Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[Huntster]

Fair enough, Huntster. Tell me if I'm right:

You have chosen christianity (or chosen to remain with it if you were raised that way) because it comforts you. It comforts you because you have been able to pick the parts you like and disregard the rest.

That's not accurate.

1) Christianity more than comforts me
2) Christianity doesn't negate other religions
3) I don't "disregard the rest."

I think that sounds as if I am being critical; I'm not. As a personal position it's absolutely fine. It only becomes an issue if you decide that it is a solid basis from which to proselytize.

Why is that?

And is praising God, or debating with those who claim He doesn't exist, proselytizing?

 

[Garrette]

That's not accurate.

1) Christianity more than comforts me
2) Christianity doesn't negate other religions
3) I don't "disregard the rest."

I don't see your first two points as substantially different from what I said. I will concede I could have used better wording for the third, but I can't think of it now.

Why is that?

Because if your faith is merely a function of completely subjective criteria that cannot be generalized in a meaningful fashion to others, it is no more valid than the proselytizing of the Muslim, the Mormon, or the Heavens Gate member.

And is praising God, or debating with those who claim He doesn't exist, proselytizing?

Not in my opinion.

I don't consider what I am doing to be anti-prosyletizing. I am debating with you, but I am not trying to get you to drop your faith.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Or supernatural being.

Actually, I had this discussion with Darth. Since atheist = lack of belief in god/s, a person can be an atheist and hold superntural beliefs. Mark Twain is an excellent example; he was an atheist, but was 100% superstitious.

Twain wasn't an atheist. He was like so many on this forum; angry or hateful toward God:

.....In his twilight years, Twain's volcanic pen belched ceaseless vitriol against his Maker. Spewed into letters, notebooks, essays, dialogues, autobiographical dictations, and sundry fragments, none of this uneven gallimaufry was published in his lifetime.....

....He had no wish to emulate the fate of Thomas Paine, whose The Age of Reason he had read in his cub pilot days. Because Paine openly denigrated the Bible and religion, he was skewered in pulpits across the land. Overnight, he went from national hero to national varmint. Since Twain liked to be liked, he opted for the better part of valor.....

Oh, BTW, Paine wasn't atheist, either.

As an adult, he adopted the Christianity of enlightened liberalism, congenial with his deism. He discarded heaven and hell, the immortality of the soul, and the divinity of Jesus Christ. From Paine, he had imbibed the idea that religions derive their authority from spurious claims by their founders that they had received revelations from god, transmitted to posterity as incontrovertible holy writ. Bibles diminished the grandeur of the "real" god by straitening "him" to the narrow confines of parochial imaginations. The true revelation was Nature, best apprehended through science.

Sound familiar?

Twain touted science, reason, and logic as antidotes to ignorance, superstition, and humbuggery of every ilk.

Yup.

Sure sounds familiar to me.............

But here's where he's different from so many here and now:

Despite his strictures on church and Bible, Twain long retained respect for Jesus. He told Orion: "Neither Howells nor I believe in hell or the divinity of the Savior, but no matter, the Savior is none the less a sacred Personage, and a man should have no desire or disposition to refer to him lightly, profanely, or otherwise than with the profoundest reverence."

Oh, back to the painfully familiar:

Then, in the 1890s, his fortune changed. He was buffeted by a series of blows from which he never recovered. Speculative investments brought him to bankruptcy, his oldest daughter, Susy, died of meningitis, his youngest, Jean, was diagnosed an epileptic, Livy began a slide into lasting invalidism (she died in 1904), and Twain's own health was in eclipse. "Having long derided the notion of special providence," said John Tuckey, a Twain scholar, "he was now forced to consider himself the personal victim of a scheme of providential retribution."

When the crushing afflictions were visited on him, he reacted like an irascible Job. He struck back at the abusive Father with his best weapon, words-feverishly, obsessively, endlessly, but never publicly, discharged. Firing these paper bullets of the brain momentarily eased his leaden grief.

For a time, his rancor was confined to the Old Testament god, whom he had intellectually, but never emotionally, sloughed off. Twain "could never quite free himself from reading the Bible with fundamentalist passion," said Twainian Stanley Brodwin, "even as he ridiculed it in the name of reason." Jehovah, Twain calculated, was statistically the biggest mass murderer in history. Offended, he reflexively slew everything in sight: "All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies, all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. What this insane Father requires is blood and misery; he is indifferent as to who furnishes it." Nothing drove Jehovah's dudgeon higher than minor lapses in hygiene. Anyone "who pisseth against the wall" was sure to provoke a wholesale massacre. Despite recurrent bludgeonings, the pious persisted in conferring on the brutal autocrat epithets of love and respect: "With a fine sarcasm we ennoble God with the title of Father-yet we know quite well that we should hang his style of father wherever we might catch him." "There is only one Criminal," catechized Twain, "and it is not man."

Beware the eventual result of such anger and resistance:

Twain was like a lapsed Calvinist in a universe divested of grace. Deprived of free will, proximately by temperament and circumstance, but ultimately by god, humans were servile mechanisms doomed to enact, generation after generation, to the last syllable of time, the deeds god had contrived, foreseen, and appointed to each.

Mentally, Twain dwelt in an absurd universe where human automatons trick themselves into believing they are autonomous. All the while, the cosmic Puppet Master is pulling the strings: "Man is a poor joke-the poorest that was ever conceived-an April-fool joke, played by a malicious urchin Creator with nothing better to waste his time upon." As programmed mechanism, "man is not to blame for what he is." He "didn't make himself and he has no control over himself." Only "unthinking fools" believe they have "an obligation to God and owe Him thanks, reverence, and worship."

His own perfervid blasphemies were part of the appointed absurdity. Occasionally, Twain sought refuge in solipsism. After his wife's death, he wrote Joseph Twichell: "There is nothing. There is no God and no universe, there is only empty space, and in it a lost and homeless and wandering and companionless and indestructible Thought. And I am that thought. And God, and the Universe, and Time, and Life, and Death, and Joy and Sorrow and Pain only a grotesque and brutal dream, evolved from the frantic imagination of that same Thought."

In his grief and despair, Twain arrived at an endgame of utter nihilism.

And I have a small bone to pick with you!

You made this comment:

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm exchanging barbs with a gang of fools.

I trust that refers to fools in the biblical sense of refusing to believe the word of god?

Not entirely, but remember that was addressed to Ossai.

You are very, very unlike Ossai.................

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's not accurate.

1) Christianity more than comforts me
2) Christianity doesn't negate other religions
3) I don't "disregard the rest."

I don't see your first two points as substantially different from what I said.

But they are.

I hold much more than comfort with my Christianity. It includes thankfulness, awe, curiosity, wonder, hope, brotherhood, and many other attributes, most of which are much more important to me than "comfort."

I will concede I could have used better wording for the third, but I can't think of it now.

Well, you're not alone. There must have been dozens of claims by as many posters on this forum that I "disregard the rest."

Originally Posted by Huntster
Why is that?

Because if your faith is merely a function of completely subjective criteria that cannot be generalized in a meaningful fashion to others, it is no more valid than the proselytizing of the Muslim, the Mormon, or the Heavens Gate member.

Why should my "proselytizing" (if I was doing so) be any more valid than that from a Muslim, Mormon, or Heaven's Gate member?

Originally Posted by Huntster
And is praising God, or debating with those who claim He doesn't exist, proselytizing?

Not in my opinion.

I don't consider what I am doing to be anti-prosyletizing. I am debating with you, but I am not trying to get you to drop your faith.

Nor am I trying to convert anybody to anything.

I'm defending my faith against those who claim falsehoods mistakenly, deceitfully, or vitriolically.

 

[billydkid]

He was like so many on this forum; angry or hateful toward God:

I would be very interested to see you point out even a single post which confirms this claim. There are plenty in here who do not believe in God. I have seen none that claim to believe in him (your version of God or any other), but hate him. There could not be a more nonsensical position to take. People do talk about the arbitrary and ruthless cruelty of the God of the old testament, but none of those people believe that God exists. Something has to exist in order to hate it and something has to have detectable attributes of some kind in order to exist.

Funny how God decided to stop participating in the world a very long, long time ago. And all those old testament big shots - well they all had the advantage of God actually demonstrating his existence to them. Do you think what's his name would have been so hot to kill his son if all he had was a piece of papyrus where somebody had written down that God wants him to kill his child? How much faith did he have to have in as much as God was altogether tangible and communicative to him. If God is talking to you, it's would be pretty stupid to deny his existence. And Noah, we're supposed to think he was so Godly. Well, if God came to me and told me to build a ship, by God, I'd be inclined to do it. On the other hand I'm not ready to take someone's word for it that this is what God wants.

As far as our religions go, we're just supposed to take someone's word that these things are true. The bible is the inspired word of God because the people who want you to believe it say it is. And we're supposed to take the words of the authors to be "Gospel". You're willing to take other people's word that there is a God and this is who he is and this guy who existed a couple of thousand years ago was his son and he is alive somewhere, somehow and you should give your life to him. I'm not going to take someone's word for that. Why not take my word that the righteous thing to do walk is to backward for the rest of your life and it's immoral not to do so and you will spend eternity licking stinky feet if you don't do that? There's no less evidence that this is true than there are that the claims of Christianity are.

Now if God or Jesus decided to come down and tell us that this or that is the truth of things, well, you'd be hard pressed to find people who wouldn't believe them, but God and Jesus aren't doing that. Benny Hinn is doing that. Jimmy Swaggart is doing that. The pope and the priests are doing that. The MEN who contrived the bible and decided what to include or exclude did that. I guess we have to take it on faith that God has chosen to reveal himself and his will to them, but not to the rest of us.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I have seen none that claim to believe in him (your version of God or any other), but hate him. There could not be a more nonsensical position to take. People do talk about the arbitrary and ruthless cruelty of the God of the old testament, but none of those people believe that God exists. Something has to exist in order to hate it and something has to have detectable attributes of some kind in order to.

It pains me to argue with a post when I agree with 90% of it, but...

There are clearly many people who believe in the god of the bible. For them, assuming they believe the old testament accounts of his cruetly, I think hating god is a perfectly reasonable response.

Granted there are probably few people that stay in that state; I would bet it is usually a transitional state leading to either atheism or a non-biblical understanding of god.

And I can't think of anyone on this forum that would qualify, but I'd bet there's someone out there in JREF land in that transitional state.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster


He was like so many on this forum; angry or hateful toward God:

I would be very interested to see you point out even a single post which confirms this claim.

[url=http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1348773&postcount=13]Here:

...Absolutely believed in god, and was convinced he hated my guts, so I spent a few years returning the favor.

There are plenty in here who do not believe in God. I have seen none that claim to believe in him (your version of God or any other), but hate him.

There aren't any.

There are some who claim to not believe in Him, but then openly state that they hate Him.

How does that work?

There could not be a more nonsensical position to take.

I agree.

How do you claim to hate something that you don't believe exists? (Which is the precise excuse so many try to justify their psychosis with....)

People do talk about the arbitrary and ruthless cruelty of the God of the old testament, but none of those people believe that God exists.

And you find nothing odd about that?

Funny how God decided to stop participating in the world a very long, long time ago.

What's so "funny" about it?

And all those old testament big shots - well they all had the advantage of God actually demonstrating his existence to them. Do you think what's his name would have been so hot to kill his son if all he had was a piece of papyrus where somebody had written down that God wants him to kill his child?

He had faith. Lacking it so completely, you're dependant on papyrus.

How much faith did he have to have in as much as God was altogether tangible and communicative to him.

A whole bunch.

If God is talking to you, it's would be pretty stupid to deny his existence.

Yup.

And Noah, we're supposed to think he was so Godly. Well, if God came to me and told me to build a ship, by God, I'd be inclined to do it.

And you're not building boats.

As far as our religions go, we're just supposed to take someone's word that these things are true.

At the "101" level, yeah.

Later, if you didn't do your homework, you might have to drop out of class.

The bible is the inspired word of God because the people who want you to believe it say it is.

And that's your opinion.

I think I'll believe the "other guy"........

You're willing to take other people's word that there is a God and this is who he is and this guy who existed a couple of thousand years ago was his son and he is alive somewhere, somehow and you should give your life to him.

Yes, I was.

Now I have other reasons to believe.

I'm not going to take someone's word for that.

Okay.

Why not take my word that the righteous thing to do walk is to backward for the rest of your life and it's immoral not to do so and you will spend eternity licking stinky feet if you don't do that?

Because I know better?

There's no less evidence that this is true than there are that the claims of Christianity are.

Oh, now you're going to go "stupid" on me?

Now if God or Jesus decided to come down and tell us that this or that is the truth of things, well, you'd be hard pressed to find people who wouldn't believe them, but God and Jesus aren't doing that. Benny Hinn is doing that. Jimmy Swaggart is doing that. The pope and the priests are doing that. The MEN who contrived the bible and decided what to include or exclude did that. I guess we have to take it on faith that God has chosen to reveal himself and his will to them, but not to the rest of us.

Got a mouse in your pocket?

Obviously, He hasn't to you.

He has to me.

 

[The Atheist]

Twain wasn't an atheist. He was like so many on this forum; angry or hateful toward God:

Hmmmm.

One person claims he wasn't, many claim he was.

We can argue that another day - he was a bloody excellent writer, whichever way you look at it. There are a few thoroughly devout christians I have complete admiration for - David Bellamy and Rowan Williams just to name a couple - so I'm not going to argue the toss on it. Might be a good subject for a thread at some stage - I hate to mention it, but churches have tried to deistify (if I may coin the term) a few people - notably, and completely backfiringly (to coin another), Bertrand Russell, amongst others.

Beware the eventual result of such anger and resistance:

No problem for me - anger level = 0.

Not entirely, but remember that was addressed to Ossai.

Damn, I'd already oiled the FN! Might have to go shoot some pigs this weekend, instead. Like wild pork? I'll save you a leg.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Twain wasn't an atheist. He was like so many on this forum; angry or hateful toward God:

Hmmmm.

One person claims he wasn't, many claim he was.

And the one who I linked who claims Twain was a God-hater?:

Gary Sloan is A retired English professor in Ruston, Louisiana, he frequently write articles on literature, science, and religion for freethought publications like The Skeptic, Free Inquiry, American Atheist, The Freethinker, The American Rationalist, Freethought Today, Exquisite Corpse and Impact.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not entirely, but remember that was addressed to Ossai.

Damn, I'd already oiled the FN!

Oh, Lord! Another FN lover...............

I'm a bit old fashioned. I still love my M-1 Garand.....

Might have to go shoot some pigs this weekend, instead. Like wild pork? I'll save you a leg.

I love wild pork........

 

[The Atheist]

And the one who I linked who claims Twain was a God-hater?:

No argument there, vitriol was his middle name.

In fact, I'd go along with you that Twain may have felt like a latter-day Job and gave vent to his feelings accordingly.

Oh, Lord! Another FN lover...............

I'm a bit old fashioned. I still love my M-1 Garand.....

I love wild pork........

No, I have no "gun loyalty" thing. As long as it shoots straight, I'm not fussy. I still use a bolt-action .22 some of the time. Not for pigs, I value my life!

Mate, if you like wild pork, you really do need to visit, we have THE best wild pork around, and the Maori method of cooking them in a hangi (same as luau) just turns them into something which makes me question evolution - how something could be that good and yet be the product of mere chance. I'll post pics if I get one. Unfortunately, not helluva likely, the forest's full of bloody amateurs on Xmas break for a week or two yet. Most of 'em wouldn't be capable of shooting themselves!

 

[Huntster]

....No, I have no "gun loyalty" thing. As long as it shoots straight, I'm not fussy....

I tend to fall in love with certain designs. And if I get or build a firearm that doesn't shoot as well as I think it should, I'll work on it until it does.

Mate, if you like wild pork, you really do need to visit, we have THE best wild pork around, and the Maori method of cooking them in a hangi (same as luau) just turns them into something which makes me question evolution

I've heard that.

My mother-in-law visited NZ with my sister-in-law and her husband. They loved it.

I'm sure I'd like it, but I don't know if anything is worth screwing around with airport security anymore.........

 

[The Atheist]

I tend to fall in love with certain designs. And if I get or build a firearm that doesn't shoot as well as I think it should, I'll work on it until it does.

Oh boy, that kind of gun nut!

You'd fall in love with my mate who owns a metalwork shop - he and his buddies make their own guns, right down to boring the barrels on the only machine of its type in the Southern Hemisphere.

A Hollywood studio wanted a working Gatling Gun a few years back and they contracted it out to his company. These guys built it out of plain steel. Magnificent.

(He holds three big game fishing world records, too - I hate pricks like that!)

I've heard that.

My mother-in-law visited NZ with my sister-in-law and her husband. They loved it.

I'm sure I'd like it, but I don't know if anything is worth screwing around with airport security anymore.........

No need of that here - nobody knows where we are. Just leave your gun behind, you'll be fine.

 

[BPScooter]

Huntster, I think the Cartman reference is the big-boned boy from the South Park cartoon show who was once overheard saying "Respect my Authority." He also once fooled his enemy into cannibalism and once communicated with aliens. He is known as being egocentric, self-deluding, amazingly persistent, and remains enigmatic.

So, just for instance, I happily agree that I'm a pre-destined Alpha bottle baby, created and educated for a role in life, and I have all the soma I need. I feel happy as heck. Without pain and suffering, would I have any reason to seek relief? What is wrong with this picture?

That was the point of Brave New World. Who quotes Shakespeare anymore in the book? The Savage, and he quotes it well. What did he do when he saw the "perfect" world? IMHO he gave up too soon, the end of the book looked too bleak for Huxley in the 1930s to have seen any other resolution.

The analogy of soma and opium and masses and religion bears some thought, to my mind.

 

[Ossai]

Huntster

Oh. Forgive my mistake.

What should be done with the Bible, in your opinion?

The same thing that is done with the Odyssey, Iliad, and other ancient religious texts. Studied for it’s historical value but not valued above any other.

I don't ignore the "entire basis of the religion."

Really, then upon what do you base your religious beliefs

The Bible and RCC doctrine.

How do you come to that conclusion when you don’t follow the bible nor RCC doctrine? You have even stated so yourself numerous times. Anything from not following the laws laid out in the bible to what you profess to believe about god and other religions also being valid.

And a quote from you to prove it

1) Christianity more than comforts me
2) Christianity doesn't negate other religions
3) I don't "disregard the rest."

Number 2 is incorrect and the RCC certainly doesn’t agree with that stance.

They do.......whether or not you agree.

It’s not whether or not I agree, it’s whether or not the RCC agrees and it most certainly does not as reported and pointed out in the catechism.

How do you claim to hate something that you don't believe exists? (Which is the precise excuse so many try to justify their psychosis with....)

Gee, numerous posters have already stated that, yet you were the one to fly off the handle every time it was mentioned and continuously claimed that those that posted it hated god. Have you changed your position?

How much faith did he have to have in as much as God was altogether tangible and communicative to him. [/quote]
A whole bunch.[/quote] Faith is ignorance. How can one be knowledgeable and ignorant of the same subject at the same time?

Ossai

 

[billydkid]

Here:
He had faith. Lacking it so completely, you're dependant on papyrus.

He has to me.

A couple of things. The son killing guy didn't need faith - God manifested himself to him and they had conversations. In the same way I would not need faith if God manifested himself to me. You talk about God revealing himself to you. I'm not being sarcastic, but I don't have clue what that really means. I am really interested in how God does he reveal himself to you or anyone else. Is it patterns of experience? Is it you suddenly see God in nature or the world? Is it that God speaks to your heart, as they say? What does God speaking to your heart mean? Is it voices in your head? I just don't understand what someone means when they say God has revealed himself.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Jesus never actually claims to be the son of god. Others make that claim after his death.

OK, do you say this because he left no written diary, no manifesto, no autobiography? Scripture would seem to disagree with you. If you consider the scripture to be garbage or nonsense, of course, then it's not going to matter to you what scripture says. But since you seem to be referring to scripture, contextually, then your comment does not seem to hold.
Besides the infamous quizzing by the priests in Matthew 26 after his arrest: (KJV)

62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

A more useful commentary on this than I can offer is by Dr Rhodes.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/son-of-man.html He does note that there is some question of the usage involved.

Son of man
This term is used in different ways in the Bible...

Denotes mankind generally, with special reference to their weakness and frailty (Job 25:6; Ps. 8:4; 144:3; 146:3; Isa. 51:12, etc.).

It is a title frequently given to the prophet Ezekiel, probably to remind him of his human weakness.

In the New Testament it is used forty-three times as a distinctive title of the Savior. In the Old Testament it is used only in Ps. 80:17 and Dan. 7:13 with this application. It denotes the true humanity of our Lord. He had a true body (Hebrews 2:14; Luke 24:39) and a rational soul. He was perfect man.

Author: Matthew G. Easton

As to omnipotence, you seem to assume that omnipotence inherently constrains choice of design by the omnipotent, which is self contradictory.

DR

 

[Ossai]

Darth Rotor

OK, do you say this because he left no written diary, no manifesto, no autobiography? Scripture would seem to disagree with you.

Sorry, but no.
Matthew 26:
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

The phrase son of man was not a declaration of godhood. Historically ‘son of man’ was not a phrase that meant son of god, wiki link. Jesus never actually refers to himself as god or a part of god. They is a title/rank added later by others.

As to omnipotence, you seem to assume that omnipotence inherently constrains choice of design by the omnipotent, which is self contradictory.

No, you are the one assuming constrains. My point is that the omnipotent creator placed any and all constraints as to how the universe works. The creator would be directly responsible for all bad as well as good because it has the power to change the constraints or to have designed the universe where the constraints weren’t necessary at all.

Ossai

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Here:
He had faith. Lacking it so completely, you're dependant on papyrus....

A couple of things. The son killing guy didn't need faith - God manifested himself to him and they had conversations. In the same way I would not need faith if God manifested himself to me. You talk about God revealing himself to you. I'm not being sarcastic, but I don't have clue what that really means.

I can see that.

Thus, you don't understand how God "manifests" or "reveals" Himself, nor the faith required in order for that to occur.

I am really interested in how God does he reveal himself to you or anyone else. Is it patterns of experience?

It can be.

Is it you suddenly see God in nature or the world?

Kinda'.

Is it that God speaks to your heart, as they say?

I suppose, but I wouldn't say it that way. For me, it's more like a "thought" or "answer" that suddenly pops into my head abruptly. It comes strong, and with a feeling of "of course!".

I just don't understand what someone means when they say God has revealed himself.

Do you understand what someone means when they pray to God (the opposite of receiving revelation)?

Do you understand the different types of prayer? Thanksgiving? Praise? Wonder? Grief? Awe? Just saying Good Morning?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Darth Rotor
Sorry, but no.
Matthew 26:
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

The phrase son of man was not a declaration of godhood. Historically ‘son of man’ was not a phrase that meant son of god, wiki link. Jesus never actually refers to himself as god or a part of god. They is a title/rank added later by others.

Your wiki disagrees with Dr Rhodes, pick whichever one you prefer. Oh, wait, you have convinced yourself, and your mind is made up.

No, you are the one assuming constrains.

No, you did, but this is getting tiresome. You are looking, it seems, for someone to blame.

to have designed the universe where the constraints weren’t necessary at all.

Feel free to design such a universe. You have eternity.

DR

 

[Tricky]

I For me, it's more like a "thought" or "answer" that suddenly pops into my head abruptly. It comes strong, and with a feeling of "of course!".

Oh yeah, most of us recognize that feeling.

When I was about 16 and just starting to lose my religion, I recall thinking long and hard on the subject, trying to reconcile the things I had read and been told about Jesus with my observations about how the world works. And I had a revelation that came on strong. It was so obvious.

Jesus was from the future. I mean, it explained everything. First it explained the miracles (future science). Secondly, it explained prophecy (people were getting messages from the future). Thirdly, it explained what Jesus was trying to do; save the world by giving us morality. (Yes, I thought of this long before the "Terminator" movies).

Man, was I ever excited. I wanted to share my discovery. Unfortunately, the first person to receive the benefit of my revelation was a girl in my church whom I had had many long discussions with and desperately wanted to hump impress. The way I envisioned it, her eyes would go wide and she would realize what a genius I was and go out to "Make-out Point" with me to discuss it further. I was right about the "wide eyes" part, but there, the similarity to my vision ended. Her reaction was not one of being impressed, but of sheer horror. She correctly recognized that my "discovery" was heresy, since it would be people doing this time travel thing, not God. Crushed, I shut up about it.

I'm just glad the Raelians didn't find me when I was at this formative stage. A support group to prop up my beliefs at that time might have sent me on a lifelong course of magical thinking.

So, Huntster, you and I are not so unalike. The difference is, you had a manifestation, AND a support group to believe it. There but for the no-grace of no-god go I.