Evidence for God from Science

Ivellious wrote:True. I guess my response was just to say that I don't think there is one definition of a good life or a good person. And I certainly can't possibly know what God might define them as.

How do you define your statement in the below quote in light to what you wrote in the above quote?

Ivellious wrote:...Personally, I think God would accept anyone into heaven so long as they lived a good life, but I understand that my perspective isn't really accepted here haha...

I have to reiterate that I am not opposed to reading the bible or you quoting the bible. But simply that it would be easier and more productive if we spoke from personal experience rather than quoting something that we do not have a common background in.

How do we know that what we have experienced, is aligned to the truth, unless we have something to map it against?

I'd say that I understand God and Jesus just fine without claiming exclusivity. Jesus taught me to Love and to have compassion and to give of myself to service of God. I do not need to claim exclusivity. I do not claim to have the only interpretation of his teaching. Sometimes being right is not important. And asserting that you have exclusive knowledge of God's way is just bad-taste. I don't need to be right, but I do like to feel love and be loved and to act out of compassion and have compassion acted towards me. I don't need to read more into it than that.

Are you using the word "Jesus" in the metaphorical sense or in the literal sense?

I do not need to claim exclusivity.

Every teaching at its core is exclusive.

I do not claim to have the only interpretation of his teaching.

The real question is if the interpretation is sound and consistent. Having an interpretation doesn't validate anything.

Sometimes being right is not important.

Then what is?

I don't need to be right, but I do like to feel love and be loved and to act out of compassion and have compassion acted towards me.

Why? why is love important?

I know from experience because I have died and now am alive. I drowned in a river in my twenties.

Why would you think that your experience, which was literal, came to be consistent with path of afterlife described in the Bardo Thodol, which is metaphorical?

buddhawarrior wrote: Bakti yoga is not a book and not a truth, or claim anything at all.

This is a self contradictory statement in conflict what you cited next...

buddhawarrior wrote: I'm not using it to prove anything other than that the way Jesus taught is the same way that many Gurus/spiritual teachers of the past have taught. It doesn't mean I'm absolutely, by divine right, correct. It just means I've made an observation.,.

How can you use it for any purposes if it is not a truth or anything at all?

How can you know truth?
-
-
-

BW: That's tough to say. I certainly can admit to making my fair share of mistakes and moral missteps in my life. I think I've learned a great deal about myself from them and I'm doing my best to put those lessons to use as I move forward. I also feel like I've done a great deal of good in the world too, mostly through volunteer work and the relationships I've had with people along the way. I'm trying my best to do the most with what I have by going to college to put myself in a position to give more back later in life. Though, I'm still very young and the sample size of my "adult" life is extremely small. If I had to make a self-assessment right now, I'd say overall I've had a positive effect on the people and the world around me more often than I've had a negative effect, but again, I'm biased and not penalizing myself too hard for the mistakes I made a few years ago in high school.

guys, with most respect, lets not go off-topic.

Ivel,

Ivellious » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:49 am

While I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of Buddhawarrior, I kind of get his idea (I think). I think the real issue here is, can you be moral and spiritual and find God and go to heaven without accepting Jesus as God? I think the ultimate question here is whether the Jews and the Muslims and the Hindus and the Taoists and the ancestor-worshipers in Japan etc.etc. can possibly go to heaven. I think that is where lots of non-Christians take offense to other people who claim that they are inevitably screwed unless they drop their beliefs and dedicate their lives to Jesus.

Personally, I think God would accept anyone into heaven so long as they lived a good life, but I understand that my perspective isn't really accepted here haha...

His idea, seems more than who gets into heaven. Eastern philosophy is quite complicated. For instance there is model of Buddhism which does not have a deity/God. It is kind of atheistic and still a religion. The questions he is raising have implications far more then just "do non Christians get to heaven". It requires not only changes in faith but in experience, theological research and so on and so forth. So it is with humbleness, I'd ask you to not judge it on a superficial level. You may not be seeing it anymore than what is apparent at face value (no disrespect intended). Unless you know how the inner concepts of Christianity work, you might not see the full extent of the argument. Still, if you and B.W would like to take this further, lets open a new thread and perhaps we can all chime in on that. Hope you see my point.

buddhawarrior wrote:If you follow the bible and Christian Dogma, fine. I have no judgment against that...

Really explain your comment below...

buddhawarrior wrote:So my question is this. I would like to know why you think the Christian God is the only way to God. Please speak from personal experience, and quote from the bible as little as possible. I'm not a biblical scholar and do not want to spend my time researching the pre-translated Aramaic and Latin versions to check translational errors...

...I don't like religion, but I love what they have to offer to the honest seeker of the HIGHEST truth.

You do not want to spend my time researching the pre-translated Aramaic and Latin versions to check translational errors and you don't like religion, but love what they have to offer to the honest seeker of the HIGHEST truth but are not really interested in what we have to say - what did you expect? Then silence us to your demands and rule us not to speak but while this Forum allows you to speak? There is a flaw in your logic...

Please don't demand us not to use the bible or explain our experiences then claim you are a honest seeker and love what they offer - silencing Christians on a Christian Forum which allows you to speak freely? Hmmmm???

buddhawarrior wrote:And I hope you live a wonderful and eternal life...

Will You?
-
-
-

Ivellious wrote:BW: That's tough to say. I certainly can admit to making my fair share of mistakes and moral missteps in my life. I think I've learned a great deal about myself from them and I'm doing my best to put those lessons to use as I move forward. I also feel like I've done a great deal of good in the world too, mostly through volunteer work and the relationships I've had with people along the way. I'm trying my best to do the most with what I have by going to college to put myself in a position to give more back later in life. Though, I'm still very young and the sample size of my "adult" life is extremely small. If I had to make a self-assessment right now, I'd say overall I've had a positive effect on the people and the world around me more often than I've had a negative effect, but again, I'm biased and not penalizing myself too hard for the mistakes I made a few years ago in high school.

Great and honest answer, I admire that.

So to the next question - Have you ever told a lie?
-
-
-

domokunrox wrote: What you are attempting to do is depersonalize God. Let's find the personal.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause either by its own nature or in an external cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause

I pretty much eliminated your "cognition of the infinite". The infinite does does not exist as you understand.

Maybe you can clarify, but I don't see how that eliminates the concept of infinite? There exists an explanation that makes both your statement and the concept of the infinite true.

Example. my wife and I created a child. My wife and I are both created by our parents. I can create a piece of art or write an essay. There is a creative force in me. I create.

The Universe was created by Something. And that Something was also created by what preceeded it. The Universe created planets and suns, and human life. There is a creative force in the Universe. The universe creates.

God is not any "created" thing. God is the creative force itself.

I don't know why I write, or why I sculpt, or how I made a human baby. God is the one that handles those things. I simply comply. In this way, I do the work of God and I am of God.

Time is a human denotation for the purpose of communication. It's important for me to be able to tell someone meet me here at 3pm. But in nature there is no Time. There is only change. if a tree could speak, ask how long it has lived, it won't know. The planet earth has no use for knowing how many revolutions it's gone around the sun. God could care less if there is infinite time or not, it only creates.

domokunrox wrote: As the uncaused first cause of all that exists. He must be omnipotent, omniscient, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and so forth. It IS PERSONAL.

This statement is very strange to me. Please pardon my ignorance and take the patience to explain it to me if it's important. You just said that you disproved my concept of the infinit, yet you call your PERSONAL God timeless? How is "omnipotent, omniscient, timeless, spaceless, immaterial" personal? I think Jesus is Personal. but not a omnipotent, omniscient, timeless, spaceless, immaterial God.

But God as a creative Force fits your discription perfectly. it IS omnipotent, omniscient, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and so forth.

domokunrox wrote: Your next claim that God is a creative force.
The creative force is beyond language?

Yet, here you are in language telling us what the creative force is.

Its beyond time, yet here you are telling is IN TIME that you know something out of time.
Its beyond dimension, yet here you are in the 3rd dimension telling us there isn't a dimension.
Its beyond your perception, yet here you are telling us you perceive it.

Yes, I see the misunderstanding. Let me explain.

I will introduce a few words and concepts here to help with the explanation.

From Wikipedia

Scientific modelling - is the process of generating abstract, conceptual, graphical and/or mathematical models. Science offers a growing collection of methods, techniques and theory about all kinds of specialized scientific modelling. A scientific model can provide a way to read elements easily which have been broken down to a simpler form.

Modelling is an essential and inseparable part of all scientific activity, and many scientific disciplines have their own ideas about specific types of modelling. There is an increasing attention for scientific modelling[1] in fields such as of philosophy of science, systems theory, and knowledge visualization.

Taken from - http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/gensemantics.html

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY
The world is what it is. We can make all kinds of maps and models of how the world works, and some of them can be very useful, and we can talk about them with great benefit. But the models and maps and any words one can put together can never do more than approximate the actual world or the actual phenomena being examined. The actual territory is beyond verbal description.

As humans we make abstractions all the time. An "abstraction", as used here, is that one simplifies, condenses, or symbolizes what is going on in order to better talk about it or think about it.

For example, if I walk down the street, I might experience an event taking place. My perceptions in themselves constitute an abstraction. Different people will experience the event differently, depending on where they perceive it from and how their perceptions work, and it will never be more than a portion of what went on, passed through certain filters of perception. So, I will record certain sights, sounds, feelings and so forth, which will form my representation of the event. I might then start describing what I experienced and that will abstract it further. I could say "I saw two cars, a blue Ford going west and a green Honda going east, and the blue car was going to turn left, but then the green car swerved out of its way and hit it". My description might give somebody else an idea of what went on, but really it is a very imprecise approximation of what I actually perceived, which is again an imprecise approximation of what actually went on. The next day I might create a further abstraction by simply saying that I saw "an accident".

If somebody took my verbal description of an accident as WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, then all kinds of mistakes might come out of that. But if one always realizes that it is only a map, and that different maps might be drawn for the same territory, then it becomes much easier to reconcile differences.

Whatever one can say about something isn't it. Whatever you can say about a pencil is NOT a pencil. The pencil is what it is, something fundamentally unspeakable. If that is recognized then language and models are of couse very useful in daily life.

So what I have been saying about the Creator is just a Model and not to be confused with the real thing. I am trying to best understand God by creating an abstract way of understanding it. I am limited by my human body and the state of my consciousness. So what I can say about God is only to the best of my ability to comprehend. But what I do know is that whatever I came in contact with had no feeling of exclusivity.

domokunrox wrote: You pretty much have told us that you don't know anything.

Believe it or not, that's the best compliment anyone can give me. =)
Not knowing is what I strive for. It is what I hold as the highest value.

domokunrox wrote: I ask you, what is knowledge? How do you know what knowledge is? What is the criteria? Be prepared to work out in philosophy.

I would love to go down this road with you. However, I think this post is really going off the track into tangent land.

The original question still remains. Why do you think it's Christ way or no way?

CeT-To wrote:

buddhawarrior wrote:
Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

What he means, and often mean when he says “I” is the GOD within Me. So let’s replace the I and see how the meaning change.

“God within me is the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to God except through the God within.” Ah, much better. Makes perfect sense. That’s is in perfect alignment with the first three commandments.

Buddhawarrior, i have no idea where you got this i mean you are reading this with your philosophy so much that you have to change the words to fit your philosophy. Also you keep referring to our beliefs as church dogmas yet you also align that because its a church dogma it is wrong and you haven't given any back up for that, not only that but there is a line of hypocrisy, you've just read that statement thru your philosophical dogmas - look i can do the same thing as you " What you just said isn't really how you read it since you read it through your philosophical dogmas". So bring reasons and arguments.

God bless!

Sorry, let me explain further.

There is probably no disagreement that Jesus and the Bible claims that Jesus is God in the flesh, right.

"God is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through God."

Which I agree with and itself contains no exclusivity.

I had explained earlier about Bakti yoga, but I Guess B.W. had a real problem with it. Maybe I should explain further what it is to the best of my knowledge and what the practice actually entails. but the caviot being I'm not a hindu, I do not go to temple or worship a guru, etc. I am what I would call an armchair spiritualist. I do what the conglomerate of spiritual, philosophical, religious and my gut tells me is right.

Bakti yoga is most commonly known as devotional yoga. It is not a stretching excercise. Yoga means Union, and Union with the object of devotion is the yogic practice. A christian example is this. Jesus is the object of devotion, and thru devotion to him one feels the presence of the divine within oneself. In the Hindu tradition a Guru is often times the object of devotion. The Guru takes on the Role of God in the flesh. Speaking as if he is God and acting as he is God. Most Gurus are born with supernatural powers of one kind or another. Some of these powers are developed over the lifetime of the Guru, some came naturally. The Hindu saint Amritanandamayi Devi, also known to the world as Amma was born with the power to feel a mother's love for her infant, except she feels it for all humanity. Her service to the world is to hold/hug anyone with pure motherly love all who comes to her. In this manner, she has hugged hundreds of thousands maybe a million people, she has cured lepers, turned water into milk and countless other miracles. Her followers worship her as God in the Flesh. Her message is often simple and heartfelt and humble. But she does claim to be the incarnation of Vishnu. Ultimately, the practitioner of Bakti yoga has to give up, or is forced to give up the object of his devotion, because this is the only way that the seeker can go perform Bakti directly to the divine, having had the practice and the experience of the Divine. Now the seeker can recognize the divine and know it from experience. In this way the seeker merges with the divine and is One with God.

Neem Karoli Baba is known as the incarnation of Hanuman, the monkey God, He has built many ashrams in northern India. His powers are to read minds and transport himself thru space and be at multiple locations at once and have performed countless other miracles. A search for both Amma and Neem Karoli baba will show books of their devotees documenting their miracles. I can recommend some to anyone interested. Neem Karoli baba, or as everyone calls him, Maharaj-ji, is the guru of the famous American spiritualist Baba Ram Dass. Ram Dass was a Harvard chair of the department of Psychology during the 60's. He traveled to India after the psychedelic drug experiments of the 60's to search for truth. After two years of travel, he met maharaj-ji, who performed a miracle right in front of him, which floored this Harvard professor and made him a devotee and convert. Even Though Maharaj-ji refused and chastised anyone who talked about his miracles and never referred to himself as the incarnation of Hanuman, never the less, multiple people have seen him appear as a monkey one second, only to become human again in a blink.

My Bakti Yoga is a moving trajectory, I have many Gurus. (guru simply means teacher, I think some people on these posts have showed their disdain for the word). My wife gave birth to my two most recent Gurus. I perform Bakti Yoga to them. They shine pure radiant love and joy and there is nothing greater I can do except devote myself to them in full service. When I devote full attention and service to them I feel eternal peace and love. My heart melts and tears form in my eye. But when I harden up and deny them, I feel shame and remorse and distant and separate.

I believe in practicing Bakti to all the world. Though I am not a push over or a softy. I practice Bakti to my own needs as well. If I need sleep, I sleep a divine sleep. If I am hungry I eat a divine meal. If I don't want to interact with a person, I simply let them know. I'm not perfect in any way shape or form. But by placing Bakti yoga high on my priority list, it's improved my life immensely.

I imagine if I was still in the Church that I would still have these feelings and self guidance, and love Jesus and my famliy just the same. But I would not have an exclusivity around the matter.

Hopefully I addressed your question. I know I got carried away.

But please tell me why you think Christianity is an exclusive club?

CeT-To wrote:

buddhawarrior wrote:
The bible was written some 300 years after the fact. Even with out modern day technologies and record keeping, can we trust the facts, verbatim, of any piece of history written today about something that happened 300 years ago? The discussion here is on such a minute level of scriptural detail, but the whole discussion can be moot if the bible is not a reliable source of written history. The Bible was also strung together by the council of Nicaea under the order of King Constantine for his political purpose. Of course details of Nicaea and what was included and not, and how much influence Constantine had and all that is up for debate, but just the very fact that the bible was put together by a group of people with some agenda needs to be considered.

Sorry for double post.

Actually the bible was not written 300 years after the event, not sure who told you that, i think you mean compiled - the earliest ones were compiled together in the concil of nicaea. I might write about this more later on ( i need sleeep lol) but others on the board can and might before i wake up .

Yes I believe you are right. As far as our archeological and historical records can assert, it was the council of Nicaea, under the political power of Constantine. And I do believe it was assembled.

But even with this fact, it's hard to say, Divinely inspired. I'm not sure if any of you read the gnostic gosples or the dead sea scrolls. or the hebrew, or the aramaic, or the latin versions. It's just a bit hard for me to fully accept it word for word. I still love the bible, but I just never read it too literally.

and just as a side note,

"But joy and happiness in you to all who seek you! Let them ceaselessly cry,"Great is Yahweh" who love your saving power. Psalm 40:16

I Praise you Yahweh, my Lord, my God!!!!!"

This is in your signature bar.

Yahweh is not the name of God. YHWH are 4 hebrew letters placed together without the vowel markings. I'm sure you already know, Hebrew is written in all Consonants with vowel markings in between. which makes them have something like a million pronunciations. The Name of god was never meant to pronounced or known. In fact it is documented History that the old practice was for a Rabbi to contemplate the name of God and when he thinks he has it, to walk into the chamber of the Arc and touch the thing, which of course burned him to ashes. And to further alienate myself from this group, I'll offer this little nugget of fact. If you were to build the Arc or the covenant from the blueprint offered in Exodus, you would have a giant battery with the naked positive and negative leads exposed which causes a thunderbolt like arc, and no matter how you pronounced the name of God would instantly fry you to a crisp if touched.

So that's at least one translation error I see right off the bat.

neo-x wrote:guys, with most respect, lets not go off-topic…

His idea, seems more than who gets into heaven. Eastern philosophy is quite complicated. For instance there is model of Buddhism which does not have a deity/God. It is kind of atheistic and still a religion. The questions he is raising have implications far more then just "do not Christians get to heaven". It requires not only changes in faith but in experience, theological research and so on and so forth. So it is with humbleness, I'd ask you to not judge it on a superficial level. You may not be seeing it anymore than what is apparent at face value (no disrespect intended). Unless you know how the inner concepts of Christianity work, you might not see the full extent of the argument. Still, if you and B.W would like to take this further, lets open a new thread and perhaps we can all chime in on that. Hope you see my point.

Hi Neo-x,

Yes, Eastern philosophy is complicated – often there is no right or wrong - just a gel into the great hum of Nirvana. So to begin a topic on Eastern Philosophy, and then state rules of what is acceptable and not acceptable is not a true eastern philosophic technique at all, nor is it honest.

There are a mix of people who come and read these forums. Some are new believers. Often, people come phishing here in order to draw some away into strangeness using the most-cleverest of techniques. So for them, the young, we must test things for their protection. I think you understand that.

Eastern Philosophy has made inroads into Christianity in recent years by use of Kundalini techniques. Without the bible to warn us of strange fire and to test all things, people will fall prey to, well sorcery. Such sorcery is to be avoided at all cost – not mixed into Christian Belief systems. There are some things God reveals to us through the bible to avoid for good reason. Please read this article for more details on what a kundalini spirit is.
+++++

So next -- for Buddhawarrior’s, I am concerned out of a deep love of Christ over your eternal fate and more so than you are.

If you are a real seeker of truth – then you must understand that in Eastern Philosophic systems there ultimately is no truth, only relativism and subjectivism cemented by works-salvation oriented religious system. Even the New Age is a works-salvation based system. You don’t want the bible, well, then that will not work here. Bottom line…

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. NKJV

True biblical Christianity is not a works based salvation system. That makes it standout amongst all others. We do know God and experience him, not based on works. If you really like to know how – you must become Born Again. We know who Jesus is and he was no yogi. You do not. So do you really want to know and take that plunge?

You, Buddhawarrior, admit to practicing your own methods from Buddhism, Hinduism, Kaballah, Native American Shamans, Modern Psychology, Neuro linguistic programming, use of psychedelic sacraments, and astral projection and lucid dreaming. Those things lead the mind astray and contain no truth. This is a concern as these ways lead people to a terrible end. Substances ingested or inhaled do cause harm to ones genetic make-up that later passed on down the family line in your own future progeny. How can that be such great enlightenment at the expense of future progeny born with a defect or deformity after you are long gone – what of the cost to your own health now? A set up is a set up…

There is only one way back to the Godhead, and that is through Jesus Christ. There is no smorgus board approach mixing various religious system to achieve a spiritual high and claim that high is all truth. Such feelings lead you in deception. There will come a day when you will stand before the Almighty and give an account – stop running.

Buddhawarrior,

2+2=4 is true in the symbology of math and logic

The key word here is, LOGIC. I adhere strictly to the rules of logic to avoid contradiction. Contradictions reveal falsehood.

Your attempt to relativize the problem is invalid. Bringing in improper adjustments to the proposition is fallacious and attempting to pluralize truth. 2+2=4, end of story.

but when encountering, let's say, different cultures, where....then there is not 1 exclusive truth

Wrong again, sir. This is called the genetic fallacy. Cultural differences do not invalidate propositional value and the law of non-contradiction.

you can see from my above argument...

Your arguments are invalid in trying to avoid contradictions. You've only attempted to alter propositions to pluralize truth claims.
Its not consistent, sir.
It has to be exclusively true that 2+2=5 to validate it as knowledge
Trees bark at dogs on top of cats

In otherwords, you are out of touch with reality because you don't know the truth. Argument from ignorance is a fallacy, sir.

Again, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Only 1 is logically and exclusively right.
You need to get your facts straight on your own view, sir. Monism does not include Dualism. You're attempting to assimilate Dualism. It does not work like that.
Your "better" described view of monism is flat out wrong. Its a fatal error. What is even more fundamentally wrong is you just said you're "describing" it. This is a serious critical error.

Is your description absolutely and exclusively true? You've practically contradicted yourself within the contradiction.

Right here, sir. Here is your chance. From this point on, you will either contradict yourself every step of the way OR you will finally KNOW the TRUTH. You KNOW that something is true, otherwise you wouldn't have attempted to avoid contradictions. So, you're not really a relativist, afterall. Here you are telling us we are in error, but in order to detect errors, you need to KNOW TRUTH. But we put it to the test here and you utterly failed.

You get to experience knowledge right here. Follow the rules of logic and the truth will be revealed to you.

I ask you once again.

What is knowledge? What is the criteria for knowledge?
What is truth?

Remember don't contradict yourself in answering.

Ivellious wrote:Personally, I think God would accept anyone into heaven so long as they lived a good life, but I understand that my perspective isn't really accepted here haha...

Let me say, I think you'll find greater agreement with this than you might think.

Ivellious wrote:BW: That's tough to say. I certainly can admit to making my fair share of mistakes and moral missteps in my life. I think I've learned a great deal about myself from them and I'm doing my best to put those lessons to use as I move forward. I also feel like I've done a great deal of good in the world too, mostly through volunteer work and the relationships I've had with people along the way. I'm trying my best to do the most with what I have by going to college to put myself in a position to give more back later in life. Though, I'm still very young and the sample size of my "adult" life is extremely small. If I had to make a self-assessment right now, I'd say overall I've had a positive effect on the people and the world around me more often than I've had a negative effect, but again, I'm biased and not penalizing myself too hard for the mistakes I made a few years ago in high school.

Sounds like you're being quite honest. Overall I believe I've had a more positive effect, than negative. Depends on who you ask I guess. I am also very complacent in that I could do a hellova lot more to help others, especially if I'm stacked up against someone like Mother Teresa. I've done bad, various wrongs I really wish I could take back, but no matter how much I wish they remain a permanent in my life history.

Just wondering, what about the "God" you conceive of accepting anyone into heaven. How much "bad" in someone should God accept?

I'll do what neo x asked and move this to a new thread (I agree this went a long way off topic).

Also, I never meant to say Buddhawarrior's argument was superficial. I was just saying that I read it as him bringing up the debate over whether non-Christians can possibly find God/go to heaven/be spiritual in the "right" way....I was just being overly brief I suppose. I guess, in my experience, I've had less discussions simply about finding God through non-Christian means and more of them focused on whether heaven is open to non-believers.

So yeah, I'll take the other discussion over to a new thread once I'm out of class.

Buddhawarrior,

Where do you find this stuff?

The Name of god was never meant to pronounced or known. In fact it is documented History that the old practice was for a Rabbi to contemplate the name of God and when he thinks he has it, to walk into the chamber of the Arc and touch the thing, which of course burned him to ashes. And to further alienate myself from this group, I'll offer this little nugget of fact. If you were to build the Arc or the covenant from the blueprint offered in Exodus, you would have a giant battery with the naked positive and negative leads exposed which causes a thunderbolt like arc, and no matter how you pronounced the name of God would instantly fry you to a crisp if touched.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says that around the third century B.C. Jews, worried about using God's name in vain (Exodus 20:7; Lev. 24:11), stopped pronounceing it. God told His name to Moses in Exodus 3:14-15. He is HAYAH (I AM) or YAHWEH (LORD- EXISTING ONE). They mean the same thing, and as HE told Moses "this is my name forever." So, we see that God made His name known to Moses and told Moses to tell it to others. In fact Jesus claimed this name for Himself and the Jews tried to stone Him (John 8:58-59).

We actually have an account of someone touching the ark, in the Bible (1 Chronicles 13:10). Uzza touched it and was killed, but no one got fried or turned to ash.

Your "facts," seem to be someones fairytales.