# John 14:6 says it all.



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 16, 2018)

“I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life...

As a believer, have you ever really considered the depth, breadth, implications and ramifications of what Christ said with regards to being the TRUTH.

All truth points to Christ.  If something doesn’t it can’t be true.  That’s just a starter. Any other believers care to chime in on the implications of this on reality as we perceive and interpret it?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life...
> 
> As a believer, have you ever really considered the depth, breadth, implications and ramifications of what Christ said with regards to being the TRUTH.
> 
> All truth points to Christ.  If something doesn’t it can’t be true.  That’s just a starter. Any other believers care to chime in on the implications of this on reality as we perceive and interpret it?


Any other believers may care a few floors up.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life...
> 
> As a believer, have you ever really considered the depth, breadth, implications and ramifications of what Christ said with regards to being the TRUTH.
> 
> All truth points to Christ.  If something doesn’t it can’t be true.  That’s just a starter. Any other believers care to chime in on the implications of this on reality as we perceive and interpret it?



Very interesting.  It seems like you're trying to start a Bible study and discussion down here.   Please, continue.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

"All truths point to Christ"

People can't resurrect from the dead.  Is that true?




<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## j_seph (Nov 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Any other believers may care a few floors up.


Apologetic





> *Christian apologetics* (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence") is a branch of *Christian* theology that defends *Christianity* against objections.



Looks to me like he posted his question in the correct forum. This is the Apologetics forum isn't it? That being so it could even be possibly considered an Agnostics discussion! From my understanding you would be considered an Atheist. Wouldn't that mean you are stirring the pot under your own sub-forum since this is not an Atheism question in regards to whether you believe or not? Just as you accuse us (Christians) of doing by posting over here.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 16, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Apologetic
> View attachment 949720
> Looks to me like he posted his question in the correct forum. This is the Apologetics forum isn't it? That being so it could even be possibly considered an Agnostics discussion! From my understanding you would be considered an Atheist. Wouldn't that mean you are stirring the pot under your own sub-forum since this is not an Atheism question in regards to whether you believe or not? Just as you accuse us (Christians) of doing by posting over here.



Yes. It was specifically worded toward believers and the subject of the question is at the very heart of apologetics, philosophy, logic and reason: that being TRUTH and what Christ claimed as TRUTH, Himself being the living embodiment of it.  That said, it's very appropriate in the AAA thread as an apologetics thread.  That certain atheist have a problem with the subject, well there is an option;  Bye.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Apologetic
> View attachment 949720
> Looks to me like he posted his question in the correct forum. This is the Apologetics forum isn't it? That being so it could even be possibly considered an Agnostics discussion! From my understanding you would be considered an Atheist. Wouldn't that mean you are stirring the pot under your own sub-forum since this is not an Atheism question in regards to whether you believe or not? Just as you accuse us (Christians) of doing by posting over here.


Unless this is your first day in here you would know that I am not an atheist. I have spelled out how and why countless times. It leads me to believe that you purposely disregard any factual information that goes against what snippets you cling on to in your head.
Again, a full definition of what an apologist is and does.
(It is not bible verse discussion among believers despite you wanting and thinking that is what it is)

While you touched on the first few sentences regarding Apologist/Apologetics, I will now help you like I helped SFD (which he ignores and continues on anyway) in the other thread.

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.

An apologist is someone who presents an apology or makes a practice of defending the faith. Apologists might (and do) develop their apologies within various intellectual contexts. That is, they may offer defenses of the Christian faith in relation to scientific, historical, philosophical, ethical, religious, theological, or cultural issues.
We may distinguish, then, four functions, goals, modes, or aspects of apologetics. The first may be called vindication (Beattie) or proof (Frame) and involves marshaling philosophical arguments as well as scientific and historical evidences for the Christian faith. The goal of apologetics here is to develop a positive case for Christianity as a belief system that should be accepted. Philosophically, this means drawing out the logical implications of the Christian worldview so that they can be clearly seen and contrasted with alternate worldviews. Such a contrast necessarily raises the issue of criteria of verification if these competing truth claims are to be assessed. The question of the criteria by which Christianity is proved is a fundamental point of contention among proponents of the various kinds of Christian apologetic systems.

The second function is defense. This function is closest to the New Testament and early Christian use of the word apologia: defending Christianity against the plethora of attacks made against it in every generation by critics of varying belief systems. This function involves clarifying the Christian position in light of misunderstandings and misrepresentations; answering objections, criticisms, or questions from non-Christians; and in general clearing away any intellectual difficulties that nonbelievers claim stand in the way of their coming to faith. More generally, the purpose of apologetics as defense is not so much to show that Christianity is true as to show that it is credible.

The third function is refutation of opposing beliefs (what Frame calls “offense”). This function focuses on answering, not specific objections to Christianity, but the arguments non-Christians give in support of their own beliefs. Most apologists agree that refutation cannot stand alone, since proving a non-Christian religion or philosophy to be false does not prove that Christianity is true. Nevertheless, it is an essential function of apologetics.

The fourth function is persuasion. By this we do not mean merely convincing people that Christianity is true, but persuading them to apply its truth to their life. This function focuses on bringing non-Christians to the point of commitment. The apologist’s intent is not merely to win an intellectual argument, but to persuade people to commit their lives and eternal futures into the trust of the Son of God who died for them. We might also speak of this function as evangelism or witness.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Apologetic
> View attachment 949720
> Looks to me like he posted his question in the correct forum. This is the Apologetics forum isn't it? That being so it could even be possibly considered an Agnostics discussion! From my understanding you would be considered an Atheist. Wouldn't that mean you are stirring the pot under your own sub-forum since this is not an Atheism question in regards to whether you believe or not? Just as you accuse us (Christians) of doing by posting over here.



I agree, kind of.  I'm still skeptical about his intent.  It reeks of "hit and run" proselytizing, which is the same thing that Brother David and Isreal do.  SFD's post is begging to talk about truth and how we determine what it is.  We've done that before but I don't think we've exhausted the discussion at all.  There's lots of meat on those bones still.

So lets talk about how we determine what's true.....again.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes. It was specifically worded toward believers and the subject of the question is at the very heart of apologetics, philosophy, logic and reason: that being TRUTH and what Christ claimed as TRUTH, Himself being the living embodiment of it.  That said, it's very appropriate in the AAA thread as an apologetics thread.  That certain atheist have a problem with the subject, well there is an option;  Bye.


Oh I wouldn't think of leaving and missing this gathering of true apologists talking bible verses amongst each other. 
I will gladly hang around and challenge your impressive apologetic skills,  well I'll certainly try anyway but I have almost no hope with the plethora of skilled apologists that will partake.
After all, defending ones religion as an apologetic is much more than a bunch of like minded pot stirrers getting together and discussing bible verses,  every great apologist needs some opposition in order to be able to showcase their defensive skills and how they are able to back up what is written in scripture with the realities of the outside world.

By all means O Grand Pubas of Apologetics....continue on!!!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I agree, kind of.  I'm still skeptical about his intent.  It reeks of "hit and run" proselytizing, which is the same thing that Brother David and Isreal do.  SFD's post is begging to talk about truth and how we determine what it is.  We've done that before but I don't think we've exhausted the discussion at all.  There's lots of meat on those bones still.
> 
> So lets talk about how we determine what's true.....again.


That and no true apologist just want to talk with other believers. They pride themselves on being capable of defending their stance against those who offer compelling counterpoints backed by sound reasoning, scientific and historical facts, and a true apologist does it in ways that are explained without using the bible contents as their own source of proof.

These guys are good though so i am excited to watch them showcase their skills.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

Let me also say how humbled I am that SFD, Brother Dave, and a few others feel compelled to post in the AAA forum rather than where their peers post above. I am glad they feel that the AAA usuals are a little more forgiving of their religious views and that we give them more attention than they get above.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 16, 2018)

WHAT A AWESOME THREAD !!!

I really love the opening thread , it really started me to think about why I really do believe and gave me the vigor to continue to defend Christianity !

Couldn't think of better place to start than among those who are still undecided and defensive !


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

Brother David said:


> WHAT A AWESOME THREAD !!!
> 
> I really love the opening thread , it really started me to think about why I really do believe and gave me the vigor to continue to defend Christianity !
> 
> Couldn't think of better place to start than among those who are still undecided and defensive !


Tell it all Brother! Tell it all!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

Ps, if we are counting. Three believers posted since SFD made the OP(one being sfd himself) and NONE addressed the OP itself!!
The apologetic talent that courses through the veins of a few in here is truly a sight to witness.
Men,  no,  Demi-gods ( if you'll accept my compliment ) please continue with the display of apologetic skill.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 16, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Apologetic
> View attachment 949720
> Looks to me like he posted his question in the correct forum. This is the Apologetics forum isn't it? That being so it could even be possibly considered an Agnostics discussion! From my understanding you would be considered an Atheist. Wouldn't that mean you are stirring the pot under your own sub-forum since this is not an Atheism question in regards to whether you believe or not? Just as you accuse us (Christians) of doing by posting over here.





> This is the Apologetics forum isn't it?


No. Its the Atheist/Agnostic/Apologetic Forum.
*



			Christian apologetics
		
Click to expand...

*


> (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence") is a branch of *Christian* theology that defends *Christianity* against objections.


Just curious -
Whats your definition of defence? Its used twice in the definition you supplied.
Its definition is a real big clue.
Personally I don't mind these "off forum" types of questions as long as Christians don't mind if the other 2/3rds of the forum chime in.

However I don't think its unreasonable to expect EVERYONE to understand what Apologetics is if your going to assume the role of an Apologetic.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> No. Its the Atheist/Agnostic/Apologetic Forum.
> 
> Just curious -
> Whats your definition of defence? Its used twice in the definition you supplied.
> ...


Walt, please for the love of all who are undecided and defensive..., do not interrupt this magnificent display of in depth Apologetic discussion. I have been on the edge of my seat since A-SFD originally posted and then was backed up with phenomenal defenses by A-j_seph and  A- Brother David.
Allow yourself to immerse into their talents as they showcase their abilities.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Walt, please for the love of all who and undecided and defensive..., do not interrupt this magnificent display of in depth Apologetic discussion. I have been on the edge of my seat since A-SFD originally posted and then was backed up with phenomenal defenses by A-j_seph and  A- Brother David.
> Allow yourself to immerse into their talents as they showcase their abilities.




I get what you're doing.  Just make sure that your sarcasm doesn't give them fuel to say "See what they're like!?!"


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 16, 2018)

Brother David said:


> WHAT A AWESOME THREAD !!!
> 
> I really love the opening thread , it really started me to think about why I really do believe and gave me the vigor to continue to defend Christianity !
> 
> Couldn't think of better place to start than among those who are still undecided and defensive !


Let us know when you are going to start. Don't wanna miss that!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I get what you're doing.  Just make sure that your sarcasm doesn't give them fuel to say "See what they're like!?!"


Listen, they do not let facts get in the way any other time. They will say whatever makes sense in their minds. They post things, the things they post are quoted, and they still continue on as if they said something else.
As if they ever said a kind or truthful thing about me or "they" anyway.
Heck, A-j_seph just informed that I am an atheist. I never knew!! I shall stick around for the information alone!!!

I am truly interested in watching a few TRUE Apologists go to work.
I can only imagine that the hold up is due to homework being done, facts being checked and re-checked and any moment Michael Buffer is gonna flick the mic on and announce when this display of raw yet refined apologetic talent is going to commence apoloprostylsermonAtizing


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Let us know when you are going to start. Don't wanna miss that!


He has the VIGOR to defend Christianity against like minded believers! Awe inspiring.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Walt, please for the love of all who are undecided and defensive..., do not interrupt this magnificent display of in depth Apologetic discussion. I have been on the edge of my seat since A-SFD originally posted and then was backed up with phenomenal defenses by A-j_seph and  A- Brother David.
> Allow yourself to immerse into their talents as they showcase their abilities.


Sorry I was overwhelmed


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

I just started this but maybe we can watch it and discuss it together.  Come, let us reason together.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I just started this but maybe we can watch it and discuss it together.  Come, let us reason together.
> 
> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="
> 
> ...


When!?!.!.!.?????
The site will hardly accept my posts now with all the Apologetic discussion going on. 
I don't want to tip my hand, but A-SFD is the clear leader in this one so far.  I can't put a finger on it but I think it his knack of being able to start a thread, not say a word to back a single thing up that leaves me so intriged and wanting more. My 3cents is on him so far.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> When!?!.!.!.?????
> The site will hardly accept my posts now with all the Apologetic discussion going on.
> I don't want to tip my hand, but A-SFD is the clear leader in this one so far.  I can't put a finger on it but I think it his knack of being able to start a thread, not say a word to back a single thing up that leaves me so intriged and wanting more. My 3cents is on him so far.




Whenever.  Just listen to it and as soon as someone says something that sounds fishy bring it up for discussion.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

At around 13 minutes Dilahunty describes exactly a position some believers have expressed here.  That being, that if "we were able to disbelieve, it MUST be because we never did it right the first time".  Can't wait to see how they discuss that.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

On Suderman's first time up he talks about faith and trust.  He says that trust comes from having had someone prove themselves trustworthy all the time.  I'm guessing he's either talking directly about Jesus or making an analogy.  If he's talking about Jesus, I would like to know about instances where Jesus has gained your trust.

This also relates to the OP because it's about truth as well.  If someone says something to you, how do you know it's the truth?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life...
> 
> As a believer, have you ever really considered the depth, breadth, implications and ramifications of what Christ said with regards to being the TRUTH.
> 
> All truth points to Christ.  If something doesn’t it can’t be true.  That’s just a starter. Any other believers care to chime in on the implications of this on reality as we perceive and interpret it?


Truth - that covers a lot of ground in one word. 

For this verse:

1. TRUTH could be God’s word (Word was made flesh)

2. Could be truth as in the life of Jesus and he is manifested in us.

3. Could be truth as we are to walk in truth, or as in Christ (goes along with #2 and we are one in him)

4. Or most likely it’s all the above

Just my opinion.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Truth - that covers a lot of ground in one word.
> 
> For this verse:
> 
> ...



How do you determine what the truth is?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> How do you determine what the truth is?


First, you need to know what truth is at question; spiritual or physical.

Physical would be something observable. 

Spiritual would be mostly experienced from within.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> First, you need to know what truth is at question; spiritual or physical.
> 
> Physical would be something observable.
> 
> Spiritual would be mostly experienced from within.



I agree.  So is there no way to examine spiritual truth?  Is there no way to confirm it other than taking the experiencer's word for it?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> First, you need to know what truth is at question; spiritual or physical.
> 
> Physical would be something observable.
> 
> Spiritual would be mostly experienced from within.


If spiritual experiences are experienced from within, are they all truthful?
If not, what differentiates a truthful one from a fictitious one?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> If spiritual experiences are experienced from within, are they all truthful?
> If not, what differentiates a truthful one from a fictitious one?



I've heard this answered "They are truthful to them".  If someone has schizophrenia, their internal, experiential truth maps on poorly to realty.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I agree.  So is there no way to examine spiritual truth?  Is there no way to confirm it other than taking the experiencer's word for it?


Let me clarify a little on what I meant by spiritual being experienced mostly from within?? 

To a certain point the spiritual is observable, remembering Acts the Jews witnessed something physical going on with the Jews, so they knew.

I think what separates the two is with the physical, the observable is actually the convincing factor. With the spiritual, the experience within is the convincing of what you observed. 

So to answer your question, yes you can observe the spiritual somewhat but you’ll never be convinced that it’s truth (biblical truth) until you experience it yourself.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I've heard this answered "They are truthful to them".  If someone has schizophrenia, their internal, experiential truth maps on poorly to realty.


I have heard those answers also, but I would like an apologetic answer.
I absolutely realize that Spotlite, and many many many others have had experiences that they attribute to a supernatural spirit. I respect that.

What I would like to know from Spotlite is how does his compare to the next persons?
Equal?
His more truthful?
His less truthful?
And what explanation(s)would back up why ?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> If spiritual experiences are experienced from within, are they all truthful?
> If not, what differentiates a truthful one from a fictitious one?



I would agree with Ambush. But will add that often people decide on what’s truth (real or not real Christians) based on the physical that they do see from them, the fruit they bear. I guess that’s probably more in line with what I should have replied to Ambush on the previous post.  


ambush80 said:


> I've heard this answered "They are truthful to them".  If someone has schizophrenia, their internal, experiential truth maps on poorly to realty.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Truth - that covers a lot of ground in one word.
> 
> For this verse:
> 
> ...



That’s what I was referencing when I spoke of the enormity of that simple statement.  
TRUTH.   Christ was declaring he was the TRUTH.  Truth as we define it is simply “ the actual state of being” of what is being discussed, but Christ’s affirmation goes much deeper than that.  In our existence we may define truth as the actual state of being, but truth, truth in its essence is defined by Christ.  Think about that for a minute.  Truth is DEFINED by Christ.  It is one and the same.  Anything not “of Christ”, is not of the TRUTH, Truth, truth, or even true.   

PS: I Think I’m beginning to sound like Israel.  Maybe he will be along shortly to set me straight.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I would agree with Ambush. But will add that often people decide on what’s truth (real or not real Christians) based on the physical that they do see from them, the fruit they bear. I guess that’s probably more in line with what I should have replied to Ambush on the previous post.



I agree also that individuals decide what is truthful to themselves. 
How can one believer trust another believer's discernment?
Then, times that by all the say, Christians that claim to have had truthful experiences...then times that by every other believer of every other god who claims to have eerily similar experiences.

Is this where a believer just blanks out or dismisses every experience by people in other religions and sticks with the thought that people within their own faith are the only ones who could possibly telling the truth?

Are there other examples of where this practice is acceptable outside of religion that a non believer could relate to?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That’s what I was referencing when I spoke of the enormity of that simple statement.
> TRUTH.   Christ was declaring he was the TRUTH.  Truth as we define it is simply “ the actual state of being” of what is being discussed, but Christ’s affirmation goes much deeper than that.  In our existence we may define truth as the actual state of being, but truth, truth in its essence is defined by Christ.  Think about that for a minute.  Truth is DEFINED by Christ.  It is one and the same.  Anything not “of Christ”, is not of the TRUTH, Truth, truth, or even true.
> 
> PS: I Think I’m beginning to sound like Israel.  Maybe he will be along shortly to set me straight.


You sound like Israel in that you are making an assertive claim and are not able to back it up with anything substantial. Yet.
Hopefully(sincerely) you have a true apologetic answer waiting in the wings that uses criteria outside of religion that will back up your Christ is the truth claims.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

JB0704 and 1gr8builder are two that I considered to be Apologists in here.
They were able to relate bible contents and our questions and put them into laymen terms and explanations that were relatable and understandable. Both could get me to think in ways that I had not considered.


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> PS: I Think I’m beginning to sound like Israel.  Maybe he will be along shortly to set me straight.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> He has the VIGOR to defend Christianity against like minded believers! Awe inspiring.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

Brother David said:


> View attachment 949775View attachment 949776


Incredible Apologetic Vigor!!
More please. 
Not too many have your knack. Maybe only 2 billion out of the 2.1 billion.
I mean the glare of the sun on the hands. Wow!


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

Brother David said:


> View attachment 949775View attachment 949776


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="
> 
> 
> 
> " frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


I'm not too sure the pastor knows the difference between apologetic and antagonistic. He is definitely excellent at one though.
His flock should see him in action on here.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Incredible Apologetic Vigor!!
> More please.
> Not too many have your knack. Maybe only 2 billion out of the 2.1 billion.
> I mean the glare of the sun on the hands. Wow!



That's a bunch of Fairy Tale Believers . How could that many people be so Mentally Challenged ?


----------



## Brother David (Nov 16, 2018)

I 


bullethead said:


> I'm not too sure the pastor knows the difference between apologetic and antagonistic. He is definitely excellent at one though.
> His flock should see him in action on here.



I can give you the address and you can come Sunday and ask if you like . Be careful what you ask for I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ !


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

Brother David said:


> That's a bunch of Fairy Tale Believers . How could that many people be so Mentally Challenged ?


I don't know. For someone like you to even suggest they are though...why...
Well it isn't very apologetic.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I'm not too sure the pastor knows the difference between apologetic and antagonistic. He is definitely excellent at one though.
> His flock should see him in action on here.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I
> 
> 
> I can give you the address and you can come Sunday and ask if you like . Be careful what you ask for I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ !


Oh I don't think I will be able to make it this Sunday. We just got 10" of snow here in PENNSYLVANIA. More coming. I may be busy dealing with that. 
I really do appreciate your generous offer though. Although I don't think I would ask them whether or not you are ashamed of the gospel


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> View attachment 949779


Dungeons and Dragons! Sweet.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I don't know. For someone like you to even suggest they are though...why...
> Well it isn't very apologetic.



It's called satire , I was using your description of God's Children ! But do really appreciate your concern for my misuse of Apologetics . 
Unfortunately I am Sinner saved by Grace , therefore I error daily !


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 16, 2018)

Brother David said:


> View attachment 949775View attachment 949776


Careful, don't want to use up all your vigor at one time!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

Brother David said:


> It's called satire , I was using your description of God's Children ! But do really appreciate your concern for my misuse of Apologetics .
> Unfortunately I am Sinner saved by Grace , therefore I error daily !


Making fun of the mentally challenged isn't satire.
You could not have been using my description of god's children. I don't think a god has any children and if I am wrong there would be way more than 2.1 Billion of them.
I have read where the god of the bible only has one son. So the info in the bible must be wrong.
You are supposed to make things more clear Apologist Dave.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 16, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life...
> 
> As a believer, have you ever really considered the depth, breadth, implications and ramifications of what Christ said with regards to being the TRUTH.
> 
> All truth points to Christ.  If something doesn’t it can’t be true.  That’s just a starter. Any other believers care to chime in on the implications of this on reality as we perceive and interpret it?


He is all Truth. For anything else to have any at all, it must be derived from Him.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2018)

When are the apologists going to get here and start talking apologetics?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> He is all Truth. For anything else to have any at all, it must be derived from Him.



How do you know that?


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> When are the apologists going to get here and start talking apologetics?


Apologetics can be defensive or offensive. The arguments may develop a little faster if you could refrain from derailing.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> How do you know that?


Read it again.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That’s what I was referencing when I spoke of the enormity of that simple statement.
> TRUTH.   Christ was declaring he was the TRUTH.  Truth as we define it is simply “ the actual state of being” of what is being discussed, but Christ’s affirmation goes much deeper than that.  In our existence we may define truth as the actual state of being, but truth, truth in its essence is defined by Christ.  Think about that for a minute.  Truth is DEFINED by Christ.  It is one and the same.  Anything not “of Christ”, is not of the TRUTH, Truth, truth, or even true.
> 
> PS: I Think I’m beginning to sound like Israel.  Maybe he will be along shortly to set me straight.


In that aspect, yes, anything outside of Christ is not truth. Men may convince themselves of things, but that doesn’t make it truth.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> He is all Truth. For anything else to have any at all, it must be derived from Him.





gemcgrew said:


> Read it again.



Sounds like an assertion without any proof.  Maybe I'm slow.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 16, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> He is all Truth. For anything else to have any at all, it must be derived from Him.



Bingo.  Exactly the point.  And why wouldn't he be.  He's God incarnate.  An appetite for truth would be just another evidence of an appetite for God, and as C.S. Lewis put it, "Why would man have an appetite for something that doesn't exist."

Conversely,  Satan is the father of lies and the original sin started with a lie from him.  It stands to reason that all lies are counter to Christ and therefore destructive as all sin is.   I would love to hear Ravi Zachariahs or Dallas Willard expound on this.  I think when I get some time I may look around and see if I can find where they have.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 16, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Apologetics can be defensive or offensive. The arguments may develop a little faster if you could refrain from derailing.



Just ignore him Gem.  It's patently obvious and childishly silly what they are attempting to do.   If you reply it gives them exactly what they crave.  It honestly reminds me of a spoiled child that keeps on and on, becoming more and more annoying until he is recognized and chastised.  The only difference is a child has enough decency to be embarrassed by his actions once they are pointed out.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 16, 2018)

Hey Gem.  Did you read this link I posted this week about the atheist philosophy professor who converted to Christianity?  It's pretty much what prompted this thread and aligns exactly with what you stated above.  He makes some excellent points, and it's a good read.

https://www.apu.edu/articles/former-atheist-answers-the-question-does-god-exist-in-upcoming-lecture/


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> In that aspect, yes, anything outside of Christ is not truth. Men may convince themselves of things, but that doesn’t make it truth.



It's all so cohesive and comprehensive.  It takes me right back to John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word,.........the Word, the Truth:  arguably synonymous.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 17, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's all so cohesive and comprehensive.  It takes me right back to John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word,.........the Word, the Truth:  arguably synonymous.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 17, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Sounds like an assertion without any proof.  Maybe I'm slow.


Absolutely not. It is much worse than that.

Look, the OP is addressing believers. Believers are not concerned as to whether or not Truth exist. Believers are concerned with "what is Truth?".


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 17, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hey Gem.  Did you read this link I posted this week about the atheist philosophy professor who converted to Christianity?  It's pretty much what prompted this thread and aligns exactly with what you stated above.  He makes some excellent points, and it's a good read.
> 
> https://www.apu.edu/articles/former-atheist-answers-the-question-does-god-exist-in-upcoming-lecture/


I read it when you posted it and once more since then. He does make some excellent points and then misses the points he made. For the most part, I found his views to be in opposition to Scripture.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 17, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just ignore him Gem.


I'm not good at ignoring someone that I care about.


----------



## Israel (Nov 17, 2018)

Truth _is_ the assertive.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just ignore him Gem.  It's patently obvious and childishly silly what they are attempting to do.   If you reply it gives them exactly what they crave.  It honestly reminds me of a spoiled child that keeps on and on, becoming more and more annoying until he is recognized and chastised.  The only difference is a child has enough decency to be embarrassed by his actions once they are pointed out.


This (thread) mostly is not Apologetics. It is my duty to point it out in whatever ways get recognized. 

I asked legitimate questions and they go unanswered in favor of Spiritual Discussion.


----------



## Israel (Nov 17, 2018)

"I ain't the most self aware man Bobby, but if I met myself in a dark alley ain't both of us gonna walk out, and mos' probly neither." Jimmy "Packrat" Soos, "Partners at the Great Divide"



"You Americans talk about rights and freedoms as though you were the only to have ever considered them. Even in  Tiananmen Square in Beijing a man is allowed freedom of speech. Well, one time, anyway. But then again, maybe more, if no one hears him."
Benny Chiang, "Partners At the Great Divide"


There was one thing, while hearing him speak, to which they could all agree: he sounded crazier than a loon. But few, if any, noticed the moment he was escorted out, arguments again resumed as to whom among them was most right. Page 316 "Partners at the Great Divide"


----------



## Israel (Nov 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> This (thread) mostly is not Apologetics. It is my duty to point it out in whatever ways get recognized.
> 
> I asked legitimate questions and they go unanswered in favor of Spiritual Discussion.


Whence this "duty"?


----------



## Israel (Nov 17, 2018)

Vote against yourself and you will never be disappointed.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> This (thread) mostly is not Apologetics. It is my duty to point it out in whatever ways get recognized.
> 
> I asked legitimate questions and they go unanswered in favor of Spiritual Discussion.


When your questions are asked to enlighten the conversation I feel inclined to answer , but when they are loaded to advance an attack on the responder , I choose not to opine only redirect !
I will jog your memory , the last time I tried to answer one your questions , you labeled me a Liberal Snowflake !


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2018)

Israel said:


> Whence this "duty"?


Yup. This is a place where AAA’s discuss what they believe and why they don’t. What is Truth is the topic of this one.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I asked legitimate questions and they go unanswered in favor of Spiritual Discussion.


The OP excluded you. Other than observing, any participation by you is illegitimate. Like it or not, the OP was Masterfully done.


----------



## Israel (Nov 17, 2018)

"Mos' folks when they reach into that grab bag of their mind for choices hate the first one. It says "useful idiot". They ain't learnt yet that tossing that one leaves 'em only a bagful of what only says "idiot". But over time even that can become useful. It can help a man be free of the most dread burden he's ever taken on. Look son, a squirrel!" 
James "Dimmy" Baker


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> The OP excluded you. Other than observing, any participation by you is illegitimate. Like it or not, the OP was Masterfully done.


The OP opener has absolutely nothing to do with Apologetics. 
A thread where only believers are instructed to participate belongs in the forums above. It is Spiritual Discussion. Apologetics defend their faith against opposition. They do not sit around and all agree on or discuss with only the like minded.
You are mistaken if you think that the wording in the OP excludes anyone else in the AAA. If that is the intent then the thread is absolutely in the wrong forum.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Yup. This is a place where AAA’s discuss what they believe and why they don’t. What is Truth is the topic of this one.


This topic is in the wrong forum.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Israel said:


> "Mos' folks when they reach into that grab bag of their mind for choices hate the first one. It says "useful idiot". They ain't learnt yet that tossing that one leaves 'em only a bagful of what only says "idiot". But over time even that can become useful. It can help a man be free of the most dread burden he's ever taken on. Look son, a squirrel!"
> James "Dimmy" Baker


Apologetic?
On topic?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Israel said:


> Vote against yourself and you will never be disappointed.View attachment 949811


Apologetic?
On Topic?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Israel said:


> "I ain't the most self aware man Bobby, but if I met myself in a dark alley ain't both of us gonna walk out, and mos' probly neither." Jimmy "Packrat" Soos, "Partners at the Great Divide"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Apologetic?
On Topic?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Israel said:


> Whence this "duty"?


As an agnostic I am inclined to ask questions to believers. Apologists are capable of answering those questions.
This thread is not Apologetic at all.
A bunch of like minded believers sitting around discussing things has their own forum. It isn't here.
The fact that sfd purposely excluded eveyone but believers is proof that it has nothing to do with Apologetics.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> This topic is in the wrong forum.


Do you feel that everything posted here is posted in order for atheist or agnostic  to challenge it and apologetics must defend?

That’s not how I read it. It says it’s a place  (AAA’s) to discuss what you believe and why you don’t. I don’t identify as an apologetic but discussing why or why not on my belief system fit here better than any other place.

For this thread, an atheist or agnostic could argue and question why Truth is through Christ only from a believers perspective.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Do you feel that everything posted here is posted in order for atheist or agnostic  to challenge it and apologetics must defend?
> 
> That’s not how I read it. It says it’s a place  (AAA’s) to discuss what you believe and why you don’t. I don’t identify as an apologetic but discussion why or why not on my belief system fit here better than any other place.


I believe the forum was specifically created for Atheists,  Agnostics, and Apologetics to discuss what you believe and why you don't. 

Atheist= A person who does not believe in a God.  CHECK!

Agnostic= a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. CHECK!

Apologist= a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial: UNCHECK!  What is so controversial among like minded belivers discussing Jesus? Nothing
Christian Apologetics= =(Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence")[1] is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections.[2] UNCHECK!! Which Apologists are defending Christianity against objections in this thread?

An apologist = is someone who presents an apology or makes a practice of defending the faith. Apologists might (and do) develop their apologies within various intellectual contexts. That is, they may offer defenses of the Christian faith in relation to scientific, historical, philosophical, ethical, religious, theological, or cultural issues. UNCHECK!! (except for 1gr8bldr and JB0704)

Too many believers wrongly assume that they are capable apologists. In actuality they are just like minded believers discussing Spiritual things. They can offer no explanations outside of using the bible verses to back up the bible verses.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I believe the forum was specifically created for Atheists,  Agnostics, and Apologetics to discuss what you believe and why you don't.
> 
> Atheist= A person who does not believe in a God.  CHECK!
> 
> ...



Maybe this thread was not designed to be an apologetic thread, especially since nothing has been offered from the other two A`s as why Christ isn't Truth in order to defend this............ maybe it was designed to be a discussion of why we believe Christ is Truth. You are free to discuss why you don't believe that. That is what the forum is for. As far as the definitions, cool.


bullethead said:


> As an agnostic I am inclined to ask questions to believers. Apologists are capable of answering those questions.
> This thread is not Apologetic at all.
> A bunch of like minded believers sitting around discussing things has their own forum. It isn't here.
> The fact that sfd purposely excluded eveyone but believers is proof that it has nothing to do with Apologetics.


Seems you have no problem with like minded individuals discussing off topic unapologetic subjects as long as it is only the Agnostic / Atheist? (See post 109)

http://forum.gon.com/threads/when-christians-are-losing-the-argument.920438/page-6#post-11228454


----------



## Israel (Nov 17, 2018)

Whence a predilection for order? Regardless of how it may be perceived in being...or lack?


----------



## Brother David (Nov 17, 2018)

Has anyone giving thought of starting a thread titled .

Things Bullethead wants to discuss !!!


----------



## Brother David (Nov 17, 2018)

THE WAY ; I know that the only way to find true satisfaction in life is to understand that you were Created by loving God !

THE TRUTH ; Scienetist spend millions of dollars a year trying to find the mythical link between the Modern Man that all of Sudden appeared some 7 thousand years ago . They can't , they can only assume ( you what assume,ing does ).

THE LIFE ; The life that the God Lord Almighty has given me is precious . I cherish and thank him daily , while I continue to lift the Sacrifice for all Mankind made by the Messiah Jesus Christ , so all can have life and have it more abundantly !!!


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Has anyone giving thought of starting a thread titled .
> 
> Things Bullethead wants to discuss !!!


Probably.....but I wouldn’t go there. May be perceived as personal. 

Even though we butt heads, I do appreciate his passion.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Maybe this thread was not designed to be an apologetic thread, especially since nothing has been offered from the other two A`s as why Christ isn't Truth in order to defend this............ maybe it was designed to be a discussion of why we believe Christ is Truth. You are free to discuss why you don't believe that. That is what the forum is for. As far as the definitions, cool.
> 
> Seems you have no problem with like minded individuals discussing off topic unapologetic subjects as long as it is only the Agnostic / Atheist? (See post 109)
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/threads/when-christians-are-losing-the-argument.920438/page-6#post-11228454


If this thread wasn't designed to be an apologetic thread(which we all know it wasn't) and SFD is neither and Atheist or Agnostic nor an Apologist...you are making my point for me. 
Spotlite,regarding post #109 in that thread, darn near every thread eventually gets off topic because many things need to be covered in order to tie in with a topic. 
Atheists and Agnostics are not APOLOGISTS, why would their conversations be APOLOGETIC?
What you and others here seem to not understand is that a believer is not automatically an Apologist. An Apologist is a believer that can defend their faith in the many ways listed repeatedly in other threads and above in this thread.
When it is just like minded believers....there is a specific forum for that stuff and the AAA is not it.

Brother Dave thinks because he puts the word Apologist in his thread title that it automatically makes him and the contents of the thread Apologetic. That is just not true. He and the thread neither possesses or contains anything Apologetic.
The second SFD, excluded anyone but believers from participating,  it nullified  the post about being apologetic. 

You do not see Atheists and Agnostics in the Christianity and Judiasm or Spiritual Discussion forums pulling such bait and switches by posting a title that looks or has a key word in it that seems allowable, and then the contents have absolutely nothing to do with it and is meant to skirt the rules and antagonize.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Absolutely not. It is much worse than that.
> 
> Look, the OP is addressing believers. Believers are not concerned as to whether or not Truth exist. Believers are concerned with "what is Truth?".



Worse in what way?

I believe my line of questioning is also trying to examine what the truth is and how we determine it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> THE WAY ; I know that the only way to find true satisfaction in life is to understand that you were Created by loving God !
> 
> THE TRUTH ; Scienetist spend millions of dollars a year trying to find the mythical link between the Modern Man that all of Sudden appeared some 7 thousand years ago . They can't , they can only assume ( you what assume,ing does ).
> 
> THE LIFE ; The life that the God Lord Almighty has given me is precious . I cherish and thank him daily , while I continue to lift the Sacrifice for all Mankind made by the Messiah Jesus Christ , so all can have life and have it more abundantly !!!


Your version of the truth above is absolutely not the truth.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> The OP excluded you. Other than observing, any participation by you is illegitimate. Like it or not, the OP was Masterfully done.




I suppose one could go upstairs and start a thread "Why I don't think Jesus is Lord" and that would qualify as Spiritual Discussion and Study, no? The by line says "Need questions answered, want to get involved with a study group or maybe just want a little clarification? This is the place for you."  It would be wholly appropriate to start a thread titled "Why the Earth can't be 6,000 years old" or "Why the resurrection can't possibly be literal".  Would that be masterful as well?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Your version of the truth above is absolutely not the truth.



I would like to know why he thinks that Jesus is the truth.   By what method does he come to that conclusion.  I'm really curious about that.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite,regarding post #109 in that thread, darn near every thread eventually gets off topic because many things need to be covered in order to tie in with a topic.
> Atheists and Agnostics are not APOLOGISTS, why would their conversations be APOLOGETIC?
> What you and others here seem to not understand is that a believer is not automatically an Apologist. An Apologist is a believer that can defend their faith in the many ways listed repeatedly in other threads and above in this thread.
> When it is just like minded believers....there is a specific forum for that stuff and the AAA is not it.
> ...


I get that bullet. But every Christian is not an apologist in the aspect that everything they post is apologetic. You can’t have part of a group to openly discuss amongst themselves “off topic unapologetic” subjects and call foul when another part does it. You’re restricting their post just to apologetic. 

 Discussing what is Truth in one of the other forums you mentioned may be a fine line to walk. Usually, and if it’s not deleted now, there’s a thread where A / A’s wandered up there to invite them “downstairs” to get the “answers”.

I feel the same as Walt with this, I’m ok with off topic. 

I can’t argue against the fact that there’s not a specific forum for atheist and agnostic to discuss just amongst themselves their disbelief in any God or gods. 

I’m just saying that the way I understand how this one is set up, it’s a place to discuss why we (AAA) believe or don’t believe.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Maybe this thread was not designed to be an apologetic thread, especially since nothing has been offered from the other two A`s as why Christ isn't Truth in order to defend this............ maybe it was designed to be a discussion of why we believe Christ is Truth. You are free to discuss why you don't believe that. That is what the forum is for. As far as the definitions, cool.
> 
> Seems you have no problem with like minded individuals discussing off topic unapologetic subjects as long as it is only the Agnostic / Atheist? (See post 109)
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/threads/when-christians-are-losing-the-argument.920438/page-6#post-11228454


And Ambush has repeatedly asked questions about the truth and I have asked both you and sfd dorect questions specifically aimed at what you both were talking about. Neither one of you answered. 
If it is because you refuse to answer me or can't come up with an answer doesnt matter, both are not Apologetic.
Since believers have their own forums my understanding is that the AAA was created for Atheists and Agnostics to discuss what/why about beliefs and is open to Apologists who are believers which have the ability to at least attempt to answer those questions and discuss in ways outside of scripture.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I get that bullet. But every Christian is not an apologist in the aspect that everything they post is apologetic. You can’t have part of a group to openly discuss amongst themselves “off topic unapologetic” subjects and call foul when another part does it. You’re restricting their post just to apologetic.
> 
> Discussing what is Truth in one of the other forums you mentioned may be a fine line to walk. Usually, and if it’s not deleted now, there’s a thread where A / A’s wandered up there to invite them “downstairs” to get the “answers”.
> 
> ...


Right, every christian is not an apologist, and there is a specific forum DEDICATED to those people.

One reason I see why many come down here is because they can't hang with the believers above. But want to say whatever off mainstream idea that gets into their head to whoever will listen and thinks that since the Believers above dont put up with them or agree, the Atheists and Agnostics will have to at least listen to them.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2018)

Ok fair enough. I will politely let myself out the door.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Right, every christian is not an apologist, and there is a specific forum DEDICATED to those people.
> 
> One reason I see why many come down here is because they can't hang with the believers above. But want to say whatever off mainstream idea that gets into their head to whoever will listen and thinks that since the Believers above dont put up with them or agree, the Atheists and Agnostics will have to at least listen to them.



I don't understand how continually arguing we are in the wrong forum defends your stance .

Instead of directing us where to post , try explaining why Christianity isn't the Truth and you might start a discussion instead prolonging the blame game .

We have acknowledge Christ is the Truth and have spent next 97 post arguing where we should have posted !

The very reason I deleted my earlier post and now reluctantly try again , they become a buddy, buddy ,blaming cut down session instead of a discussion ! There's no intellectual integrity , only jabs !


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 17, 2018)

Every believer is an Apologist. Some are more public than others.

Think "mental apologetics".

Kudos to SF.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I don't understand how continually arguing we are in the wrong forum defends your stance .
> 
> Instead of directing us where to post , try explaining why Christianity isn't the Truth and you might start a discussion instead prolonging the blame game .
> 
> ...


Outside of the bible there is no evidence of the divinity of Jesus.
We have discussed these things.
You act as if this is the first time things of this nature have come up.

To talk about the The Truth we have to establish that Jesus existed and is God. Little evidence, but evidence none the less exists that a man such as Jesus existed about 2000 years ago. Nothing beyond that. We cant talk The TRUTH unless we pretend to go along with all the biblical stories.

In all the years and in all the threads NOBODY has even established a shred of evidence that points to the existence to the God of the bible let alone the Son of the God of the bible. To discuss anything beyond that down here is along the lines of discussing fables and fairy tales.

If you care to and are able to make a case that the apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua was more than human and then back it up with evidence outside of scripture then please by all means do it. You have my undivided attention.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Every believer is an Apologist. Some are more public than others.
> 
> Think "mental apologetics".
> 
> Kudos to SF.


Not every believer has the ability to express themselves in apologetic ways.
If what you say is true, we would not be having this discussion.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Ok fair enough. I will politely let myself out the door.


How about challenging yourself to be able to discuss your beliefs in an apologetic fashion?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I would like to know why he thinks that Jesus is the truth.   By what method does he come to that conclusion.  I'm really curious about that.


I would like to see and know where he gets his information from that backs up his claim in his "truth" statement about scientists unable to find the link between "7000 year old modern man"

I mean, that is a DOOZIE


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I believe my line of questioning is also trying to examine what the truth is and how we determine it.


Like you, I thought that’s where we were going. But it appears it was diverted and will ultimately end in the “you’re wrong” finger pointing.  

Now, back to getting out........ and finish this flooring that my wife left on my honey do list.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Like you, I thought that’s where we were going. But it appears it was diverted and will ultimately end in the “you’re wrong” finger pointing.
> 
> Now, back to getting out........ and finish this flooring that my wife left on my honey do list.


Well finish that floor and come back and make your case about what the truth is and how we determine it.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 17, 2018)

I am in a tree stand right now and the woods are empty !


bullethead said:


> Outside of the bible there is no evidence of the divinity of Jesus.
> We have discussed these things.
> You act as if this is the first time things of this nature have come up.
> 
> ...



Outside of your denial can you absolutely prove That Christ isn't the Messiah ?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 17, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> I read it when you posted it and once more since then. He does make some excellent points and then misses the points he made. For the most part, I found his views to be in opposition to Scripture.



I didn't get that.  What did I miss?  Can you elaborate when you get time.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I am in a tree stand right now and the woods are empty !



I'm going to get in mine about 5 and stay till 9.  Killed a 300 lb sow last night a little after 8pm.  Need a couple of more.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I am in a tree stand right now and the woods are empty !
> 
> 
> Outside of your denial can you absolutely prove That Christ isn't the Messiah ?


No more or no less than I can prove anyone else is or is not the Messiah.
You and I are in the same boat there.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I am in a tree stand right now and the woods are empty !
> 
> 
> Outside of your denial can you absolutely prove That Christ isn't the Messiah ?




No.  Of course not.  Can you prove that Allah isn't the one true God?  Can you prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting Mars?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm going to get in mine about 5 and stay till 9.  Killed a 300 lb sow last night a little after 8pm.  Need a couple of more.



Sweet!!!   Sounds like lots of sausage.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 17, 2018)

> Brother David said:
> I am in a tree stand right now and the woods are empty !





SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm going to get in mine about 5 and stay till 9.  Killed a 300 lb sow last night a little after 8pm.  Need a couple of more.


300lb sow?? That's a lot of sammiches!!!
Good luck to you both.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 17, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> No.  Of course not.  Can you prove that Allah isn't the one true God?  Can you prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting Mars?





bullethead said:


> No more or no less than I can prove anyone else is or is not the Messiah.
> You and I are in the same boat there.



I do have historical evidence of Christ and accounts of his works . 

I need a good tea pot , what color is it . 

Mohammed received his revelation is a cave and then used it for his on personal reasons .

 Christ was a giver without a house or Army , only sought to give to others no matter what nationality ! 

You choose giver ( Christ ) or taker ( Mohammed )!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I do have historical evidence of Christ and accounts of his works .
> 
> I need a good tea pot , what color is it .
> 
> ...


Neither ambush or I mentioned Mohammed.
You did in order to fit the point you want to make which has nothing to do with what was asked of you.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I do have historical evidence of Christ and accounts of his works .
> 
> I need a good tea pot , what color is it .
> 
> ...



Please post the historical evidence.
Be forewarned, if it is the same Josephus, Pliney stuff that has been throughly disproven then you will have to show us something else.
I really hope you can.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 17, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Sweet!!!   Sounds like lots of sausage.



Sausage IMHO is the best apologetic argument for the presence of a loving God.  I love it all no matter what kind it is.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sausage IMHO is the best apologetic argument for the presence of a loving God.  I love it all no matter what kind it is.


No doubt sausage is good, but Jesus didn't eat pork, just sayin.....


----------



## Brother David (Nov 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Neither ambush or I mentioned Mohammed.
> You did in order to fit the point you want to make which has nothing to do with what was asked of you.



When the reference of Allah was used it relates to Islam . Christian refer to God as Yaweh , Jehovah , El-Shaddai , Elohim , etc . 
Just for future reference for the uninformed!


----------



## Brother David (Nov 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Please post the historical evidence.
> Be forewarned, if it is the same Josephus, Pliney stuff that has been throughly disproven then you will have to show us something else.
> I really hope you can.



https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/12/jesus-tomb-archaeology/


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> When the reference of Allah was used it relates to Islam . Christian refer to God as Yaweh , Jehovah , El-Shaddai , Elohim , etc .
> Just for future reference for the uninformed!


You have no idea how well informed a few of us are.
Allah does not equate to Mohammed.

And in all this time you still have not answered ambush's question.
Can you prove that Allah is the one true god?
We both answered your question truthfully.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/12/jesus-tomb-archaeology/


Now, in my previous post to you, I conceded that Jesus existed as a person. 


> Outside of the bible there is no evidence of the divinity of Jesus.
> We have discussed these things.
> You act as if this is the first time things of this nature have come up.
> 
> ...



You replied:


> I do have historical evidence of Christ and accounts of his works .


.

We agree a human existed.
You are now to prove that he was divine with historical evidence of his works.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You have no idea how well informed a few of us are.
> Allah does not equate to Mohammed.
> 
> And in all this time you still have not answered ambush's question.
> ...


Allah is Arabic for God . Hence the reference to Islam . Sorry you weren't aware of this .
The names I gave are Hebrew ! 


bullethead said:


> Now, in my previous post to you, I conceded that Jesus existed as a person.
> 
> 
> You replied:
> ...



No way you read the article ! Again you choose to argue instead of educating yourself !


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Allah is Arabic for God . Hence the reference to Islam . Sorry you weren't aware of this .
> The names I gave are Hebrew !
> 
> 
> ...


Are you kidding me?
I absolutely read the article.
Jesus boat, Isreli Pompeii....
Every hard historical question reverts back to Well he may have, or it could be, or it might have been...and then references the Gospel as a source.

Dave, I know exactly what Allah means. Is Allah that the Muslims worship the one true God of the bible? And can you prove it as you asked us to disprove your example?

It is time to stop dodging and answer honestly.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

Things like this...
Father Solana comes over to greet us, and I ask him what he tells visitors who want to know whether Jesus ever walked these streets. “We can’t expect to answer that,” he admits, “but we see the number of times that the Gospels mention Jesus in a Galilee synagogue.”

Are you sure that you READ it???


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2018)

"A priest standing outside the entrance loudly reminds us that our time is up, that other pilgrims are waiting. Reluctantly, the women stand up and file out, and I follow. At this moment I realize that to sincere believers, the scholars’ quest for the historical, non-supernatural Jesus is of little consequence. That quest will be endless, full of shifting theories, unanswerable questions, irreconcilable facts. But for true believers, their faith in the life, death, and Resurrection of the Son of God will be evidence enough"

So again Dave, where is the proof that you said you had??


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Not every believer has the ability to express themselves in apologetic ways.


Or every believer does have the ability, but some choose not to engage with obnoxious, stupid people.


bullethead said:


> If what you say is true, we would not be having this discussion.


Or it is true and we are having it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Or every believer does have the ability, but some choose not to engage with obnoxious, stupid people.


For the believers that do engage in conversations in here, what is their excuse for not using the ability?



gemcgrew said:


> Or it is true and we are having it.


With 128 posts and counting of engaged conversation, the facts do not meet that claim.


----------



## Israel (Nov 18, 2018)

Is something (if, and when it is) recognized as infinitely small, of any consequence?

Let's make a very great assumption (that is still, even in its great _presumption_ of assumption) still antecedent to all the toys we play with here (for the most part). Those toys of themselves, have a construction, they are not discrete to themselves. All our communication is de facto, subject to a reduction, and it has been going on here for years and years. (The question, rightly for some is "of what consequence is years and years?")

Let the man who says "I don't  (or haven't tried to) seek to discern motive _in the _writing" Step forward. Let him come forward with the _same liar _who would say "Neither have I _attributed motive_". (Thanks be to God for those who are not moved by my words! And no less, thanks be to God for those who are doing their very best to stand still! And look like they are not fidgeting) 

Yet, we are all quite adept in this vivisection, this deconstruction of one another. And those who are able to stand stock still are only able to because they have already recognized this propensity and had (or having) it dealt with,_ by another. _The same who submitted Himself to all dividing for their sake. But fidget if you must. The step forward is not as painful as you imagine.

Let's _assume_ man has the capacity to offer a thing called_ regard (_or consideration_) _to a matter. That this assumption _seems _not great to some, nevertheless _I know _that to _some others, _my gross presumption in advancing it is _not unnoticed_. Some so easily see "Israel is thinking he is going to make a point". It really is a very great assumption...that man has anything to give, at all. Something he is equipped to "pay with". Attention. 

Of those "some", some look on this with a tolerance (perhaps at best) And, in that, _I know_ I dare not despise "being allowed". It is as precious to me now, this seemingly small thing..._tolerance, _as the grandest surprise party under a banner bearing my name "Welcome Home Israel!" I cannot despise the one, and think I can retain any hope of the other.

No less is the needful "rolling of the eyes" of some. Nor, the stones to surely come.
Needful. Necessary. Even...welcome.

So the question remains:

Is something (if, and when it is) recognized as infinitely small, of any consequence?


----------



## Brother David (Nov 18, 2018)

Christianity is the evidence of things not seen and the substance of things hope for ! 

There are many more phenomenon that man can't fully explain. One is oceanic fossils thousands of feet above sea level , but through my devout Faith in Jesus , and Jehovah God , I have come to the conclusion that  God is alive ! It's called Faith ! I live it , my life is full of joy and happiness and I spend time doing the things I enjoy . 
  I could spend my time trying to prove or disprove the existence of God , but I choose to believe and live every day to the fullest .
  Many on this forum have a strong desire to prove myself an other Christian weak minded and wishy washy , rather we're very strong minded believing in the Unseen all Knowing God ( Ephesians 5; 6-7 ) .


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 18, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Christianity is the evidence of things not seen and the substance of things hope for !
> 
> There are many more phenomenon that man can't fully explain. One is oceanic fossils thousands of feet above sea level , but through my devout Faith in Jesus , and Jehovah God , I have come to the conclusion that  God is alive ! It's called Faith ! I live it , my life is full of joy and happiness and I spend time doing the things I enjoy .
> I could spend my time trying to prove or disprove the existence of God , but I choose to believe and live every day to the fullest .
> ...





> Many on this forum have a strong desire to prove myself an other Christian weak minded and wishy washy


You have created an "alternate forum reality" so you can view yourself as a Christian warrior.
Regardless of how many times we dispel this "prove us weak minded" nonsense there are a few of you who cling to it because it serves your purpose.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Or every believer does have the ability, but some choose not to engage with obnoxious, stupid people.


I stand corrected; I agree with you that every Christian is apologetic in the aspect that they will defend Christianity. 

Every Christian isn’t compelled to engage and rehash repetitive questioning, and some will simply provide their answer and don’t feel the need to prove. 

I’m sort of between the two. However, I don’t identify as the labeled apologetic that has the parameters set by non believers requiring evidence to convince them.  

Apologetic can be very simple.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> You have created an "alternate forum reality" so you can view yourself as a Christian warrior.
> Regardless of how many times we dispel this "prove us weak minded" nonsense there are a few of you who cling to it because it serves your purpose.


Absolutely , as we serve a RISING SAVIOR !!!
Choose Today , as for me and my house , we will serve the Lord !!!

Whatever you do continue with the compliments !!! I cherish the fact that I am considered Warrior !!!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Christianity is the evidence of things not seen and the substance of things hope for !
> 
> There are many more phenomenon that man can't fully explain. One is oceanic fossils thousands of feet above sea level , but through my devout Faith in Jesus , and Jehovah God , I have come to the conclusion that  God is alive ! It's called Faith ! I live it , my life is full of joy and happiness and I spend time doing the things I enjoy .
> I could spend my time trying to prove or disprove the existence of God , but I choose to believe and live every day to the fullest .
> ...


Any time you want to put out that proof you said you have....


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I stand corrected; I agree with you that every Christian is apologetic in the aspect that they will defend Christianity.
> 
> Every Christian isn’t compelled to engage and rehash repetitive questioning, and some will simply provide their answer and don’t feel the need to prove.
> 
> ...


Everybody can throw a baseball too but there is a reason why they are not in the major leagues. If you just want to play catch, there is a place for that too.

This, I can throw 95mph accurately  but I dont want to game is old in here.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 18, 2018)

I


bullethead said:


> Any time you want to put out that oroof you said you have....


 Think you meant proof ! 
Matthew - Revelation proof enough for me !


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I
> 
> Think you meant proof !
> Matthew - Revelation proof enough for me !


BD, you of all people should not be pointing out typo or spelling mistakes.

You said you had proof that you will provide that is outside of the bible.
Another lie?


----------



## Israel (Nov 18, 2018)

Right and wrong attention is being made much of.
One says "this place is for the attending to a certain thing after a certain form", therefore what does not meet the form, is the wrong attending.

Ahhh, brothers...there is only attention.
Pay attention to how your forms are formed.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

Israel said:


> Right and wrong attention is being made much of.
> One says "this place is for the attending to a certain thing after a certain form", therefore what does not meet the form, is the wrong attending.
> 
> Ahhh, brothers...there is only attention.


A lot of pretending also


----------



## Israel (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> A lot of pretending also


If so...why the attending to what is surmised as pretending?

What demand has pretense in it to form attention, if there be any at all?


----------



## Brother David (Nov 18, 2018)

Never


bullethead said:


> BD, you of all people should not be pointing out typo or spelling mistakes.
> 
> You said you had proof that you will provide that is outside of the bible.
> Another lie?



MY LIFE !!!

In the Past I have referred you to different articles about the life and power of Christ , you rebuttal all , why do it again . 

Matthew 7; 1-6 still busy removing mine !


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 18, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Absolutely , as we serve a RISING SAVIOR !!!
> Choose Today , as for me and my house , we will serve the Lord !!!
> 
> Whatever you do continue with the compliments !!! I cherish the fact that I am considered Warrior !!!


Alrighty then....


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Everybody can throw a baseball too but there is a reason why they are not in the major leagues. If you just want to play catch, there is a place for that too.
> 
> This, I can throw 95mph accurately  but I dont want to game is old in here.


Well......one doesn’t have to sit in the stands and scream throw a ball for me, or even hide behind the bleachers begging for others to play catch with them either. 

An apologetic explanation to my stance is Titus 3 verse 9 - “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain”

Ask 30mph questions, you get 30mph pitches.

So far, only Walt and Ambush have shown the ability to consistently ask meaningful questions not designed to sound arrogant or argumentative that actually requires one to research or at least think before replying.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

Israel said:


> If so...why the attending to what is surmised as pretending?
> 
> What demand has pretense in it to form attention, if there be any at all?


Because this is the specified place for AAA to discuss mostly AAA related topics and conversations.
When it becomes more about the inability to be able to back up claims with facts and instead starts to be more Spiritual Discussions, daily bible verses and Pro Religious conversation then it should be made known that this is the wrong forum for those things.
 Am I incorrect in thinking there are specific forums for the majority of certain topics where people of the like minded gather to discuss such things?

There is a LOT of leeway given in all of the forums on this site. And rightfully so. It does make for a refreshing change every now and then. But at some point when a person repeatedly makes claims about what they know, what they are capable of, what is truthful, etc etc...doesn't there come a time to expect them to provide the proof of their claims? 

I am sure there has been a person or two that frequents the Salt Water Fishing forum who has absolutely no experience with fishing salt water and tries to talk the talk with the experienced salt water people. These people may be very well read on salt water fishing and might have a pile of dvd's that they watch all the time, but at some point, no matter how much thr person claims to be a salt water fisherman, they are going to have to put a fish in the boat or on the beach and show everyone else that they can actually do it. And that is just a start as one fish does not a Captain make.
So, yeah, if a person wants to post pic after pic and discuss stringers full of brook trout in the fresh water forum they absolutely should go for it! Thstbis thebolace to do it. But if those same fisherman want to claim to be Captains of a successful Tuna boat, they need to start being Tuna Boat Captains and stop pretending to be just because they had a tuna steak once and caught a couple brookies.
Now, when they take it light years further and claim to have a Tuna boat and all they show you is pics from a catalog...it is not hard to figure out what they are all about and call them out on their pretending.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Well......one doesn’t have to sit in the stands and scream throw a ball for me, or even hide behind the bleachers begging for others to play catch with them either.


When you are already on the right field in the right game and playing by the rules, there is no reason to be in the stands.



Spotlite said:


> An apologetic explanation to my stance is Titus 3 verse 9 - “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain”


An interpretation of that would leave a non apologist to wonder just what is a foolish question, and is the Apologist honest when avoiding the hard questions by just saying the questions are foolish. 



Spotlite said:


> Ask 30mph questions, you get 30mph pitches.


I'd love to have anything put anywhere near the plate. I totally get that many are limited in arm strength,  that is why I also mentioned accuracy. If all a pitcher has is a 30mph arm, he still must be able to throw it over the plate or he is not really a pitcher is he?
Again, slow pitch league is a few fields up the road.



Spotlite said:


> So far, only Walt and Ambush have shown the ability to consistently ask meaningful questions not designed to sound arrogant or argumentative that actually requires one to research or at least think before replying.



And so far, not a single self claimed wanna be apologist has even touched on giving either Ambush or Walt a decent answer that can be backed up outside of scripture.
The problem is not who is asking the questions, the problem is nobody can answer them.


----------



## Israel (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Because this is the specified place for AAA to discuss mostly AAA related topics and conversations.
> When it becomes more about the inability to be able to back up claims with facts and instead starts to be more Spiritual Discussions, daily bible verses and Pro Religious conversation then it should be made known that this is the wrong forum for those things.
> Am I incorrect in thinking there are specific forums for the majority of certain topics where people of the like minded gather to discuss such things?
> 
> ...



That is your view, and what would deny it?

But another has written 





> You're absolutely right. And there's no compunction[sic] to be truthful, rational, accurate or sensible. It makes conversation better in my opinion, though.



Now, that is just another singular view.

Neither of which may be "rightest", wrongest, but could both be equal...as opinion. And I must leave open that I may entirely misinterpret both.

As an observer I really can't tell which kid has more fun, the one building the sand castle, or the one tearing it down...and likewise as an observer I can't even tell if fun is a metric to be considered at all.

So...it appears one puts up a sign "All Sand Castles Welcome to be Built" another says "No Sand Castles Allowed"...yet each one not noticing that the words of which construction takes place, _even_ to a definition of sand castle (already presumed as "the perishable thing") are no less words used to form their signs "All Sand Castles..."..."No Sand Castles...", and such words are no less perishable.

So ultimately...is it if the majority uses the same perishable words they are made slightly stronger, slightly less perishable...or...does it actually not matter at all? That all of man's words...being perishable...are of equal consequence...none.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Well......one doesn’t have to sit in the stands and scream throw a ball for me, or even hide behind the bleachers begging for others to play catch with them either.
> 
> An apologetic explanation to my stance is Titus 3 verse 9 - “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain”
> 
> ...


I wanna throw my worthless opinion in here 
Heres what I think is getting missed -
Apologetics is the ACT of doing something and that is making the argument etc to support your views. You have to do it. You have to make the argument for it to qualify as Apologetics. You can stand in the pool. But you aint swimming until you do it.
Titus 3, while it may be solid advice, would prevent the act of Apologetics, making the argument from happening.
Apologetics is a "skill". A Christian could be brilliant in their knowledge but not for the life of them make a good argument about it.
That's why posting a meme or piece of scripture is NOT Apologetics. There is no argument to go along with it. Its just a meme or its just a piece of scripture.
I think this is where you and Bullet are not having a meeting of the minds.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

Israel said:


> That is your view, and what would deny it?
> 
> But another has written
> 
> ...


Sand castle builders all have their own sandbox.
When you get on the beach and in a sand castle competition, it helps to be able to actually build a sand castle.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I wanna throw my worthless opinion in here
> Heres what I think is getting missed -
> Apologetics is the ACT of doing something and that is making the argument etc to support your views. You have to do it. You have to make the argument for it to qualify as Apologetics. You can stand in the pool. But you aint swimming until you do it.
> Titus 3, while it may be solid advice, would prevent the act of Apologetics, making the argument from happening.
> ...


Precisely Walt.
If someone is an Apologist and can express themselves in an Apologetic manner, this is the right place to be.


----------



## Israel (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Sand castle builders all have their own sandbox.
> When you get on the beach and in a sand castle competition, it helps to be able to actually build a sand castle.



Wouldn't the assumption of it being a competition have to be dealt with first?

Now, you are absolutely free to deny you take any pleasure in kicking over what you consider sand castles...and if indeed a true zeal for truth is abiding there, that _may be_ so easily mistaken as a pleasure in _only_ uprooting...God forbid I seek, or give any impression (or encouragement) to any brother to tamper with zeal for truth.

But that is a common pitfall that I am persuaded a believer at least...should have a working (read experiential) knowledge of...mistaking the uprooting for fondest pleasure, and mistaking zeal as something like a "fun fire" to be indulged...like choosing to flame whoever/whatever they find opportune.

Yes, I am convinced that of all...the believer, _at least_, should know this "better".


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

Israel said:


> Wouldn't the assumption of it being a competition have to be dealt with first?
> 
> Now, you are absolutely free to deny you take any pleasure in kicking over what you consider sand castles...and if indeed a true zeal for truth is abiding there, that _may be_ so easily mistaken as a pleasure in uprooting...God forbid I seek, or give any impression (or encouragement) to any brother to tamper with zeal for truth.
> 
> ...


See Walt's post #148


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Precisely Walt.
> If someone is an Apologist and can express themselves in an Apologetic manner, this is the right place to be.


That is correct.
But I do want to throw in as a long time "regular" here, which means squat but anyway.....
While I absolutely would like to see more actual Apologetics happening.........….
I just want to be careful we don't get too technical about it. Half of our conversations here wouldn't apply as Apologetics. So while it would certainly elevate the level of debate/discussion, it make take half the fun out of all this 
But to your point, yes, posting a meme or telling us who you and your house will worship is not in any way, shape or form.... Aplologetics


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I wanna throw my worthless opinion in here
> Heres what I think is getting missed -
> Apologetics is the ACT of doing something and that is making the argument etc to support your views. You have to do it. You have to make the argument for it to qualify as Apologetics. You can stand in the pool. But you aint swimming until you do it.
> Titus 3, while it may be solid advice, would prevent the act of Apologetics, making the argument from happening.
> ...


Your opinion is not worthless lol.

I agree that memes don’t cut it.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That is correct.
> But I do want to throw in as a long time "regular" here, which means squat but anyway.....
> While I absolutely would like to see more actual Apologetics happening.........….
> I just want to be careful we don't get too technical about it. Half of our conversations here wouldn't apply as Apologetics. So while it would certainly elevate the level of debate/discussion, it make take half the fun out of all this
> But to your point, yes, posting a meme or telling us who you and your house will worship is not in any way, shape or form.... Aplologetics



That’s correct. Back when it was all one forum “Spirit discussion, study and debate”........(if I remember correctly)

The “debate” was an issue. A lot of complaints about what it what shouldn’t be there got us here. 

To your point, all of it needs to stay on target or the whining about sone it needs to stop, we are all guilty of off topic here. 

Providing apologetic answers / reasoning are one thing, but when the questions continue to drive to the same cross road regardless of the topic, it gets old and goes nowhere. There’s not much need waisting time and bandwidth to rehash the same argument under a different title.

And, an apologetic stance doesn’t require convincing anyone or proving anything right or wrong. It only requires to defend your faith as to why you believe what you do. 

But like you, we can have fun doing it.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> When you are already on the right field in the right game and playing by the rules, there is no reason to be in the stands.


Point made.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That is correct.
> But I do want to throw in as a long time "regular" here, which means squat but anyway.....
> While I absolutely would like to see more actual Apologetics happening.........….
> I just want to be careful we don't get too technical about it. Half of our conversations here wouldn't apply as Apologetics. So while it would certainly elevate the level of debate/discussion, it make take half the fun out of all this
> But to your point, yes, posting a meme or telling us who you and your house will worship is not in any way, shape or form.... Aplologetics


Yes,again I agree.
I have come to appreciate all of the regulars in here no matter their "side" or beliefs/non beliefs/undecided-ness.

I do feel that when claims are made in the serious threads that it is time to converse in the manner for which the forum was devised instead of using memes and scripture. Basically, there comes a time to call. Ya either have the cards or you don't.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Yes,again I agree.
> I have come to appreciate all of the regulars in here no matter their "side" or beliefs/non beliefs/undecided-ness.
> 
> I do feel that when claims are made in the serious threads that it is time to converse in the manner for which the forum was devised instead of using memes and scripture. Basically, there comes a time to call. Ya either have the cards or you don't.


If they had the cards there would be nothing to debate


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Never
> 
> 
> MY LIFE !!!
> ...


Because as you inform me, I am also able to inform you.
I can only use what information is available.
If you provide me with something that I cannot find information to counter it with, I am happy to accept yours as the best available at the time.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> That’s correct. Back when it was all one forum “Spirit discussion, study and debate”........(if I remember correctly)
> 
> The “debate” was an issue. A lot of complaints about what it what shouldn’t be there got us here.
> 
> ...





> we are all guilty of off topic here.


That is true.
But as I mentioned, a lot of our conversations morph into other conversations that way. A lot of times "off topic" turns into "new topic". I personally just want to be careful about limiting the possible conversations.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> If they had the cards there would be nothing to debate


But I would learn something that I do not know now. 
Seriously, that is why I am here.
I asked myself these similar questions and was able to counter them with the answers I use here. Maybe, possibly, hopefully someone has an answer for me that I was unable to come up with or find on my own.

Basically I once used scripture to back up my scripture questions when all I used was scripture as my source. When I branched out to reaffirm scripture from outside sources, I found that there were major unavoidable, undeniable discrepancies which I initially fought hard to ignore. So I searched more wanting to find what what I wanted and needed to find, but those things just were not there. The more I researched with an open mind the more information I found that went against my beliefs to the point where I could no longer believe them.
Maybe I missed something. Thats why I like to hear, converse, debate.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That is true.
> But as I mentioned, a lot of our conversations morph into other conversations that way. A lot of times "off topic" turns into "new topic". I personally just want to be careful about limiting the possible conversations.


Many times the topic branches off, but the trails all lead back to the main topic.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 18, 2018)




----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

Walt, Izzy, Spotlite...... this nonsense as above was/is why I went to the extreme with being an Apologetic.
BD, takes it to one extreme(totally non apologetic and antagonistic) So I went to the extreme the other way to prove a point .
BD, just doesn't get it and won't take constructive criticism from a non believer and apparently not from you guys either.


----------



## Israel (Nov 18, 2018)

W


bullethead said:


> See Walt's post #148


Which speaks nothing of the assumption of "competition", which is far more fundamental to any understanding of apologetics than any and all manner of identifying it by some, or any other, indicator.

Jesus Christ did not come to compete against unbelief, to compete against sin, to make in any form...a better or (to whatever criteria) winning argument. I know all too well this remains not an unfamiliar appraisal.

Yes...he shows triumph over death, triumph over sin, overcoming the world...but it is He himself who _is this_...His doing "in manifestation" is not to show He can just "do better" (for who then could be saved?), but who He is, who God is, in salvation. Participant and sole originator.

You say...what participates? Jesus Christ alone. This is a thing done entirely between Jesus Christ and the Father. The grace of God is manifest to the inclusion of man, but man's propensity here _to engaging_ for the purpose of competition is all but excluded. To engage on the field for competition against man, or other men...is all of "not present" in Christ. If his sole end was to shame man (though there may be found a right place for deposit of shame) by His excellence...then such as hold this view have not yet seen, nor tasted, the exceeding restraint in His character especially...toward themselves. Nor yet seen the depths to which salvation is both provided...and necessary.

Oh, yes, the believer knows, or learns he is sent as lamb to slaughter here, not as competitor against his brother. What is more consequentially all a lie about the being of Jesus Christ, than that? Did he come for parade...and election as to who has the "best float"? To compete..."against man?" God forbid. He comes...already in full election, and choosing.

Well before His feet touched the road up Calvary He stated "I am the resurrection and the life", not "I am going to do a something to show I can beat death". That competition is reserved for_ what loves to lie about it_..."I am really not_ trying to win_, I am just speaking the truth".

I am.

So...back to what was posted this am that remains untouched.


Is something (if, and when it is) recognized as infinitely small, of any consequence?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 18, 2018)

Israel said:


> W
> 
> Which speaks nothing of the assumption of "competition", which is far more fundamental to any understanding of apologetics than any and all manner of identifying it by some, or any other, indicator.
> 
> ...



All I've ever asked you is why you believe that any of the part in blue is true.  What is the method by which you have determined that Jesus was resurrected?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

Israel said:


> W
> 
> Which speaks nothing of the assumption of "competition", which is far more fundamental to any understanding of apologetics than any and all manner of identifying it by some, or any other, indicator.
> 
> ...


Israel, why do you expect an in depth conversational and on topic reply when it is something you want to know but refuse to give one yourself when we ask you very specific questions? Instead you fillibuster on and on totally avoiding what you have been asked.

The "competition" comment was about the sand castle analogy.
I have explained myself in detail about my stance in here about an Apologist and Apologetics many times in this thread already.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Walt, Izzy, Spotlite...... this nonsense as above was/is why I went to the extreme with being an Apologetic.
> BD, takes it to one extreme(totally non apologetic and antagonistic) So I went to the extreme the other way to prove a point .
> BD, just doesn't get it and won't take constructive criticism from a non believer and apparently not from you guys either.


Bro Dave isn't fooling anybody.
Ive seen other posts he has on other forums. He can be very informative and convey knowledge quite well when he wants to.
On this particular subject memes and loud proclamations are all we can expect from him.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Bro Dave isn't fooling anybody.
> Ive seen other posts he has on other forums. He can be very informative and convey knowledge quite well when he wants to.
> On this particular subject memes and loud proclamations are all we can expect from him.


Precisely.
His obvious blatant trolling is noticed and mentioned by a few different AAA regulars and instead of taking the hint he continues to throw more gas on the fire.
Why it is allowed?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Precisely.
> His obvious blatant trolling is noticed and mentioned by a few different AAA regulars and instead of taking the hint he continues to throw more gas on the fire.
> Why it is allowed?


1st -
You are scaring me 
I equate "why is it allowed" to "the higher ups should get involved".
I like self regulation. Theres the ignore button or just not play with him anymore.
On the flip side, he gave us some good info on hog hunting in the other thread, so see we have been enriched by his participation


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> 1st -
> You are scaring me
> I equate "why is it allowed" to "the higher ups should get involved".
> I like self regulation. Theres the ignore button or just not play with him anymore.
> On the flip side, he gave us some good info on hog hunting in the other thread, so see we have been enriched by his participation


Self regulation is what I was hoping for.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Self regulation is what I was hoping for.


I hope you aren't hoping he's going to regulate himself cuz the odds don't look good for that


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I hope you aren't hoping he's going to regulate himself cuz the odds don't look good for that


No, I guess that I meant police ourselves. The AAA's would handle it.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> If they had the cards there would be nothing to debate


And, vice versa???


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What is the method by which you have determined that Jesus was resurrected?


That same spirit that raised Jesus is “the experience” we speak of. The same spirit he said would come as a gift. I believe you once referred to it as a phenomenon. 

If we receive that as the Bible has promised, and we can research outside of the Bible and there is absolutely no other explanation that can even come close to describe it, why would we doubt it being real?


----------



## ky55 (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> No, I guess that I meant police ourselves. The AAA's would handle it.



Are you hinting that he might be “regulated” by his uhhhhh...
peers?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And, vice versa???


We don't use the Joker in our deck ?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Are you hinting that he might be “regulated” by his uhhhhh...
> peers?


A few have vaguely mentioned it in a round about way.
I do feel that some absolutely recognize what he is up to and find it as "bad cricket".
And others encourage it.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> We don't use the Joker in our deck ?


Dang it...now that was a good counter comment.....wished I used it first lol


----------



## Israel (Nov 18, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> All I've ever asked you is why you believe that any of the part in blue is true.  What is the method by which you have determined that Jesus was resurrected?



Occupation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And, vice versa???


Sure, but then you get into the whole argument about proving a negative, the difference between claiming something is instead of isn't etc.....
But no, NEITHER side is going to PROVE anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Yet.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Dang it...now that was a good counter comment.....wished I used it first lol


That was a good one wasn't it


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That was a good one wasn't it


Yup. I should have came back with we have the "Wild" card.......it can be whatever lol


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Yup. I should have came back with we have the "Wild" card.......it can be whatever lol


I would have replied, a card of the gaps.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 19, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life...
> 
> As a believer, have you ever really considered the depth, breadth, implications and ramifications of what Christ said with regards to being the TRUTH.


Hmmm
You mean, what John, or whomever, said with regards to being the TRUTH.
John was written decades after the death of 'Christ'.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 19, 2018)

Israel said:


> Occupation.



Are you talking about your occupation?  Do you mean that things that happen in the hospital where you work have led you to believe this?:

_Jesus Christ did not come to compete against unbelief, to compete against sin, to make in any form...a better or (to whatever criteria) winning argument. I know all too well this remains not an unfamiliar appraisal._

_Yes...he shows triumph over death, triumph over sin, overcoming the world...but it is He himself who is this...His doing "in manifestation" is not to show He can just "do better" (for who then could be saved?), but who He is, who God is, in salvation. Participant and sole originator. _

Can you connect the dots for me?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 19, 2018)

660griz said:


> Hmmm
> You mean, what John, or whomever, said with regards to being the TRUTH.
> John was written decades after the death of 'Christ'.


Debbie Downer


----------



## Israel (Nov 19, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Are you talking about your occupation?  Do you mean that things that happen in the hospital where you work have led you to believe this?:
> 
> _Jesus Christ did not come to compete against unbelief, to compete against sin, to make in any form...a better or (to whatever criteria) winning argument. I know all too well this remains not an unfamiliar appraisal._
> 
> ...



I occupied my assigned position _in nature_. By nature I was alive in the flesh. Then it changed.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2018)

Israel said:


> I occupied my assigned position _in nature_. By nature I was alive in the flesh. Then it changed.


What does nature have to do with anything?
Nature does not assign.
You are because the conditions allow it.

Although, I could be more open to a total separation of the Nature World and a Spiritual World.
It is kind of how I think already.

This world is what it is all on it's own. If there is anything beyond it I won't know until I leave this world.


----------



## Israel (Nov 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> What does nature have to do with anything?
> Nature does not assign.
> You are because the conditions allow it.
> 
> ...



By nature I meant not "Nature" as in the _material order_. It was_ my nature,_ or_ essence _in which_ I dwelt._ A thing assigned to know _the I,_ there.

Here you speak well:



> Although, I could be more open to a total separation of the Nature World and a Spiritual World.
> It is kind of how I think already.
> 
> This world is what it is all on it's own. If there is anything beyond it I won't know until I leave this world.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2018)

Israel said:


> By nature I meant not "Nature" as in the _material order_. It was_ my nature,_ or_ essence _in which_ I dwelt._ A thing assigned to know _the I,_ there.
> 
> Here you speak well:


As always, I speak honestly.

Your top answer may not be as honest. It doesn't add up as written.


----------



## Israel (Nov 20, 2018)

I had a nature to which I was beholden, and I occupied there.

It really is quite simple.

I too, once thought "I always am honest". Or, speak the truth.

You have no idea what you've entered by saying "as always". No "I" ever does. If that be your entry, it's useful.

The "I" is always true _to itself._

You will not find any "I" here, in this forum, or on these many boards, nor in this whole of the world, that believes differently.

And, as in the matter being discussed on the other thread, it is _wholly_ a matter _of convenience. _




> It is useful for a man to believe he is alive.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 20, 2018)

As the subject of "I" may have derived from Descartes, I thought someone, if not familiar with it, might benefit from Part 4 of his Discourse on Method.  The first four paragraphs being most relevant, but the remainder not irrelevant.  Some clarity would be gained by including the whole of the Discourse, but I don't think it is necessary to get the idea.  I will let Descartes speak for himself (noting that comparing translations is a good idea, but more time consuming than most would be willing to accept).

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm#part4

>>edit<< on my computer I have to click on the link, then close it, then click on it again to get to the correct page.


----------

