Resurrection

[atruthseeker]

After reading the Bible (King James version), I have some questions about the resurrection. If I read correctly, the gospels didn't agree on several details, like who was present. In none of the gospels did I read of an actual witness. His body was gone from the tomb, so resurrection is the only logical explanation? Secondly, the resurrection story had been done several times before the time of Jesus. It's not an original story. Why would it not be easier and more credible to believe that either someone else moved his body or he was never really dead?

[Zzyzx]

.

First off, I hope you realize that I'm agnostic. I don't believe Jesus' corpse actually rose from the dead...

I reply to what is written in posts without regard for a person’s theological position.

One possible answer is that the Resurrection actually occurred.

Of course that is a possible answer, another a possible answer might be that "Satan" took the body of a dead preacher to divert people's attention away from "god". Can either be shown to be true? Both are "possible" in theory but cannot be shown to be truthful, so people choose which "possible" they prefer based upon whatever they believe a priori.

Consider what you’re saying: assuming Jesus rose from the dead

I am not willing to make that assumption.

we should then consider two alternative forces behind this resurrection: God did it, or Satan did it.

I do not pose that dichotomy, but only suggest one other alternative among many – that was the intent of my statement “another possible answer� – NOT “the� other answer.

Note above that I responded to your statement “One possible answer is that the resurrection actually occurred�. There are MANY possible answers to an empty tomb (even assuming there was one).

But that’s irrelevant to my contention. I simply contend that people believed Jesus rose from the dead and their contemplation of this, in the context of their historical knowledge of Jesus the teacher, led them to construct the theologies that eventually developed into Christianities.

I do not disagree with that contention itself. However, I do not claim to know the motivations of people now, much less those who lived thousands of years ago. I do not purport to know how the story of Jesus originated or was later modified.

The evidence is consistent with this. However, this doesn't prove it occurred.

The ONLY "evidence" that has been presented is a series of tales and claims in a SINGLE source. NO verification of the stories and claims that Jesus "came back from the grave" has been presented. That some people claim to have seen him is part of the story -- it is NOT verification.

It’s more than a single source.

Okay. Remove the bible and what is left?

What source OTHER than religious promotional literature tells of Jesus coming back to life? Let’s be honest. There is no non-biblical source from that era, to my knowledge, that even mentions the “resurrection�. Am I wrong?

The Gospels of Mark and John are regarded by scholars as representing independent traditions.

Scholars also recognize that the writings that became known as the bible were selected by churchmen at the behest of government to present a particular religious point of view.

It would be surprising if they would select writings that differed from the desired story line.

Paul’s belief seems to be based on a third tradition.

Paul / Saul knew Jesus only from a claimed “vision�, so whatever he wrote was hearsay.

Paul also relates having contact with Peter and James in Jerusalem and refers to them as the “pillars of the church� – it seems unlikely that they would not have shared Paul’s belief in the resurrection (Paul relates his dispute with Peter about judaizing; it’s grossly implausible to suggest they disagreed about the resurrection).

Yes, a bunch of followers or believers claimed that their leader came back to life.

If a modern religious cult made the same claims, would they be believable? Or would they be asked for evidence other than their in-house publications and personal, unverifiable testimonials?

All I’m saying is that the weight of historical evidence supports the notion that people believed Jesus rose from the dead. And from this belief – one thing led to another, theologically.

Okay, believers believed. So what? Were they delusional, were they exaggerating, were they inventing? How can anyone know?

The primary reason to doubt it actually occurred is that in all our experiences, dead bodies to not spontaneously reanimate. We can certainly build any number of rational scenarios to explain the Gospels and early beliefs, but these constructions are based on the base assumption that when a person dies, he stays dead.

Biblicists use the claimed "resurrection" as proof that Jesus was divine. If he stayed dead, he was just another human being -- so to promote worship of him (and his "father-self"), they MUST claim a supernatural event occurred that directly contradicts what we know of the real world.

I think you have it backwards. It’s far more likely that people believed Jesus rose from the dead long before they decided he was divine.

It is not unlikely that followers of a dead preacher believed claims of “insiders� that he had “appeared to them� – and then or later took that to be an indication of “divinity� (which they may have wished to believe).

Regardless of what early Christians might have thought, modern Christianity IS based upon the “divinity of Jesus�. If he is not considered a “god� (or part of a god), the entire basis of modern Christianity is . . . baseless. I think that Paul / Saul said something to that effect, and many speeches attributed to Jesus (such as, “I and the father are one�) are the ramblings of a delusional or insane person unless he was “divine�.

The oldest documents in the Bible, Paul’s epistles, do not say that Jesus is divine. The oldest 3 Gospels do not do so either.

Is that some indication that Jesus was NOT divine (or not considered so by followers)? Was the divinity claim added? Were the “miracles� invented to “prove divinity�?

Only in John, written in the 90’s, refer to Jesus as divine. There was an evolution in thinking about Jesus among one or more communities of Christians. Some of the communities never deified him (the Ebionites/Nazarenes).

What is the significance of “Johnnie come lately� with the divinity claim?

[fredonly]

Zzyzx - I’m sorry that I misunderstood some of what you were saying, but I think you may have misunderstood some of what I said. Let me summarize:
It is likely that belief in the resurrection of Jesus was there at the beginning of Christianity. There is evidence of this from multiple sources. Most of these sources are included in the Bible, but that doesn’t alter the fact that they were written independently (to the extent I previously described). You dismiss these as a source because they were written by believers – but this actually central to my contention, since all I’m saying is that they are sources of information about what these people believed. My references “evidence� (above, and in prior posts) was referring to the evidence of their belief in the resurrection, not that this was evidence that Jesus resurrected (that’s why I mentioned I’m agnostic; if you know where someone’s coming from, and can help you avoid misinterpretation).

The Gospels of Mark and John are regarded by scholars as representing independent traditions.

Scholars also recognize that the writings that became known as the bible were selected by churchmen at the behest of government to present a particular religious point of view.

Please explain what you mean. Most of the books of the Bible were considered scriptural bye the proto-orthodox before a government took a hand in the religion.

It would be surprising if they would select writings that differed from the desired story line.

The proto-orthodox church (not the government) selected the scripture than conformed to their views and rejected that which contradicted their views. Nevertheless, none of the existing non-canonical gospels dispute the notion that Jesus rose from the dead.

Paul’s belief seems to be based on a third tradition.

Paul / Saul knew Jesus only from a claimed “vision�, so whatever he wrote was hearsay.

Since we’re in agreement that Paul didn’t really see Jesus (since he was dead), he obviously didn’t learn about him from this hallucination or whatever it was. He could only have learned about the Resurrection from other Christians. The Gospels hadn’t yet been written, so he didn’t read it there. The Christians he learned this from are therefore this separate tradition.

Paul also relates having contact with Peter and James in Jerusalem and refers to them as the “pillars of the church� – it seems unlikely that they would not have shared Paul’s belief in the resurrection (Paul relates his dispute with Peter about judaizing; it’s grossly implausible to suggest they disagreed about the resurrection).

Yes, a bunch of followers or believers claimed that their leader came back to life.

We’re at least in agreement that they made this claim. We certainly can’t know what was in their hearts, but I think it is more plausible that they really believed it than that they lied. They were uneducated, unsophisticated, and superstitious. All evidence suggests they were devout Jews, and (since they were Jesus’ inner circle) they likely embraced his teaching. It seems extremely unlikely they would have conspired in a lie about the resurrection. So again, I think it’s likely they really believed it.

If a modern religious cult made the same claims, would they be believable? Or would they be asked for evidence other than their in-house publications and personal, unverifiable testimonials?

Of course they wouldn’t be believable. People are less gullible and less superstitious now. This is irrelevant to my contention about what the believers believed.

All I’m saying is that the weight of historical evidence supports the notion that people believed Jesus rose from the dead. And from this belief – one thing led to another, theologically.

Okay, believers believed. So what? Were they delusional, were they exaggerating, were they inventing? How can anyone know?

We certainly can’t know for sure, but we can make educated, historical guesses. This is the way the study of history works. So what, you ask? A lot of us are interested in how the Christian Church started out. It is, after all, are rather important factor in the history of the Western world.

[Regardless of what early Christians might have thought, modern Christianity IS based upon the “divinity of Jesus�. If he is not considered a “god� (or part of a god), the entire basis of modern Christianity is . . . baseless. I think that Paul / Saul said something to that effect, and many speeches attributed to Jesus (such as, “I and the father are one�) are the ramblings of a delusional or insane person unless he was “divine�.

The quotes about Jesus’ divinity are in the Gospel according to John. Paul did not write that he was divine. But yes, modern Christians believe this. But I like to be prepared to dispute this with the history of the doctrine.

The oldest documents in the Bible, Paul’s epistles, do not say that Jesus is divine. The oldest 3 Gospels do not do so either.

Is that some indication that Jesus was NOT divine (or not considered so by followers)? Was the divinity claim added? Were the “miracles� invented to “prove divinity�?

I think it is very possible that Jesus’ disciples never considered Jesus to be divine. If they had, why would this supremely important fact have been omitted from the earliest writings? Miracles were described in the early writings to demonstrate that Jesus was a powerful person, to enhance his image. In all likelihood he was something of a faith-healer, an effective placebo. Other supposed miracle workers were around, and Jesus reputation competed with theirs.

Only in John, written in the 90’s, refer to Jesus as divine. There was an evolution in thinking about Jesus among one or more communities of Christians. Some of the communities never deified him (the Ebionites/Nazarenes).

What is the significance of “Johnnie come lately� with the divinity claim

The significance is simply that it was a later invention.

[S-word]

After reading the Bible (King James version), I have some questions about the resurrection. If I read correctly, the gospels didn't agree on several details, like who was present. In none of the gospels did I read of an actual witness. His body was gone from the tomb, so resurrection is the only logical explanation? Secondly, the resurrection story had been done several times before the time of Jesus. It's not an original story. Why would it not be easier and more credible to believe that either someone else moved his body or he was never really dead?

Faith by definition has no need of solid visible proofs. It is by faith that I believe that all visible matter is made up of invisible waves. It is by faith that I believe that this three dimensional world had a beginning, which means the cause of this visible three dimensional universe had to have come from a different invisible Dimension that co-exists within this one. It is by faith that I believe that an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin was spatially separated by a Big Bang, and has become this expanded universal singularity, in which all things exist and evolve in the evolution of the singularity of origin.

It is by faith that I believe that there was a force, or momentum in the singularity of origin, or rather a wave momentum that WAS the singularity of origin, which is the divine animating principle that pervades the entire universe and all therein. It is by faith that I believe that the animating principle which activates all that exists, was in the beginning and has become all that was, all that is, and all that ever will be, and that not one thing can exist unless it came from , through, and by, that universal life force, to which all the information and experiences that were taken in through the senses of all the life forms that it had become in it’s evolution to become Mankind, of which the first man, and there had to one animal in particular who could be classified as a human being, had within him, an ancestral spiritual enclosure of all the information and experiences that were gathered from all his pre-human ancestors, and he, the first man, was but the compilation of that spiritual indwelling enclosure, which had evolved from some organic molecule that had developed in the primeval slime of the earth.

It is by faith that I believe that what ever was in the beginning, has become “Who I Am,� and that he is connected to his beginning by an unbroken genetic thread of life, by faith and Logic, I believe that “Who I Am� has never died and can never die. It is by faith that I believe that “I� am the person/mind/spirit, that has and continues to develop in this living body, from the experiences and information that is taken in through the senses of this body, without which, “I� the person and potential heir to the indwelling throne of my ancestral Father, who is the compilation of all the spirit, Human and Prehuman, which has been gathered to the divine animating principle, which has evolved to become “Who I Am,� and continues to evolve beyond mankind, who is the current most high in the evolving singularity, and who is Lord of creatures and the prototype of the Lord of spirits, which is the ‘Son of Man,� or rather, the next stage in the evolution of the divine animating principle that was in the beginning and has become “Who I Am,� and is the spirit that is currently developing within the sinful body of mankind. (I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me).

It is by faith that I believe that we live in an eternal cyclic universe, and that one day this universe (Galactic cluster) will roll up as a scroll with a great hissing noise and that the universal elements will become so excited they will burn up and fall as massive columns of fire, into the Great Abyss, or Black Hole to which this galactic cluster is being gathered, and that all that exists, will be condensed back into an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity, where, from the invisible fourth dimension that co-exists within this three dimension, the great intellect that had evolved as the supreme personality of Godhead within this living universal body, will cry out, “Let there be light,� and witness the resurrection of the body in which He had developed, in which, the alpha of the previous cycle of universal activity had become He, the Omega, who is the Alpha of the new cycle of universal activity, who cried out, “let there be light.� For God is “ONE�

It is by faith that I believe all the following.

Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.� ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The nights and days of Brahma are called Manvantara or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity. ‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis as the generations of the universe.

The English word “Generation,� is translated from the Hebrew “toledoth� which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as ‘births,’ or ‘descendants,’ such as “These are the generations of Adam,� or “these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc. And the ‘Great Day’ in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

Origen, was a Christian writer and teacher who lived between the years of 185 and 254 AD. Among his many works is the Hexapla, which is his interpretation of the Old Testament texts. Origen holds to a series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

It is by faith that I believe in the resurrection of the dead. After this three dimensional body has returned to the universal elements from which it is formed, all that will remain of “Me,� in the invisible inner dimension, if I have not united myself with “Who I Am,� and have not become an obedient servant to and an extension of “Who I Am,� will be the mind/spirit that is me, and what the mind believes, so will the mind experience. (Fear not man, who can kill your body, but can then do no more to you. But fear him who can divide “you� the mind/spirit, from his eternal life-force, the soul of the universe.)

[fredonly]

Faith by definition has no need of solid visible proofs. It is by faith that I believe ....

What is the source of your faith in these various quasi-scientific and supernatural conditions and events that you describe? You're certainly going beyond any scripture I've ever heard of. Are you following a guru? Did you decide these things for yourself? In either case, what convinces you that you are right? Did God tell you? Do you actually know what physicists mean by "singularity?"

[S-word]

Faith by definition has no need of solid visible proofs. It is by faith that I believe ....

What is the source of your faith in these various quasi-scientific and supernatural conditions and events that you describe? You're certainly going beyond any scripture I've ever heard of. Are you following a guru? Did you decide these things for yourself? In either case, what convinces you that you are right? Did God tell you? Do you actually know what physicists mean by "singularity?"

If "Who You Are," was not in the Beginning, "You" could not exist today. Be true to "Who You Are." Know who you are and you will be known.

So get behind me you charlatan priests and you shams
For I am true to my God---To MY God "WHO I AM."


I picked up a fossil and O what a buzz--to think---in my hand, was "Who I Once Was."

By faith I am convinced that my indwelling ancestral spirit, my Father, who dwells behind the veil that hangs before the inner most sanctuary of his tempory tent/tabernacle, which is this body in which "I" am developing as the supreme personality of godhead to this body, leads me on the pathway to all truth.

You will never find me tomorrow, where I am today, and nor am I today, where I was yesterday. Although today, I am correct according to all the available data that has been gathered through the senses of this body, tomorrow, new data will undoubtedly prove that today I was not entirely correct.

For I am who I am and may I never lose sight
Of the fact that I am who I am day and night
I'm not who I was, nor who I will be,
For "WHO I AM," is the name that my God gave to me....S-word

I have but one teacher and he dwells in the invisible fourth dimension that co-exists within this three dimension. (For the kingdom of God is within me.)

Earth could not answer; nor the seas that mourn
In flowing purple, for their Lord Forlorn;
Nor rolling heaven, with all his signs revealed
And hidden by the sleeve of night and morn

Then of the Thee in Me who works behind
The veil, I lifted up my hands to find
A lamp amid the darkness; and I heard,
As from without---"The Me within Thee is blind!"... Omah Khayyam

Quote: fredonly; Do you actually know what physicists mean by "singularity?"

Yes! But when I speak of the singularity, I speak of the mind that is God, the cosmic cloud of shimering wave particles, which have zero mass and no electric charge yet carry angular and linear momentum, which we perceive as the eternal and boundless cosmos, in which each cycle of universal activity still exists in their own particular position in Time and Space.

The mind that is God, is today as it was yeaterday, and will be into all eternity. The only constant, in that it is constantly evolving/growing. Show to me a mind that has ceased to evolve, and I will show to you, a mind that has ceased to exist.

How can one divorce an omnipresent God, from the real world? The God who is the divine animating principle that pervades all that exists, through which all things have come into existence, by which all things that exist were made, and for which all things that are made, exist. For God Is One, The singularity that was, is and ever will be.

[McCulloch]

Faith by definition has no need of solid visible proofs.

I agree, but there are those who are Christians who disagree. If faith is belief in something without adequate supporting evidence then I have no use for it. How is faith different from gullibility?

It is by faith that I believe that an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin was spatially separated by a Big Bang, and has become this expanded universal singularity, in which all things exist and evolve in the evolution of the singularity of origin.

Odd that! It is by evidence and mathematics that the entirety of modern cosmology has its origins.

[S-word]

Faith by definition has no need of solid visible proofs.

I agree, but there are those who are Christians who disagree. If faith is belief in something without adequate supporting evidence then I have no use for it. How is faith different from gullibility?

It is by faith that I believe that an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin was spatially separated by a Big Bang, and has become this expanded universal singularity, in which all things exist and evolve in the evolution of the singularity of origin.

Odd that! It is by evidence and mathematics that the entirety of modern cosmology has its origins.

quote="McCulloch"; I agree, but there are those who are Christians who disagree. If faith is belief in something without adequate supporting evidence then I have no use for it. How is faith different from gullibility?

S-word's Response; Do you refer to those poor gullible souls who were deceived by those liars who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, into accepting that he was somehow conceived in the womb of some supposed virgin, which is totally unscriptural?

quote="McCulloch"; Odd that! It is by evidence and mathematics that the entirety of modern cosmology has its origins

S-word's Response; What's so odd about that? As I am not a scientist, I follow where my spirit leads me and so I accept by faith that which those scientific minds, who, by evidence and mathematics have come up with a model that every fibre of my being, tell me is the best explaination of the cosmos and its origin, according to the data that is available to them today.

Why? Have you proven to yourself that every detail of their theories are correct, or do you, like myself, PUT FAITH IN WHAT THEY SAY? And if you lived in the days of Copernicus, would you have rejected the old theory that the universe revolved around the earth, and accepted the new theory that the sun was the centre of the universe which was the best model of those days?

[fredonly]

Faith by definition has no need of solid visible proofs. It is by faith that I believe ....

What is the source of your faith in these various quasi-scientific and supernatural conditions and events that you describe? You're certainly going beyond any scripture I've ever heard of. Are you following a guru? Did you decide these things for yourself? In either case, what convinces you that you are right? Did God tell you? Do you actually know what physicists mean by "singularity?"

If "Who You Are," was not in the Beginning, "You" could not exist today. Be true to "Who You Are." Know who you are and you will be known.

So get behind me you charlatan priests and you shams
For I am true to my God---To MY God "WHO I AM."

etc

Posting some enigmatic lines of poetry does not answer my question. It appears some or all of it comes from the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám. Whether it's just this, or any other books, tell me why you trust the source(s) as being true. Did God tell you? Does this stuff just resonate within you?

And of course, you haven't at all addressed the source of your unusual cosmological beliefs that you take on faith. Honestly, it sounds like stuff you made up. Did you? Whether you did or not, what convinces you it is true? I realize you accept it on "faith" - but you weren't born with this faith.

Please answer straightforwardly this time, in your own words.

[S-word]

Faith by definition has no need of solid visible proofs. It is by faith that I believe ....

What is the source of your faith in these various quasi-scientific and supernatural conditions and events that you describe? You're certainly going beyond any scripture I've ever heard of. Are you following a guru? Did you decide these things for yourself? In either case, what convinces you that you are right? Did God tell you? Do you actually know what physicists mean by "singularity?"

If "Who You Are," was not in the Beginning, "You" could not exist today. Be true to "Who You Are." Know who you are and you will be known.

So get behind me you charlatan priests and you shams
For I am true to my God---To MY God "WHO I AM."

etc

Posting some enigmatic lines of poetry does not answer my question. It appears some or all of it comes from the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám. Whether it's just this, or any other books, tell me why you trust the source(s) as being true. Did God tell you? Does this stuff just resonate within you?

And of course, you haven't at all addressed the source of your unusual cosmological beliefs that you take on faith. Honestly, it sounds like stuff you made up. Did you? Whether you did or not, what convinces you it is true? I realize you accept it on "faith" - but you weren't born with this faith.

Please answer straightforwardly this time, in your own words.

Matey, I will answer as I choose to answer, your demands mean nothing to me, you can accept or reject whatever I say, that is your perogative. I am guided by my indwelling spirit, when everything within me warns me of impending danger, I don't go there, when everything within me tell me that something is correct, I accept it, when everything within me tells me that something is rubbish, I reject it.

As to the poetry, except for the two verses from Omar, any other has come from "Who I Am." Here is an example of my work. A little poem that I wrote with Omar, the greatest Bard, Alchemist, and astronomer of his time in mind.

When we were young I merged with thee the blood of youth still flowing free
The bread, the wine, the poetry, beneath the old forbidden tree
How sweet the fruit that we have shared, across the gulf of time we dared
To stand before each other bared and free of guilt embraced and paired.
Our love beyond earth’s great desire, a love that burns more fierce than fire
I lay me down on broken briar, your son upon the funeral pyre.
Like rings of onions you have peeled the mysteries that the atom sealed
God’s heavenly tablets once concealed, to me, though you, the Lord revealed
May He in me with love’s desires, wash your body ere it dies
With fragrance sweet that ne’er expires—to snare the righteous passer-byes
The spark of life leaps ever higher, spiralling up from fire to fire
To He, with who we did conspire, to grasp this scheme of things entire
The crystal there beside your seat, the written formula incomplete
My brothers now lay at your feet their offerings that you might eat
Awake my Lord, for now’s the time to offer to the world your wine
Reveal on every written line, your secrets, through these words of mine
May you, when for your morning sup of heavenly vintage, from the soil look up
Through wine that drips down drop by drop—know He—who holds the inverted cup…By S-word

[fredonly]

Faith by definition has no need of solid visible proofs. It is by faith that I believe ....

What is the source of your faith in these various quasi-scientific and supernatural conditions and events that you describe? You're certainly going beyond any scripture I've ever heard of. Are you following a guru? Did you decide these things for yourself? In either case, what convinces you that you are right? Did God tell you? Do you actually know what physicists mean by "singularity?"

If "Who You Are," was not in the Beginning, "You" could not exist today. Be true to "Who You Are." Know who you are and you will be known.

So get behind me you charlatan priests and you shams
For I am true to my God---To MY God "WHO I AM."

etc

Posting some enigmatic lines of poetry does not answer my question. It appears some or all of it comes from the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám. Whether it's just this, or any other books, tell me why you trust the source(s) as being true. Did God tell you? Does this stuff just resonate within you?

And of course, you haven't at all addressed the source of your unusual cosmological beliefs that you take on faith. Honestly, it sounds like stuff you made up. Did you? Whether you did or not, what convinces you it is true? I realize you accept it on "faith" - but you weren't born with this faith.

Please answer straightforwardly this time, in your own words.

Matey, I will answer as I choose to answer, your demands mean nothing to me, you can accept or reject whatever I say, that is your perogative. I am guided by my indwelling spirit, when everything within me warns me of impending danger, I don't go there, when everything within me tell me that something is correct, I accept it, when everything within me tells me that something is rubbish, I reject it.

Sir or Madame - I apologize if my questions appeared to be a "demand" as you termed it. You are certainly free to do as you've done, and not answer the questions I posed. I would like to point out that this is a debate forum (not a pontification forum). Asking questions is the norm around here.