Confession of a former christian

Considering the well evidenced human tendency to invent Gods and their actions and laws, then a genocide for which supernatural excuses are offered is the same as any other. Only the delusional will argue otherwise.

There should never be any need for proselytizing on behalf of this mind arranging God, then. It's interesting that the Christian God chose never to perform any mind arranging on the peoples of the Americas until he was brought there by the Europeans around 500 years ago, yet he had been busy mind arranging in Ireland for about a 1000 years before that.To thinking people, this would illustrate the obvious; that religions are cultural phenomena spread from human to human, with no supernatural mind arranging involved.When individuals feel the presence of a God, the adults' imaginary friend, in their heads, they are in fact the only believer in that particular God. The God is usually based on a specific interpretation of one of the religions, but the final form of the imaginary friend is unique to the individual. This can easily be illustrated by questioning individuals of the same sect of the same religion about their Gods, and noting the variation in the characters of the Gods.We can often see it quite clearly on EvC. The more detail that individual theists give about their Gods, the easier it is to see that these are unique subjective creations within cultural frameworks.There's only one person in the world who believes in the iano God, iano, and there only ever will be one. That God will die with his creator.

Will all the people with an imaginary Christian God in their heads agree with you that Abraham's God and Christ are not one and the same? Do all Christians agree with you on this? You'll get different accounts from different viewpoints of the same thing or event, certainly, but that's not the same as the different invented imaginary friends. These will often vary on basic facts, as illustrated above. Your imaginary God doesn't appear to be one with Christ, because you state that Abraham didn't know Christ.Some Christians have an imaginary friend who doesn't send people to hell, because they perceive their friend as benevolent and forgiving. So, you will presumably regard these people as believing in a false God. The thing is, if you choose to do this, you end up proving my point. A God who does send people to hell and a God who doesn't are different Gods, not the same thing seen from a different viewpoint.So, do you believe that all the imaginary friends of all the theists in the world are real? Or just those of self-described Christians? Or just those of Christians who share your own theology (there might be very few of these)?And, as a matter of interest, about what percentage of the world's present population will be going to hell? You can ask your friend about this one, surely.Incidentally, you didn't actually reply to my point about mind-arranging in a way that meant anything. Your God chooses to mind arrange in strange geographic patterns. The patterns fit an analysis that suggests strongly that it is humans arranging the minds of other humans, not your God.

As an O.T. expert, Joe, could you give us an approximate figure for the average number of factual stats per. word achieved in the book?Another thing you might find interesting, if you can manage to decode your own posts, is to look at the one I'm replying to, then look up the word "cite" and compare it to "site". Then, a recommended exercise when you next attempt a post of that length would be to try and achieve it with a spelling/typo/grammar mistake count of less than fifty.If you can achieve that before you finish Junior High School, you might possibly be writing some kind of adult English by the time you reach college age.But most interesting, get to work on the math that I requested, as I'm sure that everyone will be astonished at the O.T. miracle of consistently fitting several "factual stats and specs" into each word.

God creates choice, and evil arises out of creating choice? So evil, defined as acting against God's will, arises from God's action in creating choice. So God, therefore, can act against God's will, but you say he can't, so it looks as though he's such a jumble of contradictions that he probably only exists in your imagination, and has been created, to some extent, in his creator's image.He probably believes in non-empirical evidence of his existence.

Unlike God, Ford couldn't be accused of inventing liquor, as well as bipedal apes with a genetic disposition to enjoy excessive consumption of it. The problem for your God, standing in our little EvC court accused of creating evil, is that you cannot be creator of humanity and all its environment without accepting responsibility for evil. The ape and his environment will determine the level of evil, and you wouldn't even have to be omniscient to figure that the combination cannot be evil free, meaning that whatever is responsible for the apparent free will of the ape is a creator of evil.But ultimately, for me, your God escapes the blame. There is no empirical evidence against him whatsoever, of course. And a rational court cannot accept your plea for this thing called "non-empirical evidence" which has a legal status like that of hearsay, or worse.So, he is free to go, and enjoy the pure liberty from everything that only true non-existence can offer. The defendant is more accurately viewed as a victim of someone's creation, not a possible perpetrator of creation related crimes. Consciously or subconsciously, you must know this.

Where do you get these strange ideas from? As a child, I was always more entertained by Greek and Norse mythology than Jewish mythology. But, whatever your personal tastes, it should be easy to understand what is mythology. If there's lots of magic flying around, like you don't see in real life, then you're reading mythology. I'm trying to help you see the obvious. I don't visit the imaginary courts of other people's imaginary friends, but do keep me informed of the imaginary proceedings.

I require no "cathecism", or catechism iano. There is plenty of empirical evidence of the widespread human tendency to make up creation mythologies and religions. Surely you agree? You can't believe in them all? This doesn't mean that one of the many couldn't be true, but simple probability calculations mean that if you want to claim truth for one of them, the onus would be on you to present the evidence.Inevitably, surprise, surprise, with so much magic going on, it always seems that the evidence has to be "non-empirical" evidence. I remember a Palestinian (Muslim) once putting that argument to me for the imaginary friend that he could feel so strongly to exist. All the religions seem to suffer equally from this lack of empirical evidence, giving the impression to this observer that they're all human inventions.But I don't claim that I can conclusively prove this. And, I don't have a reason to doubt your word that you sense a reality that includes your God. As with the Palestinian, I don't think you're lying on that point at all.

Joseph, I asked you this:

quote:

---

As an O.T. expert, Joe, could you give us an approximate figure for the average number of factual stats per. word achieved in the book?

---

I am not talking about examples, and I was not disputing anything you say. I was asking you to do some math. You talked about millions of facts in a book. I happen to know that there are not millions of words in that book. So, this means that multiple facts per. word are being expressed.So, explain the miracle. How, for example, do you express 100 different facts in a ten word sentence? Can you illustrate how it's done?Or was the "millions of facts" bit what might be generously described as wild exaggeration, and less generously described as "bullshitting"?

My adaption of your words? Child, when I read million, I read million. If, you mean by million, anything other than million, you could, for example, use the word fairy to denote one, then ten fairy could mean 45, and 100 could mean "IamAdam".

quote:

---

The OT is not a candy-coated document, but the world's most honest and historically vindicated writings in existence. Its first quality is truth and factual: those kind of genocides were commonplace. The miracles sited therein [a topic on its own], must be regarded with its millions of factual stats and specs throughout its verses, and given at a juncture of humanity when advanced alphebtical books never existed for a 1000 years after. Grammar itself was introduced here. The reprt of the ancient egptian's diets, and the travel distance from Goshen to Median - is authetically vindicated; the 1000s of names in generations, is also scientifically accurate. the author is not saying these are not true or accurate, but that he does not like what is said, a view made from this generation.

---

....millions of factual stats and specs throughout its verses.... Never forget. Walls have ears. They may spawn you as they spurn you.Who is nation?

That is not what I was laughing at.[nation's] and [nations'] do not mean the same thing. Got it?And now we are seven.

Are you labouring under the impression that the sentence above means something in English?Actually, [nation's] is the singular possessive, and [nations'] is the plural possessive.Now, are we seven, Christopher Robin?

Just call me "Alice", folks.

?seY