Let them know I really exist.

@Word We already are aware that humans exist. How are you any different than the rest of the humans? How is your existence more special?

@Wildgreens it's not, we have labelled ourselves as gods for longer than we have labeled ourselves as humans

I find it tiresome when my daughter sits around talking about everyday goings on, he said, she said rumor , small town gossip stuff.

I personally do not like the word human, I find that tiresome as well that people constantly want to use the label human for people as if people are required to be labeled as human.

@TheMiddleWay no true scotsman can be a god or no true God can be a scotsman?

@TheMiddleWay I know, people want the whiz bang

@TheMiddleWay for sake of explaining one style of biblical god is a Caterpillar that is genetics to be come a butterfly still a butterfly?

The monarch butterfly, like other insects, has several life forms and stages prior to reaching adulthood. The monarch has four distinct life stages: egg, larva (caterpillar), pupa (chrysalis), and adult.
www.fs.fed.us › pollinators › biology
Monarch Butterfly Biology - Forest Service

"Child of God" is "Christian " terminology for a style of god in "human" form like a Caterpillar that is seen by atheist. It is the after death form of a style of god that atheist want to see.

A child butterfly is still a butterfly eventhought it is in a child Caterpillar stage. Theological whatatcha callit

What is first? We have a "thing". We give it a label "God". The definition of the thing labelled would be its description. Gods are called by other label as in more recent years here is how they describe us with newer labels.

History of Discovery:
Unlike every other human species, Homo sapiens does not have a true type specimen. In other words, there is not a particular Homo sapiens individual that researchers recognize as being the specimen that gave Homo sapiens its name. Even though Linnaeus first described our species in 1758, it was not customary at that time to designate type specimens. It is rumored that in 1994 paleontologist Robert Bakker formally declared the skull of Edward Drinker Cope as the “lectotype”, a specimen essentially serving as the type specimen. When Cope, himself a great paleontologist, died in 1897, he willed his remains to science, and they are held by the University of Pennsylvania. But a type specimen must be one examined by the original author who names a species, so Cope’s remains do not qualify. [humanorigins.si.edu].

@TheMiddleWay he asked the questions, I answered the questions and he brings up no other point for asking the questions.

@TheMiddleWay Michael Jordon basketball God next to fat man like me, my "humaness" is not flying thru the air like basketball God.

@TheMiddleWay by biblical text statement, "sons of god manifested on Earth..men of great renown. Means popular. Above human not specifically mentioned.

@TheMiddleWay ontological theological reality. Is that the biblical text is saying "humans" in all their "humanness " are gods, child even, that in one style of arguement is like the stages if butterfly. Atheist may only see human as Caterpillar humans but know see the butterfly God after death.

I am not saying this is my "belief" that people are as if "butterfly" gods after death, but this is one style biblical text is explaining.

@TheMiddleWay is there different types of theological senses?

@TheMiddleWay what makes a secular dictionary definition in writting to be "true"?

@TheMiddleWay I clearly point out that unicorn exist, it is even considered to be the unicorn of biblical text that others out side of biblical text has made it into a mythological character.

You and Matt are saying that because "human" Harry Potter is a "human" doing whiz bang that means "real" humans do not exist.

Maybe state it this way, In view of the mythological unicorn, the unicorn rhinoceros cannot exist because it does not met the true definition of a mythicalunicorn?

@TheMiddleWay for theological whatacallit can we understand and agree without dispute of its existance as purported the Christian "child of god" style god. What you see as a "human" is a God in the stage analogy to a Caterpillar. Then after death the Christian says they are the transformation into the adult butterfly.

Now are you saying that because we cannot verify the adult after death butterfly stage of a Christian god, that we cannot properly call christian a god at all? This is the death reason as written for Jesus character calling himself a "son of god" and the people he called gods killed him because by him calling himself a son of god is the same as saying he was a butterfly in a Caterpillar stage. They disagreed that he was a butterfly thus killing him for blasphemy.

@TheMiddleWay You know the Caterpillar/butterfly analogy is Egyptian right and the basis for christianity? Pharaohs die translation into the here after. Jesus is purported to be Osiris horus reincarnated myth come to pass.

Isaiah 19:25
The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance."

Matthew 5:17 Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the. prophets.

John 14:9 ...Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

There are many striking parallels between the myth of Osiris and the New Testament record of Jesus. [egyptorigins.org]

John 1:1 and 1:14 explains the parallels. The old Testament thoughts LOGOS become flesh.

The myth in the thoughts is purported to become flesh reality. Biblical theme the power of word(s), spoken.

Jesus character "son of man" man made because the old testiment people- man - gods spoke from their logis-thought filled with myth stories to create Jesus character.

@TheMiddleWay science's name for it is UNICORNIS rhinoceros. Science clearly acknowledged it is a unicorn

@TheMiddleWay I really have to question you on science called it unicornis but you say it is not recognized as a unicorn. I really need further understanding of your position on that.

@TheMiddleWay Correct. If Resurrection is one of the defining qualities of a god, and we cannot verify that resurrection, then we cannot verify that God

I can agree as to verfication of that god that a definition is given.

My point is:we have definition right? You say we have definition with out verfication right, my entire point is we have definition. Wheither or not verfied, we have a given definition do we or do we not have a given definition?

@TheMiddleWay matt did not clarify he was talking about the mythological unicorn. I obviously was talking about the real existent labelled unicorn that has only one horn.

@TheMiddleWay No true God is anything other than mythological? No true scotsman can be a true god ?

@TheMiddleWay I want to make sure, there is a species of animal that has 2 horns. It is one type of rhino. Another species of rhino has only 1 horm. Uni is one, corn is horn. One horn, unicorn? A unicorn animal exist. A one horned animal really exist.

@TheMiddleWay The biblical unicorn is the real, existent unicorn of the rhino.

From the context of the word unicorn in the Bible, we can conclude that the unicorn was an animal of great strength, similar to bulls and bullocks, with a notable horn. We can also conclude that it was not a domesticated animal used to till the fields.

The answer to the question “Are there unicorns in the Bible?” is yes, but no one knows for sure what the Biblical unicorn really looked like. Most scholars agree the unicorns mentioned in the Bible were either a type of wild ox – as the Hebrew name suggests – or a one-horned rhinoceros as the Greek suggests. Nearly everyone agrees that the Biblical unicorn is unlikely to match our image of the mythical unicorn

[unicornsrule.com].

@TheMiddleWay unicorm could be a equivocation fallacy. The context of the conversation that I had with Matt was about biblical text. Matt pulls a question in the conversation about some with more than one possible definition. Because the conversation was about biblical text definitions, I gave him the biblical text version of a unicorn that really exist. Matt was trying to pull the: In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence. Wikipedia

We were not having a discussion about mythological labels in a mythological context.

Matt is typical illogical atheist.

@TheMiddleWay did I lose you some where? You pointed out equivocation Jesus of Mexico and Jesus of Israel biblical text. This I find was not a correct evaluation of the situation that happened in the context of biblical definition discussion with Matt.

I brought out use of biblical definitions and was speaking of how biblical text defines things. I was not talking about mythological definitions of things.

Matt, in the context of biblical definition discussion, asks about unicorns existence. I give the biblical discussion definition use of unicorn and it being the real animal.

Matt was not talking about the real use of unicorn for a real animal, he goes into mythological use of the word unicorn. He does not clarify his change from real biblical definitions discussion to using definition from a mythological cartoon.

@TheMiddleWay call me human is no different. It appears for 1000s of years Elohim are the label given by Israeli government laws for their citizens. Elohim translated into English is God.

Where is word game?

Why call me human , sounds just like word games that I am and everyone is being required to be labeled as a human.

@TheMiddleWay I get you and Matt's accusation of "word game". Some how pun with words or something. I am just not understanding or getting your definition for "word games". In the context of me explaining citizens of Israel be labeled as Elohim - Gods in English. Pointing out this labeling fact. How is that word games, what is you definition of word games so I can actually specifically understand your label of a word game player.

@TheMiddleWay let us not discuss existence of 'God(s)" let us discuss existence of elohim. Do elohims exist? Is there a difference in discussion?

@TheMiddleWay can we translate into Hebrew and discuss the existence of Elohim in Hebrew. I do not know much Hebrew. How does the discussion change, or not, if all our words are written discussion in Hebrew? How would we specifically seperate the Greek style God from a Hebrew style God when speaking Hebrew?

@TheMiddleWay "If" we decided while speaking Hebrew that Elohim does exist, how do we transform that into English?

@TheMiddleWay I appears to me elohim in Hebrew exist to label citizens of the nation prior to 2000 years ago.

The error is translation of Elohim into English as God. That is a translation error, right? Jesus character and Israeli people would be an Elohim, to debate Jesus character in context of English God would be fallacy because Jesus character was an Elohim not a god.

@TheMiddleWay If you were Israeli, hebrew and invaded in your land and forced to change languages. Your elohim is not absolutely exactly translatable into the new forced language. How do you preserve the intended meanings of orginal language when forced to use another?

Example: ruach is a force like breath
In English spirit is used, but no one thinks of kinetic energy of air molecules leaving the lungs.

@TheMiddleWay I was just sitting around contemplating then seen your most recent message just now.

"I don't know what else to tell you Bro. I think the disconnect is in you looking at existing as it exists on paper while we looking at existence as it exists outside of paper, in reality."

You use "disconnect", what I was thinking before noticing your statement was the "connect" as opposed to a disconnect. A connection is words. Words are in reality. Words exist. But this is not the point, yet.

There has been those calling ourselves gods for 1000s of years. As in video with Matt saying it is acceptable to call the dude homo sapian but not god, is an error.

As I said, there are those that has been labeling ourselves as gods before we labeled ourselfs homo sapiens.

The only thing modern terminology of homo sapian attempts to do is "standardized " what we call ourselves so that someone cannot make a hyperbole or exaggeration for what homo sapian can do. Where as with the terminology of us being gods, Atheist can says the only "true" God is non-existant pasta in the sky with meatballs therefore we can no longer after 1000s of years refer to ourselves as gods but we must by this force of atheist dictates label ourselves as homo sapiens.

Otherwise, it's not a play on words, that is really that "God" [the English word] has different standards of what it can be used as a label for. Homo sapian is a label that by having its stricter form of standard could be more appropriate to label us as but does not change the fact we can and do exist as we are labelled being able to be both gods and homo sapian. I as others exist, I as others are labeled as a God, atheism wrong.

@TheMiddleWay just to add, this is something of a theme of the biblical text and why biblical text establishes that god is a person and a person is a God. God by biblical text is not supposed to be something like a golden statue, biblical text is about standardizing that gods are people and people are gods.

@TheMiddleWay Matt[and illogical atheist] tries to assert it is false to call us gods. We can truly be and are gods it is the assertion or assignment of attributes that may be false. Atheism illogical.

@TheMiddleWay I would have to dig for reference but thinking of old written text that says Angels [means messagers] are the stars in the sky singing.

Why do we labeled modern musicians singing their message as "rock stars"?

@TheMiddleWay Hows about some music?

@TheMiddleWay as I have used it before, basketball god Michael Jordon a homo sapian can fly thru the air and dunk a basketball. My fat butt being a God and homo sapian is not capable of flying thru the air to dunk a basketball, I am not a basketball God. I am not a homo sapian of Michael Jordon capabilities.

@TheMiddleWay

Thought experiment? Omnipresent style God present at every finite point for infinity in every direction? Decides to use all powerfulness to be in the shape of a homo sapian and hang out with other people in the same form. How would it display omnipresent while hanging on a cross while the homo sapian form is appearing to, as purported, to be dying.

Bible Verses About Jesus Christ Fully Man Fully God
Bible verses related to Jesus Christ Fully Man Fully God from the King James Version (KJV) by Relevance - Sort By Book Order

Colossians 2:9 - For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

John 10:28-30 - And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. (Read More...)

John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

John 1:1-5 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[kingjamesbibleonline.org]

@TheMiddleWay As I have explained many times on here. Jesus character is man made and the text gives us this clue to understand. Jesus character refers to himself as "son of man".

"The expression "the Son of man" occurs 81 times in the Greek text of the four Canonical gospels, and is used only in the sayings of Jesus.[3] " wikipedia

Son of man = product of mankind = man made.

Watch the movie "Stranger than fiction ". With actor Will Ferrell (2006).

The simularity is of the movie and how biblical theme required Jesus character to "fulfill " old testiment prophesy.

@TheMiddleWay What is the reference I gave to Matt that is established? John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[a]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture [what is in writting] cannot be set aside

Homo sapiens (n.)
the genus of human beings, 1802, in William Turton's translation of Linnæus, coined in Modern Latin from Latin homo "man" (technically "male human," but in logical and scholastic writing "human being;" see homunculus) + sapiens, present participle of sapere "be wise" (see sapient).

We are only homo sapiens because [what is in writting] etymology cannot be set aside?

@TheMiddleWay I think the true disconnect is with illogical atheist being like Greek people culture preconceived concepts trying to understand Hebrew language style God that is not thr same as a Greek language and style of god.

@TheMiddleWay what are the required properties of "your god" or anyone's god?

@TheMiddleWay ...", it doesn't prove that we share any of the characteristics of being a god."

If we put a label on something and saying "this thing so label, such as with the word human or god, that thing is the definition for the label" . So it would not appear to me that there is any reason or requirement to prove anything fits a label with some preconceived characteristics for that label.

@TheMiddleWay as with Matt in video he pick up a drinking cup and says calling it a God is not correct.

I can understand that to pick up the cup and call it a car tire attaching those car tire attributes to calling the cup a car tire would be considered incorrect. But, it seems to me the nature of the word God is that it could be attached to anything and given any attribute. Forsure, attributes attributed with a God thingie may be seen as false attributes.

Really you apparently have no idea how much of an unthinking zealot you appear to be. Please just stop. If you had any idea what you are talking about you would be too embarrassed to ever post here again.

@DavidLaDeau I have no reason to be embarrassed here. But thanks for your concern.

@TheMiddleWay in my other message I used preconceived characteristics you are applying when the word god is used to label something saying it is a God. I think this is part of where you think I am playing word games. It is like a person label the cup as a God, to them and I am like ok, that is his god and the cup labeled is given as the definition for how it is shaped and exist. It is the same thing the Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worshippers do for their "higher power" that is interchangeable with or has a connotation of God in the notion or definition you think a non-existent God is. As a practice of accepting anything labeled to be a God thingie, "higher power" is that Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worshippers are not putting preconceived notions with their labeling something a God thingie. They accept world wide over all anything, religion etc. that is not atheist unless atheist can articulate "higher power" of some sort, I guess. At least I had one Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worshipper governmental terrorist explain that it was acceptable for them to call a cup their "higher power" just so they accepted something as a "higher power". I am sure in some places the temples have only specific religious people ,like Christian only, attending their meetings.