Why doesn't God share His knowledge?

@Benjamin Taylor6:
Regarding Pavuna, I’ll be blunt: I don't buy it. I don't trust him. He can talk until he's blue in the face, but I won't believe a word until I see the proof with my own eyes. And even then, it won't be about "believing"—it will be about knowing. I still haven't forgotten that interview with Radman about the elixir of youth on NBC. When the host finally asked if he believed in God, he started stuttering and hesitating like this—"uh, well, um..."—before stumbling out an answer. I won't even mention how much he was sweating. If that's his idea of faith, you can imagine how little confidence I have in his convictions. I'll leave the rest for the public to judge.

bluebison25 said:Hey rapidbear65 (don't take this personally), I'm not even mad. People call me a villain, a devil worshiper, and god knows what else just because I won't join their massive Christian cult. Honestly, I don't hold it against them.

Look, math doesn't always have to follow the rules of physics—that’s exactly why we have complex numbers to handle square roots of negative values.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by that example, but I should point out that complex numbers are actually used extensively in quantum mechanics.

Andrew Robinson9 said:I'm not quite sure what you meant by that example, but I should point out that complex numbers are actually used extensively in quantum mechanics.

Look, the imaginary part of a complex number is just that—imaginary. It’s a conceptual tool, not a physical reality. To me, it's exactly like how people view God in religion. We invented the concept of (i) just to make sense of negative square roots. It's no different than how people invented God to explain things like the Sun or how nature works.

bluebison25 said:@Benjamin Taylor6:
Regarding Pavuna, I’ll be blunt: I don't buy it. I don't trust him. He can talk until he's blue in the face, but I won't believe a word until I see the proof with my own eyes. And even then, it won't be about "believing"—it will be about knowing. I still haven't forgotten that interview with Radman about the elixir of youth on NBC. When the host finally asked if he believed in God, he started stuttering and hesitating like this—"uh, well, um..."—before stumbling out an answer. I won't even mention how much he was sweating. If that's his idea of faith, you can imagine how little confidence I have in his convictions. I'll leave the rest for the public to judge.

If we want to follow Pavuna's logic, sure, we could all head off to some monastery in the mountains to fast and meditate for a few days. But if you're an atheist, let's be real—that's a total waste of time. An atheist might find more value in diving deep into some intense Gnostic study instead. ☕

As for whether God exists or not, I view the whole thing from a different angle entirely. Personally, I'm an ignostic.

silentridge8 said:It’s pretty obvious how defensive you get the second someone touches a nerve, isn't it? You're getting worked up because even though the bibliography is a joke, you've decided that since churches want money, Jesus never existed. 😵

Yeah, most historians agree, or rather, they hold the consensus that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew living in the first century who was sentenced to death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate—which was the standard punishment for non-citizens and criminals in the Roman Empire at the time.

Textual criticism and historical methodology are actual scientific disciplines, which clearly doesn't work in your favor here, so you'd rather just ignore them. Maybe that’s why you claim Ivancic was trying to prove the existence of a historical Jesus, even though that wasn't even the point of his book.

People can write whatever they want, but there is such a thing as an academic standard used to evaluate any given article. If you choose to ignore academia entirely and resort to ad hominem attacks (which isn't your first time 😉), it mostly just says something about your own position.

There are a few different schools of thought on this. One group thinks the whole thing is just a complete legend. Another group thinks it's a legend built on top of real events—you know, real stuff mixed with some embellishments and mystical elements. Then there’s a third group that believes we're looking at actual events, maybe retold in various ways, but ultimately a faithful account of what happened.

I don't think there's a single scientist in that third group who isn't also a convinced Christian.

Sure, it's hard to say what's real and what isn't when there's so little evidence. You can only really speculate on what's more likely or what fits into the general picture we have of those events.

For instance, one thing that doesn't quite fit is how quickly Jesus was taken down from the cross. Usually, people left crucified were left there for days as a warning (kind of like how people were later hung in public places or along roadsides, basically left until they rotted away).

But anyway, that's all off-topic. The real question is—why wouldn't God share that knowledge...

Paul Anderson2 said:There are a few different schools of thought on this. One group thinks the whole thing is just a complete legend. Another group thinks it's a legend built on top of real events—you know, real stuff mixed with some embellishments and mystical elements. Then there’s a third group that believes we're looking at actual events, maybe retold in various ways, but ultimately a faithful account of what happened.

I don't think there's a single scientist in that third group who isn't also a convinced Christian.

Sure, it's hard to say what's real and what isn't when there's so little evidence. You can only really speculate on what's more likely or what fits into the general picture we have of those events.

For instance, one thing that doesn't quite fit is how quickly Jesus was taken down from the cross. Usually, people left crucified were left there for days as a warning (kind of like how people were later hung in public places or along roadsides, basically left until they rotted away).

But anyway, that's all off-topic. The real question is—why wouldn't God share that knowledge...

If you were actually paying attention to that part of the conversation, it would be clear I wasn't claiming anything beyond the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure—nothing more, nothing less. What you wrote about there being multiple "schools of thought" doesn't really align with my point: most historians agree that Jesus was a Jew living in the first century who was regarded as a teacher and was crucified.

Furthermore, there's always that inevitable little clique of fanatics who can't distinguish one concept from another and refuse to actually listen to anyone else, preferring to offer their own "analyses" while talking down to everyone.

For instance, one detail that's hard to reconcile is how quickly Jesus was taken down from the cross. Usually, people left on crosses were left for days as a warning—kind of like how public hangings later on would leave bodies exposed by the roadside until they practically rotted away.

It's unusual, though there is mention of a burial after the crucifixion. My point was mainly that a lack of clarity doesn't mean a historical person didn't exist. But then again, like you said, that's moving into OT territory.

bluebison25 said:Look, the imaginary part of a complex number is just that—imaginary. It’s a conceptual tool, not a physical reality. To me, it's exactly like how people view God in religion. We invented the concept of (i) just to make sense of negative square roots. It's no different than how people invented God to explain things like the Sun or how nature works.

No number is truly "real" in an absolute sense, but we use them because they work. Since both real and complex numbers serve practical purposes, I don't think your comparison is quite right. Still, I get your point, even if I'm splitting hairs a little.

silentridge8 said:If you were actually paying attention to that part of the conversation, it would be clear I wasn't claiming anything beyond the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure—nothing more, nothing less. What you wrote about there being multiple "schools of thought" doesn't really align with my point: most historians agree that Jesus was a Jew living in the first century who was regarded as a teacher and was crucified.

Furthermore, there's always that inevitable little clique of fanatics who can't distinguish one concept from another and refuse to actually listen to anyone else, preferring to offer their own "analyses" while talking down to everyone.

For instance, one detail that's hard to reconcile is how quickly Jesus was taken down from the cross. Usually, people left on crosses were left for days as a warning—kind of like how public hangings later on would leave bodies exposed by the roadside until they practically rotted away.

It's unusual, though there is mention of a burial after the crucifixion. My point was mainly that a lack of clarity doesn't mean a historical person didn't exist. But then again, like you said, that's moving into OT territory.

Sure, you could claim Briar Rose existed too, but maybe back it up with something. ☕

What you wrote about there being multiple currents doesn't match what I said:

which is:

that most historians believe Jesus was a Jew living in the first century, considered a teacher and crucified.

Believe?
Hardly.
If you actually ask them, most historians will tell you they don't have an issue with some Jew existing who might vaguely align with the person described in the New Testament. There were plenty of those radical street preachers running around back then, and Flavius writes about them.

It's a different thing when a small group of fanatics who can't distinguish terms and refuse to listen to others act like they're doing deep analysis while talking down to everyone.

But YOU'RE the one failing to distinguish between "a historical figure" and "the idea that someone similar might have existed."
It’s a little trick theologians like Ivancic love using to push the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure—basically trying to manufacture a scientific consensus to put him on the same level as, say, Caesar or Aristotle.

Unusual, though, that there's a burial after the crucifixion.

? Usually, they just tossed people into unmarked mass graves to make sure the shame was public and served as a warning.

What I mainly meant was that uncertainty doesn't mean a historical person didn't exist.

A historical person can't "not exist" (unless it turns out the evidence was fake or totally misread later). But Jesus is not a historical person. Someone similar might have been around, but maybe not. The Catechism or various religious pamphlets claim He is a historical figure, but He isn't, because there's zero scientifically acceptable proof for it.

Maybe God "granted certain people the knowledge" that Jesus was a real figure back in Israel, but mainstream science doesn't buy it, and frankly, it isn't convincing from a historical standpoint either.

How do we actually define a historical figure? I suppose it’s someone who leaves a massive footprint on the timeline—though, let's be honest, you tend to leave a bigger mark if you were just... interesting. Whether you were a general, a king, a writer, a poet, a philosopher, or even a mass murderer (:eek). Take the Queen of Saba—she's a historical figure, though she might not have even existed outside of myth. Or King Arcturus. You have actual historical figures, then you have legendary ones. Then there are those marginal figures who sit on the edges of history, only to be catapulted into significance later on. Think of the Judge or Osho. They started as marginal players, but they become monumental if enough people decide to hoist them up onto an ideological pedestal. It’s the same story with Marx—the man was essentially a nobody during his lifetime. But because certain ideological successors took his ideas and elevated them to the heavens—resulting in the deaths of millions—Marx became a "significant" historical figure.
The Roman chroniclers barely mention Jesus of Nazareth—hardly anything at all, really. But that’s enough. That's plenty to allow a legend to coalesce around him, a legend that many people eventually believe in and dedicate their entire lives to. It all boils down to the followers of an idea—people who find a particular concept palatable for the era they live in. It depends on the historical moment, the geography, the social climate, and the sheer willpower of those carrying the torch... etcetera, etcetera. And here we are, looking back at how one marginal individual became incredibly significant to those who believe. For everyone else? Well, his significance is about as relevant to them as Marxism is to the modern history of the USA.
To Americans, Marxism is important, sure, but in reality, it's dangerous. Much like how dangerous Jones was—the man who slaughtered 1,000 Americans in Guyana.

I’m constantly trying to shut down everything Anthony Perez9 writes, but he just dodges every single point, twisting both words and facts. We have to face reality for what it actually is. Numbers are real; they exist so we can calculate our way through life. Plenty of people will try to deny that, and let them. That’s why God hasn't granted them any insight, nor will He. They simply refuse to accept the truth.
Regarding the historical existence of Jesus, people cherry-pick data from historians who supposedly lived during that era and recorded history. Honestly, most of the figures theologians drag up to "prove" Jesus was a historical figure are total fabrications. Those people weren't even born when Jesus was walking the Earth. How can you claim someone existed when the writings about them didn't show up until 100 years later? It's nothing more than the lies and deceptions religions use to manufacture proof where none exists. Simply put, God isn't answering their prayers. If their God even exists, He isn't "listening" to them through prayer, telepathy, or whatever else they try.

bluebison25 said:I’m constantly trying to shut down everything Anthony Perez9 writes, but he just dodges every single point, twisting both words and facts. We have to face reality for what it actually is. Numbers are real; they exist so we can calculate our way through life. Plenty of people will try to deny that, and let them. That’s why God hasn't granted them any insight, nor will He. They simply refuse to accept the truth.
Regarding the historical existence of Jesus, people cherry-pick data from historians who supposedly lived during that era and recorded history. Honestly, most of the figures theologians drag up to "prove" Jesus was a historical figure are total fabrications. Those people weren't even born when Jesus was walking the Earth. How can you claim someone existed when the writings about them didn't show up until 100 years later? It's nothing more than the lies and deceptions religions use to manufacture proof where none exists. Simply put, God isn't answering their prayers. If their God even exists, He isn't "listening" to them through prayer, telepathy, or whatever else they try.

Anthony Perez9 is, shall we say, a legend.🙂

When discussing whether Jesus was a historical figure, people rely on data and records from historians who were actually living through those times and documenting history.Every single one of those individuals theologians list as evidence for Jesus being a historical person is a lie. They weren't even born during the era when Jesus lived. How can you claim someone existed when the accounts only started appearing 100 years later? It's just more lies and manipulation used by religions to manufacture proof where none exists. Quite frankly, God isn't answering their prayers. If their God even exists, He isn't "listening" to them via prayer, telepathy, or whatever else they try.

🤣 And you're well on your way to becoming a legend yourself.

Anthony Perez9 said:Sure, you could claim Briar Rose existed too, but maybe back it up with something. ☕

What you wrote about there being multiple currents doesn't match what I said:

which is:

that most historians believe Jesus was a Jew living in the first century, considered a teacher and crucified.

Believe?
Hardly.
If you actually ask them, most historians will tell you they don't have an issue with some Jew existing who might vaguely align with the person described in the New Testament. There were plenty of those radical street preachers running around back then, and Flavius writes about them.

It's a different thing when a small group of fanatics who can't distinguish terms and refuse to listen to others act like they're doing deep analysis while talking down to everyone.

But YOU'RE the one failing to distinguish between "a historical figure" and "the idea that someone similar might have existed."
It’s a little trick theologians like Ivancic love using to push the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure—basically trying to manufacture a scientific consensus to put him on the same level as, say, Caesar or Aristotle.

Unusual, though, that there's a burial after the crucifixion.

? Usually, they just tossed people into unmarked mass graves to make sure the shame was public and served as a warning.

What I mainly meant was that uncertainty doesn't mean a historical person didn't exist.

A historical person can't "not exist" (unless it turns out the evidence was fake or totally misread later). But Jesus is not a historical person. Someone similar might have been around, but maybe not. The Catechism or various religious pamphlets claim He is a historical figure, but He isn't, because there's zero scientifically acceptable proof for it.

Maybe God "granted certain people the knowledge" that Jesus was a real figure back in Israel, but mainstream science doesn't buy it, and frankly, it isn't convincing from a historical standpoint either.

And now you've decided to play the comedian, too.🍿

silentridge8 said:Anthony Perez9 is, shall we say, a legend.🙂

When discussing whether Jesus was a historical figure, people rely on data and records from historians who were actually living through those times and documenting history.Every single one of those individuals theologians list as evidence for Jesus being a historical person is a lie. They weren't even born during the era when Jesus lived. How can you claim someone existed when the accounts only started appearing 100 years later? It's just more lies and manipulation used by religions to manufacture proof where none exists. Quite frankly, God isn't answering their prayers. If their God even exists, He isn't "listening" to them via prayer, telepathy, or whatever else they try.

🤣 And you're well on your way to becoming a legend yourself.

hehe,...😂

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Well, that depends entirely on what kind of "truth" we're talking about here. In my view, truth ought to look something like this:

Some people face the truth and manage to walk away from it alive. Beyond that—experts even claim they develop better character traits afterward:

But then you have to wonder... why isn't this happening more often? It's almost as if God is running low on holy oil to pour out His grace. 😕

So, what you’re saying is you can't actually face the truth—not if you have to carry the weight of it—especially when you try to cherry-pick it? You know, only accepting it when it suits your narrative, but tossing it aside the second it gets inconvenient?

Benjamin Taylor6 Asks:
Some people actually face the truth and manage to walk away from it intact. On top of that—if you believe the experts—they supposedly come out the other side with some newfound positive qualities.

Meeting the Truth isn't some external event—it happens deep inside a person, not out there in the world. On the surface, sure, we define ourselves by how we relate to other people and the society around us, but internally? That’s where we measure ourselves against God.

It’s pretty obvious to anyone paying attention—you can see it happening everywhere—that people just can't stomach the truth about themselves or the world. So, what do they do? They put on masks. Politicians are the most glaring example of that, obviously.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Well, that depends entirely on what kind of "truth" we're talking about here. In my view, truth ought to look something like this:

Some people face the truth and manage to walk away from it alive. Beyond that—experts even claim they develop better character traits afterward:

But then you have to wonder... why isn't this happening more often? It's almost as if God is running low on holy oil to pour out His grace. 😕

Maybe save that question for when you've actually finished your own business—because honestly, it feels a little hypocritical to start pointing fingers at everyone else before you've even handled your own side of things.

I didn't bother addressing those examples you brought up about seeing other people—mostly because they don't really hold any weight in this debate.

It is genuinely refreshing to see people actually questioning the purpose of their existence. I’ve spent quite a bit of time wrestling with those same questions myself, right up until I stumbled upon what I believe to be the definitive answer. We weren't conjured by some eternal entity, nor did we just pop into existence because of the Big Bang; rather, we were fashioned by the VERY FIRST CIVILIZATION that emerged at the very dawn of our spacetime. On this planet, the King of that civilization is known as Jesus Christ, and he is destined to return! That is my opening statement. Best regards to all.

Nancy Wilson2 said:The universe isn't being "created" or "destroyed"; it is all energy, obviously. It merely shifts form—it can never be birthed from nothing nor truly extinguished, making it infinite and immortal. Our linear, limited minds struggle to grasp infinity, so we reflexively insist that everything must have a beginning or an end. What actually happened? Perhaps as the previous universe reached its "end," it began to collapse; the volume decreased further and further until, according to evolutionary theory and relativity, it culminated in a new (or another one, several times over) singularity. Given the nature of spacetime, the attractive force of gravity changes—it ceases at those extreme densities—causing the collapse to halt. Those forces then pivot, creating a repulsive force, and everything begins anew. There is no breaking point; these processes have always existed. That is simply how nature functions—through balance and cycles. It follows the logic laid out in the link I provided.

No God or external intelligence is required to explain this. It is quite simply nature—creation in action, manifesting itself. Unless, of course, you believe that nature and the universe are one and the same. In that case, pantheism wins. 😁 A God that creates Himself—if He is "omnipotent," why not? What would be the purpose of this repetition? New experiences for living beings. Is life not, ultimately, just an experience? And who is the one experiencing it? Consciousness. Now, as for what consciousness actually is, I wouldn't dare claim it is merely a function produced by the brain; there is simply too much evidence suggesting otherwise. From what I have read regarding quantum mechanics and unified field theory, consciousness appears to be fundamental to nature. However, I suspect scientists would need to approach this with far more open minds to investigate it properly. If the universe operates with such perfection, I see no reason why life itself wouldn't be equally perfect—meaning it never truly "vanishes," but rather shifts into a form suited for higher dimensions. I once heard a fellow forum user suggest that "energy becomes matter in higher dimensions," which is a compelling thought. If that holds true, then this entire process of rebirth exists solely to gather new experiences for the infinite field of consciousness/intelligence that permeates everything.

But then again, we don't know everything yet... we'll live to see. I am merely recording my current thoughts; I trust no one takes offense.

edit: My 400th post, by the way, 🙂 😁

briskotter192 said:It is genuinely refreshing to see people actually questioning the purpose of their existence. I’ve spent quite a bit of time wrestling with those same questions myself, right up until I stumbled upon what I believe to be the definitive answer. We weren't conjured by some eternal entity, nor did we just pop into existence because of the Big Bang; rather, we were fashioned by the VERY FIRST CIVILIZATION that emerged at the very dawn of our spacetime. On this planet, the King of that civilization is known as Jesus Christ, and he is destined to return! That is my opening statement. Best regards to all.

Hey briskotter192, thanks for solving all of humanity's problems in one go. Truly life-changing.

Be honest: do you think Jesus is going to return to Earth first, like you claim, or are we going to meet him somewhere else—let's call it Heaven? 🍿

briskotter192 said:It is genuinely refreshing to see people actually questioning the purpose of their existence. I’ve spent quite a bit of time wrestling with those same questions myself, right up until I stumbled upon what I believe to be the definitive answer. We weren't conjured by some eternal entity, nor did we just pop into existence because of the Big Bang; rather, we were fashioned by the VERY FIRST CIVILIZATION that emerged at the very dawn of our spacetime. On this planet, the King of that civilization is known as Jesus Christ, and he is destined to return! That is my opening statement. Best regards to all.

First off, man, 🙂🙂😍

Here’s yet another theory regarding how the Universe and our entire civilization came to be. Personally? I think this one holds as much water as the idea that the cosmos was sparked by the cosmic union of male and female atoms. And let me tell you, those atoms were incredibly prolific—producing more offspring than a beehive full of queens.
Besides, the atom itself was quite the little hedonist. 😍

briskotter192 said:It is genuinely refreshing to see people actually questioning the purpose of their existence. I’ve spent quite a bit of time wrestling with those same questions myself, right up until I stumbled upon what I believe to be the definitive answer. We weren't conjured by some eternal entity, nor did we just pop into existence because of the Big Bang; rather, we were fashioned by the VERY FIRST CIVILIZATION that emerged at the very dawn of our spacetime. On this planet, the King of that civilization is known as Jesus Christ, and he is destined to return! That is my opening statement. Best regards to all.

As for me, I exist simply because I am—it's as simple as that. My physical presence is merely the result of my parents, who... well, you know how the whole process works.

These trolls—or whatever they choose to call themselves on these forums—are genuinely entertaining; honestly, whenever I catch one of their posts, it brightens my day. Thanks for that. 😁

bluebison25 said:Hey briskotter192, thanks for solving all of humanity's problems in one go. Truly life-changing.

Be honest: do you think Jesus is going to return to Earth first, like you claim, or are we going to meet him somewhere else—let's call it Heaven? 🍿

I realize most of you don't believe me, but reality dictates that we were actually the very FIRST civilization. Within a few years, believing in the Big Bang (evolutionary theory) or some sort of eternal being will be viewed as ancient history. It will be as absurd as someone today claiming the Earth is flat or that the Sun revolves around us. It isn't your fault that you believe in these fairy tales; you were simply conditioned to do so, whether in school or in church. I hold no grudge against you for whatever you write in response. However, you will never grasp the actual TRUTH regarding the origin of the Universe unless you abandon everything you think you know and start from scratch. This doesn't mean discarding what is true, but rather discarding the falsehoods. From a young age, we are taught that we are too "simple-minded" to comprehend the TRUTH. That is the narrative pushed by priests and teachers alike; they insist we must follow the Pope or some scientist who fancies himself a genius. In reality, they are all just talking in circles. I cannot provide mathematical proofs for my claims here in this forum, but I will soon be publishing my findings publicly during my lectures. The TRUTH is staggering. Imagine a being that was a million years old? What would such a creature possibly know? Now, imagine a being that predates our known Universe entirely. Our universe is merely a microscopic fragment of the INFINITE SPACE IN WHICH WE ALL EXIST! Jesus Christ said: Before the world existed, I AM. I am King, and My kingdom spans from the beginning (of our specific dimension) unto eternity! We were all born for eternal life—a concept known to many beings throughout the cosmos—and finally, it is our turn to understand. I could go on extensively, but there is no rush; time is on our side. Please do not think I am mocking you; I simply want you to stop believing in myths and discover the truth for yourselves, just as I have. Best regards to all.

briskotter192 said:I realize most of you don't believe me, but reality dictates that we were actually the very FIRST civilization. Within a few years, believing in the Big Bang (evolutionary theory) or some sort of eternal being will be viewed as ancient history. It will be as absurd as someone today claiming the Earth is flat or that the Sun revolves around us. It isn't your fault that you believe in these fairy tales; you were simply conditioned to do so, whether in school or in church. I hold no grudge against you for whatever you write in response. However, you will never grasp the actual TRUTH regarding the origin of the Universe unless you abandon everything you think you know and start from scratch. This doesn't mean discarding what is true, but rather discarding the falsehoods. From a young age, we are taught that we are too "simple-minded" to comprehend the TRUTH. That is the narrative pushed by priests and teachers alike; they insist we must follow the Pope or some scientist who fancies himself a genius. In reality, they are all just talking in circles. I cannot provide mathematical proofs for my claims here in this forum, but I will soon be publishing my findings publicly during my lectures. The TRUTH is staggering. Imagine a being that was a million years old? What would such a creature possibly know? Now, imagine a being that predates our known Universe entirely. Our universe is merely a microscopic fragment of the INFINITE SPACE IN WHICH WE ALL EXIST! Jesus Christ said: Before the world existed, I AM. I am King, and My kingdom spans from the beginning (of our specific dimension) unto eternity! We were all born for eternal life—a concept known to many beings throughout the cosmos—and finally, it is our turn to understand. I could go on extensively, but there is no rush; time is on our side. Please do not think I am mocking you; I simply want you to stop believing in myths and discover the truth for yourselves, just as I have. Best regards to all.

First off, evolution and the Big Bang aren't even the same thing.

And second, how do you even know all this? Where are you getting this info?

briskotter192 said:I realize most of you don't believe me, but reality dictates that we were actually the very FIRST civilization. Within a few years, believing in the Big Bang (evolutionary theory) or some sort of eternal being will be viewed as ancient history. It will be as absurd as someone today claiming the Earth is flat or that the Sun revolves around us. It isn't your fault that you believe in these fairy tales; you were simply conditioned to do so, whether in school or in church. I hold no grudge against you for whatever you write in response. However, you will never grasp the actual TRUTH regarding the origin of the Universe unless you abandon everything you think you know and start from scratch. This doesn't mean discarding what is true, but rather discarding the falsehoods. From a young age, we are taught that we are too "simple-minded" to comprehend the TRUTH. That is the narrative pushed by priests and teachers alike; they insist we must follow the Pope or some scientist who fancies himself a genius. In reality, they are all just talking in circles. I cannot provide mathematical proofs for my claims here in this forum, but I will soon be publishing my findings publicly during my lectures. The TRUTH is staggering. Imagine a being that was a million years old? What would such a creature possibly know? Now, imagine a being that predates our known Universe entirely. Our universe is merely a microscopic fragment of the INFINITE SPACE IN WHICH WE ALL EXIST! Jesus Christ said: Before the world existed, I AM. I am King, and My kingdom spans from the beginning (of our specific dimension) unto eternity! We were all born for eternal life—a concept known to many beings throughout the cosmos—and finally, it is our turn to understand. I could go on extensively, but there is no rush; time is on our side. Please do not think I am mocking you; I simply want you to stop believing in myths and discover the truth for yourselves, just as I have. Best regards to all.

I mean, what kind of "mathematical proof" could that even be?? 🤷

Maybe try using fewer capital letters and exclamation points... feels a bit like you're shouting...