Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[Audie]

Nobody's because I haven't been scammed...
but I understand that you have to believe that in order to maintain that I am wrong so you can believe you are right.

You understand nothing except the shoddy
self deceptipn of making up some way to
turn your mistake into someone else's.

It was childish even in grade school.

Youre not even understanding that nobody
thinks they've been scammed.
Or has a drinking problem. Nobody will admit it.
You ain't special that way.

People wont admit it tillthey they wake
up to find their bank account empty,
or they're lying in the gutter.

Some lack the capacity to admit it even then.

 

[Kfox]

I am not going down that road. Anyone can be wrong since there is no proof that God exists or sends Messengers.

Exactly! Now if God spoke from the sky instead of sending messengers, this would not be a problem

Is your opinion foolproof, or is it possible that you could be wrong?

I could be wrong, but until proven wrong, I will assume I am right

So what? Just because a voice was not of Planet Earth that would not mean it is the Voice of God.

My point was that it is more convincing, not that it proves God or anything

1. : originating in or based on observation or experience. empirical data.
2. : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.
Empirical Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

The definition says that you can observe it or experience it. If you cannot observe God you would have to experience God in order for it to be empirical.

Yeah; notice is says nothing about visual

 

[Superman7]

It's another word for "interprettion".

It's a very common usage.

Do you not agree with my post now that
you've read it?

You said reading but I thought you were messing with activities having to do with demons. Like Physic readings ya know. Hwt ttyls. Breakfast is calling me

 

[Superman7]

Of what use is powerful light in
the dark, if you cannot read the map?

Ask ye of some score bible readers
" What sayeth this passage? What is
your reading of genesis, be it literal or
figurative?"

And ye shall hear from them
"Lo here", and, "Lo there

.The flashlight is to help you see what is ahead of you in your path..

 

[Audie]

You said reading but I thought you were messing with activities having to do with demons. Like Physic readings ya know. Hwt ttyls. Breakfast is calling me

I know what I said, and, I know you didn't answer.

 

[Audie]

.The flashlight is to help you see what is ahead of you in your path..

Like so obvious.
A book isn't a flashlight. Also obvious.
Now, again, of what use is a "light" figurative
or real, if you have no way to know which path to take?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I never assumed the existence of God. I believed because of the evidence.

Yes, you've said so, but since you can't produce that evidence, I don't believe that you're correct. I think you decided that a god exists with insufficient evidence to justify the belief and have convinced yourself that you came to that belief using that evidence. But the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that the messengers actually channel gods.

God did provide those words through Baha'u'llah, you just don't recognize them as being from God.

They look human in origin, so why would I assume that they aren't?

That's fine and it is no skin off God's nose because God needs nobody's belief

And many don't need a god belief. I don't. If gods exist, it fine that I don't know that.

Just because you don't see it that does not mean it is not there. Not everyone sees the same things since we are all thinking with different minds.

Yes, we each have our own mind, but not all minds are qualified to evaluate evidence. There is only one method that works. There is only one method that generates demonstrably correct ideas.

God does not provide evidence to suit everyone, God only provides the evidence He chooses to provide, which has always been the Messengers.

There's no reason to believe the messengers. This is where rogue methods for evaluating evidence fail one. If one looks at the messenger's words and deeds and they appear human, then he has no reason to believe that they aren't.

Why would a fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining God care if some people don't believe in Messengers and need more?

Why would such a god contact humanity at all? The god you believe in allegedly has. What do you suppose its purpose was given its contentment to only reach a fraction? How many people have never heard of Baha'u'llah?

I am describing an All-Wise God who knows the best way to communicate to humans

I disagree. You are assuming that, but what you describe is less. Nature communicates with us much better than messengers do. Nature tells us what to seek and what to fear or avoid. Yes, imperfectly, but it reaches us all. Nature instructs us how to eat and drink. Nature instructs us to get up and walk, and to speak. Parents communicate their languages and other cultural norms to their children much more effectively than this god does assuming it exists. That's how I know that messengers are an extremely ineffective way for a tri-omni god that that wants to be known, understood, believed, obeyed, and worshiped to accomplish that end.

Impotent at communicating effectively with man? Hardly. You don't have a leg to stand on, not one leg. Most people in the world believe in God because of a Messenger of God so that method has been very successful.

But they don't share the same beliefs, so how effective is that communication?

Now tell me why you think that God should care if 7% of the world population reject His Messengers.

It wouldn't if it didn't care to be known by them. But why would such a god want to be known by anybody, or only by those willing to believe that it exists based in mundane messages delivered by proxy? A more reasonable and parsimonious hypothesis is that people are just claiming to speak for a god but are not, which is my position and will remain as such for as long as I have no reason to modify it.

 

[Audie]

Yes, you've said so, but since you can't produce that evidence, I don't believe that you're correct. I think you decided that a god exists with insufficient evidence to justify the belief and have convinced yourself that you came to that belief using that evidence. But the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that the messengers actually channel gods.

They look human in origin, so why would I assume that they aren't?

And many don't need a god belief. I don't. If gods exist, it fine that I don't know that.

Yes, we each have our own mind, but not all minds are qualified to evaluate evidence. There is only one method that works. There is only one method that generates demonstrably correct ideas.

There's no reason to believe the messengers. This is where rogue methods for evaluating evidence fail one. If one looks at the messenger's words and deeds and they appear human, then he has no reason to believe that they aren't.

Why would such a god contact humanity at all? The god you believe in allegedly has. What do you suppose its purpose was given its contentment to only reach a fraction? How many people have never heard of Baha'u'llah?

I disagree. You are assuming that, but what you describe is less. Nature communicates with us much better than messengers do. Nature tells us what to seek and what to fear or avoid. Yes, imperfectly, but it reaches us all. Nature instructs us how to eat and drink. Nature instructs us to get up and walk, and to speak. Parents communicate their languages and other cultural norms to their children much more effectively than this god does assuming it exists. That's how I know that messengers are an extremely ineffective way for a tri-omni god that that wants to be known, understood, believed, obeyed, and worshiped to accomplish that end.

But they don't share the same beliefs, so how effective is that communication?

It wouldn't if it didn't care to be known by them. But why would such a god want to be known by anybody, or only by those willing to believe that it exists based in mundane messages delivered by proxy? A more reasonable and parsimonious hypothesis is that people are just claiming to speak for a god but are not, which is my position and will remain as such for as long as I have no reason to modify it.

If those B. man words came from a god, it sure
isn't one with a scrap of literary talent.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jumping in here so apologize if I get context wrong but claiming there is only one God is a big assumed premise fallacy

No, that there is only one true God is my belief. It has nothing to do with logic.

what is this Real God that can not be proven ??

That it exists.

many gods are there . all depends on how you define God .. the lack of an agreed upon definition in such conversation .. the first big mistake..

People are free to define God however they want to, as am I. We don't have to agree and we won't.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly! Now if God spoke from the sky instead of sending messengers, this would not be a problem

No voice from the sky could ever be verified to be from God, so that would not be proof that God exists.

I could be wrong, but until proven wrong, I will assume I am right

I could be wrong, but until proven wrong, I believe I am right.

My point was that it is more convincing, not that it proves God or anything

More convincing for YOU.

Let's say that God spoke from the sky and said "I am God and I exist."
What would be the point of knowing that God exists, if that is all you knew?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you've said so, but since you can't produce that evidence, I don't believe that you're correct. I think you decided that a god exists with insufficient evidence to justify the belief and have convinced yourself that you came to that belief using that evidence. But the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that the messengers actually channel gods.

You can think whatever you want to but I alone know what I did and why I believe, and I am certainly not saying that you should believe for the same reasons I do.

Messengers do not channel gods. They hear God speak through the Holy Spirit, which is not something ordinary humans can understand.

They look human in origin, so why would I assume that they aren't?

They are of human origin, since Baha'u'llah was a human, albeit more than human. God does not write books.

And many don't need a god belief. I don't. If gods exist, it fine that I don't know that.

I never said it isn't fine. People can only believe what THEY SEE evidence for. I think God understands that.

Yes, we each have our own mind, but not all minds are qualified to evaluate evidence. There is only one method that works. There is only one method that generates demonstrably correct ideas.

The only method that works for evaluating evidence for a Messenger of God is called Independent Investigation of Truth.

There's no reason to believe the messengers. This is where rogue methods for evaluating evidence fail one. If one looks at the messenger's words and deeds and they appear human, then he has no reason to believe that they aren't.

I believe that they are human, albeit more than human. If it does not appear that way to you then you have no reason to believe.

Why would such a god contact humanity at all?

“God’s purpose is none other than to usher in, in ways He alone can bring about, and the full significance of which He alone can fathom, the Great, the Golden Age of a long-divided, a long-afflicted humanity. Its present state, indeed even its immediate future, is dark, distressingly dark. Its distant future, however, is radiant, gloriously radiant—so radiant that no eye can visualize it............” The Promised Day is Come, p. 116

The god you believe in allegedly has. What do you suppose its purpose was given its contentment to only reach a fraction? How many people have never heard of Baha'u'llah?

One reason the Baha'i Faith is still relatively small is because the Baha'is are not doing what Baha'u'llah enjoined them to do.

“Say: Teach ye the Cause of God, O people of Bahá, for God hath prescribed unto every one the duty of proclaiming His Message, and regardeth it as the most meritorious of all deeds.” Gleanings, p. 278

“Unloose your tongues, and proclaim unceasingly His Cause. This shall be better for you than all the treasures of the past and of the future, if ye be of them that comprehend this truth.” Gleanings, p. 330

But for those who have heard of Baha'u'llah, the Baha’i Faith is the narrow gate.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Few people find the narrow gate and even fewer people enter through it because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through...

It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why the NEW religion is always rejected by most people for a very long time after it has been revealed.

The relatively small numbers of Baha'is are exactly what we would expect of a religion that:

• Is relatively new and has not had time to grow, compared to all the older religions such as Islam and Christianity.
• Most of the masses never even heard of, and if they have heard of it they do not even know its significance.
• The masses who have heard of cannot understand because comprehension of the Baha’i Writings requires a high level of intelligence and logical abilities that most people do not have.
• Has teachings and laws that require people to make personal sacrifices that the masses are unwilling to make since most people are selfish.

It is much easier to be “saved and forgiven” without having to do anything except believe that Jesus died for you, than to have all the requirements Baha’is have.

I disagree. You are assuming that, but what you describe is less. Nature communicates with us much better than messengers do. Nature tells us what to seek and what to fear or avoid. Yes, imperfectly, but it reaches us all. Nature instructs us how to eat and drink. Nature instructs us to get up and walk, and to speak. Parents communicate their languages and other cultural norms to their children much more effectively than this god does assuming it exists. That's how I know that messengers are an extremely ineffective way for a tri-omni god that that wants to be known, understood, believed, obeyed, and worshiped to accomplish that end.

How do humans communicate information to each other? They start in primary school and go through high school and sometimes college. Whether in books or now on the internet, people learn by reading. They also learn by what they are taught by interacting with others.

Messengers reveal books about God which become scriptures. Anyone with any logical abilities would realize this is the only way a God could communicate information to humans. Messengers act as intermediaries between God and man since they have a twofold nature. They are both divine and human so they can understand both God and humans and can thus relay information from God to humans in a form that humans can understand.

The Messengers are an extremely effective way for a God that that wants to be known, understood, believed, obeyed, and worshiped, because all but a small fraction of the population who are atheists believe, obey, and worship God because of what the Messengers have revealed over the course of history.

On a thread a long time ago I asked how God would communicate to humans if not through Messengers and not one person could come up with a realistic alternative, and that is because there is no realistic alternative, which is why God uses Messengers to communicate. Q.E.D.

Just because atheists don't like the idea of God using Messengers is not a reason for God not to use them.

But they don't share the same beliefs, so how effective is that communication?

Why would they share the same beliefs give that these religions were revealed in different ages?
The Messengers revealed what was needed by humans at a particular time in human history, so the message from God is different in every age.

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

It wouldn't if it didn't care to be known by them. But why would such a god want to be known by anybody, or only by those willing to believe that it exists based in mundane messages delivered by proxy? A more reasonable and parsimonious hypothesis is that people are just claiming to speak for a god but are not, which is my position and will remain as such for as long as I have no reason to modify it.

God doesn't care to be known by people who reject His Messengers.

You do not have to modify anything you believe because you have free will to choose, but bear in mind that God is not going to modify His method of communication just because you don't like it.

 

[Kfox]

No voice from the sky could ever be verified to be from God, so that would not be proof that God exists.

Verification would not be necessary. As long as it is verified not to be a human trick, or something man made, people will make the leap that the voice from the sky claiming to be God IS God.

Let's say that God spoke from the sky and said "I am God and I exist."
What would be the point of knowing that God exists, if that is all you knew?

How about if he said something like this:

I am God. The Christian religion is closest to the truth of all religions thus far. This, This, and That from the Bible is correct; That, That, and this from the bible is wrong. the following is what I expect from you. etc. etc. etc.

 

[Ajax]

1. The apostle "Luke" tells us in the book of Acts (Luke wrote Acts), that Paul was rejected by the local town silver smith rustling up a riot to attempt to support his business in making idols for worship of pagan Gods (specifically Artemis) then later by the local Jews during his second visit!

2. Paul supports the initial rejection claim in Ephesians Chapter 2

1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you used to walk when you conformed to the ways of this world and of the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of disobedience. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, fulfilling the cravings of our flesh and indulging its desires and thoughts. ​

3. The book of Revelation is talking about the Christian church in Ephesus being corrupted "they lost their first love". This first love is not a human relationship...note that John wrote Revelation more than 30 years after the church in Ephesus was first planted by the Apostle Paul...the church had clearly lost their way!

... Jesus also notes their shortcoming: “Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love” (Revelation 2:4). They were hard-working, but they no longer had the same passion for Christ as when they first believed. Their work was no longer motivated by love.​

​

Jesus called the Ephesians to repent: “Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first” (Revelation 2:5). In this case, the corrective was to remember the heights of their former love, repent (change their mind about their current status), and return to their previous way of doing things. It was time for revival in the church.​

​

Jesus warns His church of impending judgment if they did not repent: “I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place” (Revelation 2:5b). In other words, their punishment would be the disbanding or destruction of the Ephesian church. The light in Ephesus would go out.​

​

Jesus adds another commendation concerning doctrinal purity: “But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Revelation 2:6). We don’t know much about the Nicolaitans and their doctrine, except that it was heretical. Irenaeus, an early church father in Lyons (modern-day France), wrote that the Nicolaitans promoted fornication and a compromising position on eating food sacrificed to idols, leading many into an unrestrained, carnal lifestyle. What was Jesus’ message to the church in Ephesus in Revelation? | GotQuestions.org​

​

Paul actually went to Ephesus twice...he was asked by the locals to return. He agreed that he would if it was God's will and we know he did return.​

​

​

​

Paul arrived in Ephesus most likely during the first few months of A.D. 53, after spending some time in the province of Galatia preaching the gospel and collecting donations for the church in Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:1-4). The Christians in Jerusalem were suffering from the combined effects of a famine and persecution during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius (10 B.C.-A.D. 54) (Acts 8:1; 11:28). From Galatia, Paul took what Luke called “the road through the interior” (Acts 19:1), the upper Phrygian route that ran from the churches established in Galatia (Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe) to the southwest and to Ephesus. Paul had been to Ephesus previously, but only briefly, during his second evangelical journey. On that occasion, Paul sailed from Corinth across the Aegean Sea to reach Ephesus (see Parvis, 1945). He then went into a synagogue and “reasoned with the Jews.” When they asked him to spend more time with them, he declined, but as he left Paul promised, “I will come back if it is God’s will” (Acts 18:19- 21). According to Luke’s account, it was God’s will for Paul to return to Ephesus and that the key city would play a major part in the growth of Christianity. (European Journal of Theology and Philosophy www.ej-theology.org DOI: Apostle Paul in Ephesus: Christianity’s Clash with the Cult of Artemis | European Journal of Theology and Philosophy Vol 3 | Issue 1 | January 2023 22 Apostle Paul in Ephesus: Christianity’s Clash with the Cult of Artemis)​

​

It should also be noted that The apostle John's influence at Ephesus was after Paul established the Christian church there and that Paul spent about 2 years in Ephesus (more than he spent anywhere else)...it was a base of operations for his ministry in the Asia.

Now if we read the reference i have cited a little further, we find that in fact it was the local Jewish community during Pauls second visit decided to reject him, so Paul then moved his ministry to the wider gentile population in Ephesus and converted them instead!

During his missionary journeys, when Paul first arrived in an urban centre, he initially took the gospel message to the Jewish population, and if they rejected his teachings, he then turned to the Gentile population (see Acts 13:44-47; 18:5-6). When Paul first visited Ephesus, toward the end of his second missionary journey, he received at least some positive feedback teaching in the synagogue. Luke writes the local Jewish leaders who heard his message asked Paul “to spend more time with them,” but the apostle declined because he was committed to visiting other regions (Acts 18:20). When Paul returned to Ephesus three or four years later on his third journey, he again sought out the Jewish community, but on this occasion, he encountered animosity and after being rebuffed took his gospel message to a broader, more diverse audience. Luke writes, “Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So, Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:8-10). (European Journal of Theology and Philosophy www.ej-theology.org DOI: Apostle Paul in Ephesus: Christianity’s Clash with the Cult of Artemis | European Journal of Theology and Philosophy Vol 3 | Issue 1 | January 2023 22 Apostle Paul in Ephesus: Christianity’s Clash with the Cult of Artemis)​

​

There is no point for you to write the whole story from Acts here. I have read it a few times.

The people in Asia who abandoned Paul were of course Christians because deserting him implies that they were once loyal and friendly to him and had some kind of relationship with Paul. Therefore this would rule out the non-Christians.

Paul was never taught by Jesus, as he claimed. Acts 9:19-21 states "For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus. 20 And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21 And all who heard him were amazed, and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called on this name? And he has come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests."

Jesus only "told" him to go to Damascus and will be told there what to do (Acts 22:10), but he lied again when he wrote "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12). Among other things, he lied about Jesus and the law (Galatians 3:13), and said that the Mosaic laws put "a veil over their eyes" (2 Corinthians 3:14). He actually confirmed that he didn't have a problem lying, as long as the lie was for glorifying God (Romans 3:7).

If he was taught from Jesus, a)he would know that Jesus is God, as you believe and not a servant of God, as he wrote and b) he wouldn't deviate from Jesus teachings regarding Mosaic Law and the value of works.
Mat 5:18 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.[a] 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." The underlined photographs Paul.

Furthermore he had the audacity, to say that "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." (Gal 1:8), thus cursing the disciples (and Jesus), from whom he learned all he knew. That alone shows the man's character who had no inhibitions to curse and slander his teachers, in order to pass his views.

Therefore consistent with the disciples opposition to his mission, the Jerusalem Church rejected Paul's collection and very probably had a hand in Paul's arrest. Even in his last hours he confirmed that all have deserted him (2 Tim 4:16).

These are the reasons the Ephesus Christians deserted him and this desertion was approved most likely from the Jerusalem Church, and indisputably from Jesus in the Revelation.

 

[Trailblazer]

Verification would not be necessary. As long as it is verified not to be a human trick, or something man made, people will make the leap that the voice from the sky claiming to be God IS God.

You only know what you would do, you don't know what 'other people' would conclude. I think most people would conclude it was an alien.

It is verified not to be a human trick, or something man made, it could be from an alien pretending to be God, and if that alien knew how many people on earth are obsessed with God this would be a great way to manipulate humans.

How about if he said something like this:

I am God. The Christian religion is closest to the truth of all religions thus far. This, This, and That from the Bible is correct; That, That, and this from the bible is wrong. the following is what I expect from you. etc. etc. etc.

Any Voice from the sky that said that I would never believe it was from God. The Christian religion is far from the truth and the Bible has been corrupted...... If the Voice said that I would believe it was the Voice of God, but most people would not believe that since most people are Christians, and even if they are not Christians they believe the Bible is valid! Go figure.

 

[Kfox]

You only know what you would do, you don't know what 'other people' would conclude. I think most people would conclude it was an alien.

It is verified not to be a human trick, or something man made, it could be from an alien pretending to be God, and if that alien knew how many people on earth are obsessed with God this would be a great way to manipulate humans.

I don't know what you worship, but most theists (Christians, Muslims, Judaism, and many others) believe God is an Alien.

Any Voice from the sky that said that I would never believe it was from God.

Maybe not you, but lots of other people would.

 

[Sargonski]

I don't know what you worship, but most theists (Christians, Muslims, Judaism, and many others) believe God is an Alien.

Maybe not you, but lots of other people would.

Most people -- what I find is t ? hat most people havn't the foggyest clue what they believe God is or should we re-frame what they believe A God is. Defining God as All This- All that - everything .. is throwing up one's hands in the air and throwing spaghetti at a wall looking if something sticks and calling that God.

Ha Satan of Job for example ------- Is this not a God --- what do we know of this divine entity .. who transit back and forth from heaven to Earth .. at least on special occasions like his Fathers B-Day or what ever the celebration is.

The High God -- (of unknown definition but lets call this the Everything God) .. looks to one of his Sons -- the "tester of Souls" hangs out on earth .. doing his Job Title .. given him by the Father obviously .. who asks his Son -- how have ye been up to .. Ha Satan answers .. not much .. to and fro over the earth .. doing his obvious duty.

OK .. God yet ? .. not really sure Divine. .. but more of just a messenger like what one might posit the powers of an Angel .. not really able to interfere directly .. and acting as messengers .. though Ha Satan's job title and being a Son of God kind of hints of more ..

Then - we find out this Son of God can hurl lighting bolts from the sky .. cause men to act on his will .. and later in when he is sent to test Jesus .. at that point in time he is depicted as chief God on Earth .. having the world in the palm of his hand to offer to Jesus if he will bow.

Jesus passes the test . .. and good for him .. but his Brother from another mother is .. in every sense of the word .. A God .. perhaps not as powerful as Dad .. the priordial uncreated one ... but this is a God..

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know what you worship, but most theists (Christians, Muslims, Judaism, and many others) believe God is an Alien.

I do not know any theists who believe that God is an Alien.

What is the definition of an alien?

a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial. Often Disparaging and Offensive. a resident of one country who was born in or owes allegiance to another country and has not acquired citizenship by naturalization in the country of residence (distinguished from citizen). : See also resident alien, illegal alien.

ALIEN Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com › browse › alien

Maybe not you, but lots of other people would.

Prove it. Otherwise it is only a bald assertion.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up.
Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

 

[Elihoenai]

Your acrid condemning by stereotyping of those that do not believe as you do is reminiscent of movies such as: CONSTANTINE’S SWORD (2007)

Exodus 15:3

3 The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.

Matthew 10:34

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.


My Sword is the Sword of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ in the Great Battle between Good and Evil that's been ongoing for thousands of years. When Elohim/God teaches Exoteric Knowledge in the Holy Scriptures/Bible it Produces Violent Religious Ultra Extremist Fanatics to the Totally Committed/Devoted. Elohim/God teaches me Esoteric Knowledge Producing Non-Violent Religious Ultra Extremist Fanatic Being Totally Committed/Devoted.


CONSTANTINE'S SWORD - Official Trailer

I get my knowledge from well researched contemporary academic sources, study of the classics, the scriptures of the world, and academic history Philosophy and science, There are very few movies that I learn from. Most are the historically accurate movies such as Gandhi, Lincoln, Saving Private Ryan, 12 years a Slave and Das Boot.

For pure entertainment I love 'Oh brother where art thou.'

Eyes Wide Shut does not make the cut. I can see how it is entertaining to some.

I learn from all media. In movies there is always a Deeper meaning in the War between Good and Evil.

 

[Kfox]

I do not know any theists who believe that God is an Alien.

What is the definition of an alien?

An Alien is any being that is not from Planet Earth. Most theists do not believe their God is from Planet earth.

Prove it. Otherwise it is only a bald assertion.

What kinda proof would you like?

 

[Trailblazer]

An Alien is any being that is not from Planet Earth. Most theists do not believe their God is from Planet earth.

a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial.
ALIEN Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com

God is not a creature from outer space.

What kinda proof would you like?

Proof would be testimony like in a court of law.
It would be testimony from people who say they would believe that a voice from the sky saying "I am God" is really God.

Why don't you start a thread and set up a poll on this forum asking that question?
That would not be proof of what the general population would believe, but it would at least give us some data and a discussion.