# Bad luck



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2014)

I had a rough start to the day yesterday.  While I was in my brother in law (BIL)'s driveway, my truck died.  My BIL took me to the parts store to get a new battery and on the way home _his_ van died in the middle of a busy intersection.  We pushed it to the side with help from a delivery man.  It eventually started back up and I replaced my battery. My BIL said "I'm getting away from you.  You're bad luck."

I started thinking about what it must be like to live thinking that there were "forces" controlling the future.  What must it be like to go through the day thinking that there is an evil beast causing havoc and the only thing protecting me is a  benevolent being.  Then I remembered that sometimes the benevolent being is responsible for the hardships too.

Was the delivery man an angel?  How would someone even begin to discern that?  

I suppose one might take comfort in thinking that no matter what happens through the day that there is "someone" up there with a plan.  What if that plan is for me to have my hand severed off?  Trust that it was done with love?  What if my daughter gets kidnapped and raped for days before being dismembered and eaten?  Trust that it was done with love and there's a greater plan that I can't possibly understand?  

No real comfort at all.  None.

This was not a good frame of mind to have before attempting to jack up someone's house.

I was talking with a friend about the Universe and how from our perspective one might get the impression that we on Earth are special since we seem to be the only life forms that exist.  Then we discussed how much we _don't_ know about the Universe.  He mentioned that most of the Universe that we can observe, again an infinitesimal portion, is unsuited to life.  I thought of an analogy.  If a hundred billion pennies were dropped out if the sky onto a great parking lot and one of them ended up standing on its edge would that make it special?  Would it indicate that it was somehow endowed with magical properties?  I suppose I would keep it, maybe even document it and put it on display.  But it would only be sentiment.

With all this swirling around in my head I put the crank to the jack.  I told my assistant to stay alert and whispered "Please...." Who was I talking to?  I think I was talking to the jack and the post and the footer that we took great care in leveling.  I was talking to myself.  I trusted.  I hoped.  And all went well.  This time.

It says 60% chance of rain for tomorrow.  I'm going anyway.  I might get wet.  I might get stuck in the mud.  I might kill a deer.  Good luck to you all.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2014)

Nice post


----------



## Israel (Sep 12, 2014)

Ambush, what you don't know is what none of us knows, till we know it.
You speak of "believing" as though it's a switch one controls, as in "OK, now I will believe in a benevolent deity".
And from there you surmise "what it would be like" in doing so.
No believers I know have claimed exemptions from trials (read: things not going the way they thought they "should", or would have desired; unforseen consequences) and from there finding of a something that seems, precisely at that moment, a contradiction to their faith.
What you don't know, again, and what none of us (again) know until we know it, is the presence of One already there, already knowing of the trial, and in the very trial. 

Surprised... or shocked, depending, as any may seem to experience in that moment, those moments, comes a grace of entreaty, a conviction (if better said), a very real calling forth for something into what we are now experiencing as "the chaos". Where seeming orderly plans have now discovered their poverty of preparation, where what was not seen is suddenly seen, where what could not have previously been accounted for, is real. Where our own kingdoms of reason and planning must in truth, give way.

You spoke quite eloquently and personally. You have framed your "please" to fit your understanding, though I would daresay at the moment of its utterance it was neither framed by you, nor even bidden forth by you. It was just there, so to speak, to be uttered from the heart, a place we rarely visit in ourselves, let alone share with one another.

I have been considering the wondrous way of living from the heart, neither fearing in the sharing of the less seemly (read: fears) to those convictions for which we have no adequate words, almost like "I seem to be, I seem to myself very much to be, and in this being find a something even deeper than need that forces me to express my "me".
That faith is far simpler than I yet know, I am learning.
That the God of this faith is even simpler still, I am convicted.
As simple as blood, sweat and tears have been common to us all, but as wondrous as they are, at all.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 14, 2014)

Israel said:


> Ambush, what you don't know is what none of us knows, till we know it.
> You speak of "believing" as though it's a switch one controls, as in "OK, now I will believe in a benevolent deity".
> And from there you surmise "what it would be like" in doing so.
> No believers I know have claimed exemptions from trials (read: things not going the way they thought they "should", or would have desired; unforseen consequences) and from there finding of a something that seems, precisely at that moment, a contradiction to their faith.
> ...




I've whispered that same "Please..." in the backseat of a car with a pretty girl or right before curling up the corner of the last card.   

Seeming to be is good enough.  What else are you gonna do? Make up stories in your head?

I've concluded that belief or disbelief is a preference like taste. My wife hated olives.  She kept trying them because she thought they were cool.  One day she liked them.


I didn't get a deer but there's still time in the day to get my hand severed off.


----------



## Israel (Sep 14, 2014)

So far so good, eh?
Those pants and pot may have seemed important enough to play for with a plea.
Even that deer and hand you may feel free to leave in the wind to get or keep.
But, your soul...
That's when the plea's begin from the heart.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 15, 2014)

Israel said:


> So far so good, eh?
> Those pants and pot may have seemed important enough to play for with a plea.
> Even that deer and hand you may feel free to leave in the wind to get or keep.
> But, your soul...
> That's when the plea's begin from the heart.




Show it to me.


----------



## TheBuckMan (Sep 15, 2014)

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. James 1.12. The foundation of Life is the one upon the Lord all other paths lead to anger and sorrow.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Show it to me.



When viewing the picture of the starving child and the vulture, do you feel empathy or a primitive impulse to attack the weak?


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> When viewing the picture of the starving child and the vulture, do you feel empathy or a primitive impulse to attack the weak?



That's not his soul.....it's his evolutionary morality.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> When viewing the picture of the starving child and the vulture, do you feel empathy or a primitive impulse to attack the weak?



Does a dog have a soul because it shows empathy for its sick master?

EDIT: Corrected to say shows empathy rather than feels empathy.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> When viewing the picture of the starving child and the vulture, do you feel empathy or a primitive impulse to attack the weak?



Empathy.  I was thinking of this the other day. Why do we react more strongly towards infants/children being harmed than say a teenager or young adult?  Must be hard, hard wired.

Also I'm a speciest.



jmharris23 said:


> That's not his soul.....it's his evolutionary morality.



I've looked for my soul and I always find my mind.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Does a dog have a soul because it shows empathy for its sick master?
> 
> EDIT: Corrected to say shows empathy rather than feels empathy.



I don't know what my dog thinks or feels, really.  I can guess.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 15, 2014)

TheBuckMan said:


> Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. James 1.12. The foundation of Life is the one upon the Lord all other paths lead to anger and sorrow.



That's nice.

Maybe not......


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Does a dog have a soul because it shows empathy for its sick master?
> 
> EDIT: Corrected to say shows empathy rather than feels empathy.



G.K. Chesterton said that we are souls that have a body, not bodies that have a soul, meaning the soul is preeminent and permanent.  The body is temporary.

I think animals have souls, and of course bodies, but neither are eternal.  When they die physically their soul dies also.

Just my opinion.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Empathy.  I was thinking of this the other day. Why do we react more strongly towards infants/children being harmed than say a teenager or young adult?  Must be hard, hard wired.
> 
> Also I'm a speciest.
> 
> ...



A) Survival of the species. 

B) I have yet to find my soul. I know my mind exists because I can think with it, but I have yet to observe it for myself. At least an objective way. 

C) Agreed, you can infer based on action. A family dog, to a sick family member empathizes in every way except for 1) saying it and 2) bringing them chicken soup. They lay on the bed, or nearby, comforting in their own ways, and do what they can to try to get you better. 

Then there's the dogs who rescue other dogs from traffic, of their own volition. Not trained to do it like a rescue dog, just one dog rescuing a friend. 

At what point does suggestion based on action become confirmation? The same goes for dolphins and other creatures.


----------



## TheBuckMan (Sep 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> That's nice.
> 
> Maybe not......



Why if you don't believe in God do you have a really creepy Bible verse as your quote? There is only one truth and that is of the one true God. So if you are asking if you cut your hand off did God know you were going to the answer is yes God did know you were going to cut your hand off but he gave you this crazy thing called a conscience to give you logic.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Does a dog have a soul because it shows empathy for its sick master?
> 
> EDIT: Corrected to say shows empathy rather than feels empathy.



Is that empathy on display?  Will the same dog attack a weaker critter when said critter displays fear?  There are many answers to what that dog is doing.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> A) Survival of the species.
> 
> B) I have yet to find my soul. I know my mind exists because I can think with it, but I have yet to observe it for myself. At least an objective way.
> 
> ...



Just saw a video of a full grown hippo helping a foal zebra across a river.



JB0704 said:


> Is that empathy on display?  Will the same dog attack a weaker critter when said critter displays fear?  There are many answers to what that dog is doing.



It's even hard to know what people are feeling exactly, even when they tell you.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Is that empathy on display?  Will the same dog attack a weaker critter when said critter displays fear?  There are many answers to what that dog is doing.



But does it have a soul? There are people far worse behaved than these dogs who still lay claim to a soul, so I don't see where behavior is an indicator.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But does it have a soul? There are people far worse behaved than these dogs who still lay claim to a soul, so I don't see where behavior is an indicator.



The initial question was relevant to Ambush.  You can also apply it to yourself.

Do you feel empathy or a primitive impulse to attack?  Contrast that with what we can witness with the majority of the meat-eating animal kingdom. 

Yes, there are very bad people in this world, and very good dogs.  Does marginal behavior determine the status of the whole?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> The initial question was relevant to Ambush.  You can also apply it to yourself.
> 
> Do you feel empathy or a primitive impulse to attack?  Contrast that with what we can witness with the majority of the meat-eating animal kingdom.
> 
> Yes, there are very bad people in this world, and very good dogs.  Does marginal behavior determine the status of the whole?



So, in this analogy, Ted Bundy and a lion feeding her cubs are equal? 

Do we carry sinful blood on our hands for eating the creatures of this world? 

To me, behavior is all that matters since that is all that we can see. I can know not what is in your heart, but what you do with your hands.


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> When viewing the picture of the starving child and the vulture, do you feel empathy or a primitive impulse to attack the weak?



Even though I have a different view than most of you on hunting and believe me I know I am in a hunting forum and understand why most of you do what you do...I make the best 'bambi' chili in town..lol. Would ambush try to shoot a 'deer' that had a rifle locked, loaded, and 'redlighted' at his head?  I doubt it (in his 'right' thinkin')....or maybe he would, he would prey on anything he 'thinks' is weaker than him, because he is blinded by the light.

Hope you get the gist of that..


----------



## Israel (Sep 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Show it to me.


It's that thing you are teaching.
Or perhaps better understood, as that which is being taught and formed.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So, in this analogy, Ted Bundy and a lion feeding her cubs are equal?



No.  Before he was executed, Ted Bundy felt guilt over his actions.  Perhaps that is an evolutionary response given he was about to be executed, I dunno.  But, the lions in "Ghost and the Darkness" probably never figured out why they got killed.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Do we carry sinful blood on our hands for eating the creatures of this world?



Nah.  Somewhere in Genesis we are given the green light to eat 'em as long as they are cooked.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> To me, behavior is all that matters since that is all that we can see. I can know not what is in your heart, but what you do with your hands.



True.  So, only consider yourself.  Your thoughts, emotions, and reactions to things.  Compare that to what you see in the animal kingdom......what they do with their "hands," and tell me if you see a difference.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 16, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> Even though I have a different view than most of you on hunting and believe me I know I am in a hunting forum and understand why most of you do what you do...I make the best 'bambi' chili in town..lol. Would ambush try to shoot a 'deer' that had a rifle locked, loaded, and 'redlighted' at his head?  I doubt it (in his 'right' thinkin')....or maybe he would, he would prey on anything he 'thinks' is weaker than him, because he is blinded by the light.
> 
> Hope you get the gist of that..



Not sure I follow......but, good to see you posting again


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> A) Survival of the species.
> 
> B) I have yet to find my soul. I know my mind exists because I can think with it, but I have yet to observe it for myself. At least an objective way.
> 
> ...




Seems like it would be better to save a useful teenager than a resource draining infant.  A cow elk will eventually surrender her calf to a bear than allow herself to be killed.  She can make more.

We're different.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> No.  Before he was executed, Ted Bundy felt guilt over his actions.  Perhaps that is an evolutionary response given he was about to be executed, I dunno.  But, the lions in "Ghost and the Darkness" probably never figured out why they got killed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How do you know he genuinely felt guilt? I love that movie. Still, those lions are the outliers of the typical pride. That's why they got a movie. If the actions of the minority are indicative of those of the whole then we'd better watch out how loudly that's professed. 

Is ceviche cooked? 

If actions are the only determination in what actually counts, then why are you asking me to look inside myself? I see creatures who aren't quite evolved enough yet to give rise to advanced social structure like we have. I do see codified actions, with penalties for violation. Moreover, I don't see random killing, I see purposeful killing to further individual survival, which is a mechanism of evolution. Those less equipped or advantaged don't survive to procreate.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How do you know he genuinely felt guilt?



I don't.  But, he expressed it.  Guilt is something humans understand.  If he did not understand what guilt was, he would not have expressed it regardless of his intentions in doing so.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I love that movie. Still, those lions are the outliers of the typical pride.



Yea, it's a good movie, for sure.  But, is their lack of conscious for their killin' non-typical?



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Is ceviche cooked?



Yes, with citric acid.  But, technically, the Bible says cook to remove blood.  Sushi and ceviche are fish dishes. 




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If actions are the only determination in what actually counts, then why are you asking me to look inside myself?



Because that's where you will find what sets you apart from them based on your actions compared to theirs.  You wouldn't kill a child to make a momma want to reproduce again, but bears do it all the time......not knowing that what they are doing is completely counter-productive to the purpose.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I see creatures who aren't quite evolved enough yet to give rise to advanced social structure like we have. I do see codified actions, with penalties for violation. Moreover, I don't see random killing, I see purposeful killing to further individual survival, which is a mechanism of evolution. Those less equipped or advantaged don't survive to procreate.



See above comments on bears.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I don't.  But, he expressed it.  Guilt is something humans understand.  If he did not understand what guilt was, he would not have expressed it regardless of his intentions in doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He said the words, but you have no idea if he truly felt it. Releasing him from jail and observing his actions would be the only true test of it. 

Again, you're asking me to judge the internalizations of another creature. I can't do that with you, and you can speak to me about them. All I can see is what they do. I don't see humans and lions as separate, though. We kill plenty of lesser creatures in pursuit of our own survival. What does feeling bad about that mean to the killed creature? Nothing. 

I get that it's chemically cooked, but your last bit is why I asked. The blood is still in there, so should you be eating it? 

That's not true. They kill the cubs as progeny of a lesser bear. She has an instinct to reproduce and have cubs, so if the weaker ones are killed, she will take those of the stronger one. I'm using weaker and stronger here, but adapted is interchangeable. It's an internal mechanism for strengthening the population as a result of being nearer the top of the food chain. If they were lower, predators would weed them out. Humans have done this in the past. They were called Spartans. By killing them, yes there are technically fewer Spartans, but those that remain are the best adapted to survive.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> He said the words, but you have no idea if he truly felt it. Releasing him from jail and observing his actions would be the only true test of it.



Of course I don't.  He was a horrible person, pure evil.  So, let's assume he did not feel it (I'm indifferent either way), he expressed ti for a purpose, and the expression indicated he understood it and also understood that others understood it.......regardless of his motivations, he knew what it was.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Again, you're asking me to judge the internalizations of another creature. I can't do that with you, and you can speak to me about them. All I can see is what they do. I don't see humans and lions as separate, though. We kill plenty of lesser creatures in pursuit of our own survival. What does feeling bad about that mean to the killed creature? Nothing.



If we make a bad shot on a deer, and it suffers, we feel guilty.  If a predator in the animal kingdom hears an animal sufferring.....it attacks the opportunity.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I get that it's chemically cooked, but your last bit is why I asked. The blood is still in there, so should you be eating it?



Sure.  Paul gives the green light to all things in the NT, even pork.  And, in doing so, opened the door to many a wonderful BBQ meals and sushi dinners to Christians.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's not true. They kill the cubs as progeny of a lesser bear. She has an instinct to reproduce and have cubs, so if the weaker ones are killed, she will take those of the stronger one. I'm using weaker and stronger here, but adapted is interchangeable. It's an internal mechanism for strengthening the population as a result of being nearer the top of the food chain. If they were lower, predators would weed them out. Humans have done this in the past. They were called Spartans. By killing them, yes there are technically fewer Spartans, but those that remain are the best adapted to survive.





Him killing a cub does not mean he is stronger than Papa bear.  It just means he killed a baby bear.....and mama bear has to reproduce again.  

But, honestly, everything I know on the bear subject I read in field and stream magazine as a kid......I found it disturbing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Of course I don't.  He was a horrible person, pure evil.  So, let's assume he did not feel it (I'm indifferent either way), he expressed ti for a purpose, and the expression indicated he understood it and also understood that others understood it.......regardless of his motivations, he knew what it was.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I care not about his remorse. I do care, however, about the nature of someone in survival situations doing what they need to survive. That's why animals killing animals get a pardon from me. That's why humans killing in defense of themselves from others get a pass from me. That's also why Bundy doesn't. He killed in cold blood and for no reason. It doesn't benefit society in the least to let him live, IMO. We're actually weaker for it the longer we protract his execution. 

If you make a bad shot on the deer and feel guilty, do you also leave it to die on its own? No, you pounce on it to kill it quickly to end its suffering. The same goes for animals killing animals. We're not as far removed from the wild kingdom, as you would wish, since we also institute limits, and other restrictions on harvest, to help maintain a healthy population. We're participants in the evolution of the species, the same as their predators are since the traits that bring the deer to us aren't witnessed in the whole herd. Some chose location A to get water, some location B, the location A deer got killed, so their preference was weeded out. 

As far as killing the babies, I've only ever seen that if the mom is weak. I've heard of other species where they challenge the male of the pairbond, and if they kill him, will also kill his babies. In both bears and other animals it results in the same thing. 

If the mom is best adapted she can protect the babies either by fight or by flight. Her genes stay in the pool. If she fails, they keep getting weeded out and her bad traits die out. If the challenger can kill the male, then his genes are bred out, while still preserving the female to procreate with. It's two different paths to the same goal, the strengthening of the herd/pack/etc. through self-policing. 

It's not nice to watch, but the gene pool is better for it.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I care not about his remorse. I do care, however, about the nature of someone in survival situations doing what they need to survive. That's why animals killing animals get a pardon from me. That's why humans killing in defense of themselves from others get a pass from me. That's also why Bundy doesn't. He killed in cold blood and for no reason. It doesn't benefit society in the least to let him live, IMO. We're actually weaker for it the longer we protract his execution.
> 
> If you make a bad shot on the deer and feel guilty, do you also leave it to die on its own? No, you pounce on it to kill it quickly to end its suffering. The same goes for animals killing animals. We're not as far removed from the wild kingdom, as you would wish, since we also institute limits, and other restrictions on harvest, to help maintain a healthy population. We're participants in the evolution of the species, the same as their predators are since the traits that bring the deer to us aren't witnessed in the whole herd. Some chose location A to get water, some location B, the location A deer got killed, so their preference was weeded out.



Is the wild animal's motivation to end the critter's suffering?



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> As far as killing the babies, I've only ever seen that if the mom is weak. I've heard of other species where they challenge the male of the pairbond, and if they kill him, will also kill his babies. In both bears and other animals it results in the same thing.
> 
> If the mom is best adapted she can protect the babies either by fight or by flight. Her genes stay in the pool. If she fails, they keep getting weeded out and her bad traits die out. If the challenger can kill the male, then his genes are bred out, while still preserving the female to procreate with. It's two different paths to the same goal, the strengthening of the herd/pack/etc. through self-policing.
> 
> It's not nice to watch, but the gene pool is better for it.



So.....bears evolved to kill their young as an evolutionary mechanism of creating the bigger, stronger, bear?

What is the male bear's rationale, or is he just doing what he does?  I think we would all be surprised if he felt he was creating better genetics within the local bear population.  It would make more sense that your idea is an effect more than a cause.

Why didn't people start doing this to create a super race given our abilities to reason?  I think the Spartans did it for a little while, but, survival of the fittest would indicate all societies would practice this in an effort to create strong people.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Why didn't people start doing this to create a super race given our abilities to reason?  I think the Spartans did it for a little while, but, survival of the fittest would indicate all societies would practice this in an effort to create strong people.



They do...kinda. On a more individual nature. Women still use 'ancient' parts of their brains to choose mates as do males. 
'Back in the day', weak humans didn't live long. Some not even long enough to procreate. 
However, being that we are human and don't last too long against critters, it is best not to kill off folks you may need. 
Now that we are spoiled, size and strength don't mean as much as it use to. It definitely doesn't determine your survival like that of a wild animal. 
Look at Bill Gates.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Is the wild animal's motivation to end the critter's suffering?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1) Yes, and not for entirely different reasons than you. Pity was only one possibility, the probability of attracting something with the cries of death that might strip your kill of you is a larger one. 

2) In shorthand, yes. Their gene pool is improved by that competition. What the bear _feels_ no one can know. People did start doing it. Hitler, Spartans, and probably others. We actually have an experiment, though most are loath to admit it, with active breeding selection right here in the USofA. Only the strongest, fastest slaves were picked to come over. As a result, their progeny was more concentrated with these traits. As a long term result you get amazing physical prowess compared with "natural" breeding. It's the same result as humans left up to their own environment, like those Mexican runner guys who can cover 200 miles in a night, barefoot, across the desert or some such nonsense like that. 

Again, it's not a pretty topic to discuss, but the evidence is all around us.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 16, 2014)

And I thought about this after that post, I'm not a bearologist, but I doubt that the bear is rationalizing anything when he kills the offspring of another. 

I'd be willing to bet, since this would be hard to evidence, that there was a bear that did this for the first time in their ancestry. As a result of that fluke, however it occurs, his kids likely did it, too. They did it to theirs, and so on, having been given some sort of an advantage over their other members by it. Still, saying all of that, there's no way to show that the bear really knows the consequences or benefits of what they are doing when they do it. 

I'll be it's somewhere around the Forrest Gump logic while he was running:

When I got hungry, I ate. 
When I got tired, I slept.
When I dominated a woman, I killed her kids so she could focus on mine.


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Not sure I follow......but, good to see you posting again



Thanks, happy to be here. 

The gist is he likes attacking/making fun of the Bible and Christians, because in his mind we are weaker then he is...he doesn't see us locked and loaded with the Word of God.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 16, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> Thanks, happy to be here.
> 
> The gist is he likes attacking/making fun of the Bible and Christians, because in his mind we are weaker then he is...he doesn't see us locked and loaded with the Word of God.



Bless your heart.....

Reminds me of Monty Python "Stop!  I'm being oppressed!"


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 16, 2014)

660griz said:


> They do...kinda. On a more individual nature. Women still use 'ancient' parts of their brains to choose mates as do males.
> 'Back in the day', weak humans didn't live long. Some not even long enough to procreate.
> However, being that we are human and don't last too long against critters, it is best not to kill off folks you may need.
> Now that we are spoiled, size and strength don't mean as much as it use to. It definitely doesn't determine your survival like that of a wild animal.
> Look at Bill Gates.




I blame the farmers.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 17, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> I blame the farmers.



No farmers, no X Box.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I've whispered that same "Please..." in the backseat of a car with a pretty girl or right before curling up the corner of the last card.
> 
> Seeming to be is good enough.  What else are you gonna do? Make up stories in your head?
> 
> ...




I know a lot of people, especially women, who cling to belief not on grounds of reason but emotion. It wasn't that they followed the evidence to test their beliefs. Rather they choose to believe to avoid how not believing would make them feel. It's no accident that many religions include the carrot of eternal bliss for followers and the stick of eternal torment for everyone else. It really boils down to wish thinking. It also explains why faith is extolled as a virtue.


For those who believe the universe was created with them in mind I would suggest a simple experiment. Go to the edge of a cliff and throw a rock over it. Observe what the laws of nature do to the rock. Then throw yourself over the cliff and observe whether the universe makes an exception to the rules on your behalf or whether it treats you just as it treated the rock.


----------



## Israel (Sep 21, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> For those who believe the universe was created with them in mind I would suggest a simple experiment. Go to the edge of a cliff and throw a rock over it. Observe what the laws of nature do to the rock. Then throw yourself over the cliff and observe whether the universe makes an exception to the rules on your behalf or whether it treats you just as it treated the rock.



Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'" Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2014)

Israel said:


> Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'" Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"



Ah yes, don't test the religious claim that the universe is designed with you in mind. You might find the claim to be untrue. Of course it is perfectly acceptable to test God by giving money to the keepers of the faith in exchange for promises of blessings. Very convenient these rules for when testing is and is not kosher.



> Malachi 3:10 ESV
> 
> Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need.


----------



## Israel (Sep 21, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Ah yes, don't test the religious claim that the universe is designed with you in mind. You might find the claim to be untrue. Of course it is perfectly acceptable to test God by giving money to the keepers of the faith in exchange for promises of blessings. Very convenient these rules for when testing is and is not kosher.



I don't think you quite know of what you're speaking when you say "keeper of the faith".


----------

