# It's official



## 660griz

Phil Robertson is nuttier than a fruit cake. Too bad. I liked the show.
Anti-Atheist Rant


----------



## WaltL1

Sounds like he has given that scenario a lot of thought.  
It baffles me that people don't realize what they are saying about themselves and other Christians when they come up with stuff like this.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Sounds like he has given that scenario a lot of thought.



Disturbingly detailed...at a prayer breakfast.


----------



## hobbs27

Doesn't he know they still broke the laws of the United States?....Oh, wait they are based on Christianity too. 

I guess this is why John Adams said: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Doesn't he know they still broke the laws of the United States?....Oh, wait they are based on Christianity too.
> 
> I guess this is why John Adams said: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.


Lets not forget some of our laws are in direct conflict with Christian beliefs.
If you kill your wife and her boyfriend for cheating you'll be praying in prison.


> was made only for a moral and religious people


Kind of interesting that he used both the words "moral" and "religious".
As though one didn't always mean the other or one doesn't only mean the other.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> Disturbingly detailed...at a prayer breakfast.


And you know he gave some thought to what he was going to say prior to the breakfast. Of all the examples he could have used to make that point, that's what he thought "yeah that sounds good".
Very telling.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Kind of interesting that he used both the words "moral" and "religious".
> As though one didn't always mean the other or one doesn't only mean the other.



Not really.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Lets not forget some of our laws are in direct conflict with Christian beliefs.
> If you kill your wife and her boyfriend for cheating you'll be praying in prison.



That's not a Christian belief.  Christianity mandates forgiveness, and allows a divorce in such an event but no stoning.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> That's not a Christian belief.  Christianity mandates forgiveness, and allows a divorce in such an event but no stoning.


I forgot the OT was old news. Bad example.
A proper example would be the baker and the gay person but Im getting tired of that one.
By the way the divorce thing is not agreed upon by all the denominations. Ask a Catholic.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Not really.


Aw c'mon.
Do you say its hot and really warm outside?
Its raining and precipitating out?
That guy is short and not tall?


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> I forgot the OT was old news. Bad example.
> A proper example would be the baker and the gay person but Im getting tired of that one.



We can explore that one.  There is no Biblical prohibition from selling a cake to gay folks.  However, a person may feel doing so condones it.  If he is forced to do so, then one could say the laws are contradicting his religious beliefs.  However, he is free to not sell cakes as well.

I tend to take a libertarian view of the matter and think he should be free to engage in commerce with whoever he chooses, which is the same freedom given to the consumer.




WaltL1 said:


> By the way the divorce thing is not agreed upon by all the denominations. Ask a Catholic.



I think Jesus himself said it was ok in the event of adultery.  I know many denominations don't agree.  It seems kind-a clear to me, though.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Aw c'mon.
> Do you say its hot and really warm outside?
> Its raining and precipitating out?
> That guy is short and not tall?



No, but I do know folks that are book smart yet have no common sense and appear dumb.

Because someone is religious does not mean they are necessarily moral. In many churches today you will hear preaching and teaching against religion. Following the law of Christ does not require you to be religious.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> We can explore that one.  There is no Biblical prohibition from selling a cake to gay folks.  However, a person may feel doing so condones it.  If he is forced to do so, then one could say the laws are contradicting his religious beliefs.  However, he is free to not sell cakes as well.
> 
> I tend to take a libertarian view of the matter and think he should be free to engage in commerce with whoever he chooses, which is the same freedom given to the consumer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Jesus himself said it was ok in the event of adultery.  I know many denominations don't agree.  It seems kind-a clear to me, though.





> We can explore that one.  There is no Biblical prohibition from selling a cake to gay folks.


Might be an interesting topic.
My point right off the bat would be Biblical and beliefs aren't always the same things. Because as you said -


> However, a person may feel doing so condones it.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> No, but I do know folks that are book smart yet have no common sense and appear dumb.
> 
> Because someone is religious does not mean they are necessarily moral. In many churches today you will hear preaching and teaching against religion. Following the law of Christ does not require you to be religious.





> Because someone is religious does not mean they are necessarily moral.


That was my point of why he may have used BOTH religious and moral.
So the million dollar question would be did he also mean you can be moral and not religious.
And Im pretty sure you would not have agreed with him on religion as he was a Unitarian Universalist so not sure you using him as your example is a good thing.


> However, John Adams religious beliefs were certainly controversial at the time because Unitarians did not adhere to the concept of the Holy Trinity nor did they believe that Jesus Christ was necessarily divine.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> We can explore that one.  There is no Biblical prohibition from selling a cake to gay folks.  However, a person may feel doing so condones it.  If he is forced to do so, then one could say the laws are contradicting his religious beliefs.  However, he is free to not sell cakes as well.
> 
> I tend to take a libertarian view of the matter and think he should be free to engage in commerce with whoever he chooses, which is the same freedom given to the consumer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Jesus himself said it was ok in the event of adultery.  I know many denominations don't agree.  It seems kind-a clear to me, though.





> I think Jesus himself said it was ok in the event of adultery.  I know many denominations don't agree.  It seems kind-a clear to me, though.


By the way I should be more accurate on this. You can get a divorce but there are penalties for it. Cant receive communion while divorced (which is a very serious thing). Specific rules about who you can remarry etc.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> That was my point of why he may have used BOTH religious and moral.
> So the million dollar question would be did he also mean you can be moral and not religious.
> And Im pretty sure you would not have agreed with him on religion as he was a Unitarian Universalist so not sure you using him as your example is a good thing.



A religious and moral people....not a moral non religious person, nor a religious non moral person .

 His fault in understanding Christ as God or a non universal salvation is not something that disqualifies him as a founding father of our country that had a good understanding of the purpose of our constitution.

I think it is obvious that for people to live truly free, we must behave in a moral sense to one another, and this is taught best by Christ. Otherwise we will call on more and more government to protect us from the thugs, and this inherently brings limitations of freedom.


----------



## ambush80

hobbs27 said:


> A religious and moral people....not a moral non religious person, nor a religious non moral person .
> 
> His fault in understanding Christ as God or a non universal salvation is not something that disqualifies him as a founding father of our country that had a good understanding of the purpose of our constitution.
> 
> I think it is obvious that for people to live truly free, we must behave in a moral sense to one another, and this is taught best by Christ. Otherwise we will call on more and more government to protect us from the thugs, and this inherently brings limitations of freedom.



Arrogant and unfounded and absolutely only your opinion.

Not at all true.  

An absolute untruth.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> A religious and moral people....not a moral non religious person, nor a religious non moral person .
> 
> His fault in understanding Christ as God or a non universal salvation is not something that disqualifies him as a founding father of our country that had a good understanding of the purpose of our constitution.
> 
> I think it is obvious that for people to live truly free, we must behave in a moral sense to one another, and this is taught best by Christ. Otherwise we will call on more and more government to protect us from the thugs, and this inherently brings limitations of freedom.





> A religious and moral people....not a moral non religious person, nor a religious non moral person .


You do get that there were more religions than just Christianity even at that time right?
In fact many of you call Atheism a religion.


> I think it is obvious that for people to live truly free, we must behave in a moral sense to one another,


Agreed.


> and this is taught best by Christ.


Care to back that up? You know, by facts?
Just once I would love to see these ascertains backed up by facts. Please be the first.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Arrogant and unfounded and absolutely only your opinion.
> 
> Not at all true.
> 
> An absolute untruth.


That doesn't seem to matter to many who make these ascertains.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> You do get that there were more religions than just Christianity even at that time right?
> In fact many of you call Atheism a religion.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Care to back that up? You know, by facts?
> Just once I would love to see these assertions backed up by facts. Please be the first.



Fixed it for ya.  I knew what you meant.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> That doesn't seem to matter to many who make these assertions.



Man.  I can't keep up with you


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Man.  I can't keep up with you


I never ascerted I was a good speller


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> That doesn't seem to matter to many who make these ascertains.



My favorite is "You don't understand because you don't believe".  Kind of like "You can see what's in it after it passes".  

The only way to win is not to play.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I never ascerted I was a good speller


----------



## stringmusic

I agree with the point he is trying to make. I would have used different terms in the explaination, but Phil Robertson isn't Ravi Zacharias.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Arrogant and unfounded and absolutely only your opinion.
> 
> Not at all true.
> 
> An absolute untruth.



What's one thing Christ did or said that would make this claim such an untruth.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> You do get that there were more religions than just Christianity even at that time right?



 Do you know a single signer of the constitution that was other than Christian? I know they were not perfect {non of us are} but it seems to me they were no muslims or others there.




> Care to back that up? You know, by facts?
> Just once I would love to see these ascertains backed up by facts. Please be the first.



https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> What's one thing Christ did or said that would make this claim such an untruth.



You're going to have to convince me that he actually said those things.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> You're going to have to convince me that he actually said those things.



Of course.

But that's an entirely different discussion.

Can you find anything that would prove his assertion untrue?


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Do you know a single signer of the constitution that was other than Christian? I know they were not perfect {non of us are} but it seems to me they were no muslims or others there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5


Let me get you back on track - here's what you said -


> Doesn't he know they still broke the laws of the United States?....Oh, wait they are based on Christianity too


.
So instead of focusing on the signers of the Constitution you need to focus us proving that the laws of the United States are based on Christianity. Not back then but now too.
Again let me get you back on track -


> but it seems to me they were no muslims or others there


.
Again you are focusing on the signers. The laws didn't apply to just the signers they applied to the people.
A word that was used was religious. The word that was NOT used was Christian. For a reason.


> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5


And again. What you said was ......


> and this is taught best by Christ


So what you will have to do is not regurgitate what he taught but that what he taught was original to him and these concepts never existed before.
And was Mathew written by Jesus?
So add to your list proving that what Mathew said is what Jesus said.
Or you can say "here's what I believe but I understand its not a fact just my belief".


----------



## WaltL1

stringmusic said:


> I agree with the point he is trying to make. I would have used different terms in the explaination, but Phil Robertson isn't Ravi Zacharias.


Aw c'mon String it wasn't the level of eloquence of his speaking skills that's in question its the imaginary example he decided would be appropriate to make his point.
Raping daughters?
Decapitating his wife?
Cutting off his manhood?
And what you are ignoring is he obviously thought that was the only way his fellow Christians would understand his point.
That's a twisted mind that came up with that one.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Aw c'mon String it wasn't the level of eloquence of his speaking skills that's in question its the imaginary example he decided would be appropriate to make his point.
> Raping daughters?
> Decapitating his wife?
> Cutting off his manhood?
> And what you are ignoring is he obviously thought that was the only way his fellow Christians would understand his point.
> That's a twisted mind that came up with that one.



King James Bible
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Maybe for the manhood business?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> King James Bible
> "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
> 
> Maybe for the manhood business?


And the wife decapitating business.
At least he felt that only raping the daughters and letting them witness their parents being butchered was sufficient and wasn't necessary to cut off anything on them.
So maybe his heart really was in the right place after all.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> And the wife decapitating business.
> At least he felt that only raping the daughters and letting them witness their parents being butchered was sufficient and wasn't necessary to cut off anything on them.
> So maybe his heart really was in the right place after all.



A saint


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Let me get you back on track - here's what you said -
> .
> So instead of focusing on the signers of the Constitution you need to focus us proving that the laws of the United States are based on Christianity. Not back then but now too.
> Again let me get you back on track -
> .
> Again you are focusing on the signers. The laws didn't apply to just the signers they applied to the people.
> A word that was used was religious. The word that was NOT used was Christian. For a reason.
> 
> ".



I say the reason "Christian" was not used is because it was not necessary, since there were no competing religions, yet that is just my opinion. When a Christian refers to God it is the God known by Christians.

 Im assuming you know John Locke and the importance his philosophy played in our founding fathers forming our government. Locke said;

"(* Human laws are measures in respect of men whose actions they must direct, howbeit such measures they are as have also their higher rules to be measured by, which rules are two, the law of God, and the law of nature; so that laws human must be made according to the general laws of nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of scripture, otherwise they are ill made. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. l. iii. sect. 9.

To constrain men to any thing inconvenient doth seem unreasonable. Ibid. l. i. sect. 10.)"

 There's a lot more out there, the preamble of the bill of rights for instance. But if I am not allowed to use the Bible to demonstrate in this thread how America is based on Christianity then I have lost all interest and will move on again. I know you love it  when I do that, but I truly lose interest quickly when the one text I believe every word of is not allowed to be considered as truth.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> I say the reason "Christian" was not used is because it was not necessary, since there were no competing religions, yet that is just my opinion. When a Christian refers to God it is the God known by Christians.
> 
> Im assuming you know John Locke and the importance his philosophy played in our founding fathers forming our government. Locke said;
> 
> "(* Human laws are measures in respect of men whose actions they must direct, howbeit such measures they are as have also their higher rules to be measured by, which rules are two, the law of God, and the law of nature; so that laws human must be made according to the general laws of nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of scripture, otherwise they are ill made. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. l. iii. sect. 9.
> 
> To constrain men to any thing inconvenient doth seem unreasonable. Ibid. l. i. sect. 10.)"
> 
> There's a lot more out there, the preamble of the bill of rights for instance. But if I am not allowed to use the Bible to demonstrate in this thread how America is based on Christianity then I have lost all interest and will move on again. I know you love it  when I do that, but I truly lose interest quickly when the one text I believe every word of is not allowed to be considered as truth.





> I say the reason "Christian" was not used is because it was not necessary, since there were no competing religions, yet that is just my opinion.


Seems awfully short sighted to me if true.
Maybe then just like now they squabbled over beliefs and who the "real" Christians were. So they decided on "religious" which covered any and all bases.


> Religious Affiliation
> of U.S. Founding Fathers
> Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
> Presbyterian 30 18.6%
> Congregationalist 27 16.8%
> Quaker 7 4.3%
> Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
> Lutheran 5 3.1%
> Catholic 3 1.9%
> Huguenot 3 1.9%
> Unitarian 3 1.9%
> Methodist 2 1.2%
> Calvinist 1 0.6%
> TOTAL 204





> But if I am not allowed to use the Bible to demonstrate in this thread how America is based on Christianity


Note this is what I said -


> Not back then but now too.


I would agree that BACK THEN laws were based loosely around Christianity. With additional laws put in to place so that Christianity would not become law.
How about now? Laws still being passed on the basis of Christian beliefs? 


> I have lost all interest and will move on again. I know you love it  when I do that, but I truly lose interest quickly when the one text I believe every word of is not allowed to be considered as truth.


I would much prefer that you DIDNT move along. Please don't mistake my debating or disagreeing with you as wanting to shut you up. If I was only interested in people agreeing with me I would hang out on Agnostic or Atheist website. Which I don't and never have.


> when the one text I believe every word of is not allowed to be considered as truth


That's going to be a problem. Its fine if you consider it true but you cant expect us to consider it to be true because well..... it hasn't been proven to be true.
That's not our fault. 
You get around that by not making claims that they are true and instead say "What I believe is or my opinion is or what I think is". There is a big difference in that instead of just claiming something is true.


----------



## Artfuldodger

We must consider the First Great Awakening had an impact on our founding fathers. Many were also Freemasons where God is described as the Great Architect.
I'm not saying they weren't Christians but they were willing to accept other paths of enlightenment and truth.
During this period many people were deist and God was just creator with no belief in Jesus. Christians were more willing to accept the deist beliefs and co-exist with more universal paths to Heaven.


----------



## Big7

Who, whom... whatever REALLY cares?
Not me..

They are laughing all the way to the bank.

Must have shot to much lead, before it was outlawed
by the "greenies".. They don't matter much either.

RARE OCCASION:

Ambush80 and I agree on something.

Robertson'ssssss''',,, as Cain likes to use multiple
pluralism'zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Are full of duck chips.

They do have good lookin' wives and plenty of
money. It's legal. Go for it.

Kill a duck in season. Sell a few million calls...

Free market. We are free (except for from the gooberment)
to "brand" ourselves any way we want.

If they are waiting on me to watch a show, they will starve to death. 
They do NOTHING in the duck world that the duck hunters
on GON can't do. (I'm not one, shot a few in passing)
but never really got into it..

It's a free country..

DD is not for me. 


And...



I wish they would shut up and quit drawing UNNECESSARY
fire towards ALL Christians.


----------



## WaltL1

Big7 said:


> Who, whom... whatever REALLY cares?
> Not me..
> 
> They are laughing all the way to the bank.
> 
> Must have shot to much lead, before it was outlawed
> by the "greenies".. They don't matter much either.
> 
> RARE OCCASION:
> 
> Ambush80 and I agree on something.
> 
> Robertson'ssssss''',,, as Cain likes to use multiple
> pluralism'zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> Are full of duck chips.
> 
> They do have good lookin' wives and plenty of
> money. It's legal. Go for it.
> 
> Kill a duck in season. Sell a few million calls...
> 
> Free market. We are free (except for from the gooberment)
> to "brand" ourselves any way we want.
> 
> If they are waiting on me to watch a show, they will starve to death.
> They do NOTHING in the duck world that the duck hunters
> on GON can't do. (I'm not one, shot a few in passing)
> but never really got into it..
> 
> It's a free country..
> 
> DD is not for me.
> 
> 
> And...
> 
> 
> 
> I wish they would shut up and quit drawing UNNECESSARY
> fire towards ALL Christians.





> I wish they would shut up and quit drawing UNNECESSARY
> fire towards ALL Christians.


Nice to see you have caught on.
Unfortunately many of your brothers haven't. 
In my opinion, many Christians are always blaming everybody else except the ones who do them real damage - fellow Christians.


----------



## Israel

I imagine it might be better if he left these sort of expositions when having breakfast among atheists.
Perhaps it becomes red meat for those who could too easily be provoked to imagine their faith makes them morally superior individuals, which is really no help to them at all.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> I imagine it might be better if he left these sort of expositions when having breakfast among atheists.
> Perhaps it becomes red meat for those who could too easily be provoked to imagine their faith makes them morally superior individuals, which is really no help to them at all.


Are you suggesting it was the make up of the audience that was the problem and not the twisted example he decided to use to make his point?


----------



## 660griz

It is not just the twisted example he used either. It is the entire point he is trying to make is wrong. Perpetuating the 'atheist don't have morals' myth. If anything, atheist have more morals. We feel empathy and understand the pain and terminal product of the act of murder. Christians just don't kill cause they are told not to by a book or supernatural force. 
What about rape and pedophilia? Curiously lacking from the 10 commandments.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Are you suggesting it was the make up of the audience that was the problem and not the twisted example he decided to use to make his point?



At the very least.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

The point he's making is one we've beat to death in here about a million times and is simply this:  One can't have a moral framework without a transcendent reference.  

It's an inherent weakness of the atheistic philosophy and has been recognized as such from everyone from Nietche to Sam Harris.  It's not anything new.  It simply is what it is.  

I like Phil, but I don't know that would be the example I would have picked to make the point, however it may have been if I was addressing all my old buddies who pretty much consist of ex cons,  pot smokers, parolees and river rats.  I don't know the demographics of the audience.


----------



## welderguy

God looks into the heart of a person.
David was described as "a man after God's own heart", but yet he was capable of murder.We all are capable of it no matter how many "morals" we think we have.My point is none of us are good.Only if Jesus has taken our rotten sins upon Himself do we have any hope of forgiveness.Maybe Phil should have told them that? I don't know.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> It is not just the twisted example he used either. It is the entire point he is trying to make is wrong. Perpetuating the 'atheist don't have morals' myth. If anything, atheist have more morals. We feel empathy and understand the pain and terminal product of the act of murder. Christians just don't kill cause they are told not to by a book or supernatural force.
> What about rape and pedophilia? Curiously lacking from the 10 commandments.



See, that's what I'm talkin' bout...
We atheists are better! 

Try that in the middle of the offering being taken up...

Ya ain't really free till you stop looking for amen's...


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Fixed it for ya.  I knew what you meant.



Spell check got him.  I hate when it does that.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> It is not just the twisted example he used either. It is the entire point he is trying to make is wrong. Perpetuating the 'atheist don't have morals' myth. If anything, atheist have more morals. We feel empathy and understand the pain and terminal product of the act of murder. Christians just don't kill cause they are told not to by a book or supernatural force.
> What about rape and pedophilia? Curiously lacking from the 10 commandments.





> It is not just the twisted example he used either. It is the entire point he is trying to make is wrong.


Oh I certainly agree with that and yes that's the main point. But to me its how he decided to make that point that is very telling. He could have made the same point in, for lack of a better word, an "intelligent" way.
His example shows what his thought process is.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> He could have made the same point in, for lack of a better word, an "intelligent" way.



I think that's the appropriate term here.  I don't have much use for his type.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> The point he's making is one we've beat to death in here about a million times and is simply this:  One can't have a moral framework without a transcendent reference.
> 
> It's an inherent weakness of the atheistic philosophy and has been recognized as such from everyone from Nietche to Sam Harris.  It's not anything new.  It simply is what it is.
> 
> I like Phil, but I don't know that would be the example I would have picked to make the point, however it may have been if I was addressing all my old buddies who pretty much consist of ex cons,  pot smokers, parolees and river rats.  I don't know the demographics of the audience.





> however it may have been if I was addressing all my old buddies who pretty much consist of ex cons,  pot smokers, parolees and river rats.


At one time or another I have been around all of those and might even have been a few of those myself.
Interestingly enough I never once heard an example of that type being used in reference to Christians.
Not because Christians are perfect but because its an ignorant example.
I don't think some of you guys realize that when your "representatives", and that's what Phil is whether you agree or not, says stuff like that, how it reflects on your beliefs.
If you don't think it plays a part in why society seems to be moving away from what you call Christian values, you are fooling yourself.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> See, that's what I'm talkin' bout...
> We atheists are better!



Likewise. 


> One can't have a moral framework without a transcendent reference. It's an inherent weakness of the atheistic philosophy


----------



## 660griz

Which is better?
Bible:
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father."

Or:
"Don't rape...period."


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> My favorite is "You don't understand because you don't believe".



That's true.  I don't mean this in any demeaning way so please don't take it like that, but it's true.  

Something happens on a transcendent level once you 'believe' and you simply see things differently.  Explaining it, you hear people say "My eyes were opened.", "The blinders came off." or maybe "The shades were pulled back."   Those descriptions really don't do the experience justice, especially if you're speaking to A/As or skeptics, because they say the same thing about their world view, so you wind up talking past each other about two totally separate experiences.  The biggest difference is that the believer is speaking of a transcendent supernatural experience in which their philosophy/outlook changed as a byproduct of the experience, and the A/A who says the same thing about their philosophy change, but for the most part, has little if any transcendent or spiritual connotations. Thus when either party says to the other "My eyes were opened." it runs the risks if being taken as an insult to the other party, because it infers that they are blind, when in fact there are two totally separate experiences being discussed, but both parties assume they're speaking of the same.....either that or they're just plain mean and arrogant.

As for the experience itself.  To a believer I think it's 
very difficult to put into words exactly what happens.  It's more than just a change in philosophy or outlook.  Its a revelation.  It's deep and expansive, but painfully personal.  So when they say 



> "You don't understand because you don't believe"



perhaps they're not necessarily being arrogant (that would be judged on tone, voice inflection, posture, facial expression, history, etc, ), but they are being honest.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> At one time or another I have been around all of those and might even have been a few of those myself.
> Interestingly enough I never once heard an example of that type being used in reference to Christians.
> Not because Christians are perfect but because its an ignorant example.
> I don't think some of you guys realize that when your "representatives", and that's what Phil is whether you agree or not, says stuff like that, how it reflects on your beliefs.
> If you don't think it plays a part in why society seems to be moving away from what you call Christian values, you are fooling yourself.



Like I said.  I would not have used that example in mixed company, only among my old friends.  I agree it's a bad example and sets up a bad stereotype.  Most are not going to see past the grittiness to the underlying point.    I'm not supporting Phil in any way on this and like it or not he's got to realize people view and judge the Christian religion based on his actions.  That's something I try to keep in mind about myself everyday.  Sadly to say, I find I could have done better at the end of most days.  Hopefully he does too.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's true.  I don't mean this in any demeaning way so please don't take it like that, but it's true.
> 
> Something happens on a transcendent level once you 'believe' and you simply see things differently.  Explaining it, you hear people say "My eyes were opened.", "The blinders came off." or maybe "The shades were pulled back."   Those descriptions really don't do the experience justice, especially if you're speaking to A/As or skeptics, because they say the same thing about their world view, so you wind up talking past each other about two totally separate experiences.  The biggest difference is that the believer is speaking of a transcendent supernatural experience in which their philosophy/outlook changed as a byproduct of the experience, and the A/A who says the same thing about their philosophy change, but for the most part, has little if any transcendent or spiritual connotations. Thus when either party says to the other "My eyes were opened." it runs the risks if being taken as an insult to the other party, because it infers that they are blind, when in fact there are two totally separate experiences being discussed, but both parties assume they're speaking of the same.....either that or they're just plain mean and arrogant.
> 
> As for the experience itself.  To a believer I think it's
> very difficult to put into words exactly what happens.  It's more than just a change in philosophy or outlook.  Its a revelation.  It's deep and expansive, but painfully personal.  So when they say
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps they're not necessarily being arrogant (that would be judged on tone, voice inflection, posture, facial expression, history, etc, ), but they are being honest.



Raping, killing and eating children is wrong.  You don't need a "transcendent" moment to know that.  It got hardwired a long, long time ago.  There are cultures that don't believe in God that have very strong moral frameworks in place.  

Just as an exercise, without God, where do you think they would have gotten those ideas?


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> God looks into the heart of a person.
> David was described as "a man after God's own heart", but yet he was capable of murder.We all are capable of it no matter how many "morals" we think we have.My point is none of us are good.Only if Jesus has taken our rotten sins upon Himself do we have any hope of forgiveness.Maybe Phil should have told them that? I don't know.



I doubt Phil understands that none of are good.


----------



## Artfuldodger

How does a Christian explain believers in all of the wrong God's having morals?
Jesus said you are either with me or against me. That places people of other religions in the same boat as atheist. They are all depraved, and as Welderguy explained it takes the God of Abraham to open our eyes.
You can't make morals a religious vs atheist issue unless you are willing to accept the Universal God theory, such as a belief in a Great Architect or Universal Creator regardless of what one's religion calls him. This is the "Divine Command Theory."
In Christianity it take the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to have morals. Fruit of the Holy Spirit.                                                                         Beyond this all are depraved.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> How does a Christian explain believers in all of the wrong God's having morals?
> Jesus said you are either with me or against me. That places people of other religions in the same boat as atheist. They are all depraved, and as Welderguy explained it takes the God of Abraham to open our eyes.
> You can't make morals a religious vs atheist issue unless you are willing to accept the Universal God theory, such as a belief in a Great Architect or Universal Creator regardless of what one's religion calls him.
> In Christianity it take the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to have morals. Beyond this all are depraved.




Also, why do some Christians envision a bucked up Jesus riding on a Daisycutter on it's way down to Mecca?  Who are you to tell them their vision is wrong?  They heard the voices in their heads too.  They think they got the message as loud and clear as you did.  

I imagine that you'll say "they interpreted it wrong because man is flawed".  How does that reasoning reflect on you?

There's a better way to think through moral questions and it applies equally towards everyone regardless of culture or creed.   And in the end no one will be able to claim "I heard it from God.  You can't tell me otherwise."


----------



## Artfuldodger

Haven't we discussed an island or village with no belief in God? Would they have secular morality?
Would they not develop folkways, mores, taboos, and laws just to live in some type of civilization?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Raping, killing and eating children is wrong.  You don't need a "transcendent" moment to know that.  It got hardwired a long, long time ago.  There are cultures that don't believe in God that have very strong moral frameworks in place.
> 
> Just as an exercise, without God, where do you think they would have gotten those ideas?



Not going into this again for the million and one time.  No offense but I'm bored to death with it.   Like I said, almost every notable atheistic philosopher publicly recognizes this as an inherent weakness.  You disagree? Fine.  Debate it with them.  Don't mean to come off as short, but it's akin to arguing over preterism upstairs.  Boring.   In my mind some thing are beyond debate.  Those are two of them.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Also, why do some Christians envision a bucked up Jesus riding on a Daisycutter on it's way down to Mecca?  Who are you to tell them their vision is wrong?  They heard the voices in their heads too.  They think they got the message as loud and clear as you did.
> 
> I imagine that you'll say "they interpreted it wrong because man is flawed".  How does that reasoning reflect on you?
> 
> There's a better way to think through moral questions and it applies equally towards everyone regardless of culture or creed.   And in the end no one will be able to claim "I heard it from God.  You can't tell me otherwise."



I think you made my point, if we all worship various Gods, how did we end up with most of the same morals?

I've always wondered if people are born good and learn to be bad or are we born bad and learn to be good.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Haven't we discussed an island or village with no belief in God? Would they have secular morality?
> Would they not develop folkways, mores, taboos, and laws just to live in some type of civilization?



The Piraha.  How do you think they came up with moral codes?


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I think you made my point, if we all worship various Gods, how did we end up with most of the same morals?




Art, 

See if you can do a little experiment.  Take God out of the equation, leave the box just for a minute.  How would morals have come about without divine influence.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I think that's the appropriate term here.  I don't have much use for his type.


Unfortunately, whether right or wrong, a person like you becomes collateral damage in these situations.
The reality is no one of other religions, no religions, on the fence, society in general, is reading about you.
But they are reading about what Phil said and forming opinions on your beliefs.
And a point that's not directed at you personally -
In the PF a common theme is "why don't the good Muslims stand up in protest about the Muslims that make them look bad. Until they do that they are all the same".
I think the same could be applied here.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Unfortunately, whether right or wrong, a person like you becomes collateral damage in these situations.
> The reality is no one of other religions, no religions, on the fence, society in general, is reading about you.
> But they are reading about what Phil said and forming opinions on your beliefs.
> And a point that's not directed at you personally -
> In the PF a common theme is "why don't the good Muslims stand up in protest about the Muslims that make them look bad. Until they do that they are all the same".
> I think the same could be applied here.




Kind of, but he wouldn't be threatened with death if he spoke out against Phil Robertson.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> Like I said, almost every notable atheistic philosopher publicly recognizes this as an inherent weakness.  You disagree? Fine.  Debate it with them.



I would gladly debate it with them if I thought your statement was true. 

Richard Dawkins, Hitchens, etc., certainly knows morality doesn't come from the bible.

"Dawkins and others have argued the evolutionary reasons for morality which, not that they are invalid, seem to disappoint the theist because they automatically see it as a rebuff to their human dignity."

"Morality exists because there is a desire for it to exist. It increases the quality of life. We see this throughout human history. As morality reaches higher and higher standards and these standards become accepted we in turn make higher demands of our moral code. " R. Dawkins.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not going into this again for the million and one time.  No offense but I'm bored to death with it.   Like I said, almost every notable atheistic philosopher publicly recognizes this as an inherent weakness.  You disagree? Fine.  Debate it with them.  Don't mean to come off as short, but it's akin to arguing over preterism upstairs.  Boring.   In my mind some thing are beyond debate.  Those are two of them.




Is that what you got from Harris' TED Talk?   You must not have "discerned" the message properly.  Here's 20 hours of lectures by atheists and and 3 or 4 believers.  Let me know where I missed them saying that there's an inherent weakness.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Like I said.  I would not have used that example in mixed company, only among my old friends.  I agree it's a bad example and sets up a bad stereotype.  Most are not going to see past the grittiness to the underlying point.    I'm not supporting Phil in any way on this and like it or not he's got to realize people view and judge the Christian religion based on his actions.  That's something I try to keep in mind about myself everyday.  Sadly to say, I find I could have done better at the end of most days.  Hopefully he does too.





> Sadly to say, I find I could have done better at the end of most days.  Hopefully he does too


I don't believe for a second he thinks what he said was wrong. This isn't his first go round with him saying controversial things.
I think his bank account balance and ego is more important to him than how he is making you look.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Kind of, but he wouldn't be threatened with death if he spoke out against Phil Robertson.


Makes the point even stronger.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Makes the point even stronger.




It's a dicey proposition to make the claim "I discerned this better than you did."

It gets threads locked down upstairs.

Why do you think that doesn't happen down here?


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Art,
> 
> See if you can do a little experiment.  Take God out of the equation, leave the box just for a minute.  How would morals have come about without divine influence.



OK, Lord of the Flies come to mind. Anyway I'm born on a small island the same time 200 other babies are born. Before the time our parents are able to teach us morals a deadly virus kills all of our parents. We are then raised by wolves, no wait we are raised by each other.
It's actually a big experiment, (I watched Maze Runner recently). Scientist are watching us to see if we develop ways to get along or if we turn into savages. 
At first we are savages but suddenly realize if we developed folkways and mores, we can live in harmony instead of fear. We develop a method of punishment to the few who can't conform. 
This change from savages to civilization would take many years to develop. In fact it actually took about 5 generations.(long experiment)
Some people caught on pretty quickly and for others they never got it. They were banished on rafts. We finally learned each of us has various abilities and were placed into different groups. ( I also watched Divergent recently which was better than The Maze runner by the way.)
We had groups that were in charge of law enforcement, judging, etc. We developed an Island Council and chose leaders who formed committees of our peers to work on various projects. We were mostly a socialist government and we all shared our resources. Then slowly we became Capitalist. Then we lost our morals and started wars and various tribes for fighting.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I don't believe for a second he thinks what he said was wrong. This isn't his first go round with him saying controversial things.
> I think his bank account balance and ego is more important to him than how he is making you look.




I think he doesn't care about what people think of him.  He's speaking his true mind.  I like that he does.  Now you know what he really is.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> It's a dicey proposition to make the claim "I discerned this better than you did."
> 
> It gets threads locked down upstairs.
> 
> Why do you think that doesn't happen down here?


Maybe they expect less from us down here 
Or we seem to have the ability to not let disagreements degrade to the point of personal attacks.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> OK, Lord of the Flies come to mind. Anyway I'm born on a small island the same time 200 other babies are born. Before the time our parents are able to teach us morals a deadly virus kills all of our parents. We are then raised by wolves, no wait we are raised by each other.
> It's actually a big experiment, (I watched Maze Runner recently). Scientist are watching us to see if we develop ways to get along or if we turn into savages.
> At first we are savages but suddenly realize if we developed folkways and mores, we can live in harmony instead of fear. We develop a method of punishment to the few who can't conform.
> This change savage to civilization would take many years to develop. In fact it actually took about 5 generations.(long experiment)
> Some people caught on pretty quickly and for others they never got it. They were banished on rafts. We finally learned each of has various abilities and were placed into different groups. ( I also watched Divergent recently which was better than The Maze runner by the way.)
> We had groups that were in charge of law enforcement, judging, etc. We developed an Island Council and chose leaders who formed committees of our peers to work on various projects. We were mostly a socialist government and we all shared our resources. Then slowly we became Capitalist. Then we lost our morals and started wars and various tribes for fighting.



Nicely done.

Wolves have moral/social codes too.  Where do you think they would have come from if there were no God?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I think he doesn't care about what people think of him.  He's speaking his true mind.  I like that he does.  Now you know what he really is.





> He's speaking his true mind.  I like that he does.


Sure that can be a good quality.
To me an even better quality is realizing Im representing other people so Im going to do my best to make my point and not make them look like morons in the process.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe they expect less from us down here
> Or we seem to have the ability to not let disagreements degrade to the point of personal attacks.



I think it reflects upon the nature of "belief".  It makes people crazy.  It seems to subvert the calm and cool.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Sure that can be a good quality.
> To me an even better quality is realizing Im representing other people so Im going to do my best to make my point and not make them look like morons in the process.



Ew.  Politics.  I prefer people be completely honest.  You can read more about this at vdare dot com


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> I don't believe for a second he thinks what he said was wrong. This isn't his first go round with him saying controversial things.
> I think his bank account balance and ego is more important to him than how he is making you look.



I don't know the man well enough to make that call.  Honestly I really don't care.  I have a hard enough time answering for me.  Don't mean to sound short, just feel a little bit irritable today.  May be a good idea if I don't post till it passes, lest I have something else to answer for. Don't take it personal.  It's me.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Ew.  Politics.  I prefer people be completely honest.  You can read more about this at vdare dot com


You can be honest and represent a group intelligently at the same time.
If you play the role of a leader its not about just you any more.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't know the man well enough to make that call.  Honestly I really don't care.  I have a hard enough time answering for me.  Don't mean to sound short, just feel a little bit irritable today.  May be a good idea if I don't post till it passes, lest I have something else to answer for. Don't take it personal.  It's me.


Turn that frown upside down  
And no offence taken at all.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> You can be honest and represent a group intelligently at the same time.
> If you play the role of a leader its not about just you any more.



He's like those guys that walk around with AR's to "prove a point".


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Nicely done.
> 
> Wolves have moral/social codes too.  Where do you think they would have come from if there were no God?



Well the raised by animals is way overused. Anyway to finish my story, after we divided into various tribes we became overpopulated. War, starvation, and disease turned us back into savages as we had to defend for ourselves. Eventually most all died from war, starvation, and disease. We were down to about 50 people and combined back into one tribe and the whole process has repeated itself for thousands of years on this island. Some people we had banished made it to other islands who developed similar morals and governments.
This scenario repeated itself to other islands to the point our future generations forgot where they came from.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Well the raised by animals is way overused. Anyway to finish my story, after we divided into various tribes we became overpopulated. War, starvation, and disease turned us back into savages as we had to defend for ourselves. Eventually most all died from war, starvation, and disease. We were down to about 50 people and combined back into one tribe and the whole process has repeated itself for thousands of years on this island. Some people we had banished made it to other islands who developed similar morals and governments.
> This scenario repeated itself to other islands to the point our future generations forgot where they came from.



Is this from that movie you saw or did you think this up?


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Is this from that movie you saw or did you think this up?



I think I made it up but I'm sure I've been influenced by movies, books, education, etc.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I think I made it up but I'm sure I've been influenced by movies, books, education, etc.



There are entire disciplines of study devoted to finding out what the story is.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

artfuldodger said:


> i think i made it up.



* My favorite post ever!!!  Ever!!!!*


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> * My favorite post ever!!!  Ever!!!!*



But it made the point Ambush was looking for. He wanted me to construct a story of how a group of isolated people could form morals without a belief in the God or other gods. And how the various isolated groups would develop similar morals.


----------



## drippin' rock

If the murders did this to a Christian family, what would be different??


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> But it made the point Ambush was looking for. He wanted me to construct a story of how a group of isolated people could form morals without a belief in the God or other gods. And how the various isolated groups would develop similar morals.



It made sense that it could happen.  That's all anybody  needs to realize.


----------



## Artfuldodger

drippin' rock said:


> If the murders did this to a Christian family, what would be different??



Religions have good moral standards. It's the humans that have trouble living by them.
The God of Abraham presented the Old Testament as proof. No matter how hard we try, none of us are good. Thus he already had in his Word or mind a plan of salvation in the form of a Messiah. It was part of his Old Testament prophesy. This salvation is based on God's mercy and grace and not based our ability to be good.
Lucky for us because none are good.
In a way morals or laws were to teach us we couldn't be good and would need salvation. It was God's plan from before creation.


----------



## ambush80

drippin' rock said:


> If the murders did this to a Christian family, what would be different??



The Christian family would forgive the muderer/rapists and pray that they find Jesus before they die and not wish the death penalty on them and not wish for an "eye for an eye", since that is Old Testament justice and they don't use that anymore.


----------



## NCHillbilly

I have never seen that religion has any claim at all on morals. I know plenty of moral religious folks, but I have also known many, many preachers, deacons, and other devoutly religious folks who would steal, cheat on business deals, commit adultery, pick up hookers, be peeping toms, molest children, stab other folks in the back in their absence, beat and dominate their wives,  etc. etc., and I have known plenty of folks with absolutely no religious beliefs whatsoever who would think all of those acts were abhorrent and reprehensible. Yet most of the time, the non-moral religious folks would still consider themselves to be much morally superior to the moral heathens, because they haven't been washed in the blood of the lamb.


----------



## ambush80

NCHillbilly said:


> I have never seen that religion has any claim at all on morals. I know plenty of moral religious folks, but I have also known many, many preachers, deacons, and other devoutly religious folks who would steal, cheat on business deals, commit adultery, pick up hookers, be peeping toms, molest children, stab other folks in the back in their absence, beat and dominate their wives,  etc. etc., and I have known plenty of folks with absolutely no religious beliefs whatsoever who would think all of those acts were abhorrent and reprehensible. Yet most of the time, the non-moral religious folks would still consider themselves to be much morally superior to the moral heathens, because they haven't been washed in the blood of the lamb.



If there is one it's probably these guys.

_Encyclopedia Brittanica

Jainism, a religion of India that teaches a path to spiritual purity and enlightenment through a disciplined mode of life founded upon the tradition of ahimsa, nonviolence to all living creatures. _


They're kooky, no doubt, but even if one or a group of them went off the rails and became extremists the most they would do is become more non-violent.

conversely, being washed in the blood of the lamb allows you to commit any conceivable atrocity against your fellow man and be forgiven, as long as you repent before death or after your second chance after the Rapture.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Religions have good moral standards. It's the humans that have trouble living by them.
> The God of Abraham presented the Old Testament as proof. No matter how hard we try, none of us are good. Thus he already had in his Word or mind a plan of salvation in the form of a Messiah. It was part of his Old Testament prophesy. This salvation is based on God's mercy and grace and not based our ability to be good.
> Lucky for us because none are good.
> In a way morals or laws were to teach us we couldn't be good and would need salvation. It was God's plan from before creation.


People had and have moral standards. Religion tries to tie those human traits to a higher power.
Religion does that with everything. It uses traits and actions as tools to promote itself. Meanwhile religion is a tool for humans.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NCHillbilly said:


> I have never seen that religion has any claim at all on morals. I know plenty of moral religious folks, but I have also known many, many preachers, deacons, and other devoutly religious folks who would steal, cheat on business deals, commit adultery, pick up hookers, be peeping toms, molest children, stab other folks in the back in their absence, beat and dominate their wives,  etc. etc., and I have known plenty of folks with absolutely no religious beliefs whatsoever who would think all of those acts were abhorrent and reprehensible. Yet most of the time, the non-moral religious folks would still consider themselves to be much morally superior to the moral heathens, because they haven't been washed in the blood of the lamb.



Sometimes the denominations with the highest moral theology have the most members who can't follow the high moral standards they place on themselves and others.
It would be interesting to see this on a chart by denominations and the education and poverty level of each. There are many religious and social factors involved such as locations, cities, rural, non-rural, farming communities, factory communities, isolation from society, etc.

I would agree some of the most deeply religious people I know can quote scripture, all kinds of rules, dress codes, and in Church every Sunday seem to be the ones who drink, fuss & fight on Saturday night. Proof that Christianity is not about everything physical but spiritual.
They tend to focus on our two natures without realizing they don't have as much control as they think they do.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> You can be honest and represent a group intelligently at the same time.
> If you play the role of a leader its not about just you any more.



Precisely. 
(but even if you don't)


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Precisely.
> (but even if you don't)


If nobody stops you, "playing" turns into "is".
At least to anybody looking at it (society).


----------



## Artfuldodger

Adam and Eve only knew God. They were naked but not ashamed. They wanted to know "good & evil" rather than to know "God."
After eating the fruit, God opened their spiritual eyes and they saw that they were naked. Then they were ashamed. Knowing good & evil brings shame.
Spirit gives LIFE. That is the message of the New Testament.

When the Old Testament passed away the Law was done away with. Where there is no Law, there is no sin. If there is no sin, there is no death. Christ defeated death.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Adam and Eve only knew God. They were naked but not ashamed. They wanted to know "good & evil" rather than to know "God."
> After eating the fruit, God opened their spiritual eyes and they saw that they were naked. Then they were ashamed. Knowing good & evil brings shame.
> Spirit gives LIFE. That is the message of the New Testament.
> 
> When the Old Testament passed away the Law was done away with. Where there is no Law, there is no sin. If there is no sin, there is no death. Christ defeated death.



The story of Adam and Eve is just that, a story, like the rest of the OT and NT.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> The story of Adam and Eve is just that, a story, like the rest of the OT and NT.



Thread Killer


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Thread Killer



A little dose of reality sometimes has that effect.

Most of the conversations are very well represented with intelligent in depth expressions of personal thought and then just as it seems like it is beyond the fantasy realm someone has to throw in a reference to a fable and folklore. To me it just detracts from all of the great stuff they had posted before that. I get a feeling of being let down just when I thought some progress was being made. 

I feels like I am watching the Shutter Island. Just when it seems like there is hope and progress is made the character snaps back out if reality and into fantasy.
Disclaimer* I DO realize the movie is fictional and use it merely as an example to relate to, not as if it is fact.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Adam and Eve only knew God. They were naked but not ashamed. They wanted to know "good & evil" rather than to know "God."
> After eating the fruit, God opened their spiritual eyes and they saw that they were naked. Then they were ashamed. Knowing good & evil brings shame.
> Spirit gives LIFE. That is the message of the New Testament.
> 
> When the Old Testament passed away the Law was done away with. Where there is no Law, there is no sin. If there is no sin, there is no death. Christ defeated death.







bullethead said:


> The story of Adam and Eve is just that, a story, like the rest of the OT and NT.



Art,

Down here, that mess never happened and we can only discuss it during pretend time.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> A little dose of reality sometimes has that effect..



Let's not kid ourselves.  That not a dose of reality.  It's a dose of pure opinion which is exactly why it's a thread killer.  It takes us back to square one.....a square that's been beat to death and holds no promise of anything but spouting memes back and forth between us.  

The best discussions here are the ones that go into the nuts and bolts of why we believe such and such.  I've been here a little over a year.  In that year I haven't budged one bit from my beliefs, but I've come to respect you guys and your position a great deal for precisely the reason that our discussions got past the  "Is not!  Is too."  stage of childhood arguments.  If we can't get past that, for all practical intents and purposes, we might as well be upstairs arguing dogmatically over some minuscule irrelevant doctrine.  Just my two cents.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Artfuldodger said:


> Adam and Eve only knew God. They were naked but not ashamed. They wanted to know "good & evil" rather than to know "God."
> After eating the fruit, God opened their spiritual eyes and they saw that they were naked. Then they were ashamed. Knowing good & evil brings shame.
> Spirit gives LIFE. That is the message of the New Testament.
> 
> When the Old Testament passed away the Law was done away with. Where there is no Law, there is no sin. If there is no sin, there is no death. Christ defeated death.



Do the Ten Commandments still apply then? Will I not still get in serious spiritual trouble for making me up a big mess of graven images or hoeing my taters on Sunday?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NCHillbilly said:


> Do the Ten Commandments still apply then? Will I not still get in serious spiritual trouble for making me up a big mess of graven images or hoeing my taters on Sunday?



Hoeing taters on Sunday!  OH SNAP!!!  You toast Brother.  No hope for you.  That's THE BIGGIE.  Better go head and invest in asbestos coffin and thermal powered air-conditioned skivvies.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Let's not kid ourselves.  That not a dose of reality.  It's a dose of pure opinion which is exactly why it's a thread killer.  It takes us back to square one.....a square that's been beat to death and holds no promise of anything but spouting memes back and forth between us.
> 
> The best discussions here are the ones that go into the nuts and bolts of why we believe such and such.  I've been here a little over a year.  In that year I haven't budged one bit from my beliefs, but I've come to respect you guys and your position a great deal for precisely the reason that our discussions got past the  "Is not!  Is too."  stage of childhood arguments.  If we can't get past that, for all practical intents and purposes, we might as well be upstairs arguing dogmatically over some minuscule irrelevant doctrine.  Just my two cents.



Can I tell you why I don't believe in talking snakes?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Can I tell you why I don't believe in talking snakes?



You kidding?  That's why I came here in the first place.  I'm all ears.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NCHillbilly said:


> Do the Ten Commandments still apply then? Will I not still get in serious spiritual trouble for making me up a big mess of graven images or hoeing my taters on Sunday?



Well from here it get's a little confusing. If the whole point of the Old Testament was to show us we couldn't stop sinning and need a Messiah, then we need a Messiah. If he took on all of the sin in the whole wide world and then defeated death, sin died too.
If one accepts this as truth in the form of believing Jesus did what he said he did, then you are granted eternal life. The salvation is from death. The wages of sin is death. Jesus defeated both. The Law is abolished yet I must still follow the commandment of loving God and brother. I must forgive others.
I would assume my sins were washed, the Holy Spirit moves in and guides me by producing fruit. 

The part I don't fully understand is why I still sin. I can only assume I still sin but they don't count. My sins were paid for.

Yet if we read in scripture we will all be judged by our deeds. In Romans people who knew God quit worshiping God and started worshiping idols. God abandoned them.
There is a lot in Revelation about being judged. We have these sin lists from Paul that will keep one out of the Kingdom. I hope he is listing them to say "and such were some of you, but you were washed' or "if you judge people who do the sins on this list, you are equally guilty, you condemn yourself."

I must admit there is a lot about Christianity I don't understand. All I know is I can't quit sinning and needed the washing. This was my repentance. 
If I must now quit sinning then I'm doomed. That being said, I don't believe I could now quit worshiping God and start worshiping idols without being turned into a heterosexual who lusts after men. That could lead to God abandoning me.
It would be better for me to have never known God than to know God and quit worshiping him.


----------



## NCHillbilly

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hoeing taters on Sunday!  OH SNAP!!!  You toast Brother.  No hope for you.  That's THE BIGGIE.  Better go head and invest in asbestos coffin and thermal powered air-conditioned skivvies.





In all seriousness, it hasn't been that many years ago in my neck of the woods that someone who had the gall to mow their yard, work in their garden, wash their car, or some such on Sunday would have been an absolute object of scandal, and would have been socially ostracized by the good folks of the community. It will still get you talked about behind your back by the older folks. We weren't even allowed to fish on Sunday when I was a kid.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NCHillbilly said:


> In all seriousness, it hasn't been that many years ago in my neck of the woods that someone who had the gall to mow their yard, work in their garden, wash their car, or some such on Sunday would have been an absolute object of scandal, and would have been socially ostracized by the good folks of the community. It will still get you talked about behind your back by the older folks. We weren't even allowed to fish on Sunday when I was a kid.



When I was growing up until about 8 we lived under my grandmothers authority.  She didn't even cook on Sunday.  Sunday dinner was prepared on Sat.  On Sunday you went to church then came home and sat around.  That's it.  Period.

Now I come home from Church and piddle doing odd, small tasks that got missed during the week, but the older I get I can honestly say I see a bit of wisdom in resting a bit.  It's bad when Monday rolls around and I wake up tired from working like a dog Sunday.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Can I tell you why I don't believe in talking snakes?


Because snakes cant talk?
Just guessing


----------



## hobbs27

NCHillbilly said:


> Do the Ten Commandments still apply then? Will I not still get in serious spiritual trouble for making me up a big mess of graven images or hoeing my taters on Sunday?



What does Sunday have to do with the ten commandments?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> What does Sunday have to do with the ten commandments?



Well as others have mentioned, back when some of us were young people still thought we had to live by the ten commandments. Sunday or Sabbath was a day for worship and rest. After Church most folks didn't go to restaurants and stores. In fact there weren't too many stores even open. We also weren't allowed to do any worldly hobbies, yard work, etc. After our Sunday dinner, we would all take a nap or just sit around on the front porch. Kids still played games and such.
We never went as for as Moms not cooking. With each generation things changed and the more worldly things we could do like cooking, golf and fishing.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Well as others have mentioned, back when some of us were young people still thought we had to live by the ten commandments. Sunday or Sabbath was a day for worship and rest. After Church most folks didn't go to restaurants and stores. In fact there weren't too many stores even open. We also weren't allowed to do any worldly hobbies, yard work, etc. After our Sunday dinner, we would all take a nap or just sit around on the front porch. Kids still played games and such.
> We never went as for as Moms not cooking. With each generation things changed and the more worldly things we could do like cooking, golf and fishing.



I know, but the Sabbath is Saturday which answers the Op question. We don't follow the ten commandments. We follow the law of Christ, to Love one another.


----------



## NCHillbilly

hobbs27 said:


> I know, but the Sabbath is Saturday which answers the Op question. We don't follow the ten commandments. We follow the law of Christ, to Love one another.



For Jewish folks it is. For 99% of Christians except for Seventh-Day Adventists and maybe a few others, Sunday is considered the Sabbath Day/day of rest. Or at least that's what I and everybody I know was taught at church.


----------



## drippin' rock

SemperFiDawg said:


> "Is not!  Is too.".



But that is all there is. Some folks here like to develop that into 4 or 12 paragraphs, we can bend over backwards making sure explaining why the other is mistaken, throw in some of these, but "Is too, Is not" is all there is here.


----------



## WaltL1

drippin' rock said:


> But that is all there is. Some folks here like to develop that into 4 or 12 paragraphs, we can bend over backwards making sure explaining why the other is mistaken, throw in some of these, but "Is too, Is not" is all there is here.


I'm going to disagree.
For instance I don't argue that there "is not". 
I argue against the arguments that are made that says there "is".
One is focused on the existence of God.
The other is focused on the argument being used to claim he does.
To me anyway, that's a pretty big difference.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Let's not kid ourselves.  That not a dose of reality.  It's a dose of pure opinion which is exactly why it's a thread killer.  It takes us back to square one.....a square that's been beat to death and holds no promise of anything but spouting memes back and forth between us.
> 
> The best discussions here are the ones that go into the nuts and bolts of why we believe such and such.  I've been here a little over a year.  In that year I haven't budged one bit from my beliefs, but I've come to respect you guys and your position a great deal for precisely the reason that our discussions got past the  "Is not!  Is too."  stage of childhood arguments.  If we can't get past that, for all practical intents and purposes, we might as well be upstairs arguing dogmatically over some minuscule irrelevant doctrine.  Just my two cents.



SFD with all due respect regarding Adam and Eve you are kidding yourself if you truly have yourself convinced they were the first two humans and the story is as told in the Bible. The evidence does not support that claim.
The problem here is that too many people jump over "square one" which I call Evidence and go right to "square two" which is Claims without ever tightening the nuts and bolts that hold square one and square two together.
I am all for the Is Not vs Is Too when either can be and is backed up. I can see the value in fables and  parables when used as such. When they are used as fact I would like to know how and when they became fact. 

If God made Adam and Eve and the story goes as told in the Bible, he was a few million years late to the lets make a human party.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I'm going to disagree.
> For instance I don't argue that there "is not".
> I argue against the arguments that are made that says there "is".
> One is focused on the existence of God.
> The other is focused on the argument being used to claim he does.
> To me anyway, that's a pretty big difference.



Tru dat.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> You kidding?  That's why I came here in the first place.  I'm all ears.



As Walt pointed out "snakes can't talk".

As an apologist you have to at least offer up a rational way that a snake could talk.  Describe a physiological change that would allow such a thing, or some other explanation, in an apologetic manner that explains the phenomena.  Don't be glib.  Do your best as a rational, intelligent person to explain it.  Then we will all discuss the merits of your explanation like grown ups.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> As Walt pointed out "snakes can't talk".
> 
> As an apologist you have to at least offer up a rational way that a snake could talk.  Describe a physiological change that would allow such a thing, or some other explanation, in an apologetic manner that explains the phenomena.  Don't be glib.  Do your best as a rational, intelligent person to explain it.  Then we will all discuss the merits of your explanation like grown ups.


The arguement has nothing to do with whether a snake could talk, it's whether God is real or not. If God is real than its an easy explaination of how a snake could talk.


----------



## stringmusic

NCHillbilly said:


> I have never seen that religion has any claim at all on morals. I know plenty of moral religious folks, but I have also known many, many preachers, deacons, and other devoutly religious folks who would steal, cheat on business deals, commit adultery, pick up hookers, be peeping toms, molest children, stab other folks in the back in their absence, beat and dominate their wives,  etc. etc., and I have known plenty of folks with absolutely no religious beliefs whatsoever who would think all of those acts were abhorrent and reprehensible. Yet most of the time, the non-moral religious folks would still consider themselves to be much morally superior to the moral heathens, because they haven't been washed in the blood of the lamb.



I don't think that many of the guys here claim that morals belong to people of faith, or that atheists or agnostics have no morals or that believers follow a moral law perfectly. I've made the claim many times that a belief in God can give a person a moral reference point to morals and moral judgements.

To have morals and to make moral judgements one must first give human life inherent value and worth, and an atheist can't do that because part of that worldview says that we got here the same way those taters that your hoein on Sunday got here.


----------



## Artfuldodger

stringmusic said:


> I don't think that many of the guys here claim that morals belong to people of faith, or that atheists or agnostics have no morals or that believers follow a moral law perfectly. I've made the claim many times that a belief in God can give a person a moral reference point to morals and moral judgements.
> 
> To have morals and to make moral judgements one must first give human life inherent value and worth, and an atheist can't do that because part of that worldview says that we got here the same way those taters that your hoein on Sunday got here.



Doesn't your second paragraph contradict your first paragraph? 

(quote)
I don't think that many of the guys here claim that morals belong to people of faith, or that atheists or agnostics have no morals 

To have morals and to make moral judgements one must first give human life inherent value and worth, and an atheist can't do that. (quote)

Where does the Atheist get his moral reference point? How do people who believe in false God's get moral reference points? Wouldn't there moral reference points be just as false as the Atheists?
Think about it, here is some guy following a false God. A God that is not real. How could he possibly get anything from a golden calf or the Sun Goddess? Anything he got would be from Satan. To worship false Gods is way more evil than to not worship any God. 
The God of Abraham would certainly not give idolators anything. In fact he might abandon them. They would be totally depraved an incapable of any morals.
God hates people who worship the wrong God more than he hates people who don't worship any God. It's like a slap in his face. You believe in a God but not him.


----------



## WaltL1

stringmusic said:


> I don't think that many of the guys here claim that morals belong to people of faith, or that atheists or agnostics have no morals or that believers follow a moral law perfectly. I've made the claim many times that a belief in God can give a person a moral reference point to morals and moral judgements.
> 
> To have morals and to make moral judgements one must first give human life inherent value and worth, and an atheist can't do that because part of that worldview says that we got here the same way those taters that your hoein on Sunday got here.


This -


> To have morals and to make moral judgements one must first give human life inherent value and worth, and an atheist can't do that


Is the opposite of this -


> or that atheists or agnostics have no morals


If belief in "how we got here" is what determines if a person is moral or not then there never would be an A/A being moral or a Christian being immoral.
The FACTS show that being moral and making moral judgments is an individual trait.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Doesn't your second paragraph contradict your first paragraph?
> 
> (quote)
> I don't think that many of the guys here claim that morals belong to people of faith, or that atheists or agnostics have no morals
> 
> To have morals and to make moral judgements one must first give human life inherent value and worth, and an atheist can't do that. (quote)
> 
> Where does the Atheist get his moral reference point? How do people who believe in false God's get moral reference points? Wouldn't there moral reference points be just as false as the Atheists?
> Think about it, here is some guy following a false God. A God that is not real. How could he possibly get anything from a golden calf or the Sun Goddess? Anything he got would be from Satan. To worship false Gods is way more evil than to not worship any God.
> The God of Abraham would certainly not give idolators anything. In fact he might abandon them. They would be totally depraved an incapable of any morals.
> God hates people who worship the wrong God more than he hates people who don't worship any God. It's like a slap in his face. You believe in a God but not him.





> Doesn't your second paragraph contradict your first paragraph?


We were typing the same thing at the same time


----------



## bullethead

Morals are yet another example of a human trait being linked to a make believe entity.
In some form or another every culture and belief system and individual has morals. It is shown that morals evolve and vary. They are a human trait. There is not a shred of evidence that they are universal or come from anything beyond humanity. They are just one more example of a human quality that has been commandeered by the religious and erroneously handed over to whatever god they worship. Morals are not a commodity that can be claimed,given or taken away.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> The arguement has nothing to do with whether a snake could talk, it's whether God is real or not. If God is real than its an easy explaination of how a snake could talk.



The only thing that is in constant absence is that god thing.
All explanations are easy when "IF" is used as fact.
Flying mice with super strength that sing "Here I Come To  Save The Day" would not even be considered out of the ordinary IF Mighty Mouse was real. Now we could use the mouse in question to quell the rumors but reality has a way of fouling things like that up.
Real gods have real evidence. No if needed.


----------



## Artfuldodger

What's moral about offering your daughters to a mob of heterosexual rapists trying to have gay sex with your male house guests?
Well back in the day it was, now it would be frowned upon. Why; two different cultures that both believe in the God of Abraham, yet the two cultures are years apart and miles apart. 
Once people realize this they can understand many of the events in the Bible are about deeper concepts than their manifestations.
Such as Sodom's lack of hospitality and not helping people.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> The only thing that is in constant absence is that god thing.
> All explanations are easy when "IF" is used as fact.
> Flying mice with super strength that sing "Here I Come To  Save The Day" would not even be considered out of the ordinary IF Mighty Mouse was real. Now we could use the mouse in question to quell the rumors but reality has a way of fouling things like that up.
> Real gods have real evidence. No if needed.



It's not a matter of whether God's real, it's a matter of whether you can or cannot see it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> It's not a matter of whether God's real, it's a matter of whether you can or cannot see it.



I can see 6 wait no 7 other gods besides the god of abraham.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> The only thing that is in constant absence is that god thing.
> All explanations are easy when "IF" is used as fact.
> Flying mice with super strength that sing "Here I Come To  Save The Day" would not even be considered out of the ordinary IF Mighty Mouse was real. Now we could use the mouse in question to quell the rumors but reality has a way of fouling things like that up.
> Real gods have real evidence. No if needed.



Do you understand the concept of believing in a God by using faith instead of logic? Thus if one believes God can create man from dust, he can surely make a snake talk. 
It's possible he talked using only thoughts. I'm not talking about you believing in this concept of faith but don't you see how it's possible for others to believe? Even if you think it's hogwash. Like people who don't walk under ladders or people who spit on fish bait. Maybe if you compare our beliefs in God to being superstitious you will understand how it works. You should be able to see it without you personally believing it.

The deeper question to ponder is how did two perfectly created humans have the ability for evil and were able to fall into temptation?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I can see 6 wait no 7 other gods besides the god of abraham.



I believe you.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you understand the concept of believing in a God by using faith instead of logic? Thus if one believes God can create man from dust, he can surely make a snake talk.
> It's possible he talked using only thoughts.
> 
> The deeper question to ponder is how did two perfectly created humans have the ability for evil and were able to fall into temptation?




Predestined Freewill.

I'll be filing for my tax exemption on Monday.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I believe you.



I don't.  I think he's making it up because it makes him feel good.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> I can see 6 wait no 7 other gods besides the god of abraham.



Maybe you need to take a Sociology class that delves into Religion to help you understand. I know you don't believe but I don't know why you don't understand our beliefs.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Predestined Freewill.
> 
> I'll be filing for my tax exemption on Monday.



Actually I don't see much free will in this. I would like some input from Welderguy as some predestination believers feel Adam and Eve did have free will and then after they chose sin our free will was removed and predestination was installed.

I'm sure Gem sees it differently as the world was created by or through Jesus, meaning God already knew Adam would sin before creation. God's plan to send Jesus as Messiah was already a part of his Word or mind before he created creation. In fact it was way more than a part of his Word, it was the Word. It was the only reason for creation. Nothing actually "went wrong" with God's perfect plan. It would be foolish to believe man could fool with God's plan.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you understand the concept of believing in a God by using faith instead of logic? Thus if one believes God can create man from dust, he can surely make a snake talk.
> It's possible he talked using only thoughts.
> 
> The deeper question to ponder is how did two perfectly created humans have the ability for evil and were able to fall into temptation?



I totally understand the concept but that doesn't make it any more true.
The answer to the deeper question is that is the story the writer wanted to tell.

It is about as concerning as pondering the concept of why the designers of a Moon sized Imperial Battle Station with a Planet destroying laser aka the Death Star would make the Exhaust Port so vulnerable that the entire thing could be totally destroyed by one well placed Photon Torpedo.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I don't.  I think he's making it up because it makes him feel good.



Well...making it up to make a point is a little more like it.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe you need to take a Sociology class that delves into Religion to help you understand. I know you don't believe but I don't know why you don't understand our beliefs.



I understand your beliefs 100%.
I used to believe in the same things.
I just wonder why when in an area that is made up of people who do not share those same beliefs, and have shown why, do believers still try to pass off fables as fact?
As Clara Peller would put "Where's the Apologetics?"


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> I understand your beliefs 100%.
> I used to believe in the same things.
> I just wonder why when in an area that is made up of people who do not share those same beliefs, and have shown why, do believers still try to pass off fables as fact?



So you are like the ex-smoker of Christianity?


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> So you are like the ex-smoker of Christianity?



No never tried smoking.
Did try Christianity. Did try God. Set out to strengthen my beliefs with fact and couldn't. I just have come to accept that anything as true as the existence of a god would be evident to everyone. Fact does not need faith.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> It's not a matter of whether God's real, it's a matter of whether you can or cannot see it.


Does that apply to all gods or just the one YOU can see?


----------



## drippin' rock

bullethead said:


> I totally understand the concept but that doesn't make it any more true.
> The answer to the deeper question is that is the story the writer wanted to tell.
> 
> It is about as concerning as pondering the concept of why the designers of a Moon sized Imperial Battle Station with a Planet destroying laser aka the Death Star would make the Exhaust Port so vulnerable that the entire thing could be totally destroyed by one well placed Photon Torpedo.



George Lucas just felt a disturbance in the force. Star Trek used photon torpedoes, not Star Wars.


----------



## drippin' rock

Artfuldodger said:


> Actually I don't see much free will in this. I would like some input from Welderguy as some predestination believers feel Adam and Eve did have free will and then after they chose sin our free will was removed and predestination was installed.
> 
> I'm sure Gem sees it differently as the world was created by or through Jesus, meaning God already knew Adam would sin before creation. God's plan to send Jesus as Messiah was already a part of his Word or mind before he created creation. In fact it was way more than a part of his Word, it was the Word. It was the only reason for creation. Nothing actually "went wrong" with God's perfect plan. It would be foolish to believe man could fool with God's plan.



If Adam and Eve were just a parable, what would be the message?  

Maybe it's, "God doesn't like smart people."


----------



## bullethead

drippin' rock said:


> George Lucas just felt a disturbance in the force. Star Trek used photon torpedoes, not Star Wars.



 ...Swimmy Swammy, Swenson, Swanson, Samsonite!....Man I was Waaay Off!

Proton Torpedo.  I was a victim of auto correct on my phone. Please forgive me.
Though....in the world of Sci Fi... a twin blast of Photon Torpedoes right down the old exhaust port would probably ruin a death star too.

Photon torpedo...Proton Torpedo...eh whatever, the moral of the story is Keep your trench narrow and your exhaust port shielded. That is sound advice for a Death Star or people right there!


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Does that apply to all gods or just the one YOU can see?



From where I am standing,it can only apply to the eternal God, creator of every single atom in the universe.The great I Am, who always existed and will always exist.The God who lives inside of each and every one of His elect children.The God whom every knee shall bow to and every tongue shall confess to.The God who will say to the goats on His left hand "depart from me ye workers of iniquity for I never knew you"and the same God that will say to His sheep on the right hand "come, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world".


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> From where I am standing,it can only apply to the eternal God, creator of every single atom in the universe.The great I Am, who always existed and will always exist.The God who lives inside of each and every one of His elect children.The God whom every knee shall bow to and every tongue shall confess to.The God who will say to the goats on His left hand "depart from me ye workers of iniquity for I never knew you"and the same God that will say to His sheep on the right hand "come, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world".



So this god follows a script?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> So this god follows a script?



He does whatsoever He chooses to do.He's sovereign over all things.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> He does whatsoever He chooses to do.He's sovereign over all things.


Not according to all that goats and sheep in hand lines above. Are you the press secretary or are you just saying what you think might happen?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Not according to all that goats and sheep in hand lines above. Are you the press secretary or are you just saying what you think might happen?



I would say more like ambassador.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Not according to all that goats and sheep in hand lines above./QUOTE]
> 
> Explain to me how He's not sovereign over the sheep and goats.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I would say more like ambassador.


 .
The God who will say to the goats on His left hand "depart from me ye workers of iniquity for I never knew you"and the same God that will say to His sheep on the right hand "come, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world".
Mr. Ambassador, is this something your god says often or are you just too caught up in quoting lines from ancient books?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Explain to me how He's not sovereign over the sheep and goats.



1. He does not exist.
2. You are telling us the exact lines that this god will mutter. I quoted them in blue above.

How do you know what this god will say? Is this his usual tagline?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> .
> The God who will say to the goats on His left hand "depart from me ye workers of iniquity for I never knew you"and the same God that will say to His sheep on the right hand "come, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world".
> Mr. Ambassador, is this something your god says often or are you just too caught up in quoting lines from ancient books?



Because it's written on my heart.what more proof is needed?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Because it's written on my heart.what more proof is needed?



Credibility
I am not aware of "written on my heart" winning any court cases specifically because it lacks proof.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Credibility



Plenty credible to me.Apparently not so much to you but no worries.You keep seeking these answers and maybe God will someday reveal them to you.That's certainly what it would take because I am very limited.Did you know that it took the same power to raise Christ from the dead as it takes to quicken a dead sinner?


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> The arguement has nothing to do with whether a snake could talk, it's whether God is real or not. If God is real than its an easy explaination of how a snake could talk.



Take a stab.  Say it like you mean it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Plenty credible to me.Apparently not so much to you but no worries.You keep seeking these answers and maybe God will someday reveal them to you.That's certainly what it would take because I am very limited.Did you know that it took the same power to raise Christ from the dead as it takes to quicken a dead sinner?



Yeah I read that on a heart.
1.21 Gigawatts.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Yeah I read that on a heart.
> 1.21 Gigawatts.



 
That's pretty witty.ttyl


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> So this god follows a script?



He has to, he wrote the script and God never changes. The names of the goats and sheep were written down before he even created the goats & sheep. The plot(God's plan) had to have been written before the movie(life) started.
Otherwise how could God make prophesy about Jesus' future arrival, orchestrate the death & resurrection of Jesus, and predict his return? He controlled the whole story line of the Moses affair to use later as a reverence point for many future events and issues. (Law, bondage, freedom etc.) He made many things happen as examples of things to come such as the Flood. The ark was salvation. We needed that example to compare Jesus to the Ark. 
It's hard to imagine if God set the plot and storyline for the whole Bible the he laid down his quill of predestination after he finished it. Why would he write the whole Bible and not write our life?


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> I would say more like ambassador.



"We are ambassadors for Christ."

I was in a Baptist boys group called the "Royal Ambassadors."


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> He has to, he wrote the script and God never changes. The names of the goats and sheep were written down before he even created the goats & sheep. The plot(God's plan) had to have been written before the movie(life) started.
> Otherwise how could God make prophesy about Jesus' future arrival, orchestrate the death & resurrection of Jesus, and predict his return? He controlled the whole story line of the Moses affair to use later as a reverence point for many future events and issues. (Law, bondage, freedom etc.) He made many things happen as examples of things to come such as the Flood. The ark was salvation. We needed that example to compare Jesus to the Ark.
> It's hard to imagine if God set the plot and storyline for the whole Bible the he laid down his quill of predestination after he finished it. Why would he write the whole Bible and not write our life?



Or maybe he exists on a mutiverse outside of time and is made of dark matter and the faster he goes the more dense he gets.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Or maybe he exists on a mutiverse outside of time and is made of dark matter and the faster he goes the more dense he gets.



I've never heard of a multiverse or meta-universe. Sometimes called parallel universes or "alternate universes".

That explains one of my age old questions. What is at the edge of the Universe? 

It's possible God created these and he has sheep and goats in these alternate universes. I wonder if he has one with only sheep? Maybe in an alternate universe people can be inherently good instead of evil.  
Can spirits be made of dark matter? Invisible matter could be the explanation of the spiritual world.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> He has to, he wrote the script and God never changes. The names of the goats and sheep were written down before he even created the goats & sheep. The plot(God's plan) had to have been written before the movie(life) started.
> Otherwise how could God make prophesy about Jesus' future arrival, orchestrate the death & resurrection of Jesus, and predict his return? He controlled the whole story line of the Moses affair to use later as a reverence point for many future events and issues. (Law, bondage, freedom etc.) He made many things happen as examples of things to come such as the Flood. The ark was salvation. We needed that example to compare Jesus to the Ark.
> It's hard to imagine if God set the plot and storyline for the whole Bible the he laid down his quill of predestination after he finished it. Why would he write the whole Bible and not write our life?



If that god can't change his mind he is not omnipotent.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I've never heard of a multiverse or meta-universe. Sometimes called parallel universes or "alternate universes".
> 
> That explains one of my age old questions. What is at the edge of the Universe?
> 
> It's possible God created these and he has sheep and goats in these alternate universes. I wonder if he has one with only sheep? Maybe in an alternate universe people can be inherently good instead of evil.
> Can spirits be made of dark matter? Invisible matter could be the explanation of the spiritual world.




All very good questions and possibilities.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> If that god can't change his mind he is not omnipotent.


Categorical fallacy, but you probably knew that.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Categorical fallacy, but you probably knew that.



No. Can you explain it to me?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> From where I am standing,it can only apply to the eternal God, creator of every single atom in the universe.The great I Am, who always existed and will always exist.The God who lives inside of each and every one of His elect children.The God whom every knee shall bow to and every tongue shall confess to.The God who will say to the goats on His left hand "depart from me ye workers of iniquity for I never knew you"and the same God that will say to His sheep on the right hand "come, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world".


"Just the one I can see" would have been sufficient.
All the rest of that mumbo jumbo is just an attempt to justify why your point applies to everybody else but not you.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Take a stab.  Say it like you mean it.



All is subject to God.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> "Just the one I can see" would have been sufficient.
> All the rest of that mumbo jumbo is just an attempt to justify why your point applies to everybody else but not you.



Ouch!

I did kinda lose myself there a little.Sometimes I get beside myself when thinking about the awesomeness of my God.I make no apologies for it,however,because I believe it's the truth.If you disagree, that's perfectly understandable.Not trying to force feed it to anyone.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Ouch!
> 
> I did kinda lose myself there a little.Sometimes I get beside myself when thinking about the awesomeness of my God.I make no apologies for it,however,because I believe it's the truth.If you disagree, that's perfectly understandable.Not trying to force feed it to anyone.


Its not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with you.
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of it -
My god is real whether you can see it or not but your god is not real because I can't see it.
Its just another one of those "feel good" statements that falls apart if you actually think about it.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Its not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with you.
> Just pointing out the hypocrisy of it -
> My god is real whether you can see it or not but your god is not real because I can't see it.
> Its just another one of those "feel good" statements that falls apart if you actually think about it.



ouch


----------



## welderguy

So, first there's "mumbo jumbo"?
Then you say there's hypocricy?
Then you say that I made the statement that your god is not real because I can't see him?(didn't even know you had a god)
Then you say my statements fall apart if you think about them?

So...why don't you tell me how you REALLY feel about me.

What happened Walt? Turkeys get the best of you again?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> So, first there's "mumbo jumbo"?
> Then you say there's hypocricy?
> Then you say that I made the statement that your god is not real because I can't see him?(didn't even know you had a god)
> Then you say my statements fall apart if you think about them?
> 
> So...why don't you tell me how you REALLY feel about me.
> 
> What happened Walt? Turkeys get the best of you again?




If I may,  to you an eight armed, blue skinned, elephant headed god is mumbo jumbo.  You deny that god (a god to millions) yet claim the truth of your own weird god creature is the hypocrisy.  

Because you cannot defend your God any better than anyone else can theirs is why your statement of "fact" falls apart.  Comprende?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> So, first there's "mumbo jumbo"?
> Then you say there's hypocricy?
> Then you say that I made the statement that your god is not real because I can't see him?(didn't even know you had a god)
> Then you say my statements fall apart if you think about them?
> 
> So...why don't you tell me how you REALLY feel about me.
> 
> What happened Walt? Turkeys get the best of you again?





> So...why don't you tell me how you REALLY feel about me.


Not a single one of my comments reflect how I feel about YOU.
They were aimed at your argument. 
I don't know you well enough or even at all for me to decide how I feel about you.
Making wacky arguments about belief in God is pretty much insignificant to me when deciding if I like someone or not.
There are way more important things to me that determine if I like someone or not.


> What happened Walt? Turkeys get the best of you again?


Nope. Even worse is I didn't get to go this weekend.


----------



## NCHillbilly

If God has the ability to make snakes talk, and to create living things from nothing just like he wants them, then why create flawed beings and blame them for acting just like he designed them to; and then punish them for being themselves by toasting them in he11 forever? That's pretty twisted and immoral if you think about it.


----------



## WaltL1

NCHillbilly said:


> If God has the ability to make snakes talk, and to create living things from nothing just like he wants them, then why create flawed beings and blame them for acting just like he designed them to; and then punish them for being themselves by toasting them in he11 forever? That's pretty twisted and immoral if you think about it.


If you ever figure it out, please explain it to me because it doesn't make a lick of sense to me either.
Neither do the explanations given for it.


----------



## gemcgrew

NCHillbilly said:


> If God has the ability to make snakes talk, and to create living things from nothing just like he wants them, then why create flawed beings and blame them for acting just like he designed them to; and then punish them for being themselves by toasting them in he11 forever? That's pretty twisted and immoral if you think about it.


Paul addressed your rebellious attitude in Romans 9.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> If I may,  to you an eight armed, blue skinned, elephant headed god is mumbo jumbo.  You deny that god (a god to millions) yet claim the truth of your own weird god creature is the hypocrisy.
> 
> Because you cannot defend your God any better than anyone else can theirs is why your statement of "fact" falls apart.  Comprende?



At one time I would have thought the Hindu god was weird. But then my sister doesn't understand why most Jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah.
I've come to realize that something must be different about God or he wouldn't be God. They just chose to make theirs really different. 
Superstitious Christians used to seem weird to me also. Now that I understand everyone, I hope Atheists can understand me. But then again I hope I'm not the one calling ya'll weird. If so I apolozize. 
According to some, it's not your fault, you're blinded.
Probably better in God's graces than the people who worship false idols. They aren't blinded. They are aware enough to believe in a god and still worship the wrong God.
After looking at the various cultures, we are all weird.


----------



## ambush80

NCHillbilly said:


> If God has the ability to make snakes talk, and to create living things from nothing just like he wants them, then why create flawed beings and blame them for acting just like he designed them to; and then punish them for being themselves by toasting them in he11 forever? That's pretty twisted and immoral if you think about it.





WaltL1 said:


> If you ever figure it out, please explain it to me because it doesn't make a lick of sense to me either.
> Neither do the explanations given for it.





gemcgrew said:


> Paul addressed your rebellious attitude in Romans 9.




Romans 9 says " What I do is above your pay grade."


----------



## 660griz

NCHillbilly said:


> If God has the ability to make snakes talk, and to create living things from nothing just like he wants them, then why create flawed beings and blame them for acting just like he designed them to; and then punish them for being themselves by toasting them in he11 forever? That's pretty twisted and immoral if you think about it.



Yep.
Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a real 'God' of the bible. He is not worthy of worship. He is pretty flawed(see flood story) and sadistic.


----------



## NCHillbilly

gemcgrew said:


> Paul addressed your rebellious attitude in Romans 9.



Case in point. Why do I have a "rebellious attitude" to start with? Seems like God occasionally likes to hold a magnifying glass over our anthill on sunny days, just for fun.


----------



## centerpin fan

NCHillbilly said:


> ... why create flawed beings and blame them for acting just like he designed them to; and then punish them for being themselves by toasting them in he11 forever?



That's not what He did.  We had a sweet deal in Eden, and we blew it.


----------



## centerpin fan

NCHillbilly said:


> Why do I have a "rebellious attitude" to start with?




_And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat._


Darn women!


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> That's not what He did.  We had a sweet deal in Eden, and we blew it.



According to the stories in the bible God knew what was going to happen before he made either Adam or Eve.
You need better excuses.


----------



## centerpin fan

bullethead said:


> You need better excuses.


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


>


----------



## bullethead

CP I will give it you...you cracked me up.


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


>





bullethead said:


> CP I will give it you...you cracked me up.


----------



## jesus666

Let''s hope he never loses his faith.....

Since that seems like the only thing holding  back Phil Robertson from killing and raping entire families.....

You don't need religion to have morals. You need Empathy


----------



## 1gr8bldr

centerpin fan said:


> _And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
> 
> And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat._
> 
> 
> Darn women!


Changing the subject, or a different thought. Jesus will mediate on our behalf rather than throw us under the bus like Adam did EVE.


----------



## gemcgrew

NCHillbilly said:


> Case in point. Why do I have a "rebellious attitude" to start with? Seems like God occasionally likes to hold a magnifying glass over our anthill on sunny days, just for fun.


So what if He does and laughs while doing it? So what if He causes you to strive against such a demonstration of power, while He causes me to worship Him all the more?

Would you have me to join you in rebellion? I will not. I will laugh at your foolish ramblings though.


----------



## Israel

action.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................consequence.


action.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................consequence.

action...................................................................................................................................................consequence

action..............................................................................................consequence.

action.........................................................consequence

action......................................consequence

action.................consequence

action.consequence

consequence.action.


----------



## 660griz

gemcgrew said:


> So what if He does and laughs while doing it? So what if He causes you to strive against such a demonstration of power



Like I said, not worthy of worship.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> So what if He does and laughs while doing it? So what if He causes you to strive against such a demonstration of power, while He causes me to worship Him all the more?
> 
> Would you have me to join you in rebellion? I will not. I will laugh at your foolish ramblings though.




I completely understand your devotion.  I try to imagine what it would take for me to believe in the the God that you worship.  What did it take for you?


----------



## stringmusic

NCHillbilly said:


> If God has the ability to make snakes talk, and to create living things from nothing just like he wants them, then why create flawed beings and blame them for acting just like he designed them to; and then punish them for being themselves by toasting them in he11 forever? That's pretty twisted and immoral if you think about it.


Throw out some other ideas on how He could have created us.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Throw out some other ideas on how He could have created us.




God took some crushed oyster shell and mixed it with sea water, caused the wind to blow into a tornado that scooped up the mixture, then he struck it with a lightning bolt and behold! Man was born!

Then man realized that living on the island was lonely and it was hard to cast the net without help so God sent the man to the bottom of the ocean where he was able to breathe by the power of the almighty.  There he met a dolphin, his brother from the beginning of time.   They copulated and produced a mermaid.  He brought the mermaid to the shore and upon reaching the sand her tail became legs, thus was born woman.


I'm just getting started.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> So what if He does and laughs while doing it? So what if He causes you to strive against such a demonstration of power, while He causes me to worship Him all the more?
> 
> Would you have me to join you in rebellion? I will not. I will laugh at your foolish ramblings though.



Go get em Eugene. #TWD


----------



## NCHillbilly

gemcgrew said:


> So what if He does and laughs while doing it? So what if He causes you to strive against such a demonstration of power, while He causes me to worship Him all the more?
> 
> Would you have me to join you in rebellion? I will not. I will laugh at your foolish ramblings though.




I wasn't aware I was participating in a "rebellion," actually. I just find it strange to worship and admire a being who generally acts the opposite of how he commanded us to act........



stringmusic said:


> Throw out some other ideas on how He could have created us.



Four or six arms would sure come in handy sometimes, regenerating teeth like sharks, a better sense of smell, and maybe genetic immunity to liberalism?


----------



## stringmusic

NCHillbilly said:


> If God has the ability to make snakes talk, and to create living things from nothing just like he wants them, then why create flawed beings and blame them for acting just like he designed them to; and then punish them for being themselves by toasting them in he11 forever? That's pretty twisted and immoral if you think about it.



And for the record, He gave us an easy out for that.

If someone goes to he11, they wanted it.


----------



## stringmusic

NCHillbilly said:


> Four or six arms would sure come in handy sometimes, regenerating teeth like sharks, a better sense of smell, and maybe genetic immunity to liberalism?




I was speaking more to how He could have created us to behave.

Should He have created us to be only good? or only bad?

If He created us to be only good(or bad), without the choice of being sinful, then we don't have a choice to love. Inherent in love is a choice to love, whether with your wife, your children, or with God, if it's forced, it's not love.

Same with only being able to be sinful, or sins not existing at all.


----------



## Israel

NCHillbilly said:


> I wasn't aware I was participating in a "rebellion," actually. I just find it strange to worship and admire a being who generally acts the opposite of how he commanded us to act........
> 
> 
> 
> Four or six arms would sure come in handy sometimes, regenerating teeth like sharks, a better sense of smell, and maybe genetic immunity to liberalism?



Quite the contrary, he has given me something I could never give myself or any other...being.
In that being I have denied him, ridiculed him, ignored him, as much as cursed him as any many can, and yet...in doing all the things I have done...even knowing how much I despise them to my core being done to me...he has "allowed" for me...to be.

Jesus made plain in word and deed to whom this "being" is best entrusted, can only be entrusted...in hope.
He has made me to believe him. He has indeed forgiven me the being of what I once was, chose to be, willed myself to be in such a choosing of what I blindly believed "had to be" in order for me to be...me. Seeing no other option was not held against me, blindness...even willful, was covered under such grace. As it is to any. To believe. And be.
Changed.

When you and I set out to make a thing, the investment, in part, is displayed by our scrapping (because we have only invested at best...in part) of models less than useful. 
You can say..."but look at how much...even in "your Bible" is scrapped!"

But...look to the one who is resurrected. The one of all approval. This is the one of all of intent, the one "made" to be precisely in all ways...according to the will of God.
The deviations are not the product of the will except in this...to point to the will, by plainly making manifest...what is not.

In that, they too, are perfectly fitting, even as I "have been"...knowing all of frustration and humiliation. Making known amongst men, by my will, what is not the will of God...to know frustration and shame.
If you do not doubt that of which I could plainly enumerate has been to my shame, of which I am no longer afraid to admit (the sting of death having been removed), then why do you doubt that any man, even the poorest disciple of Jesus Christ, might even be of some small use?
You may see this, all of what a man accepts...has been told him, by men, or eyes, or thoughts.
And if "no man" is to be trusted...in what place do we place ourselves, when we trust in none but in ourselves?
And, that place, is reserved to another.
Worship God.


----------



## NCHillbilly

stringmusic said:


> And for the record, He gave us an easy out for that.
> 
> If someone goes to he11, they wanted it.



The fact that he11 is the factory default setting instead of earned punishment for wicked behavior is one thing that I base my opinion on.


----------



## Artfuldodger

stringmusic said:


> I was speaking more to how He could have created us to behave.
> 
> Should He have created us to be only good? or only bad?
> 
> If He created us to be only good(or bad), without the choice of being sinful, then we don't have a choice to love. Inherent in love is a choice to love, whether with your wife, your children, or with God, if it's forced, it's not love.
> 
> Same with only being able to be sinful, or sins not existing at all.



Are you saying Adam and Eve could have been good? Wouldn't this change the mission of Jesus and God's plan?


----------



## hobbs27

NCHillbilly said:


> The fact that he11 is the factory default setting instead of earned punishment for wicked behavior is one thing that I base my opinion on.



 The he11 doctrine turns a lot of people away from church. That's a shame since it had nothing to do with the preaching of the apostles In the first century when the Church was being established.


----------



## Israel

NCHillbilly said:


> The fact that he11 is the factory default setting instead of earned punishment for wicked behavior is one thing that I base my opinion on.


All of a man's ways are right in his own eyes.


----------



## stringmusic

NCHillbilly said:


> The fact that he11 is the factory default setting instead of earned punishment for wicked behavior is one thing that I base my opinion on.


He11 is the factory default setting for wicked behavior.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> The he11 doctrine turns a lot of people away from church. That's a shame since it had nothing to do with the preaching of the apostles In the first century when the Church was being established.


Correct me if Im wrong but it seems like I read the apostles preached that death was more like a "sleep" and staying asleep was the punishment as opposed to going to heaven.
Or something like that.
Apparently that wasnt scary enough so the concept of he11 worked its way into the story.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Correct me if Im wrong but it seems like I read the apostles preached that death was more like a "sleep" and staying asleep was the punishment as opposed to going to heaven.
> Or something like that.
> Apparently that wasnt scary enough so the concept of he11 worked its way into the story.



In death they slept awaiting Christ to return. The only thing I have found in the bible (When really getting deep and breaking down the Hebrew and Greek language) is the unrighteous are to perish. Which obviously something that perishes is not eternal in life.
 The he11 doctrine came into the Church through pagan influence ..From my studies.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Eternal death, the wages of sin is death. Salvation is from death. Hence why it's called "everlasting life." The opposite of everlasting life it death.


----------



## NCHillbilly

stringmusic said:


> He11 is the factory default setting for wicked behavior.



According to the denomination I grew up in, you are born he11-bound unless you get officially "saved," even if you grew up in the middle of the Indonesian jungle and never heard of Christianity, or even if you were the best model citizen the world has ever known, who spends his whole life doing good deeds and no wickedness. You gonna fry just because some lady ate an apple a few thousand years ago.


----------



## 660griz

stringmusic said:


> Should He have created us to be only good? or only bad?



No, he shouldn't have created us at all. 
What was the point? So we would worship him and he could judge folks? So he could destroy something? Torture something? Watch us like an ant farm? 

Seriously, if he was bored and lonely, just make a puppy.

If God has freewill and does only good, then he could have made us with freewill and do only good.

All logic points to Man created God.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> In death they slept awaiting Christ to return. The only thing I have found in the bible (When really getting deep and breaking down the Hebrew and Greek language) is the unrighteous are to perish. Which obviously something that perishes is not eternal in life.
> The he11 doctrine came into the Church through pagan influence ..From my studies.


I think this is where I got it from but I have read several writings saying the same thing -


> At the end of the 2nd century Christianity had begun to blend Greek philosophy —human speculative reasoning, with the teachings of God’s Word. Such words and phrases as ‘continuance of being’, ‘perpetual existence’, ‘incapable of dissolution’ and ‘incorruptible’ began to appear in so-called Christian writings. These had come straight from Plato, the Greek philosopher, all those years before Jesus. Other phrases used were ‘the soul to remain by itself immortal’, and ‘an immortal nature’. It was taught that this is how God made us. But this idea derives from philosophy, not divine inspiration. There are no such words in the Bible. It was Athenagorus, a Christian, but whose teachings, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, were strongly tinged with Platonism, who had introduced the teaching of an immortal soul into Christianity. In this way, he paved the way for the logical introduction of eternal torment for immortal, but sinful, souls. This was a hundred years and more after the time of the apostles, and came straight from popular philosophy. The apostles had consistently taught that death is a sleep, to be followed by resurrection. The early church leaders – Clement, Ignatius, Hermas, Polycarp, and others who also believed that death is a sleep, taught that the wicked are destroyed forever by fire – their punishment was to be annihilation. These leaders did not teach of an immortal soul to be tortured by fire in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored for eternity.


http://www.truthaccordingtoscriptur...ensoredCensoredCensored-fire.php#.VRrIMLkcSM8


----------



## 1gr8bldr

hobbs27 said:


> The he11 doctrine turns a lot of people away from church. That's a shame since it had nothing to do with the preaching of the apostles In the first century when the Church was being established.


I agree. That doctrine has   built more walls to a simple message than any other aspect


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by hobbs27 View Post
> The he11 doctrine turns a lot of people away from church. That's a shame since it had nothing to do with the preaching of the apostles In the first century when the Church was being established.





1gr8bldr said:


> I agree. That doctrine has   built more walls to a simple message than any other aspect


So the obvious question would be why? 
Why is still an integral part of overall Christian beliefs?
Me speculating here -
Produces more positive results (butts in seats out of fear) for the Church than it does negative results (lose a few butts in seats who obviously weren't indoctrinated and would have found some other reason anyway)?


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> So the obvious question would be why?
> Why is still an integral part of overall Christian beliefs?
> Me speculating here -
> Produces more positive results (butts in seats out of fear) for the Church than it does negative results (lose a few butts in seats who obviously weren't indoctrinated and would have found some other reason anyway)?



My answer: Tradition , deemed more Holy than the Almighty God Himself by many Christians.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> My answer: Tradition , deemed more Holy than the Almighty God Himself by many Christians.


I don't know, I don't see the Church making a huge effort to straighten the story out.
Maybe they are too busy with who should or shouldn't get married or maybe the concept of suffering in he11 for eternity is too much of a cash cow that is more convenient to leave as is.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> I don't know, I don't see the Church making a huge effort to straighten the story out.
> Maybe they are too busy with who should or shouldn't get married or maybe the concept of suffering in he11 for eternity is too much of a cash cow that is more convenient to leave as is.



My hope is that the church as a whole is on the verge of reformation. It needs to happen, not to get up to date with our liberal society, but to correct a few things it has wrong that's hurting it.
 I'm ready to see revival break out all over the world.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> So the obvious question would be why?
> Why is still an integral part of overall Christian beliefs?


Because he11 is a Biblical doctrine and a Christian praises God for it. It is sinful to disapprove of its existence. To be repulsed by the existence of he11 shows disapproval towards God, as if He did something wrong. It is a sign of rebellion.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> The he11 doctrine turns a lot of people away from church. That's a shame since it had nothing to do with the preaching of the apostles In the first century when the Church was being established.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Because he11 is a Biblical doctrine and a Christian praises God for it. It is sinful to disapprove of its existence. To be repulsed by the existence of he11 shows disapproval towards God, as if He did something wrong. It is a sign of rebellion.


Did the Apostles teach you went to he11 the place of eternal torment and suffering?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Did the Apostles teach you went to he11 the place of eternal torment and suffering?



Paul said this in 2 Thess.1:8-9

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ;who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power"

Sounds like he11 to me.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> And for the record, He gave us an easy out for that.
> 
> If someone goes to he11, they wanted it.



That's an absolutely idiotic statement.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

WaltL1 said:


> So the obvious question would be why?
> Why is still an integral part of overall Christian beliefs?
> Me speculating here -
> Produces more positive results (butts in seats out of fear) for the Church than it does negative results (lose a few butts in seats who obviously weren't indoctrinated and would have found some other reason anyway)?


They act as though they want he11 to be real, those believing in it. It is a misrepresentation of God. Hobbs had a great thread awhile back where we showed how this doctrine was not based on facts, We should bump it back up. It is deeply rooted in the church and we will never see this change. People resist any thought that they may be wrong. And then even though we show them the twist used by he11 biased translators, and context supporting otherwise, they will not even consider it. As if they are in some sort of robot trance. If it were not for the he11 doctrine, the world might seek eternal life, but not if it means that their respected loved ones who did not take God's hints are burning in he11, suffering forever and ever. I would not serve a God whom created us and said, find me, understand me, believe in me.... or  else I will make you pay, forever. I serve a God who offers eternal life. No such thing as eternal death. Sorry, my rant is not directed at your post. I hope I somehow responded to a portion of your post


----------



## 1gr8bldr

WaltL1 said:


> Did the Apostles teach you went to he11 the place of eternal torment and suffering?


No, quite the opposite. Paul said that he wished he could be cut off for the sake of God's people... something like that. That he would rather it be them instead of him that God chose. Now he would have never said this if this meant suffereing he11 for eternity

For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that who ever shall believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life. The perish here has no hint of suffer.

 LOL, I could go on and on


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Did the Apostles teach you went to he11 the place of eternal torment and suffering?


The focal point of the Apostles teaching was the person and work of Christ.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

welderguy said:


> Paul said this in 2 Thess.1:8-9
> 
> "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ;who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power"
> 
> Sounds like he11 to me.


The greek literly reads "eternal destruction". What does destruction mean? All through life we are offered grace. A time comes, at death that we no longer can reverse our fate. eternal destruction, same as irreversible destruction


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Paul said this in 2 Thess.1:8-9
> 
> "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ;who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power"
> 
> Sounds like he11 to me.



It's not. Its about Gods final judgment which brings me to the second big failure in the church. The failure to recognize how big a deal 70ad was to scripture. Read all of 2 Thessalonians 1 , then research Josephus account of the destruction of the temple in 70 ad. and Boom! Prophecy meets History, What a marvelous truthful God we serve!


----------



## hobbs27

1gr8bldr said:


> The greek literly reads "eternal destruction". What does destruction mean? All through life we are offered grace. A time comes, at death that we no longer can reverse our fate. eternal destruction, same as irreversible destruction



 In this it meant the law and old covenant were officially gone eternally.


----------



## hobbs27

1gr8bldr said:


> They act as though they want he11 to be real, those believing in it. It is a misrepresentation of God. Hobbs had a great thread awhile back where we showed how this doctrine was not based on facts,



That thread changed me. It ran long enough and people commented enough, and I studied hard enough that if indeed there was an actual place for eternal punishment someone would have found it!


----------



## 1gr8bldr

hobbs27 said:


> That thread changed me. It ran long enough and people commented enough, and I studied hard enough that if indeed there was an actual place for eternal punishment someone would have found it!


 It was a good thread. Both sides presenting the verses, and a chance to point out the assumptions that were attached.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Paul said this in 2 Thess.1:8-9
> 
> "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ;who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power"
> 
> Sounds like he11 to me.



I think you might want to read verse 7.

 7and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 8. - In flaming fire; not the instrument of punishment - "in flaming fire taking vengeance;" but a further description of the glory of Christ's appearance - "revealed in flaming fire." In the Old Testament God is represented as appearing in flaming fire, as when he manifested himself to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2; Acts 7:30); and especially his coming to judgment is represented as coming in fire (Psalm 97:3).


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> It was a good thread. Both sides presenting the verses, and a chance to point out the assumptions that were attached.



I remember an old thread where some believers didn't see the point of believing without a He11. That salvation was from he11. Strange that they would be OK with everlasting death vs everlasting life with God.


----------



## welderguy

To have a proper view of God's wrath and vengeance against evil you must have a proper view of what took place at the cross.Sure, there was a great love and grace poured out there.But there was also the wrath of the Father and vengeance and His forsaking there.All of it was upon Jesus in our place.Make no mistake, God's wrath is real and His forsaking is real.And there is wrath being stored up for the devil and all those that hate God.It' called he11.


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> To have a proper view of God's wrath and vengeance against evil you must have a proper view of what took place at the cross.Sure, there was a great love and grace poured out there.But there was also the wrath of the Father and vengeance and His forsaking there.All of it was upon Jesus in our place.Make no mistake, God's wrath is real and His forsaking is real.And there is wrath being stored up for the devil and all those that hate God.It' called he11.


Bump the original thread up with this post. If Hobbs can be changed by a thread that lasted all of 5 weeks, I bet with a little effort... that we can change him in all of 5 days.


----------



## Israel

They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. For if they believe not them, neither will thy believe even if one should come back from the dead.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> The focal point of the Apostles teaching was the person and work of Christ.


Obviously 
Let me reword -
Was the concept of he11 the place of eternal torment and suffering the ORIGINAL teachings in Christianity?


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> The greek literly reads "eternal destruction". What does destruction mean? All through life we are offered grace. A time comes, at death that we no longer can reverse our fate. eternal destruction, same as irreversible destruction





> What does destruction mean?


What I get from this is -


> The early church leaders – Clement, Ignatius, Hermas, Polycarp, and others who also believed that death is a sleep, taught that the wicked are destroyed forever by fire – their punishment was to be annihilation.


Destruction means those that aren't going to be resurrected are made into French fries while they "sleep".
Not going somewhere to be tortured forever and being fully aware that they are being tortured forever.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Obviously
> Let me reword -
> Was the concept of he11 the place of eternal torment and suffering the ORIGINAL teachings in Christianity?



Obviously there is some debate.  That being said I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority take the traditional interpretation.  I wonder why?  Maybe, just maybe, there's a valid reason for their view.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Obviously there is some debate.  That being said I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority take the traditional interpretation.  I wonder why?  Maybe, just maybe, there's a valid reason for their view.


Because that became the story that was indoctrinated?


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> They act as though they want he11 to be real, those believing in it. It is a misrepresentation of God. Hobbs had a great thread awhile back where we showed how this doctrine was not based on facts, We should bump it back up. It is deeply rooted in the church and we will never see this change. People resist any thought that they may be wrong. And then even though we show them the twist used by he11 biased translators, and context supporting otherwise, they will not even consider it. As if they are in some sort of robot trance. If it were not for the he11 doctrine, the world might seek eternal life, but not if it means that their respected loved ones who did not take God's hints are burning in he11, suffering forever and ever. I would not serve a God whom created us and said, find me, understand me, believe in me.... or  else I will make you pay, forever. I serve a God who offers eternal life. No such thing as eternal death. Sorry, my rant is not directed at your post. I hope I somehow responded to a portion of your post





> They act as though they want he11 to be real, those believing in it


If its real it would be the ultimate revenge on those who have the audacity to not believe their God is real.
What do we say to somebody in an argument or who makes us mad? - "go to he11".


> I would not serve a God whom created us and said, find me, understand me, believe in me.... or  else I will make you pay, forever.


Me either.
However whether he11 is a place or not, there is still punishment for not believing.
Why? Why not just deny those who don't believe entrance to heaven and then leave them alone?
Not scary enough?


> Sorry, my rant is not directed at your post. I hope I somehow responded to a portion of your post


Wasn't a rant and Im glad you responded.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Paul said this in 2 Thess.1:8-9
> 
> "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ;who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power"
> 
> Sounds like he11 to me.[/QUOTE]
> Actually that's an interesting statement.
> You just used he11 to describe what being separated from God would be like.
> And maybe that's the intended purpose for the concept of he11.
> Not that its a real actual place but to get you to imagine how bad it would be to be separate from God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire. Not "In flaming fire taking vengeance."

If he11 is a literal place, wouldn't one need to soul sleep until his resurrection? He's gonna need a body to descend into a literal burning lake of fire.
If not soul sleep then an intermediate waiting place for his soul to wait on his body. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Universal Primitive Baptist believe this is He11 we are experiencing right now. They are known as "No He11ers."


----------



## Artfuldodger

“Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.”—The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81. 

Rom. 6:23: “The wages sin is death.” 

Eccl. 9:5, 10: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.

Lets face it, one is either quick or dead. One has either eternal death or everlasting life. It's only two choices or elections.
You either die when you die or you live forever.


----------



## hobbs27

This is one of the most quoted verses in Christianity. People love it, but deny its implication of only two choices, eternal life vs perishment.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It really is that simple!


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> That's an absolutely idiotic statement.



How so?


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> If its real it would be the ultimate revenge on those who have the audacity to not believe their God is real.
> What do we say to somebody in an argument or who makes us mad? - "go to he11".
> 
> Me either.
> However whether he11 is a place or not, there is still punishment for not believing.
> Why? Why not just deny those who don't believe entrance to heaven and then leave them alone?
> Not scary enough?
> 
> Wasn't a rant and Im glad you responded.


I consider my understanding of he11 as informed by both the scriptures and what revelation I may have of the Christ.

All men live in and by the mercy of God. Like oxygen, it bathes us, surrounds us, sustains us. The most destitute all have access, all have the same grace extended. What is done in that determines all else. Unlike oxygen, (in which a man may see the mercy of God, _especially _in a place without it), grace is not inert in consciousness, it is 
with ultimate purpose, the revelation of mercy. All men need it. It is the foundation of their being. It is so inextricably bound to their existence...that to deny it, is to deny oneself. 

I believe in true mercy in the Lord Jesus, the Christ of God.
Likewise I believe all true fellowship is there, all true comfort, all true _life._ (were we to feel compelled to get into the _why_of why I believe, I could only say the God that made me, made me to believe)
That this has been confirmed, that is, the truth of what I believe has come by my many resistances, as well as the Lord's obedience being manifest to me through the many unwitting experiments _I have been allowed_. (mercy)

My _being brought _to the confession of Jesus as Lord by the truth of his being resurrected out from the dead, opened to me the revelation of the all things promised any disciple of God. That I have not yet apprehended as I have been apprehended, is plain to all.

But these few things I have learned. To refuse Jesus, is to refuse all that is good. But, in that refusing is also an acceptance, a reception of the all..._not good_.

A man, even as myself, no, particularly as myself, may learn this. It is not without cause it has been written "It is _not good _for the man to be alone". I have learned isolation, in its myriad forms is, for me, the greatest insult to the soul. The soul, created for fellowship, when feeling denied this communion, suffers. It is also not without note, that were we to delve into our greatests times of "personal suffering" we might not also discover the particular effect upon the soul is the presumption of isolation...that is the "closing down" of expanse, the reduction, if you will, of focus, of experience, of the very ability to relate. The suffering may become all consuming to the point that a moan is all any can offer. Very little connection, or seemingly so, offered outwardly. In this it becomes a kind of chicken and egg experience...is it the isolation that is the pain, or is it the pain, causing the isolation? (Thanks be to God for a well tuned ear, never deaf to our moans.)


The grace extended to me as a man has shown me, that despite my _feeling_ isolated, I was never alone, am never alone. The pain of my being brought on such feelings, till, locked up as I was once in myself, like a man given over to "solitary" for too long, the constructor of all his own reality, I became out of my mind in every consideration of what constituted life. Insane. "Too much time in the hole".

You say, what has this to do with anything? I once refused what was "good" presented. I did not know in that refusal was the reception of all..._not good_ till I (believe) I barely tasted it.  A man alive in this earth is never far from mercy, despite what my tale may seem to say, but it is required of a man that he be moved to truth. I need to feel "connected" to be alive, to be unconnected was the experience of death. I needed, and still need to come clean that since I like it, I have no right to deny it. I am required to measure rightly, what has been measured to me. As have we all.

On this, even this forum that seems rife with disagreement, we continue to reach out to one another, even if it be as what may seem at times to be insult. WE need to feel we are impacting/connected, even in the most bizarre ways, to other souls. We may say we "totally disagree", but even in that expression of "I disagree" is the kernel of a truth...the need to say it. The need _to express_ a _self_ to another self.

This, even at it's most basic apprehension, is mercy. The allowance to be, and express.  Now, any may say, this is not mercy, this is a right! I cannot enforce mercy to anyone, men will either see it or not. I can say with a confidence, the presumption of right will lead to isolation. To such I can only say there is a place where a man may go in his convinced of so being right, that will cause such a convincing to be of no value if he refuse mercy (and all that is included in that singular goodness), he is accepting all that is_ not mercy_.

The place of total unyielding, never ending isolation, locked up forever in himself, away from hope of communion, connection, fellowship...all the good things found in Christ, which, if refused, lead to the very discovery of all that_ is not_ of Christ.

A man may say, I like this, but not that, I prefer this, but not that, I want this, but not that, but, in Christ...all is offered, and a picky eater may find himself recusing himself, from a banquet.

Do you like reason? Thinking? Being intact to some extent to yourself? The curious way to that "keeping of your being" is to give it into the only one's whose hands are qualified to keep it..._for good_.

The rest...is he11. 

And men may go there, by their refusal to admit their need of being...and such being, being given of mercy.

Of Judas it is said, he went to _his own _place. A man may keep all of his own, and yet discover its yield is everything he never knew he was accepting...but wishes someone, other than his own self, would have made him "know better". And to know...he was there, all the time.

The independent self has a place in its refusal to admit the truth, it has never been alone, except by its own choice. It is allowed to have "all" its own. It will simply not like it, when what it once refused is fully taken away. All _good_.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Because that became the story that was indoctrinated?



I don't know Walt.  Take these 2 verses; both universally understood to have as sources Apostles (John and Matthew respectively), both Of whom lived in the First Century, and the subject is no doubt He11.  

Revelation 20:10

“10 The Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

11 Then I saw a great white throne and One seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from His presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books.
13 Then the sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead; all were judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.”


Matthew 25:24

“40 “And the King will answer them, ‘I assure you: Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’ 41 Then He will also say to those on the left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels!
42 For I was hungry
and you gave Me nothing to eat;
I was thirsty
and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43 I was a stranger
and you didn’t take Me in;
I was naked
and you didn’t clothe Me,
sick and in prison
and you didn’t take care of Me.’
44 “Then they too will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or without clothes, or sick, or in prison, and not help You? ’
45 “Then He will answer them, ‘I assure you: Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me either.’
46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Tell me honestly do those verses square with this



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by hobbs27
> The he11 doctrine turns a lot of people away from church. That's a shame since it had nothing to do with the preaching of the apostles In the first century when the Church was being established.



and this 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by WaltL1
> So the obvious question would be why?
> Why is still an integral part of overall Christian beliefs?
> Me speculating here -
> Produces more positive results (butts in seats out of fear) for the Church than it does negative results (lose a few butts in seats who obviously weren't indoctrinated and would have found some other reason anyway)?
> 
> (Hobbs answer
> My answer: Tradition , deemed more Holy than the Almighty God Himself by many Christians.



And maybe this



> They act as though they want he11 to be real, those believing in it.



You be the judge. Regarding what is written in the Bible  is He11 just a figment of the Church's collective imagination, (a false doctrine followed by a false indoctrination) or is it portrayed as an actual place of eternal torment by not only the Apostles, but Christ himself in the Bible?

I understand you don't believe it, but that certainly doesn't hinder you from forming an honest opinion of the subject.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> The failure to recognize how big a deal 70ad was to scripture. Read all of 2 Thessalonians 1 , then research Josephus account of the destruction of the temple in 70 ad. throw out the common accepted time of when John wrote Revelation, throw out the indisputable fact that John's direct disciples who lived into the 2nd century viewed the events of Revelation as future events, throw out or bend every scripture necessary to fit your narrow interpretation   and Boom! Prophecy meets History, What a marvelous Lie we serve!



There.  At least now it's truthful.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Because that became the story that was indoctrinated?



How come I get the impression one of these:   should go here?


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't know Walt.  Take these 2 verses; both universally understood to have as sources Apostles (John and Matthew respectively), both Of whom lived in the First Century, and the subject is no doubt He11.
> 
> Revelation 20:10
> 
> “10 The Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
> 
> 11 Then I saw a great white throne and One seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from His presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books.
> 13 Then the sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead; all were judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.”
> 
> 
> Matthew 25:24
> 
> “40 “And the King will answer them, ‘I assure you: Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’ 41 Then He will also say to those on the left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels!
> 42 For I was hungry
> and you gave Me nothing to eat;
> I was thirsty
> and you gave Me nothing to drink;
> 43 I was a stranger
> and you didn’t take Me in;
> I was naked
> and you didn’t clothe Me,
> sick and in prison
> and you didn’t take care of Me.’
> 44 “Then they too will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or without clothes, or sick, or in prison, and not help You? ’
> 45 “Then He will answer them, ‘I assure you: Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me either.’
> 46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
> 
> Tell me honestly do those verses square with this
> 
> 
> 
> and this
> 
> 
> 
> And maybe this
> 
> 
> 
> You be the judge.  Is He11 just a figment of the Church's collective imagination, (a false doctrine followed by a false indoctrination) or is it portrayed as an actual place of eternal torment by not only the Apostles, but Christ himself in the Bible?


If we go by EXACTLY what the verses you quoted say -
20:10 specifies the devil and false prophets. And that THEY will be tormented.
Noone else
20:13 specifies Hades giving up its dead. Not those who have been being tormented and not those who were aware they were being tormented. The dead. Fits right into being "asleep".
20:14 specifies being thrown into a lake of fire. Not being thrown into a lake of fire to suffer for all eternity.
What would happen if one were thrown into a lake of fire?    Pffft you're gone. Incinerated.
Mathew 41 specifies being sent into the eternal fire. That means the fire is eternal or doesn't go out. Its always there. It DOESNT say eternal suffering.
Mathew 46 specifies eternal punishment. As compared to eternal life. So the eternal punishment is not having eternal life. It DOESNT say eternal punishment means being tortured for eternity.
Now Im not claiming my interpretation is right. But I did just show what it DOESNT say.
And I also showed early Church leaders who didn't believe he11 as a place of eternal suffering either.
Who's right? Who's wrong?
Unfortunately no one who is alive knows or ever knew so its a matter of picking what sounds best to the individual.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> You be the judge. Regarding what is written in the Bible  is He11 just a figment of the Church's collective imagination, (a false doctrine followed by a false indoctrination) or is it portrayed as an actual place of eternal torment by not only the Apostles, but Christ himself in the Bible?
> 
> I understand you don't believe it, but that certainly doesn't hinder you from forming an honest opinion of the subject.



This thread exemplifies the conversation I have had over the years. It shows the confusion among believers and non-believers.

When I argue against the kind nature of God with there being a H3LL, I am told there really is no H3LL, H3ll is not mentioned in the old testament, verses are quoted that just say death to the unbelievers, etc.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(See just death, no torment)

Other conversations about my lack of belief will eventually lead to, "Why not believe...just in case...to stay out of h3!!?" 

Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

So, like most everything related to the bible, if h3!! gives you a warm fuzzy, there are verses for you, if h3!! turns you off a little...got that covered too. 

I think the reader, much like the writer, of the Bible determines what they want to hear. Some writers/readers like the idea of a sinner getting tortured for eternity. Some think that the punishment doesn't really fit the crime and just go with death...without getting to see heaven is punishment enough.


----------



## hobbs27

^^Tradition^^. Placed over the Word of God.
 The late date of Revelation is  ridiculous, and more and more people are recognizing it as so. Question is...What temple was John to measure, what temple was to be tread on by the gentiles if this letter is written past the destruction of the temple?
 The evidence of an early date is in the Book itself, so the challenge to us is this. Do we believe the scriptures to be inerrant, or do we trust hearsay, that came from a man that recalled someone else saying something?
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> How come I get the impression one of these:   should go here?


Its not stirring the pot.
You believe what you are taught. At one time people believed the earth was flat because that's what they were taught. The point being just because you were taught that doesn't necessarily mean its true. Or the original story.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> This thread exemplifies the conversation I have had over the years. It shows the confusion among believers and non-believers.
> 
> When I argue against the kind nature of God with there being a H3LL, I am told there really is no H3LL, H3ll is not mentioned in the old testament, verses are quoted that just say death to the unbelievers, etc.
> Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
> (See just death, no torment)
> 
> Other conversations about my lack of belief will eventually lead to, "Why not believe...just in case...to stay out of h3!!?"
> 
> Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
> 
> So, like most everything related to the bible, if h3!! gives you a warm fuzzy, there are verses for you, if h3!! turns you off a little...got that covered too.
> 
> I think the reader, much like the writer, of the Bible determines what they want to hear. Some writers/readers like the idea of a sinner getting tortured for eternity. Some think that the punishment doesn't really fit the crime and just go with death...without getting to see heaven is punishment enough.





> So, like most everything related to the bible, if h3!! gives you a warm fuzzy, there are verses for you, if h3!! turns you off a little...got that covered too.


The more bases you cover the more followers you get the more power you have the more money you make the more power you get..................


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> The more bases you cover the more followers you get the more power you have the more money you make the more power you get..................



And let's face it. Some folks need to be controlled. Their only source of morals is the Bible.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> And let's face it. Some folks need to be controlled. Their only source of morals is the Bible.


Which I find hard to believe but that's their own argument concerning morals so maybe I was giving them too much credit.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> ^^Tradition^^. Placed over the Word of God.
> The late date of Revelation is  ridiculous, and more and more people are recognizing it as so. Question is...What temple was John to measure, what temple was to be tread on by the gentiles if this letter is written past the destruction of the temple?
> The evidence of an early date is in the Book itself, so the challenge to us is this. Do we believe the scriptures to be inerrant, or do we trust hearsay, that came from a man that recalled someone else saying something?
> http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html


Be careful. 
If you take it a few steps further you end up with the question -
"Do we trust a group of guys that tell us the Bible is the word of God"?


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Be careful.
> If you take it a few steps further you end up with the question -
> "Do we trust a group of guys that tell us the Bible is the word of God"?



Been there, done that. Not going back.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Been there, done that. Not going back.


Me either


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> He11 is the factory default setting for wicked behavior.



And according to the Bible, wicked behavior is the factory setting for little bitty, fresh born babies.



stringmusic said:


> And for the record, He gave us an easy out for that.
> 
> If someone goes to he11, they wanted it.





stringmusic said:


> How so?



Do people want a speeding ticket?  Do thieves want to get caught and go to jail?  Do people want to get their heads chopped off because they don't believe in Sharia law?

C'mon, man.....


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> This thread exemplifies the conversation I have had over the years. It shows the confusion among believers and non-believers.
> 
> When I argue against the kind nature of God with there being a H3LL, I am told there really is no H3LL, H3ll is not mentioned in the old testament, verses are quoted that just say death to the unbelievers, etc.
> Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
> (See just death, no torment)
> 
> Other conversations about my lack of belief will eventually lead to, "Why not believe...just in case...to stay out of h3!!?"
> 
> Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
> 
> So, like most everything related to the bible, if h3!! gives you a warm fuzzy, there are verses for you, if h3!! turns you off a little...got that covered too.
> 
> I think the reader, much like the writer, of the Bible determines what they want to hear. Some writers/readers like the idea of a sinner getting tortured for eternity. Some think that the punishment doesn't really fit the crime and just go with death...without getting to see heaven is punishment enough.



I think you've been the victim of a lot of one-sided teaching.(not telling the whole truth)They, apparently, are trying to "get you saved", and they'll tell you whatever they think it takes.But it don't work that way.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I think you've been the victim of a lot of one-sided teaching.(not telling the whole truth)They, apparently, are trying to "get you saved", and they'll tell you whatever they think it takes.But it don't work that way.


The problem isn't someone "not telling the whole truth".
The problem is no one knows what the "whole truth" is.
If you do believe he11 is an actual place of eternal suffering, you've been given in this thread information that says the apostles and early Church leaders didn't believe that was the "truth".
If you don't believe he11 is an actual place of eternal suffering you can come up with Church doctrine that says it is.
THATS what the problem is.
There is no "truth". 
You just pick what you want to believe.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> And according to the Bible, wicked behavior is the factory setting for little bitty, fresh born babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do people want a speeding ticket?  Do thieves want to get caught and go to jail?  Do people want to get their heads chopped off because they don't believe in Sharia law?
> 
> C'mon, man.....



The choosing of one thing means the un-choosing of at least one other. One can reasonably say that choosing to speed places one in the "set" of occupants who have voluntarily entered the pool to be candidates for a ticket. Do they want to speed and also want exclusion from said pool...of course...we all want reality to bend to our own will....but...


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> The problem isn't someone "not telling the whole truth".
> The problem is no one knows what the "whole truth" is.
> If you do believe he11 is an actual place of eternal suffering, you've been given in this thread information that says the apostles and early Church leaders didn't believe that was the "truth".
> If you don't believe he11 is an actual place of eternal suffering you can come up with Church doctrine that says it is.
> THATS what the problem is.
> There is no "truth".
> You just pick what you want to believe.




There is truth! Jesus is truth and salvation is based on faith in Him not knowledge.

 The scriptures were put to English in its most common version the kjv in 1611. I believe the men of that day did the best they could with the resources they had then. Today when we study we cant just take the words in that English translation as the gospel truth, we have to go back to the actual Hebrew or Greek meaning ...when digging deeper in Gods word. 
 Many people stop at the kjv or their favorite version as being literal. This is where a lot of bad doctrine comes from..example compared with the topic at hand.

He11-is translated from 4 different words

 Sheol Hebrew for holding place of spirits that have passed on, both the righteous and unrighteous.

Hades  Greek which is the same as Sheol....also in Hades is Abrahams bosom..aka paradise& and an unnamed place of torments that the rich man was in.

Gehenna Which is an actual place on the outskirts of Jerusalem and whether Jesus used that place as a metaphor or not it should have never been translated as anything other than Gehenna. Atlanta is Atlanta no matter what language it is translated into.

Tartarus In the Greek is the place God bound the fallen Angels spoken of in Genesis.

 So no matter how you cut it, the definition we know as he11" being a place of eternal torture" is never translated from a word meaning that.

 But there is hope..and it comes from here:

2 Peter 3:18

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

 The church is growing in knowledge and reformation is just around the corner...Then revival!


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> There is truth! Jesus is truth and salvation is based on faith in Him not knowledge.
> 
> The scriptures were put to English in its most common version the kjv in 1611. I believe the men of that day did the best they could with the resources they had then. Today when we study we cant just take the words in that English translation as the gospel truth, we have to go back to the actual Hebrew or Greek meaning ...when digging deeper in Gods word.
> Many people stop at the kjv or their favorite version as being literal. This is where a lot of bad doctrine comes from..example compared with the topic at hand.
> 
> He11-is translated from 4 different words
> 
> Sheol Hebrew for holding place of spirits that have passed on, both the righteous and unrighteous.
> 
> Hades  Greek which is the same as Sheol....also in Hades is Abrahams bosom..aka paradise& and an unnamed place of torments that the rich man was in.
> 
> Gehenna Which is an actual place on the outskirts of Jerusalem and whether Jesus used that place as a metaphor or not it should have never been translated as anything other than Gehenna. Atlanta is Atlanta no matter what language it is translated into.
> 
> Tartarus In the Greek is the place God bound the fallen Angels spoken of in Genesis.
> 
> So no matter how you cut it, the definition we know as he11" being a place of eternal torture" is never translated from a word meaning that.
> 
> But there is hope..and it comes from here:
> 
> 2 Peter 3:18
> 
> 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
> 
> The church is growing in knowledge and reformation is just around the corner...Then revival!


Doesn't anyone else besides me think that if a God wanted his message clear  He would write his own book? Make the book simple, universal,  and completely understandable to everyone that reads it? And have it done in the blink of an eye and not over 1600 years, with multiple anonymous authors, with multiple translations, multiple errors, multiple contradictions and the ability to have each and every individual interpret it differently?

Very,  extremely, INSANELY un-god-like.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Doesn't anyone else besides me think that if a God wanted his message clear  He would write his own book? Make the book simple, universal,  and completely understandable to everyone that reads it? And have it done in the blink of an eye and not over 1600 years, with multiple anonymous authors, with multiple translations, multiple errors, multiple contradictions and the ability to have each and every individual interpret it differently?
> 
> Very,  extremely, INSANELY un-god-like.





> Doesn't anyone else besides me


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


>


ROTFLMAO
Perfect Walt


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> Doesn't anyone else besides me think that if a God wanted his message clear  He would write his own book? Make the book simple, universal,  and completely understandable to everyone that reads it? And have it done in the blink of an eye and not over 1600 years, with multiple anonymous authors, with multiple translations, multiple errors, multiple contradictions and the ability to have each and every individual interpret it differently?
> 
> Very,  extremely, INSANELY un-god-like.



The Bible tells a detailed story, It is God breathed,  but this is the book God writes .

2Corinthians 3:3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

 As brothers in Christ may argue detail in the scriptures we never argue this ^ book.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> There is truth! Jesus is truth and salvation is based on faith in Him not knowledge.
> 
> The scriptures were put to English in its most common version the kjv in 1611. I believe the men of that day did the best they could with the resources they had then. Today when we study we cant just take the words in that English translation as the gospel truth, we have to go back to the actual Hebrew or Greek meaning ...when digging deeper in Gods word.
> Many people stop at the kjv or their favorite version as being literal. This is where a lot of bad doctrine comes from..example compared with the topic at hand.
> 
> He11-is translated from 4 different words
> 
> Sheol Hebrew for holding place of spirits that have passed on, both the righteous and unrighteous.
> 
> Hades  Greek which is the same as Sheol....also in Hades is Abrahams bosom..aka paradise& and an unnamed place of torments that the rich man was in.
> 
> Gehenna Which is an actual place on the outskirts of Jerusalem and whether Jesus used that place as a metaphor or not it should have never been translated as anything other than Gehenna. Atlanta is Atlanta no matter what language it is translated into.
> 
> Tartarus In the Greek is the place God bound the fallen Angels spoken of in Genesis.
> 
> So no matter how you cut it, the definition we know as he11" being a place of eternal torture" is never translated from a word meaning that.
> 
> But there is hope..and it comes from here:
> 
> 2 Peter 3:18
> 
> 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
> 
> The church is growing in knowledge and reformation is just around the corner...Then revival!





> The church is growing in knowledge


I don't think this something new that the Church is just finding out about and just hasn't had a chance to address yet.
Its been ignored for a reason. Either the Church believes he11 is a place of eternal torment OR its advantageous for the Church to leave the story as is.


> and reformation is just around the corner..


See above.
And the info you gave above is based on the Bible being "truth".
It still all boils down to faith and belief. Not "truth".


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Man is mortal, angels, the devil are immortal. This is why they will be thrown in the lake of fire, the place created for them. But all others will be burned up, destroyed in this same place.  I am the vine..........branches that do not bear fruit will be picked up thrown in the fire and burned.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> The Bible tells a detailed story, It is God breathed,  but this is the book God writes .
> 
> 2Corinthians 3:3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
> 
> As brothers in Christ may argue detail in the scriptures we never argue this ^ book.





> As brothers in Christ may argue detail in the scriptures


We hear that a lot. And its always said in a way to minimize the disagreement. Like the use of the word "details".
Over 30,000 denominations of Christianity including who is or is not saved, how to get saved, what gets you into heaven, does he11 exist or not.....
Lets be honest, those aren't "details".


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> We hear that a lot. And its always said in a way to minimize the disagreement. Like the use of the word "details".
> Over 30,000 denominations of Christianity including who is or is not saved, how to get saved, what gets you into heaven, does he11 exist or not.....
> Lets be honest, those aren't "details".



If someone knows Christ as their savior, they are in agreement with all Christians...everything else is details. IMO.


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> Man is mortal, angels, the devil are immortal. This is why they will be thrown in the lake of fire, the place created for them. But all others will be burned up, destroyed in this same place.  I am the vine..........branches that do not bear fruit will be picked up thrown in the fire and burned.


Based on what a person can research I lean towards your/Hobbs' view/understanding.
Unfortunately it just confirms my disdain for organized religion.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> The Bible tells a detailed story, It is God breathed,  but this is the book God writes .
> 
> 2Corinthians 3:3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
> 
> As brothers in Christ may argue detail in the scriptures we never argue this ^ book.


Which part of the 1600 and some odd years did he come up with that?
I doubt there is any possibility that these anonymous writers were inspired...by other anonymous writers.
It is not hard for me to imagine that within those 1600 years a staunch believer and extremely talented writer like Israel making his own writings that were inspired from all the scripture he has previously read and sometime down the line  his making the cut.
Inspired yes by other writers who were inspired by their concept of of a god.
Every culture that writes about a god is in the same boat.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> If someone knows Christ as their savior, they are in agreement with all Christians...everything else is details. IMO.


Except some of you think some of you are wrong for believing Christ is actually their savior.
You are trying to put a silk hat on a pig.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think this something new that the Church is just finding out about and just hasn't had a chance to address yet.
> Its been ignored for a reason. Either the Church believes he11 is a place of eternal torment OR its advantageous for the Church to leave the story as is.










WaltL1 said:


> Based on what a person can research I lean towards your/Hobbs' view/understanding.
> Unfortunately it just confirms my disdain for organized religion.



 I think the days of controlling doctrine to the masses by a few are ending in this information age, and I too have a disdain for organized religion, but I realize all of us "believers" belong to an invisible kingdom here and Christ is the head. If a man had to go to church to go to heaven, I'd probably be palling around with the atheists in line for that lake of fire.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Except some of you think some of you are wrong for believing Christ is actually their savior.
> You are trying to put a silk hat on a pig.



I worry about those people.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> I think the days of controlling doctrine to the masses by a few are ending in this information age, and I too have a disdain for organized religion, but I realize all of us "believers" belong to an invisible kingdom here and Christ is the head. If a man had to go to church to go to heaven, I'd probably be palling around with the atheists in line for that lake of fire.


Im assuming you wont agree with this but if you remove organized religion, which you have a disdain for, you would know absolutely zero about God.
Everything you know comes from it in one way or another. Including the concept that there is even a God to believe in.
Its exactly how I became Agnostic once I rejected religion.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Im assuming you wont agree with this but if you remove organized religion, which you have a disdain for, you would know absolutely zero about God.
> Everything you know comes from it in one way or another. Including the concept that there is even a God to believe in.
> Its exactly how I became Agnostic once I rejected religion.



You're right, I disagree. We as brothers/sisters in Christ are all ministers, and representatives of the kingdom of God.
 It will take an awakening but I believe that will happen in my lifetime.
 I learned more from my grandfather that accepted Christ in the woods all by himself than any preacher I ever heard stand.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Im assuming you wont agree with this but if you remove organized religion, which you have a disdain for, you would know absolutely zero about God.
> Everything you know comes from it in one way or another. Including the concept that there is even a God to believe in.
> Its exactly how I became Agnostic once I rejected religion.



I have to disagree. God's spirit is what is first revealed to a believer before he or she can respond to any other teaching. 
This is how John the baptist was called in his mother's womb.David said he was called while on his mother's breast.If God wants your attention, He will get it, He doesn't need man's help.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I have to disagree. God's spirit is what is first revealed to a believer before he or she can respond to any other teaching.
> This is how John the baptist was called in his mother's womb.David said he was called while on his mother's breast.If God wants your attention, He will get it, He doesn't need man's help.


That's what I'm talking about!
I've been saying this and taking heat for years.
To heck with the bible. If there is a god and it wants to get a hold of me it will know how to do it. If so...fine.
If it doesn't that is fine.
If there isn't a god....fine.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> That's what I'm talking about!
> I've been saying this and taking heat for years.
> To heck with the bible. If there is a god and it wants to get a hold of me it will know how to do it. If so...fine.
> If it doesn't that is fine.
> If there isn't a god....fine.



Sooo...what you're saying is "ignorance is bliss"?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Sooo...what you're saying is "ignorance is bliss"?



I am agreeing with you so if that is what you meant...sure.
Unless ignorance is too big of a hurdle for your god to overcome ?


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> The choosing of one thing means the un-choosing of at least one other. One can reasonably say that choosing to speed places one in the "set" of occupants who have voluntarily entered the pool to be candidates for a ticket. Do they want to speed and also want exclusion from said pool...of course...we all want reality to bend to our own will....but...



The speeding analogy only works if He11 is real.  The Sharia example is parity.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I have to disagree. God's spirit is what is first revealed to a believer before he or she can respond to any other teaching.
> This is how John the baptist was called in his mother's womb.David said he was called while on his mother's breast.If God wants your attention, He will get it, He doesn't need man's help.





> God's spirit is what is first revealed to a believer before he or she can respond to any other teaching.





> You're right, I disagree. We as brothers/sisters in Christ are all ministers, and representatives of the kingdom of God.


Neither one of you would know or think either of those things if it weren't for organized religion.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> The speeding analogy only works if He11 is real.  The Sharia example is parity.



Desire always has a product.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Neither one of you would know or think either of those things if it weren't for organized religion.



Walt, organized religion did not teach us that Christianity could get along just fine without organized religion.

 When I do go to church it's usually an independent non fundamentalist Baptist church. It is ran by the members only, but even that is not necessary for God's Kingdom to continue growing.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Sooo...what you're saying is "ignorance is bliss"?



I think what he is saying that by using your examples of John knowing he was called in the womb and David knowing he was called while breastfeeding that knowledge of God isn't needed for his calling. Organized religion is for after the awakening.
God's Spirit will reveal itself to this new believer without help(knowledge) from man.
God must first awaken the depraved sinner in order for him to seek. Then and only then will this person be ready to absorb guidance from organized religion.

I wonder how that works for totally depraved sinners who grew up sitting in a Church all of their growing lives?
Sitting there learning about Jesus yet totally depraved to the point of not being able to grasp the teachings. Perhaps never being called so that they will understand the teachings. If I had not been called after say 25 years, I might would just get up and walk out. I'd say if God can call a baby or a Hindu, who never heard of him, I'll wait for him to call me then I'll finally grasp this information I've been subjected to for 20 years.

If it doesn't make any sense to these depraved sinners, shouldn't they wait for God to awaken them? In that respect ignorance is bliss because they will only develop a wrong analysis of God by trying to learn with a depraved mind. Only after their eyes are opened will they understand.
They have no other way to be but ignorant.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Walt, organized religion did not teach us that Christianity could get along just fine without organized religion.
> 
> When I do go to church it's usually an independent non fundamentalist Baptist church. It is ran by the members only, but even that is not necessary for God's Kingdom to continue growing.



I think you have reached the point that I have in that ourselves have become so reformed we have trouble aligning with organized religion. 
We still can associate with and worship with organized religion and understand it's beginnings. But we do see that it has become something that it has evolved into  more than teaching the scripture. 

I hope you are right about a new reformation.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Walt, organized religion did not teach us that Christianity could get along just fine without organized religion.
> 
> When I do go to church it's usually an independent non fundamentalist Baptist church. It is ran by the members only, but even that is not necessary for God's Kingdom to continue growing.


I don't think Im getting my point across.
Everything you know about God came out of organized religion. Even if you have never set foot in a church in your life and just read the Bible.
The Bible too is a product of organized religion.
You know as well as I do how it was created.
And if you believe its the word of God its because organized religion told you it was.


----------



## NCHillbilly

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think Im getting my point across.
> Everything you know about God came out of organized religion. Even if you have never set foot in a church in your life and just read the Bible.
> The Bible too is a product of organized religion.
> You know as well as I do how it was created.
> And if you believe its the word of God its because organized religion told you it was.



I would also say that most of the American Indians that the Europeans were trying to convert were much more sincerely and devoutly religious in their personal lives on average than the ones who were bent on converting them to organized religion.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think Im getting my point across.
> Everything you know about God came out of organized religion. Even if you have never set foot in a church in your life and just read the Bible.
> The Bible too is a product of organized religion.
> You know as well as I do how it was created.
> And if you believe its the word of God its because organized religion told you it was.



I understand your point, and while I agree with you to an extent, I'm in that strange position of disagreement also.

 I learn more about God from His work in me , and His work in others than any organized religion could ever teach. Everywhere I go I can see where God has been and still is even sitting in the woods hunting, I look around and see God's glory all around me. To think all this beauty is here by circumstance is ignorant IMO.


----------



## JimD

NCHillbilly, Google Red Jacket Defends Native American Religion, it speaks to what you just said.

Walt, I see what your saying, and for a lot of "Christians" that's true. For me I don't think it is. I was raised in a church but as an adult I began reading. I read about Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, and many other areas that aren't necessarily religion, many of which would be philosophy or schools of thought. In all of these various texts, spanning thousands of years and thousands of miles, I found essentially the same universal truths. They all say basically the same things and all speak of a higher power weather Jehovah, Allah, Great Spirit, etc. To my feeble mind, if all these various writings have the same basic tenents or truths, they must have all been inspired by some higher Force or God. To me, I don't think its just a coincidence. Now religion, is a different story and I'm not talking about religion, which is man-made. I'm talking about a higher power or God.


----------



## ambush80

JimD said:


> NCHillbilly, Google Red Jacket Defends Native American Religion, it speaks to what you just said.
> 
> Walt, I see what your saying, and for a lot of "Christians" that's true. For me I don't think it is. I was raised in a church but as an adult I began reading. I read about Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, and many other areas that aren't necessarily religion, many of which would be philosophy or schools of thought. In all of these various texts, spanning thousands of years and thousands of miles, I found essentially the same universal truths. They all say basically the same things and all speak of a higher power weather Jehovah, Allah, Great Spirit, etc. To my feeble mind, if all these various writings have the same basic tenents or truths, they must have all been inspired by some higher Force or God. To me, I don't think its just a coincidence. Now religion, is a different story and I'm not talking about religion, which is man-made. I'm talking about a higher power or God.



That humans have developed ways of getting along isn't proof of God anymore than our fear of heights.


----------



## hobbs27

ambush80 said:


> That humans have developed ways of getting along isn't proof of God anymore than our fear of heights.



 So religion was invented by humans to get along with one another? Wow, we sure messed that up.


----------



## 660griz

hobbs27 said:


> So religion was invented by humans to get along with one another? Wow, we sure messed that up.



One reason.
Others reasons are fear of the unknown and control.
God was used to appease the distraught over the loss of a loved one, or loss of a crop. God was used to explain why bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. 
It answered so many questions and was unquestionable of itself.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> I understand your point, and while I agree with you to an extent, I'm in that strange position of disagreement also.
> 
> I learn more about God from His work in me , and His work in others than any organized religion could ever teach. Everywhere I go I can see where God has been and still is even sitting in the woods hunting, I look around and see God's glory all around me. To think all this beauty is here by circumstance is ignorant IMO.





> Everywhere I go I can see where God has been and still is even sitting in the woods hunting, I look around and see God's glory all around me.


Where did you get the idea that all those things you see around you are of God's (the Christian one) doing?


> To think all this beauty is here by circumstance is ignorant IMO.


Of course its here by circumstances. To pretend to know what those circumstances were...........


----------



## WaltL1

JimD said:


> NCHillbilly, Google Red Jacket Defends Native American Religion, it speaks to what you just said.
> 
> Walt, I see what your saying, and for a lot of "Christians" that's true. For me I don't think it is. I was raised in a church but as an adult I began reading. I read about Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, and many other areas that aren't necessarily religion, many of which would be philosophy or schools of thought. In all of these various texts, spanning thousands of years and thousands of miles, I found essentially the same universal truths. They all say basically the same things and all speak of a higher power weather Jehovah, Allah, Great Spirit, etc. To my feeble mind, if all these various writings have the same basic tenents or truths, they must have all been inspired by some higher Force or God. To me, I don't think its just a coincidence. Now religion, is a different story and I'm not talking about religion, which is man-made. I'm talking about a higher power or God.





> They all say basically the same things and all speak of a higher power weather Jehovah, Allah, Great Spirit, etc. To my feeble mind, if all these various writings have the same basic tenents or truths,


Yes that's true and its not a point that I just dismiss as coincidence.


> they must have all been inspired by some higher Force or God.


Or maybe its a result of man's commonality in wanting to know where we come from and how we got here.
"I don't know" is not something man seems to like to live with. We want answers. A God is an answer.


----------



## NCHillbilly

I pretty firmly believe that there is a higher power out there, I just don't believe that it necessarily resembles the official versions given to us by any of the major organized religions. I think most organized religions were mainly developed to control people. What kind of label does that put me under?


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Where did you get the idea that all those things you see around you are of God's (the Christian one) doing?
> 
> Of course its here by circumstances. To pretend to know what those circumstances were...........




 Over years of experience. This one image isn't going to convince anyone of anything, but if dogwoods are blooming in your area today, take a good look at it. Hold a bloom in your hand and see if you can see that tree glorifying Jesus. The spirit within confirms many things like that, to the point I can see God's glory all around.


----------



## WaltL1

NCHillbilly said:


> I pretty firmly believe that there is a higher power out there, I just don't believe that it necessarily resembles the official versions given to us by any of the major organized religions. I think most organized religions were mainly developed to control people. What kind of label does that put me under?


I think you would fall under Deist.


> in religious philosophy is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator. According to deists, the creator does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the Clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Over years of experience. This one image isn't going to convince anyone of anything, but if dogwoods are blooming in your area today, take a good look at it. Hold a bloom in your hand and see if you can see that tree glorifying Jesus. The spirit within confirms many things like that, to the point I can see God's glory all around.


Not sure why you cant get yourself to say it.
You see God/Jesus in that bloom because the Bible told you he created it.
And the Bible is a product of Christianity/organized religion.


----------



## centerpin fan

NCHillbilly said:


> I think most organized religions were mainly developed to control people. What kind of label does that put me under?


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure why you cant get yourself to say it.
> You see God/Jesus in that bloom because the Bible told you he created it.
> And the Bible is a product of Christianity/organized religion.



There's another component to Christianity you haven't mentioned, and that's the Holy Spirit which shines the light of understanding on Christians. Teaching and directing us in all things.


----------



## NCHillbilly

centerpin fan said:


>



I don't own a blue jumpsuit, though...


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> There's another component to Christianity you haven't mentioned, and that's the Holy Spirit which shines the light of understanding on Christians. Teaching and directing us in all things.


We'll drop it Hobbs.
For whatever reason you have a mental block on the subject.
If I ask where did you learn about the Holy Spirit I guess your answer will be the Holy Spirit taught you.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> We'll drop it Hobbs.
> For whatever reason you have a mental block on the subject.
> If I ask where did you learn about the Holy Spirit I guess your answer will be the Holy Spirit taught you.



Right on.  

It s kind of like making a claim that we learned to breathe by watching our parents.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> There's another component to Christianity you haven't mentioned, and that's the Holy Spirit which shines the light of understanding on Christians. Teaching and directing us in all things.



^BINGO^

To a person who's never experienced the Holy Spirit, it's the most ridiculous concept they've ever heard of.Understandably so.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JimD said:


> NCHillbilly, Google Red Jacket Defends Native American Religion, it speaks to what you just said.
> 
> Walt, I see what your saying, and for a lot of "Christians" that's true. For me I don't think it is. I was raised in a church but as an adult I began reading. I read about Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, and many other areas that aren't necessarily religion, many of which would be philosophy or schools of thought. In all of these various texts, spanning thousands of years and thousands of miles, I found essentially the same universal truths. They all say basically the same things and all speak of a higher power weather Jehovah, Allah, Great Spirit, etc. To my feeble mind, if all these various writings have the same basic tenents or truths, they must have all been inspired by some higher Force or God. To me, I don't think its just a coincidence. Now religion, is a different story and I'm not talking about religion, which is man-made. I'm talking about a higher power or God.



Do you see God as one Universal God who has been described differently by the variously religions? A Creator or Great Architect known by many local names but the only one true God?
Many Christians believe we know God by his creation and are without excuse to not believe.
Some Christians believe no one can know God unless God calls him. This calling doesn't require any knowledge of God as it will be given once God elects by his Spirit.
This election could be to the dweller of a small Pacific island or to a Hindu in India.

All of it borders on Universalism when you think about it.
Take the average Christian who believes in only one God. Wouldn't it be logical to think if anyone in the world believes in God, it would have to be this God? Who else could it be? I can understand idols of gold that are manmade but God is God. There is only one creator. Some of these small remote islands and villages only know God by his creation and the teachings of their elders.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> ^BINGO^
> 
> To a person who's never experienced the Holy Spirit, it's the most ridiculous concept they've ever heard of.Understandably so.



Especially if they have never heard of the Holy Spirit, it is an impossible concept.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> Especially if they have never heard of the Holy Spirit, it is an impossible concept.


It appears the point Im making is not lost on you.
A person who hadn't already heard of the Holy Spirit (organized religion told them about the Holy Spirit) what they would say they experienced was "something".
Unless of course formal introductions were made such as a handshake and a "Hi my name is Holy Spirit. Since you've never heard of me let me tell you about myself".


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> It appears the point Im making is not lost on you.
> A person who hadn't already heard of the Holy Spirit (organized religion told them about the Holy Spirit) what they would say they experienced was "something".
> Unless of course formal introductions were made such as a handshake and a "Hi my name is Holy Spirit. Since you've never heard of me let me tell you about myself".



It's like this Walt. The Holy Spirit was active in my life way before I understood the role of the spirit. So you are correct, that without sound doctrine in the church I may have never known what the name of my comforter was and why it was aiding me. But it did not take knowledge from the Church to obtain it.
0 Wisdom calls aloud outside;
She raises her voice in the open squares.
21 She cries out in the chief concourses,*
At the openings of the gates in the city
She speaks her words:
22 “How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity?
For scorners delight in their scorning,
And fools hate knowledge.
23 Turn at my rebuke;
Surely I will pour out my spirit on you;
I will make my words known to you.*


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> A person who hadn't already heard of the Holy Spirit (organized religion told them about the Holy Spirit) what they would say they experienced was "something"./QUOTE]
> 
> That's it.Often the person doesn't immediately understand with his mind all that is happening in his heart and often he doesn't know how to explain it to others.He doesn't know why he suddenly has these changes of his conscience toward his evil actions and thoughts.Often he has gotten into many bad habits or addictions that he will now struggle with that didn't even bother him before.He will, unexplainable to him, be drawn to others that have his new interests.Many that are called by the Holy Spirit have never even heard of the Holy Spirit.They often find out later what actually happened to them.The teaching they receive then affirms what they already knew had happened but couldn't explain.


----------



## Artfuldodger

What if this person lives in a land that has no one around to eventually tell him that what he is experiencing is the Holy Spirit?
Is it possible that the others before him call the Holy Spirit by a different name? What teaching will affirm what they already know?
It's the same Spirit of the same God but they just didn't know what to call it.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> He doesn't know why he suddenly has these changes of his conscience toward his evil actions and thoughts



Some have called it empathy, guilt, self-control, character, etc. I guess if you didn't know about those things but, knew about the Holy Spirit...


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person who hadn't already heard of the Holy Spirit (organized religion told them about the Holy Spirit) what they would say they experienced was "something"./QUOTE]
> 
> That's it.Often the person doesn't immediately understand with his mind all that is happening in his heart and often he doesn't know how to explain it to others.He doesn't know why he suddenly has these changes of his conscience toward his evil actions and thoughts.Often he has gotten into many bad habits or addictions that he will now struggle with that didn't even bother him before.He will, unexplainable to him, be drawn to others that have his new interests.Many that are called by the Holy Spirit have never even heard of the Holy Spirit.They often find out later what actually happened to them.The teaching they receive then affirms what they already knew had happened but couldn't explain.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't mind I can respond to both you and Hobbs here because you are both saying basically the same thing.
> If you lived in Iran your "something" would be identified as Allah. If you lived in a different time and place your "something" might be identified as a Pagan God. Or any of the other gods that have existed through history in different times and places if you were born/lived in those times or places.
> You are here so your "something" is identified as the Christian God.
> And you confirmed my point -
> 
> 
> 
> Many that are called by the Holy Spirit have never even heard of the Holy Spirit. They often find out later what actually happened to them. The teaching they receive then affirms what they already knew had happened but couldn't explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't know what their "something" was. Never heard of the Holy Spirit. They found out later from being taught it was the Holy Spirit.
> Where would what they were taught come from?
> Organized religion.
> Theres just no getting around it.
> I honestly don't understand why you guys are arguing this.
Click to expand...


----------



## welderguy

Without making this complicated, let me say this.There is only One God.period.The one who created everything. 
Man has been making up gods almost from day one that are not truly God (false gods).Don't confuse these gods with THE ONE TRUE GOD.These false gods do not measure up to the eternal Creator God.(Elijah proved that).

Babies are being slaughtered in the womb daily without ever hearing any human teaching about God.But I don't doubt for a second that many of those babies, even with their little brains not fully developed,received the calling of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## hobbs27

Walt, that's a valid point. I would love to hear from some converts that came from Judaism, or Islam to Christianity and see if they converted because of knowledge that Christ is God, or if they had a heart felt difference. For me salvation was a heart condition and not knowledge. Because of the heart condition I want to know all there is about my Lord.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Walt, that's a valid point. I would love to hear from some converts that came from Judaism, or Islam to Christianity and see if they converted because of knowledge that Christ is God, or if they had a heart felt difference. For me salvation was a heart condition and not knowledge. Because of the heart condition I want to know all there is about my Lord.





> For me salvation was a heart condition


That I don't question. 
Well if wanted to be a stickler I would point out that the heart just pumps blood so what you had was actually a brain condition


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Without making this complicated, let me say this.There is only One God.period.The one who created everything.
> Man has been making up gods almost from day one that are not truly God (false gods).Don't confuse these gods with THE ONE TRUE GOD.These false gods do not measure up to the eternal Creator God.(Elijah proved that).
> 
> Babies are being slaughtered in the womb daily without ever hearing any human teaching about God.But I don't doubt for a second that many of those babies, even with their little brains not fully developed,received the calling of the Holy Spirit.


Sure Ok. Alllllll the other Gods were false but yours.
Gotcha.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Sure Ok. Alllllll the other Gods were false but yours.
> Gotcha.



Only one is the creator and He has always existed.All the others were created. 
He has told us His name.Why would anyone want to worship a god with a different name and still try to say it's the same God.(Allah for example)


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Only one is the creator and He has always existed.All the others were created.
> He has told us His name.Why would anyone want to worship a god with a different name and still try to say it's the same God.(Allah for example)


Welder its fine if you want to believe that.
By now you should have figured that to me/us insisting something is true doesn't make it true.
If you have got proof bring it on, Im all ears. 
But be aware regurgitating what you were taught isn't proof its indoctrination.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Welder its fine if you want to believe that.
> By now you should have figured that to me/us insisting something is true doesn't make it true.
> If you have got proof bring it on, Im all ears.
> But be aware regurgitating what you were taught isn't proof its indoctrination.



Walt.I have tried to show you on numerous occasions what I feel is adequate proof of my God's existence and His working.But either you cannot see it or will not see it.It may be both.I can't judge that.I pray for you almost every day, believe it or not,that God will cause you to see for yourself, not through someone else, but through your own experience of grace.That's the best I can do.There's not a heart out there that's too hard for him to soften.

The same sun that hardens clay can also melt butter.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I believe there is only one God the Creator. If everyone in the whole world knows of this God by his creation and God expects them to worship him after he elects them, then I can only assume they know him by different names. 
I'm sure many people around the world know God but exchange worshiping God for idols or false gods. They exchange the truth for a lie. The only way to justify this is that there is only one God.
I'm not exactly sure how this concept works but maybe the Great Architect manifest himself differently to the others.
The only problem with this is Jesus. How do these elected people in a foreign land come to know Jesus? By the same Holy Spirit? But if there aren't any Christian Churches on the island, how do they learn about Jesus? It is better to not know about Jesus than to know about him and not believe. Maybe Jesus died for the sins of the world. If the Holy Spirit has made them aware of God or they know God by his creation, and they worship this one universal God, then God can still use the blood of Jesus to cover their sins. Jesus is still "their" or "the" only way. I don't see how it could be any other way if we have no excuse. If we all know God by his creation. If God can elect anyone and doesn't use this election based on knowledge, works, or deeds of the lost sinner.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not exactly sure how this concept works but maybe the Great Architect manifest himself differently to the others.
> The only problem with this is Jesus. How do these elected people in a foreign land come to know Jesus? By the same Holy Spirit? But if there aren't any Christian Churches on the island, how do they learn about Jesus?/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> John6:37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and he that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out"
> 
> We don't have to worry about whether they have a Christian church on the island or whether they've been taught who Jesus is or even if they came out of their mothers womb alive.If they are God's elect, the Holy Spirit will reveal Himself to them in a way they can understand.


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> Right on.
> 
> It s kind of like making a claim that we learned to breathe by watching our parents.



What an excellent point.

Things innate to a creature cannot be separated from that creature casually.
One says "The Bible is the product of organized religion" looking at councils and religious politics and despairing of ever finding anything more than self endorsement.

Yet, perhaps, but not really strangely at all, another man picks up a Bible and sees the words of Paul, Isaiah, or James, or John, reads their words recorded of Jesus (which do not do much to endorse anything of man's politics, religion, or self...insert facetious emoticon here...)...and marvel...that even if great companies have grown rich off of printing Bibles...what is found there-in is priceless. They may even come to see that even in a world fat and bloated with man's pride, God can still get a word in!

When I pick up an anthology of Dylan Thomas's poetry, or Shakespeare's sonnets and plays, I am looking for what Shakespeare and Thomas have to say...not what the publisher's intents were in printing, binding, and setting up displays in Walden's Bookstore/Barnes and Noble, what might be of profit to them.

Admittedly, the Bible is different in different hands. And again, admittedly, claims found therein are different than the claims one may find of Thomas and Shakespeare. Remarkable claims of men...different man, of different times, eras, centuries, millennia. To have had intercourse with the truth...the God of all ages and time, of all creation...and of all things invisible.  Such astounding claims do require a strict investigation if one would not show himself naive or foolish in their acceptance. If there is a learning to be had there, there must be a discipline, perhaps even gleaned of its words.

Yet, ultimately, if we be of Christ, we know that any and all that might come short of the knowledge of God through him, is to no avail. Therefore we do not balk at those things written, even in "The Bible" that would tell a man...searching the scriptures for eternal life is vain unless one may come to Jesus to truly have eternal life. The book does not contain an abnegation of itself, simply an affirmation by another, outside of time, not restricted to pages and chapters...who proves in and of himself his surpassing sufficiency of all creation, through his submission to the God of all, as testified as God...even in the pages.

For it is not the Bible, a Bible, any Bible, book, or scroll, or letter that such have been commissioned to preach, but Christ himself, and him crucified and resurrected. We do not commend men to the bible, but to God, through Christ.

The world has seen more than enough (and I would venture as some have here) perjurers who would lay their hand on a book and swear they will tell you the whole of the truth, even using that hand, mouth, and bible in endorsements of lies as they solemnly cut their eyes to heaven.

Yes, we commend men to what they can not get a handle on, but which handles them quite easily in every moment, if perhaps they may also find the grace there to believe the one who tries the reins is indeed, and in all ways, perfectly good...and trustworthy.

As manifested fully and precisely through Jesus, the Christ of God.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt.I have tried to show you on numerous occasions what I feel is adequate proof of my God's existence and His working.But either you cannot see it or will not see it.It may be both.I can't judge that.I pray for you almost every day, believe it or not,that God will cause you to see for yourself, not through someone else, but through your own experience of grace.That's the best I can do.There's not a heart out there that's too hard for him to soften.
> 
> The same sun that hardens clay can also melt butter.





> Walt.I have tried to show you on numerous occasions what I feel is adequate proof of my God's existence and His working.But either you cannot see it or will not see it.It may be both.


You can take comfort in that its not for your lack of trying.


> It may be both.


Or neither. 
What you have offered is proof to YOU. 
I can prove my cat exists. I can prove I have blue eyes.
Whether you believe me or not I can still prove it to be true. That's what you cant do about the existence of God or that other gods are man made but not yours and all the other unproven claims you make.
Its why you are required to have faith.


----------



## drippin' rock

Artfuldodger said:


> I believe there is only one God the Creator. If everyone in the whole world knows of this God by his creation and God expects them to worship him after he elects them, then I can only assume they know him by different names.
> I'm sure many people around the world know God but exchange worshiping God for idols or false gods. They exchange the truth for a lie. The only way to justify this is that there is only one God.
> I'm not exactly sure how this concept works but maybe the Great Architect manifest himself differently to the others.
> The only problem with this is Jesus. How do these elected people in a foreign land come to know Jesus? By the same Holy Spirit? But if there aren't any Christian Churches on the island, how do they learn about Jesus? It is better to not know about Jesus than to know about him and not believe. Maybe Jesus died for the sins of the world. If the Holy Spirit has made them aware of God or they know God by his creation, and they worship this one universal God, then God can still use the blood of Jesus to cover their sins. Jesus is still "their" or "the" only way. I don't see how it could be any other way if we have no excuse. If we all know God by his creation. If God can elect anyone and doesn't use this election based on knowledge, works, or deeds of the lost sinner.



I believe...........  I need another beer.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how this concept works but maybe the Great Architect manifest himself differently to the others.
> The only problem with this is Jesus. How do these elected people in a foreign land come to know Jesus? By the same Holy Spirit? But if there aren't any Christian Churches on the island, how do they learn about Jesus?/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> John6:37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and he that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out"
> 
> We don't have to worry about whether they have a Christian church on the island or whether they've been taught who Jesus is or even if they came out of their mothers womb alive.If they are God's elect, the Holy Spirit will reveal Himself to them in a way they can understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen, you'd be surprised how many Christians don't believe that. They think "man" has to be involved.
> 
> I'm not sure how they become aware of Jesus or if that is even necessary, but if they are of the Elect, they will be elected.
> If it's not Universal Salvation then it's Universal Election at God's discretion. God doesn't base his election on anything man does. I think I've read about natives somewhere receiving the Holy Spirit without no knowledge of Christianity. We might have discussed it here.
Click to expand...


----------



## Artfuldodger

drippin' rock said:


> I believe...........  I need another beer.



I'm thinking a Yuengling Black & Tan. Well that's all I got in the refrigerator.


----------



## NCHillbilly

I firmly believe that most Americans who are devout Christians, if they had been born and raised in a different culture; would right now be devout Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, or whatever, and would believe just as strongly that the Christian God is a false god. Most religions are a product of their culture, and most folks aren't gonna switch from the religion they were born into.


----------



## hobbs27

NCHillbilly said:


> I firmly believe that most Americans who are devout Christians, if they had been born and raised in a different culture; would right now be devout Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, or whatever, and would believe just as strongly that the Christian God is a false god. Most religions are a product of their culture, and most folks aren't gonna switch from the religion they were born into.



There's a little bit of truth and quiet a bit of opinion in that statement...not enough proof for me to make the statement " firmly believe"  and I'm a firm believer in an invisible God!


----------



## ambush80

hobbs27 said:


> So religion was invented by humans to get along with one another? Wow, we sure messed that up.



We did.  Now it's time for everyone to recognize how religion came about and put it away for good.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> We did.  Now it's time for everyone to recognize how religion came about and put it away for good.



ahhh, the pride of life, able to hold in the eye and weigh all who have gone before, silenced now to our debates, and judged.
"We will be the men who..."

"Yes, we can!"


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> ahhh, the pride of life, able to hold in the eye and weigh all who have gone before, silenced now to our debates, and judged.
> "We will be the men who..."
> 
> "Yes, we can!"



They're not silenced.  Their stupid words "The Earth is flat!" are written for all to see how wrong they were.


----------



## ambush80

hobbs27 said:


> So religion was invented by humans to get along with one another? Wow, we sure messed that up.



My point was that morals developed through evolution like our intrinsic fear of heights.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> They're not silenced.  Their stupid words "The Earth is flat!" are written for all to see how wrong they were.



But, you of all men...were _you there_, could have easily reproved them? Or, do you simply hate where you came from?

yes..."We are the real men, the men who see..."


----------



## hobbs27

ambush80 said:


> My point was that morals developed through evolution like our intrinsic fear of heights.



It may be your point , but you have no proof that our morals developed through evolution. That is simply your opinion, based on 0 facts.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> It may be your point , but you have no proof that our morals developed through evolution. That is simply your opinion, based on 0 facts.



If morals came from one source and are universal among humans why do they vary from Continent to Continent, Country to Country, Region to Region, County to City, City to Town, Town to Village, Village to Ward  Ward to Street, Street to Home, Home to Individual and Individual to Individual, between believers in the same God and between two believers that claim they are part of an elect from the same God.

There are threads in here that show how morals developed/evolved and you are aware of those threads and proven examples and how morals have changed over the years just that you are on this Earth.


----------



## ambush80

hobbs27 said:


> It may be your point , but you have no proof that our morals developed through evolution. That is simply your opinion, based on 0 facts.



And you would claim that our fear of heights came from God, using what data?


----------



## 660griz

hobbs27 said:


> It may be your point , but you have no proof that our morals developed through evolution. That is simply your opinion, based on 0 facts.



Not that it will matter but...http://www.earthisland.org/journal/...hat_moral_behavior_is_a_product_of_evolution/


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Not that it will matter but...http://www.earthisland.org/journal/...hat_moral_behavior_is_a_product_of_evolution/



"Prove it"

"Just guesses"

"Heresy!!!"


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> If morals came from one source and are universal among humans why do they vary from Continent to Continent, Country to Country, Region to Region, County to City, City to Town, Town to Village, Village to Ward  Ward to Street, Street to Home, Home to Individual and Individual to Individual, between believers in the same God and between two believers that claim they are part of an elect from the same God.
> 
> There are threads in here that show how morals developed/evolved and you are aware of those threads and proven examples and how morals have changed over the years just that you are on this Earth.



Here in lies the problem with language.  I believe Hobbs is talking about objective morality and you are talking about subjective morality.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> I believe Hobbs is talking about objective morality and you are talking about subjective morality.



How could culture(religious) based morals possibly be objective?


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> How could culture(religious) based morals possibly be objective?



Objective morality is what people of faith are talking about.  It is based on a single moral arbiter, God, not based on the subject. Evolution cannot provide objective morality in it's argument.


----------



## Madman

I do not argue that there is no relativistic morality. I believe society does what it feels is best for itself all the time.  

Pot is illegal, now it is legal, - discipline your children, now don't discipline your children, etc.

Faith based morality is not relative, it is objective, based on the moral character of God.  What does he say is moral and immoral? 

Stealing, fidelity, lying, etc.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> I do not argue that there is no relativistic morality. I believe society does what it feels is best for itself all the time.
> 
> Pot is illegal, now it is legal, - discipline your children, now don't discipline your children, etc.
> 
> Faith based morality is not relative, it is objective, based on the moral character of God.  What does he say is moral and immoral?
> 
> Stealing, fidelity, lying, etc.



Now c'mon.... the bible is the most immoral book going as it leads by example.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> I do not argue that there is no relativistic morality. I believe society does what it feels is best for itself all the time.
> 
> Pot is illegal, now it is legal, - discipline your children, now don't discipline your children, etc.
> 
> Faith based morality is not relative, it is objective, based on the moral character of God.  What does he say is moral and immoral?
> 
> Stealing, fidelity, lying, etc.



You're assuming that the Bible is the word of God and not some stuff made up by people; relative to the morals of their day.

Look what all that stuff has got us: Sharia Law, Inquisitions, no stem cell research.  

Like I said, it's time to put that stuff away.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> I do not argue that there is no relativistic morality. I believe society does what it feels is best for itself all the time.
> 
> Pot is illegal, now it is legal, - discipline your children, now don't discipline your children, etc.
> 
> Faith based morality is not relative, it is objective, based on the moral character of God.  What does he say is moral and immoral?
> 
> Stealing, fidelity, lying, etc.



I can understand how each isolated society would develop morals about Stealing, fidelity, lying, etc.  
I would place those type things in your first category.
Not eating shellfish, sleeping with women on their period, and homosexuality would be morals set forth by the God of Abraham.
What I don't understand is how all of the isolated people could be held accountable for those types of morals presented to the Jews.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> Objective morality is what people of faith are talking about.  It is based on a single moral arbiter, God, not based on the subject. Evolution cannot provide objective morality in it's argument.



This makes absolutely no sense. People of faith are talking about morals as it relates to their beliefs. (Subjective)
Faiths/beliefs vary. Even morals within the same faith vary. 
Stealing and lying are excellent examples of subjective morals.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> Objective morality is what people of faith are talking about.  It is based on a single moral arbiter, God, not based on the subject. Evolution cannot provide objective morality in it's argument.





> It is based on a single moral arbiter, God,


You mean whichever God that you happen to believe in.


> Evolution cannot provide objective morality in it's argument.


That's like saying say a cat cant provide you with a good recipe for fish tacos therefore the cat is lacking in some way.
Its a made up argument that goes around in circles and depends on something that hasn't even been proven to exist.
The reality that morals are different in individuals, cultures, geography, history etc points in the opposite direction of a single source.


----------



## hummerpoo

*hummerpoo*



660griz said:


> Not that it will matter but...http://www.earthisland.org/journal/...hat_moral_behavior_is_a_product_of_evolution/



Not that it will matter but ...
"But he does take issue in his new book, The Bonobo and the Atheist, with the oft-repeated notion that our sense of morals and sin are the products of human constructed religion."

Is the good Dr. using social evolution to deny social evolution, did the author misstate his case, or is this just another case of arguing that water is not wet because I am thirsty?


----------



## 660griz

hummerpoo said:


> Not that it will matter but ...
> "But he does take issue in his new book, The Bonobo and the Atheist, with the oft-repeated notion that our sense of morals and sin are the products of human constructed religion."
> 
> Is the good Dr. using social evolution to deny social evolution, did the author misstate his case, or is this just another case of arguing that water is not wet because I am thirsty?



Your quote from the article states he doesn't believe morals came from religion.
Keep reading.
"He believes our ethics and morals are in fact based on evolutionary processes that promote cooperation and the moral high ground."

Regardless of the semantics in the article, a statement was made that there is no evidence of moral evolution. This showed some evidence...not that it matters.


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> I can understand how each isolated society would develop morals about Stealing, fidelity, lying, etc.
> I would place those type things in your first category.
> Not eating shellfish, sleeping with women on their period, and homosexuality would be morals set forth by the God of Abraham.
> What I don't understand is how all of the isolated people could be held accountable for those types of morals presented to the Jews.



Who said they would?


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> This makes absolutely no sense. People of faith are talking about morals as it relates to their beliefs. (Subjective)
> Faiths/beliefs vary. Even morals within the same faith vary.
> Stealing and lying are excellent examples of subjective morals.




How is can a lie be considered subjective?  It is either truth or not.

Evolutionary thought cannot have an objective morality but a faith based system can.

There is nothing in evolution that makes rape immoral, in my belief system there is.


----------



## hummerpoo

660griz said:


> Your quote from the article states he doesn't believe morals came from religion.
> Keep reading.
> "He believes our ethics and morals are in fact based on evolutionary processes that promote cooperation and the moral high ground."
> 
> Regardless of the semantics in the article, a statement was made that there is no evidence of moral evolution. This showed some evidence...not that it matters.



"human constructed"

I read it...that's why I posted.
gotta go.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> Who said they would?



I've heard many people say that God's laws are placed in the hearts of every human. We know God by his creation and therefore we have no excuse not to worship God.
If every man in the whole world is without excuse then wouldn't he need the correct morals from God to be judged correctly?


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> Its a made up argument that goes around in circles and depends on something that hasn't even been proven to exist.



??





WaltL1 said:


> The reality that morals are different in individuals, cultures, geography, history etc points in the opposite direction of a single source.



We agree.  They are subjective, which does not enter into the deeper argument.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> How is can a lie be considered subjective?  It is either truth or not.


The subjectivity is not whether it is true or not, it is if it is considered wrong or not. If your wife asks you if she looks fat, whether she is fat or not, you probably better say no.



> Evolutionary thought cannot have an objective morality but a faith based system can.


 Prove it.



> There is nothing in evolution that makes rape immoral, in my belief system there is.


 I can show you where rape is not immoral in the bible. 

Morality changes over time. If incest is wrong and rape is wrong, and God tells two people to populate the earth, guess what, there is going to be some incest and probably rape.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Morality changes over time.


Not objective morality.



660griz said:


> If incest is wrong and rape is wrong,



Incest and rape are like apples and oranges.



660griz said:


> and God tells two people to populate the earth, guess what, there is going to be some incest and probably rape.



Probably rape?  I thought you were going to give me Biblical examples of God approving rape.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> Not objective morality.



No such animal exists.


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> I've heard many people say that God's laws are placed in the hearts of every human. We know God by his creation and therefore we have no excuse not to worship God.
> If every man in the whole world is without excuse then wouldn't he need the correct morals from God to be judged correctly?



Everyone is without excuse.     

"25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."  Romans 1:25

That is the discussion which is going here.  Those who create their moral code chose to follow themselves rather than God.

Everyone will "worship" something.  Some choose God.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> "He believes our ethics and morals are in fact based on evolutionary processes that promote cooperation and the moral high ground."



"values he feels", 
"He believes""
"but draws the reader into his thinking",


all based on the subject.  "Him"

He does leave the reader with a good question at the end.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Prove it.



When I describe rape as wrong I am describing that rape is wrong.  That the action is what is wrong, not my belief, or point of view or preference regarding rape.

So in objectivism the very act is wrong not something about the person or his gender, or culture, or genetic conditioning makes the act wrong.

There is nothing in the evolutionary process can make the act of rape wrong.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> The subjectivity is not whether it is true or not, it is if it is considered wrong or not. If your wife asks you if she looks fat, whether she is fat or not, you probably better say no.



The subjectivity is situation-ally relative,  and if my wife asked me if she is fat, I am certainly going to consider my present situation and my future situation.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> Its a made up argument that goes around in circles and depends on something that hasn't even been proven to exist.



Objective truth is not dependent upon what you believe or are able to prove.

There is a pen on my desk. Is that "truth" dependent on your belief that there is a pen on my desk?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> Everyone is without excuse.
> 
> "25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."  Romans 1:25
> 
> That is the discussion which is going here.  Those who create their moral code chose to follow themselves rather than God.
> 
> Everyone will "worship" something.  Some choose God.



My point is what Law did the Gentiles throughout the whole world receive as compared to the Law of Moses?
If we are all without excuse to worship God then we all need to be on the same playing field. Following the morals/laws of the God ofAbraham are an important part of worshiping the God of Abraham. No one is without excuse.
We should all have the same morals or Laws either placed in our hearts or written on stone tablets.
I've never heard of isolated villagers or islanders discussing the morals/laws that the Hebrew scriptures required. Why is there a difference between the small islanders morals and the children of Abraham?


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> Probably rape?  I thought you were going to give me Biblical examples of God approving rape.



Didn't know you wanted one...or two.

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.   (Judges 5:30 NAB)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.   (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.  But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb.  After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.  However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."  

Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.  (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I can understand how each isolated society would develop morals about Stealing, fidelity, lying, etc.
> I would place those type things in your first category.
> Not eating shellfish, sleeping with women on their period, and homosexuality would be morals set forth by the God of Abraham.
> What I don't understand is how all of the isolated people could be held accountable for those types of morals presented to the Jews.



You're always sooooo close.....  You know what the truth is but you keep holding on to your fantasy.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> When I describe rape as wrong I am describing that rape is wrong.  That the action is what is wrong, not my belief, or point of view or preference regarding rape.



Rape is wrong in our current environment. 
What if you are the last man on earth and the last woman on earth doesn't want to repopulate the earth. 
Is rape wrong then? Do the lives of many overrule the wishes of one?


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> How is can a lie be considered subjective?  It is either truth or not.
> 
> Evolutionary thought cannot have an objective morality but a faith based system can.
> 
> There is nothing in evolution that makes rape immoral, in my belief system there is.



Did Lot's daughters rape him?  Was it immoral?


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> Objective truth is not dependent upon what you believe or are able to prove.
> 
> There is a pen on my desk. Is that "truth" dependent on your belief that there is a pen on my desk?


No its dependent on if there is actually a pen on your desk.
The same way that your usage of objective truth is dependent on the existence of God. The Christian one in this case.
The pen on your desk can be proven to be there or not.
So the argument you are using is simply misdirection.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> When I describe rape as wrong I am describing that rape is wrong.  That the action is what is wrong, not my belief, or point of view or preference regarding rape.
> 
> So in objectivism the very act is wrong not something about the person or his gender, or culture, or genetic conditioning makes the act wrong.
> 
> There is nothing in the evolutionary process can make the act of rape wrong.QUOTE]
> You sure?
> How about for the unity of the clan? Which makes them work together better. Which makes them fight their enemies better. Which makes their clan stronger. Which helps them to survive..........
> Think about what the intended goal of having morals actually is.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Madman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I describe rape as wrong I am describing that rape is wrong.  That the action is what is wrong, not my belief, or point of view or preference regarding rape.
> 
> So in objectivism the very act is wrong not something about the person or his gender, or culture, or genetic conditioning makes the act wrong.
> 
> There is nothing in the evolutionary process can make the act of rape wrong.QUOTE]
> You sure?
> How about for the unity of the clan? Which makes them work together better. Which makes them fight their enemies better. Which makes their clan stronger. Which helps them to survive..........
> Think about what the intended goal of having morals actually is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape in the clan could cause fights, murder, distrusts, revenge, etc.
> Now Madman might ask how is the interactions of a clan of early men evolutionary? The clans that live in harmony live to reproduce perhaps? There are many aspects to evolution.
> Could we say evolution is mental as well as physical like the domestication of animals. Let's call it domestication of man, that sounds better than evolution.
Click to expand...


----------



## Artfuldodger

When the discussion turns to morals only coming from God, what does it matter?

Romans 4:13
Clearly, God's promise to give the whole earth to Abraham and his descendants was based not on his obedience to God's law, but on a right relationship with God that comes by faith.

Romans 4:14
If God's promise is only for those who obey the law, then faith is not necessary and the promise is pointless.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Rape is wrong in our current environment.
> What if you are the last man on earth and the last woman on earth doesn't want to repopulate the earth.
> Is rape wrong then? Do the lives of many overrule the wishes of one?



Once again a case of subjective morals.  Relative to the situation.


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> When the discussion turns to morals only coming from God, what does it matter?



Because ultimately the conversation turns to the "presence of evil proves there is no God."


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Didn't know you wanted one...or two.
> 
> (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)



you still have not provided a passage where God says rape is ok.

All you have shown is what men chose to do.

"The heart of man is deceitfully wicked."


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> Because ultimately the conversation turns to the "presence of evil proves there is no God."



If the presence of good proves there is a God then the presence of evil proves there is a God. You can't have one without the other.
If morals are from God wouldn't sin also be from God? 
You have to have a base line to judge good from bad. Where there is no Law sin doesn't count. Without sin no one could be good because we wouldn't know what good is.
Without sin, we wouldn't need Jesus. Sin was our schoolmaster to show us that we needed salvation.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> No its dependent on if there is actually a pen on your desk.



"There is a pen on my desk. "

It is not dependent upon you seeing it, believing it, or touching it.


----------



## Madman

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No such animal exists.



Ding, Ding, Ding!

Spoken like a true atheist.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> you still have not provided a passage where God says rape is ok.
> 
> All you have shown is what men chose to do.
> 
> "The heart of man is deceitfully wicked."



Oh. So, the Bible is not the word of God. Good to know.
Now we are getting some where. Man made!


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> "There is a pen on my desk. "
> 
> It is not dependent upon you seeing it, believing it, or touching it.


Yeah ok. There is an elephant wearing a tutu standing next to me while I type this. Same criteria apply.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah ok. There is an elephant wearing a tutu standing next to me while I type this. Same criteria apply.



I've seen the real Santa Claus. Flying reindeer and all.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> "The heart of man is deceitfully wicked."



Created in the image of God. Perfect.


----------



## welderguy

Morals are very good to have,but it's not enough to just have good morals.Jesus said in Matt.5:20 "That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." He takes morals to another level.Instead of just having outward acts of morality,we must have pure motives inwardly(which only come by faith).Hebrews 11:6" But without faith it is impossible to please him" God looks on the inside more than the outside.Proverbs 21:2 "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts."


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Morals are very good to have,but it's not enough to just have good morals.Jesus said in Matt.5:20 "That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." He takes morals to another level.Instead of just having outward acts of morality,we must have pure motives inwardly(which only come by faith).Hebrews 11:6" But without faith it is impossible to please him" God looks on the inside in addition to the outside.Proverbs 21:2 "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts."



Don't you mean this?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Don't you mean this?



No. More along the lines of "with greater scrutiny than"


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Morals are very good to have,but it's not enough to just have good morals.Jesus said



 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.



Therefore...:" So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."  This is the source of the essential faith.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> No. More along the lines of "with greater scrutiny than"



So you can do bad things with a good heart and get a pass, conceivably. 

Interesting.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Oh. So, the Bible is not the word of God. Good to know.
> Now we are getting some where. Man made!



Put the entire passage in context and tell me how God approves of rape.

That is not what it says.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah ok. There is an elephant wearing a tutu standing next to me while I type this. Same criteria apply.



What are you wearing?


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Created in the image of God. Perfect.



man is sinful, God is not.

No wonder you have such a hard time with God, it seems you have been fed some bogus info.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Rape is wrong in our current environment.
> What if you are the last man on earth and the last woman on earth doesn't want to repopulate the earth.
> Is rape wrong then? Do the lives of many overrule the wishes of one?



Are you saying that there are situations where rape is moral?


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> No its dependent on if there is actually a pen on your desk.



your response is a logical fallacy.  I believe it is called "an argument from ignorance".

You are saying since I don't know if what you are saying is true or not it must not be true, or I choose to believe it is not true.

But truth is not predicated on what you think or believe, it is predicated on what actually is.

Striperr Hunterr is the only one so far to admit, from the non-believers view, that rape, murder, etc. can be a moral act, because in the view of the non-believer there can not be objective morals.

The non-believer can only have subjective morals based on their feelings, thoughts, laws, etc., because there is no  ultimate law giver that provides morals.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> your response is a logical fallacy.  I believe it is called "an argument from ignorance".
> 
> You are saying since I don't know if what you are saying is true or not it must not be true, or I choose to believe it is not true.
> 
> But truth is not predicated on what you think or believe, it is predicated on what actually is.
> 
> Striperr Hunterr is the only one so far to admit, from the non-believers view, that rape, murder, etc. can be a moral act, because in the view of the non-believer there can not be objective morals.
> 
> The non-believer can only have subjective morals based on their feelings, thoughts, laws, etc., because there is no  ultimate law giver that provides morals.



Woah, hold on killer. I never said that. I was merely repeating the logical conclusion of what someone else had said and THAT was based on the Bible. 

There is no moral justification for rape or murder. 

There is moral justification for killing, but that's a wholly different beast.


----------



## Madman

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Woah, hold on killer. I never said that. I was merely repeating the logical conclusion of what someone else had said and THAT was based on the Bible.
> 
> There is no moral justification for rape or murder.
> 
> There is moral justification for killing, but that's a wholly different beast.



Sorry.  I didn't intend to mis-characterize your position. I was responding to this: in #362 regarding objective morals



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No such animal exists.



Are you saying that objective morals do exist?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> I was responding to this: in #362 regarding objective morals
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that objective morals do exist?



No, I'm not saying objective morals exist. I'm saying all morality is subjective. You hit the crux of it a moment ago. It all depends on what is or is not justifiable to the person. If it's justifiable it's at least morally palatable, if it's not then it's immoral. 

The simple fact of the matter is that, even about supposed moral absolutes like those found in the Bible, all morality is subject to the person because that's where the rubber meets the road and where morality becomes real, rather than philosophical. 

I guess it's fair to question me given that my post did say that there's no moral justification to rape or murder. What I should have said was that I have can find no moral justification to rape or murder. Obviously some other people can, and that's why we have it occurring. 

God may be able to look into your heart and see X, or Y, but all we have are the measures of your actions, and the acts of others. Through this we see the breakdown of the concept of objective morality. I reject the notion that criminals and other vagrants are amoral people. They're only amoral relative to another person's definition of morality, but not unto themselves. 

The only place for an objective morality to exist is in a vacuum, removed from those it governs. The moment you try to impose it on people it becomes subjective. Subject to their own interpretations, subject to God's interpretation of the act and their heart, and subject to those who witness, or are victimized by, in some cases, it. 

Much like the pen you alluded to earlier. Its existence is a matter of fact for you because you can see it. It's subjective to everyone else. You could be deceiving yourself, in order to deceive us to make a point, but that's also a subjective thing. You could be telling the truth, and some will choose to believe it, never really knowing, because they feel you trustworthy. Still others, myself included, will demand some shred of evidence other than your subjective testimony about it in order to prove its existence. 

Similarly, there may be a God, but there's very little in the way of hard, incontrovertible, objective evidence to support that claim, or we'd all be believers. Moreover, He may have a moral code that he expects us to adhere to. That code could be considered objective, for purposes of this discussion. But that also ignores the moral codes of other religions, particularly where they come into conflict with one another. So even amongst the most popular deities there's a matter of subjectivity to what is considered moral or not. There's some agreement, and those could be considered objective moral absolutes, but it's not one all inclusive list. Still, even then, it all hits yet another snag when we apply and compare it to the people it's supposed to be for. 

To a Mennonite, or the Amish, it is considered amoral to drive a car, or wear certain clothing. To a Presbyterian, not so much. And still a Buddhist would say that they have a "moral" dress code, but even that differs from the Mennonites and Amish. 

My personal morality is derived from existence, since it's pretty easy to prove to someone I'm usually having this conversation with. The latter is based on the Golden Rule, and I only use that term as a matter of expedience as Christianity does not hold the patent on the concept. 

As a result my morality usually points in the same direction most of the time but it would be foolhardy of me to try to impose it upon others, or hold it out as somehow superior, or objective, as another. 

Does that help?


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> your response is a logical fallacy.  I believe it is called "an argument from ignorance".
> 
> You are saying since I don't know if what you are saying is true or not it must not be true, or I choose to believe it is not true.
> 
> But truth is not predicated on what you think or believe, it is predicated on what actually is.
> 
> Striperr Hunterr is the only one so far to admit, from the non-believers view, that rape, murder, etc. can be a moral act, because in the view of the non-believer there can not be objective morals.
> 
> The non-believer can only have subjective morals based on their feelings, thoughts, laws, etc., because there is no  ultimate law giver that provides morals.





> You are saying since I don't know if what you are saying is true or not it must not be true, or I choose to believe it is not true.


No I didn't say that.


> But truth is not predicated on what you think or believe, it is predicated on what actually is.


Yeah that's what I said -


> Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post
> No its dependent on if there is actually a pen on your desk.


Otherwise its just a claim. Like objective morality exists. Its just a claim that is dependent on God (the Christian one in this case) existing. That's how it is being used here.  Which is also just a claim. 


> Striperr Hunterr is the only one so far to admit, from the non-believers view, that rape, murder, etc. can be a moral act, because in the view of the non-believer there can not be objective morals.


That's right they don't exist. Not in the manner being used here because they are dependent on the Christian God existing.
Which is what I said from the get go.
And the word "morals" is a word applied to what is considered good or bad for the society you live in. 
And society was here long before Christianity was.


> your response is a logical fallacy.  I believe it is called "an argument from ignorance".


You dreamed up the response you credited to me. So the logical fallacy and argument from ignorance goes to you.


----------



## Madman

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, I'm not saying objective morals exist. I'm saying all morality is subjective. You hit the crux of it a moment ago. It all depends on what is or is not justifiable to the person. If it's justifiable it's at least morally palatable, if it's not then it's immoral.
> 
> The simple fact of the matter is that, even about supposed moral absolutes like those found in the Bible, all morality is subject to the person because that's where the rubber meets the road and where morality becomes real, rather than philosophical.
> 
> I guess it's fair to question me given that my post did say that there's no moral justification to rape or murder. What I should have said was that I have can find no moral justification to rape or murder. Obviously some other people can, and that's why we have it occurring.
> 
> God may be able to look into your heart and see X, or Y, but all we have are the measures of your actions, and the acts of others. Through this we see the breakdown of the concept of objective morality. I reject the notion that criminals and other vagrants are amoral people. They're only amoral relative to another person's definition of morality, but not unto themselves.
> 
> The only place for an objective morality to exist is in a vacuum, removed from those it governs. The moment you try to impose it on people it becomes subjective. Subject to their own interpretations, subject to God's interpretation of the act and their heart, and subject to those who witness, or are victimized by, in some cases, it.
> 
> Much like the pen you alluded to earlier. Its existence is a matter of fact for you because you can see it. It's subjective to everyone else. You could be deceiving yourself, in order to deceive us to make a point, but that's also a subjective thing. You could be telling the truth, and some will choose to believe it, never really knowing, because they feel you trustworthy. Still others, myself included, will demand some shred of evidence other than your subjective testimony about it in order to prove its existence.
> 
> Similarly, there may be a God, but there's very little in the way of hard, incontrovertible, objective evidence to support that claim, or we'd all be believers. Moreover, He may have a moral code that he expects us to adhere to. That code could be considered objective, for purposes of this discussion. But that also ignores the moral codes of other religions, particularly where they come into conflict with one another. So even amongst the most popular deities there's a matter of subjectivity to what is considered moral or not. There's some agreement, and those could be considered objective moral absolutes, but it's not one all inclusive list. Still, even then, it all hits yet another snag when we apply and compare it to the people it's supposed to be for.
> 
> To a Mennonite, or the Amish, it is considered amoral to drive a car, or wear certain clothing. To a Presbyterian, not so much. And still a Buddhist would say that they have a "moral" dress code, but even that differs from the Mennonites and Amish.
> 
> My personal morality is derived from existence, since it's pretty easy to prove to someone I'm usually having this conversation with. The latter is based on the Golden Rule, and I only use that term as a matter of expedience as Christianity does not hold the patent on the concept.
> 
> As a result my morality usually points in the same direction most of the time but it would be foolhardy of me to try to impose it upon others, or hold it out as somehow superior, or objective, as another.
> 
> Does that help?



So you are saying that objective morals do not exist, therefore morals are "subject" dependent.  For the rapist, the act of rape is not immoral.

I assume we can agree that cannibalism is immoral, but why is it immoral?  Is it immoral because some law says it is immoral?  Is it immoral because you and I think it is immoral?  Both of those are subjective, based on what we believe, but we must admit there are people groups that not only believe cannibalism is moral, they practice it.

Language is VERY important and if conversations like this are going to get ANYWHERE we have to agree on definitions.

So far we can't get past objective and subjective.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> No I didn't say that.
> 
> Yeah that's what I said -
> 
> Otherwise its just a claim. Like objective morality exists. Its just a claim that is dependent on God (the Christian one in this case) existing. That's how it is being used here.  Which is also just a claim.
> 
> That's right they don't exist. Not in the manner being used here because they are dependent on the Christian God existing.
> Which is what I said from the get go.
> And the word "morals" is a word applied to what is considered good or bad for the society you live in.
> And society was here long before Christianity was.
> 
> You dreamed up the response you credited to me. So the logical fallacy and argument from ignorance goes to you.



We don't even have to be talking about 'A Christian God", we can be talking about ANY arbiter of truth.  Don't be afraid you are going to argue yourself into a corner.  Let the discussion happen.

You need to revisit logic 101.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> That's right they don't exist.



Are you saying objective morals do not exist?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> So you are saying that objective morals do not exist, therefore morals are "subject" dependent.  For the rapist, the act of rape is not immoral.
> 
> I assume we can agree that cannibalism is immoral, but why is it immoral?  Is it immoral because some law says it is immoral?  Is it immoral because you and I think it is immoral?  Both of those are subjective, based on what we believe, but we must admit there are people groups that not only believe cannibalism is moral, they practice it.
> 
> Language is VERY important and if conversations like this are going to get ANYWHERE we have to agree on definitions.
> 
> So far we can't get past objective and subjective.



Yes, I'm saying that morality is subject to the person. Yes, the rapist has somehow found a way that they can square that with their conscience and morality. It may be a temporary insanity kind of thing, it may be a disregard, or lack of respect, for life. Who knows? 

You and I can agree that it is immoral, in most applications. The Donner party might not feel the same, nor might I, if in similar circumstances. To me, right now, it is immoral because it presumes the victimization of another sentient life. If Bob wants to climb in the smoker for someone, and they're willing to take his sacrifice, though, provided it's properly documented and he enters on his own free will, then who am I to interfere? No one, that's who. We can agree that taking cannibalism mainstream could be potentially detrimental to our society, and harmful to our bowels as we're not made to be able to digest ourselves, but that's not what we're talking about, is it? What degree of cannibalism and what circumstances? Yes, there are groups that practice it, further deflating the lead balloon that is "objective morality." 

Let's see if this clears it up:



> ob·jec·tive
> É™bËˆjektiv/
> adjective
> adjective: objective
> 
> 1.
> (of a person or their judgment) *not influenced by personal feelings or opinions* in considering and representing facts.





> subjective
> [suh b-jek-tiv]
> 
> adjective
> 
> 2.
> pertaining to or *characteristic of an individual*; personal; individual:



Because honestly I don't see the words subjective and objective being the problem here. 

I see the problem as someone trying to justify to the rest of the world why their particular morality is right, and everyone else is wrong, except for the parts of congruency.


----------



## Madman

Thanks Stipperr Hunterr, 

All I wanted to know is where some people stood on objective vs. subjective morals.  It took a long time to get there and so far yours is the only position I think I understand.

I have tried not to make a judgement call on anyone's view, you may be right and I may be wrong, but I do know this:

I believe objective morals exist, that is that certain behavior is inherently wrong in and of itself, because something far beyond creation says it is wrong in EVERY situation, and for EVERY person.  Some have tried to trick me into changing that view.  One question was about there only be two people left on earth, if he wanted to procreate and she didn't would forcing himself on the woman be rape, even if it was for the sake of the species?

Not sure I answered but, yes it would be rape, which is immoral and wrong.  And if mud-to-man evolution got us here the first time the questioner should have no problem with it getting us here again.

That is all I was trying to get too, I do appreciate your forthrightness.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> Thanks Stipperr Hunterr,
> 
> All I wanted to know is where some people stood on objective vs. subjective morals.  It took a long time to get there and so far yours is the only position I think I understand.
> 
> I have tried not to make a judgement call on anyone's view, you may be right and I may be wrong, but I do know this:
> 
> I believe objective morals exist, that is that certain behavior is inherently wrong in and of itself, because something far beyond creation says it is wrong in EVERY situation, and for EVERY person.  Some have tried to trick me into changing that view.  One question was about there only be two people left on earth, if he wanted to procreate and she didn't would forcing himself on the woman be rape, even if it was for the sake of the species?
> 
> Not sure I answered but, yes it would be rape, which is immoral and wrong.  And if mud-to-man evolution got us here the first time the questioner should have no problem with it getting us here again.
> 
> That is all I was trying to get too, I do appreciate your forthrightness.



No worries. I like these kinds of discussions. 

I'm curious, though, what is the "something beyond creation" you alluded to? What moral attributes were specifically conveyed to you by that method? 

I would presume that not killing people would fall under that umbrella, so I'd like to hear more about the genesis of your belief that it, if I'm right, is wrong, and what, if any, excluding conditions there might be. If there are excluding conditions, from whence did you derive those, or were they similarly communicated to you as the first? And how would exclusions not make them subjective, specifically as it applies to things like killing in self-defense as you are the arbiter of your life being in danger or not?


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> We don't even have to be talking about 'A Christian God", we can be talking about ANY arbiter of truth.  Don't be afraid you are going to argue yourself into a corner.  Let the discussion happen.
> 
> You need to revisit logic 101.


----------



## 660griz

I am also saying there are no objective morals. Rape can be a moral act. So can murder. 
What if I had murdered Hitler? I would consider that a moral act and that is all that matters at the time.
Burning witches was once a moral thing to do.


----------



## hummerpoo

subjective
[suh b-jek-tiv]

adjective

2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:

subjective
[suh b-jek-tiv]

adjective

******************************************

1. 
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). 


2. 
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: 
a subjective evaluation.


3. 
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman I too would be interested in your response to Striperr's question -


> I'm curious, though, what is the "something beyond creation" you alluded to?


Don't be afraid you are going to argue yourself into a corner. Let the discussion happen.


----------



## Madman

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No worries. I like these kinds of discussions.
> 
> I'm curious, though, what is the "something beyond creation" you alluded to? What moral attributes were specifically conveyed to you by that method?
> 
> I would presume that not killing people would fall under that umbrella, so I'd like to hear more about the genesis of your belief that it, if I'm right, is wrong, and what, if any, excluding conditions there might be. If there are excluding conditions, from whence did you derive those, or were they similarly communicated to you as the first? And how would exclusions not make them subjective, specifically as it applies to things like killing in self-defense as you are the arbiter of your life being in danger or not?



I believe the evidence shows there is a self existent being, one that is all knowing and created everything we know to exist and probably some things we don't know about.

I believe the Christian faith best explains that being and what we see.

If that being is everything I believe he is then he is the arbiter of truth, right, wrong, good and bad.  

Does what I can learn about him verify what I believe him to be.

Let me first say, I do not believe tha killing in certain situations is wrong, it is not good and sad, but permissible.  Some instances of self defense that end in death for instance.  Murder is forbidden and therefore wrong.

We see in Luke 22:36 where Jesus is sending out the disciples: 

 "36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

I presume this is for protection, if that self defense ends in the death of another, it is sad, and not desirable but also self protection is not prohibited.

If I look back to the Christian Bible there are many teachings that are objective morals.

One would be: John 15:13   Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

I see nothing in the evolutionary process that approaches that.  

I see a God that loves His creation so much He sent His son on it's behalf:

John 3:16  God So loved the world.............

2 Cor. 5:19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

A Christians beliefs should be grounded in the Object of God, their arbiter of truth.  Do we get it wrong sometimes?  You bet we do.  Do we intentionally disregard what God says is best?  You bet we do.

But I believe the Christian should do he can to live out the Gospel in his life and actions because God is the Arbiter of truth.

On Good Friday we read the passion of Christ.

Pilate is talking to Jesus, and it pretty much sums up who and what I believe him to be.


John 18:37 Pilate said, “So you are a king?”

Jesus responded, “You say I am a king. Actually, I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.”

38 “What is truth?” Pilate asked. Then he went out again to the people and told them, “He is not guilty of any crime.

Pilate asked the very question being discussed here, What is truth?  Pilate thought it was subjective, but Jesus said it was objective.

We can flesh that out on another topic so as not to high jack this one.

I'd like to know what brought you to your belief system also.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> I am also saying there are no objective morals. Rape can be a moral act. So can murder.
> What if I had murdered Hitler? I would consider that a moral act and that is all that matters at the time.
> Burning witches was once a moral thing to do.



Diedric Bonhoeffer believed that murder was immoral but was willing to be part of the attempt to assassinate Hitler in order to stop one he thought to be a madman.

He was executed by the Nazis, God has therefore already judged that act.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> Madman I too would be interested in your response to Striperr's question -
> 
> Don't be afraid you are going to argue yourself into a corner. Let the discussion happen.



I am always happy to discuss "The one beyond creation".
I really like to do it in person.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Burning witches was once a moral thing to do.



Subjective morality.  I do not see anywhere for any reason the burning of witches to be objectively moral.

That is the only question and you have answered for yourself.  You do not believe in objective morality, you may be right.

but I do believe in object morality.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> I believe the evidence shows there is a self existent being, one that is all knowing and created everything we know to exist and probably some things we don't know about.
> 
> I believe the Christian faith best explains that being and what we see.
> 
> If that being is everything I believe he is then he is the arbiter of truth, right, wrong, good and bad.
> 
> Does what I can learn about him verify what I believe him to be.
> 
> Let me first say, I do not believe tha killing in certain situations is wrong, it is not good and sad, but permissible.  Some instances of self defense that end in death for instance.  Murder is forbidden and therefore wrong.
> 
> We see in Luke 22:36 where Jesus is sending out the disciples:
> 
> "36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
> 
> I presume this is for protection, if that self defense ends in the death of another, it is sad, and not desirable but also self protection is not prohibited.
> 
> If I look back to the Christian Bible there are many teachings that are objective morals.
> 
> One would be: John 15:13   Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
> 
> I see nothing in the evolutionary process that approaches that.
> 
> I see a God that loves His creation so much He sent His son on it's behalf:
> 
> John 3:16  God So loved the world.............
> 
> 2 Cor. 5:19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
> 
> A Christians beliefs should be grounded in the Object of God, their arbiter of truth.  Do we get it wrong sometimes?  You bet we do.  Do we intentionally disregard what God says is best?  You bet we do.
> 
> But I believe the Christian should do he can to live out the Gospel in his life and actions because God is the Arbiter of truth.
> 
> On Good Friday we read the passion of Christ.
> 
> Pilate is talking to Jesus, and it pretty much sums up who and what I believe him to be.
> 
> 
> John 18:37 Pilate said, “So you are a king?”
> 
> Jesus responded, “You say I am a king. Actually, I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.”
> 
> 38 “What is truth?” Pilate asked. Then he went out again to the people and told them, “He is not guilty of any crime.
> 
> Pilate asked the very question being discussed here, What is truth?  Pilate thought it was subjective, but Jesus said it was objective.
> 
> We can flesh that out on another topic so as not to high jack this one.
> 
> I'd like to know what brought you to your belief system also.



Fair enough, but kill and murder are two different words with two different meanings. 

To spend so much energy writing about the importance of language and words with regards to such mundane words as objective and subjective, but overlook that between murder and kill is interesting.


----------



## Madman

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Fair enough, but kill and murder are two different words with two different meanings.
> 
> To spend so much energy writing about the importance of language and words with regards to such mundane words as objective and subjective, but overlook that between murder and kill is interesting.



I don't understand, did I not discriminate between the two?
Murder is to kill without justification.  Kill is to take someones life, could be justified or unjustified.

The prohibition in Exodus is against Murder not killing.  Sorry if that was not clear.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> I don't understand, did I not discriminate between the two?
> Murder is to kill without justification.  Kill is to take someones life, could be justified or unjustified.
> 
> The prohibition in Exodus is against Murder not killing.  Sorry if that was not clear.



The misunderstanding was mine. Apologies.


----------



## EverGreen1231

Without God, everything is permissible.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

EverGreen1231 said:


> Without God, everything is permissible.



Seems like with the "elect" theory of salvation everything is just as permissible.


----------



## Madman

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Seems like with the "elect" theory of salvation everything is just as permissible.



but not profitable.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> but not profitable.



Yeah, if you think people pay through the nose for the latest iPhone, it doesn't hold a candle to what they'll do to feel "saved".


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> IMurder is to kill without justification.  Kill is to take someones life, could be justified or unjustified.



Murder is illegal. You can murder someone with justification.(to the murderer)


----------



## 660griz

EverGreen1231 said:


> Without God, everything is permissible.



Not true.


----------



## EverGreen1231

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Seems like with the "elect" theory of salvation everything is just as permissible.



The bible says this as well. Something like: all things are lawful for me but not all is expedient. The idea of whether or not it's permissible is uninteresting to me; a much better question is why is it permissible; and, if it's permissible, why should we "obey" any type of moral law (subjective or objective) when we could as easily do the contrary? Why should we do right when we could as easily do wrong? I think the argument for pure social usefulness is vapid and empty.


----------



## EverGreen1231

660griz said:


> Not true.



Care to explain?


----------



## Madman

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, if you think people pay through the nose for the latest iPhone, it doesn't hold a candle to what they'll do to feel "saved".



It is sad but you are spot on, some just don't know it.

_*Ephesians 2:8-9

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.*_


----------



## StriperrHunterr

EverGreen1231 said:


> The bible says this as well. Something like: all things are lawful for me but not all is expedient. The idea of whether or not it's permissible is uninteresting to me; a much better question is why is it permissible; and, if it's permissible, why should we "obey" any type of moral law (subjective or objective) when we could as easily do the contrary? Why should we do right when we could as easily do wrong? I think the argument for pure social usefulness is vapid and empty.



So your morality can be the same as a non-believers, and you just said it, yet you spout that without God all is permissible with a perceived tone of contempt. 

Now you're contradicting yourself.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> It is sad but you are spot on, some just don't know it.
> 
> _*Ephesians 2:8-9
> 
> 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
> 
> 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.*_



That's the beauty of my philosophy and life experience. 

Not that I live my own morality, because mine's stringent, rather that I don't have to fret over what happens when I die.


----------



## EverGreen1231

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So your morality can be the same as a non-believers, and you just said it, yet you spout that without God all is permissible with a perceived tone of contempt.
> 
> Now you're contradicting yourself.



What is right and wrong for believers and non believers is the same, so we could have have the same morality. I say without God all is permissible because without God there is no objective lens with which to determine objective right and wrong. Anything else doesn't cut it.


----------



## EverGreen1231

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't have to fret over what happens when I die.



I don't either


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> What is right and wrong for believers and non believers is the same, so we could have have the same morality. I say without God all is permissible because without God there is no objective lens with which to determine objective right and wrong. Anything else doesn't cut it.





> I say without God all is permissible because without God there is no objective lens with which to determine objective right and wrong.


There's that argument that we hear so often.
Good thing many of you believe in God because without that belief you apparently would be the dregs of society.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> There's that argument that we hear so often.
> Good thing many of you believe in God because without that belief you apparently would be the dregs of society.


Yes. But worse.
I would probably believe, as I looked around "I ain't too bad...I might even be pretty good"


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Yes. But worse.
> I would probably believe, as I looked around "I ain't too bad...I might even be pretty good"




Maybe if you did something bad enough you shouldn't be able to feel forgiven or washed in the blood.  Perhaps you should have to carry the burden of your guilt around for the rest of your life.  Maybe your penance should be to have to tell other people what you did as a cautionary tale or maybe you should seek forgiveness not from some made up God but from the people that you have wronged.

If you simply feel  bad about yourself because some book told you that you were born evil, well, that's just stupid.


----------



## Israel

That is my cautionary tale..."I ain't too bad...I might even be pretty good"

We are all on donated time, given through the death of another. Yes, someone had to die for me to live.
And, yes, I am just stupid. Among the brilliant.


----------



## 660griz

EverGreen1231 said:


> Care to explain?



Society and social culture dictate what is permissible.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

EverGreen1231 said:


> What is right and wrong for believers and non believers is the same, so we could have have the same morality. I say without God all is permissible because without God there is no objective lens with which to determine objective right and wrong. Anything else doesn't cut it.



But, according to subscribers to the elect theory, there's no point in you determining right or wrong and, even if you did, there's no impact on your status by acting upon or within that.


----------



## stringmusic

660griz said:


> Society and social culture dictate what is permissible.



In some societies they love thy neighbor, in others, they eat them. Which do you prefer? 


Society tells us nothing about morality, it's only a bunch of rules people agree to live under. 

If the society and social culture we live in today decides that the raping of children is now permissible, that doesn't make it so.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

stringmusic said:


> In some societies they love thy neighbor, in others, they eat them. Which do you prefer?
> 
> 
> *Society tells us nothing about morality, it's only a bunch of rules people agree to live under. *
> 
> If the society and social culture we live in today decides that the raping of children is now permissible, that doesn't make it so.



And that differs from religious morality, how, exactly? 

If we had one world religion, sure, I'd see your point. There are thousands, though, and each is a different color from the others.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But, according to subscribers to the elect theory, there's no point in you determining right or wrong and, even if you did, there's no impact on your status by acting upon or within that.



I don't want to distract from yall's discussion but this statement is a very distorted representation of the belief in election.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I don't want to distract from yall's discussion but this statement is a very distorted representation of the belief in election.



It's been established before that actions have no bearing on election. You are elect, therefore you're g2g. 

So unless someone wants to recant their previous positions on election, and the consequences of actions thereupon, then there's really nothing distracting here.


----------



## WaltL1

stringmusic said:


> In some societies they love thy neighbor, in others, they eat them. Which do you prefer?
> 
> 
> Society tells us nothing about morality, it's only a bunch of rules people agree to live under.
> 
> If the society and social culture we live in today decides that the raping of children is now permissible, that doesn't make it so.





> In some societies they love thy neighbor, in others, they eat them. Which do you prefer?


Interestingly enough some of those societies that ate their neighbor did so due to their religious beliefs.
Its not a foreign concept -
"Take this and eat it, for this is my body."


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But, according to subscribers to the elect theory, there's no point in you determining right or wrong and, even if you did, there's no impact on your status by acting upon or within that.


Correct, I do not determine right or wrong.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> Correct, I do not determine right or wrong.



I didn't think you subscribed to the elect.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> In some societies they love thy neighbor, in others, they eat them. Which do you prefer?
> 
> 
> Society tells us nothing about morality, it's only a bunch of rules people agree to live under.
> 
> If the society and social culture we live in today decides that the raping of children is now permissible, that doesn't make it so.



Society today would not decide over night, it would evolve slowly just as it evolved to where we are now.
If it wasn't for the strong/victors/dominant early humans of long ago having their way with the females they conquered half of us would not be here right now. There has been a lot of ethical and moral evolution from prehistoric man to our society today (forget the many cultures that still rape and are cannibals that still inhabit the planet right now)and anyone that wants to take the time to follow it through history can see how it evolved.
The fittest survived and bred to pass on their genes.
Fathers gave daughters away as gifts.
The spoils went to the victors.
There was a time...a long time in the history of humans that those acts were not only done but expected. Luckily some cultures have evolved away from that.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But, according to subscribers to the elect theory, there's no point in you determining right or wrong


                                                    .                                                                                                          There is very much a point in determining right and wrong.                                                                                                                                                                                                             .                                                                                                            





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> and, even if you did, there's no impact on your status by acting upon or within that.


.
You can never lose your salvation,if that's your point.BUT,if you think you can live any way you want,without regard to right or wrong,and that there will never be consequences,that is where you are wrong.In fact I would even question whether you are even elect to begin with.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> .                                                                                                          There is very much a point in determining right and wrong.                                                                                                                                                                                                             .
> .
> You can never lose your salvation,if that's your point.BUT,if you think you can live any way you want,without regard to right or wrong,and that there will never be consequences,that is where you are wrong.In fact I would even question whether you are even elect to begin with.



First you say:

You can never lose your salvation,

then you say:

if you think you can live any way you want,without regard to right or wrong,and that there will never be consequences

If you never lose your salvation, and you're not the judge of whether I am or not, what kinds of consequences await you? 

And please tell me how never losing your salvation, yet there will be consequences doesn't contradict each other?

No matter what earthly trials I'm forced to face for my actions, if eternity in heaven awaits me regardless of what I do, what's the point of having a straight and narrow or even trying to live it?

By the way, this isn't tangential, unless the previous discussions on morality and the objectiveness, or subjectiveness, were. At which point I would apologize to the OP.


----------



## 660griz

stringmusic said:


> In some societies they love thy neighbor, in others, they eat them. Which do you prefer?


 Irrelevant. 




> Society tells us nothing about morality, it's only a bunch of rules people agree to live under.


 This makes no sense. You have pretty much defined morality.  



> If the society and social culture we live in today decides that the raping of children is now permissible, that doesn't make it so.


 That is not quite how it works. That is like saying animals decided to evolve.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No matter what earthly trials I'm forced to face for my actions, if eternity in heaven awaits me regardless of what I do, what's the point of having a straight and narrow or even trying to live it?



Because this happens when we are born again>2Cor.5:14 -15 "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Because this happens when we are born again>2Cor.5:14 -15 "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
> 
> 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."



But the elect position says that even if they do live unto themselves that there's no punishment. Now you're saying there is. 

Which is it?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But the elect position says that even if they do live unto themselves that there's no punishment. Now you're saying there is.
> 
> Which is it?



You are correct that there is no punishment for the elect after this life.Jesus took that punishment upon Himself. 

But I was addressing your statement "what's the point of determining right and wrong and living a 'straight and narrow' ?"
Answer:Because God changes your will and causes you to want to live right.He gives you a conscience that makes you try to avoid sin.But we still sin, and when we do, there is chastening(consequences), in this life.There's also rewards and promises in this life and especially in the next.So...yes, there is a point to trying to live right.Not to BECOME elected, but BECAUSE you are elected.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> You are correct that there is no punishment for the elect after this life.Jesus took that punishment upon Himself.
> 
> But I was addressing your statement "what's the point of determining right and wrong and living a 'straight and narrow' ?"
> Answer:Because God changes your will and causes you to want to live right.He gives you a conscience that makes you try to avoid sin.But we still sin, and when we do, there is chastening(consequences), in this life.There's also rewards and promises in this life and especially in the next.So...yes, there is a point to trying to live right.Not to BECOME elected, but BECAUSE you are elected.



So Karma, in other words, is why you should do it.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So Karma, in other words, is why you should do it.




The primary reason is because you love Jesus.Everything else(the rewards and promises) is icing on the cake.

And I don't know about you but I don't like God's chastening either.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> The primary reason is because you love Jesus.Everything else(the rewards and promises) is icing on the cake.
> 
> And I don't know about you but I don't like God's chastening either.



Okay, fair enough. 

I lived the straight and narrow and, while I wasn't a weekly attendee, I was a person of faith. The result doesn't even come close to being described by chastening. I prayed, I begged, I pleaded, I was still punished, which is okay. What's worse is that my kids were punished, and my family was punished as well. 

Since I've become a hardline skeptic, nothing. In fact, my life has drastically improved. There's still two aspects missing, but in a few years I'll have those back, too, and it will all be done without me paying penance, or showing any fealty, to God or Jesus. 

Explain that.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

But I already know what's coming:

"Mysterious ways..."

"Higher purpose for the suffering..."

"Part of the plan..."


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, fair enough.
> 
> I lived the straight and narrow and, while I wasn't a weekly attendee, I was a person of faith. The result doesn't even come close to being described by chastening. I prayed, I begged, I pleaded, I was still punished, which is okay. What's worse is that my kids were punished, and my family was punished as well.
> 
> Since I've become a hardline skeptic, nothing. In fact, my life has drastically improved. There's still two aspects missing, but in a few years I'll have those back, too, and it will all be done without me paying penance, or showing any fealty, to God or Jesus.
> 
> Explain that.



Job13:15"Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him"

I realize it seems that He is slaying you.I totally get that.(I have been there and am still there most days).
But, have you stopped trusting Him? Sometimes He turns the heat up on us to teach us to surrender everything and just trust Him.

He told us "He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved"
and also "cast not away your faith which hath great recompense of reward"


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Job13:15"Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him"
> 
> I realize it seems that He is slaying you.I totally get that.(I have been there and am still there most days).
> But, have you stopped trusting Him? Sometimes He turns the heat up on us to teach us to surrender everything and just trust Him.
> 
> He told us "He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved"
> and also "cast not away your faith which hath great recompense of reward"



Yes, I've stopped trusting Him. I've also come to actively doubt His existence. I'm open to the alternative if he should somehow reveal himself to me, or if I could find evidence compelling enough, but I've long ago lost my faith. 

I had no control over what was going on at the time, so surrender wasn't even an option. There was nothing to surrender.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yes, I've stopped trusting Him. I've also come to actively doubt His existence. I'm open to the alternative if he should somehow reveal himself to me, or if I could find evidence compelling enough, but I've long ago lost my faith.
> 
> I had no control over what was going on at the time, so surrender wasn't even an option. There was nothing to surrender.



Sometimes, when the trials of life come, our pride tells us "we don't deserve this".We get angry at God (I did).We cast away our trust in Him.We separate ourselves from Him (kinda like a kid in a grocery store who's angry at his mom who won't buy him candy).
God let's us wander away(never out of His reach) for a while.Guess what.Satan loves it when we wander.He will give us all the candy we can eat and make us think everything is good. But it ain't.It's his deception to draw us away from the one he hates the most.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Sometimes, when the trials of life come, our pride tells us "we don't deserve this".We get angry at God (I did).We cast away our trust in Him.We separate ourselves from Him (kinda like a kid in a grocery store who's angry at his mom who won't buy him candy).
> God let's us wander away(never out of His reach) for a while.Guess what.Satan loves it when we wander.He will give us all the candy we can eat and make us think everything is good. But it ain't.It's his deception to draw us away from the one he hates the most.



If I've rejected God's existence, as a matter of fact, what do you think the chances are that I've accepted Satan's? 

It wasn't pride. If I'm to be punished, so be it. Punishing my kids for my sins, however, is unconscionable to me. Ya know who does that? Villains.


----------



## 660griz

I use to get mad at Santa for not granting my wishes. 
Then, I came to realize I was getting mad at a myth. Same thing with God. "God, why have you forsaken me!?" Oh wait, there isn't one. Boy, did I feel silly.


----------



## EverGreen1231

660griz said:


> Society and social culture dictate what is permissible.



Nah. Hitler was wrong whether you're a Nazi or not.


----------



## EverGreen1231

bullethead said:


> Society today would not decide over night, it would evolve slowly just as it evolved to where we are now.
> If it wasn't for the strong/victors/dominant early humans of long ago having their way with the females they conquered half of us would not be here right now. There has been a lot of ethical and moral evolution from prehistoric man to our society today (forget the many cultures that still rape and are cannibals that still inhabit the planet right now)and anyone that wants to take the time to follow it through history can see how it evolved.
> The fittest survived and bred to pass on their genes.
> Fathers gave daughters away as gifts.
> The spoils went to the victors.
> There was a time...a long time in the history of humans that those acts were not only done but expected. Luckily some cultures have evolved away from that.



Why, exactly, would you say luckily? If they, as you say, hadn't moved away from such things, you would accept it, and therefore say "luckily we haven't moved away from it." If right and wrong are really dictated by society, there should be no 'luckily' in the discussion.


----------



## EverGreen1231

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But, according to subscribers to the elect theory, there's no point in you determining right or wrong and, even if you did, there's no impact on your status by acting upon or within that.



You're right...there is no point in _me_ determining right and wrong, because it is already determined. There's no impact on my acting upon my definition because my definitions; and similarly, your definitions; mean nothing. Strait gate and a narrow way, and there ain't many that find it. There'll be some surprised folks at judgment day.

_My apologies to everyone. I should have been using the group response tool_


----------



## Artfuldodger

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, fair enough.
> 
> I lived the straight and narrow and, while I wasn't a weekly attendee, I was a person of faith. The result doesn't even come close to being described by chastening. I prayed, I begged, I pleaded, I was still punished, which is okay. What's worse is that my kids were punished, and my family was punished as well.
> 
> Since I've become a hardline skeptic, nothing. In fact, my life has drastically improved. There's still two aspects missing, but in a few years I'll have those back, too, and it will all be done without me paying penance, or showing any fealty, to God or Jesus.
> 
> Explain that.



Just curious what the two missing aspects are?


----------



## 660griz

EverGreen1231 said:


> Nah. Hitler was wrong whether you're a Nazi or not.



And they were punished, by society, for it. Even though he thought he was doing the 'Lord's work'.
Hitler messed up by trying to push his morals on the world.

I assume something similar would happen if Khamenei decided to convert the world to Iran's morals.


----------



## bullethead

EverGreen1231 said:


> Why, exactly, would you say luckily? If they, as you say, hadn't moved away from such things, you would accept it, and therefore say "luckily we haven't moved away from it." If right and wrong are really dictated by society, there should be no 'luckily' in the discussion.


Because in the society I am a part of rape is not a benefit. It is not needed nor necessary for the advancement of the species here,now.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> Just curious what the two missing aspects are?



My children.


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> Nah. Hitler was wrong whether you're a Nazi or not.


Using the exact same morals that you used to determine your above statement, apply it to God flooding the world. What do you come up with?


----------



## Madman

stringmusic said:


> In some societies they love thy neighbor, in others, they eat them. Which do you prefer?



Ravi!  Ravi! Ravi!

Spot on string, and it is VERY relevant, especially to those who subscribe to subjective morality.


----------



## EverGreen1231

660griz said:


> And they were punished, by society, for it. Even though he thought he was doing the 'Lord's work'.
> Hitler messed up by trying to push his morals on the world.
> 
> I assume something similar would happen if Khamenei decided to convert the world to Iran's morals.



There is no 'messed up' here if there is no objectivity. That's my point.



bullethead said:


> Because in the society I am a part of rape is not a benefit. It is not needed nor necessary for the advancement of the species here,now.



I agree that certain 'morals' can change over time, that's not really in contention here; but why they change is not because _we_ decide to change it. If that were true society would be a vastly different place.



WaltL1 said:


> Using the exact same morals that you used to determine your above statement, apply it to God flooding the world. What do you come up with?



I come to the same conclusion Job and Abraham Lincoln did.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> Using the exact same morals that you used to determine your above statement, apply it to God flooding the world. What do you come up with?



I come up with:

Gen. 6:11 
Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.

The good news: 
Gen. 6:13 
So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 

More good news:  In our day God sent His Son.
John 3:14 
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Even though he thought he was doing the 'Lord's work'.



"What 'chu talkin bout Willis?"


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> I come up with:
> 
> Gen. 6:11
> Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.
> 
> The good news:
> Gen. 6:13
> So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.
> 
> More good news:  In our day God sent His Son.
> John 3:14
> Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
> 
> 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


If you are just going to avoid the question why jump in at all?


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> There is no 'messed up' here if there is no objectivity. That's my point.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that certain 'morals' can change over time, that's not really in contention here; but why they change is not because _we_ decide to change it. If that were true society would be a vastly different place.
> 
> 
> 
> I come to the same conclusion Job and Abraham Lincoln did.


Your avoidance speaks volumes.


----------



## EverGreen1231

WaltL1 said:


> Your avoidance speaks volumes.



I've avoided nothing.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> "What 'chu talkin bout Willis?"



Wow. Really?
Ever heard of "Mein Kampf"?

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." ---Hitler


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> I've avoided nothing.


Here's the question again -


> Using the exact same morals that you used to determine your above statement, apply it to God flooding the world. What do you come up with?





> I come to the same conclusion Job and Abraham Lincoln did.


Don't see Job or Abraham Lincoln anywhere in the question.
So apparently you expect me to now go research what they had to say about a question I asked YOU.
Next time just ignore the question if you don't want to answer it.


----------



## EverGreen1231

WaltL1 said:


> Here's the question again -
> 
> 
> Don't see Job or Abraham Lincoln anywhere in the question.
> So apparently you expect me to now go research what they had to say about a question I asked YOU.
> Next time just ignore the question if you don't want to answer it.



I assumed that someone that seems as adamant in his descent toward the Bible and religious faith as you seem to be would, at least, know a little about the bible (the book of Job) and would therefore be somewhat familiar with the conclusion job reached at the end of the book with respect to why God allowed his suffering. I also assumed you, being American, would know a slight amount about one of the more influential presidents of our history. I assumed that you would have some working knowledge of his second inaugural address where he basically said that if God were to allow the complete destruction of America during the Civil War that it would be just, simply because God can do nothing but justice. As was said long ago so must it still be said: True and righteous are the judgments of the Lord, altogether.

But then again, you know what they say about assuming things. 

_I would like to ask forgiveness if my tone seemed bitter in this and other posts, I didn't mean for it to. I know sometimes, when talking about these things, we can get a little ruffled and come across as rude. regardless of our difference of opinion, you and I are both human; you deserve the accordant amount of respect._


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> I assumed that someone that seems as adamant in his descent toward the Bible and religious faith as you seem to be would, at least, know a little about the bible (the book of Job) and would therefore be somewhat familiar with the conclusion job reached at the end of the book with respect to why God allowed his suffering. I also assumed you, being American, would know a slight amount about one of the more influential presidents of our history. I assumed that you would have some working knowledge of his second inaugural address where he basically said that if God were to allow the complete destruction of America during the Civil War that it would be just, simply because God can do nothing but justice. As was said long ago so must it still be said: True and righteous are the judgments of the Lord, altogether.
> 
> But then again, you know what they say about assuming things.


Still don't want to answer the question I guess. 
Is it because if the morals you used were objective - wrong is wrong and doesn't change with the situation - you would be forced to say that God was wrong too?
Is that why you are resorting to spewing this pile of dung above?
Not very moral.


----------



## EverGreen1231

WaltL1 said:


> Still don't want to answer the question I guess.
> Is it because if the morals you used were objective - wrong is wrong and doesn't change with the situation - you would be forced to say that God was wrong too?
> Is that why you are resorting to spewing this pile of dung above?
> Not very moral.



I don't know what else to tell you...I did answer the question. God cannot be wrong. Humans can be. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man"
You can't invoke "God can be wrong," unless you want to be counted in the aforementioned camp of fools.

If God wants to create something, watch it destroy itself, and then bring judgment upon said creation merely to prove a point, who are you to question it? I point you, again, to Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address.


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> I don't know what else to tell you...I did answer the question. God cannot be wrong. Humans can be. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man"
> You can't invoke "God can be wrong," unless you want to be counted in the aforementioned camp of fools.
> 
> If God wants to create something, watch it destroy itself, and then bring judgment upon said creation merely to prove a point, who are you to question it? I point you, again, to Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address.


The subject being discussed was objective vs subjective morality.
You are proving morality is subjective by calling Hitler wrong and God right for basically the same actions.
Again objective morality doesn't change according to who did it or why they did it.
You guys are claiming objective morality yet at the same time you are proving it doesn't exist.


----------



## EverGreen1231

WaltL1 said:


> The subject being discussed was objective vs subjective morality.



I'm aware. You're trying to bring God down to man's level. God _cannot_ lie, we _shouldn't_ lie; there's a difference. God killed the people of the earth with the flood because he saw the thoughts of their hearts were wickedness continually. The wages of sin is death. What God did to the people of Noah's time is just, what Hitler did was not.


----------



## 660griz

EverGreen1231 said:


> I'm aware. You're trying to bring God down to man's level. God _cannot_ lie, we _shouldn't_ lie; there's a difference. God killed the people of the earth with the flood because he saw the thoughts of their hearts were wickedness continually. The wages of sin is death. What God did to the people of Noah's time is just, what Hitler did was not.



What about the babies, animals, etc. Why not just kill the wicked people? Hitler had less power and was MORE selective.


----------



## EverGreen1231

WaltL1 said:


> Again objective morality doesn't change according to what _person_ did it or why that _person_ did it.



I fixed it for you.


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> I'm aware. You're trying to bring God down to man's level. God _cannot_ lie, we _shouldn't_ lie; there's a difference. God killed the people of the earth with the flood because he saw the thoughts of their hearts were wickedness continually. The wages of sin is death. What God did to the people of Noah's time is just, what Hitler did was not.


Nope. I don't believe that there is proof that God exists remember? So Im not bringing him anywhere.
You are missing the entire point by trying to make this about God.
If morality is objective it doesn't change regardless of who does it.
Wrong is wrong.
If you can say Hitler is wrong and God is right then you are using subjective morality.
Genocide is genocide. If objective morality says its wrong then its wrong.
If it can be right because God OR WHOEVER is the one who did it then morality is subjective.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Nope. I don't believe that there is proof that God exists remember? So Im not bringing him anywhere.
> You are missing the entire point by trying to make this about God.
> If morality is objective it doesn't change regardless of who does it.
> Wrong is wrong.
> If you can say Hitler is wrong and God is right then you are using subjective morality.
> Genocide is genocide. If objective morality says its wrong then its wrong.
> If it can be right because God OR WHOEVER is the one who did it then morality is subjective.


Correct...all is subject to God. Especially morality.


----------



## EverGreen1231

660griz said:


> What about the babies, animals, etc. Why not just kill the wicked people? Hitler had less power and was MORE selective.



Children are safe in the arms of the Lord. He kept two of each kind of animal.


----------



## EverGreen1231

WaltL1 said:


> Nope. I don't believe that there is proof that God exists remember? So Im not bringing him anywhere.




Why is it that you get to discuss using your viewpoint and call it valid, but when I appeal to mine it's suddenly invalid?

Now _that_ is not moral.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Correct...all is subject to God. Especially morality.


You aren't helping the case Israel.
You guys just look silly when you do this stuff. When the going gets tough you guys just spout stuff like this.
Instead of sitting back and being satisfied with it another option might be to ask yourself why you have to do it.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> What about the babies, animals, etc. Why not just kill the wicked people? Hitler had less power and was MORE selective.


He did. When Christ died...all men died.


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> Why is it that you get to discuss using your viewpoint and call it valid, but when I appeal to mine it's suddenly invalid?
> 
> Now _that_ is not moral.


Because the subject is objective vs subjective morality.
And the fact that you are using subjective morality while claiming objective morality.


----------



## Israel

If a question is illegitimate is any response wrong?


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> If a question is illegitimate is any response wrong?


I am prone to laughter. I am then reminded of a favorite saying of my Grandfather.

"A loud laugh denotes an empty head".


----------



## WaltL1

JimD
did you post and delete or am I dropping posts somehow?


----------



## welderguy

]





WaltL1 said:


> JimD
> did you post and delete or am I dropping posts somehow?



It was me.I posted something trying to stir up trouble but then thought better of it. Shame on me.


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> It was me.I posted something trying to stir up trouble but then thought better of it. Shame on me.


I am glad that you thought better of it. I enjoyed our conversations.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> You aren't helping the case Israel.
> You guys just look silly when you do this stuff. When the going gets tough you guys just spout stuff like this.
> Instead of sitting back and being satisfied with it another option might be to ask yourself why you have to do it.



The going gets tough, eh?
When the shoe is on that foot...
"Looking" silly to you is supposed to...what...motivate a man to correct himself?

It was you who was making good progress...



> If it can be right because God OR WHOEVER is the one who did it then morality is subjective.



And that is why, if you, me, or any man would escape the mire of the subjective...of being the subject, seek the object of all, the God to whom all things are subject...even the very very silly thing of a "better morality".
But for now, I also appear as a man among men who are forever involved in measuring contests.

Will you say, O man..."how crass and silly you now sound...this is not boys behind the shed seeing whom is the most manly, these are matters of [insert the hum of choir here preparing to receive the sincere and solemn phrase]   men exercising their intellect in the pursuit of truth."

OK, OK, you got me.
I'll try to be serious again.


(Now, that's funny)
Me, being serious.


I don't think you quite understand.
Sanity is simply the clever artifice agreed upon by two men solely for the purpose of ostracizing a third man.
When you become a fool to even yourself...you will "get it".


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> ]
> 
> It was me.I posted something trying to stir up trouble but then thought better of it. Shame on me.


I read yours before you deleted it.
Seemed like good natured ribbing to me. 
Sometimes we don't do enough of that around here.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> The going gets tough, eh?
> When the shoe is on that foot...
> "Looking" silly to you is supposed to...what...motivate a man to correct himself?
> 
> It was you who was making good progress...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why, if you, me, or any man would escape the mire of the subjective...of being the subject, seek the object of all, the God to whom all things are subject...even the very very silly thing of a "better morality".
> But for now, I also appear as a man among men who are forever involved in measuring contests.
> 
> Will you say, O man..."how crass and silly you now sound...this is not boys behind the shed seeing whom is the most manly, these are matters of [insert the hum of choir here preparing to receive the sincere and solemn phrase]   men exercising their intellect in the pursuit of truth."
> 
> OK, OK, you got me.
> I'll try to be serious again.
> 
> 
> (Now, that's funny)
> Me, being serious.
> 
> 
> I don't think you quite understand.
> Sanity is simply the clever artifice agreed upon by two men solely for the purpose of ostracizing a third man.
> When you become a fool to even yourself...you will "get it".





> "Looking" silly to you is supposed to...what...motivate a man to correct himself?


Of course not. Feel free to appear as silly as you want 
The point was intended to be that when we are traveling down a path of discussion entailing points and counterpoints, to abruptly just make a claim as though it trumps all, degradates the discussion to "is not", is too".
You guys have proven to be more than "is not, is too" guys so I guess I expect more.


----------



## 660griz

EverGreen1231 said:


> Children are safe in the arms of the Lord.



If that makes you feel better.
Define safe.
Is this safety before or after they die a horrible death?

I watched The Avengers, again, last night. I love that movie. Anyway, Samuel Jackson lies in order to motivate the team to save the world. 
Morally right or wrong?


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> He did. When Christ died...all men died.



Metaphorically speaking.  I was talking about actual deaths.


----------



## bullethead

Subjective or Objective which Truth ?
From: http://news.yahoo.com/tsarnaev-moth...-boston-marathon-bombing-trial-172613856.html


> “HOW CAN A MOTHER FEEL WHOSE SON IS IN THE CLAWS OF A PREDATOR PREPARING TO TEAR HIM TO PIECES LIKE MEAT???” she wrote. “THEY WILL PAY FOR MY SONS AND THE SONS OF ISLAM, PERMANENTLY!!! THE TEARS OF THEIR MOTHERS WILL BE FUEL FOR THEM IN H3LL, AND ALSO THEIR BLOOD, I AM DOUBTLESS AND ETERNALLY GLAD THAT I KNOW THIS FROM THE WORDS OF THE CREATOR, NOT JUST ANYONE’S WORDS!!!!!!”


How is she any more or less accurate than the claims Christians make in here? She claims "She Knows from the Words of the Creator" just as you guys do.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I read yours before you deleted it.
> Seemed like good natured ribbing to me.
> *Sometimes we don't do enough of that around here.*



Truth. We get blinded by the passions of our discussions and forget to have fun.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> If that makes you feel better.
> Define safe.
> Is this safety before or after they die a horrible death?
> 
> I watched The Avengers, again, last night. I love that movie. Anyway, Samuel Jackson lies in order to motivate the team to save the world.
> Morally right or wrong?



Samuel Jackson isn't God......Clapton is.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> Samuel Jackson isn't God......Clapton is.



That dog is going to hades.


----------



## JimD

Sorry Walt. I started to post and had a phone call. I went back and I thought I was in the wrong thread so I deleted it.

What I types was that I wasn't referring to the universal truths found all over the world in a religious way but in a philosophical way. Such as being loving, kind, humble, etc. But also they all have the same kinds of stories or proverbs, such as the prodigal son parable in the bible. There is also a story almost exactly the same in a Zen book I have. Also the Hindus teach to "die to self", others teach to "kill the self" and in the Bible, Jesus says we must be "born again." These are all similar things. There are many many more but the above is an example of what I meant.

NC, I have come to think as you stated that maybe religion is about control. I hate to say that but I really wonder. As I said before though, I believe and know there is a Creator and God. I now believe God is not necessarily a "Christian" God. It may be as Red Jacket stated in his speech that God shows himself to different cultures in different ways?


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Wow. Really?
> Ever heard of "Mein Kampf"?
> 
> "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." ---Hitler



Now translate that quote within the Word of God, an PLEASE tell me how any sane person or one who truly believed in the Christ of the Bible could believe that.

It does no good for your argument to attempt to hang such non-sense around the neck of Christ.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> If you are just going to avoid the question why jump in at all?



You are too old for me to continue to hand hold you through each response.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> You are too old for me to continue to hand hold you through each response.


Feel free to put me on ignore or just don't jump in on my posts. Whatever works for you works for me.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> Now translate that quote within the Word of God, an PLEASE tell me how any sane person or one who truly believed in the Christ of the Bible could believe that.


 I assume you have read the Bible. Atrocities through out.



> It does no good for your argument to attempt to hang such non-sense around the neck of Christ.



I did nothing of the sort. Just producing what the man said since you questioned it and rolled on the floor like I made it up.


----------



## EverGreen1231

WaltL1 said:


> Because the subject is objective vs subjective morality.
> And the fact that you are using subjective morality while claiming objective morality.



Now who's avoiding questions. You said you don't believe there's 'proof' there's a God (ignoring the fact that the language of 'proof' is appropriate only to mathematics). This leads me to believe that if I don't argue using your presuppositions you relocate my argument to fantasy and putrid trash; this only because you 'think' you hold an profound knowledge into the true nature of things so that you _know_ there's no God.

I, personally, don't think the subject is too difficult: For humans, morality is objectively defined by God.

At any rate, I hope y'all have a good weekend.


----------



## EverGreen1231

660griz said:


> If that makes you feel better.
> Define safe.
> Is this safety before or after they die a horrible death?
> 
> I watched The Avengers, again, last night. I love that movie. Anyway, Samuel Jackson lies in order to motivate the team to save the world.
> Morally right or wrong?



Wrong. Let it burn


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Now translate that quote within the Word of God, an PLEASE tell me how any sane person or one who truly believed in the Christ of the Bible could believe that.
> 
> It does no good for your argument to attempt to hang such non-sense around the neck of Christ.



Is it your position that every German Christian that fought for and cheered for Hitler was insane and therefore not a true Christian? You had better check into WHO many Cardinals and Bishops and the last Pope supported during WWII.


----------



## WaltL1

JimD said:


> Sorry Walt. I started to post and had a phone call. I went back and I thought I was in the wrong thread so I deleted it.
> 
> What I types was that I wasn't referring to the universal truths found all over the world in a religious way but in a philosophical way. Such as being loving, kind, humble, etc. But also they all have the same kinds of stories or proverbs, such as the prodigal son parable in the bible. There is also a story almost exactly the same in a Zen book I have. Also the Hindus teach to "die to self", others teach to "kill the self" and in the Bible, Jesus says we must be "born again." These are all similar things. There are many many more but the above is an example of what I meant.
> 
> NC, I have come to think as you stated that maybe religion is about control. I hate to say that but I really wonder. As I said before though, I believe and know there is a Creator and God. I now believe God is not necessarily a "Christian" God. It may be as Red Jacket stated in his speech that God shows himself to different cultures in different ways?


No problem. I saw your post and I saw my name in it and then poof it was gone. Welder had posted and deleted too so I started to wonder if I was dropping posts somehow.


> I wasn't referring to the universal truths found all over the world in a religious way but in a philosophical way. Such as being loving, kind, humble, etc. But also they all have the same kinds of stories or proverbs, such as the prodigal son parable in the bible. There is also a story almost exactly the same in a Zen book I have. Also the Hindus teach to "die to self", others teach to "kill the self" and in the Bible, Jesus says we must be "born again." These are all similar things. There are many many more but the above is an example of what I meant.


So if you are interested, keep going with that. Whats your thoughts on it? Is that what leads you to believe in a God/Creator? 
And not directed at me but -


> I have come to think as you stated that maybe religion is about control. I hate to say that but I really wonder.


I came to the exact same conclusion. And not just control but the entire thing is for self advancement, power, money etc. The control comes in to keep you from even thinking about it and to keep you there. Its why I completely reject religion/Christianity but leave open the possibility of "God".


> As I said before though, I believe and know there is a Creator and God. I now believe God is not necessarily a "Christian" God. It may be as Red Jacket stated in his speech that God shows himself to different cultures in different ways?


If you are going to believe in a God that makes a heck of a lot more sense to me than the whole "the Christian God is the one true God and all others are man made".


----------



## 660griz

EverGreen1231 said:


> Wrong. Let it burn



This is a reason religious folks should never be in charge of world matters. They salivate for the end of times.


----------



## WaltL1

EverGreen1231 said:


> Now who's avoiding questions. You said you don't believe there's 'proof' there's a God (ignoring the fact that the language of 'proof' is appropriate only to mathematics). This leads me to believe that if I don't argue using your presuppositions you relocate my argument to fantasy and putrid trash; this only because you 'think' you hold an profound knowledge into the true nature of things so that you _know_ there's no God.
> 
> I, personally, don't think the subject is too difficult: For humans, morality is objectively defined by God.
> 
> At any rate, I hope y'all have a good weekend.


I'll try one more time.
The subject was objective vs subjective morality.
NOT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
I pointed out that you were using subjective morality -
Hitler was wrong vs God cant be wrong.
Both did what we refer to as genocide or at least partial genocide.
The definition of objective morality is it doesn't change regardless of who or why.
You are using subjective morality but claiming objective morality.
Objective morality = Both God and Hitler were wrong.
Subjective morality = Hitler was wrong but God was right.


> you relocate my argument to fantasy and putrid trash; this only because you 'think' you hold an profound knowledge into the true nature of things so that you _know_ there's no God.


If you should happen to understand what Ive explained above and several times now, you are going to also understand how ridiculous your above accusations are. 
For example -


> so that you _know_ there's no God.


I'm Agnostic. For the exact reason that I DONT know there is no God.
So if your completely off base on that, is there any possible chance that your also off base on what YOU THINK Im arguing?
Here's what I said -


> I don't believe that there is proof that God exists remember?


And you turned it into -


> that you _know_ there's no God


You are doing the exact same thing with everything else and working yourself up into a frenzy and accusing me of thinking I have some profound knowledge and calling your arguments putrid and a bunch of other nonsense.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Is it your position that every German Christian that fought for and cheered for Hitler was insane and therefore not a true Christian? You had better check into WHO many Cardinals and Bishops and the last Pope supported during WWII.


Now there's a can of worms


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Now there's a can of worms



It sure is Walt. But that can of worms is crawling with Christians.
Besides a belief in Jesus it seems the next thing Christians have in common is pointing their finger at other Christians and telling them how they are not "real" Christians. Each and every individual wants everyone else to believe that they somehow are God's #1 fan and BFF.
It is hysterical.


----------



## bullethead

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/01/news/adfg-austria1 

http://www.ushmm.org/information/pr...y-and-national-socialism-by-father-kevin-spic 

http://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/hitler.htm


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> you still have not provided a passage where God says rape is ok.
> All you have shown is what men chose to do.



Also, how did Mary get pregnant with Jesus? Sounds like rape of a betrothed woman to me.


----------



## bullethead

http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html


----------



## StriperrHunterr

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Truth. We get blinded by the passions of our discussions and forget to have fun.



So much for this.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So much for this.



Crap! Forgot all about that. O.k. 
A bear walks into a bar and says to the bartender, ‘I’ll have a whisky and ……… soda.’ The bartender says, ‘Why the big pause?’ ‘Dunno,’ says the bear. ‘I’ve always had them.’


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> Also, how did Mary get pregnant with Jesus? Sounds like rape of a betrothed woman to me.



Could be that a woman of those times had an extramarital affair or was raped and spent the majority of the resulting child's life being overzealous in her religious teachings in order to try to quench her own guilt. The results could make the child think he was a prophet and lead his life accordingly.

Or as the Bible tells it...God chose and impregnated a married woman in order to satisfy his own needs.
Pretty much he is the guy that gets locked up at the end of most SVU episodes for the last ten years.


----------



## bullethead

How do you make Holy Water?

Boil the h3ll out of it.


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> Could be that a woman of those times had an extramarital affair or was raped and spent the majority of the resulting child's life being overzealous in her religious teachings in order to try to quench her own guilt. The results could make the child think he was a prophet and lead his life accordingly.


 Yes. I don't believe in immaculate conceptions. She cheated, got pregnant, Joseph wasn't the father. What is a girl to do? God did it. 



> Or as the Bible tells it...God chose and impregnated a married woman in order to satisfy his own needs.
> Pretty much he is the guy that gets locked up at the end of most SVU episodes for the last ten years.



 Exactly. For those that believe the Bible. God is a rapist.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Crap! Forgot all about that. O.k.
> A bear walks into a bar and says to the bartender, ‘I’ll have a whisky and ……… soda.’ The bartender says, ‘Why the big pause?’ ‘Dunno,’ says the bear. ‘I’ve always had them.’



Sarah Jessica Parker walks into a bar, the bartender says, "We don't serve horses here..."


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Sarah Jessica Parker walks into a bar, the bartender says, "We don't serve horses here..."



Hey Sarah, why the long face?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Hey Sarah, why the long face?



Maybe she's born with it; maybe it's maybelline.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Maybe she's born with it; maybe it's maybelline.




Maybe-lying


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Maybe-lying



And that she's actually a horse who looks like a human? That doesn't explain the talking part, though. 

Oh, holy nothing! What if she's the talking donkey we all have been asking the faithful for?!?


----------



## bullethead

striperr hunterr said:


> and that she's actually a horse who looks like a human? That doesn't explain the talking part, though.
> 
> Oh, holy nothing! What if she's the talking donkey we all have been asking the faithful for?!?


 ambush!!!!!!!


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Oh, holy nothing! What if she's the talking donkey we all have been asking the faithful for?!?



OMG! It is all true. Praise be to all that is holy!


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> ambush!!!!!!!



We might have just cracked this whole God thing!


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> crap! Forgot all about that. O.k.
> A bear walks into a bar and says to the bartender, ‘i’ll have a whisky and ……… soda.’ the bartender says, ‘why the big pause?’ ‘dunno,’ says the bear. ‘i’ve always had them.’





bullethead said:


> how do you make holy water?
> 
> Boil the h3ll out of it.




bwaaaaaah haaaah haah!!!!!


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And that she's actually a horse who looks like a human? That doesn't explain the talking part, though.
> 
> Oh, holy nothing! What if she's the talking donkey we all have been asking the faithful for?!?



It's going to require a thorough physical examination.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> It's going to require a thorough physical examination.



O.k. Here.
http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/projects/fieldservice/Equine/eqrestr/eqrestr.htm


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> O.k. Here.
> http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/projects/fieldservice/Equine/eqrestr/eqrestr.htm





Watch out, she kicks!


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Watch out, she kicks!




And bites.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Exactly. For those that believe the Bible. God is a rapist.



Luke 1: 38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

No wonder y'all don't believe, you don't know what the Bible says.

P.S. That is an unbelievably rude remark on your behalf.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> Feel free to put me on ignore or just don't jump in on my posts. Whatever works for you works for me.



Put the question out there and I'll jump in.  When you are right I'll agree when you are wrong I will not agree.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> P.S. That is an unbelievably rude remark on your behalf.



Subjective


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Is it your position that every German Christian that fought for and cheered for Hitler was insane and therefore not a true Christian? You had better check into WHO many Cardinals and Bishops and the last Pope supported during WWII.



660 made the statement that Hitler claimed to be Christian and therefore attempted to hang that on Christ.  

You are doing the same.  How does ANY of that fit with Christ?

I beg you to show any of the men's actions as teaching of Christ's.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Subjective



It may be.  I can tell comprehension is not your strong suite.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Luke 1: 38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
> 
> No wonder y'all don't believe, you don't know what the Bible says.
> 
> P.S. That is an unbelievably rude remark on your behalf.



Wasn't  Mary concerned with a guy following her around jotting down all these private conversations between her and Angels?

Not only do we know what the Bible says but what the Bible says is EXACTLY why we do not believe it.

Now if you want use use the excuse here that Luke was inspired to write down God's words yet want to ignore all the other instances that were posted about rape in the Bible as not being God's words that is on you.

Are you seriously pointing your fingers at someone for making a rude remark yet ignoring your own as if you didn't do the same thing? WWJD "Real" Christian Madman?


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Now if you want use use the excuse here that Luke was inspired to write down God's words yet want to ignore all the other instances that were posted about rape in the Bible as not being God's words that is you.



You have made it quit evident you don't have a clue what the Bible says yet you struggle vehemently against it.

I have seen no instances where God tells men to rape or that rape is moral, posted.  Please feel free to show them.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> 660 made the statement that Hitler claimed to be Christian and therefore attempted to hang that on Christ.
> 
> You are doing the same.  How does ANY of that fit with Christ?
> 
> I beg you to show any of the men's actions as teaching of Christ's.





> In a speech from April 12, 1922 and published in his bookCensoredMy New Order, Adolf Hitler explains his perspective on Jesus Christ:
> 
> My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
> 
> In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.




Through interpretation, just like you use it,  these men were able to justify these actions through what is written in the Bible. You say they are teachings of Christ yet Christ or God never wrote a thing down. The heart of both religions that make up the OT and NT rely on you believing that anonymous authors over 1600 years did what a God was incapable or unwilling to do himself. If God and Jesus in fact DID want this written by humans and wanted the open interpretation that has sparked more deaths than all else on the planet than I can surely see why these sicko madmen would use it to justify their actions.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> You have made it quit evident you don't have a clue what the Bible says yet you struggle vehemently against it.
> 
> I have seen no instances where God tells men to rape or that rape is moral, posted.  Please feel free to show them.


660 posted the passages where God commands it. It is not my fault you pass over them with blind eyes.

Maybe you can answer this one for us?
Which "Lord" are the writers talking about here?

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives[plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."


----------



## bullethead

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.


----------



## bullethead

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered,women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)


----------



## bullethead

Madman where did these authors get these rules from? Which god is doing all this commanding? Which god are they referring to?


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> Put the question out there and I'll jump in.  When you are right I'll agree when you are wrong I will not agree.


To be honest I would prefer you put me on ignore or just didn't respond to my posts. I have seen enough of this from you -


> I can tell comprehension is not your strong suite.





> You are too old for me to continue to hand hold you through each response.


to know that nothing you say is of much value to me anyway.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> You have made it quit evident you don't have a clue what the Bible says yet you struggle vehemently against it.
> 
> I have seen no instances where God tells men to rape or that rape is moral, posted.  Please feel free to show them.



Lot's daughters raped him and it was OK.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Lot's daughters raped him and it was OK.



Yeah, god wanted this known and made it a point to have it put in his book.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Of course not. Feel free to appear as silly as you want
> The point was intended to be that when we are traveling down a path of discussion entailing points and counterpoints, to abruptly just make a claim as though it trumps all, degradates the discussion to "is not", is too".
> You guys have proven to be more than "is not, is too" guys so I guess I expect more.



You still do not see that "silly" _to you_

is just, and only, that?


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> You still do not see that "silly" _to you_
> 
> is just, and only, that?


Of course I see it. I didn't mention anybody else thinking it was silly. So while Im pretty certain Im not the only one I spoke for myself.


----------



## bullethead

I 2nd the vote for silly.


----------



## ambush80

"They will call you [silly]."   It had been prophesied.


----------



## bullethead

bullethead said:


> Madman where did these authors get these rules from? Which god is doing all this commanding? Which god are they referring to?



Madman?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> "They will call you [silly]."   It had been prophesied.



Yes, in so many words.
And that is the gulf no man can bridge for another of faith.

Having nothing at all to do with the monolith some describe as "christianity" for convenience...

If men can build it up, men can tear it down.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Yes, in so many words.
> And that is the gulf no man can bridge for another of faith.
> 
> Having nothing at all to do with the monolith some describe as "christianity" for convenience...
> 
> If men can build it up, men can tear it down.


Israel just so we are straight, I wasn't calling YOU silly I was calling the action of just throwing out an unprovable, this trumps all type claim, silly. Or maybe a better word would be unproductive.
Although I have to put most of your posts through a German Enigma machine to understand them, I value your input and your posts make me think.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Israel just so we are straight, I wasn't calling YOU silly I was calling the action of just throwing out an unprovable, this trumps all type claim, silly. Or maybe a better word would be unproductive.
> Although I have to put most of your posts through a German Enigma machine to understand them, I value your input and your posts make me think.


I appreciate that Walt.
It helps a lot.

I was not being facetious when I agreed, but not in terms that were easily accepted (I see now) with what you said, here:



> If it can be right because God OR WHOEVER is the one who did it then morality is subjective



Yes, precisely.
And morality subjects us, by degree.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Lot's daughters raped him and it was OK.



No.it was very much NOT ok.I'd say just about everything that happened in Sodom and Gomorrah was not ok.Thus God removed Lot and his family right before He destroyed it with fire and brimstone.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> No.it was very much NOT ok.I'd say just about everything that happened in Sodom and Gomorrah was not ok.Thus God removed Lot and his family right before He destroyed it with fire and brimstone.



They got him drunk and raped him after the city was destroyed and nothing happened to them.  There was no mention of what they did being wrong.

You are mistaken.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> No.it was very much NOT ok.I'd say just about everything that happened in Sodom and Gomorrah was not ok.Thus God removed Lot and his family right before He destroyed it with fire and brimstone.



You might have your series of events out of order.

I couldn't help but notice that you only had and answer for the one example you thought you could make an excuse for.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> They got him drunk and raped him after the city was destroyed and nothing happened to them.  There was no mention of what they did being wrong.
> 
> You are mistaken.



Although I did get the order of events mixed up,the rest of what I said was the truth.Read Jer.25 to see what the consequences of the incest was.Language such as "the cup of His fury" and "His fierce anger" being poured out on the rebellious nations, which included the children of Ammon and Moab(Lot's illegitimate, incestuous children/grandchildren)


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Although I did get the order of events mixed up,the rest of what I said was the truth.Read Jer.25 to see what the consequences of the incest was.Language such as "the cup of His fury" and "His fierce anger" being poured out on the rebellious nations, which included the children of Ammon and Moab(Lot's illegitimate, incestuous children/grandchildren)


Now tell us about the lack of God's fury and anger when he commands rape in the other verses that no doubt resulted in illegitimate children.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Now tell us about the lack of God's fury and anger when he commands rape in the other verses that no doubt resulted in illegitimate children.



Which verses would you be referring to?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Which verses would you be referring to?



All the ones that were posted in this thread by 660Griz, ambush and myself EVERY time someone asked for them.
You cannot tell me you have not been following along.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> All the ones that were posted in this thread by 660Griz, ambush and myself EVERY time someone asked for them.
> You cannot tell me you have not been following along.



I just got back from Mississippi.I was out of the loop for two days (no phone service there).I'll have to go back and catch up.


----------



## welderguy

welderguy said:


> I just got back from Mississippi.I was out of the loop for two days (no phone service there).I'll have to go back and catch up.



The only other one I'm coming up with is post #520 where 660gris says that God raped Mary.That by far is THE most absurd and blasphemous thing I think I've ever heard.It doesn't even justify any acknowledgment.

Any others?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The only other one I'm coming up with is post #520 where 660gris says that God raped Mary.That by far is THE most absurd and blasphemous thing I think I've ever heard.It doesn't even justify any acknowledgment.
> 
> Any others?


Posts #548 #549 #550


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The only other one I'm coming up with is post #520 where 660gris says that God raped Mary.That by far is THE most absurd and blasphemous thing I think I've ever heard.It doesn't even justify any acknowledgment.
> 
> Any others?


To a non believer though,  it sounds just like rape.
Or a story a raped or unfaithful woman of those times would make up.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> 660 posted the passages where God commands it. It is not my fault you pass over them with blind eyes.
> 
> Maybe you can answer this one for us?
> Which "Lord" are the writers talking about here?
> 
> Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives[plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
> 
> Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."



This is God's righteous judgement as a result of David's sin of murder, adultery, and especially for giving occasion for the enemy to blaspheme.God allowed these things to happen, just like He allows all the other evil in the world to happen.Don't try to blame God for something David caused.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.



I don't see anywhere in this text where God tells them to rape the women.Seems to me they are taken as slaves.


----------



## drippin' rock

welderguy said:


> I don't see anywhere in this text where God tells them to rape the women.Seems to me they are taken as slaves.



Are you naive or just playing around?  What do you THINK happened to women taken as slaves?  Especially in a culture where women are second class already.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I don't see anywhere in this text where God tells them to rape the women.Seems to me they are taken as slaves.



Whatever helps you sleep at night...


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> This is God's righteous judgement as a result of David's sin of murder, adultery, and especially for giving occasion for the enemy to blaspheme.God allowed these things to happen, just like He allows all the other evil in the world to happen.Don't try to blame God for something David caused.



So you are saying David brought it upon himself? Just like a woman that dresses too sexy...she was asking to be raped?
Lololol
Your God uses Rape as an acceptable tool to punish people with.
I am glad you at least admit he condones rape.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> So you are saying David brought it upon himself? Just like a woman that dresses too sexy...she was asking to be raped?
> Lololol
> Your God uses Rape as an acceptable tool to punish people with.
> I am glad you at least admit he condones rape.



Don't put words in my mouth.
God does not condone any sin.He ALLOWS sin to happen but there are always consequences.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Don't put words in my mouth.
> God does not condone any sin.He ALLOWS sin to happen but there are always consequences.


Yeah. Rape is the CHOSEN consequence by God.
You can try to sugar coat it all you want to but it is what it is.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered,women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)



This is the prophecy of God's people taken into Babylonian captivity because of their rebellion.The Chaldeans came into Jerusalem and raped and plundered at will.God ALLOWED this to happen as a judgement against His people.But guess what? 70 years later God ALLOWED the Sirians to punish the Chaldeans for what they did.Always consequences.ALWAYS.


----------



## bullethead

Thus says the Lord:]'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives[plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down


----------



## welderguy

Mic.7:9 "I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him, until He plead my cause, and execute judgement for me:He will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold His righteousness."


----------



## bullethead

bullethead said:


> Thus says the Lord:]'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives[plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down


Wow


----------



## Artfuldodger

Why would the children of incest produce rebellious nations? Isn't that like being blamed for your father's sins? I have a hard time understanding rebellious Nations as election is given on an individual basis. God's election isn't based on whether one is rebellious, good, bad, or, indifferent.
Does God ever elect out of a rebellious nation?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Wow


yes. do you know this?


----------



## 660griz

I find it amusing folks speak of objective morals like rape but, when it comes to their God, it is very much subjective, research says that Mary consented, but it also says Mary was twelve years old. With God being an authority figure and with Mary being twelve, our current laws view this as rape, any way you put it (abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent). And of course, she was engaged. Now, where in any of that is 'right'.

Just to be clear, I absolutely don't believe Mary was impregnated by a mythical being. I am just going with what has been written. You know, the same book where the entire earth was flooded and two of EVERY animal got on a boat.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> I find it amusing folks speak of objective morals like rape but, when it comes to their God, it is very much subjective, research says that Mary consented, but it also says Mary was twelve years old. With God being an authority figure and with Mary being twelve, our current laws view this as rape, any way you put it (abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent). And of course, she was engaged. Now, where in any of that is 'right'.
> 
> Just to be clear, I absolutely don't believe Mary was impregnated by a mythical being. I am just going with what has been written. You know, the same book where the entire earth was flooded and two of EVERY animal got on a boat.



I don't believe Mary was twelve.Another absurdity.The conception was from the Holy Spirit,not by the natural means(no intercourse involved) thus Mary was still a virgin when Joseph married her.Nothing sinful or perverted happened.It was pure and undefiled which was a necessity for the sinless, spotless saviour of the world to be born without sin.

Oh, and with some of the animals it was more than two of each.just sayin.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> I don't believe Mary was twelve.Another absurdity.The conception was from the Holy Spirit,not by the natural means(no intercourse involved) thus Mary was still a virgin when Joseph married her.Nothing sinful or perverted happened.It was pure and undefiled which was a necessity for the sinless, spotless saviour of the world to be born without sin.
> 
> Oh, and with some of the animals it was more than two of each.just sayin.



I believe the reason God chose a virgin was to prove the conception was his more than her purity, would you agree?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> I don't believe Mary was twelve. Another absurdity.



Oh, that part you find unbelievable. 
http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentpeople/p/marymotherjesus.htm


----------



## WaltL1

So if -


> Thou shalt not covet (neighbor's house)
> Thou shalt not covet (neighbor's wife)
> Thou shalt not covet (neighbor's servants, animals, or anything else)
> Exodus 20:1-17
> Deuteronomy 5:4-21


And God wanted/chose/desired Mary to be Jesus's mother despite the fact that she was engaged to Joseph......
Exactly how do you get around the obvious here?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I don't believe Mary was twelve.Another absurdity.The conception was from the Holy Spirit,not by the natural means(no intercourse involved) thus Mary was still a virgin when Joseph married her.Nothing sinful or perverted happened.It was pure and undefiled which was a necessity for the sinless, spotless saviour of the world to be born without sin.
> 
> Oh, and with some of the animals it was more than two of each.just sayin.


 So was Mary just an incubator or did she give birth to Jesus like all mothers do?
If Jesus was part of Mary he was with sin. She inherited hers from those two frisky buggers in the garden remember.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> So if -
> 
> And God wanted/chose/desired Mary to be Jesus's mother despite the fact that she was engaged to Joseph......
> Exactly how do you get around the obvious here?



He didn't covet her.  He did impregnate another man's fiancee (In regards to Hebrew culture she would have been considered his wife)......which is weird.

There's some interesting stuff on Succubi and Inccubi but I'm sure someone will come along and say why what God did is ENTIRELY different.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> He didn't covet her.  He did impregnate another man's fiancee (In regards to Hebrew culture she would have been considered his wife)......which is weird.
> 
> There's some interesting stuff on Succubi and Inccubi but I'm sure someone will come along and say why what God did is ENTIRELY different.





> He didn't covet her.


I don't think I agree.
He wanted and chose her for his purposes based on her attributes that he found positive.
The wanting and choosing, despite the fact that she was unavailable, is coveting.


> verb (used with object) 1. to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property. 2. to wish for,


Doesn't have to be sexual in nature. He desired her for his purposes. To be Jesus's mother. And she was the property of Joseph.
What could be called worse is he acted on that desire not just thought about it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think I agree.
> He wanted and chose her for his purposes based on her attributes that he found positive.
> The wanting and choosing, despite the fact that she was unavailable, is coveting.
> 
> Doesn't have to be sexual in nature. He desired her for his purposes. To be Jesus's mother. And she was the property of Joseph.
> What could be called worse is he acted on that desire not just thought about it.



There's the gotcha. "Another's property"

I would believe that the faithful would consider her to be God's property first, and Joseph's second. 

Not saying I agree with that, just that there is a logical way around it.


----------



## Browning Slayer

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I would believe that the faithful would consider her to be God's property first, and Joseph's second.



This! Mary was God's creation and not Joseph's and Mary's purpose in life was destined before she was born.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Browning Slayer said:


> This! Mary was God's creation and not Joseph's and Mary's purpose in life was destined before she was born.



See? Called it.


----------



## Browning Slayer

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> See? Called it.



Sorry, but you guys that are saying God "Coveted" Mary are really reaching...


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Browning Slayer said:


> Sorry, but you guys that are saying God "Coveted" Mary are really reaching...



I never said I subscribed to their position, either, did I?


----------



## Browning Slayer

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I never said I subscribed to their position, either, did I?



No sir! Sorry if I implied that.

But the folks that are saying that are using "human" thought processes and not one of God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Browning Slayer said:


> Sorry, but you guys that are saying God "Coveted" Mary are really reaching...



No harm, no foul, but you did say, "you guys."



Browning Slayer said:


> No sir! Sorry if I implied that.
> 
> But the folks that are saying that are using "human" thought processes and not one of God.



Well, there's a kicker again; what is a thought process of God and how can you separate the wheat from the chaff? 

People have said they heard the voice, and thus thoughts, of God commanding them to commit atrocities. Others are more benevolent.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> See? Called it.


In which case it boils down to do as I say not as I do.


----------



## WaltL1

Browning Slayer said:


> Sorry, but you guys that are saying God "Coveted" Mary are really reaching...


Its not reaching. Its based on the definition of covet and the story that God impregnated another mans fiance. You can give a reason on how to get around that but those 2 facts remain.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> In which case it boils down to do as I say not as I do.



Perhaps, but isn't one allowed to do with one's property what one wishes? 

That's predicated on A) God being there to have property, B) God having plans for that property, and C) God actually moving with those plans. All 3 of which there is only one source for information on. 

I'm of the mindset that we don't "own" our wives, so any "claim" to them is not our decision to make. Moreover, destiny has huge implications on the nature of free will and whether Mary actually held sway enough over her own life to truly do as she pleased. 

The way I remember it was that she was impregnated via archangel that sought her approval. God didn't need that, and neither did the archangel. So, in this case, if you subscribe to the 3 criteria above, he did exactly as I would imagine he would want us to do, even though he didn't have to. 

Still, if she was destined to be the mother of Christ, could she really say anything other than yes?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Don't put words in my mouth.
> God does not condone any sin.He ALLOWS sin to happen but there are always consequences.



Does God allow Satan to mess with people?


----------



## ambush80

Browning Slayer said:


> No sir! Sorry if I implied that.
> 
> But the folks that are saying that are using "human" thought processes and not one of God.



Whoooo Hoooo!!!

This is one of my favorites:  "_You can't understand it with your carnal mind_" while at the same time you are saying "_I understand_ that God would never do that."   See what's happening?


----------



## Browning Slayer

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No harm, no foul, but you did say, "you guys."
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there's a kicker again; what is a thought process of God and how can you separate the wheat from the chaff?
> 
> People have said they heard the voice, and thus thoughts, of God commanding them to commit atrocities. Others are more benevolent.



Thought process? No one will ever know that. But one thing I do know is a man's thought process is driven around "Me" or "I".. 

People commit atrocities everyday in the name of something. Muslims prove that on an everyday basis.

God did command many acts in the old testament but all of that changed when Jesus died on the cross.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Browning Slayer said:


> Thought process? No one will ever know that. But one thing I do know is a man's thought process is driven around "Me" or "I"..



And you don't see a conflict between sentences 2 and 3?


----------



## Browning Slayer

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Perhaps, but isn't one allowed to do with one's property what one wishes?
> 
> That's predicated on A) God being there to have property, B) God having plans for that property, and C) God actually moving with those plans. All 3 of which there is only one source for information on.
> 
> I'm of the mindset that we don't "own" our wives, so any "claim" to them is not our decision to make. Moreover, destiny has huge implications on the nature of free will and whether Mary actually held sway enough over her own life to truly do as she pleased.
> 
> The way I remember it was that she was impregnated via archangel that sought her approval. God didn't need that, and neither did the archangel. So, in this case, if you subscribe to the 3 criteria above, he did exactly as I would imagine he would want us to do, even though he didn't have to.
> 
> Still, if she was destined to be the mother of Christ, could she really say anything other than yes?



God didn't need that approval but gave her a choice. If she would have said "No" I'm pretty sure there was a plan B, C, D or E...


----------



## Browning Slayer

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And you don't see a conflict between sentences 2 and 3?



No, I don't. 

God doesn't just think about himself like a man does.


----------



## Browning Slayer

ambush80 said:


> Whoooo Hoooo!!!
> 
> This is one of my favorites:  "_You can't understand it with your carnal mind_" while at the same time you are saying "_I understand_ that God would never do that."   See what's happening?



That's where your wrong. 

I would never say "God would never do that"....


----------



## Browning Slayer

ambush80 said:


> Does God allow Satan to mess with people?




Yes, It's that "Free Will" thing...


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Browning Slayer said:


> No, I don't.
> 
> God doesn't just think about himself like a man does.



You just claimed that you can't know what or how he thinks, and then you say this. 

You may not want it to be the case, but you have to at least acknowledge the conflict, or revise your earlier statement. It's simple logical math. If you can't solve for X, you can't say that X doesn't equal 2. 

Moreover, for a guy who's not "it's all about me," there's a lot of commandment to worship, not the least of which is the 1C. 

I am the Lord, thy God, thou shall have no strange gods before Me. 

I and me used twice in his first commandment. 

Your argument is invalid.


----------



## WaltL1

Browning Slayer said:


> God didn't need that approval but gave her a choice. If she would have said "No" I'm pretty sure there was a plan B, C, D or E...


Why would there be a need for plan B,C,D, or E if -


> Mary was God's creation and not Joseph's and Mary's purpose in life was destined before she was born.


As I understand predestination beliefs, what happens is exactly what God intended to happen.
If that's the purpose God gave Mary theres no other plan necessary. 
No?


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Perhaps, but isn't one allowed to do with one's property what one wishes?
> 
> That's predicated on A) God being there to have property, B) God having plans for that property, and C) God actually moving with those plans. All 3 of which there is only one source for information on.
> 
> I'm of the mindset that we don't "own" our wives, so any "claim" to them is not our decision to make. Moreover, destiny has huge implications on the nature of free will and whether Mary actually held sway enough over her own life to truly do as she pleased.
> 
> The way I remember it was that she was impregnated via archangel that sought her approval. God didn't need that, and neither did the archangel. So, in this case, if you subscribe to the 3 criteria above, he did exactly as I would imagine he would want us to do, even though he didn't have to.
> 
> Still, if she was destined to be the mother of Christ, could she really say anything other than yes?


At the point God predestined Mary to be engaged to Joseph did he not relinquish any "ownership/rights at all?
According to those times she at that point was another man's property.
Those 10 commandments make it very clear about what you can or can not do with another man's property.
If the 10 commandments came from God and yet they don't apply to him its do as I say not as I do.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> At the point God predestined Mary to be engaged to Joseph did he not relinquish any "ownership/rights at all?
> According to those times she at that point was another man's property.
> Those 10 commandments make it very clear about what you can or can not do with another man's property.
> If the 10 commandments came from God and yet they don't apply to him its do as I say not as I do.



A fair point.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You just claimed that you can't know what or how he thinks, and then you say this.
> 
> You may not want it to be the case, but you have to at least acknowledge the conflict, or revise your earlier statement. It's simple logical math. If you can't solve for X, you can't say that X doesn't equal 2.
> 
> Moreover, for a guy who's not "it's all about me," there's a lot of commandment to worship, not the least of which is the 1C.
> 
> I am the Lord, thy God, thou shall have no strange gods before Me.
> 
> I and me used twice in his first commandment.
> 
> Your argument is invalid.



I forgot to mention the whole trinity thing whereby anytime Jesus, or the Spirit, suggests to someone to worship God, that he's speaking about himself in the third person, essentially, since all 3 are supposed to be facets of the same being.


----------



## WaltL1

By the way Browning I just saw your location.
Couldn't help but laugh


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> At the point God predestined Mary to be engaged to Joseph did he not relinquish any "ownership/rights at all?
> According to those times she at that point was another man's property.
> Those 10 commandments make it very clear about what you can or can not do with another man's property.
> If the 10 commandments came from God and yet they don't apply to him its do as I say not as I do.



I believe God was gracious to Joseph, reminding him of whom both were owned, in a dream.
Yes, Joseph could have exercised his rights, so to speak, as may we all...but who being persuaded of God that he is his own....would want to jeopardize that? And why?

I ask you as sincerely as possible...what would be the greatest thing you could embrace? If it is not to learn, you are not alone, but even jealously desired of all that is good and eternal...
Yet, no man need answer, the response is already manifest of the heart. 
Someone recently asked:



> "Is the believer better off believing regardless the outcome?"



One could think that this question is illegitimate if spoken by one who thinks they are in dogged pursuit of truth. If truth be sought...for truth's sake, where can any consideration of outcome be of matter?


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> At the point God predestined Mary to be engaged to Joseph did he not relinquish any "ownership/rights at all?
> According to those times she at that point was another man's property.
> Those 10 commandments make it very clear about what you can or can not do with another man's property.
> If the 10 commandments came from God and yet they don't apply to him its do as I say not as I do.



Speaking of the 10 commandments, you would think of all the horror that could have been mentioned, God wouldn't have wasted his breath with 4 commandments dedicated to him. God seems a little insecure.  Why not some like:
Do not rape.
Do not own people.
Do not torture children.
Do not kill animals for me. 

Oh no, those aren't really important back then, "You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain." 
Yep, that will help the world be a better place. 

Honor your father and your mother? What if they both got drunk and beat me every day of my life? 

Jeesh!


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Speaking of the 10 commandments, you would think of all the horror that could have been mentioned, God wouldn't have wasted his breath with 4 commandments dedicated to him. God seems a little insecure.  Why not some like:
> Do not rape.
> Do not own people.
> Do not torture children.
> Do not kill animals for me.
> 
> Oh no, those aren't really important back then, "You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain."
> Yep, that will help the world be a better place.
> 
> Honor your father and your mother? What if they both got drunk and beat me every day of my life?
> 
> Jeesh!



I'm glad someone else noticed the conflict in the "God doesn't think about Himself" argument and the 10Cs.


----------



## welderguy

I'm glad to see you guys (AAAs) discussing scriptures, even though it's still in a negative way.You're even posting scriptures on your own without being prodded to.When I first came here, yall were very closed-minded to even considering scriptures.I'm very happy about yalls change of heart on this.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> I'm glad to see you guys (AAAs) discussing scriptures, even though it's still in a negative way.You're even posting scriptures on your own without being prodded to.When I first came here, yall were very closed-minded to even considering scriptures.I'm very happy about yalls change of heart on this.



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/28/dave-silverman-pew-survey-atheists-bible-preacher-god-islam-holy-american/
"The simple truth is this; the more someone knows about religion, the more likely they will reject it as mythology."


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I'm glad to see you guys (AAAs) discussing scriptures, even though it's still in a negative way.You're even posting scriptures on your own without being prodded to.When I first came here, yall were very closed-minded to even considering scriptures.I'm very happy about yalls change of heart on this.


Not sure you should be so positive about it.
We only post scripture to show the confliction/hypocrisy of what you guys say sometimes


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> Speaking of the 10 commandments, you would think of all the horror that could have been mentioned, God wouldn't have wasted his breath with 4 commandments dedicated to him. God seems a little insecure.  Why not some like:
> Do not rape.
> Do not own people.
> Do not torture children.
> Do not kill animals for me.
> 
> Oh no, those aren't really important back then, "You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain."
> Yep, that will help the world be a better place.
> 
> Honor your father and your mother? What if they both got drunk and beat me every day of my life?
> 
> Jeesh!


Unless of course they were written by men with the intention of indoctrinating you to not question the Lord.
That's the bet I would make anyway.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Unless of course they were written by men with the intention of indoctrinating you to not question the Lord.
> That's the bet I would make anyway.



Now, that is just crazy talk! 

Yes, they were written by, people owning, child molesting, women abusing, power hungry, men, thus the conspicuous absence of those 'laws'.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> I believe God was gracious to Joseph, reminding him of whom both were owned, in a dream.
> Yes, Joseph could have exercised his rights, so to speak, as may we all...but who being persuaded of God that he is his own....would want to jeopardize that? And why?
> 
> I ask you as sincerely as possible...what would be the greatest thing you could embrace? If it is not to learn, you are not alone, but even jealously desired of all that is good and eternal...
> Yet, no man need answer, the response is already manifest of the heart.
> Someone recently asked:
> 
> 
> 
> One could think that this question is illegitimate if spoken by one who thinks they are in dogged pursuit of truth. If truth be sought...for truth's sake, where can any consideration of outcome be of matter?





> Yes, Joseph could have exercised his rights, so to speak, as may we all...but who being persuaded of God that he is his own....would want to jeopardize that? And why?


If it was all predestined aren't you just making it all sound like roses and cupcakes in that God was loved so much that who would want to deny him?


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> Now, that is just crazy talk!


Crazy or kind of obvious. One or the other


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm glad someone else noticed the conflict in the "God doesn't think about Himself" argument and the 10Cs.


Heck the entireness of Christianity is based on it.
Worship ME or else.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Heck the entireness of Christianity is based on it.
> Worship ME or else.



The or else part is a matter of debate. 

My point was to the member who posted that he didn't know what God was thinking, but that he didn't think that he was self-interested or needing of praise/validation. Their mutually exclusive positions, and the supposed lack of self-interest is invalidated by Scripture, Jesus, and the Spirit.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The or else part is a matter of debate.
> 
> My point was to the member who posted that he didn't know what God was thinking, but that he didn't think that he was self-interested or needing of praise/validation. Their mutually exclusive positions, and the supposed lack of self-interest is invalidated by Scripture, Jesus, and the Spirit.


Yep I was following along.
One claim cancels out the other.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Have you ever thought you made a really good point, then noticed a really dumb typo?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure you should be so positive about it.
> We only post scripture to show the confliction/hypocrisy of what you guys say sometimes



Would you agree then that this verse applies to your statement? 

Ps.76:10 "Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee:the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain."


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Would you agree then that this verse applies to your statement?
> 
> Ps.76:10 "Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee:the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain."



Please, interpret.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Would you agree then that this verse applies to your statement?
> 
> Ps.76:10 "Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee:the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain."


No I wouldn't agree.
If I don't believe that there is proof that God exists and I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God and I do believe the Bible was entirely man inspired than obviously Im not praising God by using it.
But it probably makes you feel good to think that I am without realizing it.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Have you ever thought you made a really good point, then noticed a really dumb typo?


I depend on people knowing me well enough to know what I really meant instead of what I typed


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> No I wouldn't agree.
> If I don't believe that there is proof that God exists and I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God and I do believe the Bible was entirely man inspired than obviously Im not praising God by using it.
> But it probably makes you feel good to think that I am without realizing it.



I do have to give the Bible props for one thing, I am not aware of another book where one could flip around and argue with another...using the same book. Fascinating.

The Bible Code? There are other fictional books that have foretold the future. Moby Dick, War and Peace. However, there is nowhere in Moby Dick where you can argue it says whale, flip to the back and, oh, it was a snake.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> I do have to give the Bible props for one thing, I am not aware of another book where one could flip around and argue with another...using the same book. Fascinating.
> 
> The Bible Code? There are other fictional books that have foretold the future. Moby Dick, War and Peace. However, there is nowhere in Moby Dick where you can argue it says whale, flip to the back and, oh, it was a snake.


When you take 1600 years to write a book you can cover a lot of bases


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I depend on people knowing me well enough to know what I really meant instead of what I typed



Thankfully the thought was in place, it was just a lack of proper grammar. 

That, two, happens to many times too me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> I do have to give the Bible props for one thing, I am not aware of another book where one could flip around and argue with another...using the same book. Fascinating.
> 
> The Bible Code? There are other fictional books that have foretold the future. Moby Dick, War and Peace. However, there is nowhere in Moby Dick where you can argue it says whale, flip to the back and, oh, it was a snake.



My personal favorite is the fact that a book on morality is the most often stolen.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Thankfully the thought was in place, it was just a lack of proper grammar.
> 
> That, two, happens to many times too me.


Same hear.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Same hear.



Buoy, I'm glad I'm not alone.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Same hear.



Write hear two.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

I do believe won of us is driveling.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I do believe won of us is driveling.


Well its knot me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Well its knot me.



Don't loose you're patients.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Please, interpret.



You ever go to a jewelry store and look at diamonds? They always have the diamonds against a piece of black velvet cloth because it magnifies the brilliance of the diamond.Do you kinda see what I'm getting at?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> You ever go to a jewelry store and look at diamonds? They always have the diamonds against a piece of black velvet cloth because it magnifies the brilliance of the diamond.Do you kinda see what I'm getting at?



Yes. Don't be distracted by shiny objects. It could just be a CZ stone. Get it tested.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> You ever go to a jewelry store and look at diamonds? They always have the diamonds against a piece of black velvet cloth because it magnifies the brilliance of the diamond.Do you kinda see what I'm getting at?



Kinda, but what, exactly, does that passage mean to you? That's what I was asking.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> You ever go to a jewelry store and look at diamonds? They always have the diamonds against a piece of black velvet cloth because it magnifies the brilliance of the diamond.Do you kinda see what I'm getting at?


That on its own it doesn't appear as attractive so they use contrast to make it appear better? Kind of like heaven and he11, after life and no life etc?  It is an effective sales tactic.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Yes. Don't be distracted by shiny objects. It could just be a CZ stone. Get it tested.


Lipstick on a pig?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Kinda, but what, exactly, does that passage mean to you? That's what I was asking.



In simple terms, I think it's saying that even the evil and violence and rebellion of man, ultimately,shows God's glory by contrasting against His great majesty and goodness.

The greatest examples of this were the ones who crucified Jesus. 1Cor.2:8 speaks about them: "which none of the princes of this world knew(the mystery):For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

See, unbelievers, even when they think they are ridiculing and putting down the Lord, unknowingly, are just showing off His glory even more.

I don't know about y'all but I love that!


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> In simple terms, I think it's saying that even the evil and violence and rebellion of man, ultimately,shows God's glory by contrasting against His great majesty and goodness.
> 
> The greatest examples of this were the ones who crucified Jesus. 1Cor.2:8 speaks about them: "which none of the princes of this world knew(the mystery):For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
> 
> "See, unbelievers, even when they think they are ridiculing and putting down the Lord, unknowingly, are just showing off His glory even more.
> 
> I don't know about y'all but I love that!





> See, unbelievers, even when they think they are ridiculing and putting down the Lord, unknowingly, are just showing off His glory even more.


Ive said this a number of times but I'll say it again. Unbelievers, who do not believe and hence the name, are not ridiculing the Lord. They are pointing out and yes sometimes ridiculing the conflicts, hypocricy etc that are credited TO the Lord. Which, in my case, believe are entirely man made. 
Its the same, in my mind at least, as if I complained about a Christmas gift not being what I wanted and you claiming I am therefore ridiculing Santa Claus.
This seems to be a point that you refuse to accept because you continue to say it even after its been explained a number of times.
So Im curious, why?
What is it about that explanation that you refuse to believe or don't understand?
If you believe all other Gods are man made, and that is what you believe, are you ridiculing the gods or are you ridiculing the stories that men made up about them?
And this is an honest question. I just don't understand why the explanation is unacceptable to you.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> If it was all predestined aren't you just making it all sound like roses and cupcakes in that God was loved so much that who would want to deny him?



You know, on a number of occasions my own earthly Father predestined me to many things, I recall a circus or two, several fishing trips, a new bike, and a (big) surprise Hagstrom guitar. When I think now of all the crap I gave him during certain periods, when my need to be myself eclipsed most any memory of those things, and I look now, in a better light knowing he just wanted the best (as he could see) for me always...yes, I love the man made to be the father of the one made to be me.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Ive said this a number of times but I'll say it again. Unbelievers, who do not believe and hence the name, are not ridiculing the Lord. They are pointing out and yes sometimes ridiculing the conflicts, hypocricy etc that are credited TO the Lord. Which, in my case, believe are entirely man made.
> Its the same, in my mind at least, as if I complained about a Christmas gift not being what I wanted and you claiming I am therefore ridiculing Santa Claus.
> This seems to be a point that you refuse to accept because you continue to say it even after its been explained a number of times.
> So Im curious, why?
> What is it about that explanation that you refuse to believe or don't understand?
> If you believe all other Gods are man made, and that is what you believe, are you ridiculing the gods or are you ridiculing the stories that men made up about them?
> And this is an honest question. I just don't understand why the explanation is unacceptable to you.



The man asked me what I thought it meant and I told him.

Now, you ask me why I can't accept the fact that you think God is man-made.I can and have, but it's when you and others take it a step further and mock and ridicule my God.That's what I cannot accept, and I either choose to ignore it or I may choose to say something.By the same token, you could also choose to ignore it.We are grown , mature (hopefully) adults that can speak our minds ,lovingly, and agree to disagree.It's nothing personal against you as a person.It's personal against some of your words.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The man asked me what I thought it meant and I told him.
> 
> Now, you ask me why I can't accept the fact that you think God is man-made.I can and have, but it's when you and others take it a step further and mock and ridicule my God.That's what I cannot accept, and I either choose to ignore it or I may choose to say something.By the same token, you could also choose to ignore it.We are grown , mature (hopefully) adults that can speak our minds ,lovingly, and agree to disagree.It's nothing personal against you as a person.It's personal against some of your words.


So I went back and re-read your post and I will say that maybe I jumped the gun.
Your statement about unbelievers ridiculing the Lord was in reference to your example of the crucifixion not particularly directed us unbelievers.
So for that I apologize.
Whether you believe this or not my underlying point is I don't want you to think I am ridiculing your God and therefore ridiculing your beliefs and therefore ridiculing you for believing.
That is NOT my intention in any of these arguments/debates/discussions.
Having said that, I hope you will make an effort to apply it to this - 


> It's personal against some of your words


.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> You know, on a number of occasions my own earthly Father predestined me to many things, I recall a circus or two, several fishing trips, a new bike, and a (big) surprise Hagstrom guitar. When I think now of all the crap I gave him during certain periods, when my need to be myself eclipsed most any memory of those things, and I look now, in a better light knowing he just wanted the best (as he could see) for me always...yes, I love the man made to be the father of the one made to be me.


While Im not sure you actually addressed the question I will say I can relate. I wish I could say I only gave my own father "crap". It went far beyond that. And coming to the same realization as you did about yours, I am lucky enough that he is still alive for me to try to make up for that. But neither he nor I will ever live long enough for me to succeed at that.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> While Im not sure you actually addressed the question I will say I can relate. I wish I could say I only gave my own father "crap". It went far beyond that. And coming to the same realization as you did about yours, I am lucky enough that he is still alive for me to try to make up for that. But neither he nor I will ever live long enough for me to succeed at that.



The only man I have ever opposed is myself.
As I begin to see what has been his right judgment, righteous judgment rendered upon him, I find myself experiencing less opposition to all else, and learn, ultimately against whom I had always been struggling in every _proxy battle_, and have peace, with Him.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> So I went back and re-read your post and I will say that maybe I jumped the gun.
> Your statement about unbelievers ridiculing the Lord was in reference to your example of the crucifixion not particularly directed us unbelievers.
> So for that I apologize.
> Whether you believe this or not my underlying point is I don't want you to think I am ridiculing your God and therefore ridiculing your beliefs and therefore ridiculing you for believing.
> That is NOT my intention in any of these arguments/debates/discussions.
> Having said that, I hope you will make an effort to apply it to this -
> .



Walt, one thing I've certainly appreciated about you is you are a straight shooter.Whether I've agreed with your view or not, I always know I'm getting your true feelings.I will tell you straight up as well, that it left a bad taste in my mouth when you were saying that God "coveted" Mary.I know by the definition of covet that your argument seems justified,but if you are implying that God can sin, then I have a real problem with that.If not, all's well.
Others have said God raped Mary.I have a real problem with that, although I do not wish to re-hash any of it.

Anyway, like I said before, it's nothing personal against anyone on here, I just feel compelled to defend my Lord's honor.

I do definately accept your apology and also ask your forgiveness as well for anything I've said amiss.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> In simple terms, I think it's saying that even the evil and violence and rebellion of man, ultimately,shows God's glory by contrasting against His great majesty and goodness.
> 
> The greatest examples of this were the ones who crucified Jesus. 1Cor.2:8 speaks about them: "which none of the princes of this world knew(the mystery):For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
> 
> See, unbelievers, even when they think they are ridiculing and putting down the Lord, unknowingly, are just showing off His glory even more.
> 
> I don't know about y'all but I love that!



I would suspect you would, not as an insult, but because you seem to be a fan of the doublespeak and contradictions that the Bible presents. 

I'm of the mindset that doing something bad is doing something bad, though.


----------



## 660griz

"NEW ALBANY, IN—Defending his comment that a woman becoming pregnant from rape “is something God intended,” Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock dug himself into an even deeper hole today when he argued that, if you really stop to think about it, the Virgin Mary was basically raped by God. “Mary certainly didn’t ask for God to impregnate her with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but obviously the Immaculate Conception, while not the result of a consensual act, was still a part of God’s plan—you see what I’m getting at, right?” said the 61-year-old man who currently serves as the state treasurer of Indiana. “Of course I don’t condone sexual assault. I’m just saying that sometimes when a woman is violated and impregnated against her will, it’s actually a really good thing in the end, because God’s rape of Mary gave us Jesus, and Jesus saved mankind from sin."

So, there you go. Sometimes rape is a good thing.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Walt, one thing I've certainly appreciated about you is you are a straight shooter.Whether I've agreed with your view or not, I always know I'm getting your true feelings.I will tell you straight up as well, that it left a bad taste in my mouth when you were saying that God "coveted" Mary.I know by the definition of covet that your argument seems justified,but if you are implying that God can sin, then I have a real problem with that.If not, all's well.
> Others have said God raped Mary.I have a real problem with that, although I do not wish to re-hash any of it.
> 
> Anyway, like I said before, it's nothing personal against anyone on here, I just feel compelled to defend my Lord's honor.
> 
> I do definately accept your apology and also ask your forgiveness as well for anything I've said amiss.



Is defending your personal beliefs by using whatever words and means that you see fit to do so any different than what anyone else does?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt, one thing I've certainly appreciated about you is you are a straight shooter.Whether I've agreed with your view or not, I always know I'm getting your true feelings.I will tell you straight up as well, that it left a bad taste in my mouth when you were saying that God "coveted" Mary.I know by the definition of covet that your argument seems justified,but if you are implying that God can sin, then I have a real problem with that.If not, all's well.
> Others have said God raped Mary.I have a real problem with that, although I do not wish to re-hash any of it.
> 
> Anyway, like I said before, it's nothing personal against anyone on here, I just feel compelled to defend my Lord's honor.
> 
> I do definately accept your apology and also ask your forgiveness as well for anything I've said amiss.


See here's the thing -


> that it left a bad taste in my mouth when you were saying that God "coveted" Mary.I know by the definition of covet that your argument seems justified,but if you are implying that God can sin, then I have a real problem with that


My argument doesn't "seem" justified, according to the definition of covet and the story that is attributed to God, my argument IS justified.
So -


> you are implying that God can sin


I'm not implying anything. I didn't write the story and I didn't make up the definition of covet. Its not my fault that it conflicts with "God cant sin".
Now you can be offended by the fact that I pointed it out but that's all I did.
A question you could be asking is "why was he able to point that out and why does it seem, by your own admission, justified"?.
I really hope you come to the understanding that me pointing out whats there is far different than me BELIEVING whats there.
Do I believe God coveted Mary? No. I don't even believe that God exists. Im just pointing out the contradiction that exists.


> it's nothing personal against anyone on here


Exactly!


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> See here's the thing -
> 
> My argument doesn't "seem" justified, according to the definition of covet and the story that is attributed to God, my argument IS justified.
> So -
> 
> I'm not implying anything. I didn't write the story and I didn't make up the definition of covet. Its not my fault that it conflicts with "God cant sin".
> Now you can be offended by the fact that I pointed it out but that's all I did.
> A question you could be asking is "why was he able to point that out and why does it seem, by your own admission, justified"?.
> I really hope you come to the understanding that me pointing out whats there is far different than me BELIEVING whats there.
> Do I believe God coveted Mary? No. I don't even believe that God exists. Im just pointing out the contradiction that exists.
> 
> Exactly!



I want to know how believers perform this mental gymnastic:  When God murders it can't be called murder.  (What else is it called?)

Is it that the principle that "God cannot sin" overrides the definition of murder?

I know of one Christian who would openly use the word Murder to describe acts of God and still see it as righteous.  Why not  the words "Rape" and "covet" as well?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I want to know how believers perform this mental gymnastic:  When God murders it can't be called murder.  (What else is it called?)
> 
> Is it that the principle that "God cannot sin" overrides the definition of murder?
> 
> I know of one Christian who would openly use the word Murder to describe acts of God and still see it as righteous.  Why not  the words "Rape" and "covet" as well?



I believe it has to do with their belief of God owning them as His creation. 

If you made a beautiful table, and then lit it on fire, I'm sure the table would be, if it had feelings, really upset about it. Other tables might feel similarly. However, it is both your creation and your property to do with as you please. 

That's all predicated on believing in God and believing that he made you and you are his property, though.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I believe it has to do with their belief of God owning them as His creation.
> 
> If you made a beautiful table, and then lit it on fire, I'm sure the table would be, if it had feelings, really upset about it. Other tables might feel similarly. However, it is both your creation and your property to do with as you please.
> 
> That's all predicated on believing in God and believing that he made you and you are his property, though.



I suppose that someone watching might say "You wasted that beautiful table."  To which I might reply "It's not a waste.  That was my intention for it all along."  If they said "You destroyed that table" I would HAVE to admit "Yes I did".

But I was talking about the word "murder" and it's definition.  What the God of the Bible does is murder.  I just don't know how it can be called anything else.  Even calling it "Righteous Murder (Rape, Coveting)" is more truthful that denying what it is.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> But I was talking about the word "murder" and it's definition.  What the God of the Bible does is murder.  I just don't know how it can be called anything else.



It is a careful game with words often used. 
If a doctor kills a child in the womb it is called abortion or murder. 
If God does it, it is called a miscarriage. According to the March of Dimes, almost 50% of pregnancies end this way. Medically called spontaneous abortion.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I suppose that someone watching might say "You wasted that beautiful table."  To which I might reply "It's not a waste.  That was my intention for it all along."  If they said "You destroyed that table" I would HAVE to admit "Yes I did".
> 
> But I was talking about the word "murder" and it's definition.  What the God of the Bible does is murder.  I just don't know how it can be called anything else.  Even calling it "Righteous Murder (Rape, Coveting)" is more truthful that denying what it is.



I agree.


----------



## bullethead

If believers in God think he is the source of Creation then that same God also had to create Sin. Think of all the Sins in the Bible and there are examples of God doing the same thing.

Welder, Please don't be mad at people for pointing them out instead of ignoring them and or making excuses for them.
I would never be that disrespectful to bring these things up as an invited guest in your home but in here, where things like that fuel these discussions, it is no different to many of us than discussing UN-Real-Reality TV programs, Comic Book Characters or anything else that is written by humans.
I would have an entirely different outlook on things written in the Bible if a god had actually done any of the writing.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> I want to know how believers perform this mental gymnastic:  When God murders it can't be called murder.  (What else is it called?)


Are you saying that all killing is murder? Or do you believe that murder is unjustified killing?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> Are you saying that all killing is murder? Or do you believe that murder is unjustified killing?



Is the commandment about killing, or murder?


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Is the commandment about killing, or murder?


What do you think?


----------



## 660griz

I'll go with Thou shalt not murder.
Murder = unlawful killing. 
The wages of sin is death.
Therefor, God can kill with impunity. However, if God tells you to kill, that is murder.
To most of our society, it would be classified as murder. Since everyone sins, God gets a pass on wiping out the entire world. 
So, the bringer of morals is immune to the code he had folks write?
Once again, it is do as I say, not as I do...thankfully.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I want to know how believers perform this mental gymnastic:  When God murders it can't be called murder.  (What else is it called?)
> 
> Is it that the principle that "God cannot sin" overrides the definition of murder?
> 
> I know of one Christian who would openly use the word Murder to describe acts of God and still see it as righteous.  Why not  the words "Rape" and "covet" as well?


Ive used this example before but I view it to be exactly the same as the mother who is watching her child being led away from the courtroom in handcuffs convicted of murder proclaiming "but he is a good boy".
The brain goes into self protect mode because it would be too painful to face.
Im trying to remember the medical term for it but there are a number of documented cases where in combat when faced with horrendous sights such as buddies being blown up, the brain literally shuts down vision to protect the individual from being traumatized by the sight of it.
Same type thing here.
However I also think when it comes to this subject there are many who make the conscience decision to just not believe what they don't want to such as when we point out contradictions and the response is "God cant sin" or God doesn't do that" etc.


----------



## gemcgrew

660griz said:


> However, if God tells you to kill, that is murder.


It wold be obedience. No transgression.


----------



## 660griz

gemcgrew said:


> It wold be obedience. No transgression.



With the Bible. True. 
 With current morals, one would have lots of time to pray, in jail.


----------



## gemcgrew

660griz said:


> With the Bible. True.
> With current morals, one would have lots of time to pray, in jail.


Is incarceration the same as kidnapping?


----------



## 660griz

gemcgrew said:


> Is incarceration the same as kidnapping?



Pretty much, except for the legal part, and you are probably treated better when incarcerated.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> If believers in God think he is the source of Creation then that same God also had to create Sin. Think of all the Sins in the Bible and there are examples of God doing the same thing.
> 
> Welder, Please don't be mad at people for pointing them out instead of ignoring them and or making excuses for them.
> I would never be that disrespectful to bring these things up as an invited guest in your home but in here, where things like that fuel these discussions, it is no different to many of us than discussing UN-Real-Reality TV programs, Comic Book Characters or anything else that is written by humans.
> I would have an entirely different outlook on things written in the Bible if a god had actually done any of the writing.



First of all, I'm not the least bit mad about any of this.(didn't mean to give that impression).
I think belief( or not) in the Genesis creation is probably the root of all the disputes on here.If two people cannot agree that God spoke the world into creation, they are not going to agree on anything else that pertains to God.Whether it be if the bible is God-inspired, or the virgin birth, or murder,or anything else.They can't get past the first concept to proceed to the next.
My humble opinion is that deeeeep down inside, even atheists know there's  a creator God, but their pride makes them refuse to acknowledge it.They don't like the idea of a creator because, to them, He doesn't seem fair.But He doesn't have to be.He's the creator.Every parent of multiple children has to deal with "it's not fair!",but does that make the parent bad? No.It just shows that the kid is a bratt.
I see so much energy being spent trying to disprove God and creation and I can't help but wonder what the underlying motive is.Is it hate for authority or maybe selfishness or just "brattiness"?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> First of all, I'm not the least bit mad about any of this.(didn't mean to give that impression).
> I think belief( or not) in the Genesis creation is probably the root of all the disputes on here.If two people cannot agree that God spoke the world into creation, they are not going to agree on anything else that pertains to God.Whether it be if the bible is God-inspired, or the virgin birth, or murder,or anything else.They can't get past the first concept to proceed to the next.
> My humble opinion is that deeeeep down inside, even atheists know there's  a creator God, but their pride makes them refuse to acknowledge it.They don't like the idea of a creator because, to them, He doesn't seem fair.But He doesn't have to be.He's the creator.Every parent of multiple children has to deal with "it's not fair!",but does that make the parent bad? No.It just shows that the kid is a bratt.
> I see so much energy being spent trying to disprove God and creation and I can't help but wonder what the underlying motive is.Is it hate for authority or maybe selfishness or just "brattiness"?


Im curious if you ask yourself the same question about why your God has to be the one true God?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> What do you think?



It's not about what I think. It's about what the commandment _says._ And it says thou shall not kill. Says nothing about justification.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> First of all, I'm not the least bit mad about any of this.(didn't mean to give that impression).
> I think belief( or not) in the Genesis creation is probably the root of all the disputes on here.If two people cannot agree that God spoke the world into creation, they are not going to agree on anything else that pertains to God.Whether it be if the bible is God-inspired, or the virgin birth, or murder,or anything else.They can't get past the first concept to proceed to the next.
> My humble opinion is that deeeeep down inside, even atheists know there's  a creator God, but their pride makes them refuse to acknowledge it.They don't like the idea of a creator because, to them, He doesn't seem fair.But He doesn't have to be.He's the creator.Every parent of multiple children has to deal with "it's not fair!",but does that make the parent bad? No.It just shows that the kid is a bratt.
> I see so much energy being spent trying to disprove God and creation and I can't help but wonder what the underlying motive is.Is it hate for authority or maybe selfishness or just "brattiness"?



If you have come away with anything about about two of the A/As on this site it should be that we willfully admit that we do not know if there is a creator God.
It is not that we see a specific God and turn away. We do not see evidence of any god let alone a specific god let alone the god of the bible. What you believe is evidence and offer to us as evidence is not unique. It is not unique especially for a God. If what you offer as evidence is actually evidence then not only does your God exist but tens of thousands of other Gods must also exist that have been worshiped by people because of the same evidence used and given.
There is no energy spent or needed to try to disprove something that has no evidence for its existence.
My entire path away from the god of the bible is driven by my attempts to prove him real. I can say a pretty sunset is proof but I know it is not. I can say a lucky break here or there is proof but deep down I know it is not.
I just do not see any God or anything God-Like. I will admit that if some sort of supreme being is responsible I am fully convinced it is beyond the understanding of myself and every single person that thinks they have it all figured out. I am convinced organized religion has muddied the waters even further. I do not think that in any way,shape or form that a supreme creator is anything like us humans. There is nothing Universal about a Universal creator.
If peeing on a flat rock every day at noon leads someone to believe they are a better person and helps get them through the day then so be it. But please do not tell me that because I do not do the same I am somehow missing out.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> I see so much energy being spent trying to disprove God and creation and I can't help but wonder what the underlying motive is.Is it hate for authority or maybe selfishness or just "brattiness"?



You have this wrong. I/we don't spend time trying to disprove God. There is really no need. The burden of proof is on the maker of such claims. 

So, we have to resort to the only known 'evidence', written by men, and show the flaws. That is all.

The only motive is the truth. Period.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's not about what I think. It's about what the commandment _says._ And it says thou shall not kill. Says nothing about justification.


You don't have to read much further to start to gain a little knowledge of the meaning. If one is going to argue against the Bible, one may want to be familiar with what the Bible says.

Or not.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> You don't have to read much further to start to gain a little knowledge of the meaning. If one is going to argue against the Bible, one may want to be familiar with what the Bible says.
> 
> Or not.



Oh, I'm familiar with the contradictions in the Bible. Though I do agree that saying "Thou shall not kill, except...." can get a little verbose for stone tablets. 

My point is that the commandment is an absolute, where the intent is not. 

Could have said thall should not kill and been a little truer to intent.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My point is that the commandment is an absolute, where the intent is not.


If you are holding to the words "thou shalt not kill" alone, then all killing of plants, animals, bacteria, etc. are wrong.

Read the rest of the Bible. It defines the meaning.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> If you are holding to the words "thou shalt not kill" alone, then all killing of plants, animals, bacteria, etc. are wrong.
> 
> Read the rest of the Bible. It defines the meaning.



No, those are exempted in our dominion over them. Where is killing another person exempted?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> If you have come away with anything about about two of the A/As on this site it should be that we willfully admit that we do not know if there is a creator God.
> It is not that we see a specific God and turn away. We do not see evidence of any god let alone a specific god let alone the god of the bible. What you believe is evidence and offer to us as evidence is not unique. It is not unique especially for a God. If what you offer as evidence is actually evidence then not only does your God exist but tens of thousands of other Gods must also exist that have been worshiped by people because of the same evidence used and given.
> There is no energy spent or needed to try to disprove something that has no evidence for its existence.
> My entire path away from the god of the bible is driven by my attempts to prove him real. I can say a pretty sunset is proof but I know it is not. I can say a lucky break here or there is proof but deep down I know it is not.
> I just do not see any God or anything God-Like. I will admit that if some sort of supreme being is responsible I am fully convinced it is beyond the understanding of myself and every single person that thinks they have it all figured out. I am convinced organized religion has muddied the waters even further. I do not think that in any way,shape or form that a supreme creator is anything like us humans. There is nothing Universal about a Universal creator.
> If peeing on a flat rock every day at noon leads someone to believe they are a better person and helps get them through the day then so be it. But please do not tell me that because I do not do the same I am somehow missing out.



I guess that's the rub.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I guess that's the rub.



The sentence after the one you think is the rub is actually the rub.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> You have this wrong. I/we don't spend time trying to disprove God. There is really no need. The burden of proof is on the maker of such claims.
> 
> So, we have to resort to the only known 'evidence', written by men, and show the flaws. That is all.
> 
> The only motive is the truth. Period.



I've been meaning to ask this question.If one doesn't believe the bible's stories, how does one explain how the pyramids in Egypt were built?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I've been meaning to ask this question.If one doesn't believe the bible's stories, how does one explain how the pyramids in Egypt were built?



What?

Pyramids are here = Bible true?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What?
> 
> Pyramids are here = Bible true?



That's what I'm screaming!


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I've been meaning to ask this question.If one doesn't believe the bible's stories, how does one explain how the pyramids in Egypt were built?



Crack open an Egyptian history book (or do a search on the internet).

If you are somehow clinging to the idea that the Jews were used as slaves to build the pyramids and that "fact" backs up info in the bible then your faith will forever be changed when you take the time to research the truth of how the pyramids got built.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> That's what I'm screaming!



Why the pyramids? 

We have goats today, and wine. Most of the cities from the Bible can be located. 

What is it about the pyramids, specifically, that make the Bible true?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> That's what I'm screaming!


 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/who-built-the-pyramids.html


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why the pyramids?
> 
> We have goats today, and wine. Most of the cities from the Bible can be located.
> 
> What is it about the pyramids, specifically, that make the Bible true?



Probably the Exodous II when the Incas and Mayans came over to the middle east and enslaved the Israelites to come and build their pyramids too. Then  Walter the leader of the Israelites took his people and wandered the Americas for 40 years (also leaving no traces) and ended up in Orlando Fla and built Disney World.

It is all true.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

I got nothing.


----------



## bullethead

Lololol StripRR.

What cracks me up is the overlooked evidence that the Israelites were not slaves in the Bible itself.
When the Spirit of Death comes to visit and kill the first born the "slaves" had to mark their doorways so the Spirit knew who lived in what house.
1. What a smart spirit. Ya think a god wouldn't need graffiti to guide his death machine.
2...and more importantly..the "slaves" were obviously living in and among all the other population in their own houses. Not in a slave commune or slave getto or anything like that. The writers of these texts did not know a thing about who built the pyramids, how they lived, or any facts about the process. But they are getting their info from the same god that cannot tell slaves from non slaves so......


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> 1. What a smart spirit. Ya think a god wouldn't need graffiti to guide his death machine.



 Or a flood to kill the wicked, or a rib to make a women, or man to write a book, etc.


----------



## welderguy

I see a lot of scoffing but none of you has given an intelligent explaination to the question I asked.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I see a lot of scoffing but none of you has given an intelligent explaination to the question I asked.





bullethead said:


> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/who-built-the-pyramids.html



Didn't read it, did you?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I see a lot of scoffing but none of you has given an intelligent explaination to the question I asked.



http://lmgtfy.com/


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I see a lot of scoffing but none of you has given an intelligent explaination to the question I asked.



Priceless.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I've been meaning to ask this question.If one doesn't believe the bible's stories, how does one explain how the pyramids in Egypt were built?


By paid Egyptian laborers and paid laborers from other countries.

Can you explain why the Bible has it wrong? Intelligently of course...


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> I've been meaning to ask this question.If one doesn't believe the bible's stories, how does one explain how the pyramids in Egypt were built?




O.K. 
1)There is no mention of pyramids in the Bible. 
2) Jews didn't show in that region till about 2000 years after the Great Pyramid.
3) Worker tombs show that the workers were NOT slaves.
4) No actual record of a mass exodus from that region. 

To answer the question, workers were recruited from poor areas, treated fine, housed fine, and buried with honor.


----------



## welderguy

Pretty flimsy IMO.Thought yall could do better than that.But thanks for trying.I don't think any less of you.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Pretty flimsy IMO.Thought yall could do better than that.But thanks for trying.I don't think any less of you.



Ha! 

Flimsy is single sourcing information. He provided you sources other than the Bible and you take it over them. 

But we all knew where the end of this road was anyway.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Pretty flimsy IMO.Thought yall could do better than that.But thanks for trying.I don't think any less of you.



Pathetic. 
Sorry but I do think less of you now.


----------



## welderguy

I read the link with open mind but all they said was based on speculation and from a ridiculous mock miniature pyramid construction that they admitted wasn't done authentically.I think the bible story just makes way more sense.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I read the link with open mind but all they said was based on speculation and from a ridiculous mock miniature pyramid construction that they admitted wasn't done authentically.I think the bible story just makes way more sense.



Meaning that it was built by manual labor?


----------



## 660griz

"The question of who labored to build them(pyramids), and why, has long been part of their fascination. Rooted firmly in the popular imagination is the idea that the pyramids were built by slaves serving a merciless pharaoh. This notion of a vast slave class in Egypt originated in Judeo-Christian tradition and has been popularized by Hollywood productions like Cecil B. De Mille’s The Ten Commandments, in which a captive people labor in the scorching sun beneath the whips of pharaoh’s overseers. But graffiti from inside the Giza monuments themselves have long suggested something very different. 

Until recently, however, the fabulous art and gold treasures of pharaohs like Tutankhamen have overshadowed the efforts of scientific archaeologists to understand how human forces—perhaps all levels of Egyptian society—were mobilized to enable the construction of the pyramids. Now, drawing on diverse strands of evidence, from geological history to analysis of living arrangements, bread-making technology, and animal remains, Egyptologist Mark Lehner, an associate of Harvard’s Semitic Museum, is beginning to fashion an answer. He has found the city of the pyramid builders. They were not slaves."


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Pathetic.
> Sorry but I do think less of you now.



What did I do to offend you?


----------



## NCHillbilly

welderguy said:


> I see a lot of scoffing but none of you has given an intelligent explaination to the question I asked.



The Egyptians built them several thousands of years ago, just like the Mayans, Toltec, and Asians built them in other parts of the world. Where are the pyramids mentioned in the Bible, anyway?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> What did I do to offend you?


Nothing to offend me. I am not offended.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I read the link with open mind but all they said was based on speculation and from a ridiculous mock miniature pyramid construction that they admitted wasn't done authentically.I think the bible story just makes way more sense.





> Though some popular versions of history held that the pyramids were built by slaves or foreigners forced into labor, skeletons excavated from the area show that the workers were probably native Egyptian agricultural laborers who worked on the pyramids during the time of year when the Nile River flooded much of the land nearby.
> http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/the-egyptian-pyramids



Watch the video -


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8453026.stm


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I read the link with open mind but all they said was based on speculation and from a ridiculous mock miniature pyramid construction that they admitted wasn't done authentically.I think the bible story just makes way more sense.


The biblical story makes way more sense if you Add pyramids into it because they are not mentioned in the bible at all. The biblical story makes way more sense if it is the only story you use. The biblical story makes way more sense if you refuse to check it against all the other facts presented by archeologists, historians and scholars. The biblical story makes way more sense if you totally disregard all the facts given in the other article and only use a small portion that talks about replicating moving large blocks. The biblical story makes way more sense if you refuse to take ten minutes of your life and research what you want to learn about.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> The biblical story makes way more sense if you Add pyramids into it because they are not mentioned in the bible at all. The biblical story makes way more sense if it is the only story you use. The biblical story makes way more sense if you refuse to check it against all the other facts presented by archeologists, historians and scholars. The biblical story makes way more sense if you totally disregard all the facts given in the other article and only use a small portion that talks about replicating moving large blocks. The biblical story makes way more sense if you refuse to take ten minutes of your life and research what you want to learn about.


That's the first thing I thought when I saw the question.
It probably wouldn't have been asked.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> You have this wrong. I/we don't spend time trying to disprove God. There is really no need.
> 
> So, we have to resort to the only known 'evidence', written by men, and show the flaws. That is all.



hmm.....really?

From all the "man written evidence" you fellas have been presenting,this sounds a little contradictory.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> hmm.....really?
> 
> From all the "man written evidence" you fellas have been presenting,this sounds a little contradictory.


 Explain to us where we claim any of it is the word of god and is error free, infallible, and non contradictory.
We can back ours up with facts. You...not so much.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> hmm.....really?
> 
> From all the "man written evidence" you fellas have been presenting,this sounds a little contradictory.



In fact you wanted to talk about the pyramids in the bible so tell us all about them. Tell us when they were built. Tell us how they were built. Tell us who built them. Moses was there so he should be accurate with his dates and descriptions. You can even tell us about the time all the "slaves" left when they were done building the pyramids . With all the evidence they left behind after 40 years of wandering the desert you should really give us a history lesson. 
We can check your facts afterwards.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Explain to us where we claim any of it is the word of god and is error free, infallible, and non contradictory.
> We can back ours up with facts. You...not so much.



I see no facts.I see a lot of speculation about things that were dug up from the ground.

Are you claiming these things are error free, infallible, and non contradictory?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I see no facts.I see a lot of speculation about things that were dug up from the ground.
> 
> Are you claiming these things are error free, infallible, and non contradictory?


No I am not. But they are reliable and accepted as fact among their peers, historians, scholars and Egyptian records.
What is found adds up with what is written.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I see no facts.I see a lot of speculation about things that were dug up from the ground.
> 
> Are you claiming these things are error free, infallible, and non contradictory?


Welder with your lack of research or any fact checking you cannot make an accurate assessment at all.
These guys take 30 years to add it all up and you can't take 3 minutes.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I see no facts.I see a lot of speculation about things that were dug up from the ground.
> 
> Are you claiming these things are error free, infallible, and non contradictory?



When historical records say people were hired as laborers to build pyramids and when researched by numerous archeologists over hundreds of years and pay records are found and living quarters are found and burial grounds are found and the bones of those laborers are found and wear and tear consistent with that type of labor is found on the bones then it is more likely than not adding up to confirm each other.

When a book says slaves built them and then made an exodus and there is absolutely no evidence of it anywhere then THAT is when you will see no facts.
You know the chapters and verses...fact check them.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Welder with your lack of research or any fact checking you cannot make an accurate assessment at all.
> These guys take 30 years to add it all up and you can't take 3 minutes.



I don't have all the answers, remember? That's why I asked you guys to explain it.But the flimsy "evidence" which is only based on speculation,does not convince me very well.

This was never meant to cause an argument,and I certainly didn't want you to think less of me but oh well.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I don't have all the answers, remember? That's why I asked you guys to explain it.But the flimsy "evidence" which is only based on speculation,does not convince me very well.
> 
> This was never meant to cause an argument,and I certainly didn't want you to think less of me but oh well.


From what you now know and where you now can start your research so you don't have to take my word for it (because you don't believe anyone in here anyway) you can read for hours and hours and see what even Jewish scholars agree on.
Then you can go in and see Moses was a liar and whoever wrote exodus did not have a clue of what they were talking about.
Then we can discuss what is flimsy in your history book.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I don't have all the answers, remember? That's why I asked you guys to explain it.But the flimsy "evidence" which is only based on speculation,does not convince me very well.
> 
> This was never meant to cause an argument,and I certainly didn't want you to think less of me but oh well.


Don't you think you should research it some more before you decide what is "flimsy"?
Note these links aren't from one source. Note who is making these discoveries. Note their level of expertise on the subject.
Lets be honest. You don't like what direction these finds point to because its not in the direction you believe in.
That's all there is to it.
Im guessing if what they were finding was confirming what you believe, you would have noooooo problem at all with their "flimsy" evidence. 
But they aren't.
Why not?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Don't you think you should research it some more before you decide what is "flimsy"?
> Note these links aren't from one source. Note who is making these discoveries. Note their level of expertise on the subject.
> Lets be honest. You don't like what direction these finds point to because its not in the direction you believe in.
> That's all there is to it.
> Im guessing if what they were finding was confirming what you believe, you would have noooooo problem at all with their "flimsy" evidence.
> But they aren't.
> Why not?



What would you say to me if I were to say to you "Walt, you should read the bible more before concluding that it's false and uninspired."?


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Don't you think you should research it some more before you decide what is "flimsy"?
> Note these links aren't from one source. Note who is making these discoveries. Note their level of expertise on the subject.
> Lets be honest. You don't like what direction these finds point to because its not in the direction you believe in.
> That's all there is to it.
> Im guessing if what they were finding was confirming what you believe, you would have noooooo problem at all with their "flimsy" evidence.
> But they aren't.
> Why not?


I was welderguy once until I started to research the research and realize what I wanted to be true wasn't. Evidence doesn't lie.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> What would you say to me if I were to say to you "Walt, you should read the bible more before concluding that it's false and uninspired."?


I would say "Welder reading the Bible and doing research is exactly what led me to believe its man inspired".
You do know that I used to believe right?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> What would you say to me if I were to say to you "Walt, you should read the bible more before concluding that it's false and uninspired."?



I will answer as if you asked me the same thing.
I would tell you that just reading the bible will tell you exactly what is in the bible. In order for me to back up what I have read numerous times in the bible I researched it. The research does not add up with what is told. Yes, some people and some places and some events are real but they are mixed in with embellishments and untruths and inaccuracies that do not add up with what the facts say. Times, dates, locations and people and places are incorrect or outright lies.
Not all of it but certainly enough of it for me to know it is nothing more than ancient writings based off of beliefs and wishes rather than facts.
I can now see it for what it is rather than what I want it to be or need it to be.
Taking the first step was the hardest. And that was admitting that things did not add up. Then I wanted to know why.


----------



## welderguy

I don't know a lot, but this I do know: There absolutely MUST be more than just a head knowledge to believe the things in the bible.I also know God chooses to reveal it to some and to hide it from others.I don't know to what degree you two once "believed", but I think it must have only been a head knowledge.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I don't know a lot, but this I do know: There absolutely MUST be more than just a head knowledge to believe the things in the bible.I also know God chooses to reveal it to some and to hide it from others.I don't know to what degree you two once "believed", but I think it must have only been a head knowledge.


Its ALL in your head Welder. When your head decides to believe, your head tells you God revealed it to you.
And by head we both mean brain.


> I don't know to what degree you two once "believed"


So tell me, what are the different degrees in believing in God?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I don't know a lot, but this I do know: There absolutely MUST be more than just a head knowledge to believe the things in the bible.I also know God chooses to reveal it to some and to hide it from others.I don't know to what degree you two once "believed", but I think it must have only been a head knowledge.


That is what you must tell yourself for it to make sense in your head because you really do not know anything of the sort.
You dismiss the facts with indoctrination.  And I can sympathize with you because I did it too.
You admit you don't know something about us in the first part of a sentence and then convince yourself you have the answer in the second part without bothering to find out a single bit more information. 
The information you do get from us, which is your most accurate source, you dismiss anyway. You cannot find anything out when your eyes are closed and ears are blocked.


----------



## bullethead

Walt excellent point!
Welder what "level" believer are you? You may be a couple levels less than now than what Walt and I were when we handed our cards back and forgot our secret handshakes.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Its ALL in your head Welder. When your head decides to believe, your head tells you God revealed it to you.



I don't believe that.^ I had plenty of knowledge in my brain about God for years but suddenly one day something was very different.I was changed by something unexplainable.I've not been the same person since that day.



WaltL1 said:


> So tell me, what are the different degrees in believing in God?



I just simply meant I didn't know if you only had head knowledge or if you had heart knowledge.


----------



## bullethead

Or..I believed in the God of the bible,  Jesus, the Trinity, I read the Bible, went to church, was baptized, confirmed  married in church etc etc. I prayed every night thanking God for what I had and rarely if ever asked for personal gain just health for friends and family.
What degree is that?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Or..I believed in the God if the bible,  Jesus, the Trinity, I read the Bible, went to church, was baptized, confirmed  married in church etc etc.
> What degree is that?



I'd like to hear what happened to you in your heart before you became compelled to do all of those things.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'd like to hear what happened to you in your heart before you became compelled to do all of those things.



I did those things without being compelled. I did them for as long as I could remember. It was my upbringing. I always felt I was connected to God.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I did those things without being compelled. I did them for as long as I could remember. It was my upbringing. I always felt I was connected to God.



I too was brought up going to church.My mama and daddy taught me to live right.We prayed together, sang together, everything.But, it wasn't  real.Because I drifted away and did all kinds of things Id been taught not to do.It didn't bother me to do them until one day something changed.I could no longer do those things without it really bothering me.I wanted to live right and it wasn't like when I was young.There was something else compelling me to want to live better.It was the Holy Spirit.No doubt.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I too was brought up going to church.My mama and daddy taught me to live right.We prayed together, sang together, everything.But, it wasn't  real.Because I drifted away and did all kinds of things Id been taught not to do.It didn't bother me to do them until one day something changed.I could no longer do those things without it really bothering me.I wanted to live right and it wasn't like when I was young.There was something else compelling me to want to live better.It was the Holy Spirit.No doubt.


I didn't do all those bad things. I didn't drift away. I was living what would be considered right.
My changes came when I had conversations like these and decided that THE WORD OF GOD is absolute.  It is undeniable. It is truth. It is infallible. It is without error. The word of God is not, cannot, would NOT be hard to prove. Until I tried to prove it.
I denied what I found. I made excuses. I saw it but would not admit it. I checked and double checked and checked again but it did not add up.
The HARDEST thing for me was the first time I admitted my doubt. It was like going in the basement to say my first curse when I was young cause I didn't want God to hear me. I knew God would correct my findings. Make it all clear. Show me where I was mistaken. Nope. I just keep finding more and more against everything I once KNEW was true. The bible..my source..was the main culprit of fault. I began to see who was credited with the writings and who actually wrote it. When it was written. Translations. Revisions. The 1600 years it took and all the changes in the religion that occurred in that time.  The history of organized religion. The impact of organized religion. Other religions. And on and on and on. 
It turns out it wasn't as special as I thought.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I didn't do all those bad things. I didn't drift away. I was living what would be considered right.
> My changes came when I had conversations like these and decided that THE WORD OF GOD is absolute.  It is undeniable. It is truth. It is infallible. It is without error. The word of God is not, cannot, would NOT be hard to prove. Until I tried to prove it.
> I denied what I found. I made excuses. I saw it but would not admit it. I checked and double checked and checked again but it did not add up.
> The HARDEST thing for me was the first time I admitted my doubt. It was like going in the basement to say my first curse when I was young cause I didn't want God to hear me. I knew God would correct my findings. Make it all clear. Show me where I was mistaken. Nope. I just keep finding more and more against everything I once KNEW was true. The bible..my source..was the main culprit of fault. I began to see who was credited with the writings and who actually wrote it. When it was written. Translations. Revisions. The 1600 years it took and all the changes in the religion that occurred in that time.  The history of organized religion. The impact of organized religion. Other religions. And on and on and on.
> It turns out it wasn't as special as I thought.




It won't matter to Welder.  

Even when a charade is admitted there will still be some people who insist that it was real.  See:

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=9427536&postcount=19


----------



## welderguy

I know much of it can and does get complicated and confusing, and some of it is simply what is referred to as mystery that is not intended for us to know all about.But, I'm mostly concerned with your love for Jesus in those earlier years.What happened to that? Did you truly love Him? Because that in itself is the one thing that distinguishes the called from just the practicers of religion.

Sorry for all the personal questions but I'm trying to get the whole story of what happened.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I know much of it can and does get complicated and confusing, and some of it is simply what is referred to as mystery that is not intended for us to know all about.But, I'm mostly concerned with your love for Jesus in those earlier years.What happened to that? Did you truly love Him? Because that in itself is the one thing that distinguishes the called from just the practicers of religion.
> 
> Sorry for all the personal questions but I'm trying to get the whole story of what happened.



This is kind of a sad defense.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> It won't matter to Welder.
> 
> Even when a charade is admitted there will still be some people who insist that it was real.  See:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=9427536&postcount=19



It does very much matter to me.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I know much of it can and does get complicated and confusing, and some of it is simply what is referred to as mystery that is not intended for us to know all about.But, I'm mostly concerned with your love for Jesus in those earlier years.What happened to that? Did you truly love Him? Because that in itself is the one thing that distinguishes the called from just the practicers of religion.
> 
> Sorry for all the personal questions but I'm trying to get the whole story of what happened.


When I can find explanations and evidence the mystery ends. Good bad or otherwise. It makes no difference whether the evidence backs up what I want it to or not. All that matters is the evidence will show the truth.
You can no more question my faith than you can question your own. No matter what I tell you, even though I am your only source of information about me, you choose to disregard the information that is accurate and true in favor of your preconceived notions because you are not ready to accept anything that you have convinced yourself is already false. No sense asking me questions because you will not accept the answers I give unless they are what you want to hear.
If you ask me how much I love my children what is the right answer for you?  How much did I love Jesus...if I hold my hands out wide and say "this much" is it enough?

I feel that you have made up your own rules of of being called, levels of being Christian and degrees of belief and love.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> When I can find explanations and evidence the mystery ends. Good bad or otherwise. It makes no difference whether the evidence backs up what I want it to or not. All that matters is the evidence will show the truth.
> You can no more question my faith than you can question your own. No matter what I tell you, even though I am your only source of information about me, you choose to disregard the information that is accurate and true in favor of your preconceived notions because you are not ready to accept anything that you have convinced yourself is already false. No sense asking me questions because you will not accept the answers I give unless they are what you want to hear.
> If you ask me how much I love my children what is the right answer for you?  How much did I love Jesus...if I hold my hands out wide and say "this much" is it enough?



I'm not judging you.I'm not qualified or authorized to judge you.I just would love for you to tell me if you loved Jesus.And if you did, how much(if it's possible to even describe that).
But if your answer is yes, I have to ask what made you stop.I don't have some bad motive for asking and I'm not trying to trap you with your words.I just want to understand.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'm not judging you.I'm not qualified or authorized to judge you.I just would love for you to tell me if you loved Jesus.And if you did, how much(if it's possible to even describe that).
> But if your answer is yes, I have to ask what made you stop.I don't have some bad motive for asking and I'm not trying to trap you with your words.I just want to understand.


How can a person put into words how much they love someone? Actions speak louder than words and as far as Jesus was concerned I led my life so that it would make him proud. It was the only way I could express it.
I stopped when I realized that everything that I once believed in the bible was no longer true. I realized that the people writing about Jesus never knew him and never witnessed him. All I knew about Jesus came from someone else who did not know him any better than I did. When I realized that the man may have been real but his actions were embellished then I stopped caring. The lunacy of God sending himself to kill himself as being the only way he can see fit to fix things he knew was going to happen anyway...and continue to happen was an epiphany.
It is ancient superstition mumbo jumbo and any God that wants to contact me will know how to do so in a way that I will be sure to understand and not by a book that multiple anonymous men wrote over 1600 years.

Nothing has changed in my life. It is not better and it is not any worse. There is no pressure.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I don't believe that.^ I had plenty of knowledge in my brain about God for years but suddenly one day something was very different.I was changed by something unexplainable.I've not been the same person since that day.
> 
> 
> 
> I just simply meant I didn't know if you only had head knowledge or if you had heart knowledge.


Welder Im sure you are aware that the heart is a muscle that pumps blood. It is not capable of "knowledge".
What you are describing are "feelings" ie how you feel about God.


> I had plenty of knowledge in my brain about God for years but suddenly one day something was very different.


What was different is how you thought about it. And thoughts come from the brain. In your head. You said above you already had knowledge about God in your head. YOU decided to respond to that knowledge for whatever reasons. Maybe you wanted to. Maybe you needed to. Maybe that was the answer to whatever problems or unhappiness or emptiness you may have had in your life.
If you choose to believe that God infiltrated your mind and rearranged your thought patterns without any participation from you that's fine. If it works for you it doesn't really matter how it happened.
But this whole "heart knowledge" thing is ridiculous.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I'm not judging you.I'm not qualified or authorized to judge you.I just would love for you to tell me if you loved Jesus.And if you did, how much(if it's possible to even describe that).
> But if your answer is yes, I have to ask what made you stop.I don't have some bad motive for asking and I'm not trying to trap you with your words.I just want to understand.





> I have to ask what made you stop.


Bullet correct me if Im wrong but the simplified answer is Christianity made him/us stop.
In a nut shell.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Welder Im sure you are aware that the heart is a muscle that pumps blood. It is not capable of "knowledge".
> What you are describing are "feelings" ie how you feel about God.
> 
> What was different is how you thought about it. And thoughts come from the brain. In your head. You said above you already had knowledge about God in your head. YOU decided to respond to that knowledge for whatever reasons. Maybe you wanted to. Maybe you needed to. Maybe that was the answer to whatever problems or unhappiness or emptiness you may have had in your life.
> If you choose to believe that God infiltrated your mind and rearranged your thought patterns without any participation from you that's fine. If it works for you it doesn't really matter how it happened.
> But this whole "heart knowledge" thing is ridiculous.



Perhaps experiential might be a better fit for you?


----------



## welderguy

The term "heart" is referring to a person's spirit.And the spirit is described as being dead in every person until it's regenerated (born again/made alive) by God.When this happens there's a definate change in a person.It begins on the inside (spirit) and is manifested on the outside(actions, speech).I know this because it happened to me.Then I found out others I know had the same experience. Then I read the bible and EVERY case of regeneration there follows this same pattern also.
I asked all those questions trying to understand if you(Bullet) were ever born again.I still can't answer that,but I know it's essential to truly following Jesus.

I can say this, if you were born again and have drifted, Jesus will welcome you back into His arms if you confess and repent and turn back to Him.He described that in His parable of the prodigal son.
It's never too late.

Same goes for you too Walt.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The term "heart" is referring to a person's spirit.And the spirit is described as being dead in every person until it's regenerated (born again/made alive) by God.When this happens there's a definate change in a person.It begins on the inside (spirit) and is manifested on the outside(actions, speech).I know this because it happened to me.Then I found out others I know had the same experience. Then I read the bible and EVERY case of regeneration there follows this same pattern also.
> I asked all those questions trying to understand if you(Bullet) were ever born again.I still can't answer that,but I know it's essential to truly following Jesus.
> 
> I can say this, if you were born again and have drifted, Jesus will welcome you back into His arms if you confess and repent and turn back to Him.He described that in His parable of the prodigal son.
> It's never too late.
> 
> Same goes for you too Walt.


Everything you described in the first paragraph can happen without a God. Its called changing your mind about something. Again if you choose to attribute that to God, fine.


> Same goes for you too Walt


I'm comfortable where I am at. Its a far more peaceful place for me. 
If Jesus cares enough to pay me a visit and tell me about himself over a sweet tea, I'll listen.
Other than that there is NOTHING in the Bible or Christianity that will lead me back. Never. Ever.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Bullet correct me if Im wrong but the simplified answer is Christianity made him/us stop.
> In a nut shell.



Agreed


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Perhaps experiential might be a better fit for you?


Its not a matter of what is a better fit for me. What you take away from experiences is a result of what you think about it. So we are back to "head knowledge".


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Agreed


I look at it this way, if all the wacky stories that come out of the Bible/Christianity were true, there is nothing we could learn or discover or figure out that could possibly lead in a different direction than that.
I don't think the dudes who made this sales pitch up ever imagined that we would progress to the point that we could fact check them.
God would have known. 
But not them.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The term "heart" is referring to a person's spirit.And the spirit is described as being dead in every person until it's regenerated (born again/made alive) by God.When this happens there's a definate change in a person.It begins on the inside (spirit) and is manifested on the outside(actions, speech).I know this because it happened to me.Then I found out others I know had the same experience. Then I read the bible and EVERY case of regeneration there follows this same pattern also.
> I asked all those questions trying to understand if you(Bullet) were ever born again.I still can't answer that,but I know it's essential to truly following Jesus.
> 
> I can say this, if you were born again and have drifted, Jesus will welcome you back into His arms if you confess and repent and turn back to Him.He described that in His parable of the prodigal son.
> It's never too late.
> 
> Same goes for you too Walt.


That born again stuff is nonsense as far as I am concerned. Every religion has their own version of enlightenment and it is all the same only the names of the gods differ. What you think is the work of a spirit is your own body using whatever means it has to in order to cope with whatever issues you have. 
It would be different if what you describe is unique to you or your religion but it is not. Believers always find something more is needed to be a better believer than the next guy.
It starts as you need to believe. Then you must accept Jesus. Then you must be born again. What is next Welder? What can you concoct in your head and find in the bible to interpret that will bump you up another believer rank? Because no matter what you seem to find a fault with whatever anyone tells you that is not like your own personal experience. You need the company of others who are born again by the book directions. That is fine for you. But I suspect that if you didn't know of the bible and or were of another religion you would still be in the same spot but tooting your horn for another god and pointing out another set of man made text that proves your current situation.

I can say I was reborn when the need for any higher power went away. That was my awakening. It was a relief.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I look at it this way, if all the wacky stories that come out of the Bible/Christianity were true, there is nothing we could learn or discover or figure out that could possibly lead in a different direction than that.
> I don't think the dudes who made this sales pitch up ever imagined that we would progress to the point that we could fact check them.
> God would have known.
> But not them.



Again Walt, I agree.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> there is NOTHING in the Bible or Christianity that will lead me back. Never. Ever.


                                                                                        Famous last words.....                                                                                                                                                                                  I submit to you that if the Holy Spirit ever gets hold of you,it will turn your life upside down.You'll be like Paul when he said "who art thou,Lord?" and "what wilt thou have me to do?"


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Famous last words.....                                                                                                                                                                                  I submit to you that if the Holy Spirit ever gets hold of you,it will turn your life upside down.You'll be like Paul when he said "who art thou,Lord?" and "what wilt thou have me to do?"


So which is it? Do we have to repent and ask or will the holy spirit take us if it wants us? Or can we ask and be rejected? Are we predestined to be unbelievers? Which excuse is it today?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Famous last words.....                                                                                                                                                                                  I submit to you that if the Holy Spirit ever gets hold of you,it will turn your life upside down.You'll be like Paul when he said "who art thou,Lord?" and "what wilt thou have me to do?"


The Holy Spirit isn't the Bible or Christianity.
So I think -


> If Jesus cares enough to pay me a visit and tell me about himself over a sweet tea, I'll listen


I already said that. Of course it depends on what he has to say.


----------



## welderguy

Based on your last couple of posts,I can only assume neither of you have been regenerated yet.So...you don't have what it takes to truly come to Jesus.My telling you all this is just like me going up to casket in the funeral home and screaming in the dead person's ear expecting him to hear and comprehend.It's simply impossible with me.But...not for God.


----------



## bullethead

There are born again Christians,Jews,Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists ,Wiccans, and dang near every other major religion and denomination within those religions.
I am missing the "big deal" in Christianitys version of born again. It is not unique and its followers are no different than the millions of other born agains in all the other religions.
What am I missing out on? Why am I not grabbed by any of the other "spirits of the born again" and recruited in those religions?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Based on your last couple of posts,I can only assume neither of you have been regenerated yet.So...you don't have what it takes to truly come to Jesus.My telling you all this is just like me going up to casket in the funeral home and screaming in the dead person's ear expecting him to hear and comprehend.It's simply impossible with me.But...not for God.


Yeah that's what it is. When we believed we didn't truly believe because when you truly believe you will always believe.
And of course all the people that don't believe any more actually never did believe.
That's the only way you can understand it so of course its true


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Based on your last couple of posts,I can only assume neither of you have been regenerated yet.So...you don't have what it takes to truly come to Jesus.My telling you all this is just like me going up to casket in the funeral home and screaming in the dead person's ear expecting him to hear and comprehend.It's simply impossible with me.But...not for God.


Regenerated is not something I am shopping for right now anyway.
I had 3 levels of what it took to come to Jesus I just lack the 4th (where you are at) and then the 5th 6th 7th etc etc where other believers who are better Jesus understanders than both you and I. 
Cause no matter what you have Welder,  some other guy is a rank higher in his enlightenment.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> So which is it? Do we have to repent and ask or will the holy spirit take us if it wants us? Or can we ask and be rejected? Are we predestined to be unbelievers? Which excuse is it today?



After the Holy Spirit breathes life into your dead spirit,you will repent because He will change your will.It happens in that order.It's not "effectual" if it's done in the reverse order.Churches today are pulling people in by the droves trying to do it in the reverse order and the result is many,if not most,return to their old way of living without a true change.That's the "religion"that you and I both disdain.It's another lie of Satan.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Regenerated is not something I am shopping for right now anyway.
> I had 3 levels of what it took to come to Jesus I just lack the 4th (where you are at) and then the 5th 6th 7th etc etc where other believers who are better Jesus understanders than both you and I.
> Cause no matter what you have Welder,  some other guy is a rank higher in his enlightenment.



Forget all that "ranking" talk.Theres no ranking with Jesus.And,BTW,a person doesn't "shop" for salvation.God comes to where you are and seeks you out and finds you and then calls you.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> After the Holy Spirit breathes life into your dead spirit,you will repent because He will change your will.It happens in that order.It's not "effectual" if it's done in the reverse order.Churches today are pulling people in by the droves trying to do it in the reverse order and the result is many,if not most,return to their old way of living without a true change.That's the "religion"that you and I both disdain.It's another lie of Satan.


I got a rejection letter from the Holy Spirit last week. It said I was never a part of the elect so no sense trying. 20 years of Jesus loyalty was not enough they are looking for people with more experience. Maybe I can apply to be a born again Hindu after I complete a few levels.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah that's what it is. When we believed we didn't truly believe because when you truly believe you will always believe.
> And of course all the people that don't believe any more actually never did believe.
> That's the only way you can understand it so of course its true



That's the absolute truth!  You got it...in your head.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Forget all that "ranking" talk.Theres no ranking with Jesus.


If not then I would have never left. Every time I tell you what and how I believed you say I missed the goal by a notch or a level. What I experienced is not enough according to you. I need the next step of enlightenment.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I got a rejection letter from the Holy Spirit last week. It said I was never a part of the elect so no sense trying. 20 years of Jesus loyalty was not enough they are looking for people with more experience. Maybe I can apply to be a born again Hindu after I complete a few levels.



If you are of the elect,you were chosen before creation.You won't know if you're elect until you are regenerated.After that,you will feel like you've been washed clean,inside and out.You will feel like a new person.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> That's the absolute truth!  You got it...in your head.


Then everything is exactly as God intended. Hallelujah!
But that would make you upsetting the apple cart by disagreeing with what we say because you would be disagreeing with God's plan for us.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> If not then I would have never left. Every time I tell you what and how I believed you say I missed the goal by a notch or a level. What I experienced is not enough according to you. I need the next step of enlightenment.



No.That's not what I'm telling you at all. I'm telling you,if you haven't been born again yet,there's NO WAY for you to know if you are one of the elect.Because you are dead spiritually.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Then everything is exactly as God intended. Hallelujah!
> But that would make you upsetting the apple cart by disagreeing with what we say because you would be disagreeing with God's plan for us.



Walt,nothing I do or say is gonna upset God's applecart.Don't worry. He told us in His word to "go and tell what great things the Lord has done for you".That's all I can do.I can't save you or condemn you.That's His work,not mine.


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> Perhaps experiential might be a better fit for you?




Or "heart" has its context in Daniel perhaps. 


"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

I read it to mean " I will put my law within them, I will make evident my disposition as their's."

Now this " disposition" has been evident in man from generation to generation, or His kingdom endures from generation to generation. Daniel 4:34.

And lastly... two things.

  1.Some men can brand their consciousness to searing it and man being a servant to a master by nature, (because he does not live only for himself, but in community requiring a power above himself and community),  and so branding their conscious in servitude to a master(s) what they will, and  become deformed,  self mutilated as men,  and His kingdom departs from them. 

 2. And God gives His kingdom to whomever He will. Daniel 4: 32.


----------



## ambush80

I wonder why no other believers have chimed in on the falsehood of Exodus?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> If you are of the elect,you were chosen before creation.You won't know if you're elect until you are regenerated.After that,you will feel like you've been washed clean,inside and out.You will feel like a new person.


1. I don't believe you know anything about it.
2. I am already one of the elect in another belief system and have been feeling just fine.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> 1. I don't believe you know anything about it.
> 2. I am already one of the elect in another belief system and have been feeling just fine.



1.I understand your unbelief.

2.I also understand you are feeling just fine.

It confirms to me that you must be spiritually dead.

It's ok because there's one who can take care of that when He chooses to do so.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I wonder why no other believers have chimed in on the falsehood of Exodus?


Say nothing and hope it goes away. That us what happens every time a conversation gets sticky. Madman bailed a week ago but will be back when a conversation is more suited to unprovable claims.
Welder stays in conversations but changes the talk towards unprovable claims. The others that chime in are hit and run.


----------



## gordon 2

ambush80 said:


> I wonder why no other believers have chimed in on the falsehood of Exodus?


http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/03/was-there-an-exodus/


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt,nothing I do or say is gonna upset God's applecart.Don't worry. He told us in His word to "go and tell what great things the Lord has done for you".That's all I can do.I can't save you or condemn you.That's His work,not mine.


That's what we have been telling you all along.
"He knows where I'm at"
"If he shows up and has a sweet tea with me"
etc etc
When he makes time for us (thereby proving he exists), we'll make time for him.
Not before.
Of course for me, if he says the Bible is all true, then we have a whole other problem.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> That's what we have been telling you all along.
> "He knows where I'm at"
> "If he shows up and has a sweet tea with me"
> etc etc
> When he makes time for us (thereby proving he exists), we'll make time for him.
> Not before.
> Of course for me, if he says the Bible is all true, then we have a whole other problem.


You know, the funny thing is, what you now think would be a problem...would be gone.
No one understands unbelief better than God.

(But that's also funny "When he makes time for us...") Who do you think it's made for...except those needing something to repent in, like me?


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> You know, the funny thing is, what you now think would be a problem...would be gone.
> No one understands unbelief better than God.
> 
> (But that's also funny "When he makes time for us...") Who do you think it's made for...except those needing something to repent in, like me?





> You know, the funny thing is, what you now think would be a problem...would be gone.


I honestly hope not.
They were problems when I believed. They are problems now. I want them to remain problems. I'm glad they are problems to me.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Say nothing and hope it goes away. That us what happens every time a conversation gets sticky. Madman bailed a week ago but will be back when a conversation is more suited to unprovable claims.Welder stays in conversations but changes the talk towards unprovable claims. The others that chime in are hit and run.


I can deal with the unprovable claims. It was the "morals come from God" while at the same time taking personal potshots at people's intelligence that I found somewhat hypocritical. 
Unless of course those are the morals that God gave out.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> I honestly hope not.
> They were problems when I believed. They are problems now. I want them to remain problems. I'm glad they are problems to me.



I get that.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> 1.I understand your unbelief.
> 
> 2.I also understand you are feeling just fine.
> 
> It confirms to me that you must be spiritually dead.
> 
> It's ok because there's one who can take care of that when He chooses to do so.



You only see black and white while overlooking the other 62 colors in the box.You only see choices that are either #1 or #2 and are blind to the thousand other possibilities.
I can be spiritually alive with a different belief system but you cannot comprehend that.
Open your eyes man. Life is not so cut and dry.


----------



## bullethead

gordon 2 said:


> http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/03/was-there-an-exodus/


Cliff notes:
It may have happened but it is not exactly the way the bible tells it.
The bible should be held to other historical standards.

Rebuttal:
No other historical records claim to be the word of god. If it is the word of God, God is bad at details.

It is a nice attempt but does not stand up to historical facts.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> I can deal with the unprovable claims. It was the "morals come from God" while at the same time taking personal potshots at people's intelligence that I found somewhat hypocritical.
> Unless of course those are the morals that God gave out.


Since struggling for the moral high ground is not peculiar to anyone in particular, or of any particular persuasion, one might conclude the struggle for it has an inherent and inseparable ingredient it is never found without. The will to act in the most immoral ways to prove oneself of higher moral caliber.
One need not be paddled, simply dismissed from class. When the test comes, and it comes for all, one will learn they exempted themselves from the very lesson that would have preserved them.


----------



## welderguy

This is for Bullet and Walt:                                                               John6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Since struggling for the moral high ground is not peculiar to anyone in particular, or of any particular persuasion, one might conclude the struggle for it has an inherent and inseparable ingredient it is never found without. The will to act in the most immoral ways to prove oneself of higher moral caliber.
> One need not be paddled, simply dismissed from class. When the test comes, and it comes for all, one will learn they exempted themselves from the very lesson that would have preserved them.



The emptiest of threats.  You're not scaring anyone but yourself.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> This is for Bullet and Walt:                                                               John6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
> 
> 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
> 
> 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.



This is for welderguy.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> This is for Bullet and Walt:                                                               John6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
> 
> 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
> 
> 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.



Give us a Jesus 1:1.
All these other writers sound just like most believers I know and tell me what they think Jesus would say and do.
Jesus and the Father know all these things except how to write it down themselves and they couldn't see all the problems these writings will cause.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> This is for Bullet and Walt:                                                               John6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
> 
> 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
> 
> 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


If -


> that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.


Then-


> But there are some of you that believe not.


Is because it wasn't given by his father

So there was no -


> betray him


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> because it wasn't given by his father



The sad truth is that everyone was/is a Jesus betrayer.

The greatest gift of grace is that He would even consider to cause any to come to Him.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The sad truth is that everyone was/is a Jesus betrayer.
> The greatest gift of grace is that He would even consider to cause any to come to Him.


Why is it sad?
According to your beliefs God made it that way.
You cant have it both ways Welder.
If we do only what God intends us to do then we are not responsible. He chose it. We are just puppets acting it out.
You either believe God predestined everything or you don't.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Why is it sad?
> According to your beliefs God made it that way.
> You cant have it both ways Welder.
> If we do only what God intends us to do then we are not responsible. He chose it. We are just puppets acting it out.
> You either believe God predestined everything or you don't.



I think it's sad because I see the horribly devastating effects of sin in the world.To name just a few:death, sickness,poverty, wars, violence,broken homes, murder,lying, cheating,stealing,raping, kidnapping.....

Man caused all those things to come into the world.He had a choice not to, but he made the wrong choice.You CANNOT say we are puppets that God manipulates every action because then you'd be saying that God is the author of sin.

Man must take full responsibility for his every action and acknowledge Jesus as the only hope for salvation.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I think it's sad because I see the horribly devastating effects of sin in the world.To name just a few:death, sickness,poverty, wars, violence,broken homes, murder,lying, cheating,stealing,raping, kidnapping.....
> 
> Man caused all those things to come into the world.He had a choice not to, but he made the wrong choice.You CANNOT say we are puppets that God manipulates every action because then you'd be saying that God is the author of sin.
> 
> Man must take full responsibility for his every action and acknowledge Jesus as the only hope for salvation.





> acknowledge Jesus as the only hope for salvation.


Welder you have repeatedly told us that only God can make one acknowledge that. Right here in this thread several times.


> I think it's sad because I see the horribly devastating effects of sin in the world.To name just a few:death, sickness,poverty, wars, violence,broken homes, murder,lying, cheating,stealing,raping, kidnapping.....


Look around some more.
To name just a few: life, scientists advancing medicine to help the sick, an elderly person having a flat tire changed for them by a stranger, children at the lake with their parents laughing and having a good time, a kitten being saved from the pound, happy two parent homes, happy single parent homes, people donating to the needy .......
Yin and yang, good and bad. Humans.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Welder you have repeatedly told us that only God can make one acknowledge that. Right here in this thread several times.
> 
> Look around some more.
> To name just a few: life, scientists advancing medicine to help the sick, an elderly person having a flat tire changed for them by a stranger, children at the lake with their parents laughing and having a good time, a kitten being saved from the pound, happy two parent homes, happy single parent homes, people donating to the needy .......
> Yin and yang, good and bad. Humans.



I see your point and it's a good one.I should look for the good things in life instead of dwelling on the bad.I agree.

But when you say "there was no betrayal", that simply is not true, and I gave evidence for it. (all the bad things)

As far as acknowledging Jesus is the only hope for salvation, you open your mouth and say it and understand (with your intellect).Has nothing to do with believing IMO.
Even demons have that ability as proven in Matt.8:29.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I see your point and it's a good one.I should look for the good things in life instead of dwelling on the bad.I agree.
> 
> But when you say "there was no betrayal", that simply is not true, and I gave evidence for it. (all the bad things)
> 
> As far as acknowledging Jesus is the only hope for salvation, you open your mouth and say it and understand (with your intellect).Has nothing to do with believing IMO.
> Even demons have that ability as proven in Matt.8:29.



"All the bad things" would have already been in God's bag of tricks long before anyone had a chance to commit them.
If your God IS creation then he created those sins full well knowing who is going to do what eons before anyone does them.

And how is poverty a sin? Last I checked Jesus was not on Shark Tank making his millions. According to your scripture Jesus tells people to give away their wealth and have treasure in Heaven? 
While you have your thinking cap on...how is death and sickness sins?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I see your point and it's a good one.I should look for the good things in life instead of dwelling on the bad.I agree.
> 
> But when you say "there was no betrayal", that simply is not true, and I gave evidence for it. (all the bad things)
> 
> As far as acknowledging Jesus is the only hope for salvation, you open your mouth and say it and understand (with your intellect).Has nothing to do with believing IMO.
> Even demons have that ability as proven in Matt.8:29.





> But when you say "there was no betrayal", that simply is not true, and I gave evidence for it. (all the bad things)


You are caught up in the contradictions of your beliefs.
To betray Jesus you would have to know Jesus.
According to the scripture you posted for me and Bullet -


> And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.


God would have to give that to you.
So the only ones who could actually betray Jesus are the ones that through God, know Jesus.
So its not -


> The sad truth is that everyone was/is a Jesus betrayer.


Its only the ones who know Jesus through God that can be guilty of betrayal.


> As far as acknowledging Jesus is the only hope for salvation, you open your mouth and say it and understand (with your intellect).Has nothing to do with believing IMO.


If you don't believe Jesus exists as the son of God you certainly don't acknowledge he is the only hope for salvation. In fact you wouldn't believe in salvation either.
I know you have found a way to organize all these different beliefs in your mind so that they don't contradict each other but here I am pointing them out so they DO exist.
I used to do the same thing. Until I realized I shouldn't have to.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> "All the bad things" would have already been in God's bag of tricks long before anyone had a chance to commit them.
> If your God IS creation then he created those sins full well knowing who is going to do what eons before anyone does them.



God did not create sin.Sin is an action.It's intangible.It is something that was done in disobedience by mankind against the comand of God.




bullethead said:


> And how is poverty a sin? Last I checked Jesus was not on Shark Tank making his millions. According to your scripture Jesus tells people to give away their wealth and have treasure in Heaven?
> While you have your thinking cap on...how is death and sickness sins?



Poverty, sickness, and death are not sins silly.They are EFFECTS of sin.Go back and reread my post.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> You are caught up in the contradictions of your beliefs.
> To betray Jesus you would have to know Jesus.
> According to the scripture you posted for me and Bullet -
> 
> God would have to give that to you.
> So the only ones who could actually betray Jesus are the ones that through God, know Jesus.
> So its not -
> 
> Its only the ones who know Jesus through God that can be guilty of betrayal.
> 
> If you don't believe Jesus exists as the son of God you certainly don't acknowledge he is the only hope for salvation. In fact you wouldn't believe in salvation either.
> I know you have found a way to organize all these different beliefs in your mind so that they don't contradict each other but here I am pointing them out so they DO exist.
> I used to do the same thing. Until I realized I shouldn't have to.



Basicly all you need to know(in your head) is that God is your creator, therefore He is Lord of all and then obey His comands as Lord of all.
Just because you take the copout of "I don't believe, therefore somehow I'm exempt" actually does not exempt you from reverencing Him and obeying Him.If nothing else, you should give thanks to Him for your life and all that He gives you.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> God did not create sin.Sin is an action.It's intangible.It is something that was done in disobedience by mankind against the comand of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poverty, sickness, and death are not sins silly.They are EFFECTS of sin.Go back and reread my post.


Was God clueless to sin until Adam and Eve sinned?
Did God not know they were going to sin?
Did God have no idea about what was going to happen to the first two people he created?
How could Adam and Eve create sin on their own? God would have had to incorporate sin into his creation or it could never exist.

My bad on missing your obvious effort to be specific about those examples you gave being the effects of sin. Apologies.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Basicly all you need to know(in your head) is that God is your creator, therefore He is Lord of all and then obey His comands as Lord of all.
> Just because you take the copout of "I don't believe, therefore somehow I'm exempt" actually does not exempt you from reverencing Him and obeying Him.If nothing else, you should give thanks to Him for your life and all that He gives you.


How can it be a cop-out if it must be given to you by the Father? If he doesn't give it to you...it is something you never had to refuse.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Was God clueless to sin until Adam and Eve sinned?
> Did God not know they were going to sin?
> Did God have no idea about what was going to happen to the first two people he created?
> How could Adam and Eve create sin on their own? God would have had to incorporate sin into his creation or it could never exist.
> 
> My bad on missing your obvious effort to be specific about those examples you gave being the effects of sin. Apologies.



God is omniscient,meaning He knows everything.Yes, He knew full well they would sin, but He did not cause them to sin.I think you are too caught up on the false concept that "sin was created".Like I said before, it's an action that was done in disobedience, not something that was created.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> How can it be a cop-out if it must be given to you by the Father? If he doesn't give it to you...it is something you never had to refuse.



The "given" part is believing.This is called faith.Faith is only given to His elect and that is what causes His elect to come to Him.

Don't confuse the "given" part(believing) with the comand to obey that applies to all people.In other words, even if He never gives you saving faith, you are still comanded to obey Him and reverence Him and thank Him as your creator.

Everyone will be judged at the last day.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> God is omniscient,meaning He knows everything.Yes, He knew full well they would sin, but He did not cause them to sin.I think you are too caught up on the false concept that "sin was created".Like I said before, it's an action that was done in disobedience, not something that was created.


He knew the outcome before it ever happened. He knew  every human would suffer for the actions of Adam before he ever whipped Adam up from the dirt. He knew satan would tempt them and they would fall for it.
He knew he was going to have to send a version of himself a couple thousand years later to be sacrificed.
He knows everything that happened from day one until now was going to happen a gazillion years before it happened.
He has held every single person accountable for following his plan. Nothing happens that is not supposed to happen.  Me typing this does not surprise him. This is my role in his plan. I am following his will. Without me doing this you cannot  type your reply which he already knows what you will say and has known it before Adam bit the fruit.
He knows your interpretations will be skewed. He counts on it.

I wouldn't be throwing false concept rocks around in the glass house you live in.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> He knew the outcome before it ever happened. He knew  every human would suffer for the actions of Adam before he ever whipped Adam up from the dirt. He knew satan would tempt them and they would fall for it.
> He knew he was going to have to send a version of himself a couple thousand years later to be sacrificed.
> He knows everything that happened from day one until now was going to happen a gazillion years before it happened.
> He has held every single person accountable for following his plan. Nothing happens that is not supposed to happen.  Me typing this does not surprise him. This is my role in his plan. I am following his will. Without me doing this you cannot  type your reply which he already knows what you will say and has known it before Adam bit the fruit.
> He knows your interpretations will be skewed. He counts on it.
> 
> I wouldn't be throwing false concept rocks around in the glass house you live in.



Ok....Uhh...what's your point exactly?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The "given" part is believing.This is called faith.Faith is only given to His elect and that is what causes His elect to come to Him.
> 
> Don't confuse the "given" part(believing) with the comand to obey that applies to all people.In other words, even if He never gives you saving faith, you are still comanded to obey Him and reverence Him and thank Him as your creator.
> 
> Everyone will be judged at the last day.



I am going to put a 1lb chocolate easter bunny on my end table.
I am going to tell my 7yr old niece not to eat it.
I am going to allow my behavior challenged neighbor kid to play inside with her cause I KNOW he will tell my niece it is ok to eat it. 
When she does, and i know she will, I am going to punish her by never allowing her in my house again. Then I am going to hold every other person in the neighborhood accountable until I have a few of them beat the snot out of my oldest Son to pay for all of the neighbors that are just as guilty of eating the forbidden chocolate bunny(even though they have no clue to my maniacal actions and thought process .) And then even though he paid for their actions I am STILL going to expect them all to follow the other rules which I may or may not have chose for them to individually follow.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Ok....Uhh...what's your point exactly?



Our choices are already made. Whatever we have done or will do is already known. The plan is in motion.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Our choices are already made. Whatever we have done or will do is already known. The plan is in motion.



1st sentence is false.
2nd sentence is true.
3rd sentence is true.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Basicly all you need to know(in your head) is that God is your creator, therefore He is Lord of all and then obey His comands as Lord of all.
> Just because you take the copout of "I don't believe, therefore somehow I'm exempt" actually does not exempt you from reverencing Him and obeying Him.If nothing else, you should give thanks to Him for your life and all that He gives you.


You do a good run around the end play 


> Basicly all you need to know(in your head) is that God is your creator,


I cant know that unless God puts it in my head. That's what YOU SAID.


> Just because you take the copout of "I don't believe, therefore somehow I'm exempt"


I'm exempt because God hasn't put it in my head.

See Welder Im paying attention to what you say. Im using what YOU say, not what I say, to show the contradictions.
YOUR STATEMENTS -


> I also know God chooses to reveal it to some and to hide it from others.





> I submit to you that if the Holy Spirit ever gets hold of you





> After the Holy Spirit breathes life into your dead spirit





> God comes to where you are and seeks you out and finds you and then calls you.





> That's His work


Yes Welder Im paying attention to what you say. 
But Im not sure you are.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> You do a good run around the end play
> 
> I cant know that unless God puts it in my head. That's what YOU SAID.
> 
> I'm exempt because God hasn't put it in my head.
> 
> See Welder Im paying attention to what you say. Im using what YOU say, not what I say, to show the contradictions.
> YOUR STATEMENTS -




I tried to address your obvious confusion in post #806.
It boils down to the difference between head knowledge and believing faith knowledge.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I am going to put a 1lb chocolate easter bunny on my end table.
> I am going to tell my 7yr old niece not to eat it.
> I am going to allow my behavior challenged neighbor kid to play inside with her cause I KNOW he will tell my niece it is ok to eat it.
> When she does, and i know she will, I am going to punish her by never allowing her in my house again. Then I am going to hold every other person in the neighborhood accountable until I have a few of them beat the snot out of my oldest Son to pay for all of the neighbors that are just as guilty of eating the forbidden chocolate bunny(even though they have no clue to my maniacal actions and thought process .) And then even though he paid for their actions I am STILL going to expect them all to follow the other rules which I may or may not have chose for them to individually follow.



I would have eaten that chocolate rabbit too.I love those things!

Thanks! Now I'm craving chocolate.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> He knew the outcome before it ever happened. He knew  every human would suffer for the actions of Adam before he ever whipped Adam up from the dirt. He knew satan would tempt them and they would fall for it.
> He knew he was going to have to send a version of himself a couple thousand years later to be sacrificed.
> He knows everything that happened from day one until now was going to happen a gazillion years before it happened.
> He has held every single person accountable for following his plan. Nothing happens that is not supposed to happen.  Me typing this does not surprise him. This is my role in his plan. I am following his will. Without me doing this you cannot  type your reply which he already knows what you will say and has known it before Adam bit the fruit.
> He knows your interpretations will be skewed. He counts on it.



What you have described is an inescapable situation.


I consider it in this light.

When Jesus said this:

"Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? "Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace...



It is the terms of peace thing that we may investigate.
What might be when a man accepts inevitability?
What could be if one were to consider a creator who allowed man to make of himself an enemy of the creator?
What might be seen in that gift of allowance?
God appears according to our need. And our need dictates how we see, God, ourselves, and others. If we need to feel like conquerors..._prevailers_ over others...

What if we seek peace?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I tried to address your obvious confusion in post #806.
> It boils down to the difference between head knowledge and believing faith knowledge.


In post 806 you are talking to Bullet not me.


> In other words, even if He never gives you saving faith, you are still comanded to obey Him and reverence Him and thank Him as your creator.


Well that's kind of selfish don't you think?
How about even if your employer never gives you a paycheck you are still commanded to obey them and revere them and show up for work every day and thank them as your employer?


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> What you have described is an inescapable situation.
> 
> 
> I consider it in this light.
> 
> When Jesus said this:
> 
> "Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? "Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the terms of peace thing that we may investigate.
> What might be when a man accepts inevitability?
> What could be if one were to consider a creator who allowed man to make of himself an enemy of the creator?
> What might be seen in that gift of allowance?
> God appears according to our need. And our need dictates how we see, God, ourselves, and others. If we need to feel like conquerors..._prevailers_ over others...
> 
> What if we seek peace?





> God appears according to our need. And our need dictates how we see, God,


Couldn't agree more.
In fact that's the same thing we say to you guys.


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> I am going to put a 1lb chocolate easter bunny on my end table.
> I am going to tell my 7yr old niece not to eat it.
> I am going to allow my behavior challenged neighbor kid to play inside with her cause I KNOW he will tell my niece it is ok to eat it.
> When she does, and i know she will, I am going to punish her by never allowing her in my house again. Then I am going to hold every other person in the neighborhood accountable until I have a few of them beat the snot out of my oldest Son to pay for all of the neighbors that are just as guilty of eating the forbidden chocolate bunny(even though they have no clue to my maniacal actions and thought process .) And then even though he paid for their actions I am STILL going to expect them all to follow the other rules which I may or may not have chose for them to individually follow.



Excellent!


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> I am going to put a 1lb chocolate easter bunny on my end table.
> I am going to tell my 7yr old niece not to eat it.
> I am going to allow my behavior challenged neighbor kid to play inside with her cause I KNOW he will tell my niece it is ok to eat it.
> When she does, and i know she will, I am going to punish her by never allowing her in my house again. Then I am going to hold every other person in the neighborhood accountable until I have a few of them beat the snot out of my oldest Son to pay for all of the neighbors that are just as guilty of eating the forbidden chocolate bunny(even though they have no clue to my maniacal actions and thought process .) And then even though he paid for their actions I am STILL going to expect them all to follow the other rules which I may or may not have chose for them to individually follow.


In your scenario, did you do anything wrong?


----------



## 660griz

gemcgrew said:


> In your scenario, did you do anything wrong?



Of course not, he is 'God'.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Couldn't agree more.
> In fact that's the same thing we say to you guys.



Is it?
I have then mistakenly believed some are saying..."there is no God to see"


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> Is it?
> I have then mistakenly believed some are saying..."there is no God to see"



Some are. I have no need for a God.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Is it?
> I have then mistakenly believed some are saying..."there is no God to see"


Seeing God if your need is strong enough doesn't mean he exists.
Surely you have seen the classic dying man crawling through the desert, near death from dehydration and looks up to see a beautiful oasis with shady trees and a crystal clear pond of water........
It was what he needed to see to keep going so his mind showed it to him.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> What you have described is an inescapable situation.
> 
> 
> I consider it in this light.
> 
> When Jesus said this:
> 
> "Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? "Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the terms of peace thing that we may investigate.
> What might be when a man accepts inevitability?
> What could be if one were to consider a creator who allowed man to make of himself an enemy of the creator?
> What might be seen in that gift of allowance?
> God appears according to our need. And our need dictates how we see, God, ourselves, and others. If we need to feel like conquerors..._prevailers_ over others...
> 
> What if we seek peace?



Consider this in this light:

Many years ago my great grandmother used to see my Uncle running around her house and hiding under beds and inside closets. She would call my father over to help try to find him yet no matter how hard my Dad looked my Uncle was never actually there. The first few times it was startling and alarming. The next few times as she was also trying to turn on her flashlight with the porch light switch in order to search the house for another "appearance" of my Uncle we knew it was time to address her problem.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Consider this in this light:
> 
> Many years ago my great grandmother used to see my Uncle running around her house and hiding under beds and inside closets. She would call my father over to help try to find him yet no matter how hard my Dad looked my Uncle was never actually there. The first few times it was startling and alarming. The next few times as she was also trying to turn on her flashlight with the porch light switch in order to search the house for another "appearance" of my Uncle we knew it was time to address her problem.




"They'll call you crazy......."   It's been prophesied.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> In your scenario, did you do anything wrong?


Yes, i set my niece up to fail in an entrapment scheme and then punished the neighborhood for her actions. Having my son (who was really me) beaten by the same neighborhood people as if it is some sort of sacrificial payment now elevates me to king sociopath. And then expecting them to live their lives according to my commands yet I never actually command them to do anything and I never leave my house to be seen by them or I never talk to them personally may have my kids prepping a nice room up at Shady Acres mental hospital for me...especially when they find out I have been asking the paperboy to write up my rules according to what he thinks they should be. He lets them lay about randomly throughout the neighborhood and Luckily I told him not to use his real name when he signs them. As I peek out my darkened drapes I see no one is taking my orders seriously so I will have their names put on a list that bans them from living in a nice place to stay once they are old enough to not take care of themselves anymore. They will have to share a basement apartment next to the furnace room in a run down crack house instead.

And more importantly what I really did wrong was
I should have published it and had every hotel and motel buy one for their nightstands. It may give comfort to the hookers knowing it is there while they are earning a living.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Yes


In your scenario, you are a wrongdoer. Did you decree a moral law that forbade yourself from doing what you did? Or are you accountable to a higher authority that forbade it?


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Seeing God if your need is strong enough doesn't mean he exists.
> Surely you have seen the classic dying man crawling through the desert, near death from dehydration and looks up to see a beautiful oasis with shady trees and a crystal clear pond of water........
> It was what he needed to see to keep going so his mind showed it to him.



But, that was not my intent. You said "I couldn't agree more" and then something to the effect that "this is what we have been trying to tell you guys, all along..."

I am not speaking of fabricating God, but in relation of how God appears.
To the clever, he shows himself...clever.
To the proud...proud.
To the one that calls him hard...that man is judged by his own words...and God deals harshly with him.
There remains a promise of God showing himself as benevolent Father. 
And, we all have/have had daddy issues.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> In your scenario, you are a wrongdoer. Did you decree a moral law that forbade yourself from doing what you did? Or are you accountable to a higher authority that forbade it?


If I may?


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> If I may?


Any time.


----------



## 660griz

And...
-Give us the ability to age certain things and declare the earth 6000 years old.
-Know you are making a huge error that will result in the killing of every man, woman and child on earth by drowning but, doing it anyway.
-Having unlimited power but, the only way you can get through to mankind is to place yourself in the womb or a betrothed virgin, be born, walk around for years talking smack and get yourself crucified, only to rise from the dead. I guess the flood didn't take. 
-Promoting incest to populate the earth(twice). Why not just create a population? 
-Creating homosexuals and cursing them to eternal torment.
-All powerful, all loving, and DEMAND worship? Sounds like a nice deity.
-Place the job of spreading your word on the shoulders of imperfect humans many years after the fact. 
- Obviously can't create a perfect being or planet. 
- Still can't answer why we were created. Cause he needed to be worshipped? Bored? Lonely? 
- Why not just create folks IN heaven? Cut out the middleman. They misbehave, give em the boot.

Why the secrecy and games? Sit down in front of every person, at the same time, and explain things. Show em some parlor tricks if need be. Actually act like you care rather than let the minions on earth 'spread' your word for you. Trust me, it does not look good.
Oh, and when you come to me, don't start with the worship stuff. 
That is just wrong...but you know that.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> In post 806 you are talking to Bullet not me.
> 
> Well that's kind of selfish don't you think?
> How about even if your employer never gives you a paycheck you are still commanded to obey them and revere them and show up for work every day and thank them as your employer?



This is not an accurate analogy because your employer is not your creator, and he is not perfect without a trace of sin, and he certainly does not have the words of eternal life.BIG difference. 

BTW, you may not ever get the eternal reward but you've already had a lifetime of daily blessings given to you by your creator that should be acknowledged and appreciated.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> Any time.


God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

When a man surrenders the dominion given him, and instead submits to the voice of the creation over which he is given to have dominion...and subdue it to himself, he cannot later blame the creation for his difficulty of finding God in it. Nor, can he even blame the subtle one. And obviously, he cannot blame God.

He has given things meant to be under him, a position over him, and he will bump his head continually, irrefutably, incessantly, unceasingly...until he simply admits it's his own doing. But in this, he will find the same power and authority given him to repent...has been a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, already "in the mix"...waiting for any and all who come to know being subject to the creation is all futility.
What he didn't see...is already there...provided...before his creation...as remedy...in gracious benevolence.

Being made to reign, is also perfectly attested to in railing against futility. The way is clear.

These things, I know you know. 

"In the scenario" a thing was left out. Even misstated. No invitation was made to the serpent, but if man needed to learn the rewards of subtlety, and cleverness...he was also free to learn those...that he doesn't like the reward...is also to his benefit. No one is created to "like" death. There really isn't enough blame...to "go round", mercy has already, from the outset, consumed it.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> In your scenario, you are a wrongdoer. Did you decree a moral law that forbade yourself from doing what you did? Or are you accountable to a higher authority that forbade it?


I am real and must abide by the laws of my society. It is the people that think I am anything above a man  and think I am accountable to a higher authority in my afterlife that have the problem.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> This is not an accurate analogy because your employer is not your creator, and he is not perfect without a trace of sin, and he certainly does not have the words of eternal life.BIG difference.
> 
> BTW, you may not ever get the eternal reward but you've already had a lifetime of daily blessings given to you by your creator that should be acknowledged and appreciated.


Actually my analogy is more accurate than yours. Because the employer can be proven to exist.
You are just making assertions as though they are facts.
That is the BIG difference.

And I acknowledge and appreciate my blessings to those who deserve them. The people in my life. And also to myself as I have earned what I have and to those who have helped me along the way.
They are real. They exist. They deserve to be appreciated.


> given to you by your creator


Yes. My parents. I appreciate them very much.
I can prove they exist and that they created me.
Can you do that with your assertions?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Actually my analogy is more accurate than yours. Because the employer can be proven to exist.
> You are just making assertions as though they are facts.
> That is the BIG difference.
> 
> And I acknowledge and appreciate my blessings to those who deserve them. The people in my life. And also to myself as I have earned what I have and to those who have helped me along the way.
> They are real. They exist. They deserve to be appreciated.
> 
> Yes. My parents. I appreciate them very much.
> I can prove they exist and that they created me.
> Can you do that with your assertions?



Yes....but like all the other times, you won't believe me.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Yes....but like all the other times, you won't believe me.


I can stand my parents up in front of you with my birth certificate and DNA results and prove they created me.
You can only try to talk me into believing what you believe.
You have faith. I have proof. You have belief. I have proof. You have assertions. I have proof.
When you have proof I promise I will believe you.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I can stand my parents up in front of you with my birth certificate and DNA results and prove they created me.
> You can only try to talk me into believing what you believe.
> You have faith. I have proof. You have belief. I have proof. You have assertions. I have proof.
> When you have proof I promise I will believe you.



Succinct posts are succinct.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> I can stand my parents up in front of you with my birth certificate and DNA results and prove they created me.
> You can only try to talk me into believing what you believe.
> You have faith. I have proof. You have belief. I have proof. You have assertions. I have proof.
> When you have proof I promise I will believe you.



Your parents are proof there is a creator also but you can't see that.

Here's an idea: Go volunteer at a hospital in their geriatric ward  or a nursing home for a year or two.Get to know the patients, particularly those of strong faith.Then observe what takes place at their death.I've heard so many stories of even comatose people of faith opening their eyes, raising their hands, smiling, and even saying things like "it's beautiful" or "I'm going home".That gets my attention every time.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Your parents are proof there is a creator also *but you can't see that*.
> 
> Here's an idea: Go volunteer at a hospital in their geriatric ward  or a nursing home for a year or two.Get to know the patients, particularly those of strong faith.Then observe what takes place at their death.I've heard so many stories of even comatose people of faith opening their eyes, raising their hands, smiling, and even saying things like "it's beautiful" or "I'm going home".That gets my attention every time.



That's the whole point. 

You can't see it. You can see his parents. You can see the DNA results, you can see a whole host of things. 

What you can't see is the afterlife or God. You _believe_ He is there, but you have no hard proof.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Your parents are proof there is a creator also but you can't see that.
> 
> Here's an idea: Go volunteer at a hospital in their geriatric ward  or a nursing home for a year or two.Get to know the patients, particularly those of strong faith.Then observe what takes place at their death.I've heard so many stories of even comatose people of faith opening their eyes, raising their hands, smiling, and even saying things like "it's beautiful" or "I'm going home".That gets my attention every time.


Real people, real places, and real events that are embellished. You add a creator into the story where even you have never met such a being let alone know any more than a hopeful guess that there is one.

If you are familiar with these geriatric wards why don't all the patients exhibit the same traits near death? Why is it just the people of strong faith?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Real people, real places, and real events that are embellished. You add a creator into the story where even you have never met such a being let alone know any more than a hopeful guess that there is one.
> 
> If you are familiar with these geriatric wards why don't all the patients exhibit the same traits near death? Why is it just the people of strong faith?



Good question. 

One of my surgeons, when I had cancer, told me I was dead for a little while in the recovery room. I had stopped breathing and had no pulse for a few minutes. Maybe that wasn't long enough to experience anything, wouldn't seem like that was case considering the people welder talks about are still very much alive when they talk about it, but all I experienced was nothing. 

Not like nothing when you know you've been asleep, or are just waking up. There was nothing. At least that I can remember.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Good question.
> 
> One of my surgeons, when I had cancer, told me I was dead for a little while in the recovery room. I had stopped breathing and had no pulse for a few minutes. Maybe that wasn't long enough to experience anything, wouldn't seem like that was case considering the people welder talks about are still very much alive when they talk about it, but all I experienced was nothing.
> 
> Not like nothing when you know you've been asleep, or are just waking up. There was nothing. At least that I can remember.



It wasn't time for your soul to depart.Obviously, since you're still here.

Ps.116 says"precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints"

I believe angels come to escort the spirit into paradise.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> It wasn't time for your soul to depart.Obviously, since you're still here.
> 
> Ps.116 says"precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints"
> 
> I believe angels come to escort the spirit into paradise.



Perhaps. Follow-on question, though; where did I go since, according to medical experts, I was dead?


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> I am real and must abide by the laws of my society. It is the people that think I am anything above a man  and think I am accountable to a higher authority in my afterlife that have the problem.


I see no room for this in your scenario.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> It wasn't time for your soul to depart.Obviously, since you're still here.
> 
> Ps.116 says"precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints"
> 
> I believe angels come to escort the spirit into paradise.



What about the non believers in your geriatric wards?
You always seem to skip a few questions in favor of just going with things that are easier to answer for you.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> I can stand my parents up in front of you with my birth certificate and DNA results and prove they created me.


That would prove nothing. I could be the victim of an elaborate hoax. 

As you could be.

I have a friend that lived this hoax for over 40 years.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> I see no room for this in your scenario.


I see no god in yours. Lets call it even.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> That would prove nothing. I could be the victim of an elaborate hoax.
> 
> As you could be.
> 
> I have a friend that lived this hoax for over 40 years.


But it can be figured out.
Things only last as long as others are willing to go along with rouse and not ask questions.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> That would prove nothing. I could be the victim of an elaborate hoax.
> 
> As you could be.
> 
> I have a friend that lived this hoax for over 40 years.


Im not great with math but which scenario would the odds be higher to be an elaborate hoax -
My parents creating me -
DNA (that's kind of a big one these days).
Birth Certificate.
Witnesses that saw me pop out of my mother.
All of the family that saw my mother pregnant and then holding me and not being pregnant anymore.
The hospital would have to be in on it.
Theres more but we'll start with that.

God creating me -
The Bible. That man decided what would be in it.
- insert cricket sounds here -


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Your parents are proof there is a creator also but you can't see that.
> 
> Here's an idea: Go volunteer at a hospital in their geriatric ward  or a nursing home for a year or two.Get to know the patients, particularly those of strong faith.Then observe what takes place at their death.I've heard so many stories of even comatose people of faith opening their eyes, raising their hands, smiling, and even saying things like "it's beautiful" or "I'm going home".That gets my attention every time.





> Here's an idea: Go volunteer at a hospital in their geriatric ward  or a nursing home for a year or two


Here's an idea : 
ask me if I have ever volunteered at a nursing home before you suggest I should.


> Your parents are proof there is a creator also but you can't see that.


You seems to have real issues with admitting you have faith not proof.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Your parents are proof there is a creator also but you can't see that.
> 
> Here's an idea: Go volunteer at a hospital in their geriatric ward  or a nursing home for a year or two.Get to know the patients, particularly those of strong faith.Then observe what takes place at their death.I've heard so many stories of even comatose people of faith opening their eyes, raising their hands, smiling, and even saying things like "it's beautiful" or "I'm going home".That gets my attention every time.


By the way -


> Your parents are proof there is a creator also but you can't see that.


Its interesting that you now are using "creator" and with a small "c".
And because you did that I will half way agree with you.
As soon as you start asserting you know what that "creator" was, Im out.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Perhaps. Follow-on question, though; where did I go since, according to medical experts, I was dead?



I'm not sure where you went.Maybe you didn't go anywhere and just your bodily functions shut down temporarily. 

Heb.9:27 says"as it is appointed for man once to die; then the judgement."

I don't think(unless in a miracle situation such as Lazerus) that normally men die more than once.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> By the way -
> 
> Its interesting that you now are using "creator" and with a small "c".
> And because you did that I will half way agree with you.
> As soon as you start asserting you know what that "creator" was, Im out.



Walt.you know me better than that.I think you know I meant the big C.

Oh, by the way, why haven't you told us about your nursing home experiences?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt.you know me better than that.I think you know I meant the big C.
> 
> Oh, by the way, why haven't you told us about your nursing home experiences?





> Walt.you know me better than that.I think you know I meant the big C.


Yeah I figured.
What I was suggesting to you in my response is that I am open to the theory that we were created. Whether that was goo and sunlight, the Big Bang, a god, whatever.
Until how we got here is actually proven the only honest answer is "we don't know".


> Oh, by the way, why haven't you told us about your nursing home experiences?


Its never been a topic of conversation.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Its never been a topic of conversation.



Did you witness any deaths that seemed like the person was looking beyond the ceiling at something out of the ordinary?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Did you witness any deaths that seemed like the person was looking beyond the ceiling at something out of the ordinary?


What is the only possible conclusion that it could  be beyond the ceiling?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> What is the only possible conclusion that it could  be beyond the ceiling?



Well..you know what I believe it to be.

But I also know Walt is a straight shooter.If he saw it, I'm sure he will tell us honestly.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Well..you know what I believe it to be.
> 
> But I also know Walt is a straight shooter.If he saw it, I'm sure he will tell us honestly.


I know what you believe. How can you back it up with any morsel of proof other than it being a wishful guess by you?
I don't doubt for a second that people on their death bed are capable of staring off into space.
I have seen it.
Probably Walt has seen it.
You have seen it.
How do you conclude they are looking at a god,angel,Jesus? How do you know it is not a dead relative? Why are you quick to point out (and this is the 3rd time I have asked)  what believers have GOT to be seeing but don't have an answer for what the non believers are seeing?
How do you know that from the lack of oxygen and loss of organ functions that the brain rendered images and feelings (of who knows what) like happens when we all dream? How is it not possible that it is a natural defense mechanism as the brain shuts down? Why isn't a dopamine induced dream or vision capable of being literally anything that the brain has conjured up from it's lifetime of experiences and memories a possibility, instead every believer  (well in Jesus as far as you are concerned) is staring at something straight out of Heaven?
And what do you think geriatric patients that are life long worshipers in other beliefs see when they are staring beyond the walls?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Did you witness any deaths that seemed like the person was looking beyond the ceiling at something out of the ordinary?


Didn't witness any actual last breaths. Saw several that basically lapsed into a coma but did not actually die in my presence. According to the nurses they stayed in the coma until their last breath.
And I want to clarify what I mean by I have volunteered.
Was dating a woman who's mother was in a nursing home. By visiting her I met other old folks that were there and formed some friendships. Some of them had worthless pieces of dung for children who didn't visit very often despite not living very far away. So I would go and visit them when I could and play cards, shoot the breeze, take them outside etc.
So I wasn't a volunteer in any kind of official capacity, I would just volunteer my time and go visit. 
They have all since passed but I know I made a small positive difference in their lives and I'm glad about that.
If there is a he11 I sincerely hope some of these loser children end up there and we get a chance to meet face to face. The devil will look like the Easter Bunny compared to what Ive got for them.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I know what you believe. How can you back it up with any morsel of proof other than it being a wishful guess by you?
> I don't doubt for a second that people on their death bed are capable of staring off into space.
> I have seen it.
> Probably Walt has seen it.
> You have seen it.
> How do you conclude they are looking at a god,angel,Jesus? How do you know it is not a dead relative? Why are you quick to point out (and this is the 3rd time I have asked)  what believers have GOT to be seeing but don't have an answer for what the non believers are seeing?
> How do you know that from the lack of oxygen and loss of organ functions that the brain rendered images and feelings (of who knows what) like happens when we all dream? How is it not possible that it is a natural defense mechanism as the brain shuts down? Why isn't a dopamine induced dream or vision capable of being literally anything that the brain has conjured up from it's lifetime of experiences and memories a possibility, instead every believer  (well in Jesus as far as you are concerned) is staring at something straight out of Heaven?
> And what do you think geriatric patients that are life long worshipers in other beliefs see when they are staring beyond the walls?



I don't know what they see, if in fact they even do.I'm just curious about it myself. I read in Acts about Stephen seeing Jesus in heaven as he was being stoned but I'm not sure that's what happens with all believers.Not sure either about non believers.

Thanks Walt for sharing that.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Im not great with math but which scenario would the odds be higher to be an elaborate hoax -
> My parents creating me -
> DNA (that's kind of a big one these days).
> Birth Certificate.
> Witnesses that saw me pop out of my mother.
> All of the family that saw my mother pregnant and then holding me and not being pregnant anymore.
> The hospital would have to be in on it.
> Theres more but we'll start with that.


I was just showing one possibility to challenge your purported proof. 

Have you compared your DNA personally or is your faith in the eyewitness accounts, documentaion and testimony enough for you?


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> I see no god in yours. Lets call it even.


You can't see mine at all. Nothing even about it.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I don't know what they see, if in fact they even do.I'm just curious about it myself. I read in Acts about Stephen seeing Jesus in heaven as he was being stoned but I'm not sure that's what happens with all believers.Not sure either about non believers.
> 
> Thanks Walt for sharing that.


It wouldn't surprise me in the least if what some of them (believers) see at their last moments is a vision of God or Heaven. But by "see" I mean their brain is sending them images to cope with what is happening to them.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> I was just showing one possibility to challenge your purported proof.


And I agree it would be possible. At least I certainly wont say its impossible. Very, very unlikely.


> Have you compared your DNA personally or is your faith in the eyewitness accounts, documentaion and testimony enough for you?


Fair point.
No I haven't compared my DNA. But I certainly could. And those eyewitness accounts were told to me personally. Face to face. With pictures of newborn me and them. 
Im not depending on a book that it isn't even known who all wrote it that says "Johnny said Billy told him a couple thousand years ago that....."


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Fair point.
> No I haven't compared my DNA. But I certainly could. And those eyewitness accounts were told to me personally. Face to face. With pictures of newborn me and them.


It was the same for my friend... for over 40 years. He also had the certificate, eyewitness accounts and pictures. What he did not have... was truth.


----------



## Israel

All of the earthy is reaction. 
An endless feedback loop.
Till it ends.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I'm not sure where you went.Maybe you didn't go anywhere and just your bodily functions shut down temporarily.
> 
> Heb.9:27 says"as it is appointed for man once to die; then the judgement."
> 
> I don't think(unless in a miracle situation such as Lazerus) that normally men die more than once.



Tell that to my doctors.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> All of the earthy is reaction.
> An endless feedback loop.
> Till it ends.



So YOU say.  

Why do you say things like that as if they were true?


----------



## centerpin fan

ambush80 said:


> Why do you say things like that as if they were true?



I thought it was a poor attempt at _haiku_.


----------



## ambush80

centerpin fan said:


> I thought it was a poor attempt at _haiku_.



Gosh, I hope not.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> It was the same for my friend... for over 40 years. He also had the certificate, eyewitness accounts and pictures. What he did not have... was truth.


But the truth/proof was available. He just didn't know he needed it. In the same way he proved what the truth wasn't, he can prove what the truth is.
That's the difference.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> So YOU say.
> 
> Why do you say things like that as if they were true?



It's strange when a man does not recognize himself.


----------



## 660griz

Folks seeing the 'light' has been explained scientifically.
Babies dying has been explained scientifically. 
For some of us, it all makes sense. It is the animal kingdom cycle of life. 
What doesn't make sense is a belief in an all powerful and loving God and about three million babies die every year within the first 28 days of life.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> Folks seeing the 'light' has been explained scientifically.
> Babies dying has been explained scientifically.
> For some of us, it all makes sense. It is the animal kingdom cycle of life.
> What doesn't make sense is a belief in an all powerful and loving God and about three million babies die every year within the first 28 days of life.



Death for some is not an altogether horrible thing.It's rather a sweet release into the arms of Jesus.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Death for some is not an altogether horrible thing.It's rather a sweet release into the arms of Jesus.


How many times have you died that you know this to be true?
How many dead people do you talk to that have told you this happened to them?
Welder, please man, do you know how childish you sound when you make these ridiculous claims?...and lately you keep trumping yourself!!

With all the people that die every single minute of every single day around the planet, what are your hard stats on how many are released into the arms of Jesus?
Will you ever admit that you base everything you say off of hope and wishful thinking rather than any fact at all?
I would respect you more if you would at least say "it is my opinion" or "i hope"or "i believe"..then go on to say what you are thinking . Otherwise you do yourself a disservice,and at least to me, everything intelligent you say gets wiped away with statements like you made above. It makes me think of you as a 9 year old that is beyond his years but then blurts out a typical 9 year old statement that brings me back to reality on who I am dealing with.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Death for some is not an altogether horrible thing.It's rather a sweet release into the arms of Jesus.



Yea. I hear that a lot. Folks talk the talk but...
Everybody wants to get to heaven they just don't want to die to get there.
Praying for sick folks, praying while flying in a plane. Praying to LIVE.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Death for some is not an altogether horrible thing.It's rather a sweet release into the arms of Jesus.



I have known folks that have suffered pain and agony and lack of mobility for 10 years before the 'sweet release into the arms of Jesus'. 
If that was me, I would bust him in the mouth for taking so long.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> How many times have you died that you know this to be true?
> How many dead people do you talk to that have told you this happened to them?
> Welder, please man, do you know how childish you sound when you make these ridiculous claims?...and lately you keep trumping yourself!!
> 
> With all the people that die every single minute of every single day around the planet, what are your hard stats on how many are released into the arms of Jesus?
> Will you ever admit that you base everything you say off of hope and wishful thinking rather than any fact at all?
> I would respect you more if you would at least say "it is my opinion" or "i hope"or "i believe"..then go on to say what you are thinking . Otherwise you do yourself a disservice,and at least to me, everything intelligent you say gets wiped away with statements like you made above. It makes me think of you as a 9 year old that is beyond his years but then blurts out a typical 9 year old statement that brings me back to reality on who I am dealing with.



But how do you _really_ feel about it? 

Personally I take great comfort in the belief that this isn't just a test, or something to get through to get to somewhere better, and that my life here has real meaning, right now, even if transient in the scale of the universe. 

If you think of Heaven as the end of _Shawshank Redemption_, and life as prison, it makes you wonder why someone who loves us, would put us through all of that, rather than depositing us in Mexico to start with?


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> I have known folks that have suffered pain and agony and lack of mobility for 10 years before the 'sweet release into the arms of Jesus'.
> If that was me, I would bust him in the mouth for taking so long.


My final straw was watching cancer literally eat away my M-I-L's internal organs. I do not know a more religious person and when she finally cursed God for being a no show at her most desperate time that is when any and all hope that I ever had disappeared and I knew no one outside of that room cared about her or was even listening to her. It was was the most sobering time in my life when I saw it in her eyes when it hit her that all of those years believing in God/Jesus was a farce. Nobody was waiting for her except excruciating agony until her liquefied internal organs drowned her.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If you think of Heaven as the end of _Shawshank Redemption_, and life as prison, it makes you wonder why someone who loves us, would put us through all of that, rather than depositing us in Mexico to start with?



Exactly. In post #831 I said, " Why not just create folks IN heaven? Cut out the middleman. They misbehave, give em the boot."

If God/Jesus, loves us and really wants us to be with him, why earth at all? 
Are we all on Survivor?


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> My final straw was watching cancer literally eat away my M-I-L's internal organs. I do not know a more religious person and when she finally cursed God for being a no show at her most desperate time that is when any and all hope that I ever had disappeared and I knew no one outside of that room cared about her or was even listening to her. It was was the most sobering time in my life when I saw it in her eyes when it hit her that all of those years believing in God/Jesus was a farce. Nobody was waiting for her except excruciating agony until her liquefied internal organs drowned her.



Exactly! And, if you want to take your own life to put a stop to the pain and agony...SIN! You will not go into the loving arms of Jesus.

I just noticed I say exactly too much. I quit thee.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But how do you _really_ feel about it?
> 
> Personally I take great comfort in the belief that this isn't just a test, or something to get through to get to somewhere better, and that my life here has real meaning, right now, even if transient in the scale of the universe.
> 
> If you think of Heaven as the end of _Shawshank Redemption_, and life as prison, it makes you wonder why someone who loves us, would put us through all of that, rather than depositing us in Mexico to start with?



Why heaven at all?
Adam and Eve were supposed to live forever..but then they sinned.
If they were going to live forever why have heaven?
If their sins wiped eternal life out then why live eternally in heaven?
If Jesus wiped away the sins of adam and eve then why aren't  we living eternally?

Oh thats right. ..we have to die in order to live..
And take the word of the living as proof.
What a circus joke.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Why heaven at all?
> Adam and Eve were supposed to live forever..but then they sinned.
> If they were going to live forever why have heaven?
> If their sins wiped eternal life out then why live eternally in heaven?
> If Jesus wiped away the sins if adam and eve then why aren't  we living eternally?
> 
> Oh thats right. ..we have to die in order to live..
> And take the word of the living as proof.
> What a circus joke.



Ignoring the dripping disdain at the end, I was going for expedience in the metaphor.


----------



## bullethead

For every story of a geriatric person in a vegetative state staring at a wall that someone else interprets as the people are "obviously" looking at Jesus....I have a coherent extremely religious woman that looked at us and said " this is it..there is nothing else" story.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> For every story of a geriatric person in a vegetative state staring at a wall that someone else interprets as the people are "obviously" looking at Jesus....I have a coherent extremely religious woman that looked at us and said " this is it..there is nothing else" story.


Its interesting that according to Christianity "the gates are narrow" which would put the odds in favor of them staring at something quite different than Jesus.
But that wouldn't be comforting to US so of course they are looking at Jesus.


----------



## welderguy

Bullet, I understand you have very sensitive feelings about your mother in law.I am so sorry for your loss and all her suffering.I don't say those things to bring hurt, I promise.But, they are my sincere beliefs that I firmly believe are the truth.I, personally, would rather hear truth even if it hurts than a lie that brings a false sense of security. Again, I'm sorry.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Death for some is not an altogether horrible thing.It's rather a sweet release into the arms of Jesus.



Go on then.......Yeah, I thought not.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> It's strange when a man does not recognize himself.



Again with the manure.

"They will call it manure."  It has been prophesied.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> I, personally, would rather hear truth even if it hurts than a lie that brings a false sense of security.



From where I sit, no you wouldn't.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> From where I sit, no you wouldn't.


That was a very congenial response considering....


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Bullet, I understand you have very sensitive feelings about your mother in law.I am so sorry for your loss and all her suffering.I don't say those things to bring hurt, I promise.But, they are my sincere beliefs that I firmly believe are the truth.I, personally, would rather hear truth even if it hurts than a lie that brings a false sense of security. Again, I'm sorry.


But while not purposely lying...you are not telling the truth either. False hope is almost as bad.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> That was a very congenial response considering....



Well, what I was replying too made me smile/laugh. I was in a good mood. 
Doesn't want to hear a lie that brings a false sense of security?  OMCN! (Oh My Chuck Norris)
I looked up religion.

Religion - noun - Lie that brings a false sense of security.
                - See also _Prayer_


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> Well, what I was replying too made me smile/laugh. I was in a good mood.
> Doesn't want to hear a lie that brings a false sense of security?  OMCN! (Oh My Chuck Norris)
> I looked up religion.
> 
> Religion - noun - Lie that brings a false sense of security.
> - See also _Prayer_



Now who are the nine year olds?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Now who are the nine year olds?


No replies to the questions I asked you in the rest of the post that included the 9yr old comment?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Now who are the nine year olds?



Serenity Now, Serenity Now! 

It's o.k. I understand there really is no defense.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Bullet, I understand you have very sensitive feelings about your mother in law.I am so sorry for your loss and all her suffering.I don't say those things to bring hurt, I promise.But, they are my sincere beliefs that I firmly believe are the truth.I, personally, would rather hear truth even if it hurts than a lie that brings a false sense of security. Again, I'm sorry.


Welder I don't blame you for bringing hurt. It doesn't  hurt me at all. I would like to bring to your attention that what you firmly believe is true is not. Every time to blurt out a claim or statement as if it is fact there is always another instance that can be shown that completely contradicts your claim.
You say you would rather hear the truth even if it hurts, but you dismiss it and continue on with your false sense of security. 
But I get what you are really trying to say. You are saying because YOU believe that what you are saying us true..that you are passing that truth onto me...instead of telling me something else as a false hope.  You have it backwards.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Serenity Now, Serenity Now!
> 
> It's o.k. I understand there really is no defense.



HEY! Leave my boat out of this.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> HEY! Leave my boat out of this.



And my AR-10.

I have to joke today. Truck is in for ANOTHER transmission repair to the tune of $4k. 
And, I need to pull a camper to the Okefenokee on Saturday. Truck should be ready Friday afternoon but, no pressure.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> And my AR-10.
> 
> I have to joke today. Truck is in for ANOTHER transmission repair to the tune of $4k.
> And, I need to pull a camper to the Okefenokee on Saturday. Truck should be ready Friday afternoon but, no pressure.



Yeah, that's nail biting. Good luck, brother. 

I'm working on isolating a problem with my cranking battery where my charger will go to 100%, then shut off, it's supposed to stay on to maintain, and when I hook it back up the batter is at 50%. 

I have the engineers at the manufacturer puzzled. Good times.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Welder I don't blame you for bringing hurt. It doesn't  hurt me at all. I would like to bring to your attention that what you firmly believe is true is not. Every time to blurt out a claim or statement as if it is fact there is always another instance that can be shown that completely contradicts your claim.
> You say you would rather hear the truth even if it hurts, but you dismiss it and continue on with your false sense of security.
> But I get what you are really trying to say. You are saying because YOU believe that what you are saying us true..that you are passing that truth onto me...instead of telling me something else as a false hope.  You have it backwards.



I don't get it.If you don't believe what I say is the truth, why do you get so upset about it? Seems to me if you really don't believe in God or Jesus or an afterlife, you would not even be phased by those things I believe.it's not like I'm forcing you to believe them.

I was sorry about your mother in law, but I make no apologies for my beliefs.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, that's nail biting. Good luck, brother.
> 
> I'm working on isolating a problem with my cranking battery where my charger will go to 100%, then shut off, it's supposed to stay on to maintain, and when I hook it back up the batter is at 50%.
> 
> I have the engineers at the manufacturer puzzled. Good times.



Wish I could help but, I have had batteries and chargers that had pretty much the same symptoms.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Wish I could help but, I have had batteries and chargers that had pretty much the same symptoms.



Well, the battery held voltage all day yesterday off the charger, so I don't think it's a slow draw any more. The engineers' first thought is that the charger is losing contact with the battery, but I'm using their eyelet system that bolts down with the other cables, and there's no issues there. 

Both chargers work just fine on my 24V system that charges each battery independently. But both of them do this on the cranking battery. It's nearly as bad as when I was trying to troubleshoot the short under load that was happening with the TM harness on my other boat.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, the battery held voltage all day yesterday off the charger, so I don't think it's a slow draw any more. The engineers' first thought is that the charger is losing contact with the battery, but I'm using their eyelet system that bolts down with the other cables, and there's no issues there.
> 
> Both chargers work just fine on my 24V system that charges each battery independently. But both of them do this on the cranking battery. It's nearly as bad as when I was trying to troubleshoot the short under load that was happening with the TM harness on my other boat.



Bad batteries can cause some really confusing issues. 
Does your boat use alternators to charge the batteries at all or just to power the charger?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Bad batteries can cause some really confusing issues.
> Does your boat use alternators to charge the batteries at all or just to power the charger?



These are external chargers I use in the garage. 

The motor has a charging system that works when underway. I'm taking the battery up to autozone or something to get it tested. I hope I can do that tonight if I can get the grass cut quick enough.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I don't get it.If you don't believe what I say is the truth, why do you get so upset about it? Seems to me if you really don't believe in God or Jesus or an afterlife, you would not even be phased by those things I believe.it's not like I'm forcing you to believe them.
> 
> I was sorry about your mother in law, but I make no apologies for my beliefs.


Because it was people like you that told her these nonsensical things and had her convinced it was the truth. It was all roses when these like minded believers were together at church, and on forums, and in chat rooms and they are ALL (mil included) telling each other about god and Jesus and the afterlife and how god thinks and what god wants for you and all that open arm Jesus nonsense. Nothing happened to her or to anyone else that while in her presence was not attributed to god and Jesus.  She and I went round and round about the exact same stuff that you and I talk about in here...only we did it for 20 years. Her saving grace was that one day I will see it is all true.  BELIEVE me when I tell you that while on her deathbed I wanted everything she said to be true..not for my sake but for hers. She was confident god would  save her. He didn't.   She was positive god would take her quickly and not let her suffer.  He didn't.  She was arrogant that in the end Jesus would be waiting for her. Welder, so help me, when I saw it in her eyes the second she realized she was mistaken.... I never in my life WANTED for there to be a God so much. There was no Hallmark channel bright light happy ending. There was no miracle.  There was no jingle of a bell as she was taken to heaven. She died bewildered, horrified and disappointed after spending a lifetime of believing and living those same lies you continually say in here. And you both did it/do it full well knowing that even though  you want it to be true and you need it to be true that in reality you do not know anything more about a god than the next person. But you continue to make these invalid claims one after another after another.
I don't want or expect you to apologize for your beliefs. I am no one to demand or expect such a thing. I just want you to be aware that to the right people, your claims can be more harmful than good no matter of your intentions. It is one thing to share your beliefs and it is another thing to try to pass them off as true.


----------



## 660griz

When my children were young, they made mistakes and did some things wrong. I corrected them as usual. However, when they did things or attempted to do things that could end their lives or seriously injure them, I made it clear, sometimes painfully, that this behavior was not tolerated and not to be attempted ever and I told them why. There was no need for interpretation. I didn't just tell one of my kids and let him spread the word and I remain silent when the other kids come to validate the story. When they did get hurt, we tried to reduce the pain and length of suffering as best we could.
You should expect the same, at the very least, from a god.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Because it was people like you that told her these nonsensical things and had her convinced it was the truth. It was all roses when these like minded believers were together at church, and on forums, and in chat rooms and they are ALL (mil included) telling each other about god and Jesus and the afterlife and how god thinks and what god wants for you and all that open arm Jesus nonsense. Nothing happened to her or to anyone else that while in her presence was not attributed to god and Jesus.  She and I went round and round about the exact same stuff that you and I talk about in here...only we did it for 20 years. Her saving grace was that one day I will see it is all true.  BELIEVE me when I tell you that while on her deathbed I wanted everything she said to be true..not for my sake but for hers. She was confident god would  save her. He didn't.   She was positive god would take her quickly and not let her suffer.  He didn't.  She was arrogant that in the end Jesus would be waiting for her. Welder, so help me, when I saw it in her eyes the second she realized she was mistaken.... I never in my life WANTED for there to be a God so much. There was no Hallmark channel bright light happy ending. There was no miracle.  There was no jingle of a bell as she was taken to heaven. She died bewildered, horrified and disappointed after spending a lifetime of believing and living those same lies you continually say in here. And you both did it/do it full well knowing that even though  you want it true be true and you need it to be true that in reality you do not know anything more about a god than the next person. But you continue to make these invalid claims one after another after another.
> I don't want or expect you to apologize for your beliefs. I am no one to demand or expect such a thing. I just want you to be aware that to the right people, your claims can be more harmful than good no matter of your intentions. It is one thing to share your beliefs and it is another thing to try to pass them off as true.



That's heartbreaking. I'm so sorry.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's heartbreaking. I'm so sorry.


Brother, I am sorry too. But not for myself.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Because it was people like you that told her these nonsensical things and had her convinced it was the truth. It was all roses when these like minded believers were together at church, and on forums, and in chat rooms and they are ALL (mil included) telling each other about god and Jesus and the afterlife and how god thinks and what god wants for you and all that open arm Jesus nonsense. Nothing happened to her or to anyone else that while in her presence was not attributed to god and Jesus.  She and I went round and round about the exact same stuff that you and I talk about in here...only we did it for 20 years. Her saving grace was that one day I will see it is all true.  BELIEVE me when I tell you that while on her deathbed I wanted everything she said to be true..not for my sake but for hers. She was confident god would  save her. He didn't.   She was positive god would take her quickly and not let her suffer.  He didn't.  She was arrogant that in the end Jesus would be waiting for her. Welder, so help me, when I saw it in her eyes the second she realized she was mistaken.... I never in my life WANTED for there to be a God so much. There was no Hallmark channel bright light happy ending. There was no miracle.  There was no jingle of a bell as she was taken to heaven. She died bewildered, horrified and disappointed after spending a lifetime of believing and living those same lies you continually say in here. And you both did it/do it full well knowing that even though  you want it true be true and you need it to be true that in reality you do not know anything more about a god than the next person. But you continue to make these invalid claims one after another after another.
> I don't want or expect you to apologize for your beliefs. I am no one to demand or expect such a thing. I just want you to be aware that to the right people, your claims can be more harmful than good no matter of your intentions. It is one thing to share your beliefs and it is another thing to try to pass them off as true.



You don't even know for sure that she didn't go to be with Jesus.How are you even qualified to make that judgement? If she lived a lifetime serving God faithfully, I'd say you could probably take comfort in that being evidence that she probably loved Jesus.So what if she had a weak moment before her death.

I think you are angry at God for her suffering but you need to know that "all who will live Godly in this life shall suffer".He also said "the sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared to the glory that shall be revealed in us".I'm not minimizing your pain, but if you are basing all your belief in God on your mother in law's experience,then I believe you should take another honest look.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You don't even know for sure that she didn't go to be with Jesus.How are you even qualified to make that judgement? If she lived a lifetime serving God faithfully, I'd say you could probably take comfort in that being evidence that she probably loved Jesus.So what if she had a weak moment before her death.
> 
> I think you are angry at God for her suffering but you need to know that "all who will live Godly in this life shall suffer".He also said "the sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared to the glory that shall be revealed in us".I'm not minimizing your pain, but if you are basing all your belief in God on your mother in law's experience,then I believe you should take another honest look.


I know what took place over 30years that I am with her daughter, 20+years that I left my former beliefs ,the 2 years it took cancer to kill her and the final hours to minutes to seconds of her life.

The difference between you and I is that I can admit that maybe You are right...I can't say where she is or what happened to her other than she is dead and buried. 
She could be with Jesus and for the exact same possibilities she could be with any of the other ten thousand human made deities. I admit that I do not know for sure but one possibility is just as valid as the next. But I can also go where you can't and say the possibility of her being in none of those places is just as likely  with the greater chance being more likely that she is just dead.

I cannot get mad at imaginary invisible beings. I get upset at the grown ups that make claims and cannot back them up.

What qualifies you to make a judgement that she is anything but dead?

My MILs experience was just the final straw.
It was my last chance of hoping there was a god. I have been on a 25 year and counting honest look.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> I know what took place over 30years that I am with her daughter, 20+years that I left my former beliefs ,the 2 years it took cancer to kill her and the final hours to minutes to seconds of her life.
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I can admit that maybe You are right...I can't say where she is or what happened to her other than she is dead and buried.
> She could be with Jesus and for the exact same possibilities she could be with any of the other ten thousand human made deities. I admit that I do not know for sure but one possibility is just as valid as the next. But I can also go where you can't and say the possibility of her being in none of those places is just as likely  with the greater chance being more likely that she is just dead.
> 
> I cannot get mad at imaginary invisible beings. I get upset at the grown ups that make claims and cannot back them up.
> 
> What qualifies you to make a judgement that she is anything but dead?
> 
> My MILs experience was just the final straw.
> It was my last chance of hoping there was a god. I have been on a 25 year and counting honest look.



I tend to take people who are experiencing things at their word. 

I don't need to touch the stove to prove that you telling me that it's hot is the truth. 

She said what she said and I take that as truth. It's not like she was going to lie to you, about a core aspect of her life, in the last moments of her life. 

Good on you for remaining open, though.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I  can't say where she is or what happened to her other than she is dead and buried.
> 
> What qualifies you to make a judgement that she is anything but dead?



Based only on what YOU told me about the 30+ years of her love for the Lord, I can say this: She is with the Lord if she was given that faith by God.I base this on the truth of His Word in Romans 8:35-39"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword?
As it is written, we are killed all the day long.We are counted as sheep for the slaughter. 
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerers through Him that loved us.
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor powers nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Based only on what YOU told me about the 30+ years of her love for the Lord, I can say this: She is with the Lord if she was given that faith by God.I base this on the truth of His Word in Romans 8:35-39"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword?
> As it is written, we are killed all the day long.We are counted as sheep for the slaughter.
> Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerers through Him that loved us.
> For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor powers nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."


Based on what she told us..no one came to get her, no one took her away.
All you can base your guess off of is one of many ancient cultures religious writings from at least 1800 years ago.

I can say that IF there is no god she is nowhere.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Based on what she told us..no one came to get her, no one took her away.



If she was still speaking to you(still alive), how did she know what was going to take place(or not) at her passing?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> If she was still speaking to you(still alive), how did she know what was going to take place(or not) at her passing?


I do not know. 
You do not know.
If you think geriatric patients staring at the ceiling could be evidence of something then the state she was in was just as close to death as whatever you think you witnessed watching them...only instead of guessing..we had her first hand experience to the literal bitter end. She was dying. She was losing life every second that passed. She was in the throws of death. I am positive that because of our talks she did all she could to inform everyone in the room of as much as she could  about her final moments. I honestly believe she expected something heavenly to greet her. She was honest about it though. We all sensed her disappointment.
That is hard core fact.
That is first hand information right from the source.
All this is what I know happened until she died.
Any scenario that you need to introduce into the story afterwards is on you. For every possibility you want to introduce after the facts there are a thousand just as far out far fetched non provable wild guesses that are just a plausible...or not at all plausible based on what is known.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I do not know.
> You do not know.
> If you think geriatric patients staring at the ceiling could be evidence of something then the state she was in was just as close to death as whatever you think you witnessed watching them...only instead of guessing..we had her first hand experience to the literal bitter end. She was dying. She was losing life every second that passed. She was in the throws of death. I am positive that because of our talks she did all she could to inform everyone in the room of as much as she could  about her final moments. I honestly believe she expected something heavenly to greet her. She was honest about it though. We all sensed her disappointment.
> That is hard core fact.
> That is first hand information right from the source.
> All this is what I know happened until she died.
> Any scenario that you need to introduce into the story afterwards is on you. For every possibility you want to introduce after the facts there are a thousand just as far out far fetched non provable wild guesses that are just a plausible...or not at all plausible based on what is known.



So be it then.
If you find comfort in having no comfort at all, then who am I to try and give a possibility of comfort.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> So be it then.
> If you find comfort in having no comfort at all, then who am I to try and give a possibility of comfort.


Yes,finally, I think you may have just understood where many of us are coming from. I am not looking for comfort. I don't need someone to tell me there is something better, especially from people who really have no real knowledge other than their own need for hope. I miss people that have died but I do not need to hear that they are "better" in order for me to sleep at night. 
I have a pact with some friends and family. If there is any way to contact each other from beyond the grave we will do it. We are not going to hide a sock and act like that is some sort of undeniable proof that cannot be interpreted 86,000 ways. If possible we are gonna do it so there is no guessing.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Yes,finally, I think you may have just understood where many of us are coming from. I am not looking for comfort. I don't need someone to tell me there is something better, especially from people who really have real knowledge other than their own need for hope. I miss people that have died but I do not need to hear that they are "better" in order for me to sleep at night.
> I have a pact with some friends and family. If there is any way to contact each other from beyond the grave we will do it. We are not going to hide a sock and act like that is some sort of undeniable proof that cannot be interpreted 86,000 ways. If possible we are gonna do it so there is no guessing.



Well...uhh...that's kinda weird.But like I said before, who am I?.

So be it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Well...uhh...that's kinda weird.But like I said before, who am I?.
> 
> So be it.


You want to comfort others but you are really comforting yourself.
If me promising that I will try to contact others after my demise is weird then I am in good company.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> You want to comfort others but you are really comforting yourself.
> If me promising that I will try to contact others after my demise is weird then I am in good company.



Maybe I shouldn't say it's weird because after all the rich man asked Lazerus to dip his finger in cold water and cool his tongue with it.He also wanted Lazerus to go and warn his brethren to repent so perhaps they could avoid the fate that he suffered.But he didn't get the answer he was hoping for.

So be it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Maybe I shouldn't say it's weird because after all the rich man asked Lazerus to dip his finger in cold water and cool his tongue with it.He also wanted Lazerus to go and warn his brethren to repent so perhaps they could avoid the fate that he suffered.But he didn't get the answer he was hoping for.
> 
> So be it.


I was thinking it was more like when Bugs Bunny stuck his fingers in the barrels of Elmer Fudd's shotgun and it blew up in Elmer's face when he pulled the triggers yet Bugs was unharmed.

I associate EVERYTHING in real life with Looney Tunes episodes because they are so relatable to real life.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I was thinking it was more like when Bugs Bunny stuck his fingers in the barrels of Elmer Fudd's shotgun and it blew up in Elmer's face when he pulled the triggers yet Bugs was unharmed.
> 
> I associate EVERYTHING in real life with Looney Tunes episodes because they are so relatable to real life.



I figured you did.But we're not talking aboutl life, we're talking about after this life.What's your looney tune for that?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I figured you did.But we're not talking aboutl life, we're talking about after this life.What's your looney tune for that?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I figured you did.But we're not talking aboutl life, we're talking about after this life.What's your looney tune for that?


Sylvester the Cat has "died" the most of any Looney Tunes characters, having "died" in I Taw a Putty Tat, Back Alley Oproar, Peck Up Your Troubles, Satan's Waitin', Mouse Mazurka,Tweety's Circus, Trick or Tweet, and Tweet and Lovely. 

In these episodes you can literally watch Sylvester die and still do things after he is dead and yet come back in other episodes as if he never died. 
It is all very Chilling and yet Comforting.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Maybe I shouldn't say it's weird because after all the rich man asked Lazerus to dip his finger in cold water and cool his tongue with it.He also wanted Lazerus to go and warn his brethren to repent so perhaps they could avoid the fate that he suffered.But he didn't get the answer he was hoping for.
> 
> So be it.


That story reminds me of Sylvester's part in this extremely believable exchange of dialog:

Space Jam(1996)
Michael Jordan: Whatever you do, don't forget my North Carolina shorts.
Daffy Duck: Your shorts? From college?
Michael Jordan: I wore them under my Chicago Bulls uniform every game.
Looney Tunes: Eeewwww!
Michael Jordan: Hey! I washed them after every game!
Sylvester: Sure...
Michael Jordan: I did!


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> do you know how childish you sound when you make these ridiculous claims?...and lately you keep trumping yourself!!





bullethead said:


> It makes me think of you as a 9 year old that is beyond his years but then blurts out a typical 9 year old statement that brings me back to reality on who I am dealing with.



hmm...and you said I was the nine year old...hmm.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> hmm...and you said I was the nine year old...hmm.


It leaves a sour taste doesn't it?


----------



## welderguy

Walt,I got a good laugh at your video,but was a little disappointed at the end.It totally left out the part about "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".                                 4:30 AM though? really? Did you get any sleep last night?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> It leaves a sour taste doesn't it?



Not really because:   Ps.19" the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb."


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Not really because:   Ps.19" the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
> 
> More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb."


Ahh Yes, all those Biblical verses were taken from Looney Tunes influence. There are many similarities.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Ahh Yes, all those Biblical verses were taken from Looney Tunes influence. There are many similarities.



You keep thinking that and let me know how it works out for you.
If you die before me,get in touch with me and tell me.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You keep thinking that and let me know how it works out for you.
> If you die before me,get in touch with me and tell me.


It is well known that the writers of the bible got their influence and material from Moses Blanc.

If I die before you watch for a raindrop hitting a puddle. That will be me letting you know.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> It is well known that the writers of the bible got their influence and material from Moses Blanc.
> 
> If I die before you watch for a raindrop hitting a puddle. That will be me letting you know.



That won't work because the rain comes from God.You have to come up with something totally original to yourself so theres no mistaking.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> That won't work because the rain comes from God.You have to come up with something totally original to yourself so theres no mistaking.


Well....not really.
The rain comes from condensation in the clouds.
Bugs Bunny created the conditions that allow clouds to form ,hold and release the rain. 
About 6001 years ago ancient cultures found the writings of Moses Blanc and used his writings to influence theirs. Some names were changed in order to customize the writings to fit their cultures. Most if not all of what you read in the bible is taken directly from the early OT (Old Tunes) papyrus scripts.


----------



## bullethead

God meets Bugs Bunny http://m.poemhunter.com/poem/god-meets-bugs-bunny/


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> God meets Bugs Bunny http://m.poemhunter.com/poem/god-meets-bugs-bunny/



Hate to say it but I think you've hit an all-time low with this one^.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Well....not really.
> The rain comes from condensation in the clouds.
> Bugs Bunny created the conditions that allow clouds to form ,hold and release the rain.
> About 6001 years ago ancient cultures found the writings of Moses Blanc and used his writings to influence theirs. Some names were changed in order to customize the writings to fit their cultures. Most if not all of what you read in the bible is taken directly from the early OT (Old Tunes) papyrus scripts.



Matt.5:45 "...for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good,and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust."


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Hate to say it but I think you've hit an all-time low with this one^.


If that was an all-time low you would love to say it.
Deep down you know it was good.

Your reply reminds me of a conversation between Daffy Duck and Yosemite Sam.........


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Matt.5:45 "...for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good,and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust."


BASEBALL BUGS : "Watch me paste this pathetic palooka with a powerful, paralyzing, perfect pachydermous percussion pitch".
And with that he struck Matthew 5:45 out.


----------



## welderguy

As much as I'd love to keep shootin the breeze with you and all your little friends, I can think of about 8,546,7432,876,871 other things I'd rather do.
And besides, It's hard to soar with the eagles when you scratch around with prarie chickens.So....later.


----------



## drippin' rock

welderguy said:


> As much as I'd love to keep shootin the breeze with you and all your little friends, I can think of about 8,546,7432,876,871 other things I'd rather do.
> And besides, It's hard to soar with the eagles when you scratch around with prarie chickens.So....later.



I love your use of the word 'little' here. It's so demeaning. That'll teach ol' bullet a thing or two......


----------



## welderguy

drippin' rock said:


> I love your use of the word 'little' here. It's so demeaning. That'll teach ol' bullet a thing or two......



You do understand I was referring to his little cartoon friends, right?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> As much as I'd love to keep shootin the breeze with you and all your little friends, I can think of about 8,546,7432,876,871 other things I'd rather do.
> And besides, It's hard to soar with the eagles when you scratch around with prarie chickens.So....later.


Thank you so much for your kind Christian words and for your Foghorn Leghorn reference.
It is like Foghorn says:
"For I say, Fortunately I carry a spare set of feathers"


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You do understand I was referring to his little cartoon friends, right?


From the book of Foghorn Leghorn:
"Now what, I say what is the big idea of bashin me in the bazooka that-a- way boy?"


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> From the book of Foghorn Leghorn:
> "Now what, I say what is the big idea of bashin me in the bazooka that-a- way boy?"



Runt him off.....

No more "casting pearls...." now he can "Shake the dust....".   

It has been Prophesied.


----------



## centerpin fan

bullethead said:


> BASEBALL BUGS : "Watch me paste this pathetic palooka with a powerful, paralyzing, perfect pachydermous percussion pitch".




Yeah, but his slowball was his ace in the hole:


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> Yeah, but his slowball was his ace in the hole:



Mmmmm... Could Be,Rabbit!


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Runt him off.....
> 
> No more "casting pearls...." now he can "Shake the dust....".
> 
> It has been Prophesied.



Even Jesus ate with publicans and sinners.
I'm glad He did too because I am one of those sinners.
You guys are as well if you are honest about it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Even Jesus ate with publicans and sinners.
> I'm glad He did too because I am one of those sinners.
> You guys are as well if you are honest about it.


Our honesty allows us to not believe in Jesus therefore we are not sinners.
Explain why we are not honest.


----------



## Artfuldodger

"Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting wabbits"


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Our honesty allows us to not believe in Jesus therefore we are not sinners.
> Explain why we are not honest.



Are you saying you never do anything wrong?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Are you saying you never do anything wrong?


Like?
If you are basing "sin" off of religious law or god commands then no I do not sin.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Like?
> If you are basing "sin" off of religious law or god commands then no I do not sin.



1 John 1:8 is what I base it on.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us"


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> 1 John 1:8 is what I base it on.
> 
> "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us"


If that is what YOU base it on then YOU are a sinner.

Since I do not believe in a divinity or anything divine I am not breaking any divine law.

You think that you are a sinner because of some book that you use to believe in a god. It is your belief that YOUR god defines what is sin and what is not. 

I have no god.
I have no religious writings that govern me.
Why would I consider anything that has to do with religion would pertain to me?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> If that is what YOU base it on then YOU are a sinner.
> 
> Since I do not believe in a divinity or anything divine I am not breaking any divine law.
> 
> You think that you are a sinner because of some book that you use to believe in a god. It is your belief that YOUR god defines what is sin and what is not.
> 
> I have no god.
> I have no religious writings that govern me.
> Why would I consider anything that has to do with religion would pertain to me?



Because ,whether you believe it or not, you are held accountable for the wrong things you do.Your unbelief doesn't excuse you.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Because ,whether you believe it or not, you are held accountable for the wrong things you do.Your unbelief doesn't excuse you.


Held accountable by who?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Held accountable by who?



The God whom you don't believe in but still exists regardlessly.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The God whom you don't believe in but still exists regardlessly.


Listen, if you want to keep on with your nonsensical and unprovable claims then I will go back to my Looney Tunes nonsense.

You do not prepare for any of the thousands of other gods and for those same reasons I don't prepare for yours.
Is it possible for you to have a conversation without the baseless assertions and claims that you cannot back up?

No god no sin.
No religion no sin.


----------



## welderguy

You started the interogation(again), and you don't like my answers(again).But I'm just trying to be honest with you.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The God whom you don't believe in but still exists regardlessly.


I have no use for the man made gods of worship worldwide.

If there is some sort of force that could be called god (not your version or anyone's so don't start the god of the bible schtick)then I am perfectly happy and confident that I will let my actions in life speak for me. I have no worries.
If "non-believer" is my biggest sin I really do not care.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You started the interogation(again), and you don't like my answers(again).But I'm just trying to be honest with you.


I don't know how many posts you have made in here but whatever the number is you have not even once come close to offering any sort of proof to anything you constantly claim.
We all know your beliefs. You can stop inserting them in every reply. If you want to converse then converse.
You do not adhere to the rules of any other god just "in case" you are wrong so why should I adhere to the rules of Christianity? If I wanted to cover the bases I'll worship every god known to man and then say a prayer to whoever else is listening just to cover my butt. But I don't  so I won't. 
I worship ONE less god than you do. 

Certainly you can see why I would not consider anything I do to be sinful based off of my beliefs.

If you want to introduce me to your god now is the time to put up or shut up.
No verses.
No claims.
Bring the bugger by my house tonight and the three of us will talk.


----------



## welderguy

Well, it seems to me that neither of us are going to change our positions(unless of course a higher power does it).
But, believe it or not,I still like you bullethead.I think the thing that keeps me from throwing up my hands and leaving is that I like the fact you guys are real.There's no guessing about how you feel.I like that.I'm the same way.We are not here to win any popularity contest.We can disagree as long as we stay honorable to one another IMO.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Well, it seems to me that neither of us are going to change our positions(unless of course a higher power does it).
> But, believe it or not,I still like you bullethead.I think the thing that keeps me from throwing up my hands and leaving is that I like the fact you guys are real.There's no guessing about how you feel.I like that.I'm the same way.We are not here to win any popularity contest.We can disagree as long as we stay honorable to one another IMO.



Welder,

Could you possibly be wrong about God?  Any chance?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Welder,
> 
> Could you possibly be wrong about God?  Any chance?



If you mean wrong about His existence,not a chance.
The reason I can say that so emphatically and with no doubt whatsoever is because He lives in me.It's not something I went seeking for either.He came in on His own and set up shop and hasn't left.If you can't understand that, it's because it hasn't happened to you...yet.But if and when it does, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Well, it seems to me that neither of us are going to change our positions(unless of course a higher power does it).
> But, believe it or not,I still like you bullethead.I think the thing that keeps me from throwing up my hands and leaving is that I like the fact you guys are real.There's no guessing about how you feel.I like that.I'm the same way.We are not here to win any popularity contest.We can disagree as long as we stay honorable to one another IMO.


All i ask is for some open thought from you occasionally.  I and a few of us in here readily admit that there is the possibility of some sort of god, and if there is a god we just do not know of him and do not think it is a god that any organized religion has figured out. We converse along the lines of your belief system. Is it too much to ask you to consider our non-beliefs? 
Like with "sin".
To an non believer in any sort of higher power sin doesn't exist.
We have to abide by the laws of society but  with over 600 sins listed in the bible most of them are for theists and do not apply in the secular world.
There is a huge difference between Theistic sin and Secular morals/law. If a woman cuts her hair no court is going to punish her. ..yet in the bible she has sinned. Or if a woman prays with her head uncovered.....does she break the law or commit a sin?
Is it too much to ask you if you can see the difference between the two and how they are applied?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> If you mean wrong about His existence,not a chance.
> The reason I can say that so emphatically and with no doubt whatsoever is because He lives in me.It's not something I went seeking for either.He came in on His own and set up shop and hasn't left.If you can't understand that, it's because it hasn't happened to you...yet.But if and when it does, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.



I honestly believe you had something happen to you but think you have interpreted it and have given credit to it in away that you understand but not necessarily correct.
How do you know a god, which god fills you?
How do you know some other or evil spirit isn't messing with you?
How do you know it is not your mind and bodys way of coping with what you had/have going on around you?
And if you were born a muslim or hindu would you be filled with Jesus right now or something else?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> If you mean wrong about His existence,not a chance.
> The reason I can say that so emphatically and with no doubt whatsoever is because He lives in me.It's not something I went seeking for either.He came in on His own and set up shop and hasn't left.If you can't understand that, it's because it hasn't happened to you...yet.But if and when it does, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.



Have you ever seen a ghost?  A UFO?  A "monster" of any kind (Bigfoot, Skunk Ape, etc..)?

Do you believe in lucky talismans?  

I'm, asking these things sincerely because I would like to discuss how we perceive reality, what kinds of criteria we use to determine what is real.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> All i ask is for some open thought from you occasionally.  I and a few of us in here readily admit that there is the possibility of some sort of god, and if there is a god we just do not know of him and do not think it is a god that any organized religion has figured out. We converse along the lines of your belief system. Is it too much to ask you to consider our non-beliefs?
> Like with "sin".
> To an non believer in any sort of higher power sin doesn't exist.
> We have to abide by the laws of society but  with over 600 sins listed in the bible most of them are for theists and do not apply in the secular world.
> There is a huge difference between Theistic sin and Secular morals/law. If a woman cuts her hair no court is going to punish her. ..yet in the bible she has sinned. Or if a woman prays with her head uncovered.....does she break the law or commit a sin?
> Is it too much to ask you if you can see the difference between the two and how they are applied?



I do keep an open mind about some things because there's a LOT that I admit I don't know.But the basic things that are rock solid and unshakeable and unmistakable; I will not budge unless God Himself reveals it.(by His Spirit).
You mention all the man-made religious propaganda and your distaste for it.I can agree with you on much of that.
You mention things from the old law (much of which only applied to the Jewish nation) such as the hair, head coverings, and such.If you put yourself under that, you only put yourself in bondage.Jesus brought something much better than the law and set us free from the old law.
If that's all you can see of religion, then I wouldn't blame you for turning and running.But It's so much more than that.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I do keep an open mind about some things because there's a LOT that I admit I don't know.But the basic things that are rock solid and unshakeable and unmistakable; I will not budge unless God Himself reveals it.(by His Spirit).
> You mention all the man-made religious propaganda and your distaste for it.I can agree with you on much of that.
> You mention things from the old law (much of which only applied to the Jewish nation) such as the hair, head coverings, and such.If you put yourself under that, you only put yourself in bondage.Jesus brought something much better than the law and set us free from the old law.
> If that's all you can see of religion, then I wouldn't blame you for turning and running.But It's so much more than that.


Hair and head coverings are NT goodies...check with Paul.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Have you ever seen a ghost?  A UFO?  A "monster" of any kind (Bigfoot, Skunk Ape, etc..)?
> 
> Do you believe in lucky talismans?
> 
> I'm, asking these things sincerely because I would like to discuss how we perceive reality, what kinds of criteria we use to determine what is real.



Never seen a ghost or any monsters.

Don't believe in luck of any kind.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I do keep an open mind about some things because there's a LOT that I admit I don't know.But the basic things that are rock solid and unshakeable and unmistakable; I will not budge unless God Himself reveals it.(by His Spirit).
> You mention all the man-made religious propaganda and your distaste for it.I can agree with you on much of that.
> You mention things from the old law (much of which only applied to the Jewish nation) such as the hair, head coverings, and such.If you put yourself under that, you only put yourself in bondage.Jesus brought something much better than the law and set us free from the old law.
> If that's all you can see of religion, then I wouldn't blame you for turning and running.But It's so much more than that.



Jesus followed The Law.  Don't you want to be like Jesus?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Hair and head coverings are NT goodies...check with Paul.



Yes.but if you read it all you'll see that Paul takes the law application and expands it to be the husband being the wifes covering and Jesus as the covering for His bride the church.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Jesus followed The Law.  Don't you want to be like Jesus?



Jesus fulfilled the law.

And yes, I do want to be like Him.


----------



## ambush80

ambush80 said:


> Have you ever seen a ghost?  A UFO?  A "monster" of any kind (Bigfoot, Skunk Ape, etc..)?
> 
> Do you believe in lucky talismans?
> 
> I'm, asking these things sincerely because I would like to discuss how we perceive reality, what kinds of criteria we use to determine what is real.



Welder,

What about this^^?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Welder,
> 
> What about this^^?



I answered in post #971


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Never seen a ghost or any monsters.
> 
> Don't believe in luck of any kind.



Sorry.  I didn't see this one. But would you agree that people who believe in those things have had the same kind of very personal, very individual experience like you describe here?:

"The reason I can say that so emphatically and with no doubt whatsoever is because He lives in me.It's not something I went seeking for either."

Why don't you believe them?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Sorry.  I didn't see this one. But would you agree that people who believe in those things have had the same kind of very personal, very individual experience like you describe here?:
> 
> "The reason I can say that so emphatically and with no doubt whatsoever is because He lives in me.It's not something I went seeking for either."
> 
> Why don't you believe them?



Here's the thing.You can believe in anything with the mind.We see that everywhere.Like you guys always are quick to point out, there are thousands of religions.And then you have bigfoot, lucky talismans, UFOs, etc.The mind is a very powerful thing.Someone can even go their entire life with only a belief of God in their mind, BUT, it takes faith, which is given by God, for it to be a saving belief.Faith is more powerful than the mind.It is the direct link to God.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Here's the thing.You can believe in anything with the mind.We see that everywhere.Like you guys always are quick to point out, there are thousands of religions.And then you have bigfoot, lucky talismans, UFOs, etc.The mind is a very powerful thing.Someone can even go their entire life with only a belief of God in their mind, BUT, it takes faith, which is given by God, for it to be a saving belief.Faith is more powerful than the mind.It is the direct link to God.


Where do the billions of non christians/muslims/jews get their faith from?
They have it and it is not from the god of abraham or Jesus so who gave it to them?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Where do the billions of non christians/muslims/jews get their faith from?
> They have it and it is not from the god of abraham or Jesus so who gave it to them?



If there is faith, there will be evidence of that faith by a changed heart.God always has a remnant.He calls His people out of every kindred, tongue, and nation.He has been known to call His people out of pagan worship, atheism, even Islam.None of them are hindrances to God.He even calls babies in their mother's womb.He said "my people shall be willing in the day of my power".


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> If there is faith, there will be evidence of that faith by a changed heart.God always has a remnant.He calls His people out of every kindred, tongue, and nation.He has been known to call His people out of pagan worship, atheism, even Islam.None of them are hindrances to God.He even calls babies in their mother's womb.He said "my people shall be willing in the day of my power".


You did not answer the question.
Buddhists,Hindus,Satanists, Baha'i, Jainism,  Taoism,Voodooists ALL have faith.
If we go by your definition that faith only comes from a god, and these people plus a few billion more have faith, WHO GIVES THEM THIS FAITH?
Be aware that people of all religions are "called" into other religions. Christians become Buddhists etc all the time. Who calls these ex-Christains away and into another religion AND gives them faith?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> You did not answer the question.
> Buddhists,Hindus,Satanists, Baha'i, Jainism,  Taoism,Voodooists ALL have faith.
> If we go by your definition that faith only comes from a god, and these people plus a few billion more have faith, WHO GIVES THEM THIS FAITH?
> Be aware that people of all religions are "called" into other religions. Christians become Buddhists etc all the time. Who calls these ex-Christains away and into another religion AND gives them faith?



I think you may have a distorted idea of faith.First of all, true faith only comes from THE GOD (not gods).And it's given on an individual basis,according to election.Not to groups of worshippers as a whole as you describe.God is jealous.When He gives faith to someone that's worshipping something else, He turns them away from their false gods and turns them to Him.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> God is jealous.



Money quote.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I think you may have a distorted idea of faith.First of all, true faith only comes from THE GOD (not gods).And it's given on an individual basis,according to election.Not to groups of worshippers as a whole as you describe.God is jealous.When He gives faith to someone that's worshipping something else, He turns them away from their false gods and turns them to Him.



So they are mistaken but you are not?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> So they are mistaken but you are not?



^ that is the money quote of all money quotes^


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I think you may have a distorted idea of faith.First of all, true faith only comes from THE GOD (not gods).And it's given on an individual basis,according to election.Not to groups of worshippers as a whole as you describe.God is jealous.When He gives faith to someone that's worshipping something else, He turns them away from their false gods and turns them to Him.


Yep sure uh huh... YOUR god is the right god.YOU understand what YOUR god wants. YOU know that YOUR god is jealous. ONLY YOUR god gives out faith. No other person that worships any other god has faith and not everyone in your religion has it either...but it just so happens you do...
Get in line buddy. You and a couple other billion people all think you have it figured out. 

It is times like these that make me happy,  literally thrilled that I am not associated with Christian zealots. You chase people away with nonsense like that^.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> ^ that is the money quote of all money quotes^


Unoriginal...like your religion.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> ^ that is the money quote of all money quotes^



Would you go to war for your God?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I think you may have a distorted idea of faith.First of all, true faith only comes from THE GOD (not gods).And it's given on an individual basis,according to election.Not to groups of worshippers as a whole as you describe.God is jealous.When He gives faith to someone that's worshipping something else, He turns them away from their false gods and turns them to Him.



Now that I think about it this constant reassurance is more for you than anyone else. It seems that you are so insecure with your own beliefs that you have to constantly repeat these unprovable claims in order to make yourself feel better. The more "we" prove you wrong with logic the harder you try to make things up to reassure yourself in your beliefs and the wackier the stories get. 
What really has me convinced is that nobody backs you up. You are out at the end of the plank with one foot on a banana peel still thinking you have the situation right where you want it..and nobody that is on your side steps in to help because they don't agree with you.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Yep sure uh huh... YOUR god is the right god.YOU understand what YOUR god wants. YOU know that YOUR god is jealous. ONLY YOUR god gives out faith. No other person that worships any other god has faith and not everyone in your religion has it either...but it just so happens you do...
> Get in line buddy. You and a couple other billion people all think you have it figured out.
> 
> It is times like these that make me happy,  literally thrilled that I am not associated with Christian zealots. You chase people away with nonsense like that^.



Another interogation run amuck.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Another interogation run amuck.


If it feels like an interrogation to you it is because your answers are elusive, skippy, incoherent at times,off point and do not make sense when you finally make an outlandish claim that cannot be backed up. And we are just trying to get to the bottom of it without any concrete help from you.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> If it feels like an interrogation to you it is because your answers are elusive, skippy, incoherent at times,off point and do not make sense when you finally make an outlandish claim that cannot be backed up. And we are just trying to get to the bottom of it without any concrete help from you.



You guys are awesome!!

Can we do it again tomorrow?


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> What really has me convinced is that nobody backs you up. You are out at the end of the plank with one foot on a banana peel still thinking you have the situation right where you want it..and nobody that is on your side steps in to help because they don't agree with you.


I haven't found much room for disagreement in what he says. I am always fascinated with how often the Atheist affirm that what the Bible says is true. They are just unable to comprehend their affirmations.


----------



## drippin' rock

It has been written. We will be mocked. 

Well duh. Of course you will. That's what people do.


----------



## welderguy

gemcgrew said:


> I haven't found much room for disagreement in what he says. I am always fascinated with how often the Atheist affirm that what the Bible says is true. They are just unable to comprehend their affirmations.



Thanks Gem.

Sometimes I really believe if it were possible to throw rocks 
through the internet, they would have stoned me already.


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> Thanks Gem.
> 
> Sometimes I really believe if it were possible to throw rocks
> through the internet, they would have stoned me already.


Not likely. After hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years of philosophical and theological debate, they will hurl a cartoon at you. 

This is about as far as they've gotten.


----------



## welderguy

gemcgrew said:


> Not likely. After hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years of philosophical and theological debate, they will hurl a cartoon at you.
> 
> This is about as far as they've gotten.



Yeah the bugs bunny ones hurt but when they brought in Yosemite Sam, that's when it got ugly.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Thanks Gem.
> 
> Sometimes I really believe if it were possible to throw rocks
> through the internet, they would have stoned me already.


You give yourself too much credit.
That stoning stuff is for you religious people.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Not likely. After hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years of philosophical and theological debate, they will hurl a cartoon at you.
> 
> This is about as far as they've gotten.


A cartoon was all that was needed.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Thanks Gem.
> 
> Sometimes I really believe if it were possible to throw rocks
> through the internet, they would have stoned me already.


We don't follow your gods laws.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Not likely. After hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years of philosophical and theological debate, they will hurl a cartoon at you.
> 
> This is about as far as they've gotten.



I've tried HARD to have a discussion with Welder.  All he does is throw out Bible verses as if they were absolute truth with nothing but his own personal feelings to back them up.

That's not how it works here.  You know that.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> What really has me convinced is that nobody backs you up. You are out at the end of the plank with one foot on a banana peel still thinking you have the situation right where you want it..and nobody that is on your side steps in to help because they don't agree with you.



It's not that we don't agree with Welder, it's that we have different instructions.  You see, with God it's a personal thing, not different rules, just a different job assignment.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> It's not that we don't agree with Welder, it's that we have different instructions.  You see, with God it's a personal thing, not different rules, just a different job assignment.


Then I am fulfilling my role.
Makes me wonder why believers try to change others minds when the others are assigned a role from god too.
It is Like having and ant farm where half the ants are assigned to bring pebbles into the nest and the other half are assigned to take them away. Impossible to change either halfs role so why try?


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> I've tried HARD to have a discussion with Welder.  All he does is throw out Bible verses as if they were absolute truth with nothing but his own personal feelings to back them up.


Welder loves the truth of the Bible and he contends for the faith, just as the Bible commands him to do.


ambush80 said:


> That's not how it works here.  You know that.


How it works here is that you ridicule it and try to turn him against it. The effects are achieved in accordance with God's purpose.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Welder loves the truth of the Bible and he contends for the faith, just as the Bible commands him to do.
> 
> How it works here is that you ridicule it and try to turn him against it. The effects are achieved in accordance with God's purpose.



Ridicule is a strong word.  

Anyone can believe whatever they want even if it isn't true.  Just don't try to call it true.

Much of what he espouses is irrational and based on nothing substantial.  He should stand by it as such and not try to tell others that they "just don't see it".


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Welder loves the truth of the Bible and he contends for the faith, just as the Bible commands him to do.
> 
> How it works here is that you ridicule it and try to turn him against it. The effects are achieved in accordance with God's purpose.





> How it works here is that you ridicule it and try to turn him against it.


I disagree 1000%.
If you take us pointing out inconsistencies, contradictions and in general wacky stuff in the Bible as "trying to turn you against it" then you have seriously misevaluated our core group here.
I had given you more credit than to think like that. Im disappointed but glad to know what you really think.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> I disagree 1000%.


There is no ridicule in this thread?


WaltL1 said:


> If you take us pointing out inconsistencies, contradictions and in general wacky stuff in the Bible as "trying to turn you against it" then you have seriously misevaluated our core group here.


So, are you trying to help us to maintain our position?
Or are you trying to move us from an inferior position to a superior position?
Or are you trying to move us from a superior position to an inferior position?

Or are you just babbling away...illogically?


WaltL1 said:


> I had given you more credit than to think like that. Im disappointed but glad to know what you really think.


How do you know what I really think? Is this based upon your feelings that mislead your original observation?


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> There is no ridicule in this thread?
> 
> So, are you trying to help us to maintain our position?
> Or are you trying to move us from an inferior position to a superior position?
> Or are you trying to move us from a superior position to an inferior position?
> 
> Or are you just babbling away...illogically?
> 
> How do you know what I really think? Is this based upon your feelings that mislead your original observation?





> There is no ridicule in this thread?


You left off the other half of the senttence.


> So, are you trying to help us to maintain our position?
> Or are you trying to move us from an inferior position to a superior position?
> Or are you trying to move us from a superior position to an inferior position?


None of the above.


> Or are you just babbling away...illogically?


Nope.


> How do you know what I really think? Is this based upon your feelings that mislead your original observation?


No it was based on this -


> How it works here is that you ridicule it and try to turn him against it.


My assumption was that since you wrote it, you really thought it.
Im not interested in getting into a peeing match with you. I, incorrectly it seems, thought that considering how long you have participated with this core group of A/As, understood that we aren't here to change your beliefs and I thought that our discussions/debates were a level above that.


----------



## bullethead

There is not much discussion with Gem. We converse with others and Gem pops in with condescending insults, flat out pure insults or a quick bite in the ankle and is gone. In all my time on here I have not seen any apologetics or lengthy civil discussion from Gem except replies similar to what he has in here already.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> There is not much discussion with Gem. We converse with others and Gem pops in with condescending insults, flat out pure insults or a quick bite in the ankle and is gone. In all my time on here I have not seen any apologetics or lengthy civil discussion from Gem except replies similar to what he has in here already.



I completely disagree.  I have had very good discussions with Gem.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I completely disagree.  I have had very good discussions with Gem.


Kudos. My experiences have been different.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> There is no ridicule in this thread?
> 
> So, are you trying to help us to maintain our position?
> Or are you trying to move us from an inferior position to a superior position?
> Or are you trying to move us from a superior position to an inferior position?



If one were to say "I just don't care if it makes sense.  I wanna believe it anyway."   then I would leave it at that.   When people defend their faith and try to use logic and reason then it's par for the course to point out where their reasoning fails.

Welder and Isreal say things like "He is risen!!!" and expect everyone else to accept that as fact; just because they said it.  That ain't right. 



gemcgrew said:


> Or are you just babbling away...illogically?
> 
> How do you know what I really think? Is this based upon your feelings that mislead your original observation?



I can't answer this for Walt.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> There is not much discussion with Gem. We converse with others and Gem pops in with condescending insults, flat out pure insults or a quick bite in the ankle and is gone. In all my time on here I have not seen any apologetics or lengthy civil discussion from Gem except replies similar to what he has in here already.



I have also had some good discussions with Gem.Even on things we didn't quite see eye to eye on, he was patient and kind ,never condescending or insulting.He pointed out some things I hadn't seen and I've enjoyed conversing with him.I can say with assurance that he's my brother in Christ.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I have also had some good discussions with Gem.Even on things we didn't quite see eye to eye on, he was patient and kind ,never condescending or insulting.He pointed out some things I hadn't seen and I've enjoyed conversing with him.I can say with assurance that he's my brother in Christ.



Gem and I have a different relationship.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> If one were to say "I just don't care if it makes sense.  I wanna believe it anyway."   then I would leave it at that.


Sometimes leaving a man in his senselessness is the kindest action available.


ambush80 said:


> When people defend their faith and try to use logic and reason then it's par for the course to point out where their reasoning fails.


I don't disagree with that. My point in post #1007 was to show why you point it out. To say that you are not trying to move someone to a more or less logical or reasonable position is illogical and unreasonable. Agree?


ambush80 said:


> Welder and Isreal say things like "He is risen!!!" and expect everyone else to accept that as fact; just because they said it.  That ain't right.


I doubt that either of them expect anybody at all to accept it because they said it. They know what it takes in order for a man to believe it.


ambush80 said:


> I can't answer this for Walt.


That makes two of you.


----------



## WaltL1

> That makes two of you.


I answered your question.
I think Bullet may be right about you.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Sometimes leaving a man in his senselessness is the kindest action available.
> 
> I don't disagree with that. My point in post #1007 was to show why you point it out. To say that you are not trying to move someone to a more or less logical or reasonable position is illogical and unreasonable. Agree?
> 
> I doubt that either of them expect anybody at all to accept it because they said it. They know what it takes in order for a man to believe it.
> 
> That makes two of you.




I don't entirely agree.  I can't "move" someone from their position.  I understand that.  I can point out logical errors when I recognize them.  What they do with that information is their business.  It's quite a different thing from proclaiming "He is risen!!" and assuming that we can take the conversation anywhere from there or that it advanced the discussion.

I can't answer for Walt but I can answer for myself and I feel as though you've always been honest about your beliefs.  Would I be correct if I said that you don't particularly care if your beliefs are completely rational; that for you there is a "higher" operating principle than logic?


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Sometimes leaving a man in his senselessness is the kindest action available.



As long as he is no influence to anyone else.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Would I be correct if I said that you don't particularly care if your beliefs are completely rational;


It's not that I don't care, I just don't expect my beliefs to be rational to the non-Christian.


ambush80 said:


> that for you there is a "higher" operating principle than logic?


For me, there is nothing higher than Christ the Logos(Logic, Reason). All things are consistent in Christ and He upholds all things with perfect rationality and order.


----------



## Israel

So many premises.
How does an _advanced_ conversation appear?
How may a man have "no influence"...and _what_ man _should_ be consigned to that?
What constitutes _senselessness_? 
Who is the arbiter/arbiters?
If there be a "senselessness" is it a continuum from which sensing all, to sensing nothing is relative?
Who, or what, senses all?


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> What constitutes _senselessness_?


I used the word "senselessness" in the narrow sense, as in "foolishness".


Israel said:


> If there be a "senselessness" is it a continuum from which sensing all, to sensing nothing is relative?


If you are using the word "senselessness", as in "absent sensation", then I would say no. I do reserve the right to have my mind changed as I think it through.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> I used the word "senselessness" in the narrow sense, as in "foolishness".
> 
> If you are using the word "senselessness", as in "absent sensation", then I would say no. I do reserve the right to have my mind changed as I think it through.



I had the _sense_ you were.
I was more referring to the response of:



> As long as he is no influence to anyone else.



And I was inclined to think of the word in terms of awareness. As in "what amount of awareness need a man have" to meet the threshold of whomever decides he may be amongst others. For to "be amongst others" is surely going to have an influence...one way, or another.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> I had the _sense_ you were.
> I was more referring to the response of:
> 
> 
> 
> And I was inclined to think of the word in terms of awareness. As in "what amount of awareness need a man have" to meet the threshold of whomever decides he may be amongst others. For to "be amongst others" is surely going to have an influence...one way, or another.




Either word "Foolishness" or "Senseless" applies to the notion that a man lived in a fish for three days.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> And I was inclined to think of the word in terms of awareness. As in "what amount of awareness need a man have" to meet the threshold of whomever decides he may be amongst others. For to "be amongst others" is surely going to have an influence...one way, or another.


Yes, and in the famous words of John Conlee, "Everyone I know here in this place is very strange. If you'll hand me my crayons, I'll be glad to take your name."


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Either word "Foolishness" or "Senseless" applies to the notion that a man lived in a fish for three days.


Yes, until you are that man.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Either word "Foolishness" or "Senseless" applies to the notion that a man lived in a fish for three days.



"The fool hath said in his heart 'There is no God' "


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> "The fool hath said in his heart 'There is no God' "


From the book of Foghorn:
"Boy, I say Boy, you are about to exceed the limits of my medication"


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Yes, until you are that man.



Only if its literal.   



welderguy said:


> "The fool hath said in his heart 'There is no God' "



You really should stop.  I mean, seriously.

Don't you understand that you just cant vomit back verses and expect it to mean anything.  It reflects on you and your inability or unwillingness to express your own thoughts.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> From the book of Foghorn:
> "Boy, I say Boy, you are about to exceed the limits of my medication"




It's like a game to him.  Fine.  I'll play too.  

"And on the fifth day of Asheram the believers were mocked and called foolish, for the unwise knew not of the Holy Tenets of Dijinderoo.  It has come to pass as it has been prophesied."

Does that mean anything to you, Welder?   Be careful.  Don't mock my sacred text and don't ask me to prove to you that it's true.  Only the All Powerful Dijinderoo can make you see the truth.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> You really should stop.  I mean, seriously.
> 
> Don't you understand that you just cant vomit back verses and expect it to mean anything.  It reflects on you and your inability or unwillingness to express your own thoughts.



You really should seriously stop mocking the word of God.
I'm not playing games.You're not offending me nearly as much as you're offending God.

David got indignant toward Goliath when he laughed and mocked at God.David said "Is there not a cause" to fight.He also said "Who can defy the armies of the living God?"


----------



## StriperrHunterr

I don't know about you guys, but I'm glad to see that things are staying congenial in here.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't know about you guys, but I'm glad to see that things are staying congenial in here.



I wouldn't want it any other way.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You really should seriously stop mocking the word of God.
> I'm not playing games.You're not offending me nearly as much as you're offending God.
> 
> David got indignant toward Goliath when he laughed and mocked at God.David said "Is there not a cause" to fight.He also said "Who can defy the armies of the living God?"


From the book of Foghorn:
"Now that,I say that is no way for a kid to waistin his time a'readin all that long haired gobbledegook."

No one is mocking any god. We are sick of the constant posting of verses that no god ever made.
We are trying to show you that the stuff you recite means as much to us our man made verses mean to you. 
If something wants to be called a god and cannot write what it wants written then it is no god to me.
If something takes 1600 years to write and piece together then it is the work of man not a god.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> From the book of Foghorn:
> "Now that,I say that is no way for a kid to waistin his time a'readin all that long haired gobbledegook."
> 
> No one is mocking any god. We are sick of the constant posting of verses that no god ever made.
> We are trying to show you that the stuff you recite means as much to us our man made verses mean to you.
> If something wants to be called a god and cannot write what it wants written then it is no god to me.
> If something takes 1600 years to write and piece together then it is the work of man not a god.



He that has ears to hear, let him hear.


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> You really should seriously stop mocking the word of God.
> I'm not playing games.You're not offending me nearly as much as you're offending God.
> 
> David got indignant toward Goliath when he laughed and mocked at God.David said "Is there not a cause" to fight.He also said "Who can defy the armies of the living God?"


David also understood the workings of God's providence.

"And the king said, What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? so let him curse, because the LORD has said unto him, Curse David. Who shall then say, Why have you done so?"

The mocking serves God's purpose.


----------



## Israel

How many times has the matter of "assertions" come up?
As in "you just can't assert this, or that, you can't just say something as though it's true..."
I know many don't like to hear it...(or at least I assert from _my sense _of what takes place when something is quoted from the bible), but there is a significance beyond any purpose of what might be called [my] mere religiosity when Pilate asks..."what is truth?"
Perhaps it would be more easily accepted, received, open to acknowledgement, if I quoted Socrates, Schopenhauer, Dawkins, Hitchens, as saying it, even though for my part I don't wonder if not all these...if not all men...have in one way or another asked the very same question...either aloud...or at any rate...to themselves.
"Is truth always and only...what is (seems) true to...me?"
Or, is there a "thing" as truth, more than just a philosophical construct, which, if it be merely a construct then, is totally useless  in reality, except as a matter of discussion...a passing of time by mouths till they are stopped with dust?
If truth cannot be known...what matter?
If it can be...what other pursuit is there? (At least this I believe as "a believer" is the impetus of what I would call a disciple of Jesus Christ...)

For you, (and I use "you" to any that might need explanation, regardless of what they do on Sunday, what talisman they may wear around their neck, or not, what words they may speak regarding that name of Jesus Christ) it is far more to a disciple than a rote repetition of something they have read regarding a "way" a "truth" a "life"... to apprehend, even in the most rudimentary sense that "truth"...is not a concept...but a person. And as a person (Jesus) declaring himself "knowable", the believer then places himself (or is placed, if you prefer) as one who manifestly is by proclamation of relationship to that person (Jesus Christ), one who not only believes "truth" to be...but also to be knowable.

Now here he may discover he is no less "subject" to truth...than any other. That is, this relationship grants him no special indulgence, if you will, because again, truth to him is not a thing grasped to himself like a tool "in his own belt"...so to speak, but a person. Therefore, to the disciple, truth becomes far more than simply being consistent to a set of mere facts of a religious structure (or a rote reciting)...but in reality...being faithful in the apprehension and expression of "that person"...who is the truth.

Are there facts...to the disciple? Of course. But never without an _organic_ relation of truth, to truth. In other words, the perception (apprehension) of fact always bears with it an introduction to a truth of the capital "T" Truth...Jesus. These things are basic in their infantility to any disciple, and I don't presume to be teaching my brothers, I know they know this...but again, to those who declare themselves "outside" the faith of Jesus Christ...I cannot overstress that a disciple does not exempt himself from the common ground of all men in seeking to know "truth".

I have been with you all for a very short time, but almost, to a man you say "we used to be believers...we used to be christians, (essentially) we used to be 'like you'..." And, it seems to me, so much of the discussion is based upon that presumption "We have seen ALL it has to offer, we have tried all the goods, we have eaten all offered there, seen all that is displayed, and found it wanting" To me, that presumption is what is so much the taken for granted...what "feeds" the notion of an ability to reject...as impetus...because you really do believe you have seen all "of christianity"...and yet, at only one time (I believe it was Bullet) have I ever heard anything that might remotely ring to me as a testimony, and that, of Jesus Christ, when he said (more or less, and please correct me) "I know what it's like when you seem to experience like someone knows all about you, and is arranging things according to this knowing...that "feeling" of feeling "special".

In other words, I seem to have heard a lot about "christianity", but not much of the testimony of Jesus Christ. And that testimony is, at least in part...that "we" are known, we are set apart, we are in a sense "singled out" that we might really come together, things are very much in arrangement for us to behold. And know...and begin...to understand.
I can think that to some the repugnance of that is obvious..."you mean "a" god...really takes a very personal interest in you? You?
REALLY?"

To the one who has no trouble in that repugnance, but yet may say "I also used to be a "christian"..." I can only say, you either never were...or you were lead away in infancy...or...you are so deceived by the god of this world as to be completely inured to what is spiritual truth...a heretic. These may not sound like kind words, and I cannot try to make them so, but they do show why, as some have so plainly dug in their heels in the saying "Don't you know many of us were "once" believers...that's why you'll never get us to believe..."

I can only leave such to their words. On the common ground of which I spoke, where I am as surely open to judgment and chastening if I dare think myself better...if I dare imagine "my" words have a _magic_ to overcome your own words...in short having the same respect to your "manhood" as has been shown me by the one you deny seeing. I am treated, very much "man to man" by him, he does not condescend, trivialize, nor take pleasure in jesting over me. That there may be "facts" at hand useful in a challenge, but the truth (person of Jesus Christ) is without challenge, even though at times I may have experienced him as such...he simply tells me..."how it is".

And because of a "fact" I embrace, that of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which has placed us on the common ground of being forgiven I cannot hope for you any less than I do for myself...to see mercy in all those places that my own incongruence "in the truth" would invite judgment. 

But for now I am convinced of nothing other than to leave you to your own words...if indeed you "will" not believe...even if one were to return from the dead.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> David also understood the workings of God's providence.
> 
> "And the king said, What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? so let him curse, because the LORD has said unto him, Curse David. Who shall then say, Why have you done so?"
> 
> The mocking serves God's purpose.


amen
 Then David said to Abishai and to all his servants, "Behold, my son who came out from me seeks my life; how much more now this Benjamite? Let him alone and let him curse, for the LORD has told him. "Perhaps the LORD will look on my affliction and return good to me instead of his cursing this day." So David and his men went on the way; and Shimei went along on the hillside parallel with him and as he went he cursed and cast stones and threw dust at him.…

There is nothing anyone can say "about me" (about us) that is undeserved of my (our) fall.
Rare is the man that sees the rising. And precious.
Bless you brother.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> How many times has the matter of "assertions" come up?
> As in "you just can't assert this, or that, you can't just say something as though it's true..."
> I know many don't like to hear it...(or at least I assert from _my sense _of what takes place when something is quoted from the bible), but there is a significance beyond any purpose of what might be called [my] mere religiosity when Pilate asks..."what is truth?"
> Perhaps it would be more easily accepted, received, open to acknowledgement, if I quoted Socrates, Schopenhauer, Dawkins, Hitchens, as saying it, even though for my part I don't wonder if not all these...if not all men...have in one way or another asked the very same question...either aloud...or at any rate...to themselves.
> "Is truth always and only...what is (seems) true to...me?"
> Or, is there a "thing" as truth, more than just a philosophical construct, which, if it be merely a construct then, is totally useless  in reality, except as a matter of discussion...a passing of time by mouths till they are stopped with dust?
> If truth cannot be known...what matter?
> If it can be...what other pursuit is there? (At least this I believe as "a believer" is the impetus of what I would call a disciple of Jesus Christ...)
> 
> For you, (and I use "you" to any that might need explanation, regardless of what they do on Sunday, what talisman they may wear around their neck, or not, what words they may speak regarding that name of Jesus Christ) it is far more to a disciple than a rote repetition of something they have read regarding a "way" a "truth" a "life"... to apprehend, even in the most rudimentary sense that "truth"...is not a concept...but a person. And as a person (Jesus) declaring himself "knowable", the believer then places himself (or is placed, if you prefer) as one who manifestly is by proclamation of relationship to that person (Jesus Christ), one who not only believes "truth" to be...but also to be knowable.
> 
> Now here he may discover he is no less "subject" to truth...than any other. That is, this relationship grants him no special indulgence, if you will, because again, truth to him is not a thing grasped to himself like a tool "in his own belt"...so to speak, but a person. Therefore, to the disciple, truth becomes far more than simply being consistent to a set of mere facts of a religious structure (or a rote reciting)...but in reality...being faithful in the apprehension and expression of "that person"...who is the truth.
> 
> Are there facts...to the disciple? Of course. But never without an _organic_ relation of truth, to truth. In other words, the perception (apprehension) of fact always bears with it an introduction to a truth of the capital "T" Truth...Jesus. These things are basic in their infantility to any disciple, and I don't presume to be teaching my brothers, I know they know this...but again, to those who declare themselves "outside" the faith of Jesus Christ...I cannot overstress that a disciple does not exempt himself from the common ground of all men in seeking to know "truth".
> 
> I have been with you all for a very short time, but almost, to a man you say "we used to be believers...we used to be christians, (essentially) we used to be 'like you'..." And, it seems to me, so much of the discussion is based upon that presumption "We have seen ALL it has to offer, we have tried all the goods, we have eaten all offered there, seen all that is displayed, and found it wanting" To me, that presumption is what is so much the taken for granted...what "feeds" the notion of an ability to reject...as impetus...because you really do believe you have seen all "of christianity"...and yet, at only one time (I believe it was Bullet) have I ever heard anything that might remotely ring to me as a testimony, and that, of Jesus Christ, when he said (more or less, and please correct me) "I know what it's like when you seem to experience like someone knows all about you, and is arranging things according to this knowing...that "feeling" of feeling "special".
> 
> In other words, I seem to have heard a lot about "christianity", but not much of the testimony of Jesus Christ. And that testimony is, at least in part...that "we" are known, we are set apart, we are in a sense "singled out" that we might really come together, things are very much in arrangement for us to behold. And know...and begin...to understand.
> I can think that to some the repugnance of that is obvious..."you mean "a" god...really takes a very personal interest in you? You?
> REALLY?"
> 
> To the one who has no trouble in that repugnance, but yet may say "I also used to be a "christian"..." I can only say, you either never were...or you were lead away in infancy...or...you are so deceived by the god of this world as to be completely inured to what is spiritual truth...a heretic. These may not sound like kind words, and I cannot try to make them so, but they do show why, as some have so plainly dug in their heels in the saying "Don't you know many of us were "once" believers...that's why you'll never get us to believe..."
> 
> I can only leave such to their words. On the common ground of which I spoke, where I am as surely open to judgment and chastening if I dare think myself better...if I dare imagine "my" words have a _magic_ to overcome your own words...in short having the same respect to your "manhood" as has been shown me by the one you deny seeing. I am treated, very much "man to man" by him, he does not condescend, trivialize, nor take pleasure in jesting over me. That there may be "facts" at hand useful in a challenge, but the truth (person of Jesus Christ) is without challenge, even though at times I may have experienced him as such...he simply tells me..."how it is".
> 
> And because of a "fact" I embrace, that of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which has placed us on the common ground of being forgiven I cannot hope for you any less than I do for myself...to see mercy in all those places that my own incongruence "in the truth" would invite judgment.
> 
> But for now I am convinced of nothing other than to leave you to your own words...if indeed you "will" not believe...even if one were to return from the dead.


From the book of Foghorn:
"You're way off, I say say you're way off this time son"

Someone returning from the dead would be a good start. But really ,according to the Bible, returning from the dead is not unique or uncommon. That must have been the special effect of choice among the writers of those times.
And, you were correct to use quotes around the word fact.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> amen
> Then David said to Abishai and to all his servants, "Behold, my son who came out from me seeks my life; how much more now this Benjamite? Let him alone and let him curse, for the LORD has told him. "Perhaps the LORD will look on my affliction and return good to me instead of his cursing this day." So David and his men went on the way; and Shimei went along on the hillside parallel with him and as he went he cursed and cast stones and threw dust at him.…
> 
> There is nothing anyone can say "about me" (about us) that is undeserved of my (our) fall.
> Rare is the man that sees the rising. And precious.
> Bless you brother.


Say it ain't so! Dust? Not dust! Anything but dust! Those guys always took it to extremes when they started chucking things.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> He that has ears to hear, let him hear.


I that have brain to think, uses it.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> How many times has the matter of "assertions" come up?
> As in "you just can't assert this, or that, you can't just say something as though it's true..."
> I know many don't like to hear it...(or at least I assert from _my sense _of what takes place when something is quoted from the bible), but there is a significance beyond any purpose of what might be called [my] mere religiosity when Pilate asks..."what is truth?"
> Perhaps it would be more easily accepted, received, open to acknowledgement, if I quoted Socrates, Schopenhauer, Dawkins, Hitchens, as saying it, even though for my part I don't wonder if not all these...if not all men...have in one way or another asked the very same question...either aloud...or at any rate...to themselves.
> "Is truth always and only...what is (seems) true to...me?"
> Or, is there a "thing" as truth, more than just a philosophical construct, which, if it be merely a construct then, is totally useless  in reality, except as a matter of discussion...a passing of time by mouths till they are stopped with dust?
> If truth cannot be known...what matter?
> If it can be...what other pursuit is there? (At least this I believe as "a believer" is the impetus of what I would call a disciple of Jesus Christ...)
> 
> For you, (and I use "you" to any that might need explanation, regardless of what they do on Sunday, what talisman they may wear around their neck, or not, what words they may speak regarding that name of Jesus Christ) it is far more to a disciple than a rote repetition of something they have read regarding a "way" a "truth" a "life"... to apprehend, even in the most rudimentary sense that "truth"...is not a concept...but a person. And as a person (Jesus) declaring himself "knowable", the believer then places himself (or is placed, if you prefer) as one who manifestly is by proclamation of relationship to that person (Jesus Christ), one who not only believes "truth" to be...but also to be knowable.
> 
> Now here he may discover he is no less "subject" to truth...than any other. That is, this relationship grants him no special indulgence, if you will, because again, truth to him is not a thing grasped to himself like a tool "in his own belt"...so to speak, but a person. Therefore, to the disciple, truth becomes far more than simply being consistent to a set of mere facts of a religious structure (or a rote reciting)...but in reality...being faithful in the apprehension and expression of "that person"...who is the truth.
> 
> Are there facts...to the disciple? Of course. But never without an _organic_ relation of truth, to truth. In other words, the perception (apprehension) of fact always bears with it an introduction to a truth of the capital "T" Truth...Jesus. These things are basic in their infantility to any disciple, and I don't presume to be teaching my brothers, I know they know this...but again, to those who declare themselves "outside" the faith of Jesus Christ...I cannot overstress that a disciple does not exempt himself from the common ground of all men in seeking to know "truth".
> 
> I have been with you all for a very short time, but almost, to a man you say "we used to be believers...we used to be christians, (essentially) we used to be 'like you'..." And, it seems to me, so much of the discussion is based upon that presumption "We have seen ALL it has to offer, we have tried all the goods, we have eaten all offered there, seen all that is displayed, and found it wanting" To me, that presumption is what is so much the taken for granted...what "feeds" the notion of an ability to reject...as impetus...because you really do believe you have seen all "of christianity"...and yet, at only one time (I believe it was Bullet) have I ever heard anything that might remotely ring to me as a testimony, and that, of Jesus Christ, when he said (more or less, and please correct me) "I know what it's like when you seem to experience like someone knows all about you, and is arranging things according to this knowing...that "feeling" of feeling "special".
> 
> In other words, I seem to have heard a lot about "christianity", but not much of the testimony of Jesus Christ. And that testimony is, at least in part...that "we" are known, we are set apart, we are in a sense "singled out" that we might really come together, things are very much in arrangement for us to behold. And know...and begin...to understand.
> I can think that to some the repugnance of that is obvious..."you mean "a" god...really takes a very personal interest in you? You?
> REALLY?"
> 
> To the one who has no trouble in that repugnance, but yet may say "I also used to be a "christian"..." I can only say, you either never were...or you were lead away in infancy...or...you are so deceived by the god of this world as to be completely inured to what is spiritual truth...a heretic. These may not sound like kind words, and I cannot try to make them so, but they do show why, as some have so plainly dug in their heels in the saying "Don't you know many of us were "once" believers...that's why you'll never get us to believe..."
> 
> I can only leave such to their words. On the common ground of which I spoke, where I am as surely open to judgment and chastening if I dare think myself better...if I dare imagine "my" words have a _magic_ to overcome your own words...in short having the same respect to your "manhood" as has been shown me by the one you deny seeing. I am treated, very much "man to man" by him, he does not condescend, trivialize, nor take pleasure in jesting over me. That there may be "facts" at hand useful in a challenge, but the truth (person of Jesus Christ) is without challenge, even though at times I may have experienced him as such...he simply tells me..."how it is".
> 
> And because of a "fact" I embrace, that of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which has placed us on the common ground of being forgiven I cannot hope for you any less than I do for myself...to see mercy in all those places that my own incongruence "in the truth" would invite judgment.
> 
> But for now I am convinced of nothing other than to leave you to your own words...if indeed you "will" not believe...even if one were to return from the dead.





> I have been with you all for a very short time, but almost, to a man you say "we used to be believers...we used to be christians, (essentially) we used to be 'like you'..." And, it seems to me, so much of the discussion is based upon that presumption "We have seen ALL it has to offer, we have tried all the goods, we have eaten all offered there, seen all that is displayed, and found it wanting" To me, that presumption is what is so much the taken for granted...what "feeds" the notion of an ability to reject...as impetus...because you really do believe you have seen all "of christianity".


If you don't believe the basic foundation, the "ALL it has to offer" becomes insignificant regardless of how much that ALL is.
Shouldn't it be that way?
Arent, in a way, you are suggesting that the "ALL it has to offer" should sway you, maybe even bribe you, to stay?
How much would Islam have to offer you to join their club? 72 virgins? Paid vacation? A time share in Cancun?
At what point are you willing to let the "ALL they have to offer" over ride the fact that you don't believe in the foundation of Islam? 


> Perhaps it would be more easily accepted, received, open to acknowledgement, if I quoted Socrates, Schopenhauer, Dawkins, Hitchens, as saying it,


Depends on if they asserted their views as fact or as how they see it.
That thought comes out of, in this case, a Christian mind. Where the WHO said it is the dominant factor (God said it so its true...).
I/we don't worship any of those above names you mentioned so with a clear conscience can question/disagree/ignore etc any of them regardless of their name.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> I that have brain to think, uses it.



Maybe you do, but your brain can only process the data it receives.


----------



## welderguy

Paul preached to a diversity of people in Athens (Acts 17),believers,non-believers,idolaters,mockers,"lewd people",political leaders,and common people. They all had their own set of "rules",much like we find on this forum.

But Paul preached to them anyway.

This was the main point of his message:
30" And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but NOW COMMANDETH ALL MEN EVERYWHERE TO REPENT:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter."


Just because some adhere to a set of rules that omits God.There is another set of rules given BY God,in which logic and reason are not sufficient to nullify.


----------



## ambush80

ambush80 said:


> If one were to say "I just don't care if it makes sense.  I wanna believe it anyway."  then I would leave it at that.    When people defend their faith and try to use logic and reason then it's par for the course to point out where their reasoning fails.





welderguy said:


> Just because some adhere to a set of rules that omits God.There is another set of rules given BY God,in which logic and reason are not sufficient to nullify.




There.  That wasn't so hard, was it?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> There.  That wasn't so hard, was it?



Not hard at all.It's what I've been saying the whole time.Can't you tell by my blue face?

So are you agreeing that human logic and reason does not void God's commands to all men?...because that's what I'm saying, as well as Paul.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Not hard at all.It's what I've been saying the whole time.Can't you tell by my blue face?
> 
> So are you agreeing that human logic and reason does not void God's commands to all men?...because that's what I'm saying, as well as Paul.





gemcgrew said:


> Sometimes leaving a man in his senselessness is the kindest action available.




So, yes.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> So, yes.



Based on the quote (from Gem) that you interjected, I get the feeling you are only agreeing so I will hush up.Is this a correct assumption?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Based on the quote (from Gem) that you interjected, I get the feeling you are only agreeing so I will hush up.Is this a correct assumption?



I'm trying as hard as I can to be respectful of your foolishness.

You guys talk about ghosties and demons and spirits like they're real yet readily admit that there's NO WAY to prove that they exist using the faculties that EVERYONE has available to them; those being empirical evidence and reason.  You want us to disbelieve our lying eyes.  You contend that there is a secret, enigmatic "organ" of immaterial nature within each of us that allows us to sense what you clearly sense and that we are just not using it correctly.

I'll stick with my lying eyes.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Paul preached to a diversity of people in Athens (Acts 17),believers,non-believers,idolaters,mockers,"lewd people",political leaders,and common people. They all had their own set of "rules",much like we find on this forum.
> 
> But Paul preached to them anyway.
> 
> This was the main point of his message:
> 30" And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but NOW COMMANDETH ALL MEN EVERYWHERE TO REPENT:
> 
> 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
> 
> 32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter."
> 
> 
> Just because some adhere to a set of rules that omits God.There is another set of rules given BY God,in which logic and reason are not sufficient to nullify.





> 30" And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but NOW COMMANDETH ALL MEN EVERYWHERE TO REPENT:


If the elect are already pre-chosen why command ALL men everywhere to repent?
Do you punish your child for doing what you tell them to do?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I'm trying as hard as I can to be respectful of your foolishness.
> 
> You guys talk about ghosties and demons and spirits like they're real yet readily admit that there's NO WAY to prove that they exist using the faculties that EVERYONE has available to them; those being empirical evidence and reason.  You want us to disbelieve our lying eyes.  You contend that there is a secret, enigmatic "organ" of immaterial nature within each of us that allows us to sense what you clearly sense and that we are just not using it correctly.
> 
> I'll stick with my lying eyes.



Ambush, if what you just said is truly sincere, I think we may have reached a milestone. 
When two people can be respectful of one another's position, regardless of the "perceived foolishness", that is really all that anyone can ask.

I draw my (spiritual) sword when disrespect becomes aimed at my Lord and His word, not when others don't believe in them.

I will try to be more respectful of your inability to believe, just as you respect those things that I believe. Although this doesn't mean I will compromise or cease to defend them.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> If the elect are already pre-chosen why command ALL men everywhere to repent?
> Do you punish your child for doing what you tell them to do?



Paul is rebuking their idolatry.They were worshipping everything BUT God.
It's no different today.People will put anything, especially themselves, before their Creator.Whether you're elect or not, God deserves our worship and service as our creator and sustainer of life.It's not too much to ask.Look around at all we have been freely given.How can we be ungrateful.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Paul is rebuking their idolatry.They were worshipping everything BUT God.
> It's no different today.People will put anything, especially themselves, before their Creator.Whether you're elect or not, God deserves our worship and service as our creator and sustainer of life.It's not too much to ask.Look around at all we have been freely given.How can we be ungrateful.





> Whether you're elect or not, God deserves our worship and service as our creator and sustainer of life.It's not too much to ask.


Again, why?
If God created you knowing full well he was destining you to be firewood why should that be worshipped?
Are you supposed to thank him for letting you live for 60 or 70 years (back then 30 or 40 years) here on earth but then destine you to forever suffering?


> Look around at all we have been freely given.How can we be ungrateful.


Yes look around. We are the lucky ones.
But lets not forget those who live a life of misery or abuse or illness or poverty or starvation......
If life was roses and butterflies for everybody you might have a point.


> Whether you're elect or not, God deserves our worship and service as our creator and sustainer of life.It's not too much to ask.


Another one of those assertions based on YOUR belief.
He could prove it for all to see in a second. 
Its not too much to ask.


> People will put anything, especially themselves, before their Creator


We can also show examples of people who put their belief in a Creator over everything. With some pretty disgusting results.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Again, why?
> If God created you knowing full well he was destining you to be firewood why should that be worshipped?
> Are you supposed to thank him for letting you live for 60 or 70 years (back then 30 or 40 years) here on earth but then destine you to forever suffering?



I must ask you how does anyone know that they are destined to eternal suffering?





WaltL1 said:


> Yes look around. We are the lucky ones.
> But lets not forget those who live a life of misery or abuse or illness or poverty or starvation......
> If life was roses and butterflies for everybody you might have a point.



Have you ever noticed that,more times than not,whenever a person goes through very harsh trials of life for a long period of time,these people usually have the best character and attitude.The trial tempers them like the fire tempers metal.It makes it tougher and more pliable.God designs trials to be blessings in disguise.There are exceptions,of course,of those who only become bitter. But if we can look past ourselves,we should see that ultimately it's not all about "me". 





WaltL1 said:


> Another one of those assertions based on YOUR belief.
> He could prove it for all to see in a second.
> Its not too much to ask.



He could also destroy us all in a second and be completely justified in doing so.





WaltL1 said:


> We can also show examples of people who put their belief in a Creator over everything. With some pretty disgusting results.



Can you elaborate on this?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I must ask you how does anyone know that they are destined to eternal suffering?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever noticed that,more times than not,whenever a person goes through very harsh trials of life for a long period of time,these people usually have the best character and attitude.The trial tempers them like the fire tempers metal.It makes it tougher and more pliable.God designs trials to be blessings in disguise.There are exceptions,of course,of those who only become bitter. But if we can look past ourselves,we should see that ultimately it's not all about "me".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could also destroy us all in a second and be completely justified in doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on this?





> I must ask you how does anyone know that they are destined to eternal suffering?


Yeah that's pretty sneaky isn't it? Demand your worship yet not let you in on the fact that so sorry you have a losing ticket.
Is that honorable? Honest? Worthy of worship?


> Have you ever noticed that,more times than not,whenever a person goes through very harsh trials of life for a long period of time,these people usually have the best character and attitude.The trial tempers them like the fire tempers metal.It makes it tougher and more pliable.God designs trials to be blessings in disguise.There are exceptions,of course,of those who only become bitter. But if we can look past ourselves,we should see that ultimately it's not all about "me".


I'll be honest. I find that disgusting. Give that one some thought. Reminder -


> But lets not forget those who live a life of misery or abuse or illness or poverty or starvation......





> He could also destroy us all in a second and be completely justified in doing so.


Justified?
I cant tell you how much a statement like that reaffirms and confirms my leaving Christianity.


> Can you elaborate on this?


Really?
Yes I could elaborate. Easily.
But you give it some thought and see what you come up with. But you arent going to be able to quote some scripture. It will require actual honest thinking.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah that's pretty sneaky isn't it? Demand your worship yet not let you in on the fact that so sorry you have a losing ticket.
> Is that honorable? Honest? Worthy of worship?
> 
> I'll be honest. I find that disgusting. Give that one some thought. Reminder -
> 
> 
> Justified?
> I cant tell you how much a statement like that reaffirms and confirms my leaving Christianity.
> 
> Really?
> Yes I could elaborate. Easily.
> But you give it some thought and see what you come up with. But you arent going to be able to quote some scripture. It will require actual honest thinking.



I have given your answers some honest thought.My first thought was that you are arrogant.But then I thought some more and something else occurred to me.

Everything in the whole universe is dependant upon something else...except God.He is self-sufficient.He needs nothing.He's sovereign over everything.We depend on Him for everything to sustain us: oxygen to breathe,food,warmth,cooling,gravity,bodily functions,...everything.

When you adopt an attitude like you have,it's like you are saying "I don't need God for anything"."I'm self-sufficient".

The truth is,you need God for everything,whether you acknowledge it or not.For every heartbeat,for every breath,every sane thought that enters your mind.

Nebuchadnezzar thought he didn't need God either.But after God took away his sanity and his pride and caused him to eat grass like an ox,he saw things the way they really are.Sometimes we have to be thumped off our high horse in order to see His sovereignty and our dependence on Him.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I have given your answers some honest thought.My first thought was that you are arrogant.But then I thought some more and something else occurred to me.
> 
> Everything in the whole universe is dependant upon something else...except God.He is self-sufficient.He needs nothing.He's sovereign over everything.We depend on Him for everything to sustain us: oxygen to breathe,food,warmth,cooling,gravity,bodily functions,...everything.
> 
> When you adopt an attitude like you have,it's like you are saying "I don't need God for anything"."I'm self-sufficient".
> 
> The truth is,you need God for everything,whether you acknowledge it or not.For every heartbeat,for every breath,every sane thought that enters your mind.
> 
> Nebuchadnezzar thought he didn't need God either.But after God took away his sanity and his pride and caused him to eat grass like an ox,he saw things the way they really are.Sometimes we have to be thumped off our high horse in order to see His sovereignty and our dependence on Him.





> My first thought was that you are arrogant.


You are confusing honesty with being arrogant.
An example of arrogance would be "my God is real and yours isn't". When you don't have a clue if that's true or not.
Another example of arrogance would be "I am of the elect". When you don't have a clue if that's true or not.
Last example of arrogance - "worship me regardless of whether I elect you or not".
An example of honesty would be - I don't know for a fact if there are gods or not so I leave open the possibility.


> Everything in the whole universe is dependant upon something else...except God.He is self-sufficient.He needs nothing.He's sovereign over everything.We depend on Him for everything to sustain us: oxygen to breathe,food,warmth,cooling,gravity,bodily functions,...everything.


You are doing it again. Heres another example of honesty - Start all that with 'I believe"..... or "I have faith that".........


> When you adopt an attitude like you have,it's like you are saying "I don't need God for anything"."I'm self-sufficient".


Never said I was self sufficient. Ive had many PEOPLE help me along the way. We have had this conversation before. Seems like if you don't hear what you want to you immediately dismiss it from your head. That causes you to repeat the same wrong assertions.


> Nebuchadnezzar thought he didn't need God either.But after God took away his sanity and his pride and caused him to eat grass like an ox,he saw things the way they really are.Sometimes we have to be thumped off our high horse in order to see His sovereignty and our dependence on Him


And sometimes the high horse causes one to demand what they believe is true when they don't have a shred of proof.
And since you always ignore the tough questions I'll repeat it -


> Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post
> Yeah that's pretty sneaky isn't it? Demand your worship yet not let you in on the fact that so sorry you have a losing ticket.
> Is that honorable? Honest? Worthy of worship?


----------



## welderguy

These PEOPLE you speak of that "helped" you did not do any of the things I mentioned that gave and sustained your life.God did.And instead of denying Him and questioning His motives,why not be thankful.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe God brought these PEOPLE into your life to help you?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> These PEOPLE you speak of that "helped" you did not do any of the things I mentioned that gave and sustained your life.God did.And instead of denying Him and questioning His motives,why not be thankful.
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that maybe God brought these PEOPLE into your life to help you?


I guess somehow you get some sort of twisted satisfaction out of making these assertions. Its like you are looking for brownie points.
And continue to ignore the tough questions.
I find it completely and worst of all, purposely dishonest. 
You take care Welder.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I guess somehow you get some sort of twisted satisfaction out of making these assertions. Its like you are looking for brownie points.
> And continue to ignore the tough questions.
> I find it completely and worst of all, purposely dishonest.
> You take care Welder.



...its like there's a gear missing.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> ...its like there's a gear missing.



It's a different mindset.

Off topic, kind-a, I actually went to church with MRs Jb this morning, whole sermon was about the "why this religion and not that'n".  I was thinking about you guys a lot, and recognized that nothing said in that sermon hasn't been said in here 1K times.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> It's a different mindset.
> 
> Off topic, kind-a, I actually went to church with MRs Jb this morning, whole sermon was about the "why this religion and not that'n".  I was thinking about you guys a lot, and recognized that nothing said in that sermon hasn't been said in here 1K times.


Was that your overall experience? 
I know you struggle with finding a church where you fit in.
Maybe today was a bad day and this church has possibilities?


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Was that your overall experience?
> I know you struggle with finding a church where you fit in.
> Maybe today was a bad day and this church has possibilities?



Honestly, Walt, it was good to sit with my family in church.  The things which keep me away are still there.  Perhaps the day will come when I can get the cynical voices to settle down enough for me to go regularly, but I'm not there yet.

This church has a lot of good going for it, and there are several who do.  The problem isn't completely with them, but more my inability to move past the things that made me leave to start with.

I just got a chuckle out of a plain as day "preaching to the choir" sermon.........there was nobody there who needed convincing, and, the arguments presented would fall flat against a decent challenge.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Honestly, Walt, it was good to sit with my family in church.  The things which keep me away are still there.  Perhaps the day will come when I can get the cynical voices to settle down enough for me to go regularly, but I'm not there yet.
> 
> This church has a lot of good going for it, and there are several who do.  The problem isn't completely with them, but more my inability to move past the things that made me leave to start with.
> 
> I just got a chuckle out of a plain as day "preaching to the choir" sermon.........there was nobody there who needed convincing, and, the arguments presented would fall flat against a decent challenge.





> Honestly, Walt, it was good to sit with my family in church.


Then maybe you got the best part out of it anyway.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Is that honorable? Honest? Worthy of worship?



Yes it is.Because He is sovereign.

He is the creator.We are the creation.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> ...its like there's a gear missing.



only reverse.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Yes it is.Because He is sovereign.
> 
> He is the creator.We are the creation.





> Demand your worship yet not let you in on the fact that so sorry you have a losing ticket.
> Is that honorable? Honest? Worthy of worship?


Notice that I described an action and asked if that action was honorable and honest and worship worthy?
Notice how you completely ignored the action and instead addressed who did it?
There's a reason you have to do that Welder.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Notice that I described an action and asked if that action was honorable and honest and worship worthy?
> Notice how you completely ignored the action and instead addressed who did it?
> There's a reason you have to do that Welder.



That's because you loaded the question.I cut out the part I didn't agree with and answered the part that I did.

I think there's a reason you do that also Walt.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Honestly, Walt, it was good to sit with my family in church.  The things which keep me away are still there.  Perhaps the day will come when I can get the cynical voices to settle down enough for me to go regularly, but I'm not there yet.
> 
> This church has a lot of good going for it, and there are several who do.  The problem isn't completely with them, but more my inability to move past the things that made me leave to start with.
> 
> I just got a chuckle out of a plain as day "preaching to the choir" sermon.........there was nobody there who needed convincing, and, the arguments presented would fall flat against a decent challenge.



Sounds like you want a place where they question alot.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> That's because you loaded the question.I cut out the part I didn't agree with and answered the part that I did.
> I think there's a reason you do that also Walt.


I didn't load the question. Those are your beliefs.
You are calling it loaded because you know what will happen if you are honest about it. So you choose instead to avoid it.
Instead of blaming me for loading the question maybe you should be asking why you cant be honest about it and have to avoid it.


> I think there's a reason you do that also Walt


.
Yes, to show the hypocricy in the assertions that you throw out there.


----------



## Israel

Walt, you do understand there can be a difference between what one says...and one does?
(and I know you used the word hypocrisy, so I am not, in that sense seeking to educate you...)


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Walt, you do understand there can be a difference between what one says...and one does?
> (and I know you used the word hypocrisy, so I am not, in that sense seeking to educate you...)


Of course.
But its going to be the particulars that make all the difference. Was it dishonesty? deception? honest mistake? a one time thing? a pattern of behavior? circumstances out of control?........
You'll have to give some details.


----------



## welderguy

Walt, I owe you an apology for judging you as arrogant.It's not my place to judge anyone in that manner. I was totally out of line.
If anything,it was me who was arrogant in my attitude and words.I ask your forgiveness.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I wouldn't want it any other way.



I forgot /sarcasm.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I forgot /sarcasm.



You are right, Striper.I forgot charity.I became that sounding brass and tinkling cymbal spoken of in 1 Cor.13:1.
I'm sorry.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> You are right, Striper.I forgot charity.I became that sounding brass and tinkling cymbal spoken of in 1 Cor.13:1.
> I'm sorry.



You don't owe me any apology.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt, I owe you an apology for judging you as arrogant.It's not my place to judge anyone in that manner. I was totally out of line.
> If anything,it was me who was arrogant in my attitude and words.I ask your forgiveness.


Don't worry about it.
I might be arrogant in which case you would be right.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Sounds like you want a place where they question alot.



I don't even know if I want a place anymore.  But, if I did, I would prefer them be able to answer beyond "this is how we've always dun it," or, "I just trust my pastor has things under control" type answers.  It's a long story and a long process for me when discussing church.  I miss it, or, even more, I miss being able to sit and enjoy it the way my wife and kids can.  I'm just not there anymore, for several reasons.


----------



## JimD

JB,

We share some of the same issues. 

I absolutely believe in God, but the "modern" Christian church is not my cup of tea. There is a book called "The Christian Warrior" written by Gabe Suarez that pretty much sums up many of the things I question in the modern church. He has a website called Warrior Talk. If anyone is interested in a free download of the book I can post it.

I enjoy the discussions on this forum very much because it is not just spitting out things someone else has said.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I don't even know if I want a place anymore.  But, if I did, I would prefer them be able to answer beyond "this is how we've always dun it," or, "I just trust my pastor has things under control" type answers.  It's a long story and a long process for me when discussing church.  I miss it, or, even more, I miss being able to sit and enjoy it the way my wife and kids can.  I'm just not there anymore, for several reasons.


I don't envy your position. Its got to suck. For me the answer to all the things that conflicted me was to leave it all behind.
For you I don't think that's an option.
Maybe start JB's Church of God  
If you look at the numbers of folks abandoning the churches obviously their needs aren't being met there. Maybe some of them have the same issues you do.
If you cant find the right place, create the right place!


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> You really should seriously stop mocking the word of God.



You mean the God that can create a universe but, can't write?

I would never mock the word of a god.


----------



## JB0704

JimD said:


> JB,
> 
> We share some of the same issues.
> 
> I absolutely believe in God, but the "modern" Christian church is not my cup of tea. There is a book called "The Christian Warrior" written by Gabe Suarez that pretty much sums up many of the things I question in the modern church. He has a website called Warrior Talk. If anyone is interested in a free download of the book I can post it.
> 
> I enjoy the discussions on this forum very much because it is not just spitting out things someone else has said.



  I'll check it out.  Jump in the discussion more often (if you've posted before I've missed it).


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> I don't envy your position. Its got to suck. For me the answer to all the things that conflicted me was to leave it all behind.
> For you I don't think that's an option.
> Maybe start JB's Church of God
> If you look at the numbers of folks abandoning the churches obviously their needs aren't being met there. Maybe some of them have the same issues you do.
> If you cant find the right place, create the right place!



I can't leave my faith behind.  It's part of me.  But, I'm also not preacher material.  I find a way to worship in other ways, primarily through service to various ministries.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I can't leave my faith behind.  It's part of me.  But, I'm also not preacher material.  I find a way to worship in other ways, primarily through service to various ministries.





> I can't leave my faith behind.  It's part of me.


And I hope you know (I think you do) that I would NEVER suggest that you should.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> And I hope you know (I think you do) that I would NEVER suggest that you should.



Sure do, Walt


----------



## centerpin fan

JimD said:


> There is a book called "The Christian Warrior" written by Gabe Suarez that pretty much sums up many of the things I question in the modern church.



Can you briefly summarize?  

Amazon doesn't list the book, and I couldn't find much about it on his website.


----------



## JimD

Essentially, it goes through the changes and wussification of the modern Christian church that preaches nothing but love and forgiveness and forgets the Warriors in the Old Testament. Theres alot more to it of course. Here is a free download for anyone interested. He posted this for members, so its not illegal or anything. It should generate some good discussion.


----------



## centerpin fan

JimD said:


> Essentially, it goes through the changes and wussification of the modern Christian church that preaches nothing but love and forgiveness and forgets the Warriors in the Old Testament. Theres alot more to it of course. Here is a free download for anyone interested. He posted this for members, so its not illegal or anything. It should generate some good discussion.



I skimmed it quickly to get an idea of where he was coming from.  My first thought is that I've never been in a church like he describes.  I think you and JB are the two unluckiest Christians on the planet.


----------



## WaltL1

Uhhh...... interesting read.


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> I think you and JB are the two unluckiest Christians on the planet.



Throwin' a flag on this'n.

My expirience is the same as most.  The difference between me and most others is my willingness to ask a follow up question........

I have a very close friend who is part of one of the churches that I struggle with, who has the head pastor's vision set up darn near as gospel.  When I said there is nothing biblical about that, his response was "that's just your opinion!"  The follow up......"let's find it in the Bible."  

It ain't there.  That doesn't make me unlucky, just cynical.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Throwin' a flag on this'n.
> 
> My expirience is the same as most.  The difference between me and most others is my willingness to ask a follow up question........
> 
> I have a very close friend who is part of one of the churches that I struggle with, who has the head pastor's vision set up darn near as gospel.  When I said there is nothing biblical about that, his response was "that's just your opinion!"  The follow up......"let's find it in the Bible."
> 
> It ain't there.  That doesn't make me unlucky, just cynical.



That's not cynical. At least relative to the Word. It's cynical relative to his word, but he should also take care not to misrepresent the Word. Calling out a false witness is fair game, or so I thought, amongst the flock.


----------



## JimD

I kinda have come to believe that religion itself is about control and that Christianity was changed over the years to further control. I'm not exactly sure if I'm a Christian as defined by other Christians. I, like many in this forum question a lot of things. I however question the dogma of religion and religious doctrine, but not the existence of God. I do understand you guys questioning the existence of a supreme being/God because of the items you have written. I also know, as even Einstein stated, that my feeble mind cannot even begin to know everything nor know exactly what God is or thinks. I think we can know pieces and parts that He reveals to us, but we will never truly know how God "thinks", at least while we are on this earth.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JimD said:


> I kinda have come to believe that religion itself is about control and that Christianity was changed over the years to further control. I'm not exactly sure if I'm a Christian as defined by other Christians. I, like many in this forum question a lot of things. I however question the dogma of religion and religious doctrine, but not the existence of God. I do understand you guys questioning the existence of a supreme being/God because of the items you have written. I also know, as even Einstein stated, that my feeble mind cannot even begin to know everything nor know exactly what God is or thinks. I think we can know pieces and parts that He reveals to us, but we will never truly know how God "thinks", at least while we are on this earth.



That, Einstein's statement, is why the only solid position is no position, i.e. agnosticism. Everything else requires leaps based on incomplete information.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Calling out a false witness is fair game, or so I thought, amongst the flock.



Nope.  In the Christian world that's called being a "naysayer," and is akin to heresy.  It's not all churches, but, the contemporary movement relies heavily on this forced trust of the leaders, and it is driven heavily by a business model.......leaving the church to be not much more than a weekly source of entertainment and nothing remotely like the communities witnessed in the NT.  It's the abuse of the unity concept which drives me nuts.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Nope.  In the Christian world that's called being a "naysayer," and is akin to heresy.  It's not all churches, but, the contemporary movement relies heavily on this forced trust of the leaders, and it is driven heavily by a business model.......leaving the church to be not much more than a weekly source of entertainment and nothing remotely like the communities witnessed in the NT.  It's the abuse of the unity concept which drives me nuts.



I had no idea it had gotten quite that bad. I had seen something similar in one of the multitude of churches I visited years back, but I didn't think it was all that widespread.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I had no idea it had gotten quite that bad. I had seen something similar in one of the multitude of churches I visited years back, but I didn't think it was all that widespread.



How widespread it is depends on who you ask......for instance, many on here think it's just the churches I visit, but none others (see CP's comments).  I think it's a trending mindset which is generally a reaction to the traditional church's habit of having nasty splits.  Problem is when folks start making things up and calling them doctrine, or, instituting this concept of "stated values" which is generally whatever the HP wants it to be, making him the equivalent of a pope to the local congregation.

My frustration is with the general willingness to go along with that non-sense.

I'm all about grace, love, redemption, feed the poor, help the needy, forgiveness, love your neighbor, etc.  I think these are basic principles of Jesus' teachings.  But, there is a blueprint given to the Church, and it's not really up to individual church's to decide that doesn't work for them if they are going to be labeled a Church.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> How widespread it is depends on who you ask......for instance, many on here think it's just the churches I visit, but none others (see CP's comments).  I think it's a trending mindset which is generally a reaction to the traditional church's habit of having nasty splits.  Problem is when folks start making things up and calling them doctrine, or, instituting this concept of "stated values" which is generally whatever the HP wants it to be, making him the equivalent of a pope to the local congregation.
> 
> My frustration is with the general willingness to go along with that non-sense.
> 
> I'm all about grace, love, redemption, feed the poor, help the needy, forgiveness, love your neighbor, etc.  I think these are basic principles of Jesus' teachings.  But, there is a blueprint given to the Church, and it's not really up to individual church's to decide that doesn't work for them if they are going to be labeled a Church.



Except that there's a ton of precedent for the human to determine what their church and religion will be. 

The Councils of Nicea, Martin Luther, and so on, but you already know all of that.

What I find interesting is that _here_ is the point where fractious tendencies should stop, rather than, as you say, getting back to the core of Christianity in the base fellowship and the life's works, rather than the fashions, and rock bands, and stadium sized physical churches that we have now. 

The Christ is no longer a religious figure; he seems to be tending towards a brand like Nike.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

And if you doubt Jesus as a brand, look at the cars around you. 

How many of them have the fish, or "Made for More" or 12 Stone of X on them. That's not a faith, that's a status symbol.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> That doesn't make me unlucky, just cynical.



Fair enough.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> Nope.  In the Christian world that's called being a "naysayer," and is akin to heresy.  It's not all churches, but, the contemporary movement relies heavily on this forced trust of the leaders, and it is driven heavily by a business model.......leaving the church to be not much more than a weekly source of entertainment and nothing remotely like the communities witnessed in the NT.  It's the abuse of the unity concept which drives me nuts.



There are good churches that are the antithesis of contemporary churches, and I'm confident you will find one.


----------



## centerpin fan

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The Christ is no longer a religious figure; he seems to be tending towards a brand like Nike.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

centerpin fan said:


>



It is amazing how prophetic you could view that to be. 

I wonder what their car decal would have looked like.


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> There are good churches that are the antithesis of contemporary churches, and I'm confident you will find one.



Im sure they are there.  I met one of the pastors on here a few weeks back, I think he heads up a very traditional congregation.  Nice guy too.


----------



## NCHillbilly

OK, this thread has gone way past the 1,000 post limit. I'm locking it down and someone needs to start an "It's official #2" thread to carry on the conversation.


----------

