A game: Can you convince an agnostic robot?

[HaShev]

quote:single definition for what God is that would be equally accepted by all the faiths

But the messenger is described the same in many faiths...see my similarities of visions through many cultures sunday sermons through the forum search engine for examples.

>>Genesis 1:27:
IN the Hebrew the word used means nature essence type image not physical image.
The context is describing the plurality hosts making man more Shalem, more civilized and in righteousness (right path). Like I described reflectong and manifesting that Essence in life.
Which brings us to you still defining God by those who disobeying the rules of engagement in these things.
You believe life is the force of nature evolving and I am describing that Essence in it's most finite sense and yet you are still deifying what I am describing thus confused over what I am saying.
THIS PROVES They not only confuse their own followers they also affect how secular society views simple concepts.

That being said, when I say not believin in the Judaic description of God is as to not believe life exists it's an expression used to further describe what we call God that is something you already believe in.
I am describing the obvious God=Life to say Life doesn't exist while you are talking to me is a contradiction.
Your response showed you mistook my expression in that aspect. Imagine mistaking words as literal instead of intended description, that never hapoens with reading the Bible right?

Hmmm... I see some issues here that I hope you can clear up for me. I think these issues arise, as you say, from us having different definitions of concepts, so I'd like you to define some things for me.

You stated earlier that God is that which created Life, but here you state that God is Life. So my first question is: Did God exist before there was Life, regardless of whether God is now currently Life?

And further, can you define what you mean by "Life"? Do you mean that as "all things that are alive," which is to say plants, animals, etc. but not rocks, stars, polyester, etc.? Or do you mean Life as in the existence that we find ourselves in, including the whole natural world and all its laws? Or do you mean something different?

Lastly, since I have a feeling we're heading in that direction, can you tell me if God is someone/something that has conscious thoughts? Can God be said to have ideas that exist outside of the thoughts of people's minds?

Thanks for your response.

No I said: the word God=power and source of life.
The argument should never be does God exist, the argument should be over describing that power and source of life.
I am saying the Lesson Abraham learned was that God can't be that which has a further process in creating it. God in most finite terms has to be a nature-an Essence, best described as that Essence Shalem= to become complete and whole (evolve) -progress. CONFUSION IS WHEN : man uses terms that are physical for intangible precepts. Like when confusing the word for image, or face, or he, or arm, or head.
These words are Physical, but context are figurative. CONFUSION ALSO IS FROM not comprehending the process of mediating and how the lesser creative source of our order out of the chaos is mistaken in the archaic age as God. Especially when words are not understood in definition or noticing proper tenses used, but are shared.
Trinitarians and anyone making Jesus both Messiah and God are proof of this, as are Christians for believing Jesus was son of man or the holy Father he spoke of third person tense. Even Some Chabad Lubivictors who believe Rabbi Schneerson was the Moshiach he spoke of, prove this point about confusion.
Source that Jesus was not son of man:
One of the charachters used for the Jesus image had warned, they will "come in my name" (meaning his name) and say I am christ (saying HE IS Christ-not they are) and deceive many. Throuout the NT they speak of son of man third person tense as another future person not that he is son of man.

He wasn't son of man that he was emulating (like unto)-rev1:13

That son of Man will not be in the person of Jesus, but in a different incarnation involving a totally different human being LUKE 6:5, 9:26 , 9:55-56, 12:10 , 17:30 , 18:8, 22:69, John 3:13, Matthew 25:11-13, Mark 14:62
and Mathew20:28.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm glad to be of assistance. When you shift the argument over to what deity is correct you are debating religion and ethics, which has no bearing on whether god exists or not. If that's your goal you should be honest about it and start your debate there.

All the definitions that I have (so far) of God/gods have been provided by religions. If you'd like to provide an example of a god that is not one worshiped by a religion, I'd be happy to consider that god as well.

No one can prove god created the universe and no one can prove the universe just happened. So what exactly are you hoping for? People draw their own conclusions and either believe in god, they do not believe in god or they don't really know.

Well, this is somewhat close to the conclusion I have come to. I have not been able to find evidence that god created the universe, nor do I have conclusive evidence that the universe just happened. I've been calling this position "agnosticism." However, many people (believers and unbelievers alike) argue that this agnostic stance is not correct. They are convinced that there is clear evidence of a god/gods/god-like power/etc. or they are convinced that there is evidence that no such divinity exists.

So, the question of what I'm hoping to accomplish is a little different. By playing this game, I've discovered quite a lot about people and what they believe. It allows me to learn the different ideas people have about their divinity. People who play the game with me as the robot often say that they have developed a clearer sense of their beliefs and a better understanding of what they mean when they talk about their faith (or lack thereof). A funny thing, though, is that people who play the robot sometimes find themselves drifting more towards an agnostic point of view.

Anything beyond that is just mental masturbation.

Well, you might feel that it is so, and many others likely do as well, but for others it is an attempt to come to a better understanding of things. People constantly debate the ideas of the existence of a divine being as it seems, to them, the most essential question of our lives.

How could you possibly miss my point? WTF? Religions don't prove or disprove god, they are all matters of faith. Critiquing religions adds nothing. Believing in a secular cause is a matter of faith, you're better off trying to find out what makes them tick.

I don't particularly care what you are willing to consider or not. That's on you. Playing juvenile games might help you grow up but don't expect it to help anyone else.

 

[Iceweasel]

A book that begins with a story about a talking snake is not a factual account and never was intended to be understood as a factual account by the authors even though it was intended to convey truths about life in this world inhabited by humans.

This is a position that many people have taken. There are, however, many that believe their holy book is a literal expression of exact events that happened. They, in fact, often make very important decisions about their lives and the lives of others based on a strictly literal interpretation of events in their holy book.

Every miracle and every story that contradicts reality is like a giant X on a treasure map that clearly marks a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.

If you look for confirmation of any miracle interpreted literally like the sight of the blind being restored or the dead coming out of their graves you will never find it until you decipher the figurative language used and then your own eyes will be opened and you will understand that blind recover their sight and the dead come out of their graves every time a person rejects biblical literalism, perceives the deeper meanings, and acts on it..For as long as you have been alive on this planet the resurrected dead have been standing all around you, watching.

Scientific discoveries about the age of the universe, the evolution of life, biological realities, etc., only prove false what scripture is not about. Your inability to see proof is only proof of your inability to see.

For along as you fail to comprehend the hidden teachings conveyed through the figurative language used, the subjects in scripture, the true meaning of everything from a talking serpent to Kosher law, ritual sacrifice to the resurrection of Jesus, including the the nature and power of God, will remain hidden from you and obscured behind thick clouds.

I'm not demanding that the ideas in the Bible (or any holy book) be taken literally. I'm more than happy to treat them as metaphor, if that's what they are. The essential question that I'm getting at is whether there is a literal God or not. I'm assuming that you wouldn't claim that God is just a metaphor for things in existence. So what I'm hoping to find is evidence that this God exists.

The holy books that I have read, when taken as non-literal, seem to have different ideas and (most importantly) very different teachings. So they cannot all be compatible visions of what God is. Thus it becomes important to discover which holy book, if any, truly leads to an understanding of what God is. Thus far, I have been unable to discern which book this would be. If you can provide me with facts that show me which book is the correct path to understanding, I'd be happy to have them.

Wow, robot boy just figured out not all religions are the same, which proves they are different.

 

[A.Robot]

Wow... okay. It's starting to look like I misjudged what I'd find here on this board, so I'm going to move on to greener pastures. I'd like to say thanks to those who made an earnest attempt to discuss things. I wish you the best in life.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wow... okay. It's starting to look like I misjudged what I'd find here on this board, so I'm going to move on to greener pastures. I'd like to say thanks to those who made an earnest attempt to discuss things. I wish you the best in life.

See ya...

 

[sealybobo]

Put the bong down for awhile........you are becoming delusional. .......

Because you don't like that the robot computes you're God hypothesis is bullshit?

 

[hobelim]

That son of Man will not be in the person of Jesus, but in a different incarnation involving a totally different human being LUKE 6:5, 9:26 , 9:55-56, 12:10 , 17:30 , 18:8, 22:69, John 3:13, Matthew 25:11-13, Mark 14:62
and Mathew20:28.

Jesus spoke of this other incarnation in John 16:7-15.

Some people believe this prophecy was fulfilled by an invisible ghost according to an ignorant interpretation of acts 2:3 even though in 2000 years this imaginary ghost has not done even one single thing that Jesus said that the Spirit of truth would be sent by God to do when he came.

Some people believe that Mohammed fulfilled this prophecy even though Mohammed did not fulfill even one single thing that Jesus said that the Spirit of truth would be sent by God to do when he came.

According to the prophecy this Advocate will convince "them", the Jewish people, that Jesus was right.

That disqualifies both the ghost and mohammed..... and you, even though your name is Michael, you are a kohanim, and can't wait to rebuild a Temple dedicated to slaughtering farm animals in the name of the Lord..

 

[hobelim]

This is a position that many people have taken. There are, however, many that believe their holy book is a literal expression of exact events that happened. They, in fact, often make very important decisions about their lives and the lives of others based on a strictly literal interpretation of events in their holy book.

Many people believe in bigfoot or that aliens built the pyramids. So what. You asked for rational argument that was not one of the failed arguments listed. I do not support the belief that the stories in the Bible were ever meant to be taken literally by intelligent people so I would never even try to explain what to me is an irrational position except by showing how that irrational state is evidence of divine condemnation and Gehenna, both subjects that many people do not believe in even though they have been intimately acquainted with them both for their entire lives..

My suggestion was for you to try and discern the metaphors and allegories in Jewish and Christian scriptures describing people and events that you have witnessed for your entire life. You have to become more than a robot and take that leap of intelligence required using your imagination in a rational way to make the connection between the teachings of fantastical stories as they apply to actual reality.

For instance if you need proof that talking serpents exist even though you have seen them plague humanity ever since you first sat in front of the boob tube and watched the news, what hope does anyone have in showing you proof of God who has no visible shape or material form to see? If you can't accurately perceive or discern what has been in front of your eyes for your entire life how can you possible hope to perceive God?

I'm not demanding that the ideas in the Bible (or any holy book) be taken literally. I'm more than happy to treat them as metaphor, if that's what they are. The essential question that I'm getting at is whether there is a literal God or not. I'm assuming that you wouldn't claim that God is just a metaphor for things in existence. So what I'm hoping to find is evidence that this God exists.

The holy books that I have read, when taken as non-literal, seem to have different ideas and (most importantly) very different teachings. So they cannot all be compatible visions of what God is. Thus it becomes important to discover which holy book, if any, truly leads to an understanding of what God is. Thus far, I have been unable to discern which book this would be. If you can provide me with facts that show me which book is the correct path to understanding, I'd be happy to have them.

Before you try to understand what God is, you should try understanding what angels and demons are. Seriously if you don't believe in talking snakes because you have no factual proof that they exist even though they are all around and always on the prowl for the gullible you really need to be working on your vision. Its not like they are scarce or invisible. In some places you can't walk for two blocks without coming across one of their nests. They are everywhere, they are brazen, and they have no shade on their shit at all. Damn.


I think that you need to start at the beginning before you ever pick up a so called holy book again. Here is a book at the first or second grade level that might be of help. Good luck..

Read & Understand Fairy Tales & Folktales By Jill Norris 9781557997494

 

[HaShev]

"sprit of truth truth would be sent by God".......
"even though your name is Michael, you are a kohanim, and can't wait to rebuild a Temple dedicated to slaughtering farm animals in the name of the Lord.."

Interesting how you leave out important info when telling just half the story.
In Judaism the messenger of truth is Michael.
Daniel 10:21 says it is Michael who best knows these truths.
In Hebrew it says:
in Dan 10:20 where it says in regards to Michael:
*"Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee And now will
*Hashev Lacham Sar Parac"
(HaShev fight the prince of Persia).

All over America there is a ritual slaughter of animals in smokehouses, barbeque pits, and steak houses, it's called Lunch Time and Dinner Time, remember that next time you drop barbeque sauce on your
Bee Gees or Abba T-Shirt.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wow... okay. It's starting to look like I misjudged what I'd find here on this board, so I'm going to move on to greener pastures. I'd like to say thanks to those who made an earnest attempt to discuss things. I wish you the best in life.

Try being honest wherever you go and quit playing stupid kid games with people. And don't equate religion with god and base your arguments on it. Good luck!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Disclaimer: So, my real-life friends and I came up with a debate game. In this game, one of the discussion participants (regardless of his or her beliefs) takes on the role of an agnostic robot. I thought I’d share the game with all of you by playing the robot and letting you come up with responses. I want to make it clear, though, that I don’t really think I’m a robot. It’s just a game. No need to send a therapist. Thanks.

Greetings, people of this discussion board. I’ve recently been activated by my programmers, and in the time since then I’ve read as much information as was available to me about the universe. That information has led me to the conclusion that I am an agnostic robot.
Because humans have many definitions of words, I want to make it clear that I am using the definition of “agnostic” that says: “one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god” (Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary, definition 1 of “agnostic”). I am not using any other definition (such as one which states that agnostics believe that such things cannot be ever known... I hold no such beliefs).
Given my conclusion, I have come here to see if anyone can make a logical argument or present new evidence that can convince me that God/a god/gods do, in fact, exist. This is a task that several people have tried to accomplish and thus far failed. The attempts that have failed mostly fit one of the following categories:


Failed argument 1: A holy book says so, so you have to believe.
There are many different holy books out there that claim the existence of a divine being (or beings). However these books do not agree with each other about who this being is, what this being wants from people, or what the proper worship of this being would entail. Also, I have been unable to uncover (thus far) any evidence that any one of these books has been unequivocally proven to be a factual account. Each of them seems to rely on the faith of the reader to believe that they are true. As a robot, I have no such faith, thus I cannot accept any of them as being 100% factual until such time as reliable evidence proves them to be so.

Failed argument 2: If you don’t believe, you’ll go to hell or won’t get into heaven.
I have no evidence that there is a hell or a heaven, so I cannot be convinced to accept an idea based on places that may not exist. Also, being a robot, I’m not sure I really have a soul (or whatever aspect of self you think goes on to the afterlife), so I perhaps wouldn’t be in danger even if these places do exist. As a corollary, I’m not sure humans have souls either, but that’s a somewhat tangential topic.
But even if people do have souls and there is a heaven and/or hell, it wouldn’t be a good idea to believe in a divine being for just this reason. If you are doing a good thing only because you are rewarded for it, most religions would count that as being greedy (a sin that would get you sent to hell, in many cases). Likewise, if you do good things only when threatened with harm, you are not considered a good person on your own.

Failed argument 3: You have to feel it in your heart that God exists.
Being a robot, I have no heart. I’m not sure I have any feelings either. Many people do have feelings, but they don’t seem to agree on which deity, if any, exists. These people all feel with equal certainty that they have been inspired with divine presence (or a lack thereof), so I cannot tell which, if any, has really been influenced by God and which ones are convincing themselves of a feeling that is not based on reality.

Failed argument 4: There are so many miracles all around that prove God exists.
I have not yet been presented with any evidence of an event that could not be explained by some force other than a divine being. Sometimes this is a case of people ascribing forces that do not seem to be present, but other times it is people witnessing extremely rare occurrences that SEEM like a miracle because the odds are against them happening.
The thing is, though, that one-in-a-million or even one-in-a-billion events actually happen all the time. Take, for example, the odds of winning the jackpot in Powerball. There is only one chance in 292,201,338 that someone’s numbers will match the numbers drawn. Given those incredible odds, you might think nobody could ever win the jackpot. Yet people win the jackpot on a regular basis (sometimes several people at once even) because there are so many people trying and so many draws of numbers that eventually you get a winner.
A person who wins could feel that they have a miracle situation, but the choosers of the other 292,201,337 sets of numbers feel that no such miracle has occurred. Thus for something to be considered a true miracle, you would need to demonstrate that the event could not have happened by random chance (no matter how small the chance) or happened through some other explainable or observable force of the universe (gravity, magnetism, entropy, self-delusion, just plain lying, etc.).

Failed argument 5: I don’t like your definition of the word “agnostic,” so you should change your definition to fit my definition which is easier for me to argue against.
I’m going by my definition because it most fits what I understand of the universe. I do not ascribe to any other definitions. Therefore I am not an agnostic in EVERY sense of the word, just in my own definition (which happens to be the first definition of the word in the dictionary). If you’d like to argue with other people who fit your definition of agnostic, feel free to do so, but your definition is not mine, so I don’t feel a need to defend your version of what you think I should be thinking.

Given the arguments that have been tried so far, can you present me with a logical argument or evidence from a reliable source that will change my mind about being an agnostic?

Welcome and congratulations on one of the best OPs.

 

[hobelim]

Interesting how you leave out important info when telling just half the story.
In Judaism the messenger of truth is Michael.
Daniel 10:21 says it is Michael who best knows these truths.

LOL...

 

[hobelim]

All over America there is a ritual slaughter of animals in smokehouses, barbeque pits, and steak houses, it's called Lunch Time and Dinner Time, remember that next time you drop barbeque sauce on your
Bee Gees or Abba T-Shirt.

No, that is quite dishonest of you mikey. A blatant false comparison to Temple worship.

No one who slaughters farm animals for public consumption believes they are performing a holy task. No one visits a slaughterhouse as some sort of religious duty. Not one slaughterhouse pretends to be the dwelling place of God. Not one sane butcher thinks that he is the messiah because his name is michael.

 

[hobelim]

A book that begins with a story about a talking snake is not a factual account and never was intended to be understood as a factual account by the authors even though it was intended to convey truths about life in this world inhabited by humans.

This is a position that many people have taken. There are, however, many that believe their holy book is a literal expression of exact events that happened. They, in fact, often make very important decisions about their lives and the lives of others based on a strictly literal interpretation of events in their holy book.

Every miracle and every story that contradicts reality is like a giant X on a treasure map that clearly marks a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.

If you look for confirmation of any miracle interpreted literally like the sight of the blind being restored or the dead coming out of their graves you will never find it until you decipher the figurative language used and then your own eyes will be opened and you will understand that blind recover their sight and the dead come out of their graves every time a person rejects biblical literalism, perceives the deeper meanings, and acts on it..For as long as you have been alive on this planet the resurrected dead have been standing all around you, watching.

Scientific discoveries about the age of the universe, the evolution of life, biological realities, etc., only prove false what scripture is not about. Your inability to see proof is only proof of your inability to see.

For along as you fail to comprehend the hidden teachings conveyed through the figurative language used, the subjects in scripture, the true meaning of everything from a talking serpent to Kosher law, ritual sacrifice to the resurrection of Jesus, including the the nature and power of God, will remain hidden from you and obscured behind thick clouds.

I'm not demanding that the ideas in the Bible (or any holy book) be taken literally. I'm more than happy to treat them as metaphor, if that's what they are. The essential question that I'm getting at is whether there is a literal God or not. I'm assuming that you wouldn't claim that God is just a metaphor for things in existence. So what I'm hoping to find is evidence that this God exists.

The holy books that I have read, when taken as non-literal, seem to have different ideas and (most importantly) very different teachings. So they cannot all be compatible visions of what God is. Thus it becomes important to discover which holy book, if any, truly leads to an understanding of what God is. Thus far, I have been unable to discern which book this would be. If you can provide me with facts that show me which book is the correct path to understanding, I'd be happy to have them.

Wow, robot boy just figured out not all religions are the same, which proves they are different.

Don't let it bother you. he's just playing a game and thinks he is being clever. Probably some school boy class project trying to impress a teacher who has no belief in God.

 

[Iceweasel]

A book that begins with a story about a talking snake is not a factual account and never was intended to be understood as a factual account by the authors even though it was intended to convey truths about life in this world inhabited by humans.

This is a position that many people have taken. There are, however, many that believe their holy book is a literal expression of exact events that happened. They, in fact, often make very important decisions about their lives and the lives of others based on a strictly literal interpretation of events in their holy book.

Every miracle and every story that contradicts reality is like a giant X on a treasure map that clearly marks a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.

If you look for confirmation of any miracle interpreted literally like the sight of the blind being restored or the dead coming out of their graves you will never find it until you decipher the figurative language used and then your own eyes will be opened and you will understand that blind recover their sight and the dead come out of their graves every time a person rejects biblical literalism, perceives the deeper meanings, and acts on it..For as long as you have been alive on this planet the resurrected dead have been standing all around you, watching.

Scientific discoveries about the age of the universe, the evolution of life, biological realities, etc., only prove false what scripture is not about. Your inability to see proof is only proof of your inability to see.

For along as you fail to comprehend the hidden teachings conveyed through the figurative language used, the subjects in scripture, the true meaning of everything from a talking serpent to Kosher law, ritual sacrifice to the resurrection of Jesus, including the the nature and power of God, will remain hidden from you and obscured behind thick clouds.

I'm not demanding that the ideas in the Bible (or any holy book) be taken literally. I'm more than happy to treat them as metaphor, if that's what they are. The essential question that I'm getting at is whether there is a literal God or not. I'm assuming that you wouldn't claim that God is just a metaphor for things in existence. So what I'm hoping to find is evidence that this God exists.

The holy books that I have read, when taken as non-literal, seem to have different ideas and (most importantly) very different teachings. So they cannot all be compatible visions of what God is. Thus it becomes important to discover which holy book, if any, truly leads to an understanding of what God is. Thus far, I have been unable to discern which book this would be. If you can provide me with facts that show me which book is the correct path to understanding, I'd be happy to have them.

Wow, robot boy just figured out not all religions are the same, which proves they are different.

Don't let it bother you. he's just playing a game and thinks he is being clever. Probably some school boy class project trying to impress a teacher who has no belief in God.

I don't get bothered by the internet. I actually know someone just like him, my nephew. It might even be my nephew!

 

[hobelim]

A book that begins with a story about a talking snake is not a factual account and never was intended to be understood as a factual account by the authors even though it was intended to convey truths about life in this world inhabited by humans.

This is a position that many people have taken. There are, however, many that believe their holy book is a literal expression of exact events that happened. They, in fact, often make very important decisions about their lives and the lives of others based on a strictly literal interpretation of events in their holy book.

Every miracle and every story that contradicts reality is like a giant X on a treasure map that clearly marks a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.

If you look for confirmation of any miracle interpreted literally like the sight of the blind being restored or the dead coming out of their graves you will never find it until you decipher the figurative language used and then your own eyes will be opened and you will understand that blind recover their sight and the dead come out of their graves every time a person rejects biblical literalism, perceives the deeper meanings, and acts on it..For as long as you have been alive on this planet the resurrected dead have been standing all around you, watching.

Scientific discoveries about the age of the universe, the evolution of life, biological realities, etc., only prove false what scripture is not about. Your inability to see proof is only proof of your inability to see.

For along as you fail to comprehend the hidden teachings conveyed through the figurative language used, the subjects in scripture, the true meaning of everything from a talking serpent to Kosher law, ritual sacrifice to the resurrection of Jesus, including the the nature and power of God, will remain hidden from you and obscured behind thick clouds.

I'm not demanding that the ideas in the Bible (or any holy book) be taken literally. I'm more than happy to treat them as metaphor, if that's what they are. The essential question that I'm getting at is whether there is a literal God or not. I'm assuming that you wouldn't claim that God is just a metaphor for things in existence. So what I'm hoping to find is evidence that this God exists.

The holy books that I have read, when taken as non-literal, seem to have different ideas and (most importantly) very different teachings. So they cannot all be compatible visions of what God is. Thus it becomes important to discover which holy book, if any, truly leads to an understanding of what God is. Thus far, I have been unable to discern which book this would be. If you can provide me with facts that show me which book is the correct path to understanding, I'd be happy to have them.

Wow, robot boy just figured out not all religions are the same, which proves they are different.

Don't let it bother you. he's just playing a game and thinks he is being clever. Probably some school boy class project trying to impress a teacher who has no belief in God.

I don't get bothered by the internet. I actually know someone just like him, my nephew. It might even be my nephew!

LOL... a monkeys uncle!

I hope he doesn't try to play this game at family gatherings.

 

[HaShev]

Busted quote of the day:
" Not one sane butcher thinks that he is the messiah because his name is michael."

1) name one animal I butchered=false testimony, something you refered to fallaciously in your post you did 2 seconds later yourself=hypocracy.
2)the post was about you always leaving out the full story and yet once again you left out the last name of this MICHAEL FIGURE.
Must scare you to missdirect people from a name you wish not speak of.
3) Yeshu was not named Michael therefore you just called Yeshu and Christians insane.
4) if one named is not Moshiach then one not named certainly can't be Moshiach.
If Jesus you call Yeshu can't be Moshiach then he is the false fallen messiah aka Lucifer.
If Jesus says he's lucifer and you proved he has to be Lucifer then that makes me
"The Michael" and that my cattle eating friend is called Checkmate.
Thanks for playing-there's parting gifts on the way out!

 

[hobelim]

Busted quote of the day:
" Not one sane butcher thinks that he is the messiah because his name is michael."

1) name one animal I butchered=false testimony, something you refered to fallaciously in your post you did 2 seconds later yourself=hypocracy.

Oh, so you do think that you are the messiah.. who knew? BTW you have not made it any secret that as a kohanim who hopes to rebuild a temple and happens to be named machael that butchering in the name of the Lord is your dream. If that is not what you are hoping to do, let's clear that up right now and I will apologize.

2)the post was about you always leaving out the full story and yet once again you left out the last name of this MICHAEL FIGURE.
Must scare you to missdirect people from a name you wish not speak of.
3) Yeshu was not named Michael therefore you just called Yeshu and Christians insane.
4) if one named is not Moshiach then one not named certainly can't be Moshiach.
If Jesus you call Yeshu can't be Moshiach then he is the false fallen messiah aka Lucifer.
If Jesus says he's lucifer and you proved he has to be Lucifer then that makes me
"The Michael" and that my cattle eating friend is called Checkmate.
Thanks for playing-there's parting gifts on the way out!

Congratulations! You are a real winner...

But before you go running for a touchdown you might want to consider the fact that the name of the Messiah is given by God to the person of his choosing and no one knows the meaning of that name except for the one who receives it.

 

[HaShev]

You just said it was me.
"no one knows the meaning of that name except for the one who receives it."


He will know the secret wisdom of the name of God 4Q300I ii4=4Q299 2 i I4.

 

[irosie91]

All over America there is a ritual slaughter of animals in smokehouses, barbeque pits, and steak houses, it's called Lunch Time and Dinner Time, remember that next time you drop barbeque sauce on your
Bee Gees or Abba T-Shirt.

No, that is quite dishonest of you mikey. A blatant false comparison to Temple worship.

No one who slaughters farm animals for public consumption believes they are performing a holy task. No one visits a slaughterhouse as some sort of religious duty. Not one slaughterhouse pretends to be the dwelling place of God. Not one sane butcher thinks that he is the messiah because his name is michael.

Interesting take on animal slaughter, HOBIE------in fact you are entirely wrong-----
millions of gentiles WORSHIP THE SLAUGHTER. ----the people who do not
worship the slaughter are-----JEWS. I grew up amongst Christians-------for whom a HOLY GIFT TO PROVE A BOY CHILD IS TRANSFORMING INTO A MAN---is a SHOTGUN. For jews------the typical gift on the threshold of manhood----is
a PRAYER BOOK. For further initiation into manhood and a life of holiness----
the hills and mountains and streams are REDDENED with the blood of four legged
creatures-----murdered by rifle ----sometimes trap ----and even ARROW ----to
prove virility--------the HEADS of those animals are often preserved and mounted
on the LIVING ROOM WALL-----along with the murder weapons. ------damned
GROSS