Five Questions for Theists:

1. How do you "explain" the existence of God?

Penrose et al. have had a stab at explaining the beginning of this universe. Both theists and atheists have to deal with the ontological problem of infinite regress [Ruse in ISIS.]. Dawkins makes the point correctly, I believe, a god would be a complex entity, begging the question of how did it became that way?

Not I "did nt" ask: Does God Exist? Please address the question, as put.

2. Why did god allow the Pre-Cambrian Extinction?

Between about 800 million years BP and 500 million years BP, there were two distinct forms of life evolving, one path became extinct, 500 million BP: These creatures didn't even have tubular internal system [intestines, blood vessels etc.] as most species on our path do. [Leakey] Different from us, as if they were from Mars.

If Humans were at the centre of creation, why would a god destroy an entire independent path of evolution, when it was intended that the alternative path, leading to us, was its goal? Billions of innocent creatures died needlessly.

Note: natural selection did not have as much traction at that most distant time, because there were ecological niches not in competition in the early earth: Not all the earth was inhabited.

3. Given a loving god, why is the insect kingdom so cruel?

4. How was Jesus born with Mary's hymen intact?

5. Would James have a stronger claim on the Davanic throne than Jesus, given James’ legitimate birth?

I put it to you; that all the above are legitimate questions, that all theists should answer. Maybe, others on OLO might think similarly.

Epilogue: Do you think the above are important questions to answer?

Let's have some traction here, no its all a mystery stuff, please.

Either side of the god debate; your contribution is respected, in the true spirit of OLO.

Hahahahahaha *shakes head*

1. You actually want a random comment in a random thread on a random opinion site to come up with a conclusive answer for something we, as an entire species, can't get our heads round. So far, it's called 'faith'.

2. Last time I checked my drivers licence it didn't state 'God'. Ask him, when you get there.

3. Life's cruel, harden up. It's called 'the circle of life'. Survival of the fittest is another way to look at it.

4. I guess anything is possible when you were also immaculately conceived.

5. You actually think about this stuff?. Ummmmm.....dunno....can I phone a friend?.

It is pathetic to have my posts on israel banned then have to read mindless stuff like proposed in this questioner.

The questioner asks about god then talks about a few aspects of gods son [why you need the father to be the son [from a virgin no less]

jesus came here to reveal his father live with it
jesus was a jew he came to tell his people about god/good

god gives allof us our lives [god is the lifegiver] jesus confirmed by his 'dying'and'being/born again that the jewish belief in people rising on some 'JUDGMENT day is childish belief

Jesus didnt need to-die-for-you-to-be-saved-from-a-wrathfull-jewish-god

It certainly wasnt his [our fathers will]god-is-love

god is mercy and grace [jesus revealed a new covenant [LOVE GOD , AND LOVE NEIGHBOUR] its not rocketscience ,even-to-jews

Jesus didnt come here to make alcopops from hand-washing water [when he said it is not my time he meant that,

you dont get its not a miricle but jesus saying to his brother jews i dont care if you feed them that hand wash water

Same with if you were a jew you wouldnt dare to eat back then without washing your hands first[thus feeding 4 thousand or even 5000 jews ''all they wished to eat ''[ie note]isnt that much of a miricle]

But you never got the son so totally missed what he came here to reveal about our father

[but you dont need to worry about that because gods 'own ' know god [the life GIVER] ' even less ....what with murdereing palistinians in palistein ,and christians [25 million in russia]

Dont you know arabs are semites [look up the word sometime]

While your at it look up israel[wars with god] , even his own know him not[nor recognise what their own king revealed about the one god of all living

now stop adulterating the word of the son and pray toyour god [put nothing before god oF life , who isnt served by death nor sacrifice [ritual murder]

god is the living/loving god of life
live with it [its not worth dying over

Early posters,

Thank you for your comments which I see take a Theist perspective. I was hoping for some nitty-gritty: e.g., Life's tough is an answer to why a god would be so cruel. The Pre-Cambrian thing also is very interesting. The paths on a virgin earth were not in competition because previously nothing was there. Do you see the point.

Virgin birth may had a different meaning in the first century, as historians exclain [Mack, Theing]. But if the physical delivery Jesus was to highly problematic it needs to be explain gynaecologically.

I will tied up today, so please excuse me if I am off-air for a day or so. I resently moved back to Oz from Hong Kong and expecting a major delivery today."I shall return"

Theists, please try to avoid its evasivee its a miracle and its a mystery of the church explanations. A think the questions are fairly direct and beg fairly tangible answers, please.

Cheers.

O.

Dear Oliver :)

my my... you don't half ask big questions do you? *pinch*

1/ No...I cannot 'explain' the Existence of God, I can only 'report' it.

2/ No idea. Flood/etc... Not a scholar on that area, refer 'Answers in Genesis/Creation science' for a coverage of such issues. (they usually offer both sides of the question)

3/ Insects? 'survival of the fittest' Invented by.. our Creator :)
p.s. 'cruel' is a value judgement based on a system of morality, which, without God as reference point...is meaningless.

4/ Hymen intact? Oly.. please..stop watching the cartoon version of Greys Anatomy and go for some real medical info.. there is no chance whatsoever that Mary's hymen was in tact after the birth of the Lord Jesus.. I don't know where u dredged that up from.. perhaps it's Catholic doctrine? It sure isn't either common sense nor biblical.

5/ James? no... Jesus birth was fulfillment of prophecy as Messiah.
In any case, Mary's line also goes back to David.

FINAL ANSWER :) to all those questions.. is found in John chapter 20, verse 30-31

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

blessings 2 u Oly.

Correction:

Thank you for your comments which I see take a Theist perspective. I was hoping for some nitty-gritty: e.g., Life's tough ISN OT an answer to why a god would be so cruel. Oops, sorry.

There were times when aras of the earth was not occupied and there were open niches. Not all the parking spaces were taken. The carpark was at first empty. It was not a matter of the paths competing; these species were too highly differented. More so than deep sea crabs and eagles. Totally different.

There was a selective extinction event [Leakey]. Why would gentle gos allow a now extinct path of life-type to evolve for 300 million years and stuff it out. Perhaps, by having more oxygen in the atmosphere, the most accepted theory. If that or somethink it were the means: why behave in such a manner?

Please answer the questions with some traction

I don't really have much to add Oliver, except to be fair to anyone answering number 3).

There is no evidence at all to indicate that insects feel pain. In this case, what would be considered cruel? Moral projection of values on the natural world is probably not a valid thing to do.

They are good questions Oliver. Here’s my atheistic perspective;

1. God to me is either the same ethereal entity as Mother Nature or is an abstract fantasial concept conjured up in the minds of human beings as their level of intelligence has evolved. It started with lots of gods, to account for all the things that the earliest humans couldn’t explain, and progressed to a single god to account for all of it, and on to the realization throughout much of the world that god doesn’t exist. In that sense, the atheistic perspective is the most advanced, but that doesn’t mean that atheists are more advanced or better human beings than god-fearers.

2. God didn’t allow the pre-Cambrian extinction event or any other extinction event or change in ecological parameters that led to a different set of species becoming dominant, because there is no god-force that controls such things.

3. It is not just the insect kingdom that is particularly cruel. All of nature is the same. As a botanist and ecologist, I have often wondered at the enormous wastefulness of life. Most plants have infant mortality rates of ~99.999999999%. For instance, after the first wet season rains, we see millions of seedlings germinating. But only a tiny portion of those will survive. Indeed, every individual plant produces somewhere between hundreds and many millions of seeds. But in order for a species to be promulgated in balance with its environment and all other organisms around it, only an average of one offspring from each individual needs to survive. There would indeed be problems with rapid expansion and pressure exerted on other organisms if a species reproduced at even a tiny bit over the replacement rate in an ongoing manner. And the extent of wastefulness is much much greater with pollen grains than it is with seeds. This apparent wastefulness is part of the natural order of things. It isn’t god-controlled…. and we shouldn’t be thinking of it as wastage, or cruelty.

I’ll have to pass on questions 4 and 5.

Cheers

1 God is manifest to each of us through faith. “Faith”, by definition, needs no concrete evidence of existence.

2 God does not care to intervene for the benefit of individuals or respond to specific events. He gave us free will to help us deal with all that stuff.

3 you can set someone or something free because you love it and if it comes back to you, then you are likewise loved. God did the same to us by endowing us with free will, which for some reason most theologians would seek to curtail, hence their fixation for sexual repression.

4 dunno, how?

5 that question is not about god but about the schemes and aspirations of men.

Important questions?
the first three are reasonable questions which everyone should seek to answer for themselves.
The last two are irrelevant to a persons faith.

one under god,” It is pathetic to have my posts on israel banned then have to read mindless stuff like proposed in this questioner.”

But life is rarely fair.

Dear Oliver,

An interesting thread - Thank You.

You've certainly set us quite a challenge - quite a lot to think about.

I've decided to answer your questions - one at a time.

You ask, "How do you explain the existence of God?"

By the following:

1)The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a Supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

2) Motion, i.e. the passing to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.

3) From the consent of mankind (usually described by Catholic writers as the moral argument).

4) From the internal witness of conscience to the supremacy of the moral law, and, therefore, to the existence of a supreme Lawgiver (this may be called the ethical argument).

5) From the existence and perception of beauty in the universe (an aesthetical argument).

There are many more explanations given on the following website:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm - 101k -

Realistically, man is not positioned to have all of the answers, apart from getting what is available from the Bible.
A small man looking up from a small world with existing knowledge (apart from the Bible version of Creation) isnt going to make an understanding of how it all is.
I often think about what lies beyond the black backdrop of the stars. Cant figure it.
Im not going to know that until after Ive left earth after death...and even then... I have to be on Gods good side for Him to reveal it all.

OK, Sincere question.

If we started from Adam and Eve, why is the incest that must have been necessary to reproduce from this state of affairs not a sin, and how come we're not all retarded or with genetic disorders?

Secondly, can anyone explain why the Spaghedeity is so often ignored in our lives, and why spagnostics don't get respect from the education system.

As Henderson says,

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

Ramen.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

as the post remains i will try to give you my belief
How do you "explain" the existence of God?

E=mc2 =Energy cant be created nor destroyed [according to science],
our 'living sperm [energy] were formed into man using dust made life from the sun [energy] ,the animus of life [your thoughts , electrical activators [ie our unseen energies] reform [combine into the unseen [darkmatter]

that ; being unseen are unknown but still E-energy i chose to call god[in the beginning god [the formless empty darkness was over the surface of the deep]=[the spirit of god hovering over the waters]

that light from the sun's sustain all life [turning dust into life]is a science fact ,god saw the light was good and intime via our life [living] we are 'allowed' to prove it

god is the unseen 'expanse between the waters and the waters'
in revelations we learn gods throne is our heart [love]

You carefully avoid asking what god is , but god is logic [logus] law ,light [itself unseen , till it reflects off and reveals the dust] yet [in revealing the dust],in the loight to be love and life [reason] being evolved into infinatly vairiable life [for gods reason not mans].

i explain the egsistance of god as fact [as witnessed best [reflected in life ,especially in the good's of love and living [specificlly in the good and true we see in our freewill actions in all life ,

freewill is allowing our logic to have free choice , thus is a good [even if our freewill allows us to do evil to prove it] the very fact of evil allows us to resist it [or enjoin in it ,

because god gives us freewill to believe and get on with living [as a beast if so is our want [or as a true enlightened son [servant] of life], each according as we chose [with gods living loving grace]god allows us to believe it or not.

to whom much is given much was to be expected

Usual Suspect.
I havent got all of the answers. If I want to know anything Ive always got to go back to The Word every time.

The Answers in Genesis people put the incest thing quite well when they say that sex between brother and sister for children was permitted to a certain point then God said No, as in NO MORE, because it was breaking down the genetic line and would have produced retarded children.
E.g. many will remember the young banjo player in the film "Deliverance"?
The thought of God Allowing this for a while to get "numbers up", then stopping it, may be hard for some to get around because we are now so used to incest being sin/and a criminal offence.
Its has been sin/offence so long now that the thought of the act has become repugnant to most...so generally we dont do it.

*We can ignore God or not and we can get to know Him through prayer and then He Reveals Himself... which is actually Jesus Christ Who will come to live with us as we confess the sin and receive Him.

Dear Oliver,

"Why did God allow the PreCambrian extinction?"

As in all creative activity - there's always several "drafts" before the final "masterpiece." That's why "man" (the draft)was created first, and then came "woman", the masterpiece. (smile).

The same with the PreCambrian era - this was a period in earth history before the evolution of hard-bodied and complex organisms. Dominant PreCambrian organisms were soft-bodied, simple, and entirely marine. Diversification of the hard-bodied organisms did not occur until the beginning of the Cambrian era, when the first shelly fauna appeared.

The loss of species can be mitigated by a concurrent creation of new species.

All,

Question one does not ask about the existence of god, but an explanation for god’s existence. Why and How?

Scientists provide explanations for the “being” of the universe. Cultural-anthropologists explanations for the development of shamanism, priesthoods, churches and religions.

I know religionists have faith… Based on what “explanation” of god?” [not existence]

Ludwig,

Welcome, Interesting point on insects, I did realise they were insensitive to pain. I have read that the longer dinosaurs may have had “neuronets” at the base of their long tails, because it would take one or two seconds for the message to reach its brain, if said tail bitten by a predictor.

Col,

Thanks. What is the connection you are making between free will and the Pre-Cambrian extinction? My point was there was a seemly meaningless path created, if the apex of the creation is humanity. Why create the other path?

one under god,

Hello. I do not see debate between theists and atheists/agnostics on the ontology of the creation, infinite regress or the epistemology/theory of god -if it exists- a mindless topic. Re-read the questions: All are practical, not mystical.

Since Einstein, much more has been learned about the nature of matter and energy. For example, E=mc2 does explain the positron [Dirac]. The “matter/energy cannot be destroyed” issue raised needs a few hundred words to respond to. I will try a reply, when there is more space.

How did god become god? If god can just be god, why not the universe(s)?

Boazy,

Greetings friend. If Jesus was to re-establish the House of David, as the Kingdom of Heaven, James would have had a better claim. To the general onlooker Jesus, was illegitimate and had less dynastic rights. Did Jesus have King David's DNA?

Foxy,

Good post. It addresses the question: Does a god have to practise [draft]? Is a god, god, if it is not omnipotent?

For a long-time period the two paths were parallel. We are derived from the “hard shells”. What little is known about the Pre-Cambrian creatures is from a few fossils in “soft” stone and their harder droppings.

I am under the same space restriction as you oliver, how did god become god ,cannot-easilly-be-explained-in-500-words

Science cant explain dark matter ,it cant explain why an observed particle changes its orbit when-observed ,electicity is a name-accorded-to-give-a-name-describing-A of a flow of electrons ,

life is a progression [an-Evil-Vile-Veil A-live-eve-volution],it is a science theory that this reality began with a big bang [ok the matter is still in debate [only a few days ago i tried to read 30 reasons that pull down that-BIG-BANG-theory]

But lets go with the old big bang theory for now ,the debate there was one bang or many ,
i favoured many ,an infinaty of logus/logic that expanded this universe into mere nothing [OK-almost-[>.<-nothing]that in endless eons-of-EXPANING_CONtracts ; begin to fall back into itself ,to the size [theoreticlly believed by its theorists of a full stop] that then [again-exploded with a big bang-as the [>.<] changed state and direction]

where god was in all this big-Bang-Theory was before and after ; the logic that made something from nearly nothing[>.<]

god being infinite and eternal-G_D-was before and after theBIgBang [thus theNAMEgod didnt become 'god' till we thought to name the organising eternal force underlying our very being-and-living ,yet the name god only names an unseen reality-in-word because we know nothing can come[or]GO to nothing

[EnergycCantBe-CreatedNorDestroyed]

olly-im not hung up on any belief or any-theory ,life has proven to me There-is-a-GOD , that is my only surity ,Before i realised a greater unseen organising force ,i knew there was no god by scientific-certainty,

believing-the-lies-we-are-all-fed as children ,only in study via practical pigion-and-plant-and chicken/fish-breeding guided by the science greats gregor-mendel, levi-hollander, darwin et-all did i realise my pigeons could never breed its nearest genetic-relitive
[the-extinct-dodo]

Intime-i-saw there was a greater mind behind my science-heroes, in time with-open-eyes searching for The-one-logus-in-the-many-HOLY-texts i found the living/loving creator-god,[that-lived-live-time-then-as-he-lives-live-time-all-through-time
[even-beyond-time]
but-alone-in-this-ever-NOW-live-time-ALL_THE_TIME
[beyond-whatever-we-[now]-decide-to-name-HIM

Here is my first question:

1. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Oliver “Thanks. What is the connection you are making between free will and the Pre-Cambrian extinction? My point was there was a seemly meaningless path created, if the apex of the creation is humanity. Why create the other path?”

I did not think I was making one, quite the opposite.

Freewill is a topic close to my heart. I believe it is what allows man to grow as an individual and from that we can all, hopefully, evolve to experience a more worthwhile existence.

As for paths, what may presently appear as “meaningless” might simply be because we have not resolved its meaning.

Doubtless our ancestors thought some insects had a meaningless existence because they did not understand the role of the maggot in processing the detritus of the earths mammals, birds etc. (thank God for the Dung Beetle).

Alternatively, we could assume, beyond humans, the influence of chaos on the evolutionary process produced some variants and diversity.

These days, I see a danger in us surrendering that diversity to the social and genetic meddlers, who would see some future in us all being uniformly the same and eating the most efficiently produced and uniform food varieties.

Give me diversity any day, it may not be as uniformly “efficient” in the short term but if we do not fully understand the reason and implications of both Flora and Fauna existence, we cannot understand the implications of their extinction either

Dear Oliver,

You asked, "Given a loving God, why is the insect kingdom so cruel?"

Because it's part of life's cycle that God designed to maintain the balance necessary in nature.

Every kind of animal life fits into a marvellous system of nature.
Animals help build up life by serving as food for people
and for plants. But animals also destroy life. It's part of the life cycle. They hunt and kill other animals and they eat plants. As a result, animals help keep in balance the total number of plants and animals. The balance in nature is important and is often called the 'Web of Life.'

You then ask, "How was Jesus born with Mary's hymen intact?"

The New Testament itself does not give very good authority for the virgin birth: it is dealt with in only two of the four gospels, and those same two gospels give a genealogy which says that Jesus was descended from King David through his father Joseph: a complete contradiction.

Nowhere is the virgin birth mentioned in the rest of the New Testament, and, in fact, Paul says very clearly that Jesus was "of the seed of David." Many Protestants do not hold to its literal truth, preferring to invest it with a spiritual meaning. But it remains, of course, an important element in Catholic tradition.

What, then, is the real background?

Joseph was a descendant of King David. He was an Essene, living according to their rules. The woman in such marriages must have also been dedicated to a religious ideal. She must be a virgin at marriage, in accordance with the high ideal of purity.

However, the betrothal period was very long, and must have put strains on both parties. If it happened that during the betrothal period and before the wedding, a child was conceived, then it could be said by a play on words that a "Virgin had conceived." The woman was still a Virgin legally, but not physically. It would be just like the case of a young couple conceiving a child during their engagement.

Here we go again. There is no answer to the god thing, and you all know what I think on this matter. In my first post,( the big bang) its all a never ending story of create and destroyed, and it doesn't change no matter what the human thinks. Nothing is ever the same. Life here is just a once off and nothing will ever walk or crawl this way again.

Just like the moon will leave the earths orbit, nothing ever repeats its self. All life is not meant to be fully understood. Its why its beyond our comprehensions and I believe god is just a manifest of the human mind.
We can all dribble on until the cows come in, but we will get no closer. I believe this planet may of been seeded but that's as far as I've come too a god. Its usually the simple answer that is right! Its always been here!, and all we are, is just a moment in time.

Just live life and worry what happens next after you die. I will have no "body", so I guess I'll just wonder as energy( become a part of it) or I'll go shopping down entity street and look for the best heaven on sale.lol.

EVO

This is fun. Even to an atheist.

It's a bit like those newspaper columns that devote themselves to dissecting games of Bridge.

To a non-Bridge player, the individual words have meaning (trumps, lead, bid, dummy) but the sentences and paragraphs are utterly incomprehensible.

This thread is having the same effect on me, since I neither play Bridge nor believe in God.

(Maybe there's a connection. There's a thought)

But on the upside, there is clearly a competition going on here, to determine who can respond to Oliver's - quite fascinating - questions in the most abstruse and arcane fashion.

My favourite so far is:

>>believing-the-lies-we-are-all-fed as children ,only in study via practical pigion-and-plant-and chicken/fish-breeding guided by the science greats gregor-mendel, levi-hollander, darwin et-all did i realise my pigeons could never breed its nearest genetic-relitive [the-extinct-dodo]<<

Closely followed by:

>>There were times when aras of the earth was not occupied and there were open niches. Not all the parking spaces were taken. The carpark was at first empty. It was not a matter of the paths competing; these species were too highly differented. More so than deep sea crabs and eagles. Totally different.<<

And an honourable mention to:

>>The Answers in Genesis people put the incest thing quite well when they say that sex between brother and sister for children was permitted to a certain point then God said No, as in NO MORE, because it was breaking down the genetic line and would have produced retarded children. E.g. many will remember the young banjo player in the film "Deliverance"?<<

I look forward to some worthy challengers appearing.

Oliver, I explain 'god' as the answer to the question 'before the beginning was...?'. Surely by God we mean 'life', ie awareness, consciousness, will and creation, whatever?.

Christians, Moslems etc do us all a disservice by peddling what are essentially political myths by way of moralising (the ends, the means).

God, for me would not be a "complex entity". Rather god would be the simplest of states, existing, aware and all potential- nothing like the God of the Religions.

Your other questions are not for theists so much as those cultish types known locally as Christians.

I shocked many are taking this seriously.

Mary's Hymen? lol...ummm huh?. You do the inspection yourself?. Why does God, allow, do or did?. Insect kingdom cruel?. You're confusing theism for Buddhism...and asking an obviously unanswerable question. James’ legitimate birth?. You're missing the whole point with that one. Plus you're assuming the bible is unedited by kings and popes.

I guess I consider myself a 'Theist'. But treating people how I want to be treated is about the extent of it for me. The rest is faith in utter honesty of everyone who has had power for the last 2008 years...give or take. Please.

Bizarre.

Dear Oliver,

To answer (or at least try) your final question,"Would James have a stronger claim on the Davanic throne than Jesus? Given James'
legitimate birth."

As Jesus was of the line of David through Joseph, and as the Essenes intended to restore a David king - whether for full monarchy without Herod or in a more spiritual kind of kingship under Herod - the question of whether Jesus was legitimately conceived was a crucial one. From the strict point of view he was an extranuptial child of Joseph, and could not inherit. This was the view taken by the more eastern element, including Pharisees. Their name for Jesus was "the Man of a Lie," referring both to his teachings, heretical from their point of view, and to his illegitimacy.

But from another point of view, a more liberal one, he was legitimate.
He had been conceived following a ceremony in June, 8 BC, at which his parents were finally bound to each other in betrothal. As Jesus was conceived under a form of betrothal that could not be broken, his supporters held that he was a true heir.

But the question was to pursue him for the whole of his life, and was the issue around which hostility to him could focus.

For some he was the Bastard: for others a king-Messiah who could be even more than a king.

Again, Thank You for an interesting thread Oliver.

I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Just one more thing - you mentioned in an
earlier post to me that you didn't think that God would need to do a
"draft" because He's omnipotent. I think He enjoys experimentation -
and could possibly indulge in "drafts," same as the rest of us - when
we're being "creative." Afterall aren't we supposed to be made in
His image?

Take care.

Dear Oly
you are asking us to enter the mind of the Almighty and make value judgements on Him.

We cannot do this.

You are also seeking to base this questioning/value judgement on.. events which are very distant from us historically, for which there is only scant scientific/archelogical etc information.

You are asking the impossible.

Romans 9 ..the whole chapter.

blessings.

Interesting! "God made man in the image of him-self". Hey people! Had a look at peoples behavior around the world lately? ( religious being the balanced ones)

Yeah right! I can see god in everyone of them. lol.

How silly of me. And it would have nothing to do with overpopulation.
( The big picture )

Have a nice day,

EVO

1. How do you "explain" the existence of God?
The nature of the Universe expresses the creativirty of God. All things have purpose only in a spiritual sense.

2. Why did god allow the Pre-Cambrian Extinction?

The natural universe is subject to natural principles of change and decay.

3. Given a loving god, why is the insect kingdom so cruel?

All living creatures kill living things to survive.

4. How was Jesus born with Mary's hymen intact?

Salome who attended the birth of Jesus reported the virginity of Mary.

5. Would James have a stronger claim on the Davanic throne than Jesus, given James’ legitimate birth?

Mary was chosen as the one to give birth to the Messiah. She was a temple trained virgin. Mary had no relationship to James. James was the eldest son of Joseph by a previous wife. He is spoken in the early Church as James the Elder. Joseph had no genetic relationship to Jesus, and in fact his family line were considered to be cursed.

Phil i personally like the simplicity of your reply
is it from swedenberg?
he eludiates that there are 3 meanings in the holy texts
the natural [the spiritual] and the celestial meanings

that the old testiment should be read in the spiritual representation that the word is able to realise ,as well as the natural meaning [that the inner [celestial] isnt able to be grasped in human terms]

any way im impressed with your study[even to the point of reading some of your past posts]

some thoughts that come to mind [i should have written them down] was your comment on the four directions [i possably missed the main point of it , though i did try to track it back]
but to me up and down are directions as much as n/e/s/and west are [so my directions are 6] ok ,a nothing point in hind sight ,but couldnt post it at refereanced site

Would like to tackle some other questions arising from these above postings
[re did god write the bible[of course not] ,did he inspire it [yes], was it conveyed to man[yes] is it falable [of course] did the stuff in it really happen [not all of it] [but much did] was it sent to decieve [no]is it of higher worth that god [NO ! put nothing before god]

[thats where the jews constantly get god wrong, they put idols ,rite and ritual [the word and the messengers before god][ie dead things before the living god]

Dear Oliver,

I thought that you may be interested in what Barbara Thiering, "Jesus The Man," has to say about James and Jesus. Professor Thiering began teaching at the University of Sydney in 1967, joining the School of Divinity in 1976, and lectured in Old Testament, and Hebrew Theology.
Her studies led to the Dead Sea Scrolls and a 20 year research project
which produced remarkable findings and ended in the publication of her book in 1992.

She writes, "James, the younger brother of Jesus, born AD 1. James was conceived in wedlock, so for the Hebrews he was legitimate David.
When Hellenists were in power, James was prepared to act as successor to Jesus, so was called 'Joseph." But under the Hebrews he would be the David, so was called "Jacob" (James), the name for the David king when with the Herods. For Jewish Christians, who finally accepted Jesus as the Lord (Priest and Pope), James was the David, so was called "Jacob" by them.

James was also called "Absalom" by his critics, who regarded him as the treacherous heir of David. James held that Gentiles should become
proselytes; they should not be circumcised but should keep aspects of the ritual law and obey Jewish priests. On this point he was opposed by Paul, who allowed Gentiles to abandon Jewish identity.

James was stoned to death in AD 62 on the order of the high priest Ananus the Younger.

cont'd ...

CONT'D -

Jesus- Son of Joseph, a descendant of King David through the Nathan line, and of Mary. Jesus was conceived during his parents' betrothal period before their legal marriage, so was regarded by the party of Hebrews as an extranuptial son of Joseph. He was born in March, 7 BC.
For Hellenists in the ascetic movement, he was the legitimate David, and would rule when the Kingdom came, either as an independent king, or as a subordinate of the Herods.

In AD 29 he joined with the Twelve Apostles, Hellenists, to oppose John the Baptist, who held the doctrine of Hebrews. But Jesus introduced entirely new doctrines, claiming to be able himself to fill the position of high priest, as well as king. Thus he taught the priesthood of all believers, and also the free admission of all members, including Gentiles, without hierarchical grading on the grounds of birth, race, sex or physical condition. He was opposed by all parties working for Jewish supremacy, and was called by them the 'Wicked (Anti-) Priest' and 'Man of a Lie.'

Jesus was crucified through a political stratagem, on the grounds that he was technically an associate of zealots. He was given poison on the cross to end his sufferings, but merely lost consciousness, and was helped to revive by his friends.

He remained with the pro-Gentile party in its successive forms, guiding its leaders, John Mark, then Peter, then Paul.

In AD 61 Jesus led his party to Rome, where they established a separate mission to Gentiles, no longer attempting to make them Jews.
He was still alive in AD 64, and his death is not recorded.

Foxy - I'm waiting for the Cont....bit so wanna just pop this in:

I'm fascinated by the information regarding a legal betrothal between Mary and Joseph. I had always thought that no primary texts supporting the family side of Jesus' life were available? I would like to read more about this - can you suggest any source material (remembering it would have to be on-line: the availability of books in English here being so limited).

cheers,

Friends,
God is man's creation.Therefore god cannot be held responsible for what is happening on earth.Let us forget god for ever and think of man and his numerous problems.Let not god be a cause for disturbance of peace on earth.
People without self confidence seek solace from the nonexisting god.If society becomes good, with all the physical needs satisfied, the importance for god will autamatically go.It is the misery of man that keeps the god concept alive.
Ezhil.

Finally! A ray of light. See! it wasn't hard. Commonsense is only blessed by the few. Easy OLO and the gang. lol. When I used the word "blessed" as a metaphor. Just joking!

Iam not here too knock anyone's beliefs, more the value of the subject. You can stand and whaling at a wall, or you can mold something out of clay and set your self on fire, just as long as you are happy. But when it starts effecting the worlds moving on,s, "Just type in "shocking" and watch the content" you will see my point.

Religion is just not working anymore, but if we brought the worlds population under control, we would see a world of difference.

50 years! And the clock is ticking.

P\S I used to believe in god.

EVO

Hi All,

Thank you for your contributions. I tied up with some work involving the media for a few days and look forward re-joining you soon. Deadline.

Dear Foxy, I see the Thiering histography in your contribution. The idea of the alterative dating would valid Herod being around when Jesus was born. Thank you for the book recommendation. I have read Theiring's "Jesus of the Apocalype" Her account of Helli-Joseph-Jesus-James influenced my question five. [alternative Philo's]

There seems to be some jockeying for power between the Herodians and the Ananus' 5-20 CE. If the Davanic dynasty was responsible for ministry to the Gentiles [a low class than ethnic Jew, if converted], then it would seem logical a Herods now having less Rome, would deliver Jesus or a Davanic claimant to the House of David, to Caiaphas. Pilate under Tiberius would be trying to avoid a Jewish up-rising [wjich happened anyhow].

Jesus, I suspect, would be trying to distance himself from the Zealots. Had Jesus said, "render all unto god", Pilate would "not" have washed his hands. Jesus would have been saying he was a King of Religion and a King of a State. Rome would never have allowed that statement.

Hello Philo, appreciate your contribution. I look forward especially to researching your account of James the Elder who I had [erroroneously?} associated with a James Niceta son of Zebedee. The alternative account is claimed to come from the Clementine Recognitions and Homolies. [Robertson & Donaldson, 1875 in Theiring 1995] I need to do some homework.

Steel,

My Answer:
I believe the Bible is made up of two distinct books one [OT] about prophesy and one [NT] about fulfilment. Fulfulment to a Christian being the substitutioary randsom of the Son to the Father for the sins of Humankind. Perhaps with a special emphasis on original sin and the first commandment.

The OT is futuristic and takes the Hebrews from Nomadic life under YHVH to their promised land. YHVH was a tribal volano [Volcanus] god. Moses had the hard of job holding his subjects back from moving too quickly towards an agricultural god, the calf. I belief the aforesaid merely subsists, as a foundation to Jewish and Christain Faiths. Islam would recognise Abraham and Moses as prophets.

The NT is about a Messiah and substitutionary random [Jesus as The Christ. The NT's God, unlike the OT, is a God of love.

I lean towards Jesus being persecuted by the Jews generally for elevating the status of the Gentiles and by Jewish power groups for his claim to House of David. I do believe there was an historical Jesus. His divinity a creation of others.

Moreover, the ousia of the OT & NT godheads are different. The godhead was not ratified in Latin Church, until the Council of Constantinople (381). This is very confusing to the Researcher. For me, events seem more political than theological.

The attributes of the gods of Abraham, Moses and Apostles/Paul are very different. Over the centuries accretions appear to be added and become doctrine. Yet, all micmic several other religions of their various times.

The Words in the Bible were written a generation and generations beyond The First Generation Verbal Lore after Jesus' crucifition. The stories spread, to various locations, each of which had its own spin.
ambitions, and, as such, have high value to humankind.

-cont-

Dear Romany,

If you google - 'Barbara Thiering - Mary and Joseph,'
you'll find quite a few websites to choose from.

Or alternatively, google - 'Barbara Thiering's Writings.'

Select the articles - actually written by her, and not other authors.

The following websites may be of interest:

www.pesherofchrist.infinitesolutions.com/index_Mary.html

The title is called: The Pesher of Christ: Dr Barbara Thiering's
Writings.

www.wikio.com/article/36752757 - 44k -

The title is: Blasphemy: Mary Magdalene by Barbara Thiering.

I hope this helps.

In parallel there were the Gnostic gospels.

After Hellenisation of The Word,subsequently, at Nicaea (325) a selection of the main non-Gnostic gospels were selected together with the OT as the Bible: For me this makes the Life of Jesus, opaque.

I believe the goadhead was a concession to Roman pantheism in the time Constantine, possibly modelled on the Serapis godhead. It is plausible Constantine saw God the Father & Sol Invictus, as the same entity.

Islam would recognise Jesus as a significant prophet, of lesser rank than Mohammed.

Linguistically Jesus' words would have been under the influence of Attic Greek & Aramaic, whereas the Bible's interpretations codified doctine by the various church councils, until the King James Bible, Koine Greek and Vulgar Latin.

I'm open argument from Theists' case. But my positive heuristic is inclined towards the Bible "not" being The Word of God. Yet, some of the words are supportive of moralist and humanist constructs.

-Error, reposted-

I'm open argument from Theists' case. But my positive heuristical is included towards the Bible "not" being The Word of God. Yet, some of the Bible's words are supportive of moralist and humanist constructs and ambitions, and, as such, have high value to humankind.

--might be offline for two days, but will try and take a peek--

Oliver it was never intended that anyone should know for sure.Life is full of paradoxes and ambiguities.If you knew for sure,life would not be worth living,whether you be god fearing,agnostic or aetheist.

Enjoy the moment,since there is nothing that can excell the pleasure or pain that can be experienced by your own hand.

Pre-occupation with god or aethieism is a waste of time.

Dear Oliver,

Barbara Thiering claims that the gospels were written deliberately in a form containing two levels of meaning: the surface level provides a simplified and often symbolic description designed to satisfy those who needed the supernatural as an element of their faith.

And the second level, concealed within, depicts the actual events and their real significance. The surface stories and parables of the New Testament provide one account - yet the real history of the life of Jesus is to be found beneath.

By presenting his life in its historical context (amidst the social, political and religious agitations of the time), Barbara Thiering removes elements of Christian mythology to show that Jesus:

-was born out of wedlock to a betrothed and thus, officially, "Virgin" woman:
-was rejected by his strict Jewish religious sect for his actions in promoting rights for the poor, the sick, women and gentiles;
-was crucified for his beliefs but did not die on the cross and was revived later in the burial cave;
-married Mary Magdalene and fathered a family.

By stripping away the mystery from events and examining their significance, Barbara Thiering has discovered a Jesus who is a real, human, fallible figure. His courage, compassion and wisdom are of timeless relevance and continue to be the wellspring of our deepest and most powerful values.

Of course its political! The never ending story of power and control and broken down to a bed time story for children. Then again, the comparison is not that dissimilar.

EVO

Well thus far I've not said much in this thread.

Hopefully not to annoy dear Foxy :) I do wish to provide an 'alternative' opinion on Thierings writings.. (From Wikipedia)

<<Barbara Thiering (born 1930) is an Australian writer. In books and journal articles she has attempted to challenge Christian orthodoxy, drawing on claimed new evidence that gives alternative answers to its supernatural beliefs. Her claims have been almost entirely dismissed by scholars in the field.

From her speciality, the Dead Sea Scrolls, she has developed the argument that the miracles, including the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, were not just legends as critical scholars hold, but were deliberately manufactured myths.>>

Notice the words "entirely dismissed by scholars in the field"

They are not mine but Wiki's. (and wiki is ALLLways right:)

Of importance in assessing Thierings viewpoint, is the key identity "Teacher of Righteousness" of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

She apparently 're-dates' this personality such that he can be identified with Jesus.

Wiki continues:

While Thiering's thesis attracted some controversy in the media when "Jesus the Man" was published in 1990, her ideas have not received wide, openly acknowledged acceptance on the part of her academic peers. In a response to a letter Thiering wrote to The New York Review of Books, objecting to a review by Geza Vermes, Vermes summed up the academic reaction to her work:

"Professor Barbara Thiering's reinterpretation of the New Testament, in which the married, divorced, and remarried Jesus, father of four, becomes the "Wicked Priest" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has made no impact on learned opinion. Scroll scholars and New Testament experts alike have found the basis of the new theory, Thiering's use of the so-called "pesher technique", without substance."

Now.. in all of this, I hope it is noticed that I've not ventured a syllable of 'my' opinion on Thierings work, but you can guess it :)

I want to add a postscript to my use of Barbara Thiering's, "Jesus the Man," in answering Oliver's last two questions. Oliver asked that we stay away from the "supernatural" in our answers. I found that Thiering's work suited this purpose.

Amazon.com - sums up the book description of "Jesus the Man," and Thiering's writings in particular, rather objectively:

"This controversial version of Christ's life is not the product of a mind which wants to debunk Christianity. Barbara Thiering is a theologian and a biblical scholar. But after 20 years of close study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels she has developed a revolutionary new theory which, while upholding the fundamental faith of Christianity, challenges many of its most ingrained supernatural beliefs.

"Jesus the Man" will undoubtedly upset and even outrage those for whom Christianity is immutable and unchangeable. But for many who have found the rituals of the contemporary church too steeped in medieval thinking, it will provide new insights into Christianity in the context of the 1990's."

Here are a few other Editorial Reviews of Thiering's work:

1) "The impact of "Jesus the Man" may be as profound as that of Darwin's "Origin of Species on Theories of Human Origins."
-Focus.

2)"(The) sensational nature (of the book's findings) may disguise the strength and scholarship which Thiering has deployed in the course of her narrative."
-Peter Ackroyd, The Times Saturday Review.

3) "Some will see her as an anti-Christ, a mischievous scholar determined to destroy Christianity. To others she will be a source of comfort and peace enabling them to live Christian lives without having to accept as fact Jesus's divinity, his miracles, the virgin birth, and Resurrection."
-The Australian Magazine.

Other reviews of Thiering's work can be found in:

a) Dr. H. Shanks, Editor, Biblical Archaeology Review (B.A.R.)Sept/Oct
1992.
b) Dr P. Esler, The Bulletin, 9th June 1992.
c) Dr B. Byrne, Sydney Morning Herald, Sat. June 27th 1992.
d) Prof. A. Crown (Professor of Semitic Studies, Sydney University)
in, 'Annals,' June 22, 1992.

I agree, it's interesting in any discussion to hear various opinions.

Theists commonly refer to “Faith”; Let us have look at the word. It means “belief, trust and confidence” and was first used 1300 derived from the Latin Fides:

a1300 Cursor M. 3405 (Cott.) In drightin was his fayth ai fest. c1340 Ibid. 2286 (Trin.) In maumetrie furst fei he [nembrot] fond. c1391 CHAUCER Astrol. II. §4 Observauncez..& rytes of paiens, in which my spirit ne hath no feith. – OED – Unabridged.

So, Faith entered the English Language in 1300. Chaucer in 1391 states he has no confidence in Astrology.

Faith entered the "Religious" English language in 1383:

1382 WYCLIF Jas. ii. 17 Feith, if it haue not werkes, is deed in it silf. 1382 WYCLIF Jas. ii. 17 Feith, if it haue not werkes, is deed in it silf.

The speaker is saying that faith is a deed in itself. This is “justifying” faith. The other religious faith is “speculative” faith. John Wyclif addresses “justifying” faith.

The definition of “speculative faith” is:

“The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof.” : e.g.,

1651 HOBBES Leviath. III. xlii. 271 Faith is a gift of God, which Man can neither give, nor take away. 1690 LOCKE Hum. Und. IV. xviii, Faith..is the Assent to any Proposition..upon the Credit of the Proposer, as coming from God, in some extraordinary way of Communication. 1700 BURKITT On N.T. John i. 12 Faith is..such an affiance in Christ..as is the parent and principle of obedience to him.

–OED– Unabridged.

Regarding faith, "it could be proved that the Hebrew does not in itself contain the notion of belief, it must necessarily presuppose it". (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

The Hebrew causative conjugation, or Hiph'il, means "to believe", e.g. Genesis 15:6. (Catholic Encyclopaedia) To conjoined with Latin Fides/Faith hundreds/thousands of years later it becomes, “I believe, because, I believe”.

Both the faith & trust have continuity between ancient times & 1300 CE. Only in the fourteenth century is the notion of “confidence” in said faith & judgement added. Contrarily, in Moses' additive is “steadfastness”. (Catholic Encyclopaeda)

Boaz my good friend,

The idea of Pesher and the Quell document/construct are devices to dead largely with period 50 BCE - 50CE. The constructs are derived but not speculative to the point of being unreasonable. Like Troy [now found] and Atlantis [a sizable, but ordinary Minoan City-State].

Thiering is peer published on the dead sea scrolls - I checked. She would well aware that her work would be so outside orthodox discipline it would desk rejected jounal editors and not make it to review. So ideas are not accepted easily Einstein, at first, did believe Heinsenberg. Dirac, at first, did not believe Dirac! [He discovered anti-matter and didn't accept the findings of his equations.]

One thing Thiering's calendar does support is Herod being alive when Jesus was born. The Bible doesn't. I do not think histographers would accept the Bible's use of the Virgin. I have also read in Rome that the terms Vigin and Crone, were used generically designate young womwn and old women, respectively.

Incidently, Vestal Vigins, did have to stay virgins all they lives. Also, I think I am correct in saying some Essene Preists, could have comfort with sacred prostitutes, at designated times.

I would accept Thiering an expert on the Dead Seas Scrolls and Frisrt Century Languages, the Pesher is testing new ground. But secret codes are not new.

Further, I would accept an expert Dawkins on genetics, not culture nor history. Richard Leakey, an expert on paleo-anthopology. Gell-Mann, sub-atomic physics & QM. Penrose, cosmology. Greenfield, neuroscience. The evidence of many disciplines provide alternatives to go and sometimes cross-valid each other. Alternatives, to religion, god and Jesus. Each is a separate construct as I have noted on several times:

Intelligent Design if itis true, hypothetically, what is the proof that Jesus' "in ousia" was that Designer

ok oliver
so on belief on faith alone dosnt make much sense
Same for non belief based on science opinion or theory alone,many athiests have no understanding only following science by blind faith[trusting faulse gods]

we base our belief on facts as we witness every day [most of those who believe in god do so by proof we recieve via gods great creation and books reporting past 'god' teachings and errors]

so out of the athiests ,apparently a billion [or there abouts] how many understand science? [how many can explain evolutionary inheritors?]
or Have any scientific opinion or understanding [how many blindly have faith in science and follow the likes of dorkins ,quoting his delusions mindlessly of his science con

faith can move mountains [True or faulse]
if your insane enough to say faulse explain placebo affect

having faith in science mindlessly is as dumb as having faith in religion [mindlessly] ,
But dont be thinking some clever spin on faith has any real proof [or can be claimed to be scientific ,if science cant measure it or duplicate it it isnt science]
Last i heard science hadnt egsactly gotten arround to making even its first cell [nor-even-only-a-cell membrane]

Sure they can take a GOD-given-membrane and adapt or replace the chromosonal-contents ,but they have never evolved one species into any other genome.

[And dont be quoting plastic bacteria [cause thats micro-evolution within-the-same-species [just like darwins-pigions and-finches]
''science'' claims a family-accendant-tree decending down to the very first-cell into new genome,yet cant replicate the damm thing from nothing or mutate nothing-into-something

[Blind-faith in science is dumber than having blind-faith in-a greater power]

When we both die [those who find life-hereafter who believed-in-god can say i told you so , to the-athiests ,

But if-it-is-we-who-are-decieved and it-so-turns-out-that there is no after life or/no god then>no athiest will-be-able-to-say :see there was nothing ,we-told-you-so

Blind-faith alone its not a good reason-for-anything-but why-do-you have a problem with a know-it-all god who-is-smarter than you ?and-Smarter-than-all-his-creation?

Who by-letting-us-use-our own freewill freely-allows us to believe it as-we-chose or-not

BD consider Judea has a Greek foundation and Rome a Latin foundation. Herein, the Jews were stuggling to maintain different relationships with the Roman Empire, while the orthodox Jews were trying to retain said orthodoxy in a Diaspora, under other non-Latin cultural traditions: e.g., Greek.

[Many of the Roman legions that pushed the Roman Empire West would gave ethnically Greek soldiers.]

It wasn't like Hollywood makes out. There were Orthodox Jews and Hellenised Jews. Jesus, the latter. Later the Greek to be turbo-charged by Paul :-). I think Jesus may have been trying to build Hellenised Judaism organically by lessening the barriers for Gentile membership. After Jesus was dead [whenever], Hadrian forced the cause because the persecution of the Jewish religion required that some Jewish feign as non-Jews by having Gentile Bishops, to overcome excile and move into holy [to Jews] otherwise banned areas.

As noted above, "Faith" as you express it, probably started around the fourteen century. The OT & NT were different than that Middle-Ages expression, and, different from each other!

Cheers.

All,

If infinite regress can be posited as God as the delimited; it would seem to humans are trying to make anthromophic that delimiter/stop. [we and God share the same image in Christianity at least]. Why not a closed sytem that creates universes. Time itself is a derived dimension. Said derivations are could between indetreminancy and determinancy; not requiring the more primative notion of cause-and-effect.

C'mon theists, please provide a conceptual model with defined constructs. Some tangibility or substance of the latent variables, thanks.

Still respect your right to believe.

George [an OLO contributor] is correct, I am a seeker. I am not anti-theism/religion. "A" in atheism means "not", rather than opposed to. Anyway Theism and Atheism sit to close to claiming infalliability for me to accept either on philosophic. Any postulate/hypothesis should be held tentatively.


Foxy,

Enjoying your comments across posts.

Good work. Keep it up!

one under god,

Will come back to you. Have a good day.

Yours faithfully,

O.

Oliver,

Apologies if you think that this has moved way past your questions but I really don't relate to many of the posts in here. Some atheist ones (whether or not I agree with them) made more sense to me then the many of the theistic ones. Perhaps I am just not clever enough or too lacking in faith for the present discussion. So I'm just going back to your questions and keeping it simple.

Ideas including Mary the legal but not actual virgin and Jesus being just some inspiring Jewish man who went off and got married and lived happily ever after, ideas that somehow don't affect the foundation of Christianity, are not my cup of tea. I'd like to see some reasonable evidence before adopting such beliefs and I'm not sure if I could get my head around how it doesn't change the foundation of Christianity. Thus I wouldn't know how to continue that line of thinking. Hence my reversion to your questions.

"1. How do you "explain" the existence of God? …”

Firstly I’d like to adopt the list of the other standard explanations already presented. You were targetting the "something must have caused physical stuff" explanation. The scientific evidence suggests a beginning for the physical stuff. The sourcebook of my religion commences with "In the beginning..." in the claim that there was a beginning to the physical stuff. A decision needs to be made as to what explains the unexplained.

Faith can be put in some unidentified infinite regress of natural forces (or some equally incredible speculation based on string theory or landscape etc.) or an eternal God. Due to the implausibility of both from a natural cause pre-'big bang' perspective the supernatural seems to make more sense as it neatly resolves the problem. Being supernatural it doesn't have to be natural. Of course if you are not open to supernatural then you need to put faith in the other versions. Personally I prefer to economise the amount of faith required as faith isn’t a strong point.

I don't share your confidence in Dawkins' reasoning.

CONT

"2. Why did god allow the Pre-Cambrian Extinction?”

The point has already been made: what reason is there to think they died needlessly? You don't know whether or not they made a necessary contribution. You focussed on space availability at the time. Now a lot of the earth is inhabited and some believe overpopulated. Would there still be space for them? Plug in an infinite omnipotent God and God would have known that there wouldn't be space for them in the future and you have an answer.

"3. Given a loving god, why is the insect kingdom so cruel?"

I don't believe that they have the intellectual capacity to be cruel. They function as part of the checks and balances that keep the ecosystem going.

"4. How was Jesus born with Mary's hymen intact?"

I presume you are referring to the virgin birth belief. Virgins used to be identified by intact hymens but a virgin is someone who hasn't had sex not someone who has an intact hymen.

"5. Would James have a stronger claim on the Davanic throne than Jesus, given James’ legitimate birth?"

No Jesus was the firstborn son. As a Christian I can hardly consider a divinely provided son an illegitimate birth as you seem to imply.

Dear Oly and Foxy

I'll have to pass on any further discussion on this :) I've provided some alternative views re Thiering, and Foxy has replied.. that's enuf for people interested to go the next step and sus it out more deeply and decide for themselves.

My familiarity with the Biblical text, and its background, and the broad knowledge of how the books inter-relate just give me supreme (relaxed) confidence in their integrity.

Then..there is the 'mysterious' area of personal experience.. always a minefield :) but also completely prone to nit picking and try hard pseudo psycho-analysts.

I leave you with the best answer of all :) (which I think I already gave earlier)

<<Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.>>
John 20:30-31)

John was muccccch closer to the action than Ms Thiering :)

Pericles, you might be interested:

Love and God;

Part Abstract Scientific American Book Review:

“In The Accidental Mind, the Johns Hopkins University neuroscientist shows us that the brain is a cobbled-together mess that was formed over millions of years of evolution. He argues that it is precisely the lack of optimized design that has led to some of our most cherished abilities: to feel love, to have memo ries and dreams, and to create religious concepts…

The ancient design of our neurons makes them slow and inefficient processors, he contends, so the brain requires an extraordinary amount of them and needs to interconnect them with even more synapses. The brain's neuronal network is too big to have its point-to-point wiring diagram explicitly encoded in our genes, which is why we are born with only a moderately developed brain and have to complete the fine-scale wiring by learning from experience during our species' unusually long childhood. That alone, Linden asserts, is the reason for the existence of our memories and, ultimately, for the development of our individuality…

Religious thought and practice, Linden reasons, result from the general tendency of our brain to mess with incoming data to create coherent, gap-free stories. Our brain makes visual perception seem continuous and flowing, for example, even though the pictures our neurons receive through our rapidly jumping eyeballs are not. Linden believes that it is solely because of poor brain design that this narrative-constructing function is turned on at all times, whether it is relevant for the particular task at hand or not.

In a situation where we lack evidence or a logical explanation — when contemplating the reason for our existence, say — we are driven to invent one, even if it leads humanity to appeal to a supernatural, godly power.” -cont-

I have haven’t read the Book. I have three years of Psych. From Sydney U., and, understand that with age regression hypnosis the patient, “confabulates”. That is say yiu taken back to your age seven birthday. Because information has been lost you might build a story using your 5th , 6th , 7th and 8th birthdays. Its not a lie, rather a mild delusion. This phenomenon is better known than the above and supports Linden’s general hypothesis.
Book: The Accidental Mind: How Brain Evolution Has Given Us Love,
Memory, Dreams, and God by David J. Linden

I came across this while searching for an article, which explains the biochemistry of love.

Boazy,

Thiering is to be taken on the same level, as Quell, in my opinion.

If you don’t believe in something like the Q document, then the Gospels are more in doubt.

Was Herod alive when Jesus was born? Thiering’s calendar supports the idea better than the Bible. I know virtually nothing about secret codes, believe these have been widely used thoroughout history, the Templers & Masons, for example. I have been to a lecture on ancient calendars and believe me they can be very comples, especially lunar-solar ones. [as member of the Asian Civilizations Museum, Singapore]

I will need to research it, but think the Gospel of Thomas was written before John. The former being even “closer to action”, I yhink. The churches dismiss it, like the Gnostic gospels, but it probably isn’t Gnostic. If Jesus was the new Genesis, we do not need priests or churches. Jesus did it all. No need for cardinals et al., no tithes.

Can your knowledge of the interrelation between the Gospels, explain the existence of God, in the first instance?

One under god & mjpb,

Will come back to you.

Mjpb, I am not a fan of Dawkins outside of genetics. He should have edited an anthology with subject experts: Less money for him, no doubt.

Note:

I will attempt am interim summary of our opinions at the end of week.

Please excuse any typos. It's been a long day.

oliver [no rush]whenever god moves you to reply]
on another matter
re your quote
''and, understand that with age regression hypnosis the patient, “confabulates”. That is say you taken back to your age seven birthday. Because information has been lost you might build a story using your 5th , 6th , 7th and 8th birthdays. Its not a lie, rather a mild delusion''
This is a fertile field , witnesses at trials reveal the same phenomina, they overlay movies and fears and precomditioned bias over their testimony ,in fact everything in life when recanted can be thus poluted [thus the need to write things down[written text etc as or as near to them occuring]

Point being even seeing/hearing/sense/thought involves 5 or more chemicals interacting between neurons into vision, the gaps nessisarilly need to be joined together to form a basiclly logical sense of what we are seeing and hearing
[implies a logus somewhere that joins the dots and fabricates the logic be it faith in science or faith in words, vision,sound etc]

[Think man is unique in evolving words and writing[reading and conceptual speach]ammoung all the beasts, despite science stating man evolved from ape vairiosly 65 to 100,000 years ago

Noting the evolutionary time for ape to evolve into ape in our evolution vairiously covered 65 /125 MILLION years to evolve one ape into another ape [no real point to it but isnt that an amasing outliner in evolutionary time scaling progression to those doudting the timmings of ''science theory][recall ape-man was more ape than man for millions of years]

One under God,

May point was we "do" confabulate.

[I don't practise Psychology and I think would need to do do an honours year to register for practice. My postgrad. works are in different fields, primarily related to culture and business studeies.
-One God Under Neurons?-

Cheers

CJ.,

Hello.

I lost my post to you in a time-out. It contain links to Hubble's COBE photography, going further back, technical details on "fossile radiation; and, before, the Big Bang, admittedly more spectulative Roger Penrose's presentation to the Issac Newton Institute.

The first is a photo of the creation-in-progress and the second like an x-ray inside the expansion.

We don't have a photo of God, nor do we have data about God itself. The closest thing is ID, but that is not of God, its an explanation for the universe.

I am asking how do you explain God's existence?

Matter can be destroyed. E=mc2 is a conservation law, relating conservation of charge and angular momentum. Durac has demonstrated the existence of anti-matter. Were an election to meet a positron both would destroyed - cancelled out. Mass is perhaps a better term than matter, as mass incorporates the reality of inertia. Enormous energy is required to have matter to approach c, wherein mass increases. It would take infinite enegery to move matter to c., achieving infinite mass.

Dear Boazy,

I can't comment on Jesus - The Man. I haven't read it. But I have read some Thiering's work. Her academic work is more on the Dead Sea Scrolls than Peshers.

What have you read of her work that concerns you?

Boazy, and, welcome, Foxy;

The notion of the establishment of the House of David I came to without ever reading Thiering. The dead sea scrolls state and I quote with gaps. These are fragments, remember:

(2) a Davidic descendent on the Throne shall not cease. For the Staff is the Covenant of the Kingdom. [3] The leaders of Israel are the feet until the Messiah of Richeousness, the Branch of (4) David comes to him and HIS SEED [my emphasis] was given the Covenant pf the KIngdom of His people people in PERPETUITY [my emphasis]. (4Q252, plate 5)

The above -translated directly from Aramaic- to me suggests that the Messiah was to establish a "perpetual" King of God under the House of David. This would have The of the old coventant obsolete. The feet [Genisis 49.10] in history, he who come is the first in the second dynasty of David. The re-establishment of the House of David. The Temple Christ, methinks, is the Second Genesis:

"The septre will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff, UNTIL (my emphasis) he [Heli, Joseph, Jesus/James]comes TO WHOM IT BELONGS (my emphasis)." [Genesis 49.10]

I interpret the Dead Sea Scrool plus Genesis 49.10/11, to say the staff of leadership is passed to a new coverentant under, a new leader [of the House of David] - the New Genesis. A sew start.

Taken with the Gospel of Thomas: It means churches and priesthoods are obsolete! All sin is atoned for.

The folks at Nicaea did not have all this documentation, and, if they, did, it would have been destroyed.

In the context of Thiering "his seed" suggests Jesus and/or James were expected to have children.

p.s. I have The Bible [New International] and a translation from Arimaic [Eisenman/Wise] of the Dead Sea Scrolls on my desk.

He seems to be cobbling together a variety of cognitive functions with the God thing the most laterally related. Perhaps it is hard to ignore that God thing.(To be nice to the author and because I'm a Christian I'll prefer that explanation to considering it might be needed to sell books that noone would otherwise read).

“In a situation where we lack evidence or a logical explanation — when contemplating the reason for our existence, say — we are driven to invent one, even if it leads humanity to appeal to a supernatural, godly power.”

Or contemplating the reason to reject belief in God say even if it leads to appeal to anomaly?

The human brain does seem to function rather well for a cobbled together mess. It is all very well to observe functional aspects of the brain at a micro level and say neuronal transmission isn’t as quick as electrical transmission in some mechanical devices but to argue that the general structure is a cobbled up mess or even unnecessary coherently can I presume he designed a better brain capable of biological production? (One that functions more quickly and effectively but otherwise the same as a human brain but lacks dreams, memories, and belief in God)

To confidently bridge the gap he must have more justification for considering the brain a cobbled up mess than the speed of electrical transmission. I might not like gravity because it has made me fall over and might think it should be milder and gentler but for knowing that I wouldn’t be here without it. I don’t believe neuroscience has been around as long as physics so I suspect they haven’t previously determined whether or not brain structure is necessary. Perhaps I should check with my sibling who has a PhD in that. Perhaps his breakthrough explaining the premise for his theory is in his book.

So if our long childhood explains our memories why do other species with brief childhoods also seem to recollect past experiences? Does he have evidence that they don’t have memories?

CONT

“I have three years of Psych. From Sydney U., and, understand that with age regression hypnosis the patient, “confabulates”. That is say yiu taken back to your age seven birthday. Because information has been lost you might build a story using your 5th , 6th , 7th and 8th birthdays. Its not a lie, rather a mild delusion. This phenomenon is better known than the above and supports Linden’s general hypothesis.”

The fact that we know that people have brains in their heads and that it is comprised of neurons also supports it but his theory is a long leap from all these facts.

“I have haven’t read the Book.”

Perhaps in fairness to the author it is hard to do justice to it without doing so.

“Mjpb, I am not a fan of Dawkins outside of genetics. He should have edited an anthology with subject experts: Less money for him, no doubt.”

What if Dawkins is really an unethical theist just seeking to make money from books and that explains why he doesn’t worry about those types of things. Atheist fundamentalists give him money in exchange for ego stroking pretentious assertions and theists hold firmer to their faith. Perhaps all those that make sport of his arguments are not as clever as they think they are. They never get embraced and promoted by the secular mass media so the authors don’t make a mint as their books sit in obscurity read only by fanatical Christians. Just a thought. (I hope no conspiracy theorists are reading this)

"What if Dawkins is really an unethical theist just seeking to make money from books and that explains why he doesn’t worry about those types of things." -mjpb

Wouldn't that be a laugh! ;-)

Every sighted person is deluded by the brain ever day. We see images right way-up, when the eye receives images up-side-down. Actually, it has been shown. if a person closes their eyes and lead right-way-up letters are transmitted in the x-ray spectrum [with backlighting], the delusion system does not work, the letters are perceived by the brain, correctly, up-side-down.

Trivia: We a Trichomats. Turtles are Septochomats. Image how incredible their colour vision. Some scientists have speculated that dolphins hear in 3-D.

Reverting back to Dawkins, I recall Michael Ruse suggesting that most copies were sold to US evangelicals. Dawkins should stay within his own area of expertise, he is a lay person, when it comes to History and Cultural Anthropoly, and, it is obvious. See, I am not biased, I admit it if I see a flat-spot in atheist comment.

If one wants to read non-technical about the first century try Gibbon, Toynbee, Wells, Quigley and McNeil.

I still unsure that the Theist have explained God to any where near the precision that Science has explained the Universe. Similiarly, many Christians, take an a priori position on Jesus, without study alternative gods or properly evaluating the ontological arguments relating to the Creation. They start at step ten. Poor methodology, risking the retort; methodology becoming mythology.

With infinite regress when pressed many-a-theist will respond addressing "Faith", but, as we have seen, "Faith" as we use it today, is only six hundred years old.

Peace and happiness,

O.

Oliver,

"Trivia: We a Trichomats. Turtles are Septochomats. Image how incredible their colour vision. Some scientists have speculated that dolphins hear in 3-D."

Obviously it is something that we would probably like to try but at least the old 'we don't know any better' in the sense that we haven't experienced it and won't miss it applies. BTW the image is projected on our retinas upside down and reversed in our brain but the original is the right way up so is right way up really a delusion or does it just reasonably seem like it if you don't look at the big picture?

"Reverting back to Dawkins, I recall Michael Ruse suggesting that most copies were sold to US evangelicals."

That is definitely a laugh particularly considering it might be true! ;-) The selfish gene book should have been more up his alley. Was it any better or did he get carried away in it too?

"See, I am not biased..."

Obviously bias was the wrong word but point made and good to see.

"I still unsure that the Theist have explained God to any where near the precision that Science has explained the Universe."

I am also unsure but I was of the impression that Science was struggling to explain the Universe to the point that more faith is required to accept some of the ideas floating around in respectable circles than is needed to be a theist. So how did it get there?

"Similiarly, many Christians, take an a priori position on Jesus, without study alternative gods or properly evaluating the ontological arguments relating to the Creation. They start at step ten. Poor methodology, risking the retort; methodology becoming mythology."

Many Christians are simple people like many atheists. In both cases it is not their nature to do so. I don't believe that that should be held against them.

"With infinite regress when pressed many-a-theist will respond addressing "Faith", but, as we have seen, "Faith" as we use it today, is only six hundred years old."

I believe that I missed that?

"Peace and happiness"

Amen