Christianity

[Belinda]

So it would be enough if a guy in a fancy suit said it happened?

That's what it would take to convince you?

Again, I have to marvel at the standard you propose...

Well, if you're serious, "the Magesterium" insists on the life and teachings of Christ being authentic. So I suppose you're not going to contest any of what they "affirm," then?

C'mon, B. Think, don't just go with what you've always supposed...

You mistake my meaning. The RC church's world view contains that miracles happen My world view does not contain that miracles happen.

But I didn't ask you what the RC's think would justify a "miracle." I asked what YOU would accept. And you won't say.

Why not? Is it because you don't know, or because there is nothing you would ever accept?

And if it's either, then how surprising can it be that you imagine there can be no such thing as a miracle? You'll never see one, not because there isn't one, but because you've either never thought about it at all, really, or because you don't even have a standard that would reveal to you when there HAD been a miracle.

The woman who has no standard for seeing miracles never sees one.

How surprising is that? Not even a bit, obviously.

I would not accept any event as a miracle.

Nobody has an objective standard for defining a miracle. People who believe in supernatural events may believe in, and define, miracles qua miracles.
Belief in the supernatural has declined as science has become predominant.

Why do you cling to belief in the supernatural? Do you not trust that God writes the book of science?

Your have an impressive knowledge of Scripture . If you could see that Scripture may be read as allegory you could remain trustful that God writes the book of Scripture.

[Immanuel Can]

You mistake my meaning. The RC church's world view contains that miracles happen My world view does not contain that miracles happen.

But I didn't ask you what the RC's think would justify a "miracle." I asked what YOU would accept. And you won't say.

Why not? Is it because you don't know, or because there is nothing you would ever accept?

And if it's either, then how surprising can it be that you imagine there can be no such thing as a miracle? You'll never see one, not because there isn't one, but because you've either never thought about it at all, really, or because you don't even have a standard that would reveal to you when there HAD been a miracle.

The woman who has no standard for seeing miracles never sees one.

How surprising is that? Not even a bit, obviously.

I would not accept any event as a miracle.

There it is. That's exactly right. The reason you perceive miracles cannot happen is not intellectual at all, but assumptive. You wish for miracles to be impossible, so you see none as being possible.

Nobody has an objective standard for defining a miracle.

They do, actually. In fact, it's not all that uncommon for people to believe in the possibility of miracles, or to think they recognize one if they see it. The ancient Jews, for example, were quite convinced of the Red Sea crossing, and did not take it to be a natural event. But then, they had criteria for such things. You refuse to have any.

Most of the world is, in some form, religious, and so have some belief in the possibility of miracles. Belief in the possibility of miracles even extends to a great many of the world's most famous scientists, those who understand what science really is and does. Science is not a replacement for miracles: it's a method of studying physical phenomena, particularly limited to those we can observe, can repeat, can manipulate, can measure, and so on. But it's not more than that. It has nothing to say about phenomena that exceed those requirements.

In that sense, science can't even "prove" that much of our real history ever took place. And that's totally aside from any claim of miracles. What it can do is offer indications, evidence of consequences, artifacts left over, and such -- none of which are sufficient to warrant any claim that we have comprehensive knowledge or proof of various past events even having happened. But they're very good indications, though they are not, in the true sense, "scientifically proven" or "demonstrable" in a precise way.

Belief in the supernatural has declined as science has become predominant.

The opposite is actually historically the case: science only came into being because of certain metaphysical commitments unique to the Christian West. This is known as "Whitehead's Thesis," after the philosopher-theologian A.N. Whitehead, who first pointed it out. There are very good reasons why science arose in Christian Europe, and particularly in England, and not in, say, India or China, where there were far more people, many of high intelligence. What they did not have in the East or in Africa were the metaphysical assumptions that made science possible in the first place.

Your have an impressive knowledge of Scripture . If you could see that Scripture may be read as allegory you could remain trustful that God writes the book of Scripture.

I do, in fact, believe that God has written the Scriptures. And I'm very "trustful" of that, and for good reasons. And I believe in both the literal and the allegorical in Scripture, so I've got all the ability to understand that allegorizing offers, but also every advantage of being able to take the literally-intended portions with the seriousness that is suitable to them. So I've got the whole package there.

What the pure-allegorizer, the Jungian, the "higher critic" never has is the ability to hear the literal truth of the Word of God. He's arbitrarily ruled that out for himself, before he begins. Consequently, he not only fails to hear the clear, literal statements, but he also untethers the allegorical from the literal, and thus flies off into the whimsies of his own imagination, like an astronaut whose lost his lifeline to the space capsule.

I don't recommend that exegetical strategy. Before we go allegorizing, we have to be honest about what the text literally says, and govern our allegories and our personal imaginings by directing them to the text. This is what it means to "hear the Word of God," rather than to "hear" only the vacuous delusions of our own imaginations. But far from eliminating allegory, this is the only strategy that makes the allegory truthful.

To "hear with faith" is to believe the literal truth of what God says, even when it is not clear to us yet why He says it, or when it offends our personal preferences and demands the reshaping of our prejudices, or when it exceeds our personal experience of the subject. And those who do not hear with faith never hear God.

[iambiguous]

As I stated in my previous reply to you, that this GOD entity may have a great reason NOT to make its existence obvious to everyone such that all humanity are left with NO doubt.

Of course: His mysterious ways. The perfect explanation for things we either don't understand about existence itself or things we do understand [or think we do] that deeply disturb us. We can then just convince ourselves it's all necessary given God's Divine Plan. And since it's assumed that the Christian God is [ultimately] loving, just and merciful, our leap of faith includes the assumption as well that "in the end" we'll be taken care of. And in paradise no less.

Not even close mate.

My theory is that since we arn't the only lifeform that GOD created, and many humans do abhorrent things to other humans to the point that they probably don't get to reincarnate human ever again.

Your theory? What about the part where you intertwine your conjectures and speculations regarding God -- i.e. stuff you believe about Him "in your head" up in the spiritual clouds -- and your own interactions with others in which conflicting goods unfold.

I'm just trying to get a sense of how for all practical purposes God and religion play out in your interactions with others existentially. Again, less what you think about them and more what you can demonstrate to others about them such that they might be able to think the same.

As for reincarnation, it's just more of the same for me. You broach it, make certain assumptions about it and never once offer any substantive/substantial evidence that it is in fact a crucial component of the human condition.

666 - again, life is a struggle - if i were to judge someone I know and what he did in comparison to my dog Donnie being able to reincarnate as human, i'd swich their DNA moving forward in time

Uh, yeah, right, of course.

So.

GOD leaves people to their own actions. EVERYONE has been warned at least that there is some consequences to their actions IF GOD exists. (*problem for many is, IT does)

Which God though? Is it one worshipped and adored by any number of these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- or is it ever and always your own?

I am happy to discuss my theory on that if you wish.

No, I prefer that any theories pertaining to meaning, morality and metaphysics be brought down out of the academic clouds and reconciled with the arguments I make pertaining to dasein and conflicting goods in my signature threads. Given a context of your own choosing.

Woops! I accidenally did just above.

Not even close, mate.

Regarding 'dasein', such as myself being brought up in a Roman Catholic School via my parents choosing. Yes, I think I was wiser than many of my schoolfriends that thought Christianity/GOD was a load of nonsense. Since, I considered IF there is a GOD, then perhaps it had my soul implanted into this family that would send me to the R.C. school and learn of this GOD entity. Turned out, faith did enable me to know GOD exists.

Okay, back then, how did you go about demonstrating that a God, the God, your God does in fact exist? In other words, beyond a leap of faith or a wager or what you might have read in one or another Scripture.

Scientists admit that they could not even reproduce the artifact using today's technology.

On the other hand, if it is unequivocally true that science today still fails to replicate it, "to reproduce the artifact using today's technology" please link me to the arguments, the evidence, the bottom line, etc., that convinced you of this.

Pretty certain it was in the video. I am not your errand boy. I truly don't care about you or any faithless on this forum, you keep striving without faith, no skin off of my knows.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle from my frame of mind. Just as with IC. Only as with him, you won't even note the most profound evidence...the evidence that led you to believe what you do about God and religion...in order to entice others here [who aren't me] to, uh, "see the light"?

If a NEGATIVE photgraphic image of a man was formed in the 14th Century, with enough grayscale information that NASA tech when applied permits a 3D model of a man in rigor-mortis, IF that isn't enough to switch from inside your head to have that thing that is required FAITH, then I guess nothing will.

Note to others:

You tell me. I have little or no understanding at all regarding what on Earth he or she means by this. Let alone whether the scientific community as a whole now shares his/her own assessment.

And, again, unlike Jesus Christ who "as God in the flesh" was fully aware that Heaven [immortality/salvation] was right around the corner for Him, almost all the rest of us are left grappling with existential leaps of faith or wagers. Also, knowing that there are many, many other religious denominations "out there" who are quite adamant that only their own One True Path counts.

This is my best advice for you:

Apply your best rational mind to EVERTHING around you, look for anomalies within REALITY.

Look into such things as I am suggesting:-
SINAI - SIN_A.I. https://www.androcies.com/Images/Art/Mount%20Sinai.jpg

REAL_IT_Y?

The balanced structure of the ALPHABET:- https://www.androcies.com/Images/Art/Vo ... 20Sage.jpg

The Tree of KNOW_LEDGE of good and evil: https://www.androcies.com/Images/Art/Tr ... wledge.jpg

etc..etc..etc..www.androcies.com

What on Earth does any of that really have to do with this:

And, again, unlike Jesus Christ who "as God in the flesh" was fully aware that Heaven [immortality/salvation] was right around the corner for Him, almost all the rest of us are left grappling with existential leaps of faith or wagers. Also, knowing that there are many, many other religious denominations "out there" who are quite adamant that only their own One True Path counts.

A "condition" I suspect.

And thereeth lieth the end of the sermon.

I don't preach or teach the gospel according to iambiguous. On the contrary, over and again, I flat-out acknowledge that my own set of assumptions here are no less rooted existentially in dasein. I can demonstrate little or nothing in regard to human interactions in the is/ought world.

Then the part where contingency, chance and change can have a profound impact in our lives given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge.

You want to believe that there is an omnipotent GOD, but scoff at what I know IS plausible with this entity. There is no point to this discussion.

In other words, since I have not come around yet to how you think about this, and you're convinced that I never will...?

Correct. And, more to the point as I stated above, I don't care.

Then, as with me, perhaps, you sustain exchanges like this for...entertainment? Though even here I am ever and always "fractured and fragmented".

What I truly do care about myself is in exploring God and religion with those who argue that what they do believe about them themselves "here and now" goes beyond a leap of faith, a wager or "because it says so in the Bible". They have either had personal experiences with a God, the God or they believe there really is substantive scientific and historical evidence. For IC, it is in regard to the Christian God, though for others it is in regard to another God altogether.

How about your God?

[iambiguous]

The life of Christ is not the same as the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The former is a miraculous legend and the latter is history.

This isn't an answer to my question: I'll remind you.

What would you accept as evidence for a miracle?

Again, the sheer futility of answering this question other than as he would.

Then the part where he claims substantive answers are available here -- https://www.reasonablefaith.org/animated-videos -- such that historically and scientifically, it's all you'll ever need to know about the Christian God in order to transcend mere faith. To, in fact, know that he does reside in Heaven.

Now, if we all wake up tomorrow and discover that no child anywhere around the globe is suffering [and never will again] and that all "acts of God" have ceased to turn the lives of mere mortals into living Hells...?

He has apparently convinced himself that were this to be the case, there's no way that he himself would attribute this to his own Christian God. Though I suspect any number of other denominations would claim it is their own God.

After all, other than a God, the God, what else/who else could ever accomplish something like this?

Unless, perhaps, henry quirk's Deist God make a return appearance?

Free bazookas for everyone?

[Immanuel Can]

The life of Christ is not the same as the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The former is a miraculous legend and the latter is history.

This isn't an answer to my question: I'll remind you.

What would you accept as evidence for a miracle?

Again, the sheer futility of answering this question other than as he would.

It's not futile for anybody who has an answer. If that's not you, it's only futile for you.

[iambiguous]

This isn't an answer to my question: I'll remind you.

What would you accept as evidence for a miracle?

Again, the sheer futility of answering this question other than as he would.

It's not futile for anybody who has an answer. If that's not you, it's only futile for you.

Okay, others may well have an answer, but it's not that Jesus Christ is their own personal savior.

So, given that, how futile will it be for them to be, say, saved?

For all I know, however, Judgment Day for them might revolve around the Christian God attempting one last time to bring them around to the Prince of Peace. Maybe he switches back and forth between the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Of course, who is going to reject Him come Judgment Day itself.

Only if that's the case what of the fact that on this side of the grave they rejected Christianity for either another God or for No God at all? That's okay as long as they come around on Judgment Day?

And, again, the irony here being that according to many Christians I have known over the years that's not how it works at all. Thousands go trekking around the globe trying to save souls because they recognize how crucial it is to bring them over to Christ on this side of the grave.

Or perhaps John Calvin -- predestination -- comes closest to reflecting what a true Christian must be.

Though, again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave shouldn't mere mortals be clearly apprised [by God] as to which path to take?

[Immanuel Can]

Again, the sheer futility of answering this question other than as he would.

It's not futile for anybody who has an answer. If that's not you, it's only futile for you.

Okay, others may well have an answer...

They do. But you don't. And that's a "you" problem.

[iambiguous]

It's not futile for anybody who has an answer. If that's not you, it's only futile for you.

Okay, others may well have an answer...

They do. But you don't. And that's a "you" problem.

Yes, they may well have an answer, but it's not the answer that gets them saved. Not unless it is entirely in sync with your own answer here.

Right?

So, here you are applauding them for having an answer while at the same time insisting that they had better abandon it and come around to your answer.

Or else.

So, in my view, you are unwilling to recognize the "for all practical purposes" consequences of not accepting your own convictions here. Your own answers. Their souls are doomed but at least they had an answer. Is that what you are suggesting?

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, others may well have an answer...

They do. But you don't. And that's a "you" problem.

Yes, they may well have an answer, but it's not the answer that gets them saved.

You clearly don't even understand what the question was.

[iambiguous]

They do. But you don't. And that's a "you" problem.

Yes, they may well have an answer, but it's not the answer that gets them saved.

You clearly don't even understand what the question was.

More to the point, perhaps, are all those who do not seem to understand this: that whatever the questions raised pertaining to God and religion, the answer is always the same: accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior or you are damned. Or, rather, your soul is.

I'm just grappling to understand why you refuse to spend any time at all here acquainting those who are not me with the scientific and historical evidence you claim demonstrates the existence of the Christian God beyond leaps of faiths, wagers and Scripture.

What's the big mystery?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, they may well have an answer, but it's not the answer that gets them saved.

You clearly don't even understand what the question was.

More to the point...

You've never been less "to the point" in your life.

Sorry...I still can't be bothered. I'm tuning you out now.

[Belinda]

But I didn't ask you what the RC's think would justify a "miracle." I asked what YOU would accept. And you won't say.

Why not? Is it because you don't know, or because there is nothing you would ever accept?

And if it's either, then how surprising can it be that you imagine there can be no such thing as a miracle? You'll never see one, not because there isn't one, but because you've either never thought about it at all, really, or because you don't even have a standard that would reveal to you when there HAD been a miracle.

The woman who has no standard for seeing miracles never sees one.

How surprising is that? Not even a bit, obviously.

I would not accept any event as a miracle.

There it is. That's exactly right. The reason you perceive miracles cannot happen is not intellectual at all, but assumptive. You wish for miracles to be impossible, so you see none as being possible.

Nobody has an objective standard for defining a miracle.

They do, actually. In fact, it's not all that uncommon for people to believe in the possibility of miracles, or to think they recognize one if they see it. The ancient Jews, for example, were quite convinced of the Red Sea crossing, and did not take it to be a natural event. But then, they had criteria for such things. You refuse to have any.

Most of the world is, in some form, religious, and so have some belief in the possibility of miracles. Belief in the possibility of miracles even extends to a great many of the world's most famous scientists, those who understand what science really is and does. Science is not a replacement for miracles: it's a method of studying physical phenomena, particularly limited to those we can observe, can repeat, can manipulate, can measure, and so on. But it's not more than that. It has nothing to say about phenomena that exceed those requirements.

In that sense, science can't even "prove" that much of our real history ever took place. And that's totally aside from any claim of miracles. What it can do is offer indications, evidence of consequences, artifacts left over, and such -- none of which are sufficient to warrant any claim that we have comprehensive knowledge or proof of various past events even having happened. But they're very good indications, though they are not, in the true sense, "scientifically proven" or "demonstrable" in a precise way.

Belief in the supernatural has declined as science has become predominant.

The opposite is actually historically the case: science only came into being because of certain metaphysical commitments unique to the Christian West. This is known as "Whitehead's Thesis," after the philosopher-theologian A.N. Whitehead, who first pointed it out. There are very good reasons why science arose in Christian Europe, and particularly in England, and not in, say, India or China, where there were far more people, many of high intelligence. What they did not have in the East or in Africa were the metaphysical assumptions that made science possible in the first place.

Your have an impressive knowledge of Scripture . If you could see that Scripture may be read as allegory you could remain trustful that God writes the book of Scripture.

I do, in fact, believe that God has written the Scriptures. And I'm very "trustful" of that, and for good reasons. And I believe in both the literal and the allegorical in Scripture, so I've got all the ability to understand that allegorizing offers, but also every advantage of being able to take the literally-intended portions with the seriousness that is suitable to them. So I've got the whole package there.

What the pure-allegorizer, the Jungian, the "higher critic" never has is the ability to hear the literal truth of the Word of God. He's arbitrarily ruled that out for himself, before he begins. Consequently, he not only fails to hear the clear, literal statements, but he also untethers the allegorical from the literal, and thus flies off into the whimsies of his own imagination, like an astronaut whose lost his lifeline to the space capsule.

I don't recommend that exegetical strategy. Before we go allegorizing, we have to be honest about what the text literally says, and govern our allegories and our personal imaginings by directing them to the text. This is what it means to "hear the Word of God," rather than to "hear" only the vacuous delusions of our own imaginations. But far from eliminating allegory, this is the only strategy that makes the allegory truthful.

To "hear with faith" is to believe the literal truth of what God says, even when it is not clear to us yet why He says it, or when it offends our personal preferences and demands the reshaping of our prejudices, or when it exceeds our personal experience of the subject. And those who do not hear with faith never hear God.

"the word of God" is best understood as the creation of God; you seem to limit the word of God to what God says to man.

Nature is cruel and uncaring; mankind needs dignity to rise above nature. From The Ten Commandments to Love Thy Neighbour Whoever They Be is collected and edited by men so as to show forth how to rise above nature as dignified humans.
God has a history ranging from the tribal Jahweh and its kings through the OT Prophets, to Jesus of Nazareth , and incorporating Greek thought.

Science grew from early roots in Aristotle, through Copernicus through Galileo, through Darwin. The Church forced Galileo on pain of torture and death to recant. The Church burned to death Giordano Bruno for his pantheist claims. Until Darwin and later science has had to contend with religious dogma. The RC church was political and ruled over Christendom. The Protestant Reformation too had its dogmas that were averse to science and markedly punitive. Read below about the powers of the clergy in medieval Europe :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm

[Age]

But I didn't ask you what the RC's think would justify a "miracle." I asked what YOU would accept. And you won't say.

Why not? Is it because you don't know, or because there is nothing you would ever accept?

And if it's either, then how surprising can it be that you imagine there can be no such thing as a miracle? You'll never see one, not because there isn't one, but because you've either never thought about it at all, really, or because you don't even have a standard that would reveal to you when there HAD been a miracle.

The woman who has no standard for seeing miracles never sees one.

How surprising is that? Not even a bit, obviously.

I would not accept any event as a miracle.

There it is. That's exactly right. The reason you perceive miracles cannot happen is not intellectual at all, but assumptive. You wish for miracles to be impossible, so you see none as being possible.

Just like you wish for miracles to be possible, so you see miracles as being possible.

Nobody has an objective standard for defining a miracle.

They do, actually. In fact, it's not all that uncommon for people to believe in the possibility of miracles, or to think they recognize one if they see it.

1. It may well be 'not all that uncommon' among 'those', which you associate with, to believe in the possibility of miracles. But, obviously, it is becoming far less uncommon that people believe in miracles.

2. Only one who BELIEVES in the possibility of miracles will 'see' miracles, and then claim to recognize that 'it', as a so-called 'miracle'. For EVERY one else they will either DISMISS 'it' as a so-called 'miracle', or just REMAIN OPEN and just WAIT TO SEE what ACTUALLY UNFOLDS.

3. Also, only an 'idiot' who claims to have seen a 'miracle' would then claim that God must have caused it.

The ancient Jews, for example, were quite convinced of the Red Sea crossing, and did not take it to be a natural event. But then, they had criteria for such things. You refuse to have any.

Their criteria would have been 'miracles are possible' and 'they MUST BE a supernatural event'. Although, in the days when this is being written, some of you 'ancient' peoples are just starting to 'slowly realize' is that calling some thing 'supernatural' and/or a 'supernatural event' is ABSOLUTELY NONSENSICAL and IRRATIONAL, as there can NOT be ANY thing, AT ALL, outside, beyond, or apart from 'Nature', Itself.

Most of the world is, in some form, religious, and so have some belief in the possibility of miracles.

One wonders what 'this one' is basing this CLAIM and BELIEF ON, EXACTLY?

Furthermore, EVERY adult human being, in the days when this is being written, is 'religious' in one form or another. Most "scientists", for example, put their BELIEF, and/or FAITH, IN 'those' who they LOOK UP TO and/or WORSHIP. Exactly like "theists" DO.

Belief in the possibility of miracles even extends to a great many of the world's most famous scientists, those who understand what science really is and does.

'This' is quite A CLAIM. What are you basing 'this CLAIM' ON, EXACTLY? I wonder if ALL of the CLAIMED 'GREAT MANY of the world's MOST FAMOUS "scientists" ' KNOW that they ALL BELIEVE IN the POSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES, or NOT.

Also, what is 'your' understanding of what 'science' really is, and really does, EXACTLY, "immanuel can"?

Not that you will EVER BE Honest and OPEN, AT ALL, here. So, what the ACTUAL Truth IS, here, will NOT come FROM you.

Science is not a replacement for miracles:

AND, NO one even THOUGHT that 'science' was. So, bringing 'this' up, and then REFUTING 'it', is just MORE OF your PERSISTENT ATTEMPTS AT DEFLECTION and DECEIVING, here.

it's a method of studying physical phenomena, particularly limited to those we can observe, can repeat, can manipulate, can measure, and so on. But it's not more than that. It has nothing to say about phenomena that exceed those requirements.

So, 'this one' 'now', CLAIMS that "science" has NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT 'miracles', YET 'this one', STILL, WANTED TO CLAIM that a ' GREAT MANY of the world's MOST famous "scientists" ' BELIEVE IN the POSSIBILITY of MIRACLES. Which, besides OBVIOUSLY being just AN ASSUMPTION and/or A BELIEF, itself, if "scientists" are BELIEVING IN 'things', or worse still, BELIEVING IN the POSSIBILITY of MIRACLES, then 'this' WILL OBVIOUSLY EFFECT their ABILITY TO REMAIN COMPLETELY OPEN when 'they' are 'studying physical phenomena'. And, OBVIOUSLY, if ANY one is NOT COMPLETELY OPEN when 'studying', then 'they' are NOT DOING that or their JOB properly, and Correctly. Therefore, being 'famous' has NO significance AT ALL, here.

In that sense, science can't even "prove" that much of our real history ever took place.

Well, how then do you, "immanuel can" KNOW what is your so-called 'real history' from your 'unreal history', EXACTLY?

If 'science', itself, can NOT even 'prove', thus 'tell' and KNOW, THE DIFFERENCE, then how can you KNOW "immanuel can"?

And that's totally aside from any claim of miracles.

So, WHY bring 'this' UP, here, now?

WHY are you, 'now', 'TRYING TO' DISCREDIT 'science' FOR, EXACTLY?

What it can do is offer indications, evidence of consequences, artifacts left over, and such -- none of which are sufficient to warrant any claim that we have comprehensive knowledge or proof of various past events even having happened. But they're very good indications, though they are not, in the true sense, "scientifically proven" or "demonstrable" in a precise way.

So, could 'science' PROVE that A 'Thing', with A penis, CREATED EVERY thing ALL AT ONCE IN ONE MOMENT, or NOT?

In fact, is there, REALLY, ANY one LEFT, in 'the world', in the days when this is being written, who would BELIEVE such a thing as 'this'?

Belief in the supernatural has declined as science has become predominant.

The opposite is actually historically the case: science only came into being because of certain metaphysical commitments unique to the Christian West. This is known as "Whitehead's Thesis," after the philosopher-theologian A.N. Whitehead, who first pointed it out. There are very good reasons why science arose in Christian Europe, and particularly in England, and not in, say, India or China, where there were far more people, many of high intelligence. What they did not have in the East or in Africa were the metaphysical assumptions that made science possible in the first place.

So, well to "immanuel can" anyway, BELIEF IN 'the supernatural' has INCREASED as 'science' has become predominant, or, 'as 'science' has become less predominant.

Which is ANOTHER thing that ONLY "immanuel can", (and maybe some others), would SAY and CLAIM, and/or BELIEVE IS TRUE.

Your have an impressive knowledge of Scripture . If you could see that Scripture may be read as allegory you could remain trustful that God writes the book of Scripture.

I do, in fact, believe that God has written the Scriptures.

So, the EXACT SAME 'Thing', with a penis, WROTE the "quran" and EVERY other 'scripture', YET "immanuel can" CONTINUALLY 'TRIES TO' RIDICULE and/or DISCREDIT ALL other 'scriptures'. Which is ANOTHER VERY HYPOCRITICAL and CONTRARY thing for one to BE DOING.

And I'm very "trustful" of that, and for good reasons. And I believe in both the literal and the allegorical in Scripture, so I've got all the ability to understand that allegorizing offers, but also every advantage of being able to take the literally-intended portions with the seriousness that is suitable to them. So I've got the whole package there.

LOL CONTRARY TO "belinda's" CLAIM, here, you do NOT have an impressive knowledge of 'scripture' AT ALL. In fact, your CLAIM that you have got ALL 'the ability' to understand, here, and have also got ever 'advantage' of 'being able to' take the literally-intended portions with the seriousness that is suitable to them, is an ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY.

LOL you, LITERALLY, take the word 'he' in the bible to, literally, MEAN that God, Itself, HAS A PENIS. Which could NOT BE MORE UNSUITABLE and NONSENSICAL.

LOL your READING of the bible borders on ABSOLUTE INSANITY "immanuel can".

And, your INABILITY TO BE CHALLENGED and TO TAKE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, here, PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, just how UNREASONABLE your INTERPRETATIONS ACTUALLY ARE, here.

What the pure-allegorizer, the Jungian, the "higher critic" never has is the ability to hear the literal truth of the Word of God. He's arbitrarily ruled that out for himself, before he begins. Consequently, he not only fails to hear the clear, literal statements, but he also untethers the allegorical from the literal, and thus flies off into the whimsies of his own imagination, like an astronaut whose lost his lifeline to the space capsule.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The ONLY LITERAL INTERPRETATION you have PRESENTED, here, IS that God IS A 'male'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, IS ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

So, if you can NOT even get 'this ONE VERY SIMPLE and OBVIOUS thing' Right AND Correct, then 'this' does NOT say much AT ALL ABOUT 'your abilities', here, "immanuel can". In fact you have just PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, HOW FAR OFF you REALLY ARE, here.

I don't recommend that exegetical strategy. Before we go allegorizing, we have to be honest about what the text literally says, and govern our allegories and our personal imaginings by directing them to the text.

SO then BE Honest, and OPEN, here, TELL the readers, here, what 'the text', 'He' is LITERALLY SAYING.

If you do NOT, with just this one LITTLE WORD, then you are:

1. NOT BEING Honest. And,

2. PROVING just how INCAPABLE you REALLY ARE, here.

This is what it means to "hear the Word of God," rather than to "hear" only the vacuous delusions of our own imaginations.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'This one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that God, Itself, SAYS and WROTE IN 'the bible' that 'It' IS A "he", which, COINCIDENTALLY WAS WRITTEN BY "he's", in the days when it was being written.

LOL And, 'this one' has the HIDE TO SAY and CLAIM, 'This is what it means to 'hear the Word of God'.

LOL The word, "he", in the bible ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE of the OBVIOUS 'vacuous DELUSIONS' of the writer's OWN IMAGINATIONS, and/or MISINTERPRETATIONS.

But far from eliminating allegory, this is the only strategy that makes the allegory truthful.

To "hear with faith" is to believe the literal truth of what God says, even when it is not clear to us yet why He says it, or when it offends our personal preferences and demands the reshaping of our prejudices, or when it exceeds our personal experience of the subject.

'This one' IS DOING the VERY things CONTRARY TO what it is SAYING, and MEANING, here.

And those who do not hear with faith never hear God.

AGAIN, it does NOT MATTER ONE IOTA HOW MUCH or HOW LITTLE 'faith' one HAS, here.

The ACTUAL Truth of things, like, for an OBVIOUS example, God is NOT 'male gendered', is NOT 'heard' MORE BECAUSE you HAVE so-called 'faith' IN God.

In Fact your 'faith' to BELIEVE that 'the words' in the bible ARE the 'literal truth of what God says', iss what HAS LED you COMPLETELY ASTRAY and COMPLETELY 'MISSING THE MARK', here.

What you are ACTUALLY SHOWING and PROVING, here, "immanuel can" is TO NOT HAVE THE 'faith' NOR 'to believe' LIKE you DO.

OBVIOUSLY, your 'faith' and 'belief', here, HAS and IS, STILL, STOPPING and PREVENTING your FROM CONSIDERING the IRREFUTABLE and ACTUAL Fact that 'the words' IN 'the bible' were CAME FROM, and were WRITTEN BY, HUMAN BEINGS, ONLY. And, from 'current knowledge' BY 'males' ONLY, AS WELL.

And, the Fact that you have NOT YET even CONSIDERED 'this Fact' and HOW 'this' could have ALTERED the ACTUAL True COMMUNICATION FROM God, SHOWS and PROVES HOW and WHY 'the faith' and 'belief' that you HAVE and HOLD, here, is BEST NEVER even 'ENTERTAINED', let alone ENGAGED WITH.

[Age]

They do. But you don't. And that's a "you" problem.

Yes, they may well have an answer, but it's not the answer that gets them saved.

You clearly don't even understand what the question was.

you VERY CLEARLY are just 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT and DECEIVE, here, ONCE MORE.

you WERE CHALLENGED. But, ONCE AGAIN, you ATTEMPTED TO 'RUN AWAY', and 'HIDE'.

[Age]

You clearly don't even understand what the question was.

More to the point...

You've never been less "to the point" in your life.

Sorry...I still can't be bothered. I'm tuning you out now.

EVERY time 'this one' IS QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED where it KNOWS that it WILL BE DEFEATED, COMPLETELY, it RESORTS TO, 'I am not bothered', and/or, 'I am turning you out now'.

Or, in other words, EVERY time it KNOWS it has NOTHING AT ALL to STAND UPON nor BEHIND it just 'RUNS AWAY', and 'HIDES'.

OBVIOUSLY 'this one' has NO 'faith' AT ALL IN what it BELIEVES. Otherwise it would STAND, and FIGHT FOR, its BELIEF/S, here.

Even 'this one's' OWN 'male God' can NOT HELP it, and is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT HELPING, backing up, NOR supporting 'this one', here, AT ALL.