Confusing statements and attitudes

Jump to Last Post 1-11 of 11 discussions (182 posts)
  1. profile image0
    jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years ago

    When a person says this:
    " Disbelievers will be given Hell & suffering for eternity. Have fear. "
    in a Question thread, yet says this:
    "Love to share! Sharing is caring!!"
    in his/her profile, can you believe such a contradiction?  Is it a contradiction in normal everyday understanding?

    1. Live to Learn profile image60
      Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I think we all know the spiel. Telling you you're headed for hell fire is a message of love. If we don't get that, then we just want to persecute other Christians.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
      Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Lets say someone says," You are going to hell!" to a young person who all his life has done the right thing, but who has not heard much about Jesus. He just naturally knows what is right and follows his own sense of right and wrong.
      He has had a good example through his parents and family and has been treated kindly all his life. Then a Jesus enthusiast walks up and tells him, "If you do not believe in Jesus, you are going to Hell!   

      How will that make this young person feel about Jesus?
      Will he willingly follow and love him?
      Will he ever listen to anyone talking about Jesus again?
      Yet the love of Jesus IS.

      I agree, they really need another approach.
      And Johnny, it happens to all of us all the time.
      We just ignore it and pity such a poor person who uses Jesus to lord over others.
      Luckily, Jesus forgives such a misguided enthusiast, so we can too.


    3. colorfulone profile image78
      colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I say immature.

    4. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The whole hell concept is something dreamt up by organized religion to drum up business and maintain control. It's obviously a scare tactic. Man made. It's not God's fault. People have free will and mess things up all the time.

      The bible doesn't actually say anything about eternal damnation. Hell in the OT is the hole in the ground in which you're buried. The grave. Being saved from hell is being saved from death.

      It's actually quite fair, I think. Nobody asked to exist. It's decided by two free will beings who decide to procreate. If you don't agree to the terms necessary to continue to exist for eternity, you simply cease to exist at death. You go back to the state you were in before you were created.

      The 'eternal flame' the NT speaks of, it's the flame that's eternal, not the punishment. That's ridiculous. The single most well known verse in all the bible says "...whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish...". Burning for all eternity is the opposite of perishing. The whole concept revolves around not actually ever perishing.

      The church had to come up with something to stay in power through all the ages. That seemed to work pretty well, even though it's completely contradictory to the whole rest of the concept.

      1. profile image55
        firework23posted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Headlyvonnoggin....I feel the need to correct a misconception you stated regarding the word 'perish'. You see those who are in Christ do not perish but have everlasting life but perish refers to death in the sense of the absence of God NOT of no longer existing. There are also parts in the bible that speak of everlasting suffering both with Satan, the antichrist and the false prophet burning in the lake of fire eternally as well as one where the Lamb and the Father watch while the wicked suffer.
        With regard to those people living kindly without knowledge of Jesus being the one way it would be similar to when Jesus died, went down to the prison and took those who then believed in Him up to heaven.

        1. profile image55
          firework23posted 8 years agoin reply to this

          With regard to the post...either the individual is young in the faith (feeding with milk) or they do not have a genuine connection to Jesus because if they did (and were mature in the faith- eating meat) then the Holy Spirit would guide them toward living a righteous life thus glorifying God through thought, speech and action.

        2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this


          I'm sorry, but that whole idea is just a way to continue on this false concept that's innately counter-intuitive. In this case by totally redefining what 'perish' means to suit the needs. Eternal life is the reward. The opposite of that isn't burning eternally. It's dying. How does burning eternally even work? Burning is destroying. Only when material is destroyed and consumed by the fire is it burning. So something can't burn eternally. It's illogical any way you look at it.

          The "second death". It's ceasing to exist. How is burning eternally death? Being without God? That's quite a stretch of the definition to say what they mean by death is being without God.

          What would be the point of creating us humans, just to punish us for all eternity? What does that accomplish? Life makes sense. Nature makes sense. God makes sense. That doesn't.

          As I'm sure you know, the OT books were translated from Greek....

          "Dr. Weymouth, head master of Mill Hill School, and one of the finest Greek scholars, says, "My mind fails to conceive a grosser misinterpretation of language than when the five or six strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying 'destroy,' or 'destruction,' are explained to mean maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence. To translate black as white is nothing to this."

          1. profile image55
            firework23posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            The laws here fit here but go into space and they change. Who of us is to say that one cannot burn eternally if they have not crossed into death to verify its truth or falseness. I know from experience that there is a frightful place you can go to when you die. Argue with me until you are blue in the face but I have seen beyond here. It is what brought me close to God in the first place. Prior to it I was a science major in my senior year in college. Telepathy is the form of communication.I mention this to let anyone know that, yes, the devil and his angels can read your mind as well as emotions.
            God did not create us to go there. It is our free will choices that send us there. Something as pure as God will destroy something filthy (not cleaned through the blood of Christ). It is not how God would choose it to be (He is saddened by those who turn away from Him-it hurts Him).

          2. profile image55
            firework23posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Also....God is a consuming fire who burns eternally...illogical maybe to man.

            1. profile image55
              firework23posted 8 years agoin reply to this

              In regard to the scholar Jesus thanks the Father for basically blinding the educated and showing the Truth to those deemed uneducated or 'foolish' to scholars. So scholarly comments mean little to me. The Holy Spirit has guided me to simple yet profound truths that are so easily overlooked when one 'studies' the bible as opposed to being guided as you read in a relaxed manner.

              1. profile image0
                jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Firework23, just because you experienced that transformation in the way you think, does not automatically translate to the needs or the wishes of anyone else.

                Your interpretation of the circumstance of your life and your understanding of the religious implications for your self are yours and your alone.

                This is one more of the ugly and disturbing aspects of religion, especially the type of religion that's incubated in the United States.  You get hold of a personal understanding and then translate it to the needs of others.  Your path slides into the need to have everyone else believing it, in order to augment your own "faith" as if without others believing as you do, your own faith will be negated somehow.

                Keep your own faith.   But just allow it, don't push it onto others.... please.  In the same way, my atheist understanding is my own.   I don't push it onto others asking them to understand as I do.  It's sufficient for me, it does not need anyone else to support it.   All I ask for is respect for my understanding, even if you don't accept it.   In the same way, I can respect your faith, without taking it on board myself.  I don't need it and I don't want it, thank you.

                1. profile image55
                  firework23posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I am not looking for anyone to believe me in order to validatemyv faith...itis strong enoughwithout the supportof other humans. I was not attacking you but merely stating facts to counteryour crude statements regarding a previous comment of mine. I have nothingagainst atheists(my brother is one). I am also friends with pagans,wiccans, muslims and mormons. I respect their free will as well.Please do not throw be into a box you designed based on yourprevious experiences with Christians. By all means continue on being an atheist...I am not pushing you otherwise...justdefending my statement which you attacked.

                2. profile image55
                  firework23posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I just have two curiosity questions for you. 1. Why are you postingcounter-intuitivethoughts on a hub that is Christian?
                  2. Why do you mention God like He exists in your first post if you are atheist?...please don't take offense,I am not attacking you. I am merely curious. It is the scientist in me.

                  1. profile image55
                    firework23posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    I mean counter-intuitive for Christians.

                  2. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    I have started this discussion about the inconsistency of another person's statement and his/her profile statement.  Where did I mention "God" in this discussion?

                    If I mention God in the context of another hub or discussion or question, it is in relation to another person's belief(s).   I can discuss "God" whenever the need arises, because I was a believer for a long time in my life.   There is nothing wrong in that. 

                    If you were not a believer at one time in your life and that has changed, there is nothing wrong in that either.  However, I get the impression from your posts that you are trying to get others to believe as you do.  Am I mistaken in this presumption?

              2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Do you not see an issue here? A few posts back you were trying to educate me on the true meaning of the word perish. A word translated from Greek. So I aired someone who actually studies the Greek language about it's true definition. In this case you should listen. We're talking about the correct definition and use of an ancient word from an ancient language, not knowledge of God.

      2. janesix profile image61
        janesixposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Not to get into a whole language debate or anything, but it's important to understand what we're reading. Take this for example ....


          This Greek word occurs only 12 times and is always translated as hell. Gehenna was originally a Hebrew word and came from the “valley of Hinnom.” This same Hebrew word is used in Jeremiah 7:31, “and they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind.” This valley was for the purpose of burning all the idols that were an abomination to God and this valley that is called “Tophet” became synonymous with a place of such abomination that all kinds of things were burnt up in it; dead carcasses, filth, unburied bodies, detestable tings, and refuse. The fire never went out because it was a garbage dump where every bit of trash and unclean things were being continually deposited and the fire never went out so as to burn everything up, thus Gehenna became symbolic of the place of an everlasting fire, a severe and eternal punishment. This may be why Jesus referred to hell “Gehenna” as the place “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48) which seems to point to its eternity. The fire in the Valley of Gehenna and the worms eating the decaying bodies or garbage would never cease."

          This place with the ever burning fire became a symbolic kind of slang, well known to all who were contemporary at the time. Like we today take on defining things with words that represent places or events we're all familiar with. It's a story telling device. In Matthew 25, this story being told, the point is about how the unrighteous are pruned away. Placed in the fire that always burns as refuge. Weeds. Cut away from the good stock.

          There's a whole debate on the "eternal punishment" bit. Also having to do with how the Greek was translated. But keep in mind it was translated by those hired by King James. People who already had a set idea formed about Christianity and hell and such.

          That's why it's important to take it all in whole, and not in bits and pieces. The bigger themes are made clear. There's an eternal life, and there's opposite of that. Not just everyone goes on. Behavior matters. Choices matter. That's the game.

          1. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I have learned something very useful from you Headly, and in most part I agree with you.  Excellent input.  Thank you.

    5. Claire Evans profile image64
      Claire Evansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It's a strange approach by those Christians.  Jesus never made these threats to gentiles.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, I find that incredibly interesting that the gentiles had their own set of laws. The Noahide laws, or seven laws of Noah. In Hebrew tradition all humanity is referred to as 'Noah' as they're descended from the one surviving family of the flood. And they had fewer laws, or commandments, that applied to them than the Jewish people. Those laws in the OT were specific to the Jewish people. They didn't apply to all of humanity. Just the chosen line God spent so much time interacting with throughout the OT.

        1. Claire Evans profile image64
          Claire Evansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          But as you say, if we are all from the line of Noah, where did the chosen people concept come from? Too ironic.

          1. Live to Learn profile image60
            Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I thought the chosen people concept began with Abraham.

            1. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Maybe you chosen people could spend more time per your other hubs, so  cute and funny.

            2. Claire Evans profile image64
              Claire Evansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, but God chose to save Noah and his family.  He obviously favoured them because obviously the whole world was Satanic including all the babies.

          2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            That's what's going on in the OT. God is observing and choosing specific people who show favorable traits. When He chose Noah, when He chose Abraham. He then promised Abraham his descendants would be many. But because of free will God's will didn't just become manifest. To accomplish what He promised He had to do so by interacting with them.

            They're only 'chosen' if there were others that were chosen over.

            1. Claire Evans profile image64
              Claire Evansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              But Noah didn't have favourable traits.  He was a drunkard.  Surely there were more righteous men/women who drowned? Didn't God foresee that Noah would be the great grandfather of Satanic Nimrod? What about the book of Enoch? Noah is deemed a freak baby by his parents!

              How did God interact with them?

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                So, because Noah was a drinker, you take from that that he didn't have any favorable traits? It directly says it ....

                Genesis 6:8 - But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

                It's all about context. In Genesis 1 God created humans. Then, in Genesis 2, God created Adam and Eve. So there were naturally evolved "mortal" humans, then there were Adam and Eve and their children. Unlike naturally evolved humans, Adam and Eve had free will and could behave contrary to God's will if they willed it.

                In Genesis 6 it explains that these free willed descendants began to marry and procreate with these "mortal" humans. This introduced free will into naturally evolved humans and made them "wicked". Wickedness is only possible through free will. This is why it says God regretted putting humans on the Earth. God wasn't in control of those with free will and they did something that caused Him regret.

                God interacted with the Israelites by giving them commandments and trying to control who they bred with and how they behaved, though He couldn't actually control them. He had to influence their actions through interaction to realize an outcome that He couldn't just will to happen like He could with everything else in the natural world.

                Yes, this led to Nimrod, but it ultimately also led to the birth of Jesus. The ultimate goal made necessary by the actions of Adam and Eve.

                As for the book of Enoch, this book was written way later, around the time of Jesus. People of this age were just as in the dark about the stories from the books of Moses as we are. They were ancient even to them. The book of Enoch isn't actually a book written by Enoch. I see it more as a kind of fan fiction kind of thing. It's a story written around the stories of Genesis in an attempt to make sense of what's being described. It's not a reliable source of information.

                1. Claire Evans profile image64
                  Claire Evansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I meant, could there have been no other person who was more righteous than Noah?

                  Actually, Adam and Eve could not have had free will because God forbade them to eat the fruit which made them aware of evil.  In order to have free will, one must know the difference between good and evil. 

                  You say that Adam and Eve had free will but before they ate the apple, they had committed no sin.  Who were the naturally evolved humans? Weren't Adam and Eve the first people? Was there ever a time when humans didn't have free will?

                  But these sons of gods could not have introduced free will if Adam and Eve were the first one's to have it.

                  Didn't God foresee that mankind would sin? Isn't He omniscient?

                  How did God interact with the Israelites?

                  The point I'm trying to make is Nimrod brought all the evil back into the world.  Didn't God foresee that? What was the point of the flood then?

                  Do you mean about the stories from the book of Enoch? Were the people back then ignorant of the works of Moses?

                  The book of Enoch (1 Enoch) existed long before Jesus.  In fact, the remnants of complete copies were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls:

                  Many of the legends about Enoch were collected already in ancient times in several long anthologies. The most important such anthology, and the oldest, is known simply as The Book of Enoch, comprising over one hundred chapters. It still survives in its entirety (although only in the Ethiopic language) and forms an important source for the thought of Judaism in the last few centuries B.C.E. Significantly, the remnants of several almost complete copies of The Book of Enoch in Aramaic were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is clear that whoever collected the scrolls considered it a vitally important text. All but one of the five major components of the Ethiopic anthology have turned up among the scrolls. But even more intriguing is the fact that additional, previously unknown or little-known texts about Enoch were discovered at Qumran. The most important of these is The Book of Giants.

         … giants.htm

                  The Early Christians quoted from the Book of Enoch:

                  1 Jude:14

                  Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones

                  So the early Christians did not see it as fiction.  So how did they come to know of the Book of Enoch?

                  "The Book of Enoch was extant centuries before the birth of Christ and yet is considered by many to be more Christian in its theology than Jewish. It was considered scripture by many early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The early second century "Epistle of Barnabus" makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church even added the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. This and many other books became discredited after the Council of Laodicea. And being under ban of the authorities, afterwards it gradually passed out of circulation."


                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Since the subject has evolved way beyond the point of discussion, I will leave you folks to it and look to other subjects which appeal to my mind.

                    Have fun.

                  2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Genesis 6:9 - "...Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God."

                    Only those with free will were the consideration. Could they, even with free will, live a righteous life. There were very few in Noah's age. Only the offspring of those listed in Gen5. Out of all those alive then, it seems Noah was the best candidate.

                    Without free will, Adam/Eve could not have broken the garden's one rule.

                    The naturally evolved humans were those created in Genesis 1. Adam and Eve were created in an already populated world. The way you can tell is that in Genesis 1 those humans were told to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth and establish dominance in the animal kingdom. These are commandments that would take generations to carry out. Adam and Eve were only given one command and they broke it. Yet the humans created in Genesis 1, along with all the rest of God's creation, was deemed "good". This couldn't be Adam and Eve.

                    You can also tell in Genesis 4 by Cain's concern about the others he'd come in contact with when banished.

                    The 'sons of God' are the descendants of Adam and Eve. They all have free will. In Genesis 6 it says that there are two factions, or groups. There are the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of humans'. Humans, it says, are "mortal" and only live 120 years. This is just one chapter after explaining Adam and his family live for centuries.

                    Not in the case of free will. Everything else works according to His will, so He knows exactly what will happen. But where free will is concerned He doesn't see it until it's part of reality. He can see all time, past and future, all at once. But until free will was part of the timeline He couldn't know what would happen because behavior was determined by a will that was not His.

                    Through commandments given to Moses and through the tabernacle primarily.

                    No, God couldn't foresee until it happened. The flood was to control the contamination of free will into naturally evolved humans.

                    Yes, they were ignorant. That's why there were pharisees during Jesus' time who dedicated their lives to deciphering the meaning of the books of Moses. They all knew the stories well, but were too far removed to truly understand what it was describing.

                    Yes, the books of Enoch were written around 300 BC. As seen by the multiple copies found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, they were very well known. They're great insight into the mindset of the Jews around that time in history, but they're not a good source of information.

                    And the book of Jude probably shouldn't even be in the bible. The bible is man-made, and not without mistakes. Jude is just basically the retelling of a chapter in I think 2 Peter, with the exception of the bits that refer to the book of Enoch.

  2. Oztinato profile image75
    Oztinatoposted 8 years ago

    all you need to do is see the error and not make the error yourself. Yes if a person claims to preach love and then condemns others to hell its an error. It's a sign of low intelligence or gross intolerance on their part. So why should critics then become religiously intolerant themselves? That's an even bigger contradiction.

  3. Hannibal1994 profile image59
    Hannibal1994posted 8 years ago

    Here's everything I believe to be true about religion :-
    it was made by man himself , why you may ask ?
    cause at some point in the revolution humans ate each other , just as animals did , they were driven by their instincts only , sex and aggression , and sex led to aggression , they lived just as animals , and that only put them in the danger of extinction, therefore they needed to change , to sop altogether , and what other way to stop the human from driving their instincts and natural desires ... than fear itself my friends , man needed a supernatural destructive childish creature to fear , so they came up with god , whom , denied them from reckless actions , the concept was pure at the beginning, then edited , then edited again and here we are .
    now if you ask me I think regardless of everything religion is important , because it holds so many dangerous men from committing murder , theft , rape .. etc , sadly because these people haven't evolved beyond what humanity started with .
    sure this does not include all believers .

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Everyone's so quick to dismiss humanity as being delusional fools. Fear is an effective deterrent, but fear itself only makes sense if living things are more than mere biological machines. And that leads right back to God and souls and all of that. Computers don't fear. My car doesn't fear. Yet living things do. Self aware and whose actions are sometimes altered by fear of something. If you're going to dismiss God as the product of a delusional mind, then you have to then account for this mind that gives to fear and this 'self' that has to be put under delusion to properly survive.

      It's common for some to justify dismissing God as fantasy without ever actually considering the reality that's left and what's still unaccounted for in this godless reality they've convinced themselves is real. The whole mentality seems so dependent on it's arguments against God and religion that it's seldom even considered as it's own independent thing. Does it truly stand on it's own when not leaning on its criticisms of God and religion? Most often, no. This is an example of that.

      1. profile image0
        jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        One of the characteristics of living things:   They are sensitive to the environment in which they live.
        We, as humans, are no different.
        We sense the circumstances and react to them.   Automatically, because if we did not react appropriately, we would be disadvantaged over other organisms, we would suffer in some way as a result and even die - individually or as a group.   In the latter case we would "die out."
        Fear is a natural part of being alive as animals.  We MUST react to potential dangers in ways that benefit us and enhance our chance of survival.
        If you want to believe a "God" or "Creator" built this tendency into our human species, then that is your choice.....but the choice is decided by your mind, not an established fact.  It never can be. 
        Back to an old cherry-pick:  The difference between "belief" and "fact."

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          It's just being realistic. Whether or not it came about like you and many assume, as a beneficial trait that propagated because it increased the chance of survival, it's still a characteristic that isn't wholly mechanical. It suggests a sense of self and a sense of danger and a will to protect one self. This isn't like some upgrade you can add to your computer to protect against potentially harmful things. It's just not a mechanical behavior. It's something else. Something that can't be duplicated mechanically, even with all of our know-how.

          Did it evolve? Probably. Is it a randomly mutated characteristic? Probably not. A mutated gene resulting in fear is just too simplistic an explanation that makes very little sense. Fear only works if there's a self-aware being reacting to it. The mistake here is that it's just being viewed as some mechanical characteristic. If we really stop and think about it, there's more going on than that. There has to be something to react to that fear for it to do any good.

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Currently no animals except humans are deemed to be self-aware. It is well documented that non self-aware animals exhibit behaviour that corresponds to fear in humans. Therefore self-awareness is not a prerequisite for fear.

            Looking at the bigger picture, it could be argued that the self-awareness human beings possess, is itself something that evolved over time through the process of natural selection, because of the survival advantages self-awareness brings to the species.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              You're right. 'Self-aware' is a bad way to put it. But it would seem that some level of consciousness has to be there. Because fear itself doesn't cause the change in behavior or action. The change is our response to the fear we feel.

              It could be something that evolved over time. But then again there's really no way of knowing. You could literally put anything in the vernacular of evolution and "explain" it. [blank] evolved as a random mutation that then proved beneficial to those who had it and it propagated. True? Don't know. But it sounds good.

              Besides, fear is something common to all animals, humans included. Even single cells respond to harmful elements by pulling away. Fleeing.

              1. lovetherain profile image80
                lovetherainposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Well put.

                Too often, "it evolved" is put forth as a reason for everything. When it is obvious that sensing, instincts,and emotion are there on all levels of life.

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Responding to stimuli (sensing) is part of the definition of life.  And I don't know that a bacteria has emotions at all, or even an amoeba.  Or instincts, for that matter.

                  1. lovetherain profile image80
                    lovetherainposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    I suspect everything has some sort of consciousness or awareness. At least everything alive.

                2. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Too often, "god" is put forth as a reason for everything.  When it is obvious (as far as we can currently ascertain) that sensing, instincts,and emotion are not on all levels of life.

                  1. lovetherain profile image80
                    lovetherainposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    The behaviour of a bacteria is the same as any other life form. They have a will to live, react to stimuli. Why wouldn't they have emotions and instincts? Do instincts just magically appear in the higher forms of life?

              2. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Defensive behaviour requires neither fear nor consciousness in living organisms. Certain plants, e.g. the mimosa pudica, react 'defensively' to touch. The 'behaviour' of such organisms is no more than a chemical reaction triggered by specific stimuli. It is not a response to fear, and such organisms are not conscious (as far as we understand).

                " there's really no way of knowing. " Depends on what you mean by "knowing". We can accept the most likely explanation based on what we currently understand about the world, until such time as we understand more. In that way "knowing" is an iterative process that becomes more accurate over time. Or we can just say "god did it". It can be demonstrated objectively that the former type of "knowing" has more practical value than the latter. Therefore choosing the former type of knowing, and rejecting the latter, is the most reasonable choice.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  No, I'm sorry. We can't detect or determine whether or not anything has consciousness. We only know it exists because we experience it. So saying behaviors of plants are triggered by specific stimuli and dismiss it as nothing more is baseless. It's an assumption. The chemical reactions are the 'how'. That's what is physically happening. For any sort of physical reaction there will be some sort of correlating physical response. But to say that's all that's happening, you can't. You don't know that.

                  What I mean by knowing is the definition of "knowing". We can't know. Yes, we can accept the most likely explanation. And it's often that that's all we can do. And I disagree that the first choice of 'knowing' and rejecting the latter is the most reasonable. When nature self-aligns into something like coded information in our cells then "god did it" isn't as far fetched as you'd like to make it sound.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Well, there is far fetched and there's far fetched.  That an ET from another universe created this one is a possibility impossible to evaluate with our present knowledge.

                    But that an ET from another universe created the incomprehensible vastness of this one simply to have humans as a friend...well, I'd have to say that that is pretty far fetched.  Others will, of course, disagree

                  2. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    The majority of researchers in the plant science community suggest that the idea of calling plants "intelligent" or "conscious" is based on "superficial analogies and questionable extrapolations", and they reject the concept of "plant neurobiology"(1). So it is accurate to say that plants are not currently deemed to be conscious, as far as we understand it. In other words, what you are suggesting is not the most widely accepted explanation of currently known scientific facts in relation to this particular phenomenon.

                    An assumption is believing something is true without evidence. Not believing something due to insufficient evidence is not an assumption. It's simply not believing something due to lack of evidence.

                    And it is perfectly reasonable to say "based on currently available evidence, a physical reaction is all that's happening". That's the equivalent of saying "there is insufficient evidence to allow us to reasonably conclude that something other that a purely physical reaction is happening". Again, that is not an assumption. It's simply not believing something due to lack of sufficient evidence.

                    Even so, notice how this conclusion is tentative. That's because all scientific knowledge is based on the most likely explanation, given currently available evidence. And therein lies the difference between scientific "knowing" and religious "knowing". The ability to discard previous explanations in favor of new ones, based on new evidence. This is why scientific knowledge is able to improve iteratively and become more accurate over time.

                    In contrast, saying "the natural world has complexity, therefore [insert chosen deity] did it" is not a useful method of acquiring practical knowledge about the world. In fact it is practically useless in that regard.

                    (1) … 20Alpi.pdf

  4. colorfulone profile image78
    colorfuloneposted 8 years ago

    Just my two cents not being a scholar but rather a student of the Bible. My take away from Genesis 6:4 is that the "sons of God" were the fallen angels or aliens if you will. That, they were giants who had sex with the women who produced giants / the men of renown. (thus the flood) That they, the Nephilim were the Philistines (such as Goliath of Gath) who were the evil enemies of the Israelites.   

    Its an interesting topic that I will study more.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      That's very much in line with how many read it. But there's a couple of problems with that view. This is really the only conclusion you're left with if you read the story as meaning Adam and Eve were the first and, for a while, only humans on the Earth. But read it again with the humans being created in Genesis 1 being naturally evolved humans, and the creation of Adam and Eve happening in a world already populated by these humans. It reads very differently and a much clearer story begins to emerge.

      First issue with the idea that the 'sons of Gods' were fallen angels, angels don't have free will and therefore cannot rebel. Only humans were given free will. Second, angels are not flesh, so they have no need to procreate. Procreation is only necessary because of death. Being capable of impregnating human women doesn't make sense.

      Genesis 6 says humans are "mortal" and only live 120 years. Genesis 5 says Adam and his family lived for centuries. Every ancient culture from that part of the world claims immortal male/female gods lived among them, interacted with them, and sometimes bred with them. They're all talking about the same beings because they were really there at one time.

      The Nephilim are said to be the "heroes of old, men of renown". Beings clearly familiar to the intended reader. Gilgamesh was said to be a demigod, half god/half human, by the Sumerians. He'd fit the bill of being a "hero of old, man of renown". And he'd be a familiar legend to the people of that age.

      1. colorfulone profile image78
        colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I read your hub "God Created Evolution: Adam Was Not the First Human, for the Bible Tells Us So" and thought my head was going to explode as I felt my brain expanding.   

        It will be fun studying the Scriptures in this light.  Thank you, Headly!

  5. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    I'd like you to address this in particular from your viewpoint. I've brought it up a couple of times and you've ignored it.

    Please give me your explanation, from the premise of your belief that the mind is created by physical processes, how does a mechanism create a being that then develops a need, or a bias, that it "prefers"? How does that work that a mechanism has a preference that deludes it into seeing things the way it "wants" to see things, rather than how they really are?

    If your viewpoint and your explanation stands up, then it should be able to explain everything that exists. Everything that occurs. I think we can both agree that confirmation bias does indeed exist. It does happen. So explain the mechanics of it. What's your mechanistic explanation?

  6. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    I thought of a good analogy that I think will help illustrate my point about intuition. Watch this clip, it's short, 14 seconds ...

    Now, in your opinion, would you say that man caught that ball?

    If you're a football fan you're probably familiar with this play. The controversy of this play was that the referee ruled it an incomplete pass. The ref explained his call by saying, "After review, it has been determined that the receiver did not maintain possession of the football during the process of the catch. The ball comes loose and hits the ground, therefore the ruling is an incomplete forward pass."

    Now it should be pointed out that this was after the ref reviewed the tape in slow motion from multiple angles. His call was based on this rule ...

    Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 reads: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

    Now you show that clip to my grandmother or a 4 year old child, they'll say that they think he caught that ball. But you ask a highly intelligent, highly trained and experienced NFL referee, he says he did not catch that ball.

    This, I think, is similar to what you're doing. The ref in this case is an expert. He's the informed/science-minded person in this scenario. This rule was put into place due to another similar catch made in a prior game that caused some controversy. It was determined that the situation needed to be articulated specifically and ruled on by committee. So a group of highly intelligent experts in the field of football sat around and discussed and came up with the wording of this rule. During this game, the referee watched replays and with that particular wording of the rule in mind made an informed judgement call.

    Intuition and instinct tells you this man caught this ball. He had it in his possession and with the ball still firmly in hand turned around and reached out, clearly maintaining control. He caught that ball. But then came further intellectual consideration, which caused an experienced and informed, clearly intelligent grown man, to rule against what instinct and intuition says to say this man did not in fact catch this ball.

    What is obvious is obscured by intellect. What should be immediately obvious on further consideration is rationalized as being the opposite.

    That DNA is an intelligently devised process of storing and passing on and using a form of information is rationalized away through careful consideration. Like when you parsed the definition. You rationalized a way to deny it. To deny the point I was trying to make. Your rationalizing away what should be immediately obvious.

  7. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    Also, according to this ...

    ... Yahweh is only mentioned once, as the God of the Israelites. El Shaddai and El Berith are not mentioned, as you suggested. El Elyon is mentioned, which translates as "God most high". It's not a specific name. It's a description.

    1. Claire Evans profile image64
      Claire Evansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      El Shaddai is translated as ’God’ (’el’), THE ALL-MIGHTY ONE (’shadday’). 

      The most widely accepted scholarly view is that ‘El-Shaddai means “El, the mountain one,” relating shaddai to an Akkadian word $adum, “mountain.” Besides being a strong cognate, there are also several other historical factors that seem to lead to this conclusion. For instance, F.M. Cross has noted a Hurrian hymn which specifically describes El as “the one of the mountain.” The word is also used to describe the Amorite deity (Ilu-)Amurru, whose consort is A$ratum, the counterpart of the Canaanite high god ‘El’s consort Athirat (Asherah). Moreover, the Deir ‘Alla instription uses $dyn in parallel with ‘ihn, in reference to the gods of the assembly. Finally, ‘El and his divine assembly met on a mountain.
      Given all of these factors then, ‘El-Shaddai very plausibly means “El, the mountain one,” and is most probably originally a divine title or epithet derived from the Canaanite high god ‘El.

      Genesis 22:14:

      So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."

      Ever wondered why Yahweh met Moses on the mountains to give instructions? … l-shaddai/

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Right, 'El' means "God". So in the same way that you and I use the term "God" and mean one God in particular, others used the term 'El' in the same way. If I say "El Shaddai" I'm most likely speaking of Yahweh. It's a general/generic term. It's not a name.

        1. Claire Evans profile image64
          Claire Evansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          If El was generic in this case, why does El Shaddai, the god of Abraham, mean god of the mountains? Why were their assemblies on the mountains like Yahweh meeting Moses? Can you not see the correlation?

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I imagine assemblies were carried out on mountains because there was no population of humans up on the mountains.

            1. Claire Evans profile image64
              Claire Evansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Did you know that there is a correlation between extra terrestrials and mountains?

     … tains.html

  8. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    It says "watch the Lord in the pillar of fire and of cloud".

    It says "angel of the Lord".

    God appeared as a human, as He did a number of times, not in the form He appeared to Moses.

    All it describes is His voice. The arrows, it says, were bolts of lightening.

    Right, God showed Moses a piece of wood, which He could have done any number of ways, then Moses threw it in the water.

    I'm aware of the false assumption that the OT is influenced by the Urgarit text because those doing the assuming haven't made the connections and correlations that I have.

    Canaanites, like many others, were not in direct contact with God like the Israelites were. They were near, heard names, but didn't have it all right.

    The OT acknowledges Baal as a god of another land, and not one and the same as God.

    Again, these describe His voice, and speak of bolts of lightning.

    I'll just start with that. You should get the point.

    1. Claire Evans profile image64
      Claire Evansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      How did the Egyptians recognize that it was Yahweh in the pillar of clouds and see him watching them?


      What? Moses saw Yahweh in a physical form with a face and hands.  God talking Moses means he would have had legs and hands.  Are you saying that God had a different face to what Moses saw compared to what his wife saw?  Are you making this up that he had different forms? How did Moses' wife see God coming?

      All it describes is His voice. The arrows, it says, were bolts of lightening.

      No, he shoots his arrows and lightening accompanies it.  It doesn't mean the arrows were the bolts of lightening.  How does God's voice shoot arrows and scatter the enemy?

      How did God show him?

      Oh, so because it doesn't fit what you believe then it must be false?

      How do you know that? 

      I don't believe they are one and the same.  It is apparent, however, that Yahweh became a storm god due to the influence of Baal.  The Israelites got their source from the Urgarit text, I would say. 

      WHY is Yahweh always compared to bolts of lightning like Baal? Can you not see the correlation between the two?

      I actually don't appreciate you cherry picking. 

      Let's try again:

      Then Baal opened a slit in the clouds,
      Baal sounded his holy voice,
      Baal thundered from his lips. . .
      the earth’s high places shook.
      Baal’s enemies fled to the woods,
      Hadad’s haters took to the mountains.
      And Baal the Conqueror said:
      “Hadad’s enemies, why are you quaking?
      why are you quaking, assailers of the Valiant One?”
      Baal’s eye guided his hand,
      as he swung a cedar in his right hand.
      So Baal was enthroned in his house.
      “No other king or non-king
      shall set his power over the earth.
      I will send no tribute to Ers son Death,
      no homage to El’s Darling, the Hero.
      Let Death cry to himself,
      let the Darling grumble in his heart;
      for I alone will rule over the gods;
      I alone will fatten gods and men;
      I alone will satisfy earth’s masses.” 3

      Baal's voice is like thunder.  Yahweh's voice is like thunder.  Baal's enemies scatter to the woods, Yahweh's enemies scatter. 

      Please give me your thoughts on this.

      Ugaritic text: The sons of 'AL, the assembly of the stars:

      ..."That the sons of 'AL (El) may know and the assembly of the stars may understand"...

      ..."When the morning stars sang together, and shouted for joy all the sons of 'Alohim (YHWH)"...
      -JOB 38: 7

      In fact, the sons of El were known as the morning stars: … mp;f=false

      Yahweh and Baal were so similar, even though they always competed with one another, that Yahweh was called Baal:

      -HOSEA 2: 16-17:
      ...And it shall be on that day, says YHWH, that you shall call me, 'AYSHY (Personal), and shall call Me no more Baali (My Baal). For I will take away the names of the Baals out of her (Israel's) mouth, and they shall no more remember their name"... -HOSEA 2: 16-17

      The Canaanite god El had 70 sons each being allotted one of the 70 nations.

      From the Dead Sea Scrolls:

      DEUTERONOMY 32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you.  8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the SONS OF GOD.  9 For the LORD's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted heritage. (RSV)

      Who is the Lord? Yahweh.  We can see the Lord is just another name for Yahweh:

      "For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh, who among the sons of EL is like Yahweh,"

      Another version:

      Psalm 89:6:

      For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?

      As you can see in the latter verse, heavenly beings are the sons of El.

      English revised version:

      For who in the skies can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty is like unto the LORD,

      El is referred to as the Almighty and Lord is Yahweh.

  9. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    I don't know. It only describes a pillar of fire and cloud. But it was probably more an association with the Israelites and not a being that they recognized.

    Because He appeared as a human when Moses' wife saw Him. Not in His true form. It explains in Exodus 33 that no one can see His face and live.

    There was a voice heard and lightening seen. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. They just described it in a way they understood, arrows.

    Any number of ways. It doesn't specifically say.

    This isn't about what I believe. This is what I can prove to be true.

    Because God only interacted with the Israelites.

    The Ugarit, assuming they were familiar with it, may have inspired names or descriptions. It's hard to say.

    Perhaps descriptions of Baal were inspired by Yahweh.

    The 'sons of God' were the long living descendants of Adam, seen by mortal humans as gods. What this is saying is that as god-like as they may be, they are no comparison to God, or Yahweh. He's something totally different.

    1. Claire Evans profile image64
      Claire Evansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      What is his true form? Jesus never referred to the Father even being in human form.  He was the one in human form.  Have you ever maybe considered that Yaweh is an extra terrestrial that can converse with humans? In order for God to speak with Moses, he would have to be in human form every time he spoke with Moses. 

      This segment is of the literal translation of the OT.  It gives the real explanation to what this means:

      Comments, please?

      No, they knew what lightening was.  This wasn't even not to be understood.  As I said, the lightening was compared to arrows but was something that accompanies the lightening. 

      But you won't consider it is because God was in a physical form showing him?

      I beg to differ.

      That is because he was designated Israel by his father, El.  People knew of foreign gods.  If the Israelites did, then others would have known about Yahweh. 

      Or the other way round?

      Since when are mortal humans known as morning stars? 

      Ugaritic text: The sons of 'AL, the assembly of the stars:

      ..."That the sons of 'AL (El) may know and the assembly of the stars may understand"...

      ..."When the morning stars sang together, and shouted for joy all the sons of 'Alohim (YHWH)"...
      -JOB 38: 7

      In fact, the sons of El were known as the morning stars: … mp;f=false

      Your explanation doesn't gel with the facts.  You are filled with "maybes" and "I don't knows".

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        They're talking about stars. It's poetic. When the morning stars sing. The stars that are in the morning sky. The morning star, Venus, is the bright light in the sky that comes up on the horizon in the morning. It's a poetic way to describe the time of day. That this was happening in the morning. In that age, no electricity, the night sky was very prominent. When you said to someone "the morning star" everyone knows that refers to that bright star on the horizon in the morning.

        1. Claire Evans profile image64
          Claire Evansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          That's interesting.  So Lucifer is not the morning star? Nor is Jesus?

  10. Oztinato profile image75
    Oztinatoposted 8 years ago

    Is that because mountain men volunteer for alien intimate probing? smile
    Or maybe it's easier to land on a mountain as it's closer to outer space?

    1. Live to Learn profile image60
      Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It could just be too much moonshine.

  11. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image83
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    Thank you for that link. Really interesting. Do you not see how that fits exactly what I'm saying? Why else would God, each time He appeared, have to 'introduce' Himself? Because He was taking a different human form each time. So when this stranger walks up He has to explain that He's actually God. The same God He spoke with before.

    He also speaks about how Moses needed to know He could trust this God over all the 'others'. The other gods. Adam and his family.

    In the same way the Orion constellation was seen as a warrior figure in the sky holding a bow, lightening was seen as arrows.

    Yahweh was different. Others knew of a "sky God". Different than the others. The others were a constant. Over in the valley lives Adam, who lived there back when there great, great, great, great grandfather was alive. Everyone knew of them. Yahweh, on the other hand, spoke through bushes, appeared as different humans.

    1. Claire Evans profile image64
      Claire Evansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      You should actually watch the whole series.  Do you actually believe what you are saying? What biblical scholar actually corroborates what you are saying? Let's examine this again:

      Yahweh speaks to Moses on mountains.  Other mountain gods that had assemblies.  Yahweh actually was carrying an object (kavod) that had powers to burn people if looked at.  Why would God have that? You didn't address that part.  Do you agree with that? Why did God have to take different forms all the time so that He needed to introduce Himself over and over again?

      And we need to ask ourselves why Moses' face got burned.  Mauro says it was a microwave beam that burned Moses.  This is what the Ark of the Covenant was.  It explains why people dropped dead if they touched it. 

      That is because the constellation looked like that. 

      There is another theory.  The literal translation talks about Yahweh having a device that generated energy that could burn people if they came to close.  That same thing killed people that touched it.  Mauro said it was due to a microwave beam.  There is microwave technology that can be used in warfare.

      "A recent report derived from the testing program of the Microwave Research Department of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research states, "Microwave energy in the range 1 to 5 GHz, a militarily important range, penetrates all organ systems of the body and thus puts all organ systems at risk." Effects on the central nervous system are considered very important. The testing program, begun in 1986, is divided into four parts: (1) prompt debilitation effects; (2) prompt stimulation through auditory effects; (3) work interference/stoppage effects; and (4) effects on stimulus-controlled behavior. The report goes on to state, "Microwave pulses appear to couple to the central nervous system and produce stimulation similar to electrical stimulation unrelated to heat." It appears that HPM is capable of altering behavior in the same fashion as Delgado's electrical stimulation."

      "The Active Denial System (ADS) is a non-lethal, directed-energy weapon developed by the U.S. military,[2] designed for area denial, perimeter security and crowd control.[3] Informally, the weapon is also called the heat ray[4] since it works by heating the surface of targets, such as the skin of targeted human subjects. "

      "The ADS works by firing a high-powered beam of 95 GHz waves at a target, which corresponds to a wavelength of 3.2 mm.[13] The ADS millimeter wave energy works on a similar principle as a microwave oven, exciting the water and fat molecules in the skin, and instantly heating them via dielectric heating. One significant difference is that a microwave oven uses the much lower frequency (and longer wavelength) of 2.45 GHz. The short millimeter waves used in ADS only penetrate the top layers of skin, with most of the energy being absorbed within 0.4 mm (1/64"),[14] whereas microwaves will penetrate into human tissue about 17 mm (0.67").[15]

      The ADS's repel effect in humans occurs at slightly higher than 44 °C (111 °F), though first-degree burns occur at about 51 °C (124 °F), and second-degree burns occur at about 58 °C (136 °F).[16] In testing, pea-sized blisters have been observed in less than 0.1% of ADS exposures, indicating that second degree surface burns have been caused by the device.[16] The radiation burns caused are similar to microwave burns, but only on the skin surface due to the decreased penetration of shorter millimeter waves. The surface temperature of a target will continue to rise so long as the beam is applied, at a rate dictated by the target's material and distance from the transmitter, along with the beam's frequency and power level set by the operator. Most human test subjects reached their pain threshold within 3 seconds, and none could endure more than 5 seconds.[17]

      A spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory described his experience as a test subject for the system:

      "For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and warmer and you felt like it was on fire. ... As soon as you're away from that beam your skin returns to normal and there is no pain.

      There is also something called radiant energy.

      "Radiant energy is energy of electromagnetic waves. It is a form of energy that can travel through space. For example, we receive the heat from the sun, which is located very far from the earth via radiation. The sun's heat is not transmitted through any solid medium, but through a vacuum. This is possible by electromagnetic waves."

      "When radiant energy comes into contact with matter, it changes the properties of that matter. For example, when micro-waves (which forms part of the entire spectrum) are set off in a microwave oven, the water molecules in the food are charged and caused to vibrate billions of times per second, generating heat, that causes the food to cook. The microwave oven works with the concept of radiant energy (electromagnetic waves)." … nergy.html

      Now look at Exodus 34:

      29 When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the covenant law in his hands, he was not aware that his face was [/b]radiant[b]because he had spoken with the Lord. 30 When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him.

      Perhaps Moses had learned his lesson and had kept a distance and the radiant energy at a sfve level made his face glow. The veil would have helped.

      Now to the lightening arrows.

      "Tesla, Yugoslavian genius, indentified what he called ‘Radiant Energy’ or ‘Teleforce’ in 1889. It was discovered during experiments that Tesla did to duplicate what the German Heinrich Hertz had done in 1887, proving the existence of electromagnetic waves.

      While copying Hertz’s experiments, Tesla experimented with violently abrupt direct current electrical discharges and discovered scalar energy, a new force, in the process. In 1904 Tesla announced he’d completed his work using scalar waves to transmit energy without wires but unfortunately when he tried to get support for it, a setback occurred.

      A drawback to having giant Tesla transmitters poised to shoot bolts of lightning at an enemy approaching the coasts is that they would have to be located in an uninhabited area equal to its circle of protection. Anyone stepping into the defensive zone of the coils would be sensed as an intruder and struck down. Today, with the development of oil drilling platforms, this disadvantage might be overcome by locating the lightning defensive system at sea." … tech37.htm

      And today:

      "The latest idea coming out of Picatinny Arsenal in New jersey is a device that can hit targets with bolts of lighting, you know, Tesla death ray-style. Dubbed the Laser-Induced Plasma Channel, or LIPC, the weapon is designed to zap targets such as enemy vehicles since they conduct electricity better than the air or the ground that surrounds them." … ing-bolts/

      No wonder why Yahweh's enemies were terrified of him.  Tesla was claimed to have been in contract with aliens for his technology.  Well, if you assume Yahweh was one, then it makes sense why Yahweh would have that technology. 

      Imagine if the Christian church knew this!

      He was no different.  He was just one of 70 gods assigned possession of lands.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)