# How supernatural beliefs evolved



## bullethead (Oct 9, 2015)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/origins-religion-supernatural-beliefs-evolved-173454622.html


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 9, 2015)

bullethead said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/news/origins-religion-supernatural-beliefs-evolved-173454622.html



"At the limits of my reason, I get religious thoughts."

I can't remember who said that.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 9, 2015)

bullethead said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/news/origins-religion-supernatural-beliefs-evolved-173454622.html


 

Two good ideas, social cohesion and attributing agency to inanimate objects, but I think something else happens that makes " belief" part of the human experience. I think that the "universal consciousness" is apprehended by some individuals to greater and lesser degrees or some were "called"  and they paid serious attention. 

Good medicine men did not give agency to rains or floods, but used them in stories to sound the hearts of the people they ministered to. It is true however that the "universal consciousness" could be viewed as the agent of the elements--but the elements themselves never had agency for man I suspect.

In the world of marsh and flood plain settlers some were in some places  where it was not wise to build a city. Yet they had religion or religion did not make them wiser. So even the social dimension seems vague as an explanation of the religious in man's world, perhaps. 


People are drawn to " seers",  with motivations independent of social cohesion, in fact sometimes this contact is at odds with it. And the miraculous is only a part, even a small part, of spirituality. Man's need of meaning for the inner and outer world is very strong. Happiness is a strong motivator.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 9, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Two good ideas, social cohesion and attributing agency to inanimate objects, but I think something else happens that makes " belief" part of the human experience. I think that the "universal consciousness" is apprehended by some individuals to greater and lesser degrees or some were "called"  and they paid serious attention.
> 
> Good medicine men did not give agency to rains or floods, but used them in stories to sound the hearts of the people they ministered to. It is true however that the "universal consciousness" could be viewed as the agent of the elements--but the elements themselves never had agency for man I suspect.
> 
> ...



Would you agree that "Seers" might have included the mentally unstable?

I told my wife I wanted to be a shaman.  She said "You can call yourself whatever you want but I won't call you a Shaman til you get paid".


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Would you agree that "Seers" might have included the mentally unstable?



Mental stability is relative in poets, seers and warriors perhaps? A suicidal seer needs a sabbatical sometimes just like anyone else. Sometimes people mistake maniacs for visionaries, prophets and the like. Philosophers are often viewed  as metal tight rope walkers--yet the bi-polar ones, high and low, are the darlings of the lot.

So yes some seers can be mentally unstable just like anyone else. Paranoid and homicidal politicians can be good for the economy, short term.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Would you agree that "Seers" might have included the mentally unstable?
> 
> I told my wife I wanted to be a shaman.  She said "You can call yourself whatever you want but I won't call you a Shaman til you get paid".




That is funny right there. Don't care who you are.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 9, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Mental stability is relative in poets, seers and warriors perhaps? A suicidal seer needs a sabbatical sometimes just like anyone else. Sometimes people mistake maniacs for visionaries, prophets and the like. Philosophers are often viewed  as metal tight rope walkers--yet the bi-polar ones are the darlings of the lot.
> 
> So yes some seers can be mentally unstable just like anyone else.



That's right.  But they shouldn't be given more credit than they deserve.

There's lots of aspergery smart folks.  But they won't all make good leaders, spiritual or otherwise.

It was easier to get people to follow your insanity in the Iron Age.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That's right.  But they shouldn't be given more credit than they deserve.
> 
> There's lots of aspergery smart folks.  But they won't all make good leaders, spiritual or otherwise.
> 
> It was easier to get people to follow your insanity in the Iron Age.



Are you a seer? Reincarnated perhaps? What were the Iron age maidens like?  

My mama told me that during her infancy the insane were locked up in attics, or in a upstairs room it did not matter if they commanded the wind or not. But then, this was not the iron age. 

Why do you know so much about spiritual "leaders" and followers in the Iron Age?

Was it easier for people to follow insanity in the iron age, really? compared to the followers of today? Will people in 200 yrs say it was easier for people t follow insanity in the 20th century compared to today?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 9, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Are you a seer? Reincarnated perhaps? What were the Iron age maidens like?
> 
> My mama told me that during her infancy the insane were locked up in attics, or in a upstairs room it did not matter if they commanded the wind or not. But then, this was not the iron age.
> 
> ...



I have no sense of having been reincarnated.

Sadly, even today, people follow the Seers of the Iron Age.

I can command the wind and rain.  Two weeks ago I did a rain dance because I didn't want to go to work.  I did it too hard and it rained for a week, remember?  I did that.  I'm certain of it.  I did a rain dance and it rained.  Alot.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I have no sense of having been reincarnated.
> 
> Sadly, even today, people follow the Seers of the Iron Age.
> 
> I can command the wind and rain.  Two weeks ago I did a rain dance because I didn't want to go to work.  I did it too hard and it rained for a week, remember?  I did that.  I'm certain of it.  I did a rain dance and it rained.  Alot.



Have you noticed how often you meet someone at an intersection even when there is very little traffic? Why do you always meet a car coming in the other direction in the middle of a sharp curve? Coincidence? Twilight zone?

No but really a real shaman would not say he was the cause of the rain in your case, rather he  would not take any of the credit at all. For a real shaman I suspect dancing is a meditation.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 9, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Have you noticed how often you meet someone at an intersection even when there is very little traffic? Why do you always meet a car coming in the other direction in the middle of a sharp curve? Coincidence? Twilight zone?
> 
> No but really a real shaman would not say he was the cause of the rain in your case, rather he  would not take any of the credit at all. For a real shaman I suspect dancing is a meditation.



Where I live there's always traffic.

What makes you an authority on Shamen?  I know what I felt.  You can't convince me it didn't happen.  You would believe me if you just believed.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Where I live there's always traffic.
> 
> What makes you an authority on Shamen?  I know what I felt.  You can't convince me it didn't happen.  You would believe me if you just believed.



I've talked to only one Shamen in my life. I have talked to a few that thought they might be Shamen, or wished they were Sahmen. So in many decades of life, I have met only one Shamen.

He never says "I know". He never says "You can't." or " you would believe me".

He is trying to find a place for  all his people in the world today. So he mostly talks about them, and nature and his people's way to pray. They are him and he is them when you talk to him. He does not mock fools or the saints of other traditions. His wish is that good should be the lot of all who live on his land. He is also the Chief of his people, so he has a political  and PR role to play. His concept of the land and how to relate to nature and people is somewhat different than for people who settled and settle his land from Europe and other places. He considers these his people, even thought they are not native to the land, simply for the fact they are on his land.  He is a good man.

You on the other hand don't sound at all like this right now.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 9, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I've talked to only one Shamen in my life. I have talked to a few that thought they might be Shamen, or wished they were Sahmen. So in many decades of life, I have met only one Shamen.
> 
> He never says "I know". He never says "You can't." or " you would believe me".
> 
> ...




Would you believe me if I were getting paid?


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Would you believe me if I were getting paid?



Money is not the only vote in the world.  As I suspect that many, many arm chair politicians could never get elected even dog catcher, I suspect that your wife's suggestion of getting pain as proof of your Shamanship was equally in this line of reasoning. I think she perhaps doubts that people would pay for your dancing. ( She might be wrong, but I doubt it.) 

 I would look at who is sharing food with you and who you are sharing it with. And by food I mean not so much food to sustain the body, but food to sustain all the soul ( body and mind.)

In the Lord's Prayer ( a short prayer) it reads "and give us this day our daily bread" I would ask you what is this "daily bread" which sustain's your dancing prayers?

Your answer better be good, don't matter what your followers toss on your plate.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 10, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Money is not the only vote in the world.  As I suspect that many, many arm chair politicians could never get elected even dog catcher, I suspect that your wife's suggestion of getting pain as proof of your Shamanship was equally in this line of reasoning. I think she perhaps doubts that people would pay for your dancing. ( She might be wrong, but I doubt it.)
> 
> I would look at who is sharing food with you and who you are sharing it with. And by food I mean not so much food to sustain the body, but food to sustain all the soul ( body and mind.)
> 
> ...



Just because you want a nice God doesn't mean that that is what God is like.  He may like beheadings.  You don't know.

Besides, what kind of arrogant narcissist would say " I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."?

David Koresh said that and people believed him.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Just because you want a nice God doesn't mean that that is what God is like.  He may like beheadings.  You don't know.
> 
> Besides, what kind of arrogant narcissist would say " I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."?
> 
> David Koresh said that and people believed him.



Just curious. Is your declaration here, your statement, honest?

 This is what I read. Jesus was an arrogant narcissist, because he said or declared similar to what David Koresh said. Both said the same thing, both had followers and both are arrogant narcissist for saying what they said.

Is my understanding correct? 

Also, in all honesty I am not the smartest tack on the cork board and I find myself not a all qualified in apologetic forums. However, can you explain in an other tread or this one perhaps, what the difference between circular logic and linear logic is. I have tried to research it and my brain just does not preform sufficient to assimilate both items independently let alone their differences. 

But again how did you come up with the statement regards arrogant narcissist?

Also I have no intention of personal attacks on anyone. I have noticed that you have a sense of humor  that I enjoy. For example, you said in an other tread, " This forum is the speakeasy for Christians." Now that is funny!!! I might forget that I'm not equally humorous to you or anyone else and in fact perceived as being aggressive or impolite. If this is the case forgive me, it is not my intention.

Now enough of me. On the topic of religion, spiritual leaders, Jesus and David Koresh is your statement on arrogant narcissists honest regardless of the logic type you used to come up with it?

Are you making out that a saint in the case of Jesus is just another sociopath by another name? If you are, for me the price for enjoying your humor is high.  Can you logicalize a little bit on this please?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 16, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Just curious. Is your declaration here, your statement, honest?
> 
> This is what I read. Jesus was an arrogant narcissist, because he said or declared similar to what David Koresh said. Both said the same thing, both had followers and both are arrogant narcissist for saying what they said.
> 
> ...


First not sure where Ambush went? Ambush you out there?
Now if I can jump in on your question to Ambush -


> Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others.


Consider the flood story. It will require you to view it from a "neutral" position.
People did not behave to God's satisfaction -


> an inflated sense of their own importance


In other words they did not worship him -


> a deep need for admiration


So men, women, children, infants and the unborn went for a swim -


> lack of empathy for others


It fits.
Of course the dudes who wrote these stories never imagined it would fit into the future definition of narcissist.



> what the difference between circular logic and linear logic is


Circular -
The Bible is true because the Bible says its true.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> First not sure where Ambush went? Ambush you out there?
> Now if I can jump in on your question to Ambush -
> 
> Consider the flood story. It will require you to view it from a "neutral" position.
> ...



Ah! Thanks. Now I understand better. I guess I'll have to " meditate"  on evil in the world a little more.

Thanks again.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 16, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> ... what the difference between circular logic and linear logic is.



Gordon, here is a statement, by the philosopher who is the lead interviewee for the article in the OP,which, while not identifying it as such, discusses an example of circular logic:

Science is, by its very nature, methodologically natural. That is, it looks for the natural processes that are operative within nature, eschewing anything that smacks of the supernatural. And rightly so: In setting aside supernatural entities and forces in its enquiries into the natural world, science has achieved a remarkably deep understanding of the natural processes involved in nature. But in setting the supernatural aside at the beginning, it cannot reasonably assert that, in the end, it has disproved the supernatural.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-james-clark/god-and-some-scientists_b_5915848.html


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 16, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Gordon, here is a statement, by the philosopher who is the lead interviewee for the article in the OP,which, while not identifying it as such, discusses an example of circular logic:
> 
> Science is, by its very nature, methodologically natural. That is, it looks for the natural processes that are operative within nature, eschewing anything that smacks of the supernatural. And rightly so: In setting aside supernatural entities and forces in its enquiries into the natural world, science has achieved a remarkably deep understanding of the natural processes involved in nature. But in setting the supernatural aside at the beginning, it cannot reasonably assert that, in the end, it has disproved the supernatural.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-james-clark/god-and-some-scientists_b_5915848.html





> But in setting the supernatural aside at the beginning, it cannot reasonably assert that, in the end, it has disproved the supernatural.


Of course if one/science/anyone could disprove OR prove the supernatural, it is no longer supernatural.
That statement shows a complete lack of understanding of what science is/does.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 16, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Ah! Thanks. Now I understand better. I guess I'll have to " meditate"  on evil in the world a little more.
> 
> Thanks again.


Admittedly, you lost me with that response.
The intention wasnt to assign evil or any other descriptive word to the actions in the story other than to show how they fit into the definition of narcissistic behavior.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Of course if one/science/anyone could disprove OR prove the supernatural, it is no longer supernatural.
> That statement shows a complete lack of understanding of what science is/does.



Don't know about that; it's just the "understanding of what science is/does" held by the guy who provided most of the information and opinion used to start this thread.  My friend, Gordon, ask a question, that the statement addresses, so I posted it.  Just trying to help him out.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Admittedly, you lost me with that response.
> The intention wasnt to assign evil or any other descriptive word to the actions in the story other than to show how they fit into the definition of narcissistic behavior.



I know.  I assigned them to this: " So men, women, children, infants and the unborn went for a swim." 

Many, not you, but many have called this "swim" and  as with the rubbing out of the Canaanites by the Hebrews as evil. And what I meant was that I need to revisit their perspective again. Not yours. Hope this is not equally nebulous.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 16, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I know.  I assigned them to this: " So men, women, children, infants and the unborn went for a swim."
> 
> Many, not you, but many have called this "swim" and  as with the rubbing out of the Canaanites by the Hebrews as evil. And what I meant was that I need to revisit their perspective again. Not yours. Hope this is not equally nebulous.


Ok gotcha.
If I was going to give my personal description to it I too would lean towards "evil".
If we were talking talking about the same or similar actions done by Stalin or Hitler or whoever, using the word evil probably wouldnt be argued.
Typically the Christian argument is "God can do whatever He wants" or "He made them so they were His to do with what He pleased" or "its their own fault".
It goes from what was done to who did it.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok gotcha.
> If I was going to give my personal description to it I too would lean towards "evil".
> If we were talking talking about the same or similar actions done by Stalin or Hitler or whoever, using the word evil probably wouldnt be argued.
> Typically the Christian argument is "God can do whatever He wants" or "He made them so they were His to do with what He pleased" or "its their own fault".
> It goes from what was done to who did it.



I do have some thoughts on how "what is said God did to Noah's neighbors" is not sin or evil. 1. To say that God did it is a figure of speech, because Noah's neighbors did it to themselves, yes it is their own fault. 2. Self defense is not evil.

1. I'll try to illustrate my point with a story. Many people all over the world donated money, via international banking, to help promote business in Pakistan.They were very successful. Economic development there was modeled and patterned on Northern Hemisphere economics. 

New businesses sprang up due to investments internal and external. Soon small towns became small cities, and small cities became medium size. Etc. There was a building boom, with new market areas and neighborhoods with new homes, streets,  schools, hospitals.

And then something strange happened. One yr the rainy season produced a few significant floods. Since Pakistan is basically a flood plain, and much of the new development had been built on old dry river beds due frenzy of the economic boom, much if not all of the economic incentives assets including the many ( now) casualties  who once occupied them found themselves in the ocean. Economically the people were worse off and suffering was worse than before the economic help they had received.

In short, the model of life they chose for themselves, due to economic help, was not at all in their best interest. 

When I read the story of Noah I think of Pakistan. God did not punish the Pakistan people. Rather in their giddy buzz they built their houses on river beds and flushed themselves in the ocean.

2. Self defense is sometimes a preemptive strike and sometimes in large floods I understand that it is better to float around in lieu of dragging anchors and chains--especially where you know the bayous are full of snakes.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 16, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I do have some thoughts on how "what is said God did to Noah's neighbors" is not sin or evil. 1. To say that God did it is a figure of speech, because Noah's neighbors did it to themselves, yes it is their own fault. 2. Self defense is not evil.
> 
> 1. I'll try to illustrate my point with a story. Many people all over the world donated money, via international banking, to help promote business in Pakistan.They were very successful. Economic development there was modeled and patterned on Northern Hemisphere economics.
> 
> ...


A couple of to me significant observations -
A flood is not touted as "loving you".
A flood didnt consciously decide to punish those folks for settling in a flood plane.
If you and I can figure out that young folks arent mentally mature enough to drive, vote, buy a gun or alcohol or cigarettes, see an R rated movie or a host of other things, surely an omni-everything god knows they arent mentally mature enough to make decisions concerning religion, their after life or a god they cant even see or have a discussion with. Yet they went for a swim too. Along with infants and babies in the womb.
To an A/A your argument and others like it are just an attempt to avoid/circumvent what is staring you right in the face.
Remove the particular god that you happen to believe in from the story and replace it with a different god or person or whoever and I bet all of a sudden your thought process about justifying it will change.
The modern day word to describe the intentional extermination or near extermination of an entire race is genocide.
Based on history its kind of frowned upon. Im guessing if it wasnt the Christian God we were talking about you would frown upon it too.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 17, 2015)

Whenever I get in front of someone who stands there flat footed and declares stories like "the flood" are real, I know I am talking to a crazy person.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 17, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> A couple of to me significant observations -
> A flood is not touted as "loving you".
> A flood didnt consciously decide to punish those folks for settling in a flood plane.
> If you and I can figure out that young folks arent mentally mature enough to drive, vote, buy a gun or alcohol or cigarettes, see an R rated movie or a host of other things, surely an omni-everything god knows they arent mentally mature enough to make decisions concerning religion, their after life or a god they cant even see or have a discussion with. Yet they went for a swim too. Along with infants and babies in the womb.
> ...



I look at it this way. Saving for a rainy day is perhaps wise if you live near a water course. But what is really smart is to know what assets to put your savings in.

I will have to go study on the omni-everything God of the Christians and, oddly I find, the I'll take your definition for "it" that others can entertain. I have been planning to do this for awhile now, but other things press more. 

I know that this omni-everything god some Christians know can't be the omni-everything god other Christians know simply because  of their differing doctrines of what man is, let alone their god, compete for daylight and by definitions different christians groups have differing capacity to know this omni-everything god.  More later perhaps.

I shall return on this perhaps after some study, but it will be some time, because a just god for one and genocidal god for another is quite a tangle.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 17, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Whenever I get in front of someone who stands there flat footed and declares stories like "the flood" are real, I know I am talking to a crazy person.




Yes. Many five point Christians don't allow for poetry, or myth in scripture as a feature of their beliefs-- therefore scripture meaning is "literal" for them--although parables as devices to get a point across are OK. I would not say they are crazy--just different.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 17, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Yes. Many five point Christians don't allow for poetry, or myth in scripture as a feature of their beliefs-- therefore scripture meaning is "literal" for them--although parables as devices to get a point across are OK. I would not say they are crazy--just different.



I don't know... I think crazy is an apt description of myself.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I look at it this way. Saving for a rainy day is perhaps wise if you live near a water course. But what is really smart is to know what assets to put your savings in.
> 
> I will have to go study on the omni-everything God of the Christians and, oddly I find, the I'll take your definition for "it" that others can entertain. I have been planning to do this for awhile now, but other things press more.
> 
> ...





> I will have to go study on the omni-everything God of the Christians





> I shall return on this perhaps after some study, but it will be some time, because a just god for one and genocidal god for another is quite a tangle


Of course, the studying to be done is not on the gods but on the human mind.
Remove all human participation from it and whats left?


----------



## Israel (Oct 18, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Of course, the studying to be done is not on the gods but on the human mind.
> Remove all human participation from it and whats left?



Everything. Else.
Some looked up. Some looked down. Some looked into microscopes, some into telescopes. Some looked here. Some looked there. Some looked in crevasses, some looked in open fields. Some looked in books, some looked inside themselves. Some, did both, and all.

Some said "We share a lot of DNA with chimpanzees!" Some said "I am made of stardust!" 
In all connection was sought, in all were seeking an inward resonance, something that would tell them their connection was real...that all "else" was not merely else, but in some way, they were of.

Some were brought to look where they never would have of their own. And here they found not only resonance...but a lullaby being played for them, in them, to them. And heard another voice sing. And particles small, and planets huge, and spaces vast, and times incomprehensible do not diminish but only add to the symphony.
These, of all that could be, might be, even of what is not, and seemingly could not be, believe they are. Because they have heard I am.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2015)

Israel said:


> Everything. Else.
> Some looked up. Some looked down. Some looked into microscopes, some into telescopes. Some looked here. Some looked there. Some looked in crevasses, some looked in open fields. Some looked in books, some looked inside themselves. Some, did both, and all.
> 
> Some said "We share a lot of DNA with chimpanzees!" Some said "I am made of stardust!"
> ...


Ah but you make my point about human participation -
Your post contains numerous "they", "some", "I", "them"...
Now remove them and I ask again whats left?
By the way glad to see you posting here again. 
You excersise my brain


----------



## Israel (Oct 18, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Ah but you make my point about human participation -
> Your post contains numerous "they", "some", "I", "them"...
> Now remove them and I ask again whats left?
> By the way glad to see you posting here again.
> You excersise my brain



How could I do that? Why would I want to consider it?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/news/origins-religion-supernatural-beliefs-evolved-173454622.html


I've seen this argument stated exactly this same way before. In fact the author of this piece might well be guilty of plagiarism if one were so inclined to do a little digging. 

Bottom line, Scientist run the spectrum of beliefs and if your intent is to bolster your view by using scientist that subscribe to only a similar view there are plenty of them out there for any side of the story you wish to tell. 

Heck, I even hear some wacko nutjob that used to be VPOTUS rallied enough of em' together to use fake science to create a ponzi (get rich) scheme called Anthropogenic Global Warming. 

It's amazing what you can do with science now days.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I've seen this argument stated exactly this same way before. In fact the author of this piece might well be guilty of plagiarism if one were so inclined to do a little digging.
> 
> Bottom line, Scientist run the spectrum of beliefs and if your intent is to bolster your view by using scientist that subscribe to only a similar view there are plenty of them out there for any side of the story you wish to tell.
> 
> ...



1. Attack the messenger.

2. Science is useless.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2015)

Israel said:


> How could I do that? Why would I want to consider it?


You cant. And thats the point.
Gods (any of them), religion, the whole shebang, require human participation (the mind, imagination, faith etc) to exist.
So its not the study of the particular god that is required, its the study of the human mind and how and why we make them or believe them to exist and why the attributes we assign to them vary.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> 1. Attack the messenger.
> 
> 2. Science is useless.



Neither of your assessments are accurate, but nice try.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2015)

OK.  Then explain what this is about...




Miguel Cervantes said:


> I've seen this argument stated exactly this same way before. In fact the author of this piece might well be guilty of plagiarism if one were so inclined to do a little digging.



...if not attacking the messenger.  Why would you bring it up as a matter of fact unless you were trying to make a statement about something?



Miguel Cervantes said:


> Bottom line, Scientist run the spectrum of beliefs and if your intent is to bolster your view by using scientist that subscribe to only a similar view there are plenty of them out there for any side of the story you wish to tell.
> 
> Heck, I even hear some wacko nutjob that used to be VPOTUS rallied enough of em' together to use fake science to create a ponzi (get rich) scheme called Anthropogenic Global Warming.
> 
> It's amazing what you can do with science now days.



You seem to be saying that scientific discovery can be used to support any proposition.  Then you mention "fake" science, for what purpose I'm not sure.  Maybe to show how gullible people are?

Maybe you can find a scientific study that will support this contention:  _The Cure for leprosy_

Leviticus 14

_…6"As for the live bird, he shall take it together with the cedar wood and the scarlet string and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was slain over the running water. 7"He shall then sprinkle seven times the one who is to be cleansed from the leprosy and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the live bird go free over the open field. 8"The one to be cleansed shall then wash his clothes and shave off all his hair and bathe in water and be clean. Now afterward, he may enter the camp, but he shall stay outside his tent for seven days.…_

In doing so you can prove both of these:

"You seem to be saying that scientific discovery can be used to support any proposition.  Then you mention "fake" science, for what purpose I'm not sure.  Maybe to show how gullible people are?"


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 18, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You cant. And thats the point.
> Gods (any of them), religion, the whole shebang, require human participation (the mind, imagination, faith etc) to exist.
> So its not the study of the particular god that is required, its the study of the human mind and how and why we make them or believe them to exist and why the attributes we assign to them vary.





So its not the study of the particular god that is required, its the study of the human mind and how and why we make them or believe them to exist and why the attributes we assign to them vary.

I think you have a very good point, but only half of it. The study of one must bring about the study of the other. The "study" or "worship of God" begs a study of man and the study of man begs the study of his "spiritual" nature. And, at some point one has to ask what came first the chicken or the egg.  What in the mind of man conditions his understanding of God or "spiritual belief" and what of the study of the "Mind of God", His Holy Spirit, His will, the Everlasting, etc conditions man's understanding of himself.


Personally when I study man and man's mind or his consciousness and what things mean to him and what motivates him and stop him from haveing a total system crash, I must admit I see a being, an entity apart and as a part of man's existance. This " Super Consciousness" is not a mind made and fabricated pie in the sky idea. This "Super Consciousness" seems to me to act independent of man, and so much so that after I have exhausted studies on the will of man on various subjects, this "Super Consciousness" for me, still remains intact and separate from man. And to be honest, the miraculous attributed to this entity, pushes me into mystical reasonings as a means to assimilate it all. That's how it works for me.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> So its not the study of the particular god that is required, its the study of the human mind and how and why we make them or believe them to exist and why the attributes we assign to them vary.
> 
> I think you have a very good point, but only half of it. The study of one must bring about the study of the other. The "study" or "worship of God" begs a study of man and the study of man begs the study of his "spiritual" nature. And, at some point one has to ask what came first the chicken or the egg.  What in the mind of man conditions his understanding of God or "spiritual belief" and what of the study of the "Mind of God", His Holy Spirit, His will, the Everlasting, etc conditions man's understanding of himself.



You can research what many people have concluded on this matter or you can continue to believe that your "Sense of God" was placed in you When he made your soul but first you have to prove a "soul".

Fast forward to 1:11.






gordon 2 said:


> Personally when I study man and man's mind or his consciousness and what things mean to him and what motivates him and stop him from haveing a total system crash, I must admit I see a being, an entity apart and as a part of man's existance. This " Super Consciousness" is not a mind made and fabricated pie in the sky idea. This "Super Consciousness" seems to me to act independent of man, and so much so that after I have exhausted studies on the will of man on various subjects, this "Super Consciousness" for me, still remains intact and separate from man. And to be honest, the miraculous attributed to this entity, pushes me into mystical reasonings as a means to assimilate it all. That's how it works for me.



"I see a being", "Super Consciousness", "miraculous", "Mystical Reasonings"

You know that these aren't scientific notions, meaning they can't be tested, they can't be proven false and they're totally subjective.  You won't be able to verify them to anybody else except yourself.  Is that a good enough model of reality for you?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> So its not the study of the particular god that is required, its the study of the human mind and how and why we make them or believe them to exist and why the attributes we assign to them vary.
> 
> I think you have a very good point, but only half of it. The study of one must bring about the study of the other. The "study" or "worship of God" begs a study of man and the study of man begs the study of his "spiritual" nature. And, at some point one has to ask what came first the chicken or the egg.  What in the mind of man conditions his understanding of God or "spiritual belief" and what of the study of the "Mind of God", His Holy Spirit, His will, the Everlasting, etc conditions man's understanding of himself.
> 
> ...





> That's how it works for me.


First - Im in no position to tell you that how it works for you is wrong/inaccurate.
However I think we may be saying the same thing -


> What in the mind of man conditions his understanding of God or "spiritual belief" and what of the study of the "Mind of God", His Holy Spirit, His will, the Everlasting, etc conditions man's understanding of himself.


Can you study God?
The only thing available to study is what man has said about this god (whichever one). Which varies widely (Christianity alone has over 30,000 denominations).
So you are back to -


> its the study of the human mind and how and why we make them or believe them to exist and why the attributes we assign to them vary.





> This " Super Consciousness" is not a mind made and fabricated pie in the sky idea.


If its not mind made or fabricated point it out. Show it to us.
Show us where "spiritualality" exists outside of man's brain. That it has its own "consciousness". 
That "super consicousness" = God (any of them).


----------



## Israel (Oct 18, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You cant. And thats the point.
> Gods (any of them), religion, the whole shebang, require human participation (the mind, imagination, faith etc) to exist.
> So its not the study of the particular god that is required, its the study of the human mind and how and why we make them or believe them to exist and why the attributes we assign to them vary.


You provoke a consideration I have been silent about, maybe not to offend, maybe for more crass reasons.
 Your (but not "your" as in Walt, your) discussions of, and presumptions and assumptions in, as to what constitutes knowing and consciousness, let alone communication and relationship are so very far from fundamentals agreed upon...or at least discussed, as to seem like so many leaps from thin air, to thin air.
Is anything "known"? Can anything be "known"?
If so...what is the way of knowing? Is Knowing by faith any different than knowing by an eye? Is there an "organ" so to speak that sees the seeable that must therefore discount an unseen organ that sees the unseeable? Do you say "God is of imagination...but tree isn't?" If truly...tree exists...then where? In naught but experience of tree? Feel of tree, sight of tree, taste of tree, smell of tree? 
Then if one million men say "I experience tree, but not God", but one man says "I experience God"...does the one million man experience nullify the one? Must it? does it? can it? If all men that say they experience tree are removed...does tree exist? Who could answer? Will tree? Does tree testify of its own existence? (Personally, I am persuaded tree exists)
You know how many times the word "reason" is used. Another of air jump to air jump. Be reasonable. You have abandoned reason. You don't use your reasoning. One would then think a sayer of such believes reason to be a real thing, an existing thing. BUT, there is no reason...to the all in all of the Universe. Here is where reason is contained, in man alone. Then...if it be a construct solely of man...by whose reason is mine measured? The majority? If man comes up with reason...then, any man can come up with reason. But, I do not believe you, nor the many here subscribe to that, it's heard far to often to imagine you feel it a flexible, synthetic thing...even though you may speak of it as such...just a construct.
So, if there be no reason...or even if...it be only a construct of man, on what basis can my well sleeping brother be found absurd? You seem to say "it's his ignorant belief in God that gives him a good night's sleep"
Ahhh, you religious workers you! You must toss and turn in service to your religion! You must suffer some sleepless torment to be worthy of occupying this orb lest one be called "absurd" as he dwells safely...but yet not by his belief...but given so by the God in whom he has believed. You will say this is too nuanced, too much the splitting of hairs? You may say "his faith is the reward for his faith" using the circular "reasoning" of which others are quickly identified. 
But, he knows better. His God manifesting himself...even to an envied  good night's sleep is his reward of his faith...but of course...this is hidden to all.
If you say "use reason"..."don't be absurd", you assent that reason exists, and if as more than construct, it de facto exists "in the universe". If as mere construct of man..."man's reason"...then as mentioned...any man, every man has his reason, as equally weighty in construct if even opposed by a million who disagree. Moreover, if we say "man's reason" we imply another form could be extant.
And according to that "other reason" I believe, and you may say, or find me absurd...it is of no matter at all.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You can research what many people have concluded on this matter or you can continue to believe that your "Sense of God" was placed in you When he made your soul but first you have to prove a "soul".
> 
> Fast forward to 1:11.
> 
> ...




It does not seem one could verify them except to self does it. However, perhaps this does not end all there. People, more than one, do claim a witness in common of life changing experiences due to faith (belief) and what I'll call religious and  Holy Spirit or Saintly experiences or "born again experiences. Jewish and Christian scripture is full of faith healing accounts and also present day believers share similar accounts. Many, many have peace in their lives for the first time which lasts a lifetime due to faith and for what they claim is "mercy" and "blessing"  from God.

Many spiritual traditions claim to know a saint from an ordinary person and that this knowledge is not subjective or limited to one person's conviction, but for a reasoned consensus from evidence.

The declarations of "seers" and "prophets"  are usually confirmed by the authentic to that they speak to-- for the effects physical, intellectual, social, psychological and spiritual they have on people-- as in more than one person. 

A good model of reality? Yes. Why? Because it is the best type for the pursuit of happiness that I know of. And I'm not the only one who claims this.

Let me tell you why I believe Jesus resurrected from the dead. ( Which breaks all the rules of science.) Peter!  I believe, in my assessment, that Peter is a mature adult with integrity. He is not perfect, so if he lied about the resurrection it would be relatively easy to see where he blinks. But Peter does not blink regards the resurrection in any of the accounts of him that I am aware of. Now ad to this the witness similar to Peter of many, many different people of many, many different backgrounds... and... well you get the point.

Also add to this that the resurrection was the say of prophets many decades previous and man...Gordie is either a handsome fool of the genius guy who made up the character of Peter in the fiction called the word of life, the food of life and the light of life. 

???


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> OK.  Then explain what this is about...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nope, I made my comments on factually based face evidence. They were what they were. You decided to embellish an expanded meaning into them. Just like Global Warming. See how that works?


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 18, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> First - Im in no position to tell you that how it works for you is wrong/inaccurate.
> However I think we may be saying the same thing -
> 
> Can you study God?
> ...



I think the Buddhist claim the corner on exactly this-- to a degree. 

I don't know how you would "see" apart of your brain's electrical field and if it was color blind for example, even if I showed you something outside of your capacity of seeing, you would not see it.  But if 11 more like me said that there is something more out there... your belief or faith in all these people and their accounts would have to kick in I suspect.

The point of spirituality is that faith is rewarded with new eyes, and a new human spirit which "sees" what it could not before. The difference is between a though less person and thought full person perhaps except in the case of "seeing" God one does or one does not. ( This must seem like circular reasoning.  )


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2015)

Israel said:


> You provoke a consideration I have been silent about, maybe not to offend, maybe for more crass reasons.
> Your (but not "your" as in Walt, your) discussions of, and presumptions and assumptions in, as to what constitutes knowing and consciousness, let alone communication and relationship are so very far from fundamentals agreed upon...or at least discussed, as to seem like so many leaps from thin air, to thin air.
> Is anything "known"? Can anything be "known"?
> If so...what is the way of knowing? Is Knowing by faith any different than knowing by an eye? Is there an "organ" so to speak that sees the seeable that must therefore discount an unseen organ that sees the unseeable? Do you say "God is of imagination...but tree isn't?" If truly...tree exists...then where? In naught but experience of tree? Feel of tree, sight of tree, taste of tree, smell of tree?
> ...





> And according to that "other reason" I believe, and you may say, or find me absurd...it is of no matter at all.


I want to start with the above so that you know my position more accurately -
I agree 100% that it is of no matter at all if I did find your belief absurd. And it should not matter at all at least to you.
Much of the rest of your post is about "reason" and using it, culminating in -


> Then...if it be a construct solely of man...by whose reason is mine measured? The majority? If man comes up with reason...then, any man can come up with reason. But, I do not believe you, nor the many here subscribe to that, it's heard far to often to imagine you feel it a flexible, synthetic thing...even though you may speak of it as such...just a construct.


Complicated subject this "reason".
At one time one who reasoned that the earth wasn't flat was deemed "absurd".
At one time the enslavement of other humans deemed to be of lesser value was deemed "reasonable".
That women have no place in the work force, stays home and cleans the house and has dinner on the table at 5:00?
Used to be reasonable (even to the women), now not so much. Depending on what society you live in and if you are the man or the woman.
So yes reason is a flexible and synthetic thing.
And no it isnt -
Is it reasonable to claim the Christian God is the one true God and all others false? Considering NONE of them can even be proven to exist let alone which one(s) are true or not?
Is it reasonable that a man lived in a fish? Or that a donkey can talk?
If they were reasonable they wouldnt be called miracles or supernatural or "of God".


> You know how many times the word "reason" is used. Another of air jump to air jump. Be reasonable. You have abandoned reason.


I think abandoned reason would be accurate.
Does Christianity itself define you as "the reasonable" or as "the faithful"?
Reasoning has a process, a pathway to be followed to get to the final outcome. Faith is required because the path of reason cant get you to a god. At least not yet.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I want to start with the above so that you know my position more accurately -
> I agree 100% that it is of no matter at all if I did find your belief absurd. And it should not matter at all at least to you.
> Much of the rest of your post is about "reason" and using it, culminating in -
> 
> ...



It seems to me that faith is not a sub for reason. It seems to me that the ministry accounts of the prophets and Jesus, their witness related to in scripture, by the church and individuals  (is reasonable) to people or it is not. I don't think that the the logic of the people of faith is defective.

Perhaps a group of people says I believe in spirituality with the divine as integral and that it is an important relational aspect of life and others just simply believe with equal faith that it is simply  that the divine is not essential as a relational aspect of man's life.

So simply people all have faith but it is two separate faiths. Two differing worships. I find it a bit puzzling however that people who have no confidence in traditional belief should be reasonably trashing a belief in a divinity which they don't believe in--except that the this same belief has some undeclared value?

There is a point of view within Christianity that the cross makes sense to people or it does not. And  perhaps added to this is that although it might not make sense now, it does not mean it won't at some point in the lifespan-- and  then the cross will reasonably declare its value.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> It seems to me that faith is not a sub for reason. It seems to me that the ministry accounts of the prophets and Jesus, their witness related to in scripture, by the church and individuals  (is reasonable) to people or it is not. I don't think that the the logic of the people of faith is defective.
> 
> Perhaps a group of people says I believe in spirituality with the divine as integral and that it is an important relational aspect of life and others just simply believe with equal faith that it is simply  that the divine is not essential as a relational aspect of man's life.
> 
> ...





> It seems to me that faith is not a sub for reason.


Sure it is.
Lay out the road map of FACTS that get you to the Christian God. Considering -
There are multiple creation stories attributed to multiple gods.
Wouldnt it have to be PROVEN that all those other stories are false before its reasonable that the Christian God story is true? Or have overwhelming evidence that the Christian God story is true which would make the other creation stories false?
Every religous person finds the stories related to the particular god they believe in reasonable (to them).
They cant all be reasonable can they?


> I don't think that the the logic of the people of faith is defective.


I dont think their logic is defective either. But its pretty easy to prove their logic is suspended on this particular subject. Again thats why faith is required. You cant get there by reason OR logic.
Faith is the substance of things HOPED for right?
Why do you have to hope its true? Because you cant get there any other way.


> So simply people all have faith but it is two separate faiths. Two differing worships.


I disagree.
I dont have faith that there are no gods.
There simply isnt any overwhelming evidence/facts that there are. Dont over complicate it.


> And  perhaps added to this is that although it might not make sense now, it does not mean it won't at some point


I agree.
See my points about how at one time it didnt make sense or wasnt reasonable to believe that the earth wasnt flat.
When did it become reasonable?
After it was proven.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure it is.
> Lay out the road map of FACTS that get you to the Christian God. Considering -
> There are multiple creation stories attributed to multiple gods.
> Wouldnt it have to be PROVEN that all those other stories are false before its reasonable that the Christian God story is true? Or have overwhelming evidence that the Christian God story is true which would make the other creation stories false?
> ...



As far as I can tell, the idea that the world was flat is a recent complex due to poor thinking skills due to people not not being able to differentiate the example from the object.

I suspect that people are not and were never blind to symmetry in nature. Everyone knew the world was friggen round. But what they have a problem with is the nature of man's reasoning powers. For example, In William Blake's , Tiger poem, it is amazing how long it takes some people to realize that the poem is not about a Tiger per say, but the Tiger is used as a mirror for a reality that is other than a tiger ( That big cat from India.) Same deal with flat earth-round earth mind sets where the flat earth becomes more real than what the naked senses would indicate or it is used as a scare crow, a straw man and attribute it to the reasoning prowess of  Middle Ages man.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> As far as I can tell, the idea that the world was flat is a recent complex due to poor thinking skills due to people not not being able to differentiate the example from the object.
> 
> I suspect that people are not and were never blind to symmetry in nature. Everyone knew the world was friggen round. But what they have a problem with is the nature of man's reasoning powers. For example, In William Blake's , Tiger poem, it is amazing how long it takes some people to realize that the poem is not about a Tiger per say, but the Tiger is used as a mirror for a reality that is other than a tiger ( That big cat from India.) Same deal with flat earth-round earth mind sets where the flat earth becomes more real than what the naked senses would indicate or it is used as a scare crow, a straw man and attribute it to the reasoning prowess of  Middle Ages man.





> *** It seems to me that they could be all reasonable, some more trustworthy as to the reality they wish to express


How exactly would you measure the trustworthiness of the various stories?
Based on what? On what might come the closest to what YOU believe to be true?


> For many what was hoped for by the people of faith before them, they have seen it


I think what comes after "things hoped for" comes "things NOT seen".


> because they know it is true


Knowing something is true and having faith something is true contradict each other. If you know you dont need faith.


> Where I would say that blind faith comes in ( and is only a small part of faith) the Christian economy is when an individual does make a choice to trust blindly in the things of God because they find it reasonable motivation to do so or they are at their wits end and just go with it.


There are very, very few things in the Bible that have actually been proven to be true.
Not sure how you would differentiate believing in the rest of it as being faith or blind faith.
Going back to the "things not seen" one could make the case that "things not seen" and being blind to it are pretty similar. Sure seems to me to be telling you to blindly believe it.


> Everyone knew the world was friggen round


I dont think history would substantiate that. Particularly not the "everyone" part.


> Same deal with flat earth-round earth mind sets where the flat earth becomes more real than what the naked senses would indicate or it is used as a scare crow, a straw man and attribute it to the reasoning prowess of Middle Ages man.


It seems pretty real that if you tried to walk around a circle at some point you would fall off where as you wouldnt fall off something flat. Seems pretty reasonable if you didnt know about gravity and the world turning etc.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> How exactly would you measure the trustworthiness of the various stories?
> Based on what? On what might come the closest to what YOU believe to be true?
> 
> I think what comes after "things hoped for" comes "things NOT seen".
> ...




I must admit, it is somewhat interesting to watch square dancers make circles-- how joggers run slower, after a few miles, than I can walk all day.

I think you are entertaining the narrowed notions of faith that have their genesis from the Reformation muddles.

Have you ever heard of the idea that a spiritual person should always see in common spiritual matters what is in fact spiritual and what is cultural?  The "cult" here meant in a pejorative way is the culture one sucks up and accepts as solid ground.


I'm suggesting that your definition of  faith, in the Christian paradigm is perhaps superficially apprehended at best and totally lost for the repeated  (now without much thought)--something like a pickup line that's been so used as to turn off any idea of its original intent- and therefore a superficial notion of some Christians meant by them  and perhaps understood by you.

In other words some of us Christians ( myself included) sometimes don't know what the heck were talking about... Don't pick up our bad habits.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I must admit, it is somewhat interesting to watch square dancers make circles-- how joggers run slower, after a few miles, than I can walk all day.
> 
> I think you are entertaining the narrowed notions of faith that have their genesis from the Reformation muddles.
> 
> ...





> I'm suggesting that your definition of  faith


I dont have my own definition of faith.
I use -
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
And a dictionary -
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

That way I dont pick up the bad habit of twisting the definition of a word to fit my notions.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I dont have my own definition of faith.
> I use -
> 11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
> And a dictionary -
> ...




You mean words like logic, truth, reason, or evidence?


----------



## Israel (Oct 19, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> You mean words like logic, truth, reason, or evidence?


In the quote...it is itself the evidence of things not seen.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2015)

Israel said:


> In the quote...it is itself the evidence of things not seen.


Prosecutor - "Your Honor we have faith that the defendent did the crime".
Judge - "Present your evidence".
Prosecutor - "Your Honor that is our evidence. We have faith he did it".
Judge - "Case dismissed".


----------



## Israel (Oct 20, 2015)

A man breathing on a climate controlled orb spinning through space, at speeds that for him, in any other circumstance, would be deadly; clad in only a London tailored suit, shielded by an atmosphere from gamma rays, ascends a stage to the applause and acclaims of the University students, faculty, and guests. Someone has placed water on his podium, should he find he need it. He quotes himself from his own writing:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Now, you may not find any humor in this, nor need you. A smear of talking mud judging all it can see, yet remarkably, not seeing itself at all.

Now, you can easily say "you don't see Curie suffering for what she discovered? You don't see the thousands of bacteriologists and scientists who perhaps died, you don't see the proto human facing the mastodon? All of these, and so many more met a pitiless universe so that that stage could be built, that man not die in his own birth, that man not be stricken with polio so he could walk those steps to grandeur!""

Yeah...somebody else paid a price for any of us to have what we have, perhaps see what we see. But, I see talking mud...somehow blithely unaware of it's being in the taking for granted...of its being...and One who secured being for all that doesn't begin to be aware of itself...and facing that pitiless talking mud (like me)...is causing it to see mercy everywhere. Even in men, toward men, allowed, graced, gifted, with the selling of many books, sharing many opinions against that which is totally aware at all times, neither slumbering nor sleeping. I'd be a fool to claim more mercy for myself than I am allowed to see toward him...but I am allowed to chuckle at his words. As I often do at my own.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I dont have my own definition of faith.
> I use -
> 11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
> And a dictionary -
> ...




Your bible only! Dictionary meanings only? For me that is a bad habit, or at least incomplete to garnering knowledge!  Scripture needs context and most languages and  word meanings are never still. This is what I mean by being careful of cultural influences for defining items in Christianity in general. 

I was listening to a non- believer last night simply state that he was raised Christian and stopped believing because he tested the points of what his parents church said about him being a christian and nothing worked as per what his parents or their "religion" said.

He went on to explain some points of "Christianity"  which he tested for being a baptized member of it.  He said his prayers were never answered and that fear of H E double hockey sticks, which was a constant preaching in his church simply stopped having an effect on his night time sleep pattern.

 For the guy"s list of complaints with belief as he claimed to understand it, I bet a buck that I could have guessed the denomination he was "schooled" in. They were bible only and the engine that ran the car was of an English make, some kind of second generation design popular for it's well trained-rehearsed mechanics.


His was not a complaint about Christianity or belief per say. He just was stuck at the " I think different from mom and dad." " I think I'm more intelligent than they are." stage of adolescence, thought he was in, I suspect, his 50s.

All this to caution you that the bromides and the one line verse quotes that many use from scripture to claim what things and how things are don't necessarily exhaust what these things are or mean and do.

 And therefore faith for the Christian is more than things unseen yet believed. There is much about faith that you have never known or seen  yet which is much more than the simple definition people use from scripture. You can trust scripture in regard's Paul's declaration of faith in this case, but it does not  exhaust the subject or the reality of it for Christians.

I suspect that the argument  of the guy that said that his Christian days did not work as per the recipe he used and therefore he found something else whose recipe worked for him ( faith in the tenants and logic of the scientific method). The problem I would suggest is that Christianity is not about using sure fire recipes to achieve goals, it is about, if recipes are to be used, having an understanding of the ingredients and especially when the stew is cooked knowing to who and when to feed it.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Your bible only! Dictionary meanings only? For me that is a bad habit, or at least incomplete to garnering knowledge!  Scripture needs context and most languages and  word meanings are never still. This is what I mean by being careful of cultural influences for defining items in Christianity in general.
> 
> I was listening to a non- believer last night simply state that he was raised Christian and stopped believing because he tested the points of what his parents church said about him being a christian and nothing worked as per what his parents or their "religion" said.
> 
> ...



Does this "one-liner" sum up what you're describing Gordon?

Hebrews 4:2

" For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 20, 2015)

Israel said:


> A man breathing on a climate controlled orb spinning through space, at speeds that for him, in any other circumstance, would be deadly; clad in only a London tailored suit, shielded by an atmosphere from gamma rays, ascends a stage to the applause and acclaims of the University students, faculty, and guests. Someone has placed water on his podium, should he find he need it. He quotes himself from his own writing:
> 
> The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
> 
> ...



There's a term called Irreducible Complexity that fully sums up your luxurious exposition and it's countered by another very simple term The God of the Gaps.

I'm not sure the flowery oratory is adding anything to the message you're trying to convey except perhaps for those used to hearing that kind of thing coming from a pulpit.  I've got to ask.  Do you use that kind of language because your talking about God and not about a boat engine?

You always talk about this "someone who paid the price" (Christ, of course) but how do you know that that metaphysical event took place?  How do you determine the truthfulness of it for yourself and how would I be able to determine it for myself?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Your bible only! Dictionary meanings only? For me that is a bad habit, or at least incomplete to garnering knowledge!  Scripture needs context and most languages and  word meanings are never still. This is what I mean by being careful of cultural influences for defining items in Christianity in general.
> 
> I was listening to a non- believer last night simply state that he was raised Christian and stopped believing because he tested the points of what his parents church said about him being a christian and nothing worked as per what his parents or their "religion" said.
> 
> ...





> Your bible only! Dictionary meanings only? For me that is a bad habit, or at least incomplete to garnering knowledge!  Scripture needs context and most languages and  word meanings are never still. This is what I mean by being careful of cultural influences for defining items in Christianity in general.


No what it is is an anchor point. It doesnt allow for personal philosophy to interject itself. It says what it says.
Its interesting that my use of 





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


would be met with "thats a bad habit".
So much for the supposed word of God I guess.


> I bet a buck that I could have guessed the denomination he was "schooled" in. They were bible only


Also interesting that being "Bible only" would be viewed as a negative. What is one of the biggest complaints we hear from a number of Christians? That church is becoming focused on entertainment and is getting away from preaching the Bible. Its cited as one the biggest reasons Christians are abondoning church in droves. 


> He just was stuck at the " I think different from mom and dad." " I think I'm more intelligent than they are." stage of adolescence, thought he was in, I suspect, his 50s.


He probably didnt believe rock & roll was a product of the devil either. The arrogance of some folks.


> All this to caution you that the bromides and the one line verse quotes that many use from scripture to claim what things and how things are don't necessarily exhaust what these things are or mean and do.


Sure. I think the 30,000 + denominations of Christianity supports that. Obviously Christians like to decide for themselves what scripture mean, are or do.


> There is much about faith that you have never known or seen  yet which is much more than the simple definition people use from scripture. You can trust scripture in regard's Paul's declaration of faith in this case, but it does not  exhaust the subject or the reality of it for Christians.


Interesting that you think I cant or have never exeprienced faith from a Christian point of view.


> it is about, if recipes are to be used, having an understanding of the ingredients and especially when the stew is cooked knowing to who and when to feed it.


Sounds great.
But thats where it ends.
Unfortunately the fact of the matter is the majority of you guys dont even agree on what the ingredients are never mind understand them. 
Many of your recipes are vastly different.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Does this "one-liner" sum up what you're describing Gordon?
> 
> Hebrews 4:2
> 
> " For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."



This and more!!!!!!!!!!!! Lots more.

 This is my sum up if you care to know. The gospel of the Christians is about a man named Jesus and his road to the Roman cross. A capital punishment of torture and death designed for criminals-- but that in the case of Jesus he was innocent, but went to it yet innocent but on your and my behalf-- because you my friend and Gordie are not innocent of evil and sin.  And by sin here I'm not talking that we commit errors in life, but rather that we hate others with passion and cheer on all sorts of dysfunctions if the don't harm us personally or can afford us some comfort if we can manipulate them to our individual and social benefits. In other words what is not mixed with faith is yourself- exactly the person you are--- in front of a electric chair watching a innocent man getting fried and somehow justifying this in your being that " Hey this happens." And not realizing that your the joker frying the poor dud or say "Hey it's not my fault that the guy had a mediocre lawyer".

The not being mixed with faith here is not mixing what is preached by suspending unbelief for the exercise, rather is not mixing faith ( the proposed reality of the relationship of Christ Jesus and the sin or evil of the cross, which sin, and this is where it gets real, real hard for a dishonest and truth avoiding,  lazy person, IS YOUR SIN.

So the Cross and Christ either makes sense to you or it don't. If it don't you don't identify with Christ or the Romans. Your faith is in the scientific method and all motivations are the cause of elements interacting with oxygen. 

And hey that's fine-- if it's you go for it. But as you run your race, Christains will say you are not mixing faith with the message of the Cross. And that is Ok. It is your choice. Follow your dreams.

So I hope I answered your question to some satisfaction. I mixed my faith and the guy I am with the message of the Gospel and it made sense to me. It was a big Stop sign, and the guy holding it was Jesus through the Church.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Does this "one-liner" sum up what you're describing Gordon?
> 
> Hebrews 4:2
> 
> " For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."


Yes for some the lure of profiting can be a strong motivator.
Its the very foundation of scams.


----------



## Israel (Oct 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> There's a term called Irreducible Complexity that fully sums up your luxurious exposition and it's countered by another very simple term The God of the Gaps.
> 
> I'm not sure the flowery oratory is adding anything to the message you're trying to convey except perhaps for those used to hearing that kind of thing coming from a pulpit.  I've got to ask.  Do you use that kind of language because your talking about God and not about a boat engine?
> 
> You always talk about this "someone who paid the price" (Christ, of course) but how do you know that that metaphysical event took place?  How do you determine the truthfulness of it for yourself and how would I be able to determine it for myself?


 Do with it as you will. There are enough recommended experiments.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> No what it is is an anchor point. It doesnt allow for personal philosophy to interject itself. It says what it says.
> Its interesting that my use of would be met with "thats a bad habit".
> So much for the supposed word of God I guess.
> 
> ...



 Quote:]Unfortunately the fact of the matter is the majority of you guys dont even agree on what the ingredients are never mind understand them. 
Many of your recipes are vastly different.]End Quote

Don't you just hate that!  

But on the other had you don't fight in a jungle and in rice fields the same way you'd fight on plains of rolling corn fields. In one adventure you'd sub the usual lean and add a little fat.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Quote:]Unfortunately the fact of the matter is the majority of you guys dont even agree on what the ingredients are never mind understand them.
> Many of your recipes are vastly different.]End Quote
> 
> Don't you just hate that!
> ...





> Don't you just hate that!


Nah I dont hate it. I try to leave all emotion out of this subject.


> But on the other had you don't fight in a jungle and in rice fields the same way you'd fight on plains of rolling corn fields. In one adventure you'd sub the usual lean and add a little fat.


I would agree with you if the different means of getting there all ended up in the same place.
They dont.
See works vs non works.
See I believe vs elect
See torturous he11 vs asleep
See...........


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Nah I dont hate it. I try to leave all emotion out of this subject.
> 
> I would agree with you if the different means of getting there all ended up in the same place.
> They dont.
> ...





 Quote]I would agree with you if the different means of getting there all ended up in the same place.[End quote

They don't?!!! Different places they end up, you say? Interesting. 

The only explanation for what your describing that I can find is that the Reformation "movements" perhaps well intended, seem to have made life harder for people like you. It's not unlike the reputation of Duck tape before freetrade or before it was made in China, Indonesia, Philipines, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Laos, Bulgaria, Hungary and in some cases, back here. ( Note this might not all be factual, but hope you get the point.)  Free trade was all good intentions, but man some Duck tape brands were glorified masking tape there for awhile.

PS. Is it easy for you to leave emotions out of a lot of subjects? Is it natural for you?


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> There's a term called Irreducible Complexity that fully sums up your luxurious exposition and it's countered by another very simple term The God of the Gaps.
> 
> I'm not sure the flowery oratory is adding anything to the message you're trying to convey except perhaps for those used to hearing that kind of thing coming from a pulpit.  I've got to ask.  Do you use that kind of language because your talking about God and not about a boat engine?
> 
> You always talk about this "someone who paid the price" (Christ, of course) but how do you know that that metaphysical event took place?  How do you determine the truthfulness of it for yourself and how would I be able to determine it for myself?



This of course is a very, very good question.I have seen it asked before by non believers.

It is a hard question to answer. It's like asking a fish to prove that before life in the ocean with fins, life in the ocean with no fins meant no schooling. No wait...

How about asking yourself if life on the planet would be happier if there were no Christians? The claim that "sin" has been forgiven, has this caused a more brutish world or a happier one?  Even in times of conflict has Christianity provided something more in a positive way to events than had it not been there.  Liberty and the pursuit of happiness vs slavery and oppressive servitude? Would common sense be just as good as Christianity from a motivational perspective regards social responsibility?

I don't know for you, but for me, this would prove there is or is not something to the metaphysical event. ???


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Quote]I would agree with you if the different means of getting there all ended up in the same place.[End quote
> 
> They don't?!!! Different places they end up, you say? Interesting.
> 
> ...





> The only explanation for what your describing that I can find is that the Reformation "movements" perhaps well intended, seem to have made life harder for people like you.


Why would the Reformation make life harder for "people like me"?
What made life harder was being indoctrinated to believe in something that my brain was screaming "man made and man inspired".


> PS. Is it easy for you to leave emotions out of a lot of subjects? Is it natural for you?


Being human no its not natural. It requires effort to put emotion aside and try to look at something analytically.
Speaking analytically, it seems to be one of the major differences in the thought processes of believers and nonbelievers concerning this particular subject.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> This of course is a very, very good question.I have seen it asked before by non believers.
> 
> It is a hard question to answer. It's like asking a fish to prove that before life in the ocean with fins, life in the ocean with no fins meant no schooling. No wait...



No.  My question is not like yours at all.



gordon 2 said:


> How about asking yourself if life on the planet would be happier if there were no Christians? The claim that "sin" has been forgiven, has this caused a more brutish world or a happier one?  Even in times of conflict has Christianity provided something more in a positive way to events than had it not been there.  Liberty and the pursuit of happiness vs slavery and oppressive servitude? Would common sense be just as good as Christianity from a motivational perspective regards social responsibility?
> 
> I don't know for you, but for me, this would prove there is or is not something to the metaphysical event. ???



Yes.  Life on the planet would be better without Christianity or any belief in God.  I really believe that.  I don't have to enumerate all the bad things done in the name of God. All the good things done in the name of God could have been done out of sheer secular goodness.  People can be convinced to strive for global human well being without God but what else is as powerful a motivator to get people to do bad things than belief that God is on their side?  Remember that those who supported slavery used the Bible just as those who opposed it.  What if they threw all that nonsense away and simply strove for kindness and compassion?  

You don't need God to tell you what's right.  You don't need God to be spiritual.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 20, 2015)

Israel said:


> Do with it as you will. There are enough recommended experiments.



Do you recommend the experiment that states "Believe first and it will help you believe"?


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> No.  My question is not like yours at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know enough about secular goodness to have faith in it, both in evidence or by blind faith. I understand you do. Great. Where can I get info on secular goodness? Its genesis and history so far?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I don't know enough about secular goodness for have faith in it, both in evidence or by blind faith. I understand you do. Great. Where can I get info on secular goodness? It's genesis and history so far?




There's a book called  "How to be good without God" by Greg Epstein, the Humanist chaplain at Harvard.  I've got it on hold at my library.  I'll read it with you when I get it.  It might be a good intro since it seems he's still a believer.

Here's a review of his book:

http://www.humanistsri.com/2013/01/book-review-good-without-god.html

Here's an article from USA today:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...-31-atheism-morality-evolution-religion_n.htm

From the article:

_So where does morality come from, if not from God? Two places: evolution and secular reasoning. Despite the notion that beasts behave bestially, scientists studying our primate relatives, such as chimpanzees, see evolutionary rudiments of morality: behaviors that look for all the world like altruism, sympathy, moral disapproval, sharing — even notions of fairness. This is exactly what we'd expect if human morality, like many other behaviors, is built partly on the genes of our ancestors._

If you want to get into the real nitty gritty read Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris or Dennet (they can get a little too heady sometimes ) .  

It's all out there.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I don't know enough about secular goodness to have faith in it, both in evidence or by blind faith. I understand you do. Great. Where can I get info on secular goodness? Its genesis and history so far?



Hang out with some secularists.  See for yourself where they get their goodness.  Most likely they will have thought about it long and hard.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Why would the Reformation make life harder for "people like me"?
> What made life harder was being indoctrinated to believe in something that my brain was screaming "man made and man inspired".
> 
> Being human no its not natural. It requires effort to put emotion aside and try to look at something analytically.
> Speaking analytically, it seems to be one of the major differences in the thought processes of believers and nonbelievers concerning this particular subject.




Quote [What made life harder was being indoctrinated to believe in something that my brain was screaming "man made and man inspired" ]End quote.




I can't imagine. This must of been painful.

So I take it that this ( 1 John 5:7
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”  as real, has always  been seen  by you as man made nonsense  or the whole "heaven thing" regards  heaven existing in man's experience is man made?


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Hang out with some secularists.  See for yourself where they get their goodness.  Most likely they will have thought about it long and hard.



Well I think I have... having worked in a university for a decade or so. ( But perhaps not.) But if I have known some, the ones I know are out for number one,  or themselves  and their families first, a good pension plan to retire on, and want to spent it all on the "good life" before they kick the bucket.

 They are fence sitters on any subject that would put comfort out of their existence. They are anti union if it pays them well, and pro union if it pays well. Pay them enough and they will toe most any line. Secularism gone to the bad side is the hireling for political spin.

Secularist are high achieving careerists hippies who drive BMWs and Volvos and think they deserve them because the are intelligent.

 Secularist are star gazing Bedouins on sabatical leave from their parents' farm chores. Secularist are cynical  and depressed  that their world is artificial. Alot of them by age sixty  are working on wife number three if guys ( and they like em young.) Their children are all over the place, like the kids of dedicated sailors or sheeks.

But hey, maybe their Savoir has come and I'm not aware of it yet.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Well I think I have... having worked in a university for a decade or so. ( But perhaps not.) But if I have known some, the ones I know are out for number one,  or themselves  and their families first, a good pension plan to retire on, and want to spent it all on the "good life" before they kick the bucket. They are fence sitters on any subject that would put comfort out of their existence. The are anti union if it pays them well, and pro union if it pays well. Pay them enough and they will toe most any line.
> 
> Secularist are high achieving careerists hippies who drive BMWs and Volvos and think they deserve them because the are intelligent.
> 
> ...



I recon that might be true.  Have you met any Christians like what you described?  Buddhists?  

Of the secularists that you have met that seem happy and kind and generous, assuming there were some, to what would you attribute those qualities?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Quote [What made life harder was being indoctrinated to believe in something that my brain was screaming "man made and man inspired" ]End quote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No not always. I once believed.
What I reject is the Bible as the word of God. As I dug deeper into the history of the Bible and in particular how it was created and how it came to be what it is today thats when "man made and man inspired" started screaming at me. Thats the short story anyway.
Having said that, that doesnt mean there couldnt be or isnt a god(s).
However EVERYTHING one knows or thinks about God comes from the Bible/religion. Having rejected those it will take something other than them for me to believe.
To complicate it further, if the Bible were actually proven to be true that doesnt mean I would worship the God of the Bible.
Lots of stuff in there I find repugnant.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> There's a book called  "How to be good without God" by Greg Epstein, the Humanist chaplain at Harvard.  I've got it on hold at my library.  I'll read it with you when I get it.  It might be a good intro since it seems he's still a believer.
> 
> Here's a review of his book:
> 
> ...



Sounds like something I might be interested in.  ( Don't get me wrong. I've met many good people who did not believe. ( Especially people who suffered in Europe during the WW11.)


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> No not always. I once believed.
> What I reject is the Bible as the word of God. As I dug deeper into the history of the Bible and in particular how it was created and how it came to be what it is today thats when "man made and man inspired" started screaming at me. Thats the short story anyway.
> Having said that, that doesnt mean there couldnt be or isnt a god(s).
> However EVERYTHING one knows or thinks about God comes from the Bible/religion. Having rejected those it will take something other than them for me to believe.
> ...



I understand you I think, meaning I empathize with you. 

Lots of stuff in the bible can seem repugnant--especially if one understands that the Divine is an  ogre with severe mania.

I on the other hand have no problems on how the bible came to be. From midrash sources to Revelation and how the bible books are chosen are not a problems for me-- just as long I know who chose or omitted items.

For me when I read the bible and read about the God of the Hebrews, I find this same God in other cultural groups. For example, when I study Indian history,  oriental India,  The emperor Ashokan's India, I recognize the Hebrew God to a degree. Also I see elements of the Divine, namely of the Father (Hebrew) and the Son (Christian)  in Native North American spirituality. 

For me it is all the same God, but not the same man from a spiritual perspective. And sometimes Christians have no cause to lord it over others, such as some of the Native People in North America and perhaps South America--who it seems do agree with the God of Genesis, much more than Christians, that they are responsible for the care of our planet-- its nature.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I understand you I think, meaning I empathize with you.
> 
> Lots of stuff in the bible can seem repugnant--especially if one understands that the Divine is an  ogre with severe mania.
> 
> ...





> Lots of stuff in the bible can seem repugnant--especially if one understands that the Divine is an  ogre with severe mania.


I read this as putting the cart before the horse.
The thought of a orge/maniacal God doesnt make whats in the Bible seem repugnant. Its the other way around.


> For me it is all the same God, but not the same man from a spiritual perspective.


Sure thats possible.


> Also I see elements of the Divine


Just an observation -
What you see are the elements of the Divine that you were allowed to see. That were purposely and carefully chosen and selected by the Church to paint the picture that the Church approved of. Under the guise of "this is the word of God but that isnt".  
I cant get around that old saying about "dont pee on my back and tell me its raining".


----------



## Israel (Oct 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do you recommend the experiment that states "Believe first and it will help you believe"?



Mercy is a thing...not unlike love, or loyalty, or honor...that we talk about as real things (even you and I, in whatever measure we do) but the quantifying...or the precise identifying in "fact" we get to find a little difficult. Please, I am not trying to play cutesy here, it wouldn't be for me to ask "do you love your wife?" and try to score a point in a then "show me this love thing" kinda thing. I think, or imagine (and am inviting correction) that you know what I'm talking about...and even then, again, I am not trying an emotional gambit...though I know the accusation is easy enough.


What I am hoping is in my stumbling way (to see if we agree) is that we are already moved by myriad things we could never really explain to another very well, an inward call to "honor" our word, to be solicitous at least, when presented, and not cruel, to be easily moved to go an extra mile for a son or daughter...without even a thought of seeking to bring it to their attention. To be a loyal kind of man, not duplicitous and double dealing or tongued.


I can deal with being called flowery, or narcissistic in my communications, but the point of what I wrote regarding stages, and men, and even glasses of water unasked for (perhaps) yet provided...of life to a thing that "knows" it is alive (do you believe yourself alive?) that in this life looks out and then tells everyone within ear shot'''There is nothing to indicate anything but indifference". What about "us"? 
Look around you. Do you see any indication of the experiments we daily see played out? Of a people who either suffer...or find relief...depending upon those "intangibles"...like honor, loyalty, kindness, mercy? Their lack appears to have an influence...as their presence does.


I don't believe I can honestly deny it. I can't say anyone is better if they are a liar, either themselves or those in, or forced to a relationship with them...or a gossip, or a spiteful person.

Having been them all, and continuing in whatever measure I am still such, I would have to lie to say "it doesn't matter...those things are silly constructs." Yes, yes, you could ask "OK, was the ten Boom family wrong for lying about hiding Jews from Nazis?" Yes, we can both play gotcha...but then we would at least be forced into a discussion of "higher motives". Do they exist? Real "higher motives?"

If it's all the same to you, mattering not a whit...or worse in my case...if I be found "touting" the higher motive of a being I purport to represent...or if not, at least "endorse"...but in life and truth am found to be the most disloyal, wretched, duplicitous man you may ever see...(which is actually far closer to the truth of "me" than I could probably tolerate to made known...for now)...well, I think you get the point. We would rightly be at an impasse.


A man once said "a man is judged by every word that comes out of his mouth". I see it as inescapable, have learned in and through my own experiments...this is as rock hard a fact (of truth) as me running into a bridge abutment, and most often when I didn't even know I was doing any experimentation...at all.

It's very true, at the first, I had no idea at all of the "metaphysicality" of the whole "follow Jesus" thing...I just knew I was broke down, broke up, and a man so in need of something to remove the pain in my being, my "soul" if you will. (or can).

But the days passed, into months and years and decades...and I discovered it has nothing to do with stained glass (at least as I once perceived those things)...or pews, or pulpits, or all the many things so easily associated with what some man (you...me perhaps)might associate with Christianity. It had to do with a man who...somehow...whose words...somehow...went passed...and way passed, all those things.

He was talking about the One who keeps each molecule in place, who has dust on the "dark" side of the moon hold its place for his purposes, though no man may ever see it...and the very most distant and unseen star just being according to its place in the fabric. Flowery? Perhaps. 

Some men I watch become enraptured, absolutely giddy with thoughts of the most (to "ordinary men") undecipherable mathematical equations...and yet...even in their delight...fail to see the forest for the trees. But, some do. Their being "delights them"...in whatever their pursuit...math, a still pool on a trout stream, their children tucked safely in, the crunch of dry leaves as they hear a deer approach. The relief an Indian rat catcher feels in finding enough to feed his family.


Man...was made for joy...both from it, and for it. And mercy. We don't need to, nor can we explain, or question why such relief feels "right"...and disappointment...so wrong.


For me...and perhaps me more than any other...I am glad Jesus came for the sick...for the unrighteous...for I knew a time and a man when even when he ate to his belly full...a storming resentment and tide of bitterness was always at the well.


Now...here's the kicker...for all I may know...you may be the very righteous Jesus said he "didn't come for"...you may be one of the well people of whom do not need a physician...all I can say is if you ever find yourself less than able to be satisfied with what all the world may have to offer...even to the point of the acrid taste of cynicism and grudging...he loves you at least as well as he loves me. It may be "I am" the lost brother you are helping lead home...he has often told me I will find them in the places of myself, I am sure I won't. But, he says..."look anyway".


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 20, 2015)

Israel said:


> Mercy is a thing...



I get that. I really do. "I found this "thing" that made it all make sense.  All I had to do was believe".

What would happen if you stopped believing?  Would you shoot up a school?. Would you put a gun in your mailman's mouth?  I don't think so.

You're not as bad as you think you are.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 21, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Sounds like something I might be interested in.  ( Don't get me wrong. I've met many good people who did not believe. ( Especially people who suffered in Europe during the WW11.)



Ain't that sumthin'?


----------



## Israel (Oct 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I get that. I really do. "I found this "thing" that made it all make sense.  All I had to do was believe".
> 
> What would happen if you stopped believing?  Would you shoot up a school?. Would you put a gun in your mailman's mouth?  I don't think so.
> 
> You're not as bad as you think you are.



What if I told you I have seen a little down that road about believing? 

"What happened"...I asked myself  "did I believe first...wait, no I felt/sensed/encountered a knowing something first...well, no the feeling the "something" was my believing...wait, I don't remember saying "Oh, I am believing now..."

I think all that happened is I got found out. Something found me out. A light went on, I was exposed...and everything I ordinarily would have thought would have cringed my soul to a bit of dust...didn't. It was OK...and actually so much more than OK. But I can be entirely wrong in all my thinking...all my remembering...all my interpretation of that.

But yes.  A "believing" in whatever form took place I can't deny. Kinda like when you said, in so many words, "you are a peacock" in your writing. Yes! It's true, even though it kinda stung...how could I not see it, this man obviously does.
The common ground I share with so many I meet...believers...so called unbelievers...and all in the so called "between"...when they tell me, if they are so inclined..."this Jesus guy you talk about isn't all you make him out to be..." I can't but agree. Yes, Jesus is far better than I believe. I am always wrong about that...he's greater, kinder, more patient, more "with and for" everyone than I ever could have...and even presently apprehend.
So yes, I am wrong...as wrong as a 10 pond stone may think a 5 pound stone is so much the less than itself both sitting at the bottom of mount Everest. I too, am one who  often can't see the forest for the trees.


And, if Everest could speak (too flowery?) I am sure it would tell this self inflated 10 pound stone...6 of your believed 10 pounds are the deposit this morning of a bear's meal last night.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Ain't that sumthin'?



Yes. However I have met people who's physco-logic was deepened for/ in the traditional belief ( religious) system due to suffering in WW11. 

It seems to me that you are drawing from another  belief tradition ( secularism) with another psychology or soul logic than is generally and traditionally common to man through out the world?

 1.) If i am correct have you found things in common from both sources? What are the big differences?

2.) Are there "universals" or formations, teachings, things learned in common with the traditional "belief" systems and secularism?

3.) Are there advantages  to your source (secularism) in comparison? What are the specific advantages  that you think you have gained both in your psychology or personally, ( as a person in the 21st century) and in your way to interact in the world today? Are outcomes better for you than say other folk with a more traditional phychological narrative?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I get that. I really do. "I found this "thing" that made it all make sense.  All I had to do was believe".
> 
> What would happen if you stopped believing?  Would you shoot up a school?. Would you put a gun in your mailman's mouth?  I don't think so.
> 
> You're not as bad as you think you are.


Or maybe he is. Maybe only he knows how bad he actually is/was.
Wouldnt be the first person who's past transgressions, which are only known to them, have driven them to religion in hopes of the ultimate forgiveness.
Its a wacky world out there and all we really know about Israel is the mild mannered, philosopher persona we see here.
No offense intended Israel, just me being analytical


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Or maybe he is. Maybe only he knows how bad he actually is/was.
> Wouldnt be the first person who's past transgressions, which are only known to them, have driven them to religion in hopes of the ultimate forgiveness.
> Its a wacky world out there and all we really know about Israel is the mild mannered, philosopher persona we see here.
> No offense intended Israel, just me being analytical



Is there something other than religion, according to you, that would make ours a wacky world out there?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 21, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Is there something other than religion, according to you, that would make ours a wacky world out there?


I double checked and I dont see where I said religion made the world wacky.
However yes, religion has made some people do wacky, good, bad, horrific, kind, unkind etc etc things.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> What if I told you I have seen a little down that road about believing?
> 
> "What happened"...I asked myself  "did I believe first...wait, no I felt something first...well, no the feeling the "something" was my believing...wait, I don't remember saying "Oh, I am believing now..."
> 
> ...




These descriptions sound like you hang out with Jesus alot.  What do you guys do?  Do you meet for lunch everyday?  Does he always pick up the tab?  How do you guys communicate?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> Mercy is a thing...not unlike love, or loyalty, or honor...that we talk about as real things (even you and I, in whatever measure we do) but the quantifying...or the precise identifying in "fact" we get to find a little difficult. Please, I am not trying to play cutesy here, it wouldn't be for me to ask "do you love your wife?" and try to score a point in a then "show me this love thing" kinda thing. I think, or imagine (and am inviting correction) that you know what I'm talking about...and even then, again, I am not trying an emotional gambit...though I know the accusation is easy enough.
> 
> 
> What I am hoping is in my stumbling way (to see if we agree) is that we are already moved by myriad things we could never really explain to another very well, an inward call to "honor" our word, to be solicitous at least, when presented, and not cruel, to be easily moved to go an extra mile for a son or daughter...without even a thought of seeking to bring it to their attention. To be a loyal kind of man, not duplicitous and double dealing or tongued.
> ...



I am reminded of an old saying: "There are some things that are understood without the need for argument." Sometimes (I speak with myself in mind) arguments can decompose to such a level of obfuscation that we begin asking questions like 'What is truth?' Not that I think it's useless... one should have some understanding of a subject so that explanation can be given, if needed or wanted.
In the mean time, I enjoy the equations and the trout stream .


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 21, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I am reminded of an old saying: "There are some things that are understood without the need for argument." Sometimes (I speak with myself in mind) arguments can decompose to such a level of obfuscation that we begin asking questions like 'What is truth?' Not that I think it's useless... one should have some understanding of a subject so that explanation can be given, if needed or wanted.
> In the mean time, I enjoy the equations and the trout stream .



That's funny right there. ( Don't care who you are. But your probably a math nut.  or an english teacher..


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 21, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> That's funny right there. ( Don't care who you are. But your probably a math nut.  or an english teacher..



What's not to like about math?


----------



## Israel (Oct 22, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> These descriptions sound like you hang out with Jesus alot.  What do you guys do?  Do you meet for lunch everyday?  Does he always pick up the tab?  How do you guys communicate?



I thought, at one time "I accepted Jesus"...and at that time, in that thinking, I did him a lot of favors. I even did him the favor of "believing" in Him! I was a grand man, a remarkably generous man toward God...and an entirely miserable man.
Somewhere along the line...what I thought was mine to "take or leave"...but I kept trying to do the favor of "pay attention"...even when (to me) I thought and found it terribly inconvenient...I would still be the "sacrificing one" for him. (Insert an eternity of laughter here)

It's funny what Jesus will accept...and put up with in a man's perceptions of himself. But he loves us way more than that. He is kind to the one who is lost. Even thinking he is soooo found and doing it "right".

Now I can't seem to stop running into Him everywhere, I mean, it's not even a consideration, and yet...now, I find it's really far less of me "seeking Him out" as I am convinced it's Him looking for me just showing up and saying "here, take this, it's free, and you're gonna need it".


----------



## Israel (Oct 22, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Or maybe he is. Maybe only he knows how bad he actually is/was.
> Wouldnt be the first person who's past transgressions, which are only known to them, have driven them to religion in hopes of the ultimate forgiveness.
> Its a wacky world out there and all we really know about Israel is the mild mannered, philosopher persona we see here.
> No offense intended Israel, just me being analytical


Ahhh...bless you...if you can receive it.
Nah, you got me nailed to a "T". It would serve no purpose to deeply explore my "heart of darkness"...suffice to say, I am ready to divorce my wife when I can't find my keys convinced she moved them...but I left them in another pair of pants and she calls to tell me, "honey, I found your keys".

yep, and that's just a good moment for me. but I think you may see.
No, you're right...I discovered a man I absolutely cannot live with, abhor, and who, despite my rhetoric...is always "just there" willing to show up. I got a message..."kill him and get remarried"
Really...that's OK? (he's already dead...but remind him)

yeah...but this new man is the only one who can help you to be OK with being a killer.
Oh.
So, it's not really "everyone else" that has to "change"...? They're really not a problem? 


(again, insert eternal laughter)


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 22, 2015)

Israel said:


> I thought, at one time "I accepted Jesus"...and at that time, in that thinking, I did him a lot of favors. I even did him the favor of "believing" in Him! I was a grand man, a remarkably generous man toward God...and an entirely miserable man.
> Somewhere along the line...what I thought was mine to "take or leave"...but I kept trying to do the favor of "pay attention"...even when (to me) I thought and found it terribly inconvenient...I would still be the "sacrificing one" for him. (Insert an eternity of laughter here)
> 
> It's funny what Jesus will accept...and put up with in a man's perceptions of himself. But he loves us way more than that. He is kind to the one who is lost. Even thinking he is soooo found and doing it "right".
> ...



Gonna need what? A coat?  Forgiveness?  Sleep Apnea?

You didn't answer any of my questions.

" What do you guys do? Do you meet for lunch everyday? Does he always pick up the tab? How do you guys communicate?"


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 22, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You didn't answer any of my questions.
> 
> " What do you guys do? Do you meet for lunch everyday? Does he always pick up the tab? How do you guys communicate?"



Ok this is how it works for me, perhaps not for Isreal ( don't want to put words in his mouth), but for Gordie.

Christianity is not just a community building project which hopes to love others if possible and make the best out of our time in our life and death existence. 

As a Christian I understand that Christ is THE type for all types of spiritual-mystical beliefs;

--  and especially for the spiritual-mystical-beliefs that deny Gods or devils as anything real and that the only thing real is by observation and proof verifiable in the events of the  individual and community in nature .

Christ or God is a spirit giver which raises my existence about the brutish nature of our world, but also above all other spirit givers that it is possible for a person to know.

God is not only a spirit giver to Gordie, but to Isreal also.  Now this spirit nature given by Jesus is in likeness to Isreal's spirit nature. Therefore I can communicate spiritually with God in fellowship with Isreal. His Spirit to my spirit through Isreal.

Now this communication is going on with Isreal and with me and the Spirit nature of God does not mind if we compare notes. So God informs directly but also through fellowship.

Non believers on the other hand, ( that is to say those who don't believe in the Divine nature independent of man) believe in man's chemical-biological- social nature or man's natural makeup and man's hope in man as the Type of types. When secular hero's listen to a man and speak for a man, they listen and speak to his dreams. Personally I find this too narrow an outlook. 

When I "look" with a spirit formed in by the Devine I see His Spirit in all of creation, including Isreal. And therefore when I speak with Isreal, I speak not only to a philosopher, a thinker, I speak to that which makes us brothers above the fact of our biological makeup. And that fact is Jesus, Mary's son, the one said a prophet by some and God by some others.

Or in other words the Holy Spirit in Isreal, is the Holy Spirit- case closed. And when Isreal  in common union with the Holy Spirit prays or meditates, well God informs Isreal. Furthermore the evidences created within this common union do not warrant disbelief.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 22, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Yes. However I have met people who's physco-logic was deepened for/ in the traditional belief ( religious) system due to suffering in WW11.
> 
> It seems to me that you are drawing from another  belief tradition ( secularism) with another psychology or soul logic than is generally and traditionally common to man through out the world?
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what you mean by "soul logic".

1.  I don't really see to many similarities except perhaps the desire to explain things.  The biggest difference is the type of evidence required to base belief on.  

2.  I don't think so.  "Traditional Wisdoms" require belief in things that can't be substantiated by REAL evidence: Repeatable, Measurable, Disputable.

3.  The biggest benefit I have personally experienced is that I'm no longer worried by the thought that there are evil forces manipulating the events of my life.  Also, I'm not burdened with the notion of having to try to make sense of non-sense like "God had a plan for your child to be born missing half a head.  You have to trust that He loves us and that He is only good."  

As a believer I took pity on people that I though were going to He11.  Shame on me and I wish I could tell all those people I'm sorry.  

The outcomes are the same but I can interpret them in a way that makes sense and I don't have to do any mental loopdey loops to explain them.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 22, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Ok this is how it works for me, perhaps not for Isreal ( don't want to put words in his mouth), but for Gordie.
> 
> Christianity is not just a community building project which hopes to love others if possible and make the best out of our time in our life and death existence.
> 
> ...



I contend that neither of you know how any of that works and that you are making it up as you go along.  

Who do you know that TRULY understands any of that?  A Shaman?  Jimmy Swaggart?  William Lane Craig?  Ravi Zacharias?

Honestly,  what am I supposed to do with the information that you give me about an astral plane and voices in your head?  Just believe you?


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 22, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I contend that neither of you know how any of that works and that you are making it up as you go along.
> 
> Who do you know that TRULY understands any of that?  A Shaman?  Jimmy Swaggart?  William Lane Craig?  Ravi Zacharias?
> 
> Honestly,  what am I supposed to do with the information that you give me about an astral plane and voices in your head?  Just believe you?



Many believers think that unbelievers willfully ignore or deny 50% (not empirically derived) of what is.
Many unbelievers think that believers fabricate that 50% to explain what they don’t understand.
Neither group acknowledges that both could be wrong.

So, you can recognize that others may experience things that you don’t, 
and “Just believe you”
or you can continue to,
 “contend that neither of you know how any of that works and that you are making it up as you go along”.

My contention is that both groups will continue as described; with one recognized caveat: “… I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 22, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Many believers think that unbelievers willfully ignore or deny 50% (not empirically derived) of what is.
> Many unbelievers think that believers fabricate that 50% to explain what they don’t understand.
> Neither group acknowledges that both could be wrong.
> 
> ...



If I said "Your wife is cheating on you." you would demand evidence and not just believe me.  If you knew me well and respected my opinion you might think that I could be telling you the truth but you will still want to find out for yourself.  You will likely do rigorous investigation to discover the truth.  You will demand empirical evidence.

I grant that there are things too wonderful (perhaps even abhorrent) that we don't know about.  What I'm opposed to is that people make claims about REAL KNOWLEDGE of those very things.  

Believers talk out of both sides of their mouths when they say "God's ways are mysterious" and then say "God revealed the truth to me".

Again,  if you tell me you had some experience that you can't demonstrably reveal to me, why should I believe you?  I can easily agree that you believe that you had an experience but that doesn't reveal anything meaningful about whether or not you understood what actually happened.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 22, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If I said "Your wife is cheating on you." you would demand evidence and not just believe me.  If you knew me well and respected my opinion you might think that I could be telling you the truth but you will still want to find out for yourself.  You will likely do rigorous investigation to discover the truth.  You will demand empirical evidence.
> 
> I grant that there are things too wonderful (perhaps even abhorrent) that we don't know about.  What I'm opposed to is that people make claims about REAL KNOWLEDGE of those very things.
> 
> ...



So, you agree with my contention, good.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 22, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> So, you agree with my contention, good.



I don't agree with you that non-believers ignore 50% of "what is".  If it's not empirically derived then why would anyone claim with certainty that "it is"?


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 22, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't agree with you that non-believers ignore 50% of "what is".  If it's not empirically derived then why would anyone claim with certainty that "it is"?



Read my statement again.
Once again:



hummerpoo said:


> My contention is that both groups will continue as described; with one recognized caveat: “… I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”



So, I would be inconsistent if I expected you to agree with that; if you did agree, the caveat covers it..


----------



## Israel (Oct 22, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> These descriptions sound like you hang out with Jesus alot.  What do you guys do?  Do you meet for lunch everyday?  Does he always pick up the tab?  How do you guys communicate?



You responded to my response to this saying "you didn't answer any of my questions."
I suppose I took it as a little facetiousness.


----------



## Israel (Oct 23, 2015)

It's perfectly expected in the reasoning spoken of by Jesus as to the necessity of unbelievers finding believers inconvenient.
But here also a man calling himself a believer is also "not let off the hook" so to speak.
Jesus calls those begotten of God through him, light. Others yet abide in darkness. Light and darkness are always at odds, of entirely different natures. Admittedly...who wouldn't prefer to be called "in the light" than "in the dark"? What of man is so hard to comprehend that doesn't often fall to the appeal of "you got the REAL understanding"? (You're an "insider" now bubba!...sent amongst shlubs) I don't think I need elaborate the tribal appeal.

But, of course, that is not all Jesus says, nor is my crass interpretation above what he means...anymore than when my father said "someday you will drive this car" and I decided Tuesday was a "someday" at 10 years old. Father's have a way of clarifying themselves if a hearer is disposed to his own (ignorant) and shortsighted self interest above all. By this children learn about Father's...as not merely those who speak certain things...but also have a means of clarifying them. (Likewise mothers).


Daddy issues. Who ain't got em? I've met very few believers who do not know of themselves their disposition to slide on a pair of oversized brogans and grab a way too large suit jacket, lower their voice and slog around saying "Is dinner ready yet? Where's my dinner? Betty Sue, go do your homework. Bobby...go do your chores!" It's very easy for such a one so garbed to imagine "I am being resisted because I am the daddy, or at least like the daddy, and they are little rebels" When in fact the brothers and sisters are just amazed at what a noob takes seriously by just thinking he "fits" the Father's clothes and demeanor.


So, the believer finds he cannot take shelter in "just because so and so, whom calls himself an unbeliever (in darkness) resists me, it must be because I am so much of the light to him! See! I really am just like God!...like Jesus! being persecuted for righteousness' sake!" Yeah, it sometimes goes like that. Since I have been both it...and I believe "discerned" it...(and have had others so inclined in admission to confirm it), I can't but imagine...it happens. Children...trying to take other children...to school. For their own aggrandizement.


But here one could see how a naive believer might make of other men, even if called "in the dark" (unbelievers) nothing more than fodder for themselves. I ain't yet met a man who likes being fed to the machine of someone else's ego. "Oh, look, a field in which I can make a name for myself!" And so, even my atheist physician friend (who's kinda brilliant among man's measurements...he skipped all of HS and went right to college at 13) was hard pressed if even given to accept the premise of my silly question "if the angel of God, (Look, I know you call yourself an unbeliever)...but someone with irrefutable power came to you and said "tomorrow, when you wake up, all disease will be gone" I asked "would you be happy?" He knew enough of himself to admit "I'd have to think about that".

Yet, here we are. Men who seem to have an end..."My job is to help the sick! (always a "them") "My job is to convert the heathen!" (always a them)"...and how easy it is to fall in love with a task, begin to identify with that task...and be slow to realize...that task, if I be honest, has an end to which I am either opposed, or in favor. Builders are always eyeing the next lot. What will a man be left with when the final house is built...what to do, then? All I know is how to build, how to "do" surgery, how to "preach".

What is left to the "atheist"...when all believers are gone...when and if, according to a reasoning...all are finally enlightened away from a "God delusion?" Be thoughtful, and if possible...honest. Will you then say in your hearts, do you even now..."say in your hearts" things will then be as they "should" be? Be careful. (of course my position relative to this should be obvious...and it's not the facile "he thinks the world is better with believers in it")

For, if in your heart you say "should"...or have even the slightest inclination toward a "the way things must head, ought to lead, inevitably must resolve" you have declared yourself a believer in man's destiny...and destiny, or any permutation thereof, suddenly injects "a reason" for being into what is otherwise argued as having no reason to it. This is what man "should" be. Oh. But, I thought the premise there is no reason for man? Even if man, who quite deviously says "I find no reason in the universe" thinking (ignorantly? deviously? presumptuously?) he is something apart from it says "I have reasoned this out!"
If reason is resident in only one...maybe even "only you"...it is present in the universe of which it then cannot be said "to be without reason".
Yes, all else you see may be without reason...to you...or me. But if one can say, has the ability to recognize "reason"...even, and especially in its absence (please, think about its absolute necessity to that operation) then it exists...in the universe.

Therefore, whether you believe, or do not believe, whether you simply "say" you believe, or simply "say" you do not...there's a reason for it. I can only say that the reason for the universe (and all else that is...and even "is not"...) alone knows my reason...for anything.
I may come as one no more than a silly child slogging around in shoes too big for me...barking orders...completely un self aware...at all...and appear to the wiser as the noob I am...wonderful...for they are my help.
But, whether you accept my reasoning, reject me as one simply using men as fodder, find me brilliant or the most benighted of fools...doesn't matter at all. I am what I am. For a reason.
But I will say this without explanation or apology, in this house there is a mirror, we either flee it, or run to it. Each will have their view of themselves...in it. All runners...to and fro.
Ill fitted fool I appear, yet the mirror remains a help...always...in its unsparing eye a mercy unfathomable is inclined to all. Even in the most dreadful seeing of ourselves...mercy...is there.
We are made to look.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 23, 2015)

Israel said:


> What is left to the "atheist"...when all believers are gone...when and if, according to a reasoning...all are finally enlightened away from a "God delusion?" Be thoughtful, and if possible...honest. Will you then say in your hearts, do you even now..."say in your hearts" things will then be as they "should" be? Be careful. (of course my position relative to this should be obvious...and it's not the facile "he thinks the world is better with believers in it")




Things will be better.  But look how far we have to go.  Look at this little snippet of how much irrationality exists and get a sense of how deeply rooted it is.  Do you see how close on the spectrum of Belief to Non-Belief even a liberal Christian is to a Whirling Dervish?  Think of all those women trapped in cloth bags or made to be silent in Pews.  And you can't say that you're not part of the problem.  Having to show even a modicum of respect to your house broken irrationality makes it difficult to address the extreme aggressors.





(This Movie _Baraka_ is awesome, by the way.)


----------



## Israel (Oct 23, 2015)

ahh, truth will out. I can speak for no believer but myself...but you very much seem to tout the athe"ism" as "the way, the truth, the life"...just waiting over, or perhaps at the horizon.
To me, it's just a convenient way to dismiss Jesus Christ...in his puzzlingly profound submission to all that aggressors would do him. (in his absolute submisssion to a "higher")
The seeming expediency of doing away with "all"  aggressors...always has the peculiar manner of coming home with the conqueror...into his own house. I know a conqueror whose house can handle it...and am convinced neither yours, nor my own, can rightly contain it without harm.
Have I ever said "I am not part of the problem?"
The perfect work of the cross is reason for all that I am that is THE problem...not "a" part.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 23, 2015)

Israel said:


> ahh, truth will out. I can speak for no believer but myself...but you very much seem to tout the athe"ism" as "the way, the truth, the life"...just waiting over, or perhaps at the horizon.
> To me, it's just a convenient way to dismiss Jesus Christ...in his puzzlingly profound submission to all that aggressors would do him. (in his absolute submisssion to a "higher")
> The seeming expediency of doing away with "all"  aggressors...always has the peculiar manner of coming home with the conqueror...into his own house. I know a conqueror whose house can handle it...and am convinced neither yours, nor my own, can rightly contain it without harm.
> Have I ever said "I am not part of the problem?"
> The perfect work of the cross is reason for all that I am that is THE problem...not "a" part.



All the talk about the work of the cross and the divinity of Jesus is unfounded.  

Atheism isn't "the way" but reason and rationality won't get you to deism, not in any argument I've ever heard.  Perhaps you've got a better argument than I've ever heard before.

What makes you believe in Jesus' divinity or his ability to talk to you from the grave?  What's the undeniable proof in the puddin'?


----------



## Israel (Oct 23, 2015)

You.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 23, 2015)

Israel said:


> You.



Lame.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 24, 2015)

110 posts in response to the OP question and nobody has the answer. That tells me all I need to know about human knowledge and scientific proof.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 24, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> 110 posts in response to the OP question and nobody has the answer. That tells me all I need to know about human knowledge and scientific proof.



Lame! To quote a nobody. There is one post that proposes an answer to the original post. #3. And I'm the nobody that posted it. 

Maybe you missed it. Or maybe I was not clear enough. I'm willing to go back and wax on it if you like and move it along a bit more.


The original post proposed two, two items that would cause supernatural belief to occur:  1)social cohesion and 2)attributing agency to inanimate objects. I on the other hand  propose another, that of "seers".

Concerning human knowledge what are/is the other option(s)? According to you?


----------



## Israel (Oct 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Lame.



Yeah, I know. I thought so too. I was even a little embarrassed about it, thought "man, what are you trying to do...just come up with a quick answer in a discussion...something terse and cloaked in some hint at an arcane understanding that makes you look clever...when it really appears, as you say, just 'lame'?"


But then I began to consider what I thought so lame an answer. 

At first it was in the very simple...and shallow perception..."Jesus said this would happen "to me" in the presentation of the gospel...I would be resisted" So, to that, in whatever measure you find me and my words lame, I have already been told "don't be discouraged when this happens...don't let yourself be shaken" yeah, Jesus...that's right! This stuff is part and parcel of your experience. So yeah...in whatever measure I may sense Ambush "putting me to the test"...he is a necessary part of proving your word, to me, and even, thereby, shows again "Jesus you really do know what you are talking about, always."

Well, I know that helps me...but to you...well perhaps just looks like a bunch of circular logic.
Then...later...in consideration a few of your words came back to me. Things, if handled a certain way by one who didn't hold you in their heart...would allow a "triumph" of sorts. But, I was put to shame in that consideration. But out of that shame came a clarity...would I try to judge you...or see you as you are...a man just like me? Then I saw the shame that prohibited me was precisely the grace being shown me...to keep me from knowing shame if I pursued that course.

But Lord...that silly one word answer he will answer as "stupid, insufficient, a ruse, a feint...lame".
So, what? Bear the accusation. Do you think yourself more than that? Cleverer? 

In the most general terms...the generic "you"...all the yous out there that populate this globe, all the trees walking I see...that are not the single "me" I perceive...one of those "yous" has come to me in a manner and with words so different than all others...and the experience of me of all the others...that has caused me to notice. Claims of himself seemingly outrageous, and claims to knowing me (and all men) that are equally absurd in scope..."all men?"..."really"? "At all times?"
"For he knew what is in the heart of man".

That he has shown himself at least knowing of mine in a completeness I can only confess in whatever measure I know today, at this moment...I say, "Jesus is Lord". My maker knows me...I am known...of my maker.  I cannot hide...even if wanting to, even when found trying to.


But, what of "you"? What of the one who comes asking bread...and I seem to have none to give that satisfies him? I eat, and am full...but, this man, this opposer, is he honest broker?
Shall I hide? Shall I seek some end to his demands? Shall I pretend at sleep and maybe he will go away? He despises my bread, or at least seems to...what need have I of such a one in my eating?
Look, isn't this good enough to discard him...he calls my brother (our brother!) one who has taken the leap into the absurd.
Yes, that's true...but is he not also the one who confessed to a wretched plane? Will you not care to leave him there?

And what of this, despite your engagement of him...he acknowledges the logic of that brother whose leap into the "absurd" gives him a good night's sleep? Would you discard smoking flax? Do you despise bruised reeds?

Yeah...but. 
I look so stupid to him!


Yes.


So what?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2015)

Israel said:


> Yeah, I know. I thought so too. I was even a little embarrassed about it, thought "man, what are you trying to do...just come up with a quick answer in a discussion...something terse and cloaked in some hint at an arcane understanding that makes you look clever...when it really appears, as you say, just 'lame'?"
> 
> 
> But then I began to consider what I thought so lame an answer.
> ...



I wonder what you would say if we were talking about the same subject matter in front of 10-12 year olds.  How would you use language if we were trying to explain our stances to them?

I've come to the conclusion that use use the language that you do because you find it appropriate to the fantastic claims that you make.

That's all I'll ever say about your prose again.


Look what percentage of your discourse is beyond discussion.  Good job, Preacher.  ("But I come not to preach for I am unworthy rags.")

By the way, your "bread" is poison.


----------



## Israel (Oct 27, 2015)

You are my brother. Some things simply cannot be broken.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

Israel said:


> You are my brother. Some things simply cannot be broken.



I can dig that.


----------

