Why do christians believe in god?

[kilese]

I want to know how, in this modern world, people still worship a god. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't even try to believe it. I see no logic in it at all, to believe in a magical being that lives in the clouds. You can't possibly truly believe in it all. If you do, then humans are more clueless than i thought. Why worship someone who lets children starve everyday? If he has the power to stop it, and doesn't, then he is malevolent. But if he doesn't have the power, he is not a god. And if god created freewill and is omnipotent, then he would already know about all the horrible things in the world that would happen, and could have stopped it. And if he's omnipotent, whats the point of praying? Your prayers would have already been heard. And no one's prayers have been answered, so he is not worth worshiping, and therefore, is not a god. I'm not try to attack anyone, i just can't understand how anyone can believe all this.

[Skyangel]

The essence of Who I Am is ALL THAT IS. Who I Am is an individuated aspect of the totality. The mind and body are tools that I utilise to express Who I Am and interact with other individuated aspects of the totality to experience Who I Am.

Ok, I understand that and can agree with that concept. I don't have a problem with it. It is much the same as I see it only you expressed it better than I expressed it.

The "chicken ... in the egg" is not the same "chicken" that has the "egg" within it.

I know its not in reality of nature but it is in the essence of who I AM according to your own words " The essence of Who I Am is ALL THAT IS." The chickens and the eggs are an individuated aspect of the totality " I will add.... which was and is and is to come..

[Skyangel]

If the essence of who you are is not confined to the body, then how can it be "in the body", as you have declared it to be ?

Once again, where is the essence of who you are housed within the body ?

It is in me and I am in it in the same way the air is in me and I am in the air, In the same way water is in me and I am in water. It is in me and through me and all around me.
Your own words describe it well when you say "The essence of Who I Am is ALL THAT IS." That includes everything inside you and everything outside of you as an individual does it not?
Essence just IS, it is not really "housed" any place as it were but rather through all.

[Skyangel]

This does not show that "Truth is circular". Is it the only evidence that you have to present to back up your statement ?

How do define circular? I hope you are not referring to a shape because truth has no shape at all. In what way are you using the term? Are you referring to circular reasoning or a circular argument?
To my understanding circular reasoning is the kind of reasoning which begins with a statement like " I am the Truth " ( Imagine the truth saying that not a person saying it ) then it attempts to support that statement by restating the same statement in another way. eg " I am that I am "
In other words the truth is the truth because it is the truth.
" I am that I am" because I am.
Truth is its own evidence.
However, no matter how you look at it, that statement of truth is 100% correct no matter if a tree says it or if an animal says it or if I say it or who says it. The essence of ALL can say it, A chronic liar can say it and it is still the truth. The words "I am that I am " is a statement that is never wrong and cannot be proved wrong. It is totally logical. It is a good "water tight" deductive argument.

I can offer you proof as to why I believe it.

I look forward to reading your reasoning.

I look forward to you asking for my reasoning.

Is the statement that I look forward to it not telling you that I wish to see it?

If it "makes no logical sense", how do you perceive it to make any sense metaphorically ?

I just told you it makes no logical sense to me when it is interpreted literally. Please don't confuse or interpret my words as saying that it makes no logical sense at all. It does make sense to me when interpreted metaphorically.
If I ask you " Does that throw any light on the question ?" Do you perceive that a statement to be interpreted literally or metaphorically? Does it make sense literally to "throw light" on something? Does it make sense metaphorically ? The way in which you perceive and determine that is the same way I perceive and determine whether to take something literally or metaphorically. When something is obviously not literal like a talking serpent, I look for a metaphorical meaning for the word serpent in the bible. That is the process I use to come to the conclusion about the meaning.

You are evidence of using the term "Spirit of Life".

Once again, so you cannot point to this "Spirit of Life" then.

Life is evidence of itself regardless of what you call it.

How can a "metaphorical character" be "personified" ?

The word Jesus itself is a metaphor for the Way, the Truth, the Life.. This metaphor ( the word Jesus ) is the Truth or Life which has been "personified" as a human being in story form in the bible to represent the standard that all human beings can attain if they wish to achieve that standard of living a life in the way of Truth.

Hence when you talk about 'Jesus', as you "words are also metaphorical", then they are not literal truth.

What is the point of your metaphorical discourse then ?

The same point the bible makes. To hide the truth from those who reject the truth and only want o look on outward appearances and call it a lie.

If you profess to not being a christian, why do you have a belief in the christian religious text known of as the bible ?

I believe it because it makes sense to me.

As you have made the claim "I figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day, which although they are opposite do not contradict each other at all", would you please provide prof of your claim by showing how the contradictions in the text below "fit together like night and day" and "do not contradict each other" ?

That is a huge request and you have an awful lot of stuff there which you are challenging me to explain and none of them are relevant to the OP of this thread anyway. Why should I go to all that trouble ? Can you give me a good reason to spend many hours explaining it ? Can't you work out your own puzzles? Are you admitting you can't figure it out? It is like you have a huge tangled up mess and you can't sort it out so you want someone else to do the work for you. How long have you been working on it and what conclusions have you come to so far?

[I AM ALL I AM]

The essence of Who I Am is ALL THAT IS. Who I Am is an individuated aspect of the totality. The mind and body are tools that I utilise to express Who I Am and interact with other individuated aspects of the totality to experience Who I Am.

Ok, I understand that and can agree with that concept. I don't have a problem with it. It is much the same as I see it only you expressed it better than I expressed it.

The "chicken ... in the egg" is not the same "chicken" that has the "egg" within it.

I know its not in reality of nature but it is in the essence of who I AM according to your own words " The essence of Who I Am is ALL THAT IS." The chickens and the eggs are an individuated aspect of the totality " I will add.... which was and is and is to come..

If the essence of who you are is not confined to the body, then how can it be "in the body", as you have declared it to be ?

Once again, where is the essence of who you are housed within the body ?

It is in me and I am in it in the same way the air is in me and I am in the air, In the same way water is in me and I am in water. It is in me and through me and all around me.
Your own words describe it well when you say "The essence of Who I Am is ALL THAT IS." That includes everything inside you and everything outside of you as an individual does it not?
Essence just IS, it is not really "housed" any place as it were but rather through all.

G'day Skyamgel.

As I previously stated, we have a similar conceptualisation, yet we part ways with the biblical text and therein is the difference in the way that we describe the same thing.

A logical conceptualisation of creation starts with What Is, that which is self-evident. What you experience is surrounded the physical structure that you are experiencing it through, hence, you are surrounded by life. Being surrounded by life, it is self-evident that you are an individuated aspect of life, that is, you are part of the sum totality that is ALL THAT IS.

Now, think of it in relationship to the Fibonacci sequence. ALL THAT IS (0) > Macrocosm (1) > Microcosm (1) > Mind and Body (2). You fit into the Microcosm aspect.

Observation of that which is self-evident will also give the recognition that Macrocosm is in a constant state of flux, or change if you will. At any given moment the arrangements of the individuated parts of ALL THAT IS are re-presented one way, that in the next moment are re-presented another way. Another way of stating this is that everything is moving within ALL THAT IS.

The individuated aspects that make up the sum totality of ALL THAT IS are redistributed both in the Macrocosm and Microcosm, yet ALL THAT IS remains ALL THAT IS, the sum totality of everything.

Being an individuated aspect of the Microcosm, an individuated aspect of ALL THAT IS, then it is ALL THAT IS that is the essence of Who I Am.

Both the chicken and the egg share this, as do all individuated aspects of ALL THAT IS. Sharing the same essence does not equate with being the same individuated aspect of ALL THAT IS. Hence the chicken and the egg are not the same individuated aspects in any manner, shape or form.

If you are referring to the "Spirit of Life" as I have described ALL THAT IS, then using "Life is the essence of the Spirit of Life" is back-to-front. ALL THAT IS, or if you will, the "Spirit of Life", is the essence of the individuated aspects, "Life".

This is why I stated, "I would have thought that using, The Spirit of Life is the essence of Life, to be accurate in relationship to how it is being utilised".

This is also why I recognise 'God', as described in the biblical text, as being nonsensical, whether taken literally or metaphorically.

Further to this, it is also why I recognise that Who I Am is not "in a body". Who I Am is in control of a mind and body for the purpose of expressing, experiencing and interacting with Life. It is through the mind and body that Who I Am does this, which does not necessitate Who I Am to be housed within either the mind or the body.

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day Skyangel.

This does not show that "Truth is circular". Is it the only evidence that you have to present to back up your statement ?

How do define circular? I hope you are not referring to a shape because truth has no shape at all. In what way are you using the term? Are you referring to circular reasoning or a circular argument?
To my understanding circular reasoning is the kind of reasoning which begins with a statement like " I am the Truth " ( Imagine the truth saying that not a person saying it ) then it attempts to support that statement by restating the same statement in another way. eg " I am that I am "
In other words the truth is the truth because it is the truth.
" I am that I am" because I am.
Truth is its own evidence.
However, no matter how you look at it, that statement of truth is 100% correct no matter if a tree says it or if an animal says it or if I say it or who says it. The essence of ALL can say it, A chronic liar can say it and it is still the truth. The words "I am that I am " is a statement that is never wrong and cannot be proved wrong. It is totally logical. It is a good "water tight" deductive argument.

While "Truth" is self-evident, you stating "Truth is circular" is not if you use a different meaning for the word "circular" than what it is commonly thought to mean. To give a 'new', or 'different', meaning to a word, it would be helpful for others that you are conversing with if you also shared this 'new' or 'different' meaning.

Or do you expect others to guess at the meanings that you have given words ?

I can offer you proof as to why I believe it.

I look forward to reading your reasoning.

I look forward to you asking for my reasoning.

Is the statement that I look forward to it not telling you that I wish to see it?

Your statement tells me that you are looking "forward to reading" my reasoning. It isn't asking for me to present my reasoning.

If it "makes no logical sense", how do you perceive it to make any sense metaphorically ?

I just told you it makes no logical sense to me when it is interpreted literally. Please don't confuse or interpret my words as saying that it makes no logical sense at all. It does make sense to me when interpreted metaphorically.
If I ask you " Does that throw any light on the question ?" Do you perceive that a statement to be interpreted literally or metaphorically? Does it make sense literally to "throw light" on something? Does it make sense metaphorically ? The way in which you perceive and determine that is the same way I perceive and determine whether to take something literally or metaphorically. When something is obviously not literal like a talking serpent, I look for a metaphorical meaning for the word serpent in the bible. That is the process I use to come to the conclusion about the meaning.

How about I rephrase the question for you ... How do you perceive the biblical text to make sense metaphorically ?

You are evidence of using the term "Spirit of Life".

Once again, so you cannot point to this "Spirit of Life" then.

Life is evidence of itself regardless of what you call it.

Life indeed is self-evident, though your use of the term "Spirit of Life" is not.

How can a "metaphorical character" be "personified" ?

The word Jesus itself is a metaphor for the Way, the Truth, the Life.. This metaphor ( the word Jesus ) is the Truth or Life which has been "personified" as a human being in story form in the bible to represent the standard that all human beings can attain if they wish to achieve that standard of living a life in the way of Truth.

So 'Jesus' is not really "personified" and you've actually put your interpretation upon the text to arrive at the declaration that you make.

How do you propose that anyone is supposed to comprehend this without you explaining that you have your own interpretation that incorporates different meanings than what is commonly held ?

Hence when you talk about 'Jesus', as you "words are also metaphorical", then they are not literal truth.

What is the point of your metaphorical discourse then ?

The same point the bible makes. To hide the truth from those who reject the truth and only want o look on outward appearances and call it a lie.

Your statement is nonsensical. We have agreed that the Truth is What Is. Being self-evident, then the Truth/What Is cannot be hidden.

Your statement also alludes to the bible (and your discourse) as being purposefully misleading, which is not a re-presentation of Truth, and is in fact deceitful.

As you have made the claim "I figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day, which although they are opposite do not contradict each other at all", would you please provide prof of your claim by showing how the contradictions in the text below "fit together like night and day" and "do not contradict each other" ?[/b][/color]

That is a huge request and you have an awful lot of stuff there which you are challenging me to explain and none of them are relevant to the OP of this thread anyway. Why should I go to all that trouble ? Can you give me a good reason to spend many hours explaining it ? Can't you work out your own puzzles? Are you admitting you can't figure it out? It is like you have a huge tangled up mess and you can't sort it out so you want someone else to do the work for you. How long have you been working on it and what conclusions have you come to so far?

You made the claim, "I figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day, which although they are opposite do not contradict each other at all", and having done so, it should be an easy case for someone that has "figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day". If you are having difficulty with it, choose 6 of the contradictions listed to start with and then proceed from there in another post.

"Why should I go to all that trouble ?" - That's a choice that you make for yourself. It is not up to me to provide you with your reasoning for doing something.

"Can you give me a good reason to spend many hours explaining it ?" - Yes I can. In fact, I'll even present it to you, you made the claim ... back it up. After all, the 'proof is in the pudding'.

"Can't you work out your own puzzles?" - It isn't my puzzle to "work out".

"Are you admitting you can't figure it out?" - No.

"How long have you been working on it and what conclusions have you come to so far?" - I have already provided you with my conclusion that it is nonsensical in using it in context with attempting to describe a creator being. There are other uses for it.

If you are unable to provide proof for your claim, I would suggest, that in all fairness, that you retract the claim.

[Skyangel]

Your statement tells me that you are looking "forward to reading" my reasoning. It isn't asking for me to present my reasoning.

I figure if you wish to share it you will and if you don't wish to share it you won't. The choice is yours.

How about I rephrase the question for you ... How do you perceive the biblical text to make sense metaphorically ?

The same way as I perceive any other metaphorical writings to make sense no matter who writes them. I simply understand the metaphors.

So 'Jesus' is not really "personified" and you've actually put your interpretation upon the text to arrive at the declaration that you make.

How do you propose that anyone is supposed to comprehend this without you explaining that you have your own interpretation that incorporates different meanings than what is commonly held ?

No Jesus is not personified, It is the Truth which is personified in the man.

I do not propose that anyone comprehend my thoughts and ideas unless I explain them. That is why I explain them. No one can see what I see unless I show them what I see. Many times people need to be shown a different point of view before they even know something beyond the box of what is considered common or normal exists. However they usually just push it aside as being ridiculous because they don't wish to consider anything outside the box of their own understanding.

Your statement is nonsensical. We have agreed that the Truth is What Is. Being self-evident, then the Truth/What Is cannot be hidden.

Your statement also alludes to the bible (and your discourse) as being purposefully misleading, which is not a re-presentation of Truth, and is in fact deceitful.

Self evident things can indeed be hidden from those who are unaware of them or "blind" to them. Camouflaged things in nature are self evident but also hidden and many people cannot see camouflaged things because they don't know what to look for. Truth is much like nature. Some things are obvious and some things are camouflaged. When truth camouflages truth it appears to be a deception or a lie and many call it a deception or a lie because that's all they can see. They do not see Truth hiding truth. If I tell you I am hiding something, I am not being deceitful but honest. It would be deceitful if I told you I was hiding nothing when I am hiding something. The bible admits it hides things and many people will believe in the delusions sent by God. It is self evident.

You made the claim, "I figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day, which although they are opposite do not contradict each other at all", and having done so, it should be an easy case for someone that has "figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day". If you are having difficulty with it, choose 6 of the contradictions listed to start with and then proceed from there in another post.
.............................
If you are unable to provide proof for your claim, I would suggest, that in all fairness, that you retract the claim.

I am able to provide proof but that does not mean I will hand it to you on a platter.
I simply don't know if its worth putting many hours into explaining something to someone who will ultimately call it all a fairy tale anyway. I might as well simply send you to some christian apologetic site where you can read up on all kinds of explanations for these things. I am sure you have read them and see all of them as fairy tales too. Why would you perceive my explanations any differently?

I know I can bake a cake too but that in no way compels me to bake one just to prove it to someone who refuses to believe me and thinks cake is not worth eating in the first place. However, I would not retract my claim that I can bake a cake either just because I refuse to bake one for someone who would not appreciate it anyway.

People who perceive the bible as a fairy tale also perceive any explanations of it as nothing but fairy tales, so why bother trying to convince them otherwise?

If you want to figure out those scriptures yourself I will give you a hint. Look at them outside the box of normal thinking, outside the man made time lines . Try looking at them in a timeless realm where past present and future are all the same and don't just look on outward appearances but look deeper into any metaphoric meanings you can see.

[Flail]

Skyangel wrote:

People who perceive the bible as a fairy tale also perceive any explanations of it as nothing but fairy tales, so why bother trying to convince them otherwise?

To me the bible is a collection of stories and ideas and opinions of ancient men who had no more ability(probably less) to discern 'truths' than I do or you do. Some of the philosophies expressed are interesting, some compelling, none original or unique. The bible is a collation of literary myths and ancient stories and there is no evidence at all that the truth claims made therein about a particular god are factual. Allowing oneself to become indoctrinated with dogma and religious promotion is anti-intellectual and mind numbing. Such dogmas are a deterrant to the intellectual development of mankind.

Skyangel wrote:

If you want to figure out those scriptures yourself I will give you a hint. Look at them outside the box of normal thinking, outside the man made time lines .

To my understanding of what you have written on these various threads, you are so far 'inside the box' that you can't get out, but have persuaded yourself with your 'esoteric' spin on traditional beliefs and have granted yourself 'guru' status. You appear to be a Bhuddist on Christian steroids. ...maybe you listen to Wayne Dyer?...he loves the water metahphors and the 'we are all part of the universe' diatribe...

Your comments about the 'Truth' and that 'we are all involved in each other and the things of the universe blah blah', is little more than common sense, and to most of it I say 'no kidding'....but such general blather doesn't get us very far in debate. Frankly, I find 'meaning' in much of what you have to say but your insistence that the 'Word' IS the bible is frightening.

If you want to really get 'outside the box', come join me in the world of skepticism and ignosticism, both of which can encompass most of your thinking, sprinkled with alot of doubting and questioning...You will have to drop your arrogant notions of absolute 'Truths' and overcome your indoctrinated beliefs about the Bible of course...and then you can really open your mind and begin the skeptical search for ideas ....wherein the actual truth will never be found, but the journey in search of it very rewarding...and stop fooling yourself that you have some corner on the Truth market....none of us do...and saying you do sounds foolish, despite the obvious fact that you are not.

[Zzyzx]

.

No Jesus is not personified,

According to Christian lore, Jesus WAS personified (defined as: to conceive of or represent as a person or as having human qualities or powers). Do you disagree?

It is the Truth which is personified in the man.

Kindly identify the Truth and give evidence that it exists AND that it is personified (citing sources other than religious promotional literature and personal opinion).

I do not propose that anyone comprehend my thoughts and ideas unless I explain them. That is why I explain them.

Perhaps it is just me, but your explanations of your thoughts and ideas do not seem at all self-evident (to borrow a phrase) or coherent.

Self evident things can indeed be hidden from those who are unaware of them or "blind" to them. Camouflaged things in nature are self evident but also hidden and many people cannot see camouflaged things because they don't know what to look for.

Stating that something that is self-evident and is also hidden or camouflaged seems like a contradiction in terms. Evident is defined (by Merriam Webster) as:

Evident: capable of being perceived especially by sight : distinctly visible : being in evidence : DISCERNIBLE

That eliminates hidden or camouflaged.

Truth is much like nature. Some things are obvious and some things are camouflaged. When truth camouflages truth it appears to be a deception or a lie and many call it a deception or a lie because that's all they can see. They do not see Truth hiding truth.

Truth camouflages truth sounds nonsensical. Kindly explain to readers what that means.

If I tell you I am hiding something, I am not being deceitful but honest. It would be deceitful if I told you I was hiding nothing when I am hiding something.

That which is hidden or camouflaged is NOT evident.

If you are unable to provide proof for your claim, I would suggest, that in all fairness, that you retract the claim.

I am able to provide proof but that does not mean I will hand it to you on a platter.

In honorable debate it is expected and required that a person substantiate their claims. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, they are not debating but simply pontificating or preaching.

I simply don't know if its worth putting many hours into explaining something to someone who will ultimately call it all a fairy tale anyway.

IF you can produce convincing evidence that you have truth to offer and if you debate a topic based upon that truth, the honorable course of action is to produce the evidence if asked.

I might as well simply send you to some christian apologetic site where you can read up on all kinds of explanations for these things.

That response may be appropriate in Holy Huddle or Theology, Doctrine and Dogma sub-forums, but is not appropriate in C&A.

I am sure you have read them and see all of them as fairy tales too. Why would you perceive my explanations any differently?

How, exactly, can you be sure what another person has read and how they personally respond? Have they claimed to have read them and declared them as fairytales? If not, how do you know the mind of another person well enough to say that you are sure?

I know I can bake a cake too but that in no way compels me to bake one just to prove it to someone who refuses to believe me and thinks cake is not worth eating in the first place.

That is correct in casual conversation; however, in debate there are policies, practices, rules and guidelines that REQUIRE a member to substantiate their claims. See Forum Rule # 5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

Do you disagree with that Forum Rule?

However, I would not retract my claim that I can bake a cake either just because I refuse to bake one for someone who would not appreciate it anyway.

That is directly contrary to Forum Rules.

People who perceive the bible as a fairy tale also perceive any explanations of it as nothing but fairy tales, so why bother trying to convince them otherwise?

What is the purpose of debating bible issues with non-Biblicists?

If one wishes to converse with or preach at fellow believers, HH and TD&D sub-forums are the place to do that. In C&A debates there are many who do NOT accept the bible as truthful or accurate. AND, sub-forum guidelines clearly state that the bible is not to be considered any more authoritative than any other book.

If you want to figure out those scriptures yourself

What makes you think that others have not already figured out those scriptures quite accurately? If their interpretation is different from yours, what makes you right and them wrong? Do you acknowledge the possibility that you do not understand the intended meaning of scriptures correctly?

I will give you a hint. Look at them outside the box of normal thinking, outside the man made time lines .

Do you claim to have greater understanding of scriptures than others? Is it not possible that THEY who disagree with you have greater understanding than you?

Try looking at them in a timeless realm where past present and future are all the same

Now THAT sounds like a fairytale or fiction.

and don't just look on outward appearances but look deeper into any metaphoric meanings you can see.

Metaphoric meanings are personal opinion. Anyone is free to see or claim ANY metaphoric meaning in anything they read. That is no assurance that they are correct for anyone other than themselves or that any such meaning is present by intent of the writer.

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day Skyangel.

How about I rephrase the question for you ... How do you perceive the biblical text to make sense metaphorically ?

The same way as I perceive any other metaphorical writings to make sense no matter who writes them. I simply understand the metaphors.

I didn't ask you if you understood metaphors.

So 'Jesus' is not really "personified" and you've actually put your interpretation upon the text to arrive at the declaration that you make.

How do you propose that anyone is supposed to comprehend this without you explaining that you have your own interpretation that incorporates different meanings than what is commonly held ?

No Jesus is not personified, It is the Truth which is personified in the man.

I do not propose that anyone comprehend my thoughts and ideas unless I explain them. That is why I explain them. No one can see what I see unless I show them what I see. Many times people need to be shown a different point of view before they even know something beyond the box of what is considered common or normal exists. However they usually just push it aside as being ridiculous because they don't wish to consider anything outside the box of their own understanding.

If 'Jesus' is not personified, then "the Truth is not personified in the man", for 'Jesus' would have to be "personified" to be a "man".

So far your explanations have lacked the ability to convey a comprehension of what you are expressing. Maybe it has something to do with your assumptions of others, a prejudgment that you admit to in your response.

Your statement is nonsensical. We have agreed that the Truth is What Is. Being self-evident, then the Truth/What Is cannot be hidden.

Your statement also alludes to the bible (and your discourse) as being purposefully misleading, which is not a re-presentation of Truth, and is in fact deceitful.

Self evident things can indeed be hidden from those who are unaware of them or "blind" to them. Camouflaged things in nature are self evident but also hidden and many people cannot see camouflaged things because they don't know what to look for. Truth is much like nature. Some things are obvious and some things are camouflaged. When truth camouflages truth it appears to be a deception or a lie and many call it a deception or a lie because that's all they can see. They do not see Truth hiding truth. If I tell you I am hiding something, I am not being deceitful but honest. It would be deceitful if I told you I was hiding nothing when I am hiding something. The bible admits it hides things and many people will believe in the delusions sent by God. It is self evident.

If it is "hidden" from someone then it is obviously not self-evident to them. If it is self-evident, then it is not "hidden". Your response lacks logic.

Whether you tell me that you are hiding something or not, the act of hiding it is deceitful. Your rhetoric does not change this.

You made the claim, "I figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day, which although they are opposite do not contradict each other at all", and having done so, it should be an easy case for someone that has "figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day". If you are having difficulty with it, choose 6 of the contradictions listed to start with and then proceed from there in another post.
.............................
If you are unable to provide proof for your claim, I would suggest, that in all fairness, that you retract the claim.

I am able to provide proof but that does not mean I will hand it to you on a platter.
I simply don't know if its worth putting many hours into explaining something to someone who will ultimately call it all a fairy tale anyway. I might as well simply send you to some christian apologetic site where you can read up on all kinds of explanations for these things. I am sure you have read them and see all of them as fairy tales too. Why would you perceive my explanations any differently?

I know I can bake a cake too but that in no way compels me to bake one just to prove it to someone who refuses to believe me and thinks cake is not worth eating in the first place. However, I would not retract my claim that I can bake a cake either just because I refuse to bake one for someone who would not appreciate it anyway.

People who perceive the bible as a fairy tale also perceive any explanations of it as nothing but fairy tales, so why bother trying to convince them otherwise?

If you want to figure out those scriptures yourself I will give you a hint. Look at them outside the box of normal thinking, outside the man made time lines . Try looking at them in a timeless realm where past present and future are all the same and don't just look on outward appearances but look deeper into any metaphoric meanings you can see.

You claim to be able to provide proof. Yet here is my third response to your claim and still you have not provided any proof.

Prejudgments aside, as well as your claim to be able to "send" me somewhere, you offer nothing new. As such, until you do provide proof, I will consider your claims fallacious and that you used such fallacious claims in an attempt to appear superior in some manner. Any further claims will be considered in relationship to your unwillingness to support claims already made and rejected upon the basis of lack of proof, unless such proof is provided with the claim in the post that it is made. For as all can see, you are unwilling to provide proof when it is asked for.

Your final paragraph is condescending and appears to sum up your attitude towards others, whom you appear to think of as being inferior to you based upon your unsupported claims of knowledge.

[Skyangel]

To me the bible is a collection of stories and ideas and opinions of ancient men who had no more ability(probably less) to discern 'truths' than I do or you do. Some of the philosophies expressed are interesting, some compelling, none original or unique. The bible is a collation of literary myths and ancient stories and there is no evidence at all that the truth claims made therein about a particular god are factual. Allowing oneself to become indoctrinated with dogma and religious promotion is anti-intellectual and mind numbing. Such dogmas are a deterrant to the intellectual development of mankind.

All men may indeed have the same ability to discern the truth. However, many still do not discern the truth when it is hiding truth or camouflaging truth but rather see that process as a lie or deception instead of perceiving the truth within the truth. Whether or not you perceive god/gods as fact or fiction depends entirely on your perception and definition of the word.
Allowing oneself to be indoctrinated with dogma of any kind is anti-intellectual, regardless of whether those dogmas are religious or scientific or otherwise. Dogmas exist in all areas of life even in your own mind which cannot get past the idea that the bible is a fictional story book. The dogma in your own perception stops you from seeing it any other way. Your prejudice hinders your understanding.

To my understanding of what you have written on these various threads, you are so far 'inside the box' that you can't get out, but have persuaded yourself with your 'esoteric' spin on traditional beliefs and have granted yourself 'guru' status. You appear to be a Bhuddist on Christian steroids. ...maybe you listen to Wayne Dyer?...he loves the water metahphors and the 'we are all part of the universe' diatribe...

Your comments about the 'Truth' and that 'we are all involved in each other and the things of the universe blah blah', is little more than common sense, and to most of it I say 'no kidding'....but such general blather doesn't get us very far in debate. Frankly, I find 'meaning' in much of what you have to say but your insistence that the 'Word' IS the bible is frightening.

If you want to really get 'outside the box', come join me in the world of skepticism and ignosticism, both of which can encompass most of your thinking, sprinkled with alot of doubting and questioning...You will have to drop your arrogant notions of absolute 'Truths' and overcome your indoctrinated beliefs about the Bible of course...and then you can really open your mind and begin the skeptical search for ideas ....wherein the actual truth will never be found, but the journey in search of it very rewarding...and stop fooling yourself that you have some corner on the Truth market....none of us do...and saying you do sounds foolish, despite the obvious fact that you are not.

I am giggling at your humor regarding "a Buddhist on Christian steroids."
You obviously perceive me as being inside a box and yourself outside the box and I see myself in exactly the same way you see yourself, as outside the box and see you inside the box. It amuses me slightly.

I will agree with you that I am inside the box in which you see me but you are the one placing the walls on that box not me. You are placing the division between you and me. That division is a mere illusion created by your own mind. The "box" I am in is also in me and it has no boundaries or limitations. The box I am in, set me free from the kind of limited thinking which you appear to have and which refuses to allow you to think about the possibility of the existence of god being a reality but confines you to the limitations of perceiving god as a fiction or myth.

You are suggesting that I get 'outside the box', come join you in the world of skepticism and ignosticism, etc, but you fail to understand that I know that world very well. I have been where you are and I know that perspective like the back of my hand... " Been there done that and got the shirt to prove it. " I know where I come from and I know where I am going.

You are the one who needs to break down the walls of your box. You will have to drop your arrogant notions of thinking no person can ever find absolute Truth and overcome your indoctrinated beliefs about the actual truth never being found, and stop fooling yourself that you have some corner on the Truth market.
To say absolute Truth cannot be found and then say none of us have a corner on the absolute Truth is basically calling your own statement a lie which ought to be questioned thoroughly and not believed since it is not absolute Truth according to your own words. You are making a fool out of yourself.

If absolute Truth did not exist, how can you know whether or not you are absolutely alive or absolutely dead or absolutely breathing or will absolutely die one day? Absolutes exist. They are the measuring stick by which we measure and judge all else.
I am that I am. That is an absolute Truth.
I exist. That is an absolute Truth.

I die daily.
I live daily.
That is absolute Truth and not a contradiction either in spite of the fact that it can indeed be perceived as a contradiction.