If you think you can figure out why people believe what they do without analyzing their minds as shaped by their experiences, then you're going to have a very superficial and unrealistic picture of the human reality behind those beliefs.

The whole idea that we can dispassionately believe something is, I believe, a fallacy.

I'm not saying that

I'm saying that you shouldn't do psycho-analysis in a discussion

i.e. "you just think this way because blah blah blah"

@LeakyNun And I'm saying, "Sorry, I'm going to do it anyway, even if you think I shouldn't, because otherwise we can't have a useful discussion."

have you ever seen me doing that?

@LeakyNun And you're the perfect model of what everyone should do, right? :-P

@LeeWoofenden and I'm saying, you should listen to their arguments and counter those, in order to have a useful discussion

@LeakyNun If I believe in God and the other person doesn't, then there will be no useful discussion anyway. At the end of the discussion, we'll still disagree just as much as we did before, because we're discussing based on conflicting premises.

That's why all your debates between YECs and evolutionary biologists are total flops.

@LeeWoofenden which is why I already said "assume that God exists for the sake of the argument"

@LeakyNun And I already gave you an answer to the question you asked. But you didn't like that answer.

@LeeWoofenden can you quote it?

It was based on the assumption that God exists. You rejected it anyway.

@LeakyNun Eh, I forget how you do those quotes of earlier statements. Remind me.

@LeeWoofenden post the permalink of the message

you can do that by right-clicking on the inverted triangle of the message and selecting "copy link" or whatnot

Ergo, assuming a God who has the qualities and relationship to Creation that I believe God has, it would be impossible to believe in gods without having some prior conception of God given to us or implanted in us in some way.

This is the actual point you made, because what you quoted is to me a tautology

@LeakyNun But that is assuming there is no God, and nature is the only source of belief.

@LeeWoofenden how?

@LeakyNun The idea that we came up with gods because of lightning and thunder is an atheist idea. It assumes that there is no God, and that therefore we must have fabricated that idea somehow. And we fabricated it, they say, out of powerful and scary things in nature.

@LeeWoofenden I don't think "It assumes that there is no God, and that therefore we must have fabricated that idea somehow" is the argument they make

And my view is that if nature were all that existed, we would never come up with the idea of a god even from the scariest things in nature, because we'd have no basis in any kind of information or data present in our mind and memory to come up with such an idea.

@LeakyNun Then why don't atheists seriously consider the possibility that people might have come up with their gods because there actually are gods?

Atheists have a problem: They have to come up with some explanation for the fact that a massive number of people believe in a God or gods.

@LeeWoofenden I refuse to answer that question because I do not have access to all the atheists' minds, which somehow you have access to

which is why every question I ask has "you" as the subject

@LeakyNun Don't be silly. Atheists are atheists because they reject the existence of God.

@LeeWoofenden this doesn't mean they bring the rejection into every argument they make as a premise

If they seriously considered the possibility that God might be behind all this, they'd be agnostics, not atheists.

@LeakyNun It means that they reject out of hand any argument that has as one of its premises, "There is a God."

All such arguments are ruled out before they even start thinking about the reasons for some phenomenon.

@LeeWoofenden it doesn't mean they reject those arguments because said arguments have "there is a god" as a premise

@LeakyNun Of course they do. They're atheists. By definition they believe that the premise, "There is a God" is false.

to me you are basically saying all atheists are irrational

@LeeWoofenden I think you are saying that atheists lack the mental capability of assuming the premise being true

@LeakyNun Well, I do think they're irrational. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they rule out as valid any arguments that take "There is a God" as a premise. That actually is tautological. They do that by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't be atheists.

@LeakyNun No. I'm saying they've rejected the possibility that the premise might be true. Another way of saying this is: "They're atheists."

@LeeWoofenden I do not see any point arguing with a person who thinks that I am irrational.

@LeakyNun Don't you think I'm irrational for believing in God?

@LeeWoofenden I don't.

After all, from your perspective, there is no God. So believing in God must be irrational because it is believing something that's false.

@LeeWoofenden non sequitur

@LeakyNun Rationality is not a content-less thing.

Genuine rationality requires seeing what's true and what's not true.

And if someone persists in believing something that's not true, that is a form of irrationality. This really isn't news.

You can't tell me that the bulk of atheists don't think that theists are irrational to the extent that those theists believe in God.

And if you're denying that you think I'm irrational for believing in God, I think you're just putting on some window dressing.

@LeeWoofenden I already said that I can't tell you about anything about atheists in general

except that they don't believe in God

@LeakyNun Not believing in God is not a neutral thing. It is accompanied by a whole array of concomitant beliefs.

@LeeWoofenden I refuse to make generalizations.

@LeakyNun Generalizations are quite useful as long as we are aware that they're generalizations.

It would be exhausting to analyze every single member of a group. And we wouldn't have enough time in our life to do it.

@LeeWoofenden it is not useful when you are actually talking to one of the people you generalize.

So we use generalizations.

@LeakyNun You seem not to want to deal with your own specific issues with God, but to keep it on a general level. If you want to have a personal conversation about God, I'm all about that. But you'd have to understand that my goal would be to weaken your atheism and plant seeds that at some point might grow into a stable belief in a believable (to you) God.

I'm a minister. My job is to bring God into people's lives. Do you really want to have that conversation with me?

@LeeWoofenden I don't want to deal with my own specifric issues with God in this very moment because we are not having an argument about my issues with God

I'm discussing whether the concept of God is required for humans to invent gods.

@LeeWoofenden maybe after this discussion if you want to

@LeakyNun Exactly. But if I were to talk specifically to the person I'm talking to (you), we'd have to deal with those specific issues about God.

@LeakyNun With your specific issues about God.

but we haven't finished this discussion

The rest is mostly just playing games. But maybe a few things that are actually useful might make it into the discussion.

and you seem to have completely ignored this

@LeakyNun We never will finish this discussion because you and I are approaching it from fundamentally different premises.

@LeeWoofenden I already said that for the sake of the argument assume that God exists.

we haven't even reached the surface of the core because you keep talking about other things

@LeakyNun What is the specific question that you want answered?

@LeeWoofenden "is a concept of God necessary for humans to invent gods?"

oh, the specific question

@LeakyNun I say "Yes." You say "No." I don't think we'll get any farther than that.

following this:

which of the concept of God do you see no prior sources in nature?

@LeakyNun Any concept of God/gods/goddesses.

@LeeWoofenden an example detail?

or are you saying the concept of God itself?

@LeakyNun For a fertility goddess, there is the fertility part, but not the goddess part, in nature.

@LeeWoofenden what is a god/God/goddess?

@LeakyNun A supernatural being.

@LeeWoofenden what is supernatural?

And nature is, by nature, not supernatural, because it is nature, not above nature.

@LeakyNun "Supernatural" is something that's above and beyond nature.

@LeeWoofenden what does it mean for something to be above and beyond nature?

We don't actually see any gods or goddesses in nature. They are not visible to any of our senses. We see trees, fruits, grass, lions, bears, mountains, and so on. But we don't see any gods or goddesses.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, in case you're wondering.

I'm just trying to get our definitions clear and make sure that we're on the same page.

Gods and goddesses as they've been perceived are precisely not something that we see with our physical eyes the way we see a tree or a mountain.

Encounters with gods and goddesses happen when our ordinary perception of things is superseded and we see things that we normally wouldn't.

@LeakyNun To me, it means something that is either spiritual or divine. And I see those as distinct levels or realms of reality.

@LeeWoofenden is it possible to imagine a super powerful human that can control forces of nature?

@LeeWoofenden I see

@LeakyNun Even cultures that have fairly earth-bound ideas of gods and goddesses see them as something that imbues nature rather than something that is nature.

what does imbue mean?

If they were nature, then they'd be just like trees or rocks or lions. But they're beyond those things.

@LeakyNun It's similar to infuse. Something that fills something with some sort of essence or power without actually being that something.

@LeeWoofenden I see

@LeakyNun Sure. But if they do it purely by natural means, then they're not gods or goddesses. They're just superheroes.

@LeeWoofenden is it possible to imagine a super powerful human that can control forces of nature and is in the heavens?

Superman is not a god. He's just a humanoid being who comes from a planet where their bodies have a much higher density and strength than the bodies of humans from earth.

There's nothing supernatural about it. Just a different evolution on a different planet.

@LeakyNun What do you mean by "the heavens"?

@LeeWoofenden somewhere above the sky

@LeakyNun So it's a physical place?

@LeeWoofenden yes

@LeakyNun Perhaps. But no one has ever seen such a thing. So why would they imagine it?

Even our dreams and nightmares are made up of things we've experienced or read about or seen in a video.

@LeakyNun Can you guess which premise I have a problem with?

@LeeWoofenden the last one

@LeakyNun No. The first.

@LeeWoofenden brilliant.

If they had never experienced such a thing, why would they even say there is one?

@LeakyNun Same problem.

More likely they'd say, "Cuz if you don't, I'll swat you one." Or: "You won't get your breakfast."

They already have the power themselves to enforce it. No need for gods.

@LeakyNun That's just dumb. :-P

wait

you said "sure" :o

and I literally used that

and then you said you have a problem with that

@LeakyNun What do you really want to accomplish here? We could do this point / counterpoint all night and all the next day.

@LeeWoofenden that it is possible to imagine someone very powerful who controls the forces of natural and who is in another realm

@LeakyNun Sure it's possible. But I don't think they would, if there weren't actually beings who somehow answered to that description. And assuming there actually aren't any such beings (which is what atheists do), where would they get that idea? Why would they even bother to imagine such beings? What possible utility would it have to them?

@LeeWoofenden to get someone to listen to them

to have mental comfort

to have explanations/answers to "why" questions ("just don't ask; goddidit")

Really, the universe is not any less mysterious to us today than it was to cave dwellers tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. So why don't secular scientists suddenly look at their scientific experiments and say, "Holy smokes! There must be gods!!!"

@LeeWoofenden because they hate gods, to quote you?

@LeakyNun No. That was your saying, not mine. Don't attribute it to me.

or to really quote you:

@LeakyNun So are you equating "rejecting" with "hating"?

@LeakyNun But that load of crap isn't God. It's what they've been taught about God.

So my quote was that they hate false gods.

"God" is in scare quotes in that last one.

@LeeWoofenden because they're secular?

If I had my way with atheists, I'd flush all that crap out of their brains so that they can't even think about it anymore, and provide them with a sound understanding of God. But I don't get to do that. False conceptions of God are highly persistent and highly destructive.

@LeakyNun So was everyone on earth before there was any conception of God.

@LeeWoofenden so?

@LeakyNun Really, it can get quite exhausting to have to hear the same arguments from atheists over and over based on a conception of God, spirit, the Bible, and so on that I totally reject and think is utterly false and wrong.

@LeeWoofenden really, it's nobody's fault.

I weep (sometimes literally) about the horrendous stuff that's been promulgated in the name of God, that has destroyed God in the minds of so many people, and held so many other people in subjection to a false god who is really a horrible bloodthirsty tyrant.

@LeakyNun What's nobody's fault?

let's get back to our discussion

@LeakyNun Sure it's somebody's fault. God didn't get distorted into a twisted caricature by accident.

@LeeWoofenden yes, but I mean, it's none of you's fault

@LeakyNun Who are you including in "you"?

@LeeWoofenden the atheists having the wrong conceptions

@LeakyNun Now I'm confused. I don't even know what you're saying in your last two.

@LeeWoofenden never mind, get back to the discussion.

@LeakyNun That discussion was going nowhere fast.

@LeeWoofenden what does fast mean?

You're going to say, "What about this way they could have thought up gods?" And I'm going to say, "I don't think they would have done that." And then we'll go round and round again with a different version of the same thing.

@LeeWoofenden no, we weren't talking about that

we already escaped that

@LeakyNun "Going nowhere fast" is just an idiom for "not getting anywhere at all."

@LeakyNun Oh. Then what are we talking about now?

@LeeWoofenden you see, English is not my native language

@LeakyNun I know. And I tend to talk in fairly idiomatic English.

@LeakyNun This is really just the same discussion. I simply don't think they'd come up with those things for those reasons. It's all part of the same atheist origin story for the widespread belief in supernatural beings. And I don't buy it.

@LeeWoofenden why not?

@LeakyNun Because, as I've said, there is nothing in nature, which would be the entirety of those humans' experience, to suggest such beings.

It's just a "God of the gaps" theory when there are massive gaps. But why would they fill those gaps with God when they could just shrug their shoulders and say, "I dunno"?

@LeeWoofenden and when I suggest that it is possible, you'd ask me why someone would make up such a concept

@LeeWoofenden and when I suggest a reason, you'd tell me that it's impossible to invent such a concept

@LeakyNun Right. We're just going in circles.

so in the end I answer both your questions, and every time I answer one, you ask the other.

From my pov, it's just a theory atheists came up with because they by definition reject the possibility that we believe in gods because at least one God actually does exist.

@LeakyNun I don't actually say it's impossible. Rather, I say it's implausible.

I think it's a weak, conjectural argument based on implausibilities.

what implausibilities?

And it's an argument driven mainly by atheists' need to explain all phenomena without any requirement that a God or gods/goddesses exist.

It's a "blind watchmaker" argument. Somehow we just came up with this idea even though such a thing doesn't actually exist.

and are you going to tell me next that the concept of Harry Porter is inspired by the concept of God?

@LeakyNun What?

Harry Potter isn't God.

you get too sensitive when you see the word "inspired"

@LeakyNun Okay, Mr. "Don't psychoanalyze the guy you're talking to." :-P

continue

@LeeWoofenden I'm not summarizing your argument :p

@LeakyNun I sense another feedback loop coming up . . . ;-)

@LeakyNun There are certainly religion-inspired elements in the Harry Potter series.

@LeeWoofenden come on

@LeakyNun God is not a character in the Harry Potter series, any more than God is a character in Star Wars. But there are still religion-inspired elements in both.

that is not what I'm asking about

I'm just trying to counter your "Somehow we just came up with this idea even though such a thing doesn't actually exist."

@LeakyNun Then you'd better ask your question more clearly and specifically.

@LeakyNun And how do you think your Harry Potter question does that?

remember, context ;-p

@LeeWoofenden that we come up with the idea of Harry Porter even though such a being doesn't actually exist.

@LeakyNun Hence my reply that there are religion-inspired elements in Harry Potter.

Harry Potter didn't come out of a vacuum.

so are you saying that we can't come up with things that don't exist?

@LeakyNun We can't make up things that aren't composed of or variations on things that exist.

In religious lore, magicians are people who use spiritual power to influence material and human events.

The idea of spiritual power is a religion-based idea.

@LeeWoofenden and then I'm going to tell you that the concept of god is a composition of or variations on things that exist, and then you're going to tell me that people have no reasons to come up with such an idea

And religion, I believe, is based on revelation from God, not on observing natural phenomena.

@LeakyNun It's the supernatural part that early humans, fresh out of their evolutionary ascent from apes, would not have come up with, because they had no experience of such a thing.

@LeeWoofenden which is exactly why there isn't much supernatural part in early religions

@LeakyNun If there's no supernatural part, then it's not a religion.

@LeeWoofenden or as I say, the very primitive form being essentially reduced to "someone who control the thunders"

@LeakyNun That's your theory. It's not mine.

@LeeWoofenden "as I say"

so early humans cannot even come up with an idea that someone controls the thunders?

@LeakyNun I've never said they can't. Only that I find it implausible and I don't believe it.

I think it's an argument driven largely by atheists' need to find a non-God explanation for everything.

Basically, if you believe there's no God, then where else would it have come from except the human brain?

@LeeWoofenden why is there thunder?

Somebody made it up at some point. That's a necessary conclusion if there is no actual God.

All the rest is just conjecture and window-dressing.

@LeeWoofenden and then?

Atheists find it convincing because it confirms their view that there is no God. Theists don't find it convincing because they think people came up with the idea of God because God revealed it to them.

People need arguments to support their position.

But the position itself isn't really subject to argument. You can't argue an atheism to belief in God, nor can you argue a theist to atheism.

For an atheist, "There is no God" functions as an axiom.

It's not something you debate or argue about. It's something you base your arguments and debating points on.

(I mean debate or argue about internally.)

@LeeWoofenden then how do people change positions?

@LeakyNun Through experiences in their life, and their reactions to those experiences.

@LeakyNun Since you're an atheist, at minimum you have a problem with #2.

fun fact: the English word for God comes from a word meaning "invoked", and the Latin one from "sky", and the Greek one from "put"

@LeeWoofenden actually, both.

@LeakyNun When theists become atheists, it's often because of a shattering experience that broke their faith in God. When atheists become theists, it is also often because of a shattering experience that drove them to turn to God. Sometimes the "shattering" is long and drawn out. Other times it happens very quickly.

@LeakyNun What's your problem with the premise, "It is reasonable to believe that which is true"?

@LeeWoofenden because something true doesn't mean that you have reasons to believe it

just because your lost wedding ring is actually on Jupiter doesn't mean that you are justified to believe so

@LeakyNun If something is true, you should have reasons to believe it.

@LeeWoofenden you may never know that said something is true

Believing the truth simply because it is true, and not for ulterior motives, is an essential element of rationality.

this has to do with our finite knowledge

@LeakyNun But if you come to know that it is true, then it is irrational not to believe it.

@LeeWoofenden yes, but this is not what the premise says

allow me to demonstrate by a simple example

And if you're not sure whether or not it's true, and it's about something important, then it is rationality's job to investigate it carefully to determine whether or not it's true.

Obviously we can't believe a truth that we're unaware of. But we're not absolved from the responsibility to seek the truth to the extent that we are able, and to believe the truth when we find it.

[insert a theorem here] is either true or false. Our current mathematical tools are not enough to tell whether it is true or false. A believes that it is true, and B believes that it is false. One of them believes that which is true, but both are irrational.

@LeakyNun There are levels of rationality. And I believe that there is sufficient knowledge about God in existence for people to see the truth of it. And I believe that seeking that truth is incumbent upon rational people. Atheists may not be intentionally irrational. But to the extent that they deny the possibility of there being a God, I believe they have shut off the possibility of the highest level of rationality.

I also believe that atheists are atheists largely for emotional, not rational, reasons, even though they believe they are atheists for largely rational reasons.

And I believe that denying the existence of God requires atheists to believe a number of irrational ideas, one of which is that primitive humans invented the idea of God, and another of which is that near-death experiences are just hallucinations of an oxygen-deprived brain.

It requires atheists to reject as delusional all human experience of God, of which there is a vast quantity.

Given that vast quantity of human experience of God and of the spiritual realms, I believe that the actual existence of God and a spiritual realm is the most sensible, rational explanation for that phenomenon of almost universal religious belief for most of human history. Atheists have to say, "No, we made up this whole elaborate thing."

@LeeWoofenden it's not really irrational considering that your modern conception of God basically came into being several hundred or thousand years ago, and that the primitive conceptions of God are really human-like, basically an evolution of ideas

Further, I've not only read many accounts of near-death experiences, but I've personally talked to many NDEers and heard their stories. They universally think that atheists' explaining away of their experience as hallucinations and oxygen deprivation is the most ridiculous thing in the world spouted by people who have no idea what they're talking about because they haven't experienced it.

They can simply say, "You don't know what you're talking about. I was there. You weren't."

What if I can reproduce the experience by simply injecting you with a drug?

@LeakyNun Our knowledge of how the physical universe works also developed gradually, and was quite primitive for thousands of years. Does this mean that nature was really just a primitive blob, and it only became complex when we humans started realizing how complex and intricate it is through scientific research?

Equating God with human conceptions of God is itself irrational.

It's like saying, "nature doesn't exist because we used to have such a primitive understanding of it."

@LeeWoofenden only if you're one of the minority saying that all gods are inspired by God and are distorted conceptions of God

@LeakyNun You can't produce an NDE with a drug injection. NDEers are well aware of the distinction between drug-induced hallucinations and NDEs. That's another thing they would view as the ridiculous rantings of people who know nothing about what they're talking about because they haven't experienced it for themselves.

@LeakyNun No. If a God exists, that doesn't mean we humans will instantly have a perfect conception of God. We can only understand things that are within our capacity to understand. And if we're largely brutish, earth-bound creatures who are mostly concerned with food, shelter, protection, and reproduction, that gives God a rather narrow platform to work with in explaining to us the nature of God.

Atheists fault theists because our human conception of God developed only gradually over time. Why don't they fault scientist because our scientific conception of the physical universe developed only gradually over time?

Once again, it's an irrational idea that because several thousand years ago we had a rather limited conception of God, that means God must not exist, and we invented God.

Really, it's just atheists interpreting reality based on their pre-existing belief that there's no God.

There is nothing particularly rational about atheists' arguments. It's just what happens when you look at everything through the lens of atheism.

When you assume the result, you always get the result you want.

@LeeWoofenden I should have said "that they do view as the ridiculous rantings . . ." because I've had this specific conversation with NDEers.

@LeeWoofenden can you briefly cite an example of NDE?

@LeakyNun There are various common elements that occur in NDEs' including a sense of separation from the body, seeing the body and its surroundings from a different vantage point, going through a dark tunnel or dark space, seeing a light, encountering the light and finding it to be loving and wise, meeting departed loved ones, reaching a "line" beyond which they will not come back to the body, not crossing that line, returning to the body.

Few NDEs have all of these elements, and there are other elements that also occur, but these are some of the most common, recurring elements of NDEs.

Another common one is a rapid review of the events of one's life.

NDEs are not just random hallucinations such as you get when you take psychoactive drugs. They have a definite sequence: a beginning, a middle, and an end. They follow patterns that are well-known to those who study them or have experienced them. And they are usually life-changing experiences for those who have them. Not at all like a drug-induced hallucinogenic state.

Of course, the people who have them almost died, so they often come back to wracked and broken bodies. So for the most part they don't have a "beautiful life" after having an NDE. But they do come back with a whole different, and deeper, perspective on life.

And it commonly helps them get through the aftermath of whatever almost killed them.

@LeeWoofenden you may want to read this

These, of course, are generalizations. But they hold true as generalizations.

@LeakyNun Many NDErs have experienced both hallucinations and NDEs. After the hallucinations, they realize it was just a hallucination, and was not real. But after an NDE, they come back saying they have experienced something far more real even than their waking experience here on earth, let alone any hallucinations they've had.

Once again, NDEers themselves know the difference quite clearly between an NDE and other phenomena NDEs are commonly compared to such as hallucinations and drug-induced fantasies.

Of course, if a drug almost kills a person, that person might have an NDE just as with any other near-fatal thing. But the NDE produced by a near-fatal dose of drugs won't be significantly different from an NDE produced by a car accident or a heart attack. It's not the drugs producing the NDE; they are just the occasion for it since they almost killed the person.

what do NDEs prove?

@LeakyNun To someone who doesn't believe in spiritual reality, they prove nothing. Atheists and skeptics will find a way to explain away anything that conflicts with their view that there's no such thing as God, angels, spirits, a spiritual world, and so on.

For those of us who believe in an afterlife in a spiritual realm, and don't have prior conflicting religious beliefs about how that's supposed to work, NDEs are simply more evidence and information about the nature of the spiritual world and the afterlife.

When the first books about NDEs came out, we Swedenborgian were quite excited. Our reaction was, "Finally someone else is saying the same things we've been saying all along!"

Basically, the general pattern of NDEs confirmed everything Swedenborg wrote about the afterlife and our initial entry into it. The details differed, as they do among different NDErs. But the basic pattern and experience was precisely what Swedenborg described 250 years ago.

@LeeWoofenden could you quote Swedenborg?

@LeakyNun Sure. But there's over 30 volumes of it. Did you want a quote on anything in particular? :-)

@LeeWoofenden what Swedenborg described 250 years ago?

@LeakyNun Just get the book Heaven and Hell and you can read it for yourself.

I see

@LeakyNun It's a lot of material.

But for one example, NDErs commonly report that time as we know it doesn't exist where they went. And Swedenborg reported the same thing.

how did he know those things?

Swedenborg said that people who die are met by very loving and wise angels. NDEers commonly report a "being of light" who is very wise and loving, and who often takes them through a review of their life--something Swedenborg also reported.

@LeakyNun Swedenborg said that the Lord opened his spiritual eyes so that he could be fully present in the spiritual world virtually at will for what turned out to be the last three decades (almost) of his life. So he says that his descriptions are based on personal experience.

@LeeWoofenden interesting

@LeakyNun And with that interesting statement, I'll bow out for tonight. It's been good talking with you.

@LeeWoofenden what time is it?

@LeakyNun 'druther not say. But very late. ;-)

alright

Good night. Or good morning, if that's your preference. :-)

bye

The Son of God references the words of God, the Son of Man references the words of man.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" - (Numbers 23:19 NKJV)

Once you sacrifice the Son of Man, you will see. Is born of the breath(spirit).

It's a nice way of saying shut up.

who are you talking to?

Go find the power of what you say.

what is the point you are making?

I'm talking to you.

why?

They say that Jesus is a God because he says he's the son of man.

There is only one God.

I see

You see and hear, now can turn and receive the mercy.

It is as you say it is.

Therefore say good things.

Trust in the name of is.

maybe you looked at that verse too literally

it means that God is not like ordinary men who lie and break their words

also, the verse you quote is allegedly spoken by Balaam, who wasn't a good prophet

@Decrypted

Ironically, the highest voted answer written by you also comprises quotes out of context