Yeah, I like to say we found satan's mom, he's the Son of Dawn.

It's true that both lucifer (helel) and satan are titles so we don't get a real name, and both titles are highly overplayed in the churchianity wing of the real Jesus followers.

I can see your taking Anu-Enki-Enlil-Marduk and templating El-Shahar-Shalim-Helel over that (though Helel is the 8th-century title and the others are all very old Sumerian or Canaanite; Shahar as deity is rare enough we oddly have no older indications of any sons). But knowing the Isaiah tradition from his other poetry (some of the greatest of the millennium), he would be trying to rehabilitate "shahar" more than to build on an Enki-Marduk connection, even if that parallel is secondary in his mind. By the Isaiah II-III period (58:8), we have shachar as a positive feature of the messianic Day of Yahweh. I also found the Davidic "rehem mishchar", womb of the dawning (from shachar), in the messianic Ps. 110:3, which is definitely in Isaiah's mind; so the helel becomes a messianic claimant, an aspirant to the priest-king archetypal destiny.

Also by this time "son" is more metaphorical than regarded as genealogical among deities, i.e., helel is singularly representative of Venus-Dawn (Aphrodite, Astarte, Inanna). Seeing that Astarte was also later merged with Eos-Dawn, I'd venture to say that despite Shahar's masculine grammar (M) the word connects with more feminine contexts (F). So if Isaiah is familiar with Shahar weShalim, which is tenable, he could be invoking a connection between Astarte and helel that is representative rather than generative, and this would then be intended also to inform the character found in Job, the satan who is son of El (I don't generally say grandson as that concept is rarer than son's son).

So the thesis that El-Shahar(M)-Shalim is to be connected to Shahar-Helel to make a parallel history to Anu's family is not unmerited, but weaker than alternatives (which of course often coexist without being regarded as contradiction). I would certainly say the half-brother narrative as a recurring archetype is as significant as you note, and it makes one inquire of its original. But, at the same time, if I said El-Astarte?-Satan is also parallel to Elyon-Shahar(F)-Helel, that wouldn't be rejectable out of hand either.

Now the question then goes to what is the historian's intended narrative of all this. Either we're talking about history of some real family of humans or other sentients, or we're talking about categorization of deified concepts, with some overlap between the two. In the conceptual category it's not too troubling because concepts like Calf or Dawn are free to float around with multiple relationships. In the genealogical category we ultimately come to either dynasties or "watchers" and we have the harder problem that history is not allowed to contradict itself. In the overlap category I think we should consider deity names as we regard corporation names nowadays, namely they merge and split and take on or abandon meanings: so Marduk, if he is some spiritual entity, started out local but then may have taken on (some) connections that gave him rights in more names or titles, like satan. However, to me this doesn't rise to the level of plot hole in the Hebrew transmission, as I have such high standards for what would be irremediable holes that I can retcon most anything, and the ability to retcon later is often part of the intentional ambiguity of the originals.

I agree that people should talk about these things! I've noted that among Christians it's relegated to seminarians who then perceive that the Enlightenment covered it so exhaustively that there's nothing new to say or to "bore" the flock with. But unless we have robust understanding of the breadth of the sources (especially those taken as gospel), we fall prey to dropping one gospel for another hastily without validating either.

Add: Plus among my research tabs we have the pre-Davidic song "Aijeleth Shahar" (Ps. 22:1 KJV), dawn hind, which is the sun that reveals its horns (rays, wings) at dawn. This is certainly something Isaiah had seen preserved in Hezekiah's archives, which gives the relationship of Shamash-Utu intimate with Shahar, while Marduk's name comes from Utu. That might get us to Anu-Enki-Ninmah-Enlil-Marduk and templating El-Utu-Shahar(F)-Shalim-Helel over that (where Shahar is taken as the fertility goddess Ninmah wife of Enki). But it's all relative!

Hmm, it becomes quite a web, and I totally affirm the amassing of piles and the distinction of solid evidence from stretchers.

Namr-Ud goes back to the old Jewish Encyclopedia, which is a bit suspect. I'll buy that Marduk comes from Sumerian Amar-Utu-Ak (with Utu being the Anuna), but then the other JE reading "ideographically" would have to be An-Amar-Utu, where the dingir is read as "An" meaning "sky".

Though Babylon was very minor in that day, we might speculate that Moses might have known of a then-local tradition of An-Amar-Utu via the Babylonian Chronicles about King Amar-Sin, which would have been available to Abram in Ur, so the transmission is not impossible, though ranked dubious.

The difficulties become (1) Moses regards Nimrod as a Cushite king, nor an obscure Ur deity; (2) It's a bit more likely Amar-Sin was not related to Marduk from the then-obscure Babylon, but to the Amorite namesake-deity Martu from Lagash (though I wouldn't be surprised if these were spiritual clones); (3) Hall is not a reliable source and though amaru is extant you'd think there'd be a better source for ka meaning soil in Incan or Mayan; (4) you'd need a transmission chain from Amar-Utu to amaru, which is highly unlikely.

So you're right it's intriguing, but there are so many intrigues in pseudoetymology that I brush some off or bookmark them to see if they ever accumulate better evidence. My take is that, first, although making Marduk/Merodach into Nimrod is not impossible, it's likelier that Marduk started out a relative nobody and Nimrod started out hot and heavy (here I propose his identity with Naram-Sin grandson of Sargon). Second, the theory of amaru-ka is somewhat competitive, but I don't have that linked to the east yet; the feathered serpent is a very different chain of transmission from the calf. Mental note: look for eastern serpents named similar to amaru.

Third, your most potent connection is that the original Marduk would have been an Anuna (using your term) and was probably one among several inspirations for the modern satan. The other connections may be better explained by convergent etymology than divergent. Summarizing for my own reference, amaru (Inca serpent), Martu or Amarru (Lagash representation of Amorites), and Amar-Utu (Babylon local calf deity) have tempting appearances of connection but not clear paths of identity. (The fact that Amar-Sin connects to both Martu and Amar-Utu does not converge them; the fact that Naram-Sin connects to Amar-Sin does not converge Nimrod and Marduk. Also today I discovered Nin-Urta (older Nippur barley deity, possibly later Nisroch), who is similarly not likely to be Nimrod despite the consonants.) If, however, "satan" is to be defined as the worst of the Anuna, I'm not sure offhand that'd be Marduk, who is dependent on Utu/Shamash.

America turns out to be named after Satan.

Snooping on you, I found this one interesting. Do you have the goods on (my guess) MLK or something, because I haven't found a core etymology as solid as yours sounds?

A quick hunt shows you mean Milkoth haShamaim as a translated title? Very good, no, I wasn't thinking of that connection specifically though I had it on my radar. It's more direct for me to say Dumuzid is Tammuz.

My question is though what is the most significant good info on the subject in your opinion? What do you think is being hidden from us? If we tracked the career of Naram-Sin King of the Universe, for instance, who enlarged empire and tried to make himself one of these beings (an Anuna), we might get a little instruction, but for us to get to today's problems takes a bit more recent study too IMHO. So those who are missing out on the ancient history aren't missing that much by comparison.

Thanks for the detail. I've been skeptical of Sitchin for other reasons so you can understand that Heiser would resonate better with me. What he seemed to be doing in that clip was to demonstrate that without exacting quotation of the ancient sources, which he was indeed expert on, one weakens one's own case. I don't immediately have a proof or disproof that Anunnaki is a spelling initiated by Sitchin.

Despite his flaws, I haven't ruled out all of von Daniken yet, because it looks like the Igigi, related to the Anuna, may have been sighted in the New World. I'm also pursuing the track of Inanna with relish, and she seems counted among them. But the biggie is the legend behind Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch, a little bit in Jubilees, moderated by the king lists and the other most ancient legends. If you think those texts may "divert" people from Anunnaki study, well, that's where I've been diverted. What would be interesting today in their study, other than as a history not to repeat?

So I'll take your Heiser note under advisement, but when I've followed through he's always been reliable.

I see you mean the arched, capped box in the back, behind the boat with its two stands. Readers will want to know this review starts at 28:00 in RJ's link and there are good angles on it for 30:00-32:00. Otherwise the link is primarily about Abusir pyramids (5th dynasty), while Edfu temple is Ptolemaic dynasty, after the 31st. The OP attempts to make this Edfu box contemporaneous with a similar structure at Abusir. I'll grant the evidence that its construction solidity makes it appear much older, but not necessarily prediluvian.

Abusir is quite interesting for its own sake, in that the 5th dynasty had nowhere near the technology of the 4th, and had abandoned Giza. This is consistent with a dynasty break as would be necessary in the event of the deluge. So it's possible these are just postdiluvian Old Kingdom work, while the Great Pyramids and Sphinx would be prediluvian, along with Menes.

5th dynasty would be overlapping with Sumer and Akkad, and with the rapid Hamitic growth and language dispersion testified by the Table of Nations. I'm still going to read the Edfu inscriptions linked by your video, but I don't expect surprises.

u/freedomlogic, u/Primate98, the cylinder seals are also very interesting as separate testimonies. At c/Christianity we discussed Heiser's expert ruling on some of these seals, as the iconography can be studied very exactly. The period of the seals is similar to Abusir (not Edfu), but the traditions are often from quite different strands.

Thank you for saying so! Yeah, u/Thisisnotanexit is both sensitive and thick-skinned in different ways. I trust she'll let me rib her with a little spelling flame: if she were Jewish she would have spelled it Tanakh.

No, what we are is Christians who want whatever Jesus is and has for us. He loves the OT (Tanakh), so we do also. In fact we believe our salvation consists entirely in, not what we did, but solely what Jesus did to keep perfectly every single Abraham-Isaac-Jacob mad writing there is. If Jesus kept all of them perfectly, it means there must be some way in which the facially-confusing talk about genocides and mixed fabrics all makes sense; and if it makes sense to Jesus he's such a great guy (because he's the incarnation of my Creator) that I trust it will make sense to me in time too.

If you want to start with your own judgment and never move from there, I guess you could say the OT doesn't make sense to you now and so it might never. But surely you believe that ancestors weren't morons, they did and said things for a reason. My ancestors passed on to me the writings they thought most holy, as I'm sure yours did. (Check out that Havamal, very sacred in the right context.) So if you find the OT "mad" it may be that your judgment will change given more exposure and dialogue.

u/MOCKxTHExCROSS u/Neo1

Ever aka always aka way of all implies forwards...each TEMPORARY one within implies backwards.

Forwarding (inception towards death) divisions (life)...

Con-dicere (speaking together) aka suggested words meeting con-sent, thereby contradicting being send apart from one another.

Con-entera-diction (speaking together between). If "contradiction" is contradiction, then, "ignoring" is better diction; e.g. sending-together "ignores" sending-apart.

That's why suggestion contradicts perception...since nature doesn't utter words by putting letters together. It's ones consent LETTING others shape LETTERS into words with attached meaning.

Nature puts codons together! E.g. Felis catus "CATCATCATCAT".

ONE (apart) + CON (together with)...there's the contradiction

Again:

Each temporary one dies within ever forwarding all.

one dies within

temporary one within ongoing all

.... Self discernment is about ones living position within process of dying.

Ones response to spirit can make turns in-between inhaling and exhaling. Filling belly/chest and lungs allows all kinds of opportunities for vibration/compression/eddying mass aka turning/bending into a vortex etc.

Enacting breath (momentum) of God (motion) into reacting spirit/spiro - "to breathe" (matter).

(Enacting) breath turns, (reacting) spirit turns. Breath of God: If God (motion), God (spirit).

The spirit you describe as "turning fro and back" implies matter; while the directed spirit implies the momentum (breath) of motion (God). Ones choice "turns" incoming spirit within the formed vessel of matter...or however else one chooses to blow it.

Choice turns spirit; perceptive. Fro and back. Choosing implies matter (forward/backward), directing implies spirit (fro/back) within.

a) Ever forwarding (inception towards death) temporal reactions backwards (life)

b) Ever forwarding divides from all into ones, motion into matter; action into reactions etc.

Temporal backwards reactions multiply through each other (intercourse for off-spring) in-between addition (inception) and subtraction (death).

Velocity implies constant change, which resistance adapting within perceives as implication (if/then)...unless ignored for suggested temptations, which establish reason (versus aka turning against one another).

Hence living (increase) within process of dying (decrease), while wielding the free will of choice to increase or decrease oneself and one another.

If so, then, "ever forwarding divides from all" (whole) "into ones, motion" (God) "into matter" (breath), "action" (momentum) "into reactions" (spirit). God/momentum implies spirit, breath/reaction implies sound. Choice re-turns spirit and sound to God.

If you present as an atheist, it would be rude of me to shove an unaccepted Bible or unaccepted God down your throat. It's more important to me to know what you do believe about e.g. why Christianity is good for people and what to do about right and wrong (plan of salvation). Then we have grounds for comparing paths. Christianity doesn't say "You must convince of God's existence by the Bible", we didn't have the whole Bible for most of the covenant people's existence. Plus, why should I repeat what others have shown you in the Bible, which hasn't worked, when something else might work as pre-evangelism (in the Bible, Jesus implies ground must be broken up sometimes before something can be planted).

In our whole conversation, you've left me in the dark about your current stance. So I ask specifically: What is your brain saying was the illusion? Who told you this first? Why do you believe that voice, and throw out everything from the voices of Christianity in your life? Why not build on (synthesize) what you leaned both then and now? How come you imply you have no responsibility for either belief, when you do believe in responsibility?

Forever and ever implies multiplying forward; while back implies a division...a contradiction. In reality...forwards (motion) and backwards (matter) are balanced (momentum). The position of being implies backwards within forwarding origin .... If "forever and ever back"; then no forwarding of temporal being.

For ever implies multiplying forward, back ever implies dividing backward, dividing balances multiplying. "Backwards (father) within forwarding (son)."

CON (together) contradicts ONE (apart from one another).

Con-tra-dicts? "Temporary one ... within" implies "temporary one con-", in:

Each temporary one dies within ever forwarding all.

Inception implies death

Inception implies dying; then, each temporary dying one, and each temporary dying within, balanced.

Spirit doesn't respond to a turn

"Shall the dust return ...: and the spirit shall return." Spirit turns fro, and turns back. Exhale and inhale, enact and react?

Implication (if/then) requires the same velocity

Then, for ever and back ever implies tempos (times) multiply forward, and multiply back (divides). Velocity changes, implication adapts.

stretching partials cannot increase or decrease whole

Stretching partials (contemporaries) increases, and can decrease, partials.

all is one in energy

Given your length, I outline so you can read selectively.

a. I don't define into existence, which would indeed be fallacy. I observe real things, compare things, and judge one to be the greatest thing, by scientific method. I then further observe this greatest thing. By that process I confirm all the core Christian truths listed in my link https://scored.co/c/Atheist/p/141reluACp/-burden-of-proof-is-on-the-one-m/c/4OUfR2Rkd1Q (thank you for asking specifically about them).

b. I quote Sagan because he used scientific method (observation) to determine meaningful definitions (nature of Cosmos). I think you haven't once engaged with these basic truths by affirming that things exist and that we can refer meaningfully to the sum of all being by a name such as Cosmos. I'm glad you recognize what it's like to be transitioning in belief, you'll need that.

You think I'm not a real Christian because I respect you enough not to overload you with detail (as in fact you asked) until you're ready. So here's the paths from basic panentheism to real, full Christianity:

1. "Jesus Christ as your savior": Most atheists agree Cosmos implies right and wrong and that they have done wrong. Reviewing all systems of righting wrongs, I've concluded Jesus's system ("salvation") is the best.

2. "heaven and hell": Recognizing the Cosmos contains consciousness, found in informatic selves (minds), I ask whether consciousness can be restored once lost by the self (resurrection). Both historical testimony and modern experience with millions of NDEs indicate so, so I've concluded everlasting destiny exists, and has at least two characters based on one's system of righting wrong.

3. "the Christian God": I proved the Cosmos was infinite (limitless); so I conclude the basic definition of Christian God by proving the Cosmos is also personal. Since I proved the Cosmos contains the sum of all consciousnesses (persons), the immediate conclusion is that it too has every characteristic of person, in which human persons subsist. The Cosmos, being limitless, also contains the unknown, so it's sufficiently transcendent to be identified with the Christian God (i.e. not impersonal panentheism but consistent with the other creeds).

4. "the bible as THE one and only authoritative source that Trumps everything else": I think so, but to prove this I would first define standards of authority, then determine which historical documents have authority for comparison, then realize the Bible has at least a high standard, then realize the Bible's statements if given a high standard demand instead an ultimate standard. That's outlined in my link.

5. "the label 'supernatural' on behalf of their God": "Supernatural" is not in the Bible, "miracle", "magic", "marvel", and "wonder" are. If these mean that which makes people marvel and wonder (the unexplained), good; if these mean nature contrary to nature, they would be contradictory. Again, C. S. Lewis, Miracles. I quibble about supernature because God cannot contradict his own nature; but if this quibble is accepted the word can then be used.

6. "the blood of Christ washing away your sins": Yes, that's Jesus's salvation all right. Blood proves commitment unto death, proving by the highest possible standard that Jesus's commitment to save was genuine and pure and his right to everlasting life was unimpeachable. Resurrection proves his power to share that life with us, purging our corruptions. Seems very reasonable given that atheists agree right and wrong exist.

7. "They don't make arguments where they equate god to the universe or a force of nature": They do, but they don't ignore his personhood either. I respect you enough not to overwhelm you with personhood while we deal with other attributes. Christians say God is All Being, not just the (observable) universe, but the whole (known and unknown system) Cosmos: his name is "I Am", implying All Being, personally. Christians say God is many impersonal things, Light, Love, Spirit, Way. "Force" is not used this way Biblically, but Power and Authority are, Energy is used in Orthodoxy the same way, and LORD of Hosts means "I Am of Forces". So when theologians inquire in colloquy with atheists, they agree with atheists that "In him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28 quoting Epimenides, also Aratus).

I did have minor "grief" or "anger" on realizing my parents' system of Christianity, while sufficient, was incomplete. I "accepted" losing the imperfections because of the much greater joy on finding further completions and on anticipating the process continuing forever. That's scientific method. I did choose Christianity:

belief is not voluntary. You never chose to be a Christian.

If true, you admit you might become a Christian without any choice; great! If false, you would need to accept the responsibility of choice and investigate both your former faith and the attack that removed certain illusions from it but left you to doubt the solid part of it. Just because you recognized that your original system was imperfect doesn't mean the system needs total discarding: rather, the scientific method is that we refine theories and surgically remove imperfections by greater observation and experiment. In this, I don't wish people luck, I wish you blessing. You're free to share about "trying to cling to something [what thing?] you know [how?] isn't true".

personally I like Christianity (real Christianity not fake internet Diest-christianity) and think it's a force for good in the world

Thanks for the encouragement.

There's a lot of writing to be done, and time and logistics are a factor involved. But God's been gracious so far with letting me put out these insights so I will continue to churn them out as he sees fit.

It's not a fallacy to want to proceed slowly and deal with foundations first before getting to the complexities. But the link I provided shows the whole chain to the essential deep claims for those who jump ahead.

The first foundation is the argument for the Cosmos being a greatest thing, which is fundamental to how Christians describe God (technically the Christian panentheist route). Then we discern the Cosmos contains all reality, activity, order, life, etc. If you want to divert to a specific feature of "God", go ahead; but we've resolved the point you raised, showing that the Greatest Thing is not "supernatural" according to the totality of known and unknown laws of nature. Great atheist James Randi proved this, saying: if a so-called "miracle" or "magic" occurs in scientific testing, it isn't truly supernatural but something about which newly known laws can be proposed.

The fact that a "most convincing" argument against deity must exist does not prove that argument is valid: I understood "convincing" in the sense of indeterminate probabilism. If I had said valid arguments for and against deity both exist, that would be invalid and false. The student of truth listens reasonably to all arguments for and against deity before selecting tentative or firmer conclusions. One argument eventually overpowers another by preponderance of evidence, and disagreements get resolved.

TLDR: The Cosmos contains all power and thought and life. Do you acknowledge, with great atheist Carl Sagan, that it exists and contains all that was, is, or will be? Would you decline to answer that question in colloquy with that fellow atheist? The rest is just refining evidence about this greatest thing, which we can get to as soon as we agree on the foundation.

Accepting death by the hands of others doesn't quite trigger the "will over respiration" achievement...

Spirit, into your (All) hands.

Temporal within ongoing passing through one another aka sprouting/germination/offspring...

Which self is first (original)?

What comes out of the process of dying? Each living one coming to be within. All perceivable implies "input" coming out of process of dying; each ones perception implies living within.

Then, process of dying, (towards) to death, forever and ever back.

"seek an you shall find" .... Living implies resisting the process of dying .... Loss generates growth ; growth re-generates during loss .... Only growth experiences loss .... one being will .... Utilizing guide to grow life

Then, forever and ever back.

Form resisting dominating flow by free will of choice.

Responsible.

If loss of form is partial, then WHOLE could grow...which contradicts whole.

Reality: Form within flow (parts) represent whole. Loss acts/subtracts (to flow) and growth reacts/adds (from flow) upon parts within whole (all).

Each temporary one dies within ever forwarding all.

If each temporary one within, then each one contemporary (con-tempo): forever and ever back. Suggesting each one dies ignores spirit returning (turning fro and back). Forever and ever back implies multiplying tempo both forward and back (within ongoing by division between forward and back).

Just because perceivable implies dying, doesn't mean that ones living perception has to ignore itself for it.

Then, dying implies living: discerning self ....

Temporal matter forwards and back (choice) within momentum (balance) of ongoing motion.

I'm glad you have a good grasp of logical fallacy, so we can speak more briefly.

1. I didn't specify the measurement standard, but by my reference to Democritus extent in spacetime is sufficient.

2. Science operates by reasonable inference from observation. We don't need to measure everything to know the Universe (or Cosmos, says great atheist Sagan) is the most extensive thing in spacetime.

3. I wasn't arguing for omniscient or omnipotent (yet), nor did I argue that the most gold means nothing but gold.

4. The most convincing argument that gods are fake is in a different class from the most convincing argument that some god is real, so we need to compare the two classes.

Now, given that, we can measure other aspects of this Cosmos. Since Sagan defines it to be all that ever was, is, or will be, by that definition it comprises all else, including all action (power) and all encoded information (knowledge). There is no power or knowledge held by any part of the universe that is not also held by the universe itself, as Adler would proceed to demonstrate. Is that clear?

Where is the testable proposition that confirms Christianity?

Christianity makes many propositions. Mortimer Adler indicated a good proposition to start with is that "one thing in existence is measurably the greatest". This is shared by both Christianity and many other positive systems, but is rejected by nihilistic systems. If you agree with that proposition, then we can exclude the nihilistic class and proceed to narrowing the positive class, by investigate what this "greatest thing" consists of. It seems that every test and corollary has demonstrated that things are measurable and thus one thing is the greatest.

If instead you want to jump ahead, it would be more proper for you to express a proposition that disconfirms Christianity. You may have tried this direct route already, but I've answered in place and we may need to continue to engage that. I admit the Bible is my source, but if you want to investigate the truth claims it needs to be done without the informal logical fallacy (well-poisoning) of declaring it stupid without testing the evidence. You may, for instance, object to "miracle" as being "supernatural", but Christians believe all events follow laws and so they realize (C. S. Lewis, Miracles) that we only call it "magic" until we understand the laws at work. If you were previously exposed to Christians who officiously refused to investigate topics labeled "miracle", that's not the only kind of Christian there is. (Per your first question, they and I would be happy to dialogue toward agreement in one spirit.)

You are claiming to know the answer though... GAWD did it.... That's the answer... That's where the universe came from.

I claim to know enough answer to put it into words and to indicate the part of the answer I don't know. Every origin theory does the same. I was reading an eminently reasonable black-hole paper where it's properly indicated that we can't know anything about black holes by direct observation; but what we do know is that black hole theory is the simplest explanation and anything else would require greater complexity and have less probative power. All scientific progress depends on finding, not the perfect theory of everything, but the theory with greatest explanatory power. If my theory happens to encapsulate everything under the name "God", and a different one does so under the name "many worlds hypothesis" or "strong anthropic principle", there is no prima facie reason to prefer one over the other.

By objecting, you imply you're claiming to know definitively it wasn't this "God". Your evidence for that implication is not forthcoming. But I'm very thankful to you that you keep trying.

Ever forwards implies ongoing motion...being implies temporal matter .... That implies transformation of partials within whole aka chemistry of all (alchemy) .... transformation implies a flowing process aka male (motion) through female (momentum) transformation (matter) ... form struggles to sustain self within flow by resisting temptation

Responsible.

origin (God)

Origin implies an outpouring from, God implies a label upon...held within

Then, Origin.

Can you show an example where ones denial of breathing let to ones death?

Jesus Christ.

Without differentiation through female (momentum) into trans-form (matter)...male (motion) couldn't be discerned by each different self as same origin. Differences identifying (equalizing; making same) each other implies self denial aka lack of self discernment...out of which one labels all with identities. Self implies perpetuation of one through intercourse with another one into off-spring...a setting apart by giving away. Not something to hold onto and identify with. It's ones claim of possession as "me; myself or I" which corrupts ones line of thought and thereby ones line of perpetuation through another. In short: all doesn't require self, since there's no other "all"...one requires self, since there are other ones within all to perpetuate self.

Then, All shows All (Him). What is "each different self"?

Does an outcome respond (re) to presented origin? What if a response (choice) can only operate in-between origin and outcome, hence from within a balance?

Then, how could one perceive death coming out?

If there's only needed origin, then why would one require a choice to balance within wanted outcomes? Where's temptation without outcomes to tempt choice to fall for? Does living represent (respond to presented) process of dying?

Who requires or wants? Does resistance process life?

So that there can be growth (partial ones) during loss (whole oneness)...an internal balance of external energy.

Does each one cease? Then, all would be lost.

chasing after death

What else?

Dying (loss/action) implies living (growth; reaction)...a simultaneous process of differentiation (matter) within origin (motion)

Then, the dying process represents transformation. How could a dying outcome represent or perceptibly come out?

Few suggest freedom (free and dom put together) to distract many from the ongoing differentiation of dominance (balance) into free (choice), and more importantly each ones discernment of self as wielding FREE will of choice.

Then, flow and resist, free and dominated.

form to flow transformation (life to death)

death makes each partial whole again

What if loss of form is partial? One could die forever.

to inspire adaptation. You may call this Gods' breath of life

"you may call" contradicts inspiring adaption to God's breath of life, because it tempts ones consent to another one .... A "call" shapes suggested information, which tempts others to ignore perceivable inspiration.

Thinking that one can "not choose" implies ones choice to consent to "nothing"

The issue is "thinking", hence revolving suggested information within ones consenting mind/memory.

Not death (noun)...

Getting "not" out of the vocabulary could help tremendously to prevent spell-craft to flourish, yet who is gonna give up denial?

dying (adjective), which implies to live (verb). b) One struggles/resists/suffers origin

Perceptive. Dying forever and ever ....

Ever forwards (for ever) generates odd adaptations, hence adapting "backwards" to incoming origin. If one moves ever forwards, then what would one react to?

Then, for ever, and ever (back).

I see my comment at https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1994owaTre/oof-salty-loser-spamming-is-not-/c/4ZDugTT19UX had its link helpfully broken by the platform when it intended to point to https://communities.win/c/Atheist/p/141reluACp/-burden-of-proof-is-on-the-one-m/c/4OUfR2Rkd1Q which starts with:

1. If nothing exists, nothing can be proven (Provine).

2. Things exist (Descartes).

3. Things are measurable (Democritus).

4. A greatest thing can be detected, defined according to its measurability (Adler).

Is it testable to you, via observation of things, that something that exists is measurably the greatest?

I don't cite the Bible as a source to you when you don't accept it; rather, I pointed out (also in that link) that when you pursue truth you naturally consider all the candidates and in this the Bible commends itself. Comparing it to other theories of everything, all of which have untestable claims and unknown laws of nature and alleged contradictions, it excels. But for you to see that you'd need to start with the basics such as whether some greatest thing exists.

If something is beyond our ability to know it, then there is no process by which that information can end up in a book without being completely made up.

Correct! A book can only be a communication about the unknown or unknowable, not the thing itself. Now we're making progress. Do you recognize that the universe contains the unknown and/or unknowable? Does this give you any pause when you criticize others for saying so? If you only criticize me for saying I know something, well, we can test the things I think I know, one proposition at a time (above).

Ask your confessor whether "Geez" and other immoderate language is venial or mortal, as it depends on circumstances.

If you don't want to listen to those four groups all agreeing that Catholic and Orthodox are the mainstream Christian church, and JWs and Mormons regard only themselves as real Christians, that's fine. But if you can't tell the difference between the Catholic-Orthodox history and the 19th-century origin of the JWs and Mormons who believe there was no church between the 1st century and themselves, that's a bit of studious ignorance. The tests I gave in my first answer suffice to demonstrate that the Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant unity has significant truth and the cults don't.

You haven't cited any Christian statement that contradicts me. You seem to be judging just on my offhand comment that God is a Law unto Himself as well as a Person.

But if none of us are true, how do you know anything? The argument still applies: the proposition "only testable propositions are knowable" is untestable, so if true it's unknowable and nothing can be known.

I linked you 50 propositions that can be tested and falsified, you haven't admitted seeing I did. Scroll back. When investigating all the major truth claims people make, including atheists, I realized that the core truths have always been accessed by humanity in a sufficient form, and so I found them in texts both ancient and modern. It's not necessary for me to defend the Bible as "inspired" when I merely ask that people start from a foundation of recognizing how truth claims are made.

TLDR: You still have no answer how you know truth: you've affirmed as your core a proposition that defeats itself. The scientific method would work better: affirm reality exists as the core, and that propositions merely reflect it, better or worse. Don't dismiss propositions you believe untestable, test those propositions that you can and more will arise. If you believe a body of laws exists, but it is beyond our current knowing them completely, that would be a much better core because it admits that reality is always greater than our model of it.

No, we have a pretty solid agreement at c/Christianity that's never varied, that Christianity is defined by the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, which reflect the core teachings of Scripture. I just indicated that there is vast agreement on this core and that disagreements from it weed themselves out naturally, and Scored has proven that for four years. I believe in theology just fine, but why would I present theology to an atheist who doesn't believe in it?

At least thank you for agreeing that the Big Bang Theory is equally unscientific because untestable. Of course, once again, your theory that only testable propositions are true is also untestable. That's why I encourage you to work on that first. Sooner or later you get to realize that all the truth you seek is a reflection in your mind of the truth of reality, and thus truth is external and can be pursued and apprehended, and this is done by accepting it as axiomatic rather than deriving it from other, unrealized, imagined axioms.

What is Christianity? I had a feeling you'd start telling me what Christianity is as if that's been experimentally tested, so you didn't let me down. If you want to make up your own rules by which you judge me, it's only natural that you accuse me of doing the same. That's why I emphasized you start with pursuing truth. Truth pursuers recognize how to distinguish and qualify propositions like "I believe Christianity teaches X due to evidence Y" and "These two propositions look contradictory to me but the evidence that billions believe them should also be considered".

Personal/impersonal: Yes, God is also a Person, while at the same time he is expressed in impersonal terms such as Law and Light and Love. Christians do believe God is a "Law unto Himself" (autonomous). Any part of this law can become known, which is what we call laws of nature.

Question 1 again: Now if you find certain complex propositions stupid ("magic man"), I encourage you to go back to simple propositions as the best path for learning how not to judge the complex ones rashly. Perhaps you don't believe the Big Bang Theory in its supernatural first instant? Either BBT is supernatural and "fairytale" and "stupid" just like special creation, or (more likely) there are epistemological evidentiary criteria to judge the best explanation.

Interpretation: Yes, my first answer, when applied, shows that e.g. leftist interpretation belies itself as separated from the common-sense Constitution. Now we just need to agree how to interpret evidence by common sense ....

Direct question: Which frame of reference do you want? The one where everything follows partly-unknown laws of nature and thus no theory of reality is supernatural? Or the one where no theory follows all known laws of nature and thus every theory of reality is supernatural? Pick one.

Thanks for the kind words.

Wow, I take back what I said, Neo! u/CrusaderPepe spammed you this time a lot worse than he ever spammed me.

He posted three full meaty articles all supposing that "Catholicism is true", but since I proved at length last month that by "Catholicism" he means whatever he says (instead of saying it means only what Catholic magisterium teaches without his additional interpretation), this is misleading. The Roman Catholic Church can be the "primary" "true church" without all the implications he adds to it. If he only asked Protestants to agree the RCC is the primary true church, he'd get more takers, but he asks for more than that.

1. He insists Protestantism has four main errors: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, denial of Real Presence, and belittling Mary. I answered Scripture and faith are alone in one sense and not in another, and it's not useful to insist that different eucharist or hyperdulia practices. Rather than dialogue or seek to understand, he insisted there was no other way of understanding it than his article. He ignored my 18 proofs that the RCC has taught "sola fide", for instance.

2. He insists that the RCC having the bishop of Rome proves Catholicism is true (meaning exactly as he teaches it), without realizing that there is no problem for Protestants or Orthodox to admit that Rome is the primary church region without admitting papal supremacy. Having the bishop of Rome doesn't necessarily mean that the bishop can't be wrong; in 1965 he admitted that his predecessor was wrong (in 1054) to effectively excommunicate billions of Orthodox Christians. So having Rome is not a proof that other churches are in error or that the pope is supreme or infallible or any such intended corollary.

3. He insists that the RCC having the Real Presence doctrine proves Catholicism is true (meaning exactly as he teaches it), without realizing that there is no problem for Protestants or Orthodox to admit there are several isomorphic ways to talk about Real Presence and they do not conflict. I simplify this by joking that the wafer becomes my body and my body is Christ's body, so I only differ with the RCC by a few minutes. So having a Real Presence doctrine is not a proof that other churches are in error or that consubstantiation or symbolic presence is false or any such intended corollary.

So, Neo, the problems are (1) Catholics like this routinely defend both the true believers who represent some part of Catholicism (somewhere between 0% and 100%), and all the folk errors they add to magisterium that they don't realize, making it hard to respond to such a defense levelly or usefully; and (2) Catholics like this compound the error by showing astonishing self-unawareness, which might arise from constantly sitting in judgment on all things and then judging it's more righteous to "speak one's peace" for many myriads of words than to just be personable and able to interact with others winsomely. If you want to pick on his "defense", I'd suggest starting with my link above where I list 18 times the Catholic magisterium, including its popes and Bibles, has taught Sola Fide; that might get his interest the fastest. Maybe I'll post it to c/catholic too.

God does not supersede the laws of nature and reality, as I just implied. God is defined as being one with the laws of nature and reality. If you believe in the laws of nature and reality, welcome.

I'm seeking to address. You may have something more specific in mind to ask.

Yes, God, like all proposed origins, is bound by all natural laws known or unknown. Who says we "can't" know any natural law? Science says we can. Science says natural laws are real (gravity), even though "law" represents an external concept.

Some questions presuppose contradictions. A "God" that "breaks rules" is a contradiction, since God is defined as not breaking rules but making them, so the question does not refer to reality and does not propose a testable (falsifiable) theory.

There is no attempt not to address issues, but that's enough answer for your brevity standards, and more can be forthcoming.