same sort of laughable crap from Flat Earthers to Scientologists. But hey, I have a better proverb, and it's an Egyptian one:

- There are two kinds of error: blind credulity and piecemeal criticism. Never believe a word without putting its truth to the test; discernment does not grow in laziness; and this faculty of discernment is indispensable to the Seeker. Sound skepticism is the necessary condition for good discernment; but piecemeal criticism is an error. - Book of the Dead

Or maybe you know this fun one:

- The way of knowledge is narrow.

 

[Asteriktos]

Wait. So Achronos isn't TheJackel? I've officially lost track of my oc.net historicals here...

 

[Nathanael]

how an atheist became a believer:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/neuroscientist-sees-proof-heaven-week-long-coma/story?id=17555207#.UMxztW_uBFI

For me personally it's interesting how especially atheists, who were former believer, consequently ignore all that supernatural phenomenon, which they experienced or heard of other close people. And when you call their attention to such phenomenon, which really cannot be explained, they just remain silent or laugh at you or they got angry.
It's so sad to see how people instead to worship God they worship their own mind. They believe in the Dogma of rationality, that the whole reality who can only catch with "logical thinking", although there's no proof for that the dogma.  :-[

 

[Achronos]

Wait. So Achronos isn't TheJackel? I've officially lost track of my oc.net historicals here...

Sent you a PM. Short answer is no.

 

[TheJackel]

how an atheist became a believer:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/neuroscientist-sees-proof-heaven-week-long-coma/story?id=17555207#.UMxztW_uBFI

For me personally it's interesting how especially atheists, who were former believer, consequently ignore all that supernatural phenomenon, which they experienced or heard of other close people. And when you call their attention to such phenomenon, which really cannot be explained, they just remain silent or laugh at you or they got angry.
It's so sad to see how people instead to worship God they worship their own mind. They believe in the Dogma of rationality, that the whole reality who can only catch with "logical thinking", although there's no proof for that the dogma.  :-[

That is actually full of crap and everyone knows it... But hey, people have supposedly died and gone floating off through space to go see aliens too.  And btw, he has no empirical evidence to say he actually died.. He wasn't even hooked up to an EEG..  But we would love to see anyone empirically prove their case for "supernatural" in scientific peer review literature.. Heck that would be a great Nobel prize..  Feel free to demonstrate and prove something or anything is supernatural phenomenon.. Btw, in a coma, your not brain dead, and it's pretty interesting that is supposed vision corresponds to the culture he grew up in as do most such supposed experiences.. Let me guess, you would now believe alien abductions are real..Right?

Wait. So Achronos isn't TheJackel? I've officially lost track of my oc.net historicals here...

Ad hominems are not impressive. Are you claiming the cited information is wrong to which I have provided? And if so, what citations do you have concerning those subjects do you have? Are you using a different hieroglyphic dictionary than I am? I would like for you to cite that as well..  But hey, OC.net historicals seem far more supported than blind belief / faith historicals that reject any and all evidence that puts there beliefs / cult religion in to serious question. It is expected that I get these kinds of responses.. Even get the same responses from Flat Earthers who would equally say I am OC.net science educated to try and invalidate any and all evidence provided..  You know the weakest argument is the one that has to sit there and play those sorts of arguments as if they are even relevant..  All you are proving here is that you really have nothing to demonstrate, show, argue with, and substantiate.. 

 

[Asteriktos]

Ad hominems are not impressive. Are you claiming the cited information is wrong to which I have provided? And if so, what citations do you have concerning those subjects do you have? Are you using a different hieroglyphic dictionary than I am? I would like for you to cite that as well..  But hey, OC.net historicals seem far more supported than blind belief / faith historicals that reject any and all evidence that puts there beliefs / cult religion in to serious question. It is expected that I get these kinds of responses.. Even get the same responses from Flat Earthers who would equally say I am OC.net science educated to try and invalidate any and all evidence provided..  You know the weakest argument is the one that has to sit there and play those sorts of arguments as if they are even relevant..  All you are proving here is that you really have nothing to demonstrate, show, argue with, and substantiate..  

What are you talking about dude? I thought you were a sock account of another member here. That's all. Achronos let me know that wasn't the case though.

 

[Jetavan]

All you are proving here is that you really have nothing to demonstrate, show, argue with, and substantiate.. 

Are you a pantheist?

 

[Opus118]

Ad hominems are not impressive. Are you claiming the cited information is wrong to which I have provided? And if so, what citations do you have concerning those subjects do you have? Are you using a different hieroglyphic dictionary than I am? I would like for you to cite that as well..  But hey, OC.net historicals seem far more supported than blind belief / faith historicals that reject any and all evidence that puts there beliefs / cult religion in to serious question. It is expected that I get these kinds of responses.. Even get the same responses from Flat Earthers who would equally say I am OC.net science educated to try and invalidate any and all evidence provided..  You know the weakest argument is the one that has to sit there and play those sorts of arguments as if they are even relevant..  All you are proving here is that you really have nothing to demonstrate, show, argue with, and substantiate..  

What are you talking about dude? I thought you were a sock account of another member here. That's all. Achronos let me know that wasn't the case though.

That was my impression as well.

 

[Cyrillic]

Wait. So Achronos isn't TheJackel? I've officially lost track of my oc.net historicals here...

Ad hominems are not impressive. Are you claiming the cited information is wrong to which I have provided?

You provided spurious blog posts full of far-fetched comparisations as sources. Need I say more?

 

[Nathanael]

That is actually full of crap and everyone knows it... But hey, people have supposedly died and gone floating off through space to go see aliens too.  And btw, he has no empirical evidence to say he actually died.. He wasn't even hooked up to an EEG..  But we would love to see anyone empirically prove their case for "supernatural" in scientific peer review literature.. Heck that would be a great Nobel prize..  Feel free to demonstrate and prove something or anything is supernatural phenomenon.. Btw, in a coma, your not brain dead, and it's pretty interesting that is supposed vision corresponds to the culture he grew up in as do most such supposed experiences.. Let me guess, you would now believe alien abductions are real..Right?

You want really try to compare that with people who experienced alien abductions? ??? Most of such people have psychological, mental or social problems. They're not down-to-earth persons, before they "experienced" that; and you can clearly see that, when you seriously concern yourself with this stuff.

It's not written, that he died or that the brain was completely dead, but: "Brain scans showed his entire cortex -- the parts of the brain that give us consciousness, thought, memory and understanding -- was not functioning. Doctors gave him little chance to live and told his family that if he did survive he'd probably be brain-damaged for the rest of his life." So when the entire cortex was not functioning, how could he experience such deep emotional vision?
And what most impress me is not the vision, but this: "After he recovered, Alexander, who was adopted, was shown a picture by his biological family of a sister he had never met or seen before. He recognized the sister as the young woman from Heaven."!!
And it's better not to start to list close friends who experienced in a sober state miracles in their life. Such miracles don't force man to believe in him, but it makes him quite thoughtful.

How should God create this world (but without that he takes away the free will of man), so that you would believe in him?

 

[Cyrillic]

Don't feed the...

 

[Aristocles]

The only ad hominem attacks I seem to read are from TheJackel.

Cyrillic is right I suspect. (oops, Is that an ad hom?)

 

[TheJackel]

So here is some more fun research:

Immanuel (or Emmanuel or Imanu'el, Hebrew עִמָּנוּאֵל meaning "EL" is with us").. it doesn't say "yahweh" is with us.. No this is the Cannaanite GOD "EL"... Anyone dealing with Yahweh or the moon GOD's are going to have Iah or Ia at the end of their names. Yahwists used Immanuel in Canaanite mythology to equate him with Jesus to which would be entirely wrong..  People that don't comprehend how pantheons that are family structured retain their family and GOD's name in their own names to which includes city names such as Israel.. And nor is Jesus Immanuel..

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (God is with us)."

Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel"

Isaiah 7:14 (RSV)

That is essentially a yahwist using the Canaanite mythology.. And you only really need look up the list of Names dealing with the god "EL" as these are not names that deal with Yahweh.. They do not end in Iah or Ia.  If you understand anything at all about family structured Pantheons and religions, you would understand this, and why we know Yahwists usurped the Cannaanite Pantheon and their mythology..  Anyone who's name ended in Iah in that era dealt with being named in regards to the Moon God.. Anyone who's named ended in "el" would have been in regards to the Canaanite GOD "EL". They are two very distinct and separate families / Gods.. El was never a moon GOD either, or associated with Mt Sinai as Yahweh is and was.

Worse yet. Jesus supposed virgin birth belief is like false as well as it seems to use a dual use word to insist it means Virgin when in fact that is not like the intended context as he phrase "a virgin" which we find in our English Bibles does not appear in the original Hebrew text. The word used is 'almah {al-maw'} meaning "a young woman of marriageable age". The Hebrew word for "virgin" is bthuwlah {beth-oo-law'}. When the Hebrew text is translated into Greek in the NT, it uses the word parthenos {per-then'-os}, which has a dual meaning; a young girl or a virgin. The translators have mistakenly chosen the latter. More recent and accurate versions of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version present this verse as follows:

"Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel"

And again this has nothing to do with Jesus, and the Cannaanite Prophecy specifically states that his name, this son of EL will be named Immanuel...Not Jesus, or any name dealing with moon GOD's such as Yah, or Sin to where you would have an ending of "Iah / Ia"... It's clearly usurping the El pantheon and mythology here..

 

[TheJackel]

Ad hominems are not impressive. Are you claiming the cited information is wrong to which I have provided? And if so, what citations do you have concerning those subjects do you have? Are you using a different hieroglyphic dictionary than I am? I would like for you to cite that as well..  But hey, OC.net historicals seem far more supported than blind belief / faith historicals that reject any and all evidence that puts there beliefs / cult religion in to serious question. It is expected that I get these kinds of responses.. Even get the same responses from Flat Earthers who would equally say I am OC.net science educated to try and invalidate any and all evidence provided..  You know the weakest argument is the one that has to sit there and play those sorts of arguments as if they are even relevant..  All you are proving here is that you really have nothing to demonstrate, show, argue with, and substantiate..  

What are you talking about dude? I thought you were a sock account of another member here. That's all. Achronos let me know that wasn't the case though.

Well, then that matter is settled then   So if anyone wants to discuss this with me, we can perhaps begin with the citations such as the Jewish encyclopedia, and the Hieroglyphic dictionary to which I have provided.. Can anyone here provide me a citation showing just those first two which I have provided as being wrong?  Hence lets start small here and see whom can provide me a more credible source..   

 

[TheJackel]

All you are proving here is that you really have nothing to demonstrate, show, argue with, and substantiate..  

Are you a pantheist?

I used to be a Christian for about 22 years.. I became a Pantheist after I learned a lot more about Christianity..  However, those 3 questions I asked pretty much demonstrated that even Pantheism is really just nonsense.. But nonsense that really made me realize the concept of GOD is moot as it's all or nothing..  Once you move the goal post to it's far extremes on either end of the field, your realize everyone kicking soccer balls around on the field trying to score.., or it's like watching people fight over favorite colors.. I like to put it in this context to where we substitute Existence for the "Color Spectrum" :

Theist A to whom is the color orange believes RED is GOD of all colors because RED the hottest Color of them all, represents power, control, and judgement ect..

Theist B to whom is the color brown believes RGB are the GODs of color because of their creative power to blend and create other colors. This theist believe these are the creators of what appears to him / her an RGB world..

Pantheist C whom is the color purple tells Theist A and B that their GODs are not GOD in the sense in which they believe..Pantheist C here state that the entire Spectrum is GOD, and that the Electromagnetic waves and frequencies of this GOD is not only the creator of all colors, but literally all the colors itself.

Then comes along an Atheist D to whom is the color yellow that says he agrees with Pantheist C that A and B are wrong, but also tells Pantheist C that his/her GOD would make Everyone GOD including himself...

That is the perspective I have on this.. And  it doesn't stop people from worshiping X-color in the spectrum or X-god on the soccer field. However, it puts into perspective of what is pretty much going on if you break it down. This is true even if the color doesn't actually exist, a color such as Pink to which is actually just red and blue light as Pink doesn't actually have a frequency and wavelength of its own.  Hence Pink in this cause would be equated to something imagined, an illusion, or defined as a non-entity.  So I see no reason why I should worship anything as a GOD.. You could even put that into further perspective in that we are all "of existence" and that worshiping something else "of Existence" is effectively existence worshiping itself.. And why would existence punish itself for considering itself a GOD? .. It gets pretty weird doesn't it?  

Whats even more interesting is that me any everyone here is essentially existence having a discussion with itself from various conscious perspectives.. So that's ever further reason why I will never consider the concept of god as anything but nonsense..

The only ad hominem attacks I seem to read are from TheJackel.

Cyrillic is right I suspect. (oops, Is that an ad hom?)

You kind of have to provide something other than an absolute negative claim for me to make an ad hominem.. All I did was state what those claims are by the fact you can't demonstrate them, prove them, establish them as fact.. When I ask for you to back up your claims, it doesn't mean provide more absolute negatives :/ You don't get anywhere that way.. And I can't take testimonials seriously for a very good reason, and that is not an ad hominem.  So what else do you have to provide?  If you just say that you believe and that you don't have to provide anything, then that's fine and there is no need for you to engage me or have a discussion on the matter as you can believe in whatever you want to. Just that doesn't establish anything in such discussions here other than your expression of what you believe.  Hence, I am more interested in the actual relevancy to that in regards to reality..  I know the Religion is entirely Pagan in origin, and I am curious why you think your version of it is true while rejecting its foundation from which it was based on at the same time.

 

[Jetavan]

All you are proving here is that you really have nothing to demonstrate, show, argue with, and substantiate..  

Are you a pantheist?

I used to be a Christian for about 22 years.. I became a Pantheist after I learned a lot more about Christianity..  However, those 3 questions I asked pretty much demonstrated that even Pantheism is really just nonsense..

Would you say that consciousness is entirely a product of matter?

 

[TheJackel]

All you are proving here is that you really have nothing to demonstrate, show, argue with, and substantiate..  

Are you a pantheist?

I used to be a Christian for about 22 years.. I became a Pantheist after I learned a lot more about Christianity..  However, those 3 questions I asked pretty much demonstrated that even Pantheism is really just nonsense..

Would you say that consciousness is entirely a product of matter?

Nothing cant be conscious or support a conscious state. And information can't be made of nothing either as nothing can't contain or sustain information. Physical only pertains to being made of something of existence vs nothing and it doesn't matter if you call it matter or not.  You have to understand the definition of nothing to understand why immateriality is impossible.. However that is at best just a semantics game as it really doesn't matter if you believe in immateriality or materiality as it doesn't change the issue to which I outlined.. The same 3 questions still apply, and so does the matter that the concept of GOD is at best a concept of opinion and title of opinion. It doesn't change the facts I presented here regarding the Pagan origins of your religion. And I don't recall Orthodox Christians being deists.., but even then It's inherently moot, and that is the fundamental and major problem with it.

Now if some cool being induced a big bang and made this world and I got to meet him or her, I would think that would be pretty cool. Some might worship such a being as a GOD, but I would see that as weird and silly giving how I would see that from my perspective. My arguments don't deny the possibility of higher intelligent beings ect.. Hence my arguments are not bound to whether an object of worship exists or not.. I simply wouldn't see it as a god any more than I would see a cow as something divine.. So if I find existence itself as not GOD, there is no hope to have anything of Existence to be considered as such.. And if I did, I realize I would have to consider my self GOD as well, and that's just silly. :/