leejosepho said:
I have no idea what you are even talking about, but I will certainly attempt to respond after you might explain.
The Bible and other historic documents are no proof of actual facts. It is well known that even Julius Caesar lied and exagerated in his writings. The only evidence we can have are realtime observations.
As an example we do know Julius Caesar existed because of the statues that were made of him. We also know what territories he conquered because of coins, buildings and others that seem to ressemble the Roman style.
It is also a known fact that archaic documents such as Roman and others don't contradict each other. All facts within historic documents of Romans, Greek, Perzians, ... seem to share the same number of events. There is no contradiction, while Bible, Koran and others do contradict each other in events.
THere is no single proof of Jesus's existence even. All documents (Koran, Bible) can simply be copied and based upon each other.
I think all of the Bible's content is nothing but a fable. I highly doubt wehter Jesus really has existed (disconcerning his supernaturalities):
- His grave was never found
- No coins were made with his name. Only in later periods (800 AD I think), Byzanthines made coins with his face on it. By then there was no proof he ever had existed, because all that remained was the Bible. At the time he existed, no coins were made.
- Roman literature did not mention him. Here historic documents contradict each other. Roman literature contains, in my opinion, no false facts.
- If he was so great, why did no one else write about him?
I also analysed the first 5 pages of genesis and as you probably might now, it is pure nonsense. The question to ask here is "Is the Bible not a pure fable, a book with fables to learn morality?".
The fact is that the Bible is no evidence and yet again you neglected in your "experience" the most valuable element for credibility: evidence. If you can't show us an appearance of your God, then you have no evidence at all.
leejosepho said:
What proof of that might you have, and what would that have to do with anything I have shared?
How can confirm one's existence without having perception (sight, hearing, ...) of it? Our entire lives are based upon perception. Claiming that there is something behind, is a statement without proof and it will never be proven as well as it will never be disproven.
I too had such an experience once and I believe that it occurs at emotional instable moments. That's psychology.
Here the definition of vision: (merriam-webster.com)
a : something seen in a dream, trance, or ecstasy; especially : a
supernatural appearance that conveys a revelation b :
an object of imagination c : a manifestation to the senses of something
immaterial
...
How can I see something that is not real? Then it must be imagination. What else than a mental state of mind would cause me to do so?
There is no single suggestion to support supernatural or religious visions. In fact there are more suggestions not to believe, which I have mentioned here.
leejosepho said:
Then what is your explanation for their existance and experience?
They copied documents and ideas. I don't think all writings existed at the same time. I even read once that some of the gospel writers their works were based upon those of others.
leejosepho said:
While remaining open concerning abortion in the face of some truly, life-critical indication, I maintain that any other abortion is murder.
Well, I cannot agree here. If an undeveloped child is "not alive" yet, has no consciousness, sentience, yet, it won't even know its dying. The condition is that it must happen far before the fetus gets sentience (that is the ability to perceive pain).
Obviously you don't seem to understand what I mean with consciousness, else you just keep yourself to your strict ideas, which are, in my opinion, not fully moral. Let's have another example:
I know a man - no one else does - and his life is fully miserable. I decide to enlighten his pain - death is a form of unconsciousness. At night I slightly intrude his house and while he sleeps I pick a gun and point it to his head. Is it moral to kill this person, considering that while he sleeps he has no consciousness?
Why are christians against killing of life? If you only mention life as organic matter, then killing trees and pulling out my hair is killing life as well. (Hair contains human DNA). I simply cannot agree with that.
leejosepho said:
Which one(s) does He not?
Well, I think he does not exist.
But if he does, consider this:
Situation 1: He controls/maintains every action in nature
This is highly unlikely, because every action seems to be based upon a reaction. It's a fixed system with laws. However, if he does control every motion, then he must be responsible for every piece of harm done to mankind. There is obviously an imbalancement of life quality. He cannot be moral, can he?
Situation 2: He created and abandons
He is highly irresponsible not to maintain his creation. If he was able to create out of nothing, what must be his power? He is lame and unforgivable not to see the harm done in the world. It is his fault that evil exists, because if every action causes a reaction and he is allmighty, why could he not foresee? Because he wants it.
