AJ Philips.

You just said that you had no evidance. This is not the first time you've said this. Is it unreasonable to think you did not know God? After all without evidance all you have is belief. That is why I tried to approach the problem elsewhere. If not everyone has evidance in their own lives, then as a community we should strengthen eachother by sharing how God has been in our lives, before people leave because of over thinking an issue they don't understand.

As for arrogance, that is your words, your accusation towards me. I'll say it again. Don't give me your double standard. If I am arrogant in taking what you say to mean the most plausible conclusions, (no evidance of God being no experience knowing Him), then how much more arrogant are most of your comments as a general rule. Sorry for the tangent away from the topic, but a double standard is something I detest.

Still haven't told me what it is that I need saving from, NNS. But I'm going to hazard a guess and say that it's my pantheism you want to 'save' me from. I'm curious: do you consider your personal mission to save, say, Jews from Judaism or Sikhs from Sikhism? Or are there only certain faiths, such as pantheism, from which it is your duty so save people? In a nutshell, is there another religion I can covert to that you won't try to 'save' me from? Because if there is, consider me converted (to that religion, not Christianity).

//but on an online community I asked for anyone's testimonies of God answering their prayers.//

As a science nerd I believe very strongly in the importance of experimental evidence. So last night I did a small experiment in the power of prayer. I prayed to the sun god, Apollo, that in the morning the Titan Helios would ride forth in the chariot of the sun to give us light. And what do you know, he did.

Well, you just can't argue with evidence like that. Prayer does work, and the Gods must be real (well, Apollo and Helios at least). Because there's just no other possible explanation for the sun coming up in the morning like that.

That’s correct, Not_Now.Soon. Certainly no reliable evidence.

<<You just said that you had no evidance.>>

And I don’t believe anyone else has any reliable evidence, either, since there are usually more rational reasons for personal experiences, and any other so-called evidence commits any number of fallacies.

<<Is it unreasonable to think you did not know God?>>

No, I don’t think it’s unreasonable, because I don’t think there are any gods to know.

Is it unreasonable for you to assume that I wasn’t as convinced as you that I knew God? Yes, because you don’t have a time machine and you cannot read minds.

<<That is why I tried to approach the problem elsewhere. If not everyone has evidance in their own lives, then as a community we should strengthen eachother by sharing how God has been in our lives ...>>

I already told you that I’d had my own personal experiences which I thought was evidence (and even gave you an example of one). That aside, unreliable evidence does not become reliable just because there’s lots of it. In the end, all you are still left with is unreliable evidence.

As for arrogance and double-standards, your comments are still reading quite muddled. Are you saying that, while it may be arrogant of you to assume that I didn’t really know God, it is also arrogant of me to assume that your personal experiences are not evidence of God, and, therefore, I hold a double-standard?

That would be more hypocritical.

Nevertheless, I am only going by the personal experiences that you have described to me. I don’t find them particularly convincing, and I gave you the reasons as to why I don’t.

Can I say for sure that your experiences definitely aren’t the work of a god? Of course not. What I can say, however, going by what you have described, is that I don’t think your personal experiences (or anyone else’s that I’ve heard) constitute reliable evidence. Even if there were no rational explanation for them, assuming that a god must therefore be responsible would be fallacious.

Oh, mhaze, just in case you try to accuse me of re-framing arguments again…

<<I guess this subtle re-framing of the discussion usually works for you since you do it so often. But it never works with me, so why do it? No plan B I guess.>>

let me reword a comment of mine from yesterday which contains a typo:

“What constitutes a “Christian manner” is constantly evolving, and, as Toni pointed out, this is not always desirable.”

should actually be:

"What constitutes a “Christian manner” is constantly evolving, and, as Toni pointed out, is not always desirable.”

My apologies for the numerous typos in that double-post of mine to you. I did it on a phone while surrounded by drunk people. Another typo:

“... and what Christians think of stem cell research, the two are not mutually exclusive.”

would read better as:

“... and what Christians think of stem cell research. The two are not mutually exclusive.”

That read poorly with the comma there instead of a full stop.

Deary me. The things we need to do when others are dishonest enough to portray typos or sloppy wording as a dishonest tactic. It certainly smacks of desperation, that's for sure.

Since I’m here. I’d like to formally welcome back your flawed ‘dark matter’ analogy. I thought you’d finally dumped that after the numerous times I’d discredited. But, alas, somehow you still think it softens or justifies the irrationality of believing in a god.

It never works with me, so why use it?

No plan B, I guess.

Dear Josephus,

A friend is a former Lutheran pastor. Part of his training was in St. Olaf’s seminary in the USA. One of my sources for books about Christianity is Fortress Press, the Lutheran Publishing House.
I found in talking to him that his views on Christianity were not much different from mine. He was quite aware that the virgin birth was only myth and did not happen. At St. Olaf’s they discussed its origins and its justification. I asked him if he had discussed any of this with his parishioners. He told me he did not want to disturb their simple faith. Apparently it would be disturbing to their simple faith to know they had been fed nonsense. He is no longer a minister as he apparently could not continue and feel comfortable in his role. After leaving the ministry he left the church. I have not seen him recently so I don’t know if he still considers himself a Christian.

As a new religion invented about 2,000 years ago Christianity was looking for converts. One way to get listened to was to give Jesus the attributes of a pagan god. Many of those gods were born of virgins so a virgin birth was attributed to Jesus. One problem was the appeal to the Jews. The text of the Jewish Bible in Isaiah 14:7 contains prophesy which makes no mention of a virgin. This obstacle was overcome by a translation which mentioned a virgin.

Translation first. The prophesy in the original Hebrew translated to English:

Isaiah 7:14 therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: a maiden is with child and she will bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel.

Almah is the Hebrew word, and maiden is the meaning of the Hebrew word. Bethullah is the Hebrew word for virgin.

King James version: Isaiah 7:14 14Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

continued

continued

Why does the King James Version refer to a virgin when the Hebrew does not refer to a virgin.

From https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?

‘There is no 'controversy'. The only 'controversy' that exists is akin to the evolution 'controversy'--most educated people accept the facts; a small few bury their heads in the sand, and then call it a 'controversy' because the term 'controversial' is more appealing to them than to be called called 'obstinate'. The simple truth is: no matter how hard certain people may want to, they simply do not get to change the meanings of words to create a meaning in a text that did not originally exist there. Especially if they can't even read the original text in its original language.

The term in Isaiah 7:14 is not the specified Hebrew term for 'virgin'--just as any translation of the Latin 'virgo' or the Greek 'parthenos*' would not necessarily mean 'virgin'. 'Almah'--which means a nubile young woman. "Almah'' can be used in reference to a virgin, especially in a society that expected virginity from young women in the first place-- but that is not the primary meaning of the word. The Hebrew word for a virgin is 'betullah'; that is the specific word that applies nearly exclusively to virgins--and if Isaiah were writing a Messianic Prophesy, I'd think the man would care enough to be specific.

There have been some efforts on the part of Christian fanatics to swap the meanings of the two words, some more clever than others, none that can really be called 'clever' at all, and all, inevitably, laughable. This is something so glaringly obvious that many Christian Bibles are correcting the cynical mistranslation to make it refer to a 'young woman'.

If Jesus existed he is the result of a man and a woman having sexual intercourse which is why you and I exist. Would you believe your pregnant daughter if she claimed she was a virgin?

continued