Second Coming

[_Jersey Girl]

I didn't want anyone to know who I was because I figured you guys were already on here and if you didn't know who I was then I could discuss things better but I can't seem to pretend I am not myself.

Anyway thanks for welcoming me.

This topic is something I put on my to do list and forgot about it.

I believe that all the books of the New Testament were written at around the same time. And I do not believe there is any chronological order. But I did think Revelations was about these times.

I think the New Testament was written after Jesus' ministry on the earth, not during. And so not all of it is necesarly exact because the chances of remembering everything are slim. Also I think not all the right books were chosen to be added to the Bible but rather the books the priests wanted to add. To suit themselves really.

Hey, I'm pretty good at "reading" people! It's hard for any of us to actually "know" what took place, when the gospels were written or by whom they were written. I agree that the books were chosen with an agenda in mind. With regards to Revelation, when you find time try searching up some stuff on the preterest perspective. That holds that the Revelation was written for people during the actual time it was written...as a type of warning. I don't rule out that it was also a "far" prophecy written for the future.

Take care!

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I kinda got that from previous disscusions. I think it would make sence as a warning. We as humans like to think our lives are harder than everyone elses. I bet there was a lot of crime in those days too. Only there wasn't much media to broadcast it. Infact one could even say there could have been more crime.

How exactly did you read me then?

[_Jersey Girl]

I kinda got that from previous disscusions. I think it would make sence as a warning. We as humans like to think our lives are harder than everyone elses. I bet there was a lot of crime in those days too. Only there wasn't much media to broadcast it. Infact one could even say there could have been more crime.

How exactly did you read me then?

I don't know how I "read" people, I just do. Not to worry! I think that the warning was against persecution of Christians by the Roman empire. Very interesting from a historical perspective!

[_Imwashingmypirate]

"The root of the word Nicolaitans comes from Greek nikao, to conquer or overcome, and laos, which means people and which the word laity comes from. The two words together especially means the destruction of the people and refers to the earliest form of what we call a priestly order or clergy which later on in church history divided people and allowed for leadership other than those led by the spirit of the risen Lord. A good translation of Nicolaitan would be “those who prevail over the people.”"

So would revelations be written to the people who prevail and teach without the spirit. Or use religion to make people do what the leader wants?

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Through the prophet Isaiah, God makes it plain that He is the author of history.

So who is the author of present?

Does history then really exist? Or is God writing it in his big eternal book and we believe it?

I actually doubt my history at times. I doubt that experiences I have experienced really happened? Sometimes I ask do I just think they happened but they didn't really.

Then we could say, there is no such thing as past. And if we can say that, then there is no such thing as future.
Therefore time doesn't exist.

It's a bit like when I have odd dreams where I actually go into other peoples lives and watch what they are doing. I am there but I am not really. The people don't see me but I see them. They are not the type of people we see today. In those dreams my mind programes a history for every event taking place. I often have the same dream several times where the history might change and so the events have changed. But the history is in my head not the charactors in my dream. One time something went wrong. Someone saw me watching them. That person ran at me with a sword. : D That felt strange.

But my point is these people could really exist but I see there history. Only by me being there things changed. I also knew what was going to happen in these dreams and so when it went wrong I was shocked.

The weirdest thing was that in that dream I was watching someone try so set fire to the other guys back, he caught him. And so the future was supposed to be that the guy would go out and get a sword and stab the first guy in the back. Because he had back stabbed him. But the guy came in the door and started towards me. I was moving back and was like, No this is not supposed to happen. And he stuck his sword in me. He couldn't kill me though because I wasn't really there, but I did feel it. So instead of the meaning being "back stabbing" it was "back fire".

[_Valorius]

Hey, Jersey Girl, I'd like to put in a thought if you are still wondering about this. I agree with your supposition, namely the apostles may have thought Jesus was going to "return" immediately after his crucifixion. In fact, some might argue that his appearances were a type of 'second coming'.

The apostles didn't understand his mission very well, as they made obvious repeatedly. As for the temple being destroyed, Jesus surely explained to them that when he was talking about a temple he sometimes was referring to the physical body.

As for the end of the world, since the Old Testament says the world will last forever. So a soon to come destruction of "the world" must be taken in the same sense as the Old Testament warning that God would destroy mankind at the time of Noah. Only "the wicked" were destroyed; Noah was saved, and by grace his family with him. So this next destruction of the world should be expected to be some form of ending of bad things - sin or wickedness or bad feelings or something like that - but not the end of All Life on Earth.

And the earth won't be broken up by meteors or anything. And the stars won't literally fall from out of the sky, because there's no place for them to "fall" to!

Jesus spoke in parables and symbolically. So that's how quite a bit of his teaching has to be understood.

Why would God destroy the whole chicken ranch just for a few bad eggs? Doesn't make sense. Why would the apostles have abandoned Jesus during his trial if they really well understood his mission? Maybe Jesus himself did not fully understand exactly what would happen to him! I don't know how to tell how long into the trial alternatives may have been open to him.

He did have some powerful and wealthy supporters; why didn't they show up in court to vouch for him? Fear? Probably. The centuries long tradition of Christian martyrdom that we have now did not exist two thousand years ago. Willing martyrdom was a new and scary thing.

[_JAK]

Valorius stated:
As for the end of the world, since the Old Testament says the world will last forever.

Keep in mind that writers of ancient religious stories were poorly informed regarding scientific realities. Our sun (a star) will not last “forever.” And the probability for this planet’s failure to support human life at all is likely to precede anything happening to the sun. The 4.5 billion year history of the planet has seen the emergence of many species which are now extinct. The human species is far less likely to adapt to global change than the cockroach or forms of life in the depths of the ocean.

In short, ancient writers did not understand much of anything. They substituted claims for genuine knowledge about facts. They thought there was one sun. They had no clue that there are and were then billions and billions of stars much like our sun – some larger some smaller – some near the end of their fuel, others not yet born as stars.

Valorius stated:
So a soon to come destruction of "the world" must be taken in the same sense as the Old Testament warning that God would destroy mankind at the time of Noah.

That certainly is an invention of a most cruel God. Fear was a major emotion upon which religious mythology played. And it still plays on it today.

Valorius stated:
Only "the wicked" were destroyed; Noah was saved, and by grace his family with him.

Ah, but then all were “the wicked” except for Noah and company. Again a most cruel and whimsical God invention here. No kindness, no understanding – only mean spirited destruction of all but Noah and company.

Valorius stated:
Noah was saved, and by grace his family with him.

Therefore, you conclude all other humans were destroyed and none was given the “grace” of the mythology. And what does this same mythology say with regard to the creator of all these humans now condemned to the flood? …Nothing good, clearly.

Valorius stated:
So this next destruction of the world should be expected to be some form of ending of bad things - sin or wickedness or bad feelings or something like that - but not the end of All Life on Earth.

This is more speculation. The “next destruction” may be a result of a variety of possibilities including man’s pollution by over population. Having taken be fruitful and multiply now to more than 6 billion, and with countries like China, India, Africa and others wanting the same gluttonous consumption enjoyed by people of the Western World, the “next destruction” may already be under way even as we speak.

The cockroach and other living species able to adapt quickly with fast generational turn-over are the most likely to be the “life” which survives. The dinosaur was unable to adapt to global climate change 65,000,000 ago and was terminated in a very short time-frame. That is the case considering that the dinosaur thrived for 165 million years. The human species has been around at best 150,000 years and as modern man with language, a shorter time than that.

Valorius stated:
And the earth won't be broken up by meteors or anything. And the stars won't literally fall from out of the sky, because there's no place for them to "fall" to!

How do you know that? An asteroid hitting the earth could produce such global climate change that no humans could survive long. A winter climate in which the earth’s average temperature could be lowered 100 degrees Fahrenheit would terminate most human life in a very short time. It’s a possibility. And in any scenario in which human life is ended, any God claims by any superstition or religious dogma are irrelevant.

The “stars” are suns like our own sun. They are just much farther away. They appear small to the naked eye. That’s all the ancient myth-makers had for observation. They had no telescope of the magnitude we enjoy in the Hubble Telescope. In short, early myth-makers were most uninformed.

Valorius stated:
Jesus spoke in parables and symbolically. So that's how quite a bit of his teaching has to be understood.

However, that claim makes understanding open to interpretation. And Christianity is a most fractured religion today with more than 1,000 denominations, sects, and cults from which to choose. They do not agree. Hence, none is reliable. Claim to reliability does not make for reliability.

Valorius stated:
Why would God destroy the whole chicken ranch just for a few bad eggs? Doesn't make sense.

Well, of course it does not make sense. Religion “doesn’t make sense.” Biblically, it appears that all humans were “bad eggs” except for Noah and company. Does that make sense? Of course it does not.

Valorius stated:
Why would the apostles have abandoned Jesus during his trial if they really well understood his mission? Maybe Jesus himself did not fully understand exactly what would happen to him! I don't know how to tell how long into the trial alternatives may have been open to him.

Since NOTHING of Jesus was written until 30 to 110 years after his alleged life, religious mythology of that time is not reliable. That is, there likely was never a historical Jesus as most Christians wish to believe. We “know” far less than your statement implies. We have here an accumulation of stories which the political power structures of the day (beginning with Constantine the Great (300 A.D.) used as did the successors.

Valorius stated:
He did have some powerful and wealthy supporters; why didn't they show up in court to vouch for him? Fear? Probably. The centuries long tradition of Christian martyrdom that we have now did not exist two thousand years ago. Willing martyrdom was a new and scary thing.

Perhaps not on the first point. In any case, we likely have little “Christian martyrdom” today. We have much more Islamic martyrdom.

Fear is clearly a great motivator. Early Christianity used fear to achieve its objectives. It’s still using “fear” to achieve its objectives.

JAK

[_Valorius]

I was speaking from the perspective of the traditional viewpoint, not my own, in some places. Noah's family were not free from being 'wicked,' just as the people presumably drowned probably were not exclusively 'wicked'. However, and this is my view, the Standard for righteousness and wickedness (as described in the Bible) at that time was obedience to Noah. Those who believed and obeyed Noah were saved; those who did not, were not. I won't judge the Standard. The Standard (as described in the Bible) was certainly not whimsical; it is the basis of society - obey the law and you'll be okay with the Law; disobey the law and you'll suffer the consequences of your disobedience.

Abstract things do not play and religions do not do. It's always people, how people apply or misapply religious teachings. I don't blame religions for what people who believe in them say and do. I don't blame science for what some scientists have done and some continue doing.

To say his family was saved by his grace means that because of him his family was saved regardless of their own personal qualifications. I do not conclude either that "all other humans were destroyed" nor that "none was given the 'grace' of the mythology." I believe that if there had been a catastrophic flood, it was limited in area; I am not convinced that all the people in that area would have drowned. It seems unlikely; at the edge of the area some may have grabbed onto a tree branch and made it to dry land; that big Tsunami a while back killed thousands, but stories came in about handfuls of people who literally ran away from it. As to the second part, "the grace of the mythology" seems empty of meaning. I think you're suffering from what many anti-religious people suffer - you read something that in some way seems to defend or even praise some historical event or religious teaching, and you then presume to include beliefs and sentiments to the speaker which he just does not have.


>JAK wrote:
>>"Valorius wrote: 'So this next destruction of the world should be expected
>>to be some form of ending of bad things - sin or wickedness or bad feelings or
>>something like that - but not the end of All Life on Earth.'
>
>This is more speculation. The 'next destruction' may be a result of
>a variety of possibilities including man’s pollution by over population."

That is more speculation. The 'next destruction' may not be by man's pollution by over population. Of course it's speculation!!!! We're talking about future possibilities. About what kind of destruction might "be expected". My speculation was not as to what kind of destruction we might expect based on general knowledge, but what kind of destruction we might expect if we project the meanings in the Bible into the future. World destruction in the Bible seems to have meant, not literal WORLD destruction, but the destruction of a category of being within the world - the same as at the flood -- The Bible says that God said he repented that he had made mankind and had determined to destroy him from the face of the earth - but he didn't! Noah's family survived somehow, and we are here today. Therefore, when the Bible says that God determined to destroy mankind, that form of expression does NOT mean ALL mankind, but a part of mankind. Studying the text, that is the meaning I derive from it. Standing back and berating the text will not allow you to understand what was meant, regardless of whether what was meant was correct or incorrect, smart or stupid, true or made-up.

JAK wrote: "The cockroach and other living species able to adapt quickly with fast generational turn-over are the most likely to be the “life” which survives."

More speculation. But I don't mind, because I LIKE speculation. Who would want to live if they couldn't think about the future and its possibilities! However, I hasten to point out that cockroaches are terribly over-rated.

JAK wrote: "The human species has been around at best 150,000 years and as modern man with language, a shorter time than that."

We do not know how long spoken human language has been in existence. Given the types of tools and movements of human populations, it may well have been one million years or more.


<JAK wrote:
>>"And the earth won't be broken up by meteors or anything.
>>And the stars won't literally fall from out of the sky,
>>because there's no place for them to "fall" to!
>
>How do you know that?

Now I'm certain of it: You are just being argumentative. To where will the stars "fall"? Which way is "down" to a star; which way is "down" to people on earth who would see them "fall"? The earth's mass is insufficient to pull stars "down" to it. If a single star were to "fall from the sky" and even just attempt to hit the ground somewhere, say Boston or somewhere, the earth would be vaporized or explode before the star could hit ground. There would then be no chance for other stars to "fall" as the Bible has described. Therefore, when the Bible says the stars will fall from the heavens, as so many other places in the Bible, it cannot be taken literally by those who believe in the Bible. It's fruitless to argue otherwise.

>JAK wrote: "The “stars” are suns like our own sun.
>They are just much farther away. "

Oh, I didn't know that.

>JAK wrote: "They do not agree. Hence, none is reliable.
>Claim to reliability does not make for reliability. "

Nobody agrees in ANY discipline, including astrophysics and biology. That is nothing new. Since mankind does not have absolute answers, it is natural that different people, having different experiences, backgrounds, education, will have different ideas about the same thing. Atheists, too, are in disagreement. Evolutionists, creationists, Mormons, anti-mormons, no group is in agreement.

However, absence of agreement does not mean none is reliable. It is possible for one person to be reliable on a certain subject even if all people generally disagree on the issue, and even if that person is the only one who holds that position. It's the "I told you so" principle.

>JAK wrote: "Religion “doesn’t make sense.”
>Biblically, it appears that all humans were “bad eggs”
>except for Noah and company. Does that make sense?
>Of course it does not."

and Valorious wades on, unhappily,
To say that religion doesn't make sense tells more about your study and understanding of religions than it does about religion. If religions did not make sense, no one could follow them with any significant amount of faith. Unless you are saying that only stupid people are religious, in which case, again, that would say more about the judger than the judgees. The Catholic religion, as explained by its scholars, makes great sense, I would almost say perfect sense, to one who accepts the axioms of Catholicism. Islam also makes sense, as I have found by "arguing" religion with Muslims, at least it does for one who accepts the axioms of Islam. Even atheism and materialism make a modicum of sense, once a person has agreed to accept their unproven axioms.

You say it does not make sense that all humans except a few ("Noah and company") would be bad. That seems an illogical position to me. Who, that was drowned in the flood, do you believe was so righteous that drowning was unjustified? I realize you would have to take a nonbiblical Standard to do this, as I have already said that the Biblical standard -- and this is a Biblical story, so we should do it the courtesy of judging it by what it says, not by what we think it should say -- was Noah's obedience and subsequent obedience to Noah. Whatever standard we use, it needs to be applicable in the context of the Noah story, in a way that an objective person could accept it, maybe even a Christian or Jew could accept it. If you want to use different standards, categories, or events, you need to write a JAK story. Which is okay. (And other than obedience to Noah, I do realize that his family was not "righteous" even in terms of the Noah story, so let's not even bother with that.)


<JAK wrote: "Since NOTHING of Jesus was written until 30 to 110 years after his
>alleged life,
>religious mythology of that time is not reliable.
>That is, there likely was never a historical Jesus as most Christians wish to believe. "

"SINCE"!? You mean if nothing is written of a person until 30 years after his life, his very existence is doubtful! You're certainly not much of one for studying history and archaeology, are you? Do you think Ur did not exist, before they found the ruins? How about Moses? How about Livy or Socrates? The only things we have written about them have come from hundreds of years after their "alleged" lives.

Furthermore, the apparent implication is utter nonsense. There was a historical Jesus, as documents testify. His life was not "alleged" any more than was Julius Caesar's for the first writings (we have today) on whose life we must wait hundreds of years longer than we waited for the first writings (we have today) on Jesus. I'm afraid this debate is too settled to argue. There may be further evidence come to light that further defines Jesus' life, but there will be no further evidence come to light to prove he doesn't exist. Denying that Jesus was a real person is just denying reality.

"religious mythology of that time is not reliable" - You have not shown that religious mythology of that time is not reliable. How was that determined? And "reliable" for what? As new elements of history are uncovered, they are compared with mythologies, and the two reveal things about the actors and builders of history. King lists, with mythologically long eras of rule, and mythological geneologies of gods have served as reliable clues in determining names of kings; mythological battles have served to uncover possible conflicts between civilizations.

Of course there was never a historical Jesus "as most Christians wish to believe." So what? There probably wasn't a Muhammad "as most Muslims wish to believe," a Joseph Smith "as most Mormons wish to believe," a Charles Darwin "as most Darwinists wish to believe," or anything else. It is natural to be in awe of leaders, whether religious (the Pope, the Prophet, the Imam, and especially the Founder of a religion) or political (Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, etc.) or economic (Bill Gates, etc.) That we do not understand a person or that we disagree on what the person was like, speaks to our disagreement and lack of understanding, not to the existence or non-existence of the person. People don't agree on George Washington or Adolf Hitler, both of which have mythologial elements appended to their biographies, yet only a fool would deny that they ever "really" existed.

<JAK wrote: "Early Christianity used fear to achieve its objectives. It’s still using “fear” to achieve its objectives. "

Nonsense. Christianity never used fear, and isn't using fear today. Religions don't have emotions and don't have motives; they are human societal constructs, dependent for their existence on their human adherents.

If you want to say that some Christians try to motivate people through fear, that's a different matter, but is even that true? To determine whether Christians are trying to motivate people through fear, you would have to identify which Christian teachings are upheld whether or not fear is present. I don't think you can do that, because you have given the impression that you do not see that amount of agreement among Christians; perhaps I am wrong and you will indulge in this speculation along with me: So, then, when people become fearful, when taught by a Christian, is it because the Christian is giving the regular Christian teaching and for some reason it scares the person? (many people are "afraid" of things relating to death and punishment, so that has to be factored out, too); or is it because the Christian teacher has added something that is not a natural part of Christian teaching, AND has added it for the explicit, provable purpose of causing FEAR in the hearer, so that the hearer will take a course of action favorable to the Christian teacher? I suppose a test can be created, but it would probably be boring and not reveal anything sociologists, psychologists, and religious people haven't already known for years.

The fact is that most Christians sincerely believe what they say they believe. They aren't faking. It is not thte case that people have sacrificed their lives to poverty, torture, and death for beliefs they do not belief. They are accused of faking by people that don't like religion, which means, by people who have a personal investment in proving Christians (and other religious) especially evil, unnatural, stupid, ugly, inhuman, backward, primitive, unscientific, anti-scientific, selfish, greedy, and mean. Well, of course, that describes the human condition generally. Even atheists and scientists suffer from those afflictions. So that's nothing new.

It's much more intellectually helpful to oneself, and socially rewarding to look for the good in people and in their religions, and relate to the people in a way that helps them to achieve the highest potential they can within the parameters of their religions. And if they don't have a religion, if they're atheists or materialists, the same thing applies. It will do no good to beat them over the head with the Bible or Koran any more than to beat Christians over the head with books by Darwin and Hawking. They will achieve their highest potential only within the parameters of their para-religions of science, materialism, atheism, or whatever it is, their philosophy or lifestyle or whatever they want to call it.

As people near the pinnacle of their potential, be it ecclesiastical or secular, intellectual or spiritual, they sometimes are able to see other standards (religions, philosophies, life-styles) which they recognize as possibly providing more value to them spiritually or socially, and they naturally gravitate to the new system. As people grow within a community, be it religious, scientific, spartan, or something else, it is mean-spirited to condemn them out of hand, without offering them a full alternative program that they can readily, without losing their self-esteem and dignity, transfer over to. It is more productive and more humane to recognize and admit the good they do where they are at, and let nature and kindly persuasion lead them to better places (if there are any) in their spiritual development, than for us to pretend to be so smart as to know what is best for the entire human race, and to decree with an absolute decree to enforce on the head of every man, woman, child, Hopi, Innuit, Bedouin, Hottento, Tasmanian, Confucian, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, "It isn't religion."

[_JAK]

Let’s examine the validity of your response to an observation of mine.

<JAK wrote: "Early Christianity used fear to achieve its objectives. It’s still using “fear” to achieve its objectives. "

Valorius:
Nonsense. Christianity never used fear, and isn't using fear today. Religions don't have emotions and don't have motives; they are human societal constructs, dependent for their existence on their human adherents.

Exodus 1:17
The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.

Exodus 20:18
When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance

Leviticus 25:17
Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 5:29
Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever!

Deuteronomy 6:13
Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. (human slaves to God)

Deuteronomy 6:24
The LORD commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the LORD our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today.

Deuteronomy 10:20
Fear the LORD your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name. (more human slavery)

Deuteronomy 28:10
Then all the peoples on earth will see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they will fear you.

Deuteronomy 31:12
Assemble the people—men, women and children, and the aliens living in your towns—so they can listen and learn to fear the LORD your God and follow carefully all the words of this law.

Joshua 4:24
He did this so that all the peoples of the earth might know that the hand of the LORD is powerful and so that you might always fear the LORD your God."

Joshua 24:14
"Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.

1 Samuel 12:14
If you fear the LORD and serve and obey him and do not rebel against his commands, and if both you and the king who reigns over you follow the LORD your God-good!

2 Chronicles 19:9
He gave them these orders: "You must serve faithfully and wholeheartedly in the fear of the LORD.

Job 4:9
At the breath of God they are destroyed;
at the blast of his anger they perish.

Psalm 2:11
Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.

Psalm 25:14
The LORD confides in those who fear him; he makes his covenant known to them.

Psalm 33:8
Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the people of the world revere him.

Psalm 34:11
Come, my children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD.

Psalm 76:7
You alone are to be feared. Who can stand before you when you are angry?

Psalm 85:9
Surely his salvation is near those who fear him, that his glory may dwell in our land.

Psalm 96:4
For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; he is to be feared above all gods.

(an interesting throw back to when many gods were recognized in the Bible)

Psalm 112:1
Praise the LORD. Blessed is the man who fears the LORD, who finds great delight in his commands.

Psalm 147:11
the LORD delights in those who fear him,…

Proverbs 10:27
The fear of the LORD adds length to life, but the years of the wicked are cut short.

Acts 7:32
'I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look.

Revelation 14:7
He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."

These are a fraction of the uses of fear in Christianity.
--------------------------------------

Christianity uses the fear of death and the fear of hell to manipulate its adherents.

The absurdity of your comment is exposed. Fear is a major emotional appeal used by Christianity from biblical times to the present.

Pressure to pay 10% to some church is generally couched in a not so subtle appeal to fear of hell.

Your statement at the top is not supported by the facts.

Valorius stated:
If you want to say that some Christians try to motivate people through fear, that's a different matter, but is even that true?

I have already established that Christianity appeals to fear. It’s a lost issue for you.

Valorius stated:
The fact is that most Christians sincerely believe what they say they believe. They aren't faking.

A straw man attack. No one suggested “faking.” People who are well indoctrinated from cradle up tend to believe what they have been indoctrinated to believe. It’s irrelevant to my points.

Valorius stated:
It is not thte case that people have sacrificed their lives to poverty, torture, and death for beliefs they do not belief.

Straw man Who made that claim?

Valorius stated:
They are accused of faking by people that don't like religion, which means, by people who have a personal investment in proving Christians (and other religious) especially evil, unnatural, stupid, ugly, inhuman, backward, primitive, unscientific, anti-scientific, selfish, greedy, and mean.

Who makes this accusation? …I didn’t.

Religious mythologies do not agree with one another. With more than 1,000 denominations, sects, and cults of Christianity, there is significant disagreement among Christians. One of the more recent doctrinal shifts is that of the Protestant Reformation 1517 AD. It was not the first, but it has given rise to readers of the Bible. Those readers have come to different conclusions as they sort through the contradictions and errors found in the 66 books.

Religious myth relies upon truth by assertion. Evidence becomes irrelevant in religion. You’re a creationist as you have established in other posts. It’s a false doctrine based on truth by assertion. That’s religious mythology. It’s flawed and leads to unreliable conclusions.

Your comments here are irrelevant to the issues which I raised and continue to raise here. Discovery is not made by announcing conclusion before research.

We find accurate conclusions by accumulating as much information as possible before stating what that information demonstrates.

When you claim God, you do it by assertion.
What’s the evidence, the transparent evidence for all to see, everyone? And what are the tests of that transparent evidence?


Valorius stated:
It's much more intellectually helpful to oneself, and socially rewarding to look for the good in people and in their religions, and relate to the people in a way that helps them to achieve the highest potential they can within the parameters of their religions.

You were doing fine until the conclusion here. The God box at the end destroys achievement of the highest potential….

Religious doctrine and dogma are not only irrelevant, they are harmful. When people got sick or died, religion cried: It’s God’s will. Many still think this way about a variety of tragic events or close calls in which harm is avoided. (Thank God)

Medical science said: What caused this illness. Let’s search for a cause. If we find it, let’s search for a cure or a treatment.

You see the difference? Religious myth starts with the answer and it’s a false answer. Science starts with information. And from that information reaches for better, more accurate conclusions and solutions.

Your statement:

Valorius stated:
…within the parameters of their religions.

That is precisely what is harmful and detrimental to reaching reliable conclusion. Starting with the conclusion is no reliable way to discovery. Starting with questions, skepticism, and research is superior. You’re reading this screen as a result of applied science. Religion is irrelevant. God claims are irrelevant.

There is little consensus in religion globally. There is much concensus in science. Someone always attacks here arguing that science has not always gotten it right. That’s correct. However, scientific method reaches tentative conclusions always remaining open to new evidence which will confirm or modify its conclusions.

Not so with religion. Religion’s mantra is truth by assertion.

Therefore, religion is unreliable as a source for discovery. Worse, it tends to block research and experimentation which yields new and valuable information.

If God had intended man to fly, God would have given man wings. I’m sure you have heard that. But that view was held seriously at the first experimentations of the pioneers of the air travel industry today.

If the religious view had prevailed, the airplane would never have been invented. There are many areas in medicine and other fields of research in which religious dogma seeks to prevent discovery.

Time constraints prevent addressing every line of your post, but be assured I could. You express some ideas with which I agree.

Religion is a net negative. It has been responsible for countless deaths in wars for core religious views and for tangent ones. It is generally a block to information and research. It is generally anti science as it substitutes doctrine for discovery.

JAK