# "But for the grace of God go I"



## ambush80 (Jun 20, 2015)

I heard that yesterday and thought about what it really means.

I think it means "That could have been me in that car wreck or with cancer or with a child born with half a head, if not for God's grace upon me."

What does that say about the person in the car wreck or with cancer or with the baby born with half a head?  God doesn't like them?  He doesn't want them to have Grace?

I know what the answer will be: "He has a wonderful loving plan for their suffering that we don't see." 

Does that REALLY give comfort?  

When a rash of Christmas Eve break-ins happened in my neighborhood my dad thanked Jesus that He had placed a "hedge of protection" around our house.  What did He have against my neighbor?

I don't know....it just rubbed me wrong yesterday and it kind of gets to the root of one of the reasons that I dislike religion.  The notion that _I_ am protected.  _I_ was promised this land.  _I_ have been elected.  _I_ worship the right God.  Those other guys...bless their hearts.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I heard that yesterday and thought about what it really means.
> 
> I think it means "That could have been me in that car wreck or with cancer or with a child born with half a head, if not for God's grace upon me."
> 
> ...


At its core religion is incredibly self serving for those reasons you stated. And it just so happens that religion reinforces that attitude and in fact depends on it.
But its kind of human nature -
I have a bigger house than the Jones's
I drive a Vette and they drive a Yugo
I have a bass boat and he has a row boat......


----------



## welderguy (Jun 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I heard that yesterday and thought about what it really means.
> 
> I think it means "That could have been me in that car wreck or with cancer or with a child born with half a head, if not for God's grace upon me."
> 
> ...



We know that God blesses everyone.Some more than others,obviously.But,no one is thankful enough for those blessings and some not at all.I think it boils down to your whole attitude about life in general.

Is your glass half empty or is it half full?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> We know that God blesses everyone.Some more than others,obviously.But,no one is thankful enough for those blessings and some not at all.I think it boils down to your whole attitude about life in general.
> 
> Is your glass half empty or is it half full?




Welder,

I don't know that God exists much less blesses or curses anything.

You THINK you know but you don't.

My point is that I don't understand how believing that someone like _that_ is in charge is any comfort.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Welder,
> 
> I don't know that God exists much less blesses or curses anything.
> 
> ...



Well, then I would guess that your glass is half empty.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Well, then I would guess that your glass is half empty.



No sir. 

It's half a glass.

I just don't like the thought of someone urinating down my back and telling me that it's raining.  Then claiming it's out of love.


----------



## BubbaFett (Jun 20, 2015)

It's probably been posted before but I like Stephen Fry's take on things...... 
Making people mad on the NAACP post, may as well make folks mad here as well.   
I just wish I was fishing. 

<script height="349px" width="620px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#ec=NoaWozczpWuvpUOaI-sSvDYGm6YzbsQ3&pbid=ZTIxYmJjZDM2NWYzZDViZGRiOWJjYzc5"></script>


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Well, then I would guess that your glass is half empty.



with a crack in the side, and a hole in the bottom


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 20, 2015)

BubbaFett said:


> It's probably been posted before but I like Stephen Fry's take on things......
> Making people mad on the NAACP post, may as well make folks mad here as well.
> I just wish I was fishing.
> 
> <script height="349px" width="620px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#ec=NoaWozczpWuvpUOaI-sSvDYGm6YzbsQ3&pbid=ZTIxYmJjZDM2NWYzZDViZGRiOWJjYzc5"></script>




The weakest excuse _ever_:

"He made it He can do what He wants with it."  

And what does He do with it?  What would any sane person do with it?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I heard that yesterday and thought about what it really means.
> 
> I think it means "That could have been me in that car wreck or with cancer or with a child born with half a head, if not for God's grace upon me."
> 
> ...



You probably know that the dude attributed to have first said that, was burned at the stake for stirring up a mob and agitating againt the goberment in the 1500s.

He was not talking about anything you are talking about or that you might have understood of it. What a tangled web we weave. 

And as far as I'm concerned, we are all born with half of something missing. It's just not the same thing for everyone.

And we are in charge of some things...


----------



## welderguy (Jun 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> No sir.
> 
> It's half a glass.
> 
> I just don't like the thought of someone urinating down my back and telling me that it's raining.  Then claiming it's out of love.



See if your glass was half full,you'd say "I'm glad it's urine and not the other excrement."


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> See if your glass was half full,you'd say "I'm glad it's urine and not the other excrement."



Your argument is a half of glass of urine mixed with feces.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Your argument is a half of glass of urine mixed with feces.






you're killing me.how can you be so civil in the other thread and so unsavory in this one? 

face=face x 2


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 22, 2015)

Ambush, this is an interesting topic, particularly for believers because we are taught to pray and have faith that God is in control.  When bad things happen, we are left to assume that our circumstance is part of a bigger picture.  Whether that is comforting or not is part of the bigger picture.

I have a long story about this, which we may get to depending on how the thread goes.......but, as Christians we have to recognize that sometimes we get run over by a bus, and it has nothing to do with us, but it is what happens.  



> *Acts 12:6* The night before Herod was to bring him to trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance. *7* Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. “Quick, get up!” he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists.........*16* After Herod had a thorough search made for him and did not find him, he cross-examined the guards and ordered that they be executed.



It's the plan that's the comfort, not the individual results of the plan.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Ambush, this is an interesting topic, particularly for believers because we are taught to pray and have faith that God is in control.  When bad things happen, we are left to assume that our circumstance is part of a bigger picture.  Whether that is comforting or not is part of the bigger picture.
> 
> I have a long story about this, which we may get to depending on how the thread goes.......but, as Christians we have to recognize that sometimes we get run over by a bus, and it has nothing to do with us, but it is what happens.
> 
> ...





> we are taught to pray and have faith that God is in control.


That's where I get thrown for a loop.
Often times the prayer is to change the situation.
Im assuming part of having faith that God is in control is trusting that he has his reasons for whats happening.
But now you are asking to change it.
I don't get it.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 22, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> That's where I get thrown for a loop.
> Often times the prayer is to change the situation.
> Im assuming part of having faith that God is in control is trusting that he has his reasons for whats happening.
> But now you are asking to change it.
> I don't get it.



We want what we want, and there is a lot of scripture relevant to petitioning God for change.  I get the confusion.

I guess the comfort is when the petition is denied, and the bus runs us over, we are left to assume there was a reason for that.  View the scripture above........those poor guards were executed for being part of "the plan."  I'm not sure they would have preferred things end up that way.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 22, 2015)

welderguy said:


> We know that God blesses everyone.Some more than others,obviously.But,no one is thankful enough for those blessings and some not at all.I think it boils down to your whole attitude about life in general.
> 
> Is your glass half empty or is it half full?



So be thankful that God just let them be burglarized because He could have let them be killed...

I'll take indifference over relative blessing.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> We want what we want, and there is a lot of scripture relevant to petitioning God for change.  I get the confusion.
> 
> I guess the comfort is when the petition is denied, and the bus runs us over, we are left to assume there was a reason for that.  View the scripture above........those poor guards were executed for being part of "the plan."  I'm not sure they would have preferred things end up that way.





> I guess the comfort is when the petition is denied, and the bus runs us over, we are left to assume there was a reason for that.


That part I understand and it even makes sense to me if Im standing in your shoes.
But I still cant get around that if you had total trust in God's decisions you wouldn't pray for the outcome to be different.
I understand why you might want the outcome to be different but that still shows a certain level of not believing the situation is for the best.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 22, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I understand why you might want the outcome to be different but that still shows a certain level of not believing the situation is for the best.



Good point which can't really be argued.  Maybe it's more of a "can there be another way......I really don't wanna get hit by that bus" kind-a thing.


----------



## JimD (Jun 22, 2015)

As JB alluded to, we are human, and can only judge good or bad based on US. We cannot see the future or know what is best for us, but God (if you believe in him) does. We pray for an outcome we want and sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. The faith is trusting that He knows best and in fact in my life dozens of times, the "worst" things have turned out best. There is also a great parable, I believe it is Hindu, entitled "maybe so, maybe not" if you want to Google it, that talks about this. I try my best in difficult situations to not pray for MY answer, but to ask for strength in whatever way He sees fit. I'm human so I certainly am not perfect in this but I am an idiot and know nothing compared to God/Source/Spirit. As the alcoholics are taught in AA, to let go and let God, but it is sometimes easier said than done. That's at least my take on it, which is worth what you paid for it!


----------



## 660griz (Jun 22, 2015)

Everyone wants to go to heaven, they just don't want to die to get there. 
You would think all true believers would be sitting around praying," Come get me God." If you get a terminal illness, "I am ready God. Thank you." etc.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Good point which can't really be argued.  Maybe it's more of a "can there be another way......I really don't wanna get hit by that bus" kind-a thing.


And I do get that, for example, if you have a terminally ill child laying there, how could you NOT pray, beg, plead, whatever it takes for that situation to change.
I don't care what you believe or not.
I would bet my last dollar that there has been at least one Atheist who in that situation found themselves praying for their child to be saved.


----------



## JimD (Jun 22, 2015)

That's what I said last night in the other thread. That same thing always bothered me as a child sitting in church. I will say however I have seen a couple family members smiling and happy as they died. One even died while smiling and singing hymns.


----------



## smokey30725 (Jun 22, 2015)

JimD said:


> That's what I said last night in the other thread. That same thing always bothered me as a child sitting in church. I will say however I have seen a couple family members smiling and happy as they died. One even died while smiling and singing hymns.



My papaw died that way. He was in bed asleep and then woke up and put his arms up. My dad asked him if he needed something, assuming he was reaching for water, etc. He said, "no son, I see the hands of Jesus coming to take me home." He passed a moment later with a smile on his face. Regardless of what people believe, he saw something that brought him great comfort to bridge that transition from this life to the next.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 22, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> My papaw died that way. He was in bed asleep and then woke up and put his arms up. My dad asked him if he needed something, assuming he was reaching for water, etc. He said, "no son, I see the hands of Jesus coming to take me home." He passed a moment later with a smile on his face. Regardless of what people believe, he saw something that *brought him great comfort* to bridge that transition from this life to the next.



And this is the cause for the genesis of all faith and religion. The human need to be comforted when confronting terrifying topics.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> My papaw died that way. He was in bed asleep and then woke up and put his arms up. My dad asked him if he needed something, assuming he was reaching for water, etc. He said, "no son, I see the hands of Jesus coming to take me home." He passed a moment later with a smile on his face. Regardless of what people believe, he saw something that brought him great comfort to bridge that transition from this life to the next.





> "I see the hands of Jesus coming to take me home."


My grandmother, who was deeply religious, basically slipped into a coma prior to her death.
I honestly hope with all my heart that within that coma, she had that type of experience.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 22, 2015)

While swimming in the ocean, some folks have felt a 'tug' on their leg only to realize their leg was missing. No pain. God? 
The human mind and body are pretty amazing. 
Brain activity has been studied and can help to explain euphoria and the 'light' at death.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 22, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> And I do get that, for example, if you have a terminally ill child laying there, how could you NOT pray, beg, plead, whatever it takes for that situation to change.
> I don't care what you believe or not.
> I would bet my last dollar that there has been at least one Atheist who in that situation found themselves praying for their child to be saved.



I watched some very close friends of mine hold their infant daughter as she died, they disconnected the machines, and it took about 12 hours, a brutal and horrible thing for anybody to endure.  How they kept their faith through it all is beyond me, but they managed.  That little girl's short life (she lived about a month) was blanketed in prayers ranging from hope to peace (as in, let her pass peacefully).   Which ones were answered, I don't know.  What good came from it is beyond me..........and I don't know if they were/are willing to trade that baby for the positives, so I never try to point any out to them.  

When we do discuss it, we talk about the Roman guards I mentioned above.  Sometimes it's our plan to get hit by the bus, and it doesn't make any sense, and it hurts.  I hate it that's what my friends had to live through, but their faith through it amazes me.


----------



## Israel (Jun 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I heard that yesterday and thought about what it really means.
> 
> I think it means "That could have been me in that car wreck or with cancer or with a child born with half a head, if not for God's grace upon me."
> 
> ...


Grace is what rubs everybody wrong till they are rubbed right.
And, it's none of your business what God is doing with your neighbor...till you ask him...not us. Then you'll find out if you have a need to know.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2015)

Howdy Israel
Hope you are doing well !


----------



## welderguy (Jun 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Howdy Israel
> Hope you are doing well !



Attaboy Walt !

It's good to see some positiveness in here.


----------



## smokey30725 (Jun 23, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Attaboy Walt !
> 
> It's good to see some positiveness in here.



Agreed. I think most members on here, even if they vehemently disagree with one another on major topics, would come together to meet one another's need should the situation arise. I mentioned to Walt and the other non-believers that I would pray for them at any time and for any reason and I mean that. Life's too short to go around angry with other folks.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 23, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> Agreed. I think most members on here, even if they vehemently disagree with one another on major topics, would come together to meet one another's need should the situation arise. I mentioned to Walt and the other non-believers that I would pray for them at any time and for any reason and I mean that. Life's too short to go around angry with other folks.



Smokey, would you pray for the relationship between my oldest son and myself? Because of some very foolish actions on my part, our relationship has been greatly damaged.Although,I'm doing everything I know of to repent,we both need God's help to heal the brokenness. Thanks brother


----------



## smokey30725 (Jun 23, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Smokey, would you pray for the relationship between my oldest son and myself? Because of some very foolish actions on my part, our relationship has been greatly damaged.Although,I'm doing everything I know of to repent,we both need God's help to heal the brokenness. Thanks brother



Consider it done, my friend.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 23, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> Consider it done, my friend.



Thankyou !!


----------



## 660griz (Jun 23, 2015)

I'll ask, Buddha, Krishna, Odysseu, Romulus, Dionysus, Heracles, Glycon, Zoroaster, Attis of Phrygia, and Horus, to help you out.


----------



## smokey30725 (Jun 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> I'll ask, Buddha, Krishna, Odysseu, Romulus, Dionysus, Heracles, Glycon, Zoroaster, Attis of Phrygia, and Horus, to help you out.



I need to make sure to invite you to our next Festivus celebration as well.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 23, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I need to make sure to invite you to our next Festivus celebration as well.



Shoot yea! A party is a party.


----------



## smokey30725 (Jun 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> Shoot yea! A party is a party.



I must warn you, I can be pretty brutal during the Airing of Grievances.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 23, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I must warn you, I can be pretty brutal during the Airing of Grievances.



Serenity now!


----------



## smokey30725 (Jun 23, 2015)

I am an avid practitioner.............


----------



## smokey30725 (Jun 23, 2015)

And for those unaware of the origins of this sacred day..........


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> Serenity now!



Leave my boat out of it, please.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2015)

> Originally Posted by welderguy View Post
> Attaboy Walt !


It's good to see some positiveness in here.


smokey30725 said:


> Agreed. I think most members on here, even if they vehemently disagree with one another on major topics, would come together to meet one another's need should the situation arise. I mentioned to Walt and the other non-believers that I would pray for them at any time and for any reason and I mean that. Life's too short to go around angry with other folks.


Don't mistake disagreement about a subject as a reflection on how one feels about another person.
Although I am very slow to actually like or trust people things like smokey's offer to pray for us, which I feel he offered with no strings attached, and your request above for help in getting to closer to your son are things that I find more important than whether you believe in God or not.
Ive been around the block a few times and have dealt with the best and the worst in people.
I know whats really important and whats not when it comes to people.


----------



## Israel (Jun 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Howdy Israel
> Hope you are doing well !


You too, man.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 24, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> That part I understand and it even makes sense to me if Im standing in your shoes.
> But I still cant get around that if you had total trust in God's decisions you wouldn't pray for the outcome to be different.
> I understand why you might want the outcome to be different but that still shows a certain level of not believing the situation is for the best.



I am the last one that should be trying to answer any questions here. I just don't have the intellect. However, let me try to review in a sentence or two what the christian cosmological paradigm might "look" like.


The world of man is presently "fallen" or corrupted. Witness suffering, injustice and evil. This is due to man's choice, man's will. The cause and effect of the relationships in this  fallen world go far, far back, are with us presently and they will play themselves out in the future.

The foil to this is divine will. The cause and effect relationships of this "will" in the lives of fallen man is also active in the "world" and also goes far, far back,  and is active with us presently and will play themselves out in the future.

The historical account is that  in some cases it is clear that this divine "will" intercedes or acts in a way which benefits man. One of these early accounts for me is the freeing of the Hebrews, who we are made to understand were oppressed by the Pharaohs. They were freed because the divine will heard their prayers for relief. ( In the gospel Jesus acts to heal and cure on the strait forward requests of individuals.)

And so it is that prayers to the divine will can restore, heal, cure and comfort according to Christians.

It is not correct to say in the christian context that the "divine" is the cause of evil in the world. It is understood that evil  is a choice, knowingly and unknowingly. By choice for choices in morality and unknowingly for illness in and the conditioning(s) of the fallen world.

Hope this is helpful or perhaps entertaining depending on many, many things emotional, intellectual and spiritual.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 24, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I am the last one that should be trying to answer any questions here. I just don't have the intellect. However, let me try to review in a sentence or two what the christian cosmological paradigm might "look" like.
> 
> 
> The world of man is presently "fallen" or corrupted. Witness suffering, injustice and evil. This is due to man's choice, his will. The cause and effect relationships in this world go far, far back, are with us presently and they will play themselves out in the future.
> ...



Let me see if I get the math on this one right:

Man + free will = evil

God + His will = divine, right?

However, let's go transitive with this:

Man = God's creation = created in God's image by God's will = God made both man and evil

You can't separate man from God so long as you say man was created BY God in His image, and with the gift of free will that could result in evil. God could have just as easily held back on the free will aspect, He had done it before with other creations of his, and yet he chose to create something that could, and arguably inevitably _would_, result in evil. 

That's even forgoing God's omniscience. Given that He knows all things, including us before we are even born, He knew that evil was going to be a result of His experiment. Seeing as how He went through with it, there are only two logical conclusions. 

A) God wanted evil, but for unknown purpose. 
B) God wanted the option for His children to choose their path more than He wanted the security of not having evil, so He allows evil to exist in order to have a higher priority character trait imbued in us. 

Either way, there's a conscious choice, if one accepts the given information, to at least allow, if not endorse, the existence of evil by God.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Let me see if I get the math on this one right:
> 
> Man + free will = evil
> 
> ...



Your point of view and appreciation is interesting. Thanks. 

However, I can't comment on God's creative competence or what we call  his "omniscience". I don't know God that way. Omniscience is a word I'd fail on in a spelling test, let alone have a healthy understanding for a dissertation.  I think it is a theological word used by smarter dudes ( Hi! err IQs) than I and often used as a mindless bromide by many in my estimation and since I'm just a taxidermist with a simple monk's IQ... I really can't debate or argue your view. Many have it. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 24, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Your point of view and appreciation is interesting. Thanks.
> 
> However, I can't comment on God's creative competence or what we call  his "omniscience". I don't know God that way. Omniscience is a word I'd fail on in a spelling test, let alone have a healthy understanding for a dissertation.  I think it is a theological word used by smarter dudes ( Hi! err IQs) than I and often used as a mindless bromide by many in my estimation and since I'm just a taxidermist with a simple monk's IQ... I really can't debate or argue your view. Many have it. Thanks for sharing.



Anytime. I like it when we can keep these discussions above board. 

I think, as others are fond of saying, that if we're presupposing that the creator we speak of is God, then his competence is above question. I.e. it's perfect. That's also one of the presumptions in my previous post. 

The only way for a perfect being to get a "negative" result is for it to be intended, or at least accounted for. 

As for understanding God, personally anyway, I think that any creator would have given everyone the tools to do that themselves. Maybe internalize would be a better word over understand, because of the veil between the creator and the creation.


----------



## JimD (Jun 24, 2015)

StripeRR, I believe God does just what you said. I do believe he gives us an understanding of things personally, if we ask, and trust and pray and listen. Each of us a human being however, we are all certainly different in soo many ways, it only makes sense to me, that God would reveal certain things in certain ways to us.

To the question at the beginning of this thread, like I stated, I always had a problem with people I knew who were supposed Christians having soo much fear. Two things really hit me hard when I was an adult. This verse from John 4:18 really sums it up in a nutshell: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. It hit me when I read it as an adult, that if we propose to love and believe in and trust God, how in the h_ll can we justify fear?? We are hypocrites when we do, but we are all human as well.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 24, 2015)

JimD said:


> StripeRR, I believe God does just what you said. I do believe he gives us an understanding of things personally, if we ask, and trust and pray and listen. Each of us a human being however, we are all certainly different in soo many ways, it only makes sense to me, that God would reveal certain things in certain ways to us.
> 
> To the question at the beginning of this thread, like I stated, I always had a problem with people I knew who were supposed Christians having soo much fear. Two things really hit me hard when I was an adult. This verse from John 4:18 really sums it up in a nutshell: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. It hit me when I read it as an adult, that if we propose to love and believe in and trust God, how in the h_ll can we justify fear?? We are hypocrites when we do, but we are all human as well.



Fear of God is a common theme throughout the Bible. Fear of things, and death specifically, is natural to a living creature. The survival instinct is just that, an instinct, and a powerful one.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I am the last one that should be trying to answer any questions here. I just don't have the intellect. However, let me try to review in a sentence or two what the christian cosmological paradigm might "look" like.
> 
> 
> The world of man is presently "fallen" or corrupted. Witness suffering, injustice and evil. This is due to man's choice, man's will. The cause and effect of the relationships in this  fallen world go far, far back, are with us presently and they will play themselves out in the future.
> ...





> I am the last one that should be trying to answer any questions here.


First I have to say I would completely disagree with that.
On a subject with very few actual facts, it almost all boils down to "how we see it". So how you see it is just as legitimate as how anybody else sees it including so called "scholars" on the subject.
That's what makes it interesting to me. Its a subject that is undeniably an integral part of human history yet when you get down to the specifics, almost no 2 people view it exactly the same.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2015)

JimD said:


> StripeRR, I believe God does just what you said. I do believe he gives us an understanding of things personally, if we ask, and trust and pray and listen. Each of us a human being however, we are all certainly different in soo many ways, it only makes sense to me, that God would reveal certain things in certain ways to us.
> 
> To the question at the beginning of this thread, like I stated, I always had a problem with people I knew who were supposed Christians having soo much fear. Two things really hit me hard when I was an adult. This verse from John 4:18 really sums it up in a nutshell: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. It hit me when I read it as an adult, that if we propose to love and believe in and trust God, how in the h_ll can we justify fear?? We are hypocrites when we do, but we are all human as well.


And that's what Im talking about.
We can complicate the heck out of trying to explain why, which is usually required to attempt to make the answer fit the story, but when you get through the fat you are left with the meat.
So you end up left with this contradiction -


> We are hypocrites when we do, but we are all human as well


----------



## JimD (Jun 24, 2015)

Walt I agree. There are a few people who have lived, such as the likes of Jesus, St Francis, Mother Teresa, etc. who probably never had fear. For mere mortals like myself it isn't always soo easy and is not leading by example. Its still wrong and you are correct.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 24, 2015)

JimD said:


> Walt I agree. There are a few people who have lived, such as the likes of Jesus, St Francis, Mother Teresa, etc. who probably never had fear. For mere mortals like myself it isn't always soo easy and is not leading by example. Its still wrong and you are correct.



Anyone who says they've never felt fear is lying. Period statement.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 24, 2015)

JimD said:


> Walt I agree. There are a few people who have lived, such as the likes of Jesus, St Francis, Mother Teresa, etc. who probably never had fear. For mere mortals like myself it isn't always soo easy and is not leading by example. Its still wrong and you are correct.



Maybe by not loving God as we always should incites a fear of God within us. An example would be not helping or forgiving someone. In doing so we are not helping or loving God. This could make us doubt our salvation and fear God.
When I read on this forum all of the works/fruits a Christian has to produce, it makes me doubt my salvation and brings on a fear of God. Perhaps to the point that the blood of Jesus doesn't work as the way I believe it does. Doubt causes fear.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 24, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Your point of view and appreciation is interesting. Thanks.
> 
> However, I can't comment on God's creative competence or what we call  his "omniscience". I don't know God that way. Omniscience is a word I'd fail on in a spelling test, let alone have a healthy understanding for a dissertation.  I think it is a theological word used by smarter dudes ( Hi! err IQs) than I and often used as a mindless bromide by many in my estimation and since I'm just a taxidermist with a simple monk's IQ... I really can't debate or argue your view. Many have it. Thanks for sharing.



Your views are just as valid as even the most vastly learned scholar, and certainly as much, perhaps more, than mine. You're just a human...so am I. At the end of the day, regardless of what you believe, that remains true, and separate viewpoints should be treated with respect with that in mind. (though a little good natured ribbing, and, at times, vehement descent is welcome)



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Let me see if I get the math on this one right:
> 
> Man + free will = evil
> 
> ...



I like the use of mathematical terms...it's comfortable to me. Although, I don't know that I'd apply it to something/someone like God: God is love, therefore, love is God? It would work mathematically, but it's not correct spiritually (according to biblical teachings).

There're many places in the Bible were it says "And there was an evil spirit from God," or "God sent them strong delusion." Why didn't God spare a life of a loved one? Does He prefer evil to good? If not, would it not be for the good cause that they remain? Obviously, I don't know...I hope I've never come across as claiming to know about this. Despite the fact that God is good and merciful, it cannot be forgotten that Moses had to approach the darkness, where God was.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 24, 2015)

JimD said:


> Walt I agree. There are a few people who have lived, such as the likes of Jesus, St Francis, Mother Teresa, etc. who probably never had fear. For mere mortals like myself it isn't always soo easy and is not leading by example. Its still wrong and you are correct.



Jesus feared. I don't know about the rest of them, but, given the first sentence, I don't really care.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 24, 2015)

Getting back to the OP, if I had cancer and prayed to God, I would be praying for God to change his mind and let me live. My faith in grace is strong but not to the point of me not having fear. 
I would still fear death. Eventually I might overcome this fear.
Is fear an animal/human instinct? Is it always bad?

But the OP is more in relation to grace than fear. When two individuals both have faith in God's grace but one lives and the other dies. Why?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 24, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I like the use of mathematical terms...it's comfortable to me. Although, I don't know that I'd apply it to something/someone like God: God is love...love is God? It would work mathematically, but it's not correct spiritually (according to biblical teachings).



Math cuts through the florid language to the meat of the matter. 

There are properties in math other than transitive. They all don't apply at the same time. 

Were your parents ever "mean" to you to teach you a larger lesson? That's what we call a variable. God = (love)x

That little x factor allows love to manifest as rage, or disappointment, or gifts. I'm not saying I subscribe to God, just that I have found that expressing arguments mathematically can help cut to the chase more quickly, once you learn how to express them. It's more calculus than algebra. 



EverGreen1231 said:


> Obviously, I don't know...I hope I've never come across as claiming to know about this.Despite the fact that God is good and merciful,



You don't know, but you know it's fact that God is good and merciful.

Maybe this is a misunderstanding on my part, but you basically just said that 2=3. One invalidates the other.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Math cuts through the florid language to the meat of the matter.
> 
> There are properties in math other than transitive. They all don't apply at the same time.
> 
> ...



I considered my parents "mean" for spanking me before I was old enough (wise enough) to understand: I think the same would apply here.

My comment on the math was that there are times when florid language is needed, and times when mathematics is needed: If you're describing the quantum field theory, you'd better use math; if you're trying to discuss the grace, or lack thereof, of God, and how that grace may manifest itself towards different people, it's probably best to leave the math books at home...just my opinion.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You don't know, but you know it's fact that God is good and merciful.
> 
> Maybe this is a misunderstanding on my part, but you basically just said that 2=3. One invalidates the other.



The Bible has said that God is Good and God is merciful; He has evidenced himself as such to me; whether or not that goodness or that mercy translates into what folks here would describe as being goodness and mercy, I don't know...apparently it wouldn't.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 24, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I considered my parents "mean" for spanking me before I was old enough (wise enough) to understand: I think the same would apply here.
> 
> My comment on the math was that there are times when florid language is needed, and times when mathematics is needed: If you're describing the quantum field theory, you'd better use math; if you're trying to discuss the grace, or lack thereof, of God, and how that grace may manifest itself towards different people, it's probably best to leave the math books at home...just my opinion.
> 
> ...



Old/Wise enough to understand: You're rationalizing that the atrocious events that occur every day are somehow for either our collective benefit, or the benefit of the individual that experienced them. Where's the benefit to the parents of a stillborn baby? Where's the benefit to the survivors, or victims, of the Holocaust? Where's the benefit to society for either? 

It's a core tenet of mine that if you have to rely on emotion to make your argument then your argument is already failed. Math forces you to confront the gaps in an argument. God + Love = Great Flood doesn't fly with me. That sounds like an abusive relationship, and I'm not being flippant about this, where the abused spouse justifies staying with the abuser. "He hurts me because He loves me..." That's not to say that love can't manifest in traditionally negative ways for the purposes of educating, just that killing everyone on the planet, or condemning someone to Hades for eternity for a fault that wasn't theirs isn't just. Not even close. 

That personal relationship isn't what I'm concerned with. It's the interpersonal, as was the premise of the thread. Save for the grace, go I... Grace isn't manifest just once or disparately, IMO, between a creator and his creations. If the plan is flawed, scrap all models built from it. Don't scrap 1% and tell the other 99% that they have to make up for the flaws of the creator.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Old/Wise enough to understand: You're rationalizing that the atrocious events that occur every day are somehow for either our collective benefit, or the benefit of the individual that experienced them. Where's the benefit to the parents of a stillborn baby? Where's the benefit to the survivors, or victims, of the Holocaust? Where's the benefit to society for either?



Were the spankings not for my good? or were they the signs of an abusive relationship? Love God, and benefits will be made manifest.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's a core tenet of mine that if you have to rely on emotion to make your argument then your argument is already failed. Math forces you to confront the gaps in an argument. God + Love = Great Flood doesn't fly with me. That sounds like an abusive relationship, and I'm not being flippant about this, where the abused spouse justifies staying with the abuser. "He hurts me because He loves me..." That's not to say that love can't manifest in traditionally negative ways for the purposes of educating, just that killing everyone on the planet, or condemning someone to Hades for eternity for a fault that wasn't theirs isn't just. Not even close.



It's a common misconception that faith arguments automatically invoke emotional arguments: you're not the first to make this mistake, and you'll not be the last.

The Bible does not say God + love = Great flood. This is why math (in the simple form that's being used here) is not a good thing to do in discussion like this. There are a lot of inferences that you have to make to arrive at that little equation, any one of which could be false or not properly understood.

You lie. Lying is a sin. Sinners go to Hades. You had the free will not to lie, but you did anyway. Not your fault? 

You can debate until you're blue in the face why God gave you free will if he knew you would abuse it and ultimately turn from him. It seems like a waste of time to me. But the  rules of the game are this: You have free will; if you sin, you go to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored; It's not God's fault you couldn't restrain yourself...you had nothing more than could be borne.

Job also began to entertain the idea that God wasn't just, a "why would you let bad things happen to good people" type deal. He demanded that God explain himself; when God showed up, Job didn't have much to say.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That personal relationship isn't what I'm concerned with. It's the interpersonal, as was the premise of the thread. Save for the grace, go I... Grace isn't manifest just once or disparately, IMO, between a creator and his creations. If the plan is flawed, scrap all models built from it. Don't scrap 1% and tell the other 99% that they have to make up for the flaws of the creator.



How can you understand the interpersonal if you're not first willing to understand the personal?

I suppose we should be glad God didn't share your sentiments.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 24, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Were the spankings not for my good? or were they the signs of an abusive relationship? Love God, and benefits will be made manifest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Without the lessons, and knowing the lessons being the receiver of the spankings, it would be abusive. 

It's the same thing as swatting a dog on the nose with a newspaper after rubbing its nose in the pooh it just left on the floor, and just randomly swatting it on the nose. For the punishment to be about a lesson, and for the good of the recipient, the recipient has to understand the lesson to be learned. Otherwise you're just a sadist. 

Oh, no sir. That isn't my assumption. I was speaking generally about emotional arguments. But florid prose is worthless unless you're trying to invoke an emotional response. What would Romeo and Juliet have been if Shakespeare had simply said boy meets girl, they fall in love, and they commit suicide rather than be apart in life... The florid prose garners an emotional connection to the characters. 

Yes, I oversimplified, but logical arguments all build from one side to a conclusion. Just the same way that a complex formula builds to an equation. I simplified for expedience hoping that the larger aspect would come through, but it didn't. 

Adam sinned, not me. Yet I still bear that sin according to believers. Fair? Not to me, not ever. I had no choice in that sin, and God knew Adam before He made him. 

Again, I inherited sin that isn't clean from me until I repent for an offense I did not give. I could live a perfect life otherwise, abiding every commandment and scripture, and I would still be a sinful creature. 

If confronted with, or by, God, I don't know how I'd react. Probably much the same way. But I'm a show-me kinda guy anyway. 

Because your relationship with God should have no bearing on mine. And vice versa. When I say interpersonal I mean the differences in how you are treated than I, and how Steve is treated. I'm sure a favorite child would say that their parents are great, where a less favored one might not harbor the same feelings. You have to have the complete story before you can pretend to "know" anything about the true nature of a person, even a deity. 

Other than the Bible, and your individual experience (see above for why that can't be taken at face value), there's no way for you to know that He doesn't, but that road has been tread before. I wouldn't presume that I'm anything like God.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Without the lessons, and knowing the lessons being the receiver of the spankings, it would be abusive.
> 
> It's the same thing as swatting a dog on the nose with a newspaper after rubbing its nose in the pooh it just left on the floor, and just randomly swatting it on the nose. For the punishment to be about a lesson, and for the good of the recipient, the recipient has to understand the lesson to be learned. Otherwise you're just a sadist.
> 
> ...



It isn't to _me_ either, given what I understand; but that won't matter.

You could only judge as to the differences of how Steve is treated from yourself if you were to really understand how Steve was himself being treated (this is assuming that inward things are not always made known outwardly). I could be misunderstanding what you're trying to say though.

I guess for some people prose speaks more deeply than hard numbers or perceived "facts" do for others. Like myself, even given my engineering background, I'd much prefer a solid rhetorical argument versus "scientific" data (I suppose it's because I was an artist before I was an engineer). Could be why some people come to faith with more difficulty than others. Some easily see catching a fish with a certain person, at a certain time, on a certain day to be so inconceivably unlikely that there has to be _Something_ going on behind the scenes: Others dismiss it as random happenstance.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 24, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> It isn't to _me_ either, given what I understand; but that won't matter.
> 
> You could only judge as to the differences of how Steve is treated from yourself if you were to really understand how Steve was himself being treated (this is assuming that inward things are not always made known outwardly). I could be misunderstanding what you're trying to say though.
> 
> I guess for some people prose speaks more deeply than hard numbers or perceived "facts" do for others. Like myself, even given my engineering background, I'd much prefer a solid rhetorical argument versus "scientific" data (I suppose it's because I was an artist before I was an engineer). Could be why some people come to faith with more difficulty than others. Some easily see catching a fish with a certain person, at a certain time, on a certain day to be so inconceivably unlikely that there has to be _Something_ going on behind the scenes: Others dismiss it as random happenstance.



I get what you're saying, in that punishments have to be quantified before you can grasp the whole meaning. I get that. Relating those punishments to another also colors them with our perspective, so there's that to consider. I was more referring to the big punishments that we don't argue...The flood, the plagues, Hades for sins. At the end of the day it's all philosophical. 

You're referring to me in the last paragraph. If you remove that one event from the background of my life, yeah, it's really, really easy to say that God did that for me. The difficult part is why he would take my kids away from me, then give me cancer, then give my youngest cancer, too. He could just "touch" me and teach me, and my kids, those lessons if there is something to be learned from it, or something to be gained. But he didn't, and the best answer anyone has for why is "mysterious ways." Pardon me if that's no comfort given what I've been through. 

Please forgive my tone in these, if it's coming across harshly. I'm just having a day over here and I really do mean all of this to be as lighthearted as philosophical and theological debates can be.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I get what you're saying, in that punishments have to be quantified before you can grasp the whole meaning. I get that. Relating those punishments to another also colors them with our perspective, so there's that to consider. I was more referring to the big punishments that we don't argue...The flood, the plagues, Hades for sins. At the end of the day it's all philosophical.
> 
> You're referring to me in the last paragraph. If you remove that one event from the background of my life, yeah, it's really, really easy to say that God did that for me. The difficult part is why he would take my kids away from me, then give me cancer, then give my youngest cancer, too. He could just "touch" me and teach me, and my kids, those lessons if there is something to be learned from it, or something to be gained. But he didn't, and the best answer anyone has for why is "mysterious ways." Pardon me if that's no comfort given what I've been through.
> 
> Please forgive my tone in these, if it's coming across harshly. I'm just having a day over here and I really do mean all of this to be as lighthearted as philosophical and theological debates can be.



There's the all-important caveat 

I hope you didn't mind me using your story in my post. I thought it would help illustrate my ideas.

I can offer no comfort accept to say that I'll make mention of you and yours in my prayers, if that means anything to you.

I've grown to really enjoy reading your posts in whatever area of the Woody's / GON forum they appear, and have yet to read any that I thought were unduly harshly toned.

Have a good one...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 24, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> There's the all-important caveat
> 
> I hope you didn't mind me using your story in my post. I thought it would help illustrate my ideas.
> 
> ...



Yep, caveats matter. They often define the discussion. 

I don't mind at all. It's public domain since I posted it myself. 

It does mean something, and it is appreciated. 

Thanks for the compliment. 

Same to you. Try and stay cool.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yep, caveats matter. They often define the discussion.
> 
> I don't mind at all. It's public domain since I posted it myself.
> 
> ...



I'll try, but it'll be difficult till Friday evening rolls around. I heard there were supposed to be showers...might cool things down a bit. Could also improve the fishing a little.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 24, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I'll try, but it'll be difficult till Friday evening rolls around. I heard there were supposed to be showers...might cool things down a bit. Could also improve the fishing a little.



It could. I hope we get 'em. It's clouded up really good here in Duluth.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Were the spankings not for my good? or were they the signs of an abusive relationship? Love God, and benefits will be made manifest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Were the spankings not for my good? or were they the signs of an abusive relationship?


You are basing this on the fact that spankings allowed you to learn a lesson that you could use in the future and therefore was "for your good".
How about if they had just killed you? So no lesson learned as you have no future in which to apply what you learned.
Have we arrived at abusive now?


> It's a common misconception that faith arguments automatically invoke emotional arguments: you're not the first to make this mistake, and you'll not be the last.


I have to question that.
Any faith argument is certainly not comprised of universal facts. Any argument you make will have its origins in the Bible. That you hope is true. That you have faith is true. That you believe is true for personal reasons.
All founded in emotions.


> This is why math (in the simple form that's being used here) is not a good thing to do in discussion like this.


See above as to maybe why. Math doesn't allow for emotion based argument.


> You lie. Lying is a sin. Sinners go to Hades. You had the free will not to lie, but you did anyway. Not your fault?


Unless you say sorry. Until the next time you do it again, at which point you just have to say sorry again.


> It's not God's fault you couldn't restrain yourself...you had nothing more than could be borne.


Depends on which one of you guys is telling the story. We also get told anything that comes out of your mouth was put there by God before you were even conceived and you had no choice but to say it.


> Job also began to entertain the idea that God wasn't just, a "why would you let bad things happen to good people" type deal. He demanded that God explain himself; when God showed up, Job didn't have much to say.


Of course that Job didn't have much to say doesn't answer the question.


> How can you understand the interpersonal if you're not first willing to understand the personal?


How many times have we heard "you can't understand God"?
(the one in which "you" (Christians) supposedly have a personal relationship with).
The asking of questions shows a willingness to understand.
Its the answers that's the problem.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 24, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You are basing this on the fact that spankings allowed you to learn a lesson that you could use in the future and therefore was "for your good".
> How about if they had just killed you? So no lesson learned as you have no future in which to apply what you learned.
> Have we arrived at abusive now?



I suppose you want to draw some correlation between what parents do and what God does? You already know I'm going to say it, but I gonna say it anyway: Humans are not equal to God. God can take and give life and soul as he sees fit, with no explanation deserved to the parties affected.



WaltL1 said:


> I have to question that.
> Any faith argument is certainly not comprised of universal facts. Any argument you make will have its origins in the Bible. That you hope is true. That you have faith is true. That you believe is true for personal reasons.
> All founded in emotions.



So says you.

Belief is not emotional.



WaltL1 said:


> See above as to maybe why. Math doesn't allow for emotion based argument..



True, but there're plenty of "non-emotional" things (or, at least, things people claim to be void of emotion) that either aren't or can't be expressed mathematically. See: Evolution.



WaltL1 said:


> Unless you say sorry. Until the next time you do it again, at which point you just have to say sorry again..



The people of Sodom and Gomorrah could have said Sorry as much as they wanted. The weight of their sin had been measured, and the price to be paid, set.



WaltL1 said:


> Depends on which one of you guys is telling the story. We also get told anything that comes out of your mouth was put there by God before you were even conceived and you had no choice but to say it..



People have an unending capacity to ruin/misinterpret a good thing. The scriptures are no different in this regard.



WaltL1 said:


> Of course that Job didn't have much to say doesn't answer the question..



Job didn't have much to say because there _was_ nothing to say. He knew the answer to his own question, even before God showed up; he simply refused to acknowledge it.



WaltL1 said:


> How many times have we heard "you can't understand God"?
> (the one in which "you" (Christians) supposedly have a personal relationship with).
> The asking of questions shows a willingness to understand.
> Its the answers that's the problem.



His thoughts are higher than our thoughts, his ways higher then ours.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 24, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I suppose you want to draw some correlation between what parents do and what God does? You already know I'm going to say it, but I gonna say it anyway: Humans are not equal to God. God can take and give life and soul as he sees fit, with no explanation deserved to the parties affected.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Our *Father* who art in Heaven...

Just sayin'


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Our *Father* who art in Heaven...
> 
> Just sayin'



They mean  "BIG DADDY"


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I suppose you want to draw some correlation between what parents do and what God does? You already know I'm going to say it, but I gonna say it anyway: Humans are not equal to God. God can take and give life and soul as he sees fit, with no explanation deserved to the parties affected.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> I suppose you want to draw some correlation between what parents do and what God does? You already know I'm going to say it, but I gonna say it anyway: Humans are not equal to God. God can take and give life and soul as he sees fit, with no explanation deserved to the parties affected.


The standard deflection away from the obvious answer.
If its logical and true to you that spanking was "good" because it taught you something, then you have no choice but to abandon that exact same logic and truth to avoid the obvious answer if you were apply it to my question. 
Why? In effect, you have to now play "dumb" to make it work.


> Belief is not emotional.


If the belief is not based on universal facts, what exactly is it based on?
And don't say evidence because we know evidence is skewed to what you desire (emotion) it to be until its proven.


> True, but there're plenty of "non-emotional" things (or, at least, things people claim to be void of emotion) that either aren't or can't be expressed mathematically. See: Evolution.


Evolution can be shown to be a fact through other methods.


> The people of Sodom and Gomorrah could have said Sorry as much as they wanted. The weight of their sin had been measured, and the price to be paid, set.


Which conflicts with the whole repent and be saved thing. Its not espoused as repent and maybe you will be saved as long as your sin hasn't been measured yet.


> People have an unending capacity to ruin/misinterpret a good thing. The scriptures are no different in this regard


Of course we've heard that said from every angle about every other angle.


> Job didn't have much to say because there _was_ nothing to say. He knew the answer to his own question, even before God showed up; he simply refused to acknowledge it.


Job came up with his own answer that satisfied him. 
The factual answer to that question wasn't.


> His thoughts are higher than our thoughts, his ways higher then ours


Now apply that to this -


> if you're not first willing to understand the personal?


What you are saying is that you aren't willing to understand that which you cant understand.

My intention here is not to attempt to prove you wrong. My intention is to show this -


> The asking of questions shows a willingness to understand.
> Its the answers that's the problem.


----------



## Israel (Jun 25, 2015)

Meanwhile in the world of math,

God's word+ man= friction

God's word+ man {x} (where x=feigning reception)=evil


Yeah men have two choices, fire or death.

It's up to God to give any comfort if he cares to.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The standard deflection away from the obvious answer.
> If its logical and true to you that spanking was "good" because it taught you something, then you have no choice but to abandon that exact same logic and truth to avoid the obvious answer if you were apply it to my question.
> Why? In effect, you have to now play "dumb" to make it work.



I'll put it more simply (for my sake, not yours): If a _Human_ were to murder their child, it would be evil. The same "logic": The same truth.



WaltL1 said:


> If the belief is not based on universal facts, what exactly is it based on?
> And don't say evidence because we know evidence is skewed to what you desire (emotion) it to be until its proven.



Now apply what you said about evidence above, to this -



WaltL1 said:


> Evolution can be shown to be a fact through other methods.



No interested in rehashing this. I've posted in other threads here if you want to read up on what I think about the "facts."



WaltL1 said:


> Which conflicts with the whole repent and be saved thing. Its not espoused as repent and maybe you will be saved as long as your sin hasn't been measured yet.



No it doesn't. They could have believed God, and it would have counted to righteousness: Just like it was to Abraham and Lot. The post-mortem destination would have changed, but the wages of their sin would still have been paid: As mine will be as well.



WaltL1 said:


> Of course we've heard that said from every angle about every other angle.



It's true about everything...especially science and the like.



WaltL1 said:


> Job came up with his own answer that satisfied him.
> The factual answer to that question wasn't.



Job's recognition was of the factual answer.



WaltL1 said:


> Now apply that to this -



Can't: I wasn't referring to the same thing in either of those statements. One was referring to the nature of God himself; the other referred to how an individual perceives God's actions relative to others while (seemingly) ignoring himself, kinda like trying to calculate friction without considering something that would cause it: but, like I said, I could've misunderstood the intent. You're not comparing apples to apples.



WaltL1 said:


> What you are saying is that you aren't willing to understand that which you cant understand.



1.) No I wasn't. Read above.
2.) What would be the fault in never attempting to understand something you could never hope to?



WaltL1 said:


> My intention here is not to attempt to prove you wrong. My intention is to show this -



Answers are only the problem if you don't like them or find them acceptable, both of which don't change anything for anyone but yourself: This meaning a focusing in on personal or interpersonal where it suits you.



I'll probably not post much in the foreseeable future. I've got 1,000,000.5 things to do and I have trouble with procrastination at times, so distractions are not welcome (not that I don't enjoy talking to y'all). I promise I'm not snubbing you if I don't post for a while, honestly...I'm just really busy.

Y'all have a good 'un.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 25, 2015)

Israel said:


> Meanwhile in the world of math,
> 
> God's word (written by man and edited by man)+ man= friction
> 
> ...



You forgot that the faithful take the Bible at face value that it's the word of God. So far as I'm aware, there's nothing that is the directly written word of God, at least since the 10C's, and those tablets are unaccounted for.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 25, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I'll put it more simply (for my sake, not yours): If a _Human_ were to murder their child, it would be evil. The same "logic": The same truth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> I'll put it more simply (for my sake, not yours): If a _Human_ were to murder their child, it would be evil. The same "logic": The same truth.


Its not logical that "who" does the murdering determines if it was evil or not.
Murder is either evil or its not.
Same as the abortion conversation in here.
A Christian is against abortion.
But its ok that God purposely aborted numerous children in the flood.
Well if its ok then you aren't against abortion.
You are ok with abortion depending on who does it. 


> Now apply what you said about evidence above, to this -


It is a proven FACT that things have evolved.


> No interested in rehashing this. I've posted in other threads here if you want to read up on what I think about the "facts."


Facts are facts regardless of what you think about them.
If it was a proven fact that God existed whether I believed that or not wouldn't change his existence.


> Job's recognition was of the factual answer.


No.
Surely you can see why.
And another contradiction - Job recognized why God would do something but God is so far above us that we cant understand why he does things.


> Answers are only the problem if you don't like them or find them acceptable, both of which don't change anything for anyone but yourself:


Yes exactly.
I accept FACTS whether I like them or not.
But answers that can be shown to be completely contradictory and just not true I have a problem with.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> A Christian is against abortion.
> But its ok that God purposely aborted numerous children in the flood.
> Well if its ok then you aren't against abortion.
> You are ok with abortion depending on who does it.



Not only that, something like 1 in 4 pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. (Called miscarriage to soften the blow)
God is collecting a lot of fetuses for some reason.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 26, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The difficult part is why he would take my kids away from me, then give me cancer, then give my youngest cancer, too./QUOTE]
> 
> I'm sorry to hear this.I must have missed it the first time I read it.
> I can sorta sympathize with the kids taken away part and, although I've not had cancer, I have lived since birth with a health issue that plagues me daily.
> ...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 26, 2015)

welderguy said:


> StripeRR HunteRR said:
> 
> 
> > The difficult part is why he would take my kids away from me, then give me cancer, then give my youngest cancer, too.
> ...



Thank you. It is appreciated. It took me a while to figure out that I wasn't alone and that the sun would rise again tomorrow. My ex left me at the same time I lost the kids, so I was in a really, really dark and lonely place. Then I realized my loneliness was self-inflicted. Yes, my kids weren't there, and I was more than likely getting a 2nd divorce, this time against my will, but I still had a support network. I had friends I could call. I wasn't, because I didn't want to be a burden to them. That's the benefit of having friends and family, is so that you can call on them anytime. So I did. I started calling, and talking, or just listening, and my world started brightening up. 

I still have dark days. Needless to say Father's Day and Mother's Day are my anti-Christmas's. They're my worst days of the year. Father's because I'm brow beaten with ads and reminders about how my kids aren't here. Mother's because I'm brow beaten with the knowledge that she is with them and she gets to enjoy that day. I don't want a gift. I want a hug from my kids. That's it. I want to hear their voices, and hear about their lives, and tell them how proud I am of them for having made it through this ordeal that was put upon them for unknown reason, for my oldest for being a half-measured parent to my youngest so that the youngest would know me. To my youngest for having fought cancer while living with an abusive step dad, and then landing with their current step dad, who by all accounts is treating everyone right. 

I had a rough weekend this past weekend because it was Father's day. It took everything I had to muster up the ability to call my own Dad and wish him a good day because of how I felt about everything, and that's not fair to him. So I called him, he got his card and his gift, and I held my head as high as I could, proverbially speaking since I was only on the phone, while breaking inside again. 

Divorce didn't kill me, Iraq and Afghanistan didn't kill me, losing my kids didn't kill me, and cancer didn't kill me. My dark moods won't kill me either, so I fight them, knowing that the sun will come up tomorrow and all I have to do is keep putting my foot one in front of the other and I'll get to tomorrow, too. 

I could be dark all the time, that would be really easy. So would anger, and anguish, and hatred. Burning, seething hatred. That would flow really easily, as Yoda said. But it's not as strong. It's a weak motivation to live, and it's a weak existence. I live my life, and search for my happiness, to do justice to the sacrifice my daughters made along with me, and I hope they are doing the same. It's the whole reason I accepted the deal to give them up, over having them stripped from me later. I still say that they were taken from me, because if there were any option to have kept them and resolved the problems with my ex I would have. That wasn't my choice, and here we are 8 years later and she is still the same way to me that she was then. She teased them out in front of me a couple years back when she was looking at nowhere to go for Thanksgiving, and wanted to crash my nuclear family's day. She tossed it out, said she was filing the papers, and that she'd see us on that day with the hopes of healing the wounds. Thanksgiving came, and went, and it wasn't until later that we found out that not only wasn't it going to happen, that the whole reason was that she found a place to go that day and didn't need us anymore. I could be angry about that. I'm hurt, don't get me wrong, I hurt badly. But anger, and the like, only hurt me more. It does nothing to her, and it does nothing to better the situation. Instead, anger consumes you and drives those who would care about you, or share life with you either as spouse or friend, away. 

The wound is still there. It will always be there. I just don't let it fester, by applying the more difficult, but healthier, aspects of my life on a daily basis. I fish, I laugh, I try to live my life like I did when they were here, and like my wife deserves now. There is a cloud hanging over us, my kids coming back someday and not knowing at all how that's going to go, or what's going to happen when they start looking to get married, or graduate from college, or have kids of their own. I don't even want to see my ex. Ever. But at the same time, it would be foolish of me to allow that to impact my kid's lives more than it already has, so I'll be there and I'll be what they need, and I'll do my best to ignore my ex. 

I live, and live well, because the only other option is death. Metaphorically speaking.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 26, 2015)

I hope I didn't make things harder for you by bringing it back up.Personally, it was a help to me to hear your detailed testimony and I really appreciate your sharing it.It kinda makes mine seem rather miniscule.I have my family back, even though our relationship is not what I'd like it to be.And, my health condition is not life threatening, just very aggravating.

I really hope things get better for you.But a lot of it is simply out of our hands.I've learned ,somewhat, to do whatever is in my power to change things, and not worry over the things I cannot change.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 26, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I hope I didn't make things harder for you by bringing it back up.Personally, it was a help to me to hear your detailed testimony and I really appreciate your sharing it.It kinda makes mine seem rather miniscule.I have my family back, even though our relationship is not what I'd like it to be.And, my health condition is not life threatening, just very aggravating.
> 
> I really hope things get better for you.But a lot of it is simply out of our hands.I've learned ,somewhat, to do whatever is in my power to change things, and not worry over the things I cannot change.



It's okay. Like I said, I live every day with it. Some more so than others, but this week was already colored with it, so it's all good. 

I'm in remission as is my daughter, so we're in the clear there. 

People always do that, "Well, look at how rough he's got it, mine is nothing..." My wife even does it from time to time. Don't do that. Everyone handles burdens, and has different ones, than anyone else. Don't trivialize yours because mine looks worse. It's yours to carry, and if you need help, speak up. Don't clam up because others seem to have it worse and you don't think it worthy in comparison. (Infinitive you, here, not lecturing you exactly.)

Be real about your burden, do your best with it, and if you need help get help. It's pride that has people trying to carry it for so long that it seems impossible and they start to look at things like hurting themselves. 

As to the rest, well, you can't always control what happens to you. You can, however, control how it impacts you, how you react to it, and how that touches the rest of your life. I believe in the randomness of the universe, so instead of cursing a deity, or looking for a deeper meaning to our suffering, I take it as a bad hand, or set of hands, in a game of poker. Until my heart stops beating I'm still in the game and every day is a fresh chance to either get those pocket aces, or make the universe believe my bluff on the 2-3 off suit that I'm holding. I'm better at both some days more than others, but it's the climate of your life, not the local weather, that determines its trajectory, IMO.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 26, 2015)

That's very encouraging.Thankyou.It carries a lot of weight coming from you, considering all you've been through.

You hang in there and I will too.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 26, 2015)

welderguy said:


> That's very encouraging.Thankyou.It carries a lot of weight coming from you, considering all you've been through.
> 
> You hang in there and I will too.



Sounds like a plan.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 26, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's okay. Like I said, I live every day with it. Some more so than others, but this week was already colored with it, so it's all good.
> 
> I'm in remission as is my daughter, so we're in the clear there.
> 
> ...



Fishing and poker......hmmmm.



"But for the grace of God go I".


It's really not that different than randomness except one  believes that there is a plan.  I see how there could be comfort there.  That's a ALOT of faith; to think there's a plan behind infant encephalopy.  More faith than I care to muster given the track record.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 26, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Fishing and poker......hmmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What if God gives all babies with encephalopy a new perfect spiritual body right before He takes them into His
arms in heaven for eternity?
Wouldn't that be worth the comparitively short affliction on this earth?

I don't know if He does,but He may?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 26, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What if God gives all babies with encephalopy a new perfect spiritual body right before He takes them into His
> arms in heaven for eternity?
> Wouldn't that be worth the comparitively short affliction on this earth?
> 
> I don't know if He does,but He may?



That kinda goes against Election. Does God elect all babies? Even the children of Hindus? God is no respecter of man. 
Babies I don't know. Children of only Christians maybe. If God doesn't elect all grown ups why would he elect all babies? Especially if our works has no bearing on our salvation. If God gives all babies a new perfect spiritual body when they die, maybe he gives all of us one. Universal election maybe.

Another point would be, why would God make the elected soul  spend any time as an afflicted baby instead of just electing them as an embryo? Before they are born into sin.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 26, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What if God gives all babies with encephalopy a new perfect spiritual body right before He takes them into His
> arms in heaven for eternity?
> Wouldn't that be worth the comparitively short affliction on this earth?
> 
> I don't know if He does,but He may?



What if He's making them broken Vessels of Wrath?


----------



## welderguy (Jun 27, 2015)

Exactly my point.
We just don't know who God chooses do we?
To say the poor little baby with encepholopy is being cruelly treated is judging without knowing all the facts.We don't know the final outcome.

I submit to you that God can re-make a broken vessel if He chooses to.

Jeremiah 18:4
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> That kinda goes against Election. Does God elect all babies? Even the children of Hindus? God is no respecter of man.
> Babies I don't know. Children of only Christians maybe. If God doesn't elect all grown ups why would he elect all babies? Especially if our works has no bearing on our salvation. If God gives all babies a new perfect spiritual body when they die, maybe he gives all of us one. Universal election maybe.
> 
> Another point would be, why would God make the elected soul  spend any time as an afflicted baby instead of just electing them as an embryo? Before they are born into sin.





> Does God elect all babies


If God elected all babies but not all adults that would mean some of those babies lost their Election.
Can you be of the Elect but have it taken back?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Exactly my point.
> We just don't know who God chooses do we?
> To say the poor little baby with encepholopy is being cruelly treated is judging without knowing all the facts.We don't know the final outcome.
> 
> ...





> Exactly my point.
> We just don't know who God chooses do we?


That would be a good question for those who claim to be of the Elect.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If God elected all babies but not all adults that would mean some of those babies lost their Election.
> Can you be of the Elect but have it taken back?



That is a good question. I never thought of it that way. We are all born with salvation only to have it removed once we reach the age of accountability.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> That is a good question. I never thought of it that way. We are all born with salvation only to have it removed once we reach the age of accountability.



That's not how I heard it.  Someone is misunderstanding.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 27, 2015)

We know from Romans 9 that not all babies are of the elect (ie. Esau)

Each individual that is of the elect is called by the Holy Spirit at some point in their life, so they receive assurance when born again.

We can't judge others as being elect or not.That's totally up to God.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> We know from Romans 9 that not all babies are of the elect (ie. Esau)
> 
> Each individual that is of the elect is called by the Holy Spirit at some point in their life, so they receive assurance when born again.
> 
> We can't judge others as being elect or not.That's totally up to God.





> Each individual that is of the elect is called by the Holy Spirit at some point in their life,


Ive never met a Christian who doesn't believe they were called by the Holy Spirit in some way or another.
Whether it was called to believe, called to preach, called to quit drinking, called to quit drugs, called to turn left instead of turning right..............


> We can't judge others as being elect or not.That's totally up to God


Its interesting that you cant judge others but you can judge yourself. If its totally up to God nobody knows anything for sure until you find yourself in Heaven or making smores by the fire.
Either you are doing the judging (including yourself) or God's doing the judging. 
Cant be both.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive never met a Christian who doesn't believe they were called by the Holy Spirit in some way or another.
> Whether it was called to believe, called to preach, called to quit drinking, called to quit drugs, called to turn left instead of turning right..............
> 
> Its interesting that you cant judge others but you can judge yourself. If its totally up to God nobody knows anything for sure until you find yourself in Heaven or making smores by the fire.
> ...



Because it's something that takes place on the inside, individually and personally.And its an effectual calling, meaning it gets the job done.That's why, when it happens,you know it happened.But others may not know unless they begin to see fruits of it.

We are called to be fruit inspectors, not heart transplanters.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Because it's something that takes place on the inside, individually and personally.And its an effectual calling, meaning it gets the job done.That's why, when it happens,you know it happened.But others may not know unless they begin to see fruits of it.
> 
> We are called to be fruit inspectors, not heart transplanters.


Welder give it some more thought.
If it  -


> takes place on the inside, individually and personally


Its YOU judging that it happened.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Welder give it some more thought.
> If it  -
> Quote:
> takes place on the inside, individually and personally
> ...



It's me KNOWING that it happened to ME.I'm the only person that's qualified to make that judgement,since it happened inside of ME.

All I'm saying is that we can't go around trying to pick out who's the elect and who's not.Do you agree?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's me KNOWING that it happened to ME.I'm the only person that's qualified to make that judgement,since it happened inside of ME.
> 
> All I'm saying is that we can't go around trying to pick out who's the elect and who's not.Do you agree?



And on the other hand it is Me KNOWING that it doesn't  happen to anyone except in whatever way they try to convince themselves of it in their own way in their own mind. We can't pick the elect out because elect and the elect do not exist.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> And on the other hand it is Me KNOWING that it doesn't  happen to anyone except in whatever way they try to convince themselves of it in their own way in their own mind. We can't pick the elect out because elect and the elect do not exist.



Well,you certainly are entitled to have your view on the subject,just as I do.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's me KNOWING that it happened to ME.I'm the only person that's qualified to make that judgement,since it happened inside of ME.
> 
> All I'm saying is that we can't go around trying to pick out who's the elect and who's not.Do you agree?



How much fruit would the Holy Spirit need to produce in an individual for you to know they are elected?  
How much fruit would the Holy Spirit need to produce in one's self for them to know they are elected? Perhaps this individual felt the Holy Spirit move in to their body, and it felt really good, but at some point sin got the best of them and they have turned from God. Their flesh has overtaken their spirit. Spiritually they feel the Holy Spirit's presence but their flesh is too strong for them to come to a complete repentance of sin.

I don't understand why God would tease an individual with his Holy Spirit giving them just a taste of it. Giving them hope of salvation only to take it away at a later time. Having his Spirit produce fruit for a few months or years only to allow them to succumb to homosexuality or cheating. Letting them repent from sin initially and then letting their Flesh overcome his Spirit.
I don't see much hope and assurance in this type of a false promise from our God.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 28, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> How much fruit would the Holy Spirit need to produce in an individual for you to know they are elected?
> How much fruit would the Holy Spirit need to produce in one's self for them to know they are elected? Perhaps this individual felt the Holy Spirit move in to their body, and it felt really good, but at some point sin got the best of them and they have turned from God. Their flesh has overtaken their spirit. Spiritually they feel the Holy Spirit's presence but their flesh is too strong for them to come to a complete repentance of sin.
> 
> I don't understand why God would tease an individual with his Holy Spirit giving them just a taste of it. Giving them hope of salvation only to take it away at a later time. Having his Spirit produce fruit for a few months or years only to allow them to succumb to homosexuality or cheating. Letting them repent from sin initially and then letting their Flesh overcome his Spirit.
> I don't see much hope and assurance in this type of a false promise from our God.



If you can understand this parable,it will all make sense.

Matt.13
3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.


Here is Jesus' explaination of the parable.

19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If you can understand this parable,it will all make sense.
> 
> Matt.13
> 3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
> ...



From your prospective, the "good ground" is the "elect."
The wayside, thorns, stoney places, etc. aren't.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If you can understand this parable,it will all make sense.
> 
> Matt.13
> 3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
> ...





> Here is Jesus' explaination of the parable.


Come on Welder.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 28, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> From your prospective, the "good ground" is the "elect."
> The wayside, thorns, stoney places, etc. aren't.



I believe all the examples talked about in the parable is speaking of the elect,only in different stages of their life.
The reason I believe this is because of Jesus' reference in verse 11 to "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven".The non-elect have no part in the kingdom of heaven.

Before you are regenerated,your ground is rocky and thorny and unable to grow the seeds.But after the Holy Spirit prepares your ground(heart),your seeds then are able to grow and bring forth fruit.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I believe all the examples talked about in the parable is speaking of the elect,only in different stages of their life.
> The reason I believe this is because of Jesus' reference in verse 11 to "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven".The non-elect have no part in the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> Before you are regenerated,your ground is rocky and thorny and unable to grow the seeds.But after the Holy Spirit prepares your ground(heart),your seeds then are able to grow and bring forth fruit.


It is nothing more than individual interpretation that can be applied to any number of scenarios in which the individual convinces himself he understands what it REALLY means because he is more special than the other half a billion people that also think they are special.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 28, 2015)

bullethead said:


> It is nothing more than individual interpretation that can be applied to any number of scenarios in which the individual convinces himself he understands what it REALLY means because he is more special than the other half a billion people that also think they are special.




Yeah,kinda like what happened in this instance:


"God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
 And the serpent said unto the woman,"Ye shall NOT surely die"


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 28, 2015)

I wont be watching this but I know this is some of you guys passion so I thought I would share it here for anyone that may want to watch. Starts at 8:30


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yeah,kinda like what happened in this instance:
> 
> 
> "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
> And the serpent said unto the woman,"Ye shall NOT surely die"


Sounds like God lied and the serpent did not.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 28, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Sounds like God lied and the serpent did not.


 
 I make this point all the time to futurist, they just can't wrap their head around the death Adam suffered that day when he was cast out of the garden---spiritual death-- separated from God.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I make this point all the time to futurist, they just can't wrap their head around the death Adam suffered that day when he was cast out of the garden---spiritual death-- separated from God.


If you go to heaven or h3ll you still live forever in spiritual form.
Separated from God may not be a bad thing. No one has ever been able to tell us. Everything we hear and read are just guesses.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 28, 2015)

bullethead said:


> If you go to heaven or h3ll you still live forever in spiritual form.
> Separated from God may not be a bad thing. No one has ever been able to tell us. Everything we hear and read are just guesses.


 I disagree. I believe as John 3:16 states that faith will give you eternal life vs to perish. To perish is the second death, cast in the lake of fire..consumed. 

 you may want to poke around here at this site, lots of really smart folks you could probably relate to some.
http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I disagree. I believe as John 3:16 states that faith will give you eternal life vs to perish. To perish is the second death, cast in the lake of fire..consumed.
> 
> you may want to poke around here at this site, lots of really smart folks you could probably relate to some.
> http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/


You disagree but the source you are using was written by a man almost 2000 years ago who was still alive and had not experienced what happens after death.

I will check the link out. Thanks


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 29, 2015)

bullethead said:


> You disagree but the source you are using was written by a man almost 2000 years ago who was still alive and had not experienced what happens after death.
> 
> I will check the link out. Thanks




Just saying!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Just saying!


Difference being....I go with the proof.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 30, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Difference being....I go with the proof.



Prove it then.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Prove it then.



Prove that I go with the proof?
OK.....


----------



## welderguy (Jun 30, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Prove that I go with the proof?
> OK.....



No...the thing you were making reference to proving.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 1, 2015)

welderguy said:


> No...the thing you were making reference to proving.



How old is the earth?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 1, 2015)

welderguy said:


> No...the thing you were making reference to proving.



It's been done.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 1, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's been done.



Only in theory


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 1, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Only in theory



You do know the level of testing a hypothesis has to go through to become scientific theory, and then law, right? 

You act as if theory = hypothesis.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 1, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You do know the level of testing a hypothesis has to go through to become scientific theory, and then law, right?
> 
> You act as if theory = hypothesis.



Yeah.Man is sooo smart isn't he?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 1, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yeah.Man is sooo smart isn't he?



Man has figured out all about blood & genetics. Can we assume God gave man this ability? The circulatory system requires a pump and pressure at just the basic level of science to work.
Comparing this knowledge can we assume God has given man the ability to gain other knowledge? I believe with all my heart this is true.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 1, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yeah.Man is sooo smart isn't he?



He wrote the Bible. Respect.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 1, 2015)

660griz said:


> He wrote the Bible. Respect.



Not on his own.

We give man faaaar too much credit for everything.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 1, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yeah.Man is sooo smart isn't he?



I'm done. Have fun.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 1, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Not on his own.


Yep. No evidence to the contrary.



> We give man faaaar too much credit for everything.


Credit where credit is due.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 1, 2015)

The earth is old, old, old, maybe 4 billion years old., Mankind is old, old, old, way older than 6,000 years. Noahs flood was a local flood and did not wipe out all animals and all mankind. I believe every word of the Bible.
It's not the Bible skeptics have a problem with it's the religious nuts that take the entire book literal and don't consider the language.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 1, 2015)

welderguy said:


> No...the thing you were making reference to proving.


Now Welder, be honest.
What exactly are you going to say (we already know) when you are provided with proof?
So why ask for it?
Its been proven -
donkeys cant talk in human language
people cant be turned into pillars of salt
there are no ladders to Heaven
staffs cant turn into snakes
where rainbows come from
people cant live in fish
I'll stop there because your response to all of them will be the same.
So I ask again, why are you asking for proof?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 1, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Now Welder, be honest.
> What exactly are you going to say (we already know) when you are provided with proof?
> So why ask for it?
> Its been proven -
> ...



I apologize for my cynicism, but I'm still not over the recent events in our country and government. But I guess we should stop fussing and fighting about things that we can't change and focus on living a more Godly life, me included.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 1, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I apologize for my cynicism, but I'm still not over the recent events in our country and government. But I guess we should stop fussing and fighting about things that we can't change and focus on living a more Godly life, me included.


The gay marriage thing?
Unless you wanted to marry a guy your life isn't going to change one iota so I wouldn't stress over it too much.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 1, 2015)

welderguy said:


> No...the thing you were making reference to proving.



What in the H E double hockey stix do you think I was referencing????????
I said, and I quote..
"Difference being....I go with the proof"

Let me break it down for you..
No matter what the claim, I tend to believe the ones that have proof or I can find proof that backs up the claim. Sometimes I can be swayed to believe the best answer available or the one that is more likely than not.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 1, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The earth is old, old, old, maybe 4 billion years old., Mankind is old, old, old, way older than 6,000 years. Noahs flood was a local flood and did not wipe out all animals and all mankind. I believe every word of the Bible.
> It's not the Bible skeptics have a problem with it's the religious nuts that take the entire book literal and don't consider the language.



I'm not sure if the last sentence was directed at me but if so,Ive been called worse so it's cool.But,I'm most interested in how you came to the conclusions in the first paragraph.Just a brief overview would suffice.No need to go digging up a bunch of articles and posting them.

I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise,just would like to understand your view on it.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I'm not sure if the last sentence was directed at me but if so,Ive been called worse so it's cool.But,I'm most interested in how you came to the conclusions in the first paragraph.Just a brief overview would suffice.No need to go digging up a bunch of articles and posting them.
> 
> I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise,just would like to understand your view on it.



Welder, sorry it wasn't directed at any individual. 
 Go up a few posts and find the link I left for bullethead about beyond creation science. I'm not saying they are 100% correct, but their theory definitely fits. I have always stated the flood was a local flood, and the earth is old, much older than the 6000 years many claim...and it is just nuts to believe in young earth creationism at this point. Folks sound like flat earth proponents,and will never get any skeptic to take them serious.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 2, 2015)

Hey Welderguy. the Bible says we think and feel things with our heart. We now know that these things come from within our brain. Our heart doesn't do much more than pump blood.
Speaking of blood, we now know heredity involves more than a "bloodline."


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Welder, sorry it wasn't directed at any individual.
> Go up a few posts and find the link I left for bullethead about beyond creation science. I'm not saying they are 100% correct, but their theory definitely fits. I have always stated the flood was a local flood, and the earth is old, much older than the 6000 years many claim...and it is just nuts to believe in young earth creationism at this point. Folks sound like flat earth proponents,and will never get any skeptic to take them serious.



Are you a believer in the so-called "gap theory", proposed by Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century? He is also the inventor of the Scofield bible.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Hey Welderguy. the Bible says we think and feel things with our heart. We now know that these things come from within our brain. Our heart doesn't do much more than pump blood.
> Speaking of blood, we now know heredity involves more than a "bloodline."



What about this?

Prov.3:5
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What about this?
> 
> Prov.3:5
> "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding."



Exactly, that is what I'm asking you. Do you continue to believe your trust in God literally comes from your heart? Your heart is actually just a pump like your well pump.
It is a positive displacement pump similar to a diaphragm pump. Is this actually where your trust in God originates as Proverbs suggest?
If you believe now that your trust in God originates from a part of your brain does this mean that you have leaned on "man's" understanding?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

Don't mind me, I'm just waiting on the epiphany over the failure of biblical literalism.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Are you a believer in the so-called "gap theory", proposed by Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century? He is also the inventor of the Scofield bible.



Not at all


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What about this?
> 
> Prov.3:5
> "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding."


I'm curious -
Do you literally believe trust, or any other emotion/thought for that matter, actually originates or resides in your heart?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm curious -
> Do you literally believe trust, or any other emotion/thought for that matter, actually originates or resides in your heart?



In the one that pumps blood? No.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> In the one that pumps blood? No.


http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/pictures/humanbody/humanorgans.html
I count 1 but I admit math isn't my strong suit.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> In the one that pumps blood? No.



So if heart = something other than heart, that's still not a metaphor, right? The Bible can still be taken 100% literally, right?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/pictures/humanbody/humanorgans.html
> I count 1 but I admit math isn't my strong suit.



Come on Walt.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Come on Walt.


I'm sorry when you specified -


> Originally Posted by welderguy View Post
> In the one that pumps blood? No.


I took that to mean you meant some other heart. Not the one that pumps blood. I was just pointing out we only have 1 heart.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm sorry when you specified -
> 
> I took that to mean you meant some other heart. Not the one that pumps blood. I was just pointing out we only have 1 heart.



If you take heart literally, you do only have one. Unless you're one of dem mutants or aliens.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

Someone remind me again why we are debating this.?

Is it to try and prove or disprove the merit of literal or nonliteral bible interpretation?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Someone remind me again why we are debating this.?
> 
> Is it to try and prove literal or nonliteral bible interpretation?



Well, either the Bible is 100% literal, or it's open to interpretation. If it's open to interpretation, where does that begin and end?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, either the Bible is 100% literal, or it's open to interpretation. If it's open to interpretation, where does that begin and end?



The bible is not 100% literal.It is full of types and shadows, which are often pictures of the real thing.

Alot of the things written there are designed purposely to be hidden from some and revealed to others.That's a big reason for so much contraversy and debate and also a LOT of strife and even anger.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The bible is not 100% literal.It is full of types and shadows, which are often pictures of the real thing.
> 
> Alot of the things written there are designed purposely to be hidden from some and revealed to others.That's a big reason for so much contraversy and debate and also a LOT of strife and even anger.



Okay, how much is literal, and how much isn't?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, how much is literal, and how much isn't?



That's a hard question.I am still in the learning process so I can't answer that accurately.I can say from what I have learned there's a big percentage that's literal and also not literal.And much of it overlaps into both categories.It's very complex in it's design.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> That's a hard question.I am still in the learning process so I can't answer that accurately.I can say from what I have learned *there's a big percentage that's literal and also not literal*.And much of it overlaps into both categories.It's very complex in it's design.



Please expound.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Please expound.



80% literal
80% not literal.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

660griz said:


> 80% literal
> 80% not literal.



Ha. Yeah that didn't make sense did it?

What I meant was there's some of both, but I can't give a percentage of either.
It has to be "rightly devided" though, that's for sure.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Someone remind me again why we are debating this.?
> 
> Is it to try and prove or disprove the merit of literal or nonliteral bible interpretation?



I was showing that we have gained knowledge from God that he didn't reveal during biblical times. He does have a reason for hiding and revealing to different generations for his reasons. Using this we can now know we don't actually think and reason with our heart, blood isn't the only factor in heredity, the world isn't flat, the sun didn't literally stand still, etc. 
We now know God stopped the earth from turning. We now know that things such as a rainbow can be explained biblically and scientifically. We now let our children go to school to learn scientifically about the miracle of birth. Science and Religion actually co-exist.
God is The Great Architect.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Ha. Yeah that didn't make sense did it?
> 
> What I meant was there's some of both, but I can't give a percentage of either.
> It has to be "*rightly devided*" though, that's for sure.



Enlighten me again...


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Enlighten me again...



An example that comes to mind is when Jesus said to be able to enter the kingdom of heaven "you must be born again".
Nicodemus took that literally, thinking he must enter into his mother's womb and be born again literally.

Another is when Jesus said you must eat His flesh and drink His blood.Many of His disciples no longer followed Him after that because they thought He was speaking literally.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> An example that comes to mind is when Jesus said to be able to enter the kingdom of heaven "you must be born again".
> Nicodemus took that literally, thinking he must enter into his mother's womb and be born again literally.
> 
> Another is when Jesus said you must eat His flesh and drink His blood.Many of His disciples no longer followed Him after that because they thought He was speaking literally.



Okay, the obvious metaphors we can stipulate on. 

Jonah and the whale, what about stories like those?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, the obvious metaphors we can stipulate on.
> 
> Jonah and the whale, what about stories like those?



Jesus confirms the story of Jonah as literal in Matt.12:40.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Jesus confirms the story of Jonah as literal in Matt.12:40.



Okay, so anything Jesus said is 100% true. I can stipulate that for purposes of this discussion. 

Earth created in 7 days? i.e 7 24 hour periods?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, so anything Jesus said is 100% true. I can stipulate that for purposes of this discussion.
> 
> Earth created in 7 days? i.e 7 24 hour periods?



No.6 days.He then rested from all His works on the 7th day.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> No.6 days.He then rested from all His works on the 7th day.



So you're saying it's literal, though. On what basis?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So you're saying it's literal, though. On what basis?



Yes.literally.
He gave us our example of His sabbath day which would come later in His law.To do all our work in 6 days and rest and worship on the seventh.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yes.literally.
> He gave us our example of His sabbath day which would come later in His law.To do all our work in 6 days and rest and worship on the seventh.



Okay. Woman created from the rib of man, and man created literally from dust. Not dust to hydrogen to helium, and so forth. A pile of dust + breath = Adam. Literal?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay. Woman created from the rib of man, and man created literally from dust. Not dust to hydrogen to helium, and so forth. A pile of dust + breath = Adam. Literal?



Yes.literally from dust.We see it in reverse every time a person dies.Their spirit leaves their body and their body goes back to the dust.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yes.literally from dust.We see it in reverse every time a person dies.Their spirit leaves their body and their body goes back to the dust.



Yet you've never witnessed ashes reconstituted into a tree.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yes.literally from dust.We see it in reverse every time a person dies.Their spirit leaves their body and their body goes back to the dust.



Whoa!  So you don't believe in a literal physical bodily resurrection of the dead?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yet you've never witnessed ashes reconstituted into a tree.



I don't understand what you're asking.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Whoa!  So you don't believe in a literal physical bodily resurrection of the dead?



Yes I do.You and I have spent days going back and forth over that very subject.

I believe it's you who doesn't believe in the bodily resurrection.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't understand what you're asking.



I'm asking you to start at Genesis and give us your notes on literal/not literal for each and every aspect. 

People living to several hundreds of years old, for example. 

Or talking snakes. 

Or, let's go with one that can use math to back it up. What is your subscribed definition of a cubit?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't understand what you're asking.



You said:


> Yes.literally from dust.We see it in reverse every time a person dies.Their spirit leaves their body and their body goes back to the dust.


I think SS is saying, have you ever seen a person literally come from dust. 
Reverse yes, forward? Not so much.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

660griz said:


> You said:
> 
> I think SS is saying, have you ever seen a person literally come from dust.
> Reverse yes, forward? Not so much.



Yeah, that's it, but it's a smaller point in a much larger discussion. Same as the question about a cubit, but we'll cross that Ark when we come to it.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm asking you to start at Genesis and give us your notes on literal/not literal for each and every aspect.
> 
> People living to several hundreds of years old, for example.
> 
> ...



What's so hard about people living several hundred years?
Talking snake...while admittedly out of the ordinary, very doable for a God who can create anything He wants out of nothing.

A cubit was the length from a man's elbow to the tip of his middle finger.

A man from dust, a woman from a rib...very easy for Him.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What's so hard about people living several hundred years?
> Talking snake...while admittedly out of the ordinary, very doable for a God who can create anything He wants out of nothing.
> 
> A cubit was the length from a man's elbow to the tip of his middle finger.
> ...



That in any other mechanism that records history it's never been the case, and even isn't true now. 

Let's forgo the doublespeak on what God can/can't do. Lest we get into another boulder discussion. So you believe the dust to human aspect, okay, welder says it's literal. 

About that cubit, for me your measurement is about 20". That's in agreement with the source on the internet I found that used the long Egyptian cubit. 


Okay, so 1 cubit = 20". Can we agree to that? If so, how big does that make the ark in feet, and again in cubic feet?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That in any other mechanism that records history it's never been the case, and even isn't true now.
> 
> Let's forgo the doublespeak on what God can/can't do. Lest we get into another boulder discussion. So you believe the dust to human aspect, okay, welder says it's literal.
> 
> ...



I had to google it so according to that it's
 1,518, 000 cubic feet.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I had to google it so according to that it's 1,518, 000 cubic feet.



The measurements I had onit , again from Google, came out to 2,357,004, I rounded their numbers to the next highest digit rather than short cut it. 

Google reports that it was 521 feet long, 87 feet wide, and 52 feet tall to give me the 2.3million number. 

A Nimitz class aircraft carrier, only the main body and not the tower, is 1092x252x94, and I had to fudge the 94 by comparing deck height above water to draft. That comes to 25,867,296 cubic feet, or roughly 10 times the size of the Ark. 

Do you believe that the USS John C. Stennis could hold 2 of every animal on the planet, plus the requisite food, and sanitation mechanisms? How about a ship 1/10th the size of that? 

The Stennis has a compliment of roughly 5680 people and is crammed tight, especially once you account for cross bracings to handle modern mundane, non-apocalyptic, storms and waves. 

Is the ark, and its measurements and compliment, literal or figurative?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yes I do.You and I have spent days going back and forth over that very subject.
> 
> I believe it's you who doesn't believe in the bodily resurrection.




But I thought you said the flesh literally goes back to dust...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The measurements I had onit , again from Google, came out to 2,357,004, I rounded their numbers to the next highest digit rather than short cut it.
> 
> Google reports that it was 521 feet long, 87 feet wide, and 52 feet tall to give me the 2.3million number.
> 
> ...



And that's giving both ships the benefit of a completely rectangular hull. I.e. A completely open space of those dimensions.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The measurements I had onit , again from Google, came out to 2,357,004, I rounded their numbers to the next highest digit rather than short cut it.
> 
> Google reports that it was 521 feet long, 87 feet wide, and 52 feet tall to give me the 2.3million number.
> 
> ...



It was a local flood...problem solved.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> It was a local flood...problem solved.



Only if he believes that it was local, and not the whole world, like the Bible says it was.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The measurements I had onit , again from Google, came out to 2,357,004, I rounded their numbers to the next highest digit rather than short cut it.
> 
> Google reports that it was 521 feet long, 87 feet wide, and 52 feet tall to give me the 2.3million number.
> 
> ...



Literal.
Hard to believe ain't it.
That's why God's so awesome!
Maybe Noah had better organizational skills than the U.S. military.After all,he was 600 years old when he entered the ark.Usually old guys are pretty smart.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Only if he believes that it was local, and not the whole world, like the Bible says it was.



Yeah, I doubt he will agree. It takes a lot of studying to recognize figuritive language. I first realized it in Revelation and Isaiah, Zechariah, and Jeremiah.

 Look at this prophesy explaining a coming destruction on the city of Edom for example.

Isaiah 34 (Estimated date of writing, 740-680 B.C.)
10 It shall not be quenched night or day;
Its smoke shall ascend forever.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
No one shall pass through it forever and ever.
11 But the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it,
Also the owl and the raven shall dwell in it.
And He shall stretch out over it
The line of confusion and the stones of emptiness.
12 They shall call its nobles to the kingdom,
But none _shall be_ there, and all its princes shall be nothing.
13 And thorns shall come up in its palaces,
Nettles and brambles in its fortresses;
It shall be a habitation of jackals,
A courtyard for ostriches.
14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the jackals,
And the wild goat shall bleat to its companion;
Also the night creature shall rest there,
And find for herself a place of rest.
15 There the arrow snake shall make her nest and lay _eggs_
And hatch, and gather _them_ under her shadow;
There also shall the hawks be gathered,
Every one with her mate.

 Now...what really happened?

The history books tell us that Edom did OK for perhaps a hundred years after their final warning from God’s prophets. Then, during the fifth century (400-499) B.C. the “Edomites” were overwhelmed by other Arab groups. In turn, these groups were taken over by the Nabataeans, who started living in the area sometime around 312 B.C. By the way, the Nabataeans, not the Edomites, are the people who cut the temples in the sandstone walls of Petra.[1] Under the Nabataeans, the city of Petra flourished until 106 A.D., when the Romans conquered Petra.[2] From that time it slid into disuse, to the point that Edom was almost uninhabited from the 7th to the 12th century A.D. It revived slightly in the 12th century when the crusaders built a castle there called Sel. Afterward, it remained so forgotten that it had to be _rediscovered_ in 1812 by Swiss traveler Johann. L. Burckhardt

 It is like this with the flood and with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70ad...That temple destruction was the prophecy most Christians think is the future end of the world....yet there is no end of the world truly told of, it was an end of an age..the old covenant age to be exact!

Ephesians 3:<SUP class=versenum>21 </SUP>Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Literal.
> Hard to believe ain't it.
> That's why God's so awesome!
> Maybe Noah had better organizational skills than the U.S. military.After all,he was 600 years old when he entered the ark.Usually old guys are pretty smart.



Yep. God could have put all those animals in a thimble instead of making a 500 year old man build a boat. 
He could have made man out of nothing. He could have not made man.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> But I thought you said the flesh literally goes back to dust...



Yes.it goes back to dust.
Can Jesus not raise that body back up and change it into a spiritual body fashioned like unto His body in the twinkling of an eye?

I believe He can and will.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 2, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yep. God could have put all those animals in a thimble instead of making a 500 year old man build a boat. He could have made man out of nothing. He could have not made man.


I cant figure out why they had to go anywhere at all. Seems like God could have decided who/what lived or died without them moving an inch.
Apparently the flood was out of his control.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yes.it goes back to dust.
> Can Jesus not raise that body back up and change it into a spiritual body fashioned like unto His body in the twinkling of an eye?
> 
> I believe He can and will.


 
 We already are His body.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Literal.
> Hard to believe ain't it.
> That's why God's so awesome!
> Maybe Noah had better organizational skills than the U.S. military.After all,he was 600 years old when he entered the ark.Usually old guys are pretty smart.



So, given that you said that the Bible is both literal and figurative, rather than playing 2 billion cubic questions with it, why not just tell us which parts you view as figurative? 

Or were you speaking generally, in that some Christians believe the Bible is figurative to differing degrees?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Yeah, I doubt he will agree. It takes a lot of studying to recognize figuritive language. I first realized it in Revelation and Isaiah, Zechariah, and Jeremiah.
> 
> Look at this prophesy explaining a coming destruction on the city of Edom for example.
> 
> ...



"World" can mean quite a lot. Typically it's the sphere of your knowledge, which is why there's no mention of bison in the flood story. They didn't know they existed, so they couldn't write about them. 

But if God showed them to them, in divine inspiration, they could have written, "Something like a cow, or a water buffalo, but not exactly..." if there was truly omniscience being conveyed. The feeble human mind may not have recognized it for what it was, but they would know what it wasn't, just like we do today. 

"I don't know if it's a redeye, but I know it ain't a plain spotted bass..."


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So, given that you said that the Bible is both literal and figurative, rather than playing 2 billion cubic questions with it, why not just tell us which parts you view as figurative?
> 
> Or were you speaking generally, in that some Christians believe the Bible is figurative to differing degrees?



I'm no expert.I'm not even real smart.I could attempt to break down every chapter but it would take a very long time and be very exhausting to both of us.
Besides, you and I both know that you don't care about anything the bible says or anything I say about the bible.Be honest.Am I correct?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I'm no expert.I'm not even real smart.I could attempt to break down every chapter but it would take a very long time and be very exhausting to both of us.
> Besides, you and I both know that you don't care about anything the bible says or anything I say about the bible.Be honest.Am I correct?



How presumptuous. I care very much what you have to say about the Bible. 

When you can get all of Christianity to agree on what the Bible itself says, because the words committed to paper don't mean the same thing to pretty much any two of them with 100% accuracy, then I'll really care about what the Bible itself says. I know some of what is written, but what that's trying to "say" well that's interpretation. 

TL;DR version of this whole thing goes something like this:

You said that there are literal and figurative sections of the Bible. Were you saying that those figurative sections were such because you view them as figurative? If so, which sections are figurative, because so far I'm batting 1.000 for sections you find literal. I'm not asking you to comb the whole Bible and find them. Either you spoke out of your ear when you said they existed earlier, or you should already know where they are.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> "World" can mean quite a lot. Typically it's the sphere of your knowledge, which is why there's no mention of bison in the flood story. They didn't know they existed, so they couldn't write about them.
> 
> But if God showed them to them, in divine inspiration, they could have written, "Something like a cow, or a water buffalo, but not exactly..." if there was truly omniscience being conveyed. The feeble human mind may not have recognized it for what it was, but they would know what it wasn't, just like we do today.
> 
> "I don't know if it's a redeye, but I know it ain't a plain spotted bass..."


 

 In apocalyptic language it may be a word meaning cosmos, but it doesn't mean the entire cosmos, it's personal, such as a term we may use today. "My world is caving in around me".  That is how it is used mostly. Literal interpreters refuse to acknowledge this and make for some bad theology.

 It is a perfect book and truthful, the inerrant word of God, and it's forever revealing it's secrets to those that search...Im glad it's not just a two page rule book.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 2, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> In apocalyptic language it may be a word meaning cosmos, but it doesn't mean the entire cosmos, it's personal, such as a term we may use today. "My world is caving in around me".  That is how it is used mostly. Literal interpreters refuse to acknowledge this and make for some bad theology.
> 
> It is a perfect book and truthful, the inerrant word of God, and it's forever revealing it's secrets to those that search...Im glad it's not just a two page rule book.



I'd personally have less issue with it if it were just two pages of common sense rules for being a decent person. Trying to sell me on a Heaven and Hades, and then witnessing the flood, but the rebirth, and the whole double speak about sin and punishment/forgiveness just leads to the same graph as your avatar. What should be a straight line becomes a jumble once you delve in. 

I'm fine with a good story, especially one that's meaningful and complicated. 

I'm not fine with the supposed instruction manual for life being open to more interpretation, with much more dire consequences, than an IKEA manual.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How presumptuous. I care very much what you have to say about the Bible.
> 
> When you can get all of Christianity to agree on what the Bible itself says, because the words committed to paper don't mean the same thing to pretty much any two of them with 100% accuracy, then I'll really care about what the Bible itself says. I know some of what is written, but what that's trying to "say" well that's interpretation.
> 
> ...



The flood was literal(it actually happened),but is also figurative.The ark represents Jesus Christ as the saviour of a specific group of people and the flood represents God's righteous judgement on a specific group of people.

Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah was literal, but also figurative.Isaac represents the elect, who would have been destroyed but Jesus, represented by the ram was sacrificed instead.

The Hebrew nation in Egypt, under hard bondage and labor was literal, and figurative.They represent God's chosen people in bondage to sin in the world.God, in His great mercy, brings deliverance and ultimately into the promised land, which represents heaven.

The prophetic books have a lot of figurative language that is often difficult to understand, but is usually foretelling future judgement.But, mixed in with it are also many promises of mercy after the judgement. 

Psalms and Song of Solomon are filled with poetic language,which is often figurative but refering to things that are real(literal).

Jesus used a lot of figurative language in His teachings, often speaking in parables.But the parables had specific lessons within, which were understood by certain ones and misunderstood by others.

I could go on and on, but like I've stated before, the bible is like a beautiful tapestry with all the colors and threads interwoven together to make the whole piece.

If you can see the common theme throughout it's entirety, it's alot easier to understand the individual parts.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 3, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I cant figure out why they had to go anywhere at all. Seems like God could have decided who/what lived or died without them moving an inch.
> Apparently the flood was out of his control.



Yep. Why not just blink all the 'evil' folks away? Leave the babies and animals alone. Oh well. 
He does move in mysterious ways.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 3, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The flood was literal(it actually happened),but is also figurative.The ark represents Jesus Christ as the saviour of a specific group of people and the flood represents God's righteous judgement on a specific group of people.
> 
> Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah was literal, but also figurative.Isaac represents the elect, who would have been destroyed but Jesus, represented by the ram was sacrificed instead.
> 
> ...


Without realizing it, you are supporting what many A/As believe, based on facts, lack of facts and common sense -
The Bible takes some actual things (places/events etc) and makes a story out of them for teaching/indoctrination purposes.
The difference being we don't have a problem accepting that although it may be true that a place exists it doesn't make the story actually true.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 3, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Without realizing it, you are supporting what many A/As believe, based on facts, lack of facts and common sense -
> The Bible takes some actual things (places/events etc) and makes a story out of them for teaching/indoctrination purposes.
> The difference being we don't have a problem accepting that although it may be true that a place exists it doesn't make the story actually true.



I choose to go with my version of common sense on subjects like this. The question is, how did I get it?  Was it breathed into me by some supreme illustrious potentate? Or did it evolve over time?  Whichever, when folks like welderguy show up with zeal shining in their eyes and fire in their belly for the lord, I run the other direction. Did the whole planet get dunked to purge sin?  Nope. Did a donkey talk? Nope. Did Jonah live in a whale? Nope. That anyone would go along with these stories in the 21st century really makes me scratch my head.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 3, 2015)

Now, if I were to entertain the idea of a creator and his evil counterpart, the story of Job makes more sense. They toyed with Job like a cat with a baby rabbit. God was not loving, he was not compassionate. He let the devil wipe out Job's family for the sake of making a point. If there is a creator, this story illustrates his character.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 3, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'd personally have less issue with it if it were just two pages of common sense rules for being a decent person. Trying to sell me on a Heaven and Hades, and then witnessing the flood, but the rebirth, and the whole double speak about sin and punishment/forgiveness just leads to the same graph as your avatar. What should be a straight line becomes a jumble once you delve in.
> 
> I'm fine with a good story, especially one that's meaningful and complicated.
> 
> I'm not fine with the supposed instruction manual for life being open to more interpretation, with much more dire consequences, than an IKEA manual.





> if it were just two pages of common sense rules for being a decent person.


If the end goal was about being a "decent person" two pages would probably be enough.
Indoctrination, power, money, dominance, segregation, exclusion, control.........
a tad more complicated.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 3, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If the end goal was about being a "decent person" two pages would probably be enough.
> Indoctrination, power, money, dominance, segregation, exclusion, control.........
> a tad more complicated.


 

You're complaint is not to the Bible because none of those things are what it's about. You're complaint is against organized religion and what man has made of it.
 The Bible is the greatest love story. Always will be, when taken in context.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 3, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> You're complaint is not to the Bible because none of those things are what it's about. You're complaint is against organized religion and what man has made of it.
> The Bible is the greatest love story. Always will be, when taken in context.





> You're complaint is against organized religion and what man has made of it.


The Bible is a product of organized religion. The Bible didn't come first, organized religion did.
So yes I would agree with you.


> The Bible is the greatest love story. Always will be, when taken in context.


You made me spit out my coffee on that one


----------



## 660griz (Jul 3, 2015)

> You made me spit out my coffee on that one



Yes. That was a good one.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 3, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The Bible is a product of organized religion. The Bible didn't come first, organized religion did.
> So yes I would agree with you.
> 
> You made me spit out my coffee on that one


 
Actually organized religion tried for over a thousand years to keep the bible( scriptures) out of the hands of regular people.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 3, 2015)

I agree with Hobbs, the bible is the greatest love story.I didn't always feel this way though.There was a time when I thought it was nonsense.I couldn't understand it at all and didn't even care to.I considered Christians to be a very strange group of people and I tried to avoid them.
But, something changed in me.What could have caused that? I don't believe I could have done that on my own.There's way too many factors involved for it to have simply been a changing of my mind on my own.Yall may disagree but someday it may happen to you and then you'll say"you know, welderguy wasn't so off his rocker after all".I truly hope it does.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 3, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Actually organized religion tried for over a thousand years to keep the bible( scriptures) out of the hands of regular people.


Don't see how that relates to organized religion creating the Bible.
But Im assuming you used a small b in Bible and scriptures in () for a reason.
Anything deemed as "scriptures" was deemed as such by an organized religion whether it be Jewish organized religion or Christian organized religion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 3, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I agree with Hobbs, the bible is the greatest love story.I didn't always feel this way though.There was a time when I thought it was nonsense.I couldn't understand it at all and didn't even care to.I considered Christians to be a very strange group of people and I tried to avoid them.
> But, something changed in me.What could have caused that? I don't believe I could have done that on my own.There's way too many factors involved for it to have simply been a changing of my mind on my own.Yall may disagree but someday it may happen to you and then you'll say"you know, welderguy wasn't so off his rocker after all".I truly hope it does.





> I agree with Hobbs, the bible is the greatest love story.


Hitler loved Eva Braun, Germany and his dogs.
Not sure the Romance section of the book store is the first place I'd head to find a book about him.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 3, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Hitler loved Eva Braun, Germany and his dogs.
> Not sure the Romance section of the book store is the first place I'd head to find a book about him.


 Nothing personal but.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 3, 2015)

Love is so hard to define.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 3, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Nothing personal but.


That's fine.
But its because you fail to see that both stories contain not only love but also atrocities.
To ignore the atrocities in one and call it a love story might qualify as, well,  ...... ya know nothing personal but....


----------



## 660griz (Jul 3, 2015)

> No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.



---George Bernard Shaw


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The flood was literal(it actually happened),but is also figurative.The ark represents Jesus Christ as the saviour of a specific group of people and the flood represents God's righteous judgement on a specific group of people.
> 
> Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah was literal, but also figurative.Isaac represents the elect, who would have been destroyed but Jesus, represented by the ram was sacrificed instead.
> 
> ...



That last statement sticks with me because it presumes that I'm not able to understand the individual parts. 

I asked you for option A, or option B, because something that is literal can be conveyed figuratively, but something that is figurative is not literal. Sure, you can say that the Ark is like Jesus, but the ark is not Jesus. Figurative speech in the first part, literal in the second. I wasn't asking you if literal events could be made into metaphor, I asked you which events in the Bible you find to be purely figurative. 

You could start at Jonah and the whale, or you could say none of it. I'm not asking you to justify anything to me. I'm simply asking you to speak plainly about just one aspect of the Bible that you feel is not literal. 

For example, I believe there was a guy who lived around that time that was name Jesus and he hailed from Nazareth. I believe that literally happened. One thing I view as figurative is him taking few loaves and a few fishes and making a meal out of it for the masses. 

If you really believe that there are some figurative aspects to the Bible, purely figurative, you should already know what they are and getting you to say them shouldn't be this difficult. That is unless you were just speaking in general about how some view the Bible, and you, yourself, believe the whole thing to be a 100% accurate historical text that can then be analyzed with deeper symbolism. 

So which is it?

100% literal events, with metaphors and symbolism on the top, or:

Some other percentage between 1 and 99 literal, with the remainder being figurative? 

I don't see why that's such a difficult question to answer.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That last statement sticks with me because it presumes that I'm not able to understand the individual parts.
> 
> I asked you for option A, or option B, because something that is literal can be conveyed figuratively, but something that is figurative is not literal. Sure, you can say that the Ark is like Jesus, but the ark is not Jesus. Figurative speech in the first part, literal in the second. I wasn't asking you if literal events could be made into metaphor, I asked you which events in the Bible you find to be purely figurative.
> 
> ...



I think the reason you don't like my answer, which is taking literal events and showing their figurative meanings, is because you want to somehow dumb the bible down and reduce it to something less than what it is.If you can show it to either be all literal or all figurative, you can portray it to be nothing more than nice bedtime stories or some hairbrained collection of philisophical anecdotes.
Well, it's far more complex than that and I think you know that.I'm not going to waste my time entertaining those kind of notions.I've made my point clearly that the bible is both figurative and literal and you cannot seperate the two without missing it's true meaning.I suggest you read it from cover to cover again (even if you have in the past), and then we will discuss it further.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I think the reason you don't like my answer, which is taking literal events and showing their figurative meanings, is because you want to somehow dumb the bible down and reduce it to something less than what it is.If you can show it to either be all literal or all figurative, you can portray it to be nothing more than nice bedtime stories or some hairbrained collection of philisophical anecdotes.
> Well, it's far more complex than that and I think you know that.I'm not going to waste my time entertaining those kind of notions.I've made my point clearly that the bible is both figurative and literal and you cannot seperate the two without missing it's true meaning.I suggest you read it from cover to cover again (even if you have in the past), and then we will discuss it further.



Nice.
Do you believe a man lived in a fish for 3 days and nights?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> Nice.
> Do you believe a man lived in a fish for 3 days and nights?



Yessir I do.Just as I believe Jesus was in the belly of the earth for three days and then He came out.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I think the reason you don't like my answer, which is taking literal events and showing their figurative meanings, is because you want to somehow dumb the bible down and reduce it to something less than what it is.If you can show it to either be all literal or all figurative, you can portray it to be nothing more than nice bedtime stories or some hairbrained collection of philisophical anecdotes.
> Well, it's far more complex than that and I think you know that.I'm not going to waste my time entertaining those kind of notions.I've made my point clearly that the bible is both figurative and literal and you cannot seperate the two without missing it's true meaning.I suggest you read it from cover to cover again (even if you have in the past), and then we will discuss it further.





> If you can show it to either be all literal or all figurative, you can portray it to be nothing more than nice bedtime stories or some hairbrained collection of philisophical anecdotes.


Bed time stories and philisophical ancedotes often revolve around actual/literal locations, characters etc.
It doesnt have to be all literal or all figurative.
Moby Dick has a message. Whales, whaling ships, whaling men, the ocean etc etc are all actual/literal things. Yet the story/message is figurative.


> I suggest you read it from cover to cover again (even if you have in the past), and then we will discuss it further.


You have already told us that you dont know yet what all is literal and what is figurative.
You are taking a pretty authorotative position for somebody that admitedly doesnt know themselves.


> I think the reason you don't like my answer, which is taking literal events and showing their figurative meanings,


I dont think you realize what the implications of that statement is.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I think the reason you don't like my answer, which is taking literal events and showing their figurative meanings, is because you want to somehow *dumb* the bible down and reduce it to *something less *than what it is.If you can show it to either be all literal or all figurative, you can portray it to be nothing more than *nice bedtime stories* or some* hairbrained* collection of philisophical anecdotes.
> Well, it's far more complex than that and I think you know that.I'm not going to waste my time entertaining those kind of notions.I've made my point clearly that the bible is both figurative and literal and you cannot seperate the two without missing it's true meaning.*I suggest you read it from cover to cover again (even if you have in the past), and then we will discuss it further*.



I just want you to remember that you're the one slinging these kinds of accusations and using this kind of language. 

All I asked you was if the Bible is 100% literal and, if it's not, what percentage is fully figurative. And you can't/won't answer it. Instead you accuse me of dumbing down the Bible. Trust me, that leap is not missed by me or anyone else in this thread. 

I recognize futility when I see it, and I'm staring it in the face.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 6, 2015)

Why then is it so important to know what percentage is literal and what percentage is figurative?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Why then is it so important to know what percentage is literal and what percentage is figurative?



Because it was the question I asked the other day that has yet to be answered in any real form. It's been dodged more than the truck, but not answered.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Because it was the question I asked the other day that has yet to be answered in any real form. It's been dodged more than the truck, but not answered.



You didn't answer the question.
And BTW, I haven't dodged anything.I gave several examples showing the bible is both literal and figurative.Often, and more times than not,an event in the bible has literal and figurative representation at the same time.You can't assign percentages to that sort of thing.I don't even understand why you need to.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Yessir I do.Just as I believe Jesus was in the belly of the earth for three days and then He came out.



Fascinating.
Do you believe there are witches?
What should happen to witches today?
Do you condemn the church for bowing to public pressure to stop the witch trials in the 1690s?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You didn't answer the question.
> And BTW, I haven't dodged anything.I gave several examples showing the bible is both literal and figurative.Often, and more times than not,an event Iin the bible has literal and figurative representation at the same time.You can't assign percentages to that sort of thing.I don't even understand why you need to.



Did the flood really destroy the entire earth? Or is it possible that it was only a regional event? That's where this came from. 

Yes, destroyed the world could be figurative, but you could also believe it to be 100% literal. So far you're saying that the Bible is 100% literal, and you apply figurative meanings on top of that.

I'm asking you if the whole Bible is the same way for you. If everything happened 100% literally the way it was described, but you can also read in deeper meanings if you wish...

I'll make this easier. A simple yes/no question. I'm not going to continue questioning you after you answer it, so don't "fear" that. 

Is the Bible 100% literal? Yes, or no. A, or B. No option C's, no, "Well, you can apply figurative meanings on top, so it's really vague..." I can apply a figurative meaning to a cake, but it doesn't change the fact that the cake literally exists. The cake represents my love for my wife...Whoopdidoo. The cake is a cake is a cake. 

So if you want to see the ark as Jesus, go right ahead, but first tell me if you believe the ark was a literally real object, and that a worldwide, entire planet engulfing, flood actually happened. 

Is there any part of the Bible, since you recommend to me to read it again so I assume you're more knowledgeable about it than I am, that you read as ONLY parable or metaphor? I'm not asking you to quantify it any more, I don't even want to know which part. All I want to know is if, in your "heart" which to the rest of us is "mind" since your heart only pumps blood and only cares about the chemicals released by signals in your brain during stress or other emotional moments, the Bible is 100% literal to you, before you apply any deeper meanings than a simple recollection of factual events. 

It's not a difficult question.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Did the flood really destroy the entire earth? Or is it possible that it was only a regional event? That's where this came from.
> 
> Yes, destroyed the world could be figurative, but you could also believe it to be 100% literal. So far you're saying that the Bible is 100% literal, and you apply figurative meanings on top of that.
> 
> ...



It's an easy question. What took you so long to ask it that way.It's like you went all the way around South America to get from Buford to Atlanta.Whew!

The bible is NOT 100% literal.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> Fascinating.
> Do you believe there are witches?
> What should happen to witches today?
> Do you condemn the church for bowing to public pressure to stop the witch trials in the 1690s?



Huh??   really??


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, either the Bible is 100% literal, or it's open to interpretation. If it's open to interpretation, where does that begin and end?



I did, at the beginning.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 6, 2015)

I take the Bible as 100% literal. That does not necessarily mean that the Bible does not contain figures of speech, types and shadows etc.

I take it as God's word. Word for word.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 6, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I take the Bible as 100% literal. That does not necessarily mean that the Bible does not contain figures of speech, types and shadows etc.
> 
> I take it as God's word. Word for word.



Like saying "heart" when they mean "soul"?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Like saying "heart" when they mean "soul"?


Do you have an example?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 6, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Do you have an example?



Surely you didn't need me to search that up for you, but instead of the lmgtfy.com I could respond with:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/heart-bible-verses/


----------



## 660griz (Jul 6, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I take the Bible as 100% literal. That does not necessarily mean that the Bible does not contain figures of speech, types and shadows etc.
> 
> I take it as God's word. Word for word.



Cause it says so...in the Bible.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> Cause it says so...in the Bible.



Bawnjoor!


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Surely you didn't need me to search that up for you, but instead of the lmgtfy.com I could respond with:
> 
> http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/heart-bible-verses/


Which one is your example of "saying "heart" when they mean "soul""?

This one? "He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully."(Psalm 24:4)

I am getting bored already.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 6, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Which one is your example of "saying "heart" when they mean "soul""?
> 
> This one? "He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully."(Psalm 24:4)
> 
> I am getting bored already.



So don't participate. It's completely voluntary.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 6, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Which one is your example of "saying "heart" when they mean "soul""?
> 
> This one? "He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully."(Psalm 24:4)
> 
> I am getting bored already.



My son, give me your heart, and let your eyes observe my ways.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Bawnjoor!



Glad you got that. I almost posted the video.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> Glad you got that. I almost posted the video.



I pride myself on being minimally observant.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I pride myself on being minimally observant.



Good job. I am hit or miss.  I am not real good at multitasking.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> Good job. I am hit or miss.  I am not real good at multitasking.



Probably because multitasking is a myth. It's doing twice the amount of stuff you would have done normally, only half as well.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 6, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I dont think you realize what the implications of that statement is.



What are they?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What are they?


Think about it. 
For you to determine what parts are literal you would have to have solid supporting evidence or proof OUTSIDE of the Bible. Thats where you have to start.
You cant use something figurative to prove something to be literal.
Now think to yourself how much of the Bible can be proven to be literal from sources OUTSIDE of the Bible.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 6, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Think about it.
> For you to determine what parts are literal you would have to have solid supporting evidence or proof OUTSIDE of the Bible. Thats where you have to start.
> You cant use something figurative to prove something to be literal.
> Now think to yourself how much of the Bible can be proven to be literal from sources OUTSIDE of the Bible.



My faith is all the proof I need.Now what you do for your proof,well...that might be another thing entirely.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> My faith is all the proof I need.Now what you do for your proof,well...that might be another thing entirely.


faith -
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

Call it proof if thats what makes you feel good. 
But its not.


> Now what you do for your proof,well...that might be another thing entirely.


Yes its entirely different. 
And its interesting that you come back with a glib response when YOU are the one who claims the Bible is literal and figurative. We/I are just taking it from there down the logical path of questions.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 6, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> faith -
> 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
> 
> Call it proof if thats what makes you feel good.
> ...



It's been said that faith can move mountains.I believe it was refering to figurative mountains,but,to me,even some of my figurative "mountains" have been pretty enormous.The moving of them confirmed it to me.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 6, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Call it proof if thats what makes you feel good.
> But its not.


But it is. It is for Welder and it is for me. It is not for you and might never be.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 7, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> But it is. It is for Welder and it is for me. It is not for you and might never be.





> It is for Welder and it is for me.


Sure in your minds it is "proof".
Of course if you were to attempt to "prove" the Bible or God you wouldnt get very far (except in your mind again).


> It is not for you and might never be


Because I dont have a problem admitting to myself the difference between what I have faith in and what I have proof of.
Its an odd argument to me. Christianity itself tells you that you must have faith. But you guys always want to argue that you have proof even if its just in your own mind.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's been said that faith can move mountains.I believe it was refering to figurative mountains,but,to me,even some of my figurative "mountains" have been pretty enormous.The moving of them confirmed it to me.


Faith doesnt exist without you. Faith does NOTHING without you. Faith is belief. Which exists in YOUR brain. Faith didnt move your mountains. YOU did.
Faith may have been your motivation to get off your backside and do something about your "mountains" but if your backside sat on the couch and did nothing your mountains would still be there.
This isnt rocket science.
Try this - tell your faith to go start your car. If faith can move mountains starting your car should be child's play.
But Im guessing at some point if YOU dont get up and put the key in the ignition and turn it, you'll be really late for work.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Huh??   really??



Anything? No answer?
God took a pretty tough stance on witches. Just wondering if you do as well.



> Probably because multitasking is a myth. It's doing twice the amount of stuff you would have done normally, only half as well.



So true. I tell my wife that multitasking is doing numerous things sub par.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 7, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Faith doesnt exist without you. Faith does NOTHING without you. Faith is belief. Which exists in YOUR brain. Faith didnt move your mountains. YOU did.
> Faith may have been your motivation to get off your backside and do something about your "mountains" but if your backside sat on the couch and did nothing your mountains would still be there.
> This isnt rocket science.
> Try this - tell your faith to go start your car. If faith can move mountains starting your car should be child's play.
> But Im guessing at some point if YOU dont get up and put the key in the ignition and turn it, you'll be really late for work.



Faith without works is dead.So, in a round about way, what you said is pretty accurate.If I never get up off the couch, the car will never start.But it's my faith that motivates me to go crank my car and go to work because God says he who does not work should not eat.

Faith is not some magical power.It's just believing God's word and trying to obey.God does all the rest.

And BTW, it's more than what the secular dictionaries define it as.I don't think they had faith when they wrote their definition.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 7, 2015)

660griz said:


> Fascinating.
> Do you believe there are witches?
> What should happen to witches today?
> Do you condemn the church for bowing to public pressure to stop the witch trials in the 1690s?



Yes.

They should repent and turn to the living God for mercy.

I can't make that judgement.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Faith without works is dead.So, in a round about way, what you said is pretty accurate.If I never get up off the couch, the car will never start.But it's my faith that motivates me to go crank my car and go to work because God says he who does not work should not eat.
> 
> Faith is not some magical power.It's just believing God's word and trying to obey.God does all the rest.
> 
> And BTW, it's more than what the secular dictionaries define it as.I don't think they had faith when they wrote their definition.





> And BTW, it's more than what the secular dictionaries define it as


The Bible definition and the secular dictionary definition are saying the same thing.


> 11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.





> 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence


You hope they are true because there is no proof they are true. Thats why faith is required.
Your faith takes the place of evidence because the evidence hasnt been seen. And no we are not talking about the evidence in your own mind. Thats pointed out in both definitions.
Same thing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Faith without works is dead.So, in a round about way, what you said is pretty accurate.If I never get up off the couch, the car will never start.But it's my faith that motivates me to go crank my car and go to work because God says he who does not work should not eat.
> 
> Faith is not some magical power.It's just believing God's word and trying to obey.God does all the rest.
> 
> And BTW, it's more than what the secular dictionaries define it as.I don't think they had faith when they wrote their definition.







> Webster's Speller was entirely secular by design.[36] It ended with two pages of important dates in American history, beginning with Columbus's in 1492 and ending with the battle of Yorktown in 1781. There was no mention of God, the Bible, or sacred events. "Let sacred things be appropriated for sacred purposes," wrote Webster. As Ellis explains, "Webster began to construct a secular catechism to the nation-state. Here was the first appearance of 'civics' in American schoolbooks. In this sense, Webster's speller becoming what was to be the secular successor to The New England Primer with its explicitly biblical injunctions."[37] Later in life Webster became intensely religious and added religious themes. However after 1840 Webster's books lost market share to the McGuffey Eclectic Readers of William Holmes McGuffey, which sold over 120 million copies.[38]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster


----------



## welderguy (Jul 7, 2015)

Good call Stripe.kudos.
Although, it did say LATER he became extremely religious and amended some of his definitions.

Walt, the faith IS the evidence.The EVIDENCE of things not seen.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Good call Stripe.kudos.
> Although, it did say LATER he became extremely religious and amended some of his definitions.
> 
> Walt, the faith IS the evidence.The EVIDENCE of things not seen.



Okay, analogy time. 

Let's say God is like the wind. You can't see the wind, but you can see what the wind does to other things, and you can feel the wind for yourself when it touches you. 

How would you prove the wind to someone if they couldn't feel it themselves, or directly attribute the dust, or leaves, blowing to it? 

I think we can all agree that you feel something, and you see other things that are moved by it. What we disagree on is that the "wind" in this metaphor is the thing responsible for it. Similarly, it's easy to love the wind when it's nothing but a light breeze to take the heat off your back in summer. It gets harder to love when it's always Cat 1 Hurricane strength and dropping tornadoes on you left and right.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Good call Stripe.kudos.
> Although, it did say LATER he became extremely religious and amended some of his definitions.
> 
> Walt, the faith IS the evidence.The EVIDENCE of things not seen.


No. 
Faith is an emotion. It exists only in your brain. Thats why it cant start your car or move a mountain without YOU.
And read it closer. It tells you exactly what Faith is -


> 11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


I'll break it down -


> Now faith is


So what is faith?


> the substance


Lets define substance -


> 2. The most important part or idea of what is said or written; the essence or gist


So yes faith is the important part here. So the substance of what?


> things hoped for


Thats the million dollar part here.
When do you have to hope for something?
Do you hope 1+1= 2  every time you add?
Do you hope every time you go to the gas station that your vehicle still uses unleaded and hasnt changed to deisel this time?
Now your part -


> The EVIDENCE of things not seen


Its clearly telling you that you cant see the evidence.
Thats where your faith comes in. To make up for that fact.
Normally when we cant see evidence of something we take that to mean its not true or doesnt exist.
How does Christianity avoid that? By replacing evidence with faith and hope.
But again faith and hope are emotions. They are not evidence of something existing. 

Its simply a case of being figurative.


----------



## smokey30725 (Jul 7, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> No.
> Faith is an emotion. It exists only in your brain. Thats why it cant start your car or move a mountain without YOU.
> And read it closer. It tells you exactly what Faith is -
> 
> ...



I definitely see your point, and it is a valid one. It's hard to point to tangible evidence sometimes in a discussion of faith, because it can be such a personal matter. I would offer up an example that I have referenced in another thread on this forum about a friend of my father in law who was healed of blindness on the spot during a church service. One of the elders felt led to annoint the man with oil and his sight returned. Instantly. That would lead me to believe that a higher power was involved in the restoration of the man's sight. I know it could be argued that it was a medical marvel, or the man was simply lying, but when a follow up opthamologist visit confirms that sight has returned, I would personally consider that tangible evidence of faith. The elder who annointed him felt a call, and acted under faith that the Lord was going to move towards this man and heal him.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 7, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, analogy time.
> 
> Let's say God is like the wind. You can't see the wind, but you can see what the wind does to other things, and you can feel the wind for yourself when it touches you.
> 
> ...



Great analogy.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Great analogy.



It was also a question, and not rhetorical.


----------



## smokey30725 (Jul 7, 2015)

_How would you prove the wind to someone if they couldn't feel it themselves, or directly attribute the dust, or leaves, blowing to it? 
_

If someone could never experience wind, they would have one of two options: they can take someone's word that it functions as described or they can deny it exists. Either way, the wind still exists whether you believe in it or not. Hope that doesn't come across as snarky, as that is not my intention.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 7, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, analogy time.
> 
> Let's say God is like the wind. You can't see the wind, but you can see what the wind does to other things, and you can feel the wind for yourself when it touches you.
> 
> ...



The wind in your metaphor represents the Spirit of God I'm assuming.If so, based on John3:8, the Spirit comes and regenerates a person without them fully understanding at the time what happens or where it comes from.But, the person knows that something definately took place.This change causes the person to love God.Based on Rom.8:16,"the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God.
This doesn't mean all your Cat 1 hurricanes are going to stop, but it means you know who to trust for help when they do come.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 7, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> If someone could never experience wind, they would have one of two options: they can take someone's word that it functions as described or they can deny it exists. Either way, the wind still exists whether you believe in it or not. Hope that doesn't come across as snarky, as that is not my intention.



I would ask them to blow out a candle.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> but it means you know who to trust for help when they do come.



And to blame.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 7, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> _How would you prove the wind to someone if they couldn't feel it themselves, or directly attribute the dust, or leaves, blowing to it?
> _
> 
> If someone could never experience wind, they would have one of two options: they can take someone's word that it functions as described or they can deny it exists. Either way, the wind still exists whether you believe in it or not. Hope that doesn't come across as snarky, as that is not my intention.



I understand, and it's not received as snark. 

It's funny that we always come back to an analogy that makes it seem like the faithful are blessed with extra sensory inputs that the rest of us don't have, or at least that's the implication.

It's not that we don't have faith, we just don't have it in a deity. 

Here's another question that is rhetorical:

Sticking with the wind analogy, the faithful tell us that God is everywhere and in everything, right? Similarly, the wind would be everywhere and touching everything, right? I may not see the wind itself, but I can see it blow the leaves. I can hear it whisper in the pines, and I can feel it on my skin. It is experienced in more than one way, again, much like God is supposed to be. I can see the effect of the wind and those results are easily attributable to the wind, or at least a function of the wind since it would require gravity to make anything fall after being blown over. 

If you're familiar with Occam's razor, ask yourself this; is it more likely that my lack of faith in God is due to, essentially, being born blind, deaf, and with no tactile sensation rather than there being nothing out there to be so experienced? Similarly, have you ever heard of any child being born into such a state? Blind, yes; deaf, yes; blind AND deaf, yes; but what about the latter? You could argue that a coma would be a similar state, but is that really a life in there? With no means to engage, or be engaged with, how can you accurately determine that they are alive in the fullest sense of the word? Yeah, celery is alive, but it's not self-aware, and neither is a coma patient. 

I guess I'm saying that if one would argue that I am essentially born blind, deaf, and senseless that I would argue that I'm not alive, in a spiritual sense, and I can't imagine a benevolent being creating anything as such and having the gall to call it love.


----------



## smokey30725 (Jul 7, 2015)

660griz said:


> I would ask them to blow out a candle.



that's true. I was just going on his statement that the person you were describing it to couldn't experience it in any way.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The wind in your metaphor represents the Spirit of God I'm assuming.If so, based on John3:8, the Spirit comes and regenerates a person without them fully understanding at the time what happens or where it comes from.But, the person knows that something definately took place.This change causes the person to love God.Based on Rom.8:16,"the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God.
> This doesn't mean all your Cat 1 hurricanes are going to stop, but it means you know who to trust for help when they do come.



The wind, in this particular metaphor, IS God. All of his aspects. The loving gentle breeze to cool you off, and the hurricane that destroys lives and sections of the world. 

Seeing as how he's in control of them, and has made them hit me or at least knew they would and did nothing to stop it, I don't see the point in asking him for help now. Either I'm going to get it because it was part of his plan, or I'll be denied because the result of that is part of his plan. 

I don't mean to sound glib, but prayer for any direct thing seems to me to be the most useless activity to the faithful. Sure, pray and be thankful, or pray and be worshipful. But praying to heal a cancer, or feed the hungry is a null result effort. It's the foolish human notion that we have any control over what happens to us. Pray for the cure, but the cure, or not, is up to God and you already know that. Either result are His plan, and the rationalization for either are already within you. "He is great," or "Mysterious ways," or, "Called His angel back home..." 

You're not praying, based on the above, under the hopes that your prayers will change God's mind. If it did, what happened to the old plan and what does that say about omniscience if a deity can be so changed by an ant from their ant farm? You're praying, whether anyone will admit it or not, to make yourself and the target of those prayers feel better about something that's going on and nothing else.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 7, 2015)

660griz said:


> I would ask them to blow out a candle.



Which is great, unless you have no nerves, or receptor, with which to receive the feeling of the air across your lips, or even know that the air is leaving you.


----------



## smokey30725 (Jul 7, 2015)

_I guess I'm saying that if one would argue that I am essentially born blind, deaf, and senseless that I would argue that I'm not alive, in a spiritual sense, and I can't imagine a benevolent being creating anything as such and having the gall to call it love. 
_
I see what you mean here, and it's a good point to bring up. As a Christian, I firmly believe that each and every one of us, at some point in our life, will feel the call of God. What manner He chooses is not up to us to decide. Some will come to Him, others will not. Whether He uses another person, or His creation itself, or another method, it's my personal belief that all will have the chance to respond. I do think that believers experience a closer connection with God through the concept of grace and faith, but I don't believe that it's something that non-believers can never experience.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 7, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Which is great, unless you have no nerves, or receptor, with which to receive the feeling of the air across your lips, or even know that the air is leaving you.



Oh. In that case, I wouldn't bother trying to explain it. Their lives will not be impacted one way or another and it will just give them something else they are missing. 
Especially if they have no senses. You can use sound, sight or feel. Lose that and well...

I would try to communicate that they probably shouldn't move to Kansas or Oklahoma. If they do and wake up with no home...wind. 
Avoid mobile homes most anywhere. 

Tell me what they can perceive and I'll see if there is a way.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 7, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> but I don't believe that it's something that non-believers can never experience.



You assume that all non-believers were always non-believers.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 7, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> _I guess I'm saying that if one would argue that I am essentially born blind, deaf, and senseless that I would argue that I'm not alive, in a spiritual sense, and I can't imagine a benevolent being creating anything as such and having the gall to call it love.
> _
> I see what you mean here, and it's a good point to bring up. As a Christian, I firmly believe that each and every one of us, at some point in our life, will feel the call of God. What manner He chooses is not up to us to decide. Some will come to Him, others will not. Whether He uses another person, or His creation itself, or another method, it's my personal belief that all will have the chance to respond. I do think that believers experience a closer connection with God through the concept of grace and faith, but I don't believe that it's something that non-believers can never experience.



I hope I get to confront Him at some point either before or after life. Not because of anything negative, but I would believe that we are all owed an explanation for why bad things befell us and those around us if He respects us as his creation. 



660griz said:


> Oh. In that case, I wouldn't bother trying to explain it. Their lives will not be impacted one way or another and it will just give them something else they are missing.
> Especially if they have no senses. You can use sound, sight or feel. Lose that and well...
> 
> I would try to communicate that they probably shouldn't move to Kansas or Oklahoma. If they do and wake up with no home...wind.
> ...



I can't. In this analogy the only sense "organ" to experience God is faith. What gets me is how many people are born either without it entirely, or with the ability to circumvent it (i.e. square anything with their conscience). 

They could also wake up to no home in Oklahoma or Kansas due to a fire, or a flood, or an earthquake, sink hole, or shoddy construction. The point being, in the wind analogy, is that there can be other explanations for single events, like the missing home, that don't involve the wind, yet faithful look at the missing house and say that it's wind when it could have just as easily been a bulldozer that happened yesterday. You can see the wind blow, yes, but unless you see the wind blow the house away you can only assume what happened was wind. You want it to be the wind because you believe in the wind and you want it to be validated (infinitive you here). I, however, didn't see the wind do it but won't rush to pin it on the wind until we gather all the evidence, if any exists.

In the plains analogy I'm presuming that one house is damaged, or missing, while the others next to it are unscathed? That would fit the example of you and I with disparate faith, you're touched by it, I'm not, your house is missing while mine is intact. 

Again, which is more likely; a small tornado or other wind element that only impacts your life directly and leaves no objective evidence to determine that it was wind at all, or the bulldozer that we can both see being loaded on the low boy? It could have been the wind, but the wind, in our mutual experiences, isn't so specific or so sterile so as to only target and impact one house in a neighborhood.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 7, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I hope I get to confront Him at some point either before or after life. Not because of anything negative, but I would believe that we are all owed an explanation for why bad things befell us and those around us if He respects us as his creation.


 Oh, me too. However, it may be perceived as negative.  




> I can't. In this analogy the only sense "organ" to experience God is faith. What gets me is how many people are born either without it entirely, or with the ability to circumvent it (i.e. square anything with their conscience).


 I think the keyword is born. 
Some folks are just more prone to this. They can't find a happy medium. They go from a very dark place to a very light place. Nothing in between.

Now, what God do they need? Well, the one their parents believe in. 



> Again, which is more likely; a small tornado or other wind element that only impacts your life directly and leaves no objective evidence to determine that it was wind at all, or the bulldozer that we can both see being loaded on the low boy? It could have been the wind, but the wind, in our mutual experiences, isn't so specific or so sterile so as to only target and impact one house in a neighborhood.



There is always the ol standby...God did it. Covers everything and you don't have to explain or understand.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 7, 2015)

660griz said:


> Oh, me too. However, it may be perceived as negative.
> 
> 
> I think the keyword is born.
> ...



It would only get negative for me if I'm denied my answers.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 7, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It would only get negative for me if I'm denied my answers.



That's exactly the same thing Job said in Job31:35.
But when he finally got an audience with God, he saw things a lot different.
This is what he said:

Job 40:3-4
"Then Job answered the Lord, and said,
behold, I am vile.What shall I answer thee?
I will lay mine hand upon my mouth."

I think the scene would be similar in your case and mine as well.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> That's exactly the same thing Job said in Job31:35.
> But when he finally got an audience with God, he saw things a lot different.
> This is what he said:
> 
> ...



Up to a point. I consider myself righteously indignant for having endured what I have, as well as what my kids have had to endure. I want to know His logic as to why it had to be that way. If I'm insubordinate, or rude, for wanting that, so be it. At least I'm honest about my nature.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 7, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Up to a point. I consider myself righteously indignant for having endured what I have, as well as what my kids have had to endure. I want to know His logic as to why it had to be that way. If I'm insubordinate, or rude, for wanting that, so be it. At least I'm honest about my nature.



God gives us crosses to bear in this life to bring us closer to Him and to conform us to the image of His Son.So we can enter into the fellowship of His suffering. 
Everybody wants their crown now, but it's not time for the crowns yet.It's time for our crosses.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> God gives us crosses to bear in this life to bring us closer to Him and to conform us to the image of His Son.So we can enter into the fellowship of His suffering.
> Everybody wants their crown now, but it's not time for the crowns yet.It's time for our crosses.



No offense, but that's a mighty powerful rationalization for suffering that's also lacking in substance. I get the appeal of it, and why people would want to believe it, even if they haven't yet felt the presence of the spirit, but it reeks to me of delusion, and again I'm only saying what I am to be honest, I'm not trying to insult or hurt.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 7, 2015)

welderguy said:


> God gives us crosses to bear in this life to bring us closer to Him and to conform us to the image of His Son.So we can enter into the fellowship of His suffering.
> 
> 
> > Everybody wants their crown now, but it's not time for the crowns yet.It's time for our crosses.


How convenient.
If I was making up a story thats exactly what I would tell you so that you wouldnt expect me to come up with any crowns. But Im pretty darn sure you would encounter some crosses in your life.
I wish the odds were that good at the blackjack table.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 7, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> _How would you prove the wind to someone if they couldn't feel it themselves, or directly attribute the dust, or leaves, blowing to it?
> _
> 
> If someone could never experience wind, they would have one of two options: they can take someone's word that it functions as described or they can deny it exists. Either way, the wind still exists whether you believe in it or not. Hope that doesn't come across as snarky, as that is not my intention.





> they can take someone's word that it functions as described or they can deny it exists.


If they take someones word that it exists would they then have faith that it exists or proof that it exists?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 7, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No offense, but that's a mighty powerful rationalization for suffering that's also lacking in substance. I get the appeal of it, and why people would want to believe it, even if they haven't yet felt the presence of the spirit, but it reeks to me of delusion, and again I'm only saying what I am to be honest, I'm not trying to insult or hurt.



You haven't insulted me at all.I only wish your sufferings would soften you instead of hardening you.If God ever reveals His Son to you in this way, it will humble you to the point where you even thank Him for the privilege of suffering for His cause.I know that seems very strange to you now but it won't then.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You haven't insulted me at all.I only wish your sufferings would soften you instead of hardening you.If God ever reveals His Son to you in this way, it will humble you to the point where you even *thank Him for the privilege of suffering for His cause*.I know that seems very strange to you now but it won't then.



I doubt it. If He's so powerful He could have accomplished all of His plan with 0 suffering. I'd be really interested in hearing the reasons why suffering had to be a part of something he loved...

Again, that sounds like an abusive relationship. He hurts me to love me. He'll thank me some day. I'll thank him someday once he stops hitting me for cooking his eggs wrong...

It borders on sadism by proxy. Forgoing the God aspect, and attributing those thoughts to nothing more than the "victim's" own mind, it's nearly textbook masochism and only lacking in one area.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 8, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I doubt it. If He's so powerful He could have accomplished all of His plan with 0 suffering. I'd be really interested in hearing the reasons why suffering had to be a part of something he loved...
> 
> Again, that sounds like an abusive relationship. He hurts me to love me. He'll thank me some day. I'll thank him someday once he stops hitting me for cooking his eggs wrong...
> 
> It borders on sadism by proxy. Forgoing the God aspect, and attributing those thoughts to nothing more than the "victim's" own mind, it's nearly textbook masochism and only lacking in one area.


Agreed.
Its something I find really interesting.
The exact same person would say "why would a woman stay with an abusive husband" and then when it comes to God completely reverse that line of thinking because now its God doing it.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 8, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I doubt it. If He's so powerful He could have accomplished all of His plan with 0 suffering. I'd be really interested in hearing the reasons why suffering had to be a part of something he loved...
> 
> Again, that sounds like an abusive relationship. He hurts me to love me. He'll thank me some day. I'll thank him someday once he stops hitting me for cooking his eggs wrong...
> 
> It borders on sadism by proxy. Forgoing the God aspect, and attributing those thoughts to nothing more than the "victim's" own mind, it's nearly textbook masochism and only lacking in one area.



What's a lifetime of suffering compared to an eternity of perfect peace with Jesus?
Phil.1:29 "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ,not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake."


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What's a lifetime of suffering compared to an eternity of perfect peace with Jesus?
> Phil.1:29 "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ,not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake."


I often wonder that if there was no big pay off at the end of the story how that "lifetime of suffering" would then be viewed.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I often wonder that if there was no big pay off at the end of the story how that "lifetime of suffering" would then be viewed.



Good point.but very hypothetical in my belief.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What's a lifetime of suffering compared to an eternity of perfect peace with Jesus?
> Phil.1:29 "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ,not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake."



Show me that perfect peace, hold it in your hand and let me examine it. 

You can't. 

The point being is that you're okay with the suffering in this life because you believe it to be worth it all in the end, just like an abused spouse believing it to all be for greater love than you'd have without it. 

The only thing that you can prove is the suffering.


----------



## smokey30725 (Jul 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I often wonder that if there was no big pay off at the end of the story how that "lifetime of suffering" would then be viewed.



I think this is where I would disagree a little bit. The bible is clear that to follow Christ will entail some hard times, but the good times, at least in my own personal experience and those around me, far outweigh the times of suffering. People have no trouble with the old saying "what doesn't kill you just makes you stronger" and every other motivational poster on the break room wall, but when a Christian suffers, all of a sudden it's evidence of a masochistic God.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 8, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Show me that perfect peace, hold it in your hand and let me examine it.
> 
> You can't.
> 
> ...



No, I can't show it to you.I can only tell you a little bit about it.God is the only one who can reveal it to you.Isaiah 26:3 "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee."

God never abuses His bride, so your example doesn't fit here.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 8, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> but when a Christian suffers, all of a sudden it's evidence of a masochistic God.



Not our fault your God is in charge of everything...in your mind. 
If that is the case, well, he/she is not very nice.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 8, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I think this is where I would disagree a little bit. The bible is clear that to follow Christ will entail some hard times, but the good times, at least in my own personal experience and those around me, far outweigh the times of suffering. People have no trouble with the old saying "what doesn't kill you just makes you stronger" and every other motivational poster on the break room wall, but when a Christian suffers, all of a sudden it's evidence of a masochistic God.



I don't follow Christ and I have the same track record. Some suffering, some awesome times, and some mundane times. 

Actually, just a Christian suffering isn't proof of a masochistic God. It's partial evidence of a sadistic God, but you also have to include the suffering of non-believers and the sadism is predicated on two things:
1) Him being all powerful, and,
2) Him still allowing suffering to meet his goals when, assuming #1, He could choose a path for us that doesn't include suffering. If He can't then he's either not all powerful, or he wants suffering. 



welderguy said:


> No, I can't show it to you.I can only tell you a little bit about it.God is the only one who can reveal it to you.Isaiah 26:3 "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee."
> 
> God never abuses His bride, so your example doesn't fit here.



Again, you say these things like they're facts. Even the kid who wrote the book about his after death experiences came out and admitted that he lied. 

There's no evidence, other than the Bible, of life after death. There's anecdotes, but they're not evidence. 

He doesn't does He? Need we bring up the flood again, or do they not count? Or how about a crack baby born to a bad family? That's not abuse of both the parents and the child? Once for them being addicts anyway and dealing with that, and again for allowing them to conceive. He knew the soul, or so the story goes, of that baby before He implanted it in her womb. He knew what would happen and yet he did it all anyway. 

That's not abuse? 

What would you call a person who gets their dog all strung out on heroin and then has it get pregnant knowing the risks of birth defects and other damage if not abuse? 

Or how about having two of your dogs fight? You have sovereign ownership over them, just like God does you, and yet if you arranged it so that they would fight you would go to jail for animal abuse, but God can have wars waged, floods, and plagues but he doesn't get the title of abuser? 

That's some strong denial in there. 

I'm not even saying that having a record of abuse would make him a bad God if he even exists. I'm just saying you have to acknowledge the truth of the relationship before you can try to sell me on the pretty pictures.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 8, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I think this is where I would disagree a little bit. The bible is clear that to follow Christ will entail some hard times, but the good times, at least in my own personal experience and those around me, far outweigh the times of suffering. People have no trouble with the old saying "what doesn't kill you just makes you stronger" and every other motivational poster on the break room wall, but when a Christian suffers, all of a sudden it's evidence of a masochistic God.


My question is if there was no promise of return on your investment would one still find it worth it. Note Welders response to Striperr it was the return on the investment of suffering that made the suffering worthwhile. I hear the same thing all the time. Take away the return and I wonder how many people would still be willing to invest. And of course that would be an indication of the real reason some believe.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> My question is if there was no promise of return on your investment would one still find it worth it. Note Welders response to Striperr it was the return on the investment of suffering that made the suffering worthwhile. I hear the same thing all the time. Take away the return and I wonder how many people would still be willing to invest. And of course that would be an indication of the real reason some believe.



Yeah, it's a tough concept to step out of bad things happening for a greater reason, or because of a reward. Randomness and responsibility for your own decisions is scary stuff. Not saying that faithful people aren't responsible, just that it's easier to say that God made me the way I am so I did X to be true to that than it is to face your own weakness with no hand up but your own.


----------



## smokey30725 (Jul 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> My question is if there was no promise of return on your investment would one still find it worth it. Note Welders response to Striperr it was the return on the investment of suffering that made the suffering worthwhile. I hear the same thing all the time. Take away the return and I wonder how many people would still be willing to invest. And of course that would be an indication of the real reason some believe.



You make a good point. The return on the investment for the believer is an eternity free of the problems of our earthly existence. I can't really address the no promise of return question because, in my belief system, it doesn't exist. There are but two possibilities, one being good and the other very bad. Yes, the selling factor for believers is a guarantee to avoid Hades (won't let me type the other name). That alone, at least to me, is well worth the price of admission. Since life brings with it suffering for both the believer and the non-believer, I prefer to know that at least there is a reward at the end and not just a void after death.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 8, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> You make a good point. The return on the investment for the believer is an eternity free of the problems of our earthly existence. I can't really address the no promise of return question because, in my belief system, it doesn't exist. There are but two possibilities, one being good and the other very bad. Yes, the selling factor for believers is a guarantee to avoid Hades (won't let me type the other name). That alone, at least to me, is well worth the price of admission. Since life brings with it suffering for both the believer and the non-believer, *I prefer to know that at least there is a reward at the end and not just a void after death*.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> My question is if there was no promise of return on your investment would one still find it worth it. Note Welders response to Striperr it was the return on the investment of suffering that made the suffering worthwhile. I hear the same thing all the time. Take away the return and I wonder how many people would still be willing to invest. And of course that would be an indication of the real reason some believe.



My original point, and it still is, that many people think they are entitled to rewards for living "Godly" in THIS life.God never promised this life would be easy or even good physically.Actually He said "yea and all that will live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution"

This life may be nothing but affliction and persecution,and it's not an "investment" of ours but of Him.We are His investment because He paid a very high price for us.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> My original point, and it still is, that many people think they are entitled to rewards for living "Godly" in THIS life.God never promised this life would be easy or even good physically.Actually He said "yea and all that will live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution"
> 
> This life may be nothing but affliction and persecution,and it's not an "investment" of ours but of Him.We are His investment because He paid a very high price for us.QUOTE]
> Yes Im sure thats how you look at it. You've been indoctrinated to believe you owe him something (your worship).
> ...


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 8, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> You make a good point. The return on the investment for the believer is an eternity free of the problems of our earthly existence. I can't really address the no promise of return question because, in my belief system, it doesn't exist. There are but two possibilities, one being good and the other very bad. Yes, the selling factor for believers is a guarantee to avoid Hades (won't let me type the other name). That alone, at least to me, is well worth the price of admission. Since life brings with it suffering for both the believer and the non-believer, I prefer to know that at least there is a reward at the end and not just a void after death.


Sure and of course I know you cant answer my question because its hypothetical.
And I almost feel guilty for saying this as my intention is not to back you in a corner but maybe just give it some thought without answering -


> Yes, the selling factor for believers is a guarantee to avoid Hades





> to know that at least there is a reward at the end and not just a void after death.


So which end of the scales would those two statements be tipping toward? -
The worshipping God end or the worshipping fear end?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> > My original point, and it still is, that many people think they are entitled to rewards for living "Godly" in THIS life.God never promised this life would be easy or even good physically.Actually He said "yea and all that will live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution"
> ...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You have a valid point.There is a sort of investment we make.But still it's not for this life.
> Matt.6:19-21 tells us this:
> "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth where moth and rust doth corrupt and where thieves break through and steal; But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and thieves do not break through and steal.
> For where your treasure is, there will your *heart* be also.



Just not literally.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 8, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Just not literally.



Give you a hint...Jesus is the treasure.

And yes, He's literal.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Give you a hint...Jesus is the treasure.
> 
> And yes, He's literal.



I'll give you a hint, you don't have a heart, a blood pumping organ, in your soul.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 8, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'll give you a hint, you don't have a heart, a blood pumping organ, in your soul.



Oops.I didn't realize that you put "heart" in bold letters.

Disregard my last post.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Oops.I didn't realize that you put "heart" in bold letters.
> 
> Disregard my last post.



It's okay, I was teasing. But that is one of the oft used metaphors that keep the Bible from being 100% literal. Yeah, we all know it means soul because that's where the authors thought the soul resided at the time (not that we know any better now) but it keeps those passages at least squarely in the realm of metaphor, if we don't want it ending up in anatomical error-land.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 8, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's okay, I was teasing. But that is one of the oft used metaphors that keep the Bible from being 100% literal. Yeah, we all know it means soul because that's where the authors thought the soul resided at the time (not that we know any better now) but it keeps those passages at least squarely in the realm of metaphor, if we don't want it ending up in anatomical error-land.



As you say, no worries.

and

Serenity now


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> As you say, no worries.
> 
> and
> 
> Serenity now



Serenity soon, as in after work. I'm heading out tonight. I've had a fever all week and haven't been able to get my cure...


----------



## welderguy (Jul 8, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Serenity soon, as in after work. I'm heading out tonight. I've had a fever all week and haven't been able to get my cure...



Post pics


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Post pics



If I get anything I will. I may post sunset pics only if I skunk. We'll see how it all looks


----------



## smokey30725 (Jul 8, 2015)

_So which end of the scales would those two statements be tipping toward? -
The worshipping God end or the worshipping fear end? 
_

For me as a believer, I find a balance between the 2. The bible says that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. I don't interpret that as a knee-knocking, constant fear of a lightning bolt up the hiney fear, but more of an awe-inspired respect of the creator of all things. As a child of God, I know that my commitment to Him allows me to avoid an eternity of torment, and for that I can never be thankful enough. The desire to constantly learn more and have a deeper understanding of His ways is what drives me more than a panic-inducing fear.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 8, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> _So which end of the scales would those two statements be tipping toward? -
> The worshipping God end or the worshipping fear end?
> _
> 
> For me as a believer, I find a balance between the 2. The bible says that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. *I don't interpret that *as a knee-knocking, constant fear of a lightning bolt up the hiney fear, but more of an awe-inspired respect of the creator of all things. As a child of God, I know that my commitment to Him allows me to avoid an eternity of torment, and for that I can never be thankful enough. The desire to constantly learn more and have a deeper understanding of His ways is what drives me more than a panic-inducing fear.



You may not, but others might, and who's to say who is right?

Google says:



> noun
> noun: fear; plural noun: fears
> 
> 1.
> an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.



Danger, pain, and threats don't sound anything but foreboding to me.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 8, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Serenity soon, as in after work. I'm heading out tonight. I've had a fever all week and haven't been able to get my cure...





IN CASE YOU NEED THE WHOLE THING:

 <p>need more cowbell from nicemusicltd on Vimeo.</p>


----------



## smokey30725 (Jul 8, 2015)

ambush80 said:


>



you beat me to it! one of the best skits ever!


----------



## smokey30725 (Jul 8, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You may not, but others might, and who's to say who is right?
> 
> Google says:
> 
> ...



I see your point, but I personally interpret the "fear" mentioned in the bible as the below definition:

Psalm 119:120 "My flesh trembles in fear of you; I stand in awe of your laws." This verse sums up a good understanding of the fear of the Lord. Notice that my flesh trembles in fear of God, and rightly it should, since the presence of the Lord is the death of the fleshly nature, though it is a gradual death that comes with each obedience to the Holy Spirit. My inner man, the Christ in me, the real me, stands in holy awe of God. The Christ in me, the real me, is not trembling in fear of God but standing in awe. The natural, fallen, man is certainly in morbid fear of God. 
Fear of God is a combination of awe, fear that one may have in the presence of an angel, deep reverence, honor, and respect. 
In the Bible, the word, fear, can also mean a destructive fear, as of the fear of men or events. This is the kind of fear that love casts out and the kind of fear that is a snare.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 8, 2015)

Two issues:

1.)  The un-elect will suffer eternity in He11 regardless of how good (Godly) they were.

2.)  Any one of us would "sacrifice" themselves as Jesus did to save the world if we were going to be resurrected in three days and fly up into Heaven. (Did Jesus know that He would be resurrected?)


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 8, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> you beat me to it! one of the best skits ever!



some of his best work:


----------



## rmp (Jul 8, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Two issues:
> 
> 1.)  The un-elect will suffer eternity in He11 regardless of how good (Godly) they were.
> 
> 2.)  Any one of us would "sacrifice" themselves as Jesus did to save the world if we were going to be resurrected in three days and fly up into Heaven. (Did Jesus know that He would be resurrected?)




1) IMO, the references to elect and un-elect is just another method of certain followers believing they are special group while others are not so lucky. Not unlike groups within all religions. 

2) The overwhelming evidence from Scripture would suggest Jesus did know:

Matthew 20:17-19 " And Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples aside along the way, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify Him. And the third day He shall rise again."

Mark 9:30-32 He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise."

John 2:19 Jesus answered, and said to them: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Luke 18:31-33 Then he took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem and everything written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon; and after they have scourged him they will kill him, but on the third day he will rise.”


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 8, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> _So which end of the scales would those two statements be tipping toward? -
> The worshipping God end or the worshipping fear end?
> _
> 
> For me as a believer, I find a balance between the 2. The bible says that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. I don't interpret that as a knee-knocking, constant fear of a lightning bolt up the hiney fear, but more of an awe-inspired respect of the creator of all things. As a child of God, I know that my commitment to Him allows me to avoid an eternity of torment, and for that I can never be thankful enough. The desire to constantly learn more and have a deeper understanding of His ways is what drives me more than a panic-inducing fear.


And I should clarify where Im coming from -
While I wont argue whether there is or is not God(s), the Christian one in this case, I am convinced the Bible was produced by man, man inspired and self serving in that the goal was/is power, money, control and dominance. 
It is intentionally written to make you believe -


> As a child of God, I know that my commitment to Him allows me to avoid an eternity of torment, and for that I can never be thankful enough.


I wanted to clarify that because Im not questioning your belief, Im questioning the "behind the scene" reasons of why people believe.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 8, 2015)

rmp said:


> 1) IMO, the references to elect and un-elect is just another method of certain followers believing they are special group while others are not so lucky. Not unlike groups within all religions.
> 
> 2) The overwhelming evidence from Scripture would suggest Jesus did know:
> 
> ...


Yes.
This goes back to post #296 where I asked -


> Looking from a different angle, he paid no price whatsoever.
> Tell me what an omni-everything god who created all and controls all can lose?


I never got an answer though.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 8, 2015)

WALTL1 said:


> Looking from a different angle he paid no price whatsoever.Tell me what an omni-everything god who created all and controls all can lose?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> WALTL1 said:
> 
> 
> > Looking from a different angle he paid no price whatsoever.Tell me what an omni-everything god who created all and controls all can lose?
> ...


----------



## rmp (Jul 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> But He had to endure death and sin and the forsaking of His Father to accomplish it.



I don't see the big deal.
People have to endure death everyday. Often in much more painful and torturous ways. They don't have the luxury of bouncing back, good as new, in three days. 

If everyone KNEW they'd be as new in three days no matter the circumstances, very few would be praying for food, water, healing of cancer and all sorts of other diseases, safe travels every time they stepped in a vehicle, etc,etc,etc.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 9, 2015)

rmp said:


> I don't see the big deal.
> People have to endure death everyday. Often in much more painful and torturous ways. They don't have the luxury of bouncing back, good as new, in three days.
> 
> If everyone KNEW they'd be as new in three days no matter the circumstances, very few would be praying for food, water, healing of cancer and all sorts of other diseases, safe travels every time they stepped in a vehicle, etc,etc,etc.



Jesus became sin, who knew no sin.I think that's the part you're missing.He took upon Himself all the sins of His people and the guilt AND the consequences of them.Anyone can die, like you said, but we don't have a clue about what it took to bear all that guilt before a holy God.It was no small thing, that's for certain.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 9, 2015)

It was never about physical death. This is explained in the video I posted about Adam not being the first human, but he was the first human to enter into covenant with God. Adam was going to die, even had he not disobeyed God.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Jesus became sin, who knew no sin.I think that's the part you're missing.He took upon Himself all the sins of His people and the guilt AND the consequences of them.Anyone can die, like you said, but we don't have a clue about what it took to bare all that guilt before a holy God.It was no small thing, that's for certain.


uhhh......


> we don't have a clue





> that's for certain.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> uhhh......



Cut n paste out of context. That's a foul ball.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> IN CASE YOU NEED THE WHOLE THING:
> 
> <p>need more cowbell from nicemusicltd on Vimeo.</p>



Cowbell is all well and good, but it doesn't hold a candle to boat time. 

Even if I did skunk.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 9, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I see your point, but I personally interpret the "fear" mentioned in the bible as the below definition:
> 
> Psalm 119:120 "My flesh trembles in fear of you; I stand in awe of your laws." This verse sums up a good understanding of the fear of the Lord. Notice that my flesh trembles in fear of God, and rightly it should, since the presence of the Lord is the death of the fleshly nature, though it is a gradual death that comes with each obedience to the Holy Spirit. My inner man, the Christ in me, the real me, stands in holy awe of God. The Christ in me, the real me, is not trembling in fear of God but standing in awe. The natural, fallen, man is certainly in morbid fear of God.
> Fear of God is a combination of awe, fear that one may have in the presence of an angel, deep reverence, honor, and respect.
> In the Bible, the word, fear, can also mean a destructive fear, as of the fear of men or events. This is the kind of fear that love casts out and the kind of fear that is a snare.



Again, that's interpretation, and one, I suspect, of a multitude. 

I see no mention of any other construct, spirit, or spark, in that passage. 

I see references to the author, I and My, and I see references to his physical state at the time. His flesh trembles in fear, but he is still awed. 

Awe does not have to replace fear, nor fear replace awe. You can experience both at the same time.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Cut n paste out of context. That's a foul ball.





> but we don't have a clue about what it took to bare all that guilt before a holy God.





> It was no small thing, that's for certain.



If we dont have a clue what it took to bare all that guilt you therefore can not be certain that it was no small thing.
To be certain of something would require at least a or some overhwelming evidence or clue(s).

I think you have become desensitized to contradiction (at least when it comes to this subject).
Would explain why you make the claim that there is no contradiction in the Bible even when we lay it out in front of you.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If we dont have a clue what it took to bare all that guilt you therefore can not be certain that it was no small thing.
> To be certain of something would require at least a or some overhwelming evidence or clue(s).
> 
> I think you have become desensitized to contradiction (at least when it comes to this subject).
> Would explain why you make the claim that there is no contradiction in the Bible even when we lay it out in front of you.



We don't have a clue because it was so enormous.And that's why I said it was no small thing.No contradiction there that I see.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> We don't have a clue because it was so enormous.And that's why I said it was no small thing.No contradiction there that I see.


Oh ok.
My fault for not realizing what you meant was different from what you said.

So this is another one of those "we just cant understand it" things right?


----------



## rmp (Jul 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Jesus became sin, who knew no sin.I think that's the part you're missing.He took upon Himself all the sins of His people and the guilt AND the consequences of them.Anyone can die, like you said, but we don't have a clue about what it took to bare all that guilt before a holy God.It was no small thing, that's for certain.




Bare all the guilt before himself?

If he really conquered sin on the cross, why do people still sin?

Why didn't he go to he!! if he paid this ultimate sacrifice for all? Punishment in your stead? 

Even so, as illogical as the story goes, he is the one who allowed sin to exist in the first place. Either he is the creator of everything or he is not. A hero for saving you from the he!! he created.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Oh ok.
> My fault for not realizing what you meant was different from what you said.
> 
> So this is another one of those "we just cant understand it" things right?



Now we see through a glass darkly.
Our understanding is limited by our finite minds.He gives us glimpses of His glory and majesty through eyes of faith.One day, hopefully soon, we'll have perfect understanding of all of it.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 9, 2015)

rmp said:


> Bare all the guilt before himself?
> 
> If he really conquered sin on the cross, why do people still sin?
> 
> ...




All this is explained in the video I posted about Adam not first human.

I see an argument here against a false premise, so it's going nowhere.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Now we see through a glass darkly.
> Our understanding is limited by our finite minds.He gives us glimpses of His glory and majesty through eyes of faith.One day, hopefully soon, we'll have perfect understanding of all of it.


Sometimes you remind me of the new Tech Support people at the software company I used to work for.
No idea of the why or how, just reading the prepared answers out of the manual.


----------



## rmp (Jul 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> All this is explained in the video I posted about Adam not first human.
> 
> I see an argument here against a false premise, so it's going nowhere.



I know the bible quite well and yet now we have to reference a video for full understanding? Better thank jesus someone invented youtube.

I'll be sure to check it out.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 9, 2015)

rmp said:


> I know the bible quite well and yet now we have to reference a video for full understanding? Better thank jesus someone invented youtube.
> 
> I'll be sure to check it out.



Thanks, it would take a whole bunch of back and forth just to explain my position, so we could have a conversation on it. The video is a bit long for here, but it saves time too.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> All this is explained in the video I posted about Adam not first human.
> 
> I see an argument here against a false premise, so it's going nowhere.



Was Eve not the first woman?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Was Eve not the first woman?



First in covenant, not in world.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 10, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Thanks, it would take a whole bunch of back and forth just to explain my position, so we could have a conversation on it. The video is a bit long for here, but it saves time too.


I watched the video.
Not much I can say other than its just another interpretation seemingly backed up by scripture. As are pretty much all interpretations.
Might be completely accurate. Might be way off.
One thing is for sure is that if its accurate, a large portion of Christians have got the story all wrong.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 10, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I watched the video.
> Not much I can say other than its just another interpretation seemingly backed up by scripture. As are pretty much all interpretations.
> Might be completely accurate. Might be way off.
> One thing is for sure is that if its accurate, a large portion of Christians have got the story all wrong.



 Thanks Walt. I agree it is another way of interpretation. It doesn't leave the believer making ridiculous statements like the earth is only 6,000 year's old and a flood came and killed all man and animals world wide for the exception of one family and two of each animal..a little over 3,ooo years ago....and the only way I can explain the circumstances is faith..

 I think it is correct and it's a growing interpretation. It is not subject to the critical questions by skeptics using geology and world history, it's only subject to the one thing you brought up; it's still the bible, and whether or not we should believe the bible is accurate. Oh, and yes Christians have been wrong about things for a long time, or there would be no denominations, there would have never been a reformation. Darby which is mentioned in the video is the father of modern day Christian confusion, creating the "rapture" theory and insisting on a literal interpretation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 10, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Thanks Walt. I agree it is another way of interpretation. It doesn't leave the believer making ridiculous statements like the earth is only 6,000 year's old and a flood came and killed all man and animals world wide for the exception of one family and two of each animal..a little over 3,ooo years ago....and the only way I can explain the circumstances is faith..
> 
> I think it is correct and it's a growing interpretation. It is not subject to the critical questions by skeptics using geology and world history, it's only subject to the one thing you brought up; it's still the bible, and whether or not we should believe the bible is accurate. Oh, and yes Christians have been wrong about things for a long time, or there would be no denominations, there would have never been a reformation. Darby which is mentioned in the video is the father of modern day Christian confusion, creating the "rapture" theory and insisting on a literal interpretation.





> It doesn't leave the believer making ridiculous statements like the earth is only 6,000 year's old and a flood came and killed all man and animals world wide for the exception of one family and two of each animal..a little over 3,ooo years ago....and the only way I can explain the circumstances is faith..


Yes I will say there were several things that would line up more with "common sense". Particularly the view that things took place locally as opposed to world wide and the existence of humans prior to Adam and Eve.
But just my opinion here -
I dont think the accuracy of the story makes all that much difference to the average Christian.
As long as there is God in the story and they believe they go to Heaven the rest is just filler.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2015)

The claims and stories in the Bible do not match up with the history of the planet. Our DNA absolutely does not trace back to 8 people who survived a worldwide flood. Period. Our DNA does trace back to a few thousand people that lived about 75,000 years ago who survived one of the biggest disasters on the planet. All these biblical stories are just that. Legend and folklore added on to local events. While all these things took place in the stories that are contained in few thousand square miles of the Middle East, the rest of the world went on as if nothing happened and that it because most of it never happened and what little that did had absolutely no effect on the rest of the planet. These gods exist nowhere but in the minds.
A billion species have walked the Earth and 99.9% of them are now extinct. Our time is limited. Don't waste your time following nonsensical boogeymen. Life is short, live.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> The claims and stories in the Bible do not match up with the history of the planet. Our DNA absolutely does not trace back to 8 people who survived a worldwide flood. Period. Our DNA does trace back to a few thousand people that lived about 75,000 years ago who survived one of the biggest disasters on the planet. All these biblical stories are just that. Legend and folklore added on to local events. While all these things took place in the stories that are contained in few thousand square miles of the Middle East, the rest of the world went on as if nothing happened and that it because most of it never happened and what little that did had absolutely no effect on the rest of the planet. These gods exist nowhere but in the minds.
> A billion species have walked the Earth and 99.9% of them are now extinct. Our time is limited. Don't waste your time following nonsensical boogeymen. Life is short, live.



I can accept what you say about DNA and man's history, and still believe every word of the Bible. The difference is the outcome, life here is short, Christ offers eternal life, take it while you can.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I can accept what you say about DNA and man's history, and still believe every word of the Bible. The difference is the outcome, life here is short, Christ offers eternal life, take it while you can.


Humans have been dying for hundreds of thousands of years before some charismatic guy in the Middle East gained some followers.
All those people that died before the stories of Christ didn't need him and neither do I.
All those stories in the bible are full of fabrication and the ones that include Joshua the Nazerine are no different. He wasn't known as Jesus Christ until organized religion gave him that name much later. 
It is your choice to believe every word of the Bible but that does not and will not make the Bible accurate or true.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 12, 2015)

Jesus said

"No man can come to me except the Father,which hath sent me,draw him.And I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Humans have been dying for hundreds of thousands of years before some charismatic guy in the Middle East gained some followers.
> All those people that died before the stories of Christ didn't need him and neither do I.
> All those stories in the bible are full of fabrication and the ones that include Joshua the Nazerine are no different. He wasn't known as Jesus Christ until organized religion gave him that name much later.
> It is your choice to believe every word of the Bible but that does not and will not make the Bible accurate or true.



You're right about one thing. My trust in the Bible doesn't make it true. But Its truth is much more evident than the lies people lay against it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Jesus said
> 
> "No man can come to me except the Father,which hath sent me,draw him.And I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44


MAYBE a guy named Yeshua said that.

But I DO have some Foghorn originals if you want keep posting fabricated nonsense.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> You're right about one thing. My trust in the Bible doesn't make it true. But Its truth is much more evident than the lies people lay against it.



Like Clara Peller I also want to know "Where's the Beef"?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> MAYBE a guy named Yeshua said that.
> 
> But I DO have some Foghorn originals if you want keep posting fabricated nonsense.



You missed my point.
Hobbs told you to take eternal life while you can.But there's a slight problem. You cannot come to Jesus unless the Father draws you.
I'm just trying to be straight up with you.

Now if He's drawing you, then that's another thing entirely.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You missed my point.
> Hobbs told you to take eternal life while you can.But there's a slight problem. You cannot come to Jesus unless the Father draws you.
> I'm just trying to be straight up with you.
> 
> Now if He's drawing you, then that's another thing entirely.


You missed my point from day one or else you would not STILL be quoting these passages and acting as if you have experienced any of it and know it is true.
Enjoy your beliefs among yourself but please stop trying to pretend you know one iota more than I do about a god.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> You missed my point from day one or else you would not STILL be quoting these passages and acting as if you have experienced any of it and know it is true.
> Enjoy your beliefs among yourself but please stop trying to pretend you know one iota more than I do about a god.



I say,I say, I say boy...them there apologeticals are always apologizin about them there scriptures, but I say, they ain't sorry about it at all boy.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You missed my point.
> Hobbs told you to take eternal life while you can.But there's a slight problem. You cannot come to Jesus unless the Father draws you.
> I'm just trying to be straight up with you.
> 
> Now if He's drawing you, then that's another thing entirely.


 
This is true, but do you believe someone would have as much disdain for God if they didn't have just an ounce of faith, and some drawing?
 This reminds me of Lt. Dans fight with God on the ship during the storm( Forrest Gump).


----------



## welderguy (Jul 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> This is true, but do you believe someone would have as much disdain for God if they didn't have just an ounce of faith, and some drawing?
> This reminds me of Lt. Dans fight with God on the ship during the storm( Forrest Gump).



I believe if he had even an ounce of faith and the drawing power of God, he would NOT hate God and His Word like he does.

Reminds me of Saul of tarsus before the Lord got a hold of him.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I believe if he had even an ounce of faith and the drawing power of God, he would NOT hate God and His Word like he does.
> 
> Reminds me of Saul of tarsus before the Lord got a hold of him.


 
 That may be, but if I had no faith at all in something, it wouldn't bother me so. If I didn't have a drawing to something I wouldn't have the urge to fight it. That's all Im saying.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> That may be, but if I had no faith at all in something, it wouldn't bother me so. If I didn't have a drawing to something I wouldn't have the urge to fight it. That's all Im saying.



I think you may be underestimating the drawing power of God.

But, for his sake, and primarily for God's glory's sake, I sincerely hope you're correct.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I say,I say, I say boy...them there apologeticals are always apologizin about them there scriptures, but I say, they ain't sorry about it at all boy.


Apologetics explains scripture not quotes it  as explanation. An apologist has a unique skill.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> That may be, but if I had no faith at all in something, it wouldn't bother me so. If I didn't have a drawing to something I wouldn't have the urge to fight it. That's all Im saying.


Being that your god is the main focal point in here I have no other choice  than to talk about it.
But I can make the same cases against the tens of thousands of other things people worship.  It does not mean I need to have faith in them to discuss them.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I believe if he had even an ounce of faith and the drawing power of God, he would NOT hate God and His Word like he does.
> 
> Reminds me of Saul of tarsus before the Lord got a hold of him.



Saul of tarsus.....yeah I had heat stroke once also.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Being that your
> God is the main focal point in here I have no other choice than to talk about it..


 
 You are forced to be here and talk about God? I'm not buying that.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> You are forced to be here and talk about God? I'm not buying that.


No. I enjoy being here. It just so happens that the god of the bible is the main talking point so that is why I talk about that specific god more than others. It does not have a thing to do with faith. I can talk pro/con on just about anything.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Saul of tarsus.....yeah I had heat stroke once also.



You can call it heat stroke if you want, but the drastic change in the man's life was undeniable.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You can call it heat stroke if you want, but the drastic change in the man's life was undeniable.



Outside of the bible I do not know anything about Saul or Paul. I only know his character inside the bible.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2015)

This guy?
Saul (Roman cognomen was Paul), whose real name was probably Nethanel (Dositheus) was born to the wealthy Jewish Sarmatian High Priest line in exile of the Tribe of Menasheh (Manasseh) living in Tarsus in Cilicia (Turkey) -born a year after the birth of John the Baptist.

The ancestors of Saul included several infamous High Priests and claimed royal heritage to the Messiah line as a sub-branch of the House of Joseph.

As part of the Kingdom of Israel, the territory of Menasheh was conquered by the Great Assyrian King Solomon Šulmanu-ašarid V (727 -722 BCE) and many were killed, taken as slaves or exiled.

During this period, the ancestors of Saul developed a unique version of Judaism, which blended the occult and demonic gods of the Assyrians and Judaic beliefs to form the basis of the duality of Sadduceean mind.

During the Hellenistic period following Alexander the Great, the ancestors of Saul helped form the Sebastaea faction in favour of Greek customs. Around 245-240 the High Priest of Israel was Manasseh- a name clearly identifying the tribe in opposition to the Egyptian High Priests of Yeb (Elephantine Island)- the Onias Line.

When Manasseh was deposed, he built the Sarmatian Temple at Mount Gerizim, replacing the previous Temple, presumably with some of fortune generated whilst High Priest of Israel.

Saul is also related through to the Manasseh (known as Menelaus), High Priest of Mount Gerizim (Samaritans) and High Priest of Israel 172-162 BCE who is infamously supposed to have alerted the Assyrians to the wealth hidden in the bowels of the Temple.

This event has enormous political and social implications both for the priestly family of Saul (Paul of Tarsus) and the Sarmatians for when John Hyrcanus was in power, he beseiged Mount Gerizim and utterly destroyed the Temple and township of Shechem of 15,000 people to the ground.

To add insult to injury in 31 BCE, the Roman commander Octavian gave Sarmara to the new king of Judaea, Herod the Great. When Octavian changed his name into Augustus, Herod changed Sarmara 's name into Sebaste (the Greek form of Augustus).

The refugee High Priests of Sarmara first went first to Antioch and then further north into Turkey as the bitterness and hatred between the Sarmatian Jews and the Babylonian Yehudim (mainstream Jews) continued. These events explain why the priestly family of Saul found themselves exiled from their Sarmatian lands during the reign of the Hasmoneans and Herods, only returning under the later Roman reign of the Iudea province.

The acceptance of Saul as a student of Gamaliel the Elder at his famous school in Jerusalem indicates two things:

(1) Firstly, that the name Saul is not his true birthname, but a title he applied to himself later. Such a name midst the Pharisees, especially Gamaliel would have automatically disqualified him from entry as such a name was reserved for the first Messiah King and no priestly families, nor royal families had ever named their children Saul as a result; and

(2) Some alliance between the Sarmatian High Priests in exile and the Pharisee movement of the House of Hillel must have occurred for Saul to have been accepted- a significant event considering the past hundred years of conflict and the fundamental antipathy between the Pharisee position and the Sarmatian position.

Since the destruction of the Sarmatian temple on Mount Gerizim, the Sarmatians priests had prophecized of a coming messiah that would save them, rebuilt the temple and restrore their "rightful place" as spiritual leaders of the Israelites.

Nethanel (Dositheus) took up this prophecy and started to claim himself as the not only the messiah foretold of the Sarmatians, but the messiah of all Jews. There is strong historical evidence to suggest this occured at the same time as the ministry of Jesus.

As a full Roman citizen like Jesus, the Jewish authorities were powerless to act against him and in the year 36 CE he was arrested by Pontius Pilate known in history as Barabbus - which simply means "son of the father".

In the famous episode with Pontius Pilate and the choosing of Jesus versus "Barabbus"- a choice between two Messiahs, it was Saul (Paul of Tarsus) as Barabbus who was freed and promptly sent into exile in Damascus.

Around 43/44, High Priest Ananias travelled to Damascus to see Nethanel (Dositheus) to request his assistance in eliminating the Nazarenes. Nethanel agreed and by 49/50 had changed his name again to "Saul" as the first.

As the founder and author of the synoptic gospels, Saul (Paul) synthesized a new religion based on the hatred of the mainstream Jews with himself representing equal status with Jesus as the messenger to the world. He travelled around the ancient world with his son Joseph, also known as Barnabus which means "son of the prophecy".

After the public murder of the blood brother of Jesus, James the Just, Saul was arrested and taken to Rome. After deliberately calling for the burning of Rome, he was found guilty for his crimes and executed.

His first religion, Dositheus continued within the Sarmatian community for around one hundred years and his second religion Paulinism found safety in England, Spain and the African coast after his execution.

200 years later, his religion of Paulinism was changed to the name Christianity with a merge with the Boethesians (High Priest version). The alliance never fully worked and the two halves have remained largely separate ever since their formation.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 12, 2015)

HA ! I think you may have the wrong guy....but as Jonathan Goldsmith would say,"stay thirsty my friend."

Oh BTW, what does the word "prophecized" mean?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> HA ! I think you may have the wrong guy....but as Jonathan Goldsmith would say,"stay thirsty my friend."
> 
> Oh BTW, what does the word "prophecized" mean?



It's the right guy.
You can look him up and then look up any word you need to. 
Funny thing is the only thing you can find fault with in the entire article is one word.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> It's the right guy.
> You can look him up and then look up any word you need to.
> Funny thing is the only thing you can find fault with in the entire article is one word.



I did look him up.Acts 22 tells the true version.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The difference is the outcome, life here is short, Christ offers eternal life, take it while you can.



I think we all know that eternal life is not the real reason most folks believe. It is the eternal suffering that keeps them on the hook. 
Whether you believe or not, when you die, all earthly suffering stops.

Find a Bible that was written in every language, even the ones that weren't around yet, from 75 - 80 thousand years ago with no human author to point to and you may be on to something. However, a book written well after the fact, edited and cherry picked by another group of men on what it should contain, well no thanks. Our school history books are evidence of what happens then.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

660griz said:


> I think we all know that eternal life is not the real reason most folks believe. It is the eternal suffering that keeps them on the hook.
> Whether you believe or not, when you die, all earthly suffering stops.
> 
> Find a Bible that was written in every language, even the ones that weren't around yet, from 75 - 80 thousand years ago with no human author to point to and you may be on to something. However, a book written well after the fact, edited and cherry picked by another group of men on what it should contain, well no thanks. Our school history books are evidence of what happens then.




I"'ll address your first point. The second one is mute to me as I have made it clear Adam was the first covenant man not first human.

Go through the Epistles and find me one place where the Apostles preached eternal suffering. They didn't! Christianity was built on the promise of eternal life. That's the good news! 

You may want to go back and read John 3:16 one more time.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I"'ll address your first point. The second one is mute to me as I have made it clear Adam was the first covenant man not first human.
> 
> Go through the Epistles and find me one place where the Apostles preached eternal suffering. They didn't! Christianity was built on the promise of eternal life. That's the good news!
> 
> You may want to go back and read John 3:16 one more time.



Without the rod what good is the carrot?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I did look him up.Acts 22 tells the true version.



Good 'ol Paul writing his own highlight reel. All true of course. ...


----------



## 660griz (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Go through the Epistles and find me one place where the Apostles preached eternal suffering. They didn't!



How specific of you. 

Mathew 25:46  "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."



hobbs27 said:


> I"'ll address your first point. The second one is mute to me as I have made it clear Adam was the first covenant man not first human.


That was not my point. My point was in relation to the Bible. When and by whom it was written.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I"'ll address your first point. The second one is mute to me as I have made it clear Adam was the first covenant man not first human.
> 
> Go through the Epistles and find me one place where the Apostles preached eternal suffering. They didn't! Christianity was built on the promise of eternal life. That's the good news!
> 
> You may want to go back and read John 3:16 one more time.


Did any of those same Apostles ever really call Yeshua Jesus?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Go through the Epistles and find me one place where the Apostles preached eternal suffering./QUOTE]
> 
> 2 Thess.1:7-10
> 
> Keywords: vengeance, punished, everlasting destruction


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

660griz said:


> How specific of you.
> 
> Mathew 25:46  "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."



Life being the difference. The death penalty is an eternal punishment. Cast into and consumed by the lake of fire..once and forever gone.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> hobbs27 said:
> 
> 
> > Go through the Epistles and find me one place where the Apostles preached eternal suffering./QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Did any of those same Apostles ever really call Yeshua Jesus?



What difference does that make?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Life being the difference. The death penalty is an eternal punishment. Cast into and consumed by the lake of fire..once and forever gone.



Did they preach eternal suffering or not? Wasn't Matthew an apostle?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> > The vengeance was on Jerusalem, and she did burn in flaming fire and it was an everlasting destruction in that old covenant system is gone and never to return.
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> What difference does that make?


Maybe none. Probably a lot.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

660griz said:


> Did they preach eternal suffering or not? Wasn't Matthew an apostle?



They did not.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> hobbs27 said:
> 
> 
> > The "who" in vs.9 is referring to the "them" in vs.8, which are people.Not a city and not a covenant system.
> ...


----------



## 660griz (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> They did not.



Explain this then.
Matthew 25:46

 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

This is the second time I have posted this in direct response to you saying the apostles did not preach eternal suffering. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. 

Interpret it your way for us.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

660griz said:


> Explain this then.
> Matthew 25:46
> 
> “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
> ...



The word translated here to ( eternal) in the Greek is aionion. It is also translated as eternal in Hebrews 6:2  concerning judgement. Actually my kjv. I have with me uses the word everlasting. This doesn't mean a judgement that is everlasting in the manner of from that moment to eternity, but one that is irreversible, which is a better word for this verse in Matt. 25.  

Irreversible punishment = death penalty.

The idea of eternal conscious torment was not taught in the first century church, nor in the Jewish age. Ect, came into the church via Pagan belief around 300ad. It's a false doctrine.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The word translated here to ( eternal) in the Greek is aionion. It is also translated as eternal in Hebrews 6:2  concerning judgement. Actually my kjv. I have with me uses the word everlasting. This doesn't mean a judgement that is everlasting in the manner of from that moment to eternity, but one that is irreversible, which is a better word for this verse in Matt. 25.
> 
> Irreversible punishment = death penalty.
> 
> The idea of eternal conscious torment was not taught in the first century church, nor in the Jewish age. Ect, came into the church via Pagan belief around 300ad. It's a false doctrine.



What's the difference between eternal and irreversible? 

Something that can not be changed is eternal.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What's the difference between eternal and irreversible?
> 
> Something that can not be changed is eternal.



The punishment part..Are you punished constantly without stop for eternity or are you punished to death which is irreversible.

I know eternal or everlasting will work in this verse. The problem comes when someone reads it with a presupposed position of ECT.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The punishment part..Are you punished constantly without stop for eternity or are you punished to death which is irreversible.
> 
> I know eternal or everlasting will work in this verse. The problem comes when someone reads it with a presupposed position of ECT.



Once punished, the punishment can't be taken back. 

Like you can't unring the bell, you can't unspank the child. 

The wage of sin, as the story is told, is death, spiritual and physical, and death is kinda permanent.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Once punished, the punishment can't be taken back.
> 
> Like you can't unring the bell, you can't unspank the child.
> 
> The wage of sin, as the story is told, is death, spiritual and physical, and death is kinda permanent.




Yes, I would add the wage of sin is spiritual death. That second death , where the unrighteous are cast into the lake of fire and consumed. Just like Sodom and Gomorrah..The fire consumed them.

The righteous have a Savior and is spared the second death ..we have eternal life.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes, I would add the wage of sin is spiritual death. That second death , where the unrighteous are cast into the lake of fire and consumed. Just like Sodom and Gomorrah..The fire consumed them.
> 
> The righteous have a Savior and is spared the second death ..we have eternal life.



A) How are you so sure that you are included in the righteous where others, like welder, might say that you could possibly not be elect and there's no way to tell right now?

B) Wouldn't you agree that second death is just as eternal as the life? So the punishment is eternal as well. Unless there's a way tor redeem yourself from Hades once there...


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> A) How are you so sure that you are included in the righteous where others, like welder, might say that you could possibly not be elect and there's no way to tell right now?



Several reasons. 1 my experience with grace in 1984. 2. Personal relationship. 3. A couple of unexplained miraculous events in my life...unexplained in the physical realm I should say.



> B) Wouldn't you agree that second death is just as eternal as the life? So the punishment is eternal as well. Unless there's a way tor redeem yourself from Hades once there...



Yes the punishment is eternal in the fact that it is forever...but it is not eternally being burned day in and day out as many Christians today suggest.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Several reasons. 1 my experience with grace in 1984. 2. Personal relationship. 3. A couple of unexplained miraculous events in my life...unexplained in the physical realm I should say.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the punishment is eternal in the fact that it is forever...but it is not eternally being burned day in and day out as many Christians today suggest.



Fair enough on the first. 

I don't know if it's not the same thing. You have to carry your scarlet brand for eternity, and if you're a creature that feels guilt, even if you can act in this life around that guilt, that can be worse than the punishment itself. 

If you've ever been whooped by a parent you should know what I'm talking about. Now, imagine being reminded of that whoopin' every waking second of eternity. Which is worse?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 13, 2015)

Matthew 25:41
"Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, `Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons."


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Fair enough on the first.
> 
> I don't know if it's not the same thing. You have to carry your scarlet brand for eternity, and if you're a creature that feels guilt, even if you can act in this life around that guilt, that can be worse than the punishment itself.
> 
> If you've ever been whooped by a parent you should know what I'm talking about. Now, imagine being reminded of that whoopin' every waking second of eternity. Which is worse?



I think we differ on the understanding, maybe I should have stressed the conscious part of eternal conscious torment. I believe when the unrighteous are punished eternally, it is that they persish...cease to be. Are no more. So they don't exist to think about that whooping day in and day out.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

660griz said:


> Matthew 25:41
> "Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, `Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons."



Yes, that fire is eternal. This world is eternal.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I think we differ on the understanding, maybe I should have stressed the conscious part of eternal conscious torment. I believe when the unrighteous are punished eternally, it is that they persish...cease to be. Are no more. So they don't exist to think about that whooping day in and day out.



Is this tied to Jesus being the only way to be righteous?

Are we not all sinners?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Is this tied to Jesus being the only way to be righteous?
> 
> Are we not all sinners?



We are all sinners. The difference is the righteous are covered by the blood of Christ. In other words , our sin is not imputed on us to death. This by no means is a free ticket to sin, we will take beatings for it here, where the unrighteous do not, they are not known, therefore they do not recieve discipline by the Father.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes, that fire is eternal. This world is eternal.



And since cursed ones are in there...

This world is not eternal.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

660griz said:


> And since cursed ones are in there...
> 
> This world is not eternal.



If I throw a dollar bill into an eternally burning fire, can I find that dollar bill in the fire a month later?

According to scripture this world is without end. Ephesians 3:21


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> We are all sinners. The difference is the righteous are covered by the blood of Christ. In other words , our sin is not imputed on us to death. This by no means is a free ticket to sin, we will take beatings for it here, where the unrighteous do not, they are not known, *therefore they do not recieve discipline by the Father*.



Maybe not discipline, but certainly punishment. 



hobbs27 said:


> If I throw a dollar bill into an eternally burning fire, can I find that dollar bill in the fire a month later?
> 
> According to scripture this world is without end. Ephesians 3:21



Is your soul as transitory as a dollar? Your everlasting soul could be tormented by fire for eternity and endure, or so we would be told to believe. Iron is melted by the fire, but not destroyed by it, in short.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 13, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Maybe not discipline, but certainly punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> Is your soul as transitory as a dollar? Your everlasting soul could be tormented by fire for eternity and endure, or so we would be told to believe. Iron is melted by the fire, but not destroyed by it, in short.



I believe the unrighteous soul is consumed.
 I believe along the lines of Edward Fudge which has several YouTube videos and even a movie about him called he!! And Mr. Fudge


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2015)

Matthew stated both eternal fire and eternal punishment. It is pretty clear to me the issue of the Bible speaking of eternal punishment is closed. 

Perhaps eternal punishment doesn't fit with your idea of a kind, loving God, thus the need to find a way to circumvent conventional interpretation. 
That's o.k. Whatever gets you through.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> We are all sinners. The difference is the righteous are covered by the blood of Christ. In other words , our sin is not imputed on us to death. This by no means is a free ticket to sin, we will take beatings for it here, where the unrighteous do not, they are not known, therefore they do not recieve discipline by the Father.



In other words God only punishes Christians on earth and the others get their punishment by receiving everlasting death.

Romans 1:25-26
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 

28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,…

Who were these people who "exchanged" the truth of God for a lie? Who were these individuals God gave over to a depraved mind?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I believe the unrighteous soul is consumed.
> I believe along the lines of Edward Fudge which has several YouTube videos and even a movie about him called he!! And Mr. Fudge



That's still an eternal punishment.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 14, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's still an eternal punishment.



It is an eternal torment. And it says their worm dieth not.They will not be consumed.The smoke of their torment goeth up forever and ever.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It is an eternal torment. And it says their worm dieth not.They will not be consumed.The smoke of their torment goeth up forever and ever.



Two different believers, two different interpretations, and still other believers would have the rest of us believe that they have a bead on a universal truth.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 14, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Two different believers, two different interpretations, and still other believers would have the rest of us believe that they have a bead on a universal truth.



Enlighten us all on what you think it means...or do you just deny it altogether?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Enlighten us all on what you think it means...or do you just deny it altogether?



I haven't seen any reason to accept it.

My belief is that when we die the lights just go out. That's based on my experience when I was told that I was dead, though, so take it for what it's worth.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 14, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I haven't seen any reason to accept it.
> 
> My belief is that when we die the lights just go out. That's based on my experience when I was told that I was dead, though, so take it for what it's worth.



I guess we'll all find out for sure soon enough.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I guess we'll all find out for sure soon enough.



I hope not to. I'm perfectly content in this life, on average.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I guess we'll all find out for sure soon enough.



Or, not.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It is an eternal torment. And it says their worm dieth not.They will not be consumed.The smoke of their torment goeth up forever and ever.



For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

There's two options. Perish vs everlasting life.

Now go argue with God over these options.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I guess we'll all find out for sure soon enough.



Only the elected ones who'll be receiving everlasting life. The alternative to everlasting spiritual life is death.

The fire and the worms are eternal.


----------



## rmp (Jul 14, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Two different believers, two different interpretations, and still other believers would have the rest of us believe that they have a bead on a universal truth.



I believe it was Dan Barker who said "The bible states god is not the author of confusion, yet can you think of anything that has caused more confusion?" Even on ANY moral issue, which are supposedly god given ultimate morals, you have christians on both sides of the argument. 

Everyone just KNOWS they have it right.

According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. This statistic takes into consideration cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries, so there is overlapping of many denominations.
Center for the Study of Global Christianity (2011)


----------



## welderguy (Jul 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
> 
> There's two options. Perish vs everlasting life.
> 
> Now go argue with God over these options.



I'm good with the word "perish".No contradiction I see.

But, you seem to have a problem with the verses I referenced from Rev.14.
Are you implying that they don't fit with John 3:16?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 14, 2015)

rmp said:


> I believe it was Dan Barker who said "The bible states god is not the author of confusion, yet can you think of anything that has caused more confusion?" Even on ANY moral issue, which are supposedly god given ultimate morals, you have christians on both sides of the argument.
> 
> Everyone just KNOWS they have it right.
> 
> ...



It is easier operating under the assumption that you have the right bead on things than the opposite position, so I don't find it unreasonable. I don't even find the idea of wanting to have faith, or wanting to believe, to be unreasonable. If it makes people feel better about the universe and about their own mortality then so be it. 

Where I do start to have a problem is when they let the idea of them having the correct interpretation of it leave their own minds. So long as there are that many denominations, and an untold number of interpretations within them, it's ridiculous to try to hold anyone but you, infinitive you, accountable for your morality, except in a few very finite circumstances like murder and such where someone else is harmed by your action. 

"Moral outrage" doesn't count with me so there must be an actual, provable, victim losing life/limb/or eyesight. But that's just me.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> There's two options. Perish vs everlasting life.
> 
> Now go argue with God over these options.



Can't cause he aint around. However, we can argue about the Bible. It is here. 
There it is, 2 versus where eternal punishment/fire is 'preached'. Now, why do you ignore these and cling to the others?

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

"Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, `Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 14, 2015)

Okay, but he's using the same words as others to back his positions which makes them an interpretation and there's no way to tell, for sure, which one is actually correct.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 14, 2015)

660griz said:


> Can't cause he aint around. However, we can argue about the Bible. It is here.
> There it is, 2 versus where eternal punishment/fire is 'preached'. Now, why do you ignore these and cling to the others?
> 
> “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
> ...



I explained the word "eternal" is better translated " irreversible".
 The death penalty is irreversible once it has been enforced. It is an eternal punishment only in the fact that once it's done, it's done. The person under that punishment is gone forever..Not sitting in a fire burning forever and ever.
 Eternal Concious Torment is not a Christian doctrine. The apostles never taught it. Jesus never taught it, the Jews never taught it. It came into the church via Pagan belief, and is a direct contradiction of John 3:16.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I'm good with the word "perish".No contradiction I see.
> 
> But, you seem to have a problem with the verses I referenced from Rev.14.
> Are you implying that they don't fit with John 3:16?



Rev 14 is not discussing individuals judged to the second death.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Rev 14 is not discussing individuals judged to the second death.



I disagree.

But, this one is so plain, surely we can agree on it:
Rev.20:15
"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I explained the word "eternal" is better translated " irreversible".


 Once again, you are coming up with interpretations that are not found in any of the accepted Bible translations. The only other substitution I have found for eternal was everlasting. Eternal and irreversible are not even close.


> The apostles never taught it.


 See Matthew quotes...again. 





> Jesus never taught it,


 See Matthew quotes. 





> and is a direct contradiction of John 3:16.


The Bible is full of them.

Go to http://www.christianissues.biz/he!!.html
You will have to copy and paste and replace the !! with LL


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I disagree.
> 
> But, this one is so plain, surely we can agree on it:
> Rev.20:15
> "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."



Of course. It's what happens to that individual once they are cast in that we don't agree upon. I'm with John 3:16 that the individual perishes.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 14, 2015)

660griz said:


> Once again, you are coming up with interpretations that are not found in any of the accepted Bible translations. The only other substitution I have found for eternal was everlasting. Eternal and irreversible are not even close.
> See Matthew quotes...again.  See Matthew quotes.
> The Bible is full of them.
> 
> ...



It is found. I think I referenced Hebrews 6:2 earlier as to the translation of this Greek word concerning everlasting..or eternal. In that verse it describes judgement. That is where I get the term irreversible. Ok.
The death penalty is an eternal penalty...it's an everlasting penalty it's an irreversible penalty.

Please, just tell me you understand the point I'm making and disagree, because I'm running out of ways to explain it, it's so simple.

As to the link, I'll check it out, but I have never found a fault in God's word, just man's translation and interpretation.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The death penalty is an eternal penalty...it's an everlasting penalty it's an irreversible penalty.


 Yes, you are eternally dead. No suffering though. 
That doesn't explain the other passages about weeping and gnashing of teeth, God's wrath, etc. 




> Please, just tell me you understand the point I'm making and disagree, because I'm running out of ways to explain it, it's so simple.


 I think I understand the point you are trying to make. Your God would never condone such evil behavior. I commend you on that. However, the evidence is against you. 

Definition of eternal punishment from biblestudytools.com
Eternal Punishment [N]
Divinely instituted penalty of endless suffering, including banishment from God's blessed presence.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 14, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yes, you are eternally dead. No suffering though.
> That doesn't explain the other passages about weeping and gnashing of teeth, God's wrath, etc.
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for understanding my point, although you don't know why I believe that. I started seeing problems with ect a while back as I was learning more about scripture. Mostly as I was Learning more about what the nashing of teeth , cast into gehenna , smoke going up forever, actually meant.

I started a thread upstairs titled ,A challenge. I wanted to see if anyone could show me in the bible where it stated the unrighteous would burn forever, and their scripture had to fit into context and fit the Hebrew or Greek definition.
 There were several attempts, but not a single person could offer a verse or word that went unchallenged. There was one verse that was tough, but if one verse is all you got, I'm going with the many plain verses like John 3:16.

Through my studies while that thread was happening I had to give in to what I had always believed and always been taught, simply because it was not supported in scripture. It really stressed me, so I'm not one that believe s the way I do because I don't think God is capable of it, I'm one that believe s the way I do because God's word says so.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I explained the word "eternal" is better translated " irreversible".
> The death penalty is irreversible once it has been enforced. It is an eternal punishment only in the fact that once it's done, it's done. The person under that punishment is gone forever..Not sitting in a fire burning forever and ever.
> Eternal Concious Torment is not a Christian doctrine. The apostles never taught it. Jesus never taught it, the Jews never taught it. It came into the church via Pagan belief, and is a direct contradiction of John 3:16.





> The apostles never taught it. Jesus never taught it, the Jews never taught it.


Ive read this same thing.
The concept of "he11" played an almost nonexistent role in early Christianity.
While it may come from Pagan belief it was a particular preist who pushed the concept into the mainstream as he found out the doom filled the seats in his church while the "pretty flowers and Heaven" concept didnt.
And it went from there to the mainstream belief it is today.
But it wasnt originally.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 14, 2015)

We also must consider how much of this is literal. Let's consider a lake of fire. What is a lake of fire? Perhaps the fire is eternal as is the maggots at the burning trash dump that would eat what the fire didn't consume. The bodies one could see that didn't make it to the flames. It would paint quite a picture to one who was familiar with a trash dump in days past. We had one such place in my hometown. It was eternal in my  youth and eternal in my mind. There were farm animals in it that were being devoured by maggots. Fires got some of the rubble. 
If one wanted to paint a picture of an eternal, everlasting image of death, it was the the local trash dump of my youth.
The fire and worms were everlasting. The individual death of each wasn't. When one dies without knowing Jesus he is cast into such a place. He will surely perish and die. Knowing Jesus, one receives everlasting life or eternal life. This life is spiritual. Without, one receives the eternal punishment of separation from God in the form of death. 
If He!! were an actual physical place then one would need a physical body to endure this everlasting pain. Spirits don't burn. The dead know nothing. 
It has to be everlasting life or eternal death. 
I wonder if Jesus and his prophets needed a way to picture a place of eternal torment and  everlasting death and knew that everyone like me had this image of the city dump as the best image. I knew that the  hog's maggots never died even though the individual hog did. Soon another hog or horse would be thrown into the dump and consumed by the eternal never dying worms.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 15, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> We also must consider how much of this is literal. Let's consider a lake of fire. What is a lake of fire? Perhaps the fire is eternal as is the maggots at the burning trash dump that would eat what the fire didn't consume. The bodies one could see that didn't make it to the flames. It would paint quite a picture to one who was familiar with a trash dump in days past. We had one such place in my hometown. It was eternal in my  youth and eternal in my mind. There were farm animals in it that were being devoured by maggots. Fires got some of the rubble.
> If one wanted to paint a picture of an eternal, everlasting image of death, it was the the local trash dump of my youth.
> The fire and worms were everlasting. The individual death of each wasn't. When one dies without knowing Jesus he is cast into such a place. He will surely perish and die. Knowing Jesus, one receives everlasting life or eternal life. This life is spiritual. Without, one receives the eternal punishment of separation from God in the form of death.
> If He!! were an actual physical place then one would need a physical body to endure this everlasting pain. Spirits don't burn. The dead know nothing.
> ...



You can do that same "interpretation game" to all the rest of it too.  Including the resurrection.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You can do that same "interpretation game" to all the rest of it too.  Including the resurrection.



That's the wonderful thing about religions.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You can do that same "interpretation game" to all the rest of it too.  Including the resurrection.



It's not a game when you're just seeking truth. It becomes a game when you are seeking to twist the truth...Agree?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 15, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> It's not a game when you're just seeking truth. It becomes a game when you are seeking to twist the truth...Agree?



It is only a game for Christians. 
See the estimated 34000 denominations.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 17, 2015)

660griz said:


> It is only a game for Christians.
> See the estimated 34000 denominations.



Congratulations, you broke the board.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 17, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Congratulations, you broke the board.



 I didn't mean to.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 17, 2015)

660griz said:


> I didn't mean to.



Yes you did. We all know you did. A 2000+ year debate was just settled as a draw.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 17, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yes you did. We all know you did. A 2000+ year debate was just settled as a draw.



Fine. 
I accept this award and would like to thank all those that made it possible...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 17, 2015)

660griz said:


> Fine.
> I accept this award and would like to thank all those that made it possible...



PM hdm03 and see if he can make you one of the awards from his avatar. 

"Presented to 660griz for stopping all traffic on the AAA forum for a solid 2 days..."


----------



## 660griz (Jul 17, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> PM hdm03 and see if he can make you one of the awards from his avatar.
> 
> "Presented to 660griz for stopping all traffic on the AAA forum for a solid 2 days..."



Yea. Then we'll find out there was a 3 day Christian convention in Georgia.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 17, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yea. Then we'll find out there was a 3 day Christian convention in Georgia.



That would explain why the faithful clammed up. The other 2 A's are usually a little more vocal.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 17, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That would explain why the faithful clammed up. The other 2 A's are usually a little more vocal.



True.


----------



## smokey30725 (Jul 17, 2015)

I'm on vacation. I ain't skeered.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 17, 2015)

The conversation resumed upstairs...not that anyone doesnt deserve an award.


----------



## Madman (Jul 21, 2015)

660griz said:


> Can't cause he aint around. However, we can argue about the Bible. It is here.
> There it is, 2 versus where eternal punishment/fire is 'preached'. Now, why do you ignore these and cling to the others?
> 
> “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
> ...



Excellent point Griz, if for no other reason than to point out the problem.
We, human beings, are inclined to "proof text" the Bible or selectively choose quotations when we are trying to prove a point.

We do the same in all walks of life, we pick quotes from good hunters or marksmen, as to the best caliber or proper stance etc., why a certain ball team will be better than another, so this is not new to Christianity.

I believe we fall short when we don't take the entire Bible into consideration in working out our theology.  

Sometimes, portions of our theology force us to view other theological ideas in a certain way so that we can be comfortable in what we already believe.

I believe the idea of "Annihilationism" is forced on some because of other aspects of their theology.


----------



## Madman (Jul 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I heard that yesterday and thought about what it really means.
> 
> I think it means "That could have been me in that car wreck or with cancer or with a child born with half a head, if not for God's grace upon me."
> 
> ...



Usually rubs me wrong too.  

My wife wanted to attend a large Bible study in our area and was told it had already filled up.  One of the leaders told her to "pray that an opening would become available", to which my wife asked.

"If you will not add another opening then what am I to pray for, someone to die or become sick, perhaps move away or have an accident?  It seems like such an odd request to ask of God.  I will just attend another study." 

Don't follow a religion, follow Jesus.  He proclaimed to Pilate, 

"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
John 18:7


----------



## Madman (Jul 21, 2015)

I would wish to add one more thing.  

I do not understand the ways of God but I do understand a couple of things He says in His Word.

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28

And that His will is for my sanctification.  Even when my life seems to be falling out of control, illness, death, et al.
What is in it that will make me better for His glory.  

Tony Snow wrote a great article, I believe the title was "Don't waste your cancer".


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 21, 2015)

Madman said:


> I would wish to add one more thing.
> 
> I do not understand the ways of God but I do understand a couple of things He says in His Word.
> 
> ...



Well then it's just another way to find comfort in a mysterious Universe that sometimes seems cruel or at very least apathetic.  I can't see taking comfort in thinking that "someone" up there has a plan.  In fact it makes me ill to think that someone would make things the way that they are.  

It's hollow to me to simply say "He has a plan for all the suck".  As others have said before, it comes off like a battered wife saying "He hits me because he loves me.   I don't understand it but I know that he loves me.  He said so."


----------



## Madman (Jul 22, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Well then it's just another way to find comfort in a mysterious Universe that sometimes seems cruel or at very least apathetic.



It may be for some.




ambush80 said:


> I can't see taking comfort in thinking that "someone" up there has a plan.



I find no comfort in it either.



ambush80 said:


> In fact it makes me ill to think that someone would make things the way that they are.



I don't believe He made things this way.  In the beginning He made everything very good, but through one man sin entered into creation and He now withholds some of His sustaining power.



ambush80 said:


> It's hollow to me to simply say "He has a plan for all the suck".



His plan is for our sanctification.



ambush80 said:


> As others have said before, it comes off like a battered wife saying "He hits me because he loves me.   I don't understand it but I know that he loves me.  He said so."



There is no parallel in that saying and the Christian belief.
God does not "abuse" me,  sin "abuses" me, a life outside of Him is an "abuse" to me.  He loves me and cares for me.  

Why do you think Jesus would cry at the tomb of Lazarus? It certainly was not because Lazarus was dead, Jesus knew he was going to bring him back to life.  Jesus Wept because this was not what he created, death, disease, pain,  this was not his desire for his 'good' creation, but this is what we have chosen.

I believe a better analogy would be the child who runs away from home, enters into a lifestyle that is exceptionally harmful to his body and soul, then curses his dad because life is not what he wants nor as he thinks it should be.



"Christ did not come into the world to make bad men good, He came to make dead men alive."


----------

