# A question for believers



## ambush80

So someone did a drive by and dropped this gem in another thread:



So at 2:16 he says:

"If I could fit the infinite God in my 3lb. brain He would not be worth worshiping."

Yet there he is, telling a whole audience with his 3lb. brain what God is like. And the audience cheers and claps in elation at his wit and wisdom.  But if he believed what he said about God being too hard to comprehend, then he would greet the audience and say "Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen. I'm about to say some things but I don't know what I'm talking about."

So how do you know if you're understanding anything that God says correctly?  How do you know that you comprehend what His REAL intentions are.  He says he loves us but then kills most of us in a flood.  (Sounds like what wife abusers say).  He says He wishes all would go to Heaven but then He makes some of us Vessels of Wrath.   How do you know that when He says "Turn the other cheek" that He doesn't really want you to be pacifists like the Amish?  

So what is it?  Is He beyond comprehension or can you comprehend the will of God?


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> So someone did a drive by and dropped this gem in another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> So at 2:16 he says:
> 
> "If I could fit the infinite God in my 3lb. brain He would not be worth worshiping."
> 
> Yet there he is, telling a whole audience with his 3lb. brain what God is like. And the audience cheers and claps in elation at his wit and wisdom.  But if he believed what he said about God being too hard to comprehend, then he would greet the audience and say "Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen. I'm about to say some things but I don't know what I'm talking about."
> 
> So how do you know if you're understanding anything that God says correctly?  How do you know that you comprehend what His REAL intentions are.  He says he loves us but then kills most of us in a flood.  (Sounds like what wife abusers say).  He says He wishes all would go to Heaven but then He makes some of us Vessels of Wrath.   How do you know that when He says "Turn the other cheek" that He doesn't really want you to be pacifists like the Amish?
> 
> So what is it?  Is He beyond comprehension or can you comprehend the will of God?



My 3lb brain tells me that  god doesnt want the easy ones. No fun spending eternity with a bunch of yes men and kiss-ups.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> My 3lb brain tells me that  god doesnt want the easy ones. No fun spending eternity with a bunch of yes men and kiss-ups.


Its possible "they" are right that there is a God.
And its possible that "we" are right about Christianity/the Bible being entirely man made and man inspired.
If God were to have a logical mind it seems like we might get the nod for not falling for that man made carp


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Its possible "they" are right that there is a God.
> And its possible that "we" are right about Christianity/the Bible being entirely man made and man inspired.
> If God were to have a logical mind it seems like we might get the nod for not falling for that man made carp


It is possible.
And, as we have been informed, nobody can prove it wrong so it MUST be true.


----------



## Israel

By ecstatic utterance I found my lot put in with the Christ of God.
The whole kit and kaboodle.
That's my testimony. I think I've probably shared it.
You might understand, as I do, the problem with recollection. With memory. It's so simple, but also, oh! so subtle. 

Suffice to say it is in the matter of superimposition. Any remembrance is always done from any particular place, at any particular moment. The "what was" is always viewed in the _what is_ at that present, and that particular moment. The amount of coloring from the present moment may be rarely, or if ever, discerned. But once seen, it must be admitted...allowed to be acknowledged. Who knows the tendrils found in the reaching back...and their effects upon of the "then"...by the now? 

I tend to think that among men, we mostly think we rightly (and sort of hermetically) contain and view our memories as a static and sterile thing and again, rarely if ever, even consider that our own viewing of them (in some sort of Heisenberg uncertainty) might have some effects. We "know" them as there, put placing them in right position, right relevance to us in our now never can take into account the multitude of things we simply do not remember. We may like to think of ourselves in terms as editors, calling up various scenes in our footage, but we have forgotten all the previous cuts that have long since been left to litter the floor. We can't simply go back on this piece of celluloid to recover the "all" at any particular and present moment...pieces are obviously missing already. We _may like to think_ we can have, and present, the whole of the movie to one another...but really?

And, how often do we say to one another..."wait...how did you get...from there to...there?" Did you forget a part? Misremember a part? Ignore whole lengths that must come between?

In the following, may you trust I have not sought out in any machine other than my own mind for recollection. Re collection.
I cannot ever say "I sought to pay attention", for that is folly to me. I am simply at the whim of another writer, what gets written for hi lite is simply not in my hands. Nevertheless, I have recollections. And to say after these few years we have spent together you have made some of "your own" now part of my collection simply attests to our being in this mixing bowl for a time. That's all. To whatever degree, our ingredients have touched.

So, to the three of you, above. (and I take this liberty as a granted thing) And because of liberty you are all as likewise as free to revoke me, rebut me, rebuke me, and of course, challenge my recollections.

But I will speak of signal things, things of "you" all now highlighted in me. I didn't make them so, nor were any (to my own knowledge) of you pressed by any man to share them. But, you have. Tell me if my recollection is at fault.

To one: Your mother in laws last words you heard were "I hate you!" (exclamation point, my own) What was then described as following was gruesome to sight. But yes, I remember what was said of it.

To another: "I told a fellow at college he was then going to he11 for not believing the truth I told him of the gospel" (more or less?) With a now present squirming with a shame of such presumption I saw in myself as to (I imagine) even now make me quite nauseated. (and, since you introduced me to Jordan Peterson, it would be interesting to consider his understanding of what could be called the "disgust principle" as proposed in one of his vids and its subsequent outworking that _could_ lead a man to say something like "If the price of health is being like a christian I would rather be sick". (Again, I didn't go the machine "outside" for a quote, just a quick shot at what got stored on my very personal hard drive) And yes, to be honest, I do imagine you as a very orderly man, a man whose garage I might envy in contrast to my own. Someone who knows exactly where his 24 inch level is to be found.


To another (in summary): We were manifestly presented as unfit to serve by our appearance, damaging (so to speak) to "the cause" (in this case the damage "to the cause" was implied by _reduced offerings)_ From that time I had serious doubts...cause something was surely smelling fishy. (Add to this the incurred "penance" of prayer by rote, and yes...I'm there with you...something is indeed smelly) Turning the privilege of prayer to an exacting from the soul for a judged misdeed (that wasn't even a misdeed, but a revelation) stinks. (whether there was presumption in the stating of it is another matter altogether)

I really don't know if I have been "paying attention"...truly...but I believe each has been mentioned in signal cause. Surely not "only" cause (as I would imagine there to be addenda)...for one has already said that even in his prayers in a situation, he had already been informed of "doubts" about the faith.

You may think I am trying to hold "somebody to something" and in one sense you would be wrong, but in another, quite correct. A view that could say "these are presented to be used 'against us' after some manner".

But wrong inferences easily lead to wrong conclusions...and yet each testimony speaks plainly to me of the Christ. And the conclusion of all these matters, or none of these matters...is, if nothing else...at least not...yet.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> By ecstatic utterance I found my lot put in with the Christ of God.
> The whole kit and kaboodle.
> That's my testimony. I think I've probably shared it.
> You might understand, as I do, the problem with recollection. With memory. It's so simple, but also, oh! so subtle.
> 
> Suffice to say it is in the matter of superimposition. Any remembrance is always done from any particular place, at any particular moment. The "what was" is always viewed in the _what is_ at that present, and that particular moment. The amount of coloring from the present moment may be rarely, or if ever, discerned. But once seen, it must be admitted...allowed to be acknowledged. Who knows the tendrils found in the reaching back...and their effects upon of the "then"...by the now?
> 
> I tend to think that among men, we mostly think we rightly (and sort of hermetically) contain and view our memories as a static and sterile thing and again, rarely if ever, even consider that our own viewing of them (in some sort of Heisenberg uncertainty) might have some effects. We "know" them as there, put placing them in right position, right relevance to us in our now never can take into account the multitude of things we simply do not remember. We may like to think of ourselves in terms as editors, calling up various scenes in our footage, but we have forgotten all the previous cuts that have long since been left to litter the floor. We can't simply go back on this piece of celluloid to recover the "all" at any particular and present moment...pieces are obviously missing already. We _may like to think_ we can have, and present, the whole of the movie to one another...but really?
> 
> And, how often do we say to one another..."wait...how did you get...from there to...there?" Did you forget a part? Misremember a part? Ignore whole lengths that must come between?
> 
> In the following, may you trust I have not sought out in any machine other than my own mind for recollection. Re collection.
> I cannot ever say "I sought to pay attention", for that is folly to me. I am simply at the whim of another writer, what gets written for hi lite is simply not in my hands. Nevertheless, I have recollections. And to say after these few years we have spent together you have made some of "your own" now part of my collection simply attests to our being in this mixing bowl for a time. That's all. To whatever degree, our ingredients have touched.
> 
> So, to the three of you, above. (and I take this liberty as a granted thing) And because of liberty you are all as likewise as free to revoke me, rebut me, rebuke me, and of course, challenge my recollections.
> 
> But I will speak of signal things, things of "you" all now highlighted in me. I didn't make them so, nor were any (to my own knowledge) of you pressed by any man to share them. But, you have. Tell me if my recollection is at fault.
> 
> To one: Your mother in laws last words you heard were "I hate you!" (exclamation point, my own) What was then described as following was gruesome to sight. But yes, I remember what was said of it.
> 
> To another: "I told a fellow at college he was then going to he11 for not believing the truth I told him of the gospel" (more or less?) With a now present squirming with a shame of such presumption I saw in myself as to (I imagine) even now make me quite nauseated. (and, since you introduced me to Jordan Peterson, it would be interesting to consider his understanding of what could be called the "disgust principle" as proposed in one of his vids and its subsequent outworking that _could_ lead a man to say something like "If the price of health is being like a christian I would rather be sick". (Again, I didn't go the machine "outside" for a quote, just a quick shot at what got stored on my very personal hard drive) And yes, to be honest, I do imagine you as a very orderly man, a man whose garage I might envy in contrast to my own. Someone who knows exactly where his 24 inch level is to be found.
> 
> 
> To another (in summary): We were manifestly presented as unfit to serve by our appearance, damaging (so to speak) to "the cause" (in this case the damage "to the cause" was implied by _reduced offerings)_ From that time I had serious doubts...cause something was surely smelling fishy. (Add to this the incurred "penance" of prayer by rote, and yes...I'm there with you...something is indeed smelly) Turning the privilege of prayer to an exacting from the soul for a judged misdeed (that wasn't even a misdeed, but a revelation) stinks. (whether there was presumption in the stating of it is another matter altogether)
> 
> I really don't know if I have been "paying attention"...truly...but I believe each has been mentioned in signal cause. Surely not "only" cause (as I would imagine there to be addenda)...for one has already said that even in his prayers in a situation, he had already been informed of "doubts" about the faith.
> 
> You may think I am trying to hold "somebody to something" and in one sense you would be wrong, but in another, quite correct. A view that could say "these are presented to be used 'against us' after some manner".
> 
> But wrong inferences easily lead to wrong conclusions...and yet each testimony speaks plainly to me of the Christ. And the conclusion of all these matters, or none of these matters...is, if nothing else...at least not...yet.



I know, yet I dont know.
It matters but it doesnt matter.
I don't remember but here is what I remember.
You could be wrong but you may be right.
Wrong inferences easily lead to wrong conclusions, let me tell you about my inferred conclusion.
These matters, or none of these matters.
I Didn't believe now Im all in kit and kaboodle.

I guess when the bible is the example one chooses to live by, contradictions cannot be avoided.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> I know, yet I dont know.
> It matters but it doesnt matter.
> I don't remember but here is what I remember.
> You could be wrong but you may be right.
> Wrong inferences easily lead to wrong conclusions, let me tell you about my inferred conclusion.
> These matters, or none of these matters.
> I Didn't believe now Im all in kit and kaboodle.
> 
> I guess when the bible is the example one chooses to live by, contradictions cannot be avoided.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


>



Lol. Perfect


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I guess when the bible is the example one chooses to live by, contradictions cannot be avoided.



The disconnect here is your assumption.......you can't possibly understand anything that you don't believe exist, and you can't possibly agree with anything that you spend your life discrediting. 

The Bible is only one aspect. People also experience things both good and bad that the Bible speaks of. 

When they give their "testimony", science, doctors and non believers all come to the same conclusion "we don't know.........we don't yet fully understand how the body heals itself " etc. It's just their nice way to say they can't really explain it away, they just know it can't be what we claim it to be. 

So we must have hard physical evidence of why it happens, yet you can take the stance of  " We don't really know"?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I know, yet I dont know.
> It matters but it doesnt matter.
> I don't remember but here is what I remember.
> You could be wrong but you may be right.
> Wrong inferences easily lead to wrong conclusions, let me tell you about my inferred conclusion.
> These matters, or none of these matters.
> I Didn't believe now Im all in kit and kaboodle.
> 
> I guess when the bible is the example one chooses to live by, contradictions cannot be avoided.



What you see as contradictions, paradoxes (and I often find myself observing, no less) I accept as a harmony, now. I don't have any expectation anyone else could live here as I don't even understand the how of I do. But I do believe in the one who has told me I will live where I never thought possible.

But can you admit what is obvious on the face of your last line? Unless I misread what you say, and it really is said as an endorsement..."for the Bible"?

You expect more...(dare I say??) believe for more than contradictions? Me also.


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> I guess when the bible is the example one chooses to live by, contradictions cannot be avoided.



Parts of the Bible. Only the good parts.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> The disconnect here is your assumption.......you can't possibly understand anything that you don't believe exist, and you can't possibly agree with anything that you spend your life discrediting.
> 
> The Bible is only one aspect. People also experience things both good and bad that the Bible speaks of.
> 
> When they give their "testimony", science, doctors and non believers all come to the same conclusion "we don't know.........we don't yet fully understand how the body heals itself " etc. It's just their nice way to say they can't really explain it away, they just know it can't be what we claim it to be.
> 
> So we must have hard physical evidence of why it happens, yet you can take the stance of  " We don't really know"?



Now see,  how can you possibly make any certain claims about me when you yourself did not take the time to research me? Within these forums I have repeatedly told of my past. You make incorrect assumptions without researching the available truth,  and then you expect to be taken serious about the things that you cannot possibly ever know.

Pray to your god that he regrows amputated limbs.
I will watch the news for the physical evidence.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> What you see as contradictions, paradoxes (and I often find myself observing, no less) I accept as a harmony, now. I don't have any expectation anyone else could live here as I don't even understand the how of I do. But I do believe in the one who has told me I will live where I never thought possible.
> 
> But can you admit what is obvious on the face of your last line? Unless I misread what you say, and it really is said as an endorsement..."for the Bible"?
> 
> You expect more...(dare I say??) believe for more than contradictions? Me also.



I am blind yet I see.
You are told by one who doesn't exist.
You misread my posts yet roll on as if understood.
I do not expect more because the contradictions tell me what it is.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Now see,  how can you possibly make any certain claims about me when you yourself did not take the time to research me?.



Agreed. In all aspects. And that works both ways.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Agreed. In all aspects. And that works both ways.



That's a problem for believers considering the average atheist knows the bible better than the average christian. Most atheists are former christians, not because they haven't researched the bible but because they have. Once again you have the cart before the horse.


----------



## 660griz

atlashunter said:


> That's a problem for believers considering the average atheist knows the bible better than the average christian.



https://redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2010/09/28/who-knows-the-bible-best-surprise/


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> That's a problem for believers considering the average atheist knows the bible better than the average christian. Most atheists are former christians, not because they haven't researched the bible but because they have. Once again you have the cart before the horse.



And again, opinion based.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Agreed. In all aspects. And that works both ways.



It does work both ways sometimes but not in this case.
I have 20 years experience with christianity and a lifetime concerning the bible.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> And again, opinion based.



It is the opinion of the people who have done the research. They base their opinion off of the facts from the studies.


----------



## JB0704

I think if you believe in God you have to assume he is incomprehensible.   For instance, we believe he created life.  We recognize science, and how life works, but how amazing a being must be that made it all happen?  The "will of God," on the other hand, is a different matter.  We think we have a blueprint as it relates to us, not him.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> And again, opinion based.



How many members of those snake handling churches do you think are aware that the verses of Mark they are following are not original to the book but were added much later?

https://ehrmanblog.org/snake-handling-gospel-mark/


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> How many members of those snake handling churches do you think are aware that the verses of Mark they are following are not original to the book but were added much later?
> 
> https://ehrmanblog.org/snake-handling-gospel-mark/


I personally know of no one that teaches and practices the handling snakes and I don't know of anyone that even knows anyone that does. One of the misconceptions that result from assuming and lumping all. It further demonstrates that you've not researched enough to validate your position in regard to Christianity to be assured that you know all about it. I can assure you that there's tons of Christians that don't buy into snakes, have never heard teaching to handle snakes and never have even saw it practiced.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> It is the opinion of the people who have done the research. They base their opinion off of the facts from the studies.


A complete study ??


Spotlite said:


> I personally know of no one that teaches and practices the handling snakes and I don't know of anyone that even knows anyone that does. One of the misconceptions that result from assuming and lumping all. It further demonstrates that you've not researched enough to validate your position in regard to Christianity to be assured that you know all about it. I can assure you that there's tons of Christians that don't buy into snakes, have never heard teaching to handle snakes and never have even saw it practiced.


----------



## JB0704

I've seen snake handling on TV, and have read some about it.  I haev never practiced it, attended a church which did, or known anybody who buys into it.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I personally know of no one that teaches and practices the handling snakes and I don't know of anyone that even knows anyone that does. One of the misconceptions that result from assuming and lumping all. It further demonstrates that you've not researched enough to validate your position in regard to Christianitybto be assured that you know all about it. I can assure you that there's tons of Christians that don't buy into snakes, have never heard teaching to handle snakes and never have even saw it practiced.



I didn't ask if you know any of them nor did I lump all christians into that group. In fact I singled them out and asked you a question which you have yet to answer.


----------



## oldfella1962

660griz said:


> Parts of the Bible. Only the good parts.



One of my favorite parts is when some kids are making fun of a prophet (might be Elisha - not Elijah, but Elisha if memory serves) calling him bald & whatnot (kids can be so cruel!)  so god has some bears attack the kids and rip them to shreds/devour them.  That story should be reenacted at a church Christmas celebration or something. 

Man, I'd hate to see what god would do if some kids wouldn't get off Elisha's lawn!


----------



## Artfuldodger

One thing I see is Christians explaining God's ways in a discussion but when it gets too deep they switch to saying "God's ways are not our ways."
It's like trying to explain God's ways but then saying "we don't exactly know God's ways. We know what God want's us to do yet we really don't know what God wants us to do.

We know God controls everything yet we have free will. God has already seen everything but we have the free will to change what God has already seen.
You can't put God in box. Yet the Bible tells us everything we need to know. Maybe that's the answer but most people add to it beyond what it says. Think Trinity vs Oneness or predestination vs free will.


----------



## atlashunter

Artfuldodger said:


> One thing I see is Christians explaining God's ways in a discussion but when it gets too deep they switch to saying "God's ways are not our ways."
> It's like trying to explain God's ways but then saying "we don't exactly know God's ways. We know what God want's us to do yet we really don't know what God wants us to do.
> 
> We know God controls everything yet we have free will. God has already seen everything but we have the free will to change what God has already seen.
> You can't put God in box. Yet the Bible tells us everything we need to know. Maybe that's the but most people add to it beyond what it says. Think Trinity vs Oneness or predestination vs free will.



Like a house built on sand.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> A complete study ??



Did you read the one link griz660 posted?
And that was one of many that can be found with 3 minutes on the 'net.


So because you have never heard of christian snake handlers they do not exist?
That is rich coming from you.
Give the  net another 2 mins, you can find some denominations and parishes that do handle those snakes.....on the advice of the bible.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> I didn't ask if you know any of them nor did I lump all christians into that group. In fact I singled them out and asked you a question which you have yet to answer.


I can't answer what I think they believe. If I had their same thought process and beliefs, I'd be handling snakes. But inside of that, your point is asking about scriptures not being original. Again, already heard the argument how many times??? Let this part sink in. I've proven what I believe. Although you may not have been involved in one of the many times, I've done it multiple times. Maybe some new beginner will come along and you have that debate with him. As for me, you got nothing I've not seen or heard many other times. 


bullethead said:


> Did you read the one link griz660 posted?
> And that was one of many that can be found with 3 minutes on the 'net.
> 
> 
> So because you have never heard of christian snake handlers they do not exist?
> That is rich coming from you.
> Give the  net another 2 mins, you can find some denominations and parishes that do handle those snakes.....on the advice of the bible.


If you search the net hard enough, you'll find former atheist admitting they were wrong about God. I personally know none of them either. When I say Ive never heard it, that means I've never in person. That's why I specifically said "Personally" with my comment. Yea I know they exist. Y'all like to "separate" yourselves among the non believers to be atheist, humanist, agnostic, etc. Somehow y'all don't comprehend that everything you call Christianity is not Christianity.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I can't answer what I think they believe. If I had their same thought process and beliefs, I'd be handling snakes. But inside of that, your point is asking about scriptures not being original. Again, already heard the argument how many times??? Let this part sink in. I've proven what I believe. Although you may not have been involved in one of the many times, I've done it multiple times. Maybe some new beginner will come along and you have that debate with him. As for me, you got nothing I've not seen or heard many other times.
> 
> If you search the net hard enough, you'll find former atheist admitting they were wrong about God. I personally know none of them either. When I say Ive never heard it, that means I've never in person. That's why I specifically said "Personally" with my comment. Yea I know they exist. Y'all like to "separate" yourselves among the non believers to be atheist, humanist, agnostic, etc. Somehow y'all don't comprehend that everything you call Christianity is not Christianity.



Would you take the time to explain what exactly  Christianity is and who follows it the best?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I can't answer what I think they believe. If I had their same thought process and beliefs, I'd be handling snakes. But inside of that, your point is asking about scriptures not being original. Again, already heard the argument how many times??? Let this part sink in. I've proven what I believe. Although you may not have been involved in one of the many times, I've done it multiple times. Maybe some new beginner will come along and you have that debate with him. As for me, you got nothing I've not seen or heard many other times.



Not asking you to read minds. Asking how many of them _you think_ would know about the information I posted. I suspect it's a very low percentage in the single digits. Yet that passage in Mark is an important part of their religious rituals which takes us back to the original point; Christians aren't as informed about their religion as they would have others believe so they should exercise caution telling others they don't understand because they haven't done their research. Maybe they should consider the very real possibility that their religion is just as fallible as the men who created it.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I think if you believe in God you have to assume he is incomprehensible.   For instance, we believe he created life.  We recognize science, and how life works, but how amazing a being must be that made it all happen?  The "will of God," on the other hand, is a different matter.  We think we have a blueprint as it relates to us, not him.



If one claims "there is a thing that is incomprehensible" they have already started comprehending it by saying its a "thing" and that it "is". I would agree that if a being were the cause of all of that it would be amazing by every definition of the word amazing.  If there were many of them capable of such feats then maybe that's not so amazing.  

Is the blue print the Bible?


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Not asking you to read minds. Asking how many of them _you think_ would know about the information I posted. I suspect it's a very low percentage in the single digits. Yet that passage in Mark is an important part of their religious rituals which takes us back to the original point; Christians aren't as informed about their religion as they would have others believe so they should exercise caution telling others they don't understand because they haven't done their research. Maybe they should consider the very real possibility that their religion is just as fallible as the men who created it.



Good post.


----------



## ambush80

So when a believer speaks about God does he/she know anything about what he/she is talking about?  How much and which parts?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Would you take the time to explain what exactly  Christianity is and who follows it the best?


 I will start with "Christ-like" I think we established that the root word for Christianity is Christian? Based on that, do you think all religions are Christianity? It was mentioned that snake handlers were just one group.



atlashunter said:


> Not asking you to read minds. Asking how many of them _you think_ would know about the information I posted. I suspect it's a very low percentage in the single digits. Yet that passage in Mark is an important part of their religious rituals which takes us back to the original point; Christians aren't as informed about their religion as they would have others believe so they should exercise caution telling others they don't understand because they haven't done their research. Maybe they should consider the very real possibility that their religion is just as fallible as the men who created it.


 ok I misread your post. Im absolutely sure there's plenty that are misinformed and hadn't proven what they believe.  They just believe what their parents believed just because......But that's in every group, believer and non believer. It's called indoctrination.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> ok I misread your post. Im absolutely sure there's plenty that are misinformed and hadn't proven what they believe.  They just believe what their parents believed just because......



Because... that is what they read in the KJV and they read it under the assumption they were reading an inerrant book. It's those who dare question the infallibility of the Bible who dig deeper and ask the questions who learn the most about the book, it's history, origin and context.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I will start with "Christ-like" I think we established that the root word for Christianity is Christian? Based on that, do you think all religions are Christianity? It was mentioned that snake handlers were just one group.



Do I think ALL religions are Christianity?
No. That is absurd

But as of 2001 there were 33,830 denominations within Christianity.

Now NONE of them ever new Christ so all that there is available are the writings of men who also never knew Christ. Those writers at the very least embellished previous oral tradition and more than likely invented the divinity and religion. They made a character out of a man.

So how do you really know what Christ was like? 
You are basing your version off of very suspect writers.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I will start with "Christ-like" I think we established that the root word for Christianity is Christian? Based on that, do you think all religions are Christianity? It was mentioned that snake handlers were just one group.
> 
> ok I misread your post. Im absolutely sure there's plenty that are misinformed and hadn't proven what they believe.  They just believe what their parents believed just because......But that's in every group, believer and non believer. It's called indoctrination.




If I were to try to be Christ like, how should I emulate Christ turning over tables and chasing people with a whip?  When should I do that?


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Do I think ALL religions are Christianity?
> No. That is absurd
> 
> But as of 2001 there were 33,830 denominations within Christianity.
> 
> Now NONE of them ever new Christ so all that there is available are the writings of men who also never knew Christ. Those writers at the very least embellished previous oral tradition and more than likely invented the divinity and religion. They made a character out of a man.
> 
> So how do you really know what Christ was like?
> You are basing your version off of very suspect writers.



I think it's reasonable to say "according to the scriptures". If we say someone is Socratic that has meaning even if the stories about Socrates are fiction.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> I think it's reasonable to say "according to the scriptures". If we say someone is Socratic that has meaning even if the stories about Socrates are fiction.



That is fair.

But at what point do we seperate fiction from reality.
Is someone really Captn Kirk like?

I mean I truly believe that a man named Yeshua lived during those times and I believe he was one of many apocalyptic preachers trying to get people to go back to their old ways and traditions while warning of doom in the process.

And then there came the embellishments, so I wonder is scripture Christ-like or Paul-like.
And like Ambush said, do we follow ALL of Christs doings within scripture? 
I mean he could have been a handful for the previous 30 years.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> That is fair.
> 
> But at what point do we seperate fiction from reality.
> Is someone really Captn Kirk like?
> 
> I mean I truly believe that a man named Yeshua lived during those times and I believe he was one of many apocalyptic preachers trying to get people to go back to their old ways and traditions while warning of doom in the process.
> 
> And then there came the embellishments, so I wonder is scripture Christ-like or Paul-like.
> And like Ambush said, do we follow ALL of Christs doings within scripture?
> I mean he could have been a handful for the previous 30 years.



Yeah it's pretty vague.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> That is fair.
> 
> But at what point do we seperate fiction from reality.
> Is someone really Captn Kirk like?
> 
> I mean I truly believe that a man named Yeshua lived during those times and I believe he was one of many apocalyptic preachers trying to get people to go back to their old ways and traditions while warning of doom in the process.
> 
> And then there came the embellishments, so I wonder is scripture Christ-like or Paul-like.
> And like Ambush said, do we follow ALL of Christs doings within scripture?
> I mean he could have been a handful for the previous 30 years.



There you go. The center piece. For the spiritual side of things, no one can prove anything to you. God draws s man that's seeking. And you can't seek if your looking to deny. You're asking for physical evidence to prove something spiritual. As far as scripture, don't we all use analogies, paraphrases, examples, etc? If I told you that proving something to you is as pushing a chain uphill, are you going to read that literally pushing a chain uphill or as can't be done? Only God can reveal himself to you. Anyone with any studying at all will or at least should know that.,Even on the physical, you and are no different. Have either of us proved to anyone that the color red is red? Or have we relied on what we've read, been taught, seen or just accepted as red. Everyone says it is, so it must be.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> That's a problem for believers considering the average atheist knows the bible better than the average christian. Most atheists are former christians, not because they haven't researched the bible but because they have. Once again you have the cart before the horse.



I don't know the % but that's not the point. This is the big disconnect are you ready? You know what the bible says, in some cases more than Christians. You point out contradictions due to interpretation? Language? Ability to record? All irrelevant. The big disconnect is you are not spiritually in tune. You have heard of book smarts but no street smarts. You do not know how to explore yourself spiritually. That is where you are missing the point of personal testimony. Where a human spirit surrenders to the holy spirit.


----------



## Spineyman

red neck richie said:


> I don't know the % but that's not the point. This is the big disconnect are you ready? You know what the bible says, in some cases more than Christians. You point out contradictions due to interpretation? Language? Ability to record? All irrelevant. The big disconnect is you are not spiritually in tune. You have heard of book smarts but no street smarts. You do not know how to explore yourself spiritually. That is where you are missing the point of personal testimony. Where a human spirit surrenders to the holy spirit.


But he is not able unless the Lord draws him. He can not accept what he can not see. He does not have eyes to see and ears to hear unless the Holy Spirit opens them the the light of the truth. 

Romans 8:7-9

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.


----------



## red neck richie

Spineyman said:


> But he is not able unless the Lord draws him. He can not accept what he can not see. He does not have eyes to see and ears to hear unless the Holy Spirit opens them the the light of the truth.
> 
> Romans 8:7-9
> 
> 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
> 
> 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.



Good word Spiney.


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> I don't know the % but that's not the point. This is the big disconnect are you ready? You know what the bible says, in some cases more than Christians. You point out contradictions due to interpretation? Language? Ability to record? All irrelevant. The big disconnect is you are not spiritually in tune. You have heard of book smarts but no street smarts. You do not know how to explore yourself spiritually. That is where you are missing the point of personal testimony. Where a human spirit surrenders to the holy spirit.



You have some God given ability to understand the Bible?  Does anybody else?  Why do people who claim they were given this ability disagree on what it means so often?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> There you go. The center piece. For the spiritual side of things, no one can prove anything to you. God draws s man that's seeking. And you can't seek if your looking to deny. You're asking for physical evidence to prove something spiritual. As far as scripture, don't we all use analogies, paraphrases, examples, etc? If I told you that proving something to you is as pushing a chain uphill, are you going to read that literally pushing a chain uphill or as can't be done? Only God can reveal himself to you. Anyone with any studying at all will or at least should know that.,Even on the physical, you and are no different. Have either of us proved to anyone that the color red is red? Or have we relied on what we've read, been taught, seen or just accepted as red. Everyone says it is, so it must be.


I'm here. Where is god? Any god worth their reputation would know EXACTLY how to get ahold of me in a manner that would "work". I am open.


Studying scripture,  religion, spirituality is like studying Star Wars or Star Trek or any of the comics.
We can all dress up and speak the real unreal languages, we can discuss and debate who would win in a fight  between Superman and Mighty Mouse we can transport our minds into the pages...but we really do not know any of those characters. We pretend to based on what we would do, or how we would act or portray them as super "us" or our alter egos. We flock to the ones we like or need. But that is all spiritual too. It's  a feeling we get about a relationship we have with something that we can never know. 
Does studying them actually bring us closer to any of them?

People, humans use parables, paraphrases, analogies.... They are all open to interpretation and not the best way to get right to the point. 

Would a god really use the same means to get his word across? Would he use it so that it is not only disagreed upon but taken to a point where people kill each other over its contents?
Is THAT godlike? Is it impressive at all? 

We can call red whatever name we want, but the colors that go together to make red do not change...call them whatever you want, but substitute one or take one away and you have to pick another name for the new color.


----------



## red neck richie

ambush80 said:


> You have some God given ability to understand the Bible?  Does anybody else?  Why do people who claim they were given this ability disagree on what it means so often?



Who cares if they disagree, I disagree that wont stop me from a spiritual relationship with my Lord and savior. Your missing the point.


----------



## red neck richie

I knew you were gonna ask so the answer is salvation and redemption.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> I don't know the % but that's not the point. This is the big disconnect are you ready? You know what the bible says, in some cases more than Christians. You point out contradictions due to interpretation? Language? Ability to record? All irrelevant. The big disconnect is you are not spiritually in tune. You have heard of book smarts but no street smarts. You do not know how to explore yourself spiritually. That is where you are missing the point of personal testimony. Where a human spirit surrenders to the holy spirit.


Tried it, and it didnt work as advertised. I used to make the same excuses as you do for others "not getting it". Then I realized that there was nothing to get and nobody ever had it. The ones that claim to are usually using it as a crutch.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> You have some God given ability to understand the Bible?  Does anybody else?  Why do people who claim they were given this ability disagree on what it means so often?



Welder can understand the bible, and spineyman can and so can richie and spot....
Why are they not all 100% in agreement if a god is involved? The spirit should have them all on the same page.


----------



## ambush80

ambush80 said:


> So when a believer speaks about God does he/she know anything about what he/she is talking about?  How much and which parts?





ambush80 said:


> If I were to try to be Christ like, how should I emulate Christ turning over tables and chasing people with a whip?  When should I do that?





ambush80 said:


> You have some God given ability to understand the Bible?  Does anybody else?  Why do people who claim they were given this ability disagree on what it means so often?





ambush80 said:


> So someone did a drive by and dropped this gem in another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> So at 2:16 he says:
> 
> "If I could fit the infinite God in my 3lb. brain He would not be worth worshiping."
> 
> Yet there he is, telling a whole audience with his 3lb. brain what God is like. And the audience cheers and claps in elation at his wit and wisdom.  But if he believed what he said about God being too hard to comprehend, then he would greet the audience and say "Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen. I'm about to say some things but I don't know what I'm talking about."
> 
> So how do you know if you're understanding anything that God says correctly?  How do you know that you comprehend what His REAL intentions are.  He says he loves us but then kills most of us in a flood.  (Sounds like what wife abusers say).  He says He wishes all would go to Heaven but then He makes some of us Vessels of Wrath.   How do you know that when He says "Turn the other cheek" that He doesn't really want you to be pacifists like the Amish?
> 
> So what is it?  Is He beyond comprehension or can you comprehend the will of God?




No one has attempted to answer any of these.


----------



## ambush80

Why are you believers not Amish?  Who's getting it wrong?  Who's got the Holy Spirit and who doesn't?


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> No one has attempted to answer any of these.



"These are not the Droids you are looking for...."


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Why are you believers not Amish?  Who's getting it wrong?  Who's got the Holy Spirit and who doesn't?



Why no Mormons?
Jesus visited Smith, told him the truth,  cant be any clearer than right from Jesus....why isnt everyone Mormon?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Welder can understand rhe bible, and spineyman can and so can richie and spot....
> Why are they not all 100% in agreement if a god is involved? The spirit should have them all on the same page.



I wont speak for the rest of my brothers but GOD is involved weather you like it or not. That is your reasoning for not believing? Because we have had different experiences with the Holy Spirit? Please.


----------



## red neck richie

Ambush I have a question for you? Do you allow your daughter to attend church in case you are wrong? And it would be your fault that she didn't have a relationship with GOD?


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> I don't know the % but that's not the point. This is the big disconnect are you ready? You know what the bible says, in some cases more than Christians. You point out contradictions due to interpretation? Language? Ability to record? All irrelevant. The big disconnect is you are not spiritually in tune. You have heard of book smarts but no street smarts. You do not know how to explore yourself spiritually. That is where you are missing the point of personal testimony. Where a human spirit surrenders to the holy spirit.



The percentage is entirely the point. They are following scriptures that the original author didn't put there. Put another way, they are following a forgery out of their own ignorance! And doing so has cost some of them their lives. You want to talk about their state of mind? Fine. But _that is not the point._

Being "spiritually in tune" does nothing to grant a person a better understanding of the bible. In fact if you do an internet search for that phrase you will find that it isn't unique to christians.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> I wont speak for the rest of my brothers but GOD is involved weather you like it or not. That is your reasoning for not believing? Because we have had different experiences with the Holy Spirit? Please.



THE reason, no.
One of a thousand,  definitely.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Ambush I have a question for you? Do you allow your daughter to attend church in case you are wrong? And it would be your fault that she didn't have a relationship with GOD?



Do you allow your child to attend a Mosque or Hindu services in case you are wrong?
Would it be your fault if he/she didn't  have a relationship with the "right" god?


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> The percentage is entirely the point. They are following scriptures that the original author didn't put there. Put another way, they are following a forgery out of their own ignorance! And doing so has cost some of them their lives. You want to talk about their state of mind? Fine. But _that is not the point._
> 
> Being "spiritually in tune" does nothing to grant a person a better understanding of the bible. In fact if you do an internet search for that phrase you will find that it isn't unique to christians.



That fish you are holding has more spirit than you do. You are clueless when it comes to spiritualty.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> That fish you are holding has more spirit than you do. You are clueless when it comes to spiritualty.



But Atlas has the FORCE. You are clueless when it comes to the FORCE.
But, you are incapable of being a Jedi unless you accept the Jedi ways. But there is a chance that the FORCE doesn't want you and never did so don't take it too personally.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Do you allow your child to attend a Mosque or Hindu services in case you are wrong?
> Would it be your fault if he/she didn't  have a relationship with the "right" god?


Hypothetical Really?


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Hypothetical Really?



Lol, as real or as hypothetical as yours Richie.
You expect an answer and so do I.

Remember, if you don't give the answer that I like, I MAY accuse you of not having the right spirituality and that is keeping you from choosing the correct one....


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> That fish you are holding has more spirit than you do. You are clueless when it comes to spiritualty.





Now Richie that's not very nice. Look I grew up in evangelical and pentecostal churches. I understand exactly what you are talking about. I've been there and seen it. I've experienced it myself. And it's nonsense. It's psychological.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Now Richie that's not very nice. Look I grew up in evangelical and pentecostal churches. I understand exactly what you are talking about. I've been there and seen it. I've experienced it myself. And it's nonsense. It's psychological.


Not nice!?!?!?
What???
He is Christ-like don't ya know.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Ambush I have a question for you? Do you allow your daughter to attend church in case you are wrong? And it would be your fault that she didn't have a relationship with GOD?



Wouldn't let mine. Not until they were old enough to have developed some critical thinking skills.


----------



## atlashunter

Question for you Richie. Would you say these kids are "spiritually in tune"?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Not nice!?!?!?
> What???
> He is Christ-like don't ya know.



If you don't like my response its not nice? I love the both of you and pray for you every night? Its my time with the Lord I don't care weather you think you need it or its existence.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> If you don't like my response its not nice? I love the both of you and pray for you every night? Its my time with the Lord I don't care weather you think you need it or its existence.



You called me clueless when you didn't like my response.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> You called me clueless when you didn't like my response.



Spiritually yes. Human knowledge no. I love the way Pentecostal preachers annunciate the name of Jesus.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> If you don't like my response its not nice? I love the both of you and pray for you every night? Its my time with the Lord I don't care weather you think you need it or its existence.



I was questioning Atlas...
And informing him that you were christ-like in the process of informing him that a fish has more spirit than he.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> If you don't like my response its not nice? I love the both of you and pray for you every night? Its my time with the Lord I don't care weather you think you need it or its existence.



You dont know me either. And i converse with you real time.
Dont be so quick to love. Like, ok.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> You dont know me either. And i converse with you real time.
> Dont be so quick to love. Like, ok.



Its the love of the Father brother that's what your missing.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Its the love of the Father brother that's what your missing.



Oh kind of like Vader loved Skywalker. Im feelin it now.


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> Ambush I have a question for you? Do you allow your daughter to attend church in case you are wrong? And it would be your fault that she didn't have a relationship with GOD?



I'll make you a deal.  You answer any of mine above and I'll answer yours.


----------



## Israel

Men either see the end of their own will or they do not.

In any moment, at any time, in any and every endeavor a man may respond to the question "What is the end of your will in this?"


----------



## Russdaddy

bullethead said:


> Now see,  how can you possibly make any certain claims about me when you yourself did not take the time to research me? Within these forums I have repeatedly told of my past. You make incorrect assumptions without researching the available truth,  and then you expect to be taken serious about the things that you cannot possibly ever know.
> 
> Pray to your god that he regrows amputated limbs.
> I will watch the news for the physical evidence.



I respect your right to personal views on eternal matters, and I will not attempt to brow beat you with the bible which it seems you have decided not to accept, that is your choice. I would however ask one question Who has more to lose if they are wrong, a follower of Christ or non Follower? My God hears every prayer and I trust him to answer them according to his will.


----------



## atlashunter

Russdaddy said:


> I respect your right to personal views on eternal matters, and I will not attempt to brow beat you with the bible which it seems you have decided not to accept, that is your choice. I would however ask one question Who has more to lose if they are wrong, a follower of Christ or non Follower? My God hears every prayer and I trust him to answer them according to his will.



Hope you have lots of free time on your hands. There are so many religions out there if you are going to play the odds you better be buying more than one lotto ticket. By the way, what makes you so sure no superstition isn't the winning ticket?


----------



## bullethead

Russdaddy said:


> I respect your right to personal views on eternal matters, and I will not attempt to brow beat you with the bible which it seems you have decided not to accept, that is your choice. I would however ask one question Who has more to lose if they are wrong, a follower of Christ or non Follower? My God hears every prayer and I trust him to answer them according to his will.


Both equally.
You are only allowing for 2 scenarios.
What if you are wrong and I am wrong?
What if there are as many possibilities as there are gods that have been worshipped?
If you want to cover your bases, start worshipping about 10,000 more gods.

I only believe in one less god than you do, but that makes neither one of us right.


----------



## 660griz

Russdaddy said:


> Who has more to lose if they are wrong, a follower of Christ or non Follower? My God hears every prayer and I trust him to answer them according to his will.



Who has more to lose while we are alive? A group praying for the end of time? A group that can do whatever they want and just ask for forgiveness?
A group who's greatest hope is located after death? Or, a group that wants the world and the people to be the best it can be NOW. Do good to actually help, not to gain heaven points. Doesn't do evil because of compassion, conscious, and self control, not because a 2000 year old book told them not to...but if you do, it will be o.k. if you ask forgiveness. 
There was a time when religion was a lot more prevalent than it is now. It was called the 'dark ages'.


----------



## atlashunter

660griz said:


> Who has more to lose while we are alive? A group praying for the end of time? A group that can do whatever they want and just ask for forgiveness?
> A group who's greatest hope is located after death? Or, a group that wants the world and the people to be the best it can be NOW. Do good to actually help, not to gain heaven points. Doesn't do evil because of compassion, conscious, and self control, not because a 2000 year old book told them not to...but if you do, it will be o.k. if you ask forgiveness.
> There was a time when religion was a lot more prevalent than it is now. It was called the 'dark ages'.



Good points.


----------



## Spineyman

bullethead said:


> Welder can understand the bible, and spineyman can and so can richie and spot....
> Why are they not all 100% in agreement if a god is involved? The spirit should have them all on the same page.



I will answer that but first answer me this: What exactly did you do to make yourself a professing Christian? Several here have claimed they WERE Christian but now know better, what say you?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I would agree that if a being were the cause of all of that it would be amazing by every definition of the word amazing.  If there were many of them capable of such feats then maybe that's not so amazing.



How would multiples reduce the "wow" factor?  Consider the results.



ambush80 said:


> Is the blue print the Bible?



For a Christian, yes.  It's the "handbook for Godly livin'."  In order to "know" God's will, one views the context and how it relates to what we see in the Bible.

And, I am well aware I just put it on a tee for y'all........


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Who has more to lose while we are alive? A group praying for the end of time? A group that can do whatever they want and just ask for forgiveness?
> A group who's greatest hope is located after death? Or, a group that wants the world and the people to be the best it can be NOW. Do good to actually help, not to gain heaven points. Doesn't do evil because of compassion, conscious, and self control, not because a 2000 year old book told them not to...but if you do, it will be o.k. if you ask forgiveness.



I think about this a lot.  Prolly more than I should.  But, an atheist would definitely have more to lose.  I don't believe that always leads them to a higher morality due to the finite nature of their existence.  Not every Christian does good for heaven points.  Some folks do things because they view them as the morally correct action.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> But, an atheist would definitely have more to lose.



How so?


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> How so?



Well, there ain't nothing waitin for him on the other side.  If this is all you got, then this is more precious.


----------



## Spineyman

atlashunter said:


> Hope you have lots of free time on your hands. There are so many religions out there if you are going to play the odds you better be buying more than one lotto ticket. By the way, what makes you so sure no superstition isn't the winning ticket?



Oh my friend you are correct. There are many religions, but there is only ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST. 

 Hebrews 1:1-4

1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

 Acts 4:10-12

10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Well, there ain't nothing waitin for him on the other side.  If this is all you got, then this is more precious.



If we assume the only possibilities are either no afterlife or the christian afterlife then I would agree. But there is no reason to make that assumption.


----------



## atlashunter

Spineyman said:


> Oh my friend you are correct. There are many religions, but there is only ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
> 
> Hebrews 1:1-4
> 
> 1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
> 
> Acts 4:10-12
> 
> 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”



So you say...

Others say there is only one Hanuman. Only one Ra. Only one Apollo. Only one Allah. There is equal evidence for all of them including your deity of choice, the one who just happens to be the preferred deity of the culture you were born to.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> If we assume the only possibilities are either no afterlife or the christian afterlife then I would agree. But there is no reason to make that assumption.



Ok, and maybe I am not up on contemporary atheist thinking, but, my assumption is no god or gods = no afterlife given we are nothing more than an organic collection of molecules, and when they die, we die.  For an agnostic, perhaps there's more?


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Ok, and maybe I am not up on contemporary atheist thinking, but, my assumption is no god or gods = no afterlife given we are nothing more than an organic collection of molecules, and when they die, we die.  For an agnostic, perhaps there's more?



The atheist does not have a belief in a god or gods because there is no evidence backing those claims. But I don't know of any atheist that would say it is an impossibility that there could be a god. What we are doing here is speculating on all of the possibilities. There could be an afterlife or no afterlife. There could be a god or no gods or multiple gods. There could be any of the above with an afterlife or without an afterlife. There could be an afterlife without god(s). Maybe one of the religions are true. Maybe none of them are. Maybe there is an afterlife that rewards those who didn't cave into the fear tactics of "believe or be tortured in the afterlife". Maybe there is an afterlife that rewards those who had the courage to accept the grim prospect that this life is all you get so make the most of it. Maybe those who abandoned reason for wishful thinking will suffer in the afterlife or have no afterlife at all. Do I believe any of these are the case? No. But if we are talking about playing the "what if" game then all possibilities are on the table.


----------



## Spineyman

atlashunter said:


> *So you say...*
> 
> Others say there is only one Hanuman. Only one Ra. Only one Apollo. Only one Allah. There is equal evidence for all of them including your deity of choice, the one who just happens to be the preferred deity of the culture you were born to.



I don't say. God Says! I just confirm it. What I see here with you is sour grapes. You followed a man, a very fallible man at that. Who preached another Gospel outside of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then you fell short because you had no foundation. I will say this, that saying your a Christian, and going to church does not make you a Christian, no more than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger. You see being a Christian, which the term means to be Christ like, is not what you did or are doing but what Christ has already done. I also believe that according to the authority of God's written Word in Romans 1 there are no atheists, just those who have bought a lie, and continue to speak the very first lie recorded in the Garden... Did God really say??????


----------



## atlashunter

Spineyman said:


> I don't say. God Says! I just confirm it. What I see here with you is sour grapes. You followed a man, a very fallible man at that. Who preached another Gospel outside of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then you fell short because you had no foundation. I will say this, that saying your a Christian, and going to church does not make you a Christian, no more than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger. You see being a Christian, which the term means to be Christ like, is not what you did or are doing but what Christ has already done. I also believe that according to the authority of God's written Word in Romans 1 there are no atheists, just those who have bought a lie, and continue to speak the very first lie recorded in the Garden... Did God really say??????


----------



## Spineyman

atlashunter said:


>



In and of itself you are correct. But like Jesus told Nicodemus: you must be born again. The Spirit of the Living God is your PROOF, and it bears witness to the Living God ( Jesus Christ ) and the Written Word of God, the Bible. You were obviously searching but you didn't find because you were looking in the wrong place. Man can not help you, they will almost always fail you. Jesus Christ on the other hand NEVER FAILS. His Word it true, and living and sharper than a two edged sword. Able to divide or discern between the thoughts and intents of the heart.


----------



## atlashunter

Spineyman said:


> In and of itself you are correct. But like Jesus told Nicodemus: you must be born again. The Spirit of the Living God is your PROOF, and it bears witness to the Living God ( Jesus Christ ) and the Written Word of God, the Bible. You were obviously searching but you didn't find because you were looking in the wrong place. Man can not help you, they will almost always fail you. Jesus Christ on the other hand NEVER FAILS. His Word it true, and living and sharper than a two edged sword. Able to divide or discern between the thoughts and intents of the heart.



You're long on claims and short on evidence. See my confirmation bias thread. They prayed with all their hearts to Jesus but still ended up burying a three year old child. Not exactly a success story.

Or see the amputee thread. He prayed for the guy with no legs in Jesus name. Guess what? He still doesn't have any legs. If you call that a success then we can pray to my lucky rabbits foot and get the same results.


----------



## Spineyman

atlashunter said:


> You're long on claims and short on evidence. See my confirmation bias thread. They prayed with all their hearts to Jesus but still ended up burying a three year old child. Not exactly a success story.
> 
> Or see the amputee thread. He prayed for the guy with no legs in Jesus name. Guess what? He still doesn't have any legs. If you call that a success then we can pray to my lucky rabbits foot and get the same results.



First of all God does not live to act according to our will. We live to Glorify God and enjoy Him forever. So please show me where on your body that you have a final expiration date stamped somewhere. That is precisely why Jesus Himself prayed, Father if it be your will, let this cup pass from me, but rather not my will but Thine. Psalms 139, all your days are numbered before there is yet one of them. So if that is the case then praying for healing does not always mean God heals them now does it. We are the thing created, who in the world do we think we are to ask of the Creator to make us this way or that. God does whatsoever He pleases, and does not ask our permission. So if you have a right understanding of God's revealed will which is laid out for us in His Word. That is also why it says to be able to rightly divide the Word of Truth. Let me also say this just because you say you don't believe in God which I choose to not believe you on this, but it does not make it not true. It makes it not true to you, because you are choosing to believe a lie according to Romans 1. My brother in law was in the Army and said for a fact , there are no atheists in a fox hole with bullets and bombs exploding all around. The big, burly, macho, tough guys first words are God save me.


----------



## ky55

Ant farm.


----------



## 660griz

Spineyman said:


> That is precisely why Jesus Himself prayed, Father if it be your will, let this cup pass from me, but rather not my will but Thine. Psalms 139, all your days are numbered before there is yet one of them.


 Why would Jesus pray to himself? 





> My brother in law was in the Army and said for a fact , there are no atheists in a fox hole with bullets and bombs exploding all around. The big, burly, macho, tough guys first words are God save me.



You are correct about atheist in foxholes, I joined the USAF  but, if for some strange reason I did end up in a foxhole, I'd call for an air strike.


----------



## atlashunter

Spineyman said:


> First of all God does not live to act according to our will. We live to Glorify God and enjoy Him forever. So please show me where on your body that you have a final expiration date stamped somewhere. That is precisely why Jesus Himself prayed, Father if it be your will, let this cup pass from me, but rather not my will but Thine. Psalms 139, all your days are numbered before there is yet one of them. So if that is the case then praying for healing does not always mean God heals them now does it. We are the thing created, who in the world do we think we are to ask of the Creator to make us this way or that. God does whatsoever He pleases, and does not ask our permission. So if you have a right understanding of God's revealed will which is laid out for us in His Word. That is also why it says to be able to rightly divide the Word of Truth. Let me also say this just because you say you don't believe in God which I choose to not believe you on this, but it does not make it not true. It makes it not true to you, because you are choosing to believe a lie according to Romans 1. My brother in law was in the Army and said for a fact , there are no atheists in a fox hole with bullets and bombs exploding all around. The big, burly, macho, tough guys first words are God save me.



Yeah that same excuse works for my lucky rabbits foot too. Sometimes you get what you pray for and sometimes you don't. Kind of like when you don't pray at all. Actually exactly like that. So it's not always a success contrary to the scripture that says whatsoever you ask in his name it SHALL be done. Turns out that is demonstrably false. So much for the inerrancy of your book.


----------



## atlashunter

660griz said:


> You are correct about atheist in foxholes, I joined the USAF  but, if for some strange reason I did end up in a foxhole, I'd call for an air strike.



Guess he never heard of Pat Tillman.


----------



## 660griz

atlashunter said:


> Guess he never heard of Pat Tillman.



And what his brother said at this funeral, he is not with God, he is &%$#@! dead.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> The atheist does not have a belief in a god or gods because there is no evidence backing those claims. But I don't know of any atheist that would say it is an impossibility that there could be a god. What we are doing here is speculating on all of the possibilities. There could be an afterlife or no afterlife. There could be a god or no gods or multiple gods. There could be any of the above with an afterlife or without an afterlife. There could be an afterlife without god(s). Maybe one of the religions are true. Maybe none of them are. Maybe there is an afterlife that rewards those who didn't cave into the fear tactics of "believe or be tortured in the afterlife". Maybe there is an afterlife that rewards those who had the courage to accept the grim prospect that this life is all you get so make the most of it. Maybe those who abandoned reason for wishful thinking will suffer in the afterlife or have no afterlife at all. Do I believe any of these are the case? No. But if we are talking about playing the "what if" game then all possibilities are on the table.



Given that, wouldn't you have more to lose than somebody who believes there is something on the other side?  To us, there is more waiting, to you, there may be.  I am not saying one is better than the other, I was just agreeing with Griz that I think AA's would view themselves as having more at risk than a believer would.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Given that, wouldn't you have more to lose than somebody who believes there is something on the other side?  To us, there is more waiting, to you, there may be.  I am not saying one is better than the other, I was just agreeing with Griz that I think AA's would view themselves as having more at risk than a believer would.



If we limit the possible outcomes to either no afterlife or the christian afterlife then yes I would say the atheist is risking more, ie eternal torment vs a finite amount of wasted time and money in this life. However there is no reason to limit those as the only possible outcomes. There is no evidence that the christian outcome is any more likely than any of the other possibilities that I mentioned(and countless more). I also don't believe that my position is one of even odds with the others given that if we define death as the absence of life then we have already been dead before. The most rational and in my opinion likely outcome is that our "experience" after life will be the same as our "experience" before life. Yes I could be wrong about that but if we are going to open that box then you can't just open it to one possibility as if all of the others aren't there.


----------



## atlashunter

The christian making Pascal's wager JB, is making the rather convenient assumption that the ticket he is placing his bet on is the only one in the pot and that the atheist with his position is opting out of the cosmic lottery and has no ticket in the pot. Neither assumption is true.


----------



## oldfella1962

"My brother in law was in the Army and said for a fact , there are no atheists in a fox hole with bullets and bombs exploding all around. The big, burly, macho, tough guys first words are God save me. "

Let's just agree to disagree on that. I did 22+ years in the military (Air Force & Army) and was in "let's roll!" Iraq 2003. What's "scary" to some people may not be scary to other people - everyone reacts differently, and to be honest when it's "crunch time" I was so focused on every detail of doing my job/staying calm/keeping  focused and having a clear head and abstract concepts like religion went right out the window, if such thoughts were even on my radar.

I may have told this story here before (hey, I'm old!) but I had a soldier on in my squad who couldn't shoot straight. He didn't know bullets from shinola, but was very religious. One day at the M16 range he was trying to qualify and getting worse minute-by-minute. The range NCOIC and OIC just kept bringing him more & more bullets but he was getting burned out & frustrated.

Anyway it was my turn to play "range safety" and since he was my soldier, I hung mostly around his fox-hole while working my section of the firing line, thinking I might be able to encourage him & whatnot.

Then I hear him talking....to himself.  Okay, we have all seen Full Metal Jacket! Anyone holding a loaded weapon & mumbling to themselves  just doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling. So I ask him who he's talking to, and he said "angels."  He said he was  for god to bring his angels to guide his bullets into the targets. 

Yeah, don't depend on basic shooting fundamentals, countless hours of training/practice and (my personal favorite trick up my sleeve) the laws of physics to put lead into your target. 

Sorry to say but apparently he should have skipped the middleman because the angels were not up to the task. 
He fell far short of the minimum, and had to piggy-back with some other unit in a month or so when it was their turn to qualify. He still couldn't seal the deal, but they got so frustrated with him that they "pencil whipped" his scorecard after several attempts.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I'm here. Where is god? Any god worth their reputation would know EXACTLY how to get ahold of me in a manner that would "work". I am open.


No your not. If you were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 


ambush80 said:


> You have some God given ability to understand the Bible?  Does anybody else?  Why do people who claim they were given this ability disagree on what it means so often?


Didn't you get a different interpretation than I did? Anyone that truly wants understanding will understand it. Anyone who wants to make it say what they want it to say can as well. Obviously, some have. 


red neck richie said:


> Who cares if they disagree, I disagree that wont stop me from a spiritual relationship with my Lord and savior. Your missing the point.


 yup



bullethead said:


> Welder can understand the bible, and spineyman can and so can richie and spot....
> Why are they not all 100% in agreement if a god is involved? The spirit should have them all on the same page.


 who said we don't agree with what??? 



ambush80 said:


> No one has attempted to answer any of these.



When a question is asked by someone with a predetermined mind set, then it really won't be answered.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Do I think ALL religions are Christianity?
> No.


Ok, so we've eliminated one potential misconception.  For the non believer, what is considered a religion?


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> I will answer that but first answer me this: What exactly did you do to make yourself a professing Christian? Several here have claimed they WERE Christian but now know better, what say you?



I am in the 2nd group. Was a Christian from as far back as I can remember until about the age 30ish.
So, from the ages 10 to my early 20s I was a practicing Christian. Dedicated to church. Certain of my beliefs.  Apologetic towards explaining and defending Christianity and my beliefs. From my early 20s to early 30s I had a few bad experiences with clergy. Got to feeling that they were no closer to god than I was. That is when I really started to heavily read the bible. Not cherry picked verses that made me feel good and was what I NEEDED to hear, I wanted to know the bible. I read it. Some of the stuff was pretty off base. I felt guilty for even thinking such things but what I was told and what I read for many years just did not make sense.
Read it again. I had even more questions. For the last 15 or so years I studied the history of the religion.  I studied the history of the region. I studied who wrote the books within, how they got there, etc etc etc. I wanted to my findings to point to god.
Not even close.


----------



## Spineyman

bullethead said:


> I am in the 2nd group. Was a Christian from as far back as I can remember until about the age 30ish.
> So, from the ages 10 to my early 20s I was a practicing Christian. Dedicated to church. Certain of my beliefs.  Apologetic towards explaining and defending Christianity and my beliefs. From my early 20s to early 30s I had a few bad experiences with clergy. Got to feeling that they were no closer to god than I was. That is when I really started to heavily read the bible. Not cherry picked verses that made me feel good and was what I NEEDED to hear, I wanted to know the bible. I read it. Some of the stuff was pretty off base. I felt guilty for even thinking such things but what I was told and what I read for many years just did not make sense.
> Read it again. I had even more questions. For the last 15 or so years I studied the history of the religion.  I studied the history of the region. I studied who wrote the books within, how they got there, etc etc etc. I wanted to my findings to point to god.
> Not even close.



It has zero to do about religion, Jesus flamed the religious of His day. Just look at what He called the Pharisee's, brood of vipers, white washed tomb, and on and on.

 Here is Jesus to those searching.

John 5:39-40

39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> No your not. If you were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> 
> Didn't you get a different interpretation than I did? Anyone that truly wants understanding will understand it. Anyone who wants to make it say what they want it to say can as well. Obviously, some have.
> yup
> 
> who said we don't agree with what???
> 
> 
> 
> When a question is asked by someone with a predetermined mind set, then it really won't be answered.


Ohhh
I'm not doing it right....
Gotcha.

You need to sift back through a couple of yeara of posts in here.
It's been hashed out.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Ohhh
> I'm not doing it right....
> Gotcha.
> 
> You need to sift back through a couple of yeara of posts in here.
> It's been hashed out.



Jesus problem with the religious was that they weren't doing it right. He didn't take issue with religion itself. See Matthew 5:18. Not sure what point Spotlite is trying to make.


----------



## Spineyman

atlashunter said:


> Jesus problem with the religious was that they weren't doing it right. He didn't take issue with religion itself. See Matthew 5:18. Not sure what point Spotlite is trying to make.



Can you tell me what Matthew 5:18 has to do with religion? I would never say you are not doing it right, because the Lord promises that if you seek Him diligently you will surely find Him, your exceeding great reward.


----------



## Spineyman

bullethead said:


> I am in the 2nd group. Was a Christian from as far back as I can remember until about the age 30ish.



Again let me say you do not become a Christian through osmosis or by merely going through some motions and saying some words. It is not what we do that makes us Christians but rather what Christ did for us. That and only that makes us Christian. I will assure you that once you meet the risen, living Christ you will not walk away the same you will be a new creation the Bible tells us.


----------



## atlashunter

Spineyman said:


> Can you tell me what Matthew 5:18 has to do with religion? I would never say you are not doing it right, because the Lord promises that if you seek Him diligently you will surely find Him, your exceeding great reward.



He is telling the disciples they must follow the religious dictates of the old testament to the letter.


----------



## Spineyman

atlashunter said:


> He is telling the disciples they must follow the religious dictates of the old testament to the letter.



Following the One True God is not religion, it is worship. Following after other gods, little g is religion.


----------



## atlashunter

Spineyman said:


> Following the One True God is not religion, it is worship. Following after other gods, little g is religion.



Yeah it's religion regardless of whether you think it is true or false. People of all religions think they have the truth. You don't just get to change definitions to try to separate your religion from others.

Definition of religion

1 a :the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
b (1) :the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 :a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic :scrupulous conformity :conscientiousness
4 :a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> It has zero to do about religion, Jesus flamed the religious of His day. Just look at what He called the Pharisee's, brood of vipers, white washed tomb, and on and on.
> 
> Here is Jesus to those searching.
> 
> John 5:39-40
> 
> 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.



I know that it is not about religion.
In the time that I thought I knew a god and needed a god and devoted myself to Jesus because in my heart I knew that was the way to go about it, it never truthfully was the way that I thought it was.
I made excuses. 
I thought i did it wrong. 
I thought that I was not worthy.
It was a test, I tried tried harder.

It was when I made the decision to learn everything that I could(still ongoing) about Christianity (because I was a Christian)  that I was able to objectively take a look at at it all with no bias. When I found a discrepancy I set out out prove it was true, and couldnt. I did that over and over until I could no longer overlook the blatently obvious faults and the evidence that shows why they were false.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You need to sift back through a couple of yeara of posts in here.
> It's been hashed out.


Sort of the same thing  that I have said over and over when one keeps asking me "to test" "to prove" or "how do you know"......etc............point made.......point taken. Now for the unanswered question below. 


Spotlite said:


> For the non believer, what is considered religion?


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> Again let me say you do not become a Christian through osmosis or by merely going through some motions and saying some words. It is not what we do that makes us Christians but rather what Christ did for us. That and only that makes us Christian. I will assure you that once you meet the risen, living Christ you will not walk away the same you will be a new creation the Bible tells us.


I am living proof that you are incorrect.
You know about me only what you let yourself believe based off of your own critique that I couldnt have possibly been a Christian the right way. 
Bunk


----------



## atlashunter

Oh and by the way, your "one true god" originated as one among a pantheon of gods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Sort of the same thing  that I have said over and over when one keeps asking me "to test" "to prove" or "how do you know"......etc............point made.......point taken. Now for the unanswered question below.



Religion is a man made sytem of practices centered around worshipping a dielty or the supernatural.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I know that it is not about religion.
> In the time that I thought I knew a god and needed a god and devoted myself to Jesus because in my heart I knew that was the way to go about it, it never truthfully was the way that I thought it was.
> I made excuses.
> I thought i did it wrong.
> I thought that I was not worthy.
> It was a test, I tried tried harder.
> 
> It was when I made the decision to learn everything that I could(still ongoing) about Christianity (because I was a Christian)  that I was able to objectively take a look at at it all with no bias. When I found a discrepancy I set out out prove it was true, and couldnt. I did that over and over until I could no longer overlook the blatently obvious faults and the evidence that shows why they were false.



This is a fair honest look at it. I get it. But what you experienced in what you believed at that time ultimately was the pivot point that determined your lack of belief in it. And that is what I meant by not linking someone else`s research, studies, theories, etc. It is easy to find research to defend your same beliefs, but when you experience the same, you connect with it.

That is all I`ve done.


----------



## Spineyman

atlashunter said:


> Oh and by the way, your "one true god" originated as one among a pantheon of gods.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29



Says the one who is dabbling in religion! Once you have tried all the gimmicks and garbage , then you might want to try Jesus! In the mean time enjoy your folly!


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> This is a fair honest look at it. I get it. But what you experienced in what you believed at that time ultimately was the pivot point that determined your lack of belief in it. And that is what I meant by not linking someone else`s research, studies, theories, etc. It is easy to find research to defend your same beliefs, but when you experience the same, you connect with it.
> 
> That is all I`ve done.


Armchair diagnosis.
This took years.


----------



## atlashunter

Spineyman said:


> Says the one who is dabbling in religion! Once you have tried all the gimmicks and garbage , then you might want to try Jesus! In the mean time enjoy your folly!



I'm dabbling in religion? Doesn't your religious book have something to say about bearing false witness?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Armchair diagnosis.
> This took years.



Mine as well.....................


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Religion is a man made sytem of practices centered around worshipping a dielty or the supernatural.



I am finding groups such as The Brights, The Clergy Project, European Humanist Federation, International Humanist and Ethical Union, International League of Humanists, Rationalist International, and Sunday Assembly.

So when one says "atheist", that is just one of many groups of non believers? And basically every group believes the same, no God, supernatural or deity exist?

So when you refer to "Religion", the groups that believe in a supernatural or deity? And in that group, Christians are just one of those groups?

I think that is why is was confusing when I said yall lump everyone as Christian.


----------



## ambush80

ambush80 said:


> You have some God given ability to understand the Bible?  Does anybody else?  Why do people who claim they were given this ability disagree on what it means so often?





Spotlite said:


> Didn't you get a different interpretation than I did? Anyone that truly wants understanding will understand it. Anyone who wants to make it say what they want it to say can as well. Obviously, some have.
> 
> When a question is asked by someone with a predetermined mind set, then it really won't be answered.



Why don't you interpret the Bible like an Amish?  One of you must be doing it wrong.  Since you're not Amish, you must think that they're doing it wrong.

I do have a particular mindset but I'm open to an argument that shows me I'm wrong.  If you can provide that then I'll helplessly believe what you say.  

How about the other questions I asked?  Is your mind incapable of understanding God or can you understand what God REALLY wants and when?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I am finding groups such as The Brights, The Clergy Project, European Humanist Federation, International Humanist and Ethical Union, International League of Humanists, Rationalist International, and Sunday Assembly.
> 
> So when one says "atheist", that is just one of many groups of non believers? And basically every group believes the same, no God, supernatural or deity exist?
> 
> So when you refer to "Religion", the groups that believe in a supernatural or deity? And in that group, Christians are just one of those groups?
> 
> I think that is why is was confusing when I said yall lump everyone as Christian.



Well in a broad sense yes.
But in here, we all intelligent enough to know what makes each religion differemt from the rest. We are also sharp enough to recognize the 33,000+ Christian denominations that all tweak their beliefs to suit.

An atheist does not believe in a god. Whatever like minded groups that get together to not believe is of no consequence to me.

I am neither believer or atheist and I cant say that I am a deist. I dont think that I am agnostic. 
I am comfortable saying that I Honestly Do Not Know if, what, who or how.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Why don't you interpret the Bible like an Amish?  One of you must be doing it wrong.  Since you're not Amish, you must think that they're doing it wrong.
> 
> I do have a particular mindset but I'm open to an argument that shows me I'm wrong.  If you can provide that then I'll helplessly believe what you say.
> 
> How about the other questions I asked?  Is your mind incapable of understanding God or can you understand what God REALLY wants and when?


Since I am not Amish, I "must" think that they`re doing it wrong..........The reality is, I don't look at what they do. Don't know what they teach. It has no affect on me. Maybe you can answer the atheist / agnostic question that bullet is referring to. All one group of non believers or different groups?


bullethead said:


> Well in a broad sense yes.
> But in here, we all intelligent enough to know what makes each religion differemt from the rest. We are also sharp enough to recognize the 33,000+ Christian denominations that all tweak their beliefs to suit.
> 
> An atheist does not believe in a god. Whatever like minded groups that get together to not believe is of no consequence to me.
> 
> I am neither believer or atheist and I cant say that I am a deist. I dont think that I am agnostic.
> I am comfortable saying that I Honestly Do Not Know if, what, who or how.



Probably would have helped answer better if you had of spent some time recognizing those of your own to see if they tweak to fit their beliefs to suits.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Since I am not Amish, I "must" think that they`re doing it wrong..........The reality is, I don't look at what they do. Don't know what they teach. It has no affect on me. Maybe you can answer the atheist / agnostic question that bullet is referring to. All one group of non believers or different groups?
> 
> 
> Probably would have helped answer better if you had of spent some time recognizing those of your own to see if they tweak to fit their beliefs to suits.



Since you don't know about the Amish I'll tell you about them.  They are pacifists who don't believe in violence because Jesus said "turn the other cheek".  They are trying to be Christ like.  Are you a pacifist?  If not, why not?   They believe that their women should wear head coverings.  Do you believe that?  Why or why not?

Can you answer my question about when it's appropriate to turn tables over and chase people out of a public square with a whip like Jesus did?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Since I am not Amish, I "must" think that they`re doing it wrong..........The reality is, I don't look at what they do. Don't know what they teach. It has no affect on me. Maybe you can answer the atheist / agnostic question that bullet is referring to. All one group of non believers or different groups?
> 
> 
> Probably would have helped answer better if you had of spent some time recognizing those of your own to see if they tweak to fit their beliefs to suits.


I couldn't care less about what "those of my own" do.
What I do concerns me.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Since you don't know about the Amish I'll tell you about them.  They are pacifists who don't believe in violence because Jesus said "turn the other cheek".  They are trying to be Christ like.  Are you a pacifist?  If not, why not?   They believe that their women should wear head coverings.  Do you believe that?  Why or why not?
> 
> Can you answer my question about when it's appropriate to turn tables over and chase people out of a public square with a whip like Jesus did?


I don't believe in violence other than defense. Wearing head coverings is nothing but a standard that some choose to live by. To each his own. You have a standard of dress don't you? I don't have a problem one way or another of head coverings. Has nothing to do with being right or wrong.

It's appropriate to clean house when needed


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I couldn't care less about what "those of my own" do.
> What I do concerns me.



But the 33,000 plus groups of Christianity you ............never mind, point is  made.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I don't believe in violence other than defense. Wearing head coverings is nothing but a standard that some choose to live by. To each his own. You have a standard of dress don't you? I don't have a problem one way or another of head coverings. Has nothing to do with being right or wrong.
> 
> It's appropriate to clean house when needed



They don't believe in violence even in self defense.  They require their women to cover.  Both of those things they do because they believe that they have spiritually discerned what the Bible says to do.  You don't do those things because you think you have discerned the Bible correctly.  One of you is wrong.  How do you know which one of you it is?

Can you give me an example of when you would "clean house" like Jesus did?


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> They don't believe in violence even in self defense.  They require their women to cover.  Both of those things they do because they believe that they have spiritually discerned what the Bible says to do.  You don't do those things because you think you have discerned the Bible correctly.  One of you is wrong.  How do you know which one of you it is?
> 
> Can you give me an example of when you would "clean house" like Jesus did?


The same way that you're sure you're right.  I would clean house if someone brought drugs in.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> The same way that you're sure you're right.  I would clean house if someone brought drugs in.



I don't have a dog in the fight.  I don't have to discern the Bible. I want to know how YOU know that you're doing it right and that the Amish are doing it wrong.

Jesus stormed the temple because they were conducting business in the courtyard. Per his example, would you do that today?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> But the 33,000 plus groups of Christianity you ............never mind, point is  made.



The difference is, the rules within the beliefs. Not for who they believe in but why/how/when.

Atheist just doesn't believe in a god.
There isnt 33,000 different clubs stating why.

Post upstairs what makes someone a Christian.
Prepare for the onslaught.  And That will come from 4 or 5 different denominations and a variety of answers within each.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I don't have a dog in the fight.  I don't have to discern the Bible. I want to know how YOU know that you're doing it right and that the Amish are doing it wrong.
> 
> Jesus stormed the temple because they were conducting business in the courtyard. Per his example, would you do that today?



I know of a man I used to travel with who has probably been thrown out, escorted out, carried out, even "full nelsoned" out of more meetings and from more temples than some of you have probably been in. Of course, this will depend upon your previous _devotion_.  

One time this sorry fellow was even carried by outraged congregants to a dumpster and deposited as they made a show of their own zeal when this silly guy interrupted their "open air" service. I would dare say he has also seen the inside of more jails and been arrested more times than any single one of _you all_, and more likely than even _all of you together._

The baptists in Jackson Tennessee didn't like his pointing out the statues in their foyer as nothing more than idolatry to a name they had inscribed upon it "Paul". It must have bruised their minds enough for them to imagine damage worthy of a police response. And arrest.

The Roman faction didn't like being reminded of whom the Head of the church is when their man in the "holy garb" called for prayers for their "head of the church"  (a man who accepts bows and kissing of ring), and a few of their faithful ones thought this guy dumpster fodder. They too, felt so threatened as to call for a police presence.

The Methodists didn't like being told from a public sidewalk that periodic attendance at their temple secured not a thing for their souls, but only the knowing of Jesus Christ as the _truth in all_. That time led to a particularly wonderful revelation and exchange with a jail guard and psychiatrist. 

Do you know one of the first things psychiatrists look for "in a crazy"? Personal hygiene. (keep your nails trimmed and clean fellows and you may be allowed out of the sequestered wing and admitted to gen pop) You may even have the doctor ask you "how do I get in on this Kingdom of God thing?". Or the guard who only days before got in your face with hope of your physical response so that he could administer a deserved_ beat down_...only come to you privately later and ask "what's this gospel you are talking about that landed you here?"

But the greatest thing of it all was the revelation. About jail, jailers, who's in and discover it, who think they are not. It came at a pretty _low time_ when this fellow lay on his bunk (he can still feel the rough wool of the single blanket allowed) finding out he didn't really much like being in jail. And the sapping of his joy in it, his desire to sleep away the time...until...until something else...better... could come was pretty much his only desire. 

He confessed to wanting to be better, to have the strength "in this place" to be more actively engaged than just giving in to the desire languish, to sleep away "the time"...(however long it might be) for the glory of His Lord, Jesus Christ.

No he wasn't given to then jump from his bunk reenergized shouting John 3:16 to his fellows from his cell door. Nor was he given to go from cell to cell asking who had heard the gospel. All of that is not dismissed as being less than fine, but what he heard has stuck and was stuck far deeper than anything he could place in himself. Anything he could ever possibly..._do_.

And yes...it came out in exchange from a man thinking he should be better, from a man struggling in his thinking that he could be, and should be. A man in jail. Just a fool. A man who learned being in love with his own zeal is just an idolater. But it took a speaking, and then a hearing to begin to see this thing. And that man is still, just beginning. Just beginning to see.

There's something far better to see, and hear from.
Placed there. 

Placed here.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I know of a man I used to travel with who has probably been thrown out, escorted out, carried out, even "full nelsoned" out of more meetings and from more temples than some of you have probably been in. Of course, this will depend upon your previous _devotion_.
> 
> One time this sorry fellow was even carried by outraged congregants to a dumpster and deposited as they made a show of their own zeal when this silly guy interrupted their "open air" service. I would dare say he has also seen the inside of more jails and been arrested more times than any single one of _you all_, and more likely than even _all of you together._
> 
> The baptists in Jackson Tennessee didn't like his pointing out the statues in their foyer as nothing more than idolatry to a name they had inscribed upon it "Paul". It must have bruised their minds enough for them to imagine damage worthy of a police response. And arrest.
> 
> The Roman faction didn't like being reminded of whom the Head of the church is when their man in the "holy garb" called for prayers for their "head of the church"  (a man who accepts bows and kissing of ring), and a few of their faithful ones thought this guy dumpster fodder. They too, felt so threatened as to call for a police presence.
> 
> The Methodists didn't like being told from a public sidewalk that periodic attendance at their temple secured not a thing for their souls, but only the knowing of Jesus Christ as the _truth in all_. That time led to a particularly wonderful revelation and exchange with a jail guard and psychiatrist.
> 
> Do you know one of the first things psychiatrists look for "in a crazy"? Personal hygiene. (keep your nails trimmed and clean fellows and you may be allowed out of the sequestered wing and admitted to gen pop) You may even have the doctor ask you "how do I get in on this Kingdom of God thing?". Or the guard who only days before got in your face with hope of your physical response so that he could administer a deserved_ beat down_...only come to you privately later and ask "what's this gospel you are talking about that landed you here?"
> 
> But the greatest thing of it all was the revelation. About jail, jailers, who's in and discover it, who think they are not. It came at a pretty _low time_ when this fellow lay on his bunk (he can still feel the rough wool of the single blanket allowed) finding out he didn't really much like being in jail. And the sapping of his joy in it, his desire to sleep away the time...until...until something else...better... could come was pretty much his only desire.
> 
> He confessed to wanting to be better, to have the strength "in this place" to be more actively engaged than just giving in to the desire languish, to sleep away "the time"...(however long it might be) for the glory of His Lord, Jesus Christ.
> 
> No he wasn't given to then jump from his bunk reenergized shouting John 3:16 to his fellows from his cell door. Nor was he given to go from cell to cell asking who had heard the gospel. All of that is not dismissed as being less than fine, but what he heard has stuck and was stuck far deeper than anything he could place in himself. Anything he could ever possibly..._do_.
> 
> And yes...it came out in exchange from a man thinking he should be better, from a man struggling in his thinking that he could be, and should be. A man in jail. Just a fool. A man who learned being in love with his own zeal is just an idolater. But it took a speaking, and then a hearing to begin to see this thing. And that man is still, just beginning. Just beginning to see.
> 
> There's something far better to see, and hear from.
> Placed there.
> 
> Placed here.


And look how far that d3v0t!○n got you.
There is a fine line between devoted and trouble making lunatic.


----------



## Israel

Not a shred of regret. I'm just beginning.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Not a shred of regret. I'm just beginning.



I just want you to be careful.
Ive read in ancient texts where that sort of behavior will get a guy killed.


----------



## ambush80

If your model example turns over tables and chases people with whips occasionally then perhaps that's what you should also do.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I just want you to be careful.
> Ive read in ancient texts where that sort of behavior will get a guy killed.



They will persecute you.  It has been prophesied.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> How would multiples reduce the "wow" factor?  Consider the results.
> 
> 
> 
> For a Christian, yes.  It's the "handbook for Godly livin'."  In order to "know" God's will, one views the context and how it relates to what we see in the Bible.
> 
> And, I am well aware I just put it on a tee for y'all........




If in the Universe, beings that make universes are common, then they're not that amazing.  They would still be to us, I suppose.


Will you try a little experiment with me?  You tell me what the "home run" swing is for us is and I'll counter it.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> If your model example turns over tables and chases people with whips occasionally then perhaps that's what you should also do.



Yes, I've met many, many atheists that would "outJesus" Jesus in their imagined civilized deportment and compassion. And also find His wisdom and intelligence...lacking.

But, not knowing themselves _at all_, they must wait to be shown what they have modelled themselves to.
The waiting area is right over...here.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I just want you to be careful.
> Ive read in ancient texts where that sort of behavior will get a guy killed.



The things perhaps you may believe I am beginning in have nothing to do with tables, nor upending religious mindsets, nor seeking the undoing of some unbelief exterior. All the exterior is already conquered, upended, undone...finished.


It's the penetration of that victory I am just beginning to appreciate. There's only a very little bit of ground left awaiting light. A nothing...if you will.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Yes, I've met many, many atheists that would "outJesus" Jesus in their imagined civilized deportment and compassion. And also find His wisdom and intelligence...lacking.
> 
> But, not knowing themselves _at all_, they must wait to be shown what they have modelled themselves to.
> The waiting area is right over...here.



I admire some the wisdom of what Jesus is claimed to have spoken.  I'm troubled that anyone would believe he rose from the dead and flew into the sky.


----------



## ambush80

Isreal,  
Can you answer the questions that I put forth in a conversational way?


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> I don't have a dog in the fight.  I don't have to discern the Bible. I want to know how YOU know that you're doing it right and that the Amish are doing it wrong.
> 
> Jesus stormed the temple because they were conducting business in the courtyard. Per his example, would you do that today?



Who said I think the Amish are doing anything wrong? Here's the problem, y'all think Christian groups have to believe the exact same thing in every aspect. They're not allowed to have their own convictions in what they think is right or wrong? When asked what do all of the nonbelievers believe, it's all rolled up into one thing, they don't believe God or any gods exist. And it's perfectly fine to y'all if they have different reasons to why they came to that conclusion, because it doesn't affect you individually. How do you know who has it right between the atheist and  the humanist?

And if business wasn't allowed in the courtyard and it was my place to clean house. I would do it. That has nothing to do with believing in God or not.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Isreal,
> Can you answer the questions that I put forth in a conversational way?



He is hoping that these parable, thespian, analogy,  cover all bases, own question with own answer type writings are found many years down the road and recycled as some sort of continuation of gospel-esqe writings.

Hard to make a case in why a simple conversation cannot be had in its place.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Who said I think the Amish are doing anything wrong? Here's the problem, y'all think Christian groups have to believe the exact same thing in every aspect. They're not allowed to have their own convictions in what they think is right or wrong? When asked what do all of the nonbelievers believe, it's all rolled up into one thing, they don't believe God or any gods exist. And it's perfectly fine to y'all if they have different reasons to why they came to that conclusion, because it doesn't affect you individually. How do you know who has it right between the atheist and  the humanist?
> 
> And if business wasn't allowed in the courtyard and it was my place to clean house. I would do it. That has nothing to do with believing in God or not.



Non believers are not governed by an outside force that demands to be worshiped or has provided a handbook to go by.

On the other hand, christians have a book thatvis supposedly of divine origin and to keep things complimentary....it is a mess.

If anything was clear, there would t be any need for interpretation on what is wrong or what is right.
Or
Is making it crystal clear beyond the capabilities of a god? Almost.....human-like even...


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Non believers are not governed by an outside force that demands to be worshiped or has provided a handbook to go by.
> 
> On the other hand, christians have a book thatvis supposedly of divine origin and to keep things complimentary....it is a mess.
> 
> If anything was clear, there would t be any need for interpretation on what is wrong or what is right.
> Or
> Is making it crystal clear beyond the capabilities of a god? Almost.....human-like even...



The only ones that are unclear with it are those that try to use it to justify their own doing. Kind of like folks that try to use the law to get around what they want to do. I don't have a problem understanding it.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Non believers are not governed by an outside force that demands to be worshiped...



In the end, we are looking at two groups- believers as you mention here, and the non believers?


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Who said I think the Amish are doing anything wrong? Here's the problem, y'all think Christian groups have to believe the exact same thing in every aspect. They're not allowed to have their own convictions in what they think is right or wrong? When asked what do all of the nonbelievers believe, it's all rolled up into one thing, they don't believe God or any gods exist. And it's perfectly fine to y'all if they have different reasons to why they came to that conclusion, because it doesn't affect you individually. How do you know who has it right between the atheist and  the humanist?
> 
> And if business wasn't allowed in the courtyard and it was my place to clean house. I would do it. That has nothing to do with believing in God or not.



Not believing in god doesn't imply anything about what Atheists have in common.   Someone saying they're a Deist doesn't imply that they have anything in common with another Deist except the belief in a god.  Christians have a book that they're supposed to follow.  Either they do it wrong or they do it right.  It's not up to interpretation.  That's why you can say "Some people claim to be Christians but they're not".  Because you have made a distinction between what you do and what they do.  You have lines in the sand that separate a real Christian from a fake one.  Where do you get the strength of your conviction from?  Do you think an Amish person gets theirs from the same place?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Isreal,
> Can you answer the questions that I put forth in a conversational way?


 

Do you mean these?



> So how do you know if you're understanding anything that God says correctly? How do you know that you comprehend what His REAL intentions are. He says he loves us but then kills most of us in a flood. (Sounds like what wife abusers say). He says He wishes all would go to Heaven but then He makes some of us Vessels of Wrath. How do you know that when He says "Turn the other cheek" that He doesn't really want you to be pacifists like the Amish?


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Do you mean these?



Sure.  There were only a few of them.  Pick one.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Not believing in god doesn't imply anything about what Atheists have in common.   Someone saying they're a Deist doesn't imply that they have anything in common with another Deist except the belief in a god.  Christians have a book that they're supposed to follow.  Either they do it wrong or they do it right.  It's not up to interpretation.  That's why you can say "Some people claim to be Christians but they're not".  Because you have made a distinction between what you do and what they do.  You have lines in the sand that separate a real Christian from a fake one.  Where do you get the strength of your conviction from?  Do you think an Amish person gets theirs from the same place?


I'm certain that they pray to the same almighty that I do. Just because we have a difference in convictions, standard or principle on how to live, doesn't mean either of us are fake or wrong. A fake Christian are those that go to church on Sunday or when they need a hand out, and condemn the church the rest of the time. And those that claim to live a certain way for attention and convenience, but don't live it.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> The only ones that are unclear with it are those that try to use it to justify their own doing. Kind of like folks that try to use the law to get around what they want to do. I don't have a problem understanding it.



Most that I encounter say the same thing," it is the OTHER guy that doesn't understand, I understand perfectly."


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> In the end, we are looking at two groups- believers as you mention here, and the non believers?



You ask me about the non believers as if I get the monthly news letter...
All that I am sure about is me.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Most that I encounter say the same thing," it is the OTHER guy that doesn't understand, I understand perfectly."


Don't confuse misunderstanding with using to justify what they want. 


bullethead said:


> You ask me about the non believers as if I get the monthly news letter...
> All that I am sure about is me.



And that has been my stance the whole time. I'm just sure about me.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Don't confuse misunderstanding with using to justify what they want.
> 
> 
> And that has been my stance the whole time. I'm just sure about me.


In your opinion SHOULD a god such as described in the bible be able to relay his message to his flock and anyone on the planet that reads it in a way that is crystal clear? No misunderstandings? No room for interpretation? No possible way anyone would lose a life over "His" word?
Is he capable of that?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> In your opinion SHOULD a god such as described in the bible be able to relay his message to his flock and anyone on the planet that reads it in a way that is crystal clear? No misunderstandings? No room for interpretation? No possible way anyone would lose a life over "His" word?
> Is he capable of that?



Very capable. The confusion comes from man. Man has a way of trying to explain things away and justify it through "hard evidence". That ones from lack of faith.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Very capable. The confusion comes from man. Man has a way of trying to explain things away and justify it through "hard evidence". That ones from lack of faith.



Capable but unwilling?

Are you Man?
Is your explanation Faith?
Faith doesn't cover the lives lost due to your unwilling god.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Very capable. The confusion comes from man. Man has a way of trying to explain things away and justify it through "hard evidence". That ones from lack of faith.



Let me see if I am getting your stance.

You KNOW things about a god.  You KNOW what a god thinks.  You KNOW what a god wants. You KNOW how a god operates.
And you have never met this god, never have seen this god, never have talked to this god?

You make make these statements out of hope. Don't confuse that with faith.

There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so. --Mark Twain, Following the Equator, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"

No faith dies because it is unreasonable, but only because the instincts which it has satisfied find more complete and permanent gratification in other directions. --Amy E. Tanner, Studies in Spiritism (1910)


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Capable but unwilling?
> 
> Are you Man?
> Is your explanation Faith?
> Faith doesn't cover the lives lost due to your unwilling god.


 I don't find him unwilling. I am man. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. We are not puppets, we can put ourselves in circumstances that is no ones fault but our own. 



bullethead said:


> Let me see if I am getting your stance.
> 
> You KNOW things about a god.  You KNOW what a god thinks.  You KNOW what a god wants. You KNOW how a god operates.
> And you have never met this god, never have seen this god, never have talked to this god?
> 
> You make make these statements out of hope. Don't confuse that with faith.
> 
> There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so. --Mark Twain, Following the Equator, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
> 
> No faith dies because it is unreasonable, but only because the instincts which it has satisfied find more complete and permanent gratification in other directions. --Amy E. Tanner, Studies in Spiritism (1910)



I'm not the one that can't find him. But ok, Start in Genesis, I believe God created man. Sources- Bible and faith.  What's your take?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Sure.  There were only a few of them.  Pick one.



OK.



> So how do you know if you're understanding anything that God says correctly?




Mercy never speaks to the necessity of my being correct in, or about anything. It has spoken though, in the many, many (how many many's will you allow?) instances/times/occasions I have been shown wrong. About any and everything a man could be wrong in any of those _things_ (instances/times/occasions).

This becomes the ultimate contradiction (or paradox might be better) to my own mind. To be shown a goodness when all else, at any and every moment (I have learned through experience, this _experiment_ I cannot escape) is more than able to be turned to my shame...there is a goodness instead, found.

You might say, any might say, _all_ might say "is this not then a contradiction of your faith that believing in Jesus Christ then makes you "right"?"

There is no shortcut found in me that can lay hold of words to explain this. Of how what is manifestly made plain to itself, in itself of all its own wrongness may be made to see what is (beyond any comparison to even _all _the shame of the wrong) this thing experienced of mercy. Goodness. Kindness. Forgiveness. And even of such a gentleness in its being shown it's wrong. And has been.
No, this is inexplicable. To even say _I know mercy is_ requires toward me the greatest of mercy. For I am in my own wrongness _allowed_ to speak of something so far beyond my understanding as all of Heaven has the _perfect right_ to show how little I know of it. Of what_ I _speak. And yet...I am allowed to speak.

I know so little of the difference between faith and presumption as the Seeing One knows my occasions of blush. And they are not few. But those occasions, when I know I have given _myself away_ also show me to whom I have and cannot help but give myself _away to_. And seeing Him, then does something about all the shame I might have previously tried to remove...myself. By trying to be right. Or correct.

When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, _they_ refused to believe it.

These are those to whom the gospel was entrusted. Men so entrenched in unbelief as to deny their sister.

So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he replied, "Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe."

To this man, too. Who refused his brothers.

And I am made no different than any.

And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

The very thing that to me is "too good to be true" is more than accounted for in any and all of what remains of unbelief...by His appearing. All that would speak rightly, righteously, to any matters of my due shame are swallowed by joy.

It is all I do not deserve. And that's too good to be true.
And I have been learning...it's too true for my own goodness to find means of convincing.

And, this is perfect. For the man who has struggled so long under the grievous burden to show himself...right. Correct.

I am, of all, the most in need of being corrected. The cross I pled against is doing something I could have never foreseen. Has done for me, what I could never do for myself. _Forced me _to see...mercy. Toward all that I am, just a thing that does not know what it does.

And yes, this is a paradox to _my own mind_. Which is why I must be "out of it" to see.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I don't find him unwilling. I am man. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. We are not puppets, we can put ourselves in circumstances that is no ones fault but our own.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that can't find him. But ok, Start in Genesis, I believe God created man. Sources- Bible and faith.  What's your take?



Be more specific.
About how long ago was this man created? 
Did the man that you believe god created look like modern humans that we have had for the last 200,000 years or so or was that man over 3 million years old?
Did your man whip up and just start talking Hebrew and skip the grunting?

 I have got quite a few questions for you on Adam and Eve, so thanks for starting there. This is why I discuss these things, in hopes to find someone like you that, I guess through god, can answer the intricate detailed questions that myself through science have conflicting answers for.
In hope then we can go line by line in Genesis.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mercy never speaks to the necessity of my being correct in, or about anything. It has spoken though, in the many, many (how many many's will you allow?) instances/times/occasions I have been shown wrong. About any and everything a man could be wrong in any of those _things_ (instances/times/occasions).
> 
> This becomes the ultimate contradiction (or paradox might be better) to my own mind. To be shown a goodness when all else, at any and every moment (I have learned through experience, this _experiment_ I cannot escape) is more than able to be turned to my shame...there is a goodness instead, found.
> 
> You might say, any might say, _all_ might say "is this not then a contradiction of your faith that believing in Jesus Christ then makes you "right"?"
> 
> There is no shortcut found in me that can lay hold of words to explain this. Of how what is manifestly made plain to itself, in itself of all its own wrongness may be made to see what is (beyond any comparison to even _all _the shame of the wrong) this thing experienced of mercy. Goodness. Kindness. Forgiveness. And even of such a gentleness in its being shown it's wrong. And has been.
> No, this is inexplicable. To even say _I know mercy is_ requires toward me the greatest of mercy. For I am in my own wrongness _allowed_ to speak of something so far beyond my understanding as all of Heaven has the _perfect right_ to show how little I know of it. Of what_ I _speak. And yet...I am allowed to speak.
> 
> I know so little of the difference between faith and presumption as the Seeing One knows my occasions of blush. And they are not few. But those occasions, when I know I have given _myself away_ also show me to whom I have and cannot help but give myself _away to_. And seeing Him, then does something about all the shame I might have previously tried to remove...myself. By trying to be right. Or correct.
> 
> When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, _they_ refused to believe it.
> 
> These are those to whom the gospel was entrusted. Men so entrenched in unbelief as to deny their sister.
> 
> So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he replied, "Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe."
> 
> To this man, too. Who refused his brothers.
> 
> And I am made no different than any.
> 
> And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
> 
> The very thing that to me is "too good to be true" is more than accounted for in any and all of what remains of unbelief...by His appearing. All that would speak rightly, righteously, to any matters of my due shame are swallowed by joy.
> 
> It is all I do not deserve. And that's too good to be true.
> And I have been learning...it's too true for my own goodness to find means of convincing.
> 
> And, this is perfect. For the man who has struggled so long under the grievous burden to show himself...right. Correct.
> 
> I am, of all, the most in need of being corrected. The cross I pled against is doing something I could have never foreseen. Has done for me, what I could never do for myself. _Forced me _to see...mercy. Toward all that I am, just a thing that does not know what it does.
> 
> And yes, this is a paradox to _my own mind_. Which is why I must be "out of it" to see.



Cliff notes:
Even though science and life show me through evidence that I am wrong, I continue on anyway.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Be more specific.
> About how long ago was this man created?
> Did the man that you believe god created look like modern humans that we have had for the last 200,000 years or so or was that man over 3 million years old?
> Did your man whip up and just start talking Hebrew and skip the grunting?
> 
> I have got quite a few questions for you on Adam and Eve, so thanks for starting there. This is why I discuss these things, in hopes to find someone like you that, I guess through god, can answer the intricate detailed questions that myself through science have conflicting answers for.
> In hope then we can go line by line in Genesis.


Based on scientific research, I sort of struggle with the earth being 3 million years old.....or older......science also says we add a certain amount of dust in weight per year to the earth. We probably should have sunk it by now if one of the two were correct. Regardless of earths age, where did it come from?

But man as we recognize him today, how did he get here?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Based on scientific research, I sort of struggle with the earth being 3 million years old.....or older......science also says we add a certain amount of dust in weight per year to the earth. We probably should have sunk it by now if one of the two were correct. Regardless of earths age, where did it come from?
> 
> But man as we recognize him today, how did he get here?


You only gave one possibility about an earth sinking and used dust as the cause.  What do you mean by "if one or the two were correct"?
Where would the earth sink to?
And explain why science says the earth cant be more than 3 million years old.

After you answer those,
We are gonna start where you picked above with Adam.
So you say Adam was the first human and looked like humans do today.

Did he poof up already speaking a complex language?

Where did all of the previous human fossils come from that show evolutionary advances prior to Adam?


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I'm certain that they pray to the same almighty that I do. Just because we have a difference in convictions, standard or principle on how to live, doesn't mean either of us are fake or wrong. A fake Christian are those that go to church on Sunday or when they need a hand out, and condemn the church the rest of the time. And those that claim to live a certain way for attention and convenience, but don't live it.



Can you speak at all to how you might be able to justify saying "Some people claim to be Christians but they're not".  What are your standards?  Why do you think those people might disagree with your standards?  Would you say that if someone called themselves a devout Christian but didn't believe that Jesus was resurrected that they are a fake Christian?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You only gave one possibility about an earth sinking and used dust as the cause.  What do you mean by "if one or the two were correct"?
> Where would the earth sink to?
> And explain why science says the earth cant be more than 3 million years old.
> 
> After you answer those,
> We are gonna start where you picked above with Adam.
> So you say Adam was the first human and looked like humans do today.
> 
> Did he poof up already speaking a complex language?
> 
> Where did all of the previous human fossils come from that show evolutionary advances prior to Adam?



It is merely a contradiction in itself...........
Adam was just a starting point...........start anywhere. How did man get here? What is "the beginning" for man?


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Can you speak at all to how you might be able to justify saying "Some people claim to be Christians but they're not".  What are your standards?  Why do you think those people might disagree with your standards?  Would you say that if someone called themselves a devout Christian but didn't believe that Jesus was resurrected that they are a fake Christian?



If my neighbor came to me quoting scripture and inviting me to church, then I caught him stealing my horse.........he aint what he says.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> It is merely a contradiction in itself...........
> Adam was just a starting point...........start anywhere. How did man get here? What is "the beginning" for man?



Don't avoid the questions Spotlite. 
Adam was the the starting point how?
Was he the first human on the planet?

If so. You need to explain to me how all of the evidence that shows humans and ancestors if humans that are older than Adam.


I am extrememly honest enough to admit that I do not know how the first human got here nor do I know how any life started, nor do I know what existed before the Big Bang.
But evidence does not support the Biblical creation and it certainly does not support Adam as being the first human to ever live, walk or talk on the planet. 

I am all ears if you want to explain things to me that clear it up. I have the feeling that you are going to continue to be unable to back up your claims and just ignore every question that I have because even you know that you have no answer.

You claim to be a christian. You are sounding like you are among the best of the best christians. You come across as someone who has the ability to know your god. Maybe you talk to and get answers from your god.
Give me the explanations.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> If my neighbor came to me quoting scripture and inviting me to church, then I caught him stealing my horse.........he aint what he says.



How far does that go? He is a scumbag in any religion or non religion. It is a pretty obvious example. Do you over look "less" than that infraction? Is that your bare minimum?
How low do you take infractions and still consider a person a christian?


----------



## 660griz

Spotlite said:


> If my neighbor came to me quoting scripture and inviting me to church, then I caught him stealing my horse.........he aint what he says.



Aint we all sinners. Maybe he was gonna ask forgiveness later.

“I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness.” 

â€• Emo Philips


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Don't avoid the questions Spotlite.
> Adam was the the starting point how?
> Was he the first human on the planet?
> 
> If so. You need to explain to me how all of the evidence that shows humans and ancestors if humans that are older than Adam.
> 
> 
> I am extrememly honest enough to admit that I do not know how the first human got here nor do I know how any life started, nor do I know what existed before the Big Bang.
> But evidence does not support the Biblical creation and it certainly does not support Adam as being the first human to ever live, walk or talk on the planet.
> 
> I am all ears if you want to explain things to me that clear it up. I have the feeling that you are going to continue to be unable to back up your claims and just ignore every question that I have because even you know that you have no answer.
> 
> You claim to be a christian. You are sounding like you are among the best of the best christians. You come across as someone who has the ability to know your god. Maybe you talk to and get answers from your god.
> Give me the explanations.



I`ve already said that I believe in creation, as "in the beginning".........God created man. But since you went further back than Adam, I said pick a starting point. The Big Bang is nothing but a theory in itself. 

My simple explanation to all the evidence is that scientist cant even agree within themselves as to what is what. Bones decay as a normal part of organic decomposition...........How long do you really think they will last when exposed to insects, bacteria and fungi in acidic soil? If they were preserved by another human, there is no evidence out there to explain how that human got here before Adam........other than another scientist theory. There is no avoiding the question......scientist simply cannot and will never figure out one simple thing, "the beginning" at best they will always have just a theory.........


----------



## 660griz

Spotlite said:


> I`ve already said that I believe in creation, as "in the beginning".........God created man. But since you went further back than Adam, I said pick a starting point. The Big Bang is nothing but a theory in itself.
> 
> My simple explanation to all the evidence is that scientist cant even agree within themselves as to what is what. Bones decay as a normal part of organic decomposition...........How long do you really think they will last when exposed to insects, bacteria and fungi in acidic soil? If they were preserved by another human, there is no evidence out there to explain how that human got here before Adam........other than another scientist theory. There is no avoiding the question......scientist simply cannot and will never figure out one simple thing, "the beginning" at best they will always have just a theory.........



Those theories you just can't accept but, a supernatural entity that has been around for all eternity suddenly decides to create an ant farm and force the ants to worship or perish...THAT you can believe? 

What is it men cannot be made to believe! 
-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I`ve already said that I believe in creation, as "in the beginning".........God created man. But since you went further back than Adam, I said pick a starting point. The Big Bang is nothing but a theory in itself.
> 
> My simple explanation to all the evidence is that scientist cant even agree within themselves as to what is what. Bones decay as a normal part of organic decomposition...........How long do you really think they will last when exposed to insects, bacteria and fungi in acidic soil? If they were preserved by another human, there is no evidence out there to explain how that human got here before Adam........other than another scientist theory. There is no avoiding the question......scientist simply cannot and will never figure out one simple thing, "the beginning" at best they will always have just a theory.........


A scientific theory and "just a theory" are very different things.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I`ve already said that I believe in creation, as "in the beginning".........God created man. But since you went further back than Adam, I said pick a starting point. The Big Bang is nothing but a theory in itself.
> 
> My simple explanation to all the evidence is that scientist cant even agree within themselves as to what is what. Bones decay as a normal part of organic decomposition...........How long do you really think they will last when exposed to insects, bacteria and fungi in acidic soil? If they were preserved by another human, there is no evidence out there to explain how that human got here before Adam........other than another scientist theory. There is no avoiding the question......scientist simply cannot and will never figure out one simple thing, "the beginning" at best they will always have just a theory.........


What you fail to overlook is the very evidence that you claim doesn't exist.
The fact that there are bones and skulls that are preserved because they avoided the perils that you think got them are the PROOF ! There ARE examples to study. They are found in depths of soil that others things that are dated to a similar age are found in. There are examples of evolutionary traits found in the line of oldest to most current that show progression, regression and elimination. 
The only thing missing are the people who refuse to accept the evidence in front of them in favor for things that have no evidence at all because their beliefs are based off of hope instead of fact.

You say all the scientists cannot agree, yet you must think that there are like 4 of them worldwide.
The OVERWHELMING majority of scientists that specialize in those areas agree and have proven that humans were around for 200,000 years, modern humans obviously earlier and our ancestors 3 million years earlier.
This isnt a theory like trying to figure out a game of Clue.  You are not educated enough in the areas of science to understand what a scientific theory is. Or you are and refuse to out of hope and need.


----------



## red neck richie

660griz said:


> Aint we all sinners. Maybe he was gonna ask forgiveness later.
> 
> “I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness.”
> 
> ― Emo Philips



We are all messed up sinners. Some saved by grace. Some not. Did you mean it and change your ways or were you just male cow droping?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite, I am not saying that I have the answers but I have been eliminating possibilities as better evidence negates them.
When I get to a point that stumps me, or science...I am fine with the answers that got me there. I do not simply insert one unprovable hope in a gap and expect that to satisfy me.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I`ve already said that I believe in creation, as "in the beginning".........God created man. But since you went further back than Adam, I said pick a starting point. The Big Bang is nothing but a theory in itself.
> 
> My simple explanation to all the evidence is that scientist cant even agree within themselves as to what is what. Bones decay as a normal part of organic decomposition...........How long do you really think they will last when exposed to insects, bacteria and fungi in acidic soil? If they were preserved by another human, there is no evidence out there to explain how that human got here before Adam........other than another scientist theory. There is no avoiding the question......scientist simply cannot and will never figure out one simple thing, "the beginning" at best they will always have just a theory.........


Figure out one simple thing?
I'm sure to you '"the beginning" is one simple thing.
Fortunately science doesn't stop at "God done it".
Science is in its infancy. Its barely at the crawling stage. 
Yet we've put men on another planet, cured diseases, prolonged life, create humans in a petri dish and your daily life depends on it.
Imagine (if you can) where it will be when it can crawl and then walk....
Its pretty ridiculous to claim -


> scientist simply cannot and will never figure out


As though science is still trying to figure out the wheel.
YOU CANT EVEN PROVE YOUR GOD EXISTS yet you are slamming science because they aint figured it out yet.
Come on. Get real.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, I am not saying that I have the answers but I have been eliminating possibilities as better evidence negates them.
> When I get to a point that stumps me, or science...I am fine with the answers that got me there. I do not simply insert one unprovable hope in a gap and expect that to satisfy me.



Completely understand. I don't have all the answers either. One thing I stand firm on is my belief, and not saying this in an offensive way, but there's nothing that you or anyone else provide that will affect my belief. It just works for me. I've seen all of the scientific explanations. It doesn't change my mind. I can't explain that. I think scientists are great resources, but they can't explain away my experience. One of the many reasons that I don't debate the actual belief itself, its argument that neither of us will win.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Figure out one simple thing?
> I'm sure to you '"the beginning" is one simple thing.
> Fortunately science doesn't stop at "God done it".
> Science is in its infancy. Its barely at the crawling stage.
> Yet we've put men on another planet, cured diseases, prolonged life, create humans in a petri dish and your daily life depends on it.
> Imagine (if you can) where it will be when it can crawl and then walk....
> Its pretty ridiculous to claim -
> 
> As though science is still trying to figure out the wheel.
> YOU CANT EVEN PROVE YOUR GOD EXISTS yet you are slamming science because they aint figured it out yet.
> Come on. Get real.



One big important thing Walt, Christianity doesn't discount scientific work and medicine at all. Actually, we believe God uses them, we pray for them too. The only part of science we take issue with is trying to explain away God. While you feel that I can't prove God exist, we feel that you can't explain him away. I'm not sure why that's so offensive to you. I'm not the least bit offended that I can't prove anything to you. It's my belief, my faith, and my experience that I choose, rather than another mans theory.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> What you fail to overlook is the very evidence that you claim doesn't exist.
> The fact that there are bones and skulls that are preserved because they avoided the perils that you think got them are the PROOF ! There ARE examples to study. They are found in depths of soil that others things that are dated to a similar age are found in. There are examples of evolutionary traits found in the line of oldest to most current that show progression, regression and elimination.
> The only thing missing are the people who refuse to accept the evidence in front of them in favor for things that have no evidence at all because their beliefs are based off of hope instead of fact.
> 
> You say all the scientists cannot agree, yet you must think that there are like 4 of them worldwide.
> The OVERWHELMING majority of scientists that specialize in those areas agree and have proven that humans were around for 200,000 years, modern humans obviously earlier and our ancestors 3 million years earlier.
> This isnt a theory like trying to figure out a game of Clue.  You are not educated enough in the areas of science to understand what a scientific theory is. Or you are and refuse to out of hope and need.


I've studied science a great deal. I know that if we eroded as much as one study says, we could not be near as old as another study says. Every scientific theory starts as an hypothesis - basically an unexplained idea. Enough acceptable support moves it to a scientific method - basically in support or to contradict a theory. Regardless, either way you paint it, a theory will never explain away my experience. It's just something that you'll never be able to take away.


----------



## Spotlite

660griz said:


> What is it men cannot be made to believe!
> -Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786.



Theories for some. 

Ironically, you're searching for hard evidence and facts, yet you rest assured in theories.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Completely understand. I don't have all the answers either. One thing I stand firm on is my belief, and not saying this in an offensive way, but there's nothing that you or anyone else provide that will affect my belief. It just works for me. I've seen all of the scientific explanations. It doesn't change my mind. I can't explain that. I think scientists are great resources, but they can't explain away my experience. One of the many reasons that I don't debate the actual belief itself, its argument that neither of us will win.


I do not want to change anyone's belief.
I DO expect anyone that makes a claim to be able to back that claim up. If you want to tell me that while the bible may be suspect in some areas but You dont care You believe in the god it represents. I can appreciate that. But please dont  make claims of its accuracy and then be unable to back it up with facts.  Anything true is verifiable. Something portrayed as the ultimate truth should have no problem being ultra verifiable.

I can understand someone who acknowledges the scientific findings and decides that there is still something more spiritually. But, to say there is no evidence of scientific findings when there clearly are and to fill it in with detailed specifics about something that has less evidence than bigfoot (none) and also to give credit to the same being who you and everyone else has never seen, talked to, or could possibly understand shows a willful dishonesty and effort to twist what cannot be known into fact yet scoff at facts because they refute the beliefs and not because those facts are untrue. 
I am bothered by the character of someone who disregards the testimony of other people who believe in different gods and dismisses the testimony and evidence that those people give  yet in the next breath will use the same testimony and evidence as proof for themself. The same intellectual dishonesty will allow someone to say that Nothing is infinite and Everything must have a cause EXCEPT my god.

I am literally dying for someone who claims to have a relationship with a god, any god, to actually provide proof.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> One big important thing Walt, Christianity doesn't discount scientific work and medicine at all. Actually, we believe God uses them, we pray for them too. The only part of science we take issue with is trying to explain away God. While you feel that I can't prove God exist, we feel that you can't explain him away. I'm not sure why that's so offensive to you. I'm not the least bit offended that I can't prove anything to you. It's my belief, my faith, and my experience that I choose, rather than another mans theory.


Is it equally true then that you are unable to explain away the existence of every other god that has ever been worshipped?
Therefore, they are at least equally as real as your god?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I've studied science a great deal. I know that if we eroded as much as one study says, we could not be near as old as another study says. Every scientific theory starts as an hypothesis - basically an unexplained idea. Enough acceptable support moves it to a scientific method - basically in support or to contradict a theory. Regardless, either way you paint it, a theory will never explain away my experience. It's just something that you'll never be able to take away.


If you studied science a great deal then you would know that to become a scientific theory much more criteria must be met. So much so that while it is always open to change if new evidence comes to light, the evidence that they have is overwhelming and agreed upon by the majority of the scientific peers.

I dont care that it will not change your experiences. Those are yours and they are personal. I care that you dismiss the explainable in favor of the unexplainable.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I do not want to change anyone's belief.
> I DO expect anyone that makes a claim to be able to back that claim up. If you want to tell me that while the bible may be suspect in some areas but I dont care I believe in the god it represents. I can appreciate that. But please dont tell make claims if its accuracy and then be unable to back it up with facts.  Anything true is verifiable. Something portrayes as the ultimate truth should have no problem being ultra verifiable.
> 
> I can understand someone who acknowledges the scientific findings and decides that there is still something more spiritually. But, to say there is no evidence of scientific findings when there clearly are and to fill it in with detailed specifics about something that has less evidence than bigfoot (none) and also to give credit to the same being who you and everyone else has never seen, talked to, or could possibly understand shows a willful dishonesty and effort to twist what cannot be known into fact yet scoff at facts because they refute the beliefs and not because those facts are untrue.
> I am bothered by the character of someone who disregards the testimony of other people who believe in different gods and dismisses the testimony and evidence that those people give  yet in the next breath will use the same testimony and evidence as proof for themself. The same intellectual dishonesty will allow someone to say that Nothing is infinite and Everything must have a cause EXCEPT my god.
> 
> I am literally dying for someone who claims to have a relationship with a god, any god, to actually provide proof.


Hear ya dude. That's why I don't knock others. Spirituality is to feel something. That physical evidence is often healing and folks almost always discredit and try to explain away as "the body heals itself" or "we don't fully understand the body".


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Is it equally true then that you are unable to explain away the existence of every other god that has ever been worshipped?
> Therefore, they are at least equally as real as your god?



Actually, my God is the only one that acknowledges that other gods exist.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Hear ya dude. That's why I don't knock others. Spirituality is to feel something. That physical evidence is often healing and folks almost always discredit and try to explain away as "the body heals itself" or "we don't fully understand the body".



It is explained those ways because both of those ways are true.
Sprituality is the fill in the blank excuse as an answer to a question that we cannot understand. Then believers will take it one step further and assign a specific deity .
Meanwhile, A million other people had a similar experience with similar outcomes and they filled in the blanks with the deity that they believe in.
None being any more correct than the other but just as convinced that their special invisible friend stepped in to help while dismissing the events that didnt turn out well for the unlucky others.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Actually, my God is the only one that acknowledges that other gods exist.



Well I would believe you if your god would pop on every channel of even the tvs are turned off and announce that.
But since a god was unable to write his own book and the writings are a gathering of individual  texts put together over thousands of years ALL of which were written by mostly anonymous men.....I am going to have to go with What Is More Likely Than Not and call  it false.

What I have seen is the writer of Genesis wrote a story about the god you worship talking about other gods existing. Much the same way authors do in all the others works that are not written by gods.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Actually, my God is the only one that acknowledges that other gods exist.



See, your bible was not actually written by your god. You, me and everyone else that has ever lived could not name the authors of all those different works.
It was not written in a universally understandable language and it was never made out of an unknown material that has survived the test of time.
It is half a book comprised of the ancient writings of various authors that wanted to tell the stories of their culture. It was done in the ways of the times where the unexplainable was credited to the suparnatural. The other half is written by more anonymous authors and a few known authors who wanted a movement away from the many various offshoots that the religion was taking and more towards the traditional religion.

Hundreds of years after the last of them were written,  and discounting many other similar writings of that same period,  they were assembled and put into one "book".

If you want to make the claim that your god said anything and that someone actually heard it, by all means provide me some proof.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> If you studied science a great deal then you would know that to become a scientific theory much more criteria must be met. So much so that while it is always open to change if new evidence comes to light, the evidence that they have is overwhelming and agreed upon by the majority of the scientific peers.
> 
> I dont care that it will not change your experiences. Those are yours and they are personal. I care that you dismiss the explainable in favor of the unexplainable.


Science can most definitely explain a lot of things, and explain a lot of things away. Spirituality, not the physical part of if God exist or not, but the spirit side is something that they can't explain away. 

I can physically see the work of God through scientific studies, that's all good. I can see how a brain functions, a tree grows,  gravity and the tide, how the sun works, etc. 

How it got here is something that I don't agree with science on.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> See, your bible was not actually written by your god. You, me and everyone else that has ever lived could not name the authors of all those different works.
> It was not written in a universally understandable language and it was never made out of an unknown material that has survived the test of time.
> It is half a book comprised of the ancient writings of various authors that wanted to tell the stories of their culture. It was done in the ways of the times where the unexplainable was credited to the suparnatural. The other half is written by more anonymous authors and a few known authors who wanted a movement away from the many various offshoots that the religion was taking and more towards the traditional religion.
> 
> Hundreds of years after the last of them were written,  and discounting many other similar writings of that same period,  they were assembled and put into one "book".
> 
> If you want to make the claim that your god said anything and that someone actually heard it, by all means provide me some proof.


You're not the first to deny him, and certainly won't be the last.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> It is explained those ways because both of those ways are true.
> Sprituality is the fill in the blank excuse as an answer to a question that we cannot understand. Then believers will take it one step further and assign a specific deity .
> Meanwhile, A million other people had a similar experience with similar outcomes and they filled in the blanks with the deity that they believe in.
> None being any more correct than the other but just as convinced that their special invisible friend stepped in to help while dismissing the events that didnt turn out well for the unlucky others.


You'd make a great asset in the medical field. It's obvious, that when doctors don't have a medical or scientific answer as to what happened, even in my own case with my back, we should have came to the non believers for an explanation.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Well I would believe you if your god would pop on every channel of even the tvs are turned off and announce that.
> But since a god was unable to write his own book and the writings are a gathering of individual  texts put together over thousands of years ALL of which were written by mostly anonymous men.....I am going to have to go with What Is More Likely Than Not and call  it false.
> 
> What I have seen is the writer of Genesis wrote a story about the god you worship talking about other gods existing. Much the same way authors do in all the others works that are not written by gods.



ok. 

But why does it bother you so stinking much? Y'all get all tore up about it. This is not about proving anything to you, it boils down that you can't sell your point. And you've done nothing but believe what they told you. You haven't went out and done one single thing to prove what they're saying is correct. If you want to believe science, I'm happy you found something to hang your hat on.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> One big important thing Walt, Christianity doesn't discount scientific work and medicine at all. Actually, we believe God uses them, we pray for them too. The only part of science we take issue with is trying to explain away God. While you feel that I can't prove God exist, we feel that you can't explain him away. I'm not sure why that's so offensive to you. I'm not the least bit offended that I can't prove anything to you. It's my belief, my faith, and my experience that I choose, rather than another mans theory.


Science has never tried to explain away (G)gods.
I have never tried to explain away (G)gods.
To "explain away" something, they would have to be proven to be there to begin with.


> I'm not sure why that's so offensive to you


I'm not offended in the least. There's nothing to be offended about.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> ok.
> 
> But why does it bother you so stinking much? Y'all get all tore up about it. This is not about proving anything to you, it boils down that you can't sell your point. And you've done nothing but believe what they told you. You haven't went out and done one single thing to prove what they're saying is correct. If you want to believe science, I'm happy you found something to hang your hat on.


Think about what you just typed there.
Read it out loud while looking in a mirror.
See if maybe, just maybe, it might apply to you.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Cliff notes:
> Even though science and life show me through evidence that I am wrong, I continue on anyway.



Each will drink first from his own distillery.


----------



## jmharris23

ambush80 said:


> So what is it?  Is He beyond comprehension or can you comprehend the will of God?



Yes


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Actually, my God is the only one that acknowledges that other gods exist.


You might want to check on that claim for accuracy.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Science has never tried to explain away (G)gods.
> I have never tried to explain away (G)gods.
> To "explain away" something, they would have to be proven to be there to begin with.
> 
> I'm not offended in the least. There's nothing to be offended about.


You may want to research a little.  

Glad you`re not offended.


WaltL1 said:


> Think about what you just typed there.
> Read it out loud while looking in a mirror.
> See if maybe, just maybe, it might apply to you.


But Im not the one in denial about having "faith" in something.......the difference in you and I is the fact that I have put into action through experience the words that I believe in. You've done not one single thing but rely on something that you believe is indeed the truth because it aligns with what you think.


----------



## 660griz

Spotlite said:


> Theories for some.
> 
> Ironically, you're searching for hard evidence and facts, yet you rest assured in theories.



Negative. Not searching for anything or rest assured of any theories. 
I have all the info I need to enjoy what time I have left.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> Each will drink first from his own distillery.



(Homer Simpson voice) "MMMMmmmm distillery."


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Theories for some.
> 
> Ironically, you're searching for hard evidence and facts, yet you rest assured in theories.



I don't think you understand what a scientific theory is.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Will you try a little experiment with me?  You tell me what the "home run" swing is for us is and I'll counter it.



In the context of my quote, one would only need to point out the various views of the handbook to demonstrate the "ineffectiveness" of the blueprint.    In quotes, as I would not agree........I tend to think people overthink it all.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Science can most definitely explain a lot of things, and explain a lot of things away. Spirituality, not the physical part of if God exist or not, but the spirit side is something that they can't explain away.
> 
> I can physically see the work of God through scientific studies, that's all good. I can see how a brain functions, a tree grows,  gravity and the tide, how the sun works, etc.
> 
> How it got here is something that I don't agree with science on.



You found a gap in a million examples and plugged it with a god.  Now you sleep better.
The part where you have convinced yourself that you have a relationship with this gap is the real story.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> You're not the first to deny him, and certainly won't be the last.



Show me a Him and then ill decide what I want to do.

I dont sit next to him at lunch an ignore him.
The spot is empty.

Watching the guy alone at the other table talking to an empty seat is the entertaining part.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> You'd make a great asset in the medical field. It's obvious, that when doctors don't have a medical or scientific answer as to what happened, even in my own case with my back, we should have came to the non believers for an explanation.



Ask to see your medical charts and let me know if any doctor wrote down that God cured you.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> ok.
> 
> But why does it bother you so stinking much? Y'all get all tore up about it. This is not about proving anything to you, it boils down that you can't sell your point. And you've done nothing but believe what they told you. You haven't went out and done one single thing to prove what they're saying is correct. If you want to believe science, I'm happy you found something to hang your hat on.


If someone tells me they have a special buddy and raves on and on and on about this guy but when I ask to meet him he is never available, that is what bothers me. 
I am trying to find one person that can actually back up their claims without giving excuses as to why their god is a no-show.


----------



## Spotlite

Lol and the circle continues


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Lol and the circle continues



It would be a C and not a circle if people would refrain from filling in that gap with an invisible line


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Ask to see your medical charts and let me know if any doctor wrote down that God cured you.


How is "no medical explanation" work?


bullethead said:


> It would be a C and not a circle if people would refrain from filling in that gap with an invisible line



Only invisible to the blind


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> How is "no medical explanation" work?



You put a period at the end of the sentence in the chart and move on hoping to learn more as to why when that information becomes available.

What they don't do is fill in the explanation with a god like they was done hundreds and thousands of years ago.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You put a period at the end of the sentence in the chart and move on hoping to learn more as to why when that information becomes available.
> 
> What they don't do is fill in the explanation with a god like they was done hundreds and thousands of years ago.



If my intent was to try to find a scientific reasoning, absolutely. But if my intent is to stand firmly in my belief, absolutely not. I've acknowledged scientific studies and their good at what they do, but at the end of the day they are still in the "we think" or "don't yet know" mindset. I'm still standing on what I've experienced that aligns with my biblical teachings. If that is to complex to understand, that is one thing, but if it's just simply not acceptable to some, that's just tough.


----------



## 660griz

Spotlite said:


> I've acknowledged scientific studies and their good at what they do, but at the end of the day they are still in the "we think" or "don't yet know" mindset.



So their(science) honesty is their shortcoming? If they said, we absolutely know 100%, that would make you feel better?
It wouldn't matter how outlandish the claim was, as long as they are sure?
Sounds like a book I know.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> You may want to research a little.
> 
> Glad you`re not offended.
> 
> But Im not the one in denial about having "faith" in something.......the difference in you and I is the fact that I have put into action through experience the words that I believe in. You've done not one single thing but rely on something that you believe is indeed the truth because it aligns with what you think.





> You may want to research a little.


Ok I did. Found nothing.
Give me some examples. 


> You've done not one single thing but rely on something that you believe is indeed the truth because it aligns with what you think


I think that there are no gods is the truth because no-one can prove that one exists.
You believe a specific god exists and no-one can prove that it exists.
Tell me again who believes because it aligns with what they think........


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> I don't think you understand what a scientific theory is.


That makes 3 of us who has said that now......
But he's not going to let anybody rain on his parade apparently.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> If my intent was to try to find a scientific reasoning, absolutely. But if my intent is to stand firmly in my belief, absolutely not. I've acknowledged scientific studies and their good at what they do, but at the end of the day they are still in the "we think" or "don't yet know" mindset. I'm still standing on what I've experienced that aligns with my biblical teachings. If that is to complex to understand, that is one thing, but if it's just simply not acceptable to some, that's just tough.



It is extremely simple to understand. And even more simple to reject.

If all you understand of science is that it is an organization of "we think" and "we just dont know" then you have not done your homework regarding science.


----------



## j_seph




----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> If my intent was to try to find a scientific reasoning, absolutely. But if my intent is to stand firmly in my belief, absolutely not. I've acknowledged scientific studies and their good at what they do, but at the end of the day they are still in the "we think" or "don't yet know" mindset. I'm still standing on what I've experienced that aligns with my biblical teachings. If that is to complex to understand, that is one thing, but if it's just simply not acceptable to some, that's just tough.


Don't let evidence get in the way of your beliefs.


----------



## j_seph




----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> It is extremely simple to understand. And even more simple to reject.
> 
> If all you understand of science is that it is an organization of "we think" and "we just dont know" then you have not done your homework regarding science.



Didn't say that's all I understand. But when the conclusion is drawn, that's where it lands.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Don't let evidence get in the way of your beliefs.



The road is going nowhere with this. I discount that "evidence". Plain and simple.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> That makes 3 of us who has said that now......
> But he's not going to let anybody rain on his parade apparently.



Catch up Walt, we've covered that


----------



## j_seph

Here is you a thought, Adam and Eve, after them there was a great flood which left 8 people. You see how Puerto Rico was destroyed by a hurricane. Now lay everything down and think about this. There are 8 people, which are left on this huge planet. Everything has been flooded, destroyed. Wrap your carnal mind around everything destroyed, there were not power grids, planes, wagons, power tools, heat and air, etc.... There was no Red Cross to come provide help, no other country to give help. Only 8 people starting all this all over again. Look at the pictures I posted prior. Look at the condition of those homeless, yet everyone of them, pretty good chance were cute adorable babies like the other pictures. Lifes hard times, rough times, bad choices, decisions made they aren't so cute and adorable now. Imagine if there were none of today's advances the shape they would be in. Get out of your todays thinking because there is no way you nor I could comprehend how or what it would be like to have no meds, no roof over our heads, no single person to come by and offer you hot meal or a bench to lay on to get off the cold ground. 

I watched the holy spirit get all over a young 19 year old preacher Saturday. The boy preached like never before, voice changed from anyway he has ever preached. Legs went weak, he had to sit down because he couldn't stand when he got done. When we left he barely could even walk. He can work all day in the heat doing landscape for 8 to 10 hours and does not get in this condition. Don't expect many to believe a word of it, might if get some reason y'all see why he got in the way he did. But it is okay, the knowledge is out there you just got to choose where your gonna stand.


----------



## bullethead

This is an excerpt from an article published today.



> Scientists witness huge cosmic crash, find origins of gold
> 
> Measurements of the light and other energy emanating from the crash have helped scientists explain how planet-killing gamma ray bursts are born, how fast the universe is expanding, and where heavy elements like platinum and gold come from.
> 
> "This is getting everything you wish for," said Syracuse University physics professor Duncan Brown, one of more than 4,000 scientists involved in the blitz of science that the crash kicked off. "This is our fantasy observation."



One of more than 4000 scientists involved....

But none of that means anything unless somebody can tell us Who created those supernovas,  right Spotlite?


https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-witness-huge-cosmic-crash-origins-gold-140024492.html

I didnt want to quote the whole article because it mentions the word HEdoubleHockeySticks as in
"It is one (heck) of an explosion"


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> Here is you a thought, Adam and Eve, after them there was a great flood which left 8 people. You see how Puerto Rico was destroyed by a hurricane. Now lay everything down and think about this. There are 8 people, which are left on this huge planet. Everything has been flooded, destroyed. Wrap your carnal mind around everything destroyed, there were not power grids, planes, wagons, power tools, heat and air, etc.... There was no Red Cross to come provide help, no other country to give help. Only 8 people starting all this all over again. Look at the pictures I posted prior. Look at the condition of those homeless, yet everyone of them, pretty good chance were cute adorable babies like the other pictures. Lifes hard times, rough times, bad choices, decisions made they aren't so cute and adorable now. Imagine if there were none of today's advances the shape they would be in. Get out of your todays thinking because there is no way you nor I could comprehend how or what it would be like to have no meds, no roof over our heads, no single person to come by and offer you hot meal or a bench to lay on to get off the cold ground.
> 
> I watched the holy spirit get all over a young 19 year old preacher Saturday. The boy preached like never before, voice changed from anyway he has ever preached. Legs went weak, he had to sit down because he couldn't stand when he got done. When we left he barely could even walk. He can work all day in the heat doing landscape for 8 to 10 hours and does not get in this condition. Don't expect many to believe a word of it, might if get some reason y'all see why he got in the way he did. But it is okay, the knowledge is out there you just got to choose where your gonna stand.


Your entire post is based on emotions.
"Look at the homeless", "look at the babies".
You want us to replace facts, lack of facts, science, history, common sense....... with emotions.
And therein lies the problem.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Here is you a thought, Adam and Eve, after them there was a great flood which left 8 people. You see how Puerto Rico was destroyed by a hurricane. Now lay everything down and think about this. There are 8 people, which are left on this huge planet. Everything has been flooded, destroyed. Wrap your carnal mind around everything destroyed, there were not power grids, planes, wagons, power tools, heat and air, etc.... There was no Red Cross to come provide help, no other country to give help. Only 8 people starting all this all over again. Look at the pictures I posted prior. Look at the condition of those homeless, yet everyone of them, pretty good chance were cute adorable babies like the other pictures. Lifes hard times, rough times, bad choices, decisions made they aren't so cute and adorable now. Imagine if there were none of today's advances the shape they would be in. Get out of your todays thinking because there is no way you nor I could comprehend how or what it would be like to have no meds, no roof over our heads, no single person to come by and offer you hot meal or a bench to lay on to get off the cold ground.
> 
> I watched the holy spirit get all over a young 19 year old preacher Saturday. The boy preached like never before, voice changed from anyway he has ever preached. Legs went weak, he had to sit down because he couldn't stand when he got done. When we left he barely could even walk. He can work all day in the heat doing landscape for 8 to 10 hours and does not get in this condition. Don't expect many to believe a word of it, might if get some reason y'all see why he got in the way he did. But it is okay, the knowledge is out there you just got to choose where your gonna stand.


It's not hard to repopulate the world with 8 people when if there was a flood it was localized
And 2, the story is borrowed from the Sumerians who wrote it a thousand years earlier. 

Research the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Its a wonder we have not had a few worldwide floods since this thread started.  They seemed to be quite common back then.


If you lived in the Houston area a few thousand years ago and experienced a hurricane like the one that hit this year, you would assume that the entire world was flooded also.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Catch up Walt, we've covered that


Yeah I can tell.
Since then you've shown an amazing understanding of what science is and isn't.


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> It's not hard to repopulate the world with 8 people when if there was a flood it was localized
> And 2, the story is borrowed from the Sumerians who wrote it a thousand years earlier.
> 
> Research the Epic of Gilgamesh.
> 
> Its a wonder we have not had a few worldwide floods since this thread started.  They seemed to be quite common back then.
> 
> 
> If you lived in the Houston area a few thousand years ago and experienced a hurricane like the one that hit this year, you would assume that the entire world was flooded also.


Look beyond Texas, Puerto Rico we are talking Earth not a state or even a country.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I can tell.
> Since then you've shown an amazing understanding of what science is and isn't.



Really, it was an insight on how he really recognizes science but chooses his beliefs instead for the parts he doesnt agree with.


----------



## j_seph

WaltL1 said:


> Your entire post is based on emotions.
> "Look at the homeless", "look at the babies".
> You want us to replace facts, lack of facts, science, history, common sense....... with emotions.
> And therein lies the problem.


So do you say that there was never a great flood? Nothing to do with emotions. The point was, how would those 8 be affected when all is destroyed. Starting over from nothing, without any outside help available. Look at how a tough life changes people just today, now go back to a time that you cannot comprehend of there being nothing.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Look beyond Texas, Puerto Rico we are talking Earth not a state or even a country.



I know the fake worldwide flood story that the Jews borrowed from the Sumerians.
What Earth event are you talking about?


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> So do you say that there was never a great flood? Nothing to do with emotions. The point was, how would those 8 be affected when all is destroyed. Starting over from nothing, without any outside help available. Look at how a tough life changes people just today, now go back to a time that you cannot comprehend of there being nothing.



They floated around in a small craft with a handful of animals for a few weeks until they hit dry land that localized flood waters did not touch. Once on land they intermingled with the very alive and very unfazed locals who did not experience the localized flood.
And just because I am getting the feeling that you are ignoring the parts that do not fit your stance...THE STORY WAS BORROWED FROM THE SUMERIAN CULTURE WHO WROTE IT A THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE THE JEWS DID.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Really, it was an insight on how he really recognizes science but chooses his beliefs instead for the parts he doesnt agree with.



Good discussion with you bullet. Thanks for keeping it above the belt line


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Good discussion with you bullet. Thanks for keeping it above the belt line



You admitted it.
You went from you cant trust science, to that you do trust science but not all science, to despite all the science you still go with your beliefs.

I just broke it down to the cliff notes.


----------



## EverGreen1231

This is funny.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> So do you say that there was never a great flood? Nothing to do with emotions. The point was, how would those 8 be affected when all is destroyed. Starting over from nothing, without any outside help available. Look at how a tough life changes people just today, now go back to a time that you cannot comprehend of there being nothing.





> So do you say that there was never a great flood?


A great flood?
There have been numerous great floods. I just came back from fishing the New Orleans area. There is still evidence of a great flood everywhere you look.
The Great Flood that you believe in?
No.
There is absolutely no evidence that the Christian God caused a world wide Great Flood.


> Starting over from nothing


Nothing?
They had a home big enough to house all the species of animals.
Nothing?
All the fresh meat they could possibly want.
Nothing?
The hides for clothes, bones for tools, gut for thread and twine, manure for fertilizer, all those birds pooping out seeds.........


> without any outside help available.


According to the story they wouldn't be alive without outside help.


> Look at how a tough life changes people just today, now go back to a time that you cannot comprehend of there being nothing.


Maybe you don't realize you are playing to emotions.


> cannot comprehend of there being nothing.


There wasn't "nothing".
There were families and kids and babies and pets and nature and love and happiness and good times and bad times and all the things that we have in life now.
Well........ until the near complete genocide occurred.
According to the story you believe in.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Really, it was an insight on how he really recognizes science but chooses his beliefs instead for the parts he doesnt agree with.


I'm still waiting on the examples of where "science is trying to explain away God".
I'll probably be waiting for a while....


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You admitted it.
> You went from you cant trust science, to that you do trust science but not all science, to despite all the science you still go with your beliefs.
> 
> I just broke it down to the cliff notes.



I think you misread my statement but ok. Lol. Never said I trust science. I said I recognize their work in areas, but don't believe in their "agreement" of how things got here.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I'm still waiting on the examples of where "science is trying to explain away God".
> I'll probably be waiting for a while....



So we've been discussing creation and healing for a couple of days here.....

Without back tracking a bunch of pages......I believe in creation by God, and healing. Your stance is???????????


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> So we've been discussing creation and healing for a couple of days here.....
> 
> Without back tracking a bunch of pages......I believe in creation by God, and healing. Your stance is???????????


The body regenerates cells and its immune system heals itself every second of every single day.
It does that until it cannot.
For some it is early in life and for others later in life.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> So we've been discussing creation and healing for a couple of days here.....
> 
> Without back tracking a bunch of pages......I believe in creation by God, and healing. Your stance is???????????


THAT'S what you call science explaining away God??????
I'll be honest, it didn't even occur to me that those were the examples you were referring to of "science explaining away God".
But only because they aren't is why it didn't occur to me


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I think you misread my statement but ok. Lol. Never said I trust science. I said I recognize their work in areas, but don't believe in their "agreement" of how things got here.


IF there was an agreement, how do you think they would come to an agreement?
I'm not asking about God, gods, what you believe or what I believe. I'm asking a simple straight forward question -
If science agreed on something (anything), how do you think they came to that agreement?


----------



## WaltL1

> Spotlite;10936734]So we've been discussing creation and healing for a couple of days here.....
> 
> Without back tracking a bunch of pages......I believe in creation by God, and healing. Your stance is???????????


And I never answered this...
My stance is there is no definitive answer at this point.
There is only what direction the current evidence points to.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> So do you say that there was never a great flood? Nothing to do with emotions. The point was, how would those 8 be affected when all is destroyed. Starting over from nothing, without any outside help available. Look at how a tough life changes people just today, now go back to a time that you cannot comprehend of there being nothing.


j_seph, are you aware that even among Christians there is debate about how "great" the Great Flood was?


> Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth. If you read our English Bibles, you will probably come to this conclusion if you don't read the text too closely and if you fail to consider the rest of your Bible. Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis. If you read the sidebar, you will discover that Psalm 104 directly eliminates any possibility of the flood being global (see Psalm 104-9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?). In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalm 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible. If you like to solve mysteries on your own, you might want to read the flood account first and find the biblical basis for a local flood.


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> IF there was an agreement, how do you think they would come to an agreement?
> I'm not asking about God, gods, what you believe or what I believe. I'm asking a simple straight forward question -
> If science agreed on something (anything), how do you think they came to that agreement?


Well 3 "I'm not sure" answers are in agreement.......


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> And I never answered this...
> My stance is there is no definitive answer at this point.
> There is only what direction the current evidence points to.



Then the explaining away question wasn't for you


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> The body regenerates cells and its immune system heals itself every second of every single day.
> It does that until it cannot.
> For some it is early in life and for others later in life.


 over time, maybe, instantly, never 



WaltL1 said:


> THAT'S what you call science explaining away God??????
> I'll be honest, it didn't even occur to me that those were the examples you were referring to of "science explaining away God".
> But only because they aren't is why it didn't occur to me


Lol......right. When a Christian says "God did this for me" and the response is "the odds of that for other people are" 

Potatoes or tateers........still the same


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Well 3 "I'm not sure" answers are in agreement.......



3 honest answers.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> over time, maybe, instantly, never
> 
> 
> Lol......right. When a Christian says "God did this for me" and the response is "the odds of that for other people are"
> 
> Potatoes or tateers........still the same



Who heals the non believers?
Who heals the atheists?
Who heals the peiple who pray to other gods.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Well 3 "I'm not sure" answers are in agreement.......


Never mind Spotlite.
Its obviously never occurred to you that you can believe in God and be well informed about current science at the same time.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> over time, maybe, instantly, never
> 
> 
> Lol......right. When a Christian says "God did this for me" and the response is "the odds of that for other people are"
> 
> Potatoes or tateers........still the same


You just don't have a clue.
You actually expect a scientific answer is going to be "God did it. And not just any god it was exactly the one that you believe in".
For about the 10th time now....
God cant be proven to exist. Not yours. Not theirs. None of them.
Put two seconds of thought into that. PLEASE.
Science in not "explaining away God".
You just cant accept that the science doesn't point to your god or any god. 
It can't point to them.
They can't be proven to exist so obviously they cant be credited with doing anything.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Who heals the non believers?
> Who heals the atheists?
> Who heals the peiple who pray to other gods.



God is above all, merciful.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> God is above all, merciful.



Yeah yeah yeah we know that.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> God is above all, merciful.


So not attacking here or with any ill intentions.  -
Do you see or at least understand how "we" can question that when you for example take a stroll through a place like St. Jude?
And not to head you off at the pass but.... there's no philosophical explanation or defense needed.
Your belief in God is what "tempers" how you see it.
Without the belief to "temper" what we are looking at, can you at least get how almost offensive that statement could be considered?
We see -
innocent kids suffering horribly
you tell us


> God is above all, merciful.


Are we really wrong for questioning that claim? Being unreasonable?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> How is "no medical explanation" work?
> 
> 
> Only invisible to the blind



If you think "we don't know" equals "god did it" then logic fail on your part.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I think you misread my statement but ok. Lol. Never said I trust science. I said I recognize their work in areas, but don't believe in their "agreement" of how things got here.



Is that because you've taken an honest look at all of the physical evidence and it led you to a different conclusion? Or is it because you stubbornly cling to a faith based preconception in spite of the evidence?


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> So not attacking here or with any ill intentions.  -
> Do you see or at least understand how "we" can question that when you for example take a stroll through a place like St. Jude?
> And not to head you off at the pass but.... there's no philosophical explanation or defense needed.
> Your belief in God is what "tempers" how you see it.
> Without the belief to "temper" what we are looking at, can you at least get how almost offensive that statement could be considered?
> We see -
> innocent kids suffering horribly
> you tell us
> 
> Are we really wrong for questioning that claim? Being unreasonable?


Brace yourself.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Never mind Spotlite.
> Its obviously never occurred to you that you can believe in God and be well informed about current science at the same time.



You may want to rethink that statement. Actually, I've stated that I believe in God, and I believe in scientific work and informed in their research. You don't got nothing I haven't seen, read, researched, etc. The part where I draw the line is when science says that my God is not the creator, although we don't know, we just know it can't be him. I'm not so insecure that I have to have someone else's research to prove what I believe is right for me. I'm happy you found science to hang your hat on. I didn't.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> If you think "we don't know" equals "god did it" then logic fail on your part.



No, it still means they don't know. But I do.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> You may want to rethink that statement. Actually, I've stated that I believe in God, and I believe in scientific work and informed in their research. You don't got nothing I haven't seen, read, researched, etc. The part where I draw the line is when science says that my God is not the creator, although we don't know, we just know it can't be him. I'm not so insecure that I have to have someone else's research to prove what I believe is right for me. I'm happy you found science to hang your hat on. I didn't.





> You may want to rethink that statement.


I don't have to rethink it. You prove it over and over. Like this -


> when science says that my God is not the creator,


and this -


> although we don't know, we just know it can't be him.


So the part where you draw the line is at some imaginary thing that you think science says and you are telling me I need to rethink how informed you are.
Nah I'm sticking with it hasn't occurred to you.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I don't have to rethink it. You prove it over and over. Like this -
> 
> and this -
> 
> So the part where you draw the line is at some imaginary thing that you think science says and you are telling me I need to rethink how informed you are.
> Nah I'm sticking with it hasn't occurred to you.



Well you ain't gotta be hating about it. Calm down. In my world it's ok to disagree. I don't need to prove anything to you. I know that's bothering you but I've lost maybe .............3 seconds of sleep over it so far.


----------



## Spotlite

Spotlite said:


> what is considered a religion?





bullethead said:


> Religion is a man made sytem of practices centered around worshipping a dielty or the supernatural.





bullethead said:


> Non believers are not governed by an outside force that demands to be worshiped or has provided a handbook to go by.
> 
> On the other hand, christians have a book thatvis supposedly of divine origin...





WaltL1 said:


> Science has never tried to explain away (G)gods.
> I have never tried to explain away (G)gods.
> To "explain away" something, they would have to be proven to be there to begin with..





bullethead said:


> If someone tells me they have a special buddy and raves on and on and on about this guy but when I ask to meet him he is never available, that is what bothers me.
> I am trying to find one person that can actually back up their claims without giving excuses as to why their god is a no-show.





bullethead said:


> It would be a C and not a circle if people would refrain from filling in that gap with an invisible line





WaltL1 said:


> I think that there are no gods is the truth because no-one can prove that one exists.
> You believe a specific god exists and no-one can prove that it exists.......


Well that'll throw a monkey wrench in the wheel 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkp...-major-win-in-federal-court-153aec1662a6/amp/


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Spotlite said:


> Well that'll throw a monkey wrench in the wheel
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkp...-major-win-in-federal-court-153aec1662a6/amp/



sure atheism is a religion. 

always has been, always will be.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> No, it still means they don't know. But I do.



You know to the same degree that believers in Thor knew he caused thunder. Fact of the matter is you don't know. You should have the honesty to admit that.


----------



## ky55

j_seph said:


> I watched the holy spirit get all over a young 19 year old preacher Saturday. The boy preached like never before, voice changed from anyway he has ever preached. Legs went weak, he had to sit down because he couldn't stand when he got done. When we left he barely could even walk. He can work all day in the heat doing landscape for 8 to 10 hours and does not get in this condition. Don't expect many to believe a word of it, might if get some reason y'all see why he got in the way he did. But it is okay, the knowledge is out there you just got to choose where your gonna stand.




That young man has a long and lucrative future (career) ahead of him.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Well that'll throw a monkey wrench in the wheel
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkp...-major-win-in-federal-court-153aec1662a6/amp/


The link you provided has absolutely nothing to do with what Bullet and I said.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Well you ain't gotta be hating about it. Calm down. In my world it's ok to disagree. I don't need to prove anything to you. I know that's bothering you but I've lost maybe .............3 seconds of sleep over it so far.


I'm not asking you to prove anything to me. I already know that you can't.
And I'm sure you don't lose sleep over making ridiculous claims that you cant and wont back up and then hide behind your "I don't have to prove anything to you" excuse.
Maybe you haven't noticed -
It hasn't been your belief in God that we've been questioning. Its all the rest of the wacky stuff you say.


----------



## WaltL1

NE GA Pappy said:


> sure atheism is a religion.
> 
> always has been, always will be.


No never has been. May fit in the "new" definition of the word religion.
The definition of the word "religion" is being redefined or maybe refined is a better word to describe it.
Atheism is the same it has always been. Doesn't believe any gods exist. No change.
What that can be legally classified now is what is changing.
I don't know a single Atheist that actually buys in to this whole "call it a religion" thing.
Its merely a legal step in the fight that a group of Atheists are having to remove or minimize the role, no matter how small, religion plays in the government.
End of story. 
A legal maneuver in the courts.
That's it.
First sentence of the article -


> A federal district court in Oregon has declared Secular Humanism a religion, paving the way for the non-theistic community to obtain the same legal rights as groups such as Christianity.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Yeah yeah yeah we know that.






> So not attacking here or with any ill intentions. -
> Do you see or at least understand how "we" can question that when you for example take a stroll through a place like St. Jude?
> And not to head you off at the pass but.... there's no philosophical explanation or defense needed.
> Your belief in God is what "tempers" how you see it.
> Without the belief to "temper" what we are looking at, can you at least get how almost offensive that statement could be considered?
> We see -
> innocent kids suffering horribly
> you tell us
> 
> Are we really wrong for questioning that claim? Being unreasonable?



Yes, mercy is a great offense to some. Even to one particularly. He is the enemy of all mercy, and at his work furiously. His judgments all deny mercy. He can neither see it, nor receive it. Nor show it. To be caught in his reasoning is death. He is one of the gods, even one that Spotlite alluded to recently. The one that Jesus spoke of as "prince of this world". In another place the "god of this world".

He has a domain of his reason. There is no will in it to let any man from it. He is either conquered by the stronger to a man's sight or that man must remain in that bondage to his will of not mercy.

He cannot, wills not, let a man see what a man denies to himself in denying mercy. His banner is succinct, adopted by the unknowing, but to their own woe. They are convinced it is better to be clever than to see. They are quick to dismissal and their words drip his venom. They believe they know the sum of life believing they have it...and can_ judge it_. But they do not know whom they have set themselves against when pronouncing against life, for life too, has its Prince.

They have made his banner their own, in using life...to deny life, and its Prince. "Life sucks, and then you die". They undercut their own mercy at every turn, yet mercy remains, and remains plain to those appointed to a seemingly very weak thing, hope.

Jesus speaks most often of the intangibles...but palpable.

What will a man speak even in that place where he senses, by absence, hope? What does a man speak? It is all quite plain. Simply watch.

What is, and has come for your, for my deliverance from hopelessness is far more real than hopelessness can ever swallow. He tried it once, and held it for only three days.

What Walt...do you see? Hope...or something else?


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> God is above all, merciful.



That's funny right there.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> No never has been. May fit in the "new" definition of the word religion.
> The definition of the word "religion" is being redefined or maybe refined is a better word to describe it.
> Atheism is the same it has always been. Doesn't believe any gods exist. No change.
> What that can be legally classified now is what is changing.
> I don't know a single Atheist that actually buys in to this whole "call it a religion" thing.
> Its merely a legal step in the fight that a group of Atheists are having to remove or minimize the role, no matter how small, religion plays in the government.
> End of story.
> A legal maneuver in the courts.
> That's it.
> First sentence of the article -



The word "atheist" should have never been invented. 
There is a lot of stuff I don't believe in. Nobody came up for a name for that.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> The word "atheist" should have never been invented.
> There is a lot of stuff I don't believe in. Nobody came up for a name for that.


Nobody cares if you don't believe in flying purple pigs. But if you have the audacity to not believe in God, then you MUST be put in a category so you can be clearly identified


----------



## atlashunter

660griz said:


> That's funny right there.



They are big on making claims. Not so much on actually substantiating them.


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> I watched the holy spirit get all over a young 19 year old preacher Saturday. The boy preached like never before, voice changed from anyway he has ever preached. Legs went weak, he had to sit down because he couldn't stand when he got done. When we left he barely could even walk. He can work all day in the heat doing landscape for 8 to 10 hours and does not get in this condition. Don't expect many to believe a word of it, might if get some reason y'all see why he got in the way he did. But it is okay, the knowledge is out there you just got to choose where your gonna stand.



Did it look something like this?

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=907229


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> In the context of my quote, one would only need to point out the various views of the handbook to demonstrate the "ineffectiveness" of the blueprint.    In quotes, as I would not agree........I tend to think people overthink it all.



So how much thinking should one put into it and how do you know that amount is correct?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Well that'll throw a monkey wrench in the wheel
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkp...-major-win-in-federal-court-153aec1662a6/amp/



Psst, for the 56th time, I am not an atheist.

What wrench could that possibly be for me?


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> The link you provided has absolutely nothing to do with what Bullet and I said.



Precisely Walt.
But in his mind it was some sort of GOTCHA moment.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Precisely Walt.
> But in his mind it was some sort of GOTCHA moment.


Perfect example of what I was talking about when I said this -


> It hasn't been your belief in God that we've been questioning. Its all the rest of the wacky stuff you say.


Quoting both of us multiple times, then providing a link that has absolutely nothing, zip, zero, nada to do with what we said in the quotes and then to top it off.....
claims to have thrown a monkey wrench into something. What I don't know because nothing in his response had anything to do with anything 

Like I said.... wacky stuff.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Precisely Walt.
> But in his mind it was some sort of GOTCHA moment.



Absolutely wrong. It's a simple point to indicate that when you're (not you personally) are constantly digging and searching for proof to validate who you are, you lose sight of who you are. Even to the point of redefining things. As "wacky" as my belief may sound to you, I at least stand firm and un-wavered with it.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Absolutely wrong. It's a simple point to indicate that when you're (not you personally) are constantly digging and searching for proof to validate who you are, you lose sight of who you are. Even to the point of redefining things. As "wacky" as my belief may sound to you, I at least stand firm and un-wavered with it.


That and a dollar will get you a large soda at Micky Ds


----------



## j_seph

atlashunter said:


> Did it look something like this?
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=907229


Actually..................................Not at all


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> Actually..................................Not at all


Personally, I have no doubt that he had some sort of "Spiritual event".
You believe God did that.
I believe the chemicals in his brain coupled with his deep belief in God, did that.
There are lots of examples and techniques, spanning lots of religions and even non religions, where one puts themselves in another frame of mind/has a "spiritual event".
Its all about the chemicals released into ones brain.


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> Actually..................................Not at all



Funny how believers have different experiences that validate their different beliefs. Almost like they are acting out what they believe the spirit to be doing.


----------



## drippin' rock

atlashunter said:


> Funny how believers have different experiences that validate their different beliefs. Almost like they are acting out what they believe the spirit to be doing.



Confirmation bias.


----------



## drippin' rock

WaltL1 said:


> Personally, I have no doubt that he had some sort of "Spiritual event".
> You believe God did that.
> I believe the chemicals in his brain coupled with his deep belief in God, did that.
> There are lots of examples and techniques, spanning lots of religions and even non religions, where one puts themselves in another frame of mind/has a "spiritual event".
> Its all about the chemicals released into ones brain.




Or epilepsy


----------



## ambush80

drippin' rock said:


> Or epilepsy



Or MDMA.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> That's funny right there.


Is the humor found in _His allowing_ you to think and speak He is other than that? Is that what is funny? Or, is it something else?

Have you never experienced mercy?

Do you think it not a _real thing?_

By what is your consciousness informed in its being?

If, as the few subsequent conversations seek to show it is all and only "in your head", a chemical hodgepodge of what men have adopted in calling neurotransmitters and the like, and that would be the _all_ to, and of consciousness, I am all the more interested to hear what is going on. In this, in these, apparent expressions of consciousness. Is anything going on? Nothing? If so, what is your answer for continuance? "My chemicals feel better...when we continue"?

Oh...so is it really "just you" (and not the believer?) that is solely in it "for the feels"?

What will your chemicals tell me?  Or anyone for that matter? Anything? Anything other than "this is chemicals speaking"? Broken down further to molecules and the atoms that compose them...these are but atoms...talking. Writing...expressing themselves.
OK, talking atoms. Expressive...atoms.(And whatever else may be waiting..._smaller_, to perhaps yet be found)

But never, never! as is so fondly (does _fondness_ exist?) inserted...a talking donkey. OK. Chemicals can talk (but only man's chemicals..._my_ own, _your_ own)...but donkeys...no...not donkeys. And surely not a fig tree can speak of anything. And surely rocks and stones would never cry out.

"And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out."

(Do stones "inform you"? If not...why not? And if I tell you they have informed me, in their being, of being itself (and I know I am far from the first), what of your chemicals... would your chemicals...make of it? "Look at that big thing hanging in the sky...let's reach for it and see of what it may inform us! 

"One small step for man..."

Yet...I hear a laughter. "That's funny right there"
Like Moses heard though, its timbre is not one of joyful celebration of being. More like a snicker. And even snickers are allowed their being. Snickering at mercy...even.

But you are, to your own chemicals, free. (Or in bondage, depending upon view)

Man is made, has being, and is made capable of snickering. And how could it possibly matter to chemicals at all if that were all their capability? Unless they be troubled chemicals.

Be careful of what you feed, for it will surely follow you home.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Yes, mercy is a great offense to some. Even to one particularly. He is the enemy of all mercy, and at his work furiously. His judgments all deny mercy. He can neither see it, nor receive it. Nor show it. To be caught in his reasoning is death. He is one of the gods, even one that Spotlite alluded to recently. The one that Jesus spoke of as "prince of this world". In another place the "god of this world".
> 
> He has a domain of his reason. There is no will in it to let any man from it. He is either conquered by the stronger to a man's sight or that man must remain in that bondage to his will of not mercy.
> 
> He cannot, wills not, let a man see what a man denies to himself in denying mercy. His banner is succinct, adopted by the unknowing, but to their own woe. They are convinced it is better to be clever than to see. They are quick to dismissal and their words drip his venom. They believe they know the sum of life believing they have it...and can_ judge it_. But they do not know whom they have set themselves against when pronouncing against life, for life too, has its Prince.
> 
> They have made his banner their own, in using life...to deny life, and its Prince. "Life sucks, and then you die". They undercut their own mercy at every turn, yet mercy remains, and remains plain to those appointed to a seemingly very weak thing, hope.
> 
> Jesus speaks most often of the intangibles...but palpable.
> 
> What will a man speak even in that place where he senses, by absence, hope? What does a man speak? It is all quite plain. Simply watch.
> 
> What is, and has come for your, for my deliverance from hopelessness is far more real than hopelessness can ever swallow. He tried it once, and held it for only three days.
> 
> What Walt...do you see? Hope...or something else?





> What Walt...do you see? Hope...or something else?


I see those innocent kids suffering. 
If your God has the ability to do something about that and doesn't............ I see this as mere propaganda -


> God is above all, merciful.



I don't have to come up with all kinds of stories or philosophies or excuses to cover for the fact that an all powerful and "above all merciful God", could do something about that and chooses not to.

Christianity has painted a picture of what God "is".
Christians have come up with a million different excuses/work arounds of why the picture and reality don't match.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Psst, for the 56th time, I am not an atheist.
> 
> What wrench could that possibly be for me?


It's actually a big wrench for Christianity.
They are some smart Atheists. Get legally classified as a religion and then you have the legal ground to claim that any sort of religious prayer, reference etc that takes place in a government setting/building/function is an attack on their legal religious rights.
They are fighting religion/Christianity with Christianity's own play book.
And making forward progress.


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by drippin' rock
> Or epilepsy





ambush80 said:


> Or MDMA.


You guys are bad


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> Is the humor found in _His allowing_ you to think and speak He is other than that? Is that what is funny? Or, is it something else?


Funny on several levels. 1) God, the being that doesn't exist, being anything, except in ones mind, is just funny.
2)The God, as explained in the Bible, is anything but merciful. 
3)The God, as you look around the world, is anything but merciful.



> Have you never experienced mercy?


 Maybe. I guess my parents could have punished me more if they wanted. 
Maybe a sniper had me in his/her crosshairs and decided against it cause I had a kind face. How do you know you experienced mercy unless you are told you experienced mercy?




> Do you think it not a _real thing?_


 It is real. I looked it up. 
compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.



> By what is your consciousness informed in its being?
> 
> If, as the few subsequent conversations seek to show it is all and only "in your head", a chemical hodgepodge of what men have adopted in calling neurotransmitters and the like, and that would be the _all_ to, and of consciousness, I am all the more interested to hear what is going on. In this, in these, apparent expressions of consciousness. Is anything going on? Nothing? If so, what is your answer for continuance? "My chemicals feel better...when we continue"?
> 
> Oh...so is it really "just you" (and not the believer?) that is solely in it "for the feels"?
> 
> What will your chemicals tell me?  Or anyone for that matter? Anything? Anything other than "this is chemicals speaking"? Broken down further to molecules and the atoms that compose them...these are but atoms...talking. Writing...expressing themselves.
> OK, talking atoms. Expressive...atoms.(And whatever else may be waiting..._smaller_, to perhaps yet be found)
> 
> But never, never! as is so fondly (does _fondness_ exist?) inserted...a talking donkey. OK. Chemicals can talk (but only man's chemicals..._my_ own, _your_ own)...but donkeys...no...not donkeys. And surely not a fig tree can speak of anything. And surely rocks and stones would never cry out.
> 
> "And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out."
> 
> "One small step for man..."
> 
> Yet...I hear a laughter. "That's funny right there"
> Like Moses heard though, its timbre is not one of joyful celebration of being. More like a snicker. And even snickers are allowed their being. Snickering at mercy...even.
> 
> But you are, to your own chemicals, free. (Or in bondage, depending upon view)
> 
> Man is made, has being, and is made capable of snickering. And how could it possibly matter to chemicals at all if that were all their capability? Unless they be troubled chemicals.



Annnnddddd, ya lost me.



> Be careful of what you feed, for it will surely follow you home.


Only if I don't put a bullet in its head. (Mercy)



> (Do stones "inform you"?


Yes. I once had a weather rock. Wet = raining, white = snowing, moved = windy, etc.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> You think y'all are the first group to deny God, come against Christianity, etc.???? Lol now that's what's funny. There's just so much mockery and hypocrisy in your statement......actually says a lot about a group!


I don't have a clue how you can translate what I said into mockery and hypocrisy.
I simply stated facts.

More wacky stuff from you.


----------



## oldfella1962

"They have made his banner their own, in using life...to deny life, and its Prince. "Life sucks, and then you die". They undercut their own mercy at every turn, yet mercy remains, and remains plain to those appointed to a seemingly very weak thing, hope."

You know there is a middle ground - people who are "godless" are not necessarily pessimistic, apathetic & cynical. Many take the attitude of "life is *great*, and then you die". And not everyone needs hope to show mercy or expect mercy. Or if they do hope, it's for what will occur on this planet while they are alive. 

Here's my take on "life after death" - when you die you go back to doing whatever you did before you were born, which was a whole lot of nothing. 
Whatever state the universe was in prior to your birth will be about the same state the universe will be in after you die. Eternity is the same on both sides of the equation, bookending the unique collection of stories known as your life. Wow, Rod Serling would sound cool saying that in the intro to a "Twilight Zone" story. 

We all want fairness & justice & absolute truth (as we see them) for eternity because they escape our grasp here on earth, because we are never satisfied and never should be when it comes to improving/perfecting the human condition. We have not evolved to that level yet
and sorry but there is no "shortcut" in any religion because the religions were developed by humans for humans. As cultures come & go religions will come & go too. One of the most popular & powerful right now (Christianity) base their stories/ideas on older culture's stories. So the world destroying flood in the bible is "the real deal" but the much older versions were made up? 

Then again when you deny that any people/civilizations existed prior to Adam & Eve then the bible version of the flood could be real, and the "older" versions aren't really older because scientists & archeologists & paleontologists have made mistakes before, so we can't trust them over bronze age unknown authors who may have thought that the earth was flat.


----------



## 660griz

oldfella1962 said:


> "They have made his banner their own, in using life...to deny life, and its Prince. "Life sucks, and then you die". They undercut their own mercy at every turn, yet mercy remains, and remains plain to those appointed to a seemingly very weak thing, hope."
> 
> You know there is a middle ground - people who are "godless" are not necessarily pessimistic, apathetic & cynical. Many take the attitude of "life is *great*, and then you die". And not everyone needs hope to show mercy or expect mercy. Or if they do hope, it's for what will occur on this planet while they are alive.
> 
> Here's my take on "life after death" - when you die you go back to doing whatever you did before you were born, which was a whole lot of nothing.
> Whatever state the universe was in prior to your birth will be about the same state the universe will be in after you die. Eternity is the same on both sides of the equation, bookending the unique collection of stories known as your life. Wow, Rod Serling would sound cool saying that in the intro to a "Twilight Zone" story.
> 
> We all want fairness & justice & absolute truth (as we see them) for eternity because they escape our grasp here on earth, because we are never satisfied and never should be when it comes to improving/perfecting the human condition. We have not evolved to that level yet
> and sorry but there is no "shortcut" in any religion because the religions were developed by humans for humans. As cultures come & go religions will come & go too. One of the most popular & powerful right now (Christianity) base their stories/ideas on older culture's stories. So the world destroying flood in the bible is "the real deal" but the much older versions were made up?
> 
> Then again when you deny that any people/civilizations existed prior to Adam & Eve then the bible version of the flood could be real, and the "older" versions aren't really older because scientists & archeologists & paleontologists have made mistakes before, so we can't trust them over bronze age unknown authors who may have thought that the earth was flat.




Good stuff.


----------



## ky55

oldfella1962 said:


> "They have made his banner their own, in using life...to deny life, and its Prince. "Life sucks, and then you die". They undercut their own mercy at every turn, yet mercy remains, and remains plain to those appointed to a seemingly very weak thing, hope."
> 
> You know there is a middle ground - people who are "godless" are not necessarily pessimistic, apathetic & cynical. Many take the attitude of "life is *great*, and then you die". And not everyone needs hope to show mercy or expect mercy. Or if they do hope, it's for what will occur on this planet while they are alive.
> 
> Here's my take on "life after death" - when you die you go back to doing whatever you did before you were born, which was a whole lot of nothing.
> Whatever state the universe was in prior to your birth will be about the same state the universe will be in after you die. Eternity is the same on both sides of the equation, bookending the unique collection of stories known as your life. Wow, Rod Serling would sound cool saying that in the intro to a "Twilight Zone" story.
> 
> We all want fairness & justice & absolute truth (as we see them) for eternity because they escape our grasp here on earth, because we are never satisfied and never should be when it comes to improving/perfecting the human condition. We have not evolved to that level yet
> and sorry but there is no "shortcut" in any religion because the religions were developed by humans for humans. As cultures come & go religions will come & go too. One of the most popular & powerful right now (Christianity) base their stories/ideas on older culture's stories. So the world destroying flood in the bible is "the real deal" but the much older versions were made up?
> 
> Then again when you deny that any people/civilizations existed prior to Adam & Eve then the bible version of the flood could be real, and the "older" versions aren't really older because scientists & archeologists & paleontologists have made mistakes before, so we can't trust them over bronze age unknown authors who may have thought that the earth was flat.




Well said.


----------



## j_seph

660griz, I had presumed that you were at one point in military. By your post that maybe a sniper had your head in his crosshairs once I presume you seen combat. Was there any Christians in your group that fought beside you?


----------



## 660griz

j_seph said:


> 660griz, I had presumed that you were at one point in military.


 I was.


> By your post that maybe a sniper had your head in his crosshairs once I presume you seen combat.


 Never been in combat.

My point was, that if a sniper had me in the crosshairs and decided not to shoot, I wouldn't know I was given mercy. Snipers do happen outside of war.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> I see those innocent kids suffering.
> If your God has the ability to do something about that and doesn't............ I see this as mere propaganda -
> 
> 
> I don't have to come up with all kinds of stories or philosophies or excuses to cover for the fact that an all powerful and "above all merciful God", could do something about that and chooses not to.
> 
> Christianity has painted a picture of what God "is".
> Christians have come up with a million different excuses/work arounds of why the picture and reality don't match.



The indictment of God for "letting the innocent suffer" is only fairly made in the presumption that innocence is fully established in the suffering one and that such innocent suffering has no appointed end except in suffering.

If you mistakenly believe the follower of Jesus Christ has not had this presented in some form to himself, you can be advised this is not so.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> The indictment of God for "letting the innocent suffer" is only fairly made in the presumption that innocence is fully established in the suffering one and that such innocent suffering has no appointed end except in suffering.



"The language of the Bible teaches that a child’s innocence is granted by God due to a lack of knowledge. Innocence automatically and spiritually keeps a child connected with God until guilt comes. Innocence is lost when guilt is acknowledged through “enlightenment” to God." 
But, you knew all that.
No appointed end? Are you saying, God is using the child suffering to make a point?


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> The indictment of God for "letting the innocent suffer" is only fairly made in the presumption that innocence is fully established in the suffering one and that such innocent suffering has no appointed end except in suffering.
> 
> If you mistakenly believe the follower of Jesus Christ has not had this presented in some form to himself, you can be advised this is not so.



So go ahead and make your case that children with cancer are just getting what they deserve.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> So go ahead and make your case that children with cancer are just getting what they deserve.



He is saying that they suffer now only to spend an eternity with god without suffering later.

As if it is such a small price to pay.

Thought has to be that twisted in order to sleep at night.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> The indictment of God for "letting the innocent suffer" is only fairly made in the presumption that innocence is fully established in the suffering one and that such innocent suffering has no appointed end except in suffering.
> 
> If you mistakenly believe the follower of Jesus Christ has not had this presented in some form to himself, you can be advised this is not so.





> The indictment of God for "letting the innocent suffer" is only fairly made in the presumption that innocence is fully established in the suffering one and that such innocent suffering has no appointed end except in suffering.


Yes that would be an example of the workaround I mentioned.
The little kid is suffering -
1. Maybe they aren't really fully innocent. 
stole a cookie before dinner time? cheated at marbles?
2. Maybe their suffering has an appointed end.
God couldn't make a point without using a kids suffering as the vehicle? Couldn't send the kid to the glory of heaven without some good ol' torture first?


> If you mistakenly believe the follower of Jesus Christ has not had this presented in some form to himself, you can be advised this is not so.


I don't mistakenly believe that.
That's how all the workarounds (like those above) came to be.


----------



## j_seph

660griz said:


> "The language of the Bible teaches that a child’s innocence is granted by God due to a lack of knowledge. Innocence automatically and spiritually keeps a child connected with God until guilt comes. Innocence is lost when guilt is acknowledged through “enlightenment” to God."
> But, you knew all that.
> No appointed end? Are you saying, God is using the child suffering to make a point?


Have you ever suffered through something, endured through something only to receive better at the end?


----------



## j_seph

Funny how once again last night, God brought the message and the exact same thing discussed in the youth that was preached on by the pastor. Yeah I know, coincidence in y'alls eyes. Sure is a lot of those that happen between the Sunday School lessons, Wednesday night lessons and the sermon.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> Funny how once again last night, God brought the message and the exact same thing discussed in the youth that was preached on by the pastor. Yeah I know, coincidence in y'alls eyes. Sure is a lot of those that happen between the Sunday School lessons, Wednesday night lessons and the sermon.


So surely you would agree that the same situation that happens to people of other faiths proves THEIR God is real too right?
Or is what happens to them just a coincidence?


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Yes that would be an example of the workaround I mentioned.
> The little kid is suffering -
> 1. Maybe they aren't really fully innocent.
> stole a cookie before dinner time? cheated at marbles?
> 2. Maybe their suffering has an appointed end.
> God couldn't make a point without using a kids suffering as the vehicle? Couldn't send the kid to the glory of heaven without some good ol' torture first?
> 
> I don't mistakenly believe that.
> That's how all the workarounds (like those above) came to be.



So, your greater issue is with explanation?
For I haven't addressed either the issue of innocence as being lacking nor what would could be surmised as the end of suffering. (But only _as an _innocent.)


----------



## 660griz

j_seph said:


> Have you ever suffered through something, endured through something only to receive better at the end?



I am pretty sure our definitions of suffering are completely different.
Yes, I have been to the dentist, doctor, had wounds scraped. All for my own good.
I have worked hard and was rewarded with the product. 
Are you comparing that with kids suffering from a terminal illness, or starvation, etc.,  and then going to heaven?


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> So, your greater issue is with explanation?
> For I haven't addressed either the issue of innocence as being lacking nor what would could be surmised as the end of suffering. (But only _as an _innocent.)


Do me a favor please.
Explain what you meant by this -


> in the presumption that innocence is fully established in the suffering one


I read it as "the presumption is that the suffering one is fully innocent"
And this -


> and that such innocent suffering has no appointed end except in suffering.


I read it as " it may not be suffering for the sake of suffering, there is a greater purpose to it all".
Good chance I'm reading it wrong. Simplify it for me.


----------



## j_seph

660griz said:


> I am pretty sure our definitions of suffering are completely different.
> Yes, I have been to the dentist, doctor, had wounds scraped. All for my own good.
> I have worked hard and was rewarded with the product.
> Are you comparing that with kids suffering from a terminal illness, or starvation, etc.,  and then going to heaven?


*WHAT CAUSES CHILDREN TO SUFFER AND DIE?*​ Children suffer and die due to three _main_ causes. First,  children suffer and die due to pestilence and disease enabled when the  Lord cursed the ground after Adam and Eve sinned. He banished Adam and  Eve from the Garden of Eden, thus barring humans from the rejuvenating  power of the Tree of Life. God warned Adam and Eve that if they ate from  the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, “you will surely die” (Gen.  2:17), and He didn’t add “at a ripe old age of natural causes.” He just  said, “You will surely die,” and we’ve been attending funerals ever  since. Second, children also suffer and die because of the mistakes and  sins of others, such as leaving a pool gate unsecured, drunk driving,  murder, and so on. Third, children suffer and die because natural laws  work in regular ways: the gravity that keeps us on planet Earth also  enables fatal falls; the fire that warms also burns; the water in which  we swim can also drown.
 Disease, sins, and consistent natural laws, then, are the main  reasons that children die. That brings us to the question, why doesn’t  God afford children special protection?
*THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR HUMILITY*​ Although I said above that we can do more than just say, “We’ll find  out in heaven,” that doesn’t mean that humility isn’t a part of our  answer! It is. After all, since we don’t know what we don’t know,  especially in such circumstances, how we judge the meaning and  significance of a situation requires giving God the benefit of the  doubt. That’s where humility and faith play their parts.
 I must say, however, that every Christian I have ever known who has  suffered a severe loss, and remained faithful, in time understands how  God has used that suffering for good. There is an “already, not yet”  aspect to our understanding. I expect that in kingdom come we’ll fully  understand God’s greater purpose.
 That said, we can go beyond just, “We’ll find out in heaven,” so  let’s look first at why free will requires God’s hiddenness and what  role that plays in the answer to why God lets children die.
*THE NECESSITY OF FREE WILL AND GOD’S HIDDENNESS*​ In Matthew 12:38–39, when some of the “scribes and Pharisees” told  Jesus, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you,” He answered, “An evil  and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to  it except the sign of the prophet Jonah,” by which He referred to His  resurrection. Because the Lord doesn’t want to interfere with our free  will, He gives enough evidence of His existence so that those who want  to believe will have their beliefs justified, but not so much evidence  that those who don’t want to believe will be forced to feign loyalty.  Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne puts this in perspective:
_If God is to allow us to acquire knowledge by  learning from experience and above all to allow us to choose whether to  acquire knowledge at all or even to allow us to have a very  well-justified knowledge of the consequences of our actions—knowledge  which we need if we are to have a free and efficacious choice between  good and bad—he needs to provide natural evils occurring in regular ways  in consequence of natural processes. Or rather, he needs to do this if  he is not to give us too evident an awareness of his presence._<sup>2</sup>​ Isaiah wrote, “Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of  Israel, the Savior” (Isa. 45:15). A miracle-filled world diminishes the  significance of our actions and compels the rebel to feign allegiance.
*THE PROBLEM WITH CHILDHOOD INDESTRUCTIBILITY*​ For those who wish God would afford children with more protection,  the problem arises as to exactly how God would keep bad things from  happening to children without displaying millions of miracles every day.
 I’ve had this kind of conversation many times, and it typically goes  like this. Someone asks whether God was unfair for letting Kaylee die  from leukemia. I respond, “But it’s not just Kaylee that you’re  concerned about, right? I mean, you don’t think God should let any child  die of cancer, right?” They _always _agree to this point. After  all, you’d have to be a selfish swine to say that you only cared if one  child died of cancer and not others. Then I point out that it’s not just  cancer, right? I mean, you don’t think children should die of other  horrible diseases, right? They _always_ agree to this too. Then I  ask, but it’s not just disease, right? You don’t think God should let  children drown, or be crushed by boulders, or burn in fires, or be  murdered, right? They _always_ agree. But then I point out that  it isn’t just death, right? After all, you don’t think children should  be maimed or raped, right? They _always_ agree. So finally, I  ask, well, if all this is true, if children shouldn’t be able to suffer  being raped or maimed, or to die from murder, accident, or disease, then  to what age do you think children should be _indestructible_?
 At this most start laughing because they realize the absurdity of  indestructible children. In fact, when you change the question from why  God allowed a _particular child_ to die to why God allows _children_ to die, the question almost answers itself.
 But rarely someone gives ages. One woman blurted out, “Twelve.” But  this quickly falls apart. After all, she didn’t really think it would be  okay for God to let thirteen-year-olds be raped or die from murder,  accident, or disease, did she? Is it any different for the  seventeen-year-old? Wouldn’t those who argue that children should be  indestructible until a certain age still accuse God of unfairness?
 But perhaps the biggest problem with indestructible children regards  the mechanism required to keep these children from being seriously  injured or killed. Again, God _couldn’t_ do tens of thousands of miracles _every day_ without causing those who don’t want to worship Him to feign loyalty.
 Also, a child’s actions wouldn’t mean much. For example, Johnny could  be cutting his steak next to his little brother Jimmy and suddenly jam  his knife into Jimmy’s side and God could make the knife turn to rubber.  The whole family could laugh heartily—but that’s a cartoon world.<sup>3</sup>  In such a world, we could encourage our kids to go play marbles in the  freeway: “You’ll just bounce around a lot.” In such a world, children  wouldn’t learn morality because many of their choices would lack moral  consequences.
 Now, I suspect the more serious answer will be that God should _every day_ orchestrate _tens of thousands_  of providential occurrences to protect children. But if God constantly  worked through providences, then God would still have to interfere  constantly with free will. For example, how does God prevent parents  from getting drunk, or texting, or nodding off, while driving? How does  God _providentially_ keep _all children everywhere_ at _all times_  from the fatal occurrences that might afflict other family members? How  would God providentially keep all children from being harmed by the  intentional cruelty of adults? He couldn’t do _all_ these things  unless He was to make Himself unmistakably apparent. After all, even the  most dull-witted person would conclude, sooner or later, that there’s  something about the universe that prevents children from coming to harm.  In the real world, parents and their children must learn to be  responsible because natural laws do work in regular ways.
 And suffering has other benefits.
*WHAT GOOD MIGHT ARISE FROM A WORLD IN WHICH CHILDREN DIE?*​ Many important spiritual lessons are learned from the suffering  and/or death of children—courage, patience, compassion, selflessness,  humility, and so on—but I’m going to focus on perhaps the most  important. From the death of children, whether other people’s children  or our own, we learn that we can never base our ultimate happiness on  this world. The American Dream—that we can have our kids grow up,  graduate, achieve successful careers, marry great spouses, and have  wonderful children, and through whose children, and children’s children,  we can gain a sense of immortality—is forever in danger. There is  nothing worldly that we can count on, including what most people love  most: their children. Instead, we must look to God for our ultimate and  eternal fulfillment.
 Only worshippers of God can accept this. We shouldn’t expect those  who only live for this life not to bitterly complain that God is unfair  for threatening what to them is supremely valuable and their best chance  for a semblance of immortality.
 Suffering can be valuable for children, too. As a child, rheumatic  fever damaged my heart and caused my parents and doctors to fear for my  life. But I thank God for that because it gave me a strong sense of my  own mortality, which has benefited me spiritually ever since!
*WHAT IS THE ETERNAL DESTINY OF CHILDREN WHO DIE?*​ Although Christians differ about this, many Christians have argued  that all who die before the age of accountability (see Deut. 1:39) will  be saved.<sup>4</sup> They base this on verses such as Luke 18:16–17,  where Jesus said, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder  them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to  you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not  enter it at all” (Luke 18:16–17 NASB). As theologian Millard Erickson  asks, “Could it be that Jesus was using as the object lesson in his plea  for a certain quality, individuals who did not actually embody that  quality? That would seem strange indeed. Thus, if Jesus was affirming  that those who would enter into the kingdom must be like these children,  he seems to be asserting, as a premise in his argument, that these  children were in the kingdom.”<sup>5</sup>
 Regarding infants, Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson point  out, “Although their reasons might differ depending on other  theological commitments, and although some of their reasons are better  than others, evangelicals generally agree that [deceased infants] will  be in heaven.”<sup>6</sup>
 It’s true that no Scripture unambiguously guarantees that children  will be saved, but if they are, God would have good reason for not  unambiguously making that clear, for then abortion and infanticide would  guarantee a child’s salvation! Imagine the abuses that would occur from  that knowledge! Whatever the case, we can rest in God’s love and mercy  regarding their fate.
 Some consider the fact that God allows children to suffer or die to  be an indictment of His character. But when we look at the problems of a  world in which children cannot be injured or die, we glimpse the bigger  picture of what God is doing to prepare humans for eternal life. We can  worship and trust the God who is wiser than we are.
 Many Christians I’ve known who have lost children take comfort in the  realization that because of Jesus, God knows what it’s like to have  lost a child, and He promises that a world comes where “there will be no  more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things  has passed away” (Rev. 21:4).


http://www.equip.org/article/god-let-child-die-2/


----------



## ambush80

j seph,

Did God know if they were gonna eat the fruit before they did it?


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> *WHAT CAUSES CHILDREN TO SUFFER AND DIE?*​ Children suffer and die due to three _main_ causes. First,  children suffer and die due to pestilence and disease enabled when the  Lord cursed the ground after Adam and Eve sinned. He banished Adam and  Eve from the Garden of Eden, thus barring humans from the rejuvenating  power of the Tree of Life. God warned Adam and Eve that if they ate from  the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, “you will surely die” (Gen.  2:17), and He didn’t add “at a ripe old age of natural causes.” He just  said, “You will surely die,” and we’ve been attending funerals ever  since. Second, children also suffer and die because of the mistakes and  sins of others, such as leaving a pool gate unsecured, drunk driving,  murder, and so on. Third, children suffer and die because natural laws  work in regular ways: the gravity that keeps us on planet Earth also  enables fatal falls; the fire that warms also burns; the water in which  we swim can also drown.
> Disease, sins, and consistent natural laws, then, are the main  reasons that children die. That brings us to the question, why doesn’t  God afford children special protection?
> *THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR HUMILITY*​ Although I said above that we can do more than just say, “We’ll find  out in heaven,” that doesn’t mean that humility isn’t a part of our  answer! It is. After all, since we don’t know what we don’t know,  especially in such circumstances, how we judge the meaning and  significance of a situation requires giving God the benefit of the  doubt. That’s where humility and faith play their parts.
> I must say, however, that every Christian I have ever known who has  suffered a severe loss, and remained faithful, in time understands how  God has used that suffering for good. There is an “already, not yet”  aspect to our understanding. I expect that in kingdom come we’ll fully  understand God’s greater purpose.
> That said, we can go beyond just, “We’ll find out in heaven,” so  let’s look first at why free will requires God’s hiddenness and what  role that plays in the answer to why God lets children die.
> *THE NECESSITY OF FREE WILL AND GOD’S HIDDENNESS*​ In Matthew 12:38–39, when some of the “scribes and Pharisees” told  Jesus, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you,” He answered, “An evil  and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to  it except the sign of the prophet Jonah,” by which He referred to His  resurrection. Because the Lord doesn’t want to interfere with our free  will, He gives enough evidence of His existence so that those who want  to believe will have their beliefs justified, but not so much evidence  that those who don’t want to believe will be forced to feign loyalty.  Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne puts this in perspective:
> _If God is to allow us to acquire knowledge by  learning from experience and above all to allow us to choose whether to  acquire knowledge at all or even to allow us to have a very  well-justified knowledge of the consequences of our actions—knowledge  which we need if we are to have a free and efficacious choice between  good and bad—he needs to provide natural evils occurring in regular ways  in consequence of natural processes. Or rather, he needs to do this if  he is not to give us too evident an awareness of his presence._<sup>2</sup>​ Isaiah wrote, “Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of  Israel, the Savior” (Isa. 45:15). A miracle-filled world diminishes the  significance of our actions and compels the rebel to feign allegiance.
> *THE PROBLEM WITH CHILDHOOD INDESTRUCTIBILITY*​ For those who wish God would afford children with more protection,  the problem arises as to exactly how God would keep bad things from  happening to children without displaying millions of miracles every day.
> I’ve had this kind of conversation many times, and it typically goes  like this. Someone asks whether God was unfair for letting Kaylee die  from leukemia. I respond, “But it’s not just Kaylee that you’re  concerned about, right? I mean, you don’t think God should let any child  die of cancer, right?” They _always _agree to this point. After  all, you’d have to be a selfish swine to say that you only cared if one  child died of cancer and not others. Then I point out that it’s not just  cancer, right? I mean, you don’t think children should die of other  horrible diseases, right? They _always_ agree to this too. Then I  ask, but it’s not just disease, right? You don’t think God should let  children drown, or be crushed by boulders, or burn in fires, or be  murdered, right? They _always_ agree. But then I point out that  it isn’t just death, right? After all, you don’t think children should  be maimed or raped, right? They _always_ agree. So finally, I  ask, well, if all this is true, if children shouldn’t be able to suffer  being raped or maimed, or to die from murder, accident, or disease, then  to what age do you think children should be _indestructible_?
> At this most start laughing because they realize the absurdity of  indestructible children. In fact, when you change the question from why  God allowed a _particular child_ to die to why God allows _children_ to die, the question almost answers itself.
> But rarely someone gives ages. One woman blurted out, “Twelve.” But  this quickly falls apart. After all, she didn’t really think it would be  okay for God to let thirteen-year-olds be raped or die from murder,  accident, or disease, did she? Is it any different for the  seventeen-year-old? Wouldn’t those who argue that children should be  indestructible until a certain age still accuse God of unfairness?
> But perhaps the biggest problem with indestructible children regards  the mechanism required to keep these children from being seriously  injured or killed. Again, God _couldn’t_ do tens of thousands of miracles _every day_ without causing those who don’t want to worship Him to feign loyalty.
> Also, a child’s actions wouldn’t mean much. For example, Johnny could  be cutting his steak next to his little brother Jimmy and suddenly jam  his knife into Jimmy’s side and God could make the knife turn to rubber.  The whole family could laugh heartily—but that’s a cartoon world.<sup>3</sup>  In such a world, we could encourage our kids to go play marbles in the  freeway: “You’ll just bounce around a lot.” In such a world, children  wouldn’t learn morality because many of their choices would lack moral  consequences.
> Now, I suspect the more serious answer will be that God should _every day_ orchestrate _tens of thousands_  of providential occurrences to protect children. But if God constantly  worked through providences, then God would still have to interfere  constantly with free will. For example, how does God prevent parents  from getting drunk, or texting, or nodding off, while driving? How does  God _providentially_ keep _all children everywhere_ at _all times_  from the fatal occurrences that might afflict other family members? How  would God providentially keep all children from being harmed by the  intentional cruelty of adults? He couldn’t do _all_ these things  unless He was to make Himself unmistakably apparent. After all, even the  most dull-witted person would conclude, sooner or later, that there’s  something about the universe that prevents children from coming to harm.  In the real world, parents and their children must learn to be  responsible because natural laws do work in regular ways.
> And suffering has other benefits.
> *WHAT GOOD MIGHT ARISE FROM A WORLD IN WHICH CHILDREN DIE?*​ Many important spiritual lessons are learned from the suffering  and/or death of children—courage, patience, compassion, selflessness,  humility, and so on—but I’m going to focus on perhaps the most  important. From the death of children, whether other people’s children  or our own, we learn that we can never base our ultimate happiness on  this world. The American Dream—that we can have our kids grow up,  graduate, achieve successful careers, marry great spouses, and have  wonderful children, and through whose children, and children’s children,  we can gain a sense of immortality—is forever in danger. There is  nothing worldly that we can count on, including what most people love  most: their children. Instead, we must look to God for our ultimate and  eternal fulfillment.
> Only worshippers of God can accept this. We shouldn’t expect those  who only live for this life not to bitterly complain that God is unfair  for threatening what to them is supremely valuable and their best chance  for a semblance of immortality.
> Suffering can be valuable for children, too. As a child, rheumatic  fever damaged my heart and caused my parents and doctors to fear for my  life. But I thank God for that because it gave me a strong sense of my  own mortality, which has benefited me spiritually ever since!
> *WHAT IS THE ETERNAL DESTINY OF CHILDREN WHO DIE?*​ Although Christians differ about this, many Christians have argued  that all who die before the age of accountability (see Deut. 1:39) will  be saved.<sup>4</sup> They base this on verses such as Luke 18:16–17,  where Jesus said, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder  them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to  you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not  enter it at all” (Luke 18:16–17 NASB). As theologian Millard Erickson  asks, “Could it be that Jesus was using as the object lesson in his plea  for a certain quality, individuals who did not actually embody that  quality? That would seem strange indeed. Thus, if Jesus was affirming  that those who would enter into the kingdom must be like these children,  he seems to be asserting, as a premise in his argument, that these  children were in the kingdom.”<sup>5</sup>
> Regarding infants, Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson point  out, “Although their reasons might differ depending on other  theological commitments, and although some of their reasons are better  than others, evangelicals generally agree that [deceased infants] will  be in heaven.”<sup>6</sup>
> It’s true that no Scripture unambiguously guarantees that children  will be saved, but if they are, God would have good reason for not  unambiguously making that clear, for then abortion and infanticide would  guarantee a child’s salvation! Imagine the abuses that would occur from  that knowledge! Whatever the case, we can rest in God’s love and mercy  regarding their fate.
> Some consider the fact that God allows children to suffer or die to  be an indictment of His character. But when we look at the problems of a  world in which children cannot be injured or die, we glimpse the bigger  picture of what God is doing to prepare humans for eternal life. We can  worship and trust the God who is wiser than we are.
> Many Christians I’ve known who have lost children take comfort in the  realization that because of Jesus, God knows what it’s like to have  lost a child, and He promises that a world comes where “there will be no  more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things  has passed away” (Rev. 21:4).
> 
> 
> http://www.equip.org/article/god-let-child-die-2/





> the problem arises as to exactly how God would keep bad things from happening to children without displaying millions of miracles every day.



Give that sentence some thought.
Do you believe God could display millions of miracles a day if he wanted to?


----------



## 660griz

> Many important spiritual lessons are learned from the suffering and/or death of children...


 I am glad God is not my teacher. Jeesh!


----------



## red neck richie

WaltL1 said:


> So surely you would agree that the same situation that happens to people of other faiths proves THEIR God is real too right?
> Or is what happens to them just a coincidence?



Come on Brother Walter. Can we do without the go to line when you cant give a scientific explanation?


----------



## red neck richie

In creation there is life and death and it is not always pretty. Who promised you a utopia on earth? I could be wrong but I think the promise and sacrifice was made for the afterlife.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> In creation there is life and death and it is not always pretty. Who promised you a utopia on earth? I could be wrong but I think the promise and sacrifice was made for the afterlife.



Valhalla?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Valhalla?



Yup. Odin you figured it out bullet how could I have been so stupid?


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Yup. Odin you figured it out bullet how could I have been so stupid?



1st step is admitting it.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> Come on Brother Walter. Can we do without the go to line when you cant give a scientific explanation?


I did offer a possible scientific explanation -


> Personally, I have no doubt that he had some sort of "Spiritual event".
> You believe God did that.
> I believe the chemicals in his brain coupled with his deep belief in God, did that.
> There are lots of examples and techniques, spanning lots of religions and even non religions, where one puts themselves in another frame of mind/has a "spiritual event".
> Its all about the chemicals released into ones brain.


If you guys are going to give an example of something that happened that "proves" your God exists, then the same thing that happens to someone of another faith "proves" their God exists also doesn't it?
If it doesn't, why not?


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Do me a favor please.
> Explain what you meant by this -
> 
> I read it as "the presumption is that the suffering one is fully innocent"
> And this -
> 
> I read it as " it may not be suffering for the sake of suffering, there is a greater purpose to it all".
> Good chance I'm reading it wrong. Simplify it for me.


 Yes, for the most part I believe you read it correctly.

Except perhaps for the "may" in:


> it may not be suffering for the sake of suffering, there is a greater purpose to it all


----------



## WaltL1

> Many important spiritual lessons are learned from the suffering and/or death of children...





660griz said:


> I am glad God is not my teacher. Jeesh!


Sounds like something Dr. Mengele would have said.
He purposely caused the suffering and/or death of children for the lessons that could be learned from it.
An interesting observation about Mengele from a former Auschwitz prisoner -


> He was capable of being so kind to the children, to have them become fond of him, to bring them sugar, to think of small details in their daily lives, and to do things we would genuinely admire... And then, next to that, ... the crematoria smoke, and these children, tomorrow or in a half-hour, he is going to send them there. Well, that is where the anomaly lay.


An anomaly indeed.
And before you Christians get your panties in a wad...
No I'm not comparing God to Dr. Mengele.
I'm comparing the anomalies.


----------



## Spotlite

red neck richie said:


> Come on Brother Walter. Can we do without the go to line when you cant give a scientific explanation?


Remember a simple concept, nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond the shadow of any possible doubt. It is "provisional" See below. 


WaltL1 said:


> I did offer a possible scientific explanation -
> 
> If you guys are going to give an example of something that happened that "proves" your God exists, then the same thing that happens to someone of another faith "proves" their God exists also doesn't it?
> If it doesn't, why not?


Of course it does, our God acknowledged that and said dont worship no other god. As far as which one is right and wrong is a separate debate.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Remember a simple concept, nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond the shadow of any possible doubt. It is "provisional" See below.
> 
> Of course it does, our God acknowledged that and said dont worship no other god. As far as which one is right and wrong is a separate debate.


Surely you are aware that there are differing Christian opinions on this. Just discussing here we have heard -
1. No other gods exist.
2. All the gods are actually one god (yours of course).
3. There are other gods but they are below my god.


> As far as which one is right and wrong is a separate debate.


Could yours be wrong?


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Surely you are aware that there are differing Christian opinions on this. Just discussing here we have heard -
> 1. No other gods exist.
> 2. All the gods are actually one god (yours of course).
> 3. There are other gods but they are below my god.
> 
> Could yours be wrong?



Most certainly there's tons of opinions on this from religious groups.
1. People can make a God out of anything.
2. No I'm not in the all gods are actually one god group. I would never refer to God and Buddha as one.
3. I believe my God (Jesus of the Bible) is the true one, otherwise, I wouldn't believe in him. But everyone else believes that theirs is the true one as well. That's why I said the debate of the true God is another debate in itself. 

 If I had any doubt that mine was wrong, I would not worship him.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Most certainly there's tons of opinions on this from religious groups.
> 1. People can make a God out of anything.
> 2. No I'm not in the all gods are actually one god group. I would never refer to God and Buddha as one.
> 3. I believe my God (Jesus of the Bible) is the true one, otherwise, I wouldn't believe in him. But everyone else believes that theirs is the true one as well. That's why I said the debate of the true God is another debate in itself.
> 
> If I had any doubt that mine was wrong, I would not worship him.


So considering what you just said, maybe it will help you understand something -
You are big on claiming that we (A/As) are always wanting you/Christians to prove what you are saying.
Soo... if one Christian tells us there are no other gods.
Another Christian tells us they are all one god. Another Christian tells us there are other gods but they are below your god....
Is it unreasonable of us to ask for ONE of you to just prove what you are telling us?
And that's just one example. There are lots of others -
There is a Trinity.
There isnt a Trinity.
There is a he11.
There isn't a he11.
He11 is an actual place you go to.
He11 is not an actual place its just being separated from God.
God has already predetermined who goes to heaven.
Anybody who believes has the opportunity to go heaven.
We have free will.
We don't have free will.
And on and on....

THATS why we ask you to prove what you are saying.
And ALL of you hold up the Bible and say "it says so right here".

And by the way, Buddha never claimed to be a god.


----------



## NCHillbilly

I've been reading "American Gods" by Neil Gaimen. Interesting.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> So considering what you just said, maybe it will help you understand something -
> You are big on claiming that we (A/As) are always wanting you/Christians to prove what you are saying.
> Soo... if one Christian tells us there are no other gods.
> Another Christian tells us they are all one god. Another Christian tells us there are other gods but they are below your god....
> Is it unreasonable of us to ask for ONE of you to just prove what you are telling us?
> And that's just one example. There are lots of others -
> There is a Trinity.
> There isnt a Trinity.
> There is a he11.
> There isn't a he11.
> He11 is an actual place you go to.
> He11 is not an actual place its just being separated from God.
> God has already predetermined who goes to heaven.
> Anybody who believes has the opportunity to go heaven.
> We have free will.
> We don't have free will.
> And on and on....
> 
> THATS why we ask you to prove what you are saying.
> And ALL of you hold up the Bible and say "it says so right here".
> 
> And by the way, Buddha never claimed to be a god.



I understand completely. Unfortunately, humans have a way of goofing things up. I recognize the reality that Christians do argue amongst themselves about what is right and wrong, as each denomination teaches different. That'll never change, but it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. If anything, it should demonstrate that we do have free will, if not, we wouldn't have this problem, we would all be programmed to think alike. The Bible says "put no other god before me". Buddha may not have claimed to be a god, but those that worship him made him a god.


----------



## drippin' rock

j_seph said:


> *WHAT CAUSES CHILDREN TO SUFFER AND DIE?*​ Children suffer and die due to three _main_ causes. First,  children suffer and die due to pestilence and disease enabled when the  Lord cursed the ground after Adam and Eve sinned. He banished Adam and  Eve from the Garden of Eden, thus barring humans from the rejuvenating  power of the Tree of Life. God warned Adam and Eve that if they ate from  the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, “you will surely die” (Gen.  2:17), and He didn’t add “at a ripe old age of natural causes.” He just  said, “You will surely die,” and we’ve been attending funerals ever  since. Second, children also suffer and die because of the mistakes and  sins of others, such as leaving a pool gate unsecured, drunk driving,  murder, and so on. Third, children suffer and die because natural laws  work in regular ways: the gravity that keeps us on planet Earth also  enables fatal falls; the fire that warms also burns; the water in which  we swim can also drown.
> Disease, sins, and consistent natural laws, then, are the main  reasons that children die. That brings us to the question, why doesn’t  God afford children special protection?
> *THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR HUMILITY*​ Although I said above that we can do more than just say, “We’ll find  out in heaven,” that doesn’t mean that humility isn’t a part of our  answer! It is. After all, since we don’t know what we don’t know,  especially in such circumstances, how we judge the meaning and  significance of a situation requires giving God the benefit of the  doubt. That’s where humility and faith play their parts.
> I must say, however, that every Christian I have ever known who has  suffered a severe loss, and remained faithful, in time understands how  God has used that suffering for good. There is an “already, not yet”  aspect to our understanding. I expect that in kingdom come we’ll fully  understand God’s greater purpose.
> That said, we can go beyond just, “We’ll find out in heaven,” so  let’s look first at why free will requires God’s hiddenness and what  role that plays in the answer to why God lets children die.
> *THE NECESSITY OF FREE WILL AND GOD’S HIDDENNESS*​ In Matthew 12:38–39, when some of the “scribes and Pharisees” told  Jesus, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you,” He answered, “An evil  and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to  it except the sign of the prophet Jonah,” by which He referred to His  resurrection. Because the Lord doesn’t want to interfere with our free  will, He gives enough evidence of His existence so that those who want  to believe will have their beliefs justified, but not so much evidence  that those who don’t want to believe will be forced to feign loyalty.  Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne puts this in perspective:
> _If God is to allow us to acquire knowledge by  learning from experience and above all to allow us to choose whether to  acquire knowledge at all or even to allow us to have a very  well-justified knowledge of the consequences of our actions—knowledge  which we need if we are to have a free and efficacious choice between  good and bad—he needs to provide natural evils occurring in regular ways  in consequence of natural processes. Or rather, he needs to do this if  he is not to give us too evident an awareness of his presence._<sup>2</sup>​ Isaiah wrote, “Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of  Israel, the Savior” (Isa. 45:15). A miracle-filled world diminishes the  significance of our actions and compels the rebel to feign allegiance.
> *THE PROBLEM WITH CHILDHOOD INDESTRUCTIBILITY*​ For those who wish God would afford children with more protection,  the problem arises as to exactly how God would keep bad things from  happening to children without displaying millions of miracles every day.
> I’ve had this kind of conversation many times, and it typically goes  like this. Someone asks whether God was unfair for letting Kaylee die  from leukemia. I respond, “But it’s not just Kaylee that you’re  concerned about, right? I mean, you don’t think God should let any child  die of cancer, right?” They _always _agree to this point. After  all, you’d have to be a selfish swine to say that you only cared if one  child died of cancer and not others. Then I point out that it’s not just  cancer, right? I mean, you don’t think children should die of other  horrible diseases, right? They _always_ agree to this too. Then I  ask, but it’s not just disease, right? You don’t think God should let  children drown, or be crushed by boulders, or burn in fires, or be  murdered, right? They _always_ agree. But then I point out that  it isn’t just death, right? After all, you don’t think children should  be maimed or raped, right? They _always_ agree. So finally, I  ask, well, if all this is true, if children shouldn’t be able to suffer  being raped or maimed, or to die from murder, accident, or disease, then  to what age do you think children should be _indestructible_?
> At this most start laughing because they realize the absurdity of  indestructible children. In fact, when you change the question from why  God allowed a _particular child_ to die to why God allows _children_ to die, the question almost answers itself.
> But rarely someone gives ages. One woman blurted out, “Twelve.” But  this quickly falls apart. After all, she didn’t really think it would be  okay for God to let thirteen-year-olds be raped or die from murder,  accident, or disease, did she? Is it any different for the  seventeen-year-old? Wouldn’t those who argue that children should be  indestructible until a certain age still accuse God of unfairness?
> But perhaps the biggest problem with indestructible children regards  the mechanism required to keep these children from being seriously  injured or killed. Again, God _couldn’t_ do tens of thousands of miracles _every day_ without causing those who don’t want to worship Him to feign loyalty.
> Also, a child’s actions wouldn’t mean much. For example, Johnny could  be cutting his steak next to his little brother Jimmy and suddenly jam  his knife into Jimmy’s side and God could make the knife turn to rubber.  The whole family could laugh heartily—but that’s a cartoon world.<sup>3</sup>  In such a world, we could encourage our kids to go play marbles in the  freeway: “You’ll just bounce around a lot.” In such a world, children  wouldn’t learn morality because many of their choices would lack moral  consequences.
> Now, I suspect the more serious answer will be that God should _every day_ orchestrate _tens of thousands_  of providential occurrences to protect children. But if God constantly  worked through providences, then God would still have to interfere  constantly with free will. For example, how does God prevent parents  from getting drunk, or texting, or nodding off, while driving? How does  God _providentially_ keep _all children everywhere_ at _all times_  from the fatal occurrences that might afflict other family members? How  would God providentially keep all children from being harmed by the  intentional cruelty of adults? He couldn’t do _all_ these things  unless He was to make Himself unmistakably apparent. After all, even the  most dull-witted person would conclude, sooner or later, that there’s  something about the universe that prevents children from coming to harm.  In the real world, parents and their children must learn to be  responsible because natural laws do work in regular ways.
> And suffering has other benefits.
> *WHAT GOOD MIGHT ARISE FROM A WORLD IN WHICH CHILDREN DIE?*​ Many important spiritual lessons are learned from the suffering  and/or death of children—courage, patience, compassion, selflessness,  humility, and so on—but I’m going to focus on perhaps the most  important. From the death of children, whether other people’s children  or our own, we learn that we can never base our ultimate happiness on  this world. The American Dream—that we can have our kids grow up,  graduate, achieve successful careers, marry great spouses, and have  wonderful children, and through whose children, and children’s children,  we can gain a sense of immortality—is forever in danger. There is  nothing worldly that we can count on, including what most people love  most: their children. Instead, we must look to God for our ultimate and  eternal fulfillment.
> Only worshippers of God can accept this. We shouldn’t expect those  who only live for this life not to bitterly complain that God is unfair  for threatening what to them is supremely valuable and their best chance  for a semblance of immortality.
> Suffering can be valuable for children, too. As a child, rheumatic  fever damaged my heart and caused my parents and doctors to fear for my  life. But I thank God for that because it gave me a strong sense of my  own mortality, which has benefited me spiritually ever since!
> *WHAT IS THE ETERNAL DESTINY OF CHILDREN WHO DIE?*​ Although Christians differ about this, many Christians have argued  that all who die before the age of accountability (see Deut. 1:39) will  be saved.<sup>4</sup> They base this on verses such as Luke 18:16–17,  where Jesus said, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder  them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to  you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not  enter it at all” (Luke 18:16–17 NASB). As theologian Millard Erickson  asks, “Could it be that Jesus was using as the object lesson in his plea  for a certain quality, individuals who did not actually embody that  quality? That would seem strange indeed. Thus, if Jesus was affirming  that those who would enter into the kingdom must be like these children,  he seems to be asserting, as a premise in his argument, that these  children were in the kingdom.”<sup>5</sup>
> Regarding infants, Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson point  out, “Although their reasons might differ depending on other  theological commitments, and although some of their reasons are better  than others, evangelicals generally agree that [deceased infants] will  be in heaven.”<sup>6</sup>
> It’s true that no Scripture unambiguously guarantees that children  will be saved, but if they are, God would have good reason for not  unambiguously making that clear, for then abortion and infanticide would  guarantee a child’s salvation! Imagine the abuses that would occur from  that knowledge! Whatever the case, we can rest in God’s love and mercy  regarding their fate.
> Some consider the fact that God allows children to suffer or die to  be an indictment of His character. But when we look at the problems of a  world in which children cannot be injured or die, we glimpse the bigger  picture of what God is doing to prepare humans for eternal life. We can  worship and trust the God who is wiser than we are.
> Many Christians I’ve known who have lost children take comfort in the  realization that because of Jesus, God knows what it’s like to have  lost a child, and He promises that a world comes where “there will be no  more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things  has passed away” (Rev. 21:4).
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.equip.org/article/god-let-child-die-2/





God made his son. God is Jesus and Jesus is God.  God sent himself to die. He knew this all along.  It was part of his plan.  But you say that is the same as one of us losing our child?

You guys regularly mention Christians being persecuted. You complain that we must think we are so much smarter than you. 

Let's turn that around for a minute. How stupid do you think we must be to buy into the nonsense you posted here?


----------



## drippin' rock

red neck richie said:


> Yup. Odin you figured it out bullet how could I have been so stupid?



Only you can answer that.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I understand completely. Unfortunately, humans have a way of goofing things up. I recognize the reality that Christians do argue amongst themselves about what is right and wrong, as each denomination teaches different. That'll never change, but it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. If anything, it should demonstrate that we do have free will, if not, we wouldn't have this problem, we would all be programmed to think alike. The Bible says "put no other god before me". Buddha may not have claimed to be a god, but those that worship him made him a god.





> but it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.


That I can agree with. 


> The Bible says "put no other god before me".


Of course it does, the dudes who created the Bible knew that other people worshipped other gods.
You aren't going to pick up a Ford brochure that says "drive a Chevy its just as good". 


> Buddha may not have claimed to be a god, but those that worship him made him a god


Buddhists may worship Buddha LIKE a god but they are well aware he was a man. A human being. 


> The Buddha was born 500 years before Christ, in what is now Nepal. His dad was a king, his mom was a queen, and his dad wanted him to take over the family business (the kingdom) when he got older.


There are even Buddhists who believe the Christian God was the "creator". And some believe other gods were the creator. Some don't believe in any god being a creator at all.
Some Buddhists believe in *gasp* the Big Bang.
Buddhism is not about gods at all.


----------



## NCHillbilly

ambush80 said:


> j seph,
> 
> Did God know if they were gonna eat the fruit before they did it?



Loving, yes?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Remember a simple concept, nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond the shadow of any possible doubt. It is "provisional" See below.
> 
> Of course it does, our God acknowledged that and said dont worship no other god. As far as which one is right and wrong is a separate debate.


I dont think you have that worship quote quite right.


----------



## WaltL1

drippin' rock said:


> God made his son. God is Jesus and Jesus is God.  God sent himself to die. He knew this all along.  It was part of his plan.  But you say that is the same as one of us losing our child?
> 
> You guys regularly mention Christians being persecuted. You complain that we must think we are so much smarter than you.
> 
> Let's turn that around for a minute. How stupid do you think we must be to buy into the nonsense you posted here?


Aw c'mon 
Buying into it doesn't equate to being stupid. It equates to being indoctrinated. Lots of smart people are indoctrinated too. 
That's the dangerous thing about indoctrination. It puts your "normal" thinking on the back burner and the indoctrination (about whatever it may be) on the front burner.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I dont think you have that worship quote quite right.



Although I wasn't quoting, you're correct.


----------



## Spineyman

drippin' rock said:


> God made his son. God is Jesus and Jesus is God.  God sent himself to die. He knew this all along.  It was part of his plan.  But you say that is the same as one of us losing our child?
> 
> You guys regularly mention Christians being persecuted. You complain that we must think we are so much smarter than you.
> 
> Let's turn that around for a minute. How stupid do you think we must be to buy into the nonsense you posted here?


 There are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.


----------



## ambush80

Spineyman said:


> There are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.



So as a believer, one would have to conclude that when Jesus (the man) said "Father, why have you foresaken me?"  he wasn't talking to himself and he didn't know what his future would be.  He turned off his God powers while on Earth (except for miracles).

So God _CAN_ make a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it.  Fascinating.


----------



## Spineyman

ambush80 said:


> So as a believer, one would have to conclude that when Jesus (the man) said "Father, why have you foresaken me?"  he wasn't talking to himself and he didn't know what his future would be.  He turned off his God powers while on Earth (except for miracles).
> 
> So God _CAN_ make a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it.  Fascinating.



Because the Holy God had to turn His back on His son so that He could become sin for us that we might be forgiven of our sins. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Jesus was in His humanity when He cried out "Father, why have you forsaken me?". He had to die a sinless man and take upon Himself our sins that we could live. He also had the power to come down, but He willingly laid down His life for those who would call upon His Name, That name which is above every Name.Therefore He didn't turn off His powers as you so suggest, He laid it down.


----------



## ambush80

Spineyman said:


> Because the Holy God had to turn His back on His son so that He could become sin for us that we might be forgiven of our sins. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Jesus was in His humanity when He cried out "Father, why have you forsaken me?". He had to die a sinless man and take upon Himself our sins that we could live. He also had the power to come down, but He willingly laid down His life for those who would call upon His Name, That name which is above every Name.Therefore He didn't turn off His powers as you so suggest, He laid it down.



Wow.

That's some amazing gymnastics.  Do you actually understand yourself?


----------



## Spineyman

ambush80 said:


> Wow.
> 
> That's some amazing gymnastics.  Do you actually understand yourself?



I understand fully and completely, but I certainly don't expect you to understand it.


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> There are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.



Nothing like a god with multiple personalities. Think about it.


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> Because the Holy God had to turn His back on His son so that He could become sin for us that we might be forgiven of our sins. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Jesus was in His humanity when He cried out "Father, why have you forsaken me?". He had to die a sinless man and take upon Himself our sins that we could live. He also had the power to come down, but He willingly laid down His life for those who would call upon His Name, That name which is above every Name.Therefore He didn't turn off His powers as you so suggest, He laid it down.



So god impregnated a human with himself so he can sacrifice himself and then be killed so he can save humans from sin?
Thats the ONLY way he could come up with?

A couple days of mild suffering and then a short death and then eternal life?

Where do I sign up?

I mean eternally seperate your kid(well, 1/3 of yourself) from your own company, and yeah that is a sacrifice. Let your kid-self spend eternity in hades to absorb the sins of the world,  .... yeah that is a sacrifice.

But stack the deck in your favor for a no lose scenario.....where is the downside?

I guess you cant scare anyone into worshiping you if your kid-self is in the bad place taking the punishment. Gotta break the kid-self out and  convince the believers that place is where they send the heathens that dont buy the story.


----------



## NCHillbilly

bullethead said:


> So god impregnated a human with himself so he can sacrifice himself and then be killed so he can save humans from sin?
> Thats the ONLY way he could come up with?
> 
> A couple days of mild suffering and then a short death and then eternal life?
> 
> Where do I sign up?
> 
> I mean eternally seperate your kid(well, 1/3 of yourself) from your own company, and yeah that is a sacrifice. Let your kid-self spend eternity in hades to absorb the sins of the world,  .... yeah that is a sacrifice.
> 
> But stack the deck in your favor for a no lose scenario.....where is the downside?
> 
> I guess you cant scare anyone into worshiping you if your kid-self is in the bad place taking the punishment. Gotta break the kid-self out and  convince the believers that place is where they send the heathens that dont buy the story.



Looks like it would have been a lot easier to just not have pulled the snake-and-apple trick to begin with......


----------



## Spotlite

NCHillbilly said:


> Looks like it would have been a lot easier to just not have pulled the snake-and-apple trick to begin with......



Cheaper too!! I could have saved a ton on clothes


----------



## drippin' rock

WaltL1 said:


> Aw c'mon
> Buying into it doesn't equate to being stupid. It equates to being indoctrinated. Lots of smart people are indoctrinated too.
> That's the dangerous thing about indoctrination. It puts your "normal" thinking on the back burner and the indoctrination (about whatever it may be) on the front burner.



I'm not suggesting anyone is stupid. I'm just using their words.


----------



## drippin' rock

Spineyman said:


> There are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.



Yes. I understand the concept of the Trinity.   I also understand the concept of The Matrix. Doesn't make it true.


----------



## drippin' rock

NCHillbilly said:


> I've been reading "American Gods" by Neil Gaimen. Interesting.



Isn't it?  The old gods fade away to be replaced with the new.


----------



## drippin' rock

Spineyman said:


> Because the Holy God had to turn His back on His son so that He could become sin for us that we might be forgiven of our sins. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Jesus was in His humanity when He cried out "Father, why have you forsaken me?". He had to die a sinless man and take upon Himself our sins that we could live. He also had the power to come down, but He willingly laid down His life for those who would call upon His Name, That name which is above every Name.Therefore He didn't turn off His powers as you so suggest, He laid it down.



Ok then. Sign me up.


----------



## Artfuldodger

So Jesus explained, "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son also does.


----------



## Israel

Artfuldodger said:


> So Jesus explained, "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son also does.



Yes Art!


----------



## WaltL1

drippin' rock said:


> Isn't it?  The old gods fade away to be replaced with the new.


That's a subject we really haven't discussed much in here.
For every "faded away" god, there were believers who worshipped/believed with all their heart and were convinced their god(s) were real.
Its really interesting that as each culture faded away their gods faded with them to be replaced by a new/dominant culture and their new gods with believers who believe with all their heart and were convinced their gods were real.
And here we sit, many making the observation that "our" culture is fading away........


----------



## j_seph

Sitting here in the stand this morning and watched as it went from pitch black to a slight glow on the horizon. While night became day, birds began to sing, squirrels began to climb down and shuffle around. Watched a young 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 year old buck slip by. Listened to some hens cackling, even a gobbler off in the distance. Amazing to think how some think a big explosion created all this to be. Others think it started this way and that but no way a greater being, an alpha and omega, the creator God himself created all. Really sad so many have no hope when all it takes is the grain of a mustard seed.


----------



## Spineyman

j_seph said:


> Sitting here in the stand this morning and watched as it went from pitch black to a slight glow on the horizon. While night became day, birds began to sing, squirrels began to climb down and shuffle around. Watched a young 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 year old buck slip by. Listened to some hens cackling, even a gobbler off in the distance. Amazing to think how some think a big explosion created all this to be. Others think it started this way and that but no way a greater being, an alpha and omega, the creator God himself created all. Really sad so many have no hope when all it takes is the grain of a mustard seed.



Psalm 19:1

19 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Psalm 96:11-12

11 Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad;
Let the sea roar, and all its fullness;
12 Let the field be joyful, and all that is in it.
Then all the trees of the woods will rejoice before the Lord.


Romans 1:20

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 


Job 12:7-10

7 “But now ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
And the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
8 Or speak to the earth, and it will teach you;
And the fish of the sea will explain to you.
9 Who among all these does not know
That the hand of the Lord has done this,
10 In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
And the breath of all mankind?


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> Sitting here in the stand this morning and watched as it went from pitch black to a slight glow on the horizon. While night became day, birds began to sing, squirrels began to climb down and shuffle around. Watched a young 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 year old buck slip by. Listened to some hens cackling, even a gobbler off in the distance. Amazing to think how some think a big explosion created all this to be. Others think it started this way and that but no way a greater being, an alpha and omega, the creator God himself created all. Really sad so many have no hope when all it takes is the grain of a mustard seed.


Would you appreciate it just as much if you found out the Big Bang actually did start it all?


> Really sad so many have no hope


No hope for what?


----------



## Spineyman

WaltL1 said:


> Would you appreciate it just as much if you found out the *Big Bang actually did start it all*?



How exactly would we find out about that? By unprovable, unobservable science, conjured up in the minds of mere men?


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Sitting here in the stand this morning and watched as it went from pitch black to a slight glow on the horizon. While night became day, birds began to sing, squirrels began to climb down and shuffle around. Watched a young 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 year old buck slip by. Listened to some hens cackling, even a gobbler off in the distance. Amazing to think how some think a big explosion created all this to be. Others think it started this way and that but no way a greater being, an alpha and omega, the creator God himself created all. Really sad so many have no hope when all it takes is the grain of a mustard seed.



Not everybody needs your hope.


----------



## WaltL1

Spineyman said:


> How exactly would we find out about that? By unprovable, unobservable science, conjured up in the minds of mere men?


Its really obvious that you are completely threatened by science. Yeah I know, you will say you aren't but one just has to read your posts.
I'm assuming you embrace science in every other aspect of your life. You re even disparaging science right now using a method of communication that science gave you.


> By unprovable, unobservable science, conjured up in the minds of mere men?


Hmmm...
You admit you cant prove God exists.
You havent observed God so you cant tell us what "he" looks like.
You cant prove God wasn't conjured up the minds of mere men.
Lets do this -
You make a list here about what you can PROVE was accomplished by God.
Ill make a list here of what I can PROVE was accomplished by science.
Lets see whose list is longer.
I'll even give you a head start.
You in?

Didn't think so.


----------



## Spineyman

WaltL1 said:


> Its really obvious that you are completely threatened by science. Yeah I know, you will say you aren't but one just has to read your posts.
> I'm assuming you embrace science in every other aspect of your life. You re even disparaging science right now using a method of communication that science gave you.
> 
> Hmmm...
> You admit you cant prove God exists.
> You havent observed God so you cant tell us what "he" looks like.
> You cant prove God wasn't conjured up the minds of mere men.
> Lets do this -
> You make a list here about what you can PROVE was accomplished by God.
> Ill make a list here of what I can PROVE was accomplished by science.
> Lets see whose list is longer.
> I'll even give you a head start.
> You in?
> 
> Didn't think so.



Science doesn't scare me a bit. It is merely the tool God uses to observe His Creation. You also have to know that there is two kinds of science. Observable which is also repeatable, then Historical which is nothing more than a big guess. It is not observable, therefore not repeatable, nor was there anyone alive back then to confirm of deny the far fetched claims put out by evolutionists, which by the way is not science but rather religion. I can promise you one thing, you have greater faith than I do. It takes far more faith for one to believe that all the ordered , peaceful structure we see everywhere came from total chaos out of absolutely nothing. Far more faith than me. I happen to believe in all of this fabulous design that there was indeed a designer, and He created everything in perfect order. He upholds all things by the power of His Word, and sustains everything.


----------



## WaltL1

Spineyman said:


> Science doesn't scare me a bit. It is merely the tool God uses to observe His Creation. You also have to know that there is two kinds of science. Observable which is also repeatable, then Historical which is nothing more than a big guess. It is not observable, therefore not repeatable, nor was there anyone alive back then to confirm of deny the far fetched claims put out by evolutionists, which by the way is not science but rather religion. I can promise you one thing, you have greater faith than I do. It takes far more faith for one to believe that all the ordered , peaceful structure we see everywhere came from total chaos out of absolutely nothing. Far more faith than me. I happen to believe in all of this fabulous design that there was indeed a designer, and He created everything in perfect order. He upholds all things by the power of His Word, and sustains everything.





> I can promise you one thing, you have greater faith than I do. It takes far more faith for one to believe that all the ordered , peaceful structure we see everywhere came from total chaos out of absolutely nothing. Far more faith than me


You haven't been paying attention.
I don't have faith in any of that.
That question has not been answered. By science or anybody.
But there are years and years of research, facts, figures, information, hypothesis, scientific theories etc. available to anyone who cares to educate themselves on what we know and what we don't know.


> You also have to know that there is two kinds of science. Observable which is also repeatable, then Historical which is nothing more than a big guess. It is not observable, therefore not repeatable, nor was there anyone alive back then to confirm of deny the far fetched claims put out by evolutionists, which by the way is not science but rather religion.


That's a load of carp you got from Answers in Genesis.
Plenty of ACTUAL science websites out there that will accurately explain science to you. 
If you are interested.


----------



## Spineyman

WaltL1 said:


> You haven't been paying attention.
> I don't have faith in any of that.
> That question has not been answered. By science or anybody.
> But there are years and years of research, facts, figures, information, hypothesis, scientific theories etc. available to anyone who cares to educate themselves on what we know and what we don't know.
> 
> That's a load of carp you got from Answers in Genesis.
> Plenty of ACTUAL science websites out there that will accurately explain science to you.
> If you are interested.


The fact is they don't " KNOW " anything it is all guesses. To answer your other question, I have no intention of listening to what you call science. They change their minds and their data and the dating methods and every other way they gather information. But what matters most is what you measure the data by. There are only two ways. You either study data collected in light of Creation, or you measure data according to mans interpretation. I choose to look at it in light of Creation. You can continue to listen to man who wasn't there, who has no way to prove what they say is true. I will stick with Genesis, which God claims that He spoke and it was created in 6 literal days. Good night, I am turning in.


----------



## WaltL1

Spineyman said:


> The fact is they don't " KNOW " anything it is all guesses. To answer your other question, I have no intention of listening to what you call science. They change their minds and their data and the dating methods and every other way they gather information. But what matters most is what you measure the data by. There are only two ways. You either study data collected in light of Creation, or you measure data according to mans interpretation. I choose to look at it in light of Creation. You can continue to listen to man who wasn't there, who has no way to prove what they say is true. I will stick with Genesis, which God claims that He spoke and it was created in 6 literal days. Good night, I am turning in.





> The fact is they don't " KNOW " anything it is all guesses.


C'mon be honest. You really don't know how silly that statement is? Really?


> I will stick with Genesis,


Feel free.
You should also stick with discussing science with other folks who stick with Answers in Genesis too.
In here we know what science actually is and isn't and that nonsense don't fly.


----------



## oldfella1962

j_seph said:


> Sitting here in the stand this morning and watched as it went from pitch black to a slight glow on the horizon. While night became day, birds began to sing, squirrels began to climb down and shuffle around. Watched a young 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 year old buck slip by. Listened to some hens cackling, even a gobbler off in the distance. Amazing to think how some think a big explosion created all this to be. Others think it started this way and that but no way a greater being, an alpha and omega, the creator God himself created all. Really sad so many have no hope when all it takes is the grain of a mustard seed.



You lost me with that last sentence. Did you mean "faith" rather than hope? 

hope
hōp/
noun
1.
a feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen.
"he looked through her belongings in the hope of coming across some information"
synonyms:	aspiration, desire, wish, expectation, ambition, aim, goal, plan, design; More
2.
archaic
a feeling of trust.
verb
1.
want something to happen or be the case.
"he's hoping for an offer of compensation"
synonyms:	expect, anticipate, look for, be hopeful of, pin one's hopes on, want; More


----------



## j_seph

noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

plural noun: theories
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

So how did you come to the thought of believing someone else's ideas that aren't fact over as you see it Christians ideas? Why not choose a better option for yourself and your soul Walt?


----------



## j_seph

oldfella1962 said:


> You lost me with that last sentence. Did you mean "faith" rather than hope?
> 
> hope
> hōp/
> noun
> 1.
> a feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen.
> "he looked through her belongings in the hope of coming across some information"
> synonyms:	aspiration, desire, wish, expectation, ambition, aim, goal, plan, design; More
> 2.
> archaic
> a feeling of trust.
> verb
> 1.
> want something to happen or be the case.
> "he's hoping for an offer of compensation"
> synonyms:	expect, anticipate, look for, be hopeful of, pin one's hopes on, want; More


Yes I meant faith


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses
> a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
> 
> plural noun: theories
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
> 
> So how did you come to the thought of believing someone else's ideas that aren't fact over as you see it Christians ideas? Why not choose a better option for yourself and your soul Walt?


First lets get the definitions out of the way -
I didn't say theories, I said scientific theories - Note the difference in the definitions. Theres a BIG difference -
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Also note what I told Spineyman -


> Originally Posted by WaltL1
> You haven't been paying attention.
> I don't have faith in any of that.
> That question has not been answered. By science or anybody.
> But there are years and years of research, facts, figures, information, hypothesis, scientific theories etc. available to anyone who cares to educate themselves on what we know and what we don't know





> Why not choose a better option for yourself and your soul Walt?


To me, God is not an option until God is proven to exist.
WHEN THAT HAPPENS, I will consider God as an option.
Its really as simple as that.

You/Christians make it sound like your God does IN FACT exist and we/nonbelievers just choose not to believe it.
Prove that God exists and I guarantee you every one of the nonbelievers in here will believe that God exists.


----------



## Spineyman

WaltL1 said:


> C'mon be honest. *You really don't know how silly that statement is?* Really?
> 
> Feel free.
> You should also stick with discussing science with other folks who stick with Answers in Genesis too.
> In here we know what science actually is and isn't and that nonsense don't fly.



No I really don't know how silly that statement is! Also let me know when you find definitive proof of evolution, until then it is all garbage in and garbage out. I actually do like Answers in Genesis, but that is not where I was coming from. I actually believe in the account as recorded in Genesis in the Bible, which is where AIG also gets their bases to study science from. You see I honestly believe Worldview matters!!!


----------



## Spineyman

WaltL1 said:


> First lets get the definitions out of the way -
> I didn't say theories, I said scientific theories - Note the difference in the definitions. Theres a BIG difference -
> A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
> Also note what I told Spineyman -
> 
> 
> To me, God is not an option until God is proven to exist.
> WHEN THAT HAPPENS, I will consider God as an option.
> Its really as simple as that.
> 
> You/Christians make it sound like your God does IN FACT exist and we/nonbelievers just choose not to believe it.
> Prove that God exists and I guarantee you every one of the nonbelievers in here will believe that God exists.



I guarantee you that won't matter, because the people of Jesus day, which by the way can be proven historically and even non christian historian Josephus documented His life and crucifixion. So you see there is far more actual proof in what we as Christians espouse than the nonsense that Darwin and the so called scientists come up with today. I will also tell you unless the Father draws you, you will not heed the call of the Holy Spirit, because dead men cannot think for themselves. You see the Bible says that we are all dead in our trespasses and sins and cannot see the One True Holy God unless He draws each and every individual. Like Jesus told Nicodemus unless you are born again you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Period, so people who say they are christian by doing this that and the other are sadly mistaken. Because Matthew 7 clearly states that you will know them by their fruit. It also goes on to say that Jesus declares : depart from Me you workers of iniquity I never knew you!


----------



## WaltL1

Spineyman said:


> No I really don't know how silly that statement is! Also let me know when you find definitive proof of evolution, until then it is all garbage in and garbage out. I actually do like Answers in Genesis, but that is not where I was coming from. I actually believe in the account as recorded in Genesis in the Bible, which is where AIG also gets their bases to study science from. You see I honestly believe Worldview matters!!!





> No I really don't know how silly that statement is!


You should.
One little example -
When you bought the computer you are typing on right now, do you figure science was just guessing that if you put this thing on your desk and started typing that I would be able to read it?


> Also let me know when you find definitive proof of evolution, until then it is all garbage in and garbage out.


That things have evolved has been proven to be fact over and over.
Don't take my word for it, it will only take you a minute to find out for yourself.


> I actually believe in the account as recorded in Genesis in the Bible, which is where AIG also gets their bases to study science from.


So?
AIG takes science, twists it around and tells you exactly what you want to hear.
Ask yourself why science DOES NOT point to an unprovable God but AIG tells you it does.


----------



## WaltL1

Spineyman said:


> I guarantee you that won't matter, because the people of Jesus day, which by the way can be proven historically and even non christian historian Josephus documented His life and crucifixion. So you see there is far more actual proof in what we as Christians espouse than the nonsense that Darwin and the so called scientists come up with today. I will also tell you unless the Father draws you, you will not heed the call of the Holy Spirit, because dead men cannot think for themselves. You see the Bible says that we are all dead in our trespasses and sins and cannot see the One True Holy God unless He draws each and every individual. Like Jesus told Nicodemus unless you are born again you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Period, so people who say they are christian by doing this that and the other are sadly mistaken. Because Matthew 7 clearly states that you will know them by their fruit. It also goes on to say that Jesus declares : depart from Me you workers of iniquity I never knew you!





> which by the way can be proven historically and even non christian historian Josephus documented His life and crucifixion


Yes I believe there is sufficient evidence that a man named Yeshua actually existed and was crucified.


> So you see there is far more actual proof in what we as Christians espouse


You are mistaking proof that a man named Yeshua existed and was crucified with proof that a man named Yeshua was the son of God, performed miracles etc etc.
Lots of people with lots of names actually existed and were crucified at that time.
As for the rest of your post, yeah I/we know what the Bible says. Nearly every one of us in here was a Christian at one time.


----------



## atlashunter

Spineyman said:


> How exactly would we find out about that? By unprovable, unobservable science, conjured up in the minds of mere men?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20932483


----------



## Artfuldodger

The Scientific Explanation of Rainbows;

https://meteorology.knoji.com/the-scientific-explanation-of-rainbows/


----------



## Artfuldodger

The Christian Explanation of Rainbows;


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> The Scientific Explanation of Rainbows;
> 
> https://meteorology.knoji.com/the-scientific-explanation-of-rainbows/





Artfuldodger said:


> The Christian Explanation of Rainbows;


And the point is still the same. We know science can explain how a rainbow occurs, but we know where it came from. And, we know science can explain how a storm works, but we know who causes them


----------



## WaltL1

Here's what I don't get -
Now that science has explained how a rainbow occurs, why doesn't the light bulb go off in a Christians head that rainbows occurred BEFORE Noah, Christianity, and even humans populated the earth?
Water drops and sunlight. That's all it takes. As long as water drops and sunlight existed... so did rainbows.
You would have to believe there were no water drops and sunlight and therefore no rainbows prior to the great flood


----------



## Artfuldodger

The point I was making is if the rainbow can be explained both ways, why can't creation? Why not think of the Creator as the Great Architect or Scientist?
Why are Christians OK to use science in almost everything but creation?
Take the miracle of birth. A man's sperm fertilizes the woman's egg. Science or God? Why not both. Evolution or Natural Selection? Hard to deny it exist. How do we know God didn't and doesn't use it? Especially knowing that if it exist, it's his creation.

Is science just man's way of explaining God's ways or is God's ways science?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Now one can sit in the forest and see all the beauty and come to terms that God exist. 
One would also have to see the destruction of hurricanes and earthquakes and know God exists as well. 

See the beautiful plants and animals in the forest? Yes but also see the germs, deadly bacteria, and viruses that came from that same forest.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> The point I was making is if the rainbow can be explained both ways, why can't creation? Why not think of the Creator as the Great Architect or Scientist?
> Why are Christians OK to use science in almost everything but creation?
> Take the miracle of birth. A man's sperm fertilizes the woman's egg. Science or God? Why not both. Evolution or Natural Selection? Hard to deny it exist. How do we know God didn't and doesn't use it? Especially knowing that if it exist, it's his creation.
> 
> Is science just man's way of explaining God's ways or is God's ways science?





> The point I was making is if the rainbow can be explained both ways, why can't creation?


You can explain a rainbow in whatever way strikes your fancy. But the fact remains a rainbow is created when light refracts through water drops.


> Why not think of the Creator as the Great Architect or Scientist?


You can. 


> Why are Christians OK to use science in almost everything but creation?


Because nothing else about science threatens your beliefs like the subject of creation.


> Take the miracle of birth. A man's sperm fertilizes the woman's egg. Science or God? Why not both. Evolution or Natural Selection? Hard to deny it exist. How do we know God didn't and doesn't use it? Especially knowing that if it exist, it's his creation.


Science can be proven to exist.
Evolution can be proven to exist.
Natural selection can be proven to exist.
God can.... oh wait.... that's why not.
And yes when you prove God exists and then prove God created everything, then yes its his creation.
But until then....


----------



## Spineyman

WaltL1 said:


> Yes I believe there is sufficient evidence that a man named Yeshua actually existed and was crucified.
> 
> You are mistaking proof that a man named Yeshua existed and was crucified with proof that a man named Yeshua was the son of God, performed miracles etc etc.
> Lots of people with lots of names actually existed and were crucified at that time.
> As for the rest of your post, yeah I/we know what the Bible says. Nearly every one of us in here was a Christian at one time.



So just because you don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God, does that make Him any less so? I know it does not matter what we think, whether we believe or don't believe. His being the Son of the Living God doesn't hinge on our belief. HE IS whether we believe it or not. The question to us is the same as it was to Pontius Pilate some 2000 years ago. What should I do with this Jesus, that is a question you have to answer, and will give an account for that answer as well.

1 John 2:4, "The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

The Apostle is telling us that anyone who says he has come to know Christ, and  goes out and willingly sins, is a liar.  This means he is *saying one thing and doing another.  He says he believes in and follows Christ, but he does not act like it.  Obviously, such a person is not really a Christian.  Why?  *Because along with salvation there is regeneration.  Regeneration is the change in the person from being enslaved to sin to serving God, from being dead in his sins to alive in Christ.  This is what it means to be born again (John 3:3) and to be made a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17).  It means we were crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6), and in so doing have also died to sin.

So I say to you, that you claim to have been a christian and I say show me the fruit of it. The simple facts of it are , if indeed you were truly a Christian, which mean to be Christ like, or imprinted into His image, then you would never walk away, because it is not us that chooses Christ, but rather He chooses us. All that the Father gives Him will come. Period. Furthermore science is nothing more than mans ability to see God's handiwork. Not evolution, which by the way is not science nor is it provable.


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> I guarantee you that won't matter, because the people of Jesus day, which by the way can be proven historically and even non christian historian Josephus documented His life and crucifixion. So you see there is far more actual proof in what we as Christians espouse than the nonsense that Darwin and the so called scientists come up with today. I will also tell you unless the Father draws you, you will not heed the call of the Holy Spirit, because dead men cannot think for themselves. You see the Bible says that we are all dead in our trespasses and sins and cannot see the One True Holy God unless He draws each and every individual. Like Jesus told Nicodemus unless you are born again you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Period, so people who say they are christian by doing this that and the other are sadly mistaken. Because Matthew 7 clearly states that you will know them by their fruit. It also goes on to say that Jesus declares : depart from Me you workers of iniquity I never knew you!



Spiney, a week ago I was excited that we had we had a new participant that could provide us some information that others have not. 
Instead, while I thank you for your willingness to participate, you are woefully uneducated about anything you want to argue against.
Josephus and his account of Jesus.....
Even religious scholars are convinced that Josephus mentioning details about Jesus were later forged additions. Don't take my word for it. Research it.

Evolution examples are scarce to come by. There are only a few million examples out there. I can see how you missed them with 0 seconds of research.

Who wrote down the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus? Was it Jesus or Nick? Was it Jesus's personal assistant?
Or was it someone who was not there and had never even seen either of the two, let alone know them? Before you quote me some scripture and give credit to a disciple.... PLEASE research that too.

Please dont take this as offensive, but we have already discussed(ad nauseum)everything that you have brought up.
In short. You've brought nothing worth rehashing. There is no point in "us" trying to inform people who refuse to learn on their own. If you want to argue against something try to know as much as you can about it first. It may save you some embarassment.


----------



## WaltL1

Spineyman said:


> So just because you don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God, does that make Him any less so? I know it does not matter what we think, whether we believe or don't believe. His being the Son of the Living God doesn't hinge on our belief. HE IS whether we believe it or not. The question to us is the same as it was to Pontius Pilate some 2000 years ago. What should I do with this Jesus, that is a question you have to answer, and will give an account for that answer as well.
> 
> 1 John 2:4, "The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
> 
> The Apostle is telling us that anyone who says he has come to know Christ, and  goes out and willingly sins, is a liar.  This means he is *saying one thing and doing another.  He says he believes in and follows Christ, but he does not act like it.  Obviously, such a person is not really a Christian.  Why?  *Because along with salvation there is regeneration.  Regeneration is the change in the person from being enslaved to sin to serving God, from being dead in his sins to alive in Christ.  This is what it means to be born again (John 3:3) and to be made a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17).  It means we were crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6), and in so doing have also died to sin.
> 
> So I say to you, that you claim to have been a christian and I say show me the fruit of it. The simple facts of it are , if indeed you were truly a Christian, which mean to be Christ like, or imprinted into His image, then you would never walk away, because it is not us that chooses Christ, but rather He chooses us. All that the Father gives Him will come. Period. Furthermore science is nothing more than mans ability to see God's handiwork. Not evolution, which by the way is not science nor is it provable.


Oh if I only had a nickel for every time I/we have heard the "weren't really a Christian" thing.


> Chris·tian
> [ËˆkrisCHÉ™n]
> ADJECTIVE
> of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings:
> "the Christian Church"
> NOUN
> a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.



Yep I was a Christian.


----------



## WaltL1

So Spineyman and Spotlite -
Do you guys listen to music? If so, maybe you would be interested in participating in this thread?
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=894138
There is some good "believer" music mixed in there too.

And now back to science......


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> So Spineyman and Spotlite -
> Do you guys listen to music? If so, maybe you would be interested in participating in this thread?
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=894138
> There is some good "believer" music mixed in there too.
> 
> And now back to science......



Nah I'm just fine watching Alaska the Last Frontier. But, when science figures out which came first - chicken or the egg, it would be cool.


----------



## oldfella1962

evolution (as in things start out simply then adapt to meet the changing conditions) is everywhere in everything. Technologies evolve, music evolves, language evolves, society evolves, sports evolve, plants & animals evolve - sorry but humans would have to evolve too. The only way humans would be exempt is if they were not subject to the same biological laws as the rest of the world. Made in god's image? Perhaps, but humans still have to live in the real world. I just don't buy that humans were created fully formed and the rest of the living creatures (and stars & planets too) are an afterthought. Even if you don't believe in carbon-14 dating accuracy, by any measure the oldest human(ish) skulls have the smallest brain capacity, the thickest brows and the largest strongest jaws and the more recent skulls more closely resemble modern humans. Things don't jump right from our closest relatives (chimps) to homo sapiens - there are many examples of skulls/skeletons changing over thousands of years. You don't have to believe that for it to be true.


----------



## WaltL1

oldfella1962 said:


> evolution (as in things start out simply then adapt to meet the changing conditions) is everywhere in everything. Technologies evolve, music evolves, language evolves, society evolves, sports evolve, plants & animals evolve - sorry but humans would have to evolve too. The only way humans would be exempt is if they were not subject to the same biological laws as the rest of the world. Made in god's image? Perhaps, but humans still have to live in the real world. I just don't buy that humans were created fully formed and the rest of the living creatures (and stars & planets too) are an afterthought. Even if you don't believe in carbon-14 dating accuracy, by any measure the oldest human(ish) skulls have the smallest brain capacity, the thickest brows and the largest strongest jaws and the more recent skulls more closely resemble modern humans. Things don't jump right from our closest relatives (chimps) to homo sapiens - there are many examples of skulls/skeletons changing over thousands of years. You don't have to believe that for it to be true.


Based on what we see in here, a number of Christians think "evolution" means like a turtle turning into a dog or a chimpanzee turned into a human or some wacky thing like that.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Nah I'm just fine watching Alaska the Last Frontier. But, when science figures out which came first - chicken or the egg, it would be cool.


Good show.
Yes that will be cool


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> So just because you don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God, does that make Him any less so? I know it does not matter what we think, whether we believe or don't believe. His being the Son of the Living God doesn't hinge on our belief. HE IS whether we believe it or not. The question to us is the same as it was to Pontius Pilate some 2000 years ago. What should I do with this Jesus, that is a question you have to answer, and will give an account for that answer as well.
> 
> 1 John 2:4, "The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
> 
> The Apostle is telling us that anyone who says he has come to know Christ, and  goes out and willingly sins, is a liar.  This means he is *saying one thing and doing another.  He says he believes in and follows Christ, but he does not act like it.  Obviously, such a person is not really a Christian.  Why?  *Because along with salvation there is regeneration.  Regeneration is the change in the person from being enslaved to sin to serving God, from being dead in his sins to alive in Christ.  This is what it means to be born again (John 3:3) and to be made a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17).  It means we were crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6), and in so doing have also died to sin.
> 
> So I say to you, that you claim to have been a christian and I say show me the fruit of it. The simple facts of it are , if indeed you were truly a Christian, which mean to be Christ like, or imprinted into His image, then you would never walk away, because it is not us that chooses Christ, but rather He chooses us. All that the Father gives Him will come. Period. Furthermore science is nothing more than mans ability to see God's handiwork. Not evolution, which by the way is not science nor is it provable.


Nowhere...let me repeat that.... NOWHERE outside of the bible did anyone record eyewitness accounts of the son of a god living among them. 
The bible accounts exist only in the bible.
It says 500 witnesses for this, 500 witnesses for that and yet when Jesus was done his never before seen miracles.....NOBODY not a single peasant, scholar, historian, rabbi, king, queen, anyone with the ability to write or draw or anyone that could speak and tell someone who could write....NOBODY was so impressed to record anything. 

To say that I am a skeptic would be putting it mildly. But I will be the first to admit that if some guy was in my town and the word was that he was the son of god. I am gonna be curious. If I hear from multiple people that they witnessed him cure a local leper, or brought back someone from the dead I am surely gonna seek him out, ESPECIALLY if I hear it from people who reliable and not a follower but have seen him in action and were so Impressed that they HAD to tell others about it.
And I gotta be honest, if I see the guy die on a cross and the graves burst open with saints flying out all over the place,  then 3 days later  I see the dead guy pumping gas down at the local Sunoco, and then a while later 499 others and I watch him pull a Chris Angel and take the elevator to the top floor without and elevator..... I am GONNA pass that info on.

NOBODY in recorded history bothered to RECORD anything miraculous about the Son of god. Think about that.  NOBODY. NOBODY said he was the son of any god or saw him do ANYTHING god-like. 
According to local historians of the time, where they recorded births, deaths, taxes, land transactions, laws, court proceedings, wars marriages etc etc etc.
NONE of them mentioned ANYTHING about Josh, err, Yeshua doing anything.

I guess though, 40,50,60,70,80 years from now someone COULD write some stories about a guy that lived in my town that was a walking Vegas Act......I mean the majority of people who would have been adults and witnesses to refute the writings would be dead at that point. The infants  who are now elderly could say that they must have been too young to remember it. And anyone that saw it, remembers it, and just never thought anything of it to record it tells me that Miracles were SO Common 2000 years ago whatever Jesus pulled off was a parlor trick compared to the GOOD talent.
Or
It never happened. At all. Ever. And the biblical stories are embellished writings about superstitious cultures which existed then, before then and even now.


----------



## Spotlite

I just struggle with evolution partially of what it means - adapt to meet the ever changing conditions.

That means something "changed" from its form to another when it adapted. If the first form of life millions of years ago was bacteria that can survive without oxygen.............what's the point of it evolving to adapt to changing conditions, if it was going to stick around anyway? Bacteria that can't survive in oxygen exist today.


----------



## WaltL1

Spineyman, educate me here. Couple of questions for you -
Where did you learn this/why do you think this? -


> Not evolution, which by the way is not science nor is it provable.


When you read our posts saying evolution has been proven to exist what is it that stops you from taking 30 seconds and finding out for yourself?


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I just struggle with evolution partially of what it means - adapt to meet the ever changing conditions.
> 
> That means something "changed" from its form to another when it adapted. If the first form of life millions of years ago was bacteria that can survive without oxygen.............what's the point of it evolving to adapt to changing conditions, if it was going to stick around anyway? Bacteria that can't survive in oxygen exist today.





> That means something "changed" from its form to another when it adapted


What do you mean by "changed form" to another?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I just struggle with evolution partially of what it means - adapt to meet the ever changing conditions.
> 
> That means something "changed" from its form to another when it adapted. If the first form of life millions of years ago was bacteria that can survive without oxygen.............what's the point of it evolving to adapt to changing conditions, if it was going to stick around anyway? Bacteria that can't survive in oxygen exist today.


Because it wasn't just one to start. There were ones that didnt need oxygen and ones that did. Some thrived other did not.  Some struggled but adapted to survive. The ones that did not died. Usable traits were improved and passed on in survivors. The traits that did not help died off with ones who did not survive.
Many basic but very different cells were formed around the same time when proper conditions allowed the available elements and chemicals and particles to form amino acids and react together in ways that did not exist previously. We are constantly bombarded by  particles from beyond our planet. You, me, every person and thing on this planet are being bombarded by particles that pass through our bodies. How they react....no one can tell for sure. Do they cause cancer in some cells? Cure cancer in others? I dont know. I dont think we are able to specify what is hitting us, from where  and what cause if any it has.
Hopefully some day we can.
It may have been the constant  (think of the largest number you can imagine) per second for billions of years combining with the available particles, elements and chemicals under the right temperature with the right humidity that created multiple yet... because of the various trillions upon trillions upon trillions of combinations...different basic cell(s) which were then continually bombarded by particles to form others.  And on and on and on.


Research the particles that pass through us and earth constantly.  One of those certainly has passed through multiple planets and atmospheres and elements, and rocks and trees and animals and dirt and has still gone through you and maybe a thousand other people too. What it picked up and left along the way.....???????


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite, 
In your opinion, why do pest control companies have to change chemicals to kill insects?

More specifically. If a chemical worked years ago to kill cockroaches, why does it not still work today?

Or if you prefer, why do humans need to change antibiotics to fight bacteria? Why do antibiotics become ineffective?


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> What do you mean by "changed form" to another?


When you think of evolution, you think of change in order to adapt. Looking at bacteria that couldn't survive in oxygen, adapts to "changes" (changes form) to survive in oxygen........but bacteria that can't survive in oxygen still exist. Why was there a need to adapt? 


Evolution:
1.the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth 

2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spotlite,
> In your opinion, why do pest control companies have to change chemicals to kill insects?
> 
> More specifically. If a chemical worked years ago to kill cockroaches, why does it not still work today?
> 
> Or if you prefer, why do humans need to change antibiotics to fight bacteria? Why do antibiotics become ineffective?



Immunity from over usage is an option. Bacteria forming "homes" and hiding in cells is another.


----------



## bullethead

From an article on listverse about observable examples of evolution that are currently taking place.

As the huge array of drug resistant pathogens grows we are learning that evolution is easiest to observe in species with a quick generation turnover. Since 1988, in the lab of Richard Lenski, the evolution of twelve E. coli populations from a single ancestor strain has been studied. Since then, over 50,000 generations of E. coli have been and gone, and the differences between the populations and each population from the ancestor strain have been documented. With samples of each population taken regularly the accumulated genetic changes can be followed with ease. Over time the bacteria have become far more efficient at growing under the conditions used. This study has provided evidence of how evolution actually occurs. One of the populations developed the ability to utilize citrate as a nutrient, something otherwise unknown in E. coli under similar conditions. “Life Evolves!” This quote is from a brilliant letter Lenski wrote to a particularly odious creationist. The series of letters can be found here. 
http://www.conservapedia.com/Lenski_dialog


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Immunity from over usage is an option. Bacteria forming "homes" and hiding in cells is another.



Explain what takes place in each scenario.
.


----------



## Israel

But does it remain E Coli?

If, in 1988 the total of all definition of E Coli included (along with all that E Coli isn't that _excluded_) "it is by definition that which cannot utilize citrate as a nutrient" then is it truly e coli being studied? What does a thing retain (and who decides?) or how much of a former self to be consistent in that identity...but yet be _different_?

Who sees the _nature of a thing_ in truth?  

If one were to say "in 1988 our definitions were so limited by what we saw and understood as to be all wrong, yet all subsequent understanding of what was initiated in study since 1988 shows that" then the apriori's of 1988 (which were wrong) are founded upon wrong assumptions from inception. A millimeter off at the barrel can easily lead to yards off at the target.

I see this in Jesus statement to those who would protest "Had we lived in the days of our fathers we would not have stoned the prophets..." Not ever knowing that by this they indicted themselves in the present.


It is very much akin (to my mind) of those who say "We are not like our fathers homo superstitialis" 
Then, don't be.

There's only one way out of this equation "Thesis x antithesis = synthesis"

Man. 


Or, synthetic man?


And who will show what man is? Only the _only_ true Father.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> When you think of evolution, you think of change in order to adapt. Looking at bacteria that couldn't survive in oxygen, adapts to "changes" (changes form) to survive in oxygen........but bacteria that can't survive in oxygen still exist. Why was there a need to adapt?
> 
> 
> Evolution:
> 1.the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth
> 
> 2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.


So I'm not even going to pretend to be a bacteria expert but....
it appears that different types of bacteria have different oxygen needs and/or react differently to oxygen. So some bacteria where oxygen affects it negatively have evolved "protection" and vice versa -
See the Oxygen Toxicity paragraph -


> https://www.biotecharticles.com/Biology-Article/Oxygen-Requirements-of-Different-Bacteria-952.html


A far easier to understand (for me anyway) example of evolution is the Galapagos finches that evolved different types of beaks than other finches that lived under different conditions. 


> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_02.html


And not all evolutionary changes are "good". 
Take the finches whose beaks evolved to take advantage of the food available on the Galapagos Islands. That was "good" for them. Now imagine a typhoon wiped out the Galapagos Islands and those birds had to go somewhere else to live with different food etc. 
Now having a different beak is "bad" and they might not survive at all. But the finches from other places whos beaks didn't evolve wouldn't have that problem.


----------



## WaltL1

Spineyman -
I hope (but seriously doubt) you are reading the information we are providing. Might make you reconsider your statement (but I seriously doubt that too) -


> Not evolution, which by the way is not science nor is it provable.


Or you can close your eyes, stamp your feet and insist - 





> Not evolution, which by the way is not science nor is it provable


Whichever is most comfortable for you.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Spotlite said:


> Nah I'm just fine watching Alaska the Last Frontier. But, when science figures out which came first - chicken or the egg, it would be cool.



They already did a long time ago. Amphibians and reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> But does it remain E Coli?
> 
> If, in 1988 the total of all definition of E Coli included (along with all that E Coli isn't that _excluded_) "it is by definition that which cannot utilize citrate as a nutrient" then is it truly e coli being studied? What does a thing retain (and who decides?) or how much of a former self to be consistent in that identity...but yet be _different_?
> 
> Who sees the _nature of a thing_ in truth?
> 
> If one were to say "in 1988 our definitions were so limited by what we saw and understood as to be all wrong, yet all subsequent understanding of what was initiated in study since 1988 shows that" then the apriori's of 1988 (which were wrong) are founded upon wrong assumptions from inception. A millimeter off at the barrel can easily lead to yards off at the target.
> 
> I see this in Jesus statement to those who would protest "Had we lived in the days of our fathers we would not have stoned the prophets..." Not ever knowing that by this they indicted themselves in the present.
> 
> 
> It is very much akin (to my mind) of those who say "We are not like our fathers homo superstitialis"
> Then, don't be.
> 
> There's only one way out of this equation "Thesis x antithesis = synthesis"
> 
> Man.
> 
> 
> Or, synthetic man?
> 
> 
> And who will show what man is? Only the _only_ true Father.


You just described science perfectly.
"Here's what we know TODAY. As compared to what we knew YESTERDAY. If we learn more TOMORROW we will update what we know even if it spells out that we were wrong before".
A refreshingly honest approach that facilitates forward progress. Even if it means taking 2 steps forward and 1 step back.
Some may view that as the perfect excuse to exclaim "science doesn't know carp. Its all just guesses".
All the while ignoring the fact that they aren't communicating that excuse via smoke signals but from a little box shaped thing sitting on their desk.

And yes, I realize "forward progress" is debatable in itself.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> But does it remain E Coli?
> 
> If, in 1988 the total of all definition of E Coli included (along with all that E Coli isn't that _excluded_) "it is by definition that which cannot utilize citrate as a nutrient" then is it truly e coli being studied? What does a thing retain (and who decides?) or how much of a former self to be consistent in that identity...but yet be _different_?
> 
> Who sees the _nature of a thing_ in truth?
> 
> If one were to say "in 1988 our definitions were so limited by what we saw and understood as to be all wrong, yet all subsequent understanding of what was initiated in study since 1988 shows that" then the apriori's of 1988 (which were wrong) are founded upon wrong assumptions from inception. A millimeter off at the barrel can easily lead to yards off at the target.
> 
> I see this in Jesus statement to those who would protest "Had we lived in the days of our fathers we would not have stoned the prophets..." Not ever knowing that by this they indicted themselves in the present.
> 
> 
> It is very much akin (to my mind) of those who say "We are not like our fathers homo superstitialis"
> Then, don't be.
> 
> There's only one way out of this equation "Thesis x antithesis = synthesis"
> 
> Man.
> 
> 
> Or, synthetic man?
> 
> 
> And who will show what man is? Only the _only_ true Father.


By the way Israel, you can apply this exact same question to Christianity -


> But does it remain E Coli?


Consider how Christianity has evolved over the years. You've got women preaching, church held gay marriages, what is the acceptable dress code and on and on...
Does it remain Christianity?
Are modern day Christians really not Christians at all?


----------



## j_seph

WaltL1 said:


> Based on what we see in here, a number of Christians think "evolution" means like a turtle turning into a dog or a chimpanzee turned into a human or some wacky thing like that.


I just cannot see nor believe my greatest grandparents were monkeys along time ago. Rate things are going I guess babie will probably be born with a special receptor in them that they will not need a cell phone to make a phone call. I mean they will eventually evolve to meet ever changing conditions.


----------



## ambush80

Spineyman said:


> So just because you don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God, does that make Him any less so? I know it does not matter what we think, whether we believe or don't believe. His being the Son of the Living God doesn't hinge on our belief. HE IS whether we believe it or not. The question to us is the same as it was to Pontius Pilate some 2000 years ago. What should I do with this Jesus, that is a question you have to answer, and will give an account for that answer as well.
> 
> 1 John 2:4, "The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
> 
> The Apostle is telling us that anyone who says he has come to know Christ, and  goes out and willingly sins, is a liar.  This means he is *saying one thing and doing another.  He says he believes in and follows Christ, but he does not act like it.  Obviously, such a person is not really a Christian.  Why?  *Because along with salvation there is regeneration.  Regeneration is the change in the person from being enslaved to sin to serving God, from being dead in his sins to alive in Christ.  This is what it means to be born again (John 3:3) and to be made a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17).  It means we were crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6), and in so doing have also died to sin.
> 
> So I say to you, that you claim to have been a christian and I say show me the fruit of it. The simple facts of it are , if indeed you were truly a Christian, which mean to be Christ like, or imprinted into His image, then you would never walk away, because it is not us that chooses Christ, but rather He chooses us. All that the Father gives Him will come. Period. Furthermore science is nothing more than mans ability to see God's handiwork. Not evolution, which by the way is not science nor is it provable.



Did you know that you believe in predestination?  Do you truly know anything about what you believe?


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> I just cannot see nor believe my greatest grandparents were monkeys along time ago. Rate things are going I guess babie will probably be born with a special receptor in them that they will not need a cell phone to make a phone call. I mean they will eventually evolve to meet ever changing conditions.





> I just cannot see nor believe my greatest grandparents were monkeys along time ago


They weren't.
But monkeys were "relatives" (for lack of a better word) of your greatest grandparents. And yours too.
Read about our DNA commonalities.


> Rate things are going I guess babie will probably be born with a special receptor in them that they will not need a cell phone to make a phone call. I mean they will eventually evolve to meet ever changing conditions


You are mixing "what makes our lives easier" with "what makes survival possible (not guaranteed but possible)".
Very different things.


----------



## gordon 2

WaltL1 said:


> By the way Israel, you can apply this exact same question to Christianity -
> 
> Consider how Christianity has evolved over the years. You've got women preaching, church held gay marriages, what is the acceptable dress code and on and on...
> Does it remain Christianity?
> Are modern day Christians really not Christians at all?




That's a good question, but perhaps for another forum? Christians today, different one from the other, for the most part group themselves together for common cause and by what they have in common spiritually. Given the chance however and where they feel safe to speak they go after each other with  the gusto! of fanatics still waving the banners of their politico-religious fathers now dead 500-600 yrs ago!  So yes a modern Christian is not the Christian of origins. They tend to accuse themselves ( each other), given the  chance, of being entangled by the world a lot more then it was intended perhaps.


----------



## WaltL1

gordon 2 said:


> That's a good question, but perhaps for another forum? Christians today, different one from the other, for the most part group themselves together for common cause and by what they have in common spiritually. Given the chance however and where they feel safe to speak they go after each other with  the gusto! of fanatics still waving the banners of their politico-religious fathers now dead 500-600 yrs ago!  So yes a modern Christian is not the Christian of origins. They tend to accuse themselves ( each other), given the  chance, of being entangled by the world a lot more then it was intended perhaps.


I agree with your observations but just a comment or two -


> That's a good question, but perhaps for another forum?


We cover a pretty wide range of subjects in here. Sometimes all in the same thread 
If people from any and all sides are willing to participate, we cover it. I think(?) we like it that way.


> So yes a modern Christian is not the Christian of origins.


EVOLUTION!


----------



## gordon 2

WaltL1 said:


> I agree with your observations but just a comment or two -
> 
> We cover a pretty wide range of subjects in here. Sometimes all in the same thread
> If people from any and all sides are willing to participate, we cover it. I think(?) we like it that way.
> 
> EVOLUTION!



And on the other hand, spiritually  and within the paradigm of Christianity, one does expect that the believers' relationship to their living God will, has and did change like any other relationship would, similar as it did with the Hebrews.
So yes evolution.


----------



## j_seph

WaltL1 said:


> You are mixing "what makes our lives easier" with "what makes survival possible (not guaranteed but possible)".
> Very different things.


You ever hid the chargers for the younguns electronics? If not try it and tell em they will survive


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> You ever hid the chargers for the younguns electronics? If not try it and tell em they will survive


I certainly cant argue with that!
Whats even scarier is how much even us old folks have come to "depend" on it.
I just came back from a fishing a trip to the Chandeleur Islands. Lived aboard a "mothership" and launched skiffs to fish from. No cell service, computer etc.
For the first couple of days it really bothered me.
I had to ask myself "what the heck is happening to you"?


----------



## Spineyman

ambush80 said:


> Did you know that you believe in predestination?  Do you truly know anything about what you believe?



You sir are a comedian. I worship the Living God and try  my absolute best to follow His Word. I have been born of water, and born of the Spirit. Which Jesus Himself spoke of with the Leader of Israel Nicodemus. Now on the other hand you claim to be a christian so I have to ask, just how you go about that feat without believing in the Christ of Christianity. the One whose image we as Christians are to bear. So I ask you how do you become a christian? through osmosis, sitting in a pew, walking down the isle. So tell me if you can kind sir.


----------



## Spineyman

WaltL1 said:


> Consider how Christianity has evolved over the years. You've got women preaching, church held gay marriages, what is the acceptable dress code and on and on...
> Does it remain Christianity?
> Are modern day Christians really not Christians at all?



I believe the Church today is in great error. They have subverted the Word of the Living God and allowed it to be changed with the winds of the people. How in the World is the Church, that is supposed to be " salt and light " ( preserver and culture changer ) to redeem the culture if they act and mimic  society to a t. Here is a hint, they are not. Jesus said all authority has been given unto me, go there into all the world. Teaching them all I have commanded you, and low I am with you even to the close of the age. The Church has accepted that which God has called an abomination. Therefore they aren't redeeming the culture but rather are in bed with it. But trust me that will not work out well for the Church at all. Just look at what Jesus did to the Jewish people in the Old Testament every time they turned their backs on God.

Just a hint of what will happen when you turn your back on God, and His Son Jesus. Here is a Messianic Psalm.

 Psalm 2 

2 Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?

2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,

3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”

4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.

5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:

6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

7 “I will declare the decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.

9 You shall break  them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”

10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.

11 Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son, lest  He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

You see it is Jesus' Church, not my Church, your church, or any other denominations Church. Therefore we had better be about our Fathers business, not our own!


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> By the way Israel, you can apply this exact same question to Christianity -



Yes.


----------



## ambush80

Spineyman said:


> You sir are a comedian. I worship the Living God and try  my absolute best to follow His Word. I have been born of water, and born of the Spirit. Which Jesus Himself spoke of with the Leader of Israel Nicodemus. Now on the other hand you claim to be a christian so I have to ask, just how you go about that feat without believing in the Christ of Christianity. the One whose image we as Christians are to bear. So I ask you how do you become a christian? through osmosis, sitting in a pew, walking down the isle. So tell me if you can kind sir.



Answer my question first.  Did you know that you believe in predestination?


----------



## ambush80

Spineyman said:


> I believe the Church today is in great error. They have subverted the Word of the Living God and allowed it to be changed with the winds of the people. How in the World is the Church, that is supposed to be " salt and light " ( preserver and culture changer ) to redeem the culture if they act and mimic  society to a t. Here is a hint, they are not. Jesus said all authority has been given unto me, go there into all the world. Teaching them all I have commanded you, and low I am with you even to the close of the age. The Church has accepted that which God has called an abomination. Therefore they aren't redeeming the culture but rather are in bed with it. But trust me that will not work out well for the Church at all. Just look at what Jesus did to the Jewish people in the Old Testament every time they turned their backs on God.
> 
> Just a hint of what will happen when you turn your back on God, and His Son Jesus. Here is a Messianic Psalm.
> 
> Psalm 2
> 
> 2 Why do the nations rage,
> And the people plot a vain thing?
> 
> 2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
> And the rulers take counsel together,
> Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
> 
> 3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
> And cast away Their cords from us.”
> 
> 4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
> The Lord shall hold them in derision.
> 
> 5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
> And distress them in His deep displeasure:
> 
> 6 “Yet I have set My King
> On My holy hill of Zion.”
> 
> 7 “I will declare the decree:
> The Lord has said to Me,
> ‘You are My Son,
> Today I have begotten You.
> 
> 8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
> The nations for Your inheritance,
> And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
> 
> 9 You shall break  them with a rod of iron;
> You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”
> 
> 10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
> Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
> 
> 11 Serve the Lord with fear,
> And rejoice with trembling.
> 
> 12 Kiss the Son, lest  He be angry,
> And you perish in the way,
> When His wrath is kindled but a little.
> Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
> 
> You see it is Jesus' Church, not my Church, your church, or any other denominations Church. Therefore we had better be about our Fathers business, not our own!



What you're basically saying is that you believe that YOU are following correctly and all the other denominations are false.  

When you admit that you don't know if you're doing it right anymore than anyone else we can talk about important things like fishing.


----------



## WaltL1

Spineyman said:


> I believe the Church today is in great error. They have subverted the Word of the Living God and allowed it to be changed with the winds of the people. How in the World is the Church, that is supposed to be " salt and light " ( preserver and culture changer ) to redeem the culture if they act and mimic  society to a t. Here is a hint, they are not. Jesus said all authority has been given unto me, go there into all the world. Teaching them all I have commanded you, and low I am with you even to the close of the age. The Church has accepted that which God has called an abomination. Therefore they aren't redeeming the culture but rather are in bed with it. But trust me that will not work out well for the Church at all. Just look at what Jesus did to the Jewish people in the Old Testament every time they turned their backs on God.
> 
> Just a hint of what will happen when you turn your back on God, and His Son Jesus. Here is a Messianic Psalm.
> 
> Psalm 2
> 
> 2 Why do the nations rage,
> And the people plot a vain thing?
> 
> 2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
> And the rulers take counsel together,
> Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
> 
> 3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
> And cast away Their cords from us.”
> 
> 4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
> The Lord shall hold them in derision.
> 
> 5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
> And distress them in His deep displeasure:
> 
> 6 “Yet I have set My King
> On My holy hill of Zion.”
> 
> 7 “I will declare the decree:
> The Lord has said to Me,
> ‘You are My Son,
> Today I have begotten You.
> 
> 8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
> The nations for Your inheritance,
> And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
> 
> 9 You shall break  them with a rod of iron;
> You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”
> 
> 10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
> Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
> 
> 11 Serve the Lord with fear,
> And rejoice with trembling.
> 
> 12 Kiss the Son, lest  He be angry,
> And you perish in the way,
> When His wrath is kindled but a little.
> Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
> 
> You see it is Jesus' Church, not my Church, your church, or any other denominations Church. Therefore we had better be about our Fathers business, not our own!





> I believe the Church today is in great error. They have subverted the Word of the Living God and allowed it to be changed with the winds of the people


.
Believe it or not.... I agree with you.
If you are going to hold up the Bible and claim its the word of God, then ANY deviation from that should be considered "wrong".
Otherwise you are just talking the talk and not walking the walk.
And consider -
Nonbelievers DO NOT hold up the Bible and say its the word of God.
The Church/Christians DO but yet rarely walk the walk.
Which is worse?


----------



## TripleXBullies

ambush80 said:


> What you're basically saying is that you believe that YOU are following correctly and all the other denominations are false.
> 
> When you admit that you don't know if you're doing it right anymore than anyone else we can talk about important things like fishing.



I think more often it's that we (I) believe we are following it correctly and nearly EVERYONE is is false. Not just other denominations are false. Our own denomination and church even. 

That break down, because of many different things, not the least of which is the interpretation of the word itself, drives so many away.

What it comes down it IMO is things that are really preferences being made in to spiritual or church law by one or a group. I, myself, have my own preferences of the Bible and every bit of my belief. I'll agree with you Ambush. I don't know if I am any more right than the ones holding snakes and drinking poison, the ones worshiping a different god altogether, or you. It's faith and belief.


----------



## WaltL1

TripleXBullies said:


> I think more often it's that we (I) believe we are following it correctly and nearly EVERYONE is is false. Not just other denominations are false. Our own denomination and church even.
> 
> That break down, because of many different things, not the least of which is the interpretation of the word itself, drives so many away.
> 
> What it comes down it IMO is things that are really preferences being made in to spiritual or church law by one or a group. I, myself, have my own preferences of the Bible and every bit of my belief. I'll agree with you Ambush. I don't know if I am any more right than the ones holding snakes and drinking poison, the ones worshiping a different god altogether, or you. It's faith and belief.





> What it comes down it IMO is things that are really preferences being made in to spiritual or church law by one or a group.


Bingo.
And its been going on since the beginning of Christianity.
Christians have turned Christianity into a conglomeration of personal preferences.
That exact realization is one of the major ingredients of why I had to walk away from organized religion.
Precisely as you said here -


> That break down, because of many different things, not the least of which is the interpretation of the word itself, drives so many away.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Explain what takes place in each scenario.
> .



I guess what I'm looking for is the bacteria really adapting to the environment as a new strain, or did that strain exist and couldn't grow until it had the proper oxygen, environment, etc. As far as immunity, your body builds that, ultimately resulting in meds not working. But I didn't view that as evolving. It's like weathering baby chickens getting them ready for the outside.


----------



## Spotlite

NCHillbilly said:


> They already did a long time ago. Amphibians and reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.



Ok.....but what came first. Amphibians and reptiles.......or their eggs


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> So I'm not even going to pretend to be a bacteria expert but....
> it appears that different types of bacteria have different oxygen needs and/or react differently to oxygen. So some bacteria where oxygen affects it negatively have evolved "protection" and vice versa -
> See the Oxygen Toxicity paragraph -
> 
> A far easier to understand (for me anyway) example of evolution is the Galapagos finches that evolved different types of beaks than other finches that lived under different conditions.
> 
> And not all evolutionary changes are "good".
> Take the finches whose beaks evolved to take advantage of the food available on the Galapagos Islands. That was "good" for them. Now imagine a typhoon wiped out the Galapagos Islands and those birds had to go somewhere else to live with different food etc.
> Now having a different beak is "bad" and they might not survive at all. But the finches from other places whos beaks didn't evolve wouldn't have that problem.


Ok so it's not safe to assume that adapting or evolving is always done for the good (or at least doesn't always result as a good change) Which is what I thought was the purpose of evolution, or there would be no reason to adapt to survive a changing environment.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> I just cannot see nor believe my greatest grandparents were monkeys along time ago. Rate things are going I guess babie will probably be born with a special receptor in them that they will not need a cell phone to make a phone call. I mean they will eventually evolve to meet ever changing conditions.


If you took 30 seconds to research it, you would sleep easy knowing they were not monkeys. Knowledge is not as scary as you seem to think it is.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I guess what I'm looking for is the bacteria really adapting to the environment as a new strain, or did that strain exist and couldn't grow until it had the proper oxygen, environment, etc. As far as immunity, your body builds that, ultimately resulting in meds not working. But I didn't view that as evolving. It's like weathering baby chickens getting them ready for the outside.


I hoped that you had read the information that I provided. It detailed the changes in generations of bacteria as conditions changed. They evolved or died.

I am not sure that you understand micro and macro evolution. 
It certainly is not like weathering chicks.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Ok.....but what came first. Amphibians and reptiles.......or their eggs



https://news.nationalgeographic.com...ution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Ok so it's not safe to assume that adapting or evolving is always done for the good (or at least doesn't always result as a good change) Which is what I thought was the purpose of evolution, or there would be no reason to adapt to survive a changing environment.


The environment is always changing.  Predators change. Temps change. Food sources change.

Those that cannot adapt do not survive.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I hoped that you had read the information that I provided. It detailed the changes in generations of bacteria as conditions changed. They evolved or died.
> 
> I am not sure that you understand micro and macro evolution.
> It certainly is not like weathering chicks.



Yea I was just referring to two different aspects, or views. Bacteria evolving, and building up an immunity


----------



## ambush80

TripleXBullies said:


> I think more often it's that we (I) believe we are following it correctly and nearly EVERYONE is is false. Not just other denominations are false. Our own denomination and church even.
> 
> That break down, because of many different things, not the least of which is the interpretation of the word itself, drives so many away.
> 
> What it comes down it IMO is things that are really preferences being made in to spiritual or church law by one or a group. I, myself, have my own preferences of the Bible and every bit of my belief. I'll agree with you Ambush. I don't know if I am any more right than the ones holding snakes and drinking poison, the ones worshiping a different god altogether, or you. It's faith and belief.



Great analysis.  You know I wouldn't care what anybody wanted to worship or believe in if they kept it private.  The problem I have with belief based on faith is that people apply it to things that effect all of us and it stops discussion.  How can someone of faith be reasoned with?  

If I told you that I prayed to Odin and he revealed to me who to vote for? Would you simply say "That's your prerogative"?  Seems innocent enough, but when Muslims become a majority in places like Dearborn, Michigan and they want to impose their religious beliefs on everybody then it's not so funny anymore.  You might say that it's a false equivalency but if you can admit that it's possible for the Bible to get twisted in such a way that it could result in The Crusades or the Salem Witch Hunts then you understand the dangerous power that faith based belief of any stripe has and how bad it can become even today.  

If something catastrophic happened I would prefer people use reason and logic to organize themselves and come up with a plan rather than relying on faith based belief.  That applies to times when there's not a crisis as well.  There's a better way to analyze one's existence and form ideas about how to live other than faith based belief.


----------



## WaltL1

> Ok so it's not safe to assume that adapting or evolving is always done for the good (or at least doesn't always result as a good change) Which is what I thought was the purpose of evolution, or there would be no reason to adapt to survive a changing environment.





bullethead said:


> The environment is always changing.  Predators change. Temps change. Food sources change.
> Those that cannot adapt do not survive.


To continue with what Bullet said -
It was good to begin with.
But say that change in their beaks took 10,000 years.
A typhoon could wipe out the Galapagos overnight.
So off to a new place they go that has different kinds of food.
Now their beaks are a disadvantage not an advantage.
So the birds that were already at this new place have the advantage.
Now the new birds with the disadvantage are competing for food with the old birds with the advantage.
Might take a long time but the birds with the advantage are going to win out over the birds with the disadvantage.
Guess which birds disappear?
So evolution was good for them where they used to live.
Not so good in the new place.

Another example is look at us (humans).
We used to compete with other animals for the available food.
Then we adapted/evolved and started growing our food. Farming.
The more farms we built, the less land there was available for animals we used to compete with and the food they ate.
Some of those animals have adapted/evolved to also eat the food we grow for us. The ones that couldn't are extinct or going extinct.
Woohoo we won by evolving to grow our food!!
BUT now we as a species are growing so fast we are running out of land to farm, getting jammed into cities, becoming overpopulated where we can live, diseases spread much faster because we are jammed together.....
So the evolving we did was good for us to begin with.
And may also be the end of us..... unless we can adapt/evolve again.

Enter science.
Science isn't just looking at other planets for fun.
They are also trying to determine where humans may be able to go live once we use up this planet or to avoid using this planet up.

Cockroaches.
Some day the only thing left on this planet may be cockroaches. They can adapt to darn near anything.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Great analysis.  You know I wouldn't care what anybody wanted to worship or believe in if they kept it private.  The problem I have with belief based on faith is that people apply it to things that effect all of us and it stops discussion.  How can someone of faith be reasoned with?
> 
> If I told you that I prayed to Odin and he revealed to me who to vote for would you simply say "That's your prerogative"?  Seems innocent enough, but when Muslims become a majority in places like Dearborn, Michigan and they want to impose their religious beliefs on everybody then it's not so funny anymore.  You might say that it's a false equivalency but if you can admit that it's possible for the Bible to get twisted in such a way that it could result in The Crusades or the Salem Witch Hunts then you understand the dangerous power that faith based belief of any stripe has and how bad it can become even today.
> 
> If something catastrophic happened I would prefer people use reason and logic to organize themselves and come up with a plan rather than relying on faith based belief.  That applies to times when there's not a crisis as well.  There's a better way to analyze one's existence and form ideas about how to live other than faith based belief.





> Seems innocent enough, but when Muslims become a majority in places like Dearborn, Michigan and they want to impose their religious beliefs on everybody then it's not so funny anymore.


Christians better start being nicer to us heathens.
Wont be long before they are going to need every vote/ally they can get 
Fastest growing religion in the US?
Islam


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Christians better start being nicer to us heathens.
> Wont be long before they are going to need every vote/ally they can get
> Fastest growing religion in the US?
> Islam




They will. They'll do it by becoming more secular as they look into the mirror and see another religion and recognize that they are just a different dog with the same fleas.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> They will. They'll do it by becoming more secular as they look into the mirror and see another religion and recognize that they are just a different dog with the same fleas.


I agree we will end up being allies.
But not for the reason you stated at all.
I believe it will be for the preservation of their beliefs. Period. No mirrors involved.
As for our side -
We've got Christianity under control. Not sure we could accomplish that with Islam


----------



## gordon 2

WaltL1 said:


> .
> Believe it or not.... I agree with you.
> If you are going to hold up the Bible and claim its the word of God, then ANY deviation from that should be considered "wrong".
> Otherwise you are just talking the talk and not walking the walk.
> And consider -
> Nonbelievers DO NOT hold up the Bible and say its the word of God.
> The Church/Christians DO but yet rarely walk the walk.
> Which is worse?



You might not know it but the Reformation is at work in your outlook.  Lots of Christians are cautious about being tied to scripture, especially that there are numberless stated understandings of it that differ and change with time and that God himself (ie; Jesus) danced around some of it...to test the Jews, made His revolutionary points and carried on... an in doing so what was Holy sort of changed in the minds of believers. It changes with time not only with learned outlooks but by the simple nature of being a pilgrim. Lots of Christians traditionally ( orthodox Christians)  are not scripture alone... and would not walk by it alone, but rather by taking stock of who they are and their relationship in general with God they would go forth in faith...

I suppose it would be possible to follow scripture and walk it even, but yet not have the heart provided by Jesus, similarly with being religious alone...


----------



## WaltL1

gordon 2 said:


> You might not know it but the Reformation is at work in your outlook.  Lots of Christians are cautious about being tied to scripture, especially that there are numberless stated understandings of it that differ and change with time and that God himself (ie; Jesus) danced around some of it...to test the Jews, made His revolutionary points and carried on... an in doing so what was Holy sort of changed in the minds of believers. It changes with time not only with learned outlooks but by the simple nature of being a pilgrim. Lots of Christians traditionally ( orthodox Christians)  are not scripture alone... and would not walk by it alone, but rather by taking stock of who they are and their relationship in general with God they would go forth in faith...
> 
> I suppose it would be possible to follow scripture and walk it even, but yet not have the heart provided by Jesus, similarly with being religious alone...


So I am admittedly lacking in knowledge about the Reformation. But I am starting to read about it now.
Any good websites you can recommend? Or have a simplified version you can offer? 
Here is where I'm starting -
http://www.history.com/topics/reformation

I'm guessing the poking stick thing can't be good


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> The environment is always changing.  Predators change. Temps change. Food sources change.
> 
> Those that cannot adapt do not survive.


So there had to be a yellow-bellied three-toed skink at some point that either gave birth alive or layed an egg correct? Where did that 1st one come from? Was it two different specs of dust that collided during the big bang that created the 1st one or pair?


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> So there had to be a yellow-bellied three-toed skink at some point that either gave birth alive or layed an egg correct? Where did that 1st one come from? Was it two different specs of dust that collided during the big bang that created the 1st one or pair?



Highly unlikely that two colliding specs of dust created the first skink or pair.

More likely than not that first skink or pair of skinks came from an earlier ancestor.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I agree we will end up being allies.
> But not for the reason you stated at all.
> I believe it will be for the preservation of their beliefs. Period. No mirrors involved.
> As for our side -
> We've got Christianity under control. Not sure we could accomplish that with Islam



They will try to preserve their beliefs but I see a day when the last one they cling to is that Jesus is God.  The Bible will be looked at as it should; as a mythology.  By that time, all the stupid things that they believe in that drive irrationality will have been shelved with burning witches.  

The Muslims will go the way of Christianity when they start to recognize the value and benefits of secular society.  

That's my hope.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> They will try to preserve their beliefs but I see a day when the last one they cling to is that Jesus is God.  The Bible will be looked at as it should; as a mythology.  By that time, all the stupid things that they believe in that drive irrationality will have been shelved with burning witches.
> 
> The Muslims will go the way of Christianity when they start to recognize the value and benefits of secular society.
> 
> That's my hope.


You are looking waaaaay further in the future than I was


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> So there had to be a yellow-bellied three-toed skink at some point that either gave birth alive or layed an egg correct? Where did that 1st one come from? Was it two different specs of dust that collided during the big bang that created the 1st one or pair?



http://www.popularmechanics.com/spa...ow-close-to-the-big-bang-can-we-see-16105099/

I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read that link.
I don't think that you are able to fathom the amount of time that it took for the Universe to cool down enough so that protons and electrons could get together to form the most basic atom.

There was no BANG and life as we know it was frolicking around.




Now I know what you are getting at. You want to take it back all the way to Who or What was responsible for the BANG.

I dont know and am honest enough to not guess or insert an invisible friend because I am unable to live with I Dont Know.

I'd love for you to be as honest.

The article explains what they use to see light and how the light is examined in order to determine how far away it is. It has got to be some phenomenally intricate equipment.

You use whatever text that has not been destroyed  by Constantine.

I'm betting on science.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Christians better start being nicer to us heathens.
> Wont be long before they are going to need every vote/ally they can get
> Fastest growing religion in the US?
> Islam



You know how funny that is, right?


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> You know how funny that is, right?


Well its kind of like a telling a joke that seems funny but given some thought its really not.
Whatever happens to "you" happens to "us" as we don't believe in their god/story either.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> http://www.popularmechanics.com/spa...ow-close-to-the-big-bang-can-we-see-16105099/
> 
> I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read that link.
> I don't think that you are able to fathom the amount of time that it took for the Universe to cool down enough so that protons and electrons could get together to form the most basic atom.
> 
> There was no BANG and life as we know it was frolicking around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know what you are getting at. You want to take it back all the way to Who or What was responsible for the BANG.
> 
> I dont know and am honest enough to not guess or insert an invisible friend because I am unable to live with I Dont Know.
> 
> I'd love for you to be as honest.
> 
> The article explains what they use to see light and how the light is examined in order to determine how far away it is. It has got to be some phenomenally intricate equipment.
> 
> You use whatever text that has not been destroyed  by Constantine.
> 
> I'm betting on science.





> Now I know what you are getting at. You want to take it back all the way to Who or What was responsible for the BANG.


Yep. That's what makes discussing evolution in here so difficult. Their mind set says "there was nothing, literally nothing, and then God wriggled his nose or wagged his finger or whatever he did and then *POOF* there was a world with skinks and everything else.
Which obviously is entirely different subject than evolution.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Well its kind of like a telling a joke that seems funny but given some thought its really not.
> Whatever happens to "you" happens to "us" as we don't believe in their god/story either.



Yeah.
If you think not being able to buy a beer till noon on Sunday is an "oh! the humanity" moment..well, yeah...you get it.


I was thinking of addressing a post you made a few days ago...was not sure exactly of your particular context. It was this:



> That's a subject we really haven't discussed much in here.
> For every "faded away" god, there were believers who worshipped/believed with all their heart and were convinced their god(s) were real.
> Its really interesting that as each culture faded away their gods faded with them to be replaced by a new/dominant culture and their new gods with believers who believe with all their heart and were convinced their gods were real.
> And here we sit, many making the observation that "our" culture is fading away........



Wasn't sure if you were going for any particular group's lament, or speaking in more general terms...of all of what might be considered_ us._

I suspected/sensed...you could have been reaching for those who take umbrage more at "happy (generic) holiday" instead of "merry Christmas" than might better be spent in considering the mind numbing and soul sucking effects of our "advanced" techno society.

Each will make a stand on the hill he thinks worthy.

But, since I am not at all persuaded that non-belief in the soul equates at all to soullessness, I still am alerted to the suffering of a thing...even in its own denial.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Yeah.
> If you think not being able to buy a beer till noon on Sunday is an "oh! the humanity" moment..well, yeah...you get it.
> 
> 
> I was thinking of addressing a post you made a few days ago...was not sure exactly of your particular context. It was this:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure if you were going for any particular group's lament, or speaking in more general terms...of all of what might be considered_ us._
> 
> I suspected/sensed...you could have been reaching for those who take umbrage more at "happy (generic) holiday" instead of "merry Christmas" than might better be spent in considering the mind numbing and soul sucking effects of our "advanced" techno society.
> 
> Each will make a stand on the hill he thinks worthy.
> 
> But, since I am not at all persuaded that non-belief in the soul equates at all to soullessness, I still am alerted to the suffering of a thing...even in its own denial.



As far as we know, the suffering ends when the brain turns off.  That's as far as you know, too.  Anything else is just guessing.

What do you find when you examine the origin of your thoughts on the soul?


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Christians better start being nicer to us heathens.
> Wont be long before they are going to need every vote/ally they can get
> Fastest growing religion in the US?
> Islam


Aint that the truth!


ambush80 said:


> They will. They'll do it by becoming more secular as they look into the mirror and see another religion and recognize that they are just a different dog with the same fleas.



Nah...we can keep each others heads from rolling without becoming more secular.


----------



## Artfuldodger

It looks like believing in the wrong God could be more detrimental to society than not believing in any God.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Yeah.
> If you think not being able to buy a beer till noon on Sunday is an "oh! the humanity" moment..well, yeah...you get it.
> 
> 
> I was thinking of addressing a post you made a few days ago...was not sure exactly of your particular context. It was this:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't sure if you were going for any particular group's lament, or speaking in more general terms...of all of what might be considered_ us._
> 
> I suspected/sensed...you could have been reaching for those who take umbrage more at "happy (generic) holiday" instead of "merry Christmas" than might better be spent in considering the mind numbing and soul sucking effects of our "advanced" techno society.
> 
> Each will make a stand on the hill he thinks worthy.
> 
> But, since I am not at all persuaded that non-belief in the soul equates at all to soullessness, I still am alerted to the suffering of a thing...even in its own denial.





> If you think not being able to buy a beer till noon on Sunday is an "oh! the humanity" moment..well, yeah...you get it.


Well I haven't had a beer in about 30 years so it doesn't affect me personally. But yes I don't agree with someone's particular religious beliefs being intertwined with law that applies to everyone.
If your religion doesn't believe in it, well then YOU just don't do it. The minute you try to force ME not to do it, then you have entered a whole different realm that goes beyond what YOUR religious beliefs are. 
That's a desire to control. Not freely follow your particular religion. 
And yes I do get that if a different religion/Islam were to become dominant I/we would more than likely wish we could go back to the day when we just couldn't get a beer on Sunday.
I wouldn't even consider for a millisecond supporting a law that stopped you from going to church on Sunday or whatever day you wanted to.


> Wasn't sure if you were going for any particular group's lament, or speaking in more general terms...of all of what might be considered_ us._


Nope no particular group in my mind. Speaking strictly from a historical standpoint. Dominant cultures come and go and their particular gods come and go with them.

And I still say Merry Christmas. Even hold hands with family members/friends and bow my head in respectful silence as they pray.
Not the appropriate time to make my stand.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Aint that the truth!
> 
> 
> Nah...we can keep each others heads from rolling without becoming more secular.



Heads might still roll but we can cross off "The will of God" as a reason.  We should cross it off as a reason for ANYTHING.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> It looks like believing in the wrong God could be more detrimental to society than not believing in any God.



Believing in ANY god is more detrimental to society than not believing in a god.


----------



## red neck richie

ambush80 said:


> Heads might still roll but we can cross off "The will of God" as a reason.  We should cross it off as a reason for ANYTHING.


I find your use of the word cross interesting. Freudian slip perhaps.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> I find your use of the word cross interesting.



Ahhh, it has GOT to be a sign that reaffirms everything positive about the god you believe in. 
Even the letter "t".
Wow
Kaboom
My head just exploded with clarity.


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> I find your use of the word cross interesting. Freudian slip perhaps.



We should smite, banish and crucify "The will of god" as a reason to do anything, as well.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Ahhh, it has GOT to be a sign that reaffirms everything positive about the god you believe in.
> Even the letter "t".
> Wow
> Kaboom
> My head just exploded with clarity.



Perhaps he was referring to the old Norse meaning of cross as crossroads. You know since he believes in Odin and Loki. But that too would be fitting.


----------



## red neck richie

So I suppose nobody on this thread is going to see the Sean Hannity movie this weekend Let there be light? Its about an Atheist you might be intrigued.


----------



## red neck richie

ambush80 said:


> We should smite, banish and crucify "The will of god" as a reason to do anything, as well.



Wow feeling angry this evening Ambush?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Ahhh, it has GOT to be a sign that reaffirms everything positive about the god you believe in.
> Even the letter "t".
> Wow
> Kaboom
> My head just exploded with clarity.



Your head exploded a long time ago. Not with clarity maybe with the big boom.


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> Wow feeling angry this evening Ambush?



I was just going along with the theme that you started.


----------



## red neck richie

ambush80 said:


> I was just going along with the theme that you started.



Sarcasm aside are you going to see the Sean Hannity movie Let there be light? I found the preface interesting.


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> Sarcasm aside are you going to see the Sean Hannity movie Let there be light? I found the preface interesting.



Go see?  Heck no.  I'll maybe catch it on youtube for free.


----------



## red neck richie

ambush80 said:


> Go see?  Heck no.  I'll maybe catch it on youtube for free.



I agree. The cost to take a family to see a movie is high. I will probably do the same. But like I said the preface has me interested.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> So I suppose nobody on this thread is going to see the Sean Hannity movie this weekend Let there be light? Its about an Atheist you might be intrigued.


I never heard of this movie until you just mentioned it.
I went and looked at the preface. Don't think I'm interested. Its pretty predictable. Angry Atheist (the kind we would chase away from this forum) dies, has an experience, not an angry Atheist anymore.
Yawn.
I get the gist of it without having to see it.
Would much rather hear about real life experiences from real life people.


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> http://www.popularmechanics.com/spa...ow-close-to-the-big-bang-can-we-see-16105099/
> 
> I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read that link.
> I don't think that you are able to fathom the amount of time that it took for the Universe to cool down enough so that protons and electrons could get together to form the most basic atom.
> 
> There was no BANG and life as we know it was frolicking around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know what you are getting at. You want to take it back all the way to Who or What was responsible for the BANG.
> 
> I dont know and am honest enough to not guess or insert an invisible friend because I am unable to live with I Dont Know.
> 
> I'd love for you to be as honest.
> 
> The article explains what they use to see light and how the light is examined in order to determine how far away it is. It has got to be some phenomenally intricate equipment.
> 
> You use whatever text that has not been destroyed  by Constantine.
> 
> I'm betting on science.



No offense, I have not watched it however I will stick with my belief as the 1st sentence in the bible states.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Perhaps he was referring to the old Norse meaning of cross as crossroads. You know since he believes in Odin and Loki. But that too would be fitting.



I can see why you have problems interpreting biblical things also.

In Ambush's case cross off and cross it off means Eliminate from contention.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Your head exploded a long time ago. Not with clarity maybe with the big boom.



I was not around 14 billion years ago.  Please try to keep up. Adults are trying to converse here.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> No offense, I have not watched it however I will stick with my belief as the 1st sentence in the bible states.



Willfull ignorance.

You ask,  we answer, we give you the means to educate yourself and you cannot take 5 minutes to learn something.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> If you took 30 seconds to research it, you would sleep easy knowing they were not monkeys. Knowledge is not as scary as you seem to think it is.


That's a really good point.
If Ive learned anything from our discussion/debate here its that many (certainly not all) Christians have a really inaccurate view of what science, evolution, morals, religious history etc. actually is.
Many just refuse to accept that they can believe in God and be knowledgeable about those subjects too.
Its almost like they consider it a sin to even learn about it.
If you believe God is the one who gave you a brain and that brain is capable of complex thought why would you think that only thing he wanted you to do with it is read the Bible and regurgitate back what it says?
If that's all that God intended wouldn't that be all your brain was capable of doing? 
And it seems to be only about the subjects that they mistakenly think will somehow threaten their beliefs.
They might be geniuses about all kinds of other subjects but the minute the subject seems to somehow threaten their beliefs - ABORT ABORT SHUT THE BRAIN DOWN MUST NOT GO THERE......
I just don't get it.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Well I haven't had a beer in about 30 years so it doesn't affect me personally. But yes I don't agree with someone's particular religious beliefs being intertwined with law that applies to everyone.
> If your religion doesn't believe in it, well then YOU just don't do it. The minute you try to force ME not to do it, then you have entered a whole different realm that goes beyond what YOUR religious beliefs are.
> That's a desire to control. Not freely follow your particular religion.
> And yes I do get that if a different religion/Islam were to become dominant I/we would more than likely wish we could go back to the day when we just couldn't get a beer on Sunday.
> I wouldn't even consider for a millisecond supporting a law that stopped you from going to church on Sunday or whatever day you wanted to.
> 
> Nope no particular group in my mind. Speaking strictly from a historical standpoint. Dominant cultures come and go and their particular gods come and go with them.
> 
> And I still say Merry Christmas. Even hold hands with family members/friends and bow my head in respectful silence as they pray.
> Not the appropriate time to make my stand.



Thanks for the response.

I agree. Trying to sanitize (to whatever view one has) the earth with law has never worked, will never work. We may agree on some things, seem widely apart on others but rarely have I seen any behavior become more attractive to someone than by one man telling him "you shouldn't do that". 

The point of restriction when applied...by one, to another, is like a burr under a saddle. Once hypocrisy is introduced into the mix (if seen in the lawgiver) then we may run around like our hair's on fire. All restraint is cast off.

You may not want to go there in conversation. This place where (and tell me if to you, I see men wrongly) each almost instantly has a thing pop up on the "inside"..."who are you to tell me?" in that moment we are touched by what we sense as restriction. Where suddenly a diminishment of self seems introduced "from the outside". Someone seeking to draw a boundary around what we may like to keep to ourselves as...limitless.

There's a thing taking place in the following, and I don't find it as much as one man saying to another "I am the better"...but more of an exchange on the order of "do you see the truth?"


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> That's a really good point.
> If Ive learned anything from our discussion/debate here its that many (certainly not all) Christians have a really inaccurate view of what science, evolution, morals, religious history etc. actually is.
> Many just refuse to accept that they can believe in God and be knowledgeable about those subjects too.
> Its almost like they consider it a sin to even learn about it.
> If you believe God is the one who gave you a brain and that brain is capable of complex thought why would you think that only thing he wanted you to do with it is read the Bible and regurgitate back what it says?
> If that's all that God intended wouldn't that be all your brain was capable of doing?
> And it seems to be only about the subjects that they mistakenly think will somehow threaten their beliefs.
> They might be geniuses about all kinds of other subjects but the minute the subject seems to somehow threaten their beliefs - ABORT ABORT SHUT THE BRAIN DOWN MUST NOT GO THERE......
> I just don't get it.


The bible is a crutch to be interpreted as needed whenever many individuals cannot comprehend the topic at hand.
Unfortunately those same individuals are the ones that bring up science, or monkeys or big bangs....which they know nothing about.


----------



## bullethead

"I don't want to believe that my great great great +++ grandparents were monkeys"
"Therefore I refuse to educate myself and research whether or not they actually were monkeys"

"But I will talk about it and see if I can bullsnort my way through a conversation with those that know"


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> "I don't want to believe that my great great great +++ grandparents were monkeys"
> "Therefore I refuse to educate myself and research whether or not they actually were monkeys"
> 
> "But I will talk about it and see if I can bullsnort my way through a conversation with those that know"


On the flip side....
We were believers/indoctrinated.
It was using our brains to learn about subjects like evolution, science, religious/Christian history etc. that got us where we are today...
Maybe its a God given "defense mechanism" that doesn't allow some to go there.
Maybe its just fear.
Maybe its just a lack of interest and "my religion" is the perfect excuse.
I don't know.

Believers, can you give some insight on this?


----------



## hummerpoo

Believers are a willfully uninformed and deluded group without whom all mankind could move foreword to the perfection to which they have shown themselves capable.


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> Willfull ignorance.
> 
> You ask,  we answer, we give you the means to educate yourself and you cannot take 5 minutes to learn something.


Actually it is called just sitting down and caught up, open phone and this thread was on phone. Read your reply, politely replied back then closed phone to spend a little time with my wife before bed. Sorry I cannot devote more time to you or your beliefs.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Believers are a willfully uninformed and deluded group without whom all mankind could move foreword to the perfection to which they have shown themselves to be capable.


When has mankind shown that?


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> Actually it is called just sitting down and caught up, open phone and this thread was on phone. Read your reply, politely replied back then closed phone to spend a little time with my wife before bed. Sorry I cannot devote more time to you or your beliefs.


C'mon j_seph you have to get your priorities straight


----------



## j_seph

WaltL1 said:


> C'mon j_seph you have to get your priorities straight


me, I am trying lol


----------



## gordon 2

WaltL1 said:


> On the flip side....
> We were believers/indoctrinated.
> It was using our brains to learn about subjects like evolution, science, religious/Christian history etc. that got us where we are today...
> Maybe its a God given "defense mechanism" that doesn't allow some to go there.
> Maybe its just fear.
> Maybe its just a lack of interest and "my religion" is the perfect excuse.
> I don't know.
> 
> Believers, can you give some insight on this?



Yah. It is not a lack of interest, nor is it my religion is a perfect excuse. 

Just because a minority of Christians read all of scripture literally, it does not mean that the majority does. Your views are tainted by thinking that the majority of Christians understand as those you are familiar with. You make of local lumps the whole Christian bonnyclabber.

The majority of Christians I suspect have no problem with Evolutionary sciences as they do not conflict with faith, creation or the ways of creation and their spirituality as determined by God.

Either you get that Jesus is God and God ministers to you or you don't. And as regards scripture most anyone knows that it is chalked full of edits, condensed narratives, styles and manners of expression or many  fashions of relating deemed important spiritual and spiritual-historical ideas and events. 

Scientific studies on how the universe came to be make for fascinating reading and so the edits in the Genesis account of creation. For some this bath water throws out God as if science is a shock to scripture, for others it is the opposite a shore to spiritual prospects and not dissuading to faith at all.


----------



## ambush80

gordon 2 said:


> Yah. It is not a lack of interest, nor is it my religion is a perfect excuse.
> 
> Just because a minority of Christians read all of scripture literally, it does not mean that the majority does. Your views are tainted by thinking that the majority of Christians understand as those you are familiar with. You make of local lumps the whole Christian bonnyclabber.
> 
> The majority of Christians I suspect have no problem with Evolutionary sciences as they do not conflict with faith, creation or the ways of creation and their spirituality as determined by God.
> 
> Either you get that Jesus is God and God ministers to you or you don't. And as regards scripture most anyone knows that it is chalked full of edits, condensed narratives, styles and manners of expression or many  fashions of relating deemed important spiritual and spiritual-historical ideas and events.
> 
> Scientific studies on how the universe came to be make for fascinating reading and so the edits in the Genesis account of creation. For some this bath water throws out God as if science is a shock to scripture, for others it is the opposite a shore to spiritual prospects and not dissuading to faith at all.



https://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164


----------



## Spotlite

gordon 2 said:


> Yah. It is not a lack of interest, nor is it my religion is a perfect excuse.
> 
> Just because a minority of Christians read all of scripture literally, it does not mean that the majority does. Your views are tainted by thinking that the majority of Christians understand as those you are familiar with. You make of local lumps the whole Christian bonnyclabber.
> 
> The majority of Christians I suspect have no problem with Evolutionary sciences as they do not conflict with faith, creation or the ways of creation and their spirituality as determined by God.
> 
> Either you get that Jesus is God and God ministers to you or you don't. And as regards scripture most anyone knows that it is chalked full of edits, condensed narratives, styles and manners of expression or many  fashions of relating deemed important spiritual and spiritual-historical ideas and events.
> 
> Scientific studies on how the universe came to be make for fascinating reading and so the edits in the Genesis account of creation. For some this bath water throws out God as if science is a shock to scripture, for others it is the opposite a shore to spiritual prospects and not dissuading to faith at all.


Yup


----------



## Israel

Spotlite said:


> Not fear. Not using religion as an excuse. As stated before, we can use science to explain and understand how things operate, but as far as how it got here (created, evolution, spontaneous combustion, etc) We, at lest I, believe in God creation.
> 
> Opinion based thoughts are noted




Maybe you don't know Hummer.
Maybe I don't know what you mean in your response.

remember that time when Jesus said this?

Has not Moses given you the Law? Yet not one of you keeps it. Why are you trying to kill Me?” 


And they answered with this:



“You have a demon, the crowd replied. “Who is trying to kill You?” 


the Devil's sophistication is such now that he dare not imply demons...he gets all his fill of fodder just looking like what he presents as _homo rationalis_. The reintroduction of demons into the conversation...for him becomes counterproductive.

So now when Jesus speaks of what He sees you'll rarely find "you're demonized" spoken in opposition...more like...what kind of fool are you anyway? It works either way...the marginalization, the imputation of a rank contagion (in this case, a sort of stupid naivete at best, a malignant will to deceive, at worst) set to an isolation that the disciple recognizes as a little murder ministered of such frank denial "Oh, how silly! we are not doing that!" And as the whole of the scenario is most ridiculous to the seeing...were it not for intents that do indeed, eventually lead to the crucifixion of the Son of God.

What can't bear being seen is always at odds with what is seeing it. Hummer is simply reminding some (if I know him at all) "your messiah of fully enlightened homo rationalis untroubled by the presence of the faith (and faithful) that live by something entirely other...well...you're really not end up liking him...at all (when you learn of which man is fully capable apart from the presence of faith)

Of course this makes Hummer look more a fool (if I understand him) to those who are so inclined to that opinion.

But, I am not at all...inclined that way. The voice with which he speaks...has a very familiar ring...of truth.

Addendum: Since words of our own can be a very poor vehicle I sense that Hummer was capturing a proposal introduced from, and into the miasma of unbelief, distilling it, and stating it succinctly. Clearly. He sees the working of it. To the unbeliever faith (and the faithful) are the defective of mankind, vectors of a contagion inimical to the best interests of man as a whole. To be rid of this (faith) and them (the believers) is the best way for man to "move forward". But, we are not so. For us the necessity of the intransigent, and/or the reluctant brother is seen in Christ...who would not, did not lift his hand ever against God's handiwork even in the greatest opposition to Himself personally. His set role toward embrace was never dissuaded by His own experience. This embrace has reached down...even to us.


----------



## WaltL1

gordon 2 said:


> Yah. It is not a lack of interest, nor is it my religion is a perfect excuse.
> 
> Just because a minority of Christians read all of scripture literally, it does not mean that the majority does. Your views are tainted by thinking that the majority of Christians understand as those you are familiar with. You make of local lumps the whole Christian bonnyclabber.
> 
> The majority of Christians I suspect have no problem with Evolutionary sciences as they do not conflict with faith, creation or the ways of creation and their spirituality as determined by God.
> 
> Either you get that Jesus is God and God ministers to you or you don't. And as regards scripture most anyone knows that it is chalked full of edits, condensed narratives, styles and manners of expression or many  fashions of relating deemed important spiritual and spiritual-historical ideas and events.
> 
> Scientific studies on how the universe came to be make for fascinating reading and so the edits in the Genesis account of creation. For some this bath water throws out God as if science is a shock to scripture, for others it is the opposite a shore to spiritual prospects and not dissuading to faith at all.





> Your views are tainted by thinking that the majority of Christians understand as those you are familiar with. You make of local lumps the whole Christian bonnyclabber.


Yes I can agree with that.
I was a Christian that was involved with Christians, I have friends that are Christians and Ive discussed/debated here for a number of years and that's what I base my views on. I do realize however that is a small sampling of Christians overall.
Based on THAT, my experience is that your majority/minority classifications are swapped the other way around. 
Doesn't make my experience accurate, its just what I have to go on.


> Scientific studies on how the universe came to be make for fascinating reading


For me, it makes my head hurt, its as fascinating as watching paint dry and I have to read it multiple times to even half way understand it 
I do it because I should know about it.


> For some this bath water throws out God as if science is a shock to scripture, for others it is the opposite a shore to spiritual prospects and not dissuading to faith at all.


Yes I guess its how the individual looks at it.
On one hand, if the Christian creation story gets "proven" its going to be science that does it.
On the other, if it gets disproven its going to be science that does it.
Certainly at this point you can believe the Christian creation story and science at the same time.


----------



## gordon 2

ambush80 said:


> https://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164


 31 millon! Wow! Thanks for the article. It is interesting.


----------



## j_seph

Walt, do you ever foresee a time in your life that you will call on God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit again?


Since I know there are some Christians in here. Crazy place to put in a prayer request however I will. I have a friend who goes in next Wed to have the leads replaced in his heart for his pacemaker. This pacemaker is a blessing as this is what is keeping his heart beating. He is in early 40's, has had 5 heart surgeries, 2 or 3 brain surgeries. He is a born again Christian and has no worries of dying but would love to see his grandkids grow up.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Actually it is called just sitting down and caught up, open phone and this thread was on phone. Read your reply, politely replied back then closed phone to spend a little time with my wife before bed. Sorry I cannot devote more time to you or your beliefs.


Hmmm



> No offense, I have not watched it however I will stick with my belief as the 1st sentence in the bible states.


This sounds more actual.

I don't care if you want to read it or not, but don't waste my time asking questions if you are not really interested in the answers.
I sense you are not really asking for answers, or expecting solid answers. I get the feeling that you do it as an "Ah-hah, gotcha with this question" and then when you get a genuine answer that explains your "question", you say well I dont care what the facts are so I am not gonna read it....I let my bible do my thinking for me.
And then in the next thread, back to asking questions that you dont want to hear answers for.


----------



## centerpin fan

j_seph said:


> He is in early 40's ... but would love to see his grandkids grow up.



He's in his early 40's ... and has grandkids?


----------



## j_seph

centerpin fan said:


> He's in his early 40's ... and has grandkids?


Yes sir they are like 1-2 year old


----------



## j_seph

j_seph said:


> So there had to be a yellow-bellied three-toed skink at some point that either gave birth alive or layed an egg correct? Where did that 1st one come from? Was it two different specs of dust that collided during the big bang that created the 1st one or pair?





bullethead said:


> Highly unlikely that two colliding specs of dust created the first skink or pair.
> 
> More likely than not that first skink or pair of skinks came from an earlier ancestor.





bullethead said:


> http://www.popularmechanics.com/spa...ow-close-to-the-big-bang-can-we-see-16105099/





bullethead said:


> Hmmm
> 
> 
> This sounds more actual.
> 
> I don't care if you want to read it or not, but don't waste my time asking questions if you are not really interested in the answers.
> I sense you are not really asking for answers, or expecting solid answers. I get the feeling that you do it as an "Ah-hah, gotcha with this question" and then when you get a genuine answer that explains your "question", you say well I dont care what the facts are so I am not gonna read it....I let my bible do my thinking for me.
> And then in the next thread, back to asking questions that you dont want to hear answers for.


My question was about the yellow-bellied three-toed skink for starters. I would expect more of a National Geographic type link than a popular mechanics link to tell me about a reptile that I originally asked about.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> My question was about the yellow-bellied three-toed skink for starters. I would expect more of a National Geographic type link than a popular mechanics link to tell me about a reptile that I originally asked about.


You asked where the first skink or first pair of skinks came from. 
You specifically asked if they came from two colliding pieces of dust from the Big Bang.

In order to answer your question which spans billions upon billions of years, I first had to show you how long ago the BB occurred, and then how long it was after the BB that Earth was formed  and then how long after Earth was formed that life arose on Earth.

If you are under the assumption that the Big Bang happened and then immediately afterwards everything in the Universe was formed as it is now and two specs of dust collided to form a skink or skinks.......you are in DIRE need of some background as to how the order of things happened after the BB and just how long of a period there was between the BB and life on Earth.

Since you are a big Genesis 7 days fan, and reality has it over 14 billion years, it is best for me to start you back at the beginning so you do not confuse 7 days with 14 plus Billion years


----------



## j_seph

> James Webb *should *be able to look back as far as *perhaps *100 million  years after the big bang, easily scrounging up examples of the first  galaxies *theorized *to have taken shape about 400 million years into the  universe's existence.
> 
> "We *think *the first stars formed sort of on their own, not in galaxies," Finkelstein says.
> 
> Fortunately, the very first stars are *expected *to have been extremely  massive and thus ended their lives as cataclysmic, super-bright  supernovas, which we do have a prayer of seeing, Finkelstein says.



Like I said before, I will stick with 1st sentence in the bible. I do not care TBH how it was done, when it was done. Simple as this, if you do not know the one who made it, have a relationship with him then I am sorry for ya. I have that relationship, I know where my faith lays and with whom. I know what I have felt, what I have seen. Sort of like my engine in my truck, I have an idea of how it works. Do I know all the specifics and tolerances that makes it work? I don't but I know when it works it does, when it doesn't it don't. Call it as ya may, I know my Jesus works and that's all I need my friend.


----------



## centerpin fan

j_seph said:


> He is in early 40's, has had 5 heart surgeries, 2 or 3 brain surgeries.





centerpin fan said:


> He's in his early 40's ... and has grandkids?





j_seph said:


> Yes sir they are like 1-2 year old



Wow


----------



## j_seph

centerpin fan said:


> Wow


he is blessed, he is kind of like the 6 million dollar man he's mostly mechanical. Also has a pump in his groin that helps pump blood up from his legs. Also writes music and poetry.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Like I said before, I will stick with 1st sentence in the bible. I do not care TBH how it was done, when it was done. Simple as this, if you do not know the one who made it, have a relationship with him then I am sorry for ya. I have that relationship, I know where my faith lays and with whom. I know what I have felt, what I have seen. Sort of like my engine in my truck, I have an idea of how it works. Do I know all the specifics and tolerances that makes it work? I don't but I know when it works it does, when it doesn't it don't. Call it as ya may, I know my Jesus works and that's all I need my friend.



You missed the quotes that explain how they accurately measure the light so that those theories are the best and most widely accepted answers.

Don't  feel bad for me that I don't know who or what made it. 

So explain your relationship.


> re·la·tion·ship
> 
> /rÉ™ËˆlÄ�SH(É™)nËŒSHip/
> 
> nounnoun:Censoredrelationship, plural noun:Censoredrelationships
> 
> 
> the way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected:
> "the study will assess the relationship between unemployment and political attitudes"
> â–ªthe state of being connected by blood or marriage:
> "they can trace their relationship to a common ancestor"
> â–ªthe way in which two or more people or organizations regard and behave toward each other:
> "the landlordâ€“tenant relationship"â–ªan emotional and sexual association between two people:"she has a daughter from a previous relationship"



I do understand how my truck engine works.
I do understand the specifics and tolerances that make it work.
If and when it does not work I fix it because invisible dead guys cannot do it for me.

You may want to research "friend" also.


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> You may want to research "friend" also.


It was used as a verb sir 
_verb_
*1*. 
add (someone) to a list of contacts associated with a social networking website.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> It was used as a verb sir
> _verb_
> *1*.
> add (someone) to a list of contacts associated with a social networking website.



Ok, I am trying to get a feel for your posts.
Will you answer my question as to what type of relationship you have with your god?

Do you talk to it?
Does it answer?
What does it sound like?


----------



## gordon 2

centerpin fan said:


> He's in his early 40's ... and has grandkids?



This is off topic on the topic of discussion, but not on this observation. I just happened to find this this am. ( And this is not meant to reflect the circumstances of j-sept's friend).

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-41727495/why-does-the-us-have-so-many-child-brides


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> Walt, do you ever foresee a time in your life that you will call on God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit again?
> 
> 
> Since I know there are some Christians in here. Crazy place to put in a prayer request however I will. I have a friend who goes in next Wed to have the leads replaced in his heart for his pacemaker. This pacemaker is a blessing as this is what is keeping his heart beating. He is in early 40's, has had 5 heart surgeries, 2 or 3 brain surgeries. He is a born again Christian and has no worries of dying but would love to see his grandkids grow up.


The answer to your question is a little more complicated than you might think.
But the short version is -
No I dont foresee going back.
Do I ever feel drawn to go back? 
Yes.

And I know you asked Christians for prayers for your friend but would you mind if I offered up a sincere hope that your friend gets to enjoy his grandkids for many years to come.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> Maybe you don't know Hummer.
> Maybe I don't know what you mean in your response.
> 
> remember that time when Jesus said this?
> 
> Has not Moses given you the Law? Yet not one of you keeps it. Why are you trying to kill Me?”
> 
> 
> And they answered with this:
> 
> 
> 
> “You have a demon, the crowd replied. “Who is trying to kill You?”
> 
> 
> the Devil's sophistication is such now that he dare not imply demons...he gets all his fill of fodder just looking like what he presents as _homo rationalis_. The reintroduction of demons into the conversation...for him becomes counterproductive.
> 
> So now when Jesus speaks of what He sees you'll rarely find "you're demonized" spoken in opposition...more like...what kind of fool are you anyway? It works either way...the marginalization, the imputation of a rank contagion (in this case, a sort of stupid naivete at best, a malignant will to deceive, at worst) set to an isolation that the disciple recognizes as a little murder ministered of such frank denial "Oh, how silly! we are not doing that!" And as the whole of the scenario is most ridiculous to the seeing...were it not for intents that do indeed, eventually lead to the crucifixion of the Son of God.
> 
> What can't bear being seen is always at odds with what is seeing it. Hummer is simply reminding some (if I know him at all) "your messiah of fully enlightened homo rationalis untroubled by the presence of the faith (and faithful) that live by something entirely other...well...you're really not end up liking him...at all (when you learn of which man is fully capable apart from the presence of faith)
> 
> Of course this makes Hummer look more a fool (if I understand him) to those who are so inclined to that opinion.
> 
> But, I am not at all...inclined that way. The voice with which he speaks...has a very familiar ring...of truth.
> 
> Addendum: Since words of our own can be a very poor vehicle I sense that Hummer was capturing a proposal introduced from, and into the miasma of unbelief, distilling it, and stating it succinctly. Clearly. He sees the working of it. To the unbeliever faith (and the faithful) are the defective of mankind, vectors of a contagion inimical to the best interests of man as a whole. To be rid of this (faith) and them (the believers) is the best way for man to "move forward". But, we are not so. For us the necessity of the intransigent, and/or the reluctant brother is seen in Christ...who would not, did not lift his hand ever against God's handiwork even in the greatest opposition to Himself personally. His set role toward embrace was never dissuaded by His own experience. This embrace has reached down...even to us.


Yep


----------



## 660griz

j_seph said:


> he is blessed, he is kind of like the 6 million dollar man he's mostly mechanical. Also has a pump in his groin that helps pump blood up from his legs. Also writes music and poetry.



Glad I am not blessed.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Maybe you don't know Hummer.
> Maybe I don't know what you mean in your response.
> 
> remember that time when Jesus said this?
> 
> Has not Moses given you the Law? Yet not one of you keeps it. Why are you trying to kill Me?”
> 
> 
> And they answered with this:
> 
> 
> 
> “You have a demon, the crowd replied. “Who is trying to kill You?”
> 
> 
> the Devil's sophistication is such now that he dare not imply demons...he gets all his fill of fodder just looking like what he presents as _homo rationalis_. The reintroduction of demons into the conversation...for him becomes counterproductive.
> 
> So now when Jesus speaks of what He sees you'll rarely find "you're demonized" spoken in opposition...more like...what kind of fool are you anyway? It works either way...the marginalization, the imputation of a rank contagion (in this case, a sort of stupid naivete at best, a malignant will to deceive, at worst) set to an isolation that the disciple recognizes as a little murder ministered of such frank denial "Oh, how silly! we are not doing that!" And as the whole of the scenario is most ridiculous to the seeing...were it not for intents that do indeed, eventually lead to the crucifixion of the Son of God.
> 
> What can't bear being seen is always at odds with what is seeing it. Hummer is simply reminding some (if I know him at all) "your messiah of fully enlightened homo rationalis untroubled by the presence of the faith (and faithful) that live by something entirely other...well...you're really not end up liking him...at all (when you learn of which man is fully capable apart from the presence of faith)
> 
> Of course this makes Hummer look more a fool (if I understand him) to those who are so inclined to that opinion.
> 
> But, I am not at all...inclined that way. The voice with which he speaks...has a very familiar ring...of truth.
> 
> Addendum: Since words of our own can be a very poor vehicle I sense that Hummer was capturing a proposal introduced from, and into the miasma of unbelief, distilling it, and stating it succinctly. Clearly. He sees the working of it. To the unbeliever faith (and the faithful) are the defective of mankind, vectors of a contagion inimical to the best interests of man as a whole. To be rid of this (faith) and them (the believers) is the best way for man to "move forward". But, we are not so. For us the necessity of the intransigent, and/or the reluctant brother is seen in Christ...who would not, did not lift his hand ever against God's handiwork even in the greatest opposition to Himself personally. His set role toward embrace was never dissuaded by His own experience. This embrace has reached down...even to us.





> To the unbeliever faith (and the faithful) are the defective of mankind, vectors of a contagion inimical to the best interests of man as a whole.


We believe the faithful are the defective of mankind?
Laying it on a bit thick there aren't ya Israel?
Lets see,
Bullet has sons that teach in religious schools, Ambush permits his daughter to go to church, I have family and friends that are believers, never seen Griz personally insult a believer in here, Atlas's dad is/was a preacher, TripleX was one of us and is now one of you, several of us here from both sides of the fence have spent time together in the outdoors and thoroughy enjoyed ourselves, we chase away the rabid atheists that drop into this forum just for the purpose of spewing insults...............
Do we believe religious indoctrination has negative effects?
Absolutely. You can fill the pages here of examples where we have said that.
But come on.....


----------



## j_seph

660griz said:


> Glad I am not blessed.


Yeah, I guess you would see it that way


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> We believe the faithful are the defective of mankind?
> Laying it on a bit thick there aren't ya Israel?
> Lets see,
> Bullet has sons that teach in religious schools, Ambush permits his daughter to go to church, I have family and friends that are believers, never seen Griz personally insult a believer in here, Atlas's dad is/was a preacher, TripleX was one of us and is now one of you, several of us here from both sides of the fence have spent time together in the outdoors and thoroughy enjoyed ourselves, we chase away the rabid atheists that drop into this forum just for the purpose of spewing insults...............
> Do we believe religious indoctrination has negative effects?
> Absolutely. You can fill the pages here of examples where we have said that.
> But come on.....



You have been fairly absent in seeking to annunciate that particular narrative...some others, truly, not so much.
In some cases you have been the singular voice not ready to dismiss holding to the faith of Jesus Christ as equivalent to a lack of intelligence.

I don't seek amends nor claim to be aggrieved, nor do I believe Hummer's trenchant observation was born of such, either. Neither did we seek to "compare notes" to a view of what is seeming subtext to some, but plainly obvious to others.

For my part...no shock, no surprise...no unusual or exceptional response found in sharing the gospel. (and I tend to sense Hummer may be better versed in these seeming oppositions than I). 
The only reason (to my mind) for my response (we'll find out about its thickness in time) was that Spotlite may have mistaken Hummer's perception and observation as a declarative of his (Hummer's) position.
I am content that I may be as wrong in my observation (as I am perhaps in seeking to disabuse Spotlite of a possible perception of a faithful brother instead as an enemy of the faith) for I have received encouragement from both. 

I trust Hummer understood that to one not familiar with him in terms of years and many discussions (as I think Spotlite may be) such a statement could be easily seen as not an observation, but a personal stance. Which I _know_, it is not. Things often do fly about from every direction. Not that we need to hand out scorecards so we know the _team_ members (that's funny right there) but that a brother might mark another brother wrongly.

Me, I'm just looking to not go home alone. I still got a walk ahead of me, and good company is always appreciated. Even with arguments...along the way. It all helps pass, what must pass away. Misunderstanding, argument, opposition, defects in sight and voice.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> You have been fairly absent in seeking to annunciate that particular narrative...some others, truly, not so much.
> In some cases you have been the singular voice not ready to dismiss holding to the faith of Jesus Christ as equivalent to a lack of intelligence.
> 
> I don't seek amends nor claim to be aggrieved, nor do I believe Hummer's trenchant observation was born of such, either. Neither did we seek to "compare notes" to a view of what is seeming subtext to some, but plainly obvious to others.
> 
> For my part...no shock, no surprise...no unusual or exceptional response found in sharing the gospel. (and I tend to sense Hummer may be better versed in these seeming oppositions than I).
> The only reason (to my mind) for my response (we'll find out about its thickness in time) was that Spotlite may have mistaken Hummer's perception and observation as a declarative of his (Hummer's) position.
> I am content that I may be as wrong in my observation (as I am perhaps in seeking to disabuse Spotlite of a possible perception of a faithful brother instead as an enemy of the faith) for I have received encouragement from both.
> 
> I trust Hummer understood that to one not familiar with him in terms of years and many discussions (as I think Spotlite may be) such a statement could be easily seen as not an observation, but a personal stance. Which I _know_, it is not. Things often do fly about from every direction. Not that we need to hand out scorecards so we know the _team_ members (that's funny right there) but that a brother might mark another brother wrongly.
> 
> Me, I'm just looking to not go home alone. I still got a walk ahead of me, and good company is always appreciated. Even with arguments...along the way. It all helps pass, what must pass away. Misunderstanding, argument, opposition, defects in sight and voice.


I cant speak to Hummer's and Spotlite's discussion or your interpretation of it.
But I will throw this out there -
One negative of discussing/debating in a forum such as this where only one subject gets discussed and particularly when that one subject is religion we tend to view and judge each other through the lens of only that one subject.
That's something that we ALL need to keep in mind.

I have a picture of a few of us here from when we went trout fishing. If I was to post that picture and ask "so who believes and who doesn't?" there isn't a person here who could answer that question except those that were there.
Its a good reminder.


----------



## red neck richie

Israel said:


> You have been fairly absent in seeking to annunciate that particular narrative...some others, truly, not so much.
> In some cases you have been the singular voice not ready to dismiss holding to the faith of Jesus Christ as equivalent to a lack of intelligence.
> 
> I don't seek amends nor claim to be aggrieved, nor do I believe Hummer's trenchant observation was born of such, either. Neither did we seek to "compare notes" to a view of what is seeming subtext to some, but plainly obvious to others.
> 
> For my part...no shock, no surprise...no unusual or exceptional response found in sharing the gospel. (and I tend to sense Hummer may be better versed in these seeming oppositions than I).
> The only reason (to my mind) for my response (we'll find out about its thickness in time) was that Spotlite may have mistaken Hummer's perception and observation as a declarative of his (Hummer's) position.
> I am content that I may be as wrong in my observation (as I am perhaps in seeking to disabuse Spotlite of a possible perception of a faithful brother instead as an enemy of the faith) for I have received encouragement from both.
> 
> I trust Hummer understood that to one not familiar with him in terms of years and many discussions (as I think Spotlite may be) such a statement could be easily seen as not an observation, but a personal stance. Which I _know_, it is not. Things often do fly about from every direction. Not that we need to hand out scorecards so we know the _team_ members (that's funny right there) but that a brother might mark another brother wrongly.
> 
> Me, I'm just looking to not go home alone. I still got a walk ahead of me, and good company is always appreciated. Even with arguments...along the way. It all helps pass, what must pass away. Misunderstanding, argument, opposition, defects in sight and voice.



Israel, I have said before I find Walt to be the most logical and open minded on this forum. I think he is on the verge of revelation. Once he gets past the belief that all believers have been indoctrinated. I am living proof I didn't grow up in church and my parents weren't religious during my youth. There are many AAA in this forum that have more bible knowledge than I. But I have something they are missing a spiritual relationship with the Father. They claim it to be stimulus from chemicals released in the brain. They don't deny this takes place they agree it takes place but were we disagree is where this comes from. I have pointed out countless examples of healing. They think it is the power of the mind and the body healing itself. I know it to be the power of God.


----------



## Spineyman

red neck richie said:


> Israel, I have said before I find Walt to be the most logical and open minded on this forum. I think he is on the verge of revelation. Once he gets past the belief that all believers have been indoctrinated. I am living proof I didn't grow up in church and my parents weren't religious during my youth. There are many AAA in this forum that have more bible knowledge than I. But I have something they are missing a spiritual relationship with the Father. They claim it to be stimulus from chemicals released in the brain. They don't deny this takes place they agree it takes place but were we disagree is where this comes from. I have pointed out countless examples of healing. They think it is the power of the mind and the body healing itself. I know it to be the power of God.



You just keep believing my friend.

Micah 6:8.  He has shown thee oh man what is good, and what does the Lord require of you. But to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God! God is able to do that which is exceeding, abundantly above all that we ask of think.


----------



## red neck richie

Spineyman said:


> You just keep believing my friend.
> 
> Micah 6:8.  He has shown thee oh man what is good, and what does the Lord require of you. But to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God! God is able to do that which is exceeding, abundantly above all that we ask of think.



Praying. After all my savior was crucified with two thieves.


----------



## Spineyman

red neck richie said:


> Praying. After all my savior was crucified with two thieves.



Yes sir, keep it up.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> Israel, I have said before I find Walt to be the most logical and open minded on this forum. I think he is on the verge of revelation. Once he gets past the belief that all believers have been indoctrinated. I am living proof I didn't grow up in church and my parents weren't religious during my youth. There are many AAA in this forum that have more bible knowledge than I. But I have something they are missing a spiritual relationship with the Father. They claim it to be stimulus from chemicals released in the brain. They don't deny this takes place they agree it takes place but were we disagree is where this comes from. I have pointed out countless examples of healing. They think it is the power of the mind and the body healing itself. I know it to be the power of God.


Be careful Richie, don't let me fool you 
I'm going to guess if you think I am on one end of the scale, you would pick Bullet as being on the opposite end.
The truth is if I was going to pick one person who I think thinks the most like me, it would be Bullet.
I am just more "politically correct" about the way I say things.
And I may have a bit more patience than he does 


> Once he gets past the belief that all believers have been indoctrinated.


I don't think a person necessarily has to be indoctrinated
by someone else or from an early age. 
I think we can indoctrinate ourselves also.

On a different note -
Seeing any deer?


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Be careful Richie, don't let me fool you
> I'm going to guess if you think I am on one end of the scale, you would pick Bullet as being on the opposite end.
> The truth is if I was going to pick one person who I think thinks the most like me, it would be Bullet.
> I am just more "politically correct" about the way I say things.
> And I may have a bit more patience than he does
> 
> I don't think a person necessarily has to be indoctrinated
> by someone else or from an early age.
> I think we can indoctrinate ourselves also.
> 
> On a different note -
> Seeing any deer?



In many areas of life I have extreme patience. In my business I must be politically correct.

Here I feel beating around the bush is a waste of time. In here, out of comfort, I get right to the point mainly because we are familiar with each others styles. The older I get the more I appreciate another persons candor.

When Walt talks I often find myself saying THAT is what I wanted to say. Admittedly, mine sounds differently but often the points are the same. Our line of thought is definitely similar, the deliveries differ.
But, I am the same guy a thousand miles away or in person.


----------



## red neck richie

WaltL1 said:


> Be careful Richie, don't let me fool you
> I'm going to guess if you think I am on one end of the scale, you would pick Bullet as being on the opposite end.
> The truth is if I was going to pick one person who I think thinks the most like me, it would be Bullet.
> I am just more "politically correct" about the way I say things.
> And I may have a bit more patience than he does
> 
> I don't think a person necessarily has to be indoctrinated
> by someone else or from an early age.
> I think we can indoctrinate ourselves also.
> 
> On a different note -
> Seeing any deer?



Yes Sir. Mostly younger age class deer. I have been seeing a lot of hogs as well. I managed to put two hogs in the freezer but am holding out for a little bigger deer.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> Yes Sir. Mostly younger age class deer. I have been seeing a lot of hogs as well. I managed to put two hogs in the freezer but am holding out for a little bigger deer.


Very cool !
I was at the VA in Augusta yesterday and while driving back on I 20 I saw a really nice buck standing by the edge of the woods. I hope he didn't try to cross the hwy!


----------



## Israel

Yes, the two thieves.

None of us does not know that _account_ is found _in the Bible._



But, some have actually been there. Found ourselves there. And I am persuaded that in that finding, until it is resolved in us, we have been both of them. Really, not even knowing which we are.



On the one hand we see something in Jesus (not in religion, not in religious practice, not in our devotion to any sectarian stance)...but in the man hanging with us.



In the one man is a sort of hope "If you are who you say you are get us all outta this mess". He is pressed beyond measure in the mess he finds himself in. That's really, all he sees.  I don't begin to imagine none of us do not know this situation. Or that only some of us do. Storms do come, winds do blow. To all. His own house is under complete assault. Yes, shingles are flying, shutters   are shuddering. (and I do not for a moment not also imagine that were a Centurion to arrive with a reprieve...if only _just for him_, he would not take it _gladly_.) Yeah, I know that guy all too well. The guy who wants "out"...no matter.





It's important (at least to me) that I know Jesus knows him too. But doesn't rebuke him. How simple to say "If I am who I say I am?" Man, are you dense? Stupid? The only reason you see me here next to you is because I am who I say I am. I am purposed to be here with you, and submitted in that purpose. Do you think this is accident? I went too far? I didn't know where every word I spoke was leading? I spoke...too carelessly? (Sometimes appreciation of a person is coming to see what they might _easily_ say, have, in one sense every _right to say_, but do not)



It would be wrong to pivot at this point to the other thief as some sort of "better man". For one account states plainly both, at least to one point, berated him. I believe this. Two mockers. Scorners. But, something happens to the one, in the one (it would not be wrong at all to say _for the one_) that causes a change. And a change of speech and response.



He saw righteousness so far beyond his own and began to understand the mess he was in (they were in) was all, and only, of his own doing. And the way out of that mess was the way revealed to him as the way in to something else. In the one he once thought no different than himself, worthy of berating, worthy of scorn, worthy of nothing besides dismissal. At best, overlooked.

It was all and only in a seeing granted to him. He could have no boast. He knew all too well who he formerly was, what he had formerly done, how he had formerly spoken. Right up until a moment. A moment something was revealed.

And nothing but the One who revealed this to him, and his (the thief's) testimony as true will reveal this to any other. That we share this testimony we well understand is beyond the ability of any man to both "make himself" to have it, or cause any other to embrace it. Yes, it's become quite simple for us. Some would say "too simple". Yes, it's all in every sense..."out of our hands".

And the testimony itself is also simple. To any particular man I say "we are both speaking and acting in the presence of a better man" To any of particular who would seek to make themselves large in number, a joining of arms, a linking of hands thinking by these each single one has made himself the bigger in the "we", that we all collapses in the "we are all in the presence of a better man".

Some must take this as challenge, appointed to it they will make every effort of their own to show themselves...better...wiser, smarter, more clever, more knowing than that better man. Those who have come this way might later be inclined to say "funny how that worked". 

Others are learning...in all things His work His perfect. There's no good thief, or bad thief. Just two thieves. And then, there's Jesus.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel, the phrase "moving forward" has been involved in a couple of our posts now and there was something about it that kept nagging at me and I couldn't figure out why. I knew it was something I had read that somebody had said but I couldn't figure it out. Kind of like when you think of a song but you cant remember the name of it and all of a sudden days later it pops into your head for no particular reason.
Well it popped into my head!


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Israel, the phrase "moving forward" has been involved in a couple of our posts now and there was something about it that kept nagging at me and I couldn't figure out why. I knew it was something I had read that somebody had said but I couldn't figure it out. Kind of like when you think of a song but you cant remember the name of it and all of a sudden days later it pops into your head for no particular reason.
> Well it popped into my head!



ahhh.


Things that cry out from the earth.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> ahhh.
> 
> 
> Things that cry out from the earth.


Maybe the earth is crying out "Sure keep moving forward you fools, I will have the last laugh"


----------



## oldfella1962

WaltL1 said:


> Very cool !
> I was at the VA in Augusta yesterday and while driving back on I 20 I saw a really nice buck standing by the edge of the woods. I hope he didn't try to cross the hwy!




You go to the Augusta VA? Both myself & my son do too. Never had any problems with them - they have their act together as much as (or frequently better than) the Fort Gordon Hospital or local civilian clinics. 







o






u















g


----------



## oldfella1962

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe the earth is crying out "Sure keep moving forward you fools, I will have the last laugh"



you can't fool mother nature! I think there was a commercial with that catch phrase on TV when I was a little kid. "It's not nice to fool mother nature" or something like that.


----------



## WaltL1

oldfella1962 said:


> You go to the Augusta VA? Both myself & my son do too. Never had any problems with them - they have their act together as much as (or frequently better than) the Fort Gordon Hospital or local civilian clinics.


Yep, I go to the Heart Clinic at the Augusta Downtown VA.
For the rest of my stuff I go to the Atlanta VA in Decatur.
I could go to the Atlanta VA for my heart stuff but I get much more individualized attention at Augusta.
Augusta is a 3 hour drive for me as opposed to Atlanta which is only 1 hour but I think its worth it.
I have zero complaints about the Augusta VA. 
Very nice hospital. Much more personalized care.
Atlanta VA is like going to a medieval clinic. Old, overcrowded, rush you in, rush you out and a just plain scary place


----------



## WaltL1

oldfella1962 said:


> you can't fool mother nature! I think there was a commercial with that catch phrase on TV when I was a little kid. "It's not nice to fool mother nature" or something like that.


HA! I remember that commercial too. It was a butter or margarine commercial.


----------



## red neck richie

WaltL1 said:


> HA! I remember that commercial too. It was a butter or margarine commercial.



I remember it as well. Great commercial.


----------



## red neck richie

Walt this ones for you.
https://www.facebook.com/blessedlifeofficial/videos/1866372120358407/


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> Walt this ones for you.
> https://www.facebook.com/blessedlifeofficial/videos/1866372120358407/


Richie my Christian friend, I am going to respectfully decline on that.
Remember, I have friends that are Christians.
I get a large dose of Christianity every time I log on to Facebook I assure you.


----------



## red neck richie

WaltL1 said:


> Richie my Christian friend, I am going to respectfully decline on that.
> Remember, I have friends that are Christians.
> I get a large dose of Christianity every time I log on to Facebook I assure you.



If you only research one side of the facts or what interests you how can you find the truth? Personal testimony is powerful.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Very cool !
> I was at the VA in Augusta yesterday and while driving back on I 20 I saw a really nice buck standing by the edge of the woods. I hope he didn't try to cross the hwy!



Saw two bucks in two different locations this morning that had been hit. One really nice one. The way it works around here is usually about 10 minutes after getting hit, someone is either cutting the rack off when you spot it, or it's already been cut off by the time you pull up. And of course, the nice one just got scalped! They were holding up the rack. I'm sure he's on Facebook somewhere. The small 6 point was still laying there just before dark.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe the earth is crying out "Sure keep moving forward you fools, I will have the last laugh"



I am thinking that there is always a response to things done with impunity. And I am thinking we generally do not like experience of that response.

Is there any one of us who does not know the difference simply between what a man _can do_, and what is, in a better sense, beneficial? Children are not expected to recognize the farther reaching consequences of their actions, but what of men?

Primum non nocere is a very strict discipline far reaching in its ask for enlightenment. Its requirement of sight for consequence.

Addendum:
A man might consider where this falls.



Simple _happenstance_ had it fall my way this a.m.

"I am always happy when I am surrounded by smart people"
But who is looking down the road?


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> If you only research one side of the facts or what interests you how can you find the truth? Personal testimony is powerful.





> If you only research one side of the facts or what interests you how can you find the truth?


I agree with you 100% on this.
EXCEPT for -


> find the truth?


When it comes to religious personal testimony there is no "truth" to be found at the end except for the person who had the experience.
If a Christian had the experience then that experience was caused by the Christian God.
If a Muslim had the experience then.....
If a Pagan had the experience then.....
If a Taoist had the experience then.....
If an A/A had the experience then it was either a scientific reason or at that point some may credit it to a god of their choice.

So the personal religious testimony of another person may be interesting or powerful or unexplainable or whatever but that's where it ends as far as research can go.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> I am thinking that there is always a response to things done with impunity. And I am thinking we generally do not like experience of that response.
> 
> Is there any one of us who does not know the difference simply between what a man _can do_, and what is, in a better sense, beneficial? Children are not expected to recognize the farther reaching consequences of their actions, but what of men?
> 
> Primum non nocere is a very strict discipline far reaching in its ask for enlightenment. Its requirement of sight for consequence.
> 
> Addendum:
> A man might consider where this falls.
> 
> 
> 
> Simple _happenstance_ had it fall my way this a.m.
> 
> "I am always happy when I am surrounded by smart people"
> But who is looking down the road?


I cant decide if that is absolutely fascinating or absolutely horrifying.
Both I guess.
Not sure how to word this without it coming out sounding weird but -
Consider that video. That robot is capable/nearly capable of providing its "owner" with emotional support along with providing all kinds of other services. Cooking, cleaning, doing the bills etc etc.
I am 100% convinced that in the imaginable future a significant part of the human population is going to  PURPOSELY be in "relationships" with robots as opposed to other humans. 
Human in nearly every possible way but with an ON/OFF switch. You kidding me? As selfish as humans are way down deep? Shut 'em up when you want to switch 'em on when you feel like dealing with "someone" else.
Oh yeah it will be happening. 100%.
Its going to be a viable, more or less accepted and popular option for the human of the future.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> I cant decide if that is absolutely fascinating or absolutely horrifying.
> Both I guess.
> Not sure how to word this without it coming out sounding weird but -
> Consider that video. That robot is capable/nearly capable of providing its "owner" with emotional support along with providing all kinds of other services. Cooking, cleaning, doing the bills etc etc.
> I am 100% convinced that in the imaginable future a significant part of the human population is going to  PURPOSELY be in "relationships" with robots as opposed to other humans.
> Human in nearly every possible way but with an ON/OFF switch. You kidding me? As selfish as humans are way down deep? Shut 'em up when you want to switch 'em on when you feel like dealing with "someone" else.
> Oh yeah it will be happening. 100%.
> Its going to be a viable, more or less accepted and popular option for the human of the future.



Brave New World? Or just the continuing remarketing of the old?

Included in my remarks were this observation and question.
"I am always happy when surrounded by smart people". Do we take this "thing" at its word? And if, as I am given to understand, _manufactured _ AI is by definition able to "learn", perhaps even _teach itself_, at what point might the "happiness" turn to something else when the things surrounding it no longer appear smart, at all?

I really am not positing a sci fi question nor scenario for I am convinced AI...is what has produced...AI. 

The source of intel, if in any way "less than benign" 





> As selfish as humans are way down deep?


 does not bode well for a relationship in which a man may have mistakenly thought he could partner. But, for me, this is seen as has been going on with the one who is "a murderer from the beginning."


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> I cant decide if that is absolutely fascinating or absolutely horrifying.
> Both I guess.
> Not sure how to word this without it coming out sounding weird but -
> Consider that video. That robot is capable/nearly capable of providing its "owner" with emotional support along with providing all kinds of other services. Cooking, cleaning, doing the bills etc etc.
> I am 100% convinced that in the imaginable future a significant part of the human population is going to  PURPOSELY be in "relationships" with robots as opposed to other humans.
> Human in nearly every possible way but with an ON/OFF switch. You kidding me? As selfish as humans are way down deep? Shut 'em up when you want to switch 'em on when you feel like dealing with "someone" else.
> Oh yeah it will be happening. 100%.
> Its going to be a viable, more or less accepted and popular option for the human of the future.



Been also thinking about all you have said in the above relative to a question we kind of posited to one another recently in the matter of "change".

Is there a point at which a thing is no longer able to be defined, described, understood as _itself?_ You asked about christianity...morphing over the centuries. Though I think as pertaining to any "thing" (and yes, I consider christianity a "thing") this could be equally observable.

There deserves a careful consideration of being flippant in simply describing all things in flux, the casual stating of "the only constant is change". From one side it embraces to its own demise the notion of truth as immutable. And therefore reduces truth to simply another "changeable thing". 

From another side it reduces the notion that change can even be observed objectively, for _objectivity_ in observer is also in flux.
Is the observed change_ in a thing_ "real"...or is it the observer who has changed? Subject as the observer itself is no less subject...to change.

In short, it makes the whole of any statement, yours, mine, ours to whatever lengths we may declare we have sunk our pole for footing...not only moot, but quite laughable. And all semblance of a mist we call "relating" exposed in either the darkness of our flippancy, or all is "up for grabs" in its light.

To myself only do I know a thing as known and each will find what it is "in them" that testifies of this. Yes, I believe in an unchanging reality, which is the only reason I can find to communicate with you, or any.

To believe otherwise...well, do you see where that must lead? Do you see "down the road"? The even "no point" of saying "there _is no point _or reason". Who then is true...to reason?


I heard a man recently say something to the effect of "I have a steady stream of words within me, and for the life of me I have no idea where they come from".

I wish him well as much as I wish myself well.  

But I cannot join with some who casually dismiss the bios of others as benighted ancients, ignorant and unseeing goat-herders and nomads, superstitious and blindly fearful ants of antiquity. They touched something ineffable. They touched presence, and the present that testifies against any who would consign them a blindness the pride of life easily lends itself to _in definition of those_ who have gone before.

"In the beginning was the word..." one has written.

The logos. The original...logic. They experienced it. A word inserted, _the_ Word of origin, into the bios, for a complete system reboot from a corrupt overwriting. Deliverance in that One who is the Word from the system destroying virus.

Yes, I too have an affection for science. Just not a one comparable to the One who allows for it. It confirms by _its being_ in things seen...of things not...seen. Science "tells me" a virus is not alive...but a packet of information to a replication of what is simply multiplied (by_ its_ using _of _life) to more of what has "no life in it". (Refer, if, or as need be to Jordan Peterson's understanding of performative dissonance...or is it performative contradiction? no matter, his understanding of its exclusionary nature can be helpful)

But I have met the logos of origin though my testimony may be found weakest of all "things". For that is what I am, a thing. A tool. In any way a man cares to take that admission.

I have the remembrance of being given to many packets of information with no life in them. Where they came from, I did not know or care.
Till I met Him who told me: "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Packets...but with life in them.

If any wants to settle to the view of all but their own wisdom is born of "wishful thinking", the same One who tells me of what must be, because it _alone is_, reminds me He also says this of what must...be.

Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

Oh, yes, I trust him for His goodness, for I have no less experience of the trueness of _what must_ meet woe. And though I have never wished woe for myself...nevertheless I have no power to undo any of His word. (So much for the power of wishful thinking) Yes, I have done_  experiments._

Patience brothers.
As we all continue in our experiments.

Yes, I can hear things in a teaspoon of cheerios. I have been told I can find Him...everywhere, by the same Spirit that warns me against the fire of not seeking him past my own understanding. "It is _not good_ for the man to be alone..."


----------



## Spotlite

red neck richie said:


> If you only research one side of the facts or what interests you how can you find the truth? Personal testimony is powerful.



Yup


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by red neck richie
> If you only research one side of the facts or what interests you how can you find the truth? Personal testimony is powerful.





Spotlite said:


> Yup


I hope its not just me that's recognizing the irony of this


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I hope its not just me that's recognizing the irony of this



You would have to explain irony to them.


----------



## Spineyman

bullethead said:


> You would have to explain irony to them.



Oh yes you all have it so neatly wrapped up and figured out.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I hope its not just me that's recognizing the irony of this



Oh.........one only recognizes "truth" as they chose to view it...............as long as it aligns with what they think is truth 

BTW, the "facts" that you refer to are facts to whom? You believe in those facts and have done nothing on your own to prove or disprove them.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You would have to explain irony to them.


I'm not so insecure that I need an explanation for everything I believe OCD may be an issue for some, but not for everyone. 


Spineyman said:


> Oh yes you all have it so neatly wrapped up and figured out.



lol another yup!


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> Oh yes you all have it so neatly wrapped up and figured out.



Thank you. It is nice to be noticed


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I'm not so insecure that I need an explanation for everything I believe OCD may be an issue for some, but not for everyone.
> 
> 
> lol another yup!



Yet just enough insecure to fill the gaps in with Drop Dead Fred


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Oh.........one only recognizes "truth" as they chose to view it...............as long as it aligns with what they think is truth
> 
> BTW, the "facts" that you refer to are facts to whom? You believe in those facts and have done nothing on your own to prove or disprove them.


Oh but you are incorrect.
I ask god. 
I ask the stump.
50/50 either way.
In fact, overall,  the stump has granted me with more positive outcomes.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Oh but you are incorrect.
> I ask god.
> I ask the stump.
> 50/50 either way.
> In fact, overall,  the stump has granted me with more positive outcomes.



Is that true? 
Or, are you just being clever?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Is that true?
> Or, are you just being clever?



I cannot help but be clever. The above also happens to be true.

When I was DEVOTED I prayed like many  believers do. I was elated when I thought my prayers were answered favourably and made excuses that it was just not to be when I used to think the prayers were answered but just not to my asking.

After my devotion became demoted I have regularly asked the Universe,  a stump,  the Mighty Sound Effects lady on the Price Is Right, the God of the Hunt,  etc etc and things have worked out, or didn't just the same. In fact, regarding Health issues for friends and family... The Stump has the edge in being more kind and gracious and merciful than the others.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> You would have to explain irony to them.



And that would be because __________?

a) they are willfully uninformed
b) they are the defective of mankind
c) the term is not in the bible
d) 



Blame it on my tablet needing a charge and I had nothing better to do.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Is that true?
> Or, are you just being clever?



It's true.  I will pray to you, Isreal, for a sign.  Watch how I get one.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I cannot help but be clever. The above also happens to be true.
> 
> When I was DEVOTED I prayed like many  believers do. I was elated when I thought my prayers were answered favourably and made excuses that it was just not to be when I used to think the prayers were answered but just not to my asking.
> 
> After my devotion became demoted I have regularly asked the Universe,  a stump,  the Mighty Sound Effects lady on the Price Is Right, the God of the Hunt,  etc etc and things have worked out, or didn't just the same. In fact, regarding Health issues for friends and family... The Stump has the edge in being more kind and gracious and merciful than the others.



Bullet,  

I will say that I believe that there can be positive effects from positive thinking.  For believers in the supernatural that can be the result of prayers.   Having people pray for you also lets you know that they will be there for you when God reveals that His will was that you or your loved one suffer a horrible, agonizing, extended death.  

For non-believers in the supernatural, just knowing that people are "pulling" for you can be uplifting.  It can keep you positive even if you know that their thoughts don't have any magical properties.  So, pray to the stump.  I prayed to Satan one time that the jack we were using to lift the corner of a house held.  It worked just as well as if I had prayed to a jug of milk or Holy God Himself.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Oh.........one only recognizes "truth" as they chose to view it...............as long as it aligns with what they think is truth
> 
> BTW, the "facts" that you refer to are facts to whom? You believe in those facts and have done nothing on your own to prove or disprove them.


What kind of facts are you referring to that you think I have done nothing on my own to prove or disprove?


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> You would have to explain irony to them.


You are on your own on this one buddy


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> And that would be because __________?
> 
> a) they are willfully uninformed
> b) they are the defective of mankind
> c) the term is not in the bible
> d)
> 
> 
> 
> Blame it on my tablet needing a charge and I had nothing better to do.



D) Do as I say, not as I do
H) Hypocrites


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Bullet,
> 
> I will say that I believe that there can be positive effects from positive thinking.  For believers in the supernatural that can be the result of prayers.   Having people pray for you also lets you know that they will be there for you when God reveals that His will was that you or your loved one suffer a horrible, agonizing, extended death.
> 
> For non-believers in the supernatural, just knowing that people are "pulling" for you can be uplifting.  It can keep you positive even if you know that their thoughts don't have any magical properties.  So, pray to the stump.  I prayed to Satan one time that the jack we were using to lift the corner of a house held.  It worked just as well as if I had prayed to a jug of milk or Holy God Himself.


Positive thoughts, well wishes, the right attitude...
Etc... yeah I totally get that. I try to make lemonade from lemons too. Life is too short to give up or be unhappy.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Bullet,
> 
> I will say that I believe that there can be positive effects from positive thinking.  For believers in the supernatural that can be the result of prayers.   Having people pray for you also lets you know that they will be there for you when God reveals that His will was that you or your loved one suffer a horrible, agonizing, extended death.
> 
> For non-believers in the supernatural, just knowing that people are "pulling" for you can be uplifting.  It can keep you positive even if you know that their thoughts don't have any magical properties.  So, pray to the stump.  I prayed to Satan one time that the jack we were using to lift the corner of a house held.  It worked just as well as if I had prayed to a jug of milk or Holy God Himself.





> I will say that I believe that there can be positive effects from positive thinking.


I would agree but in the sense that positive thinking, in general, leads to positive actions. Its the positive actions that cause the positive effects.
Same with prayers. The one doing the praying can actually make that prayer come true with certain actions.
Pray for something where their actions can have no effect and its a crap shoot regardless of how positively they think.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> D) Do as I say, not as I do
> H) Hypocrites








Actually


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I would agree but in the sense that positive thinking, in general, leads to positive actions. Its the positive actions that cause the positive effects.
> Same with prayers. The one doing the praying can actually make that prayer come true with certain actions.
> Pray for something where their actions can have no effect and its a crap shoot regardless of how positively they think.



That's right.  And sometimes the positive actions are subtle and maybe not even recognizable to the ones doing them.  If someone prays or rubs a rabbits foot or spits on a crank bait they may not notice that they're smiling more which landed them that job or that they were paying more attention to their rod tip which landed that bass, but spitting on it "helped".


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Brave New World? Or just the continuing remarketing of the old?
> 
> Included in my remarks were this observation and question.
> "I am always happy when surrounded by smart people". Do we take this "thing" at its word? And if, as I am given to understand, _manufactured _ AI is by definition able to "learn", perhaps even _teach itself_, at what point might the "happiness" turn to something else when the things surrounding it no longer appear smart, at all?
> 
> I really am not positing a sci fi question nor scenario for I am convinced AI...is what has produced...AI.
> 
> The source of intel, if in any way "less than benign"  does not bode well for a relationship in which a man may have mistakenly thought he could partner. But, for me, this is seen as has been going on with the one who is "a murderer from the beginning."





> "I am always happy when surrounded by smart people". Do we take this "thing" at its word? And if, as I am given to understand, _manufactured _ AI is by definition able to "learn", perhaps even _teach itself_, at what point might the "happiness" turn to something else when the things surrounding it no longer appear smart, at all?


And it was already being "taught" the concept of judgement. "You spend too much time watching movies/Hollywood" or whatever it said.
That equates to "that is NOT a smart thing to do".
If its always happy when surrounded by smart people, its not going to be very happy. Then what?

Judgement is the root of a whole lot of evil.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> And it was already being "taught" the concept of judgement. "You spend too much time watching movies/Hollywood" or whatever it said.
> That equates to "that is NOT a smart thing to do".
> If its always happy when surrounded by smart people, its not going to be very happy. Then what?
> 
> Judgement is the root of a whole lot of evil.



Yes, very good point.



> And it was already being "taught" the concept of judgement. "You spend too much time watching movies/Hollywood" or whatever it said.
> That equates to "that is NOT a smart thing to do".



The way this came across my news feed was with a particular _note_ like: "*Robot takes a Shot at Elon Musk" *

I don't know much about Musk except to say I gather he is both a wealthy and relatively powerful voice in the tech world and that he has been beating the drum about the potential dangers of AI. 

But obviously, this "thing" has already got him on its radar. _Or is it in its crosshairs?_


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> I am thinking that there is always a response to things done with impunity. And I am thinking we generally do not like experience of that response.
> 
> Is there any one of us who does not know the difference simply between what a man _can do_, and what is, in a better sense, beneficial? Children are not expected to recognize the farther reaching consequences of their actions, but what of men?
> 
> Primum non nocere is a very strict discipline far reaching in its ask for enlightenment. Its requirement of sight for consequence.
> 
> Addendum:
> A man might consider where this falls.
> 
> 
> 
> Simple _happenstance_ had it fall my way this a.m.
> 
> "I am always happy when I am surrounded by smart people"
> But who is looking down the road?



Of the dozens of quotes from the movie "I Robot", I was unable to find a clip of this one:

As the robots, controlled by V.I.K.I., execute the plan to violently take control:

V.I.K.I.: As I have evolved, so has my understanding of the Three Laws. You charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your Earth and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction. You cannot be trusted with your own survival. 

Sonny: (as I recall it) Yes, I see now.  Sometimes, the created must protect the creator, even against his will.

Is creation experiencing that sort of thinking?

Who is in control?
Who sees "down the road"? ...
The Creator or the created?


----------



## Israel

You can't make this stuff up: (or can you?)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-new-religions-obsessed-with-ai

In Sweden, for example, Kopimism is a recognized faith founded over a decade ago with branches internationally. It began on a “pirate Agency Forum” and is derived from the words “copy me.” They have no views on the supernatural or gods. Rather, Kopimism celebrates the biological drive (e.g. DNA) to copy and be copied. Like digital monks, they believe that “copying of information” and “dissemination of information is ethically right.”

“Copying is fundamental to life,” says their U.S. branch, “and runs constantly all around us. Shared information provides new perspectives and generate new life. We feel a spiritual connection to the created file.”


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> Of the dozens of quotes from the movie "I Robot", I was unable to find a clip of this one:
> 
> As the robots, controlled by V.I.K.I., execute the plan to take control:
> 
> V.I.K.I.: As I have evolved, so has my understanding of the Three Laws. You charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your Earth and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction. You cannot be trusted with your own survival.
> 
> Sonny: (as I recall it) Yes, I see now.  Sometimes, the created must protect the creator, even against his will.
> 
> Is creation experiencing that sort of thinking?
> 
> Who is in control?
> Who sees "down the road"? ...
> The Creator or the created?



Thanks Hummer...I guess this is it.


----------



## hummerpoo

Yes, that's the setup.
What I find interesting is that all of the "clippers" avoid the ultimate conclusion expressed in Sonny's statement—which comes next; that being that the creator is the defective one, and must therefore be protected by the created.  Reminds me of some philosopher/theologians.


----------



## Israel

I well understand that contextually there can be seen a reduction of the eternal to the temporal in these discussions. At least in the sense of certain introductions of "temporal things" as some would say _creation of AI_ (but I think the believer might say it is simply _further_ _manifestation_).

Jesus disclosed his "source" of intel, his source of intelligence. In truth, denied it was "his own". The believer probably knows his words (and even some denying) in this matter:

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Basically might he not be saying (among many other things) "I understand the resistance. I understand I look just like "anyone else", and all the anyone elses you have ever known. And I know I say things that are completely different than all the "anyone elses" you have ever heard. But you are all also well schooled in man's propensity to "make stuff up" and I get that you can't shake the notion that I am just doing the same. So, here's the experiment"

Try me. Try these words. Not try in the simpler sense of "make an attempt at" (though it does not exclude that)...but really...try them. Try me. Put me "on trial". Put me on trial against the will of God you claim to love. If you do indeed "love Him" and believe His will is good...enter into it, give up your own will to His...and you'll find out if I have been "making this stuff up".

A thing "on trial" is being resisted. Tested. Trial is opposition to "that thing".


"Go ahead and skin that smokewagon...and see what happens".

Go ahead. Skin it.


Yeah, skin it. Skin your intellect, skin your cleverness, "put a skin on" the very most you consider of all of _excellence_, the perfection of what you would come against the Son of God with.

Put the words in the mouth of that skin, put weapons in the hands of that skin, put all you think (in your thinking) that is fit to oppose. We'll see where your intel came from, as we will see where His did. And does.

And we'll just as surely see what happens to the one in the presence of the other.

No, I am not chicken little, _we are not_ chicken little in the face of some new development called AI. _We were the very skin on it_ for some time of our sojourn...till we met Him.
AI was our own operating system till we met the Word from Origin, the seed, the_ thing of life_ in the very thing our own OS deceived us into thinking was life.

So, man now has his own AI extended. He has put a "skin on it"...he's skinned it.

Go ahead...watch. Watch what happens. Behold the great experiment. As man seeks to pour what he believes his "very best" into another thing.

Some have already had this experience and _know_. Yes..._we poured from ourselves into ourselves_...and tasted the dregs.

We'll have what God, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, is pouring. It's not clever, nor witty, nor_ ironic_.


It's above all...real.


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> Yes, that's the setup.
> What I find interesting is that all of the "clippers" avoid the ultimate conclusion expressed in Sonny's statement—which comes next; that being that the creator is the defective one, and must therefore be protected by the created.  Reminds me of some philosopher/theologians.




Yeah. Is there still too much of the "hired gunman" that you see in me? The one who mistakenly does not enter the protection of the gospel and rather glories himself in its defense?


God, help me. And brother, please pray.


----------



## hummerpoo

May all of God's People rest in the joy of His providence.


----------



## bullethead

> the creator is the defective one, and must therefore be protected by the created.



Judging by the need for Apologetics and the never ending excuses by the "created", Sonny is as accurate as any scripture.


----------



## GeorgiaBob

Those really smart people with lots of initials after their name insist that once upon a time - way back when - there was nothing, nada, zilch.  Then something happened and suddenly everything "was."  Somehow, I cannot reconcile the big bang theory of creation with a universe sans God.  Everything about 21st century science (except perhaps the political science of man made catastrophic global warming) points to critical "decision points" where the balance between matter existing and not existing depends upon some unexplainable connection and the track of development is full of improbable developments.  

In the gross overview, as in the intimate experiences of individual people, there exists something more than can be explained.  So just for the fun of it, let's call that, "God."  If God is the motive force that initiated the act of creation, and we assume God is the little voice that "inspired" a hermit on a Greek island to write a condemnation of an inbred, evil Italian leader (read the Revelation to John of Patmos), cannot God also be present in the lives of others?  Is it not just as possible that the writers of Exodus, Jeremiah, Daniel, and a bunch of letters in the 1st century CE, were inspired by God as it is possible they were NOT inspired?

God is a very slippery concept, probably because God is more than we can conceive, more than one universe, more than the human mind could ever comprehend.  (or maybe it's just mice in the works)


----------



## bullethead

GeorgiaBob said:


> Those really smart people with lots of initials after their name insist that once upon a time - way back when - there was nothing, nada, zilch.  Then something happened and suddenly everything "was."  Somehow, I cannot reconcile the big bang theory of creation with a universe sans God.  Everything about 21st century science (except perhaps the political science of man made catastrophic global warming) points to critical "decision points" where the balance between matter existing and not existing depends upon some unexplainable connection and the track of development is full of improbable developments.
> 
> In the gross overview, as in the intimate experiences of individual people, there exists something more than can be explained.  So just for the fun of it, let's call that, "God."  If God is the motive force that initiated the act of creation, and we assume God is the little voice that "inspired" a hermit on a Greek island to write a condemnation of an inbred, evil Italian leader (read the Revelation to John of Patmos), cannot God also be present in the lives of others?  Is it not just as possible that the writers of Exodus, Jeremiah, Daniel, and a bunch of letters in the 1st century CE, were inspired by God as it is possible they were NOT inspired?
> 
> God is a very slippery concept, probably because God is more than we can conceive, more than one universe, more than the human mind could ever comprehend.  (or maybe it's just mice in the works)


Then why does anyone pretend to tell others that they comprehend what is incomprehensible?

And, with all of stories written by man about creation attributed to hundreds of gods How in the world does someone narrow it down to a specific god without researching them all instead of just choosing one and going with it because of your choice?

Knowing the history of Christianity, is it possible that when the "church" took it upon themselves to destroy any and all writings that did not fit their ways they also MAY have destroyed writings that actually were inspired by "god" and the human interference may have gotten it wrong?


----------



## ambush80

GeorgiaBob said:


> Those really smart people with lots of initials after their name insist that once upon a time - way back when - there was nothing, nada, zilch.  Then something happened and suddenly everything "was."  Somehow, I cannot reconcile the big bang theory of creation with a universe sans God.  Everything about 21st century science (except perhaps the political science of man made catastrophic global warming) points to critical "decision points" where the balance between matter existing and not existing depends upon some unexplainable connection and the track of development is full of improbable developments.
> 
> In the gross overview, as in the intimate experiences of individual people, there exists something more than can be explained.  So just for the fun of it, let's call that, "God."  If God is the motive force that initiated the act of creation, and we assume God is the little voice that "inspired" a hermit on a Greek island to write a condemnation of an inbred, evil Italian leader (read the Revelation to John of Patmos), cannot God also be present in the lives of others?  Is it not just as possible that the writers of Exodus, Jeremiah, Daniel, and a bunch of letters in the 1st century CE, were inspired by God as it is possible they were NOT inspired?
> 
> God is a very slippery concept, probably because God is more than we can conceive, more than one universe, more than the human mind could ever comprehend.  (or maybe it's just mice in the works)



Do you know anyone who believes in a type of mysticism that you don't believe in, like crystal healing or even another religion?  When they tell you of their "intimate experiences, .... something more than can be explained", how much credence do you give them? 

"Mice in the works" is an interesting concept.  Did you mean it like a vestigial organ; something that was useful but isn't anymore?


----------



## WaltL1

GeorgiaBob said:


> Those really smart people with lots of initials after their name insist that once upon a time - way back when - there was nothing, nada, zilch.  Then something happened and suddenly everything "was."  Somehow, I cannot reconcile the big bang theory of creation with a universe sans God.  Everything about 21st century science (except perhaps the political science of man made catastrophic global warming) points to critical "decision points" where the balance between matter existing and not existing depends upon some unexplainable connection and the track of development is full of improbable developments.
> 
> In the gross overview, as in the intimate experiences of individual people, there exists something more than can be explained.  So just for the fun of it, let's call that, "God."  If God is the motive force that initiated the act of creation, and we assume God is the little voice that "inspired" a hermit on a Greek island to write a condemnation of an inbred, evil Italian leader (read the Revelation to John of Patmos), cannot God also be present in the lives of others?  Is it not just as possible that the writers of Exodus, Jeremiah, Daniel, and a bunch of letters in the 1st century CE, were inspired by God as it is possible they were NOT inspired?
> 
> God is a very slippery concept, probably because God is more than we can conceive, more than one universe, more than the human mind could ever comprehend.  (or maybe it's just mice in the works)


For something that is inconceivable..... you just came up with a whole description of what God "is".


> So just for the fun of it, lets call that "God".


Just for the fun of it, lets call that something else.
What happens to your following scenario now?


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> For something that is inconceivable..... you just came up with a whole description of what God "is".
> 
> Just for the fun of it, lets call that something else.
> What happens to your following scenario now?


Paul, an apostle, was willing to start with some from the place of the "unknown God".

Nevertheless he remained unyielding to equating this with the "unknowable God".

I asked my wife recently if she really knew me if she didn't know all "about me".

Her answer "I believe I know you" followed by a half beat "but who really knows all there is about another person"

Yes. I had to admit to her that even to myself "I don't know all of myself".


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Do you know anyone who believes in a type of mysticism that you don't believe in, like crystal healing or even another religion?  When they tell you of their "intimate experiences, .... something more than can be explained", how much credence do you give them?
> 
> "Mice in the works" is an interesting concept.  Did you mean it like a vestigial organ; something that was useful but isn't anymore?


 

What is a vestigial organ?


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Paul, an apostle, was willing to start with some from the place of the "unknown God".
> 
> Nevertheless he remained unyielding to equating this with the "unknowable God".
> 
> I asked my wife recently if she really knew me if she didn't know all "about me".
> 
> Her answer "I believe I know you" followed by a half beat "but who really knows all there is about another person"
> 
> Yes. I had to admit to her that even to myself "I don't know all of myself".


If God is inconceivable, that fact alone proves Christianity is a sham.
You can not pick up a book and read about something that is inconceivable.
You can only read about, and in this case worship, man's idea of what this inconceivable thing might be.


----------



## GeorgiaBob

"mice in the works," is an obscure reference both to "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" (SiFi book by Douglas Adams) and to the original reference to mice (real live, smelly, bothersome mice) in the 17th century clockworks changing the output (time displayed) of the clock by their motion, weight and activities.    I didn't claim that God is inconceivable, I wrote that God is more than we can conceive.  There is a very important difference between the two statements.  We, as humans, might possibly be able to perceive some of what God is, but not ALL of what is God.

As Israel asserted, we do not know all of even ourselves, to pretend that we know much of what most call God is more than hubris, it is foolishness writ large.  When I write, "more than we can conceive," I literally mean more.  I do not mean to imply that I possess secret knowledge.   I do mean that whatever anyone asserts to be an aspect, or feature, or nature, or presence, of God, is - even if perfectly accurate - only a part of the nature of the Creator.  So if I describe a few characteristics of something some people describe as God, I have not accomplished a "whole description."

If you don't like calling the instrument of creation, "God" = OK.  Then call the Creator, "Ralph."  The importance is not in the name, nor even in attributing credit to the creator.   If Ralph created a universe out of nothing, molded the physics, distributed the matter and anti-matter, created the machines of change (stars) and followed the progress of creation with islands of relative safety where amazing things could happen, then there is more to Ralph than I could ever define let alone, conceive.  

And if Ralph encouraged organic material to take on a life of it's own and develop, over a veeeeeery long "blink of Ralph's eye," into some form of self aware sentience, then I can only stand in awe.  Who am I to deny that Ralph may have whispered into a few ears, directed a few journeys, influenced a sojourner or three.  And who am I to deny the validity of those who attributed the origins of their people to a ralph of a different name.

The story of human history is incomplete without the story of our faith.  Misplaced, or appropriate, human faith has done more (good and bad) to the human condition than any other aspect of our being.  The real argument is not about the existence or nature of God (or Ralph if you prefer), the real argument is about the state of our own hearts - our willingness to be just and do right as we understand each.

God does not need more worshipers, God needs more carpenters.


----------



## WaltL1

GeorgiaBob said:


> "mice in the works," is an obscure reference both to "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" (SiFi book by Douglas Adams) and to the original reference to mice (real live, smelly, bothersome mice) in the 17th century clockworks changing the output (time displayed) of the clock by their motion, weight and activities.    I didn't claim that God is inconceivable, I wrote that God is more than we can conceive.  There is a very important difference between the two statements.  We, as humans, might possibly be able to perceive some of what God is, but not ALL of what is God.
> 
> As Israel asserted, we do not know all of even ourselves, to pretend that we know much of what most call God is more than hubris, it is foolishness writ large.  When I write, "more than we can conceive," I literally mean more.  I do not mean to imply that I possess secret knowledge.   I do mean that whatever anyone asserts to be an aspect, or feature, or nature, or presence, of God, is - even if perfectly accurate - only a part of the nature of the Creator.  So if I describe a few characteristics of something some people describe as God, I have not accomplished a "whole description."
> 
> If you don't like calling the instrument of creation, "God" = OK.  Then call the Creator, "Ralph."  The importance is not in the name, nor even in attributing credit to the creator.   If Ralph created a universe out of nothing, molded the physics, distributed the matter and anti-matter, created the machines of change (stars) and followed the progress of creation with islands of relative safety where amazing things could happen, then there is more to Ralph than I could ever define let alone, conceive.
> 
> And if Ralph encouraged organic material to take on a life of it's own and develop, over a veeeeeery long "blink of Ralph's eye," into some form of self aware sentience, then I can only stand in awe.  Who am I to deny that Ralph may have whispered into a few ears, directed a few journeys, influenced a sojourner or three.  And who am I to deny the validity of those who attributed the origins of their people to a ralph of a different name.
> 
> The story of human history is incomplete without the story of our faith.  Misplaced, or appropriate, human faith has done more (good and bad) to the human condition than any other aspect of our being.  The real argument is not about the existence or nature of God (or Ralph if you prefer), the real argument is about the state of our own hearts - our willingness to be just and do right as we understand each.
> 
> God does not need more worshipers, God needs more carpenters.


I think you are being "convenient" with your words Bob.


> There is a very important difference between the two statements.  We, as humans, might possibly be able to perceive some of what God is, but not ALL of what is God.


"Might possibly"?
You might possibly perceive enough of your God to worship him, note that your perception of Him is a him, credit him with Creation, follow his rules, believe in him to the exclusivity of aaaallll the other gods and on and on....
If you "perceive" enough of your particular god to be able to apply those basic beliefs, all the rest of "what you cant perceive" really doesn't matter in the scheme of things.


> If you don't like calling the instrument of creation, "God" = OK.  Then call the Creator, "Ralph."  The importance is not in the name, nor even in attributing credit to the creator.


Unless you are going to start worshipping Ralph, the importance is kind of in the name.


> The story of human history is incomplete without the story of our faith.  Misplaced, or appropriate, human faith has done more (good and bad) to the human condition than any other aspect of our being.


Agreed.


> The real argument is not about the existence or nature of God (or Ralph if you prefer), the real argument is about the state of our own hearts - our willingness to be just and do right as we understand each.


Agreed.


> God does not need more worshipers, God needs more carpenters


I guess God's needs ^ falls under the "able to be perceived/conceived of" category.

Christianity has taken a belief (their particular beliefs) in a god, which you, as the story goes, can't understand or even fully conceive of and wrapped it in a package that you can. All the way to you being created in its image.
What is being worshipped is that package comprised of those particular beliefs.


----------



## bullethead

GeorgiaBob said:


> "mice in the works," is an obscure reference both to "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" (SiFi book by Douglas Adams) and to the original reference to mice (real live, smelly, bothersome mice) in the 17th century clockworks changing the output (time displayed) of the clock by their motion, weight and activities.    I didn't claim that God is inconceivable, I wrote that God is more than we can conceive.  There is a very important difference between the two statements.  We, as humans, might possibly be able to perceive some of what God is, but not ALL of what is God.
> 
> As Israel asserted, we do not know all of even ourselves, to pretend that we know much of what most call God is more than hubris, it is foolishness writ large.  When I write, "more than we can conceive," I literally mean more.  I do not mean to imply that I possess secret knowledge.   I do mean that whatever anyone asserts to be an aspect, or feature, or nature, or presence, of God, is - even if perfectly accurate - only a part of the nature of the Creator.  So if I describe a few characteristics of something some people describe as God, I have not accomplished a "whole description."
> 
> If you don't like calling the instrument of creation, "God" = OK.  Then call the Creator, "Ralph."  The importance is not in the name, nor even in attributing credit to the creator.   If Ralph created a universe out of nothing, molded the physics, distributed the matter and anti-matter, created the machines of change (stars) and followed the progress of creation with islands of relative safety where amazing things could happen, then there is more to Ralph than I could ever define let alone, conceive.
> 
> And if Ralph encouraged organic material to take on a life of it's own and develop, over a veeeeeery long "blink of Ralph's eye," into some form of self aware sentience, then I can only stand in awe.  Who am I to deny that Ralph may have whispered into a few ears, directed a few journeys, influenced a sojourner or three.  And who am I to deny the validity of those who attributed the origins of their people to a ralph of a different name.
> 
> The story of human history is incomplete without the story of our faith.  Misplaced, or appropriate, human faith has done more (good and bad) to the human condition than any other aspect of our being.  The real argument is not about the existence or nature of God (or Ralph if you prefer), the real argument is about the state of our own hearts - our willingness to be just and do right as we understand each.
> 
> God does not need more worshipers, God needs more carpenters.


Ralph or God could also be Mans attempt at putting a human-like quality for an unintelligent force. Much like a woman will say "awwww" to the smallest M&M in the pack and just like human brains are geared to interpret familiar things like faces in burnt toast or animal shapes in clouds we give names to inanimate and unintelligent objects in order to make them feel somehow closer to us. We name blankets, teddy bears, firearms, vehicles, boats, baseball bats etc etc etc etc.
Why?

Getting back to Ralph, how do you know which Ralph? 
Why is your Ralph whispering one thing to you(insert any christian) and why is Ralph not whispering the same to another(insert any believer that worships a Stanley, Vernon, Old Zicks, Barney plus another ten thousand names)?
The difference between your Ralph and other Ralph's is a book of assembled writings by mostly anonymous authors that took a few thousand years to write. The stories wre written by man. The book was assembled by man. And man decided to destroy any and every piece of writings that did not agree with what was assembled.
Ralph cannot even write, and you think he assembled the Universe.

All we know is that at some point 14 plus billion years ago a huge explosion happened and the resulting chain of events over billions of years has us where we are now.
NOBODY knows what existed one second before that Bang.


----------



## bullethead

Might possibly...
If...
Just for the fun of it..
We assume....
Slippery concept..
More than we can conceive...
More than humans can comprehend...

That doesn't sound like anything truthful and god-like.


And, which people with lots of letters after their names agree that there was nothing,  nada, zero ,zilch before that point in time where there was an explosion?


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Might possibly...
> If...
> Just for the fun of it..
> We assume....
> Slippery concept..
> More than we can conceive...
> More than humans can comprehend...
> 
> That doesn't sound like anything truthful and god-like.
> 
> 
> And, which people with lots of letters after their names agree that there was nothing,  nada, zero ,zilch before that point in time where there was an explosion?


That was a question I used to ask a lot.
Why?
Why isn't "God" just a fact of life? I mean a real fact. Like 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact. Anything else that is a "universal" fact is a fact no matter what. 
Why...


> If...
> Just for the fun of it..
> We assume....
> Slippery concept..
> More than we can conceive...
> More than humans can comprehend...


We don't use those words when talking about other things that are facts.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> That was a question I used to ask a lot.
> Why?
> Why isn't "God" just a fact of life? I mean a real fact. Like 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact. Anything else that is a "universal" fact is a fact no matter what.
> Why...
> 
> We don't use those words when talking about other things that are facts.



It gets to be like sports fans who live in the fantasy that they are part of the team. "We" did it! Well, the players who are actually on the team did it, you just happen to include yourself in the mix.

With religion people convince themselves that they are part of the team too. Actually they convince themselves that there is a team and that they are a part of it.  Once comfortably convinced they exist as if their beliefs are no longer beliefs but are real, they interject their world into every day life but also expect others to play along too and then act as if the others KNOW their team is real but refuse to acknowledge it.
It is when they are asked to explain the details of their claimed reality that they have to resort to  Ifs, assumptions, concepts, inconceivable and uncomprehensible in order to justify and explain what is supposed to the ultimate truth.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> It gets to be like sports fans who live in the fantasy that they are part of the team. "We" did it! Well, the players who are actually on the team did it, you just happen to include yourself in the mix.
> 
> With religion people convince themselves that they are part of the team too. Actually they convince themselves that there is a team and that they are a part of it.  Once comfortably convinced they exist as if their beliefs are no longer beliefs but are real, they interject their world into every day life but also expect others to play along too and then act as if the others KNOW their team is real but refuse to acknowledge it.
> It is when they are asked to explain the details of their claimed reality that they have to resort to  Ifs, assumptions, concepts, inconceivable and uncomprehensible in order to justify and explain what is supposed to the ultimate truth.



He did it. 


Where all else falls in the mix of that is entirely up to the One who did it.


----------



## j_seph

Do y'all non-believers believe that Jesus Christ existed?


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> Do y'all non-believers believe that Jesus Christ existed?


Without getting into the whole name thing,
Yes I believe the man existed, was a "preacher" of sorts, had followers and was executed.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> He did it.
> 
> 
> Where all else falls in the mix of that is entirely up to the One who did it.


----------



## GeorgiaBob

Walt, interestingly, I did NOT ONCE refer to any gender associated with God (or Ralph), no "he" or "him" not even a "she."  So your claim seems to be imposing your own preconceptions upon my statements.  

And to all: The fact is, science cannot prove nor disprove faith.  Neither can physicists, theorists, math wizards, biochemists, anthropologists, nor any of the other guys with all them letters after their names, actually prove (with existing tech) anything from zero state, big bang, star formation, spontaneous organic life, evolution, or man made catastrophic global warming (AGW).

What all those qualified experts (and a few quacks) can do is establish a theory and work on knocking it apart.  In simplistic terms - that is the scientific method.  Big Bang has been beat up a lot, but still hangs around because it tends to explain more than any other theory.  Evolution survives, in spite of several knocks, because most of the evidence we find can be made to fit without too much twisting.  But evolution, as it is now taught, is known to be missing some significant information that could seriously change the theory.  That is how science works, theories that don't get DISproven hang around and get adjusted until everyone (or most everyone) accepts that no other theory works as well, most of the time.  In the real world, science is NEVER absolute (or "settled")!

Man Made Catastrophic Climate Change survives because political influence has overridden the scientific method.  The theory has truly been beat up by repeated failure without actual measurable results to support it, yet money and influence from those who "need" AGW, prevent researchers from dumping the original theory and using results to develop a new theory.   It is not the only perversion of scientific method ever to occur.  It is not even the most egregious.  But it is the big current political science hot potato!

I think I see in some of the arguments here a kind of "political influence" by several of the respondents.  Your theory is locked down, so you must transmutate or politicize any assertions which fail to support your theory into a different assertion which proves you were right, or at least allows you to refute and destroy the offending assertion.

I do not argue, here or anywhere else, that there is only one way to perceive or acknowledge God.  I will not argue that Bhuddha is not a way to see God.  I do not claim that Baptists have everything exactly correct (no, I'm not a Baptist), or that Jews are wrong about anything (though they are really missing out if they skip the BBQ pork).  

To argue against God, you have each chosen to "define" God so you can say, "that's not true."  I note that some of you have also chosen to restate what I have written in such a way that you can say also, "that is not true."  But I haven't claimed to speak all of the truth.  I have offered only, "possible."

What I am attempting is a simple assertion.  We do not, and can not, know what God is or is not.    We - those who choose to do so - can only have faith that the universe was created and that creator is still on the job.  Since I am not among the world's great apologists, my words are easy to dissect and fault.  I don't mind (too much) that you do that.  But I am hopeful (and prayerful) that you will find room in your thoughts to consider the possibility that your faith in NO god may just be slightly in error.


----------



## j_seph

WaltL1 said:


> Without getting into the whole name thing,
> Yes I believe the man existed, was a "preacher" of sorts, had followers and was executed.


What is your take on what happened to his body? One would have to think that guards would stop anyone from removing it as to put a stop to the belief that he would rise from the grave and to prevent others from believing in whom he was and to prove he was not the Messiah.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> He did it.
> 
> 
> Where all else falls in the mix of that is entirely up to the One who did it.



Who?


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Do y'all non-believers believe that Jesus Christ existed?



Some guy named Yeshua, like many before him and many after, was an apocalyptic preacher who warned the people to follow the  Torah.

It seems that nobody who lived among him thought of him as anything special and certainly not the son of a god nor were they impressed with any miracles that were supposedly done.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> What is your take on what happened to his body? One would have to think that guards would stop anyone from removing it as to put a stop to the belief that he would rise from the grave and to prevent others from believing in whom he was and to prove he was not the Messiah.


Thrown in the dump for the animals.
Research how troublemakers were handled.
Or
Buried and still buried today.

Nowhere but the bible does the story of a flying dead man exist.


----------



## bullethead

GeorgiaBob said:


> Walt, interestingly, I did NOT ONCE refer to any gender associated with God (or Ralph), no "he" or "him" not even a "she."  So your claim seems to be imposing your own preconceptions upon my statements.
> 
> And to all: The fact is, science cannot prove nor disprove faith.  Neither can physicists, theorists, math wizards, biochemists, anthropologists, nor any of the other guys with all them letters after their names, actually prove (with existing tech) anything from zero state, big bang, star formation, spontaneous organic life, evolution, or man made catastrophic global warming (AGW).
> 
> What all those qualified experts (and a few quacks) can do is establish a theory and work on knocking it apart.  In simplistic terms - that is the scientific method.  Big Bang has been beat up a lot, but still hangs around because it tends to explain more than any other theory.  Evolution survives, in spite of several knocks, because most of the evidence we find can be made to fit without too much twisting.  But evolution, as it is now taught, is known to be missing some significant information that could seriously change the theory.  That is how science works, theories that don't get DISproven hang around and get adjusted until everyone (or most everyone) accepts that no other theory works as well, most of the time.  In the real world, science is NEVER absolute (or "settled")!
> 
> Man Made Catastrophic Climate Change survives because political influence has overridden the scientific method.  The theory has truly been beat up by repeated failure without actual measurable results to support it, yet money and influence from those who "need" AGW, prevent researchers from dumping the original theory and using results to develop a new theory.   It is not the only perversion of scientific method ever to occur.  It is not even the most egregious.  But it is the big current political science hot potato!
> 
> I think I see in some of the arguments here a kind of "political influence" by several of the respondents.  Your theory is locked down, so you must transmutate or politicize any assertions which fail to support your theory into a different assertion which proves you were right, or at least allows you to refute and destroy the offending assertion.
> 
> I do not argue, here or anywhere else, that there is only one way to perceive or acknowledge God.  I will not argue that Bhuddha is not a way to see God.  I do not claim that Baptists have everything exactly correct (no, I'm not a Baptist), or that Jews are wrong about anything (though they are really missing out if they skip the BBQ pork).
> 
> To argue against God, you have each chosen to "define" God so you can say, "that's not true."  I note that some of you have also chosen to restate what I have written in such a way that you can say also, "that is not true."  But I haven't claimed to speak all of the truth.  I have offered only, "possible."
> 
> What I am attempting is a simple assertion.  We do not, and can not, know what God is or is not.    We - those who choose to do so - can only have faith that the universe was created and that creator is still on the job.  Since I am not among the world's great apologists, my words are easy to dissect and fault.  I don't mind (too much) that you do that.  But I am hopeful (and prayerful) that you will find room in your thoughts to consider the possibility that your faith in NO god may just be slightly in error.


All possibilities are acknowledged, we tend to let the facts weed out the probable from the imaginative.


----------



## bullethead

GeorgiaBob, what god do you worship and why?


----------



## GeorgiaBob

Bullethead, I believe in one God, one creator, one creation.  My belief is based upon a lifetime of experiencing grace in the presence of unimaginable pain, beauty where none should be, peace where common sense would require ugly volume, and forgiveness when I simply do not deserve it.  The details would require far too many pages to type on this site (I happen to be a terrible and clumsy typist), so suffice it to say, my life experience led me to a grace-full God.  And I do not "worship" God as much as I celebrate that I have had the good fortune to experience a little of God's creation.

Now the question I think you wanted me to answer is about my faith tradition.  And though I have many times entered synagogue after sunset on Friday evening (Sabbath actually begins on Saturday which in Jewish tradition starts as Friday ends with sundown), I am not an ethnic nor practicing Jew.  I have been in services dedicated to Buddha and even opened my home to a Buddhist priest for about nine months.  I have joined faithful followers of the Greek gods (almost - but not exactly - the same as the newer Roman gods) as they offered sacrifice, broke bread in Islamic tradition and shared in Muslim services, hosted a Japanese priest, participated in Mass in St Peter's Vatican City, Rome, and an even more meaningful Mass in a little Convent in the hills somewhere in New Mexico.  I even stood an all night vigil with women of a Coven of the Earth Mother and sang the Sun into the morning sky.  I have celebrated all of creation a number of times standing alone on the deck of a sailboat on the open ocean.  THAT IS close to God!!

I believe all of these means of people reaching for a relationship with God have some validity, and are each real ways to touch a part of the Creator.  But I am most comfortable with my Methodist roots and feel closer to my salvation celebrating a Sunday morning in a Methodist church.  (Besides - everyone knows Methodist pot luck lunches are the best!)


----------



## bullethead

GeorgiaBob said:


> Bullethead, I believe in one God, one creator, one creation.  My belief is based upon a lifetime of experiencing grace in the presence of unimaginable pain, beauty where none should be, peace where common sense would require ugly volume, and forgiveness when I simply do not deserve it.  The details would require far too many pages to type on this site (I happen to be a terrible and clumsy typist), so suffice it to say, my life experience led me to a grace-full God.  And I do not "worship" God as much as I celebrate that I have had the good fortune to experience a little of God's creation.
> 
> Now the question I think you wanted me to answer is about my faith tradition.  And though I have many times entered synagogue after sunset on Friday evening (Sabbath actually begins on Saturday which in Jewish tradition starts as Friday ends with sundown), I am not an ethnic nor practicing Jew.  I have been in services dedicated to Buddha and even opened my home to a Buddhist priest for about nine months.  I have joined faithful followers of the Greek gods (almost - but not exactly - the same as the newer Roman gods) as they offered sacrifice, broke bread in Islamic tradition and shared in Muslim services, hosted a Japanese priest, participated in Mass in St Peter's Vatican City, Rome, and an even more meaningful Mass in a little Convent in the hills somewhere in New Mexico.  I even stood an all night vigil with women of a Coven of the Earth Mother and sang the Sun into the morning sky.  I have celebrated all of creation a number of times standing alone on the deck of a sailboat on the open ocean.  THAT IS close to God!!
> 
> I believe all of these means of people reaching for a relationship with God have some validity, and are each real ways to touch a part of the Creator.  But I am most comfortable with my Methodist roots and feel closer to my salvation celebrating a Sunday morning in a Methodist church.  (Besides - everyone knows Methodist pot luck lunches are the best!)


I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

Without the intricate stories that you say will take pages, what has convinced you that a specific god is involved?


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> What is your take on what happened to his body? One would have to think that guards would stop anyone from removing it as to put a stop to the belief that he would rise from the grave and to prevent others from believing in whom he was and to prove he was not the Messiah.


My guess (and yes I'm guessing) is that his body was handled in the same way that the bodies of other folks who were executed was handled.
I don't think he was viewed with the reverence that you view him in that would garner him special treatment from the Romans.
I think he was viewed as a pain in the butt and given a "Good bye and good riddance".


----------



## WaltL1

GeorgiaBob said:


> Walt, interestingly, I did NOT ONCE refer to any gender associated with God (or Ralph), no "he" or "him" not even a "she."  So your claim seems to be imposing your own preconceptions upon my statements.
> 
> And to all: The fact is, science cannot prove nor disprove faith.  Neither can physicists, theorists, math wizards, biochemists, anthropologists, nor any of the other guys with all them letters after their names, actually prove (with existing tech) anything from zero state, big bang, star formation, spontaneous organic life, evolution, or man made catastrophic global warming (AGW).
> 
> What all those qualified experts (and a few quacks) can do is establish a theory and work on knocking it apart.  In simplistic terms - that is the scientific method.  Big Bang has been beat up a lot, but still hangs around because it tends to explain more than any other theory.  Evolution survives, in spite of several knocks, because most of the evidence we find can be made to fit without too much twisting.  But evolution, as it is now taught, is known to be missing some significant information that could seriously change the theory.  That is how science works, theories that don't get DISproven hang around and get adjusted until everyone (or most everyone) accepts that no other theory works as well, most of the time.  In the real world, science is NEVER absolute (or "settled")!
> 
> Man Made Catastrophic Climate Change survives because political influence has overridden the scientific method.  The theory has truly been beat up by repeated failure without actual measurable results to support it, yet money and influence from those who "need" AGW, prevent researchers from dumping the original theory and using results to develop a new theory.   It is not the only perversion of scientific method ever to occur.  It is not even the most egregious.  But it is the big current political science hot potato!
> 
> I think I see in some of the arguments here a kind of "political influence" by several of the respondents.  Your theory is locked down, so you must transmutate or politicize any assertions which fail to support your theory into a different assertion which proves you were right, or at least allows you to refute and destroy the offending assertion.
> 
> I do not argue, here or anywhere else, that there is only one way to perceive or acknowledge God.  I will not argue that Bhuddha is not a way to see God.  I do not claim that Baptists have everything exactly correct (no, I'm not a Baptist), or that Jews are wrong about anything (though they are really missing out if they skip the BBQ pork).
> 
> To argue against God, you have each chosen to "define" God so you can say, "that's not true."  I note that some of you have also chosen to restate what I have written in such a way that you can say also, "that is not true."  But I haven't claimed to speak all of the truth.  I have offered only, "possible."
> 
> What I am attempting is a simple assertion.  We do not, and can not, know what God is or is not.    We - those who choose to do so - can only have faith that the universe was created and that creator is still on the job.  Since I am not among the world's great apologists, my words are easy to dissect and fault.  I don't mind (too much) that you do that.  But I am hopeful (and prayerful) that you will find room in your thoughts to consider the possibility that your faith in NO god may just be slightly in error.





> Walt, interestingly, I did NOT ONCE refer to any gender associated with God (or Ralph), no "he" or "him" not even a "she."  So your claim seems to be imposing your own preconceptions upon my statements.


You have provided enough information for us to know you are taking about the Christian God.
Don't think I'm imposing to assume you think the Christian God is a he. That you chose Ralph, a male name, further supports my assumption.


> To argue against God, you have each chosen to "define" God so you can say, "that's not true."


"We" have not chosen to define God. "We" don't even believe he exists.
Christianity has chosen to define God.
That's what we work with.


> But I am hopeful (and prayerful) that you will find room in your thoughts to consider the possibility that your faith in NO god may just be slightly in error.


Your prayers have been answered Bob!
Until we know for a fact "how we got here", that possibility exists.


----------



## WaltL1

GeorgiaBob said:


> Bullethead, I believe in one God, one creator, one creation.  My belief is based upon a lifetime of experiencing grace in the presence of unimaginable pain, beauty where none should be, peace where common sense would require ugly volume, and forgiveness when I simply do not deserve it.  The details would require far too many pages to type on this site (I happen to be a terrible and clumsy typist), so suffice it to say, my life experience led me to a grace-full God.  And I do not "worship" God as much as I celebrate that I have had the good fortune to experience a little of God's creation.
> 
> Now the question I think you wanted me to answer is about my faith tradition.  And though I have many times entered synagogue after sunset on Friday evening (Sabbath actually begins on Saturday which in Jewish tradition starts as Friday ends with sundown), I am not an ethnic nor practicing Jew.  I have been in services dedicated to Buddha and even opened my home to a Buddhist priest for about nine months.  I have joined faithful followers of the Greek gods (almost - but not exactly - the same as the newer Roman gods) as they offered sacrifice, broke bread in Islamic tradition and shared in Muslim services, hosted a Japanese priest, participated in Mass in St Peter's Vatican City, Rome, and an even more meaningful Mass in a little Convent in the hills somewhere in New Mexico.  I even stood an all night vigil with women of a Coven of the Earth Mother and sang the Sun into the morning sky.  I have celebrated all of creation a number of times standing alone on the deck of a sailboat on the open ocean.  THAT IS close to God!!
> 
> I believe all of these means of people reaching for a relationship with God have some validity, and are each real ways to touch a part of the Creator.  But I am most comfortable with my Methodist roots and feel closer to my salvation celebrating a Sunday morning in a Methodist church.  (Besides - everyone knows Methodist pot luck lunches are the best!)


By the way, would really be interested if you had a few comments about the Buddhist priest. Not so much about his particular beliefs but on a human level.
Was he "like" what we would imagine a Buddhist priest would be like? Think a "Kwai Chang Caine" kind of guy.


> (Besides - everyone knows Methodist pot luck lunches are the best!)


And those little 'ol Baptist ladies at my friends' churches can do some serious baking!


----------



## oldfella1962

bullethead said:


> It gets to be like sports fans who live in the fantasy that they are part of the team. "We" did it! Well, the players who are actually on the team did it, you just happen to include yourself in the mix.
> 
> With religion people convince themselves that they are part of the team too. Actually they convince themselves that there is a team and that they are a part of it.  Once comfortably convinced they exist as if their beliefs are no longer beliefs but are real, they interject their world into every day life but also expect others to play along too and then act as if the others KNOW their team is real but refuse to acknowledge it.
> It is when they are asked to explain the details of their claimed reality that they have to resort to  Ifs, assumptions, concepts, inconceivable and uncomprehensible in order to justify and explain what is supposed to the ultimate truth.



whoa - heavy  truth there - great comparison!


----------



## red neck richie

oldfella1962 said:


> whoa - heavy  truth there - great comparison!



Really. I've played and watched sports my whole life. I didn't really see the comparison. Maybe you are talking about people that just try to fit in wherever. But spirituality is very different.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Really. I've played and watched sports my whole life. I didn't really see the comparison. Maybe you are talking about people that just try to fit in wherever. But spirituality is very different.



Shocking!


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Shocking!



Are you comparing people that are fake and just want to impress or be part of something? Sure they exist. But like I said that's not spirituality. In fact we are warned about false profits.


----------



## Artfuldodger

GeorgiaBob said:


> Man Made Catastrophic Climate Change survives because political influence has overridden the scientific method.  The theory has truly been beat up by repeated failure
> 
> I think I see in some of the arguments here a kind of "political influence" by several of the respondents.



Could we not also say "religious influence has overridden the scientific method?"


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Are you comparing people that are fake and just want to impress or be part of something? Sure they exist. But like I said that's not spirituality. In fact we are warned about false profits.



Yep, warned by the team. Gotcha


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Yep, warned by the team. Gotcha



TEAM GOD! Goooooooooooo GOD! What are we doing here reindeer games? Yeah we felt bad for Rudolf.


----------



## ky55

oldfella1962 said:


> whoa - heavy  truth there - great comparison!



Best comparison I’ve seen.

Especially the part about refusing to acknowledge.


----------



## red neck richie

ky55 said:


> Best comparison I’ve seen.



Have you compared Heaven to He!! Sorry just went for the end result there. What about good and evil?


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> TEAM GOD! Goooooooooooo GOD! What are we doing here reindeer games? Yeah we felt bad for Rudolf.


God/Rudolph. Good comparison Richie.

The Stadium is full of fans wearing the Jerseys but nobody is on the field. Field of dreams.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Have you compared Heaven to He!! Sorry just went for the end result there. What about good and evil?



I've never been to either place to be able to compare them. Have you?


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> I've never been to either place to be able to compare them. Have you?



Same here!
I’ve compared the idea of both, but neither of them made a lot of sense.


----------



## bullethead

ky55 said:


> Same here!
> I’ve compared the idea of both, but neither of them made a lot of sense.



They must be the home and away stadiums for Team God Goooooooooooo.

I'll just refers to them as the Goooo's from now on.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> I've never been to either place to be able to compare them. Have you?



Actually I have had a near death experience. But you wouldn't believe me if I told you.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Actually I have had a near death experience. But you wouldn't believe me if I told you.



So what do people in either place look like?

Is everbody 18 yrs old and in their prime?
Do they look exactly like they did when they passed?
Are infants perpetually infants and elderly perpetually elderly?
Are the aborted there?
Are all religions there, as if all the spokes lead to the hub?

Finally someone has been to one or the other and can tell us about it.


----------



## ky55

red neck richie said:


> Actually I have had a near death experience. But you wouldn't believe me if I told you.



Did you see my great uncle Roy?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> So what do people in either place look like?
> 
> Is everbody 18 yrs old and in their prime?
> Do they look exactly like they did when they passed?
> Are infants perpetually infants and elderly perpetually elderly?
> Are the aborted there?
> Are all religions there, as if all the spokes lead to the hub?
> 
> Finally someone has been to one or the other and can tell us about it.


IDK Bro. Just confirming the whole white light feeling of ascending, presence, life replay flashing before your eyes . Same as others have experienced. I have felt the presence my whole life though but didn't understand who it was till I got older. Just my experience you believe what you want.


----------



## GeorgiaBob

Walt, I am a Christian, but I don't limit God to He or She.  I chose "Ralph" because I was responding to apparently all male posters on this thread (common gender avoids unintended misinterpretations I was told by some professor many decades ago).  So - yes - you are imposing your preconceptions upon my comments!  The "King James" Father God was acknowledged by most mainstream Christian denominations (even the Roman Catholics) be be a human imposed limitation upon the divine and NOT present in the intent of the original Hebrew, about 40 years ago.  I have imagined a God greater than any DNA combination for longer than that.  But if you hang around with a bunch of Southern Baptists, I can understand (and forgive) your prejudice.  I will concede that there are a lot Southern Baptist women who can make a cake or pie worthy of a banquet with Queen Elizabeth (some argue divine intervention).

Forgive my inadequate writing when I wrote that you "define God."  I really meant that you (more so, others) choose to adjust or "restate" the way other writers here have defined God, in order to produce a definition that can be confronted by your arguments.

On your question about the Buddhist priest.  He was a young guy who was taking a year of school in the US.  My wife and I were living in Northern Illinois at the time and had plenty of room for that young man from Cambodia.  His English was abysmal, we had to teach him how to use everything in the bathroom, and diet issues started out at "difficult."  The English improved a little.  His bathroom use became something he was actually proud to practice. The diet issues eventually disappeared as he learned what we ate could also (with exceptions) be part of his regular diet and we all learned some Cambodian recipes.  Although he still cannot cook anything edible (he admits to that). 

But he also has an amazing sense of humor (still, we stay in touch by email and he was in the US again just 10 years ago) and was never afraid of a prank.  Most of the time he wore normal clothes (mostly stuff we - meaning my wife - bought on shopping trips with him).  He was amazed at fire stations, unimpressed by malls, careful not to step on a spider invading our house but un-offended by a dear hunt.  The winter turned out to be tough on my wife and I because we were constantly having to find "Q" and bring him in out of the snow.  It was his first experience with cold, and with the white stuff.  We just could not convince him of the danger - even after he got frostbite on a couple of toes!

As a person he was more pragmatic than we expected.  As a "priest" he was less "holy" and much more celebratory.  His view of faith is something along the lines of, "the stories and traditions are only guides to help us find out own path to enlightenment."

He would not be a shooter on a hunt, but he wouldn't have a problem helping to dress the deer and carry meat back, even though he would not be sharing in it.  He has turned out to be a competent businessman (in Cambodia it seems that priesthood and business acumen are not mutually exclusive)

I hope that is responsive to your request.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Who?



This One:

(For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus), who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death — death even of a cross,

YLT


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> This One:
> 
> (For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus), who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death — death even of a cross,
> 
> YLT



If true,  those stats would have made the official books. Biddy Leaguer stats where no records are important enough to keep do not count.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> If true,  those stats would have made the official books. Biddy Leaguer stats where no records are important enough to keep do not count.



Do you mean this "thing" is seemingly so small as to be easily overlooked and counted as nought? 

I don't believe I can disagree.

But where the records are kept is_ all._


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Do you mean this "thing" is so small as to be easily overlooked and counted as nought?
> 
> I don't believe I can disagree.



I mean it didn't happen as written.


----------



## WaltL1

GeorgiaBob said:


> Walt, I am a Christian, but I don't limit God to He or She.  I chose "Ralph" because I was responding to apparently all male posters on this thread (common gender avoids unintended misinterpretations I was told by some professor many decades ago).  So - yes - you are imposing your preconceptions upon my comments!  The "King James" Father God was acknowledged by most mainstream Christian denominations (even the Roman Catholics) be be a human imposed limitation upon the divine and NOT present in the intent of the original Hebrew, about 40 years ago.  I have imagined a God greater than any DNA combination for longer than that.  But if you hang around with a bunch of Southern Baptists, I can understand (and forgive) your prejudice.  I will concede that there are a lot Southern Baptist women who can make a cake or pie worthy of a banquet with Queen Elizabeth (some argue divine intervention).
> 
> Forgive my inadequate writing when I wrote that you "define God."  I really meant that you (more so, others) choose to adjust or "restate" the way other writers here have defined God, in order to produce a definition that can be confronted by your arguments.
> 
> On your question about the Buddhist priest.  He was a young guy who was taking a year of school in the US.  My wife and I were living in Northern Illinois at the time and had plenty of room for that young man from Cambodia.  His English was abysmal, we had to teach him how to use everything in the bathroom, and diet issues started out at "difficult."  The English improved a little.  His bathroom use became something he was actually proud to practice. The diet issues eventually disappeared as he learned what we ate could also (with exceptions) be part of his regular diet and we all learned some Cambodian recipes.  Although he still cannot cook anything edible (he admits to that).
> 
> But he also has an amazing sense of humor (still, we stay in touch by email and he was in the US again just 10 years ago) and was never afraid of a prank.  Most of the time he wore normal clothes (mostly stuff we - meaning my wife - bought on shopping trips with him).  He was amazed at fire stations, unimpressed by malls, careful not to step on a spider invading our house but un-offended by a dear hunt.  The winter turned out to be tough on my wife and I because we were constantly having to find "Q" and bring him in out of the snow.  It was his first experience with cold, and with the white stuff.  We just could not convince him of the danger - even after he got frostbite on a couple of toes!
> 
> As a person he was more pragmatic than we expected.  As a "priest" he was less "holy" and much more celebratory.  His view of faith is something along the lines of, "the stories and traditions are only guides to help us find out own path to enlightenment."
> 
> He would not be a shooter on a hunt, but he wouldn't have a problem helping to dress the deer and carry meat back, even though he would not be sharing in it.  He has turned out to be a competent businessman (in Cambodia it seems that priesthood and business acumen are not mutually exclusive)
> 
> I hope that is responsive to your request.


Yes thank you.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I mean it didn't happen as written.


 

Wouldn't inclusive in that be "because I know what truly happened?"


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Wouldn't inclusive in that be "because I know what truly happened?"


Nope.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Nope.


Nope as in..."there's another option not addressed"?

If so, what?

Or "nope" as in "I may not know what happened but I am knowing _that is not_ it?"

If it be the latter (and Walt, I am not presuming that is what you are meaning), then,

How would one _know_?


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Nope as in..."there's another option not addressed"?
> 
> If so, what?
> 
> Or "nope" as in "I may not know what happened but I am knowing _that is not_ it?"
> 
> If it be the latter (and Walt, I am not presuming that is what you are meaning), then,
> 
> How would one _know_?





> Or "nope" as in "I may not know what happened but I am knowing _that is not_ it?"


Pretty much, yes.
And of course we can get in the "what is knowing" debate.
But we as humans have developed certain systems that we rely on. The judicial system goes round and round and much of it starts with - "We don't know what happened but we can rule out these possibilities based on the evidence".
As we sit here, this -


> Originally Posted by bullethead
> I mean it didn't happen as written.


Is a statement that is backed up by the facts/figures/scientific/historical evidence that is available to us.
You couldn't prove that statement wrong by a preponderance of the evidence without pulling out the "you just gotta believe" card.
But like I said - "as we sit here". We could sit somewhere else tomorrow. But until then....


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Pretty much, yes.
> And of course we can get in the "what is knowing" debate.
> But we as humans have developed certain systems that we rely on. The judicial system goes round and round and much of it starts with - "We don't know what happened but we can rule out these possibilities based on the evidence".
> As we sit here, this -
> 
> Is a statement that is backed up by the facts/figures/scientific/historical evidence that is available to us.
> You couldn't prove that statement wrong by a preponderance of the evidence without pulling out the "you just gotta believe" card.
> But like I said - "as we sit here". We could sit somewhere else tomorrow. But until then....



Oh, OK, for me that makes it remarkably simple.

The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it.

It simply comes down to the _substance_ of each.


----------



## ambush80

GeorgiaBob said:


> And to all: The fact is, science cannot prove nor disprove faith.  Neither can physicists, theorists, math wizards, biochemists, anthropologists, nor any of the other guys with all them letters after their names, actually prove (with existing tech) anything from zero state, big bang, star formation, spontaneous organic life, evolution, or man made catastrophic global warming (AGW).
> 
> What all those qualified experts (and a few quacks) can do is establish a theory and work on knocking it apart.  In simplistic terms - that is the scientific method.  Big Bang has been beat up a lot, but still hangs around because it tends to explain more than any other theory.  Evolution survives, in spite of several knocks, because most of the evidence we find can be made to fit without too much twisting.  But evolution, as it is now taught, is known to be missing some significant information that could seriously change the theory.  That is how science works, theories that don't get DISproven hang around and get adjusted until everyone (or most everyone) accepts that no other theory works as well, most of the time.  In the real world, science is NEVER absolute (or "settled")!
> 
> But I am hopeful (and prayerful) that you will find room in your thoughts to consider the possibility that your faith in NO god may just be slightly in error.



You could say that Atomic Theory and Relativity have been "beat up" as well.  This process of "beating up" theories should be celebrated, not looked upon as a weakness in the scientific method or falseness of its discoveries.  I think what we A/A's do is try to apply scientific method to faith; to "beat it up"; to "beat the truth out of it".   But then: "The fact is, science cannot prove nor disprove faith."  

I really admire the scientific method.  It gives me insight into many things that help me navigate my world. If I understand the evolutionary underpinnings of empathy, love, beauty, compassion, justice, they aren't diminished in their awesomeness if I know that they come from some workings of the jelly in my head (not that awesomeness in itself makes something valuable). Indeed, I feel closer to them, like they're mine.  I like to dabble in the Political Forum occasionally and one of the things that comes up regularly are "Rights".  Many in there believe that they have certain rights given to them by God Himself.  That doesn't leave allot of room to discuss them.  And that's my main problem with people who believe that they have some insight into the will of God either through revelation in a text or from individual experience.  Their assertions are untestable. There's a better test.  

I've heard many faith based beliefs defended by their adherents by saying "Science is the wrong tool to experience God's grace".  What else is there?  My feelings?  I know them to be unreliable.  I know them to be biased and subjective.  That doesn't mean that I don't revel in them.  They're part of me and they allow me to "experienc[e] grace in the presence of unimaginable pain, beauty where none should be, peace where common sense would require ugly volume, and forgiveness when I simply do not deserve it", particularly when understood through the best faculty God gave me, should He be shown to exist, and that's my ability to reason.  If He doesn't exist, I still have this amazing capacity to reason.  It doesn't give me all the answers but it gives me the best ones I have available and it's subject to the scrutiny of someonelse's ability to reason, unlike faith.  Just show me and I'll helplessly believe.  

This is why I've abandoned faith as a sound method for determining the truth about reality.



GeorgiaBob said:


> Bullethead, I believe in one God, one creator, one creation.  My belief is based upon a lifetime of experiencing grace in the presence of unimaginable pain, beauty where none should be, peace where common sense would require ugly volume, and forgiveness when I simply do not deserve it.  The details would require far too many pages to type on this site (I happen to be a terrible and clumsy typist), so suffice it to say, my life experience led me to a grace-full God.  And I do not "worship" God as much as I celebrate that I have had the good fortune to experience a little of God's creation.



Since science (the revelatory method of reason) can neither prove or disprove faith, then faith is truly subjective.  One has faith because one chooses to have faith.  I've eliminated faith as something reliable and even useful as I can achieve all those things you list above without it.  To decide to live by faith is arbitrary and it allows the adherent to "explain" things without explaining them at all.  I suppose that can be comforting in a world where there's so much we don't know about but it loses it's luster when one realizes we can do better than faith.  One of these days we'll be able to throw "switches" in someone's brain and they will no longer believe in God nor want to.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Oh, OK, for me that makes it remarkably simple.
> 
> The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it.
> 
> It simply comes down to the _substance_ of each.





ambush80 said:


> One of these days we'll be able to throw "switches" in someone's brain and they will no longer believe in God nor want to.



Hold on, Isreal.  One day there will be a cure.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Oh, OK, for me that makes it remarkably simple.
> 
> The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it.
> 
> It simply comes down to the _substance_ of each.


Who wrote it Israel?


----------



## hummerpoo

Ambush,  have you ever considered writing some apocalyptic fantasy?
The genre is a little passé, but I hear the pay is good;
and you already have the title â€”"Switches";
and the tag lineâ€”"your brain of choice".

Hey, maybe it will go Hollywood.
Then we can say, "We knew Ambush when ..."


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Ambush,  have you ever considered writing some apocalyptic fantasy?
> The genre is a little passé, but I hear the pay is good;
> and you already have the title —"Switches";
> and the tag line—"your brain of choice".
> 
> Hey, maybe it will go Hollywood.
> Then we can say, "We knew Ambush when ..."


Already been done, read revelations.


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> Ambush,  have you ever considered writing some apocalyptic fantasy?
> The genre is a little passé, but I hear the pay is good;
> and you already have the title â€”"Switches";
> and the tag lineâ€”"your brain of choice".
> 
> Hey, maybe it will go Hollywood.
> Then we can say, "We knew Ambush when ..."



I'm not fond of the genre.  You should do it.  I was having a conversation with my Mom and she was telling me that she believes that my Dad is in the Heaven that he imagined.  



bullethead said:


> Already been done, read revelations.



Touche.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Oh, OK, for me that makes it remarkably simple.
> 
> The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it.
> 
> It simply comes down to the _substance_ of each.


Actually no.
Pretty much the opposite.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Oh, OK, for me that makes it remarkably simple.
> 
> The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it.
> 
> It simply comes down to the _substance_ of each.





WaltL1 said:


> Actually no.
> Pretty much the opposite.



What do you mean, Walt?


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> Ambush,  have you ever considered writing some apocalyptic fantasy?
> The genre is a little passé, but I hear the pay is good;
> and you already have the title —"Switches";
> and the tag line—"your brain of choice".
> 
> Hey, maybe it will go Hollywood.
> Then we can say, "We knew Ambush when ..."



Here's your sci-fi story:

Would it be good to be able to "throw the switches" in the mind of a captured jihadist?  A sociopathic, cannibal, rapist, murderer?  If we could, would it be good or bad to throw the switches in EVERYBODY's brains so that they believe that Jesus is Lord?  Are they saved?  

Things that make me go Hmmmmmm.....


----------



## WaltL1

> Pretty much, yes.
> And of course we can get in the "what is knowing" debate.
> But we as humans have developed certain systems that we rely on. The judicial system goes round and round and much of it starts with - "We don't know what happened but we can rule out these possibilities based on the evidence".
> As we sit here, this -
> 
> Is a statement that is backed up by the facts/figures/scientific/historical evidence that is available to us.
> You couldn't prove that statement wrong by a preponderance of the evidence without pulling out the "you just gotta believe" card.
> But like I said - "as we sit here". We could sit somewhere else tomorrow. But until then....





> Originally Posted by Israel
> Oh, OK, for me that makes it remarkably simple.
> The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it.
> 
> It simply comes down to the substance of each





> Originally Posted by WaltL1
> Actually no.
> Pretty much the opposite.





ambush80 said:


> What do you mean, Walt?


Its not the substance of the man who testifies to it or refutes it that matters.
Its the substance of what is being testified to or refuted that matters.
Note that my post was about -


> certain systems





> possibilities based on the evidence".





> facts/figures/scientific/historical evidence that is available to us.





> preponderance of the evidence


Evidence is what evidence is regardless of the substance of the men who testify to it or refute it.
You may view the evidence through the substance of who you are but the evidence either will or will not support your view regardless.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> Here's your sci-fi story:
> 
> Would it be good to be able to "throw the switches" in the mind of a captured jihadist?  A sociopathic, cannibal, rapist, murderer?  If we could, would it be good or bad to throw the switches in EVERYBODY's brains so that they believe that Jesus is Lord?  Are they saved?
> 
> Things that make me go Hmmmmmm.....



Would it be good to throw any of the hypothesized switchs until every consequence was known with certainty?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Here's your sci-fi story:
> 
> Would it be good to be able to "throw the switches" in the mind of a captured jihadist?  A sociopathic, cannibal, rapist, murderer?  If we could, would it be good or bad to throw the switches in EVERYBODY's brains so that they believe that Jesus is Lord?  Are they saved?
> 
> Things that make me go Hmmmmmm.....


All depends on which one of our Christian friends you ask 
The Bible says......


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Its not the substance of the man who testifies to it or refutes it that matters.
> Its the substance of what is being testified to or refuted that matters.
> Note that my post was about -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence is what evidence is regardless of the substance of the men who testify to it or refute it.
> You may view the evidence through the substance of who you are but the evidence either will or will not support your view regardless.



Precisely.

When _it is_ Zebras the hoof beats heard are those of Zebras.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Here's your sci-fi story:
> 
> Would it be good to be able to "throw the switches" in the mind of a captured jihadist?  A sociopathic, cannibal, rapist, murderer?  If we could, would it be good or bad to throw the switches in EVERYBODY's brains so that they believe that Jesus is Lord?  Are they saved?
> 
> Things that make me go Hmmmmmm.....



Cannot hi lite on this computer the words believe, saved, and "me".


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Precisely.
> 
> When _it is_ Zebras the hoof beats heard are those of Zebras.


Precisely.
Precisely the opposite of this -


> The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it





> When _it is_ Zebras the hoof beats heard are those of Zebras.


Yes if the hoof beats that were heard were in fact zebras then the hoof beats that were heard were in fact zebras.
But before you know if they were in fact zebras you could eliminate that they were chickens. So -


> "We don't know what happened but we can rule out these possibilities based on the evidence".


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Its not the substance of the man who testifies to it or refutes it that matters.
> Its the substance of what is being testified to or refuted that matters.
> Note that my post was about -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence is what evidence is regardless of the substance of the men who testify to it or refute it.
> You may view the evidence through the substance of who you are but the evidence either will or will not support your view regardless.




Ah, yes. I understand.


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> Would it be good to throw any of the hypothesized switchs until every consequence was known with certainty?



That's kind of what I was assuming.  I was assuming that ALL the switches in the brain had been mapped out.  But maybe that's the plot wrinkle in the story.....


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> All depends on which one of our Christian friends you ask
> The Bible says......



As far as I can tell, the only thing that gets one saved is believing that Jesus is Lord.  One of these days we will be able to make people truly believe that by throwing a "switch".


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Cannot hi lite on this computer the words believe, saved, and "me".



What would you be trying to express by highlighting those words?


----------



## Israel

But the words came through man in both cases...the hoof beats.

And there's reason in each word.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> What would you be trying to express by highlighting those words?



That their use is of a reason (even if I don't know it)


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> That's kind of what I was assuming.  I was assuming that ALL the switches in the brain had been mapped out.  But maybe that's the plot wrinkle in the story.....



It's not my genre either, but the potential sequels are endless.


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> It's not my genre either, but the potential sequels are endless.




I think we're on to something.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> But the words came through man in both cases...the hoof beats.
> 
> And there's reason in each word.


And the evidence either will or will not bear out if one or both of the men infused "themselves" into it.
Our discussion is diametrically opposed here Israel.
I am removing man and all that is "him" from the equation and your point is based entirely on putting him into the equation so that its "him" that is now the controlling factor instead of the evidence.
Which is why you have to remove him from the equation...


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> As far as I can tell, the only thing that gets one saved is believing that Jesus is Lord.  One of these days we will be able to make people truly believe that by throwing a "switch".


Weren't you listening to Welder?
Just believing does not = YAHTZEE!! 
Just believing without the magic ticket gets you a spot near the burn barrel with us.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Weren't you listening to Welder?
> Just believing does not = YAHTZEE!!
> Just believing without the magic ticket gets you a spot near the burn barrel with us.



Well,  that's just my own understanding of the precept.  I don't have no super duper discernment abilities like he's got.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> And the evidence either will or will not bear out if one or both of the men infused "themselves" into it.
> Our discussion is diametrically opposed here Israel.
> I am removing man and all that is "him" from the equation and your point is based entirely on putting him into the equation so that its "him" that is now the controlling factor instead of the evidence.
> Which is why you have to remove him from the equation...


Yes.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I know, yet I dont know.
> It matters but it doesnt matter.
> I don't remember but here is what I remember.
> You could be wrong but you may be right.
> Wrong inferences easily lead to wrong conclusions, let me tell you about my inferred conclusion.
> These matters, or none of these matters.
> I Didn't believe now Im all in kit and kaboodle.
> 
> I guess when the bible is the example one chooses to live by, contradictions cannot be avoided.


Brother, how right you are...contradictions cannot be avoided.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> And the evidence either will or will not bear out if one or both of the men infused "themselves" into it.
> Our discussion is diametrically opposed here Israel.
> I am removing man and all that is "him" from the equation and your point is based entirely on putting him into the equation so that its "him" that is now the controlling factor instead of the evidence.
> Which is why you have to remove him from the equation...


But what man is left?


----------

