There is more than one way to heaven.

[tackattack]

Ok, so give us a demonstration. Which is more Valid, YHWH or Allah?

"Allah cannot be the God of the Bible is evident in the Quran and in other Muslim religious writings. Islam is simply a Seventh Century pagan Arabian religion that adopted an existing tribal moon god as the one true god and was forced on the Arab people by a self-proclaimed prophet. Its spread has not relied on the force of its arguments or proof of its truth. Rather, its expansion depended on military force and subjugation. The Jihad sanctifies murder and warlike violence. Muhammad himself led 27 Jihads.

Jesus Christ preached a gospel of peace and reconciliation and rejected the use of armed force.

Muhammad and Allah have nothing to do with Christianity or the one true God of the Bible."

Ultimately Allah is vastly inferior logically.

The God of the OT (YHWH) was a moon god. The original name was "Sin" or Nanna Sin. Mt. Sinai, where god hangs out at times, was named after him. He was a murdering bastard commanding Jews to take the lands of the Caananites and to slaughter them...sound like anything we know?

Could you quote your references please.

I will say that the Quran states { And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate yourselves not to the sun, nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allâh Who created them, if you (really) worship Him }; [41:37] so I wouldn't say they're moon worshippers. I would also like to point out that I believe allah derives from al+ illah ("the God"). word Allah is used by all Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. Allah, as a deity, was probably known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Arabic chronicles suggest a pre-Islamic recognition of Allah as a supreme God, with the three goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat as his "daughters." The Prophet Muhammad, declaring Allah the God of Abraham, demanded a return to a strict monotheism. Islam supplements Allah as the name of God with the 99 most beautiful names (asma Allah al-husna), understood as nondescriptive mnemonic guides to the Divine attributes. (Source)

I am in no way a scholar on this subject but this guy seems to have good references http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses...entity.htm

[LEDO]

Ok, so give us a demonstration. Which is more Valid, YHWH or Allah?

"Allah cannot be the God of the Bible is evident in the Quran and in other Muslim religious writings. Islam is simply a Seventh Century pagan Arabian religion that adopted an existing tribal moon god as the one true god and was forced on the Arab people by a self-proclaimed prophet. Its spread has not relied on the force of its arguments or proof of its truth. Rather, its expansion depended on military force and subjugation. The Jihad sanctifies murder and warlike violence. Muhammad himself led 27 Jihads.

Jesus Christ preached a gospel of peace and reconciliation and rejected the use of armed force.

Muhammad and Allah have nothing to do with Christianity or the one true God of the Bible."

Ultimately Allah is vastly inferior logically.

The God of the OT (YHWH) was a moon god. The original name was "Sin" or Nanna Sin. Mt. Sinai, where god hangs out at times, was named after him. He was a murdering bastard commanding Jews to take the lands of the Caananites and to slaughter them...sound like anything we know?

Could you quote your references please.

I will say that the Quran states { And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate yourselves not to the sun, nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allâh Who created them, if you (really) worship Him }; [41:37] so I wouldn't say they're moon worshippers. I would also like to point out that I believe allah derives from al+ illah ("the God"). word Allah is used by all Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. Allah, as a deity, was probably known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Arabic chronicles suggest a pre-Islamic recognition of Allah as a supreme God, with the three goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat as his "daughters." The Prophet Muhammad, declaring Allah the God of Abraham, demanded a return to a strict monotheism. Islam supplements Allah as the name of God with the 99 most beautiful names (asma Allah al-husna), understood as nondescriptive mnemonic guides to the Divine attributes. (Source)

I am in no way a scholar on this subject but this guy seems to have good references http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses...entity.htm

Today they are no longer moon worshippers, of course. Their god or gods were derived from a moon god. YHWH is another name for Yareah, the Canaanite moon god. The moon god was the only major god not mentioned in the Bible, the reason being he was YHWH. The Jews' calendar was lunar based, which should give you a clue to as the nature of their god. The god of Abraham from Ur and Haran would have been a moon god as that was the chief diety in both those cities. (Plug warning!) I detail this in my latest book, "On Earth as it is in Heaven." I demonstrate that Bible stories are nothing more than cosmic myths similar to other ancient cosmic myths. The Hebrews took gods and made them into patriarchs, just as the Catholic church took gods and made them into saints. The difference is that the church realized what they did and "un-made" the saints. Bible believers just aren't as smart.

[tackattack]

Ok, so give us a demonstration. Which is more Valid, YHWH or Allah?

"Allah cannot be the God of the Bible is evident in the Quran and in other Muslim religious writings. Islam is simply a Seventh Century pagan Arabian religion that adopted an existing tribal moon god as the one true god and was forced on the Arab people by a self-proclaimed prophet. Its spread has not relied on the force of its arguments or proof of its truth. Rather, its expansion depended on military force and subjugation. The Jihad sanctifies murder and warlike violence. Muhammad himself led 27 Jihads.

Jesus Christ preached a gospel of peace and reconciliation and rejected the use of armed force.

Muhammad and Allah have nothing to do with Christianity or the one true God of the Bible."

Ultimately Allah is vastly inferior logically.

The God of the OT (YHWH) was a moon god. The original name was "Sin" or Nanna Sin. Mt. Sinai, where god hangs out at times, was named after him. He was a murdering bastard commanding Jews to take the lands of the Caananites and to slaughter them...sound like anything we know?

Could you quote your references please.

I will say that the Quran states { And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate yourselves not to the sun, nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allâh Who created them, if you (really) worship Him }; [41:37] so I wouldn't say they're moon worshippers. I would also like to point out that I believe allah derives from al+ illah ("the God"). word Allah is used by all Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. Allah, as a deity, was probably known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Arabic chronicles suggest a pre-Islamic recognition of Allah as a supreme God, with the three goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat as his "daughters." The Prophet Muhammad, declaring Allah the God of Abraham, demanded a return to a strict monotheism. Islam supplements Allah as the name of God with the 99 most beautiful names (asma Allah al-husna), understood as nondescriptive mnemonic guides to the Divine attributes. (Source)

I am in no way a scholar on this subject but this guy seems to have good references http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses...entity.htm

Today they are no longer moon worshippers, of course. Their god or gods were derived from a moon god. YHWH is another name for Yareah, the Canaanite moon god. The moon god was the only major god not mentioned in the Bible, the reason being he was YHWH. The Jews' calendar was lunar based, which should give you a clue to as the nature of their god. The god of Abraham from Ur and Haran would have been a moon god as that was the chief diety in both those cities. (Plug warning!) I detail this in my latest book, "On Earth as it is in Heaven." I demonstrate that Bible stories are nothing more than cosmic myths similar to other ancient cosmic myths. The Hebrews took gods and made them into patriarchs, just as the Catholic church took gods and made them into saints. The difference is that the church realized what they did and "un-made" the saints. Bible believers just aren't as smart.

I think most people understand the "Church" has done a lot of things to indoctrinate people by assimilating their beliefs into their own. I don't dispute the a lot of the Bible stories are more parrable or creative imagery for good reading then fact. I think our understanding of what God is grows with time as does the understanding of our universe. The best way to tell a good story is to "salt and pepper" the truth my dad used to say. I'll give a simpler example since I am no scholar. I tell my son a story (At the time the people were much more detailed in their oral traditions than I am now) about a bear that attacked me on a camping trip. I even have the ripped tent to prove it. He tells his son, which tells his son, ad infinitum. 2000 years later the tents been trashed and the bear is now a giant purple bunny. Does that not mean the bear that attacked me never existed? Tangible evidence crumbles to dust given enough time and knowledge is lost. That leaves nothing but belief, so what better to rely on (rhetorical)? And that's just an opinion that bible believers aren't smart.. come on no need for personal attacks (especially after that commercial plug).

[theVOID]

Ok, so give us a demonstration. Which is more Valid, YHWH or Allah?

"Allah cannot be the God of the Bible is evident in the Quran and in other Muslim religious writings. Islam is simply a Seventh Century pagan Arabian religion that adopted an existing tribal moon god as the one true god and was forced on the Arab people by a self-proclaimed prophet. Its spread has not relied on the force of its arguments or proof of its truth. Rather, its expansion depended on military force and subjugation. The Jihad sanctifies murder and warlike violence. Muhammad himself led 27 Jihads.

Jesus Christ preached a gospel of peace and reconciliation and rejected the use of armed force.

Muhammad and Allah have nothing to do with Christianity or the one true God of the Bible."

Ultimately Allah is vastly inferior logically.

The God of the OT (YHWH) was a moon god. The original name was "Sin" or Nanna Sin. Mt. Sinai, where god hangs out at times, was named after him. He was a murdering bastard commanding Jews to take the lands of the Caananites and to slaughter them...sound like anything we know?

Could you quote your references please.

I will say that the Quran states { And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate yourselves not to the sun, nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allâh Who created them, if you (really) worship Him }; [41:37] so I wouldn't say they're moon worshippers. I would also like to point out that I believe allah derives from al+ illah ("the God"). word Allah is used by all Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. Allah, as a deity, was probably known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Arabic chronicles suggest a pre-Islamic recognition of Allah as a supreme God, with the three goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat as his "daughters." The Prophet Muhammad, declaring Allah the God of Abraham, demanded a return to a strict monotheism. Islam supplements Allah as the name of God with the 99 most beautiful names (asma Allah al-husna), understood as nondescriptive mnemonic guides to the Divine attributes. (Source)

I am in no way a scholar on this subject but this guy seems to have good references http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses...entity.htm

Today they are no longer moon worshippers, of course. Their god or gods were derived from a moon god. YHWH is another name for Yareah, the Canaanite moon god. The moon god was the only major god not mentioned in the Bible, the reason being he was YHWH. The Jews' calendar was lunar based, which should give you a clue to as the nature of their god. The god of Abraham from Ur and Haran would have been a moon god as that was the chief diety in both those cities. (Plug warning!) I detail this in my latest book, "On Earth as it is in Heaven." I demonstrate that Bible stories are nothing more than cosmic myths similar to other ancient cosmic myths. The Hebrews took gods and made them into patriarchs, just as the Catholic church took gods and made them into saints. The difference is that the church realized what they did and "un-made" the saints. Bible believers just aren't as smart.

I think most people understand the "Church" has done a lot of things to indoctrinate people by assimilating their beliefs into their own. I don't dispute the a lot of the Bible stories are more parrable or creative imagery for good reading then fact. I think our understanding of what God is grows with time as does the understanding of our universe. The best way to tell a good story is to "salt and pepper" the truth my dad used to say. I'll give a simpler example since I am no scholar. I tell my son a story (At the time the people were much more detailed in their oral traditions than I am now) about a bear that attacked me on a camping trip. I even have the ripped tent to prove it. He tells his son, which tells his son, ad infinitum. 2000 years later the tents been trashed and the bear is now a giant purple bunny. Does that not mean the bear that attacked me never existed? Tangible evidence crumbles to dust given enough time and knowledge is lost. That leaves nothing but belief, so what better to rely on (rhetorical)? And that's just an opinion that bible believers aren't smart.. come on no need for personal attacks (especially after that commercial plug).

The two claims are entirely different, for example bears are known to be real, so are campers, tents, camping trips and bears attacking people on camping trips - they are a part of the natural world and are testable - you could get attacked by a bear on a camping trip yourself if you so fancied, but even after all this nobody could say for certain that one specific bear attack took place - but considering the nature of the story and the fact that is is entirely grounded in observable reality, you could reasonably believe that the story is true.

Christianity is different, because virgin births and resurrection from the dead violate observable reality, we have no documented cases of these things ever happening nor does anything in our body of knowledge exist to suggest that they could happen at all, so while you could reasonably believe the historical existence of Jesus on the basis the fact that Men exist, some are called Jesus and many lived in the middle east 2000 years ago, claiming that not only did he live, but he was capable of things that have never been observed or even suggested by inference to be possible based on the same kind of evidence used to conclude a bear attack likely happened is simply absurd.

[tackattack]

Ok, so give us a demonstration. Which is more Valid, YHWH or Allah?

"Allah cannot be the God of the Bible is evident in the Quran and in other Muslim religious writings. Islam is simply a Seventh Century pagan Arabian religion that adopted an existing tribal moon god as the one true god and was forced on the Arab people by a self-proclaimed prophet. Its spread has not relied on the force of its arguments or proof of its truth. Rather, its expansion depended on military force and subjugation. The Jihad sanctifies murder and warlike violence. Muhammad himself led 27 Jihads.

Jesus Christ preached a gospel of peace and reconciliation and rejected the use of armed force.

Muhammad and Allah have nothing to do with Christianity or the one true God of the Bible."

Ultimately Allah is vastly inferior logically.

The God of the OT (YHWH) was a moon god. The original name was "Sin" or Nanna Sin. Mt. Sinai, where god hangs out at times, was named after him. He was a murdering bastard commanding Jews to take the lands of the Caananites and to slaughter them...sound like anything we know?

Could you quote your references please.

I will say that the Quran states { And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate yourselves not to the sun, nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allâh Who created them, if you (really) worship Him }; [41:37] so I wouldn't say they're moon worshippers. I would also like to point out that I believe allah derives from al+ illah ("the God"). word Allah is used by all Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. Allah, as a deity, was probably known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Arabic chronicles suggest a pre-Islamic recognition of Allah as a supreme God, with the three goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat as his "daughters." The Prophet Muhammad, declaring Allah the God of Abraham, demanded a return to a strict monotheism. Islam supplements Allah as the name of God with the 99 most beautiful names (asma Allah al-husna), understood as nondescriptive mnemonic guides to the Divine attributes. (Source)

I am in no way a scholar on this subject but this guy seems to have good references http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses...entity.htm

Today they are no longer moon worshippers, of course. Their god or gods were derived from a moon god. YHWH is another name for Yareah, the Canaanite moon god. The moon god was the only major god not mentioned in the Bible, the reason being he was YHWH. The Jews' calendar was lunar based, which should give you a clue to as the nature of their god. The god of Abraham from Ur and Haran would have been a moon god as that was the chief diety in both those cities. (Plug warning!) I detail this in my latest book, "On Earth as it is in Heaven." I demonstrate that Bible stories are nothing more than cosmic myths similar to other ancient cosmic myths. The Hebrews took gods and made them into patriarchs, just as the Catholic church took gods and made them into saints. The difference is that the church realized what they did and "un-made" the saints. Bible believers just aren't as smart.

I think most people understand the "Church" has done a lot of things to indoctrinate people by assimilating their beliefs into their own. I don't dispute the a lot of the Bible stories are more parrable or creative imagery for good reading then fact. I think our understanding of what God is grows with time as does the understanding of our universe. The best way to tell a good story is to "salt and pepper" the truth my dad used to say. I'll give a simpler example since I am no scholar. I tell my son a story (At the time the people were much more detailed in their oral traditions than I am now) about a bear that attacked me on a camping trip. I even have the ripped tent to prove it. He tells his son, which tells his son, ad infinitum. 2000 years later the tents been trashed and the bear is now a giant purple bunny. Does that not mean the bear that attacked me never existed? Tangible evidence crumbles to dust given enough time and knowledge is lost. That leaves nothing but belief, so what better to rely on (rhetorical)? And that's just an opinion that bible believers aren't smart.. come on no need for personal attacks (especially after that commercial plug).

The two claims are entirely different, for example bears are known to be real, so are campers, tents, camping trips and bears attacking people on camping trips - they are a part of the natural world and are testable - you could get attacked by a bear on a camping trip yourself if you so fancied, but even after all this nobody could say for certain that one specific bear attack took place - but considering the nature of the story and the fact that is is entirely grounded in observable reality, you could reasonably believe that the story is true.

Christianity is different, because virgin births and resurrection from the dead violate observable reality, we have no documented cases of these things ever happening nor does anything in our body of knowledge exist to suggest that they could happen at all, so while you could reasonably believe the historical existence of Jesus on the basis the fact that Men exist, some are called Jesus and many lived in the middle east 2000 years ago, claiming that not only did he live, but he was capable of things that have never been observed or even suggested by inference to be possible based on the same kind of evidence used to conclude a bear attack likely happened is simply absurd.

What if we fast forward it so far to the future that bears are extinct and there are no fossilized remains. someone has eventually wrote the story down at the time it was told to them and passed that down. If the basis for the writing of the story started at a point even 500 years after the original it would still differ greatly. The natural world is something you're going to have to define for me.My perspective at the time of the original occurance was based on my percieved reality of my surrounding world. Who are we to say what a more primitive man's percieved reality was. To them seeing angels and pillars of fire was commonplace. It was real enough for them to transcibe an oral tradition and put their observations of it onto a scroll. I'm pretty sure I saw Chris angel walk on water a few weeks ago. Perhaps we just lack perspective on what is attainable?

[theVOID]

What if we fast forward it so far to the future that bears are extinct and there are no fossilized remains. someone has eventually wrote the story down at the time it was told to them and passed that down. If the basis for the writing of the story started at a point even 500 years after the original it would still differ greatly. The natural world is something you're going to have to define for me.My perspective at the time of the original occurance was based on my percieved reality of my surrounding world. Who are we to say what a more primitive man's percieved reality was. To them seeing angels and pillars of fire was commonplace. It was real enough for them to transcibe an oral tradition and put their observations of it onto a scroll. I'm pretty sure I saw Chris angel walk on water a few weeks ago. Perhaps we just lack perspective on what is attainable?

What if we fast forward it so far to the future that unicorns are extinct and there are no fossilized remains. someone has eventually wrote the story down at the time it was told to them and passed that down.

Clear enough?

If the basis for the writing of the story started at a point even 500 years after the original it would still differ greatly.

Christianity is only 40 years after, so it's a bad comparison.

The natural world is something you're going to have to define for me.

Spacetime and everything inside it.

My perspective at the time of the original occurance was based on my percieved reality of my surrounding world. Who are we to say what a more primitive man's percieved reality was.

A lot of people have perceived many different things, we can either believe all of them because "who are we to say" or we can compare their experience to a reality that we can observe and see if they are congruent.

To them seeing angels and pillars of fire was commonplace. It was real enough for them to transcibe an oral tradition and put their observations of it onto a scroll.

There are lots of people seeing Greek and Roman and Egyptian entities too, does that mean they are also true? What about people seeing ghosts? People who claim to be abducted by UFO's? What about David Icke seeing reptilian overlords who rule the world?

If the claims of Jews and Christians are good enough for you to consider them true then why don't you believe everything that anyone has ever claimed? It is all the same stock standard testimony.

I'm pretty sure I saw Chris angel walk on water a few weeks ago. Perhaps we just lack perspective on what is attainable?

Chris Angel would be the first person to tell you that none of that shit is real. He's an illusionist and Skeptic!

[tackattack]

What if we fast forward it so far to the future that bears are extinct and there are no fossilized remains. someone has eventually wrote the story down at the time it was told to them and passed that down. If the basis for the writing of the story started at a point even 500 years after the original it would still differ greatly. The natural world is something you're going to have to define for me.My perspective at the time of the original occurance was based on my percieved reality of my surrounding world. Who are we to say what a more primitive man's percieved reality was. To them seeing angels and pillars of fire was commonplace. It was real enough for them to transcibe an oral tradition and put their observations of it onto a scroll. I'm pretty sure I saw Chris angel walk on water a few weeks ago. Perhaps we just lack perspective on what is attainable?

What if we fast forward it so far to the future that unicorns are extinct and there are no fossilized remains. someone has eventually wrote the story down at the time it was told to them and passed that down.

Clear enough?

http://www.crystalinks.com/unicornlascaux.jpg
prehistoric cave drawing depicting something that could have become the now "unicorn"
That doesn't answer the question. If all of your physical evidence is dust or destroyed, if the knowledge of how to build something is lost. Does that mean the thing couldn't have exist? Someone needs to tell those tourists in Egypt that the pyramids don't really exist if that's the case

If the basis for the writing of the story started at a point even 500 years after the original it would still differ greatly.

Christianity is only 40 years after, so it's a bad comparison.

unless the bible is just a more modern interpretation of previous evidence. I'm no biblical historian but I'm pretty sure the old testament predates Christianity by more than 40 years.

[

My perspective at the time of the original occurance was based on my percieved reality of my surrounding world. Who are we to say what a more primitive man's percieved reality was.

A lot of people have perceived many different things, we can either believe all of them because "who are we to say" or we can compare their experience to a reality that we can observe and see if they are congruent.

To them seeing angels and pillars of fire was commonplace. It was real enough for them to transcibe an oral tradition and put their observations of it onto a scroll.

There are lots of people seeing Greek and Roman and Egyptian entities too, does that mean they are also true? What about people seeing ghosts? People who claim to be abducted by UFO's? What about David Icke seeing reptilian overlords who rule the world?

If the claims of Jews and Christians are good enough for you to consider them true then why don't you believe everything that anyone has ever claimed? It is all the same stock standard testimony.

Because of my tests with God. Because I see patterns in coincidences that are based off actions I have no choice in or don't want. Because I can see the end results of my work are far better than if I had done nothing.

I'm pretty sure I saw Chris angel walk on water a few weeks ago. Perhaps we just lack perspective on what is attainable?

Chris Angel would be the first person to tell you that none of that shit is real. He's an illusionist and Skeptic!

I thought you would like that! I don't claim that it's real. I don't believe in talking serpents or burning talking bushes, or pillars of fire. I've never experienced or seen it. The point I was making was the people taking eye witness account believed it was real. Therefore I allow the possibility.

[theVOID]

What if we fast forward it so far to the future that bears are extinct and there are no fossilized remains. someone has eventually wrote the story down at the time it was told to them and passed that down. If the basis for the writing of the story started at a point even 500 years after the original it would still differ greatly. The natural world is something you're going to have to define for me.My perspective at the time of the original occurance was based on my percieved reality of my surrounding world. Who are we to say what a more primitive man's percieved reality was. To them seeing angels and pillars of fire was commonplace. It was real enough for them to transcibe an oral tradition and put their observations of it onto a scroll. I'm pretty sure I saw Chris angel walk on water a few weeks ago. Perhaps we just lack perspective on what is attainable?

What if we fast forward it so far to the future that unicorns are extinct and there are no fossilized remains. someone has eventually wrote the story down at the time it was told to them and passed that down.

Clear enough?

http://www.crystalinks.com/unicornlascaux.jpg
prehistoric cave drawing depicting something that could have become the now "unicorn"
That doesn't answer the question. If all of your physical evidence is dust or destroyed, if the knowledge of how to build something is lost. Does that mean the thing couldn't have exist?

No of course it does not - i have said this many times to you already and you don't seem to pick up on it. I'm not saying that Unicorns never existed, nor Jesus nor Horus - what i am saying is that nobody knows whether or not they ever existed, and while there may be cave drawings or hearsay about them that does not qualify any level of certainty about their existence.

Someone needs to tell those tourists in Egypt that the pyramids don't really exist if that's the case

That makes no sense at all, if the Pyramids are still there then you don't need historical evidence for their existence.

If the basis for the writing of the story started at a point even 500 years after the original it would still differ greatly.

Christianity is only 40 years after, so it's a bad comparison.

unless the bible is just a more modern interpretation of previous evidence. I'm no biblical historian but I'm pretty sure the old testament predates Christianity by more than 40 years.

I said 40 years after... that is when Paul of Tarsus's first writings appeared. That is a very different scenario to the 500 years after-the-fact hypothetical extinct bear scenario you used as comparison.

My perspective at the time of the original occurance was based on my percieved reality of my surrounding world. Who are we to say what a more primitive man's percieved reality was.

A lot of people have perceived many different things, we can either believe all of them because "who are we to say" or we can compare their experience to a reality that we can observe and see if they are congruent.

To them seeing angels and pillars of fire was commonplace. It was real enough for them to transcibe an oral tradition and put their observations of it onto a scroll.

There are lots of people seeing Greek and Roman and Egyptian entities too, does that mean they are also true? What about people seeing ghosts? People who claim to be abducted by UFO's? What about David Icke seeing reptilian overlords who rule the world?

If the claims of Jews and Christians are good enough for you to consider them true then why don't you believe everything that anyone has ever claimed? It is all the same stock standard testimony.

Because of my tests with God. Because I see patterns in coincidences that are based off actions I have no choice in or don't want. Because I can see the end results of my work are far better than if I had done nothing.

Tests with God? Be more specific

Everyone see's patterns and coincidences and we remember them because they are the improbable, we can't chose coincidence because that would invalidate it, so it hardly stands to reason that whether or not you want them makes a difference.

End results of what work? And what do you mean if i had done nothing?

I'm pretty sure I saw Chris angel walk on water a few weeks ago. Perhaps we just lack perspective on what is attainable?

Chris Angel would be the first person to tell you that none of that shit is real. He's an illusionist and Skeptic!

I thought you would like that! I don't claim that it's real. I don't believe in talking serpents or burning talking bushes, or pillars of fire. I've never experienced or seen it. The point I was making was the people taking eye witness account believed it was real. Therefore I allow the possibility.

But you aren't just allowing the possibility - you're accepting it as a fact and organizing your life around the conclusions it leads to.

I'm not going to say that none of it is possible, but i'm sure as hell not going to dive head first into believing the testimony of primitive people or anyone for that matter, especially considering the amount of delusion present in the world, the strange pattern seeking in humans such as pareidolia, nor the fact that many people would make up such claims for power, money and cheap thrills.

[tackattack]

No of course it does not - i have said this many times to you already and you don't seem to pick up on it. I'm not saying that Unicorns never existed, nor Jesus nor Horus - what i am saying is that nobody knows whether or not they ever existed, and while there may be cave drawings or hearsay about them that does not qualify any level of certainty about their existence.

And what I'm saying is the caveman had to have seen something that caused him to draw it on a wall. Where did he come up with the idea to give it 2 horns on the front, 4 legs, a tail and the stature of a horselike creature? You can prove the tangible in the now that we have no fossilized remain of anything resembling a "unicorn" or you can trace the the logical progression of the story back to something and see the truth that the unicorn myth probably cam from this creature (I'm not statig it just just an assertion).

A lot of people have perceived many different things, we can either believe all of them because "who are we to say" or we can compare their experience to a reality that we can observe and see if they are congruent.

I agree. We can compare their experience to our personal reality that we can observe and see if they're congruent.

Tests with God? Be more specific

Everyone see's patterns and coincidences and we remember them because they are the improbable, we can't chose coincidence because that would invalidate it, so it hardly stands to reason that whether or not you want them makes a difference.

But it does make a difference. It's the difference between whether you are the next cause in the chain or are being affected by someone else's cause. Tests with God ok. When I doubt God or am at my spiritually low points "coincidences" ALWAYS arise through some unrelated randomness to put me back in God's Love. When I've given up hope in humanity, I always meet someone which rekindles that hope. When I'm uncertain which road to choose, the road always chooses me and it's the right road. Theese are just some of many and I have a lot of posts to get to.

End results of what work? And what do you mean if i had done nothing?

Goes back to being affected or affecting others through free-will.

But you aren't just allowing the possibility - you're accepting it as a fact and organizing your life around the conclusions it leads to.

I'm not going to say that none of it is possible, but i'm sure as hell not going to dive head first into believing the testimony of primitive people or anyone for that matter, especially considering the amount of delusion present in the world, the strange pattern seeking in humans such as pareidolia, nor the fact that many people would make up such claims for power, money and cheap thrills.

I don't think I'm diving "head first into believing the testimony of primitive people or anyone for that matter" except my own reality.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't believe there is a Heaven, so I don't believe there are *any* ways to get into it.

Same.

@ the OP

And if you're not talking about the Christian kind of heaven then what kind of heaven are you talking about? Islamic? or some other religion's kind of heaven or paradise? Or... nirvana perhaps?

Or is it your own personal kind of heaven that is completely made up, but of course: no more made up and no more relevant (or irrelevant) than any orthodox religion's heaven ... Either way I believe you lack evidence and I wish to know of some...

but then, what on earth are you talking about exactly? I really do wish to know please Perhaps your heaven is entirely metaphorical? Are you talking about cryptic stuff like 'a state of mind' and that etc.? lol...

Anyway, all that aside... (that laughing aside ) welcome to the forums, I really do hope you enjoy your stay

[...]
That is why i think your God is a bastard, amongst many other reasons.

Yep I agree.

And... as Daniel Dennett says: Ought implies can.
You are only obligated if you have the ability....

and since God is supposedly omnipotent, he ought to do something about the fucking mess that does go on in the world. I said this last part myself lol.

EvF