Posts Tagged ‘religious doctrine’

Who Hijacked Reality / #476 Creationism was created to fulfill a basic need in humanity and nothing more.

Sunday, June 19th, 2011


Journal Entry #476

June 19th, 2011

Creationism or as it is referred to now as Intelligent Design was created by humanity to fulfill a basic need and that need is to feel important, to be valued. Sure it was designed to answer the questions we feel are so important. Why we are here, who are we and what our purpose in life is and at the time it was created with the available understanding of life it fulfilled its purpose but now we know better.

Science has proven that biblical or any other Creation story fostered from religious doctrine is simply not true. We have answered many of the questions with more verified answers and refuted the answers it provides so it is time we acknowledged this.  I realize that Evolution does not fill the need of feeling valued the way being the chosen creation of a god will but evolution is the truth. We have learned to see our value in other ways.

Our answers above all should be based on what is true not what we want to be true and Evolution is a fact based on what we do know. I am not going to get into the silly unverified arguments that have been presented form the Creationist position because if you truly value truth you can seek them out for yourself. You can look into what Evolution demonstrates and get the facts before you refute it. If you are to look at the information from an unbiased position with the truth as your goal Evolution will prevail. I fully admit there are many questions we do not know the answers to and that is the journey. We don’t know the answer to the big questions such as where did everything come from but to fill in the blank with what you want it to be without verification is simply the argument from ignorance.

Let me just ask some simple questions to challenge the concept of design. I could certainly come up with a better design if I had cart blanch to design the universe. I am referring to the design of this planet and humanity and really who am I. That will be for another post.

My questions if we are designed;

- When someone designs something they test it out and are constantly improving the faults of their design, either God is not bothering to continue this process, he made a bad design which means he is not god or he likes the design the way it is with all the flaws of the design. Which is it?

- Why do we get zits?

- Why do we breathe through the same hole we  eat through when the possibility to choke to death exists. Is this not a terrible design?

- What purpose does male pattern baldness serve?

- Why do we get diseases?

- What is the purpose of dying horribly?

- Why do we hurt or kill each other?

- Why don’t we have eyes in the back of our head as well?

- Why do our bodies break down so easily?

- Why do we get fat?

- Why do we need to eat? Could he not have devised a better system of obtaining energy?

- Why are some things prey and others predator?

- Why can’t we breathe underwater?

-  Why do most species not survive and go extinct if we are designed so perfectly?

- Why is there evidence for Evolution everywhere but none for Creation?

- Why was I created to be able to deny god?

- Why can’t we fly it sure would be easier to get around?

Just a few simple questions that are not answered by Creation with any rationality an yet the answers are found through science. Why is that? I know because Science works and Evolution is true while creation or ID is not.

So really Creationism is all about our need to feel important, to be valued and a god provides this initially but then the system of rules lead to other problems. Once you see the reasoning for the Creation stories, why the myth was created which was believed to be true at the time it was created one can see that in this modern world there is no place for it as being true.

Creationism does not belong in the science classroom. It does not belong as being valued as true. It belongs in the realm of mythology and eventually all gods end up there so let’s just give this one a little boost of reason and put it where it belongs.

Our need to be valued no longer needs to be filled by a belief that god created us as we have other ways to fulfill the need.  Let’s stop this silliness of building Creation Museums and replicas of Noah’s Ark and anything else associated with pushing this agenda that simply is not true. Back up and take a look at the facts and stop following the “If it`s good enough for Jesus it`s good enough for me” method of thinking.

It is not good enough for me and Jesus has no say in the matter. It really shouldn’t be good enough for you either especially if you value the idea of truth as I do.

Seek the truth always

Gary David Currie

Who Hijacked Reality / #421 God said it, I believe it, that settles it! Or the wheels on the bus go round and round.

Sunday, April 24th, 2011



Journal Entry #421

April 224th, 2011

I am interested in how a person can rectify this dilemma which I actually hear more than I want to;

God is always right but man makes mistakes and is fallible. Well the obvious conclusion to this is that man could be wrong about god. So if you can be wrong how can you possibly be absolutely sure that god is right or that anything you believe about god is right?

Watch the 2 videos below and then we will talk.


How Christians Brainwash kids with creationism


Class On Islam In Germany

I could write a book on the issues these 2 videos present, the fallacies and just outright lies but I think most of you can figure out the obvious on your own. I will say that brainwashing young people and children with religious doctrine is just wrong.

My focus here will be on the idea that children and humans in general need to know that they have a choice, they need to understand that critical thinking skills allow them to decide for themselves and that they are under no obligation to be told what to think.

A dose of reason will quickly put  the ideas that are presented in these videos in the realm of dumbass but the very idea that each religion presents their god is the one and only authority on all things in life is scary as hell. Children should be taught how to think not what to think.

I keep trying to get across to the faithful that until god any god actually comes down here and tells us what the bible or Quran actually means it will all be interpretation, all subjective and since we are creatures that can be easily fooled we can certainly be wrong on what we believe is true. Well they bypass these by saying;

I can be wrong but I follow he who cannot be wrong.

The stupidity in this statement is astounding but this is the basis of religious faith. The very idea that god is always right is self serving and circular logic.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it!

This is about as stupid as it gets. Now we have to determine exactly what it is that god is saying and the fact that there are so many versions of god and even within a certain faith different interpretations testifies to the stupidity of this. Within the Christian faith alone there are 38,000 different denominations each following a different version of what god says all thinking they have the right one.

Once an individual realizes that they have the power to think for themselves everything changes, the spell is broken and the questioning begins as it should. The control mechanism presented so well in these videos falls prey to reason. The vast majority of believers I would say are ignorant to the facts that surround life and want to remain blind to the opposition of their delusions. There really is no sane argument that supports an absolute belief in god or anything else that easily falls under a dose of reality.

I would like to see Critical Thinking taught alongside reading, writing and arithmetic as a basic skill in life. This allows the individual to feel empowered to not only realize they are making their own choices but to also be responsible for those choices.

Critical thinking; It has been described in a much more comprehensive sense as “the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action”

Now this is exactly what any authority based doctrine does not want as this will lead to dissention as it should. If something is not true it should not be taken as true and all things should be put to the test. You don’t have to be a philosopher or a scientist to apply the basics of this principal.

Once some general skills are a acquired one could easily refute the doctrine and dispute the facts that are presented in these videos.

Let’s take evolution for an example. Ken Ham director of the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis who is the main speaker in this video presents a distorted and incredibly narrow minded view of what evolution truly is. The very idea that he shows that your grandmother is not a monkey is ridiculous. A quick tutorial on what evolution really is will dispel this and many other ridiculous points he makes. The very idea that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time falsifies so much science that is beyond intellectually dishonest.

What he believes has no bearing on the facts but that is not what he teaches, he teaches what he would like to be true because the real doctrine behind his message is this; If just one thing in the bible is not true then the possibility for all things to not be true exists and that is just unacceptable so it must be taken literally. The biggest hurdle the bible presents is a creation storey as all the verifiable evidence shows this as false. That is why he and many others spend so much time trying to verify creation even though it has been proven time and time again that evolution is a fact and that creation is a myth.

To say “who are you going to believe god or the scientist” is another masterfully stupid statement. This if followed creates ignorance and stupidity as it is science that has given us our greatest achievements. Of course the kids will just do as they are told and enjoy the cool pictures and fun music but this is neglect through and through.

The “god says it so it must be true” defence and doctrine must be shown for what it truly is, stupidity. We don’t need soldiers of god, any god we need productive intelligent members of the human race so we can move in a positive direction for mankind.

Ken and all those advocating this doctrine should be ashamed of themselves and the parents who buy into this nonsense need to learn the skill of critical thinking themselves.

I find it funny how they will only take the things that they like that god said and then excuse away all the nasty stuff in the bible and there is plenty of the nasty.

The argument from ignorance keeps rearing its head everywhere I turn.

Let me offer a different version of the god says it argument;

I think that god said it but I don’t really know so I will say it the way I would like god to say it and then tell everyone that god said it hoping that they believe me thinking that it was really god that said it.


Seek the truth always

Gary David Currie

Who Hijacked Reality / #403 If you do not value evidence then what evidence could I possibly ever give you?

Thursday, April 7th, 2011



Journal Entry #403

April 7th 2011

My blog is called “Who Hijacked Reality” for a reason. I base all my insight and opinion on the idea of a valid reality that we all share but if you do not value this shared reality I might as well be talking to a rock before you will agree on anything I say.

What I present will be based on the idea that a person accepts the process that science has given us  to determine what is true backed by the process of reasoning.  If you do not agree then we will probably never agree. This is never more evident when it comes to discussing concepts that are not grounded in reality such as religion or faith based belief in gods or anything else supernatural.

I hear his all the time; your view is of the natural world and mine is of the spiritual world. You are of the world of man and I am of the world of my god. Right away we are at odds as a foundation for building our beliefs and until we have a common ground we will always be at odds.

We have a completly different approach to verfying what is actually true.

My view is that even the faith based foundation has its foundation in the natural world because that is the only place we currently all dwell and it has never been proven to me otherwise.

The argument or evidence to show that gods do not exist is actually very simple and I will present it now but if one refuses to accept it from a position of logic and reason then they will of course not agree. The burden of proof is not really on me as I did not make the claim of gods existence but I will speed up the process by disproving the claim  as it stands. Now they can say the same to me that I will not accept their foundation or else I would see that god was real but then we run into so many other problems that cannot be verified and only answered with “ It is all part of god’s plan” type of answer.  This action will not present itself if only  they were willing to accept responsibility for the burden of proof but they will not. If no one actually made the claim of god I would have no need to challenge it now would I? This is of course is unacceptable to me as there is no good reason why I should accept  “that it is all part of gods plan” as a valid answer. Thus the cycle continues…

…………..My argument and I will use Allah as my example but you can fill it in with any of the gods of man.

I will make this process incredibly simple.

The question or statement we are trying to verify as true or not is this;

Is Allah / god a real deity or a man made concept that does not exist in reality?

How will we do this? by laying out all the evidence and deciding if each piece of evidence is valid or not. We then take all the evidence or as much as we need to render a conclusion.

Are you with me so far?

The first thing we need to do is actually verify as true if there is a realm beyond reality that Allah exists in since Allah does not exist in the reality we have verified. So the obvious objection we will see is that Allah is not of the world we perceive.

I am going to simplify the entire verification process ok. I will be putting much of what people will call evidence into one giant category of unverifiable evidence so it will therefore not be credible to the discussion. Most of the discussion/ evidence and objections from people can be disproven very quickly following the process we understand as valid which is science and reason.

That is the justification for not having to verify Allah as real or any god for that matter. They exist in a realm outside space and time ,correct and humans just could not possibly understand. Now if we eliminate this or make a decision if this is true or not we have solved the major portion of finding if our original question is true.

Following what we have decided as the process to determine this we can easily see that there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to believe this to be true. It may be true but the probability based on our understanding is that it is not. (Now notice I have covered the idea that it may be true which addresses the you don’t know for sure concept)

Unfortunately this is the areas that most people will live in to decide if something is true or not.

On to the rest of the evidence for Allah;

The only real evidence that is ever sited will all have been originated either from the Quran or the Haddith.

Now logically and realistically speaking any evidence from these holy books will only be evidence that there is something written in the book that people take as true but cannot be verified as true.

So testimonials or anything that is credited to be said by Allah are actually not true.

Now what we see is that there really is no evidence for Allah to be real, none….

The conclusion is that people just believe he is real and say it is true when it is not..

This really is how simple it is. Any objection to this can be brought back to say if it is based originally from the books then it is only evidence that it is based on the holy books and that is all.

So the truthful answer is that Allah is a god or deity that man has created that many people have decided to pretend is true and act on the words they believe to be true but in reality human beings are the ones who are engaged in all that surrounds directly and indirectly from the god called Allah.

All the rest of the arguments take place in that middle ground of offering evidence from the chosen holy book or current events based on the writings from the holy book but in reality none of it can be verified so it really is not good evidence in any way and must be discounted. So now they will say it all boils down to faith and that again is not evidence at all.

If you do not accept evidence as a valid form of verification than it will not matter what I have presented now will it?

Sam Harris

“If you do not value evidence then what evidence could I possibly ever give you?”

So the eternal dance is based upon an accepted method of verification of determining what is true. I use science and reason and believers do not because if they did they would not believe and if I did not I probably would believe.

Seek the truth always

Gary David Currie

Who Hijacked Reality / #401 This claim needs to be discussed, “RELIGION IS A HARMFUL SCAM THAT NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED!”

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011


Journal Entry #401

April 5th, 2011

Today I saw a post on Face book that immediately caught my attention. My reaction at first was one of bewilderment and denial as I had seen many other posts from the same person who describes them self as an Atheist activist.  If I make a declaration I would expect challenge in the same way I challenge all other claims. I am not above what I advocate. I am not writing to be popualr or to engage in any movement that does not support the ideals of truth and livng by the laws we as humans have established. If I do not like a particualr law I will work to change it. I am for the rights of all human beings not just the few or people who I feel are in line with my way of thinking.

The post;

I love and appreciate all levels and avenues of Atheistic thought, even the Accomodationists. They remind me of how it’s not just important to be involved, but also to be firm. Hey, if we can afford to be polite, do we even need a movement? Well I do! So screw politeness: RELIGION IS A HARMFUL SCAM THAT NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED!

 I quickly thought about it and then offered a couple of thoughts and challenges; Now there were many comments on this strain mostly from Atheists but I was surprised that none directly responded but me to the above statement and its implications.

My response;

Gary David Currie………I find that Atheists will call me an accomodationist when I do not agree with them and I support certain aspects of religion. Do you not think Atheism has morphed into something it truly is not? It is just a response saying I challenge your claim of god if made publically. Do you not also think by saying what you just said;

“RELIGION IS A HARMFUL SCAM THAT NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED “that you are not only generalizing but verifying what I hear from religious people that you want to take their rights away. What about Jainism or Buddhism or even people who say,” You know I don’t know why I believe and I can’t prove there is a god but I am just at this point in my life where I want to believe in a god.

I have to be honest here and tell you that I find this statement just as scary as certain religious doctrine.

Should this not be about what is true and educating a person and  addressing the actions.

What religions are you referring to?

Gary David Currie …… I would like to see you defend the claim that you just made. I don’t think people are realizing the implications of such hostile words or maybe they absolutly agree with you. If you were to replace it with


Original poster of comment……….Gary – Why would I say that? I don’t agree with it.

Person #2……. BILL HICKS on religion. love it. best comedian ever

Person #3……….Gary – the difference is atheism doesn’t seek to sway people to take up the charge for a god of choice. It’s sole purpose is to encourage people to use their minds and see what’s right in front of our eyes. Not dwell over what might happen when we die. The here and now is what’s important.

Gary David Currie …….Sorry then you quoted someone and I did not see or recognize the quote and I thought it was from you.

(I was not satified as to how this was left and after I did some digging I challenged again and still no response)

Gary David Currie…….. Ok earlier I challenged you on your original statement. You said you did not feel that way or agree with it. I am confused . Maybe you can clarify what you wrote. Do you stand by the original comment? ” RELIGION IS A HARMFUL SCAM THAT NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED”

If so I again challenge you on this. If not why did you write it?


Your faith is a joke

This video will offer some more thoughts on the subject. 

Ok so that was about all I got to my challenge. I looked to see if it was indeed  a Bill Hicks Quote and maybe it is but I could not find it. Also after looking over the original comments there was no mention of it being a quote so I will have to assume the person who posted it felt that way or else why post it. Over 96 comments on the strain and still no one has seen what I have seen as a danger or at least the idea that this must be discussed to see if it is valid or not. Does it represent all atheists or just the person speaking?

I have several problems with just the last part of it not even getting into the rest of the post.

The term atheism has been hijacked here to describe an entire movement but it really is not applicable. It would be like saying I love and appreciate all levels and avenues of NO GOD thought, even the Accomodationists.It is simply a response to theistic claims, the movement should be about what is true and how we verify it as true.  Also to single out people who one feels are accomodationsists they must be prepared to define their criteria. If one defends what one feels is right and it doesn’t agree with someone else’s version of what atheism should be are they then going to label them accomodationist?

“They remind me of how it’s not just important to be involved, but also to be firm. Hey, if we can afford to be polite, do we even need a movement? Well I do! So screw politeness:” 

What do they infer by saying a movement. Is this an organized attack on religion if so how does this differ from what religion is doing or the claim that is being made against religion by many atheists. For that matter what is it one is being firm on?

Now to the statement that really caught my eye.



Wow I see red flags popping up here. First religion seems to be this one term to define what? I am assuming it will be the chosen religion that each person either is engaged in or feel they must fight against.  I personally use it as a term to describe organized beliefs in deities or supernatural claims. So is religion harmful? I have said this myself but have gone on to explain in great detail what I actually meant by the statement.

Is it a scam? This implies that someone is knowingly trying to deceive others and while that may be the case it is not in all cases.

This is the real scary statement “NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED!” to eliminate something is to erase it from existence. Now this will require changing our fundamental laws and rights we have established as a species in most societies. Also if someone said that atheism is a scam that needed to be eliminated I would be worried. This has happened in history and the results were not pleasant.

Religion is an integral part of our society. It is in our history, our art and permeates our culture. I would not want it eliminated. It allows for diversity and as I believe I may ultimately be wrong on any matter in supporting this statement I would be indulging not only in dishonesty but in what I believe to be the problem, righteousness. It is also a fundamental right of all human beings..

I do not support the above statement as it stands. I support addressing all aspects of the claim while allowing for peoples rights within the laws we have established. I see change through education but also believe that it is healthy that religion will always be part of the human experience. I do not support the harmful aspects of religion and will continue to speak out against those aspects as well as condemn any violent acts or criminal acts.

I see the claim I am addressing to be harmful in its written form and feel it must be discussed to openly clarify the actual intent behind it. We must be careful that we do not become what we challenge.

I am about truth realized through the process of reason and the scientific method I am not about eliminating religion..Change will come through education and discussion while condemning harmful actions.

I hope this article has offered some insight for dialogue on this topic. We must talk not just declare.

Call me what you will I do not care I above all value truth and postive change towards peace for all. We are all subject to challenge on what we declare..

‎”One cannot expose hypocrisy by engaging in hypocrisy.”
Gary David Currie   March 2011

Seek the truth always

Gary David Currie

Who Hijacked Reality / #342 “He who cannot be wrong” PART 2

Monday, February 7th, 2011



Journal Entry #342

February 7th, 2011

Continuing on from yesterdays post the conversation just got better. I just don’t understand why certain people just can’t admit that they might be wrong.

A believer seems to feel they have all the right answers and if you do not believe as they do then you are wrong. How could one possibly understand god and his message better then the true Christian? But of course exactly who decides what a true Christian is?

I challenge their claim and so far nothing has been offered as credible to verify it. Every argument or reason they give is not acceptable as evidence in reality so they claim to live in an alternate reality that I just can’t understand because I will not pretend like they do.

I am trying to figure out what personal experience has to do with what is true.  I guess the thing that I see most is that they will ignore manu questions or comments and pick and chose the ones they feel they can defned against. They completly try and control the flow of the deabte / conversation instead of arguing  properly.  This I find not only disrespectful  to the process but  non productive.

Like I have said when you initial premise or proposition is flawed then it will be very difficult to defend this position so the faithful will try every trick in the book except reason and logic.  


Christian #1….Gary, you are quite the aviator….. Indulging in flights of fancy and conclusions that are not warranted by the statements made! (But, you knew that already) ;)

I am backtracking nothing, the sentence would be quite clear to any believer (or anyone else that doesn’t try to add words or inject their own bias and conclusion into the statement)

My belief in Christ as Son of God & saviour is obviously not what I am talking about. I am talking about my approach to spreading the Gospel, explaining things pertaining to Christ and my everyday “walk” are not “perfect” (meaning complete).

I am not referring to my “belief” in God being wrong, to me that is beyond contestation. (Call it “sealed”)

What I am (obviously) referring to (in context) is that my journey is not without error (sin). I am still learning, I do not think that I am 100% knowledgeable about the Bible — I am still teachable and seeking to learn.

I hope you can understand this, but cannot be any clearer.

Gary David Currie……. Backtrack again and you were making such progress…

So what you are saying now is that on this matter and all that pertains to god which is basically your entire life you cannot be wrong because god cannot be wrong.

You can either be wrong …or you can’t be wrong.. You cannot now sit and tell me which things you can be wrong on and which you can’t because that will still fall under the statement that you could be wrong.

I am sorry to use some reason and logic here. I know you don’t like that.

Just admit that on this matter I can be right.

Gary David Currie……….. I have no illusions I know that you can never admit this because it is the unforgivable sin but my logic is sound.

Christian #1…….Gary, you are not using reason and logic — you are drawing the conclusion that you want by adding information and quoting some out of context. Let me try one last time! ;)


If I KNOW I need to go to TORONTO, 100% for sure…. I can be certain that I need to go there.

That doesn’t mean that I am “right” about the best, quickest, safest way to to TORONTO. I can take a wrong turn, miss an exit… But, still know that I need to keep my eye on the Goal of TORONTO.

Part II

Replace “TORONTO” with “JESUS”.


By the way, the unforgivable sin is not “doubting” or Thomas would have been in deep trouble! Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is what is generally called the “unforgivable sin”.

Gary David Currie……. Blasphemy is denial…

Ok your logic is sound as long as you verify Toronto to be real but it is not what you said.

So you are saying that you know the destination but not the route.

…So you are saying that one can admit they can be wrong on certain things but not on others.

Now we go to how do you determine what it is you can be right on?

You have already verified Toronto is real by credible evidence.

Now replace Toronto with a planet in the Andromeda galaxy, Nimbus 9 we will call it. This is comparable to god as there is some evidence it is real but not enough to verify it.

Now not only the route but the destination is in question.

You see your logic when truly tested does not hold up. The 2 premises are not compatible.

If you say you can be wrong on one thing you admit that you can be fallible. If one can be fallible on one thing what prevents one from being fallible on all things?

Christian #2……….Gary, You have not experienced everything, how can you say with absoluteness that what we have experienced is not real. Who made you the judge of our experience with your very limited experience? How arrogant for you to say we have not had and experience with the living God. Jesus is real!

Christian #1….I am saying that:

1. I know the Destination (Christ)

2. I know the route, but can make mistakes while on the road.

Christ is as real to me as Toronto (at least). I must take some facts about streets and population as accurate — I have not been able to verify all of them personally.

Christian#1…The reason you find God to be as “remote” as Nimbus 9 is because you refuse to:

(1). Use the “official” map

(2). Refuse to ask for directions, because you think you’ll find your way there if “Nimbus 9″ exists.

…Just because you haven’t found it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Gary, as long as you’re the “god of one” (yourself), you will never seriously look for another — it would be too threatening and require you to change your entire life.

Gary David Currie….. I know that is what you are saying but the premise is flawed because Christ and Toronto are not comparable but you believe they are.

Toronto can be verified. I accept it as real and you do but Christ cannot be verified hence my planet in the Andromeda Galaxy.

As far as the logical process you are correct but as far as the subject of your premise you are not.

Logic requires a sound premise to begin with.

Besides you did not answer my other question

Back to accepting things as true that cannot be verified. Well I am sorry logic does not work that way. You do..

Ok If I accepted Zeus as real and I said all the things you say but used Zeus as my god would that be true?

Also If god was real I would accept it in a heartbeat because I value truth. It would not be threatening to me at all. Change is constant and I accept this. So let’s get away from this “GOD OF ONE” nonsense the you keep using as an excuse for what I say to not be true.

“Just because you haven’t found it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”

Also a silly way to accept something as true. You will accept the unknown over what is known. Do you realize the implications of this statement this means anything can be true so we them must accept it all. You now must follow all gods with the premise.

Come on . You are trying to defend a position that is a negative and you are also asking me to verify a negative. Not possible

Christian #1………..Again Gary, you confuse your personal experience with mine. (Or lack thereof)

If I have had an unusual kind of food out of the country (for example), it is no less real because you have not heard of it, having never had it or any other such thing.

To the people in that foreign country that eat that food (potentially daily), it is easy to verify.

I have “found” the bread of life, yet had to find it personally. I can’t give you my piece, I can only tell you about it and hope you try to find it too.

Christian #1………“god of one” is not nonsense, there is no higher authority in your life than you, yourself personally. That is what I define as “god” in this case. If it bothers you, I can try to relabeling the term.

Gary David Currie……….. Again verified as we understand what food is. Ultimately I will take your word for it but I do not know if it is real or not until I actually eat it. You are right just because we can’t verify something does not mean it is true but it also doesn’t mean it is not true. Again the what if game.

Gary David Currie………… “god of one” 

Ok But you say it as if it does not apply to you as well and it does.

Christian #1…….< It would not be threatening to me at all. Change is constant and I accept this.>

Christianity was not only a threat to my old life, it gave it a “death sentence”.

If Christ is not “threatening” to your current way of life….. Then perhaps you have not really ever seen a deep Christian life or fully studied what it means to follow Christ.

That is the difference between following a “human” and following the “Son of God”.

If one says “I’m not much different now than I was before”, I would really be concerned about the “state” or (at best) “maturity” of that person’s faith.

I agree about one thing: (and I’ll add words)

Change in the Christian life is constant, and I accept this.

That means, I haven’t “arrived”, I’m still traveling towards the destination. There are “side-roads”, “short-cuts” and “traffic-jams” that I need to avoid! (I can recognize them, but don’t always avoid them)See More

Gary David Currie….. That is your interpretation of what you pretend to be real. Nice words and all that but again not based in reality as your premise is not verified. You cannot verify the food you eat and speak about so passionately.

You want me to accept your version of Jesus and if I do not them my experience is not valued or correct in your eyes.

This is all testimonial stuff and Billy Mays does the same thing and I don’t believe him either.

Back to the true Christian dilemma.

You avoid my real pertinent questions in favour of what you see as the easy way to answer.

It is hard to defend an un-defendable position.

Christian #1……..Funny enough, for your recording setup, you purchased items based on testimonial. Most of life is based on testimonial from those that we trust.

(1) I want to accept JESUS as presented in His word. Don’t accept “my” version, or anyone el…se’s.

(2) I know who I serve and what He has done for me.

You can try the same whenever you are ready, anytime. That is a personal relationship with God — that is what is offered and described. Once you are willing to submit to requirements, you might just find Him. He will not march to the beat of your drum.

I really wonder about your prior experiences in Christian circles, that would probably explain a lot. I know the story of a person that was “mad” at God because they felt slighted in a “Kid’s group” decades earlier… etc.,

In regards to “pertinent” questions, what do you feel has been “avoided”? (please pick your top, most burning issue!)

Gary David Currie …..testimonials based on a product I could see and touch and someone who I asked a million questions and got to know before I trusted.

My prior experiences in Christianity are not valid as an Justification to for my current position in the ma…nner you are alluding to.

Question most pressing…you say you can be wrong on one thing you admit that you can be fallible. If one can be fallible on one thing what prevents one from being fallible on all things?

I can say I really wonder if you really took a journey of discovery to look at all options like you say you did but I do not question this as it has no bearing on our conversations.

I would love to know how you know that god has done these things for you. How can you show me that he has done these things without just telling me.

You seem to always be questioning my integrity Markus In regards to my experiences being valid or valued when it comes to god. Is my word not good enough for you? (MOST PRESSING QUESSTION)

I truly believe you believe what you say to be real I Just don’t believe it is real.

Christian #2……Gary you always seem to be questioning any follower of Jesus’ integrity of their experience being valid. Is not our word good enough for you? We know and have experienced Jesus and He has changed us, opened our eyes. Why would we lie?

Gary David Currie…….. Read what I said . I said I believe that you believe it is true. Just like I believe it is not but it is the evidence that will determine it.

You did not answer my question you asked another question. You are very good at avoiding answe…ring anything and always trying to place the burden back on the other person.

I do not question people’s integrity I question what they say. I accept that you believe now prove it.

I can tell you exactly why you would lie and have already many times. I do not think that you consciously acknowledge that you lie but you do lie . By the very fact that you and others will not admit you could be wrong you are lying.

I am sorry your word is not good enough for me. I said what I said because you and others always want me to take your word for it as evidence but will not take mine. I was making a point that someone’s word on this matter is not good enough.

They just can’t admit they might be wrong.

Seek the truth always

Gary David Currie