# Beliefs



## Brother David

Everyone has to believe in something ! 

I believe in Jehovah God ( Yaweh ) .
I believe in creation ! 
I believe in Christ ! 
I believe in the God Gene ! 
I believe Christ will return ! 
I believe in the Holy Trinity !
I believe the Bible to be a accurate account !
I believe every knee shall bow !
I believe every tongue will confess !

I believe someone will try to prove myself wrong instead of stating there beliefs !

What do you BELIEVE ?


----------



## ky55

Brother David said:


> Everyone has to believe in something !
> 
> I believe in Jehovah God ( Yaweh ) .
> I believe in creation !
> I believe in Christ !
> I believe in the God Gene !
> I believe Christ will return !
> I believe in the Holy Trinity !
> I believe the Bible to be a accurate account !
> I believe every knee shall bow !
> I believe every tongue will confess !
> 
> I believe someone will try to prove myself wrong instead of stating there beliefs !
> 
> What do you BELIEVE ?



I believe you got a good deal on a bunch of exclamation points, and you’re trying to use them all up before they spoil.


----------



## Brother David

ky55 said:


> I believe you got a good deal on a bunch of exclamation points, and you’re trying to use them all up before they spoil.



I sorry I left off !I believe someone will give personal jabs instead of staying on topic !It's much easier!


----------



## Artfuldodger

I don't believe that Heaven waits for only those that congregate!
I believe in forgiveness. I believe in love. I believe in God and His Son.
I believe Satan is real.

I believe in creation by evolution. I believe God uses science and miracles. Medicine and miracles, Predestination and science.

I believe in miracles and I believe in you!


----------



## WaltL1

I believe Im going to order a pizza.


----------



## ky55

Brother David said:


> I sorry I left off !I believe someone will give personal jabs instead of staying on topic !It's much easier!



Nah, actually it was just a little joke, considering your penchant for all caps and exclamatory punctuation. 
And it was a little test to see how long it would take you to throw out the persecution complex card.
You have exceeded my expectations.


----------



## Brother David

ky55 said:


> Nah, actually it was just a little joke, considering your penchant for all caps and exclamatory punctuation.
> And it was a little test to see how long it would take you to throw out the persecution complex card.
> You have exceeded my expectations.


Thanks! I wouldn't have expected anything less of you!


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I believe Im going to order a pizza.


The all meat???? Only way to go!


----------



## 4HAND

ky55 said:


> I believe you got a good deal on a bunch of exclamation points, and you’re trying to use them all up before they spoil.



C'mon now Brother David, you got to admit that was funny!


----------



## Artfuldodger

Brother David said:


> Everyone has to believe in something !
> 
> I believe in Jehovah God ( Yaweh ) .
> I believe in creation !
> I believe in Christ !
> I believe in the God Gene !
> I believe Christ will return !
> I believe in the Holy Trinity !
> I believe the Bible to be a accurate account !
> I believe every knee shall bow !
> I believe every tongue will confess !
> 
> I believe someone will try to prove myself wrong instead of stating there beliefs !
> 
> What do you BELIEVE ?



The God gene? Not trying to prove you wrong as you are strongly planted in your beliefs, but exactly what is that?


----------



## Brother David

Artfuldodger said:


> The God gene? Not trying to prove you wrong as you are strongly planted in your beliefs, but exactly what is that?


 Christian !


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> I believe Im going to order a pizza.



I believe my pizza gene degraded or mutated into a turkey gene.  Pizza was something, that as a teen I loved.  Now once a year is more than enough.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> The God gene? Not trying to prove you wrong as you are strongly planted in your beliefs, but exactly what is that?



Doesn’t exist.  God is a spirit and the evidence of his existence is stamped on our soul not our DNA.  Romans 1.


----------



## NCHillbilly

I believe that the world would be better off if a lot of folks worried a lot less about what other folks believe.


----------



## ky55

Artfuldodger said:


> The God gene? Not trying to prove you wrong as you are strongly planted in your beliefs, but exactly what is that?



God gene=
Genetics=
Science=
Only a theory=
Subject to change.....

But convenient when Bro D needs it.


----------



## hummerpoo

SemperFiDawg said:


> I believe my pizza gene degraded or mutated into a turkey gene.  Pizza was something, that as a teen I loved.  Now once a year is more than enough.


I too seem to suffer no loss if I miss my annual slice.


----------



## WaltL1

> Now once a year is more than enough.





hummerpoo said:


> I too seem to suffer no loss if I miss my annual slice.


Pizza once a year???????
Ive heard some wacky things in here but that beats all.


----------



## Brother David

Interesting !
Everyone has avoided stating beliefs!
Only tried there hand at comic relief !
After spending page after page in criticism against someone who was willing to die for theirs !
Maybe our beliefs aren't nearly as strong as the Missionaries !
No greater love does one have than to lay his life down for a friend (John 15:13) !


----------



## 660griz

I believe:
"It must be borne in mind that christianity was more than just a religion during biblical times, the church also operated the political, legal, and educational systems of the day. Religion was also used as a reference to matters concerning philosophy, psychology, science, medicine (through faith healing) and others. In biblical days the sufferers of following conditions: epilepsy, migraines, psychological disorders would have been considered to have been possessed by demons, evil spirits or the devil. Modern medicine has managed to identify the root causes of these conditions and is able to provide treatment.
Modern society has replaced the legal and the political systems and religion is redundant on these matters. Religion is no more the authority on fields such as science, medicine, philosophy, psychology because breakthroughs and advancements in these areas have shown the bible to be incorrect and outdated.
However, to keep religious folk in check they are demanded to accept their religious persuasion with blind faith and told not to question the authenticity thereof. But had civilisation not pushed the boundaries on medicine vs faith-healing, scientific and technological advancement, pushing intellectual boundaries, adopted the modern legal and political systems, our civilisation would have remained in the dark ages.
Christianity and other mono-theistic belief systems are basically the progression of primitive day poly-theistic religions and idol-worshipping, with the attributes of the multiple gods being assigned to one god e.g. the old testament god even accepting and ordering sacrifices and offerings. In the very same manner, the new testament is an improvement on the old testament. In any event, christianity is really not mono-theistic since there are 3 deities.
In summary, it therefore stands to reason that religious teachings in all its forms are outdated on the topic of spirituality. Religions have served their purpose and it’s time for the human population to discard their outdated teachings and practices as they are holding back social advancement."


----------



## 4HAND

If you're referring to me Brother, I chose to not participate in starting an argument on here. 
And yes, ky55's post was funny to me.
(Still is)


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Pizza once a year???????
> Ive heard some wacky things in here but that beats all.



Pizza only once a year? Now that's hard to believe. Taste do change over time though. Especially fast food, one can only eat so much pizza, chicken, and hamburgers before needing some tacos or Chinese.

I have found that I prefer all the veggies and casseroles at family functions over the meats. Except sausage balls that aren't dry.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Pizza once a year???????
> Ive heard some wacky things in here but that beats all.


Walt, in the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit that there is a possibility that my attitude toward the upholding of my commitment to eat at least one slice per year may have been moderated.  As I hinted earlier, I would let it slide if I thought I could get away with it.  However, on the occasion of fulfilling that commitment in 2017 I happened to recall the 1998 Super Bowl ad.  A healthy dose of Louisiana's wonderful export made the wet carboard and tomato paste character of the concoction more palatable.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NCHillbilly said:


> I believe that the world would be better off if a lot of folks worried a lot less about what other folks believe.



Sounds great on paper, but beliefs form values and values, or lack thereof dictate actions.  A man flies a plane into a building or walks into a school and sprays it down is a direct result of what he believes or doesn't believe.  That's not better off.


----------



## GT90

I am pretty sure the guy flying the plane into the building (assuming you are referring to 9/11) did so because of his beliefs.  I bet the folks in the building would say they would have been better off if the guy flying the plane had "worried a lot less about what other folks believe".

Seems to me that the majority of the conflicts over time have been because of beliefs and not because of what is not believed.


----------



## NCHillbilly

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sounds great on paper, but beliefs form values and values, or lack thereof dictate actions.  A man flies a plane into a building or walks into a school and sprays it down is a direct result of what he believes or doesn't believe.  That's not better off.


That is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. He flew the plane into the building because he hates and doesn't understand those who don't believe the same as him. Folks trying to enforce their religious beliefs on others or dehumanizing them because they have different religious beliefs has caused a very, very large amount of the death and suffering on this planet.


----------



## Spotlite

911 is a perfect example of why we should care what folks believe.

Radicals in any form are the problem: not religion, atheism, muslim, kkk, blm, etc.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> 911 is a perfect example of why we should care what folks believe.
> 
> Radicals in any form are the problem: not religion, atheism, muslim, kkk, blm, etc.


We are all radicals and extremists. We all have lines in the sand where we don't  want another to cross and where we don't cross....until provoked. Then we leap across with no care but for our own and ultimately our self.
Us against them means:
USA vs the World.
North vs South
Right vs Left
Black vs White
Legals vs Illegals
Christians vs Muslims
Neighbor vs Neighbor

None of that "we" means anything as soon as one of the "we" crosses another "we's" line.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think a lot of what an individual believes is based on their religion. Considering that person believes in a religion which most people do. Since most people do, it would stand to reason that religious beliefs could cause a lot of good things and a lot of bad things.

9/11, abortion clinic bombings, synagogue bombings, Protestant/Catholic wars in Ireland, and the beat goes on.
Plenty of bad things done in the name of one's religion.

It's just the bad side of religion. The good side is a lot of good things can be done by believing in a God, any god even.
Helping others around the world, feeding the poor, spreading medicine, etc.

Maybe we remember the bad beliefs more than the good ones.


----------



## Brother David

After reading some of the belief responses , I have sumized that many of us believe that no matter what we believe , violence or intolerance to the point of confortation isn't a answer .
Only through civil discourse can one be informed . IE; turn the other cheek , .
Only through respect and compassion can we relate to one's opinion .
Also even though I don't agree with Athesist and Agnostic opinion , I can carry on conversation and befriend them , through respect .
I started the thread for us to explore and state our beliefs , so we can find common ground . Once we find common ground then we learn to understand and respect one another !
Beliefs to point of intolerance only leads to violence , and our world doesn't need more violence .
Just for Bullethead .


( just for ky55) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( Found them on sale at Amazon )

In all seriousness , regardless of beliefs , we must find ways to be civil .


----------



## Artfuldodger

Brother David said:


> After reading some of the belief responses , I have sumized that many of us believe that no matter what we believe , violence or intolerance to the point of confortation isn't a answer .
> Only through civil discourse can one be informed . IE; turn the other cheek , .
> Only through respect and compassion can we relate to one's opinion .
> Also even though I don't agree with Athesist and Agnostic opinion , I can carry on conversation and befriend them , through respect .
> I started the thread for us to explore and state our beliefs , so we can find common ground . Once we find common ground then we learn to understand and respect one another !
> Beliefs to point of intolerance only leads to violence , and our world doesn't need more violence .
> Just for Bullethead .
> View attachment 951183
> 
> ( just for ky55) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( Found them on sale at Amazon )
> 
> In all seriousness , regardless of beliefs , we must find ways to be civil .



I would like to agree with you or wish that I could agree with you but down on the political forum violence or intolerance is the only answer.

Maybe they are right. We've all tried to "just get along" but it doesn't seem to be working.
I've said on other topics, the Christian part of me says to keep trying but the good old boy Republican part of me says to fight. I'm torn between two models. Is one flesh and the other spirit?

The Jimmy Carter in me tells me to try and get along, the Ronald Reagan in me tells me to fight. The Trump in me tells me to bully my way into changing things.


----------



## Brother David

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to agree with you or wish that I could agree with you but down on the political forum violence or intolerance is the only answer.
> 
> Maybe they are right. We've all tried to "just get along" but it doesn't seem to be working.
> I've said on other topics, the Christian part of me says to keep trying but the good old boy Republican part of me says to fight. I'm torn between two models. Is one flesh and the other spirit?
> 
> The Jimmy Carter in me tells me to try and get along, the Ronald Reagan in me tells me to fight. The Trump in me tells me to bully my way into changing things.



Ecclesiastes 3 . I am meek , not weak , but I still believe in the goodness of mankind.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to agree with you or wish that I could agree with you but down on the political forum violence or intolerance is the only answer.
> 
> Maybe they are right. We've all tried to "just get along" but it doesn't seem to be working.
> I've said on other topics, the Christian part of me says to keep trying but the good old boy Republican part of me says to fight. I'm torn between two models. Is one flesh and the other spirit?
> 
> The Jimmy Carter in me tells me to try and get along, the Ronald Reagan in me tells me to fight. The Trump in me tells me to bully my way into changing things.


Sounds pretty well rounded to me. All of them used at the appropriate times in appropriate ways are positive qualities. They all balance each other out.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> After reading some of the belief responses , I have sumized that many of us believe that no matter what we believe , violence or intolerance to the point of confortation isn't a answer .
> Only through civil discourse can one be informed . IE; turn the other cheek , .
> Only through respect and compassion can we relate to one's opinion .
> Also even though I don't agree with Athesist and Agnostic opinion , I can carry on conversation and befriend them , through respect .
> I started the thread for us to explore and state our beliefs , so we can find common ground . Once we find common ground then we learn to understand and respect one another !
> Beliefs to point of intolerance only leads to violence , and our world doesn't need more violence .
> Just for Bullethead .
> View attachment 951183
> 
> ( just for ky55) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( Found them on sale at Amazon )
> 
> In all seriousness , regardless of beliefs , we must find ways to be civil .





> I have sumized that many of us believe that no matter what we believe , violence or intolerance to the point of confortation isn't a answer .


I agree in general.
But not always.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Brother David said:


> Ecclesiastes 3 . I am meek , not weak , but I still believe in the goodness of mankind.



The difference may lie in being assertive without being aggressive. I once tried to be more assertive  as suggested by my wife that I should be. She didn't like the results. She preferred my previous meekness.

As maybe I'd become more assertive to everyone but her. I'm not sure that's how something like that works. Maybe why the saying "be careful what you wish for" comes about.

Ecclesiastes, I like it but I'm glad that I didn't have to decide if it was Canon. Although I do agree that there "is" a time for all those things.
One can win the battle and not the war. Not in Ecclesiastes but still a part of a life lesson.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Remember Billy Jack? They taught him to turn the other cheek. He's doing pretty good at it but then say's "they tell me to do this, to turn the other cheek. I'm doing really good and then some *** like you comes along.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Walt, in the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit that there is a possibility that my attitude toward the upholding of my commitment to eat at least one slice per year may have been moderated.  As I hinted earlier, I would let it slide if I thought I could get away with it.  However, on the occasion of fulfilling that commitment in 2017 I happened to recall the 1998 Super Bowl ad.  A healthy dose of Louisiana's wonderful export made the wet carboard and tomato paste character of the concoction more palatable.


Tobasco sauce on pizza is a sin I think.
Red pepper flakes are acceptable though.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Tobasco sauce on pizza is a sin I think.
> Red pepper flakes are acceptable though.



My wife despises a white sauce pizza. She says some things just aren't right. That a white sauce pizza is not a pizza. 

So perhaps Tabasco is a no no. But red pepper flakes yes on a red sauce.  

I guess with my non traditional persuasions, a white sauce is OK. Although I do prefer a red sauce, pepperoni, and red pepper flakes.
Even an occasional anchovy!


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Tobasco sauce on pizza is a sin I think.
> Red pepper flakes are acceptable though.


I grant that it is counterintuitive; maybe it only works for those of us who like pungency and dislike pizza.  But then again, they marry quite well, not like one flavor trying to overpower the other.

I've tried the pepper flakes; for me they just kinda laid there.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> After reading some of the belief responses , I have sumized that many of us believe that no matter what we believe , violence or intolerance to the point of confortation isn't a answer .
> Only through civil discourse can one be informed . IE; turn the other cheek , .
> Only through respect and compassion can we relate to one's opinion .
> Also even though I don't agree with Athesist and Agnostic opinion , I can carry on conversation and befriend them , through respect .
> I started the thread for us to explore and state our beliefs , so we can find common ground . Once we find common ground then we learn to understand and respect one another !
> Beliefs to point of intolerance only leads to violence , and our world doesn't need more violence .
> Just for Bullethead .
> View attachment 951183
> 
> ( just for ky55) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( Found them on sale at Amazon )
> 
> In all seriousness , regardless of beliefs , we must find ways to be civil .


Civility does not include poking the bear and then complaining when it bites you.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NCHillbilly said:


> That is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. He flew the plane into the building because he hates and doesn't understand those who don't believe the same as him. Folks trying to enforce their religious beliefs on others or dehumanizing them because they have different religious beliefs has caused a very, very large amount of the death and suffering on this planet.



More accurate to leave off the term "religious", because it's not a one way street.  In fact atheistic beliefs led to more deaths in the 20th century ALONE than all other religious conflicts combined since the dawn of man.  So, there's that.  Like I said, "more accurate", but I realize you have an axe to grind.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

GT90 said:


> I am pretty sure the guy flying the plane into the building (assuming you are referring to 9/11) did so because of his beliefs.  I bet the folks in the building would say they would have been better off if the guy flying the plane had "worried a lot less about what other folks believe".
> 
> Seems to me that the majority of the conflicts over time have been because of beliefs and not because of what is not believed.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Maybe, but I would argue that the folks in those buildings wished that the world had paid more attention to what that guy flying the plane believed and had tried to change it.  The old saying "Nature abhor's a vacuum" holds true.  If you aren't proactive in your belief, another will be.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> More accurate to leave off the term "religious", because it's not a one way street.  In fact atheistic beliefs led to more deaths in the 20th century ALONE than all other religious conflicts combined since the dawn of man.  So, there's that.  Like I said, "more accurate", but I realize you have an axe to grind.


False.
Atheism is defined by what it DOESNT believe - in the existence of gods.
You always avoid this but...….
Do us all a favor and list out "Atheist beliefs".


----------



## NCHillbilly

SemperFiDawg said:


> More accurate to leave off the term "religious", because it's not a one way street.  In fact atheistic beliefs led to more deaths in the 20th century ALONE than all other religious conflicts combined since the dawn of man.  So, there's that.  Like I said, "more accurate", but I realize you have an axe to grind.


And you based this statistic on what? It doesn't sound very credible at all to me.

Again, I am not an atheist, and I have no axe to grind. I just find it impossible to believe that you can't see or won't admit the amount of people who have been killed because of religious differences. 

Your definition of an athiest seems to be anyone who doesn't agree with your religious beliefs. The first step in dehumanizing others.


----------



## WaltL1

NCHillbilly said:


> And you based this statistic on what? It doesn't sound very credible at all to me.
> 
> Again, I am not an atheist, and I have no axe to grind. I just find it impossible to believe that you can't see or won't admit the amount of people who have been killed because of religious differences.
> 
> Your definition of an athiest seems to be anyone who doesn't agree with your religious beliefs. The first step in dehumanizing others.


Mussolini was an Atheist. Therefore it was his Atheistic beliefs.... of which there are none..... that caused him to perform atrocities.
You have to really really want that to be true to ignore the gaping hole in that claim.


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> False.
> Atheism is defined by what it DOESNT believe - in the existence of gods.
> You always avoid this but...….
> Do us all a favor and list out "Atheist beliefs".


Athesist means, lacks or disbelieves
Agnostic means , unknowledgeable to 

Hitler , Germany WW2. 
Stalin , Russia
Kahmr Rogue ( Pol pot )  , Cambodia


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Athesist means, lacks or disbelieves
> Agnostic means , unknowledgeable to
> 
> Hitler , Germany WW2.
> Stalin , Russia
> Kahmr Rogue ( Pol pot )  , Cambodia


The definition you supplied confirms what I said. Atheism is defined by what it doesn't believe.
 There are no established "Atheistic beliefs".
You guys just really want there to be so you can try to compare it to Christianity.
Maybe you can list out what "Atheistic beliefs" are? You guys seem to avoid this request like the plague.


----------



## Artfuldodger

The age old argument;
Which is a more terrible killer, religion, or the lack of religion? 

When it comes to the evil of killing. Does the body count matter? Was thinking back before man had modern weapons, man killed for his God or Gods with a spear or archers. 

They didn't have the body counts of a modern military but killed as many as they could. They tried to, just didn't have the weapons.

If one is killing for their God though, is it still considered evil? So in a way religious killings may not be attached to evilness.
Where as an Atheist would have to kill for either self defense or just to be evil.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> False.
> Atheism is defined by what it DOESNT believe - in the existence of gods.
> You always avoid this but...….
> Do us all a favor and list out "Atheist beliefs".


 
If you prefer strike "atheistic beliefs" and insert "atheist" if you prefer.  It's splitting hairs, but those atheist had atheistic beliefs.  There are varying beliefs that stem from holding "there is no God", be it humanism, materialism, etc.  To pretend there isn't is naïve.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NCHillbilly said:


> And you based this statistic on what? It doesn't sound very credible at all to me.
> 
> Again, I am not an atheist, and I have no axe to grind. I just find it impossible to believe that you can't see or won't admit the amount of people who have been killed because of religious differences.
> 
> Your definition of an athiest seems to be anyone who doesn't agree with your religious beliefs. The first step in dehumanizing others.



Well aside from being common sense, the statistics are easily found.  I'm not saying people haven't been killed because of religious beliefs, only that the numbers pale in comparison to those killed by atheist in the 20th century alone.


----------



## j_seph

660griz said:


> I believe:
> "It must be borne in mind that christianity was more than just a religion during biblical times, the church also operated the political, legal, and educational systems of the day. Religion was also used as a reference to matters concerning philosophy, psychology, science, medicine (through faith healing) and others. In biblical days the sufferers of following conditions: epilepsy, migraines, psychological disorders would have been considered to have been possessed by demons, evil spirits or the devil. Modern medicine has managed to identify the root causes of these conditions and is able to provide treatment.
> Modern society has replaced the legal and the political systems and religion is redundant on these matters. Religion is no more the authority on fields such as science, medicine, philosophy, psychology because breakthroughs and advancements in these areas have shown the bible to be incorrect and outdated.
> However, to keep religious folk in check they are demanded to accept their religious persuasion with blind faith and told not to question the authenticity thereof. But had civilisation not pushed the boundaries on medicine vs faith-healing, scientific and technological advancement, pushing intellectual boundaries, adopted the modern legal and political systems, our civilisation would have remained in the dark ages.
> Christianity and other mono-theistic belief systems are basically the progression of primitive day poly-theistic religions and idol-worshipping, with the attributes of the multiple gods being assigned to one god e.g. the old testament god even accepting and ordering sacrifices and offerings. In the very same manner, the new testament is an improvement on the old testament. In any event, christianity is really not mono-theistic since there are 3 deities.
> In summary, it therefore stands to reason that religious teachings in all its forms are outdated on the topic of spirituality. Religions have served their purpose and it’s time for the human population to discard their outdated teachings and practices as they are holding back social advancement."


So now what do YOU believe? Brother David, even Walt said straight up what they believe. Yet what you believe comes straight from a news website, at number 5. Summary about religion. If this is truly what you believe, my question is why would believe what someone else tells you vs. what someone else says that offers you more hope, grace, and mercy.

https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Pro...d-this-article-mainlyuses-Christiani-20141017


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Mussolini was an Atheist.



So was Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mau Tse-tung and the list goes on and on.  As a side note, it ISN'T shocking atheist tend to land on the evil side of history.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> The definition you supplied confirms what I said. Atheism is defined by what it doesn't believe.
> There are no established "Atheistic beliefs".
> You guys just really want there to be so you can try to compare it to Christianity.
> Maybe you can list out what "Atheistic beliefs" are? You guys seem to avoid this request like the plague.



And you portend to espouse the notion of "no God" stands in a vacuum without any consequential and necessary conclusions that must be drawn to answer any other questions of life, which I don't believe you honestly believe for a minute.  You're too smart to buy that.  I know that for a fact.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you prefer strike "atheistic beliefs" and insert "atheist" if you prefer.  It's splitting hairs, but those atheist had atheistic beliefs.  There are varying beliefs that stem from holding "there is no God", be it humanism, materialism, etc.  To pretend there isn't is naïve.


Correct. And those varying beliefs are the individuals. Those individual beliefs are as varying as people are.
But those individual beliefs are NOT "Atheism".
Atheism is defined by a LACK of belief. You stating that there are varying beliefs is obviously the opposite of lack of belief and therefore is not Atheism.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> So was Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mau Tse-tung and the list goes on and on.  As a side note, it ISN'T shocking atheist tend to land on the evil side of history.


God nearly exterminated the world. Those guys you listed are amatures.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> The definition you supplied confirms what I said. Atheism is defined by what it doesn't believe.
> There are no established "Atheistic beliefs".
> You guys just really want there to be so you can try to compare it to Christianity.
> Maybe you can list out what "Atheistic beliefs" are? You guys seem to avoid this request like the plague.


Maybe it’s not so much as trying to compare Atheism to Christianity in a sense of “what we believe”........

The argument might actually reveal how ubusing what we don’t believe can be just as harmful as abusing what we do believe, depending on how radical an individual / group is in the sense of converting or doing away with the other.

It’s no secret, it’s been said here many times that the world is better off without religion. That’s why I don’t buy the “I don’t care what others believe” lie.

Radical believers and non believers share the same goal, they want other to be believe / disbelieve like them, or go into extinction.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> And you portend to espouse the notion of "no God" stands in a vacuum without any consequential and necessary conclusions that must be drawn to answer any other questions of life, which I don't believe you honestly believe for a minute.  You're too smart to buy that.  I know that for a fact.


Sure but those conclusions aren't Atheism.
Atheism has a single conclusion - that there are no gods.


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> The definition you supplied confirms what I said. Atheism is defined by what it doesn't believe.
> There are no established "Atheistic beliefs".
> You guys just really want there to be so you can try to compare it to Christianity.
> Maybe you can list out what "Atheistic beliefs" are? You guys seem to avoid this request like the plague.



So you don't believe science ?


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Maybe it’s not so much as trying to compare Atheism to Christianity in a sense of “what we believe”........
> 
> The argument might actually reveal how what we don’t believe can be just as harmful as abusing what we do believe, depending on how radical an individual / group is in the sense of converting or doing away with the other.
> 
> It’s no secret, it’s been said here many times that the world is better off without religion. That’s why I don’t buy the “I don’t care what others believe” lie.
> 
> Radical believers and non believers should share the same goal, they want other to go into extinction.





> It’s no secret, it’s been said here many times that the world is better off without religion.


I think man would figure out reasons to kill each other regardless of whether religion existed or not. It just so happens that religious beliefs seem to really whip man up into a frenzy.


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Sure but those conclusions aren't Atheism.
> Atheism has a single conclusion - that there are no gods.


Prove it !


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> So you don't believe science ?


Believe science?
I am aware what science is and what science isn't and I believe accordingly.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Prove it !


You already proved it when you provided the definition of Atheism.


----------



## NCHillbilly

One could argue that the 6 million Jews killed in Nazi Germany were singled out for the most part precisely because of their different religious beliefs, therefore dehumanized. Same with millions of Native Americans wiped out over the last few centuries, or all the folks killed in the Crusades, the protestant vs. catholic wars, radical Islam, All the mess in Yugoslavia, Buddhists targeted by the Khmer Rouge, etc. as more recent examples.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Correct. And those varying beliefs are the individuals. Those individual beliefs are as varying as people are.
> But those individual beliefs are NOT "Atheism".
> Atheism is defined by a LACK of belief. You stating that there are varying beliefs is obviously the opposite of lack of belief and therefore is not Atheism.



Those individual beliefs, as varied as they may be, exist solely as a direct result of the “no God” belief.

If those same people believed that each and every life is infinitely sacred and infinitely valuable because we are each made in the image of a Holy God this conversation never happens.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I think man would figure out reasons to kill each other regardless of whether religion existed or not. It just so happens that religious beliefs seem to really whip man up into a frenzy.


That’s my point, Walt. It’s just easier to point at religious beliefs.......

I agree that abusing religious beliefs can whip a man into a frenzy, but that doesn’t remove the non believing man from whipping into a frenzy.

The reality is, most of us, including you, know way more religious folks that are not getting whipped into a frenzy over anything. And we both know those from religious and non religious that would like for the other to just go away.


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Believe science?
> I am aware what science is and what science isn't and I believe accordingly.


Your definition of Athesism is nonbelief , so your Agnostic ?


----------



## Brother David

NCHillbilly said:


> One could argue that the 6 million Jews killed in Nazi Germany were singled out for the most part precisely because of their different religious beliefs, therefore dehumanized. Same with millions of Native Americans wiped out over the last few centuries, or all the folks killed in the Crusades, the protestant vs. catholic wars, radical Islam, All the mess in Yugoslavia, Buddhists targeted by the Khmer Rouge, etc. as more recent examples.


 
Khmer Rogue , non-believers 
Hitler , nonbeliver 
Almost all , notice almost , Native Americans where killed in land grabs that had nothing to do with Religion .


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Those individual beliefs, as varied as they may be, exist solely as a direct result of the “no God” belief.
> 
> If those same people believed that each and every life is infinitely sacred and infinitely valuable because we are each made in the image of a Holy God this conversation never happens.


Are you high?
There are too many deaths due to  those same "people believed that each and every life is infinitely sacred and infinitely valuable because we are each made in the image of a Holy God "  to support your claim.
History shows that you are not only wrong, but lie.


----------



## NCHillbilly

SemperFiDawg said:


> Those individual beliefs, as varied as they may be, exist solely as a direct result of the “no God” belief.
> 
> If those same people believed that each and every life is infinitely sacred and infinitely valuable because we are each made in the image of a Holy God this conversation never happens.


Disagree. I think whether or not you believe in a deity has no or very little bearing on your morals or value of human life. Sometimes it may lessen it, if you believe that your belief in God justifies your killing those who don't, such as the ancient Hebrews were constantly commanded by God to do, and the modern Muslims still think the same way. You value the lives of those like you, but not the lives of those who are of different belief systems. There are great folks and evil folks of both the religious and non-religious persuasions. 

Samson killed several thousand people himself, according to the Bible, all sanctioned by God's will. Does that show a value on human life?


----------



## bullethead

The entire bible is filled with stories of believers of one god killing believers of another god. No atheists needed.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Brother David said:


> Khmer Rogue , non-believers
> Hitler , nonbeliver
> Almost all , notice almost , Native Americans where killed in land grabs that had nothing to do with Religion .


Yes to the first two. Devaluing and killing people because of their religious beliefs is not limited to religious people. You don't have to be a Christian or a Muslim to single out people to kill because of what they believe. The Khmer Rouge felt threatened by religion, and killed people precisely because they had religious beliefs in many cases. That still fits right in with my original statement of the world being better off if people didn't worry about what each other believed. That applies in both directions. 

As for the Native Americans, religion definitely played a major part. The fact that the Indians were heathens justified their killing and the taking of their lands by Christians who considered themselves to be doing the Lord's work of Manifest Destiny. It is documented in writing in many cases.


----------



## bullethead

NCHillbilly said:


> Yes to the first two. Devaluing and killing people because of their religious beliefs is not limited to religious people. You don't have to be a Christian or a Muslim to single out people to kill because of what they believe. The Khmer Rouge felt threatened by religion, and killed people precisely because they had religious beliefs in many cases. That still fits right in with my original statement of the world being better off if people didn't worry about what each other believed. That applies in both directions.
> 
> As for the Native Americans, religion definitely played a major part. The fact that the Indians were heathens justified their killing and the taking of their lands by Christians who considered themselves to be doing the Lord's work of Manifest Destiny. It is documented in writing in many cases.


Not just killing Native Americans in  battle, but literally poisoning them, starving them, giving them blankets infected by disease solely to wipe them out like rats. 
By who SFD and Brother David? Christians or Atheists?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Your definition of Athesism is nonbelief , so your Agnostic ?


How can you argue a point when you do not know what you are talking about?
Atheism is someone who does not believe in a God.
Period

It has nothing to do with a belief or non belief in other things or matters. An atheist can believe in Santa and not believe in God. They can believe in science but not Zeus.


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> Not just killing Native Americans in  battle, but literally poisoning them, starving them, giving them blankets infected by disease solely to wipe them out like rats.
> By who SFD and Brother David? Christians or Atheists?




https://www.history.com/topics/westward-expansion/manifest-destiny#section_5

“Manifest Destiny, a phrase coined in 1845, expressed the philosophy that drove 19th-century U.S. territorial expansion. Manifest Destiny held that the United States was destined—by God, its advocates believed—to expand its dominion and spread democracy and capitalism across the entire North American continent.”


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> Not just killing Native Americans in  battle, but literally poisoning them, starving them, giving them blankets infected by disease solely to wipe them out like rats.
> By who SFD and Brother David? Christians or Atheists?


Both , go back and study , many of our founding fathers used Religion , but weren't believers , some were zealots . 
The only major Religion that justifies killing to advance is Islam . 
Never have I tried to link all non-believers to Pol Pot , so why do you as non-believers try to lump all Christian's together .


----------



## Brother David

ky55 said:


> https://www.history.com/topics/westward-expansion/manifest-destiny#section_5
> 
> “Manifest Destiny, a phrase coined in 1845, expressed the philosophy that drove 19th-century U.S. territorial expansion. Manifest Destiny held that the United States was destined—by God, its advocates believed—to expand its dominion and spread democracy and capitalism across the entire North American continent.”


 
Your correct , now show in the Bible where this is ordained .


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> Are you high?
> There are too many deaths due to  those same "people believed that each and every life is infinitely sacred and infinitely valuable because we are each made in the image of a Holy God "  to support your claim.
> History shows that you are not only wrong, but lie.



You contradict your own better judgement.  It poignantly obvious to any reasonable person that if they truly believed that they wouldn’t have committed those atrocities.  The fact that they did is proof in itself they didn’t believe that.  Don’t you just hate it when reason kills a favorite meme.

I have been high before.  Nothing I’m proud of, but even high I’ve never been foolish enough to buy the contradiction you’re attempting to push.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> How can you argue a point when you do not know what you are talking about?
> Atheism is someone who does not believe in a God.
> Period
> 
> It has nothing to do with a belief or non belief in other things or matters. An atheist can believe in Santa and not believe in God. They can believe in science but not Zeus.


I never said Athesist didn't have beliefs ,Walt did.


WaltL1 said:


> The definition you supplied confirms what I said. Atheism is defined by what it doesn't believe.
> There are no established "Atheistic beliefs".


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> How can you argue a point when you do not know what you are talking about.



You mean like making moral judgements on Moral Law Giver on things that happened 4000 years ago but doesn’t exist.  

Talk about contradicted, and twisted thought.


----------



## Spotlite

https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

https://www.conservapedia.com/Militant_atheism


----------



## Brother David

One could sumized , since all people who believe are bad by the very nature of believing , then anyone who drinks alcohol is a alcoholic .
Anyone who owns a firearm is a killer .
Anyone who uses medication is a drug addict .
Anyone who dislike anyone for any reason is prejudice .


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder
> 
> https://www.conservapedia.com/Militant_atheism


Again I ask, is that worse than the killings by armies before armies had modern weapons? Naturally these killers in this century can kill more than back in earlier centuries.
Is it the body counts that matter?

Look back at the killings done in the name of God or a God back before they had modern weapons. The body counts were lower. The weapons were cruel and the villages were not occupied by the masses of modern European cities of today.
Back then most people around the world were religious. The Aztecs, the Druids, the Chinese, pretty much the whole world was religious and they killed in the name of their gods. They just didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

I just think it's the wrong argument to use a few modern day Atheist dictators as the example that Atheist around the world and through out all of time, have killed more people than people who believe in a god or gods. 
One needs to go back further in time than just this century to see this.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Both , go back and study , many of our founding fathers used Religion , but weren't believers , some were zealots .
> The only major Religion that justifies killing to advance is Islam .
> Never have I tried to link all non-believers to Pol Pot , so why do you as non-believers try to lump all Christian's together .


Manifest Destiny says otherwise.

For the same reason you and SFD lump any and all non christians together.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> You contradict your own better judgement.  It poignantly obvious to any reasonable person that if they truly believed that they wouldn’t have committed those atrocities.  The fact that they did is proof in itself they didn’t believe that.  Don’t you just hate it when reason kills a favorite meme.
> 
> I have been high before.  Nothing I’m proud of, but even high I’ve never been foolish enough to buy the contradiction you’re attempting to push.


All your heroes in the bible fit your definition.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> You mean like making moral judgements on Moral Law Giver on things that happened 4000 years ago but doesn’t exist.
> 
> Talk about contradicted, and twisted thought.


Sfd, that Moral Law Giver exists nowhere but in your warped claims.
People, with morals ,have been around LONG before 4000 years, 10,000 years.
Your religion just tries to claim they know who and when.... many before did that and already done that. Bandwagon jumpers...


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I never said Athesist didn't have beliefs ,Walt did.


Understanding what you read is more important than being able to read itself.
Walt clearly said ATHEISTIC BELIEFS.
Which there are none.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> One could sumized , since all people who believe are bad by the very nature of believing , then anyone who drinks alcohol is a alcoholic .
> Anyone who owns a firearm is a killer .
> Anyone who uses medication is a drug addict .
> Anyone who dislike anyone for any reason is prejudice .


If that is what you surmise, you have a lot more homework to do.


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> Again I ask, is that worse than the killings by armies before armies had modern weapons? Naturally these killers in this century can kill more than back in earlier centuries.
> Is it the body counts that matter?
> 
> Look back at the killings done in the name of God or a God back before they had modern weapons. The body counts were lower. The weapons were cruel and the villages were not occupied by the masses of modern European cities of today.
> Back then most people around the world were religious. The Aztecs, the Druids, the Chinese, pretty much the whole world was religious and they killed in the name of their gods. They just didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> I just think it's the wrong argument to use a few modern day Atheist dictators as the example that Atheist around the world and through out all of time, have killed more people than people who believe in a god or gods.
> One needs to go back further in time than just this century to see this.


I don’t know which is worse and could care less who’s killed more. It’s not a competition. 

Bottom line, Christianity is not taught to hate and condemn. 

It is true that Christianity is just one religion that has its faults, but I just think it’s the wrong argument for Atheism to keep denying their murderous ventures and keep claiming innocent hands.


----------



## j_seph

NCHillbilly said:


> Yes to the first two. Devaluing and killing people because of their religious beliefs is not limited to religious people. You don't have to be a Christian or a Muslim to single out people to kill because of what they believe. The Khmer Rouge felt threatened by religion, and killed people precisely because they had religious beliefs in many cases. That still fits right in with my original statement of the world being better off if people didn't worry about what each other believed. That applies in both directions.
> 
> As for the Native Americans, religion definitely played a major part. The fact that the Indians were heathens justified their killing and the taking of their lands by Christians who considered themselves to be doing the Lord's work of Manifest Destiny. It is documented in writing in many cases.


Please share link....................me to lazy to search it out. Thanks in advance


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I don’t know which is worse and could care less who’s killed more. It’s not a competition.
> 
> Bottom line, Christianity is not taught to hate and condemn.
> 
> It is true that Christianity is just one religion that has its faults, but I just think it’s the wrong argument for Atheism to claiming innocent hands.


The point is...Humans have been killing other humans for hundreds of thousands of years. We have found better devices to inflict more casualties and along with those weapons we have always invented excuses to justify our actions.
The religious and non religious are equally as guilty.
Somehow "we" are always on the side of "right/good/justified" and "they" are always "wrong/bad/unjustified". It just depends which side your standing on...the other is the evil and the bad guy.
Both point fingers and are equally as guilty.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> I don’t know which is worse and could care less who’s killed more. It’s not a competition.
> 
> Bottom line, Christianity is not taught to hate and condemn.
> 
> It is true that Christianity is just one religion that has its faults, but I just think it’s the wrong argument for Atheism to keep denying their murderous ventures and keep claiming innocent hands.



I'm not sure that is what they are trying to say. Then if we say Athiest kill more, it puts us in the same boat as them.

Would you agree that parts of Christianity in the past may have murdered others in the name of God? Certain Christian groups during certain time periods.

The argument presented was "religion" vs Atheist in killing, not Christianity. It wasn't presented as just Christianity but as religion. That takes in a whole lot more of the world over time than Christianity.


----------



## Artfuldodger

The wars in the Old Testament? Did God ever ask any nation to go to war? Did he control the destiny of those wars?
Would a non believer during that time consider some of the wars as evil?
If one is asked by their god to kill, is it necessarily evil? Perhaps only to the ones who aren't a believer of that god.

I mean we see the Muslim killings as evil but to them they aren't. Does that make them less evil? Not in our eyes.

So a modern day Atheist may see the Crusades as evil when they were doing it because they thought God told them too. Does that make their killings less evil? Not to the families of the dead.

So now we are back to ones religious beliefs are important. Especially if they aren't ours.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> If that is what you surmise, you have a lot more homework to do.


So all Christian can be lumped together , but not any other group ?


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> The wars in the Old Testament? Did God ever ask any nation to go to war? Did he control the destine of those wars?
> Would a not believer during that time consider some of the wars as evil?
> If one is asked by their God to kill, is it necessarily evil?


I think the ones doing the killing and the ones being killed have two different perspectives about who is evil.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> So all Christian can be lumped together , but not any other group ?


No, keep going....
You are almost there...

Check post #90


----------



## j_seph

I believe that each and every one here that is not a believer in God, can and could become a believer.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> No, keep going....
> You are almost there...
> 
> Check post #90


I know many Athesist who aren't evil and many Christians who aren't evil . 
So by your definition anyone who is passionate about what they believe are evil?


----------



## Brother David

Brother David said:


> One could sumized , since all people who believe are bad by the very nature of believing , then anyone who drinks alcohol is a alcoholic .
> Anyone who owns a firearm is a killer .
> Anyone who uses medication is a drug addict .
> Anyone who dislike anyone for any reason is prejudice .



Come on all you Christian lumpers , feel free to opine .


----------



## Artfuldodger

If you were to put all of the sins against humanity caused by Christians, over time, it would probably surpass that of the Atheist.

Think of all the old stories of how Blacks were persecuted or any of the various atrocities by individuals and groups of Christians lead by prejudice and hatred.
We are better at peace now than over the past centuries or decades. Maybe education has helped. But back in the day people were treated bad just for the color of their skin or other religion.

That's just one tiny piece of evil. Not to think of all the lying, cheating, hating, etc., for a million other reasons.

It's a good thing we do have the "washing."


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I know many Athesist who aren't evil and many Christians who aren't evil .
> So by your definition anyone who is passionate about what they believe are evil?


Honest, i feel like  I am on a hidden camera prank show when trying to converse with you. 
You are incapable of comprehending what you read because you have your answers cemented in your head before anyone types anything else.

Listen, carefully.

The USA thinks the Nazi's were wrong while the Nazi's thought the USA was wrong. Each side claimed that they were right.
The Christians think the Muslims are wrong. The Muslims think the Christians are wrong. Each side claims they are right.
Believers think Non-believers are wrong, Non-believers think Believers are wrong. Each side claims they are right.

The truth is, NOBODY is always more right and NOBODY is always more wrong than the other. Examples of each extreme are available for the other side to use but neither can possibly include everyone.

There are wonderful people who are believers in ALL religions and there are wonderful people who do not believe in any diety. 
For each one of those there is a psychopathic mental nut job that gets all the attention and makes the others look bad.
Neither side is totally innocent nor totally guilty. But both sides have examples of masses of people who are willing to carry out bad deeds because they are convinced that their beliefs justify it.


----------



## Brother David

Artfuldodger said:


> If you were to put all of the sins against humanity caused by Christians, over time, it would probably surpass that of the Atheist.
> 
> Think of all the old stories of how Blacks were persecuted or any of the various atrocities by individuals and groups of Christians lead by prejudice and hatred.
> We are better at peace now than over the past centuries or decades. Maybe education has helped. But back in the day people were treated bad just for the color of their skin or other religion.
> 
> That's just one tiny piece of evil. Not to think of all the lying, cheating, hating, etc., for a million other reasons.
> 
> It's a good thing we do have the "washing."


I give you your statement .
What movement was it that abolished slavery in the U S .
Which nation led the way to end WW2 .
We can go back and forth on the blame game .
Please don't let other people's actions influence how you believe , that's shallow !


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> Honest, i feel like  I am on a hidden camera prank show when trying to converse with you.
> You are incapable of comprehending what you read because you have your answers cemented in your head before anyone types anything else.
> 
> Listen, carefully.
> 
> The USA thinks the Nazi's were wrong while the Nazi's thought the USA was wrong. Each side claimed that they were right.
> The Christians think the Muslims are wrong. The Muslims think the Christians are wrong. Each side claims they are right.
> Believers think Non-believers are wrong, Non-believers think Believers are wrong. Each side claims they are right.
> 
> The truth is, NOBODY is always more right and NOBODY is always more wrong than the other. Examples of each extreme are available for the other side to use but neither can possibly include everyone.
> 
> There are wonderful people who are believers in ALL religions and there are wonderful people who do not believe in any diety.
> For each one of those there is a psychopathic mental nut job that gets all the attention and makes the others look bad.
> Neither side is totally innocent nor totally guilty. But both sides have examples of masses of people who are willing to carry out bad deeds because they are convinced that their beliefs justify it.


So why do allow others to influence how you believe ?


----------



## NCHillbilly

Brother David said:


> I know many Athesist who aren't evil and many Christians who aren't evil .
> So by your definition anyone who is passionate about what they believe are evil?


No. But if you commit atrocities in the name of what you believe, and justify them with your religious or other beliefs, then you are heading in that direction.

Was Dyllan Roof evil for killing 9 black folks in a church because he thought they were different and inferior? Most would say so. But they would also think that Samson wasn't, when he slew 1,000 Philistines with a mule's jawbone, and then killed 3,000 more by collapsing the temple of Dagon, for pretty much the same reasons. And God gave him the strength to do it. Because they worshiped Dagon.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> So why do allow others to influence how you believe ?


Human nature.
I am no more or no less guilty than you are in many ways, but I have come to what I currently do and do not believe on my own.


----------



## ky55

Brother David said:


> Your correct , now show in the Bible where this is ordained .



Bro D,
If I have to show you examples of your god ordering the rape and murder of men, women, and children, and the theft of their lands and possessions, and the decimation of entire tribes....
then you haven’t been reading your own book.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I give you your statement .
> What movement was it that abolished slavery in the U S .
> Which nation led the way to end WW2 .
> We can go back and forth on the blame game .
> Please don't let other people's actions influence how you believe , that's shallow !


If you were in a plane crash on a remote island when you were months old and everyone perished but you and you were found by a non Christian person and raised till adulthood, you would not have magically been the same person you are now in your religious, moral, world view,  political etc etc etc beliefs. You may very well be just as dedicated to complete opposite as you are now. You would have been influenced by others.

Had you somehow been able to survive on your own with not another person around....you would still not be who you are now in your beliefs.


----------



## Brother David

NCHillbilly said:


> No. But if you commit atrocities in the name of what you believe, and justify them with your religious or other beliefs, then you are heading in that direction.
> 
> Was Dyllan Roof evil for killing 9 black folks in a church because he thought they were different and inferior? Most would say so. But they would also think that Samson wasn't, when he slew 1,000 Philistines with a mule's jawbone, and then killed 3,000 more by collapsing the temple of Dagon, for pretty much the same reasons. And God gave him the strength to do it. Because they worshiped Dagon.


What does the statement have to do with myself or others who believe in the 2 great commandments of the New testament ?


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> If you were in a plane crash on a remote island when you were months old and everyone perished but you and you were found by a non Christian person and raised till adulthood, you would not have magically been the same person you are now in your religious, moral, world view,  political etc etc etc beliefs. You may very well be just as dedicated to complete opposite as you are now. You would have been influenced by others.
> 
> Had you somehow been able to survive on your own with not another person around....you would still not be who you are now in your beliefs.


You don't know me very well , no person has ever been able to influence how I think , only Christ .


----------



## Brother David

ky55 said:


> Bro D,
> If I have to show you examples of your god ordering the rape and murder of men, women, and children, and the theft of their lands and possessions, and the decimation of entire tribes....
> then you haven’t been reading your own book.


I can also show you how the Jewish people received the same treatment . The cases in which you stated are only after negotiating failed .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> You don't know me very well , no person has ever been able to influence how I think , only Christ .


Oh, ok, gotcha...Jesus would have found you on that Indian Island ....um-hmmmm


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> Oh, ok, gotcha...Jesus would have found you on that Indian Island ....um-hmmmm


Absolutely ! Prove it's impossible. Facts only , no I believes .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I can also show you how the Jewish people received the same treatment . The cases in which you stated are only after negotiating failed .


Don't you find it just a little bit too coincidental that the Jewish God arrived around the same time as the Jewish culture?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Absolutely ! Prove it's impossible.


No kids games for me BD, that's all you.
I am too busy diving off the coast of Japan looking for the hibernating Godzilla, because ya can never be too sure that something is impossible


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> No kids games for me BD, that's all you.


How Liberal of you . Make generalization an then avoid and evade .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> How Liberal of you . Make generalization an then avoid and evade .


It is impossible to prove a negative (we have had that discussion 10x before) and it is childish for you to continue to expect someone to(11th time and counting...)
I am honest. Not evasive. I cannot prove made up things no more than you can. Real vs fantasy. 

Now let me finish my lap around Earth on Mothra's back. It's happening, Mothra has built in WiFi, I am using my smartphone as I circle the Earth.
....must be true because BD cannot prove it isn't...


----------



## Brother David

My Dad , God rest his soul , had an expression .
If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen . 

One simple question ,Beliefs . Then we had to go through another History lesson on why we shouldn't believe . 

My best summation is that most don't believe because someone else did something wrong.

I believe that it's an attempt to flee from the calling of God ! 
I believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God ! 
I believe the only way to Heaven is to admit that  your a sinner and through the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior ! 
I believe we avoid and evade Christ to justify our on action !
I believe Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of a great fish ! 
I believe Christ fed the multitudes ! 
I believe in ressurection ! 
I believe in Eternal life through Christ !
I believe in Supernatural Healing !
I believe Christ was born of a Virgin ! 
I believe David defeated Goliath !
I believe Enoch was caught up in a whirlwind ! 

That's enough for now , I have used my limit on exclamation points !


----------



## NCHillbilly

Brother David said:


> What does the statement have to do with myself or others who believe in the 2 great commandments of the New testament ?


Do you see Samson as a Biblical hero, or a bloodthirsty killer? That boy made Charles Manson look like a choirboy, but I've never heard anybody say anything negative about him, except for that period when he quit killing Philistines, but at least he made good in the end by taking out a few thousand of them. 

The point is that it's all in your perspective. I'm sure the Philistines saw Samson as the epitome of evil, but the Hebrews thought he was a mighty hero.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Brother David said:


> You don't know me very well , no person has ever been able to influence how I think , only Christ .


It's just a coincidence that you were raised in a Christian culture, but are a Christian? 

I still say that if you had been born in India and raised by Hindus, you would be making these same arguments in favor of Vishnu right now.


----------



## ky55

Brother David said:


> What movement was it that abolished slavery in the U S .



I can answer that one-the Southern Baptist Convention!

Nope, they were the ones who were established in 1845 to protect and promote slavery, and then followed up with 150 years of racism and segregation. 

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899/...nniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention


----------



## Brother David

NCHillbilly said:


> Do you see Samson as a Biblical hero, or a bloodthirsty killer? That boy made Charles Manson look like a choirboy, but I've never heard anybody say anything negative about him, except for that period when he quit killing Philistines, but at least he made good in the end by taking out a few thousand of them.
> 
> The point is that it's all in your perspective. I'm sure the Philistines saw Samson as the epitome of evil, but the Hebrews thought he was a mighty hero.



How do you see the Philistines ? As occupiers or refugees ? 
I understand your questions but it's not that simple . 
I can't say what I would believe if I was raised in India . Just like I can't tell you that if had raised in India you wouldn't be a Hindu Monk .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> My Dad , God rest his soul , had an expression .
> If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen .
> 
> One simple question ,Beliefs . Then we had to go through another History lesson on why we shouldn't believe .
> 
> My best summation is that most don't believe because someone else did something wrong.
> 
> I believe that it's an attempt to flee from the calling of God !
> I believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God !
> I believe the only way to Heaven is to admit that  your a sinner and through the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior !
> I believe we avoid and evade Christ to justify our on action !
> I believe Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of a great fish !
> I believe Christ fed the multitudes !
> I believe in ressurection !
> I believe in Eternal life through Christ !
> I believe in Supernatural Healing !
> I believe Christ was born of a Virgin !
> I believe David defeated Goliath !
> I believe Enoch was caught up in a whirlwind !
> 
> That's enough for now , I have used my limit on exclamation points !


Atheist, nope, Agnostic,  Nope , Apologetic,  Nope, Antagonistic , Definitely. 

Only room for three A's here tho..


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I can't say what I would believe if I was raised in India . Just like I can't tell you that if had raised in India you wouldn't be a Hindu Monk .



This ^ is absolutely the most honest and believable answer that you have ever given. Thank you.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Brother David said:


> I give you your statement .
> What movement was it that abolished slavery in the U S .
> Which nation led the way to end WW2 .
> We can go back and forth on the blame game .
> Please don't let other people's actions influence how you believe , that's shallow !



I'm not letting peoples actions influence my beliefs. My Christianity isn't based on what other Christians do or did. Just showing that Christians have been evil. Sometimes it was in the name of Christianity and sometime it was just old fashion sin.

Christianity has done a lot more good than bad. They have abolished slavery and ended WW2 with the help of Russia. I'm not blaming anyone, just pointing out that one's beliefs can cause them to do evil and at the same time, help others resist evil.

Even though Christians abolished slavery those same Christians did not believe Blacks were equal to Whites. Therefore that was their justification for treating Blacks the way they did.
They actually based their beliefs about this on Christianity. Some went as far as to perform evil in this defense.


----------



## Brother David

ky55 said:


> I can answer that one-the Southern Baptist Convention!
> 
> Nope, they were the ones who were established in 1845 to protect and promote slavery, and then followed up with 150 years of racism and segregation.
> 
> http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899/...nniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention


Thanks for posting that . Did you read  the part where the SBC *took full responsibility for there actions and sent out an emphatical it was wrong ? *


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> Atheist, nope, Agnostic,  Nope , Apologetic,  Nope, Antagonistic , Definitely.
> 
> Only room for three A's here tho..


Antagonist or defender ? 

Every once in a while I see the Little League Baseball dad come out in some who are opposed to Religion . 
   If the team wins , the boys did a great job .
If the team losses the Coach is terrible . Couldn't be the boys played bad or the other team was just better . 
   Excuses only lead to more defeats , step back, figure out how you lost , then move forward .


----------



## ky55

Brother David said:


> Thanks for posting that . Did you read  the part where the SBC *took full responsibility for there actions and sent out an emphatical it was wrong ? *



Yes I did-in 1995 after 150 years of racism in the name of a god.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> This ^ is absolutely the most honest and believable answer that you have ever given. Thank you.



Your welcome , thanks for the compliment , keep them flowing . I might get the big head though , be careful .


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Those individual beliefs, as varied as they may be, exist solely as a direct result of the “no God” belief.
> 
> If those same people believed that each and every life is infinitely sacred and infinitely valuable because we are each made in the image of a Holy God this conversation never happens.





> Those individual beliefs, as varied as they may be, exist solely as a direct result of the “no God” belief.


False.
Not believing in God doesn't determine what you do personally believe.


> If those same people believed that each and every life is infinitely sacred and infinitely valuable because we are each made in the image of a Holy God this conversation never happens


Yeah that sounds great but its crap.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Antagonist or defender ?
> 
> Every once in a while I see the Little League Baseball dad come out in some who are opposed to Religion .
> If the team wins , the boys did a great job .
> If the team losses the Coach is terrible . Couldn't be the boys played bad or the other team was just better .
> Excuses only lead to more defeats , step back, figure out how you lost , then move forward .


When you make claims of belief to start off that proclamation not defending. 

Not sure what the Little League Dad, win/loss has anything to do here...


----------



## Brother David

ky55 said:


> Yes I did-in 1995 after 150 years of racism in the name of a god.


Isn't it awesome that even God's people can admit they really messed up . If only more could realize that two wrongs don't make a right . I believe then we could really realize how important it is to forgive one another . Only when  we quit pointing fingers and realize it us , not our Faith that's flawed we can move to making the world a better place . Thanks for opening my eyes to this again I really needed it today .
Thank you Lord for putting ky55 in my path today !


----------



## ky55

Brother David said:


> Your welcome , thanks for the compliment , keep them flowing . I might get the big head though , be careful .



Man I sure hope not. 
Your humility is stifling already.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Your definition of Athesism is nonbelief , so your Agnostic ?


Atheism is a non belief in gods.
Not non belief in anything.

And up until a few months ago I did classify myself as Agnostic.
No I don't believe gods exist.
No I don't believe there is literally 0 possibility that a god may exist.
So whatever that classifies me as that what I am.


----------



## Brother David

Not sure what the Little League Dad, win/loss has anything to do here...[/QUOTE]

It can't always be someone else's fault for how one sees the world . We must look for ourselves .


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Atheism is a non belief in gods.
> Not non belief in anything.
> 
> And up until a few months ago I did classify myself as Agnostic.
> No I don't believe gods exist.
> No I don't believe there is literally 0 possibility that a god may exist.
> So whatever that classifies me as that what I am.


What event happened in your life to change your mind ?


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> False.
> Not believing in God doesn't determine what you do personally believe.
> 
> Yeah that sounds great but its crap.


Somehow I get the feeling that Semper Fi Dog was not the conscientious objector that he would lead us to believe...
Or else he is not included in his True Christian definition


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Not sure what the Little League Dad, win/loss has anything to do here...



It can't always be someone else's fault for how one sees the world . We must look for ourselves .[/QUOTE]
Uhhhhh, yeah, that's what I do.


----------



## bullethead

> ="Brother David, post: 11470748, member: 122488"]Not sure what the Little League Dad, win/loss has anything to do here..
> 
> It can't always be someone else's fault for how one sees the world . We must look for ourselves .


You totally bypassed the proclaiming instead of defending thing...


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> I never said Athesist didn't have beliefs ,Walt did.


ATHEISM is defined by what it doesn't believe in.
ATHEISTS are people and believe all sorts of different things.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Brother David said:


> How do you see the Philistines ? As occupiers or refugees ?
> I understand your questions but it's not that simple .
> I can't say what I would believe if I was raised in India . Just like I can't tell you that if had raised in India you wouldn't be a Hindu Monk .


I just see the Philistines as another people about like any other ones. They were great seafarers, and were the first known ones to sail to many places. If I had been born as one, I would probably have thought they were the greatest people on earth; if I had been born an ancient Hebrew, I would likely have hated them and would have been out there killing them too.


----------



## Brother David

NCHillbilly said:


> I just see the Philistines as another people about like any other ones. They were great seafarers, and were the first known ones to sail to many places. If I had been born as one, I would probably have thought they were the greatest people on earth; if I had been born an ancient Hebrew, I would likely have hated them and would have been out there killing them too.


I appreciate the honesty . 
So actually we can't blame either side for defending thier Beliefs .


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> What event happened in your life to change your mind ?


Changed my mind about what?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> The point is...Humans have been killing other humans for hundreds of thousands of years. We have found better devices to inflict more casualties and along with those weapons we have always invented excuses to justify our actions.
> The religious and non religious are equally as guilty.
> Somehow "we" are always on the side of "right/good/justified" and "they" are always "wrong/bad/unjustified". It just depends which side your standing on...the other is the evil and the bad guy.
> Both point fingers and are equally as guilty.


Ok, I would agree. I was misreading the discussion.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> You totally bypassed the proclaiming instead of defending thing...


I learned from you !


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Changed my mind about what?


From Agnostic to Athesism


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not sure that is what they are trying to say. Then if we say Athiest kill more, it puts us in the same boat as them.
> 
> Would you agree that parts of Christianity in the past may have murdered others in the name of God? Certain Christian groups during certain time periods.
> 
> The argument presented was "religion" vs Atheist in killing, not Christianity. It wasn't presented as just Christianity but as religion. That takes in a whole lot more of the world over time than Christianity.


I misread on the Christianity part, also misread on the idea that only religion was responsible killings.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> From Agnostic to Athesism


OYG, you just cannot comprehend!!!!


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I learned from you !


I answer everything that you ask me honestly and I try to include an explaination.
Don't lie.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> From Agnostic to Athesism


Its not that I changed my mind.
I don't believe gods exist.
But I cant say there is literally 0 possibility that one or more does exist.
I don't know if that means if Im Agnostic or Atheist.
I used to think that means Im Agnostic. Now Im not so sure what the difference is.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I misread on the Christianity part, also misread on the idea that only religion was responsible killings.


Human's like all mammals have a hierarchy. Strong dominating over the weak. Humans have found ways, through weapons,to even the odds.

We stick to together as a Nation
As a Race
As a region
As a family
As an individual
And for many other reasons too.

But when it comes right down to it, if there are 2 humans left on the planet,  one WILL try to emit dominance over the next one, and all that other stuff above are good reasons to stick together until they are not and then the  standards change.
Being a part of a larger club,gang, group, family,  Nation, religion etc, are just comforting numbers that help justify actions.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Its not that I changed my mind.
> I don't believe gods exist.
> But I cant say there is literally 0 possibility that one or more does exist.
> I don't know if that means if Im Agnostic or Atheist.
> I used to think that means Im Agnostic. Now Im not so sure what the difference is.



There are so many labels now that it’s confusing; hard, soft, positive, negative Atheism.........almost makes one scream....... “My God!!!!”......but......then you’d be none of the above lol??


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> There are so many labels now that it’s confusing; hard, soft, positive, negative Atheism.........almost makes one scream....... “My God!!!!”......but......then you’d be none of the above lol??


That is why I said "OYG" to Brother David  above....
Oh Your God  instead of Oh My God


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> That is why I said "OYG" to Brother David  above....
> Oh Your God  instead of Oh My God


Lol I didn’t even catch on to the “OYG” comment until just now! And I just stole one of Bro David’s “!”


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> False.
> Not believing in God doesn't determine what you do personally believe.
> 
> Yeah that sounds great but its crap.



Point 1) Correct, but it certainly rules out being obligated to any set of morals.

Point 2) I’ll make it easy on you.  Name me one person who believes all life has infinite sanctity and infinite value that has purposely and maliciously taken another human life, much less committed mass murder?


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Point 1) Correct, but it certainly rules out being obligated to any set of morals.
> 
> Point 2) I’ll make it easy on you.  Name me one person who believes all life has infinite sanctity and infinite value that has purposely and maliciously taken another human life, much less committed mass murder?



Alvin C. York (aka "Sergeant York") had to fight to get conscientious objector status. His subsequent acceptance of the Army's decision is an integral part of the mythos of the man.

After a life of drinking and fighting, a religious experience led York to renounce his lifestyle and turn to fundamentalist Christianity. The doctrine of his newfound faith included a rejection of secular politics and a devout pacifism. He even began to lead the prayers of his local church.

Three years later, the United States would enter World War One and Alvin York would register for the draft, as any dutiful American did. He applied for conscientious objector status, even appealing after his first request was denied.

By the time he arrived in France, York had come to believe God meant for him to fight and to win and that God would protect him as long as was necessary. One night, he and three other NCOs led thirteen privates to infiltrate the German lines and take out the machine guns. Somewhere along the way, one machine gun opened up on York and his compatriots, killing or wounding nine of the sixteen men. York didn't even have time to take cover. He stood his ground and picked off the whole crew.

While he was taking out the German gun, another six Germans went over the top of their trench and charged at the lone American with fixed bayonets. York, having exhausted his rifle's ammunition, pulled his sidearm and dropped all six before they could reach him. The German commander surrendered his entire unit to York. 132 men in total were led back to the American lines by York and his six surviving privates. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for this action.

York became one of the most decorated doughboys of the Great War and returned home a hero. A movie was made about his exploits, for which Gary Cooper would win an Oscar for the title role of "Sergeant York."

York attempted to re-enlist in World War Two, but was too old for combat duty, instead becoming a Major in the Army Signal Corps.


----------



## Spotlite

ky55 said:


> I can answer that one-the Southern Baptist Convention!
> 
> Nope, they were the ones who were established in 1845 to protect and promote slavery, and then followed up with 150 years of racism and segregation.
> 
> http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899/...nniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention


Only problem is slavery dates back to Ancient Greece...........long before this “7,000 year old God” came along.


----------



## NCHillbilly

SemperFiDawg said:


> Point 1) Correct, but it certainly rules out being obligated to any set of morals.
> 
> Point 2) I’ll make it easy on you.  Name me one person who believes all life has infinite sanctity and infinite value that has purposely and maliciously taken another human life, much less committed mass murder?


I'll make it hard on you. Name me one person who fits that above description. It ain't none of us, I guarantee you. If somebody tries to kill you or your family, you gonna let 'em, or are you gonna do something about it? All life? You ever killed a deer or a fish or a spider or a rat or a poison ivy vine? What if other humans attack your country? You gonna worry about the sanctity of their lives?

That sounds like Buddhists, not Christians.

Most of those folks back in the Bible didn't seem to hold much sanctity and infinite value for all life. They were always killing one another, and believed that all the other life on the earth was put here for man to subdue and use as he would.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Spotlite said:


> Only problem is slavery dates back to Ancient Greece...........long before this “7,000 year old God” came along.


Yet the Bible gives you instructions on how you should treat your slaves....


----------



## bullethead

NCHillbilly said:


> I'll make it hard on you. Name me one person who fits that above description. It ain't none of us, I guarantee you. If somebody tries to kill you or your family, you gonna let 'em, or are you gonna do something about it? All life? You ever killed a deer or a fish or a spider or a rat or a poison ivy vine? What if other humans attack your country? You gonna worry about the sanctity of their lives?
> 
> That sounds like Buddhists, not Christians.
> 
> Most of those folks back in the Bible didn't seem to hold much sanctity and infinite value for all life. They were always killing one another, and believed that all the other life on the earth was put here for man to subdue and use as he would.


I am DYING for someone to point out Jesus as an example....


----------



## Spotlite

NCHillbilly said:


> Yet the Bible gives you instructions on how you should treat your slaves....


Yes it does. It also gives instructions on how to treat many others, including our parents, neighbors and our wives. 

The Bible also instructs us to obey the laws of the land and those that have rule over us and to be good stewards with everything given to you. Neither it nor the SBC were established to promote or protect slavery as suggested. 

Slavery was a way of life, if anything, religion has helped abolish it. With anything else, common sense tells me it was not an overnight one step process.

Pilgrims with a religious background came here and established us into a civilization. With that came some old ways. With that was born some new ways. One of those new ways ultimately ended slavery.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Spotlite said:


> Yes it does. It also gives instructions on how to treat many others, including our parents, neighbors and our wives.
> 
> The Bible also instructs us to obey the laws of the land and those that have rule over us and to be good stewards with everything given to you. Neither it nor the SBC were established to promote or protect slavery as suggested.
> 
> Slavery was a way of life, if anything, religion has helped abolish it. With anything else, common sense tells me it was not an overnight one step process.
> 
> Pilgrims with a religious background came here and established us into a civilization. With that came some old ways. With that was born some new ways. One of those new ways ultimately ended slavery.


Yep.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> Only problem is slavery dates back to Ancient Greece...........long before this “7,000 year old God” came along.



The point being is the SBC was formed because they were pro-slavery. It was a split from the other Baptist that they were a part of. This split was over slavery. Mainly before the split the question came up asking if slave owners should be missionaries.

True one could say that slavery was a thing of that time but the other Baptist were trying to do better. After slavery it didn't get much better in the race relations department.

There are many accounts in history where the local white Christian townspeople were against the local Black folk having equal rights.

Uppidy Black folk were treated badly by some White Christians. Not all but some. Still though most White Christians in the 30's-60's were pretty prejudiced towards Blacks and other minorities.

Eventually most White Christians have come around and realized they and/or their ancestors may have been wrong about. Some of those ancestors may have even used some violence in the past. Even if they didn't many, not all, harbored hatred about it in their hearts.

As an example, my White Christian Dad doesn't even believe Black people are human. They aren't exactly animals but something in between, he says.

That he will answer beween him and His God. Maybe God will see it as just the way it was at the time instead of evil. Maybe salvation will be between the saved and unsaved vs the righteous and evil.


----------



## Artfuldodger

The way Blacks and even women were treated was just a sign of the times. So if one did have hatred it his heart, was that person evil or ignorant? 
Why do we still have thieves, greedy people, angry people, cheaters, liers, boastful people, swindlers, gossipers, etc.

Is all that just a sign of the times that God will over look? I sure hope so.

That being said in the grand big picture of the whole world, the only righteous people I see have been imputed righteousness by Jesus Christ. 
Meaning none of us have any and had to use His.


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> Point 1) Correct, but it certainly rules out being obligated to any set of morals.
> 
> Point 2) I’ll make it easy on you.  Name me one person who believes all life has infinite sanctity and infinite value that has purposely and maliciously taken another human life, much less committed mass murder?



During the Inquisition , the governments of Spain  (and Italy , and sometimes France ) prosecuted Protestant Christians who publicly dissented from key doctrines of the Catholic Faith. Believing that the souls of those deemed to be heretics were in danger of being consigned to he11, the authorities used whatever means they considered necessary to bring about a recantation to stop the spread of reformation.

They thought the heretics human lives were so important they did whatever they could to keep them from he11 including death.
That reminds me of the mother who loved her children so much she killed them to protect them form He11.
True these accounts are rare and the body counts are low but some of the stuff in the past, not so much.

I think Spain killed about 3,000 heretics but they definitely valued the souls of those they killed. Would this be an example of evil or ignorance?


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Its not that I changed my mind.
> I don't believe gods exist.
> But I cant say there is literally 0 possibility that one or more does exist.
> I don't know if that means if Im Agnostic or Atheist.
> I used to think that means Im Agnostic. Now Im not so sure what the difference is.


Normally as Evangelicals we refer to your stance as Agnostic . I don't know what the other AAA groups would list you as . Remain open minded , read research , meditate on the situation , anytime you have questions pm me I will eventually answer .


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Point 1) Correct, but it certainly rules out being obligated to any set of morals.
> 
> Point 2) I’ll make it easy on you.  Name me one person who believes all life has infinite sanctity and infinite value that has purposely and maliciously taken another human life, much less committed mass murder?


1. Nonsense.  You are obligated as a member of society to act according to established moral standards. If you don't, its cheese sandwiches on stale bread in lockup for you.
2. Ya figure anybody who has ever thrown the switch to the electric chair was a Christian?


----------



## Brother David

I read a article today about scienetist who have studied DNA and it all but punches a hole in evolution . The studied shows that through midocondral DNA that all animals are there on species . They can't find a common link to the belief in evolution from a common nuceli . 

Does this mean that this will change educational Beliefs or will the scholars be like the educators of old and resist for decades ?


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> The point being is the SBC was formed because they were pro-slavery. It was a split from the other Baptist that they were a part of. This split was over slavery. Mainly before the split the question came up asking if slave owners should be missionaries.
> 
> True one could say that slavery was a thing of that time but the other Baptist were trying to do better. After slavery it didn't get much better in the race relations department.
> 
> There are many accounts in history where the local white Christian townspeople were against the local Black folk having equal rights.
> 
> Uppidy Black folk were treated badly by some White Christians. Not all but some. Still though most White Christians in the 30's-60's were pretty prejudiced towards Blacks and other minorities.
> 
> Eventually most White Christians have come around and realized they and/or their ancestors may have been wrong about. Some of those ancestors may have even used some violence in the past. Even if they didn't many, not all, harbored hatred about it in their hearts.
> 
> As an example, my White Christian Dad doesn't even believe Black people are human. They aren't exactly animals but something in between, he says.
> 
> That he will answer beween him and His God. Maybe God will see it as just the way it was at the time instead of evil. Maybe salvation will be between the saved and unsaved vs the righteous and evil.


In in sense, yes. They separated over slavery. But to my point, it’s an example of how the “old ways” came with settlement and new ways were born, ultimately abolishing slavery. 

They didn’t “promote” slavery as it was bluntly suggested, it already existed as a norm, they just wasn’t ready to abolish.


----------



## Brother David

Artfuldodger said:


> During the Inquisition , the governments of Spain  (and Italy , and sometimes France ) prosecuted Protestant Christians who publicly dissented from key doctrines of the Catholic Faith. Believing that the souls of those deemed to be heretics were in danger of being consigned to he11, the authorities used whatever means they considered necessary to bring about a recantation to stop the spread of reformation.
> 
> They thought the heretics human lives were so important they did whatever they could to keep them from he11 including death.
> That reminds me of the mother who loved her children so much she killed them to protect them form He11.
> True these accounts are rare and the body counts are low but some of the stuff in the past, not so much.
> 
> I think Spain killed about 3,000 heretics but they definitely valued the souls of those they killed. Would this be an example of evil or ignorance?


Couldn't it be both . 
Often we as a technical advance Civilization look at the older Civilizations as Barbarians or Murderous , when in reality it was a completely different world . Instantaneously we can talk to around the world , most of these people never travelled more than 50 miles from home . It's like trying to compare grapes to watermelons .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I read a article today about scienetist who have studied DNA and it all but punches a hole in evolution . The studied shows that through midocondral DNA that all animals are there on species . They can't find a common link to the belief in evolution from a common nuceli .
> 
> Does this mean that this will change educational Beliefs or will the scholars be like the educators of old and resist for decades ?


No, it does not mean anything until the scientific community agrees on it.
But they won't. 
At some point conditions all across the planet because right for life to happen. It didn't start in one place and then spread. Many differed enough to be something else from the next. Not everything will trace back to one.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Couldn't it be both .
> Often we as a technical advance Civilization look at the older Civilizations as Barbarians or Murderous , when in reality it was a completely different world . Instantaneously we can talk to around the world , most of these people never travelled more than 50 miles from home . It's like trying to compare grapes to watermelons .



 "Most of these people never traveled more than 50 miles from home"

Now yer talking facts again!!
Twice in one night is too much for me. Good night!


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> In in sense, yes. They separated over slavery. But to my point, it’s an example of how the “old ways” came with settlement and new ways were born, ultimately abolishing slavery.
> 
> They didn’t “promote” slavery as it was bluntly suggested, it already existed as a norm, they just wasn’t ready to abolish.


 
Again, they were't evil, just ignorant. They get a pass.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Brother David said:


> I read a article today about scienetist who have studied DNA and it all but punches a hole in evolution . The studied shows that through midocondral DNA that all animals are there on species . They can't find a common link to the belief in evolution from a common nuceli .
> 
> Does this mean that this will change educational Beliefs or will the scholars be like the educators of old and resist for decades ?


 
What does it say for Natural Selection?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Brother David said:


> Couldn't it be both .
> Often we as a technical advance Civilization look at the older Civilizations as Barbarians or Murderous , when in reality it was a completely different world . Instantaneously we can talk to around the world , most of these people never travelled more than 50 miles from home . It's like trying to compare grapes to watermelons .



Sure it can and that's my point. Will God give them a pass for their ignorance? It wasn't evilness but ignorance. They didn't know they were wrong.

Look at how we view the average White American Conservative Christian male of the 40's and 50's. He didn't bevel in equal rights, women's rights. He went on long fishin' trips and left his wife to raise the kids. He was the sole bread winner and needed time away. He expected three hot meal a day.
He was a different man than the men of today. Was he necessarily wrong or was it just a sign of the times?
He may have even partied with the boys and drunk a bit. Might have played cards.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> No, it does not mean anything until the scientific community agrees on it.
> But they won't.
> At some point conditions all across the planet because right for life to happen. It didn't start in one place and then spread. Many differed enough to be something else from the next. Not everything will trace back to one.


I would suggest you read up on it .


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> No, it does not mean anything until the scientific community agrees on it.
> But they won't.
> At some point conditions all across the planet because right for life to happen. It didn't start in one place and then spread. Many differed enough to be something else from the next. Not everything will trace back to one.


I would suggest you read up on it .


Artfuldodger said:


> What does it say for Natural Selection?


It puts most modern science on shaky ground , I can't get the link to load but I read it on CBN news . Google CBNNEWS DNA results and you can read the article .


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> Alvin C. York (aka "Sergeant York") had to fight to get conscientious objector status. His subsequent acceptance of the Army's decision is an integral part of the mythos of the man.
> 
> After a life of drinking and fighting, a religious experience led York to renounce his lifestyle and turn to fundamentalist Christianity. The doctrine of his newfound faith included a rejection of secular politics and a devout pacifism. He even began to lead the prayers of his local church.
> 
> Three years later, the United States would enter World War One and Alvin York would register for the draft, as any dutiful American did. He applied for conscientious objector status, even appealing after his first request was denied.
> 
> By the time he arrived in France, York had come to believe God meant for him to fight and to win and that God would protect him as long as was necessary. One night, he and three other NCOs led thirteen privates to infiltrate the German lines and take out the machine guns. Somewhere along the way, one machine gun opened up on York and his compatriots, killing or wounding nine of the sixteen men. York didn't even have time to take cover. He stood his ground and picked off the whole crew.
> 
> While he was taking out the German gun, another six Germans went over the top of their trench and charged at the lone American with fixed bayonets. York, having exhausted his rifle's ammunition, pulled his sidearm and dropped all six before they could reach him. The German commander surrendered his entire unit to York. 132 men in total were led back to the American lines by York and his six surviving privates. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for this action.
> 
> York became one of the most decorated doughboys of the Great War and returned home a hero. A movie was made about his exploits, for which Gary Cooper would win an Oscar for the title role of "Sergeant York."
> 
> York attempted to re-enlist in World War Two, but was too old for combat duty, instead becoming a Major in the Army Signal Corps.



Maliciously.  Look it up.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NCHillbilly said:


> I'll make it hard on you. Name me one person who fits that above description. It ain't none of us, I guarantee you. If somebody tries to kill you or your family, you gonna let 'em, or are you gonna do something about it? All life? You ever killed a deer or a fish or a spider or a rat or a poison ivy vine? What if other humans attack your country? You gonna worry about the sanctity of their lives?
> 
> That sounds like Buddhists, not Christians.
> 
> Most of those folks back in the Bible didn't seem to hold much sanctity and infinite value for all life. They were always killing one another, and believed that all the other life on the earth was put here for man to subdue and use as he would.



You totally missed the question, the point is there aren't any that are true Christians........ and you either haven't read the Bible or haven't comprehended it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NCHillbilly said:


> Yet the Bible gives you instructions on how you should treat your slaves....


 
Every Christian is a slave to Christ.  Being a slave to him is something I strive to be more of every day.  Slavery is only a bad thing if one has no choice in the matter and has a malevolent master.  If one has a loving benevolent master it's the best life possible.  Doesn't fit your meme though.


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> It wasn't evilness but ignorance. They didn't know they were wrong.


Concise, and accurate!


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> 1. Nonsense.  You are obligated as a member of society to act according to established moral standards. If you don't, its cheese sandwiches on stale bread in lockup for you.
> 2. Ya figure anybody who has ever thrown the switch to the electric chair was a Christian?



Point 1. Obligated?  "established moral standards"?  Ask the Jews how that worked out for them under the Nazis.  The problem was, just like it is today, without a Moral Law Giver to establish a moral standard, they succumbed to a relative moral standard dictated by the powerful.  That "established moral standard" wasn't moral at all, but it was established by the atheistic standard of Nietzsche and bought into by the populace.  

Point 2.  Poor attempt to dodge a straight forward question, but other than cede the point I know you haven't much choice.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think a lot of what people do that we assume is malice is actually ignorance. Over the years the hatred, the killing, etc. was done out of ignorance and not malice.
Some of it was for sure malice but maybe some of it was ignorance such as the way Blacks were treated or Muslims bombing the World Trade Center.
Racism could be viewed as ignorance instead of malice. I think that's why a lot of folks felt the way they did in the 60's. They were mostly good in other aspects of their lives. Even if it meant violence, they thought it was for a good cause. They were just ignorant.

So did Hitler kill the Jews out of malice or was he just an ignorant racist?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Brother David said:


> Couldn't it be both .
> Often we as a technical advance Civilization look at the older Civilizations as Barbarians or Murderous , when in reality it was a completely different world . Instantaneously we can talk to around the world , most of these people never travelled more than 50 miles from home . It's like trying to compare grapes to watermelons .



And likewise perhaps why they weren't Christians. The Gospel hadn't reached them yet. Can they use that for an excuse? They were barbarians out of ignorance. They worshiped idols out of ignorance.


----------



## Artfuldodger

What I see being allude to on this thread is that Atheist hate and kill out of malice from having no "established moral standards" from a Moral Law Giver.
Christians and Muslims on the other hand have morals from a Moral Law Giver. Therefore when Christians or Muslims hate or kill, it's from ignorance or for a good reason but since there is no malice, it isn't evil.

Therefore people of a religion have an excuse but Atheist don't.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I would suggest you read up on it .
> 
> It puts most modern science on shaky ground , I can't get the link to load but I read it on CBN news . Google CBNNEWS DNA results and you can read the article .


C B N news.......
I did read the article.
An event that ALMOST wiped out humans 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, then later in the article it says 250,000 years ago 90% of all life was ALMOST wiped out. (That means that there were humans BEFORE that event and it means that there was life of all types BEFORE that event)

I am not sure what you are wanting to prove here BD, but the only thing on shaky ground is the Biblical creation story and the biblical timeline.

The Earths history is full of catastrophic events that ALMOST wipe out everything and what is left regenerates. Science has said that, with proof, for a long time.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Point 1. Obligated?  "established moral standards"?  Ask the Jews how that worked out for them under the Nazis.  The problem was, just like it is today, without a Moral Law Giver to establish a moral standard, they succumbed to a relative moral standard dictated by the powerful.  That "established moral standard" wasn't moral at all, but it was established by the atheistic standard of Nietzsche and bought into by the populace.
> 
> Point 2.  Poor attempt to dodge a straight forward question, but other than cede the point I know you haven't much choice.


All you keep showing over and over and over is that there is no moral law giver and never was.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> What I see being allude to on this thread is that Atheist hate and kill out of malice from having no "established moral standards" from a Moral Law Giver.
> Christians and Muslims on the other hand have morals from a Moral Law Giver. Therefore when Christians or Muslims hate or kill, it's from ignorance or for a good reason but since there is no malice, it isn't evil.
> 
> Therefore people of a religion have an excuse but Atheist don't.


Like I said a few times earlier...people invent excuses to justify their actions.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I think a lot of what people do that we assume is malice is actually ignorance. Over the years the hatred, the killing, etc. was done out of ignorance and not malice.
> Some of it was for sure malice but maybe some of it was ignorance such as the way Blacks were treated or Muslims bombing the World Trade Center.
> Racism could be viewed as ignorance instead of malice. I think that's why a lot of folks felt the way they did in the 60's. They were mostly good in other aspects of their lives. Even if it meant violence, they thought it was for a good cause. They were just ignorant.
> 
> So did Hitler kill the Jews out of malice or was he just an ignorant racist?


Over in the God loving political forum many would kill every Yankee and especially every Yankee Yuppie that ever entered Georgia solely because the transplants that live in a different geographical area and have different views Do Not Belong. They are Ruining things. It doesn't matter that most of those invaders are also Christians, that only matters when someone needs the numbers to make some other worthless point. We all know what is said about people who are non citizens and non Christians.

Ignorance is an excuse. Malice is absolutely the intent in all the cases you cite. People do atrocities because they want to. Because its "them" not "us" and when it comes right down to it,  we would all rather it be anyone than "us". They just find some excuse to justify it all and mask our true nature. Guys like SFD constantly spout this Moral Law Giver yet history shows neither he, nor anybody else, listen IF there is a MLG, and all evidence points to NO MLG whatsoever.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Point 1. Obligated?  "established moral standards"?  Ask the Jews how that worked out for them under the Nazis.  The problem was, just like it is today, without a Moral Law Giver to establish a moral standard, they succumbed to a relative moral standard dictated by the powerful.  That "established moral standard" wasn't moral at all, but it was established by the atheistic standard of Nietzsche and bought into by the populace.
> 
> Point 2.  Poor attempt to dodge a straight forward question, but other than cede the point I know you haven't much choice.


1. Read what what you just wrote -


> without a Moral Law Giver to establish a moral standard, they succumbed to a relative moral standard


2.  My answer addressed your premise. You are positing that Christians hold life sacred blah blah blah. So I asked you if you figure anybody who threw the switch was a Christian.
The problem isn't my response. The problem is that what you are positing is proven wrong on a daily basis but you need to ignore that or your claim falls apart.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> 1. Read what what you just wrote -
> 
> 2.  My answer addressed your premise. You are positing that Christians hold life sacred blah blah blah. So I asked you if you figure anybody who threw the switch was a Christian.
> The problem isn't my response. The problem is that what you are positing is proven wrong on a daily basis but you need to ignore that or your claim falls apart.



[QUOTE1. Nonsense.  You are obligated as a member of society to act according to established moral standards][/QUOTE]

1)Right.  A "relative moral standard"  I ask again, how that worked out for the Jews.

2)  No.  You didn't answer the question?  I ask again.  Name me ONE person in the history of humanity who believes life has infinite sanctity and infinite worth because we are made in the image of a Holy God who has purposely and maliciously committed murder.  Please read carefully.   

Just 1 Walt.  Just 1.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Over in the God loving political forum many would kill every Yankee and especially every Yankee Yuppie that ever entered Georgia solely because the transplants that live in a different geographical area and have different views Do Not Belong. They are Ruining things. It doesn't matter that most of those invaders are also Christians, that only matters when someone needs the numbers to make some other worthless point. We all know what is said about people who are non citizens and non Christians.
> 
> Ignorance is an excuse. Malice is absolutely the intent in all the cases you cite. People do atrocities because they want to. Because its "them" not "us" and when it comes right down to it,  we would all rather it be anyone than "us". They just find some excuse to justify it all and mask our true nature. Guys like SFD constantly spout this Moral Law Giver yet history shows neither he, nor anybody else, listen IF there is a MLG, and all evidence points to NO MLG whatsoever.





> Guys like SFD constantly spout this Moral Law Giver yet history shows neither he, nor anybody else, listen IF there is a MLG, and all evidence points to NO MLG whatsoever.


The propaganda sounds great. Reality not so much.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> All you keep showing over and over and over is that there is no moral law giver and never was.



Not even worth a reply.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Over in the God loving political forum many would kill every Yankee and especially every Yankee Yuppie that ever entered Georgia solely because the transplants that live in a different geographical area and have different views Do Not Belong. They are Ruining things. It doesn't matter that most of those invaders are also Christians, that only matters when someone needs the numbers to make some other worthless point. We all know what is said about people who are non citizens and non Christians.
> 
> Ignorance is an excuse. Malice is absolutely the intent in all the cases you cite. People do atrocities because they want to. Because its "them" not "us" and when it comes right down to it,  we would all rather it be anyone than "us". They just find some excuse to justify it all and mask our true nature. Guys like SFD constantly spout this Moral Law Giver yet history shows neither he, nor anybody else, listen IF there is a MLG, and all evidence points to NO MLG whatsoever.



There is an hostility, a blood lust, a thing mistakenly believed _safe _in its_ compulsion of expression_, when seemingly directed...out. And you have eloquently made the case several times how "out" is identified for such _mistaken safety_, which is _at others_...according to whatever venue/definition in which they appear. Yes, the "Yankee" christian may be useful enemy in one place, useful friend in another.
No less the atheist, who may stop to help me with a flat tire or crash.

This defining of venue we believe under our own purview. I will see this man this way here...but if I prefer, that way, there. And so self interest is eventually found to betray the hostility, the animus "freely released" _wherever _it is considered safe to the shooter, but also _no less betrayed_ by its noted withholding among what is called, at whatever time, to whatever convenience, friend.

A man is loathe to think of himself _as one_ slaughtering friend.

Yet when he sees the very same thing that draws friend is what limns enemy, that is his very own self that believes it holds the pen correctly, and rightly, and is shown as liar it is...he may ask...who then to trust? Can a man bear witness...against himself?
It seems conundrum, impossible...he _never means_ to shoot...at_ friend_.

I simply discovered I had. With all the hostility in me.

Yes, I would say _it had to be made known_...to me.

I did not know I was loaded for bear at all times, ready to go off at absolutely no provocation...till shown. And so called friend...and so called enemy...when seen in my own house...were all and only fit as targets till I was forced to admit by blood trail...I have never known the difference because I dwell in the dark.

And I have only enough light to know this.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

*Unbelief and Its Consequences*
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [l]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [o]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [p]a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [q]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [u]to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; _they are_ gossips, 30 slanderers, [v]haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Pretty much sums it up.  Ignore at your own peril.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> [QUOTE1. Nonsense.  You are obligated as a member of society to act according to established moral standards]





> 1)Right.  A "relative moral standard"  I ask again, how that worked out for the Jews.
> 
> 2)  No.  You didn't answer the question?  I ask again.  Name me ONE person in the history of humanity who believes life has infinite sanctity and infinite worth because we are made in the image of a Holy God who has purposely and maliciously committed murder.  Please read carefully.
> 
> Just 1 Walt.  Just 1.


I gave you one, and when the time came to kill or be killed...he chose to kill.
You can ignore the example all you want. But you got what you asked and now you don't like it.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not even worth a reply.


I agree. Unless you say TRUTH, you have no reply.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I gave you one, and when the time came to kill or be killed...he chose to kill.
> You can ignore the example all you want. But you got what you asked and now you don't like it.



Again, look up the definition of malicious.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> *Unbelief and Its Consequences*
> 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [l]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [o]crawling creatures.
> 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [p]a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [q]forever. Amen.
> 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
> 28 And just as they did not see fit [u]to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; _they are_ gossips, 30 slanderers, [v]haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
> 
> Pretty much sums it up.  Ignore at your own peril.


Hollywood fiction is just as good as ancient fiction.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, look up the definition of malicious.


I did. Doesn't  fit.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> [QUOTE1. Nonsense.  You are obligated as a member of society to act according to established moral standards]



1)Right.  A "relative moral standard"  I ask again, how that worked out for the Jews.

2)  No.  You didn't answer the question?  I ask again.  Name me ONE person in the history of humanity who believes life has infinite sanctity and infinite worth because we are made in the image of a Holy God who has purposely and maliciously committed murder.  Please read carefully. 

Just 1 Walt.  Just 1.[/QUOTE]
1. Its baffling to me that you don't see the flip side to your questions.
How did the moral laws given by the "Moral Law Giver" work out for the Jews?????
2. How many times you going to change the words in your premise?
Again I ask you -
Do you figure anybody who ever threw the switch was a Christian?
Did he have  purpose when he threw the switch?
Was it done with malice?
ma·li·cious
[məˈliSHəs]
ADJECTIVE
characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Over in the God loving political forum many would kill every Yankee and especially every Yankee Yuppie that ever entered Georgia solely because the transplants that live in a different geographical area and have different views Do Not Belong. They are Ruining things. It doesn't matter that most of those invaders are also Christians, that only matters when someone needs the numbers to make some other worthless point. We all know what is said about people who are non citizens and non Christians.
> 
> Ignorance is an excuse. Malice is absolutely the intent in all the cases you cite. People do atrocities because they want to. Because its "them" not "us" and when it comes right down to it,  we would all rather it be anyone than "us". They just find some excuse to justify it all and mask our true nature. Guys like SFD constantly spout this Moral Law Giver yet history shows neither he, nor anybody else, listen IF there is a MLG, and all evidence points to NO MLG whatsoever.


I don’t put a lot of stake in keyboard warriors on forums lol. I’m betting most in the PF would buy those folks lunch.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I don’t put a lot of stake in keyboard warriors on forums lol. I’m betting most in the PF would buy those folks lunch.


I agree, now.
How many people would participate in a civil uprising especially if threatened during the event? Left vs Right for example. 

I know I would. 
Ain't nobody asking for denomination cards or beliefs first or if you are an internet friend..


----------



## Israel

A man always thinks he has safely unloaded his weapon when coming home to hearth and loved ones.


(But right now I'd appreciate input from _anyone _who has had experience in using epoxy to recondition a laminate countertop...PM, please)


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> A man always thinks he has safely unloaded his weapon when coming home to hearth and loved ones.


I disagree with these "always" statements.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I disagree with these "always" statements.


Do you...always?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Do you...always?


Whenever they are made without anything to back them up.

Please elaborate on what you meant by "A man always thinks he has safely unloaded his weapon when coming home to hearth and loved ones."


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> There are so many labels now that it’s confusing; hard, soft, positive, negative Atheism.........almost makes one scream....... “My God!!!!”......but......then you’d be none of the above lol??


Yeah its kind of ridiculous.
If you don't believe in God but wear white socks you are this _____.
If you don't believe in God but wear blue socks you are this ______.
Seems like "do you believe in God(gods) yes or no" would cover it.


----------



## Israel

How about "_Every man always _believes he can cover for the bullet holes he has put through his wife and children...till he finds out he can't"


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I agree, now.
> How many people would participate in a civil uprising especially if threatened during the event? Left vs Right for example.
> 
> I know I would.
> Ain't nobody asking for denomination cards or beliefs first or if you are an internet friend..


I believe most would. I would. It may be an “excuse” but I’d defend what I believe is right for future generations, especially for my own family


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I believe most would. I would. It may be an “excuse” but I’d defend what I believe is right for future generations, especially for my own family


Exactly,there is always a point where "we" becomes "me" and all those labels and similarities that make up the "we" dont mean squat.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> How about "_Every man always _believes he can cover for the bullet holes he has put through his wife and children...till he finds out he can't"


I don't know, I never put any bullet holes through any of them so I cannot speak from experience.


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> *Unbelief and Its Consequences*
> 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [l]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [o]crawling creatures.
> 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [p]a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [q]forever. Amen.
> 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
> 28 And just as they did not see fit [u]to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; _they are_ gossips, 30 slanderers, [v]haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
> 
> Pretty much sums it up.  Ignore at your own peril.



That group "knew" God and suppressed the truth. They "exchanged" the worship of God for that of idols. That "creation" was Israel.

Psalm 106:20
They exchanged their glorious God for an image of a bull, which eats grass.

just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any "longer,"

The context is they knew God, abandoned God and returned to idol worship. They returned to the things they did when they worshiped idols. This angered God so he turned them over to their evil desires. This made them even more evil.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> I gave you one, and when the time came to kill or be killed...he chose to kill.
> You can ignore the example all you want. But you got what you asked and now you don't like it.



I think that in war a little bit of malice may be a good reason to kill. Maybe even if you don't have any to begin with that after having been shot at enough, you develop it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Like I said a few times earlier...people invent excuses to justify their actions.


If we can excuse those White Christians in the 40's-60's for the way they treated Blacks by ignorance, why not excuse Hitler? Maybe he was just ignorant and not evil.

Perhaps he started out an ignorant racists and "power" made him evil. I think he actually thought the Jews were an inferior race. He had a justification.

Likewise those folks in the US actually thought the Blacks were inferior. They had a justification. Some justified their violence. Did they have malice? Maybe at first they didn't but the more the issue laid heavily on their hearts, they developed it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> I don’t put a lot of stake in keyboard warriors on forums lol. I’m betting most in the PF would buy those folks lunch.



As my Dad would also buy a Black man's lunch. Then come home and say "I don't believe Black people are humans."

You must not hang out down there a lot if you don't see any malice.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah its kind of ridiculous.
> If you don't believe in God but wear white socks you are this _____.
> If you don't believe in God but wear blue socks you are this ______.
> Seems like "do you believe in God(gods) yes or no" would cover it.


Yup. A lot of denominations differ in small aspects. What’s funny is to hear one say “I’m not a.....” and the only real difference is they wear a longer shirt sleeve.


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> As my Dad would also buy a Black man's lunch. Then come home and say "I don't believe Black people are humans."
> 
> You must not hang out down there a lot if you don't see any malice.



A lot of folks “mouths” are larger than their heart.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> A lot of folks “mouths” are larger than their heart.



I would like to believe that but perhaps God will ask us were those words we confessed with our mouth, from our heart?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Something else I thought about concerning this discussion on Christianity and evil. Scripture tells us that none of us are good and that we are all evil. Wasn't this why salvation was needed?
Our only righteousness comes from being imputed from Christ. I don't see where becoming a Christian makes us better than anyone else in the righteous department. We're still flesh.

Our righteous acts are still filthy rags. Like a dog that chases cars. He can't stop. Even if he gets hit by a car, if he lives, he will continue to chase cars.

To carry it even farther, it's not even about our works of goodness that makes us clean. Our sins were imputed to Christ and his righteousness is imputed to us.

This is one camp within Christianity. The other is that once you are saved, you suddenly become a righteous person and quit sinning.

I hope it's the first way. When I see all of Christianity as a whole and the way they act, I hope it is anyway. I'm not saying they have malice to sin. It's just our nature. We can't help it.

If we could become righteous, if it was that easy, we would not have needed a Savior.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I think that in war a little bit of malice may be a good reason to kill. Maybe even if you don't have any to begin with that after having been shot at enough, you develop it.


Exactly, circumstances dictate actions.
It is easy to be a pacifist and conscientious objector when nobody is shooting at you (and even then there are many examples of men who still didn't fight back) but SFD wanted to have one person as an example and I gave it to him and he didn't like it because he never thought there would be an example.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I did. Doesn't  fit.



Correct. It doesn’t fit your example.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> 1)Right.  A "relative moral standard"  I ask again, how that worked out for the Jews.
> 
> 2)  No.  You didn't answer the question?  I ask again.  Name me ONE person in the history of humanity who believes life has infinite sanctity and infinite worth because we are made in the image of a Holy God who has purposely and maliciously committed murder.  Please read carefully.
> 
> Just 1 Walt.  Just 1.


1. Its baffling to me that you don't see the flip side to your questions.
How did the moral laws given by the "Moral Law Giver" work out for the Jews?????
2. How many times you going to change the words in your premise?
Again I ask you -
Do you figure anybody who ever threw the switch was a Christian?
Did he have  purpose when he threw the switch?
Was it done with malice?
ma·li·cious
[məˈliSHəs]
ADJECTIVE
characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.[/QUOTE]



> How did the moral laws given by the "Moral Law Giver" work out for the Jews?????



I’m not aware of the Jews committing atrocities, but nice dodge.  Again, just 1 name in all the history of humanity is all I ask.  Why don’t you just cede the point?  This is beneath your integrity.


----------



## 660griz

j_seph said:


> So now what do YOU believe? Brother David, even Walt said straight up what they believe. Yet what you believe comes straight from a news website, at number 5. Summary about religion. If this is truly what you believe, my question is why would believe what someone else tells you vs. what someone else says that offers you more hope, grace, and mercy.
> 
> https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Pro...d-this-article-mainlyuses-Christiani-20141017


Yes it is what I believe. I stated as such. 
Please let me know exactly what confuses you and I will attempt to use different words. 
I posted it because it is exactly what I believe and I didn't have to type much. Now, I have to type more because of a problem with comprehension.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Correct. It doesn’t fit your example.


The article has the details SFD.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Exactly, circumstances dictate actions.
> It is easy to be a pacifist and conscientious objector when nobody is shooting at you (and even then there are many examples of men who still didn't fight back) but SFD wanted to have one person as an example and I gave it to him and he didn't like it because he never thought there would be an example.



But did he kill maliciously? Does one's religion keep them from having malice? Did the 9/11 bombers kill out of malice or did they do it for their God?
Maybe their God tells them to hate infidels. Maybe after a lifetime of indoctrination, it becomes malice.

Sometimes when I stay on the Political forum too long, I develop malice. It's contagious.

One who uses Christianity as a reason to kill without malice must understand the Muslims use the same reason.


----------



## Artfuldodger

From Paul;
*Timothy 5:8 *But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.   

So a Christian that doesn't provide is worse than an unbeliever. Interesting.


----------



## bullethead

> I’m not aware of the Jews committing atrocities, but nice dodge.  Again, just 1 name in all the history of humanity is all I ask.  Why don’t you just cede the point?  This is beneath your integrity.


Read the bible, just once. It is filled with Jewish atrocities.


----------



## bullethead

> I’m not aware of the Jews committing atrocities, but nice dodge.  Again, just 1 name in all the history of humanity is all I ask.  Why don’t you just cede the point?  This is beneath your integrity.


Didn't the Jews have Jesus put to death???


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Read the bible, just once. It is filled with Jewish atrocities.



Yes but did they do it with malice or instructions from God?

God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

Fast forward to the Americas. Christians used this in regards to Native Americans. They didn't want God to take their new kingdom from them.

They had no malice. Not at first, maybe they gained malice after a few Indian attacks.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes but did they do it with malice or instructions from God?
> 
> God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
> 
> When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.
> 
> Fast forward to the Americas. Christians used this in regards to Native Americans. They didn't want God to take their new kingdom from them.
> 
> They had no malice. Not at first, maybe they gained malice after a few Indian attacks.


Ol Moses ordered the killing of women and children and ordered his men to keep the young women who were never with a man as sex slaves.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes but did they do it with malice or instructions from God?
> 
> God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
> 
> When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.
> 
> Fast forward to the Americas. Christians used this in regards to Native Americans. They didn't want God to take their new kingdom from them.
> 
> They had no malice. Not at first, maybe they gained malice after a few Indian attacks.


Do you buy the "God told me to drown my children" defense now in modern times?
If not, why do you buy it from back then?


----------



## 660griz

Sorry, but if a religion says, "kill all infidels", I consider that malice.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Do you buy the "God told me to drown my children" defense now in modern times?
> If not, why do you buy it from back then?



Faith. One is in the Bible, the other isn't.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Faith. One is in the Bible, the other isn't.


Hmmmm


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> If we can excuse those White Christians in the 40's-60's for the way they treated Blacks by ignorance, why not excuse Hitler? Maybe he was just ignorant and not evil.
> 
> Perhaps he started out an ignorant racists and "power" made him evil. I think he actually thought the Jews were an inferior race. He had a justification.
> 
> Likewise those folks in the US actually thought the Blacks were inferior. They had a justification. Some justified their violence. Did they have malice? Maybe at first they didn't but the more the issue laid heavily on their hearts, they developed it.





Artfuldodger said:


> Something else I thought about concerning this discussion on Christianity and evil. Scripture tells us that none of us are good and that we are all evil. Wasn't this why salvation was needed?
> Our only righteousness comes from being imputed from Christ. I don't see where becoming a Christian makes us better than anyone else in the righteous department. We're still flesh.
> 
> Our righteous acts are still filthy rags. Like a dog that chases cars. He can't stop. Even if he gets hit by a car, if he lives, he will continue to chase cars.
> 
> To carry it even farther, it's not even about our works of goodness that makes us clean. Our sins were imputed to Christ and his righteousness is imputed to us.
> 
> This is one camp within Christianity. The other is that once you are saved, you suddenly become a righteous person and quit sinning.
> 
> I hope it's the first way. When I see all of Christianity as a whole and the way they act, I hope it is anyway. I'm not saying they have malice to sin. It's just our nature. We can't help it.
> 
> If we could become righteous, if it was that easy, we would not have needed a Savior.



I've got to commend you on your consistent attempts to understand your religion using reason while trying to be as objective as possible. 

Your analogy of the dog is good and useful.  Like dogs, people's behavior can be manipulated by reward and punishment.  If trained properly, you can get a dog to hold a steak in it's mouth without him eating it.  The Religious basis for morality is like the commands that keep the dog from eating the steak.  People are different in that you can modify their behavior by reasoning with them.  You can make them understand the consequences of immoral behavior for themselves and society simply by leading them through a well crafted logical argument.  Some knowledge of psychology, anthropology, as well as history will only help solidify the logical argument for moral behavior.

I had a dog that I trained to "Leave it".  I could put some food down on the ground in front of her and tell her to leave it and as long as I was somewhere around she would leave it.  As a puppy it was interesting to see how her behavior modification progressed.  Early on there would be whining and salivation and she would stare at the food, obsessed.  if I turned my back she would eat it.  After some reward and punishment she began to stop looking at the food and she focused her attention on me.  Eventually she got to the point that if I walked away she would follow me and ignore the food altogether.  If I got in the truck and left, when I came back the food would be gone.  I was OK with that.  Though one time I left a slice of pizza in the box on the coffee table, went to Lowes and to my surprise it was still there when I came back.  She was lying on the floor next to the coffee table.  I gave her the pizza.

There was never a good reason to make her do all that except that I didn't want her to eat people food if it wasn't given to her and I didn't know how to explain the difference.  I didn't want her stealing food from plates on the coffe table at parties or from unaware toddlers.  People are easier trained in that sense because a clear explanation can be given as to why one behavior is better than another.  I can make a case for not making a habit of looking lustfully at women if you're married.  As Sam Harris said "There's no reason to do good things for bad reasons when good reasons are available".


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Something else I thought about concerning this discussion on Christianity and evil. Scripture tells us that none of us are good and that we are all evil. Wasn't this why salvation was needed?
> Our only righteousness comes from being imputed from Christ. I don't see where becoming a Christian makes us better than anyone else in the righteous department. We're still flesh.
> 
> Our righteous acts are still filthy rags. Like a dog that chases cars. He can't stop. Even if he gets hit by a car, if he lives, he will continue to chase cars.
> 
> To carry it even farther, it's not even about our works of goodness that makes us clean. Our sins were imputed to Christ and his righteousness is imputed to us.
> 
> This is one camp within Christianity. The other is that once you are saved, you suddenly become a righteous person and quit sinning.
> 
> I hope it's the first way. When I see all of Christianity as a whole and the way they act, I hope it is anyway. I'm not saying they have malice to sin. It's just our nature. We can't help it.
> 
> If we could become righteous, if it was that easy, we would not have needed a Savior.



I've asked this question before but I'm not sure I ever got your take on it.  What do you think are some psychological ramifications of believing that you're filthy rags?   Do you think that a more useful way to understand human nature is that we are born capable of both goodness and evil?  You can find the literature on that claim if you look.  If you need some help I can find some for you. 

What do you see as the utility of saying something like "Unless good works are done by a Christian, that is, done for the glory of Jesus, then they're still sinful and evil"?  What do you think the value of that belief is to a population or tribe?


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> 1. Its baffling to me that you don't see the flip side to your questions.
> How did the moral laws given by the "Moral Law Giver" work out for the Jews?????
> 2. How many times you going to change the words in your premise?
> Again I ask you -
> Do you figure anybody who ever threw the switch was a Christian?
> Did he have  purpose when he threw the switch?
> Was it done with malice?
> ma·li·cious
> [məˈliSHəs]
> ADJECTIVE
> characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.





I’m not aware of the Jews committing atrocities, but nice dodge.  Again, just 1 name in all the history of humanity is all I ask.  Why don’t you just cede the point?  This is beneath your integrity.[/QUOTE]
Ive answered your question a number of times.
Its not my integrity that's the problem.
Hint -
The answer to the question I keep asking you is the answer to the question you keep asking me..


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> I’m not aware of the Jews committing atrocities, but nice dodge.  Again, just 1 name in all the history of humanity is all I ask.  Why don’t you just cede the point?  This is beneath your integrity.





WaltL1 said:


> Ive answered your question a number of times.
> Its not my integrity that's the problem.
> Hint -
> The answer to the question I keep asking you is the answer to the question you keep asking me..



Google it.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Google it.


He is the only one that believes any of his posts. Facts to not concern him, just unverifiable statements and claims.


----------



## Israel

The testimony of the believer is to the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Not to some sect, not even to some "set of beliefs" as could be conveyed, or would be to another man. We preach a man uncommon, made all the more so as we grow and begin to appreciate our very own commonness. Any and all attempts, desires, motives to "outstrip" other man results _always_ in _only this, _frustrations and proof that we ourselves yet remain liars.

Our faith does not prevent our knowing...even the knowing of all that is in _all men_, deceit, treachery, double speaking, adultery and lies. Some may yet say...that may be in others, but not myself. For this, and in this they are left to contend with God who knows the heart of man. What remains unseen, will be known..._even to that_ man.

And this remains chiefest of marvel for the man who is entering the Christ of God, that God would Himself come to man, and particularly that man, who believing, finds God making a home, undeterred, unstoppable, unremitting in His cleansing of what was once only fit to the burning, and in such agreement, finds peace...even there.

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

In that man is seen the reconciliation, that peculiar agreement established between once adversaries, the truth of God and the lies in man. And in all, and only by the seeing of Him who knew no sin, yet was made to be sin for us...showing the depths to which God would both go and reach in a man, one man... Jesus Christ, for salvation.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> I've asked this question before but I'm not sure I ever got your take on it.  What do you think are some psychological ramifications of believing that you're filthy rags?   Do you think that a more useful way to understand human nature is that we are born capable of both goodness and evil?  You can find the literature on that claim if you look.  If you need some help I can find some for you.
> 
> What do you see as the utility of saying something like "Unless good works are done by a Christian, that is, done for the glory of Jesus, then they're still sinful and evil"?  What do you think the value of that belief is to a population or tribe?



The reason we, as Christians, believe the thing about filthy rags is it is given that none of us are righteous. None of us are good. It's just the nature of humans.
So then we need an answer, a way. They way doesn't make us good, it takes the place of our lack of goodness. We see all the evil in the world even being performed by saved people. We see all the good being performed, even by the unsaved.

So in a world where one sees good and evil being performed by Christians of the many denominations, the Hindu, The Muslims, the Atheist, etc. we wonder what the answer is.
                                                                                                              I just have to accept God's plan which included man being evil and never being able to be good. We never could, if Adam had not sinned, someone else would break the chain. It's in our nature. Even God's plan included it. Jesus was with God before time. He was just waiting to be sent on his mission in the future.
So in closing, none of us are good, the Law/sin was given in a covenant to show us this. Jesus as Savior was plan A. To take our place for not being able to not sin.

I would agree that I think it is a complex plan. God causes or knows that man will sin. He's got his plan standing by to enter the world later. He then tells man, try and see if you can not sin. Man fails, God says, I knew you would but it doesn't matter I've already got my plan A, the original plan all along as the answer. 

Christ was/is plan A, who died for our lack of being good who imputed his goodness to us.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> The reason we, as Christians, believe the thing about filthy rags is it is given that none of us are righteous. None of us are good. It's just the nature of humans.
> So then we need an answer, a way. They way doesn't make us good, it takes the place of our lack of goodness. We see all the evil in the world even being performed by saved people. We see all the good being performed, even by the unsaved.
> 
> So in a world where one sees good and evil being performed by Christians of the many denominations, the Hindu, The Muslims, the Atheist, etc. we wonder what the answer is.
> I just have to accept God's plan which included man being evil and never being able to be good. We never could, if Adam had not sinned, someone else would break the chain. It's in our nature. Even God's plan included it. Jesus was with God before time. He was just waiting to be sent on his mission in the future.
> So in closing, none of us are good, the Law/sin was given in a covenant to show us this. Jesus as Savior was plan A. To take our place for not being able to not sin.
> 
> I would agree that I think it is a complex plan. God causes or knows that man will sin. He's got his plan standing by to enter the world later. He then tells man, try and see if you can not sin. Man fails, God says, I knew you would but it doesn't matter I've already got my plan A, the original plan all along as the answer.
> 
> Christ was/is plan A, who died for our lack of being good who imputed his goodness to us.


Did god send Jesus to take the sin of man (the world) away?


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> The testimony of the believer is to the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Not to some sect, not even to some "set of beliefs" as could be conveyed, or would be to another man. We preach a man uncommon, made all the more so as we grow and begin to appreciate our very own commonness. Any and all attempts, desires, motives to "outstrip" other man results _always_ in _only this, _frustrations and proof that we ourselves yet remain liars.
> 
> Our faith does not prevent our knowing...even the knowing of all that is in _all men_, deceit, treachery, double speaking, adultery and lies. Some may yet say...that may be in others, but not myself. For this, and in this they are left to contend with God who knows the heart of man. What remains unseen, will be known..._even to that_ man.
> 
> And this remains chiefest of marvel for the man who is entering the Christ of God, that God would Himself come to man, and particularly that man, who believing, finds God making a home, undeterred, unstoppable, unremitting in His cleansing of what was once only fit to the burning, and in such agreement, finds peace...even there.
> 
> Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
> 
> In that man is seen the reconciliation, that peculiar agreement established between once adversaries, the truth of God and the lies in man. And in all, and only by the seeing of Him who knew no sin, yet was made to be sin for us...showing the depths to which God would both go and reach in a man, one man... Jesus Christ, for salvation.



There's more information about Jesus in the concept that you've made up about him than is actually written about him.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> The reason we, as Christians, believe the thing about filthy rags is it is given that none of us are righteous. None of us are good. It's just the nature of humans.
> So then we need an answer, a way. They way doesn't make us good, it takes the place of our lack of goodness. We see all the evil in the world even being performed by saved people. We see all the good being performed, even by the unsaved.
> 
> So in a world where one sees good and evil being performed by Christians of the many denominations, the Hindu, The Muslims, the Atheist, etc. we wonder what the answer is.
> I just have to accept God's plan which included man being evil and never being able to be good. We never could, if Adam had not sinned, someone else would break the chain. It's in our nature. Even God's plan included it. Jesus was with God before time. He was just waiting to be sent on his mission in the future.
> So in closing, none of us are good, the Law/sin was given in a covenant to show us this. Jesus as Savior was plan A. To take our place for not being able to not sin.
> 
> I would agree that I think it is a complex plan. God causes or knows that man will sin. He's got his plan standing by to enter the world later. He then tells man, try and see if you can not sin. Man fails, God says, I knew you would but it doesn't matter I've already got my plan A, the original plan all along as the answer.
> 
> Christ was/is plan A, who died for our lack of being good who imputed his goodness to us.



What do you make of the research that has shown that little babies have some innate sense of altruism and that they shun cruelty?

Also, I'd like to hear what you think might be some psychological ramifications of thinking yourself as filthy rags?  What do you think happens in the minds of children who are told that they're filthy rags deserving of He11 but that they can be redeemed through Christ?


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> The reason we, as Christians, believe the thing about filthy rags is it is given that none of us are righteous. None of us are good. It's just the nature of humans.
> So then we need an answer, a way. They way doesn't make us good, it takes the place of our lack of goodness. We see all the evil in the world even being performed by saved people. We see all the good being performed, even by the unsaved.
> 
> So in a world where one sees good and evil being performed by Christians of the many denominations, the Hindu, The Muslims, the Atheist, etc. we wonder what the answer is.
> I just have to accept God's plan which included man being evil and never being able to be good. We never could, if Adam had not sinned, someone else would break the chain. It's in our nature. Even God's plan included it. Jesus was with God before time. He was just waiting to be sent on his mission in the future.
> So in closing, none of us are good, the Law/sin was given in a covenant to show us this. Jesus as Savior was plan A. To take our place for not being able to not sin.
> 
> I would agree that I think it is a complex plan. God causes or knows that man will sin. He's got his plan standing by to enter the world later. He then tells man, try and see if you can not sin. Man fails, God says, I knew you would but it doesn't matter I've already got my plan A, the original plan all along as the answer.
> 
> Christ was/is plan A, who died for our lack of being good who imputed his goodness to us.





> We see all the evil in the world even being performed by saved people. We see all the good being performed, even by the unsaved.





> we wonder what the answer is


The reason you wonder what the answer is is because you have been told that man is bad.
However in your own words ^, with your own eyes, you see that man is both bad and good.
Man was bad and good then. Man is bad and good now.
If Christ imputed his goodness to man, it didn't work or man wouldn't still be good AND bad.
Nothing actually changed.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> The reason you wonder what the answer is is because you have been told that man is bad.
> However in your own words ^, with your own eyes, you see that man is both bad and good.
> Man was bad and good then. Man is bad and good now.
> If Christ imputed his goodness to man, it didn't work or man wouldn't still be good AND bad.
> Nothing actually changed.



In all honesty, the meme of Christ's kindness has served well to temper the selfish and anti-social propensities that humans are hardwired with (though not enough to dissuade some people from using all caps or excessive exclamation points  ).  Still, there are good reasons to be good.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> I've asked this question before but I'm not sure I ever got your take on it.  What do you think are some psychological ramifications of believing that you're filthy rags?   Do you think that a more useful way to understand human nature is that we are born capable of both goodness and evil?  You can find the literature on that claim if you look.  If you need some help I can find some for you.
> 
> What do you see as the utility of saying something like "Unless good works are done by a Christian, that is, done for the glory of Jesus, then they're still sinful and evil"?  What do you think the value of that belief is to a population or tribe?



Wasn't my questions but..........

A couple of things concerning filthy rags and good works; 

1. The context was specifically to the Israelites, but applies to everyone who strays from God - their righteousness are as filthy rags does one of the two, and maybe both: condemns their "righteous acts" as hypocrisy, and, or reinforces that good works will not save you. 

2. Good works done by anyone is never an evil thing.


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to believe that but perhaps God will ask us were those words we confessed with our mouth, from our heart?


Good point, but the tongue is the one that is hard to bridle. Sometimes people just mouth off and have no ill will in their hearts.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Wasn't my questions but..........
> 
> A couple of things concerning filthy rags and good works;
> 
> 1. The context was specifically to the Israelites, but applies to everyone who strays from God - their righteousness are as filthy rags does one of the two, and maybe both: condemns their "righteous acts" as hypocrisy, and, or reinforces that good works will not save you.
> 
> 2. Good works done by anyone is never an evil thing.



Please feel free to comment on anything I post.  Thanks for being so civil and engaging.

I have heard Christians say that good works done by non-Christians are unrighteous and even unclean.  Believers in predestination (I see predestination as a synonym for God's sovereignty) don't have this issue because if it is God's plan then it must be righteous.  I take that to mean every time I take the Lord's name in vain (as a vessel of wrath) that I'm acting in accordance with his righteous plan.  

Anyway, as to not get off in the weeds, what do you think are the psychological ramifications of going through life thinking that you are worthy of He11?


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Please feel free to comment on anything I post.  Thanks for being so civil and engaging.
> 
> I have heard Christians say that good works done by non-Christians are unrighteous and even unclean.  Believers in predestination (I see predestination as a synonym for God's sovereignty) don't have this issue because if it is God's plan then it must be righteous.  I take that to mean every time I take the Lord's name in vain (as a vessel of wrath) that I'm acting in accordance with his righteous plan.
> 
> Anyway, as to not get off in the weeds, what do you think are the psychological ramifications of going through life thinking that you are worthy of He11?


Probably the same as waking up every day and feeling like you’re going to get caught and go to prison if you’re hiding from something you did. You just want to make things right, then it’s all over.

When God draws you and you realize that you need changing, the same thing applies. Until then, no need in beating  folks over the head and telling them where they “might” go if they don’t change. His Gospel is about his goodness.


----------



## bullethead

Did Jesus die for our sins and make the unworthy worthy ???


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Probably the same as waking up every day and feeling like you’re going to get caught and go to prison if you’re hiding from something you did. You just want to make things right, then it’s all over.
> 
> When God draws you and you realize that you need changing, the same thing applies. Until then, no need in beating  folks over the head and telling them where they “might” go if they don’t change. His Gospel is about his goodness.



When you say "something you did" do you mean being born?  

When you say "you need changing", what do you mean by that?


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> The reason you wonder what the answer is is because you have been told that man is bad.
> However in your own words ^, with your own eyes, you see that man is both bad and good.
> Man was bad and good then. Man is bad and good now.
> If Christ imputed his goodness to man, it didn't work or man wouldn't still be good AND bad.
> Nothing actually changed.



It changed me. The imputed righteousness of Christ doesn't work like you think it does. My change wasn't me becoming righteous. I'm still an evil sinner. Christ's imputed righteousness in me, covers that evilness.


----------



## NCHillbilly

ambush80 said:


> When you say "something you did" do you mean being born?
> 
> When you say "you need changing", what do you mean by that?


That's one of the doctrines I disagree with the most strongly in the Christian religion-the idea that everyone is born as low-down defective, unworthy scum and are headed for Hades by default if they don't ask and plead for forgiveness for being exactly like God created them-they need to be "changed" in order to be a decent human.


----------



## hopper

Artfuldodger said:


> It changed me. The imputed righteousness of Christ doesn't work like you think it does. My change wasn't me becoming righteous. I'm still an evil sinner. Christ's imputed righteousness in me, covers that evilness.


"Covers" like a blanket? or "covers" like insurance?


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> It changed me. The imputed righteousness of Christ doesn't work like you think it does. My change wasn't me becoming righteous. I'm still an evil sinner. Christ's imputed righteousness in me, covers that evilness.



Analyze that very deeply.  

Do you really think it's better to be forgiven by an invisible being for all the bad things you do or have done than if you asked for forgiveness directly from the people that you've wronged?   Wouldn't it be better if you recognized your capability for great evil and did what you could to not do evil instead of believing that you could be forgiven for it?


----------



## NCHillbilly

Artfuldodger said:


> It changed me. The imputed righteousness of Christ doesn't work like you think it does. My change wasn't me becoming righteous. I'm still an evil sinner. Christ's imputed righteousness in me, covers that evilness.


I have never in half a century felt like I was inherently evil. I'm a pretty decent guy, all around.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> When you say "something you did" do you mean being born?
> 
> When you say "you need changing", what do you mean by that?


No, not being born. Born into sin is one thing, but to make folks feel guilty over that is taking advantage of them. They have to come to a place where they want salvation and it’s usually stemming from something they’re doing or not doing. That’s the change.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Did god send Jesus to take the sin of man (the world) away?



 Not to actually take sin away but to take the place of sin.


----------



## NCHillbilly

If we're that bad, maybe God should have done a better job designing us, so that we aren't defective at birth and in need of salvation.


----------



## kmckinnie

NCHillbilly said:


> That's one of the doctrines I disagree with the most strongly in the Christian religion-the idea that everyone is born as low-down defective, unworthy scum and are headed for Hades by default if they don't ask and plead for forgiveness for being exactly like God created them-they need to be "changed" in order to be a decent human.


That’s how I get brownie points is by getting (sinners) to admit to me they where born of sin and are sinners. 
Hope you understand this. 

No I will not respond to any further commits !


----------



## kmckinnie

NCHillbilly said:


> If we're that bad, maybe God should have done a better job designing us, so that we aren't defective at birth and in need of salvation.


Post #260


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> C B N news.......
> I did read the article.
> An event that ALMOST wiped out humans 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, then later in the article it says 250,000 years ago 90% of all life was ALMOST wiped out. (That means that there were humans BEFORE that event and it means that there was life of all types BEFORE that event)
> 
> I am not sure what you are wanting to prove here BD, but the only thing on shaky ground is the Biblical creation story and the biblical timeline.
> 
> The Earths history is full of catastrophic events that ALMOST wipe out everything and what is left regenerates. Science has said that, with proof, for a long time.



Doesn't Evolution revolve around all life from a single organism ? The article cleary shows no DNA between life forms . It's everything evolution isn't . There's no way to man any further back as suggested by modern  evolution hypothesis .


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Please feel free to comment on anything I post.  Thanks for being so civil and engaging.
> 
> I have heard Christians say that good works done by non-Christians are unrighteous and even unclean.  Believers in predestination (I see predestination as a synonym for God's sovereignty) don't have this issue because if it is God's plan then it must be righteous.  I take that to mean every time I take the Lord's name in vain (as a vessel of wrath) that I'm acting in accordance with his righteous plan.
> 
> Anyway, as to not get off in the weeds, what do you think are the psychological ramifications of going through life thinking that you are worthy of He11?



You mean like did it do something to my self esteem? Maybe it scares me a little. I was indoctrinated into the belief so I'm not sure if it did anything particular to my psychological make-up.

I'm sure it did though, I'll have to think about that one. Maybe it's humbling. I guess it added a lot of guilt over the years.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hopper said:


> "Covers" like a blanket? or "covers" like insurance?


 I'd say more like a substitute. Perhaps covers was a bad word. His death substituted for my sins.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Artfuldodger said:


> You mean like did it do something to my self esteem? Maybe it scares me a little. I was indoctrinated into the belief so I'm not sure if it did anything particular to my psychological make-up.
> 
> I'm sure it did though, I'll have to think about that one. Maybe it's humbling. I guess it added a lot of guilt over the years.


I was raised in that belief, too. I eventually realized that it wasn't accurate.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> It changed me. The imputed righteousness of Christ doesn't work like you think it does. My change wasn't me becoming righteous. I'm still an evil sinner. Christ's imputed righteousness in me, covers that evilness.





> It changed me


I believe 100% that it changed you.
But we are talking about man not you personally.


> It changed me





> I'm still an evil sinner.


If you are still an evil sinner what changed?


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Analyze that very deeply.
> 
> Do you really think it's better to be forgiven by an invisible being for all the bad things you do or have done than if you asked for forgiveness directly from the people that you've wronged?   Wouldn't it be better if you recognized your capability for great evil and did what you could to not do evil instead of believing that you could be forgiven for it?



Not better but equally important would be to ask those you hurt for forgiveness. Maybe even harder would be to forgive those who tress pass against me.

When we help or hurt others, we are helping or hurting Jesus so in a way we are hurting or helping God by how we treat each other.

Even though I am forgiven, I'm still suppose to not be as evil. I should learn and  with the help of God's spirit dwelling in me not be as evil as I once was.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NCHillbilly said:


> I have never in half a century felt like I was inherently evil. I'm a pretty decent guy, all around.



It's possible that I'm a lot more evil than you are. I do some pretty bad things.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NCHillbilly said:


> If we're that bad, maybe God should have done a better job designing us, so that we aren't defective at birth and in need of salvation.


 
If he had then the Word sitting next to him wouldn't have had a mission.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> No, not being born. Born into sin is one thing, but to make folks feel guilty over that is taking advantage of them. They have to come to a place where they want salvation and it’s usually stemming from something they’re doing or not doing. That’s the change.





> but to make folks feel guilty over that is taking advantage of them.


I know you probably wont agree but -
Christianity depends on you feeling guilty. Its why you are told you are a filthy rag evil sinner. Christian guilt built the Vatican, buys jets for preachers, pays the church's rent and gives Christianity the wealth and power that it has.
The Christian leaders were very smart in that aspect.


----------



## ambush80

NCHillbilly said:


> That's one of the doctrines I disagree with the most strongly in the Christian religion-the idea that everyone is born as low-down defective, unworthy scum and are headed for Hades by default if they don't ask and plead for forgiveness for being exactly like God created them-they need to be "changed" in order to be a decent human.



To push back a bit in the hopes of uncovering something of value, the notion that "everyone is born as low-down defective, unworthy scum and are headed for Hades by default" may have some utility but only if understood in a way that's properly grounded in reality.  Sam Harris has analyzed that "bad" is "The worst possible suffering for every conscious creature for as long as possible".  That sounds like the mythical He11.  We know from history that men are capable of making He11 on on Earth for others.  All normal, rational people want to avoid that. It's the rational position that can be arrived at logically; most of the heaving lifting leading to that conclusion can be achieved by examining the Golden Rule.  The problem that you recognize, that I agree with, is that the doctrine doesn't recognize that people are also capable of great good without the need for a supernatural arbiter of what "good" is.  Harris claims that any move away from what he has described as "bad" is a move toward the good. 

If by "changed" you mean socialized by a secular, humanist, reason loving society then I'm all for it.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Not to actually take sin away but to take the place of sin.


So we are all good to go then, unless it didn't work right?


----------



## ambush80

NCHillbilly said:


> I have never in half a century felt like I was inherently evil. I'm a pretty decent guy, all around.



Babies come out as the epitome of narcissism.  It's an evolutionary trait that has served us well.  If left unrestrained by society, the impulse could lead to unnecessary suffering.  The fear of a deity judging one's actions can help curb the impulse, though it can be readily seen here how it just gets redirected into piety or self righteousness.  There are good reasons to be good.,


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> No, not being born. Born into sin is one thing, but to make folks feel guilty over that is taking advantage of them. They have to come to a place where they want salvation and it’s usually stemming from something they’re doing or not doing. That’s the change.



That's a very unconventional interpretation of the doctrine.  Certainly not one that I can come to based on reading the words as they're written.


----------



## ambush80

kmckinnie said:


> That’s how I get brownie points is by getting (sinners) to admit to me they where born of sin and are sinners.
> Hope you understand this.
> 
> No I will not respond to any further commits !



I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. Do you mean "comments"?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Doesn't Evolution revolve around all life from a single organism ? The article cleary shows no DNA between life forms . It's everything evolution isn't . There's no way to man any further back as suggested by modern  evolution hypothesis .


No, evolution does not.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> I believe 100% that it changed you.
> But we are talking about man not you personally.
> 
> If you are still an evil sinner what changed?



I was given eternal life! My way of thinking changed. I was "washed" My change was knowing that Christ died for my sins. 

I would agree that you can't see much difference outwardly with a whole city of Christians vs a whole city of Atheist or Hindu.

There may even be some religions that are more meek, humble, loving, and forgiving than Christians. The individuals may be.

The Israelite's weren't and the Americans aren't. Our Savior "is" for us.
I can see it and agree, that's why I don't buy into this morals of Christians vs the morals of Atheist or the morals of Christians vs the morals of Buddhism. 

In some religions the individual has to try to reach a higher level. He may even do better at transitioning to a better person than Christians. In a lot of religions it's all about the works of the individual.

In Christianity it's not about our works but all about God's grace. In that respect it's a better religion than one about the individual.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Artfuldodger said:


> I was given eternal life! My way of thinking changed. I was "washed" My change was knowing that Christ died for my sins.
> 
> I would agree that you can't see much difference outwardly with a whole city of Christians vs a whole city of Atheist or Hindu.
> 
> There may even be some religions that are more meek, humble, loving, and forgiving than Christians. The individuals may be.
> 
> The Israelite's weren't and the Americans aren't. Our Savior "is" for us.
> I can see it and agree, that's why I don't buy into this morals of Christians vs the morals of Atheist or the morals of Christians vs the morals of Buddhism.
> 
> In some religions the individual has to try to reach a higher level. He may even do better at transitioning to a better person than Christians. In a lot of religions it's all about the works of the individual.
> 
> In Christianity it's not about our works but all about God's grace. In that respect it's a better religion than one about the individual.


What do you think about Cherokee pantheism?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I know you probably wont agree but -
> Christianity depends on you feeling guilty. Its why you are told you are a filthy rag evil sinner. Christian guilt built the Vatican, buys jets for preachers, pays the church's rent and gives Christianity the wealth and power that it has.
> The Christian leaders were very smart in that aspect.



The best way to sell something is to create paranoia; to make people feel that without it that they are somehow diminished.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> So we are all good to go then, unless it didn't work right?


 I'm not sure it works that way but it's possible.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not sure it works that way but it's possible.


If Jesus was sent here to take away or replace sin it either worked and there is no sin.
Or
Ot didn't work and there is still sin.

What other way could it work?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Doesn't Evolution revolve around all life from a single organism ? The article cleary shows no DNA between life forms . It's everything evolution isn't . There's no way to man any further back as suggested by modern  evolution hypothesis .


Evolution revolves around life evolving from multiple single cell organisms.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_04


----------



## Artfuldodger

NCHillbilly said:


> What do you think about Cherokee pantheism?


 Is that where God is in all things in nature? That everything is God? I can kinda see that. We are made in his image. He made the trees and wind. 

Many Christians believe we all know God by viewing nature. So perhaps one can know God. I'm not sure though how they know Jesus. If one believed in God and also believed Jesus is God, then believing in God "is" believing in Jesus.

I think the Pope or Church said this;
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation 

Maybe one can know God by seeing him in the forest and sky and then have a calling by the Holy Spirit to an effectual calling to salvation.

Not exactly pantheism but maybe somewhat related.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Artfuldodger said:


> Is that where God is in all things in nature? That everything is God? I can kinda see that. We are made in his image. He made the trees and wind.
> 
> Many Christians believe we all know God by viewing nature. So perhaps one can know God. I'm not sure though how they know Jesus. If one believed in God and also believed Jesus is God, then believing in God "is" believing in Jesus.
> 
> I think the Pope or Church said this;
> "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation
> 
> Maybe one can know God by seeing him in the forest and sky and then have a calling by the Holy Spirit to an effectual calling to salvation.
> 
> Not exactly pantheism but maybe somewhat related.


Yet, according to y'all's model, every Cherokee who ever lived prior to the missionaries' arrival is now happily roasting in torment, through no fault of their own, because they didn't call on Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> If Jesus was sent here to take away or replace sin it either worked and there is no sin.
> Or
> Ot didn't work and there is still sin.
> 
> What other way could it work?


 That's the belief of the *Primitive Baptist Universalists*;

Christ's atonement was for all humanity, and at Resurrection all humanity will be reunited with Christ for an eternity in Heaven. 

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


----------



## kmckinnie

NCHillbilly said:


> If we're that bad, maybe God should have done a better job designing us, so that we aren't defective at birth and in need of salvation.





ambush80 said:


> I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. Do you mean "comments"?


yes. Lol s?


----------



## Artfuldodger

NCHillbilly said:


> Yet, according to y'all's model, every Cherokee who ever lived prior to the missionaries' arrival is now happily roasting in torment, through no fault of their own, because they didn't call on Jesus.



And it's my fault for not reaching them. They are burning in He11 because of me or my Gentile ancestors. 

Or perhaps as the Pope or Church says; They know God by nature. By knowing God, they know Jesus because God is Jesus.

Or, they know God by nature and the Holy Spirit gives them an effectual calling and lets them know who Jesus is.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I know you probably wont agree but -
> Christianity depends on you feeling guilty. Its why you are told you are a filthy rag evil sinner. Christian guilt built the Vatican, buys jets for preachers, pays the church's rent and gives Christianity the wealth and power that it has.
> The Christian leaders were very smart in that aspect.


I do agree that there are many that abuse it. 

From everything that I’ve been exposed to all of my life is contrary to your comment, we don’t have the wealth and glamorous sanctuary.....


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> That's the belief of the *Primitive Baptist Universalists*;
> 
> Christ's atonement was for all humanity, and at Resurrection all humanity will be reunited with Christ for an eternity in Heaven.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_Baptist_Universalist


So what is the downside here if all of humanity will be reunited with Christ for an eternity as a result of him dying on the cross?

Just a quick look has all types of reasons why Jesus was sent to die on the cross.
What does the bible say?
Which reason is correct?


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> That's a very unconventional interpretation of the doctrine.  Certainly not one that I can come to based on reading the words as they're written.


I don’t claim to be correct. I just know that if a man doesn’t want something, he’s doing it for the wrong reason.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Artfuldodger said:


> And it's my fault for not reaching them. They are burning in He11 because of me or my Gentile ancestors.
> 
> Or perhaps as the Pope or Church says; They know God by nature. By knowing God, they know Jesus because God is Jesus.
> 
> Or, they know God by nature and the Holy Spirit gives them an effectual calling and lets them know who Jesus is.


That's pretty pitiful. You have too much intelligence to go down that road.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> There's more information about Jesus in the concept that you've made up about him than is actually written about him.


Every believer has His testimony.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Every believer has His testimony.



No.  You have what you've made up in your head.  The reason I know is because you all disagree on so much.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> No.  You have what you've made up in your head.  The reason I know is because you all disagree on so much.


And still, every believer has His testimony.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> No, evolution does not.


Explain , I am not being argumentative , that's how I understand it .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Explain , I am not being argumentative , that's how I understand it .


Post #282
I also provided a link


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> And still, every believer has His testimony.



No.  You have the testimony about Him that you make up just for you.  That's what all you guys do.  I don't discourage you, in particular, because your flavor of belief is the one of the least off putting and often the most enjoyable poetically.

If you're gonna tell stories, at least make them interesting.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> No.  You have the testimony about Him that you make up just for you.  That's what all you guys do.  I don't discourage you, in particular, because your flavor of belief is the one of the least off putting and often the most enjoyable poetically.
> 
> If you're gonna tell stories, at least make them interesting.


I would disagree. If they’re made up, how does one type affect so many?? Surely it can’t be coincidence?? If so, why isn’t there an reasonable explanation of that coincidence?


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> Evolution revolves around life evolving from multiple single cell organisms.
> 
> Ok . I think you and will have to disagree again believe it or not .


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I would disagree. If they’re made up, how does one type affect so many?? Surely it can’t be coincidence?? If so, why isn’t there an reasonable explanation of that coincidence?



I'm including ALL religious people in "you guys"


----------



## Brother David

Alright men , I will be out for a day or two . I am in the Appalachian Mountains delivering coats and toys for the less fortunate . Please pray that these gifts will provide for a family a Merry Christmas !


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> Alright men , I will be out for a day or two . I am in the Appalachian Mountains delivering coats and toys for the less fortunate . Please pray that these gifts will provide for a family a Merry Christmas !



Safe travels and thanks to you for helping the less fortunate.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> I do agree that there are many that abuse it.
> 
> From everything that I’ve been exposed to all of my life is contrary to your comment, we don’t have the wealth and glamorous sanctuary.....



That's the way I see it as well. The abusers didn't invent Christianity or most religions. I'm sure they have invented some.
With Christianity, they have just taken an already ancient religion and used it to control. Even to conquer other nations. Perhaps a national leader, dictator, or just as local preacher. Especially politicians.

It doesn't make the whole religion bad, just that aspect of it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> So what is the downside here if all of humanity will be reunited with Christ for an eternity as a result of him dying on the cross?
> 
> Just a quick look has all types of reasons why Jesus was sent to die on the cross.
> What does the bible say?
> Which reason is correct?



I'm not sure. I once thought the Holy Spirit had given me some special revelation on the matter. Now I'm sure it's just up to me to decide.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> I don’t claim to be correct. I just know that if a man doesn’t want something, he’s doing it for the wrong reason.



I once presented that one shouldn't seek God out of fear of He11. In other words choose God because he loves us and we love him. Just to gain eternal life with God instead of receiving eternal death.

Most Christians didn't agree with my mindset. One said that without the fear of eternal burning in He11, he didn't see the point of salvation.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> I'm including ALL religious people in "you guys"


Lol ok....Ambush........I give you more credit than that.


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> I once presented that one shouldn't seek God out of fear of He11. In other words choose God because he loves us and we love him. Just to gain eternal life with God instead of receiving eternal death.
> 
> Most Christians didn't agree with my mindset. One said that without the fear of eternal burning in He11, he didn't see the point of salvation.


Yea I separate myself from the “fear” tactic preachers. I know you’re not supposed to sugar coat, but you’re not supposed covert out of fear. 

And, I don’t have much patience with Preachers that try to convert at funerals. To me that’s taking advantage of a weakness. I do agree with speaking to them, offering guidance, and making yourself available.......


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> No.  You have the testimony about Him that you make up just for you.  That's what all you guys do.  I don't discourage you, in particular, because your flavor of belief is the one of the least off putting and often the most enjoyable poetically.
> 
> If you're gonna tell stories, at least make them interesting.



It is the most appealing. Simple in how it works, complex in detail and historic content.
Instead of one having to save himself by works, God sends his Son to do it for us because we are too human to do it. 

I mean it's way better that personally trying to transcend a personal righteousness path which will probably end up being impossible.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> Yea I separate myself from the “fear” tactic preachers. I know you’re not supposed to sugar coat, but you’re not supposed covert out of fear.
> 
> And, I don’t have much patience with Preachers that try to convert at funerals. To me that’s taking advantage of a weakness. I do agree with speaking to them, offering guidance, and making yourself available.......


 Or the old; "you should at least believe just in case I'm right."
I'm not sure that is the correct reason or logic to believe.
 To believe just in case? That is like believing for insurance.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> It is the most appealing. Simple in how it works, complex in detail and historic content.
> Instead of one having to save himself by works, God sends his Son to do it for us because we are too human to do it.
> 
> I mean it's way better that personally trying to transcend a personal righteousness path which will probably end up being impossible.



I don't think so.  You're well aware of how modern, educated, secular culture tempers the more ridiculous ideas of religion.  You talk about it occasionally.  It's time to speed up the process.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Or the old; "you should at least believe just in case I'm right."
> I'm not sure that is the correct reason or logic to believe.
> To believe just in case? That is like believing for insurance.



And as is brought up every time, are you gonna hedge ALL your bets?


----------



## Spotlite

NCHillbilly said:


> Yet, according to y'all's model, every Cherokee who ever lived prior to the missionaries' arrival is now happily roasting in torment, through no fault of their own, because they didn't call on Jesus.


Not completely true, and “y’alls model”??? Who is the y’all??

Remember, Christianity is pretty diverse due to labeling, and we can now see that atheism is becoming more diverse with labeling. So, one size doesn’t fit all.

A large number of Christians believe in a “just God”.

Not a quote, but Jesus said that no man comes to the Father except through him. It is taught that  Jesus is our advocate.

If he’s our advocate, I’m pretty sure he’s got it covered for those that never heard.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I would disagree. If they’re made up, how does one type affect so many?? Surely it can’t be coincidence?? If so, why isn’t there an reasonable explanation of that coincidence?


If what you say is true, Christianity would have the market cornered on believers. Since people have believed and do believe in all kinds of gods there is testimony and personal interaction to be had from all throughout the ages......

Are all those others not made up and not coincidence and just as legitimate?


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Or the old; "you should at least believe just in case I'm right."
> I'm not sure that is the correct reason or logic to believe.
> To believe just in case? That is like believing for insurance.


We hear that one pretty often in here. Not from you "regulars" but every couple of months a Christian will pop in and throw that out there.
I don't think they realize its pretty much the opposite reason one is "supposed to believe".


----------



## Israel

A man who always believes himself the best version of himself is a man who always believes himself the best version of himself.

Who could interrupt that agreement found in a man and come out unscathed?

"I ain't sayin' I'm the most self aware man Bobby, but if I met myself in a dark alley, ain't both of us coming out, and mos' probbly neither"


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> I don't think so.  You're well aware of how modern, educated, secular culture tempers the more ridiculous ideas of religion.  You talk about it occasionally.  It's time to speed up the process.



That's more of a cultural transition which also happens to include Christianity. I would also add that Christianity has made this transition faster than Islam.
They're where we once were which is why it's important to monitor what they believe.

I don't view it as a Christianity vs Muslim belief thing. Just a slower transition thing. I think the Muslims that migrated here have made the transition faster.
The one's in the Middle East aren't there yet. They may never get there.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> If what you say is true, Christianity would have the market cornered on believers. Since people have believed and do believe in all kinds of gods there is testimony and personal interaction to be had from all throughout the ages......
> 
> Are all those others not made up and not coincidence and just as legitimate?


I can’t argue with that.........realistically, yes you’re right.........to a point.

We are aware that some things can and will “just happen”. Everyone is going to have a flat tire and everyone will get a raise. 

We give God thanks in all things for many reasons. So it’s not strange to hear “I thank God for”........

To hear some of those others give their testimony and give credit elsewhere shouldn’t be a shocker if Christianity really believes that God works in mysterious ways, and that we “entertain angels unaware”.

Those folks may not even know who to give credit to, it could be God dealing and working with them. 

Unfortunately, there’s a multitude of new believers that feel called to preach when really they aren’t, they just have a testimony of what happened to them and they just want to tell others about it. That results in a lot of confusion and “I believes” so a lot times you’ll get their uneducated input or feelings on what those others are experiencing. 

So my answer is no, Christianity is not going to corner the market because all is not going to get on board for many reasons, and no, their experience is not made up and should not be discounted. 

Too many Christians are stuck on 3 + 6 = 9 and the way they think God works, and never realize that 6 + 3 or 5 + 4 or even 8 + 1 all = 9. 

I know we can discern but a lot need to stop trying to decide what is and what isn’t God’s works until they’ve had some teaching themselves. It’s ok to be skeptical, but don’t play the judge.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I can’t argue with that.........realistically, yes you’re right.........to a point.
> 
> We are aware that some things can and will “just happen”. Everyone is going to have a flat tire and everyone will get a raise.
> 
> We give God thanks in all things for many reasons. So it’s not strange to hear “I thank God for”........
> 
> To hear some of those others give their testimony and give credit elsewhere shouldn’t be a shocker if Christianity really believes that God works in mysterious ways, and that we “entertain angels unaware”.
> 
> Those folks may not even know who to give credit to, it could be God dealing and working with them.
> 
> Unfortunately, there’s a multitude of new believers that feel called to preach when really they aren’t, they just have a testimony of what happened to them and they just want to tell others about it. That results in a lot of confusion and “I believes” so a lot times you’ll get their uneducated input or feelings on what those others are experiencing.
> 
> So my answer is no, Christianity is not going to corner the market because all is not going to get on board for many reasons, and no, their experience is not made up and should not be discounted.
> 
> Too many Christians are stuck on 3 + 6 = 9 and the way they think God works, and never realize that 6 + 3 or 5 + 4 or even 8 + 1 all = 9.
> 
> I know we can discern but a lot need to stop trying to decide what is and what isn’t God’s works until they’ve had some teaching themselves. It’s ok to be skeptical, but don’t play the judge.


I like what you are saying, but your beliefs could just as easily be from the workings of their god.

That is how i came to the conclusion that no matter what i wanted to be true, i really just didnt know.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I like what you are saying, but your beliefs could just as easily be from the workings of their god.
> 
> That is how i came to the conclusion that no matter what i wanted to be true, i really just didnt know.


I can understand that. It can be a struggle for many. For me, there’s just so many ways I find and see God working that I can relate to in the Bible. 

I can’t see or read about and relate to any of that with another god.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Was thinking of something Spotlite said that may be related to viewing other cultures, religions, races, and political party members.

Spotlite said that down on the Political Forum they didn't have the malice, hate, or anger in their hearts that they have with their mouths.

This was one thread on friends;

http://forum.gon.com/threads/friends.930156/

Some on the PF said they would not have any friends if they were Liberals. Perhaps even abandon family members if they were Liberals as well.

I hope they are just talking and don't really feel that way. I gave an example of how my Dad feels and believes about Blacks. 

I see folks every day shopping in convenience stores who talk nice and interact with the Muslim and Hindu shop keepers. The shop keepers seem to be nice and even become a part of the small Georgia communities in which they operate.

I can also see both sides getting on an internet forum and bashing the other side. 
What I'm wonder at and related to my last post, is our transitions happening faster than we think they are? 

Are we all closer to harmony and getting along than what our mouths say? Are blacks and whites now living in more harmony?

How much of our interactions with the various races, creeds, religions, and political party members on the street and in our communities is fake or real?

People act fine around each other but then  bash the crap out of each other in a small group of like minded faces or behind the mask of an internet forum.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I can understand that. It can be a struggle for many. For me, there’s just so many ways I find and see God working that I can relate to in the Bible.
> 
> I can’t see or read about and relate to any of that with another god.


I find it hard to figure out the bible and I've read a few times it and have been referencing it for 40 years. Other than searching into the surface of other religions and gods...i can honestly say that i could not have given even one other an open minded hard search.

Are you saying that you have???


----------



## Artfuldodger

I've often wondered if one left a Bible on every deserted island or village, in their language, what various beliefs would be formed.

Would also be even more interesting if they were left the guide books for five different religions. I wonder which one they would choose?

If I was shopping for a Christian religion, I might choose one that doesn't believe in eternal torment by fire, or Election so that I wouldn't even have to choose. I would definitely choose God's grace over my works.
Maybe one where if you believe, you live forever(everlasting life), but if you don't, you die when you die.(eternal death)

Free Will Baptist Church. I remember wanting to join one of those when I was a kid. I thought it meant you didn't have to go to Church every time the doors were open.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> A man who always believes himself the best version of himself is a man who always believes himself the best version of himself.
> 
> Who could interrupt that agreement found in a man and come out unscathed?
> 
> "I ain't sayin' I'm the most self aware man Bobby, but if I met myself in a dark alley, ain't both of us coming out, and mos' probbly neither"



I don't know anybody like that.  That's pure narcissism.  I know plenty of people who say "I'm doing pretty well but I can do better".  If someone literally believes that a man flew up to Heaven in a fiery chariot or that a man ascended to Heaven after being dead for three days, I can't see how they are trying to "do better" given all we know about physics, biology, and the natural world.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> That's more of a cultural transition which also happens to include Christianity. I would also add that Christianity has made this transition faster than Islam.
> They're where we once were which is why it's important to monitor what they believe.
> 
> I don't view it as a Christianity vs Muslim belief thing. Just a slower transition thing. I think the Muslims that migrated here have made the transition faster.
> The one's in the Middle East aren't there yet. They may never get there.



By some accounts I've seen, Christianity has a 600 year head start over Islam.

http://christianityinview.com/xncomparison.html

Some things I've read show that Fundamentalism decreases with education and wealth.  Other studies are less conclusive.  Most of what I've read shows that as the education of the general population increases, fundamentalism decreases.  Contrary to that is the fact that many Arabs who are rich and educated remain Fundamentalists though this new guy seems to be moving in a good direction:

_Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, has vowed to return the country to “moderate Islam” and asked for global support to transform the hardline kingdom into an open society that empowers citizens and lures investors. _

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/24/i-will-return-saudi-arabia-moderate-islam-crown-prince


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Was thinking of something Spotlite said that may be related to viewing other cultures, religions, races, and political party members.
> 
> Spotlite said that down on the Political Forum they didn't have the malice, hate, or anger in their hearts that they have with their mouths.
> 
> This was one thread on friends;
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/threads/friends.930156/
> 
> Some on the PF said they would not have any friends if they were Liberals. Perhaps even abandon family members if they were Liberals as well.
> 
> I hope they are just talking and don't really feel that way. I gave an example of how my Dad feels and believes about Blacks.
> 
> I see folks every day shopping in convenience stores who talk nice and interact with the Muslim and Hindu shop keepers. The shop keepers seem to be nice and even become a part of the small Georgia communities in which they operate.
> 
> I can also see both sides getting on an internet forum and bashing the other side.
> What I'm wonder at and related to my last post, is our transitions happening faster than we think they are?
> 
> Are we all closer to harmony and getting along than what our mouths say? Are blacks and whites now living in more harmony?
> 
> How much of our interactions with the various races, creeds, religions, and political party members on the street and in our communities is fake or real?
> 
> People act fine around each other but then  bash the crap out of each other in a small group of like minded faces or behind the mask of an internet forum.



I had to bring my copy back to library before I finished it but this talks allot about what you're interested in.

*Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress*

https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Not completely true, and “y’alls model”??? Who is the y’all??
> 
> Remember, Christianity is pretty diverse due to labeling, and we can now see that atheism is becoming more diverse with labeling. So, one size doesn’t fit all.
> 
> A large number of Christians believe in a “just God”.
> 
> Not a quote, but Jesus said that no man comes to the Father except through him. It is taught that  Jesus is our advocate.
> 
> If he’s our advocate, I’m pretty sure he’s got it covered for those that never heard.



If someone were to stand before God and say "You gave me this brain to think with and it led me to believe that you didn't exist.  You knew just what it would take to reach me but you didn't do it.  If you can harden Pharaoh's heart, you could have softened mine."  

What would a just God do with that person?

The God of the Bible as I understand him would say "I made you as a vessel of wrath.  You weren't meant to go to Heaven but to burn in He11 for all eternity.  That is my justice which you will never understand".  I would then spend eternity throwing him the double burning nub middle fingers.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I've often wondered if one left a Bible on every deserted island or village, in their language, what various beliefs would be formed.
> 
> Would also be even more interesting if they were left the guide books for five different religions. I wonder which one they would choose?
> 
> If I was shopping for a Christian religion, I might choose one that doesn't believe in eternal torment by fire, or Election so that I wouldn't even have to choose. I would definitely choose God's grace over my works.
> Maybe one where if you believe, you live forever(everlasting life), but if you don't, you die when you die.(eternal death)
> 
> Free Will Baptist Church. I remember wanting to join one of those when I was a kid. I thought it meant you didn't have to go to Church every time the doors were open.



You never cease to impress me with your moments of clear thinking.  How are your ideas received "Upstairs"?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I find it hard to figure out the bible and I've read a few times it and have been referencing it for 40 years. Other than searching into the surface of other religions and gods...i can honestly say that i could not have given even one other an open minded hard search.
> 
> Are you saying that you have???


Honestly, I continually reconfirm mine by what I don’t find elsewhere. And, I do look at everything with an open mind, I don’t want to be in this because “my Grandmother was”.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> You never cease to impress me with your moments of clear thinking.  How are your ideas received "Upstairs"?



I'm not very fundamental on most Christian topics and on others I am. Same way with politics. I guess some may view me as "out there somewhere."

But when one views all the various Christian belief differences? The Trinity vs Oneness, Preterism vs Futurism, grace salvation vs works salvation, always saved vs losing salvation, eternal death vs he11, free will vs election, universal salvation, etc. what does anyone really know?

It appears Preterism is viewed as weird as is Oneness. I can't see any as having all the answers so none of it is actually weird to me.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> If someone were to stand before God and say "You gave me this brain to think with and it led me to believe that you didn't exist.  You knew just what it would take to reach me but you didn't do it.  If you can harden Pharaoh's heart, you could have softened mine."
> 
> What would a just God do with that person?
> 
> The God of the Bible as I understand him would say "I made you as a vessel of wrath.  You weren't meant to go to Heaven but to burn in He11 for all eternity.  That is my justice which you will never understand".  I would then spend eternity throwing him the double burning nub middle fingers.


The law of God is written in every man’s conscience so he’s without excuse.

What you’re describing is someone who had an opportunity to weigh this out decide verses what I described as NCHB referred to with someone who didn’t.

He’s a just God and I’m convinced that somone honestly seeking him will find him. If he hides from them, I’m sure there’ll be plenty of questions he’d have to explain to many.


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> Was thinking of something Spotlite said that may be related to viewing other cultures, religions, races, and political party members.
> 
> Spotlite said that down on the Political Forum they didn't have the malice, hate, or anger in their hearts that they have with their mouths.
> 
> This was one thread on friends;
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/threads/friends.930156/
> 
> Some on the PF said they would not have any friends if they were Liberals. Perhaps even abandon family members if they were Liberals as well.
> 
> I hope they are just talking and don't really feel that way. I gave an example of how my Dad feels and believes about Blacks.
> 
> I see folks every day shopping in convenience stores who talk nice and interact with the Muslim and Hindu shop keepers. The shop keepers seem to be nice and even become a part of the small Georgia communities in which they operate.
> 
> I can also see both sides getting on an internet forum and bashing the other side.
> What I'm wonder at and related to my last post, is our transitions happening faster than we think they are?
> 
> Are we all closer to harmony and getting along than what our mouths say? Are blacks and whites now living in more harmony?
> 
> How much of our interactions with the various races, creeds, religions, and political party members on the street and in our communities is fake or real?
> 
> People act fine around each other but then  bash the crap out of each other in a small group of like minded faces or behind the mask of an internet forum.


Most keyboard warriors are nothing but talk (bulldog mouth with a mini Yorkie hind end) and most public groups are nothing but opportunist hiding behind the very few individuals that actually are stupid enough, or brave enough to make a move.

But yes, I think if we turned the news off and talked to our neighbors more, we’d find out that we are better off and more in harmony that we’re being told.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> The law of God is written in every man’s conscience so he’s without excuse.
> 
> What you’re describing is someone who had an opportunity to weigh this out decide versus what I described as NCHB referred to with someone who didn’t.
> 
> He’s a just God and I’m convinced that someone honestly seeking him will find him. If he hides from them, I’m sure there’ll be plenty of questions he’d have to explain to many.



What is your understanding of the Vessels of Wrath?   I understand them to be souls that were made bound for He11.  It's their righteous purpose to suffer eternally.  I can't find the justice in that but the boilerplate "His ways are not our ways" seems to satisfy many believers who would normally see such a condition as unjust and cruel. 

I've often heard believers say that God "pricked their hearts" and that they personally had nothing to do with their salvation.  Without the "quickening" they would be as lost as anybody.  Do you believe that?   If so, what does that say about "someone honestly seeking him will find him"?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> The law of God is written in every man’s conscience so he’s without excuse.
> 
> What you’re describing is someone who had an opportunity to weigh this out decide verses what I described as NCHB referred to with someone who didn’t.
> 
> He’s a just God and I’m convinced that somone honestly seeking him will find him. If he hides from them, I’m sure there’ll be plenty of questions he’d have to explain to many.




 How do you see the Native American individual 1,000 years ago as knowing God and without excuse? How would he "find" God? Better yet even if he knows God(General Calling), by nature, how does he receive his effectual calling to know Jesus?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> Most keyboard warriors are nothing but talk (bulldog mouth with a mini Yorkie hind end) and most public groups are nothing but opportunist hiding behind the very few individuals that actually are stupid enough, or brave enough to make a move.
> 
> But yes, I think if we turned the news off and talked to our neighbors more, we’d find out that we are better off and more in harmony that we’re being told.



With that being said then are we, as society, closer to living in harmony, than the way people talk about each other in private? I guess the closest examples I can see is how people talk bad about say, Muslims, Liberals, or Blacks to the point that they are even the enemy.
Then in public or actuality, not acting on those feelings. They may even go fishing with them, talk sports with them, etc. just like they are one of the good old boys.
Then when the individuals aren't around, they are back to being the enemy. They may view the local Muslim guy in the store as their friend as if he isn't a part of the overall Islam picture. Then when away form that individual, say that most of the "other" Muslims in America are.

They may view their Liberal cousin as the enemy in private but then go hunting with him as a comrade. It's like maybe the harmony really is there and maybe it is just talk when it isn't.


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> How do you see the Native American individual 1,000 years ago as knowing God and without excuse? How would he "find" God? Better yet even if he knows God(General Calling), by nature, how does he receive his effectual calling to know Jesus?


That’s sort of where I’m at with Christianity backing off and stop trying to decide who went up or down. Fact is, we don’t know, only he does.

I believe the knowing what’s right or wrong is in the heart, but what about salvation??? How shall they???? -.........Romans 10:14. 

If we believe he’s a just God, we gotta believe that and he will be fair to those that were without opportunity.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> What is your understanding of the Vessels of Wrath?   I understand them to be souls that were made bound for He11.  It's their righteous purpose to suffer eternally.  I can't find the justice in that but the boilerplate "His ways are not our ways" seems to satisfy many believers who would normally see such a condition as unjust and cruel.
> 
> I've often heard believers say that God "pricked their hearts" and that they personally had nothing to do with their salvation.  Without the "quickening" they would be as lost as anybody.  Do you believe that?   If so, what does that say about "someone honestly seeking him will find him"?


See post # 335


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> See post # 335



That didn't really answer my question about who you think the Vessels of Wrath are or what you believe about being "pricked in the heart".


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> That didn't really answer my question about who you think the Vessels of Wrath are or what you believe about being "pricked in the heart".


Sorry, vessels of wrath are those that will not turn to Christ. Vessels are prepared for glory and wrath, but it’s up to the man to the individual. “Come and let him that athirst come”

I don’t believe a man is created to go 

Pricked in the heart takes place when a man realizes he wants a change and God is dealing with him. Conviction.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Sorry, vessels of wrath are those that will not turn to Christ. Vessels are prepared for glory and wrath, but it’s up to the man to the individual. “Come and let him that athirst come”
> 
> I don’t believe a man is created to go
> 
> Pricked in the heart takes place when a man realizes he wants a change and God is dealing with him. Conviction.



Thanks for responding.  I'm not sure how you reconcile that some vessels are prepared for wrath but at the same time it's up to the individual.  Can you expound on what seems to be a contradiction?

As far as the pricked in the heart part goes, it seems that you believe that man is responsible for his own salvation; that a man's will initiates the conviction.  How do you reconcile that with God's sovereignty?  Can a man do something that God doesn't will him to?  Can a man surprise God with anything he does?


----------



## NCHillbilly

Artfuldodger said:


> How do you see the Native American individual 1,000 years ago as knowing God and without excuse? How would he "find" God? Better yet even if he knows God(General Calling), by nature, how does he receive his effectual calling to know Jesus?



What if the Native American individual 1,000 years ago was closer to the truth in his idea of God than the modern church is?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> If someone were to stand before God and say "You gave me this brain to think with and it led me to believe that you didn't exist.  You knew just what it would take to reach me but you didn't do it.  If you can harden Pharaoh's heart, you could have softened mine."
> 
> What would a just God do with that person?
> 
> The God of the Bible as I understand him would say "I made you as a vessel of wrath.  You weren't meant to go to Heaven but to burn in He11 for all eternity.  That is my justice which you will never understand".  I would then spend eternity throwing him the double burning nub middle fingers.



And you say others have the temerity to "make things up"?



> I would then spend eternity throwing him the double burning nub middle fingers.



Really, that's just too too precious.

Get out much?

You're as hamstrung by that which you use as the basis of condemning others..."You can't _know_". But like _all others_, you hold the precious vanity that "you can" and do.
That you alone maintain your identity of self...and not only "do"...but _will_ even _past _an encounter described.

I have no idea to which "anity" you fellows ascribe as your participation "churchianity", "christianity" or whatever other form you imagine you've delved so deeply in devotion, but you sure ain't come to that place where you don't know what to say...or do. Because _you_ cannot. Have anything to say, or do, about anything.

And you like to think "others" God is too small for you? Too quaint, too jejune?

Really, too precious.


----------



## ambush80

NCHillbilly said:


> What if the Native American individual 1,000 years ago was closer to the truth in his idea of God than the modern church is?



Do you mean that his idea of god is closer to what the real god is like?


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> And you say others have the temerity to "make things up"?
> 
> 
> 
> Really, that's just too too precious.
> 
> Get out much?
> 
> You're as hamstrung by that which you use as the basis of condemning others..."You can't _know_". But like _all others_, you hold the precious vanity that "you can" and do.
> That you alone maintain your identity of self...and not only "do"...but _will_ even _past _an encounter described.
> 
> I have no idea to which "anity" you fellows ascribe as your participation "churchianity", "christianity" or whatever other form you imagine you've delved so deeply in devotion, but you sure ain't come to that place where you don't know what to say...or do. Because _you_ cannot. Have anything to say, or do, about anything.
> 
> And you like to think "others" God is too small for you? Too quaint, too jejune?
> 
> Really, too precious.



I'll accept that.  I know that in asking questions like that I'm playing a make believe game with make believe characters.  Here's some non make believe: what happens to people psychologically when they think themselves filthy rags?


----------



## NCHillbilly

ambush80 said:


> Do you mean that his idea of god is closer to the real god is like?


It could very well be.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I'll accept that.  I know that in asking questions like that I'm playing a make believe game with make believe characters.  Here's some non make believe: what happens to people psychologically when they think themselves filthy rags?



Have no idea. 

But if you mean this: "and all our righteousnesses _are_ as filthy rags" that's an entirely different form.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Maybe if God makes one a vessel of wrath, which Romans tells us he does, that maybe he un-blinds them later to see.


NCHillbilly said:


> What if the Native American individual 1,000 years ago was closer to the truth in his idea of God than the modern church is?


 
What were those views of the afterlife?


----------



## Artfuldodger

NCHillbilly said:


> What if the Native American individual 1,000 years ago was closer to the truth in his idea of God than the modern church is?


 
If they knew the God of Abraham, as some say, and were without excuse to worship him, why would they develop the wrong ways to show him obedience and worship?

Did they abandon the worship of the God of Abraham for that of another God or have they continued to worship the same God in truth and reverence?

If it was the wrong god, was it done with malice?


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Thanks for responding.  I'm not sure how you reconcile that some vessels are prepared for wrath but at the same time it's up to the individual.  Can you expound on what seems to be a contradiction?
> 
> As far as the pricked in the heart part goes, it seems that you believe that man is responsible for his own salvation; that a man's will initiates the conviction.  How do you reconcile that with God's sovereignty?  Can a man do something that God doesn't will him to?  Can a man surprise God with anything he does?


I don’t really see it as a contradiction, it’s just saying there are vessels of wrath.......and it says whosever will........and it never indicates all will. 

It never identifies individuals or groups who are those vessels. It’s just known that some will go that path. 

Man has the choice to either accept or turn a deaf ear. 

I think God knows who’s going to do what, but I don’t believe he makes the choice for them.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Artfuldodger said:


> If they knew the God of Abraham, as some say, and were without excuse to worship him, why would they develop the wrong ways to show him obedience and worship?
> 
> Did they abandon the worship of the God of Abraham for that of another God or have they continued to worship the same God in truth and reverence?
> 
> If it was the wrong god, was it done with malice?


What if the God of Abraham isn't necessarily the true god, and the God of Native American Individual was, at least for him and his people? What if he abandoned the true God of his people for a false god of another old tribe on the other side of the earth?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I don’t really see it as a contradiction, it’s just saying there are vessels of wrath.......and it says whosever will........and it never indicates all will.
> 
> It never identifies individuals or groups who are those vessels. It’s just known that some will go that path.
> 
> Man has the choice to either accept or turn a deaf ear.
> 
> I think God knows who’s going to do what, but I don’t believe he makes the choice for them.


There are just too many gods that don't make a peep. How can someone accept or turn a deaf ear to silence??..


----------



## Artfuldodger

NCHillbilly said:


> What if the God of Abraham isn't necessarily the true god, and the God of Native American Individual was, at least for him and his people? What if he abandoned the true God of his people for a false god of another old tribe on the other side of the earth?



I can see that, He is worshiping the true God as revealed by nature, being made himself in that image, a white man from Europe convinces him he is worshiping the wrong god, he converts and doesn't get to go to the happy hunting ground.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> I don’t really see it as a contradiction, it’s just saying there are vessels of wrath.......and it says whosever will........and it never indicates all will.
> 
> It never identifies individuals or groups who are those vessels. It’s just known that some will go that path.
> 
> Man has the choice to either accept or turn a deaf ear.
> 
> I think God knows who’s going to do what, but I don’t believe he makes the choice for them.



I don't think some Christians see it as a contradiction, they just justify in their own minds that Paul didn't say that in Romans. They have this ideal that God couldn't be fair if he did as such. Paul told us we wouldn't understand and to just accept that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.
Paul was addressing the issue of God electing Jacob and hating Esau before he ever had a chance to perform any works. He then used the hardening of Pharoah and the Potter forming vessels of wrath as examples of God having mercy on whom he will have mercy.

It doesn't make God unjust, it makes him God. If that made him unjust so would the creation of Adam. Just by foreknowledge alone God went ahead and created a whole bunch of people doomed for eternal death.

Just don't believe in eternal torment and it makes it more justifiable.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't think some Christians see it as a contradiction, they just justify in their own minds that Paul didn't say that in Romans. They have this ideal that God couldn't be fair if he did as such. Paul told us we wouldn't understand and to just accept that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.
> Paul was addressing the issue of God electing Jacob and hating Esau before he ever had a chance to perform any works. He then used the hardening of Pharoah and the Potter forming vessels of wrath as examples of God having mercy on whom he will have mercy.
> 
> It doesn't make God unjust, it makes him God. If that made him unjust so would the creation of Adam. Just by foreknowledge alone God went ahead and created a whole bunch of people doomed for eternal death.
> 
> Just don't believe in eternal torment and it makes it more justifiable.


I never could get over the part where god created flawed beings and then hated them for being flawed. At that point, you’re the kid yanking wings off of flies and laughing at them spinning around in circles.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Some people justify that God didn't create them to fall, that he just used his foreknowledge and new they would fail. He knew it even before creation. His Son Jesus, his Father's plan before creation, was already standing by.
Therefore God foreknew who would answer His call. He foreknew the rest would receive eternal death. This before creation. The names were already written in the Book of Life.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Look on the bright side. God went ahead and created man anyway. Some of us "will" gain everlasting life. I'm assuming he knew he'd get enough of us to think His plan was worthy to continue.

He may have even gotten everyone that he knew he would get.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Artfuldodger said:


> Some people justify that God didn't create them to fall, that he just used his foreknowledge and new they would fail. He knew it even before creation. His Son Jesus, his Father's plan before creation, was already standing by.
> Therefore God foreknew who would answer His call. He foreknew the rest would receive eternal death. This before creation. The names were already written in the Book of Life.


That sounds like a poor game plan for a Omnipotent being. And sadistic to boot.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Some people justify that God didn't create them to fall, that he just used his foreknowledge and new they would fail. He knew it even before creation. His Son Jesus, his Father's plan before creation, was already standing by.
> Therefore God foreknew who would answer His call. He foreknew the rest would receive eternal death. This before creation. The names were already written in the Book of Life.


Too many Omnipo-ooops for me to buy that.


----------



## Spotlite

NCHillbilly said:


> I never could get over the part where god created flawed beings and then hated them for being flawed. At that point, you’re the kid yanking wings off of flies and laughing at them spinning around in circles.


He didn’t create flawed beings. He just didn’t create robots. If he already assigned us to upstairs or downstairs, what’s the purpose of removing the hedge from around Job and allowing temptation?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> There are just too many gods that don't make a peep. How can someone accept or turn a deaf ear to silence??..



Other than the deaf ear, who is claiming silence?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> He didn’t create flawed beings. He just didn’t create robots. If he already assigned us to upstairs or downstairs, what’s the purpose of removing the hedge from around Job and allowing temptation?


Maybe the same reason the Potter made some vessels of wrath;

"What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-"

Maybe the reason he elected a remnant from Israel by grace and not works and hardened the rest.

"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day."

Remember, the remnant was chosen by grace and not works. There was nothing they did that made God choose them. The rest were hardened for a reason. I believe it to be temporary but a hardening none the rest.

"For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,"

Most Christians ignore Romans 11 because the don't accept the predestination of it all. Most of the predestination believers don't even know how to take it.
They just ignore it. 

I think that is what we all do, just ignore the part that don't meet our beliefs. I try to read the parts that don't support my beliefs.
It's easy to find passages that do support your beliefs but purposely seek passages that don't if you want to be humbled.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

I believe in  a God who created the universe whom has chosen a type of slaves, [religious] to reveal himself to. That Jesus pleased God by his overcoming self to the point of death on a cross, that he became the firstborn from the dead, the firstborn of many brothers. That he has a God. That the bible in it's simple form is  true yet terribly embellished by the hands of men whom wanted to preserve what they had heard about Jesus. I believe that the trinity is the 666 and that a hypothetical Jesus,  as God is the antichrist who has come as an impostor and stolen the bride of Christ, defiling her.


----------



## ambush80

1gr8bldr said:


> I believe in  a God who created the universe whom has chosen a type of slaves, [religious] to reveal himself to. That Jesus pleased God by his overcoming self to the point of death on a cross, that he became the firstborn from the dead, the firstborn of many brothers. That he has a God. That the bible in it's simple form is  true yet terribly embellished by the hands of men whom wanted to preserve what they had heard about Jesus. I believe that the trinity is the 666 and that a hypothetical Jesus,  as God is the antichrist who has come as an impostor and stolen the bride of Christ, defiling her.



Good luck around here with that.


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> I believe in  a God who created the universe whom has chosen a type of slaves, [religious] to reveal himself to. That Jesus pleased God by his overcoming self to the point of death on a cross, that he became the firstborn from the dead, the firstborn of many brothers. That he has a God. That the bible in it's simple form is  true yet terribly embellished by the hands of men whom wanted to preserve what they had heard about Jesus. I believe that the trinity is the 666 and that a hypothetical Jesus,  as God is the antichrist who has come as an impostor and stolen the bride of Christ, defiling her.



This hypothetical Jesus, as the antichrist? Do you think he came and convinced the masses that he was God?

I personally don't view Jesus as God but I just thought the masses just got it wrong on their own. I don't see it as a conspiracy by the antichrist, just a lot of mis-informed believers.

How does believing in and worshiping Jesus as a fake God have on those individuals personal salvation?


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Good luck around here with that.



OK, and upstairs; maybe I'm # 2 behind Builder and perhaps the Preterist, Hobbs is #3. It is a tight race though.

I've got to try harder. Far some reason though, the non-Trinity Oneness believers are given a free pass. Maybe because they believe God "is" Jesus, it evens trumps their belief.

That make Jesus even more God than the Trinity.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> This hypothetical Jesus, as the antichrist? Do you think he came and convinced the masses that he was God?
> 
> I personally don't view Jesus as God but I just thought the masses just got it wrong on their own. I don't see it as a conspiracy by the antichrist, just a lot of mis-informed believers.
> 
> How does believing in and worshiping Jesus as a fake God have on those individuals personal salvation?


I don't believe in a real antichrist but rather a hypothetical one, a belief.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

ambush80 said:


> Good luck around here with that.


Most know that and have been polite in spite of it to which I am thankful


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> I don't believe in a real antichrist but rather a hypothetical one, a belief.


I think I  understand what you are saying. It isn't an actual persona but a metaphysical belief perhaps.

Still though this belief is in the minds of many. Mislead by indoctrination instead of an actual physical antiChrist.
So, how does it affect the actual salvation of a believer? I mean you've got an individual calling a human God when he isn't. One would think that God wouldn't like that but perhaps he overlooks knowing their weird indoctrination.

Also considering that the Council of Nicea and/or the Church told them to believe this, I'd think God would understand "why" they believe this.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Other than the deaf ear, who is claiming silence?


Just an educated guess, but every non believer or person who doesn't know if a god exists (me as an extremely small example of many). Every believer in one particular god doesn't hear the god of another religion (You  as an extremely small example of many) And not every believer claims to have heard or have had an interaction with the god they do belive in. (My wife as yet another extremely smal example of many).

Are you saying that all the gods you do not worship are talking to you, but you just cannot hear them?


----------



## NCHillbilly

Spotlite said:


> He didn’t create flawed beings. He just didn’t create robots. If he already assigned us to upstairs or downstairs, what’s the purpose of removing the hedge from around Job and allowing temptation?


Then why is the default switch set to "burn in torment forever" even if you lived a good life and were a good person, but didn't call on Jesus?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> I think I  understand what you are saying. It isn't an actual persona but a metaphysical belief perhaps.
> 
> Still though this belief is in the minds of many. Mislead by indoctrination instead of an actual physical antiChrist.
> So, how does it affect the actual salvation of a believer? I mean you've got an individual calling a human God when he isn't. One would think that God wouldn't like that but perhaps he overlooks knowing their weird indoctrination.
> 
> Also considering that the Council of Nicea and/or the Church told them to believe this, I'd think God would understand "why" they believe this.


The foundation of the bible and sin and needing reconciliation was that Eve wanted not to worship God, but rather to be like God, coveting  that worship for herself, now a rival of God, rather than a servant of God. And throughout bible history, those called to serve did not serve but rather had the people serve and worship them, essentially making themselves as gods. Except Jesus... He would never rival God. Although he was made in God's image, [as we all are], he did not consider equality with God as something to be had but rather but made himself  a servant, realizing he were a man made to serve God therefore he humbled himself , even to the point of death.... Therefore God was pleased and exalted him to the highest place giving him a name above all names.  As for what your asking.... about their salvation... what I believe, the church as we know it, trinitarian church, is referred to as the great prostitute due to her having defiled herself with the impostor christ [antichrist] who has hypothetically entered into the temple and claimed to be God


----------



## Israel

It's a curious thing. How a man may go from the unseen and unknown, then to the known and unliked or hated, to the barely tolerated, then to the tolerable, to the acceptable, then to the likeable, to an affection for, and thence to love.

Curious in that way in which creamed spinach once went from a source of gagging and retching to something I now look forward to on the table. And we know it can likewise go the opposite way, almost every two pack a day man started at first with a cough, an unpleasant taste...but for some reason, forced himself past that. Now outwardly it may look very much the same...both start with a revulsion and a manifest rejection. Yet they are very much opposites in my experience and mind.

I know I didn't talk myself, nor any other could (despite my father's protestations), into the liking of creamed spinach. Anymore than I had to at first talk myself into the liking of ice cream when first given. Or whether I merely liked it because "here child you will like this" was said with the first spoonful. Because it sure didn't work with the spinach.

(And I will readily concede to anyone who is inclined to say..."buddy, creamed spinach is not the healthiest way to eat it"...OK...I generally do like my veggies _more_ with some butter, or with some dressing up, even if it be with a little salt and/or pepper.)  But at none do I gag if found without it.

And to this point I would ask anyone who ever smoked, then had a period of cease or attempt at quitting, but found themselves going back (for whatever reason). Didn't that first "returning" drag taste again terrible? Like "wow, how did I ever start, and why don't I remember how bad these things taste?" Away from them for a little while, and they don't taste at all (in your mind) like the last one you remember and had, just as you put them down. Nevertheless, how many of us again fought our way past that, till they again....were necessary, and taste had little or nothing to do with it, at all? They even, eventually stopped tasting...unpleasant.

I am very much as poor at quitting "bad things" as I am at adopting what even my mind would tell me is a better or "good thing." There's something about _that coin _of "good/bad" that always is catching me, making a fool of me, yet seeking for me spend it. But never quite fully..."you can still hold on to being...good" it whispers. LOL...

Even...when I know (in my mind) it is not a currency that has ever done me (or any other) any benefit. Like I said, I am very poor at doing...

I may not eat creamed spinach (as my wife so very very rarely has made it) for years, but now, and every time, I relish it. I do not return to gagging. For whatever reason, I do not return to that four or five year old estate. Nor, do I want to. I like...liking creamed spinach. A lot of effort is used (and a man doesn't know how much he is used of it, till he does) trying to keep things at bay. Liking is so much easier on the soul. The wiser among you understand the fool writing is just making reference to "keeping one's self...intact...to himself". A man can get very very scared when he cannot recognize himself by loss of things that to him, identify himself, as himself. But even "that gagging" can be gotten past.

*Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. *

Kindness and mercy is such a sweet thing to what knows it needs it...it's smoother than butter, sweeter than honey. And...it's not a trick to get us to eat something "bad". But it must also have its way in a man. Jesus tells us quite plainly what happens to the man who, shown it, tastes it, then refuses to show it to another.

A man may not know of how he is _caught_ in simply understanding that _story._ It is so very very simple...need any an explaining? A Discourse? Exposition? I could preach if you'd like. Or need. (Do I hear...gagging?)

And in the hearing and reading of such a _simple story, _each man assumes an identity relative to it. Who he is, who he "would be", how he would see, how he would know...better.

And of the man forgiven a million dollar debt, now refusing the plea of one owing him 10 cents?

How easy to say _of him_...what a _jerk_. What a ...fool..._that man is_. Why doesn't he see? What an "other"...to me. I Will...(to) not be "that man". Until...


Oh!


Now here's a wonderful thing:

Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the _uttermost farthing. _

Even "being turned over to the tormentors" can be a very healthy thing!

For...

There can be a "coming out!" Hallelujah! There is a coming out! It is only required that a two sided coin be fully spent! Striving to keep poverty at bay is the most ridiculous thing...when a man is duped into believing the things he sees of himself...are all he has..._and is_. He measures himself...by himself. There is no one more poor.

I have seen kings forced to walk where beggars ride.


----------



## Spotlite

NCHillbilly said:


> Then why is the default switch set to "burn in torment forever" even if you lived a good life and were a good person, but didn't call on Jesus?


You’re mixing an outcome with a choice. 

I get what you’re saying, but just being good reminds me of the filthy rags or righteous acts ideology. Along those same lines, being good doesn’t make you a Christian and being bad a non Christian. 

I don’t have doctrine for this but if I’m convinced that he’s a “just God”, there’ll be those that chose to not call on him, and there’ll be those that never had a option. I don’t see them being judged the same other than “good outweighs the bad”. 

I believe if you’re given an opportunity, you’re going to give an account for your choice.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Just an educated guess, but every non believer or person who doesn't know if a god exists (me as an extremely small example of many). Every believer in one particular god doesn't hear the god of another religion (You  as an extremely small example of many) And not every believer claims to have heard or have had an interaction with the god they do belive in. (My wife as yet another extremely smal example of many).
> 
> Are you saying that all the gods you do not worship are talking to you, but you just cannot hear them?


My interaction with God is not a vocal one. It’s spiritual only.

I’ve heard folks say they’ve “heard the voice of God”. Many mean through preachers, or others that said things to them that no one else could have known about you other than yourself. Many refer to that as “experiences” also, so that may help clear some of that up. 

I don’t “hear” any in an audible way. I do feel the pulling that reminds me I don’t need to do something, or I do need to do something right now, etc.

I think I’m a little more clear on a previous question you had about which God / god. But that’s what I meant when I said I cant find, relate or interact with another. Everything that I can find and read that agrees with my experience points to the one I believe in.


----------



## Spineyman

NCHillbilly said:


> Then why is the default switch set to "burn in torment forever" even if you lived a good life and were a good person, but didn't call on Jesus?


I have the answer for that. There are none good, no not one and being "good " as you say will not earn you a ticket to heaven. It took the Son of the Living God to die on the cross to take away our sins. The Bible says that we are dead in our tresspasses and sins and sins and the wages of sin is death. It took someone sinless to take the the penalty in His own body the penalty due us for our sins. Being " good is a works mentality, and won' earn you anything towards anything. God made the Game of Life and it is God who offers the only substitute for us to receive eternal life. There is no other way but through Jesus shed blood.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Spineyman said:


> I have the answer for that. There are none good, no not one and being "good " as you say will not earn you a ticket to heaven. It took the Son of the Living God to die on the cross to take away our sins. The Bible says that we are dead in our tresspasses and sins and sins and the wages of sin is death. It took someone sinless to take the the penalty in His own body the penalty due us for our sins. Being " good is a works mentality, and won' earn you anything towards anything. God made the Game of Life and it is God who offers the only substitute for us to receive eternal life. There is no other way but through Jesus shed blood.


You are missing the whole point of my line of thinking. Why does God punish us for being exactly how he created us? He was the one who made us sinful and broken. I would think that a god should be able to make inherently good people instead of inherently bad ones, and then casting them into burning eternal torment for acting exactly how he made them to act.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> My interaction with God is not a vocal one. It’s spiritual only.
> 
> I’ve heard folks say they’ve “heard the voice of God”. Many mean through preachers, or others that said things to them that no one else could have known about you other than yourself. Many refer to that as “experiences” also, so that may help clear some of that up.
> 
> I don’t “hear” any in an audible way. I do feel the pulling that reminds me I don’t need to do something, or I do need to do something right now, etc.
> 
> I think I’m a little more clear on a previous question you had about which God / god. But that’s what I meant when I said I cant find, relate or interact with another. Everything that I can find and read that agrees with my experience points to the one I believe in.


A spiritual hearing is no different to change my reply. 

You relate your experiences to your god because that is the way you are able to make sense of them.

Did you watch the game last night?
Were you rooting for a side?
Did you have a special feeling when one team did something that you liked and another opposite feeling when the other team made just as an impressive play but the play hurt your team?
No difference in what you are saying above. You didn't feel the same about equal happenings, just the ones that please you.


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> I have the answer for that. There are none good, no not one and being "good " as you say will not earn you a ticket to heaven. It took the Son of the Living God to die on the cross to take away our sins. The Bible says that we are dead in our tresspasses and sins and sins and the wages of sin is death. It took someone sinless to take the the penalty in His own body the penalty due us for our sins. Being " good is a works mentality, and won' earn you anything towards anything. God made the Game of Life and it is God who offers the only substitute for us to receive eternal life. There is no other way but through Jesus shed blood.


You/we know of Jesus for a whole three years of his life. How was he for the 30 years prior?


----------



## Artfuldodger

NCHillbilly said:


> You are missing the whole point of my line of thinking. Why does God punish us for being exactly how he created us? He was the one who made us sinful and broken. I would think that a god should be able to make inherently good people instead of inherently bad ones, and then casting them into burning eternal torment for acting exactly how he made them to act.


 The only answer I can find in scripture comes from Paul in Romans 9;

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?"
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I don’t really see it as a contradiction, it’s just saying there are vessels of wrath.......and it says whosever will........and it never indicates all will.
> 
> It never identifies individuals or groups who are those vessels. It’s just known that some will go that path.
> 
> Man has the choice to either accept or turn a deaf ear.
> 
> I think God knows who’s going to do what, but I don’t believe he makes the choice for them.



These are two different issues that always seem to get conflated and I don't know why.  

"God knows who's going to do what" is God's _Omniscience_.  

"God makes a choice for them", or less awkwardly phrased "God designed them to do this" is God's _Omnipotence_ or Sovereignty.  

I was talking about God's omniscience.  You seem to want so badly to place the blame for people going to He11 on the individual and you refuse to accept how the existence of an omniscient (all knowing) being completely negates freewill.  I recommend that you figure out a better way to reconcile these things because right now your inability to see the glaring contradictions may be an indication that more of your beliefs might be logically compromised.  Or just ignore it like most believers do.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> The only answer I can find in scripture comes from Paul in Romans 9;
> 
> One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?"
> But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”



What if I'm a Vessel of Wrath?   I know you don't know me but just imagine I'm one.  I certainly bear the fruits of one in my disbelief.  Would it make you sad if I'm one?


----------



## GeorgiaBob

Lots of different details about faith and God.  My position is a little more limited.

God is.
God created everything.
That means I am made of God stuff.
I am not a robot or clone, I am instead my own person.
I mess up (a lot), God forgives me (made it personal by sending His son).

All the rest is details and guessing!


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> What if I'm a Vessel of Wrath?   I know you don't know me but just imagine I'm one.  I certainly bear the fruits of one in my disbelief.  Would it make you sad if I'm one?


Not really but then again, it wouldn't make me even sadder if I did know you.
It's possible that I'm the only one elected in my family. I don't believe that I am but that possibility doesn't make be any sadder.

Maybe because I don't see my non-elected family members burning for eternity in He11 but rather just in a state of everlasting death.

I would prefer that they have everlasting life but I realize only God can save them, not me or even themselves.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> These are two different issues that always seem to get conflated and I don't know why.
> 
> "God knows who's going to do what" is God's _Omniscience_.
> 
> "God makes a choice for them", or less awkwardly phrased "God designed them to do this" is God's _Omnipotence_ or Sovereignty.
> 
> I was talking about God's omniscience.  You seem to want so badly to place the blame for people going to He11 on the individual and you refuse to accept how the existence of an omniscient (all knowing) being completely negates freewill.  I recommend that you figure out a better way to reconcile these things because right now your inability to see the glaring contradictions may be an indication that more of your beliefs might be logically compromised.  Or just ignore it like most believers do.



I used to try and reason that the way it happened was, God wore blinders so as to give us free will.

Even if Free will were true, God has already seen what will happen. Therefore one can't change what God has already seen. Even if you think you can, God has already seen that you would.


----------



## Artfuldodger

GeorgiaBob said:


> Lots of different details about faith and God.  My position is a little more limited.
> 
> God is.
> God created everything.
> That means I am made of God stuff.
> I am not a robot or clone, I am instead my own person.
> I mess up (a lot), God forgives me (made it personal by sending His son).
> 
> All the rest is details and guessing!



Should a Christian delve deeper than those simple things which you mentioned to be true? Is it OK for one to seek more than that which is simple?
Meaning, can we try and seek the Trinity vs Oneness, or how God called the Native Americans 1,000 year ago? Do we need to spread the Gospel or does God call his people with His Spirit?

Can we accept what the councils of men settled on in Nicea?

If one doesn't want to limit himself to just John 3:16, can we rightfully explore the details if so desired? Maybe just to learn the history in the Old Testament and the genealogy of Jesus. Perhaps just for curiosity's sake.


----------



## WaltL1

Spineyman said:


> I have the answer for that. There are none good, no not one and being "good " as you say will not earn you a ticket to heaven. It took the Son of the Living God to die on the cross to take away our sins. The Bible says that we are dead in our tresspasses and sins and sins and the wages of sin is death. It took someone sinless to take the the penalty in His own body the penalty due us for our sins. Being " good is a works mentality, and won' earn you anything towards anything. God made the Game of Life and it is God who offers the only substitute for us to receive eternal life. There is no other way but through Jesus shed blood.





> Being " good is a works mentality, and won' earn you anything towards anything


Yet Christians are provided with "do's and don't do's" and positive or negative reward or punishment.
That equates to good gets you this and bad gets you that.
Gee I wonder where a "works mentality" might come from.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> These are two different issues that always seem to get conflated and I don't know why.
> 
> "God knows who's going to do what" is God's _Omniscience_.
> 
> "God makes a choice for them", or less awkwardly phrased "God designed them to do this" is God's _Omnipotence_ or Sovereignty.
> 
> I was talking about God's omniscience.  You seem to want so badly to place the blame for people going to He11 on the individual and you refuse to accept how the existence of an omniscient (all knowing) being completely negates freewill.  I recommend that you figure out a better way to reconcile these things because right now your inability to see the glaring contradictions may be an indication that more of your beliefs might be logically compromised.  Or just ignore it like most believers do.



I respectfully ask you to read your post several times and think about it.

All knowing “omniscience” is not and never will be deciding for us “predestined” and in no way negates anything.

If you don’t believe man has a choice, how could a man turn a deaf ear? I don’t really like labels such as free will and predestined but that’s what is mostly used here.

Simply put, I believe a man has a choice in the matter to either accept it or not.

Edited to add: why am I striving daily? Why can’t I just accept that I’m saved,  predestined, no worries......I got a ticket.

Or why do folks even bother to try? Just live with no concerns, doesn’t matter because you either got a ticket or you don’t. Now that’s what is being ignored when trying to prove that an individual man has no choice.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> A spiritual hearing is no different to change my reply.
> 
> You relate your experiences to your god because that is the way you are able to make sense of them.
> 
> Did you watch the game last night?
> Were you rooting for a side?
> Did you have a special feeling when one team did something that you liked and another opposite feeling when the other team made just as an impressive play but the play hurt your team?
> No difference in what you are saying above. You didn't feel the same about equal happenings, just the ones that please you.



I did, I’m a GA boy but an AL fan.....

That being said, no those feelings are carnal, not spiritual and not even close to an experience.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I respectfully ask you to read your post several times and think about it.
> 
> All knowing “omniscience” is not and never will be deciding for us “predestined” and in no way negates anything.
> 
> If you don’t believe man has a choice, how could a man turn a deaf ear? I don’t really like labels such as free will and predestined but that’s what is mostly used here.
> 
> Simply put, I believe a man has a choice in the matter to either accept it or not.



I perfectly outlined the difference between omniscience and omnipotence.  I don't know how you're still conflating the two.

_"God knows who's going to do what" is God's Omniscience._

_"God makes a choice for them", or less awkwardly phrased "God designed them to do this" is God's Omnipotence or Sovereignty. _



Let's try this.  You tell me how freewill can exist if there's an omniscient being.  Show me how you can make choices if what you're gonna do is already known.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> I perfectly outlined the difference between omniscience and omnipotence.  I don't know how you're still conflating the two.
> 
> _"God knows who's going to do what" is God's Omniscience._
> 
> _"God makes a choice for them", or less awkwardly phrased "God designed them to do this" is God's Omnipotence or Sovereignty. _
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this.  You tell me how freewill can exist if there's an omniscient being.  Show me how you can make choices if what you're gonna do is already known.


One is all knowing, the other is all power. Which one has what to do with deciding something for me?

I know what my son is going to do because I know him like a book. Are you saying because I know that, he had no choice?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I did, I’m a GA boy but an AL fan.....
> 
> That being said, no those feelings are carnal, not spiritual and not even close to an experience.


Carnal example of what goes on spiritually all across the world.

Replace Teams with Gods and the fans get the same experience albeit on different sides.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> One is all knowing, the other is all power. Which one has what to do with deciding something for me?
> 
> I know what my son is going to do because I know him like a book. Are you saying because I know that, he had no choice?


You have no idea what he is doing, thinking, picturing in his mind etc etc 24/7. You can make a guess based off of what is more likely than not he will donin a certain situation based off of your interaction with him, but you don't know when he will stand up to grab a snack..you may have a very good idea that when he stands up and heads to the kitchen...he is going for a snack..


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Carnal example of what goes on spiritually all across the world.
> 
> Replace Teams with Gods and the fans get the same experience albeit on different sides.


Understood and see your point. 

A good question is, if another god is wanting us to know anything about him, why isn’t he doing anything about it?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You have no idea what he is doing, thinking, picturing in his mind etc etc 24/7. You can make a guess based off of what is more likely than not he will donin a certain situation based off of your interaction with him, but you don't know when he will stand up to grab a snack..you may have a very good idea that when he stands up and heads to the kitchen...he is going for a snack..


True, and it was a simple analogy to point out that knowing doesn’t mean deciding.

For me, I think individual predestination conflicts with the Great Commission.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> One is all knowing, the other is all power. Which one has what to do with deciding something for me?
> 
> I know what my son is going to do because I know him like a book. Are you saying because I know that, he had no choice?


I struggle with this one.
I understand the argument Ambush is making. If God knows what you are going to do then you cant choose to do anything else or God would be wrong.
I also see your point. Just because God knows what you are going to do doesn't mean he forced you to do it.
For whatever reason I just cant think this one through all the way to the end.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I struggle with this one.
> I understand the argument Ambush is making. If God knows what you are going to do then you cant choose to do anything else or God would be wrong.
> I also see your point. Just because God knows what you are going to do doesn't mean he forced you to do it.
> For whatever reason I just cant think this one through all the way to the end.


I can see being influenced to make a decision and I believe we are, but I believe we can still decide. As with the example of my son, I can influence him, but at the end of the day, he’s made decisions.

Maybe “influence” is the answer?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Understood and see your point.
> 
> A good question is, if another god is wanting us to know anything about him, why isn’t he doing anything about it?


There is a good possibility that there are no gods that care, want, know, think, create, destroy, do anything or even exist.
Anything beyond that is an individuals interpretation or guess.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I struggle with this one.
> I understand the argument Ambush is making. If God knows what you are going to do then you cant choose to do anything else or God would be wrong.
> I also see your point. Just because God knows what you are going to do doesn't mean he forced you to do it.
> For whatever reason I just cant think this one through all the way to the end.


A god of that magnitude with those capabilities would also see the future and see the outcome or choice before it happens. Humans wouldn't.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Agree. I can see being influenced to make a decision and I believe we are, but I believe we can still decide. As with the example of my son, I can influence him, but at the end of the day, he’s made decisions.


Not sure if this is going to make sense but -
In your example, I agree with you 100%
BUT
You are not omni-everything. So even though you know him like a book there is still the chance he could prove you wrong. He could choose to do something that is totally unlike him.
However in God's case, he supposedly cant be proven wrong.
So by him "knowing it" doesn't that "force" you or give you no other choice?
If God wasn't supposedly omni-everything, I would be making the same argument you are.. but since he's supposedly omni-everything...… that's what complicates it in my mind.
Is God knowing it the same as if God made you do it?
That's the part I haven't figured out yet.


----------



## WaltL1

Bullet I think we just said the same thing but I was alot more long winded


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> A god of that magnitude with those capabilities would also see the future and see the outcome or choice before it happens. Humans wouldn't.


That is true. He told Peter he’d deny him 3 times. I believe he knows, but I don’t believe Peter was chosen or it was assigned specifically to him. 

Again, just my thoughts on why I believe that way. I realize I could be totally wrong.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> A god of that magnitude with those capabilities would also see the future and see the outcome or choice before it happens. Humans wouldn't.


What meaning would "future" hold to such...unless he himself is subject to time...which, if being subject to something, would mean he is not god.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure if this is going to make sense but -
> In your example, I agree with you 100%
> BUT
> You are not omni-everything. So even though you know him like a book there is still the chance he could prove you wrong. He could choose to do something that is totally unlike him.
> However in God's case, he supposedly cant be proven wrong.
> So by him "knowing it" doesn't that "force" you or give you no other choice?
> If God wasn't supposedly omni-everything, I would be making the same argument you are.. but since he's supposedly omni-everything...… that's what complicates it in my mind.
> Is God knowing it the same as if God made you do it?
> That's the part I haven't figured out yet.





WaltL1 said:


> Is God knowing it the same as if God made you do it?
> .


I’m saying no. I just can’t get away from whosoever will.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> That is true. He told Peter he’d deny him 3 times. I believe he knows, but I don’t believe Peter was chosen or it was assigned specifically to him.
> 
> Again, just my thoughts on why I believe that way. I realize I could be totally wrong.


 
Since God knew what Peter was going to do, even if it was free will, how could Peter do anything else?
Likewise if God knew before creation what individuals, using free will, were going to choose him, how could the others choose God now? God has already seen that they wouldn't.

So even if God didn't choose Jacob over Esau, he already looked ahead and _____, wait this free will and God's foreknowledge won't work for this example. Why? Because God chose Jacob before neither could perform any works. 
God didn't look ahead and choose Jacob with the foreknowledge that Jacob would do good works. Why? Because Paul told us that wasn't how God operates.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> That is true. He told Peter he’d deny him 3 times. I believe he knows, but I don’t believe Peter was chosen or it was assigned specifically to him.
> 
> Again, just my thoughts on why I believe that way. I realize I could be totally wrong.


I see what you are saying but do you see these types of examples of God's abilities exist nowhere outside of scripture?
It is along the lines of using Darth Vader quotes from a script as examples of Darth's existence and powers....soley because it says so right here, but in the real world where an example would mean something...there is nothing.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> What meaning would "future" hold to such...unless he himself is subject to time...which, if being subject to something, would mean he is not god.


While "future" may have no meaning to God himself, I think Christianity presents God as having an understanding of the future as man would understand it.
By saving Noah and fam, was God not viewing a "new" future?
Doesn't God give one the opportunity to repent in the future?
Even if God created one destined for he11, when do you get sent there? In the future.
Do I or Ambush or Bullet not have the opportunity to see the error of our ways in the future?
See where I am going with this?
Future may not apply to God himself, it appears that he applies "future" to us?
Just thinking out loud...….


----------



## Artfuldodger

If God chose a Remnant from Israel and hardened the rest until the full number of Gentiles comes in? If Israel is still blinded to this day?

Won't God give all those dead Jews he blinded a choice some time in the future before they go to He11?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> What meaning would "future" hold to such...unless he himself is subject to time...which, if being subject to something, would mean he is not god.


You don't need to make my case for me!
You can try to use semantics to hope a technicality changes something, but it doesn't.  If there is a god of the magnitude as described in the bible then he would still see/know what a person does.

If this god isn't subject to time as you claim and if he is he wouldn't be god...why are the first three words in "his" book "In The Beginning"???


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> True, and it was a simple analogy to point out that knowing doesn’t mean deciding.
> 
> For me, I think individual predestination conflicts with the Great Commission.



Have you ever considered the Great commission was add later? Originally Christians were baptized in the name of Jesus only.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> You don't need to make my case for me!
> You can try to use semantics to hope a technicality changes something, but it doesn't.  If there is a god of the magnitude as described in the bible then he would still see/know what a person does.
> 
> If this god isn't subject to time as you claim and if he is he wouldn't be god...why are the first three words in "his" book "In The Beginning"???


Good example.
That signifies an awareness of past, present and future.
"written" in the present, acknowledging the past(beginning) and the present is the future of the past.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Good example.
> That signifies an awareness of past, present and future.
> "written" in the present, acknowledging the past(beginning) and the present is the future of the past.


Beginning of WHAT ? That's what this Willis is talking about!!


----------



## Artfuldodger

If God has no beginning or end, how can Jesus be the Alpha and Omega? Maybe that just applies to time.


----------



## WaltL1

*Jeremiah 29:11* 11For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.


----------



## Spineyman

Artfuldodger said:


> If God has no beginning or end, how can Jesus be the Alpha and Omega? Maybe that just applies to time.


* John 1  *

1* In the beginning was the Word*, and the *Word was with God*, and the *Word was God. * 2 *He was in the beginning with God.*  3 *All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.*  4 *In Him was life*, and the *life was the light of men.*  5 And the* light shines in the darkness*, and the *darkness did not comprehend it.*

* John 1:14-16 *

14 And the *Word became flesh and dwelt among us*, and we *beheld His glory,* the *glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.*


15 John bore *witness of Him *and cried out, saying, “This was *He of whom I said, *‘*He who comes after me is* *preferred before me, for He was before me.’ ”*


16 And of* His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. *

Jesus was from the beginning and was incarnate in time when He dwelt among us, or tabernacled.


----------



## Spineyman

bullethead said:


> You/we know of Jesus for a whole three years of his life. How was he for the 30 years prior?


Although sketchy, we know far more about Him than just His ministerial years you mentioned.


----------



## Spineyman

NCHillbilly said:


> You are missing the whole point of my line of thinking. Why does God punish us for being exactly how he created us? He was the one who made us sinful and broken. I would think that a god should be able to make inherently good people instead of inherently bad ones, and then casting them into burning eternal torment for acting exactly how he made them to act.


I am not missing your point at all, and I am pretty sure you have in this great land of ours heard God's call.

* Hebrews 3:15 *
15 while it is said:

“Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”


If not, you are hearing it now.

* Matthew 7:7-11  *

7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.  8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.  9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?  10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent?  11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 

* Revelation 3:20  *
20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me

So not only does He hold us accountable, He also provides a way back to God the Father through His Son.


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> Although sketchy, we know far more about Him than just His ministerial years you mentioned.


Do tell.


----------



## Spineyman

bullethead said:


> Do tell.


* Luke 2:41-52  *

41 His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.  42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast.  43 When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know _it;_  44 but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among _their_ relatives and acquaintances.  45 So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him.  46 Now so it was _that_ after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.  47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.  48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”


49 And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”  50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.


51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but His mother kept all these things in her heart.  52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> * Luke 2:41-52  *
> 
> 41 His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.  42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast.  43 When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know _it;_  44 but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among _their_ relatives and acquaintances.  45 So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him.  46 Now so it was _that_ after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.  47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.  48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”
> 
> 
> 49 And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”  50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.
> 
> 
> 51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but His mother kept all these things in her heart.  52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.


Oh, lolol, ok. Far more.

Spiney, THE SON OF GOD, in the flesh on earth for 33 years and THAT is it?
Just what is in the bible?
I am sorry, forgive me, but I am not at all impressed and it says nothing of what Jesus did or didnt do for 30 years. Could have been a terror for all we know. I mean he did ditch his parents. Very deceiving and dishonest.


----------



## Spineyman

Artfuldodger said:


> If God chose a Remnant from Israel and hardened the rest until the full number of Gentiles comes in?* If Israel is still blinded to this day?*
> 
> Won't God give all those dead Jews he blinded a choice some time in the future before they go to He11?


Are they following His Son Jesus Christ?


----------



## Spineyman

bullethead said:


> Oh, lolol, ok. Far more.
> 
> Spiney, THE SON OF GOD, in the flesh on earth for 33 years and THAT is it?
> Just what is in the bible?
> I am sorry, forgive me, but I am not at all impressed and it says nothing of what Jesus did or didnt do for 30 years. Could have been a terror for all we know.


Then you obviously did not read verse 52 I recorded for you! The Bible also records that He was without sin! That is all you need to know.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spineyman said:


> * John 1  *
> 
> 1* In the beginning was the Word*, and the *Word was with God*, and the *Word was God. * 2 *He was in the beginning with God.*  3 *All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.*  4 *In Him was life*, and the *life was the light of men.*  5 And the* light shines in the darkness*, and the *darkness did not comprehend it.*
> 
> * John 1:14-16 *
> 
> 14 And the *Word became flesh and dwelt among us*, and we *beheld His glory,* the *glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.*
> 
> 
> 15 John bore *witness of Him *and cried out, saying, “This was *He of whom I said, *‘*He who comes after me is* *preferred before me, for He was before me.’ ”*
> 
> 
> 16 And of* His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. *
> 
> Jesus was from the beginning and was incarnate in time when He dwelt among us, or tabernacled.



I would agree but that makes him eternal with no beginning or end. Yet he said he was the beginning and the end. It may be in reference to time. Maybe a reference to our salvation.


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> Then you obviously did not read verse 52 I recorded for you! The Bible also records that He was without sin! That is all you need to know.


I read it. I do not for a split second think it is accurate or believable. 

Who wrote it that was there with a 12yr old Jesus who witnessed his conversations? Luke? C'mon Spiney.

"It's true because the bible says so" is the Original "it's true because I saw it on the internet".


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spineyman said:


> Are they following His Son Jesus Christ?



How could they if their hearts were hardened? If God chose a remnant by grace and not works, by what method did he harden the rest?

So, no they are not following Jesus, many of the hardend Jews are physically dead. Even when physically alive, how could they follow Jesus if they were spiritually dead?  The dead can't make decisions.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spineyman said:


> I am not missing your point at all, and I am pretty sure you have in this great land of ours heard God's call.
> 
> * Hebrews 3:15 *
> 15 while it is said:
> 
> “Today, if you will hear His voice,
> Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”
> 
> 
> If not, you are hearing it now.
> 
> * Matthew 7:7-11  *
> 
> 7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.  8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.  9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?  10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent?  11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!
> 
> * Revelation 3:20  *
> 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me
> 
> So not only does He hold us accountable, He also provides a way back to God the Father through His Son.



They are hearing but they can't understand. They are dead. The Spirit would have to give them life.

"Dead men don't do anything."

You gave them a general calling, they must receive an effectual calling.


----------



## Spineyman

bullethead said:


> I read it. I do not for a split second think it is accurate or believable.
> 
> Who wrote it that was there with a 12yr old Jesus who witnessed his conversations? Luke? C'mon Spiney.
> 
> "It's true because the bible says so" is the Original "it's true because I saw it on the internet".


Then you don't believe that God's Word is infallible. That sir is something you have to work out with Jesus yourself. I personally believe it is in it's entirety the whole truth recorded for all of mankind. It is the manual of life. Giving instruction to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.


----------



## Spineyman

Artfuldodger said:


> They are hearing but they can't understand. They are dead. The Spirit would have to give them life.
> 
> "Dead men don't do anything."
> 
> You gave them a general calling, they must receive an effectual calling.


How can a man hear without a preacher. You first hear the Word of God and the Spirit either quickens it or He doesn't. But he can not say he didn't hear!


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> Then you don't believe that God's Word is infallible. That sir is something you have to work out with Jesus yourself. I personally believe it is in it's entirety the whole truth recorded for all of mankind. It is the manual of life. Giving instruction to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.


I don't believe it is God's words whatsoever, at all, not even once.


----------



## Spineyman

Guys I would love to talk about this all night long but work is early and bed is calling. Continue to seek the Lord while He can be found! Good night and may God bless the writing of His word!


----------



## Spineyman

bullethead said:


> I don't believe it is God's words whatsoever, at all, not even once.


Then I would say you have a far more serious problem than even demons. Because they believe and shutter! I can not help you out, only the Spirit of the Living God can open blinded eyes.


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> Then I would say you have a far more serious problem than even demons. Because they believe and shutter! I can not help you out, only the Spirit of the Living God can open blinded eyes.


I appreciate your passion but all these things you claim happen nowhere but within the pages of a book that was written over 1500 years and assembled to suit.
Demons? Honestly? 

Hard to believe an all powerful god who supposedly loves us allows the boogymen to exist. But what would believers be without their excuses?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I see what you are saying but do you see these types of examples of God's abilities exist nowhere outside of scripture?
> It is along the lines of using Darth Vader quotes from a script as examples of Darth's existence and powers....soley because it says so right here, but in the real world where an example would mean something...there is nothing.


Im following y’all on this and can see it the way y’all view it as well.

I’m like Walt on this, it’s hard to make it make sense.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Im following y’all on this and can see it the way y’all view it as well.
> 
> I’m like Walt on this, it’s hard to make it make sense.


That stuff always bothered me.
I mean how could the Ultimate truth and a being who is supposedly everywhere be impossible to find outside of scripture?
There shouldn't be differences of opinion or excuses or interpretations of what absolutely IS. Unless, it realky ISN'T.


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> Have you ever considered the Great commission was add later? Originally Christians were baptized in the name of Jesus only.


Yes I can see that. I can be comfortable thinking that the men of old (before the cross) was more predestined than men after the cross. If that makes sense??


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> That stuff always bothered me.
> I mean how could the Ultimate truth and a being who is supposedly everywhere be impossible to find outside of scripture?
> There shouldn't be differences of opinion or excuses or interpretations of what absolutely IS. Unless, it realky ISN'T.


I don’t think it’s so much as the not finding him for some as it is the not finding him on their circumstances.

Great example tonight at our church. Lady was a professed agnostic and admitted she may even be atheist.

She’s visited a few times out of obligation to our granddaughter. Out of the blue tonight she found her way to the alter. After church her statement was she always demanded that God reveal himself to her in certain ways. Like “if you’re real, do this”.

She said tonight she actually prayed and asked God if he’s real, help her find her way. Her own words was she had to get self out of the way.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> Yes I can see that. I can be comfortable thinking that the men of old (before the cross) was more predestined than men after the cross. If that makes sense??



Some see it as all being predestined up until the end of God's plan. God needed to predestine the events to make sure Jesus was killed and the salvation would be offered to the Gentiles.
He had to assure the genealogy of Jesus. That took electing Jacob.

To make sure Jesus was killed on a cross took the hardening of Israel. Nothing was left up to chance. Perhaps even the mission of Judas.

The mission of Christ was so important to God that every minute detail of his plan was his idea.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I don’t think it’s so much as the not finding him for some as it is the not finding him on their circumstances.
> 
> Great example tonight at our church. Lady was a professed agnostic and admitted she may even be atheist.
> 
> She’s visited a few times out of obligation to our granddaughter. Out of the blue tonight she found her way to the alter. After church her statement was she always demanded that God reveal himself to her in certain ways. Like “if you’re real, do this”.
> 
> She said tonight she actually prayed and asked God if he’s real, help her find her way. Her own words was she had to get self out of the way.


Again, whatever individuals interpret is a personal claim.
The sky never parts and a loud booming voice lets everyone know whos who and whats what.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spineyman said:


> How can a man hear without a preacher. You first hear the Word of God and the Spirit either quickens it or He doesn't. But he can not say he didn't hear!


Then salvation is based on the works of man. He must first hear. Do you really think it's important to God that every person in the whole world hears from a man?
Realizing that every man is guilty, are they all entitled to a pardon?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Again, whatever individuals interpret is a personal claim.
> The sky never parts and a loud booming voice lets everyone know whos who and whats what.


I can’t disagree here.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Beginning of WHAT ? That's what this Willis is talking about!!



Beginning of creation, or his plan for mankind. I’ve never heard this described as the beginning of God.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Beginning of creation, or his plan for mankind. I’ve never heard this described as the beginning of God.


I don't anyone who said it is the beginning of god. I am talking about Time. The bible references past, present and future many times. It mentions beginning and end.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> One is all knowing, the other is all power. Which one has what to do with deciding something for me?
> 
> I know what my son is going to do because I know him like a book. Are you saying because I know that, he had no choice?



Deciding something for you would fall under Omnipotent,  all powerful, sovereign.

All knowing would negate your freewill but isn't making you do anything.  It just knows what you're gonna do.  There's no real choice, it just looks and feels like one.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Deciding something for you would fall under Omnipotent,  all powerful, sovereign.
> 
> All knowing would negate your freewill but isn't making you do anything.  It just knows what you're gonna do.  There's no real choice, it just looks and feels like one.


Having  all power doesn’t require him or indicate that he makes a choice for you. He “could”, but it defeats the purpose of having willing vessels. 

And, it defeats the purpose of the Great Commission, it “negates” the process of “IF” any man will........

I can see that happening before the cross to ensure his plan worked, I don’t see it happening after the cross.


----------



## Israel

Beginning and end for what He alone ordains beginning and end. God is absolutely free to assign, in himself, beginning and end to any _thing._ His will is unhindered. He owes nothing, is under compulsion of nothing, knows not obligation to any form or substance of any _thing. _He is not merely _over all,_ as some might think there is an underness capable of and sustaining itself apart, or _outside of Him._ He doesn't exist _in eternity, _eternity is, as he allows _in Him. _All _things_ in Him. He cannot be held to account to any_ thing._

Will you_ accuse _Him? Before what? Find fault in Him? Before whom? Will you bring thoughts and words _allowed_ to you, to me, to any man...to do anything to impugn Him? God knows. Not _will _know, not _can_ know, not is _even able _to know_. _God_...knows._

There is _no knowing _at all but in Him.

A man can receive nothing except it be given him from above. Yes, to man God has ordained _an order _in Himself. And this He reveals through Jesus Christ, ordained as _head of every man. All men, _in all _time, always_ and _everywhere_ where time and place is _allowed to be._ If a man is unable to see the restraint which is the grace of God exercised _toward man_ in Jesus Christ, neither will he know anything of what is in Jesus Christ. A man, un-needing of time stepped into it. By ordaining of Him who exercises all things according to the council of His own will.

Make good use of time as it is allowed...for it is allowed, for man to repent. One man didn't need it, time nor repentance, but appeared in it.

He is the head of every man.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I don't anyone who said it is the beginning of god. I am talking about Time. The bible references past, present and future many times. It mentions beginning and end.


I’m sort of there with time in the essence of recognition of a “day” which is tied to creation. Before that was void and without form.


----------



## WaltL1

Spineyman said:


> * Luke 2:41-52  *
> 
> 41 His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.  42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast.  43 When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know _it;_  44 but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among _their_ relatives and acquaintances.  45 So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him.  46 Now so it was _that_ after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.  47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.  48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”
> 
> 
> 49 And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”  50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.
> 
> 
> 51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but His mother kept all these things in her heart.  52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.


41 - 51 all take place within a very short period of time while Jesus was 12 years old. 52 says after that he got smarter and more accepted.
Yeah that's a wealth of knowledge.
Pick any modern day celebrity. Basically their entire life history is available to you.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Beginning and end for what He alone ordains beginning and end. God is absolutely free to assign, in himself, beginning and end to any _thing._ His will is unhindered. He owes nothing, is under compulsion of nothing, knows not obligation to any form or substance of any _thing. _He is not merely _over all,_ as some might think there is an underness capable of and sustaining itself apart, or _outside of Him._ He doesn't exist _in eternity, _eternity is, as he allows _in Him. _All _things_ in Him. He cannot be held to account to any_ thing._
> 
> Will you_ accuse _Him? Before what? Find fault in Him? Before whom? Will you bring thoughts and words _allowed_ to you, to me, to any man...to do anything to impugn Him? God knows. Not _will _know, not _can_ know, not is _even able _to know_. _God_...knows._
> 
> There is _no knowing _at all but in Him.
> 
> A man can receive nothing except it be given him from above. Yes, to man God has ordained _an order _in Himself. And this He reveals through Jesus Christ, ordained as _head of every man. All men, _in all _time, always_ and _everywhere_ where time and place is _allowed to be._ If a man is unable to see the restraint which is the grace of God exercised _toward man_ in Jesus Christ, neither will he know anything of what is in Jesus Christ. A man, un-needing of time stepped into it. By ordaining of Him who exercises all things according to the council of His own will.
> 
> Make good use of time as it is allowed...for it is allowed, for man to repent. One man didn't need it, time nor repentance, but appeared in it.
> 
> He is the head of every man.


Another romantic novel made up of assertions and claims which have absolutely no truth to them.
Just a believer telling us what his version of a god needs to be in order for it to make sense for him.

But according to the stories in the bible, the main character absolutely does use Time as references,  descriptions and ultimatums no matter what you say otherwise to pretend this stuff is anything but man made gobbledygook trying to sound like a god.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I’m sort of there with time in the essence of recognition of a “day” which is tied to creation. Before that was void and without form.


You, I, and most definitely whoever wrote that line 5000 something years ago have absolutely no idea what was going on one second before anything.
In fact, you and I do know more about what took place and approximately when it took place 14+Billion years ago than the author who penned the  "Before that...." stuff.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> 41 - 51 all take place within a very short period of time while Jesus was 12 years old. 52 says after that he got smarter and more accepted.
> Yeah that's a wealth of knowledge.
> Pick any modern day celebrity. Basically their entire life history is available to you.


He ditches his parents for three days at age 12. Good kid. And his parents are so sharp that they don't even know he is gone on the walk home.  It isn't like Little J was sitting in a different row on the bus and they overlooked him. How do you forget a kid and better yet, WHO accepts such an excuse when reading it????

3 days later..."Jesus hasnt touched his humus in three days.....Jesus?..Jesus?"
Ok, lets all get our sandals on and backtrack to see where we lost him.

I mean really believers????


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> He ditches his parents for three days at age 12. Good kid. And his parents are so sharp that they don't even know he is gone on the walk home.  It isn't like Little J was sitting in a different row on the bus and they overlooked him. How do you forget a kid and better yet, WHO accepts such an excuse when reading it????
> 
> 3 days later..."Jesus hasnt touched his humus in three days.....Jesus?..Jesus?"
> Ok, lets all get our sandals on and backtrack to see where we lost him.
> 
> I mean really believers????


"Little J" 
These days Child Protective Services would be all over Jesus's parents.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> "Little J"
> These days Child Protective Services would be all over Jesus's parents.


Yeah, TWICE!!!  Once for not noticing their kid was missing for three days and again for the beating he got for ditching them in the first place.


----------



## j_seph

WaltL1 said:


> 41 - 51 all take place within a very short period of time while Jesus was 12 years old. 52 says after that he got smarter and more accepted.
> Yeah that's a wealth of knowledge.
> Pick any modern day celebrity. Basically their entire life history is available to you.


What a bout those missing years after that point?


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> What a bout those missing years after that point?


You tell us, what happened during those years? You are making our point for us.
What very little is written in scripture about the ENTIRE life of thr supposed Son of the Creator of the Universe is a Sin in itself.
We have men in here arguing that Jesus was sinless. And except for a few useless mentions, NOBODY knows what Jesus did or did not do for 30 years or what Jesus did or did not do for the three years he gets the attention for. NOBODY followed him around and recorded anything he did. At BEST it was written about DECADES after.
Imagine 40 then 50, then 60, then 70years after you are dead, someone you didn't know writing your story. How accurate vs how embellished do you think it will be? Imagine them writing about your three best years and in just a quick mention they throw in a snippet of 12 year old  j_seph. Big whoop. Think of all the things you've done as a small boy and teenager and young man up into your 20s. Would you want some of those things to make the cut?
And NOTHING of these "wonderful" last three years of his life things are recorded ANYWHERE outside of the bible. He just wasn't that special anywhere else.

During that time the world was going through a literary explosion. EVERY culture was writing about their gods and history. Among Jesus's own people there were many writings that contradicted each other. It is not coincidence that ONLY the favorable thing's that fit the narrative was to make the cut.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> What a bout those missing years after that point?


Spiney said -


> Although sketchy, we know far more about Him than just His ministerial years you mentioned.


And gave Luke 41 - 52 as his example.
Which covers a very short period of time.
That's hardly knowing "far more about him than just ministerial years".


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Spiney said -
> 
> And gave Luke 41 - 52 as his example.
> Which covers a very short period of time.
> That's hardly knowing "far more about him than just ministerial years".


Yes! And the example that Spiney gives is of a 12 year old boy that purposely ditched his parents for three days. 
And his parents didn't realize it for three days.
Are those examples supposed to be beneficial to the character of either???


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> 41 - 51 all take place within a very short period of time while Jesus was 12 years old. 52 says after that he got smarter and more accepted.
> Yeah that's a wealth of knowledge.
> Pick any modern day celebrity. Basically their entire life history is available to you.



I see your point, but honestly, who knew  he would be a “celebrity” until they “knew” who he was? And, what is our history of data logging individuals for their entire life history?


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Having  all power doesn’t require him or indicate that he makes a choice for you. He “could”, but it defeats the purpose of having willing vessels.
> 
> And, it defeats the purpose of the Great Commission, it “negates” the process of “IF” any man will........
> 
> I can see that happening before the cross to ensure his plan worked, I don’t see it happening after the cross.



Wow.

This is really interesting how communication can fail.  I'll write this big only to emphasize it one last time.

All knowing doesn't mean all powerful.  They're different things. 

But omniscience negates freewill.  Just focus on omniscience.  Omniscience only, Just ALL KNOWING (not all powerful).  With OMNISCIENCE in mind, tell me how freewill can exist at the same time.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Beginning and end for what He alone ordains beginning and end. God is absolutely free to assign, in himself, beginning and end to any _thing._ His will is unhindered. He owes nothing, is under compulsion of nothing, knows not obligation to any form or substance of any _thing. _He is not merely _over all,_ as some might think there is an underness capable of and sustaining itself apart, or _outside of Him._ He doesn't exist _in eternity, _eternity is, as he allows _in Him. _All _things_ in Him. He cannot be held to account to any_ thing._
> 
> Will you_ accuse _Him? Before what? Find fault in Him? Before whom? Will you bring thoughts and words _allowed_ to you, to me, to any man...to do anything to impugn Him? God knows. Not _will _know, not _can_ know, not is _even able _to know_. _God_...knows._
> 
> There is _no knowing _at all but in Him.
> 
> A man can receive nothing except it be given him from above. Yes, to man God has ordained _an order _in Himself. And this He reveals through Jesus Christ, ordained as _head of every man. All men, _in all _time, always_ and _everywhere_ where time and place is _allowed to be._ If a man is unable to see the restraint which is the grace of God exercised _toward man_ in Jesus Christ, neither will he know anything of what is in Jesus Christ. A man, un-needing of time stepped into it. By ordaining of Him who exercises all things according to the council of His own will.
> 
> Make good use of time as it is allowed...for it is allowed, for man to repent. One man didn't need it, time nor repentance, but appeared in it.
> 
> He is the head of every man.




Is it fried chicken time?  Lemme guess, you can preach all day.

That's not discussion.  That's not an argument.  That's a 400 word declaration.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I see your point, but honestly, who knew  he would be a “celebrity” until they “knew” who he was? And, what is our history of data logging individuals for their entire life history?



Good point.  But historians often research and write about someone's childhood if they become world influencing adults.  Perhaps Jesus' childhood was wholly unremarkable.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Wow.
> 
> This is really interesting how communication can fail.  I'll write this big only to emphasize it one last time.
> 
> All knowing doesn't mean all powerful.  They're different things.
> 
> But omniscience negates freewill.  Just focus on omniscience.  Omniscience only, Just ALL KNOWING (not all powerful).  With OMNISCIENCE in mind, tell me how freewill can exist at the same time.


Lol. Ok. You’re missing the “having” and “using”

I know the difference in the two. What I’m saying is just because he has all power doesn’t mean power is used to make the choice for you. I have the power to force my son to do things, but it’s useless and meaningless to do that.

Remember the rich guy with the hot chick?? Yea that’s some real love for the right reason.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I see your point, but honestly, who knew  he would be a “celebrity” until they “knew” who he was? And, what is our history of data logging individuals for their entire life history?


Are you saying that the Son of God is just an ordinary Joe his entire life?

I mean, I get what you are saying and with average humans I'd agree. But we are talking Son of God here.
Special since birth right?


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Lol. Ok. You’re missing the “having” and “using”
> 
> I know the difference in the two. What I’m saying is just because he has all power doesn’t mean power is used to make the choice for you. I have the power to force my son to do things, but it’s useless and meaningless to do that.
> 
> Remember the rich guy with the hot chick?? Yea that’s some real love for the right reason.



Wow.  

You did it again.  You totally ignored omniscience and started talking about omnipotence. Do you see that you did that.  

Try sticking with omniscience.  It's fun.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Lol. Ok. You’re missing the “having” and “using”
> 
> I know the difference in the two. What I’m saying is just because he has all power doesn’t mean power is used to make the choice for you. I have the power to force my son to do things, but it’s useless and meaningless to do that.
> 
> Remember the rich guy with the hot chick?? Yea that’s some real love for the right reason.




See this right here in giant red letters?  I'm not talking about this.  I'm talking about being omniscient.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Are you saying that the Son of God is just an ordinary Joe his entire life?
> 
> I mean, I get what you are saying and with average humans I'd agree. But we are talking Son of God here.
> Special since birth right?


No, I’m saying the born in a manger story lines up that he was viewed as an ordinary Joe. Mary and Joseph knew, but there’s no indication that anyone believed them.  Remember, he told Mary “my hour is not yet”


----------



## ambush80

Let's make up a Marvel superhero.  His name is Omniscience.  His superpower is that he can see the past and future through all time.  You and he are walking down the road together and you pass an ice cream stand.  He knows what flavor you're about to choose.  THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE CHOOSES FOR YOU.  But are you actually making a choice if what you pick will only be what he has foreseen?


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Wow.
> 
> You did it again.  You totally ignored omniscience and started talking about omnipotence. Do you see that you did that.
> 
> Try sticking with omniscience.  It's fun.


I think you’re over analyzing terminology. 

I know what the two are. Neither indicates a negate of free will. Simply explain the purpose of the Great Commission if free will is negated by either.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> See this right here in giant red letters?  I'm not talking about this.  I'm talking about being omniscient.


All knowing is not all power. There’s two different words for them.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I think you’re over analyzing terminology.
> 
> I know what the two are. Neither indicates a negate of free will. Simply explain the purpose of the Great Commission if free will is negated by either.



This is really your problem but I will help you.  This is what I've heard from Predestination believers.

"We go out and spread the gospel because we are told to.  We have no choice.  We are predestined to do it."

It also covers "Why pray?".  Most frewillies don't like predestination because it takes the responsibility away from the non-beleivers and destines them to He11 through no fault of their own, while at the same time diminishes the believers sense that they did something that makes them worthy of Heaven.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> No, I’m saying the born in a manger story lines up that he was viewed as an ordinary Joe. Mary and Joseph knew, but there’s no indication that anyone believed them.  Remember, he told Mary “my hour is not yet”


Except that a King wanted an ordinary Joe to be killed doesn't fit with what you are trying to say.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> All knowing is not all power. There’s two different words for them.




Progress.

Have I not said that same exact thing maybe 6 times now?


----------



## NCHillbilly

Spineyman said:


> I am not missing your point at all, and I am pretty sure you have in this great land of ours heard God's call.
> 
> * Hebrews 3:15 *
> 15 while it is said:
> 
> “Today, if you will hear His voice,
> Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”
> 
> 
> If not, you are hearing it now.
> 
> * Matthew 7:7-11  *
> 
> 7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.  8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.  9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?  10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent?  11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!
> 
> * Revelation 3:20  *
> 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me
> 
> So not only does He hold us accountable, He also provides a way back to God the Father through His Son.



Yeah, I was made to hear it every Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night, revival, camp meeting, bible school, etc. etc. etc. for nearly two decades of my life. I heard and read plenty enough of it. More than enough to realize that half of it just made no rational sense, and that a lot of it contradicted itself.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Progress.
> 
> Have I not said that same exact thing maybe 6 times now?


Possibly. I’m just stubborn.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Possibly. I’m just stubborn.



Things were going pretty fast.  Did you get a chance to see this?  You asked   "Simply explain the purpose of the Great Commission if free will is negated by either."  I responded:



ambush80 said:


> This is really your problem but I will help you.  This is what I've heard from Predestination believers.
> 
> "We go out and spread the gospel because we are told to.  We have no choice.  We are predestined to do it."
> 
> It also covers "Why pray?".  Most frewillies don't like predestination because it takes the responsibility away from the non-beleivers and destines them to He11 through no fault of their own, while at the same time diminishes the believers sense that they did something that makes them worthy of Heaven.



...


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Except that a King wanted an ordinary Joe to be killed doesn't fit with what you are trying to say.


Good point, but as I said before, there’s no indication that it was a world wide announcement and no indication that no one was told about it. Why did the 3 Wise men come looking for him? 


I highly doubt it was hush hush but it was t front page news either.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Things were going pretty fast.  Did you get a chance to see this?  You asked   "Simply explain the purpose of the Great Commission if free will is negated by either."  I responded:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just now lol. 

I’m not really into labels and what it does to others.

Even though he knows who will or won’t, I just believe a man can reject. Read John 12.


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> Hard to believe an all powerful god who supposedly loves us allows the boogymen to exist. But what would believers be without their excuses?


What would religion be without their boogymen?
Broke!


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Good point.  But historians often research and write about someone's childhood if they become world influencing adults.  Perhaps Jesus' childhood was wholly unremarkable.


Yes that was my point.
Pick an influential person today and you can get their entire life story from multiple different sources.
Hard to get much more influential than Jesus yet......


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Lol. Ok. You’re missing the “having” and “using”
> 
> I know the difference in the two. What I’m saying is just because he has all power doesn’t mean power is used to make the choice for you. I have the power to force my son to do things, but it’s useless and meaningless to do that.
> 
> Remember the rich guy with the hot chick?? Yea that’s some real love for the right reason.


Ambush's point is his knowledge IS the power


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Possibly. I’m just stubborn.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Good point, but as I said before, there’s no indication that it was a world wide announcement and no indication that no one was told about it. Why did the 3 Wise men come looking for him?
> 
> 
> I highly doubt it was hush hush but it was t front page news either.


You are kind if helping my argument here.
We are not talking about Kayne West's and Kim K's baby here, and granted Facebook and Twitter were a couple years away...but we are talking about THE SON OF GOD.
And he get recognition that is slightly better than NONE for 30 years of his life. I mean he is mentioned about 3 times more than me for 30 years. And I am nobody. Through scripture we know life stories about people that were not God in Man form.

Just think about the magnitude of having the Son of God in your village for 30 years. Are we to believe that NOBODY outside of like 8 people knew and kept it quiet?
No mischievous little boy?
No water to Grape Juice just to impress his buddies?
No compassion for Lepers and the meek back then?

We do not have a life of Miraculous activity. We have silence.  And when he hit 30 and got rolling, we have nothing outside of scripture that was written DECADES later at the earliest.
I just cannot let that go.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Let's make up a Marvel superhero.  His name is Omniscience.  His superpower is that he can see the past and future through all time.  You and he are walking down the road together and you pass an ice cream stand.  He knows what flavor you're about to choose.  THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE CHOOSES FOR YOU.  But are you actually making a choice if what you pick will only be what he has foreseen?



That's basicially the way I see omniscience. My example is if I go to my closet and try to decide on wearing my red or blue shirt. I choose the red one. God, through omniscience, not power, foresaw my choice.

He knew before creation that I would choose the red shirt. So how can I choose any other? I can't, I have to choose what God has already seen.

So even if it wasn't omnipotence, the omniscience of God keeps me from making another choice from the one he has already saw me make.

In this way, even if there is free will, it's no different from predestination. God has already seen who will heed His Call. If he didn't see Fred heed, then Fred can't accept Jesus.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Ambush's point is his knowledge IS the power


I’m slowly learning there’s more ways than one to consider things.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You are kind if helping my argument here.
> We are not talking about Kayne West's and Kim K's baby here, and granted Facebook and Twitter were a couple years away...but we are talking about THE SON OF GOD.
> And he get recognition that is slightly better than NONE for 30 years of his life. I mean he is mentioned about 3 times more than me for 30 years. And I am nobody. Through scripture we know life stories about people that were not God in Man form.
> 
> Just think about the magnitude of having the Son of God in your village for 30 years. Are we to believe that NOBODY outside of like 8 people knew and kept it quiet?
> No mischievous little boy?
> No water to Grape Juice just to impress his buddies?
> No compassion for Lepers and the meek back then?
> 
> We do not have a life of Miraculous activity. We have silence.  And when he hit 30 and got rolling, we have nothing outside of scripture that was written DECADES later at the earliest.
> I just cannot let that go.


Maybe 30 was his hour?


----------



## Artfuldodger

I once met a Calvinist evangelist!

One explanation given is that even though God, through foreknowledge, knew Fred would not choose Him, we, as man, don't know this.
We, as man, must still present the Gospel to Fred.

Usually explained the other way around. God knows Barney will accept his call. It is up to man to present the Gospel so that Barney can accept.

The problem with anyone's salvation depending on a man sounds just as wrong as any other plan of God calling them Himself. Man's not very good at leading one to God's call.

Look at when the Gospel left Europe? When did it reach the New World? What about all of those? Did God not foresee that we would not reach them before they were called?


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> You are kind if helping my argument here.
> We are not talking about Kayne West's and Kim K's baby here, and granted Facebook and Twitter were a couple years away...but we are talking about THE SON OF GOD.
> And he get recognition that is slightly better than NONE for 30 years of his life. I mean he is mentioned about 3 times more than me for 30 years. And I am nobody. Through scripture we know life stories about people that were not God in Man form.
> 
> Just think about the magnitude of having the Son of God in your village for 30 years. Are we to believe that NOBODY outside of like 8 people knew and kept it quiet?
> No mischievous little boy?
> No water to Grape Juice just to impress his buddies?
> No compassion for Lepers and the meek back then?
> 
> We do not have a life of Miraculous activity. We have silence.  And when he hit 30 and got rolling, we have nothing outside of scripture that was written DECADES later at the earliest.
> I just cannot let that go.



 We need GR8BLDR to stop by. He's got a bit of a different take on Jesus. Basically he wasn't anointed with God's spirit at that time. After his anointment, he could perform miracles using his Father's power. Jesus did nothing by his own power but that of his Father.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Maybe 30 was his hour?


Makes it easier on the writers who really didn't know him.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> We need GR8BLDR to stop by. He's got a bit of a different take on Jesus. Basically he wasn't anointed with God's spirit at that time. After his anointment, he could perform miracles using his Father's power. Jesus did nothing by his own power but that of his Father.


Kind of blows the Jesus is God before he was man thing out of the running then. Unless Christians in fact worship more than one God.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Makes it easier on the writers who really didn't know him.


And, confirms the spirituality
connection of all of it.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> And, confirms the spirituality
> connection of all of it.


I would need an explanation for me to try to connect those dots.


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> I would need an explanation for me to try to connect those dots.


God dictated to them. Ya see, God either can't write or, like some CEOs, it is beneath him.


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> God dictated to them. Ya see, God either can't write or, like some CEOs, it is beneath him.


It seems that spirituality is the new gap filler.


----------



## Madman

Brother David said:


> Everyone has to believe in something !
> 
> I believe in Jehovah God ( Yaweh ) .
> I believe in creation !
> I believe in Christ !
> I believe in the God Gene !
> I believe Christ will return !
> I believe in the Holy Trinity !
> I believe the Bible to be a accurate account !
> I believe every knee shall bow !
> I believe every tongue will confess !
> 
> I believe someone will try to prove myself wrong instead of stating there beliefs !
> 
> What do you BELIEVE ?



I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God; Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God,
Light of Light, Very God of very God; Begotten, not made;
Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things
were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came
down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary, And was made man: And was crucified
also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried:
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures:
And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right
hand of the Father: And he shall come again, with glory, to
judge both the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom shall
have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver
of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son;
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped
and glorified; Who spake by the Prophets: And I believe
one Catholic and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one
Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the Resurrection
of the dead: And the Life of the world to come.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> That's basicially the way I see omniscience. My example is if I go to my closet and try to decide on wearing my red or blue shirt. I choose the red one. God, through omniscience, not power, foresaw my choice.
> 
> He knew before creation that I would choose the red shirt. So how can I choose any other? I can't, I have to choose what God has already seen.
> 
> So even if it wasn't omnipotence, the omniscience of God keeps me from making another choice from the one he has already saw me make.
> 
> In this way, even if there is free will, it's no different from predestination. God has already seen who will heed His Call. If he didn't see Fred heed, then Fred can't accept Jesus.



It's really the only logical thing to conclude if you suppose an omniscient being.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

1gr8bldr said:


> I believe in  a God who created the universe whom has chosen a type of slaves, [religious] to reveal himself to. That Jesus pleased God by his overcoming self to the point of death on a cross, that he became the firstborn from the dead, the firstborn of many brothers. That he has a God. That the bible in it's simple form is  true yet terribly embellished by the hands of men whom wanted to preserve what they had heard about Jesus. I believe that the trinity is the 666 and that a hypothetical Jesus,  as God is the antichrist who has come as an impostor and stolen the bride of Christ, defiling her.


I'm  surprised that none of you Atheist that know the bible, whether you believe it or not, have never connected the 666 to the trinity. To me, it's as plain to see as daylight. Of course they don't agree to that, but as a book goes, true or not, don't you see it?


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm  surprised that none of you Atheist that know the bible, whether you believe it or not, have never connected the 666 to the trinity. To me, it's as plain to see as daylight. Of course they don't agree to that, but as a book goes, true or not, don't you see it?



668, the Neighbor of the Beast 

I never really looked into it 1gr8bldr.
Id definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts about it if you care to.
Even a new thread if you wish.

I've been reading this...
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...9-the-trinity-is-666-according-to-mr-newbirth

Man....LOTS going on in there!!!


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Is it fried chicken time?  Lemme guess, you can preach all day.
> 
> That's not discussion.  That's not an argument.  That's a 400 word declaration.


All day if God wills and into the night.

But the matter of assertion and declaration is really not the issue at all. Nor really is length or brevity.

You may care to recognize form and reconcile these before you care to talk about it again. What is assertion, what is true, and what is _really_ just so much double speaking? You seem a clever man, able somehow to divine what is required for discussion, what is argument, and what is declaration.

Each declares from the abundance of the heart.



> As always, I speak honestly.





> I don't agree with these always statements



It would be funny, if it were not at all so. Before one would seek to sort out another for fitness of speaking, let him first be sorted out.


Truth_ is_ the assertive...but not all assertions are true. Except to the estate of the man who _can do nothing._

There is a witness _of all things_.

He is true and faithful. 

Chicken is not always on the menu.
Rather, it appears confusion is for some.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

The 666 considered a "mark" is the same as "marked in him with a seal" except, one is the antichrist and one is a baptismal mark. Hypothetical, not a literal mark, just the belief that one has taken. The 666.... is it a number 6 hundred and something, or a three part baptismal? Go and baptize in "my name" was the original which got changed to F,S and HS. Another indication is the tone towards the hore with a W. She's not just a woman, but rather this language is used against her out of disgust. Why, because this is allegory over the bride that once was bethroved to the real Jesus who was deceived into defiling herself with an impostor Christ, termed antichrist. And look into the Dragon whom gives power to the beast and then out of the sea another beast comes. This I used to think was an evil copy of the Trinity. I no longer think it's a copy. The 3rd to come out of the sea happened  425AD when the HS became a person, giving him the ability to speak on behalf of the second beast.   The city on the 7  hills where the  hore with an W sits is Rome, where the birth of the Roman Cathloic church doctrine began.  The antichrist eters the temple and claims to be God, figurative of what the Trinity Jesus has done. LOL, the ten horns that give their power to the beast..... LOL, years ago CARM discussion forum had sub forums. They put a group together known as "Christian" and other groups know as Cults, Jehovah witnesses, Muslims, etc. But interesting was it that there was 10 christian denominations that they considered christian. Baptist, Luthern, Cathloic, Presbyterian, I can't remember them all. LOL, I pointed this out in debate and they changed it. LOL, now it has home churches.... Crazy effort to change the number from 10.  I spent alot of time at CARM when I was trying  to hold on to my crumbling Trinity upbringing. I went there thinking the specific trinity forum would be able to give stable ground however, the best of the best debaters were only making it worse because they had nothing. After several years of debating there, I eventually never visit there anymore. My name was Dr. Context. Don't expect to find anything like this on the net. I usually stand alone in my theorys. And have never seen or gotten these thoughts from the net, especially CARM.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> 668, the Neighbor of the Beast
> 
> I never really looked into it 1gr8bldr.
> Id definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts about it if you care to.
> Even a new thread if you wish.
> 
> I've been reading this...
> https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...9-the-trinity-is-666-according-to-mr-newbirth
> 
> Man....LOTS going on in there!!!


I went to your link and spent a few minutes.
I think I would rather have teeth pulled.
"You are the anti-christ"!
"No, you are spiritually dead"!
Blah blah blah......

But Im not feeling very patient today so maybe I will have to give it another try later


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> All day if God wills and into the night.
> 
> But the matter of assertion and declaration is really not the issue at all. Nor really is length or brevity.
> 
> You may care to recognize form and reconcile these before you care to talk about it again. What is assertion, what is true, and what is _really_ just so much double speaking? You seem a clever man, able somehow to divine what is required for discussion, what is argument, and what is declaration.
> 
> Each declares from the abundance of the heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be funny, if it were not at all so. Before one would seek to sort out another for fitness of speaking, let him first be sorted out.
> 
> 
> Truth_ is_ the assertive...but not all assertions are true. Except to the estate of the man who _can do nothing._
> 
> There is a witness _of all things_.
> 
> He is true and faithful.
> 
> Chicken is not always on the menu.
> Rather, it appears confusion is for some.


I am glad that you think of me when addressing Ambush but when I speak for me, it is rarely unless necessary,  which can be backed up when needed.

Your assertive claims and declarations are so frequent that they hold no power nor can be backed up when asked.

Content is the key, the length or brevity has more to do with having simpathy or not for the audience.

Never did I say that everything containing the word "always" was my problem, the statement that you made that included "always" before it was my concern.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I went to your link and spent a few minutes.
> I think I would rather have teeth pulled.
> "You are the anti-christ"!
> "No, you are spiritually dead"!
> Blah blah blah......
> 
> But Im not feeling very patient today so maybe I will have to give it another try later


Yes agreed. It's brutal.
Im glad 1gr8bldr has given his explanation.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Yes agreed. It's brutal.
> Im glad 1gr8bldr has given his explanation.


And that was between Christians.
I can only imagine if an AA jumped in.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Those things I mentioned point to something. Either a false trinity, or a trinity? One does not have to believe any of it to acknowledge that the "book of the trinitarian" seems to be in conflict with trinitarianism .


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> 668, the Neighbor of the Beast
> 
> I never really looked into it 1gr8bldr.
> Id definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts about it if you care to.
> Even a new thread if you wish.
> 
> I've been reading this...
> https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...9-the-trinity-is-666-according-to-mr-newbirth
> 
> Man....LOTS going on in there!!!


LOL, I looked at the link. It's just a typical debate and the challenger is elementary. He will move to middle school in time. LOL, I see John Wilcox is still there. Don't go here and bore yourselves. Neither side  has anything solid. Just a yes it is, no it's not debate


----------



## Artfuldodger

1 John 2:22
Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son.

Interesting.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I remember reading where Oneness followers believe "the Lie" as told by Paul was the Trinity belief. I don't remember what "the Lie from Satan as told by Paul was.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> And that was between Christians.
> I can only imagine if an AA jumped in.


Lol I’m hanging with y’all on that one.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I would need an explanation for me to try to connect those dots.


If the writer was spiritually inspired, and that’s basically the same as most preachers with their messages, at least it should be. 

Our belief is that God is a spirit and we worship, communicate, etc., in spirit.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> 1 John 2:22
> Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son.
> 
> Interesting.


 The Key here is the definition of the word Christ. The word means "annointed by God". Hmmmm if he is God.... then why would he be annointed by God. They deny he is annointed by God by saying he is God


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> If the writer was spiritually inspired, and that’s basically the same as most preachers with their messages, at least it should be.
> 
> Our belief is that God is a spirit and we worship, communicate, etc., in spirit.



I'm pretty sure that is how Jesus communicated with his Father. Maybe as suggested by many, God can anoint humans with His spirit. That makes the worship, communication, etc. easier or possible.


----------



## Israel

Both the words/terms christ and mashiach (which is also translated _into_ messiah) have nothing in them of reference "to, by or 'of God' ".

This is not a matter of semantics any more than one might _think _it makes a case either for or against divinity. 'The anointed' or 'the anointed (one)' may cause a man to consider _by whom, or by what _such is, or comes, but it does not_ in itself_ as either title or description contain "of God".

Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ _of God_. Likewise does the whole of the household of faith. In same faith we know that many will come declaring "I am Christ" to which Jesus adds no endorsement. Of itself it helps us not at all unless we too seek after the same Spirit that spoke the warning through the Lord's mouth.

Some have and do indeed declare they are "Jesus the Christ", but _not many_. However, many do come and declare however that they are_ anointed_ even using the name of Jesus to imply from which such anointing comes. No man need be a suspicious man of any, but we are called to be both circumspect and not unwise as to the Lord's warnings. "False Christs", false apostles, and even Paul was so bold as to declare there can be appearing:

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or _if_ ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with _him_.

And yet even more bold in this:

but even _if we_ or a messenger out of heaven may proclaim good news to you different from what we did proclaim to you -- anathema let him be!

That "if we" should not be lost upon any. Paul did not _exempt himself _from any possibility of his own deceit. Paul well understood there is a furious and relentless assault upon the truth of the gospel in the world, and he would not be so presumptuous as to assume _to himself _an immunity. He knew salvation and preservation surely, but he also knew this came not with what a man might declare _of himself _or his _own standing, _but only in the abiding of Christ. The testimony of the spirit is all we both have and all we shall ever need, sufficient. And such alone is the only source of salvation to the soul. Not of "who we are", but _of whom_ Jesus Christ _is._

Such "takes things" away of a _seeming_ sureness to bring us to only source of surety. The only _knowing. _Who shall I believe?...what shall I believe then? If all men, or any man...even the most "accepted of men" per _my religion_ admits_ even he_ could be subject to _a thing_ of deceit? Jesus warns us well that such fury is exerted in this world that if possible, even the elect:

for there shall rise false Christs and false prophets, and they shall give signs and wonders, to seduce, if possible, also the chosen;

Signs and wonders here are to a dissuading away from the truth. But we also know that Jesus assures there are signs and wonders in His name. It would seem all of confusing and perplexing _except_ all is with_ perfect purpose. _To drive a man to the_ only surety._

The promise in and of Jesus Christ is to bring men to God, even to the having of no confidence _of themselves._ It is all, not merely different, but in _complete opposition_ to the very way of the world. In the world...men assure themselves. Or look very much "to others" to know their estate. Seeking to _fix their place_ to themselves, and to their own knowing. But we are not called to such.

It is not _merely enough_ that "God knows" to our contentment (which is _far more_ than sufficient...) but that indeed it is _only He that knows._

He knows who Jesus Christ _is_. As he knows all man and men. And if any man would seek to know Jesus Christ, there is only One who fully knows Him and _knows_ of any thing. And we are indeed pressed to Him in Christ.

The foundation of God stands sure having this seal, the Lord knows those who are His.

and now, having known God -- _and rather being known by God _

_"and rather being known by God"_

_We are being penetrated by the impenetrable One._

All things were delivered to me by my Father, and none doth know the Son, except the Father, nor doth any know the Father, except the Son, _and he to whom the Son may wish to reveal Him. _

It is a glorious reducing of attentions. And trusting's, and reliance's. To the only proper and fitting One. Worship.


Jesus Christ, doing just as He has said.

Indeed the _only man_ who does_, _as_ He says._


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> If the writer was spiritually inspired, and that’s basically the same as most preachers with their messages, at least it should be.
> 
> Our belief is that God is a spirit and we worship, communicate, etc., in spirit.


Inspired does not mean overtaken.
Many people are inspired to do things like write. An event or individual may inspire someone. It does not automatically mean that the inspiration makes what they do accurate or truthful by default.

One writer regarding the gospels seemed to have been inspired to write a story about Jesus. His works seem to have inspired two others, as many of  their "work" is almost word for word from the preexisting work.

I get inspired to clean my firearms.
People get inspired to help others, write books, volunteer their time, build a snowman, etc etc.

Other than it being a religious time and that many people wrote similar things that they say were also inspired but did not make the "book"....I do not agree that any spirit took over a person with the intent to have them write it's story. If so, there would not be so many human mistakes within the contents.


----------



## hummerpoo

1gr8bldr said:


> The Key here is the definition of the word Christ. The word means "annointed by God". Hmmmm if he is God.... then why would he be annointed by God. They deny he is annointed by God by saying he is God


https://www.theopedia.com/arianism


----------



## 660griz

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm  surprised that none of you Atheist that know the bible, whether you believe it or not, have never connected the 666 to the trinity. To me, it's as plain to see as daylight. Of course they don't agree to that, but as a book goes, true or not, don't you see it?


Well, as an atheist, I don't believe in such nonsense.


----------



## Brother David

1gr8bldr said:


> The Key here is the definition of the word Christ. The word means "annointed by God". Hmmmm if he is God.... then why would he be annointed by God. They deny he is annointed by God by saying he is God


It actually means Annointed ( of ) God . It may also mean leader of the Jews .


----------



## 1gr8bldr

hummerpoo said:


> https://www.theopedia.com/arianism


Arius was not just a small player in this. The times were split right down the middle just as they are today with demos and republicans. Almost 50/50. That's why Constantine tried to intervene to settle the issue. Not because he cared about religion but because his zealousness to be a good leader, knowing that this division was holding them back. Somebody had to lose. And it's usually the one whom plays dirty who wins. Just as in life today, the one without substance to his case moves from substance to attacking the messenger. They began to attack Arius through his motives, means of association, etc. He was even struck in the face interesting enough by the guy whom is Saint Nick, the one we get our Christmas "saint Nic" from. Since Constantine was not a believer, you can understand why he sided with the group whom he saw was aggressive, whom was going to win at all cost. It was obvious that if they are going to entertain striking Arius in the face because of his view that "The Father is greater than I", straight from Jesus mouth, that they would do anything. So, Constantine sensing the movement direction, declared all unapproved writing in anyone's possession to be a capital crime, thus worthy of death and had street burning's where everyone  was required to bring and burn these writings. He also commissioned someone to make 50 "standardized" copys of the bible as he declared it so, giving us the books we now have as "inspired". Constantine later under the influence of his sister, became Christian, but  now sided with the Arian side. What an injustice that so much of church history was destroyed in the fires. As with any winner, they write the history, from their bias, from there manipulation. So they set the narrative that they are right, that they were inspired., LOL, here's the best part. Trinitarinism was not even on the table yet. It had not evolved yet. So they play this card against Arius, as if we are right, yet as far as tarianism goes, it only goes to show that they were wrong. The concept of the HS being a coequal 3rd person of a Godhead was never argued nor was it assumed. Creeds are designed to establish "right doctrine", meaning any belief that does not fit within the circle of hand picked spelled out words of the creed, must be heretical. And, LOL, the trinity does not fit inside the circle of Constantines creed. [Nicene]. So, my point, other than establishing the correct narrative and to show that this information can be seen in the church history for anyone whom looks for truth rather than looking for that which they want to believe, is that Arius was not much different in his beliefs at the time. He only argued that Jesus was not greater or equal to the Father and he used verses from our bible to establish this, however, he did believe Jesus to be God. Since all his writings and the like were burned up, they can now say all sorts of things about him to villianize him. It's a shame we lost all those writings. However, we can see from the notes from the council what it was that Arius believed. And again, Arius was simply the most important figure or spokesman of this now called Arianism. It was not as simple as one man. It was almost 50/50 at the time which required a ruling from the top, a capital punishment threat, and burning of writings. A major ruling designed to snuff out one side. And I have to hand it to Constantine, it worked, and later Christianity became the group to be in. The power and influence. Eventually having all the money and power...... So much so that Separation of church and state had to come. The Roman Catholic church was the government


----------



## bullethead

History, and learning history is truly a wonderful thing.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Inspired does not mean overtaken.
> Many people are inspired to do things like write. An event or individual may inspire someone. It does not automatically mean that the inspiration makes what they do accurate or truthful by default.
> 
> One writer regarding the gospels seemed to have been inspired to write a story about Jesus. His works seem to have inspired two others, as many of  their "work" is almost word for word from the preexisting work.
> 
> I get inspired to clean my firearms.
> People get inspired to help others, write books, volunteer their time, build a snowman, etc etc.
> 
> Other than it being a religious time and that many people wrote similar things that they say were also inspired but did not make the "book"....I do not agree that any spirit took over a person with the intent to have them write it's story. If so, there would not be so many human mistakes within the contents.



Yea the 4 Gospels. No, the writers didn’t inspire one another. So you believe writers were inspired by other writers?? I don’t believe that’s what happened. It doesn’t fit, especially when everything does connect spiritually.

Moved on, inspired, compelled are basically the same.

With any writings, it’s definions or intents are not restricted by Webster or Wikipedia. Especially those writings prior. We write manuals daily and if we don’t “define” our work, our statement says see Webster.

What you may see as a mistake, many of us view as not being able to spiritually understand. Odds are stacked against you with so many agreeing and understanding it spiritually. And, the fact that so many don’t or make it up as they go support to suit them support the lack of spiritual understanding that we keep saying is there.

And to be honest, I can see it being confusing and not making sense if I were to leave God out of it.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Yea the 4 Gospels. No, the writers didn’t inspire one another. So you believe writers were inspired by other writers?? I don’t believe that’s what happened. It doesn’t fit, especially when everything does connect spiritually.
> 
> Moved on, inspired, compelled are basically the same.
> 
> With any writings, it’s definions or intents are not restricted by Webster or Wikipedia. Especially those writings prior. We write manuals daily and if we don’t “define” our work, our statement says see Webster.
> 
> What you may see as a mistake, many of us view as not being able to spiritually understand. Odds are stacked against you with so many agreeing and understanding it spiritually. And, the fact that so many don’t or make it up as they go support to suit them support the lack of spiritual understanding that we keep saying is there.
> 
> And to be honest, I can see it being confusing and not making sense if I were to leave God out of it.


If you research, much of two of the gospels are direct copies of the earliest gospel, which predated the others by decades.

And, if a spirit is going to influence someone to write what it wants written, why would it be unable to convey what it whats written to the T.? Why pick someone that cannot understand the spirit? 
You are making excuses and instead overlooking the obvious...which is no spirit was involved. Or an inept spirit at best.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> If you research, much of two of the gospels are direct copies of the earliest gospel, which predated the others by decades.
> 
> And, if a spirit is going to influence someone to write what it wants written, why would it be unable to convey what it whats written to the T.? Why pick someone that cannot understand the spirit?
> You are making excuses and instead overlooking the obvious...which is no spirit was involved. Or an inept spirit at best.


Not saying they can’t understand it.  They want it to support them.

The 4 Gospels were by Disciples. They were with Jesus. I’d be concerned if they weren’t so close in writings.

I get what you’re saying. But it’s not and does not operate as “non spiritual” commentators and other non spiritual writings have explained it.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Not saying they can’t understand it.  They want it to support them.
> 
> The 4 Gospels were by Disciples. They were with Jesus. I’d be concerned if they weren’t so close in writings.


They absolutely were not Disciples. 
Theologians agree on that.

They were copies word for word in many cases.

You should take the time to study it. And I mean that sincerely


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> They absolutely were not Disciples.
> Theologians agree on that.
> 
> They were copies word for word in many cases.
> 
> You should take the time to study it. And I mean that sincerely



What Theologians? Who’s domination did they come from? Theology could mean many things. They have a lot wrong.

Unless you’re referencing the “Gospel according to Luke”, etc?

I don’t have an issue with the actual penning by another individual, but the Gospel was according to Luke.

I read about the Gospel according to “Pastor” .......a couple of weeks ago, explain the Gospel according to Luke. And it lines up with Luke and everyone else in other areas of the Bible and not word for word as a copy and some was word for word. That’s how the spiritual dots are connected.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> What Theologians? Who’s domination did they come from? Theology could mean many things. They have a lot wrong.
> 
> Unless you’re referencing the “Gospel according to Luke”, etc?
> 
> I don’t have an issue with the actual penning by another individual, but the Gospel was according to Luke.
> 
> I read about the Gospel according to “Pastor” .......a couple of weeks ago, explain the Gospel according to Luke. And it lines up with Luke and everyone else in other areas of the Bible and not word for word as a copy and some was word for word. That’s how the spiritual dots are connected.


https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6976



> Mark’s Gospel, the shortest of the four gospels, is widely thought to be the first one to have been written. Over a third of his account concentrates on the events surrounding Jesus’s death and resurrection. It was probably written as early as 62AD (a little over thirty years after the death and resurrection of Jesus) while Mark was staying with Paul in Rome. It is considered to be the earliest gospel because Luke and Matthew appear to borrow a considerable amount of their information from Mark’s narrative. About ninety per cent of Mark’s narrative is repeated in Matthew’s gospel, while Luke includes over half of Mark’s content.





> MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE AND JOHN DID NOT WRITE THE GOSPELS
> --at least, not according to modern New Testament scholarship. The evidence shows that all four Gospels were written anonymously, and for almost two centuries after they were completed early Christians had no idea who wrote them. Eventually, guesses became traditions and traditions became dogma. The evidence also shows that during these first few centuries orthodox Christian scribes deliberately altered or added to the Gospel texts, and many of these changes remain in our modern Gospels. Yet, few members of the lay public know very much about this history. Gary Greenberg takes you inside the complex and poorly understood world of modern Gospel text and source criticism and provides a simple easy to follow guide that shows how New Testament scholars arrive at these challenging conclusions.
> 
> SOME OF THE FASCINATING TOPICS COVERED IN "WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS?"
> 
> -- What is the Synoptic Problem and how do scholars resolve it?
> 
> -- What is the mysterious Q source that influenced Matthew and Luke?
> 
> -- Is there a literary relationship between the Gospels of Mark and John?
> 
> -- Did the original Gospel of Mark depict the resurrection of Jesus?
> 
> -- Did the Evangelists agree with each other about important story details?
> 
> -- Why did orthodox Christian scribes alter the Gospel texts?
> 
> -- When scholars encounter contradictory ancient Gospel manuscripts, how do they decide which text comes closest to the original?
> 
> -- What manuscripts stand behind our modern Gospel texts and how accurate are they?
> 
> Gary Greenberg is the author of several popular and controversial books, including "101 Myths of the Bible", "The Moses Mystery" and "The Judas Brief: Who Really Killed Jesus?" His works have been translated into several languages. He is a Fellow of The Jesus Project and is President of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York. He has also served as a consultant to National Geographic Television's Science of the Bible series.



And on and on and on.
I only bring it up because there is so much new information out there.
All I ask is that you read up on it yourself.


----------



## bullethead

And Notice the Paul connection to them....


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> What Theologians? Who’s domination did they come from? Theology could mean many things. They have a lot wrong.
> 
> Unless you’re referencing the “Gospel according to Luke”, etc?
> 
> I don’t have an issue with the actual penning by another individual, but the Gospel was according to Luke.
> 
> I read about the Gospel according to “Pastor” .......a couple of weeks ago, explain the Gospel according to Luke. And it lines up with Luke and everyone else in other areas of the Bible and not word for word as a copy and some was word for word. That’s how the spiritual dots are connected.


In what way was Paul's physician Luke a disciple of Jesus?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6976
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.
> I only bring it up because there is so much new information out there.
> All I ask is that you read up on it yourself.



I do, but I have a lot of issues with catholism and their “evidence”, approach, determinations, etc., and frankly, (I will refrain) ....and I don’t believe that I’m alone. One issue as example is going to the “Father” is contradictory to the Christianity belief of our Advocate in Jesus, not Father John. 

I certainly understand what you’re saying, and I’m not saying that your argument doesn’t make sense.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I do, but I have a lot of issues with catholism and their “evidence”, approach, determinations, etc., and frankly, (I will refrain) ....and I don’t believe that I’m alone. One issue as example is going to the “Father” is contradictory to the Christianity belief of our Advocate in Jesus, not Father John.
> 
> I certainly understand what you’re saying, and I’m not saying that your argument doesn’t make sense.


Only the link was from the catholic perspective. 
The other quotes were from other scholarly sources.
And once Rome got involved in Christianity, catholicism was THE first denomination/religion.

Jesus and all of his followers were Jews. They did not worship him. They followed his teachings about the Torah.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> In what way was Paul's physician Luke a disciple of Jesus?


To your point, and to be more clear, it is believed that Luke was a Disciple of Paul. Sometimes I speak to broadly.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Only the link was from the catholic perspective.
> The other quotes were from other scholarly sources.


I sort of class them all the same. They can say or believe anything they please, I’m just saying there’s too much that actually works that I can witness to have someone explain something saying it doesn’t.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I sort of class them all the same. They can say or believe anything they please, I’m just saying there’s too much that actually works that I can witness to have someone explain something saying it doesn’t.


I get it, you follow your heart instead of the facts because that is what works for you.
But, it doesn't change the truth. 
Anything that you do not agree with is lumped together. "Mark" and Luke both had written their stuff (at different times) after hanging with Paul. I would agree that they were inspired alright.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> To your point, and to be more clear, it is believed that Luke was a Disciple of Paul. Sometimes I speak to broadly.


Yep


----------



## bullethead

I'd give John the most credibility


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I get it, you follow your heart instead of the facts because that is what works for you.
> But, it doesn't change the truth.
> Anything that you do not agree with is lumped together. "Mark" and Luke both had written their stuff (at different times) after hanging with Paul. I would agree that they were inspired alright.


The facts arent always facts as they are perceived is what I’m saying. My witness / experience of something coupled with their failure to properly explain, Defoe, etc., is not following “heart”.

Following heart would mean blind faith, I’m just going to believe something is accurate because that’s what sounds good. That’s not happening. 

I don’t agree with a lot of Bible that I read because all of it is not uplifting and inspiring. Some of it steps on my toes for correction.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> The facts arent always facts as they are perceived is what I’m saying.
> 
> I don’t agree with a lot of Bible that I read because all of it is not uplifting and inspiring. Some of it steps on my toes for correction.


What I am saying goes back to what I have always said, If something is THE TRUTH., then there can be no doubt, no room for interpretation, no disagreement, no wondering who wrote what, no errors, no historical mistakes, nothing that can even be thought of to challenge any of the authors or contents or spiritual godly influence.
The Bible is just NOT that book.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> What I am saying goes back to what I have always said, If something is THE TRUTH., then there can be no doubt, no room for interpretation, no disagreement, no wondering who wrote what, no errors, no historical mistakes, nothing that can even be thought of to challenge any of the authors or contents or spiritual godly influence.
> The Bible is just NOT that book.


Have you ever doubted, been skeptical about anything / anyone  at all that was absolute truth and you were proven wrong??

I have, many times. How long was that truth wrong before I was proven wrong, and truth was proven right?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Have you ever doubted, been skeptical about anything / anyone  at all that was absolute truth and you were proven wrong??
> 
> I have, many times. How long was that truth wrong before I was proven wrong, and truth was proven right?


I don't know of one thing that is absolutley true that I was proven wrong on.
And I am not saying that is attributed to anything on my end.

I really dont know of  anything that I can say is so Absolutely True that I could question it or be wrong about it.

Gimme a for instance....


----------



## Brother David

Spotlite said:


> What Theologians? Who’s domination did they come from? Theology could mean many things. They have a lot wrong.
> 
> Unless you’re referencing the “Gospel according to Luke”, etc?
> 
> I don’t have an issue with the actual penning by another individual, but the Gospel was according to Luke.
> 
> I read about the Gospel according to “Pastor” .......a couple of weeks ago, explain the Gospel according to Luke. And it lines up with Luke and everyone else in other areas of the Bible and not word for word as a copy and some was word for word. That’s how the spiritual dots are connected.


Spotlite , what we need to understand is that the reason many spend so much time trying to poke holes in the Gospel is to justify there nonbelief status .
When scienetist don't agree it's because it's still a work in progress . When Theologians don't agree the Bible has to inaccurate.
What they miss is the Faith issue . A lot of people have a issue with walking by Faith in Christ .Belief in Jehovah God .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Spotlite , what we need to understand is that the reason many spend so much time trying to poke holes in the Gospel is to justify there nonbelief status .
> When scienetist don't agree it's because it's still a work in progress . When Theologians don't agree the Bible has to inaccurate.
> What they miss is the Faith issue . A lot of people have a issue with walking by Faith in Christ .Belief in Jehovah God .


(The holes are what causes the non belief)


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Have you ever doubted, been skeptical about anything / anyone  at all that was absolute truth and you were proven wrong??
> 
> I have, many times. How long was that truth wrong before I was proven wrong, and truth was proven right?


I guess a round circle is not a square.
I cannot argue against that in an honest way.
It is an inflexible reality.


----------



## Israel

I'd be interested to know where any have found the word christ to mean anything beyond 'the' or 'an' anointed one. I find no further translation of that word (in earth) or on it that includes "of God".

An assumption to its inclusion is not the same as a persuasion to its inclusion and necessity; any more than there is benefit to the soul for a man to simply repeat "the Bible is inspired of God" because some men have told one it is so. Or _one's religion_ "holds thus".

When Jesus the Christ (of God) faced Pilate he was very precise to ask in regards to His Kingship whether he spoke this of himself, or was he merely repeating what he had heard from others.

Jesus Christ is Himself the test and trying of what a man may have of God, Himself being the proof of it, or the relegation to rubbish of something other. He is the discern-er and discloser of every hidden thing.

Paul spoke of the many things that were of once advantage to him, of forms and form of things that had a once _use_. He knew and declared he was being called past all of it. And their value as once esteemed to him, now would become only hindrance by any present assigning of esteem to them, at all.

_All men_ will be tried to the core...some to rejoicing, some to something other.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

If I were to write something down and use the known LOL, you could estimate the time period.... Because LOL, only came after people starting typing online. This mentality can also work the other way. For example "On a donkey, the foal of a donkey". We know from writings that Jewish lingo often repeated itself. Like "riding a wave, a big wave on my surf board".  My point that I am getting to. The writer of Matthew had no idea about Jewish lingo. He wrote way in the future of the events actually happening. He was not a disciple. He had a copy of Mark and possibly a text we call Q sitting in front of him, for inspiration. He had Jesus ride in straddling 2 donkeys and yet people gloss right over that.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

And John, was it inspired? Hmmm. It is clear to see that John has a double beginning and a double ending. We could justify the double ending.... if someone was penning his words as he dictated. That seems reasonable, you think your about to wrap it up and, you think of something else. But not a double beginning. It was clearly added later. Would the Holy Spirit, under inspiration, tell John, Oh, I left something out, we need to go back and add it in?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Knowing your bible forces you to face the facts. It however does not mean that the simple content is not true. If we discovered that a writer covering the world series game got some of his info wrong, or embellished the events of the day, would it mean the game never took place?


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> (The holes are what causes the non belief)


Exactly what I meant . Accepting holes in science and waiting on the next big discovery to prove it all right is much easier than believing in Jesus Christ and life after death through his redemption . 
Stephen Colbert has stated this many times in his return to Faith after reading the Beatitudes and putting his trust back in Christ for his on well being . He realized that Belief in Christ was the only way to find peace in his life . Just think when you breathe your last breath on this Earth all your questions will get answered . I guess that why I don't have many .


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> Knowing your bible forces you to face the facts. It however does not mean that the simple content is not true. If we discovered that a writer covering the world series game got some of his info wrong, or embellished the events of the day, would it mean the game never took place?


Human works are infallible. 
I have a difficult time wapping my head around that there would be any faults if a god were involved or that the things with faults would be allowed by a god to be chosen as representation of "his/its" work.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Exactly what I meant . Accepting holes in science and waiting on the next big discovery to prove it all right is much easier than believing in Jesus Christ and life after death through his redemption .
> Stephen Colbert has stated this many times in his return to Faith after reading the Beatitudes and putting his trust back in Christ for his on well being . He realized that Belief in Christ was the only way to find peace in his life . Just think when you breathe your last breath on this Earth all your questions will get answered . I guess that why I don't have many .


Colbert is full of it on many levels.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I don't know of one thing that is absolutley true that I was proven wrong on.
> And I am not saying that is attributed to anything on my end.
> 
> I really dont know of  anything that I can say is so Absolutely True that I could question it or be wrong about it.
> 
> Gimme a for instance....


I’m just generally speaking.

As an example, I had an employee that kept telling me about a situation and I was convinced there was absolutely no way it was true. Until it was proven otherwise, what made that “situation” untrue?

The point is it was never untrue.

That being said, not the best analogy and just assuming that there’s only two options; between you and I, one of our stories is “true” in what we say and the other is not. In either case, the “truth” is never untrue because one can’t see it.

My question is since you’ve stated that you’re not 100% certain, is it possible that you could be wrong?


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> Colbert is full of it on many levels.


Yes he is , but he did find Christ and that's a step in the right direction .
Anyway the post is about putting your trust in Christ , not trying to find facts . That is why we say , my Faith is in Christ Jesus .


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I’m just generally speaking.
> 
> As an example, I had an employee that kept telling me about a situation and I was convinced there was absolutely no way it was true. Until it was proven otherwise, what made that “situation” untrue?
> 
> The point is it was never untrue.
> 
> That being said, not the best analogy and just assuming that there’s only two options; between you and I, one of our “stories” is “true”.  In either case, the “truth” is never untrue because one can’t see it.


His version was true enough for you to believe its accuracy once the facts were figured out. Absolute truth doesn't go that far. It cannot be questioned.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Exactly what I meant . Accepting holes in science and waiting on the next big discovery to prove it all right is much easier than believing in Jesus Christ and life after death through his redemption .
> Stephen Colbert has stated this many times in his return to Faith after reading the Beatitudes and putting his trust back in Christ for his on well being . He realized that Belief in Christ was the only way to find peace in his life . Just think when you breathe your last breath on this Earth all your questions will get answered . I guess that why I don't have many .


Science and man made things I expect holes.
No holes in anything that has to do with or claimed to be in association with such a creature as to be called GOD.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> His version was true enough for you to believe its accuracy once the facts were figured out. Absolute truth doesn't go that far. It cannot be questioned.


True. I see your point, I think.

Although I’m 100% certain it’s accurate, I still question things to keep proving them. So in a sense it’s not absolute?


----------



## Brother David

Update on our mission trip . 
   We were able to deliver toys and coats to a much needed area . I had the chance to speak with older lady who broke me down . She has been without running water since spring . As of now her neighbor let's her draw Water so her and the 2 grandchildren she is raising can drink and bath . She stated that since some at the mission had found out that her and  the children were eating leaves ( that isn't a typo ) to make it between meals that she has been receiving food regularly . I can't imagine eating leaves and no running water . 
   We are able to keep food on hand most of the time , but we don't have meats available. The USDA want allow us to deliver meat that has been Gov't inspected unless we remove all symbols of Christianity . So as for now , many more families will have a Merry Christmas , because a lot of people still care. 
 Thanks for your support in our work to provide .


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> True. I see your point, I think.
> 
> Although I’m 100% certain it’s accurate, I still question things to keep proving them. So in a sense it’s not absolute?


Right!!!


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> Science and man made things I expect holes.
> No holes in anything that has to do with or claimed to be in association with such a creature as to be called GOD.


There are no holes only areas where God chooses not to reveal all the answers . Wouldn't life be miserable if new all the to life . When , where , how our life was to end ,go .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> There are no holes only areas where God chooses not to reveal all the answers . Wouldn't life be miserable if new all the to life . When , where , how our life was to end ,go .


What you say is an excuse because there are holes.
Too many people die because of those holes.  If that is intentional,  then I cannot worship such a god.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Right!!!


I can agree with you here with the caveat that regardless if I or your question for whatever reason, the truth wil still remain the truth.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> Human works are infallible.
> I have a difficult time wapping my head around that there would be any faults if a god were involved or that the things with faults would be allowed by a god to be chosen as representation of "his/its" work.


And I would say that's a reasonable conclusion. Although, I find what I believe to be true within. But it's a slippery slope picking and choosing what to believe. However, I will say it again, strangely, I feel as though I have no choice in what I believe. As if I have been preprogrammed. And I can see that in the Trins as well. As if they have been preprogrammed. You can show them all day long that the Trinity was not a belief until after the nicene creed, thus, could not have been taught by the disciples and  yet they will never once look into it. Don't you find that strange?. And, another example, how could a just God send his creation to eternal punishment and still be called just. That God would have to bear some of the responsibility for having created us  hard heads..... whom can't seem to find him, because he hides to well. But they love the concept of he1l, as if they are programmed to do so.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> What you say is an excuse because there are holes.
> Too many people die because of those holes.  If that is intentional,  then I cannot worship such a god.


People die because no one lives forever . That's why I purchased life insurance.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> People die because no one lives forever . That's why I purchased life insurance.


Let me rephrase,  too many people are killed in the name of religion and god(s) because of those holes.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Update on our mission trip .
> We were able to deliver toys and coats to a much needed area . I had the chance to speak with older lady who broke me down . She has been without running water since spring . As of now her neighbor let's her draw Water so her and the 2 grandchildren she is raising can drink and bath . She stated that since some at the mission had found out that her and  the children were eating leaves ( that isn't a typo ) to make it between meals that she has been receiving food regularly . I can't imagine eating leaves and no running water .
> We are able to keep food on hand most of the time , but we don't have meats available. The USDA want allow us to deliver meat that has been Gov't inspected unless we remove all symbols of Christianity . So as for now , many more families will have a Merry Christmas , because a lot of people still care.
> Thanks for your support in our work to provide .





> The USDA want allow us to deliver meat that has been Gov't inspected unless we remove all symbols of Christianity


Could you explain that a little more?
Do you mean like you cant slap a sticker on the package that says Donated by XYZ Church or something like that?


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Could you explain that a little more?
> Do you mean like you cant slap a sticker on the package that says Donated by XYZ Church or something like that?


No we can't we can't distribute any USDA meat without signing an agreement that we will not discuss Religion or have any symbols .


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> No we can't we can't distribute any USDA meat without signing an agreement that we will not discuss Religion or have any symbols .


On one hand that seems ridiculous to me.
On the other hand I don't see why that should stop anything if the intention is to truly help.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> On one hand that seems ridiculous to me.
> On the other hand I don't see why that should stop anything if the intention is to truly help.



I heard Ben Shapiro talking recently about how he believes, through his Jewish faith, that charity should be anonymous as not to gain any notoriety for it.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Could you explain that a little more?
> Do you mean like you cant slap a sticker on the package that says Donated by XYZ Church or something like that?



As an aside,  what do you think of helping those children who have to eat leaves in comparison with the primitive tribe that you don't think we should expose to modernity?


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> As an aside,  what do you think of helping those children who have to eat leaves in comparison with the primitive tribe that you don't think we should expose to modernity?


The tribe is their own society. Their own who are either there or who have left for "better" things can go back and try to help if they want.
I get the feeling that the Indian gov't has tried to "help" and this tribe want Nothing to do with anyone else.
They seem fine.


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> On one hand that seems ridiculous to me.
> On the other hand I don't see why that should stop anything if the intention is to truly help.


Ask the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion to stop suing and shutting us down and we will be glad to USDA beef . Until you can get them to cooperate we will have to continue to use privately donated meats . Any item that carries a government stamp is unusable .


----------



## Brother David

Brother David said:


> Ask the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion to stop suing and shutting us down and we will be glad to USDA beef . Until you can get them to cooperate we will have to continue to use privately donated meats . Any item that carries a government stamp is unusable .


Extinguishing Religion at all cost is important to some . That really wasn't the meaning for me to include it , as much as showing the difficulty we face .

Some of the ways we help .
Gas money for trips to Dr. , no public transportation in the area. Many have to many miles just to see there Physican. 
Money for meds .
Clothing .
Food . 
Roofing . They have figured out to use tarps and PVC pipe to stop water from coming in the house .
Handicap accessible ramps .
Heating oil .
Hand pumps for water.
Protection from abuse .
These are just some of the obstacles we face . All is done with private donations .


----------



## Spotlite

Brother David said:


> Ask the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion to stop suing and shutting us down and we will be glad to USDA beef . Until you can get them to cooperate we will have to continue to use privately donated meats . Any item that carries a government stamp is unusable .


Really shows where their concern is. It’d be different if those being donated to didn’t want it, but those interfering to block are just being ridiculously inconsiderate.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Extinguishing Religion at all cost is important to some . That really wasn't the meaning for me to include it , as much as showing the difficulty we face .
> 
> Some of the ways we help .
> Gas money for trips to Dr. , no public transportation in the area. Many have to many miles just to see there Physican.
> Money for meds .
> Clothing .
> Food .
> Roofing . They have figured out to use tarps and PVC pipe to stop water from coming in the house .
> Handicap accessible ramps .
> Heating oil .
> Hand pumps for water.
> Protection from abuse .
> These are just some of the obstacles we face . All is done with private donations .


First -
I think the assistance you are providing is a great thing.
While Im a strong believer in the separation of church and state, this seems ridiculous to me.
And lets just leave it at that.
I have no doubt that you and your brethren are having a very positive effect on those that need the help.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Really shows where their concern is. It’d be different if those being donated to didn’t want it, but those interfering to block are just being ridiculously inconsiderate.


Yep Im sure that those that need the help wouldn't mind if the package of USDA meat they got had a "Gift from God" sticker on it.
If they do mind, they don't have to take it.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I heard Ben Shapiro talking recently about how he believes, through his Jewish faith, that charity should be anonymous as not to gain any notoriety for it.



That's a decent place to start.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> As an aside,  what do you think of helping those children who have to eat leaves in comparison with the primitive tribe that you don't think we should expose to modernity?


In the case of the tribe in the OP, I think they made pretty clear what they think about modernity. In the case of other tribes, Im skeptical that they actually would be unaware that modernity is out there.
I think the Native Americans is a pretty good example of what happens when we decide they would be better off like us.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I heard Ben Shapiro talking recently about how he believes, through his Jewish faith, that charity should be anonymous as not to gain any notoriety for it.


I would agree that would be the most noble (and words like that) way to go about it.
On the flip side, those that need the charity probably care more about getting beans in their belly than they do about the level of nobility of the givers.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Yep Im sure that those that need the help wouldn't mind if the package of USDA meat they got had a "Gift from God" sticker on it.
> If they do mind, they don't have to take it.


Agree. I’m still not clear on the package. Is it just because it has USDA and they’re connecting that a God, or does it have a separate sticker relating to God in some form?


----------



## 660griz

Brother David said:


> A lot of people have a issue with walking by Faith in Christ .Belief in Jehovah God .


A lot but, not enough.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Agree. I’m still not clear on the package. Is it just because it has USDA and they’re connecting that a God, or does it have a separate sticker relating to God in some form?


Yeah I have questions as to the details but in no way do I want to appear to be accusing somebody of "not giving right".
We see all the time "Donated by this company or that organization".
Don't see why this should be any different.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> I would agree that would be the most noble (and words like that) way to go about it.
> On the flip side, those that need the charity probably care more about getting beans in their belly than they do about the level of nobility of the givers.


What happened to "...teach a man to fish.."?


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I have questions as to the details but in no way do I want to appear to be accusing somebody of "not giving right".
> We see all the time "Donated by this company or that organization".
> Don't see why this should be any different.


Oh yea, I agree, I’m just curious on the receiving end as their reasoning.


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I have questions as to the details but in no way do I want to appear to be accusing somebody of "not giving right".
> We see all the time "Donated by this company or that organization".
> Don't see why this should be any different.


Because it is Gov't inspected , we're not allowed to distribute it . Sorry for confusing everyone . Civil law isn't my expertise .



660griz said:


> A lot but, not enough.





660griz said:


> What happened to "...teach a man to fish.."?


Your are absolutely on the side of many we face . Let them starve , be sickly , or whatever state their in . They brought it in themselves .
The next time I sit down with a 60 something Grandma raising two small children born as meth addicts , instead of offering food , help and love , I'll give her your number. Then you can buy her a fishing pole . By the way you will have to go by and pick her up . She doesn't own a operating vehicle , and maybe you can cut some wood for the stove , so after y'all get back from fishing she will have a way to cook .


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Because it is Gov't inspected , we're not allowed to distribute it . Sorry for confusing everyone . Civil law isn't my expertise .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your are absolutely on the side of many we face . Let them starve , be sickly , or whatever state their in . They brought it in themselves .
> The next time I sit down with a 60 something Grandma raising two small children born as meth addicts , instead of offering food , help and love , I'll give her your number. Then you can buy her a fishing pole . By the way you will have to go by and pick her up . She doesn't own a operating vehicle , and maybe you can cut some wood for the stove , so after y'all get back from fishing she will have a way to cook .





> The next time I sit down with a 60 something Grandma raising two small children born as meth addicts


The meth issue is absolutely destroying families particularly in the poor mountain areas. Both parents in jail or too wired out to even give a darn about their kids.
If anything is "from the devil" its got to be meth.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> The meth issue is absolutely destroying families particularly in the poor mountain areas. Both parents in jail or too wired out to even give a darn about their kids.
> If anything is "from the devil" its got to be meth.


Nah no devil needed, just ingredients under the sink that you use to clean toilets with. Only humans could be that dumb to mix em up and put it in their bodies on purpose.


----------



## 660griz

Brother David said:


> Your are absolutely on the side of many we face . Let them starve , be sickly , or whatever state their in . They brought it in themselves .


 Teach birth control. A whole lot of stuff we could teach.


> The next time I sit down with a 60 something Grandma raising two small children born as meth addicts , instead of offering food , help and love , I'll give her your number. Then you can buy her a fishing pole . By the way you will have to go by and pick her up . She doesn't own a operating vehicle , and maybe you can cut some wood for the stove , so after y'all get back from fishing she will have a way to cook .


 I can't believe our welfare state would let that happen. The grandma brought that on herself as well. Give the kids to the state may be a better option if she can't feed them.
Abortion would have been a better option. However, if teaching would have been a priority, they may not have "brought that on themselves."
You continue to treat the symptom and not the cause. NEVER going to get anywhere.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Nah no devil needed, just ingredients under the sink that you use to clean toilets with. Only humans could be that dumb to mix em up and put it in their bodies on purpose.


Just borrowing a figure of speech 
And without going into detail, let me say Im well aware of how dumb it is.


----------



## Brother David

660griz said:


> Teach birth control. A whole lot of stuff we could teach.
> I can't believe our welfare state would let that happen. The grandma brought that on herself as well. Give the kids to the state may be a better option if she can't feed them.
> Abortion would have been a better option. However, if teaching would have been a priority, they may not have "brought that on themselves."
> You continue to treat the symptom and not the cause. NEVER going to get anywhere.


WOW !!!
Walt , Bullethead remember griz is your side as far as Beliefs go .


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> WOW !!!
> Walt , Bullethead remember griz is your side as far as Beliefs go .


Now you know how Griz got his name.
He's meaner than a poked bear


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Now you know how Griz got his name.
> He's meaner than a poked bear


I just want to watch him lead the seminar on birth control to a group of meth addicts . I am sure they would give him there undivided attention .
After the seminar on birth control , he can present a slide show on the efficiency of the government and the benefits of placing addicted babies into their care.
He could top of evening with a debate on how to humanely dispose of the elderly problem . You never know he may be able to get CNN to broadcast it live . Throw in Al Gore and Joy Behar as your host and he might could get antifa to handle security for free .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> WOW !!!
> Walt , Bullethead remember griz is your side as far as Beliefs go .


I can't say that I disagree with much of what he said.
I do think helping is a good thing but I also think that helping others who at least try to help themselves is the way to go.
When it generation after generation after generation of the same thing, my pity level is way down. 

I see it up here also.
There are those families that are trying hard and struggling and I think they deserve any and all the help they can get. I enjoy helping them.
Then there are those families where the great grandma is in her early 60s, she never worked, her 5 kids from 3 different Fathers never worked their 16-20 kids from Gawd knows how many different Fathers (none of which are around like above) never worked and their countless kids from countless fathers are in their teens  and are already working on the next generation. Meanwhile both mom and dad are each working to barely stay afloat in the struggling familys but at least they are trying. The familys with 4 generations in one house have the grandparent raising great grandchildren and getting paid from the state to do it because the actual parent is unfit...cant work because they have some "disability" but seem to be able to make every happy hour, block party, and contort into whatever position that will get them another baby and check from the state to go with it.. lets not forget CASH for smokes, tattoos and lottery tickets..all have cell phones and all have their kids go to day care even though none of them work and are at home and should be caring for their kids. 

Yeah, in my opinion Griz isnt far off base at all.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> I can't say that I disagree with much of what he said.
> I do think helping is a good thing but I also think that helping others who at least try to help themselves is the way to go.
> When it generation after generation after generation of the same thing, my pity level is way down.
> 
> I see it up here also.
> There are those families that are trying hard and struggling and I think they deserve any and all the help they can get. I enjoy helping them.
> Then there are those families where the great grandma is in her early 60s, she never worked, her 5 kids from 3 different Fathers never worked their 16-20 kids from Gawd knows how many different Fathers (none of which are around like above) never worked and their countless kids from countless fathers are in their teens  and are already working on the next generation. Meanwhile both mom and dad are each working to barely stay afloat in the struggling familys but at least they are trying. The familys with 4 generations in one house have the grandparent raising great grandchildren and getting paid from the state to do it because the actual parent is unfit...cant work because they have some "disability" but seem to be able to make every happy hour, block party, and contort into whatever position that will get them another baby and check from the state to go with it.. lets not forget CASH for smokes, tattoos and lottery tickets..all have cell phones and all have their kids go to day care even though none of them work and are at home and should be caring for their kids.
> 
> Yeah, in my opinion Griz isnt far off base at all.


There's abuse in all things , isn't that one your main arguments . Trust me we do our best to invest every situation . Do we get it wrong , absolutely we're human ! 
But I believe that doing nothing but complaining makes us no better .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> There's abuse in all things , isn't that one your main arguments . Trust me we do our best to invest every situation . Do we get it wrong , absolutely we're human !
> But I believe that doing nothing but complaining makes us no better .


Hey, I think that you taking the time to Do It, no matter who are the recipients,  is a marvelous thing. You have my respect for your efforts.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> Teach birth control. A whole lot of stuff we could teach.
> I can't believe our welfare state would let that happen. The grandma brought that on herself as well. Give the kids to the state may be a better option if she can't feed them.
> Abortion would have been a better option. However, if teaching would have been a priority, they may not have "brought that on themselves."
> You continue to treat the symptom and not the cause. NEVER going to get anywhere.





> You continue to treat the symptom and not the cause.



What is 





> the cause?



What is the anywhere which is 





> NEVER


 reached?

If lack of _information is the key, _what then is enough for any man to say "I am doing nothing to help myself"?


----------



## Israel

> A lot of people have a issue with walking by Faith in Christ .





660griz said:


> A lot but, not enough.


 
Here I wholeheartedly agree. I cannot see any downside for a man entering into that _issue._


----------



## Brother David

I guess whether you believe people need help or not comes down to BELIEFS.


----------



## Israel

Brother David said:


> I guess whether you believe people need help or not comes down to BELIEFS.


 
The being made able to see _the helper_ when overcome _in all need _is a marvelous gift.


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> I can't say that I disagree with much of what he said.
> I do think helping is a good thing but I also think that helping others who at least try to help themselves is the way to go.
> When it generation after generation after generation of the same thing, my pity level is way down.
> 
> I see it up here also.
> There are those families that are trying hard and struggling and I think they deserve any and all the help they can get. I enjoy helping them.
> Then there are those families where the great grandma is in her early 60s, she never worked, her 5 kids from 3 different Fathers never worked their 16-20 kids from Gawd knows how many different Fathers (none of which are around like above) never worked and their countless kids from countless fathers are in their teens  and are already working on the next generation. Meanwhile both mom and dad are each working to barely stay afloat in the struggling familys but at least they are trying. The familys with 4 generations in one house have the grandparent raising great grandchildren and getting paid from the state to do it because the actual parent is unfit...cant work because they have some "disability" but seem to be able to make every happy hour, block party, and contort into whatever position that will get them another baby and check from the state to go with it.. lets not forget CASH for smokes, tattoos and lottery tickets..all have cell phones and all have their kids go to day care even though none of them work and are at home and should be caring for their kids.
> 
> Yeah, in my opinion Griz isnt far off base at all.



Exactly. I help when I know the help is really going to help...long term. Not just get them to their next fix. I apply the same principal to my own kids. If they want to better themselves, I will help them. Lack of planning on their part does not constitute and emergency on my part.
I have given a coat to a homeless guy cause, he was cold and I didn't have time to find out how he became homeless or his life choices.


----------



## 660griz

Brother David said:


> I just want to watch him lead the seminar on birth control to a group of meth addicts . I am sure they would give him there undivided attention .


 The fact that you mentioned this proves you have no clue and are just blindly 'helping'. Of course you don't teach birth control to meth heads. You teach that loooong before they are meth heads. You also ramp up education on drugs and rehabilitation efforts. You lock down the southern border and put a cap in the back of dealer heads. 


> After the seminar on birth control , he can present a slide show on the efficiency of the government and the benefits of placing addicted babies into their care.


 I don't put a whole lot of faith in government or religion to take care of anyone. However, I do know the government can feed and shelter. Unlike the 60 year old grandma of a meth head in your example. 


> He could top of evening with a debate on how to humanely dispose of the elderly problem .


 Now you are sounding like CNN. If debate fails, denigrate.
Why don't your collective just pray for all the drugs to go away and all the children to be fed and warm? Surely God can do a better job than government or a 60 year old grandma of a meth head.


----------



## 660griz

Brother David said:


> WOW !!!
> Walt , Bullethead remember griz is your side as far as Beliefs go .


Yea, well, here is your side.


> BATON ROUGE, La -- A 40-year-old woman told investigators that she tried to kill her son because Jesus told her to do so.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Brother David said:


> I guess whether you believe people need help or not comes down to BELIEFS.


You can help some folks. Some folks you can't help. If your children are eating leaves, you probably need to get your butt up and work on raising or killing some food or earning money to buy them some food. And maybe you could make an effort to work on that plumbing a little, too. 

If folks won't try to help themselves, and would sit there on the couch until they starve to death, you are just reinforcing their behavior by providing for all their needs.


----------



## Brother David

NCHillbilly said:


> You can help some folks. Some folks you can't help. If your children are eating leaves, you probably need to get your butt up and work on raising or killing some food or earning money to buy them some food. And maybe you could make an effort to work on that plumbing a little, too.
> 
> If folks won't try to help themselves, and would sit there on the couch until they starve to death, you are just reinforcing their behavior by providing for all their needs.


I know , these sorry lazy widowed grandmother's . I can't believe they aren't working .


----------



## Brother David

660griz said:


> Yea, well, here is your side.


That's not my side , I have never suggested killing someone . You mentioned killing so they must be on your side .


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> That's not my side , I have never suggested killing someone . You mentioned killing so they must be on your side .


Atheism doesn't have established sets of beliefs other than not believing gods exist.
So other than that there is no "side".
Everything else is individual beliefs.
An Atheist can be a pacifist.
An Atheist can believe in killing.
An Atheist can believe in the Big Bang.
An Atheist can believe a chicken created the world.
An Atheist can believe in charity.
An Atheist can believe in charity under certain circumstances.
An Atheist can believe in no charity never.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I know , these sorry lazy widowed grandmother's . I can't believe they aren't working .


Again, there are some grandmothers who are in their early 40s...so....


----------



## Spotlite

Brother David said:


> I know , these sorry lazy widowed grandmother's . I can't believe they aren't working .


I don’t think the intention was to suggest you not helping, it is important to recognize that “some” help can be contributing to their own self destruction. 

You can still help those, but the way you help shouldn’t be the same. You can feed the alcoholic rather than giving him money.


----------



## j_seph

660griz said:


> Teach birth control. A whole lot of stuff we could teach.


Was there a problem 100, 200 years ago as they are today with kids giving birth and kids without no daddy or any idea who daddy was? I am sure there was but not to the degree it is today. IMO 100, 200 years ago there was a fear of God, more folks attended church and knew right from wrong. Fast forward to this day and time, less attend church, God has been removed from most every aspect including the schools. If you dig in that book called Bible there is several areas where it tells not to have children out of wedlock, not to touch a woman and have relations with her until married. The teaching is there, the commandments are there. 
Bought a guy a burrito, chips, and a drink one time at a store. Did he appear to be a drunk? Possible he was but not my place to judge him. If I am led to help I will in anyway I can, if I am not led to then I won't. Not because I am a jerk or judging them but because of that small voice that says to do or not to do. As that guy came out of store he sat down on the sidewalk to eat. He had a friend come from behind the store and sat down beside him and they shared the small meal together.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I don’t think the intention was to suggest you not helping, it is important to recognize that “some” help can be contributing to their own self destruction.
> 
> You can still help those, but the way you help shouldn’t be the same. You can feed the alcoholic rather than giving him money.


That's usually how I go about it. I have had homeless folks turn down my offer for a hot meal more than once. If all they want is cash that generally means its going to go for a bottle of Ripple.
I mean what hungry homeless person is going to turn down a hot meal?
I do recognize though that's a different situation than what Bro David is talking about though where folks need heating or a roof fixed.
Im very hesitant to hand over cash but don't have a problem with donating clothes or food etc etc.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> Was there a problem 100, 200 years ago as they are today with kids giving birth and kids without no daddy or any idea who daddy was? I am sure there was but not to the degree it is today. IMO 100, 200 years ago there was a fear of God, more folks attended church and knew right from wrong. Fast forward to this day and time, less attend church, God has been removed from most every aspect including the schools. If you dig in that book called Bible there is several areas where it tells not to have children out of wedlock, not to touch a woman and have relations with her until married. The teaching is there, the commandments are there.
> Bought a guy a burrito, chips, and a drink one time at a store. Did he appear to be a drunk? Possible he was but not my place to judge him. If I am led to help I will in anyway I can, if I am not led to then I won't. Not because I am a jerk or judging them but because of that small voice that says to do or not to do. As that guy came out of store he sat down on the sidewalk to eat. He had a friend come from behind the store and sat down beside him and they shared the small meal together.





> Fast forward to this day and time, less attend church, God has been removed from most every aspect including the schools.


I view that as just an excuse. Its NOBODY elses responsibility to teach Christian's kids about God other than their parents.
Not schools, not society, not the government, nobody.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Brother David said:


> I know , these sorry lazy widowed grandmother's . I can't believe they aren't working .


My wife is a grandmother, and she goes to work every day. I'm a grandfather, and I'm out the door an hour and a half before daylight every morning headed to work. We don't eat leaves. I work with a couple of elderly grandmothers. They are at work every day. They don't eat leaves, either.

I'm sorry. If you sit there and let your grandkids eat leaves for supper while you wait for a handout, you are lazy and trifling, and need to have those kids taken away and a foot put in your behind.

When my grandmother was widowed, she didn't eat leaves, either. She worked her butt off all day growing a big garden, canning food, tending to a flock of chickens, and such. When you went to her house to eat, you got a spread, with no leaves involved.


----------



## j_seph

WaltL1 said:


> I view that as just an excuse. Its NOBODY elses responsibility to teach Christian's kids about God other than their parents.
> Not schools, not society, not the government, nobody.


But do you agree on in just the topic of more fatherless kids, more kids having babies and more sex out of marriage is greater now then it was then?
Was not God a bigger part of most folks lives then than it is now?


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Was there a problem 100, 200 years ago as they are today with kids giving birth and kids without no daddy or any idea who daddy was? I am sure there was but not to the degree it is today. IMO 100, 200 years ago there was a fear of God, more folks attended church and knew right from wrong. Fast forward to this day and time, less attend church, God has been removed from most every aspect including the schools. If you dig in that book called Bible there is several areas where it tells not to have children out of wedlock, not to touch a woman and have relations with her until married. The teaching is there, the commandments are there.
> Bought a guy a burrito, chips, and a drink one time at a store. Did he appear to be a drunk? Possible he was but not my place to judge him. If I am led to help I will in anyway I can, if I am not led to then I won't. Not because I am a jerk or judging them but because of that small voice that says to do or not to do. As that guy came out of store he sat down on the sidewalk to eat. He had a friend come from behind the store and sat down beside him and they shared the small meal together.


The Government wasn't giving out paychecks for people to stay home, not work, do drugs and breed like rabbits 100-200 years ago.
Having kids back then was not a source of income. You had large families so that the children could help bring in income and do the chores.
Mom and Dad were up early and in bed by 7pm. No TV to stay up.There was time for all that intimacy to produce wanted children. 
Now, young healthy(well except for the VD and drugs) teens and 20+ year olds getting paid to have kids, get phones and internet so they can find hookups and drugs. Instead of being tired from working all day, they are fresh and ready to go hit the bars at night and get drunk enough and high enough to get with whoever will have them, get knocked up, have more kids and repeat the cycle. Different dads. Kids are messed up mentally and or physically from the drugs mom did while pregnant and her 56yr old grandma is at home to take care of her kids because her mom is out doing the same things and same guys as the daughter. And the kids are a burden and unwanted and uncared for except when the 1st of the month comes and it pay time.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I view that as just an excuse. Its NOBODY elses responsibility to teach Christian's kids about God other than their parents.
> Not schools, not society, not the government, nobody.


I agree that it’s a parent’s responsibility. 

I am just curious what the Puritans had in mind as a community? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> But do you agree on in just the topic of more fatherless kids, more kids having babies and more sex out of marriage is greater now then it was then?
> Was not God a bigger part of most folks lives then than it is now?


Theres lots more kids now so going to be lots more of everything.
Certainly homes without a father is a huge issue. But the issue is the home is without a father.
As for more sex out of marriage lets not forget girls getting married at 14/15/16 was the norm.


> Was not God a bigger part of most folks lives then than it is now?


You should check the statistics on abortion, divorce, jail populations etc.
The numbers for Christians are the same as for non-Christians.
There are more Christian schools, churches, organizations now than there ever was.
Yet here in the US Christianity is declining. 
Maybe the question is what are Christians/Christianity doing wrong?


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I agree that it’s a parent’s responsibility.
> 
> I am just curious what the Puritans had in mind as a community?
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies


Im not getting your point?
This jumped out at me though -


> Families did most of the educating,


----------



## WaltL1

NCHillbilly said:


> My wife is a grandmother, and she goes to work every day. I'm a grandfather, and I'm out the door an hour and a half before daylight every morning headed to work. We don't eat leaves. I work with a couple of elderly grandmothers. They are at work every day. They don't eat leaves, either.
> 
> I'm sorry. If you sit there and let your grandkids eat leaves for supper while you wait for a handout, you are lazy and trifling, and need to have those kids taken away and a foot put in your behind.





> We don't eat leaves.


That's the understatement of the century!
Ive seen your pics up there in the Outdoor Café forum


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Im not getting your point?
> This jumped out at me though -


This part. 

“The Puritans valued education, both for the sake of religious study (they demanded a great deal of Bible reading)”

and,

“Both boys and girls attended the elementary schools, and there they learned to read, write, cipher, and they also learned religion”


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> This part.
> 
> “The Puritans valued education, both for the sake of religious study (they demanded a great deal of Bible reading)”
> 
> and,
> 
> “Both boys and girls attended the elementary schools, and there they learned to read, write, cipher, and they also learned religion”


Im still not getting your point but yes religious study in school was the norm.
But there still are Christian schools etc.
I think if Christians didn't get divorces, abortions, get locked up etc etc it would be easier to point a finger at "society".
Society isn't forcing Christians not take their religion as serious as it used to.
I will agree that society makes it tougher for Christian parents. Society makes it tougher on ALL parents than it used to be.
Is that a matter of sociietys strength or is it exposing weakness in religion?


----------



## Brother David

NCHillbilly said:


> My wife is a grandmother, and she goes to work every day. I'm a grandfather, and I'm out the door an hour and a half before daylight every morning headed to work. We don't eat leaves. I work with a couple of elderly grandmothers. They are at work every day. They don't eat leaves, either.
> 
> I'm sorry. If you sit there and let your grandkids eat leaves for supper while you wait for a handout, you are lazy and trifling, and need to have those kids taken away and a foot put in your behind.
> 
> When my grandmother was widowed, she didn't eat leaves, either. She worked her butt off all day growing a big garden, canning food, tending to a flock of chickens, and such. When you went to her house to eat, you got a spread, with no leaves involved.


As always y'all are right . Sorry we try to help others . Next year we make sure the mining jobs return to Appalachia so they can take care of themselves .


----------



## Brother David

I would like to apologise to all for having a caring and loving heart and putting others before myself . I know this is a terrible stance in today's world where it's every man for himself . I new the well wishes were to good to be true .

I also find it saddening that adults gain satisfaction from children doing whatever it takes to curb hunger pains . I pray that this never happens to you or your family , We are only one aliment away from becoming addicted to perscription drugs . I deal with it regularly from affluent an succesful families . Don't ever say it want to you or your family .


----------



## NCHillbilly

Brother David said:


> As always y'all are right . Sorry we try to help others . Next year we make sure the mining jobs return to Appalachia so they can take care of themselves .


I grew up in and have lived in Appalachia all my life-over half a century. All my people are Appalachian. When I was a kid, I've lived without running water or indoor plumbing. Half of the older folks in my family never had indoor plumbing or electricity in their lives. None of them ate leaves. And most of them would have died before they accepted charity.

There are jobs in Appalachia just like anywhere else. I've had one since I was in my early teens. There are also multi-generational welfare families around here who wouldn't have a job if  you gave them one. There is also a road going to somewhere that has better jobs, if you're down to eating leaves. The lack of jobs isn't the problem. The folks who want one generally have one. The problem is the attitude of dependency.

Helping people is good. I applaud you doing so. 

I'm just saying that some people are beyond help, because they have been raised to think life is about others providing everything for them. If you set many of  them up with everything they needed, and a good job, they'd be right back where they are again in a year. By choice.


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> I view that as just an excuse. Its NOBODY elses responsibility to teach Christian's kids about God other than their parents.
> Not schools, not society, not the government, nobody.



I agree 100 percent that it is a home problem . 

I also know that (a figure of speech here ) 99 out of 100 want change , but if one is changed it seems worth it to me .


----------



## Brother David

NCHillbilly said:


> I grew up in and have lived in Appalachia all my life-over half a century. All my people are Appalachian. When I was a kid, I've lived without running water or indoor plumbing. Half of the older folks in my family never had indoor plumbing or electricity in their lives. None of them ate leaves.
> 
> There are jobs in Appalachia just like anywhere else. I've had one since I was in my early teens. That's why I have indoor plumbing and don't eat leaves. There are also multi-generational welfare families around here who wouldn't have a job if  you gave them one. There is also a road going to somewhere that has better jobs, if you're down to eating leaves. The lack of jobs isn't the problem. The folks who want one generally have one. The problem is the attitude of dependency.


So what's the answers ? Lord knows we have tried .


----------



## 660griz

j_seph said:


> Was there a problem 100, 200 years ago as they are today with kids giving birth and kids without no daddy or any idea who daddy was?


Yea but the mommy said, "God is your father". And some folks believed it. 

The unwed mom probably just went away for awhile. Had the baby, put it on a boat down the river and went back to the village. She just needed time away to find herself.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Brother David said:


> So what's the answers ? Lord knows we have tried .


That's a good question. The only real answer is for those folks to take up some personal responsibility and make an effort keep themselves up. There is absolutely no excuse for anybody in any corner of the USA in 2018 to be starving. 

There are those who have hit hard times through no fault of their own, and are physically unable to work. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those families of young, strong folks who have never turned a hand in their lives. And they raise their kids and grandkids up to be the same way.


----------



## Brother David

NCHillbilly said:


> That's a good question. The only real answer is for those folks to take up some personal responsibility and make an effort keep themselves up. There is absolutely no excuse for anybody in any corner of the USA in 2018 to be starving.
> 
> There are those who have hit hard times through no fault of their own, and are physically unable to work. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those families of young, strong folks who have never turned a hand in their lives. And they raise their kids and grandkids up to be the same way.


I agree totally . You and I also know that the Bible teaches work and that does often present problem areas when and which we help . We don't always get it right ,but we try to . Just as where I live we have system abuse , but I still have to help the children whenever possible and the families who find themselves down  , it's just the man I have become .


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> I would like to apologise to all for having a caring and loving heart and putting others before myself . I know this is a terrible stance in today's world where it's every man for himself . I new the well wishes were to good to be true .
> 
> I also find it saddening that adults gain satisfaction from children doing whatever it takes to curb hunger pains . I pray that this never happens to you or your family , We are only one aliment away from becoming addicted to perscription drugs . I deal with it regularly from affluent an succesful families . Don't ever say it want to you or your family .


Don't go getting all dramatic on us Bro David.
We have all tipped our hat to you for your efforts to help those who need it.
However its also true that some folks are in that situation because they put themselves there. Some are in that situation through no fault of their own.
Its the ones that put themselves there and would rather not lift a finger to get themselves out that there is no tolerance for.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Im still not getting your point but yes religious study in school was the norm.
> But there still are Christian schools etc.
> I think if Christians didn't get divorces, abortions, get locked up etc etc it would be easier to point a finger at "society".
> Society isn't forcing Christians not take their religion as serious as it used to.
> I will agree that society makes it tougher for Christian parents. Society makes it tougher on ALL parents than it used to be.
> Is that a matter of sociietys strength or is it exposing weakness in religion?


I’m not real sure, it could be society’s strength growing / changing, rather than a weakness in religion.

I guess my point is pertaining to the responsibility portion and how it is sometimes viewed.

The Puritans on a quest for freedom of religion most likely felt that part of their parental responsibility was to ensure that kids in their community were taught religion as it helps protect their values.

That same concept applies today. People still see that their responsibility is to ensure that our govt operates in a manner that protects our values.

What some need to realize is as society grows, those values change. We shouldn’t be shocked that we don’t do some things today as we did years ago.

Some Christians are stuck in the mindset that we are becoming an ungodly nation and we will all be doomed. They need to reread the Sodom and Gomorrah story and see if there are any righteous left before crying the sky is falling. It can viewed that ungodliness has affected our society as one reason it’s changed.

That being said, the non religious should understand that we only want the same things they do, our values protected.

The problem is within all of that mix, we have given more power to the govt. so everything now looks as if we are govt dependent.


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Don't go getting all dramatic on us Bro David.
> We have all tipped our hat to you for your efforts to help those who need it.
> However its also true that some folks are in that situation because they put themselves there. Some are in that situation through no fault of their own.
> Its the ones that put themselves there and would rather not lift a finger to get themselves out that there is no tolerance for.


Wasn't being dramatic , just trying to change the bashing point .


----------



## Brother David

j_seph said:


> But do you agree on in just the topic of more fatherless kids, more kids having babies and more sex out of marriage is greater now then it was then?
> 
> Was not God a bigger part of most folks lives then than it is now?


God and values left the home before they left the Church . 

The number of Christian homes has declined , but lack of responsibility for one's own actions and dependency on others will be the fall of society as we know it . It's always someone elses fault and don't discipline my baby he/she never does anything wrong . I have a tendency to blame everybody blaming others .


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I’m not real sure, it could be society’s strength growing / changing, rather than a weakness in religion.
> 
> I guess my point is pertaining to the responsibility portion and how it is sometimes viewed.
> 
> The Puritans on a quest for freedom of religion most likely felt that part of their parental responsibility was to ensure that kids in their community were taught religion as it helps protect their values.
> 
> That same concept applies today. People still see that their responsibility is to ensure that our govt operates in a manner that protects our values.
> 
> What some need to realize is as society grows, those values change. We shouldn’t be shocked that we don’t do some things today as we did years ago.
> 
> Some Christians are stuck in the mindset that we are becoming an ungodly nation and we will all be doomed. They need to reread the Sodom and Gonarah story and see if there are any righteous left before crying the sky is falling. It can viewed that ungodliness has affected our society as one reason it’s changed.
> 
> That being said, the non religious should understand that we only want the same things they do, our values protected.
> 
> The problem is within all of that mix, we have given more power to the govt. so everything now looks as if we are govt dependent.


I don't disagree with anything you said.
It really just boils down to the US we live in today isn't the same as it used to be. Christian, Muslim, other religions, no religions, gay, bi, straight, black, white, yellow, brown, Dem, Repub...….
For everybody to be treated equal, some are going to lose some, some are going to win some, some are going feel attacked, some are going to feel helped etc etc.
Its a gigantic juggling act and nobody is going to be 100% happy about it.


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> I don't disagree with anything you said.
> It really just boils down to the US we live in today isn't the same as it used to be. Christian, Muslim, other religions, no religions, gay, bi, straight, black, white, yellow, brown, Dem, Repub...….
> For everybody to be treated equal, some are going to lose some, some are going to win some, some are going feel attacked, some are going to feel helped etc etc.
> Its a gigantic juggling act and nobody is going to be 100% happy about it.


I don't completely agree or disagree , but I think you left out personal accountability .


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> I don't completely agree or disagree , but I think you left out personal accountability .


Personal accountability is always there. It goes without saying.


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> And I would say that's a reasonable conclusion. Although, I find what I believe to be true within. But it's a slippery slope picking and choosing what to believe. However, I will say it again, strangely, I feel as though I have no choice in what I believe. As if I have been preprogrammed. And I can see that in the Trins as well. As if they have been preprogrammed. You can show them all day long that the Trinity was not a belief until after the nicene creed, thus, could not have been taught by the disciples and  yet they will never once look into it. Don't you find that strange?. And, another example, how could a just God send his creation to eternal punishment and still be called just. That God would have to bear some of the responsibility for having created us  hard heads..... whom can't seem to find him, because he hides to well. But they love the concept of he1l, as if they are programmed to do so.



Wouldn't God also realize that it would be next to impossible for a Hindu to convert to Christianity due to their indoctrination? Wouldn't He have to open their eyes if he wanted them to see.

I may could convince 2 or 3 but God could convince 1,000's. Does one loose out on eternal life because he's been brainwashed as a child?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Since I don't believe in he1!, I don't have as hard of a time with my belief of some are chosen, some are not. Of course this brings lots of debate, however, in the OT, our  paralleling foundation, God chose one group to reveal himself to and make himself known among many differing beliefs about God and who he was. Without the he1! concept, it does not seem so harsh that God choses whom he wants for eternal life considering he gives us a lifetime. Of course, this is contradicted in NT, such as "all" but we know "all" will not be saved, and I am not saved because I was smart enough to figure it out. I was chosen to have it revealed. At one time that would have been called a knostic. However, the NT points to this. "The Keys of the kingdom have been given to you, but not to them". I will come to you and make myself known... etc. So, I will never expect to see a movement of Hindus or Muslims, or the like converting to Christianity. LOL, there not in the "all"


----------



## Israel

It is neither harder nor easier for the Hindu, the Muslim, the Baptist, the Catholic, the nuclear physicist, the janitor, the Nobel Laureate or the convicted serial killer, the man, the woman, the child, Priest, Pastor or Imam to believe in Jesus Christ.

The faith is given through the revelation of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> Since I don't believe in he1!, I don't have as hard of a time with my belief of some are chosen, some are not. Of course this brings lots of debate, however, in the OT, our  paralleling foundation, God chose one group to reveal himself to and make himself known among many differing beliefs about God and who he was. Without the he1! concept, it does not seem so harsh that God choses whom he wants for eternal life considering he gives us a lifetime. Of course, this is contradicted in NT, such as "all" but we know "all" will not be saved, and I am not saved because I was smart enough to figure it out. I was chosen to have it revealed. At one time that would have been called a knostic. However, the NT points to this. "The Keys of the kingdom have been given to you, but not to them". I will come to you and make myself known... etc. So, I will never expect to see a movement of Hindus or Muslims, or the like converting to Christianity. LOL, there not in the "all"



I don't believe in He11 either, if you aren't given everlasting life, you are given eternal death. So that does make it a little more easier perhaps to see salvation as a gift and not the lack there of as being cruel.

It doesn't really make God unjust that there are dead people in the ground that were never given this gift for various reasons. God never called them, we never reached them, their indoctrination never allowed them to convert, their mindset never allowed the to accept, they were hardened not to accept, etc.

No matter the reason, they were blind. How can a blind person see?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Israel said:


> It is neither harder nor easier for the Hindu, the Muslim, the Baptist, the Catholic, the nuclear physicist, the janitor, the Nobel Laureate or the convicted serial killer, the man, the woman, the child, Priest, Pastor or Imam to believe in Jesus Christ.
> 
> The faith is given through the revelation of Jesus Christ.



I would like to think so but it does appear that more children of the Christians are called to believe than the children of the Hindu.

I'm not sure of the numbers regarding the ancient civilizations of the Americas that came and went. How many of their children died believing?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> It is neither harder nor easier for the Hindu, the Muslim, the Baptist, the Catholic, the nuclear physicist, the janitor, the Nobel Laureate or the convicted serial killer, the man, the woman, the child, Priest, Pastor or Imam to believe in Jesus Christ.
> 
> The faith is given through the revelation of Jesus Christ.


https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> It is neither harder nor easier for the Hindu, the Muslim, the Baptist, the Catholic, the nuclear physicist, the janitor, the Nobel Laureate or the convicted serial killer, the man, the woman, the child, Priest, Pastor or Imam to believe in Jesus Christ.
> 
> The faith is given through the revelation of Jesus Christ.


I nominate this one for Doozie assertive claim of 2018.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/



Short version why all Israel doesn't believe;
A remnant was elected by grace and not works. The rest were hardened.

Romans 11:8
As the Scriptures say, "God has put them into a deep sleep. To this day he has shut their eyes so they do not see, and closed their ears so they do not hear."


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> I nominate this one for Doozie assertive claim of 2018.


That's why you don't understand Christianity. Scripture is revealed through the Holy Spirit .


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Short version why all Israel doesn't believe;
> A remnant was elected by grace and not works. The rest were hardened.
> 
> Romans 11:8
> As the Scriptures say, "God has put them into a deep sleep. To this day he has shut their eyes so they do not see, and closed their ears so they do not hear."


Well, if you wanted to change the rules  down the road...wouldn't you also say that?
Hindsight is always 20/20. Easy to write to suit.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> That's why you don't understand Christianity. Scripture is revealed through the Holy Spirit .


Yeah yeah yeah....I know.....


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> It is neither harder nor easier for the Hindu, the Muslim, the Baptist, the Catholic, the nuclear physicist, the janitor, the Nobel Laureate or the convicted serial killer, the man, the woman, the child, Priest, Pastor or Imam to believe in Jesus Christ.
> 
> The faith is given through the revelation of Jesus Christ.



Does a man get faith because he did something or did God decide to give it to that man?

This question is for all of you who "liked" the post as well.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> That's why you don't understand Christianity. Scripture is revealed through the Holy Spirit .


Thats a big can of worms Bro David.
Over 40,000 Christian denominations all with a different "revealing" of various scriptures.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Thats a big can of worms Bro David.
> Over 40,000 Christian denominations all with a different "revealing" of various scriptures.


Can of worms it does open, but he’s on target.

Everyone isn’t right in their “interpretation”.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Does a man get faith because he did something or did God decide to give it to that man?
> 
> This question is for all of you who "liked" the post as well.



I would like to think that God gives it to them based on grace and not works. That Jesus is revealed through the Holy Spirit.
What I don't understand is why does it appear that God gives this gift, based on grace and not works, to more children of Christians than Hindu children?

Maybe he doesn't and it just "appears" that he does.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Can of worms it does open, but he’s on target.
> 
> Everyone isn’t right in their “interpretation”.


That's probably true. Maybe even none of them are right.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Does a man get faith because he did something or did God decide to give it to that man?
> 
> This question is for all of you who "liked" the post as well.


According to scripture, God dealt to EVERY man the measure of faith. That includes you.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> That's probably true. Maybe even none of them are right.


I wouldn’t go as far as saying none.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I wouldn’t go as far as saying none.


Why not?


----------



## j_seph

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to think that God gives it to them based on grace and not works. That Jesus is revealed through the Holy Spirit.
> What I don't understand is why does it appear that God gives this gift, based on grace and not works, to more children of Christians than Hindu children?
> 
> Maybe he doesn't and it just "appears" that he does.


Bible says all have a measure of faith


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Why not?


Because all are not.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Because all are not.


Is it safe to say that most believe that they are right in their interpretation  and also think that others are incorrect in their interpretations?
(Basically saying "I" am of the special ones...."I" don't know about those others)

Are you one of the ones who are able to interpret correctly?
Are you able to recognize any others that "get it"?......how about the ones that don't?

Ps,I am not pointing a finger...I am curious to know how a person knows "they've got it" and another doesn't.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Because all are not.


Without knowing for a fact what is right or what is wrong leaves open the possibility of that none are right.
Same reason that I don't claim the Big Bang as we understand it is absolutely right.
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if our understanding of what the Big Bang is took a sharp left turn tomorrow. Might still be a Bang but our understanding of it could change as we learn more.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Is it safe to say that most believe that they are right in their interpretation  and also think that others are incorrect in their interpretations?
> (Basically saying "I" am of the special ones...."I" don't know about those others)
> 
> Are you one of the ones who are able to interpret correctly?
> Are you able to recognize any others that "get it"?......how about the ones that don't?
> 
> Ps,I am not pointing a finger...I am curious to know how a person knows "they've got it" and another doesn't.





WaltL1 said:


> Without knowing for a fact what is right or what is wrong leaves open the possibility of that none are right.
> Same reason that I don't claim the Big Bang as we understand it is absolutely right.
> I wouldn't be surprised in the least if our understanding of what the Big Bang is took a sharp left turn tomorrow. Might still be a Bang but our understanding of it could change as we learn more.


You’re both correct and it’s reasonable to think that everyone believes they are right.

The way I view this is if those scriptures are the inspired word of God through the spirit, it only seems logical that interpretation of those would be in spirit. And if a man believes that God works in mysterious ways, how does he know how God is or isn’t working with another man through scripture? It is as we understand it. That understanding will develop but it has to begin somewhere at its never at the same starting point.

So at what point is a man wrong in his interpretation? I realize there’s the obvious of “God told me to kill that man” or the Jim Jones cases.

I’ve always said that if a man is honestly seeking, regardless of how he interprets right now, he will eventually get there.

One reason I never tell a man I’m right and he’s wrong. I think if our motives are right, we will both get it before it’s over.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> You’re both correct and it’s reasonable to think that everyone believes they are right.
> 
> The way I view this is if those scriptures are the inspired word of God through the spirit, it only seems logical that interpretation of those would be in spirit. And if a man believes that God works in mysterious ways, how does he know how God is or isn’t working with another man through scripture? It is as we understand it. That understanding will develop but it has to begin somewhere at its never at the same starting point.
> 
> So at what point is a man wrong in his interpretation? I realize there’s the obvious of “God told me to kill that man” or the Jim Jones cases.
> 
> I’ve always said that if a man is honestly seeking, regardless of how he interprets right now, he will eventually get there.
> 
> One reason I never tell a man I’m right and he’s wrong. I think if our motives are right, we will both get it before it’s over.


The disagreement in here and above among believers who are all SURE they  understand it leads me to think that it is more likely than not that no God/Spirit has a hand in it at all. If so everyone would be in exact agreement.
And the fact that believers who use ANYTHING other than the bible written in its original language are arguing over and "understanding " a version that differs from the original. So if anything, MAYBE someone who was able to read, study and discuss the 1st version MIGHT have a better understanding than most, and all those who are basing their interpretations from the different versions are literally basing their beliefs on an imposter.
Don't for a second argue that the words you use as your guide now are the same words used then or that the message is kind of sort of the same, so "close enough" works.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> The disagreement in here and above among believers who are all SURE they  understand it leads me to think that it is more likely than not that no God/Spirit has a hand in it at all. If so everyone would be in exact agreement.
> And the fact that believers who use ANYTHING other than the bible written in its original language are arguing over and "understanding " a version that differs from the original. So if anything, MAYBE someone who was able to read, study and discuss the 1st version MIGHT have a better understanding than most, and all those who are basing their interpretations from the different versions are literally basing their beliefs on an imposter.
> Don't for a second argue that the words you use as your guide now are the same words used then or that the message is kind of sort of the same, so "close enough" works.


Key word to all of that is “self”.

I do read numerous commentaries and explanations of a Chapter and I’m not ever surprised they’re not the same. That never makes the Bible incorrect.


How many threads have been hammered in the hunting forum with “I think” or “it means” over game laws? Were the game laws wrong?


----------



## Spotlite

One of the biggest and hardest obstacles to overcome in religion is “self”.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Key word to all of that is “self”.
> 
> I do read numerous commentaries and explanations of a Chapter and I’m not ever surprised they’re not the same. That never makes the Bible incorrect.
> 
> 
> How many threads have been hammered in the hunting forum with “I think” or “it means” over game laws? Were the game laws wrong?


What version of the Bible?
Honest....


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> What version of the Bible?
> Honest....


I use KJV. But there’s not a great deal of differences in most versions. Some are easier to read. But to me the KJV is most consistent.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> One of the biggest and hardest obstacles to overcome in religion is “self”.



The biggest, hardest obstacle for society to overcome is the notion that a scripture is the infallible word of God.  If a man believes that he understands it correctly, there's no way of talking him out of doing something that he thinks is God's will.  Reason will no longer matter to him.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> The biggest, hardest obstacle for society to overcome is the notion that a scripture is the infallible word of God.  If a man believes that he understands it correctly, there's no way of talking him out of doing something that he thinks is God's will.  Reason will no longer matter to him.


Self is the reason the minority of the population is still struggling with being confident with that.

Seems it would be so easy to put to rest if you were.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> You’re both correct and it’s reasonable to think that everyone believes they are right.
> 
> The way I view this is if those scriptures are the inspired word of God through the spirit, it only seems logical that interpretation of those would be in spirit. And if a man believes that God works in mysterious ways, how does he know how God is or isn’t working with another man through scripture? It is as we understand it. That understanding will develop but it has to begin somewhere at its never at the same starting point.
> 
> So at what point is a man wrong in his interpretation? I realize there’s the obvious of “God told me to kill that man” or the Jim Jones cases.
> 
> I’ve always said that if a man is honestly seeking, regardless of how he interprets right now, he will eventually get there.
> 
> One reason I never tell a man I’m right and he’s wrong. I think if our motives are right, we will both get it before it’s over.





> he will eventually get there.


Will eventually get where?
To the correct understanding? And what is that?
When the correct understanding is unknown, the only place he will get is to a place which satisfies him. Not necessarily the correct place.
Thats why there is `40,000 denominations. Folks weren't satisfied with "there" but they are satisfied with "here".


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I use KJV. But there’s not a great deal of differences in most versions. Some are easier to read. But to me the KJV is most consistent.


Most consistent compared to what?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Most consistent compared to what?


To itself. Some versions do not do that. But I will see what they all say.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Will eventually get where?
> To the correct understanding? And what is that?
> When the correct understanding is unknown, the only place he will get is to a place which satisfies him. Not necessarily the correct place.
> Thats why there is `40,000 denominations. Folks weren't satisfied with "there" but they are satisfied with "here".


 I agree that folks satisfaction determines a lot of things. But when self is out of the way it is harder to make those scriptures please our liking. There’s alot of them that step on our toes for correction. 

With the right intent, man should never be satisfied with just reading something a couple of times. I dont know many that are not researching and studying on a daily basis.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> To itself. Some versions do not do that. But I will see what they all say.


Consistent to itself.....? What the heck does that even mean?
It uses Shakespearean words which do not even have the same meaning now as they did then, and even then they did not have the same meaning...or even existed in Aramaic/Greek when first written!!!!

I wish more believers would know the history of the religion they are a part of.

A few that participate too infrequently in here are well schooled in their religious history. But not many.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Consistent to itself.....? What the heck does that even mean?
> It uses Shakespearean words which do not even have the same meaning now as they did then, and even then they did not have the same meaning...or even existed in Aramaic/Greek when first written!!!!
> 
> I wish more believers would know the history of the religion they are a part of.
> 
> A few that participate too infrequently in here are well schooled in their religious history. But not many.


It means whatever it says in one particular chapter, another chapter is not going to say the opposite. Not sure if you’re familiar with how any book is written, it will list definitions and if those definitions aren’t there, it means then you can go to Webster for one. The Bible has definitions. Whoever translated it says this means that. For that particular version, it’s consistent from beginning to end with the translator. That was my point. 

I’m refraining from personal opions on the rest.


----------



## Spotlite

I’m not sure the reason you feel the need to dive off like that. I don’t understand that concept. Your simple question of which version and my reasoning for why I think it’s the most consistent to itself should be no offense to you or anyone else. Nothing in my comment demeaned another version and said mine was perfect or meant to establish history of anything. I don’t speak Greek. I speak English. And that version is consistent with the translation that I speak in every story it has. 

If you prefer to get technical with translated Greek words, we can do that.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I’m not sure the reason you feel the need to dive off like that. I don’t understand that concept. Your simple question of which version and my reasoning for why I think it’s the most consistent to itself should be no offense to you or anyone else. Nothing in my comment demeaned another version and said mine was perfect or meant to establish history of anything. I don’t speak Greek. I speak English. And that version is consistent with the translation that I speak in every story it has.
> 
> If you prefer to get technical with translated Greek words, we can do that.


I am not diving off in a personal manner against anyone. It is hard to convey intent through type. You will read it in whatever manner you think I intend.
What I meant was exactly what I said (that there are a few in here who are well schooled in the religions history) and they are able to compare later versions to earliest copies and see the differences.
I wish more went that far.
That is all.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I am not diving off in a personal manner against anyone. It is hard to convey intent through type. You will read it in whatever manner you think I intend.
> What I meant was exactly what I said (that there are a few in here who are well schooled in the religions history) and they are able to compare later versions to earliest copies and see the differences.
> I wish more went that far.
> That is all.


Ok I misunderstood then.

My meaning of being consistent with itself is assuming the historical research has already taken place. Accuracies and inaccuracies compared to history and other versions were not in the equation.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Does a man get faith because he did something or did God decide to give it to that man?
> 
> This question is for all of you who "liked" the post as well.


It is God's work.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> It is God's work.



Yes. It must be.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Brother David said:


> That's why you don't understand Christianity. Scripture is revealed through the Holy Spirit .


We have to be careful because all of these sects and denominations differing, claim to be correct in translation/understanding per the HS. So, many claiming correct doctrine are wrong, because they can't all be right and yet differ. Scripture is what it is, like math, 2 plus 2 is 4. But it's the context that we "read into" that we apply or think we understand a meaning.


----------



## Brother David

1gr8bldr said:


> We have to be careful because all of these sects and denominations differing, claim to be correct in translation/understanding per the HS. So, many claiming correct doctrine are wrong, because they can't all be right and yet differ. Scripture is what it is, like math, 2 plus 2 is 4. But it's the context that we "read into" that we apply or think we understand a meaning.


I tried my best not to get into docturnal or historical discussion about God's Holy Word.  I consider most of these debates to be similar to Monday morning quarterbacking . 
If a denomination believes in the Holy Trinity and that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven , I leave the rest up to the Lord .
Look at the very Nation we live in and the vast interpretations of our Declaration of Independence , as well as our Constitution and Bill of Rights . Each side is convinced they are right and know exactly what our founding Fathers meant . 

More examples I can use from current historical events to show my avoidance . Did man walk on Moon . Was 9-11 a inside job . The Russian medalling probe . 

As we all know the person who pens a paper , pens from there point of view . The person reading the words doesn't always get the same interpretation . This we know as fact , so therefore when I open the Word of God , I ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to me the intended context of the text . I don't always agree with my denominational interpretations of all scripture , but it's the closest to me . I am secure enough in my personal relationship with Christ , that if I am wrong I believe His forgiveness will cover my lack of knowledge as well . 

This is the wonderful part of Christ , perfection comes through Him , not what we learn , think or know . Christianity is about God's love for His CREATION , not what we know or think ! The only point we must not miss is Salvation through Christ and Him only . I going to leave the docturnal and historical arguments up to others and just continue to share God's love for the world .

P. S. ; I had older gentleman tell me one time the translation of the Bible I use is Blasphemy . He went on to inform me that Christ spoke in Old English and how dare I change the words that Christ wrote . When I tried to explain to him that I have a speech impediment and can't pronounce some of the words , his answer was quit preaching ! I didn't I just prayed for him . He asked me a few months ago would I speak at his funeral and I gladly accepted . God's goodness revealed !


----------



## Israel

The answers to these and many other questions coming soon!


----------



## hummerpoo

Spotlite said:


> One of the biggest and hardest obstacles to overcome in religion is “self”.


Without disagreeing with you in any way, I would suggest that it is also true that "The biggest and hardest obstacle to leading a good life is self".

I am not at all a fan of Descartes philosophy, as it might seem in that this is the second time I have lately quoted him:

"GOOD sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess. And in this it is not likely that all are mistaken: the conviction is rather to be held as testifying that the power of judging aright and of distinguishing Truth from Error, which is properly what is called Good Sense or Reason, is by nature equal in all men; and that the diversity of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of Reason than others, but solely from this, that we conduct our thoughts along different ways, and do not fix our attention on the same objects. For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest excellencies, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it." (Descartes, Discourse on the Method for Conduction One's Reason Well, Part One, opening paragraph)


----------



## Israel

> that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess.





Ha! The educated palate! The discerning taste! The wiser informed! The man who can sit at the five star restaurant and send the plate back with such conviction and impunity, finding the fault in what he says is one grain too much of salt in the Bernaise! Ahhh, at last...an expert willing to huff and go hungry!

Were he told the fault lay only in his tongue...needing more discerning...he would never believe it!

Hunger can indeed work...where all else fails.

And if need be, he can lie as cachectic and desiccated corpse as suitable instruction.

"The chef has unquestionable taste and he refuses to prepare another plate."


There is no other stream.


----------



## Spotlite

Brother David said:


> That's why you don't understand Christianity. Scripture is revealed through the Holy Spirit .


So many struggle with self education trying to analyze....they’re about as sharp as a bowling ball on understanding the spiritual. They’re so focused on proving a story wrong that they completely miss what the story is.

I’ve seen folks analyze the word “knew” and argue that Joseph didn’t even have any “knowledge” of Mary until after the birth of Jesus.


----------



## gemcgrew

Brother David said:


> I tried my best not to get into docturnal or historical discussion about God's Holy Word.



*Definition of docturnal *

1*: *of, relating to, or occurring in the doctor's office.
2: active at the ER.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I tried my best not to get into docturnal or historical discussion about God's Holy Word.  I consider most of these debates to be similar to Monday morning quarterbacking .
> If a denomination believes in the Holy Trinity and that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven , I leave the rest up to the Lord .
> Look at the very Nation we live in and the vast interpretations of our Declaration of Independence , as well as our Constitution and Bill of Rights . Each side is convinced they are right and know exactly what our founding Fathers meant .
> 
> More examples I can use from current historical events to show my avoidance . Did man walk on Moon . Was 9-11 a inside job . The Russian medalling probe .
> 
> As we all know the person who pens a paper , pens from there point of view . The person reading the words doesn't always get the same interpretation . This we know as fact , so therefore when I open the Word of God , I ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to me the intended context of the text . I don't always agree with my denominational interpretations of all scripture , but it's the closest to me . I am secure enough in my personal relationship with Christ , that if I am wrong I believe His forgiveness will cover my lack of knowledge as well .
> 
> This is the wonderful part of Christ , perfection comes through Him , not what we learn , think or know . Christianity is about God's love for His CREATION , not what we know or think ! The only point we must not miss is Salvation through Christ and Him only . I going to leave the docturnal and historical arguments up to others and just continue to share God's love for the world .
> 
> P. S. ; I had older gentleman tell me one time the translation of the Bible I use is Blasphemy . He went on to inform me that Christ spoke in Old English and how dare I change the words that Christ wrote . When I tried to explain to him that I have a speech impediment and can't pronounce some of the words , his answer was quit preaching ! I didn't I just prayed for him . He asked me a few months ago would I speak at his funeral and I gladly accepted . God's goodness revealed !


It sounds like the god you worship is no greater than the men who created him.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> *Definition of docturnal *
> 
> 1*: *of, relating to, or occurring in the doctor's office.
> 2: active at the ER.



I thought it was when you go to the doctor or ER at night.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> I thought it was when you go to the doctor or ER at night.


My definition was only a suggestion. Feel free to add to it.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> So many struggle with self education trying to analyze....they’re about as sharp as a bowling ball on understanding the spiritual. They’re so focused on proving a story wrong that they completely miss what the story is.
> 
> I’ve seen folks analyze the word “knew” and argue that Joseph didn’t even have any “knowledge” of Mary until after the birth of Jesus.


Spirit of the gaps.
It is another invisible excuse to try to make sense within one's own mind.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Brother David said:


> That's why you don't understand Christianity. Scripture is revealed through the Holy Spirit .


It's a shame that they don't have a big book with all the scripture written down in it, so you don't have to go through a sanctified haint to read and understand it.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spirit of the gaps.
> It is another invisible excuse to try to make sense within one's own mind.


I’m just going to politely disagree. I find it hard to perceive that so many folks are running around trying to make excuses for what they want to believe. 

If there’s nothing there to find, it’s pretty impressive for those that hang on to that for a lifetime. 

Then there are those that are impatient like myself, I’m moving fishing spots pretty quickly.


----------



## Spotlite

NCHillbilly said:


> It's a shame that they don't have a big book with all the scripture written down in it, so you don't have to go through a sanctified haint to read and understand it.


You don’t have to do that anyway.


----------



## Brother David

gemcgrew said:


> *Definition of docturnal *
> 
> 1*: *of, relating to, or occurring in the doctor's office.
> 2: active at the ER.


Sorry I didn't see my phone change it from doctrinal.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Sorry I didn't see my phone change it from doctrinal.


I have about given up on trying to post on here from a phone


----------



## gemcgrew

Brother David said:


> Sorry I didn't see my phone change it from doctrinal.


All in fun. I knew what you meant when I read it. I figured if Bro. David took the time to make a new word, the least I could do is make the definition.


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> I have about given up on trying to post on here from a phone



A few years ago my wife and I decided to remove the internet from home . I have the internet at the office and through my cellphone . I don't bring my laptop home anymore , home time is home time . It makes it easier and harder . 
And yes I despise spell check !


----------



## Brother David

NCHillbilly said:


> It's a shame that they don't have a big book with all the scripture written down in it, so you don't have to go through a sanctified haint to read and understand it.


That was the original intent of the Cannoized Bible . One thing I have to remind myself of is that the Books of the Bible were written in Aramaic , Hebrew and Greek and that there's always something lost in translation . Hence extremely thick commentaries that even drive those called to study a little bonkers . I am a Terrible chapter and verse guy , so I try to relate content to Author and I often paraphrase .


----------



## Artfuldodger

Brother David said:


> That was the original intent of the Cannoized Bible . One thing I have to remind myself of is that the Books of the Bible were written in Aramaic , Hebrew and Greek and that there's always something lost in translation . Hence extremely thick commentaries that even drive those called to study a little bonkers . I am a Terrible chapter and verse guy , so I try to relate content to Author and I often paraphrase .



If scripture was Canonized by a Council of men in Nicea, do we still need the Holy Spirit to make it make sense?
Weren't these man actually writing the "Word of God?"

I've always wondered how much of was from God vs man's translation considering these men were the voice of God.

I've never figured out why it took councils of men and more than one council to figure out what God was saying. 

I would have rather God just worked through one man to canonize and make it readable. Then we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit to make sense of scripture.
We could use the Holy Spirit's guidance for the other aspects of our daily living such as forgiving others, etc.


----------



## Brother David

Artfuldodger said:


> If scripture was Canonized by a Council of men in Nicea, do we still need the Holy Spirit to make it make sense?
> Weren't these man actually writing the "Word of God?"
> 
> I've always wondered how much of was from God vs man's translation considering these men were the voice of God.
> 
> I've never figured out why it took councils of men and more than one council to figure out what God was saying.
> 
> I would have rather God just worked through one man to canonize and make it readable. Then we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit to make sense of scripture.
> We could use the Holy Spirit's guidance for the other aspects of our daily living such as forgiving others, etc.



I think I understand where you're going but remember the Bible , as we know it , was transcribed and assemble by early "Catholic Monks " , thus the KJV ( simple answer ) . The writings in which are included , for lack of a complex answer , are what the early Church Leaders deemed pertinent . 

To only allow the Holy Spirit to have influence in specific aspects of our lives only puts parameters on what God can do . The Holy Spirit should guide everything we do , remember the Holy Spirit is not a thing but a He .


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> If scripture was Canonized by a Council of men in Nicea, do we still need the Holy Spirit to make it make sense?
> Weren't these man actually writing the "Word of God?"
> 
> I've always wondered how much of was from God vs man's translation considering these men were the voice of God.
> 
> I've never figured out why it took councils of men and more than one council to figure out what God was saying.
> 
> I would have rather God just worked through one man to canonize and make it readable. Then we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit to make sense of scripture.
> We could use the Holy Spirit's guidance for the other aspects of our daily living such as forgiving others, etc.


I scratch my head at Pope selections.  The Cardinals are all supposed to be guided by the same Holy SPIRIT that is talked about in here constantly. And the vote for the Pope is never Unanimous. 
Hmmmm


----------



## Israel

For those who can receive it. (is it ever any other way?)

I quickly found at least 15 references to "scribes and pharisees" recorded as spoken by Jesus. Most on here, calling themselves either believer or unbeliever, alike have a general sense of how these are pronounced. In what context Jesus mentions "scribes and pharisees". Though Jesus never flatters anyone, these references are as far from commendation as one could probably imagine.

And we know also what the scribes...do.
Yet Jesus maintains a particular relationship to "the scriptures" regardless of any esteem we might infer (or lack thereof) to those charged or engaged with its "passing down". In short, even if the men who transcribe them may be scoundrels (my words) another man would have to exercise great care to any surmising therefore of casual dismissal of what Jesus esteemed highly. Jesus never says, one way or the other, never enters into any speculations, one way or another, about what would (or could) appear as an area into which a man _might go_ to navigate in regards to the scriptures.

"The men are not the "best men" who have given us these scrolls upon which they have worked their transcription...how do I know their (_even pronounced!_) poverty of character has not infected them?"

How do I know (or any man know?) what_ I receive_ is not corrupted...by the handling of corrupt man? How do I know this is what Isaiah _even said_...and if even so, how do I know he heard it from the Lord? Simply because Isaiah has said so? Simply because my parents handed me these scrolls and told me they are "holy"? Simply because my tribe...says so? How do I know? Can I know?

This venue does not lend itself to this exploration. But God does. God will reason with a man over these questions for the whole of a lifetime, if a man has them.

Jesus surely was not naive as to the motives of men's hearts. Nevertheless he plainly declares purity, that singleness of eye has both its rewards if found (because faith convicts him of its reality), and consequences if ignored. Or relegated to "non-existence" by unbelief. And He is unashamed to say it is only found "in Him".

Cherry picking (but more the _motive for it_) and likewise naive gullibility (and no less _its motive for it_) are not things I have found God unwilling in which to engage a man _in reasoning._

God knows the single question above all that only He can answer for any man, and it is not a thing I have found Him unwilling to entertain..._even if it sound all faithless. _

"Is there anything at all then...that can be trusted?"

Any _who_, at all?

The _giving from_ and _reception of_ that answer can only come_ from One place, _and it _is only asked from one place_ to any _sincerity_. Where the man knows he _dare not even_ trust himself. (and _that knowing_ is as miraculous a gift...as any)

To _this answer_ the man is continually provoked. And provoked _to relief._


_It is hard to kick against the pricks._


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> For those who can receive it. (is it ever any other way?)
> 
> I quickly found at least 15 references to "scribes and pharisees" recorded as spoken by Jesus. Most on here, calling themselves either believer or unbeliever, alike have a general sense of how these are pronounced. In what context Jesus mentions "scribes and pharisees". Though Jesus never flatters anyone, these references are as far from commendation as one could probably imagine.
> 
> And we know also what the scribes...do.
> Yet Jesus maintains a particular relationship to "the scriptures" regardless of any esteem we might infer (or lack thereof) to those charged or engaged with its "passing down". In short, even if the men who transcribe them may be scoundrels (my words) another man would have to exercise great care to any surmising therefore of casual dismissal of what Jesus esteemed highly. Jesus never says, one way or the other, never enters into any speculations, one way or another, about what would (or could) appear as an area into which a man _might go_ to navigate in regards to the scriptures.
> 
> "The men are not the "best men" who have given us these scrolls upon which they have worked their transcription...how do I know their (_even pronounced!_) poverty of character has not infected them?"
> 
> How do I know (or any man know?) what_ I receive_ is not corrupted...by the handling of corrupt man? How do I know this is what Isaiah _even said_...and if even so, how do I know he heard it from the Lord? Simply because Isaiah has said so? Simply because my parents handed me these scrolls and told me they are "holy"? Simply because my tribe...says so? How do I know? Can I know?
> 
> This venue does not lend itself to this exploration. But God does. God will reason with a man over these questions for the whole of a lifetime, if a man has them.
> 
> Jesus surely was not naive as to the motives of men's hearts. Nevertheless he plainly declares purity, that singleness of eye has both its rewards if found (because faith convicts him of its reality), and consequences if ignored. Or relegated to "non-existence" by unbelief. And He is unashamed to say it is only found "in Him".
> 
> Cherry picking (but more the _motive for it_) and likewise naive gullibility (and no less _its motive for it_) are not things I have found God unwilling in which to engage a man _in reasoning._
> 
> God knows the single question above all that only He can answer for any man, and it is not a thing I have found Him unwilling to entertain..._even if it sound all faithless. _
> 
> "Is there anything at all then...that can be trusted?"
> 
> Any _who_, at all?
> 
> The _giving from_ and _reception of_ that answer can only come_ from One place, _and it _is only asked from one place_ to any _sincerity_. Where the man knows he _dare not even_ trust himself. (and _that knowing_ is as miraculous a gift...as any)
> 
> To _this answer_ the man is continually provoked. And provoked _to relief._
> 
> 
> _It is hard to kick against the pricks._


I honestly applaud your writing skills. I promise you I do.
But all this style is your thoughts, your version of what Jesus is to you, what version this guy needs to be in order for you to carry on.
I can't hold that against you.
But I can't take it as anything more than your version of what you need a god to be, and it is eerily similar to what the anonymous authors of what became scripture did.
They "knew" Yeshua about as well as you do.

If any of it, old or new, was anything more than wishful thinking, these constant assertions and claims wouldn't need to be made.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I scratch my head at Pope selections.  The Cardinals are all supposed to be guided by the same Holy SPIRIT that is talked about in here constantly. And the vote for the Pope is never Unanimous.
> Hmmmm


I scratch my head at that entire organization.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I scratch my head at that entire organization.


Yeah, but they've been around the longest. That organization is what made what you read and worship today......


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> I scratch my head at that entire organization.


 
You do realize that same organization decided on how you should believe the Trinity, works, grace, election, predestination, and scripture renditions?

Even with the Protestant Schism, they kept most of what the original Church believed about most of what was decided on at the councils. 

The schism was mostly about works and buying one's salvation. They kept the parts about the Canon and the Trinity.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Which goes back to this council of men who were deciding for the rest of us how it was. We were too dumb. We were too protesting. We couldn't stay with what God had given these men. They knew better than us.
They got it directly from God.

Except? The works part. They got all the rest right but didn't hear God correctly on the works part. They got the Trinity part right.  They got the correct books in the Bible right. But somehow they completely missed what God was conveying to them on a works based salvation.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Which goes back to this council of men who were deciding for the rest of us how it was. We were too dumb. We were too protesting. We couldn't stay with what God had given these men. They knew better than us.
> They got it directly from God.
> 
> Except? The works part. They got all the rest right but didn't hear God correctly on the works part. They got the Trinity part right.  They got the correct books in the Bible right. But somehow they completely missed what God was conveying to them on a works based salvation.


Were those parts actually "right" or just agreeable because they are likable enough to go along with them?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> I scratch my head at that entire organization.



Finally God gives men the power to figure it all out for the rest of us and we go and cause a schism. Now we've got hundreds of different denominations all thinking they know what God said when he appointed these councils at the beginning to stop this from happening.

Then we go as far as believing some of what happened at the councils is God inspired but some of it isn't.
No wonder people scratch their head at the schism.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Were those parts actually "right" or just agreeable because they are likable enough to go along with them?



I'd say either all of it was right or none of it was. If the works salvation was wrong then so is the Trinity. If the works based salvation is wrong then so is the Canon. The book of Enoch comes to mind. I think it should be Canon.

Edit; not really wrong but missed. Not all from God but man. Not inspired but voted on. Just like the Democrats and Republicans coming together. It was men, men with faults, humans. 
Maybe they got some of it right and I'm sure they got a lot wrong.

Otherwise God would not need a council of men. He'd use one man at the most or tell us himself.


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> You do realize that same organization decided on how you should believe the Trinity, works, grace, election, predestination, and scripture renditions?
> 
> Even with the Protestant Schism, they kept most of what the original Church believed about most of what was decided on at the councils.
> 
> The schism was mostly about works and buying one's salvation. They kept the parts about the Canon and the Trinity.


I realize that they got together, but I also know that NOTHING they decided on has NOTHING to do with or can even come close to the salvation as we know it. They missed that part by a mile.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Yeah, but they've been around the longest. That organization is what made what you read and worship today......


Wrong. I know exactly where my church started. It ain’t from them. And it ain’t from some historian commentary. Read Acts.

Remember there’s a difference in the spiritual side of this.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Wrong. I know exactly where my church started. It ain’t from them. And it ain’t from some historian commentary. Read Acts.
> 
> Remember there’s a difference in the spiritual side of this.


I know, I know, I know...you don't need "them" now that you've used what they put together to get you started and you have filled in your own blanks since the initial baseline with the spirit stuff.
Like your KJV...written roughly 1300 years AFTER the earliest copies, and written by Englishmen who had no idea about Hebrew. And taken from what copies the Catholic Church allowed to exist (they burned the rest) But , you use it because it works for you and therefore you excuse the errors with "the spirit makes up for all that" thoughts.
I get it.

Don't forget who decided Acts made the book though...


----------



## Israel

The promised gift has never been the scriptures of themselves, but always and only to what they may help lead.

The gift of the Holy Spirit _given in the name of Jesus Christ.
Can the scriptures be a help there? _Of course. Can they be appreciated rightly to that help? ...even more I would say. Are they themselves though, the writings, and of themselves, _the all_ into which a man is_ given to put his trust? Are they?_

Is "the book" the new life, the newness of life, and even great study of it...(and there may be found many pleasures in searching it out) all and only what "delimits" the Kingdom of God?

Is there a mind which imagines, believes, is even convicted there is a regal podium in Heaven, and so arrayed in such glory as a man might imagine, and beyond imagining...and upon this sits "The Bible"? (Cue the spotlights)



I believe so. I believe I have touched these minds, in truth. I have touched minds that so exalt the "KJV" (for example) as to, in so many words reduced, be saying quite plainly "It's the version God Himself...uses".

Laugh if you will, laugh if you care to. Laugh...if you dare to.

Is the Book...the end of all things?

Handling this book as weapon is the most two edged of swords. The man who might do so might learn. Will he decry to God over those who do not "receive it"? As he presents it? On what grounds? Is Jesus Christ "Bible dependent" so to speak? (Does Christ stand because a book is true...or is the book _shown true_ in the standing of Christ?) If so...if he sees it as such, reads the "instructions" as such, says he embraces the instructions...as such (and convinces himself "the Bible" =Jesus Christ) is he the man who "prays without ceasing?" The man who rejoices in (all) tribulation? Gives thanks in _and for_ all things? Is he the man who loves not his own life even unto death? On which thing upon that he believes he might exalt "the Bible" as all and final authority, might he not equally find himself...condemned?

"Do what the Bible teaches."

Which part? The part where Cain slays Abel? Where Judas betrays with a kiss?  Where David covets another man's wife...and sets out to slay him?
Ain't that funny? I didn't need the Bible to learn to do that...at all!

What I did need to see is myself...and someone else. And I needed to see how easily I would judge the above men...not even knowing whom I was judging. I needed...someone else to show me. A difference. Between He, and I. Now I had some basis for identity that went beyond my imaginings of whom "I am" in the light of His..."am-ness". Yes...it was a deep gift, but of all necessity. Just beginning to explore it, myself. There is a person...another person is made...to relate to! One cannot ever know himself apart from the knowing of another...and when that other says "yourself" is perfect and suitable basis for exchange in this, well, every man will find out (if he hasn't already)...even your dearest wife, at times, wants you "a little different"! (Unless, of course, you don't know her...at all.) And that would be a shame to a man...not knowing his wife.

Ahhh, but this other, ain't _no one like. "Are you cleaning me because you don't like me?" _

_nope, I'm cleaning you cause you don't even know you can't bear yourself!" _

_But Lord, I feel quite comfortable and presentable to myself!_


_"Yeah, that's the first sign of disease."_

_"And you're going where disease...ain't"_

Look, we can all probably quote "ye do search the scriptures believing that in them you will find eternal life, and they are that which testify of me, but you will not come to me that you might have life".

Was Jesus making _less of_ the scriptures? God forbid!

Was Jesus saying something about man, about how man relates, even _to truth as written and declared truth (even by such men!) _that an impediment remaining, of which He alone can remove...blinds men to the truth...even when right before them? Is it lack of study? More effort...needed? More...what? Needed? Better translations? Better lexicons? (None of which God may be found despising...unless a man might be tempted to believe "he" can figure this out...then...he may learn something about his own calculus)

The one thing lacking. Jesus speaks to man who does the law, who does "the instructions" about "but this one thing you lack"...

And what of Paul, what of his instruction, his words...his knowings? What does a man do with "The Lord says this..." but in another place..."I say this, and not the Lord..."
That's just..."me"? If it's all and only a book to be _legally followed, _exalted as be all, and end all of all things...and in the book is written "this is just me...not the Lord"...what do we find? If we do not see the inspiration we cannot see the "inspirer"...and that is not the fault "of the book".

And what of what we are told "is there"...but not recorded? By John...of the many "other things"...that if a book were written of all, the world could not contain...?

Yes, the book we have is more than sufficient to bring us to something. But it is the Someone to which it brings...that is all and only "Alpha and Omega" and the promise revealed in Him and through Him, and by His work.

Did Paul say (of some man...) he saw things, heard things...which it is not lawful to utter? Does that man's obedience to not speak them (as I believe he was) to their recording "in the book" or in epistle or mention (did Paul know he was writing for at least 50 generations hence from his time?) mean they are somehow "less than real and true"...because we do not find these things unlawful to utter...uttered?

I am not, as some might easily think, seeking to make "less" of the scriptures. God knows with whom I would be entering into such contention. God silences a man, God bids a man speak. God may bid one man write, another find it forbidden. Jesus may say "I have yet much to tell you...but you cannot bear it now..." One man may say "I have delivered to you the whole counsel of God".

For a man to be in that place of knowing in part, knowing there is more, and much more that he does not yet know...and is told so...and can find the place of the bearing  of it...and find _what is in that place alone_...now delivered into the earth in and through His name...

We may see what is inside of Jesus Christ, who is inside of Jesus Christ, and how He is inside of Jesus Christ. As God wills a man may even hear stones singing Hosannas. And see the Lord.

Or be reproved by an a**.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Don't forget who decided Acts made the book though...


Do you know that you are strengthening the believer? Or do you imagine that you are weakening the believer?


----------



## Brother David

Spotlite said:


> I scratch my head at that entire organization.


Religion has miss led many , therefore we must live by Faith .


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Do you know that you are strengthening the believer? Or do you imagine that you are weakening the believer?


I am conversing with a believer.  Each gets out of it what they want or need.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> I am conversing with a believer.  Each gets out of it what they want or need.


Often I have a bad habit of trying to read between the lines . I believe some on this forum really want to believe . The one problematic issue is unsubstantiated proof . Christ warns us in word not to seek signs rather to walk by Faith . I challenge you to look up Faith.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Often I have a bad habit of trying to read between the lines . I believe some on this forum really want to believe . The one problematic issue is unsubstantiated proof . Christ warns us in word not to seek signs rather to walk by Faith . I challenge you to look up Faith.


Challenge Accepted!
Now what?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Often I have a bad habit of trying to read between the lines . I believe some on this forum really want to believe . The one problematic issue is unsubstantiated proof . Christ warns us in word not to seek signs rather to walk by Faith . I challenge you to look up Faith.


I understand what faith is and what faith means.
It is not faith that I have a problem with.
It is the source that tells me to have faith.

This may come as a surprise to you but....I just do not believe nor do I have faith that the contents of the bible are the words of any sort of deity. To the point of exactly ZERO on a scale of ZERO to Ten or Zero to Infinity on how much faith I have in it.

I am convinced to the point that I think it is more likely than not that the Bible and it's contents are the works of man. Period. 
I think that it is more likely than not the works of various mostly anonymous authors (OT) who wrote about their history as a culture in a time when many if not all ancient cultures were truly convinced that they were special because a God or Gods liked them more than it liked their neighbors. History is FULL of those stories.
Then I think, mainly because the history of religions worldwide and mainly for this discussion, the Jewish  religion was constantly being challenged from inside and out with new cults and leaders and sects and splinter groups (just like Christianity is) which all had their followers....comes a time where some latched on to a young Apocalyptic preacher and followed him(just like others before..during..and after..did). He made his run and got killed for it.
But, there was always someone else willing to Capitalize on it and Saul/Paul was able to say the things that people wanted to hear at the right time to start a religion around a man who was long dead.
If you study the history of how Christianity was decided upon to be the main religion for the most powerful Empire of the world, you will see it had NOTHING to do with divinity.  It had everything to do with politicians, clergy and what was felt that would best be able to control the masses.


I am sorry, but I do not buy into the writings of some old guy telling me that some god told him that I should disregard all the things that just do not add up because I should just have faith.

I dont have faith in that source of faith.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> Challenge Accepted!
> Now what?


Pray !


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> I understand what faith is and what faith means.
> It is not faith that I have a problem with.
> It is the source that tells me to have faith.
> 
> This may come as a surprise to you but....I just do not believe nor do I have faith that the contents of the bible are the words of any sort of deity. To the point of exactly ZERO on a scale of ZERO to Ten or Zero to Infinity on how much faith I have in it.
> 
> I am convinced to the point that I think it is more likely than not that the Bible and it's contents are the works of man. Period.
> I think that it is more likely than not the works of various mostly anonymous authors (OT) who wrote about their history as a culture in a time when many if not all ancient cultures were truly convinced that they were special because a God or Gods liked them more than it liked their neighbors. History is FULL of those stories.
> Then I think, mainly because the history of religions worldwide and mainly for this discussion, the Jewish  religion was constantly being challenged from inside and out with new cults and leaders and sects and splinter groups (just like Christianity is) which all had their followers....comes a time where some latched on to a young Apocalyptic preacher and followed him(just like others before..during..and after..did). He made his run and got killed for it.
> But, there was always someone else willing to Capitalize on it and Saul/Paul was able to say the things that people wanted to hear at the right time to start a religion around a man who was long dead.
> If you study the history of how Christianity was decided upon to be the main religion for the most powerful Empire of the world, you will see it had NOTHING to do with divinity.  It had everything to do with politicians, clergy and what was felt that would best be able to control the masses.
> 
> 
> I am sorry, but I do not buy into the writings of some old guy telling me that some god told him that I should disregard all the things that just do not add up because I should just have faith.
> 
> I dont have faith in that source of faith.


I also don't trust men ! Hence my prayers and medication !


----------



## ky55

Brother David said:


> I also don't trust men ! Hence my prayers and medication !



Have you ever asked your doctor about increasing your medication?


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> Often I have a bad habit of trying to read between the lines . I believe some on this forum really want to believe . The one problematic issue is unsubstantiated proof . Christ warns us in word not to seek signs rather to walk by Faith . I challenge you to look up Faith.


 
I don't think I've ever seen these two words linked together like this in the positive.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Often I have a bad habit of trying to read between the lines . I believe some on this forum really want to believe . The one problematic issue is unsubstantiated proof . Christ warns us in word not to seek signs rather to walk by Faith . I challenge you to look up Faith.


I don't want or not want to believe.


----------



## WaltL1

ky55 said:


> Have you ever asked your doctor about increasing your medication?



I think Bro David is on his phone again.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I don't want or not want to believe.



I don't want to think wrongly.


----------



## 660griz

ky55 said:


> Have you ever asked your doctor about increasing your medication?


Is the doctor a man?


----------



## Brother David

ky55 said:


> Have you ever asked your doctor about increasing your medication?




Already have !!!!


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Pray !


I wouldn't know who or what to pray to without the words of the untrustworthy men who wrote the things telling us who to pray to.

You would have absolutely no knowledge of any god had it not been written first by men.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I also don't trust men ! Hence my prayers and medication !


You absolutely rely on the words of men as your beliefs.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> I wouldn't know who or what to pray to without the words of the untrustworthy men who wrote the things telling us who to pray to.
> 
> You would have absolutely no knowledge of any god had it not been written first by men.


This ^
Because it becomes so real, so important, such an integral part of a believer's life, they "hear" God, "feel God", have a "relationship" with God and completely forget they wouldnt even know what/who God is if they haven't been told/read about him.


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> You absolutely rely on the words of men as your beliefs.



Yep. 
100%


----------



## bullethead

The "All In" god people AFTER the fact just slay me.

None knew of a god until they were told about a god or read about a god. Then once the seed is planted the imaginations run wild connecting invisible dots that all lead the individual to think that somehow they are more special than not only every non believer but also every other believer.  And act as if they came up with their beliefs all on their own...when in reality the same faithful would be bowing to spoiled coconuts as their gods had they been brought up on some remote island and feeling just as special and just as sure as they are now about the religion that they have been groomed to be a part of.

When you were little and your Great  Uncle patted you on the head and slipped you a dollar saying "shhh, dont tell your brother or sister" and you thought it was because you were his "favorite"....he was giving them a dollar also and telling them the same thing.


----------



## bullethead

Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced. — Joe Klein


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Congrats Brother David on one of the longest, if not the longest thread ever started in AAA.


----------



## Brother David

ky55 said:


> Yep.
> 100%





bullethead said:


> You absolutely rely on the words of men as your beliefs.



Absolutely , I can find no evidence why anyone would lie to someone about leading a loving caring life . If they did , oh well I am better for it . Putting others before myself has filled so many voids in life . I think I am going to continue to pray seek guidance from God the Creator , it has absolutely made me a better person .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I also don't trust men ! Hence my prayers and medication !


Ok. So far we have established that you Do not trust men, but you rely on them because you trust that nobody would lie about leading a loving and caring life.

Are you often contradictory?
Let me gues, Yes and No!!!!!


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> Ok. So far we have established that you Do not trust men, but you rely on them because you trust that nobody would lie about leading a loving and caring life.
> 
> Are you often contradictory?
> Let me gues, Yes and No!!!!!



You know what I meant in my post . No need for the back and forth it's childish .


----------



## ky55

Brother David said:


> You know what I meant in my post . No need for the back and forth it's childish .



You playing the victim card again, Bro D?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I know, I know, I know...you don't need "them" now that you've used what they put together to get you started and you have filled in your own blanks since the initial baseline with the spirit stuff.
> Like your KJV...written roughly 1300 years AFTER the earliest copies, and written by Englishmen who had no idea about Hebrew. And taken from what copies the Catholic Church allowed to exist (they burned the rest) But , you use it because it works for you and therefore you excuse the errors with "the spirit makes up for all that" thoughts.
> I get it.
> 
> Don't forget who decided Acts made the book though...


Nah...it’s not even about that. You can weave in and out of history with research and find tons of “errors” seen as misquotes, misinterpretation, etc. I’m not foolish enough to state that with man’s translating there are no errors.

But I can tell you one thing, Acts is real. It’s not the overwhelming emotion you describe related to a ball game either.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced. — Joe Klein


You can’t have both in one sentence.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I understand what faith is and what faith means.
> It is not faith that I have a problem with.
> It is the source that tells me to have faith.
> 
> This may come as a surprise to you but....I just do not believe nor do I have faith that the contents of the bible are the words of any sort of deity. To the point of exactly ZERO on a scale of ZERO to Ten or Zero to Infinity on how much faith I have in it.
> 
> I am convinced to the point that I think it is more likely than not that the Bible and it's contents are the works of man. Period.
> I think that it is more likely than not the works of various mostly anonymous authors (OT) who wrote about their history as a culture in a time when many if not all ancient cultures were truly convinced that they were special because a God or Gods liked them more than it liked their neighbors. History is FULL of those stories.
> Then I think, mainly because the history of religions worldwide and mainly for this discussion, the Jewish  religion was constantly being challenged from inside and out with new cults and leaders and sects and splinter groups (just like Christianity is) which all had their followers....comes a time where some latched on to a young Apocalyptic preacher and followed him(just like others before..during..and after..did). He made his run and got killed for it.
> But, there was always someone else willing to Capitalize on it and Saul/Paul was able to say the things that people wanted to hear at the right time to start a religion around a man who was long dead.
> If you study the history of how Christianity was decided upon to be the main religion for the most powerful Empire of the world, you will see it had NOTHING to do with divinity.  It had everything to do with politicians, clergy and what was felt that would best be able to control the masses.
> 
> 
> I am sorry, but I do not buy into the writings of some old guy telling me that some god told him that I should disregard all the things that just do not add up because I should just have faith.
> 
> I dont have faith in that source of faith.


What would you be disregarding? 99% of religion could care less about the age of the earth, don’t care if the Big Bang is how it was created, don’t care if man was created through the evolution process (formed from the earth) , don’t care if the sea really parted, etc.

What they care about is the ability to read these stories for instruction and the assurance that a way will be made in their situation.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> I don't want to think wrongly.


None of us do. But many are deceived into thinking that there’s not a possibility that they’re wrong.

Now.....I’m taking my ball and going home for a few days. My son is getting married this weekend and I have some family / friends to entertain and a lot of preparation ahead. ?


----------



## ky55

Spotlite said:


> None of us do. But many are deceived into thinking that there’s not a possibility that they’re wrong.
> 
> Now.....I’m taking my ball and going home for a few days. My son is getting married this weekend and I have some family / friends to entertain and a lot of preparation ahead. ?



Have fun, and I hope your son and his bride have a super nice wedding!


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I don't want to think wrongly.


I don't want to think wrongly.

I don't

want

to think wrongly.

I don't want to build wrongly.
I don't want to drive wrongly.
I don't want to speak wrongly.
I don't want to discharge my firearm wrongly.

The last 4 examples make it a little more plain that there can be a thing done that is not itself the desire for rightness in it, nor the concomitant hope of not experiencing wrongness in it. The _thing of_ not wanting to "do it wrongly" must precede, and is therefore not that very act (and separate from them)_ of the doing._

How then is that squared to "I do not want to think wrongly"? It might be of better accuracy, if not usefulness to say "I think I do not want to think wrongly" unless one plainly and concisely can separate _that want_ from the very act of thinking.

In other words "I am myself, in myself, all that is separate from the _proceeding act of thinking _what is_ "_to _the right, _and not_ the wrong". _

_"Before thought...my essence is of right"_

Unless one is able to concede "I _am only_ what thinks I do not want to think wrongly"

The _liking of the color red_ is not, and cannot be itself, the color red.
Yet the thinking one has the desire to not think wrongly...remains itself...only, and no more than...thinking.

And some men yet find laughter in the thought of speaking in tongues!

When they awaken to the fact that they speak to their very own selves not even knowing what they say...they may find hope for more sense.

But brother...you are no more to the _right of things_ than I, or any other man born of water. All "I"s like the way they think. _And think _they do not want to think "_wrongly_."

So it may ultimately be of most accuracy to say "I am what _wants to think of itself_ as what does not want to think wrongly"

But then one would simply be saying "I am just a man".

And really, we all already knew that.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> You know what I meant in my post . No need for the back and forth it's childish .


You contradicted yourself so No, I do not know what you meant.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Nah...it’s not even about that. You can weave in and out of history with research and find tons of “errors” seen as misquotes, misinterpretation, etc. I’m not foolish enough to state that with man’s translating there are no errors.
> 
> But I can tell you one thing, Acts is real. It’s not the overwhelming emotion you describe related to a ball game either.


It's the added words, added verses and changed words Spotlite. They are not errors. They are willful changes.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> What would you be disregarding? 99% of religion could care less about the age of the earth, don’t care if the Big Bang is how it was created, don’t care if man was created through the evolution process (formed from the earth) , don’t care if the sea really parted, etc.
> 
> What they care about is the ability to read these stories for instruction and the assurance that a way will be made in their situation.


Spotlite,  why do I get along in life just as well as any other person without all that assurance.?
I think you touched on it...the bible is a crutch for those that need it. It is a safety blanket.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> None of us do. But many are deceived into thinking that there’s not a possibility that they’re wrong.
> 
> Now.....I’m taking my ball and going home for a few days. My son is getting married this weekend and I have some family / friends to entertain and a lot of preparation ahead. ?


Have a blast! Enjoy the celebration. Congrats to you and your Son. Please accept a long distance handshake from Pennsylvania.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> You contradicted yourself so No, I do not know what you meant.


Man falls , God doesn't .


----------



## Brother David

Spotlite said:


> None of us do. But many are deceived into thinking that there’s not a possibility that they’re wrong.
> 
> Now.....I’m taking my ball and going home for a few days. My son is getting married this weekend and I have some family / friends to entertain and a lot of preparation ahead. ?


May God bless you and your family time !


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Man falls , God doesn't .


Man told you that.
You are a man telling us that.
You told us you don't trust man...……………….
Get it?


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> None of us do. But many are deceived into thinking that there’s not a possibility that they’re wrong.
> 
> Now.....I’m taking my ball and going home for a few days. My son is getting married this weekend and I have some family / friends to entertain and a lot of preparation ahead. ?


Congrats to your son!


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Man falls , God doesn't .


Can you see why I do not take your assertions as reliable?


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Man told you that.
> You are a man telling us that.
> You told us you don't trust man...……………….
> Get it?


Prove it !


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> Can you see why I do not take your assertions as reliable?


Ok , give me your proof .


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> I don't want to think wrongly.
> 
> I don't
> 
> want
> 
> to think wrongly.
> 
> I don't want to build wrongly.
> I don't want to drive wrongly.
> I don't want to speak wrongly.
> I don't want to discharge my firearm wrongly.
> 
> The last 4 examples make it a little more plain that there can be a thing done that is not itself the desire for rightness in it, nor the concomitant hope of not experiencing wrongness in it. The _thing of_ not wanting to "do it wrongly" must precede, and is therefore not that very act (and separate from them)_ of the doing._
> 
> How then is that squared to "I do not want to think wrongly"? It might be of better accuracy, if not usefulness to say "I think I do not want to think wrongly" unless one plainly and concisely can separate _that want_ from the very act of thinking.
> 
> In other words "I am myself, in myself, all that is separate from the _proceeding act of thinking _what is_ "_to _the right, _and not_ the wrong". _
> 
> _"Before thought...my essence is of right"_
> 
> Unless one is able to concede "I _am only_ what thinks I do not want to think wrongly"
> 
> The _liking of the color red_ is not, and cannot be itself, the color red.
> Yet the thinking one has the desire to not think wrongly...remains itself...only, and no more than...thinking.
> 
> And some men yet find laughter in the thought of speaking in tongues!
> 
> When they awaken to the fact that they speak to their very own selves not even knowing what they say...they may find hope for more sense.
> 
> But brother...you are no more to the _right of things_ than I, or any other man born of water. All "I"s like the way they think. _And think _they do not want to think "_wrongly_."
> 
> So it may ultimately be of most accuracy to say "I am what _wants to think of itself_ as what does not want to think wrongly"
> 
> But then one would simply be saying "I am just a man".
> 
> And really, we all already knew that.



I don't understand what you're trying to convey.  Is this a treatise on consciousness?  Is it about epistemology?  

I'm almost completely certain that a man has never literally, physically resurrected from the dead.  I base that on all we know about biology and physics.  That would be the "right" position to take.  I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure.  If you claim that a man rose from the dead you better have pretty compelling evidence, the kind of evidence that would make it "wrong" to not believe that he did. If you insist that the claim is true but you don't have any evidence then that thinking is "wrong".


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Prove it !


You were doing pretty good.
No reason to throw the ball away now BD.


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> You were doing pretty good.
> No reason to throw the ball away now BD.


I need to better understand why you don't believe , before I can move forward . We both agree that mankind can be misleading.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Ok , give me your proof .


I don't trust you.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I need to better understand why you don't believe , before I can move forward . We both agree that mankind can be misleading.


You are mankind. You have woefully been unable to provide any proof that backs up your claims and assertions. Without that, you are misleading.


----------



## 660griz

Brother David said:


> Man falls , God doesn't .


How do you know?
Man told ya?
Hmmmm


----------



## j_seph

Has our beloved @NCHillbilly seen the light?



NCHillbilly said:


> Not so far in a half a century. You do realize that it hasn't even existed for 99.9% of the history of mankind? That's why the Lord made leaves.


----------



## NCHillbilly

j_seph said:


> Has our beloved @NCHillbilly seen the light?


@NCHillbilly is not an atheist. You confuse me with those fellers.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> You are mankind. You have woefully been unable to provide any proof that backs up your claims and assertions. Without that, you are misleading.


Ok , it's about Belief , I have stated my beliefs and you haven't .


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> It's the added words, added verses and changed words Spotlite. They are not errors. They are willful changes.


That can be a valid argument. 



bullethead said:


> Spotlite,  why do I get along in life just as well as any other person without all that assurance.?
> I think you touched on it...the bible is a crutch for those that need it. It is a safety blanket.


Nothing says that you can’t. “Safety blanket” could be a way of putting it. 

But for many, it’s not a crutch, this is something we want and choose.


----------



## Spotlite

ky55 said:


> Have fun, and I hope your son and his bride have a super nice wedding!





bullethead said:


> Have a blast! Enjoy the celebration. Congrats to you and your Son. Please accept a long distance handshake from Pennsylvania.





bullethead said:


> Have a blast! Enjoy the celebration. Congrats to you and your Son. Please accept a long distance handshake from Pennsylvania.





WaltL1 said:


> Congrats to your son!





Brother David said:


> May God bless you and your family time !



Thanks!!


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Ok , it's about Belief , I have stated my beliefs and you haven't .


No, it is about evidence, proof and more importantly...the lack of each.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Ok , it's about Belief , I have stated my beliefs and you haven't .


Beliefs regarding what?
I have made myself consistently clear about beliefs in god(s).

I just do not know what, who, or if there is a god(s).
I believe that if there is, itbis too complicated for me to understand,  too complex for it to care and too unknowable for me to pretend to try.


----------



## Spineyman

NCHillbilly said:


> Yeah, I was made to hear it every Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night, revival, camp meeting, bible school, etc. etc. etc. for nearly two decades of my life. I heard and read plenty enough of it. More than enough to realize that half of it just made no rational sense, and that a lot of it contradicted itself.


What you saw was fallen man trying to do what is expected of him, without fully succeeding. Maybe you should look to Jesus the author and finisher of our faith. Men will fail you every time but Jesus will not. As long as we are still here on this earth we are sinners and fallible. So again I ask you to take your eyes of of sinful man and place them on the Only One who is able to save! Jesus Christ the Righteous.


----------



## 660griz

Spineyman said:


> What you saw was fallen man trying to do what is expected of him, without fully succeeding. Maybe you should look to Jesus the author and finisher of our faith. Men will fail you every time but Jesus will not. As long as we are still here on this earth we are sinners and fallible. So again I ask you to take your eyes of of sinful man and place them on the Only One who is able to save! Jesus Christ the Righteous.


What about the Old Testatment God? You love that one too or just the kindler, gentler Jesus of the New Testament?
Do you pick one to believe in? Both?


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> What about the Old Testatment God? You love that one too or just the kindler, gentler Jesus of the New Testament?
> Do you pick one to believe in? Both?


BiPolar


----------



## j_seph

660griz said:


> What about the Old Testatment God? You love that one too or just the kindler, gentler Jesus of the New Testament?
> Do you pick one to believe in? Both?


Do you have children? Are you nice to them all the time or are you mean all the time or does it depend on their actions and what they do? Are you the old testament daddy or the new testament daddy or are you a combination of both to complete daddy's bible?


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Do you have children? Are you nice to them all the time or are you mean all the time or does it depend on their actions and what they do? Are you the old testament daddy or the new testament daddy or are you a combination of both to complete daddy's bible?


Are you putting 660griz on the same level as your God?

One minute a believer is telling us that their god is spiritual and above,  beyond, greater than human capabilities and emotions....then in the next breath this god acts, thinks, reacts, is moody and is the same as humans. 

What it shows is a flaw in the writings. These authors,  despite their best efforts, could not hide the fact that the god they wanted to sell was limited to the constraints of their own minds and the ink they put on paper. Their human minds and qualities limited their gods abilities. No god was able to transcend those human limitations and exactly why no god exists as described in the writings.


----------



## 660griz

j_seph said:


> Do you have children? Are you nice to them all the time or are you mean all the time or does it depend on their actions and what they do? Are you the old testament daddy or the new testament daddy or are you a combination of both to complete daddy's bible?


Relative to God, I am nice ALL the time. No matter their actions, I would not torture them forever. Submit them as sex slaves, bash their heads against rocks, have them mauled by bears for poking fun at a bald guy...and the list goes on. 
Fine. Don't answer the question.


----------



## j_seph

660griz said:


> Relative to God, I am nice ALL the time. No matter their actions, I would not torture them forever. Submit them as sex slaves, bash their heads against rocks, have them mauled by bears for poking fun at a bald guy...and the list goes on.
> Fine. Don't answer the question.


So if your children do wrong you give em high 5's, pat on the back, good job carry on? God is the father, we were made in his image. It was never intended for us to be bad sinful people. Sometimes drastic measure must be taken to get the intended results. We send folks to death row, use tax payer money to house them, then to kill them. For what purpose are we killing them? Is it to teach them a lesson so they do not do it again (they dead so that is not the reason). Is it so the victim can have relief in them being dead, not just locked up in prison somewhere? I would say it is because they have done crimes that are not tolerated, there is no future for many of them to productive members of society therefore remove them from it and maybe, just maybe the prison and the world will be a better place.



bullethead said:


> Are you putting 660griz on the same level as your God?
> *Not even close*
> One minute a believer is telling us that their god is spiritual and above,  beyond, greater than human capabilities and emotions....then in the next breath this god acts, thinks, reacts, is moody and is the same as humans.
> *I am saying my God can and will punish and yet he can still have mercy. We sin, we can get forgiveness but there is a price to pay (consequences). As a children of God he is our Father.*
> What it shows is a flaw in the writings. These authors,  despite their best efforts, could not hide the fact that the god they wanted to sell was limited to the constraints of their own minds and the ink they put on paper. Their human minds and qualities limited their gods abilities. No god was able to transcend those human limitations and exactly why no god exists as described in the writings.
> *My God has no constraints nor limits. When you see God working in your life, answering prayers in others lives that you have specifically prayed for, when there is no rhyme nor reason that it should be working out to the good as it is, that is when you see the evidence you seek. I have a stepson that was so far up his dads rear that he had no use for his mom. His dad manipulated him, brainwashed him that his mother was nothing. Please explain how he is coming around to seeing just the opposite? He is never around to see nor learn just the opposite with his own eyes. Please explain how prayers have went out for his dad, even though we do not like him we still pray for him as well. Prayers that he either get right, or get out of the picture. Guess what? The dads world is turning upside down right now, he has lost control and the stepson is coming around without us interfering or pushing him to.*


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> Beliefs regarding what?
> I have made myself consistently clear about beliefs in god(s).
> 
> I just do not know what, who, or if there is a god(s).
> I believe that if there is, itbis too complicated for me to understand,  too complex for it to care and too unknowable for me to pretend to try.


So by your very definition your Agnostic not Athesist ?


----------



## 660griz

j_seph said:


> So if your children do wrong you give em high 5's, pat on the back, good job carry on?


Didn't say that. I said, "Relative to GOD, I am nice." If they are bad, their punishment matches the crime. 
If they curse me, I would not put them to death. 
*Leviticus 20:9*
For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.​I am not sure I can be any clearer.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> My God has no constraints nor limits. When you see God working in your life, answering prayers in others lives that you have specifically prayed for, when there is no rhyme nor reason that it should be working out to the good as it is, that is when you see the evidence you seek. I have a stepson that was so far up his dads rear that he had no use for his mom. His dad manipulated him, brainwashed him that his mother was nothing. Please explain how he is coming around to seeing just the opposite? He is never around to see nor learn just the opposite with his own eyes. Please explain how prayers have went out for his dad, even though we do not like him we still pray for him as well. Prayers that he either get right, or get out of the picture. Guess what? The dads world is turning upside down right now, he has lost control and the stepson is coming around without us interfering or pushing him to.


It's called growing up. It is life. It happens constantly.
Explain how those same circumstances happen each and every day all over the country and world to just about every family,  to believers and non believers alike?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> So by your very definition your Agnostic not Athesist ?


David, I have said that I am agnostic at least a half thousand times over many years in here, in many threads, with many posts. I have EXPLAINED IN GREAT DETAILS what, why and how I have come to my beliefs and non beliefs.
If you are FINALLY comprehending it now....I can see why conversations with you go the way that they do.


----------



## 660griz

j_seph said:


> *The dads world is turning upside down right now, he has lost control and the stepson is coming around without us interfering or pushing him to.*


Pretty much the same situation with me and my stepson. No God or prayers needed in my case. He is a responsible, decent, respectful adult now. I will  take the credit, thanks. Food on the table, roof over head, yep, all me.


----------



## j_seph

660griz said:


> Didn't say that. I said, "Relative to GOD, I am nice." If they are bad, their punishment matches the crime.
> If they curse me, I would not put them to death.
> *Leviticus 20:9*
> For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.​I am not sure I can be any clearer.



Rebellion against one’s parents is direct rebellion against God. The 5th Command is to honor one’s father and mother (Exodus 20:12). Parents are a God-ordained authority. Disobedience to parents is disobedience to God (Ephesians 6:1-3). Throughout the Bible, there are only a handful of things we are told to fear: God (Proverbs 1:7) and parents (Leviticus 19:3) are among them.

The law requiring rebellious children to be stoned to death was meant for extreme cases to protect God’s people. It would have been heartbreaking for parents to bear the responsibility of initiating such severe measures. *However, the Bible never records this law being enforced.*

For everyone who drives 10mph over the speed limit  shall surely be put to death.
Would you still drive 75 in a 65? Probably not because you know the punishment would be death. Like the fella who made his daughter walk 5 miles to school because she got kicked off the bus for bullying. Some folks think he went overboard, but I bet she learns her lesson. Had she had fear of consequences for her actions and knew she would have to walk, odds are she would not have gotten kicked off the bus to start with. These folks keep stealing, doing drugs over and over in and out of jail. What ya wanna bet that if they were told, you steal something you will be put to death that they would probably quit it. If they did not then they loved stealing more than their life, they became a menace to society, put to death and the community just became a better place. Man could not uphold all the laws given them because of their sinful nature. However through Grace we have forgiveness.


----------



## j_seph

660griz said:


> Pretty much the same situation with me and my stepson. No God or prayers needed in my case. He is a responsible, decent, respectful adult now. I will  take the credit, thanks. Food on the table, roof over head, yep, all me.


So your stepson for the most part hated your wife (his mom). He believed she was a crazy evil woman? How did he decide she wasn't if he was never around, never seen her nor talked to her, and lived 20 miles away?


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Rebellion against one’s parents is direct rebellion against God. The 5th Command is to honor one’s father and mother (Exodus 20:12). Parents are a God-ordained authority. Disobedience to parents is disobedience to God (Ephesians 6:1-3). Throughout the Bible, there are only a handful of things we are told to fear: God (Proverbs 1:7) and parents (Leviticus 19:3) are among them.
> 
> The law requiring rebellious children to be stoned to death was meant for extreme cases to protect God’s people. It would have been heartbreaking for parents to bear the responsibility of initiating such severe measures. *However, the Bible never records this law being enforced.*
> 
> For everyone who drives 10mph over the speed limit  shall surely be put to death.
> Would you still drive 75 in a 65? Probably not because you know the punishment would be death. Like the fella who made his daughter walk 5 miles to school because she got kicked off the bus for bullying. Some folks think he went overboard, but I bet she learns her lesson. Had she had fear of consequences for her actions and knew she would have to walk, odds are she would not have gotten kicked off the bus to start with. These folks keep stealing, doing drugs over and over in and out of jail. What ya wanna bet that if they were told, you steal something you will be put to death that they would probably quit it. If they did not then they loved stealing more than their life, they became a menace to society, put to death and the community just became a better place. Man could not uphold all the laws given them because of their sinful nature. However through Grace we have forgiveness.


So you say the law was meant for extreme cases...
What exactly is the limit? Where is the cut off?
What can a child do to be rebellious and not get stoned to death,  but push it just a little more to get the rocks?


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> So your stepson for the most part hated your wife (his mom). He believed she was a crazy evil woman? How did he decide she wasn't if he was never around, never seen her nor talked to her, and lived 20 miles away?


Kids are smart. Yes, influence from one parent trying to paint the other parent in a bad way certainly has an effect. It does create a bias by the child against a parent when that is all that they hear. But then that parent who is always talking smack does something that allows the child to question the parent's intentions and integrity...and then pieces of the overall puzzle add up to the point where the child realizes that the parent who was constantly saying negative things about the other parent was full of it.
It allows the child to step back, rethink their preconceived notions due to influence not experience,  and look at things in a different way.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> So your stepson for the most part hated your wife (his mom). He believed she was a crazy evil woman? How did he decide she wasn't if he was never around, never seen her nor talked to her, and lived 20 miles away?


Its called maturing. Happens every day.
Not seeing her, not talking to her and living 20 miles away was probably the catalyst that caused him to figure it out and mature on his own.


----------



## Spineyman

660griz said:


> What about the Old Testatment God? You love that one too or just the kindler, gentler Jesus of the New Testament?
> Do you pick one to believe in? Both?


Same God, different Covenant. I also have news for you too. Jesus is not the meeker gentler God. It is just through the shed blood of Jesus that we enter the New Covenant.


----------



## j_seph

WaltL1 said:


> Its called maturing. Happens every day.
> Not seeing her, not talking to her and living 20 miles away was probably the catalyst that caused him to figure it out and mature on his own.


But where is the evidence that he needed or would have needed to see his mom different? If he is not around then there is no evidence to allow him to make that call. The only evidence is to see his dad in a different light, not the evidence to see his mom is no different than what he knows to be fact in his little world.


----------



## NCHillbilly

j_seph said:


> So if your children do wrong you give em high 5's, pat on the back, good job carry on? God is the father, we were made in his image. It was never intended for us to be bad sinful people. Sometimes drastic measure must be taken to get the intended results. We send folks to death row, use tax payer money to house them, then to kill them. For what purpose are we killing them? Is it to teach them a lesson so they do not do it again (they dead so that is not the reason). Is it so the victim can have relief in them being dead, not just locked up in prison somewhere? I would say it is because they have done crimes that are not tolerated, there is no future for many of them to productive members of society therefore remove them from it and maybe, just maybe the prison and the world will be a better place.


I wouldn't drown all my children because they didn't listen to me.


----------



## ky55

j_seph said:


> Do you have children? Are you nice to them all the time or are you mean all the time or does it depend on their actions and what they do? Are you the old testament daddy or the new testament daddy or are you a combination of both to complete daddy's bible?



So gentle Jesus handles the little stuff, but you gotta sit around and wait for Big Daddy to get home for the big stuff??
That’s probably one of the most laughable analogies I’ve ever read on here.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> But where is the evidence that he needed or would have needed to see his mom different? If he is not around then there is no evidence to allow him to make that call. The only evidence is to see his dad in a different light, not the evidence to see his mom is no different than what he knows to be fact in his little world.


It doesn't always require "new" evidence.
Often it only takes reexamining "old" evidence with a different attitude.


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> Same God, different Covenant. I also have news for you too. Jesus is not the meeker gentler God. It is just through the shed blood of Jesus that we enter the New Covenant.


Sounds like you are saying God and Jesus are the same god, then in the next sentence you seperate them.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> But where is the evidence that he needed or would have needed to see his mom different? If he is not around then there is no evidence to allow him to make that call. The only evidence is to see his dad in a different light, not the evidence to see his mom is no different than what he knows to be fact in his little world.


The kid probably finally realized that the dad, through the constant and repetitive actions of his dad, is a ...well.... is a pit where you discard dead donkeys...


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> David, I have said that I am agnostic at least a half thousand times over many years in here, in many threads, with many posts. I have EXPLAINED IN GREAT DETAILS what, why and how I have come to my beliefs and non beliefs.
> If you are FINALLY comprehending it now....I can see why conversations with you go the way that they do.


And what direction would that be . 

If you have respond to myself or had I read that you consider yourself Agnostic , I should have remembered . 

The only conversation I can remember is our disagreement on Evolution and DNA in which I summized that you were Athesist . My apology !


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> David, I have said that I am agnostic at least a half thousand times over many years in here, in many threads, with many posts. I have EXPLAINED IN GREAT DETAILS what, why and how I have come to my beliefs and non beliefs.
> If you are FINALLY comprehending it now....I can see why conversations with you go the way that they do.


And what direction would that be . 

If you have respond to myself or had I read that you consider yourself Agnostic , I should have remembered . 

The only conversation I can remember is our disagreement on Evolution and DNA in which I summized that you were Athesist . My apology !


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Its called maturing. Happens every day.
> Not seeing her, not talking to her and living 20 miles away was probably the catalyst that caused him to figure it out and mature on his own.


Could it have been The Holy Spirit ?


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Could it have been The Holy Spirit ?


Yes belief in a "Holy Spirit" has been the catalyst for some to mature.
A whole lot of things can be the catalyst for folks to mature.


----------



## 660griz

Brother David said:


> Could it have been The Holy Spirit ?


Placebos work for a reason.


----------



## 660griz

j_seph said:


> How did he decide she wasn't if he was never around, never seen her nor talked to her, and lived 20 miles away?


Better Christmas presents?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> And what direction would that be .
> 
> If you have respond to myself or had I read that you consider yourself Agnostic , I should have remembered .
> 
> The only conversation I can remember is our disagreement on Evolution and DNA in which I summized that you were Athesist . My apology !


The direction is that you hear/see what you want instead of what is there.

Whether replying directly to you or to someone else, I have made my Agnostic side known many many many many many times over.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> The direction is that you hear/see what you want instead of what is there.
> 
> Whether replying directly to you or to someone else, I have made my Agnostic side known many many many many many times over.



That's not true , I only respond to the parts I chose .

Ok


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> That's not true , I only respond to the parts I chose .
> 
> Ok



"I only respond to the parts I choose".....EXACTLY!


----------



## Spineyman

bullethead said:


> Sounds like you are saying God and Jesus are the same god, then in the next sentence you separate them.


There are three distinct beings in the Godhead, equal in power and in glory, and yes they are only One God!


----------



## Artfuldodger

Galatians 4:6 
Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."


----------



## Artfuldodger

"No matter what they tell us
No matter what they do
No matter what they teach us
What we believe is true"

I guess in some weird, strange sort of way, maybe what we believe is true.

No matter what anyone tells us. Who can deny what we, as individuals, believe?

We have to believe what we believe until God or some other supreme being enlightens us otherwise. Therefore, if one believes something about it all, it has to be true.


----------



## bullethead

Spineyman said:


> There are three distinct beings in the Godhead, equal in power and in glory, and yes they are only One God!


So we either have a non monotheistic religion, or a god that is bipolar with multiple personality disorder.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> So we either have a non monotheistic religion, or a god that is bipolar with multiple personality disorder.


Or one purposely close enough to polytheism that its palatable to the masses.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Or one purposely close enough to polytheism that its palatable to the masses.


Moulded to suit.

"There is three seperate but one whole"
And they are convinced that makes sense.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Or one purposely close enough to polytheism that its palatable to the masses.


I never did understand why this was so confusing to some. 

It’s still just one God that is a spirit that reveals himself in separate forms, or functions- (Father, Son, HS). All of that is “the” Godhead. The spirit is the “oneness”.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I never did understand why this was so confusing to some.
> 
> It’s still just one God that is a spirit that reveals himself in separate forms, or functions- (Father, Son, HS). All of that is “the” Godhead. The spirit is the “oneness”.


C'mon Spot, that is just putting lipstick on a pig and trying to pass it off as something else.
This "spirit" thing seems to be the new one size fits all excuse.

Jesus spent 33 years as a seperate entity. He referred to himself and god separately. The entire NT is about Jesus and God.  Now the goalposts have to be moved to include not only two, but three totally separate  but all as one as if it is the 3 Musketeers,  all having different names and different  personalities but it's more romantic when they are all referred together.

It is not confusing, it is nonsense, and I have yet to hear anyone explain the nonsense so it makes sense without it contradicting the  ONE god claim.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Spotlite said:


> I never did understand why this was so confusing to some.
> 
> It’s still just one God that is a spirit that reveals himself in separate forms, or functions- (Father, Son, HS). All of that is “the” Godhead. The spirit is the “oneness”.


What if we expand that to include also Buddah, Vishnu, Dagon, Thor, Odin, Isis, Ra, Quetzocoatl, Cernnunos, Anubis, Allah, the "Great Mystery" of the Native Americans, Zeus, Aphrodite,  etc.? That would be pretty close to my interpretation of God.


----------



## bullethead

And /Or
All the other religions may be MONOtheistic also. What we may incorrectly interpret as "multiple" gods may be the same thing as the Christian god. One god with the ability to subcontract out it's own work to "spirits" and also has the ability to be two entities(or more) at the same time while referring to it's multiple manifestations separately. 
Christianity just may not have the market cornered on Mono. 
Or
Is it Multi-Mono?


----------



## Spotlite

NCHillbilly said:


> What if we expand that to include also Buddah, Vishnu, Dagon, Thor, Odin, Isis, Ra, Quetzocoatl, Cernnunos, Anubis, Allah, the "Great Mystery" of the Native Americans, Zeus, Aphrodite,  etc.? That would be pretty close to my interpretation of God.


I’ve said it many times before that the Muslims refer to the supreme being as Allah. 

Even the Hindu can trace it down to one supreme.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> C'mon Spot, that is just putting lipstick on a pig and trying to pass it off as something else.
> This "spirit" thing seems to be the new one size fits all excuse.
> 
> Jesus spent 33 years as a seperate entity. He referred to himself and god separately. The entire NT is about Jesus and God.  Now the goalposts have to be moved to include not only two, but three totally separate  but all as one as if it is the 3 Musketeers,  all having different names and different  personalities but it's more romantic when they are all referred together.
> 
> It is not confusing, it is nonsense, and I have yet to hear anyone explain the nonsense so it makes sense without it contradicting the  ONE god claim.


It will always be one God. Being robed in fresh doesn’t contradict the oneness of God.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> It will always be one God. Being robed in fresh doesn’t contradict the oneness of God.


So, Jesus talked to himself and about himself when he was talking to god and about god?


----------



## NCHillbilly

Spotlite said:


> I’ve said it many times before that the Muslims refer to the supreme being as Allah.
> 
> Even the Hindu can trace it down to one supreme.


So why is Christianity the only true path then? What if people all over the world are just doing what their manifestation of the One God tells them to, according to he/she/it's plan?


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I never did understand why this was so confusing to some.
> 
> It’s still just one God that is a spirit that reveals himself in separate forms, or functions- (Father, Son, HS). All of that is “the” Godhead. The spirit is the “oneness”.


Polytheism was the norm.
Want polytheists to convert to monotheism?
Tell them your 1 is actually 3 so they can say "well that's not so bad, I can go along with that".

Is that a fact? Nope.
Coincidence? Maybe/maybe not.
We already know that Christianity was more than willing to "blend" beliefs to gain converts.
And I do understand it. As a reformed Catholic I did the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit sign of the cross thing a bazillion times.


----------



## bullethead

NCHillbilly said:


> So why is Christianity the only true path then? What if people all over the world are just doing what their manifestation of the One God tells them to, according to he/she/it's plan?


And this one god/multi god would most likey NOT be at all like any of its followers think it is, or more importantly (for examples sake)...it isn't Jesus and Jesus is dumbing it down for everyone non Christian so they can understand it....but All things that are worshipped are dumbed down to its followers needs with Jesus being one of the manifestations that allow the people to use it to come to the one main deity.

One hub with multiple spokes leading to it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> I never did understand why this was so confusing to some.
> 
> It’s still just one God that is a spirit that reveals himself in separate forms, or functions- (Father, Son, HS). All of that is “the” Godhead. The spirit is the “oneness”.



I understand it, being indoctrinated into believing it, I just no longer believe it to be so. I see Oneness as being more correct than the Trinity view. I do believe there is a type of unity. I guess I'm more of a Oneness believer within the concept of Unity.

There is only one God and his Son, Jesus Christ. The important thing withing Christianity is to believe in God and his Son. Not that they are both the same thing. Just that God's spirit was "in" his Son.


----------



## Spotlite

NCHillbilly said:


> So why is Christianity the only true path then? What if people all over the world are just doing what their manifestation of the One God tells them to, according to he/she/it's plan?


That’s why we are not to judge. We are to do and tell what we believe is right, and move out of the way. 

I know a lot of disagreements appear as judgmental but they’ shouldn’t. 

My disagreement with you on some things should never be considered judgmental.


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> I understand it, being indoctrinated into believing it, I just no longer believe it to be so. I see Oneness as being more correct than the Trinity view. I do believe there is a type of unity. I guess I'm more of a Oneness believer within the concept of Unity.
> 
> There is only one God and his Son, Jesus Christ. The important thing withing Christianity is to believe in God and his Son. Not that they are both the same thing. Just that God's spirit was "in" his Son.


I admit I don’t believe the trinity completely as some explain it. I’ve heard so many ideas of what it is. 

I believe in one God, and I believe in the Son of God. I believe they are one.


----------



## bullethead

"Dumb it down" may not be the correct words I was searching for.
Possibly create a character that is likeable and relatable to each individual but is nowhere near the actual true god.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Polytheism was the norm.
> Want polytheists to convert to monotheism?
> Tell them your 1 is actually 3 so they can say "well that's not so bad, I can go along with that".
> 
> Is that a fact? Nope.
> Coincidence? Maybe/maybe not.
> We already know that Christianity was more than willing to "blend" beliefs to gain converts.
> And I do understand it. As a reformed Catholic I did the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit sign of the cross thing a bazillion times.


I don’t think it’s so much as willing to blend as it is lack of understanding (terminology, not comprehension)

I know several that believe in 3.....but what they describe in long detail ends up as 1. What I’m referring to with “confusing to some” is the terminology (poly - mono - trinity - etc)


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> "Dumb it down" may not be the correct words I was searching for.
> Possibly create a character that is likeable and relatable to each individual but is nowhere near the actual true god.


Short term I’d agree with you, but that can only last for so long. I don’t believe society is that dumb for that long. Skepticism exist in religion also, everyone doesn’t just “assume” this is correct, we have to have it proven to us well. 

The feel good story that doesn’t ever provide results dies fairly quickly, in my opinion.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Short term I’d agree with you, but that can only last for so long. I don’t believe society is that dumb for that long. Skepticism exist in religion also, everyone doesn’t just “assume” this is correct, we have to have it proven to us well.
> 
> The feel good story that doesn’t ever provide results dies fairly quickly, in my opinion.


 But spotlight , EVERYBODY that is a believer in EVERY says the same thing!!!
Society, the human species IS that gullible in religion and a thousand other things. "We" as a species have been falling for cons for as long as history is recorded.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Short term I’d agree with you, but that can only last for so long. I don’t believe society is that dumb for that long. Skepticism exist in religion also, everyone doesn’t just “assume” this is correct, we have to have it proven to us well.
> 
> The feel good story that doesn’t ever provide results dies fairly quickly, in my opinion.


I am a prime example of a religious skeptic. I have just taken farther than you.


----------



## NCHillbilly

bullethead said:


> "Dumb it down" may not be the correct words I was searching for.
> Possibly create a character that is likeable and relatable to each individual but is nowhere near the actual true god.


Or maybe it's like the six blind men feeling different parts of an elephant and formulating their own concept of what the whole thing was like, then fighting over their disagreements. They were all right, but they were also all wrong.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> I admit I don’t believe the trinity completely as some explain it. I’ve heard so many ideas of what it is.
> 
> I believe in one God, and I believe in the Son of God. I believe they are one.


 
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God. Why wasn't the Holy Spirit mentioned? Also look at all of Paul's salutations to the Churches;

_Grace be to you, and peace, from *God our Father*, and from the *Lord Jesus Christ*_.

I just see it as God's unity or Oneness. God was within His Son. The Son was "sent" by the Father. The Son did everything with the power of his Father. I just don't see the "equality" of the Trinity.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> But spotlight , EVERYBODY that is a believer in EVERY says the same thing!!!
> Society, the human species IS that gullible in religion and a thousand other things. "We" as a species have been falling for cons for as long as history is recorded.


I’d agree that we can and do fall for cons. I’ve been “taken” before......but I am able to recognize and correct that. I’ve never remained a victim.

I’m only struggling with the notion that society remained and continues to remain “conned” over a created character. I’m not that gullible to believe that part.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I’d agree that we can and do fall for cons. I’ve been “taken” before......but I am able to recognize and correct that. I’ve never remained a victim.
> 
> I’m only struggling with the notion that society remained and continues to remain “conned” over a created character. I’m not that gullible to believe that part.


The best victims are the one's that do not know they are victims.


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God. Why wasn't the Holy Spirit mentioned? Also look at all of Paul's salutations to the Churches;
> 
> _Grace be to you, and peace, from *God our Father*, and from the *Lord Jesus Christ*_.
> 
> I just see it as God's unity or Oneness. God was within His Son. The Son was "sent" by the Father. The Son did everything with the power of his Father. I just don't see the "equality" of the Trinity.


And Word was made fresh. I’m a oneness believer and see the “Son” as a function of the spirit, as you said, “unity” through the spirit.

I’m not a trinitarian.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> The best victims are the one's that do not know they are victims.


While true to an extent. Separate victims with only mentally and physically, the physical recognize but can’t do anything about it, the mental fail to recognize.

I’m not willing to place society as a whole as “dumbed down” - mentally.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Spotlite said:


> I’d agree that we can and do fall for cons. I’ve been “taken” before......but I am able to recognize and correct that. I’ve never remained a victim.
> 
> I’m only struggling with the notion that society remained and continues to remain “conned” over a created character. I’m not that gullible to believe that part.


Do you think the Egyptians were conned for believing in their particular set of gods just as strongly as you do for over 3,500 years? 

Or the Hindus, who have been following their religion for at least 5,000 years, maybe twice that long?


----------



## 660griz

Spotlite said:


> I’m not willing to place society as a whole as “dumbed down” - mentally.


Dumbed down or more efficient. Just think of having to narrow down which God to pray to every time a hard part of life hit. It would just add to the stress. Crops fail. 
Do I pray to the Sun god, water god, corn god, earth god, fertilizer god?
With one god, easy peasy. 
So, most of those multi-god religions died off cause folks just got lazy, or efficient, or dumber.


----------



## Spotlite

NCHillbilly said:


> Do you think the Egyptians were conned for believing in their particular set of gods just as strongly as you do for over 3,500 years?
> 
> Or the Hindus, who have been following their religion for at least 5,000 years, maybe twice that long?


Conned??? No I don’t believe they were conned.


----------



## Spotlite

660griz said:


> Dumbed down or more efficient. Just think of having to narrow down which God to pray to every time a hard part of life hit. It would just add to the stress. Crops fail.
> Do I pray to the Sun god, water god, corn god, earth god, fertilizer god?
> With one god, easy peasy.
> So, most of those multi-god religions died off cause folks just got lazy, or efficient, or dumber.


How bout more efficient??? Gods law written into the hearts of men makes sense. They knew within......just didn’t know to who maybe??


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> While true to an extent. Separate victims with only mentally and physically, the physical recognize but can’t do anything about it, the mental fail to recognize.
> 
> I’m not willing to place society as a whole as “dumbed down” - mentally.


History does not support your stance.


----------



## 660griz

Spotlite said:


> How bout more efficient??? Gods law written into the hearts of men makes sense. They knew within......just didn’t know to who maybe??


If writing on a man's heart by a mythical being makes sense to you well, yea, you deserve religion. I'll be here in reality if ya need me.

I think I have asked before but, I will try again.
Could God have written a book, that cannot be destroyed, and is written in the language of whoever picks it up?
Could God have done anymore to make sure that ALL know him so everyone will be with him?
Why did God not just create a bunch of folks to hang out with him in heaven to begin with? No earth needed. He was obviously lonely in the universe.
Are we his 'ant farm'?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> How bout more efficient??? Gods law written into the hearts of men makes sense. They knew within......just didn’t know to who maybe??


Spoken like a true......


"Gods law written into the hearts of men makes sense". Spotlight, Man/Men have existed so much longer than the culture that claims God waited hundreds of thousands of years before he "chose" them to make his mark.

You literally sound EXACTLY like someone who does not know he is a victim.

What EXACTLY is the excuse for all of the religions that have been around longer than Christianity? What is your explanation for them not being conned, but still worshipping the "wrong" god, since you claim humans don't fall for such things for that long?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spoken like a true......
> 
> 
> "Gods law written into the hearts of men makes sense". Spotlight, Man/Men have existed so much longer than the culture that claims God waited hundreds of thousands of years before he "chose" them to make his mark.
> 
> You literally sound EXACTLY like someone who does not know he is a victim.
> 
> What EXACTLY is the excuse for all of the religions that have been around longer than Christianity? What is your explanation for them not being conned, but still worshipping the "wrong" god, since you claim humans don't fall for such things for that long?


The timing is where we differ mostly.


----------



## Spotlite

660griz said:


> If writing on a man's heart by a mythical being makes sense to you well, yea, you deserve religion. I'll be here in reality if ya need me.
> 
> I think I have asked before but, I will try again.
> Could God have written a book, that cannot be destroyed, and is written in the language of whoever picks it up?
> Could God have done anymore to make sure that ALL know him so everyone will be with him?
> Why did God not just create a bunch of folks to hang out with him in heaven to begin with? No earth needed. He was obviously lonely in the universe.
> Are we his 'ant farm'?


I think the biggest misleading crutch for many is a book. Gods Word doesn’t have to be written anywhere to exist.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> History does not support your stance.


You only base history on assumptions though.

I realize some Christians believe we are only 6,000 years old. Scientists think it’s millions. I’m ok with being a lot older than 6,000, I’m even ok with a million. My issue is they have absolutely nothing that they know for sure us even 100,000 years old. Everything is assuming. 

Regardless of our age, I believe God was the beginning. I do t care about the tine stamp. 

The story of Jesus is not relevant to the very beginning.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> The timing is where we differ mostly.


We also differ on your claim that man doesn't stay duped for long, yet there are religions much older than Christianity and Judaism which are still going strong that you refuse to acknowledge.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> We also differ on your claim that man doesn't stay duped for long, yet there are religions much older than Christianity and Judaism which are still going strong that you refuse to acknowledge.


Who said they’re duped? I don’t judge them. 
I also edited my post.

Catch ya in a bit. Rehearsal time.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> You only base history on assumptions though.


That would be unlike a facts and evidence guy like me.
Therefore,  history does not support your stance.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Who said they’re duped? I don’t judge them.
> I also edited my post.
> 
> Catch ya in a bit. Rehearsal time.


What would you call entire nations and countries who worship these other gods all these centuries based off of other men telling them that what and how they are worshiping is true?


----------



## NCHillbilly

Spotlite said:


> You only base history on assumptions though.
> 
> I realize some Christians believe we are only 6,000 years old. Scientists think it’s millions. I’m ok with being a lot older than 6,000, I’m even ok with a million. My issue is they have absolutely nothing that they know for sure us even 100,000 years old. Everything is assuming.
> 
> Regardless of our age, I believe God was the beginning. I do t care about the tine stamp.
> 
> The story of Jesus is not relevant to the very beginning.


You are mistaken in much of that. 100,000 years is a blink of an eye in earth time. And yes, about 5 billion years is settled science, that pretty much every scientist on earth would agree with. Plenty of things there is no doubt are millions of years old. How long does it take the Appalachian Mountains to erode down from the size of the Andes or Himalayas to what they are today?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> You only base history on assumptions though.
> 
> I realize some Christians believe we are only 6,000 years old. Scientists think it’s millions. I’m ok with being a lot older than 6,000, I’m even ok with a million. My issue is they have absolutely nothing that they know for sure us even 100,000 years old. Everything is assuming.
> 
> Regardless of our age, I believe God was the beginning. I do t care about the tine stamp.
> 
> The story of Jesus is not relevant to the very beginning.


Yeah spotlite....scientists just think that the same as regular folk just think things up. Exactly the same thing.

I agree, the story of jesus is not relevant to the beginning but I take its non relevance much farther


----------



## Spotlite

NCHillbilly said:


> You are mistaken in much of that. 100,000 years is a blink of an eye in earth time. And yes, about 5 billion years is settled science, that pretty much every scientist on earth would agree with. Plenty of things there is no doubt are millions of years old. How long does it take the Appalachian Mountains to erode down from the size of the Andes or Himalayas to what they are today?


It might be a blink of an eye, but my question is what do we have that we know without a doubt is 100,000 years old that’s not built from “assuming”? Where’s the link to something with time stamped date of origin on it? If there were so much overwhelming evidence, why can’t the Athiest / Agnostic here state that they’re 100% certain that a God doesn’t exist?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> It might be a blink of an eye, but my question is what do we have that we know without a doubt is 100,000 years old that’s not built from “assuming”? Where’s the link to something with time stamped date of origin on it? If there were so much overwhelming evidence, why can’t the Athiest / Agnostic here state that they’re 100% certain that a God doesn’t exist?


What is 6500 years old?
Why cant you be 100% certain that the stories in the bible are true?

1. An Atheist will say they are 100% certain.
2. The Agnostic IS an Agnostic because he is not certain.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> It might be a blink of an eye, but my question is what do we have that we know without a doubt is 100,000 years old that’s not built from “assuming”? Where’s the link to something with time stamped date of origin on it? If there were so much overwhelming evidence, why can’t the Athiest / Agnostic here state that they’re 100% certain that a God doesn’t exist?


It boils down to math.
100% certain means 0% chance of anything else.
Even though there is no evidence of God other than unprovable claims, which include the Bible, you cant claim 100% certainty until the Big Bang or any other possibility is proven.
That means you cant be 100% certain that a 4 headed, red, white and blue chicken didn't create the world.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> It boils down to math.
> 100% certain means 0% chance of anything else.
> Even though there is no evidence of God other than unprovable claims, which include the Bible, you cant claim 100% certainty until the Big Bang or any other possibility is proven.
> That means you cant be 100% certain that a 4 headed, red, white and blue chicken didn't create the world.


Understood, and not disagreeing. But I don’t really care if I can convince you or anyone else with “evidence”, I’m stating that I am assured, confident and certain in what I believe. I’m 100% certain that God created. In doing that, I’ve removed all doubt. 

An atheist never has that certainty, or at least never says they’re 100% certain. They will reject it with most likely. By doing that, the possibility is really still there. 

My statement and question to NCHB is more or less meant to be is if the evidence is so convincing, what’s the issue with removing all possibilities in order to be 100% certain?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> What is 6500 years old?
> Why cant you be 100% certain that the stories in the bible are true?
> 
> 1. An Atheist will say they are 100% certain.
> 2. The Agnostic IS an Agnostic because he is not certain.


Don’t know what’s 6500 years old with a time stamp.

I am 100% certain. All doubt is removed. 

Atheists will not state they’re 100% certain. I’ve asked here before and received the most likely speech. If one is here and will take that stand???? I stand corrected.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Don’t know what’s 6500 years old with a time stamp.
> 
> I am 100% certain. All doubt is removed.
> 
> Atheists will not state they’re 100% certain. I’ve asked here before and received the most likely speech. If one is here and will take that stand???? I stand corrected.


If you got the "most likely speech" , then you were talking to an agnostic.

If you say that all of your doubt is removed you are not being 100%  honest. And that is solely based off of your statements in various converstaions in here over the years.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Understood, and not disagreeing. But I don’t really care if I can convince you or anyone else with “evidence”, I’m stating that I am assured, confident and certain in what I believe. I’m 100% certain that God created. In doing that, I’ve removed all doubt.
> 
> An atheist never has that certainty, or at least never says they’re 100% certain. They will reject it with most likely. By doing that, the possibility is really still there.
> 
> My statement and question to NCHB is more or less meant to be is if the evidence is so convincing, what’s the issue with removing all possibilities in order to be 100% certain?


I think you are hitting on why there are both Atheists and Agnostics and all those weird combinations of the two.
An Atheist can say they are 100% certain there is no God because no God has proven to exist. And that's true. 
An Agnostic can say they aren't 100% certain because God MIGHT exist. And that's true too.
The difference between the two is really just a technicality.
Neither one of them believe God or gods exist and for the same reason - no God or gods have been proven to exist.
Its about as clear as mud to me


----------



## 660griz

Spotlite said:


> Don’t know what’s 6500 years old with a time stamp.
> 
> I am 100% certain. All doubt is removed.
> 
> Atheists will not state they’re 100% certain. I’ve asked here before and received the most likely speech. If one is here and will take that stand???? I stand corrected.


I'm your huckleberry. 
What would you like to know that I am 100% sure of?
I am 100% sure you believe in your God, and only your God. 
I am 100% sure I believe in one less than you.
I am 100% sure that we do not know exactly how the universe was started.
I am 90% sure that if you were born in a predominantly muslim country, to muslim parents,  you would be muslim...and a darn good one too. 
If I were born there, I would have to leave, die, or fake it till I make it.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> I'm your huckleberry.
> What would you like to know that I am 100% sure of?
> I am 100% sure you believe in your God, and only your God.
> I am 100% sure I believe in one less than you.
> I am 100% sure that we do not know exactly how the universe was started.
> I am 90% sure that if you were born in a predominantly muslim country, to muslim parents,  you would be muslim...and a darn good one too.
> If I were born there, I would have to leave, die, or fake it till I make it.



Do I infer wrongly that you believe in _existence of things_? Even the things you mention?

And, if you do...that these "things" demonstrate a dependence?

As in my inferring from this:



> I am 90% sure that if you were born in a predominantly muslim country, to muslim parents,  you would be muslim...and a darn good one too.



That faith (does it exist as _a thing?_) is dependent _mainly _(your 90% surety) upon other things as geographical location, cultural and religious milieu, and parentage?

For when I consider faith...it _is all_ that _is not at all,_ dependent upon these _things._

Much is made here, and has been, of what is discerned as a lack of universality to certain truth, (and specifically what is held up as certain _truths_) that if a thing be truth...it must (or should be) easily demonstrable to have such universality. Yet you say



> If I were born there, I would have to leave, die, or fake it till I make it.



Are you able to concede that such "knowing of yourself" into which you believe you might place yourself _by imagination as remaining the same_ in self identity...is totally reliant upon the place in which_ your own_ self identity is manifest to you? And_ in which_ it has developed?


I don't _expect_ much agreement, but have been created more than willing to be surprised or shocked. I live...by surprise!

"I grew up in the midst of much expression of what calls itself Christian...but my self identity is a thing to itself...for "I" would never be muslim...unless faking it."

Might it be that none of us are as "self made" as we like to embrace and often, declare?


I think this is at least part of what is easily demonstrated as the universality: Every man believes he is what he is "by himself"...and he is not wrong. He is, and given over to the experience of_ by himself_. And all his days are spent trying to find the way out of being "by himself"...even to the creation _in soul_ of "I am and beside me there is no other". So that he speaks this to himself to maintain his own continuity of identity..."all changes but me". And he has it, in that, and holds it in that, to a blindness of which he declares "I see".

Think therefore of the most dedicated hermit, the most inured to every presence but his own...and you are thinking merely of the common man. Like me.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> Do I infer wrongly that you believe in _existence of things_? Even the things you mention?
> 
> And, if you do...that these "things" demonstrate a dependence?
> 
> As in my inferring from this:
> 
> 
> 
> That faith (does it exist as _a thing?_) is dependent _mainly _(your 90% surety) upon other things as geographical location, cultural and religious milieu, and parentage?


 I merely picked a muslim country. Indonesia. Around 90% of the folks identify as muslim. I could also have said, I was 100% sure, he would pick a religion.



> Are you able to concede that such "knowing of yourself" into which you believe you might place yourself _by imagination as remaining the same_ in self identity...is totally reliant upon the place in which_ your own_ self identity is manifest to you? And_ in which_ it has developed?


If I understand you. If I agree to the above, how would I be 100% certain I wouldn't be a muslim? I grew up in a very religious house and it didn't take. 
I suspect the same wherever I would have grown up. I was the first in kinder garden to question Santa. Many parents were PO'ed at me and many kids cried




> I don't _expect_ much agreement, but have been created more than willing to be surprised or shocked. I live...by surprise!


I will agree that I am not an expert in environmental affects on reason. However, I do not base my statements on my opinions alone.



> "I grew up in the midst of much expression of what calls itself Christian...but my self identity is a thing to itself...for "I" would never be muslim...unless faking it."


 So, what you are saying is that you researched the world's religions and picked, or didn't, what is right for you and you would do the same anywhere? O.k. Good for you. Personally, I would probably go Buddhism...if I had to pick. Unless an army invaded my land, pointed lots of weapons at me and my family and asked, "What religion are you?" Then, I would be whatever they wished. And the lesson on how major religions grew really fast is over. 




> Might it be that none of us are as "self made" as we like to embrace and often, declare?


 Might be. Might be that some are self made and others beg their way to the top. Might be some need a little help along the way but, are mostly self made. A black cat with a white spot on his foot, I call a black cat in a pinch. 
I don't know and don't see the relevance.
Roses are red, violets are blue. I aint much of a poet, as you can see.



> Think therefore of the most dedicated hermit, the most inured to every presence but his own...and you are thinking merely of the common man. Like me.


I don't think of a dedicated hermit,  as a common man, or as one who frequents internet forums. So, lost me on the that one. Shocker, eh?


----------



## Israel

Might "atheism" (if your thoughts about "faith" being very environmentally driven is indeed your opinion) be no less driven then by environment? I think in some way you may concede (at least partially) that point to some degree in "fake it till I make it".

Am I misunderstanding? (If) it's _convenient here..._to be christian_, _(so to speak) might it no less be a convenience here...to be atheist? If geographical/national environment contributes (in your opinion) mostly to one being of christian stripe...how would atheism be no less influenced?

Late edit because I see I neglected a few things you addressed.

The whole Santa thing is a farce...and I don't wonder if children...being told a lie about a certain thing (usually associated with a certain thing...in this case "christmas" which is often associated with christianity)  don't then begin to question all about "that thing". Especially when that "thing" emphasizes a premium on truth and honesty.

And this statement I was more inclined to see applied elsewhere, not to myself...as is most often the application in these forums...



> "I grew up in the midst of much expression of what calls itself Christian...but my self identity is a thing to itself...for "I" would never be muslim...unless faking it."



I had hoped in the "unless faking it" you would identify with your own statement...

Have you ever considered that the environment of this location/culture, being _once predominantly_ identified as christian (whose hypocrisy, if exposed, might be found in things like "santa") has contributed as equally to one being an atheist, as any other thing?


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> Might "atheism" (if your thoughts about "faith" being very environmentally driven is indeed your opinion) be no less driven then by environment? I think in some way you may concede (at least partially) that point to some degree in "fake it till I make it".


 I think my point was faith is engrained in some folks. Soooo, wherever you are, you take the popular choice to believe in. 



> Am I misunderstanding? (If) it's _convenient here..._to be christian_, _(so to speak) might it no less be a convenience here...to be atheist?


 I am not sure it is 'convenient to be an atheist. Try running for President as an atheist. Try running for a management role at Chik Fil A as an atheist. I hid it from my family for many years. 


> If geographical/national environment contributes (in your opinion) mostly to one being of christian stripe...how would atheism be no less influenced?


 See above for, hopefully, point clarification.



> Have you ever considered that the environment of this location/culture, being _once predominantly_ identified as christian (whose hypocrisy, if exposed, might be found in things like "santa") has contributed as equally to one being an atheist, as any other thing?


 I see how you are hung up on that perceived point. I will state again. Some folks are prone to have to believe in a higher power. Some folks are prone to be addicted to stuff more than others. Exactly what they believe in, or are addicted to, is usually determined by whatever religion or drug is prevalent in that region. 
My 'environment' growing up was not known for developing atheist. If you do a survey of poor white trash, you will see that it is usually dominated by believers.


----------



## NCHillbilly

660griz said:


> I see how you are hung up on that perceived point. I will state again. Some folks are prone to have to believe in a higher power. Some folks are prone to be addicted to stuff more than others. Exactly what they believe in, or are addicted to, is usually determined by whatever religion or drug is prevalent in that region.
> My 'environment' growing up was not known for developing atheist. If you do a survey of poor white trash, you will see that it is usually dominated by believers.


Around here, it's usually either likker, meth, oxy, or Jesus. With roughly equal amount of control of their lives. You will find few that aren't controlled by one or the other, and if they quit one, they immediately grab the other as a substitute.


----------



## 660griz

NCHillbilly said:


> Around here, it's usually either likker, meth, oxy, or Jesus. With roughly equal amount of control of their lives. You will find few that aren't controlled by one or the other, and if they quit one, they immediately grab the other as a substitute.


Exactly. Some folks just have a hard time with reality...and moderation.


----------



## WaltL1

> Some folks are prone to have to believe in a higher power. Some folks are prone to be addicted to stuff more than others. Exactly what they believe in, or are addicted to, is usually determined by whatever religion or drug is prevalent in that region.





NCHillbilly said:


> Around here, it's usually either likker, meth, oxy, or Jesus. With roughly equal amount of control of their lives. You will find few that aren't controlled by one or the other, and if they quit one, they immediately grab the other as a substitute.


Its actually a really interesting subject. Certainly there are Christians who didn't have "issues" previously but you sure do hear " I was a drunk, I was an addict, I was "bad" in one way or another..... all the time.
On the flip side, certainly there are A/As who had the same issues but did not turn to "God" to remedy that.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Its actually a really interesting subject. Certainly there are Christians who didn't have "issues" previously but you sure do hear " I was a drunk, I was an addict, I was "bad" in one way or another..... all the time.
> On the flip side, certainly there are A/As who had the same issues but did not turn to "God" to remedy that.


I have tried all kinds of stuff in my life. Except for 'shooting up'. Like religion, it just didn't take. 
I do like an adult beverage while sitting around the camp fire though, or fishing. 
I have sat around a campfire without an adult beverage. Still o.k. but, not AS good. 
I backpacked in to 11,500 feet and didn't want the extra weight.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I think you are hitting on why there are both Atheists and Agnostics and all those weird combinations of the two.
> An Atheist can say they are 100% certain there is no God because no God has proven to exist. And that's true.
> An Agnostic can say they aren't 100% certain because God MIGHT exist. And that's true too.
> The difference between the two is really just a technicality.
> Neither one of them believe God or gods exist and for the same reason - no God or gods have been proven to exist.
> Its about as clear as mud to me



We can't be anything but agnostic about anything, the sun rising, rocks falling up, or being resurrected.  But it behooves us to function as if we step off a cliff, we will fall down ALL THE TIME, EVERY TIME.  We operate as if we kill ourselves that we will not resurrect.  We are "A-levitationists" and A-resurrectionists", but you see how useless and awkward those terms are.  We should feel as awkward about using the term "A-theist", yet we need it because there people who are Theists and some of them happen to be "Levitationists" and "Resurrectionists".


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Exactly. Some folks just have a hard time with reality...and moderation.



And supposing there are people who are very prone to religiosity or belief in the supernatural? Perhaps there's a better thing that they can be offered to "scratch the itch" that doesn't require them to believe in things that are contrary to science and reason.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Its actually a really interesting subject. Certainly there are Christians who didn't have "issues" previously but you sure do hear " I was a drunk, I was an addict, I was "bad" in one way or another..... all the time.
> On the flip side, certainly there are A/As who had the same issues but did not turn to "God" to remedy that.



There are many strategies on offer to modify behavior. How effective they are probably has something to do with the individual.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> We can't be anything but agnostic about anything, the sun rising, rocks falling up, or being resurrected.  But it behooves us to function as if we step off a cliff, we will fall down if ALL THE TIME, EVERY TIME.  We operate as if we kill ourselves that we will not resurrect.  We are "A-levitationists" and A-resurrectionists", but you see how useless and awkward those terms are.  We should feel as awkward about using the therm "A-theist", yet we need it because there people who are Theists and some of them happen to be "Levitationists" and "Resurrectionists".


Dang it now Im confused again 
It was your A-Theist example in previous conversations (among other points) that caused me to rethink whether I am Agnostic or Atheist.
Whats kind of funny is I never called myself A-Anything until I started discussing here.
I knew I didn't "believe" any more but I was pretty ignorant of the various terms that went along with that.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Dang it now Im confused again
> It was your A-Theist example in previous conversations (among other points) that caused me to rethink whether I am Agnostic or Atheist.
> Whats kind of funny is I never called myself A-Anything until I started discussing here.
> I knew I didn't "believe" any more but I was pretty ignorant of the various terms that went along with that.



I've observed that people are worried about calling themselves atheists for two main reasons.  The first is that they don't want to claim that they know anything with 100% certainty.  The second is the more insidious reason and that is the cultural stigma of calling yourself an atheist.

You've already started tackling the first issue but I think you're still hung on the second.  You wouldn't have any problem calling yourself an "A-Unicornist" even though you would concede that "maybe somewhere in the universe unicorns exist".  You may even state it while not really believing it on practical grounds but only on philosophical grounds.  We have to destigmatize the term Atheist and we have to convince people that holding a worldview that's inconsistent with science and reason is as embarrassing as believing in a flat Earth or that Elvis is alive.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I've observed that people are worried about calling themselves atheists for two main reasons.  The first is that they don't want to claim that they know anything with 100% certainty.  The second is the more insidious reason and that is the cultural stigma of calling yourself an atheist.
> 
> You've already started tackling the first issue but I think you're still hung on the second.  You wouldn't have any problem calling yourself an "A-Unicornist" even though you would concede that "maybe somewhere in the universe unicorns exist".  You may even state it while not really believing it on practical grounds but only on philosophical grounds.  We have to destigmatize the term Atheist and we have to convince people that holding a worldview that's inconsistent with science and reason is as embarrassing as believing in a flat Earth or that Elvis is alive.


100% honesty -
I couldn't care less whether I fit in the Atheist box or Agnostic box.
Its strictly for accuracy purposes.
To me the difference between the 2 is just a technicality anyway.


----------



## Brother David

Yes it's true God takes imperfect people and accomplishes amazing undertakings . 

So I guess I fit into the weak minded , addict who needs help getting through life . For I am 100 percent addicted to the Love of God.


----------



## 660griz




----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> View attachment 953165
> Yes it's true God takes imperfect people and accomplishes amazing undertakings .
> 
> So I guess I fit into the weak minded , addict who needs help getting through life . For I am 100 percent addicted to the Love of God.
> 
> View attachment 953166





> Yes it's true God takes imperfect people and accomplishes amazing undertakings


So God makes them imperfect so he can accomplish amazing undertakings.
Alriiiighty then.


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> So God makes them imperfect so he can accomplish amazing undertakings.
> Alriiiighty then.


No we have a free will and make bad choices , or at least some of us .


----------



## ky55

WaltL1 said:


> So God makes them imperfect so he can accomplish amazing undertakings.
> Alriiiighty then.



I bet gods get bored really quick with golf and fishing.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> No we have a free will and make bad choices , or at least some of us .


Im in a bad mood today so I apologize in advance -
Once, JUST ONCE, prove this free will claim, prove this God claim, prove what God does or doesnt do claim, PROVE ANYFREAKINTHING or quit making claims.


----------



## Spineyman

660griz said:


> View attachment 953180


Tell em I'm not allowed in schools yo!


----------



## ky55

WaltL1 said:


> Im in a bad mood today so I apologize in advance -
> Once, JUST ONCE, prove this free will claim, prove this God claim, prove what God does or doesnt do claim, PROVE ANYFREAKINTHING or quit making claims.



I’m in a good mood today, and he/they still can’t prove any of their claims today, any more than they could prove them last week, last year, or 1000 years ago. 
Never have-never will.   

*


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Im in a bad mood today so I apologize in advance -
> Once, JUST ONCE, prove this free will claim, prove this God claim, prove what God does or doesnt do claim, PROVE ANYFREAKINTHING or quit making claims.


Ok I quit !


----------



## 660griz

Spineyman said:


> Tell em I'm not allowed in schools yo!


What about churches? https://blackpast.org/aah/charleston-church-massacre-2015


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Ok I quit !View attachment 953268


You are the fool if you think I wasn't holding back my friend.
I wouldn't be a member here for over a decade if I vented all my feelings 
Would have gotten the boot a long time ago.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Im in a bad mood today so I apologize in advance -
> Once, JUST ONCE, prove this free will claim, prove this God claim, prove what God does or doesnt do claim, PROVE ANYFREAKINTHING or quit making claims.


Prove you are in a bad mood today. Prove it or quit making claims.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Prove you are in a bad mood today. Prove it or quit making claims.


That's really weak.
I know for a fact you can do better than that.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> That's really weak.
> I know for a fact you can do better than that.


Two more claims without a shred of proof.

What is the definition of "hypocrisy" again?

Your weak-minded approach might be habit forming.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Two more claims without a shred of proof.
> 
> What is the definition of "hypocrisy" again?
> 
> Your weak-minded approach might be habit forming.


Ok Gem I'll prove it.
"I am in a bad mood" describes ME.
"God made men with freewill" describes all of mankind possessing something that cant be proven to exist, made by a god that cant be proven to exist.
"I know for a fact you can do better" can be proven by all the intelligent posts you have made.
This is not one of those posts because you are ignoring the difference.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Prove you are in a bad mood today. Prove it or quit making claims.


The actual source stated it and wrote it. That is as accurate as it gets. 
Much better than someone writing about it 60 years later who wasn't there. Or worse yet another person who doesn't know Walt, never met Walt, never interacted with Walt, telling you what Walt feels.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Ok Gem I'll prove it.
> "I am in a bad mood" describes ME.
> "God made men with freewill" describes all of mankind possessing something that cant be proven to exist, made by a god that cant be proven to exist.
> "I know for a fact you can do better" can be proven by all the intelligent posts you have made.
> This is not one of those posts because you are ignoring the difference.


The difference is included in your requirement to "PROVE ANYFREAKINTHING or quit making claims".

This was your demand, not mine.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> The actual source stated it and wrote it. That is as accurate as it gets.


Priceless.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Priceless.


Agreed. Such accurate information is invaluable.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> The difference is included in your requirement to "PROVE ANYFREAKINTHING or quit making claims".
> 
> This was your demand, not mine.


Walt was able to prove his claims, it is reasonable to expect others to be able to prove theirs also, especially claims as grand as many made in here.  The greater the embellishments,  the harder they are to prove.


----------



## Spotlite

660griz said:


> I'm your huckleberry.
> What would you like to know that I am 100% sure of?
> I am 100% sure you believe in your God, and only your God.
> I am 100% sure I believe in one less than you.
> I am 100% sure that we do not know exactly how the universe was started.
> I am 90% sure that if you were born in a predominantly muslim country, to muslim parents,  you would be muslim...and a darn good one too.
> If I were born there, I would have to leave, die, or fake it till I make it.


I want to know if you’re 100% sure there isn’t a God???


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I think you are hitting on why there are both Atheists and Agnostics and all those weird combinations of the two.
> An Atheist can say they are 100% certain there is no God because no God has proven to exist. And that's true.
> An Agnostic can say they aren't 100% certain because God MIGHT exist. And that's true too.
> The difference between the two is really just a technicality.
> Neither one of them believe God or gods exist and for the same reason - no God or gods have been proven to exist.
> Its about as clear as mud to me


Yup. I agree Walt. Its just been my experience that the Atheist will still not say they are certain, yet they seem to be “so sure”. Set aside what is evidence or not or if one can prove / disprove, my point is it’s a pretty high stake to claim when you cannot even be certain of it.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> If you got the "most likely speech" , then you were talking to an agnostic.
> 
> If you say that all of your doubt is removed you are not being 100%  honest. And that is solely based off of your statements in various converstaions in here over the years.


I have zero doubt. I do have questions - there’s a difference.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Yup. I agree Walt. Its just been my experience that the Atheist will still not say they are certain, yet they seem to be “so sure”. Set aside what is evidence or not or if one can prove / disprove, my point is it’s a pretty high stake to claim when you cannot even be certain of it.



There are different levels of certainty based on different evidence.  The stakes of being uncertain matter, too.  The starting point seems like it must be "There's nothing that we know with absolute certainty".  I feel as certain that a rock will fall off a cliff as much as I feel certain that I will fall off a cliff, knowing full well that there's a possibility that both could fall up.  I might risk many rocks in that experiment but never myself.  You can't set aside the evidence because it's all we have to help us understand the world. 

The "Trust Fall" comes to mind here.

_A *trust fall* is a purported trust-building game often conducted as a group exercise in which a person deliberately allows themselves to fall, relying on the other members of the group (spotters) to catch the person.[1] _

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_fall_

I liken many of the testimonies of believers to a trust fall.  They say that Jesus (or Allah, or Buddha....) have "Never let them down" (or he let them "fall" for a good reason that they don't know yet).  I just don't link the events they describe to the deity of their preference like they do_.  _Indeed, often the discussions here are non-believers asking believers to demonstrate or at very least describe why they make that link. 

Then there's this:


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Walt was able to prove his claims, it is reasonable to expect others to be able to prove theirs also, especially claims as grand as many made in here.  The greater the embellishments,  the harder they are to prove.


Walt said it, therefore it is proven as fact? Do you extend this standard of proof to others or Walt alone?


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Walt said it, therefore it is proven as fact? Do you extend this standard of proof to others or Walt alone?


This is getting ridiculous.
I said I was in a bad mood, I didn't claim I could leap tall buildings in a single bound.
I didn't make any sort of claim about anybody else or anything else. 
When the Christian folks  in here say God talked to them, we believe they believe God talked to them.
How about you believe that I believe I was in a bad mood and move onto something else?


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> This is getting ridiculous.
> I said I was in a bad mood, I didn't claim I could leap tall buildings in a single bound.
> I didn't make any sort of claim about anybody else or anything else.
> When the Christian folks  in here say God talked to them, we believe they believe God talked to them.
> How about you believe that I believe I was in a bad mood and move onto something else?


Walt I have already forgiven and I pray that whatever has you down is removed , remember (Carpe Diem ).


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Walt said it, therefore it is proven as fact? Do you extend this standard of proof to others or Walt alone?


I would say that information coming directly from the source tends to be more accurate than 2nd, 3rd 4th +++++ hand.
If you say that you are in a bad mood, I would take that as credible. You could be lying, but I would give you the benefit of doubt while making such a claim. Such a claim is believable under the circumstances. 
Walt has shown to be trustworthy in here. I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet a fine rifle that if Walt says he is in a bad mood, Walt is in a bad mood. It is not an outlandish claim or statement to make. So I believe him. It is not an extraordinary claim. His word is enough for me on this one. Such a statement does not require extraordinary evidence.

I tend to agree with Walt an awful lot on many things. I trust his thought. I have never found anything to doubt him so far. If Walt decides to make a statement and claim that he talks to an Invisible being, You can bet a fine rifle that I will be requiring a lot more info and may never believe what he says unless he can provide extraordinary evidence to match .

Amount of evidence is relevant to the size of the claim regardless of who makes it.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> This is getting ridiculous.


Then I have accomplished exactly what I set out to. 


WaltL1 said:


> I said I was in a bad mood, I didn't claim I could leap tall buildings in a single bound.
> I didn't make any sort of claim about anybody else or anything else.
> When the Christian folks  in here say God talked to them, we believe they believe God talked to them.
> How about you believe that I believe I was in a bad mood and move onto something else?


Why would I? Shifting the burden of proof has it's benefits. I am not having to put much effort in the showing of it.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Amount of evidence is relevant to the size of the claim regardless of who makes it.


Some claim that to be the case. I am far more skeptical than you are.

In regard to proving the invisible, the evidence is in the resistance.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Then I have accomplished exactly what I set out to.
> 
> Why would I? Shifting the burden of proof has it's benefits. I am not having to put much effort in the showing of it.


Ok Gem.


----------



## hummerpoo

gemcgrew said:


> Some claim that to be the case. I am far more skeptical than you are.
> 
> In regard to proving the invisible, the evidence is in the resistance.


Thanks Gem, that is an excellent observation; and one which I had not considered.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Thanks Gem, that is an excellent observation; and one which I had not considered.


Do you consider the resistance to the claim that the invisible exists to be the same as a resistance to the invisible?


----------



## WaltL1

Spot, how did the wedding go?
Did your son get cold feet and hide in a deer stand or anything exciting like that?


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Some claim that to be the case. I am far more skeptical than you are.
> 
> In regard to proving the invisible, the evidence is in the resistance.


Those are two more claims, one requiring more evidence to back it up than the other, yet nothing provided more than just the claims.
Yet I agree with one of them, although I am sure, for different reasons.


----------



## Israel

I guess some may think Gem's 'telligence just dun went an 'vaporated.

Or maybe...some in their observance, ain't been as observant as they dun 'magined.

Restraint seems such a _fine thing_ when a man imagines he has it to himself and is exercising it of some benevolence. They get to tell their soul "you dun good!" (kinda like a dog returning to its own vomit) mmmm...tasty!

"Jes' look atcha soul, yer magnifisint! Wat restrainin' ya show in da face of such...knowin'!"

But it ain't bad to rekanize that one been doin' it a lot longer. Better. Perfeck. Widout needin' to tell hissef, "I dun good". He ain't in da needin' bidnezz. He jes do as he please. He don't need to prove hissef to no man. If he do choose to...well, dat man know he cain't strong arm him, cause he dun seen wat cain't never be strong armed...all the man can do is wat he been told..."ask". And he...glad. Never knew da power of jest askin'.

Jesus got whatcha call an observational school, getcher light and color balance adjusted, getcher hearing tested and output tuned, sensitivities lined out an' such. A total rebuild. Right down to sirkut bord. (O! da signal noise cummin off dat old one was...yep...jes noise) Feedback loop. (an I will say to my soul, "soul you got lotsa stuff laid up fer many days") Oh dat guyz jes messin' wid hissef is all...speakin into the invizible never thinkin dat speakin in the invizible is heard, like he's da only one wats got any invizibilty in hissef. Yep he dun went off da deep end, jes by speakin'. An approvin' hissef to hissef. (talk about talkin' to invizible beins!) Sum keep sayin' we want da universal proof...well jest keep bein' a man. is all. An if ya need to, yer even _allowed_ to think nobody _really_ hears you, at all, beside yer own sef. Dat don' even keep the invizible one from hearin' in the invizible. All yer thinkin' otherwise, an mine...don' do one thing.

We preachin' open 'rollment to Jesus school even knowin' dat's jest gunna get some heels dug in even deeper. Even knowin' some ain't comin. But dat ain't da concern. Sum be learnin' bedience don' work dat way. 'bedience don't come cause ya know (and need da splainin' of) da why of wat yer bein told, but only da who of who is tellin' ya. An there's only one place dis is taught, where a man can see da marvel of 'bedience. An he sure learnz...it ain't his own wat got him there. To look. And see.


----------



## bullethead

A sermon in ebonics. Yay


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> A sermon in ebonics. Yay



I have a hard enough time reading Israel's posts as it is never mind trying to "cypher" the ebonics too.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I have a hard enough time reading Israel's posts as it is never mind trying to "cypher" the ebonics too.


Another day, a different play.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> A sermon in ebonics. Yay


ain'tchu dat feller wat said "ya cain't know bout sum folk you never met, know how they think, why dey do wat dey do an all, make surmisin's an all bout their motives...cause ya don't (and cain't) even know em" I mean ain't dat more or less a drum you like to baing? 

"dere just ain't any real knowin of sumone ya never even met!"


How far back we have to go to find that same feller claimin' a knowin' of brother Paul's _intent_ to start a "new religion"? Now it don' worry me none if widnesses don' show up here, at all...Paul dun spoke well of seein both _you an' me_...an' I think far better than we mos' now see him. He got dem seein' eyes. An he weren't ashamed at all to say where he got dem. As gift.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> ain'tchu dat feller wat said "ya cain't know bout sum folk you never met, know how they think, why dey do wat dey do an all, make surmisin's an all bout their motives...cause ya don't (and cain't) even know em" I mean ain't dat more or less a drum you like to baing?
> 
> "dere just ain't any real knowin of sumone ya never even met!"
> 
> 
> How far back we have to go to find that same feller claimin' a knowin' of brother Paul's _intent_ to start a "new religion"? Now it don' worry me none if widnesses don' show up here, at all...Paul dun spoke well of seein both _you an' me_...an' I think far better than we mos' now see him. He got dem seein' eyes. An he weren't ashamed at all to say where he got dem. As gift.


Encores are asked for.

You never seem to recall and include my explanations(read evidence) which backs up my statements. You remember what I said regarding "knowing a person" and about Paul, but then your memory fails to include the reasons I give to back it up and what I state is required to validate the words of an unknown person.
Selective memory? Or willful ignorance?


----------



## Israel

There is no evidence..."Paul started a new religion"...or even had any inclination to.

Paul just got to see "all things new".  

_Your explanations_...are evidence? 

Here's another encore...priceless.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> There is no evidence..."Paul started a new religion"...or even had any inclination to.
> 
> Paul just got to see "all things new".


Paul's writings are proof that he did start a new religion.


----------



## bullethead

Not saying this is where I stand, but this link provides some good points.
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_creation_new_gentile_religion.htm


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> There is no evidence..."Paul started a new religion"...or even had any inclination to.
> 
> Paul just got to see "all things new".
> 
> _Your explanations_...are evidence?
> 
> Here's another encore...priceless.


My explanations were based off of and included the evidence.


----------



## bullethead

From:
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Chris...frugal-lives-and-often-died-for-their-beliefs






> From what I've heard and read, Jesus (actually Y'shua) was one of a number of aspiring Jewish messiahs and miracle workers in 1st century Judea. He attracted a lot of attention because unlike other faith healers he did not charge for his services. Unfortunately his apocalyptic message of God's kingdom on Earth, was well understood by everyone, especially the Romans themselves and the Scribes and Pharisees who benefited from the existing power structure, to mean a Jewish theocracy freed from Roman rule.
> 
> I can't emphasize that last point enough: if The Kingdom of God as Jesus preached it, were the one that Christians talk about today, the Romans wouldn't have needed to kill Jesus. If you were a practical-minded Roman official concerned with extracting money from a Judean colony, would it bother you if some preacher went shouting about God coming down from heaven in the sweet by-and-by? It's unlikely. Like every Imperial power in history, the Romans cared about real threats to their earthly power like political unrest and subject peoples overthrowing their masters. That's exactly the sort of threat Jesus posed.
> 
> His behavior didn't help matters at all.  His attack on the money changers in the temple was a deliberate, in-your-face provocation of the powers that be, and the powers that be responded the way they always do when challenged by a powerless upstart: with overwhelming force.
> 
> The temple authorities were probably glad to see this troublemaker crucified but they didn't need to twist Pontius Pilate's arm to make it happen. Pilate was not the fair minded, conflicted guy from the Gospel of Luke. He persecuted Jews so cruelly that the Emperor Augustus once wrote him a letter telling him to cool it. Like a Confederate private said of Stonewall Jackson, "he'd have a man [executed] at the drop of a hat, and he'd drop it himself."
> 
> So the Romans crucified him. Were there thieves on the crosses nearby? Unlikely. Crucifixion was a crime reserved for people who challenged Roman authority, not common criminals. Crosses lined the roads and hills near city gates so any aspiring rebel could see what awaited them if they challenged Rome.
> 
> And what would they see there? Empty crosses? No: Tortured bodies, in attitudes of agony, flesh rotting and eyes pecked out by crows. That's why Golgotha was called "the place of skulls." Nobody was entombed after crucifixion. They were hung up until they rotted away.  People weren't allowed to take the bodies down for proper burial. That was the point of executing people in this humiliating public way. The tomb was empty because there was never anyone in it.
> 
> It wasn't supposed to happen this way.This was not the way God's Kingdom on Earth was supposed to come about and nobody knew that better than his followers, now in hiding. Jesus, it seemed, was  another in a long string of failed messiahs killed by the Romans.
> 
> Then something happened. It's not clear how. Some disciples began to have visions; others told stories they heard of a risen Jesus. That story grew. And others. In time, that Jesus story became something very different, and its followers themselves very different from its original disaffected Jewish audience. Saul of Tarsus angered a lot of the original followers including Jesus' own brother, James by preaching a version of Christianity that struck many as entirely of his own making. But over the course of events, that didn't seem to matter.
> The rest, as they say, is history.


----------



## bullethead

One more for you Israel. 

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

Here is the first paragraph to ponder, rest is in the link.


> Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus, but the risen Christ of Paul's visions and dreams. Paul's authority comes not from the mortal Jesus, but the Holy Spirit. (See beginnings of Galatians.) The Apostle Paul and his followers define what became Christianity.


----------



## Israel

Yep...Paul did say

So that we henceforth have known no one according to the flesh, and even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no more; so that if any one is in Christ -- he is a new creature; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things.
YLT

This in no way adds to, contradicts, subverts, replaces...but only reveals the outworking in a man (even to Paul's _speaking/writing thus_), what is said here:

the spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything; the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life;
YLT


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Paul's writings are proof that he did start a new religion.


Do you have an established benchmark on what is evidence and proof??? 

Some writings and statements are proof for you, and some are not. How do you determine what is not biased??


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Paul's writings are proof that he did start a new religion.



That explains much.

The one seeing this way, then, when in any belief they were once_ involved_ according to this understanding, (if it be called "christianity"...this _new religion_) acknowledges only that...being once part of a _new religion._

Jesus calls to life, not an updated, new(er) form/other form...but all that is new.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Do you have an established benchmark on what is evidence and proof???
> 
> Some writings and statements are proof for you, and some are not. How do you determine what is not biased??


Yes I do have an established benchmark. Verifiable Facts are at the top of the list. 

Proof that I speak of can be Pro or Con. Paul writing about meeting Jesus in a vision....it's proof of something, just not proof that helps his cause.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> That explains much.
> 
> The one seeing this way, then, when in any belief they were once_ involved_ according to this understanding, (if it be called "christianity"...this _new religion_) acknowledges only that...being once part of a _new religion._
> 
> Jesus calls to life, not an updated, new(er) form/other form...but all that is new.


Nah,  its Judaism Plus. Jesus wasn't out to start a new religion. He was fine with Judaism.


----------



## Brother David

Did anyone notice a week or so back about the argument of whether man landed on the Moon. You can find experts on both sides of the issue .

So I guess the only way to know for sure , is to go yourself . Then you can look for the good ole Stars and Stripes and see for yourself .

Until that day happens you will have to go on what you BELIEVE ! I have a tendency to believe the Astronauts , but you never know , it could have been a conspiracy to unite all Americans .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Did anyone notice a week or so back about the argument of whether man landed on the Moon. You can find experts on both sides of the issue .
> 
> So I guess the only way to know for sure , is to go yourself . Then you can look for the good ole Stars and Stripes and see for yourself .
> 
> Until that day happens you will have to go on what you BELIEVE ! I have a tendency to believe the Astronauts , but you never know , it could have been a conspiracy to unite all Americans .


I'm with you on the astronauts. The ones that walked on the moon are recognized by the number in which they did so.
Plus,  moon rocks do not grow on trees here on Earth, somebody grabbed them.

But, "experts" in my opinion,  is often overused.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> I'm with you on the astronauts. The ones that walked on the moon are recognized by the number in which they did so.
> Plus,  moon rocks do not grow on trees here on Earth, somebody grabbed them.
> 
> But, "experts" in my opinion,  is often overused.


Then why do insist on try to find one off's that try to interject there opinion about Christianity .
The Authenticity of the Gospels are only dispelled by the conspiracy theory and Athesist crowd .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Then why do insist on try to find one off's that try to interject there opinion about Christianity .
> The Authenticity of the Gospels are only dispelled by the conspiracy theory and Athesist crowd .


David, that is what you think because you do not research what you are talking about. You are just wrong.


----------



## gemcgrew

Brother David said:


> Then why do insist on try to find one off's that try to interject there opinion about Christianity .


He is a slave to the conditioned response(Pavlovian).

No free will.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> He is a slave to the conditioned response(Pavlovian).
> 
> No free will.


Yep. That is it. My big buddy up above the sky put on his Lab Coat and trained me so that every time I hear such nonsense that I am to respond that way. But, on the bright side because I do such a good job I also get a Scoobie Snack!!!!


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Yep. That is it. My big buddy up above the sky put on his Lab Coat and trained me so that every time I hear such nonsense that I am to respond that way. But, on the bright side because I do such a good job I also get a Scoobie Snack!!!!


Bullethead,
Thank you.

Brother David,
You're welcome.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Bullethead,
> Thank you.
> 
> Brother David,
> You're welcome.


No, no, Thank You!
According to you I can be no other way, I am glad you were able to clear it up, if for nothing else than the Snacks.


----------



## bullethead

I like doing the Lord's work. Now I feel special too.


----------



## Israel

Neither Jesus nor Paul His disciple taught that salvation is found in religion nor its observances of taste not touch not, nor circumcision, nor that God dwells in temples built by hands. And that surely no man is justified by the workings of law, be they of his own devisings or found elsewhere. The man who would seek to hold God under legal obligation in any sense whatever, has not yet learned of his own insufficiency to do "one thing" that could place God there.

God simply cannot be made to owe by what man would even consider the most sublime of [religious] effort. And some of you, (A/A) even in affirming rejection of religious practice, yet find it has an odd persistence of hold upon the soul, a bias toward it when sensing one "previously held" is being trashed.

We understand this. We too have endured the trashing of things once held dear and of some utility to us in our journey. Even when they are manifestly displayed as useless and vain, we yet remain aware that to many they still continue in whisper of promise and nobility...and kindredness to the soul. Our brother Paul listed some of such all that were once of seeming hope, that now lay plain as dung in his accounting.

Paul neither preached nor exhorted men to a _thing_, but to Jesus Christ Himself, always and only as source of all life to the soul. He in whom is found the fullness of God to man's salvation. He was relentless and relentlessly persecuted for this and always denied any primacy, even when men might seek to make him so. "Less than the least", "not worthy to be called an apostle", and surely not the One who died on the cross for the sake of His body. For Paul, who was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, such endurance and enduring in it is manifest plainly, never swayed from ceasing to know nothing among men but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

It is no wonder the enemy of the soul would seek to make him appear otherwise. Paul's words through and by the spirit of Christ reverberate in all power still giving hope to the soul and life to the Body. His all in all pursuit a worthy example. But the target should never be misconstrued, forasmuch as Paul held singleness of sight to glory, and as partaker, another holds a single and vain ambition to usurp. And grasp. His scheming is not to be something of which we are ignorant. Jesus Christ Himself is always that target for such vanity. Holding that man's ascension in mind and cleverness is able to surpass the Lord's ascension _in truth. _But such will only discover they go lower.

And Jesus Christ has indeed suffered long in His body the attempts of men to make of him a mere religious figurehead. If, or when (God forbid) He is presented as such, especially to the soul as in "Christ is the head of _my religion_" a better sensing is called for. Christ is head _of all things to man _whether such man call himself anything...believer or non.

This is God's work. Man is called to Jesus Christ always...and only. Never to some religious form, even if or when it be described as "christianity". Christ leads in all and everything to _no less_ than God _over all_ who is blessed forever. Is He "god of the christians" only? The "christian god"? The god of christianity? Did God call you, or any, if you be so persuaded "to christianity" or to Jesus Christ Himself? Why then would any man commend another to that which God has not called them? And yet God remains full of mercy.

Men see outer form. Forms they can touch and credibly apprehend, define, draw limit around and to. God knows this. Man is not despised for this, but saved from it. Paul was not speaking vainly in saying "though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more". No man can enter beyond this veil of flesh, this defining to a limit, except he be Christ's. No man can see the _eternal inside_ what to outside is only described to limit...except he be...inside. The historical and physical Jesus Christ must make way for the seeing of the eternal Jesus Christ.

"_I am_ he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of he11 and of death."

Christianity, such as it is, may even find acceptable description agreed upon by what denies Christ and _even_ what claims Him. How can this be? A man may perceive "christianity" (even a Christ denier) but only what is _of God_ is granted perception of Jesus Christ. Is there, therefore a withholding? How _very criminal_ this _seems! _But only till such time as is apprehended how very criminal Jesus Christ Himself..._seemed. _How much has been heaped to Him by religion for the purpose of _virtue signaling! _(A newer term for an ancient practice, self righteousness and its display)

The hearers on the day of Pentecost needed no explanation of the significance of crucifixion nor its implications relative to Rome. They needed no explanation of the implications of declaring such a One...Lord... in the face of all Roman authority. They needed no instruction in where they were now positioned to Rome. Or would be by declaration of Jesus Christ as Lord. How very criminal...they would _seem._ What heard they to move them so? What had the disciples...to speak...so? Persuasive words? Persuasive reasoning? A call to join a new religion?

The Devil relishes little more than success in reinforcing the notion of _wisdom in ones own eyes. _The structure of the whole of the world is set to it. Cemented around it. But, there is no wisdom to merely seeing it. The learning of trust in the One who shows it...will always _appear_...criminal. The world can tolerate christianity, it cannot abide faith in Christ.


Therefore let all Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I like doing the Lord's work. Now I feel special too.


 
Is that honest? As always?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Is that honest? As always?


If that is actually my part in the script then yes it is honest. 
But, even it if is not honest,  It is what it is scripted to be.
I just say and do what I am supposed to Israel.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Is that honest? As always?


It is as it should be.
Questioning me is Questioning the Lord.
I doubt that you intend to question the Lord's plans, but you do what you are supposed to same as me.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Neither Jesus nor Paul His disciple taught that salvation is found in religion nor its observances of taste not touch not, nor circumcision, nor that God dwells in temples built by hands. And that surely no man is justified by the workings of law, be they of his own devisings or found elsewhere. The man who would seek to hold God under legal obligation in any sense whatever, has not yet learned of his own insufficiency to do "one thing" that could place God there.
> 
> God simply cannot be made to owe by what man would even consider the most sublime of [religious] effort. And some of you, (A/A) even in affirming rejection of religious practice, yet find it has an odd persistence of hold upon the soul, a bias toward it when sensing one "previously held" is being trashed.
> 
> We understand this. We too have endured the trashing of things once held dear and of some utility to us in our journey. Even when they are manifestly displayed as useless and vain, we yet remain aware that to many they still continue in whisper of promise and nobility...and kindredness to the soul. Our brother Paul listed some of such all that were once of seeming hope, that now lay plain as dung in his accounting.
> 
> Paul neither preached nor exhorted men to a _thing_, but to Jesus Christ Himself, always and only as source of all life to the soul. He in whom is found the fullness of God to man's salvation. He was relentless and relentlessly persecuted for this and always denied any primacy, even when men might seek to make him so. "Less than the least", "not worthy to be called an apostle", and surely not the One who died on the cross for the sake of His body. For Paul, who was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, such endurance and enduring in it is manifest plainly, never swayed from ceasing to know nothing among men but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
> 
> It is no wonder the enemy of the soul would seek to make him appear otherwise. Paul's words through and by the spirit of Christ reverberate in all power still giving hope to the soul and life to the Body. His all in all pursuit a worthy example. But the target should never be misconstrued, forasmuch as Paul held singleness of sight to glory, and as partaker, another holds a single and vain ambition to usurp. And grasp. His scheming is not to be something of which we are ignorant. Jesus Christ Himself is always that target for such vanity. Holding that man's ascension in mind and cleverness is able to surpass the Lord's ascension _in truth. _But such will only discover they go lower.
> 
> And Jesus Christ has indeed suffered long in His body the attempts of men to make of him a mere religious figurehead. If, or when (God forbid) He is presented as such, especially to the soul as in "Christ is the head of _my religion_" a better sensing is called for. Christ is head _of all things to man _whether such man call himself anything...believer or non.
> 
> This is God's work. Man is called to Jesus Christ always...and only. Never to some religious form, even if or when it be described as "christianity". Christ leads in all and everything to _no less_ than God _over all_ who is blessed forever. Is He "god of the christians" only? The "christian god"? The god of christianity? Did God call you, or any, if you be so persuaded "to christianity" or to Jesus Christ Himself? Why then would any man commend another to that which God has not called them? And yet God remains full of mercy.
> 
> Men see outer form. Forms they can touch and credibly apprehend, define, draw limit around and to. God knows this. Man is not despised for this, but saved from it. Paul was not speaking vainly in saying "though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more". No man can enter beyond this veil of flesh, this defining to a limit, except he be Christ's. No man can see the _eternal inside_ what to outside is only described to limit...except he be...inside. The historical and physical Jesus Christ must make way for the seeing of the eternal Jesus Christ.
> 
> "_I am_ he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of he11 and of death."
> 
> Christianity, such as it is, may even find acceptable description agreed upon by what denies Christ and _even_ what claims Him. How can this be? A man may perceive "christianity" (even a Christ denier) but only what is _of God_ is granted perception of Jesus Christ. Is there, therefore a withholding? How _very criminal_ this _seems! _But only till such time as is apprehended how very criminal Jesus Christ Himself..._seemed. _How much has been heaped to Him by religion for the purpose of _virtue signaling! _(A newer term for an ancient practice, self righteousness and its display)
> 
> The hearers on the day of Pentecost needed no explanation of the significance of crucifixion nor its implications relative to Rome. They needed no explanation of the implications of declaring such a One...Lord... in the face of all Roman authority. They needed no instruction in where they were now positioned to Rome. Or would be by declaration of Jesus Christ as Lord. How very criminal...they would _seem._ What heard they to move them so? What had the disciples...to speak...so? Persuasive words? Persuasive reasoning? A call to join a new religion?
> 
> The Devil relishes little more than success in reinforcing the notion of _wisdom in ones own eyes. _The structure of the whole of the world is set to it. Cemented around it. But, there is no wisdom to merely seeing it. The learning of trust in the One who shows it...will always _appear_...criminal. The world can tolerate christianity, it cannot abide faith in Christ.
> 
> 
> Therefore let all Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!


So God made Himself, who was designed to be crucified from the start and you think man had a choice in doing it?
Paul should have been a fisherman, he got you hook, line and stinker(spelling KoRReKT)


----------



## bullethead

The Bell keeps ringing and the Scoobie Snacks keep dropping!! Yummmm


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Neither Jesus nor Paul His disciple taught that salvation is found in religion nor its observances of taste not touch not, nor circumcision, nor that God dwells in temples built by hands. And that surely no man is justified by the workings of law, be they of his own devisings or found elsewhere. The man who would seek to hold God under legal obligation in any sense whatever, has not yet learned of his own insufficiency to do "one thing" that could place God there.
> 
> God simply cannot be made to owe by what man would even consider the most sublime of [religious] effort. And some of you, (A/A) even in affirming rejection of religious practice, yet find it has an odd persistence of hold upon the soul, a bias toward it when sensing one "previously held" is being trashed.
> 
> We understand this. We too have endured the trashing of things once held dear and of some utility to us in our journey. Even when they are manifestly displayed as useless and vain, we yet remain aware that to many they still continue in whisper of promise and nobility...and kindredness to the soul. Our brother Paul listed some of such all that were once of seeming hope, that now lay plain as dung in his accounting.
> 
> Paul neither preached nor exhorted men to a _thing_, but to Jesus Christ Himself, always and only as source of all life to the soul. He in whom is found the fullness of God to man's salvation. He was relentless and relentlessly persecuted for this and always denied any primacy, even when men might seek to make him so. "Less than the least", "not worthy to be called an apostle", and surely not the One who died on the cross for the sake of His body. For Paul, who was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, such endurance and enduring in it is manifest plainly, never swayed from ceasing to know nothing among men but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
> 
> It is no wonder the enemy of the soul would seek to make him appear otherwise. Paul's words through and by the spirit of Christ reverberate in all power still giving hope to the soul and life to the Body. His all in all pursuit a worthy example. But the target should never be misconstrued, forasmuch as Paul held singleness of sight to glory, and as partaker, another holds a single and vain ambition to usurp. And grasp. His scheming is not to be something of which we are ignorant. Jesus Christ Himself is always that target for such vanity. Holding that man's ascension in mind and cleverness is able to surpass the Lord's ascension _in truth. _But such will only discover they go lower.
> 
> And Jesus Christ has indeed suffered long in His body the attempts of men to make of him a mere religious figurehead. If, or when (God forbid) He is presented as such, especially to the soul as in "Christ is the head of _my religion_" a better sensing is called for. Christ is head _of all things to man _whether such man call himself anything...believer or non.
> 
> This is God's work. Man is called to Jesus Christ always...and only. Never to some religious form, even if or when it be described as "christianity". Christ leads in all and everything to _no less_ than God _over all_ who is blessed forever. Is He "god of the christians" only? The "christian god"? The god of christianity? Did God call you, or any, if you be so persuaded "to christianity" or to Jesus Christ Himself? Why then would any man commend another to that which God has not called them? And yet God remains full of mercy.
> 
> Men see outer form. Forms they can touch and credibly apprehend, define, draw limit around and to. God knows this. Man is not despised for this, but saved from it. Paul was not speaking vainly in saying "though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more". No man can enter beyond this veil of flesh, this defining to a limit, except he be Christ's. No man can see the _eternal inside_ what to outside is only described to limit...except he be...inside. The historical and physical Jesus Christ must make way for the seeing of the eternal Jesus Christ.
> 
> "_I am_ he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of he11 and of death."
> 
> Christianity, such as it is, may even find acceptable description agreed upon by what denies Christ and _even_ what claims Him. How can this be? A man may perceive "christianity" (even a Christ denier) but only what is _of God_ is granted perception of Jesus Christ. Is there, therefore a withholding? How _very criminal_ this _seems! _But only till such time as is apprehended how very criminal Jesus Christ Himself..._seemed. _How much has been heaped to Him by religion for the purpose of _virtue signaling! _(A newer term for an ancient practice, self righteousness and its display)
> 
> The hearers on the day of Pentecost needed no explanation of the significance of crucifixion nor its implications relative to Rome. They needed no explanation of the implications of declaring such a One...Lord... in the face of all Roman authority. They needed no instruction in where they were now positioned to Rome. Or would be by declaration of Jesus Christ as Lord. How very criminal...they would _seem._ What heard they to move them so? What had the disciples...to speak...so? Persuasive words? Persuasive reasoning? A call to join a new religion?
> 
> The Devil relishes little more than success in reinforcing the notion of _wisdom in ones own eyes. _The structure of the whole of the world is set to it. Cemented around it. But, there is no wisdom to merely seeing it. The learning of trust in the One who shows it...will always _appear_...criminal. The world can tolerate christianity, it cannot abide faith in Christ.
> 
> 
> Therefore let all Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!


Where did Jesus say that he should be worshipped?
Where did Jesus command that the people should do anything other than follow the Torah?

The Debbil offered for Jesus to worship him and Jesus told him "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’'

Paul started all this Jesus worship AFTER the guy was dead because had Paul ever actually met Jesus while Jesus was alive, Jesus would have told him off.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> The Bell keeps ringing and the Scoobie Snacks keep dropping!! Yummmm


I was always more of a Shaggy fan , even when not intentional and sometimes when running , he always seemed to find the truth!


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Where did Jesus say that he should be worshipped?
> Where did Jesus command that the people should do anything other than follow the Torah?
> 
> The Debbil offered for Jesus to worship him and Jesus told him "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’'
> 
> Paul started all this Jesus worship AFTER the guy was dead because had Paul ever actually met Jesus while Jesus was alive, Jesus would have told him off.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I was always more of a Shaggy fan , even when not intentional and sometimes when running , he always seemed to find the truth!


Shaggy ate scoobie snacks also.
And, even though they believed in ghosts and ghouls and spirits...it was always Old Man Whithers.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


>


----------



## Israel

> *I like doing the Lord's work. Now I feel special too. *






bullethead said:


> If that is actually my part in the script then yes it is honest.
> But, even it if is not honest,  It is what it is scripted to be.
> I just say and do what I am supposed to Israel.




You are special. You have _never_ not been. You are formed of design and all _the purpose_ there ever is or has been that is experienced in time. You fit your role perfectly. Even to being a help to all else formed so. You brother, are no accident as men might think or describe.  

Paul said there are glories, just as he said:

for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth -- as there are gods many and lords many -- 

and men are_ subject to_ such as they see. This _subjection_ is also neither accidental nor purposeless. All _things_ are subject to this "_thinghood" _of their_ nature. _Things _are subjects._ And _all things _are made subject to a frustration of their form by _the things _over them which exert the greater power.

We speak, and have often even here, of the _necessity of a universality_. As in _a _"something" would have to be plain to all men, in (and of) all time and place for God to be justified and justifiable. (Not that God _needs man's_ justification) But what in universality of understanding/knowledge/concept/consciousness is common to _all men _in all_ time? _Is there any? Is there any _common partaking_?

We are not at odds here...you and I have such a fundamental commonality (extending to all men) that such_ a given of commonality,_ _even _when overlooked..._or denied_, is made to itself even _more plain_ by those exercises.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Where did Jesus say that he should be worshipped?
> Where did Jesus command that the people should do anything other than follow the Torah?
> 
> The Debbil offered for Jesus to worship him and Jesus told him "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’'
> 
> Paul started all this Jesus worship AFTER the guy was dead because had Paul ever actually met Jesus while Jesus was alive, Jesus would have told him off.




that all may honour the Son according as they honour the Father; he who is not honouring the Son, doth not honour the Father who sent him.
YLT John 5:23

Paul understood this. But, not without commotion. Not without upheaval. Not without a complete "turning of upside down" of _all of his own_ understanding.

That the very one he not merely opposed, but opposed in such fury of "breathing out threatenings and slaughter" believing_ he was doing the will _of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was chosen to himself meet his own contradiction. He believed he stood upon Moses...not knowing at all the work of the God Moses was called by. He had to receive (as it were) his own calling.

All of his prior religious fervor, fueled of ignorance he found...forgiven. The very God he believed he served...he was shown strenuously opposing. The very things of which he once held such confidence of piety and that "spoke for him"...before God to his righteousness...had to make way. Be _shown_ for what they are.

It is no different than the experience of _any other disciple. _His (at times) _contradictor _is Himself the One who speaks before God, on his behalf_. _The one disciplining and chastening is not to be despised. He is the _all and only_ that speaks before God to man's salvation. Forgiving those who do not know "what they do".(And the disciple learns a gladness in this...for if were held to account for all the times he was self convinced he "knew better", but then shown not having known at all, well, the one forgiven much...loves much)

Jesus Christ, the One in whom all the righteousness, power, and glory of God is fully known, and all the _frailty of man_ ("I was dead" He declares, unashamed) is also fully known and not despised. Perfect power meeting perfect weakness, and the outworking of this Jesus submitted to in His own body. And though I may speak of it as an apprehension, the heights and depths of it, the breadth of it, remains for me a constant source of exploration. And discovery. Jesus Himself...learned obedience. He is a fit Captain.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> that all may honour the Son according as they honour the Father; he who is not honouring the Son, doth not honour the Father who sent him.
> YLT John 5:23
> 
> Paul understood this. But, not without commotion. Not without upheaval. Not without a complete "turning of upside down" of _all of his own_ understanding.
> 
> That the very one he not merely opposed, but opposed in such fury of "breathing out threatenings and slaughter" believing_ he was doing the will _of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was chosen to himself meet his own contradiction. He believed he stood upon Moses...not knowing at all the work of the God Moses was called by. He had to receive (as it were) his own calling.
> 
> All of his prior religious fervor, fueled of ignorance he found...forgiven. The very God he believed he served...he was shown strenuously opposing. The very things of which he once held such confidence of piety and that "spoke for him"...before God to his righteousness...had to make way. Be _shown_ for what they are.
> 
> It is no different than the experience of _any other disciple. _His (at times) _contradictor _is Himself the One who speaks before God, on his behalf_. _The one disciplining and chastening is not to be despised. He is the _all and only_ that speaks before God to man's salvation. Forgiving those who do not know "what they do".(And the disciple learns a gladness in this...for if were held to account for all the times he was self convinced he "knew better", but then shown not having known at all, well, the one forgiven much...loves much)
> 
> Jesus Christ, the One in whom all the righteousness, power, and glory of God is fully known, and all the _frailty of man_ ("I was dead" He declares, unashamed) is also fully known and not despised. Perfect power meeting perfect weakness, and the outworking of this Jesus submitted to in His own body. And though I may speak of it as an apprehension, the heights and depths of it, the breadth of it, remains for me a constant source of exploration. And discovery. Jesus Himself...learned obedience. He is a fit Captain.


Jesus is not saying Worship me.
In John 5:23


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> that all may honour the Son according as they honour the Father; he who is not honouring the Son, doth not honour the Father who sent him.
> YLT John 5:23
> 
> Paul understood this. But, not without commotion. Not without upheaval. Not without a complete "turning of upside down" of _all of his own_ understanding.
> 
> That the very one he not merely opposed, but opposed in such fury of "breathing out threatenings and slaughter" believing_ he was doing the will _of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was chosen to himself meet his own contradiction. He believed he stood upon Moses...not knowing at all the work of the God Moses was called by. He had to receive (as it were) his own calling.
> 
> All of his prior religious fervor, fueled of ignorance he found...forgiven. The very God he believed he served...he was shown strenuously opposing. The very things of which he once held such confidence of piety and that "spoke for him"...before God to his righteousness...had to make way. Be _shown_ for what they are.
> 
> It is no different than the experience of _any other disciple. _His (at times) _contradictor _is Himself the One who speaks before God, on his behalf_. _The one disciplining and chastening is not to be despised. He is the _all and only_ that speaks before God to man's salvation. Forgiving those who do not know "what they do".(And the disciple learns a gladness in this...for if were held to account for all the times he was self convinced he "knew better", but then shown not having known at all, well, the one forgiven much...loves much)
> 
> Jesus Christ, the One in whom all the righteousness, power, and glory of God is fully known, and all the _frailty of man_ ("I was dead" He declares, unashamed) is also fully known and not despised. Perfect power meeting perfect weakness, and the outworking of this Jesus submitted to in His own body. And though I may speak of it as an apprehension, the heights and depths of it, the breadth of it, remains for me a constant source of exploration. And discovery. Jesus Himself...learned obedience. He is a fit Captain.


You and I know Jesus as much as Paul knew Jesus.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> that all may honour the Son according as they honour the Father; he who is not honouring the Son, doth not honour the Father who sent him.
> YLT John 5:23



Honor the same way as "Father" Commanded you to Honor your Father and Mother?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Honor the same way as "Father" Commanded you to Honor your Father and Mother?


No. As in pay tribute to whom tribute is due, honor to whom honor is due...

But the honor due God the Father is in like measure to the honor of the Son. And the honor given the Son is in measure of honor to the Father.

When the disciples heard the voice from Heaven "this is my beloved Son, hear Him" they were both reproved and instructed. Reproved of thinking the honor due Jesus Christ was no more than the honor due Moses and Elijah, and also instructed that above all the hearing of Him was paramount. But this is only according to how I see.

I believe you are familiar enough with the scriptures to know something of both Elijah's and Moses ministry and course. Both had come to (if one can receive it) a place of bitterness of soul. Moses striking the rock against instruction to speak to it, so provoked by what he saw as the continuous rebelliousness and stiff necked-ness of the people. Elijah had likewise complained to God as being "the only one left", the only one caring about the will of God. But God reproved him..."I have yet seven thousand that have not bowed the knee to Baal"

It is not unimportant that both these appeared with Jesus on the mount, "speaking of His departure which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem".

The testimony of Jesus Christ, even when troubled in soul to death, being called to occupy that place for which he had been chosen, had him entering Gethsemane in much trembling. But in and with His Father alone this thing was settled...settled without complaint or railing. This thing is not foreign to men, and surely not to disciples...the temptation to self pity, the facing of the "why me?" Especially in the face of carrying it before men known as "not seeing" at all what is taking place.

That place where obedience is tested beyond the ability to find or at that time see, the _reason_ to it. How much more_ reason_ Jesus had to be provoked in being so singularly chosen. The doing _for most fickle man_ (don't doubt Jesus knows the heart of man) what no man had been led into before. Yes, Jesus, who found even those chosen to "be with Him" unable to bear an hour of watching _with Him_, asleep...

Disciples learn they are no less dense than any to the things of God, not chosen for their keen spiritual insights, nor their ability "to hear" and understand (how many times Jesus spoke to them of what would take place)...nor even their bent to a loyalty and devotion. They learn, and must, they are "the common man", no matter their propensity to think otherwise. Or proclaim, as Peter, and the others, how much they are willing to suffer "for the Lord". When the rubber meets the road they too must learn there is a turning to only One for strength and hope and escape from shame. (Moses and Elijah were both reproved) It matters not that seemingly "but nobody else is" about this thing you (Lord) call me to. Nobody else will even see or understand. In truth...all will misunderstand. (The disciples really believed _it's over! They huddled behind locked doors._) Until...

The scriptures are not without this testimony...that even the disciples were overcome with joy in their disbelief. They were made not ashamed to admit in written testimony...we did not _know. _We were fearful, we were behind locked doors for fear of the Jewish leaders...(they had seen what they would do). Until...

One of your references about crucifixion failed not to mention the horrors of it, who and what it was reserved for, and though we may find ourselves seeking to reconcile two thieves and the allowance for Jesus body to be removed, the unquestionable attempt to inflict a death as shameful as possible (in the sight of man) remains.
And yet, those who once huddle in fear preached not long after with such power and conviction...and boldly...in the sight of many Jews.

Bullet, when I was young in my learning (but no less full of questions, as I remain) I remember well thinking of Jesus Christ...and another man's reasonings. I marveled, not knowing the why of it (and still am amazed at it) but made so very keenly aware of a difference in reasoning. This is what I often thought and even would mention in _marvel._

I considered Jesus, his knowing, his understanding,_ his position_ in these things. I thought of how a _man could react_, but against how Jesus acted. I saw a man who could say "Look, I know what you guys are going to do to me once I get to the top of that hill, and I know what it will do _to me_. You've already flogged me half to death, I been up for umpty ump hours without sleep or rest...and now you tell me I have to carry the beam of the very thing upon which you plan to kill me...all the way up that hill? More work? Forget it...just do it here, I'm tired. I'm beat. How complicit in this thing do you think you are going to make me? And...what are you going to do if I don't? Mock me...more? Ha ha ha. Beat me? Kill me? Oh, please, get a grip you clueless wonders"

Little did I know who I was being given to see as opposed to Whom was presented. I still see two men...but I wonder less about why Jesus did precisely as he did...when I see so clearly whom that other man is, and why_ he had to be put to death._
I ask your forgiveness for the times I have shown him to you. The _wise guy_.


----------



## Brother David

MERRY CHRISTMAS !


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Where did Jesus say that he should be worshipped?
> 
> The Debbil offered for Jesus to worship him and Jesus told him "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’'


And then Jesus told him, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God".


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> And then Jesus told him, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God".


That is the story.
Which verse did Jesus say he should  be worshipped ?


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> That is the story.
> Which verse did Jesus say he should  be worshipped ?


The one you stumbled over but were too blind to see.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> The one you stumbled over but were too blind to see.


Yeah, and I landed on this.
John 5:30:
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Chapter and verse please where Jesus says that he should be worshipped


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Yeah, and I landed on this.
> John 5:30:
> I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
> 
> Chapter and verse please where Jesus says that he should be worshipped



If you can believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, then the greatest commandment is a no-brainer.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> If you can believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, then the greatest commandment is a no-brainer.


But Jesus is clearly saying that he isnt.
He is talking about two completely different people.  Himself and his Father. He cannot do anything that his Father does not allow him to do.
If he WAS the Father, he would not need to allow himself to do anything.

You NEED to believe the other stuff in order for it to fit the incorrect views.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> But Jesus is clearly saying that he isnt.
> He is talking about two completely different people.  Himself and his Father. He cannot do anything that his Father does not allow him to do.
> If he WAS the Father, he would not need to allow himself to do anything.
> 
> You NEED to believe the other stuff in order for it to fit the incorrect views.



Ahh, the Three in One.
 You are correct when you say two completely different people, but you seem to fail in realizing they are also one. This is the basis of what Jesus is saying.


----------



## AceyFlyer

welder guy, I have an open mind but you sure are jumping through a lot of mental hoops to make your arguments. It is sometimes hard to follow your faith and logic, especially that last post.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Ahh, the Three in One.
> You are correct when you say two completely different people, but you seem to fail in realizing they are also one. This is the basis of what Jesus is saying.


Welder,  listen to yourself. They are separate,  they are one.
I don't fail to realize anything.
I also realize that You(and others) have to play this math game in order to somehow justify your beliefs.
You guys are so wrapped up in constantly having to interpret so many parts of the bible to justify your far out beliefs that you cannot recognize or acknowledge when the guy you worship tells you flat out that you are wrong.

"I can of mine OWN SELF do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not MINE OWN will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

You worship more than one god.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Ahh, the Three in One.
> You are correct when you say two completely different people, but you seem to fail in realizing they are also one. This is the basis of what Jesus is saying.





> two completely different people,





> they are also one.


Do you at least acknowledge that those 2 sentences ^ completely oppose each other and the only possible way to ignore that fact is if you believe in God/The Trinity?


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Do you at least acknowledge that those 2 sentences ^ completely oppose each other and the only possible way to ignore that fact is if you believe in God/The Trinity?


If someone is willing to suspend reality in order to make those two statements work, I cannot trust their judgement, advice, claims, statements  or interpretations on anything else.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> If someone is willing to suspend reality in order to make those two statements work, I cannot trust their judgement, advice, claims, statements  or interpretations on anything else.



Superposition. Uncertainty Principle


----------



## 4HAND

Merry Christmas everyone.


----------



## bullethead

I mean here we have John, possibly the only apostle to have written anything, and he has Jesus and God as two completely different entities/people. The author of John makes it clear that Jesus was independent.  God worked through Jesus just like God did with all the other prophets. 
Paul took it from man to god.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> If someone is willing to suspend reality in order to make those two statements work, I cannot trust their judgement, advice, claims, statements  or interpretations on anything else.


This is the part that I have to question -


> but you seem to fail in realizing


Gives you two opposing things.
And its YOUR failure for not ignoring it and saying "yeah that makes sense".
When he knows he's talking to A/As.


----------



## WaltL1

4HAND said:


> Merry Christmas everyone.


Merry Christmas to you and yours!


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> And then Jesus told him, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God".



That is Jesus telling the Devil not to tempt God. The Devil had just said; throw yourself down and "He" will send angels concerning you."

Even if it did show the Son was the Father, it isn't showing worship. Actually it wouldn't be showing that, but it could show that the always existing Son was a 1/3 co-equal part of the Godhead.

I'm still not seeing the worship of Jesus part though. Just a passage showing divinity.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> The one you stumbled over but were too blind to see.


I must be blind as well.  Satan is trying to get Jesus to do something to see if his Father will do something to save him. Jesus tells Satan, not to tempt God, don't try and make God do something such as send angels to save me.
Then Satan tries to get Jesus to worship him. Satan is actually trying to get Jesus to worship Satan. Think about that for a minute.

Jesus then tells Satan;
“For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.’”

Jesus is telling Satan that, he himself, will only worship his Father. There really is nothing hidden in this passage. Nothing that a blind person can't see.
It's plain as day. One only has to see the truth and the light. Nothing hidden about the Trinity, nothing hidden about worshiping Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> If you can believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, then the greatest commandment is a no-brainer.



If one follows the greatest commandment, everything is a no-brainer.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Ahh, the Three in One.
> You are correct when you say two completely different people, but you seem to fail in realizing they are also one. This is the basis of what Jesus is saying.



Perhaps Jesus is but I don't see him saying that in John 5:30 or Matthew 22:37. I don't see either of those as promoting the Trinity belief or the worship of Jesus.

Those passages don't even show the pre-existance of Jesus. I do believe in that pre-existance but those passages aren't showing that.

Perhaps Jesus does tell us to worship him but those passages aren't showing it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bullet asked to show within the verses used to show where Jesus "asked" to be worshiped." I don't think anyone showed that.

Perhaps one was showing the worship was implied by Jesus if he implied that he was God in those verses.

If one is to worship Jesus because it's implied because Jesus is God, then if any person on any island knows God, they know Jesus through implication.
If the individual native Americans knew God 5,000 year ago by nature, then they knew Jesus as well. Thus when they worshiped God, they worshiped Jesus.


----------



## gemcgrew

AceyFlyer said:


> welder guy, I have an open mind but you sure are jumping through a lot of mental hoops to make your arguments. It is sometimes hard to follow your faith and logic, especially that last post.


When a man has the concept "things that are different cannot be the same" and then brings it into the Biblical worldview(system of belief), he may be shown something.

Jesus said, "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father".

Is Jesus showing the difference or sameness?

In order for the concept to have any real teeth at all, it must be justified within the Biblical worldview.


----------



## Brother David

Baptize in the name of God the Father ,Son and Holy Spirit.

Yoke yourself to me !

If you have seen me you have seen the Father .

I am the way the truth and the life ! 

You must be born again .

If you have seen me you have seen the Father .

I go to prepare a place for you .

Instead of quoting every post , I gave answers to most . 

Again I will use a recent quote to prove my point . When now President Trump was campaigning he coined the phrase MAGA . Now was this quote referring to North America as a whole , Central America , or South America ? Everyone understands he was referring to THE USA . If we're to have intelligent conversations we can't use spin . Leave the Kool aid alone .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Baptize in the name of God the Father ,Son and Holy Spirit.
> 
> Yoke yourself to me !
> 
> If you have seen me you have seen the Father .
> 
> I am the way the truth and the life !
> 
> You must be born again .
> 
> If you have seen me you have seen the Father .
> 
> I go to prepare a place for you .
> 
> Instead of quoting every post , I gave answers to most .
> 
> Again I will use a recent quote to prove my point . When now President Trump was campaigning he coined the phrase MAGA . Now was this quote referring to North America as a whole , Central America , or South America ? Everyone understands he was referring to THE USA . If we're to have intelligent conversations we can't use spin . Leave the Kool aid alone .


1. Everyone who claimed to be a prophet said things like that.

2. Awful analogy


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Baptize in the name of God the Father ,Son and Holy Spirit.
> 
> Yoke yourself to me !
> 
> If you have seen me you have seen the Father .
> 
> I am the way the truth and the life !
> 
> You must be born again .
> 
> If you have seen me you have seen the Father .
> 
> I go to prepare a place for you .
> 
> Instead of quoting every post , I gave answers to most .
> 
> Again I will use a recent quote to prove my point . When now President Trump was campaigning he coined the phrase MAGA . Now was this quote referring to North America as a whole , Central America , or South America ? Everyone understands he was referring to THE USA . If we're to have intelligent conversations we can't use spin . Leave the Kool aid alone .


Trump wasn't campaigning to be Pres of Central America or South America.
Kind of narrows down which America he was talking about.
Point not proven


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Trump wasn't campaigning to be Pres of Central America or South America.
> Kind of narrows down which America he was talking about.
> Point not proven


His Ah-ha! moments always turn out to be Ah-HUH? !


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> His Ah-ha! moments always turn out to be Ah-HUH? !


Lets give him a couple of points though for at least trying to prove his point using a real world scenario.
It just wasn't a good one


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Lets give him a couple of points though for at least trying to prove his point using a real world scenario.
> It just wasn't a good one


I can't grade on the curve.


----------



## Artfuldodger

John 17:21-23
that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I am in You. May they also be in us, so that the world may believe that You sent me. 22I have given them the glory You gave me, so that they may be one as we are one—   23I in them and You in me—that they may be perfectly united, so that the world may know that You sent me and have loved them just as You have loved Me.…

Jesus said; "that the world may believe that "You" sent me" and  "I have given them the glory "You" gave me so that they may be one as we are one.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> I can't grade on the curve.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> John 17:21-23
> that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I am in You. May they also be in us, so that the world may believe that You sent me. 22I have given them the glory You gave me, so that they may be one as we are one—   23I in them and You in me—that they may be perfectly united, so that the world may know that You sent me and have loved them just as You have loved Me.…
> 
> Jesus said; "that the world may believe that "You" sent me" and  "I have given them the glory "You" gave me so that they may be one as we are one.


Im not picking sides but that's a good one Art.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> John 17:21-23
> that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one—   23I in them and You in Me—that they may be perfectly united, so that the world may know that You sent Me and have loved them just as You have loved Me.…





Artfuldodger said:


> John 17:21-23
> that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one—   23I in them and You in Me—that they may be perfectly united, so that the world may know that You sent Me and have loved them just as You have loved Me.…


"that all of THEM may be ONE, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May THEY also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me."
That puts THEY and THEM on equal footing as Jesus is with his Father.
 Jesus is asking the Father to allow THEY and THEM to be ONE with God, just as God ALLOWED Jesus to be.

Is Jesus asking this of himself?
Is Jesus ASKING HIMSELF to grant others something?
It sounds to me like Jesus is acknowledging him being a totally seperate individual that god ALLOWED to do certain things and now he is asking god to ALLOW others to also.

If god allowed Jesus to do those things and THAT makes Jesus equal to God,  are THEM and THEY that Jesus is asking about now also as equal??


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Im not picking sides but that's a good one Art.


A good one that shows what?


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> A good one that shows what?


I interpret it in pretty much the same way you laid it out.
A thought did pop in my head though -
Was Jesus just unaware that he was also God?
Seems like a Christian that believes in the Trinity could make the case that although Jesus is God, that 1/3 of God wasn't aware he was 1/3 of one.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> A good one that shows what?



 It shows that God sent Jesus and that Jesus is praying to his Father to grant his disciples the unity that he shares with his Father.

If the entity of Jesus were 1/3 of the always existing Godhead, his Father would not send him, he's send himself. 

If he were a part of that Godhead, the Father would not need to give his Son anything, he'd already possess it.

He would already have the glory, not the glory his Father gave him. 

Also, he would not be seeking, from the Father, to grant this same glory the Father gave him, to his disciples.

If that is indeed what Jesus is seeking from the Father, then what he is asking is that we all become God. I don't think that is what he is praying for but the Unity of what he has with the Father.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> A good one that shows what?



Just like you gave with your example. What is he seeking from his Father that he wants to share? What glory did he get from his Father that he wants to share with the disciples?

Is he asking his Father to make them God or to have the unity of Oneness that he has with his Father?


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I interpret it in pretty much the same way you laid it out.
> A thought did pop in my head though -
> Was Jesus just unaware that he was also God?
> Seems like a Christian that believes in the Trinity could make the case that although Jesus is God, that 1/3 of God wasn't aware he was 1/3 of one.


God not knowing he was God?
That doesn't sound like a God does it?

I have found that Christians have to do a lot of hoop jumping, suspend reality, and extravagant mental convincing in order to come with the things they do to piece these jigsaw puzzles together. They cut off all the outside puzzle pieces and turn them all into squares and then hope nobody notices the distorted picture and all the end tabs laying around.

What I think is possible is that Jesus was a man that claimed to be a prophet and absolutely would link himself with God (just like EVERY prophet, preacher, rabbi  etc etc  during those times has done and many still do) in ways that would be closer than regular old Joe. The problem is that the devil is in the details.  It is clear that the humans that wrote these things wrote like humans and not gods. Jesus, although heavily embellished, was also limited to those that wrote about him. The writers tried to take yet another man among many before, during and after him and turn him into something he was not.
History does not back up the claims and embellishments. The odds are(because so many of the writers were unfamiliar with customs and practices of the times) that Yeshua was an apocalyptic preacher that warned others to Keep the Torah or suffer the consequences.(you have to remember that Judaism was then is like Christianity is now with MANY different sects and denominations all pulling apart and away from the core) He caused enough trouble to get himself Crucified (not along side a couple of mere thieves) and was left there to be picked apart by birds and animals JUST like every other person that was crucified during those times and when his bones fell off the cross they were discarded into the dump like the Romans did with all others. His tomb was empty alright, because he was never in it!!
30,40,50 years later the stories were written differently and to suit.
And even in those stories the writers show that Jesus was not God, but a man that may have been more blessed by the ONE God that they believed in at the time. The stories show that Jesus was sent as a prophet (like others in the bible) to do a certain set of works and was never God 2.0 or God+.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> It shows that God sent Jesus and that Jesus is praying to his Father to grant his disciples the unity that he shares with his Father.
> 
> If the entity of Jesus were 1/3 of the always existing Godhead, his Father would not send him, he's send himself.
> 
> If he were a part of that Godhead, the Father would not need to give his Son anything, he'd already possess it.
> 
> He would already have the glory, not the glory his Father gave him.
> 
> Also, he would not be seeking, from the Father, to grant this same glory the Father gave him, to his disciples.
> 
> If that is indeed what Jesus is seeking from the Father, then what he is asking is that we all become God. I don't think that is what he is praying for but the Unity of what he has with the Father.


I understand you better.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> God not knowing he was God?
> That doesn't sound like a God does it?
> 
> I have found that Christians have to do a lot of hoop jumping, suspend reality, and extravagant mental convincing in order to come with the things they do to piece these jigsaw puzzles together. They cut off all the outside puzzle pieces and turn them all into squares and then hope nobody notices the distorted picture and all the end tabs laying around.
> 
> What I think is possible is that Jesus was a man that claimed to be a prophet and absolutely would link himself with God (just like EVERY prophet, preacher, rabbi  etc etc  during those times has done and many still do) in ways that would be closer than regular old Joe. The problem is that the devil is in the details.  It is clear that the humans that wrote these things wrote like humans and not gods. Jesus, although heavily embellished, was also limited to those that wrote about him. The writers tried to take yet another man among many before, during and after him and turn him into something he was not.
> History does not back up the claims and embellishments. The odds are(because so many of the writers were unfamiliar with customs and practices of the times) that Yeshua was an apocalyptic preacher that warned others to Keep the Torah or suffer the consequences.  He caused enough trouble to get himself Crucified (not along side a couple of mere thieves) and was left there to be picked apart by birds and animals JUST like every other person that was crucified during those times and when his bones fell off the cross they were discarded into the dump like the Romans did with all others.
> 30,40,50 years later the stories were written differently and to suit.
> And even in those stories the writers show that Jesus was not God, but a man that may have been more blessed by the ONE God that they believed in at the time. The stories show that Jesus was sent as a prophet (like others in the bible) to do a certain set of works and was never God 2.0 or God+.





> God not knowing he was God?
> That doesn't sound like a God does it?


That ^ was my first thought against.
But....
Take Welder's claim to the extreme (3 completely different but one).
Are the 3 so COMPLETELY different that that might include not having the same level of knowledge as the one?
And Im just spitballing but if you can ignore Jesus proclaiming "why has thou forsaken me" and still believe they are all one...… then Jesus not knowing he was a 1/3 isn't that far of a stretch.
And Im not saying it makes sense, Im just trying to think like a Trinity believer


----------



## bullethead

The overwhelming majority of Jews who LIVED there during the times did not believe any of the embellished writings about Jesus. Paul went after an entire new audience. He made this new religion palatable for the pagans and gentiles by including enough if their beliefs and traditions to get their interest. It still wasn't catching on. With Rome in religious turmoil and The Church in a position of power Constantine heard all the various pleas for what the "official" religion was going to be and he made a decision. Being that Rome ruled most of the Western World at the time, they worshipped as Rome said to and even under Roman rule the Jews STILL  followed the Torah....because they lived among Jesus (and hundreds like him) and were not convinced that he was anything more than the guy in modern times that is standing on the corner in big cities holding the Repent sign.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> That ^ was my first thought against.
> But....
> Take Welder's claim to the extreme (3 completely different but one).
> Are the 3 so COMPLETELY different that that might include not having the same level of knowledge as the one?
> And Im just spitballing but if you can ignore Jesus proclaiming "why has thou forsaken me" and still believe they are all one...… then Jesus not knowing he was a 1/3 isn't that far of a stretch.
> And Im not saying it makes sense, Im just trying to think like a Trinity believer


Oh , I hear you Walt, and if we have to suspend the thought of everything that we are led to believe that a God is by believers in favor of things a God would not and could not be again by those same believers.....it just reaffirms what a mess believers make it in order to make it what they need.

But think of this:
Three individuals who are so completely different that they do not possess the same level of knowledge....and oh by the way, they are the same person.

It speaks for itself really.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Oh , I hear you Walt, and if we have to suspend the thought of everything that we are led to believe that a God is by believers in favor of things a God would not and could not be again by those same believers.....it just reaffirms what a mess believers make it in order to make it what they need.
> 
> But think of this:
> Three individuals who are so completely different that they do not possess the same level of knowledge....and oh by the way, they are the same person.
> 
> It speaks for itself really.


I completely agree.
Again, just trying to think of an argument a Trinity believer might could make in support of their position.
Its an argument I haven't heard yet. 
Maybe it will catch on


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Trump wasn't campaigning to be Pres of Central America or South America.
> Kind of narrows down which America he was talking about.
> Point not proven


Christ wasn't spreading doubt ! Only hope and Salvation !


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Lets give him a couple of points though for at least trying to prove his point using a real world scenario.
> It just wasn't a good one


You made my point for me ! We talking about Christ ,not some obscure opinion dug up by BH from a insignificant website !


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> You made my point for me !


Explain exactly HOW!!!


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> You made my point for me ! We talking about Christ ,not some obscure opinion dug up by BH from a insignificant website !


That is my own opinion based off of 30 years of historical research.
History proves your opinion wrong.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> When a man has the concept "things that are different cannot be the same" and then brings it into the Biblical worldview(system of belief), he may be shown something.
> 
> Jesus said, "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father".
> 
> Is Jesus showing the difference or sameness?
> 
> In order for the concept to have any real teeth at all, it must be justified within the Biblical worldview.



as opposed to the naturalistic, empirically testable, confirmed by observation worldview?  I guess I know the answer already but it would be nice to have my suspicion confirmed.  Wouldn't want to misunderstand what you're saying.


----------



## NCHillbilly

The Gospel of Sturgill Simpson, Book of Metamodern Sounds in Country Music, Chapter 1:

_Every time I take a look inside inside that old and fabled book
I'm blinded and reminded of the pain caused by some old man in the sky....
So don't waste your mind on nursery rhymes
Or fairy tales of blood and wine
It's turtles all the way down the line
So to each their own til' we go home
To other realms our souls must roam
To and through the myth that we all call space and time
_


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> as opposed to the naturalistic, empirically testable, confirmed by observation worldview?


Didn't you describe it as "our best guess"?


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Didn't you describe it as "our best guess"?



Yup.  What else ya got?


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> You made my point for me ! We talking about Christ ,not some obscure opinion dug up by BH from a insignificant website !


Only in your imagination did I make your point for you.
The subject was you using a real world scenario as opposed to regurgitating scripture.
BH's post had 0 to do with it.


----------



## WaltL1

Welder -
Any thoughts on this scenario? Possible?


> Take Welder's claim to the extreme (3 completely different but one).
> Are the 3 so COMPLETELY different that that might include not having the same level of knowledge as the one?


Any chance Jesus wasn't aware that he was a 1/3 of one?


----------



## Israel

Were Jesus ignorant of his own self He could not say:

The *words* I *speak* are *not my own.*

He would be a liar.

Were Jesus ignorant of this; that is his being a liar, it would be he no less in need of forgiveness than any other man.

Some do not yet know how they injure their own hope in such poverty of seeing so. Yet God is merciful.

Like the ancients they may not see the necessity of their hopes being exceeded. Not yet appreciating who speaks to them in Messiah. Like them, their hopes are yet pinned only to a deliverance from their oppressors but..._only as they see them._ Such believe they _know themselves. _And in such believe they find a fitting utility in what is using...them.

Our brother Peter, having once known shame...even after that good confession, would himself not have us ignorant. Knowing shame no longer, he cares not at all of what _only once _was known to its bearing. Being free to be, as he so aptly reminds...a reminder.

Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know _them_, and be established in the present truth.

That thing of Peter's confession "Thou art the Christ..." and for which he was commended, had not yet worked in him to a fruition. He said a thing, received commendation for that thing, (and I have no doubt) believed he understood a thing...and do not count myself as any whit different than he.

It is no haphazardness that this same Peter knowing something "of entrance" would himself later be moved to write of _abundant entrance. Our necessity_ for Christ's exceeding was not once known, our self satisfaction to what was to ourself...enough..._must be_ shown as the poverty _it is._

What Peter once knew of Jesus Christ did not prevent him from seeking to correct Him. Peter believed he knew "what he would do" in opposition to Christ's word of what was going to take place. Though he was not alone in this, (for others said likewise) Peter was not going to let slip _his place_ of exceeding and preeminence (to himself): "even if all [the] others forsake you, I will not". In very short summary..."Lord, _you do not know of what you speak..."_

How this same is uttered, found said, found expressed among men, in the presence of men _about Jesus Christ_ to His correction, does not show anything more than such speakers, thinking the Lord does not, or_ may not _know, shows only the one thing...the man _knows himself_ not at all. 

Jesus, being not confused, double tongued, _speculative_, bears with all who are. He knows...man does not know. Jesus, being not confused nor lying in regards to who sits upon His glorious throne judging sheep from goats (when the Son of Man comes) did not insert Himself into that place, Jesus who received and receives worship (My Lord and my God) did not _by request _assume to Himself position. Nor _ask of any man what is to Him of no worth whatever..._But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that you might be saved.

He is _the_ arresting officer. He does not _ask of man_, nor _request_, nor _explain_ in either Tenakh nor NT writings of the worship due Him. Man can only discover this in submission _to command:_

Assume the position, I am the Lord.

Happy is the man who submits to being frisked. He will find many things of which he never knew found there, unseen to himself, and of himself, carried about blindly.

Search me, O God, and know my heart, Try me, and know my thoughts, And see if _there be any_ wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Were Jesus ignorant of his own self He could not say:
> 
> The *words* I *speak* are *not my own.*
> 
> He would be a liar.
> 
> Were Jesus ignorant of this; that is his being a liar, it would be he no less in need of forgiveness than any other man.
> 
> Some do not yet know how they injure their own hope in such poverty of seeing so. Yet God is merciful.
> 
> Like the ancients they may not see the necessity of their hopes being exceeded. Not yet appreciating who speaks to them in Messiah. Like them, their hopes are yet pinned only to a deliverance from their oppressors but..._only as they see them._ Such believe they _know themselves. _And in such believe they find a fitting utility in what is using...them.
> 
> Our brother Peter, having once known shame...even after that good confession, would himself not have us ignorant. Knowing shame no longer, he cares not at all of what _only once _was known to its bearing. Being free to be, as he so aptly reminds...a reminder.
> 
> Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know _them_, and be established in the present truth.
> 
> That thing of Peter's confession "Thou art the Christ..." and for which he was commended, had not yet worked in him to a fruition. He said a thing, received commendation for that thing, (and I have no doubt) believed he understood a thing...and do not count myself as any whit different than he.
> 
> It is no haphazardness that this same Peter knowing something "of entrance" would himself later be moved to write of _abundant entrance. Our necessity_ for Christ's exceeding was not once known, our self satisfaction to what was to ourself...enough..._must be_ shown as the poverty _it is._
> 
> What Peter once knew of Jesus Christ did not prevent him from seeking to correct Him. Peter believed he knew "what he would do" in opposition to Christ's word of what was going to take place. Though he was not alone in this, (for others said likewise) Peter was not going to let slip _his place_ of exceeding and preeminence (to himself): "even if all [the] others forsake you, I will not". In very short summary..."Lord, _you do not know of what you speak..."_
> 
> How this same is uttered, found said, found expressed among men, in the presence of men _about Jesus Christ_ to His correction, does not show anything more than such speakers, thinking the Lord does not, or_ may not _know, shows only the one thing...the man _knows himself_ not at all.
> 
> Jesus, being not confused, double tongued, _speculative_, bears with all who are. He knows...man does not know. Jesus, being not confused nor lying in regards to who sits upon His glorious throne judging sheep from goats (when the Son of Man comes) did not insert Himself into that place, Jesus who received and receives worship (My Lord and my God) did not _by request _assume to Himself position. Nor _ask of any man what is to Him of no worth whatever..._But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that you might be saved.
> 
> He is _the_ arresting officer. He does not _ask of man_, nor _request_, nor _explain_ in either Tenakh nor NT writings of the worship due Him. Man can only discover this in submission _to command:_
> 
> Assume the position, I am the Lord.
> 
> Happy is the man who submits to being frisked. He will find many things of which he never knew found there, unseen to himself, and of himself, carried about blindly.
> 
> Search me, O God, and know my heart, Try me, and know my thoughts, And see if _there be any_ wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.


This is as far as I got so far but......


> Were Jesus ignorant of his own self He could not say:
> The *words* I *speak* are *not my own.*



Isnt that evidence that Jesus was unaware of this whole Trinity concept?


----------



## bullethead

Drive the speed limit. Obey the traffic laws. Use your turn signals and there is no need to be frisked.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> This is as far as I got so far but......
> 
> Isnt that evidence that Jesus was unaware of this whole Trinity concept?




That I do not know what _men mean _when they speak of "a trinity" means nothing. What I _do know _of seeking to find some space/division/line of demarcation where may be found that place of _end of one_ to _seeing of another _is both_ fruitless and vain._

Man cannot separate Father from Son in concept/thought, theologies, nor practice. There is nothing _between them_...sharing in all. 

Man has tried this _in practice. _Been allowed it_...in practice. _For the believer...this is a finished thing, seeking out a legal division, a _lawful place_ to stand _between_ Father and Son, and finding...none. Out or in...but no _between._

What would continue, as it must in its _allowance only_, to seek crack, line, fissure or place where space may allow for _insertion of itself _through much prying...has its end in total frustration. The Father is in the Son, the Son in the Father, and there is no entrance there except by the Spirit, and happy is the man who is hidden with Christ in God.

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and _he_ to whomsoever the Son will reveal _him_.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> That I do not know what _men mean _when they speak of "a trinity" means nothing. What I _do know _of seeking to find some space/division/line of demarcation where may be found that place of _end of one_ to _seeing of another _is both_ fruitless and vain._
> 
> Man cannot separate Father from Son in concept/thought, theologies, nor practice. There is nothing _between them_...sharing in all.
> 
> Man has tried this _in practice. _Been allowed it_...in practice. _For the believer...this is a finished thing, seeking out a legal division, a _lawful place_ to stand _between_ Father and Son, and finding...none. Out or in...but no _between._
> 
> What would continue, as it must in its _allowance only_, to seek crack, line, fissure or place where space may allow for _insertion of itself _through much prying...has its end in total frustration. The Father is in the Son, the Son in the Father, and there is no entrance there except by the Spirit, and happy is the man who is hidden with Christ in God.
> 
> All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and _he_ to whomsoever the Son will reveal _him_.





> That I do not know what _men mean _when they speak of "a trinity" means nothing.


Yes you do. You know exactly what/how the Trinity is presented to us.
And I think the rest of your post may show the folly in it.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> This is as far as I got so far but......
> 
> Isnt that evidence that Jesus was unaware of this whole Trinity concept?


You just HAD to ask didn't ya??


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> You just HAD to ask didn't ya??



Of course, Jesus may not have been aware he was part of a Trinity not due to ignorance as Israel suggested but maybe the Trinity concept came AFTER Jesus....


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Of course, Jesus may not have been aware he was part of a Trinity not due to ignorance as Israel suggested but maybe the Trinity concept came AFTER Jesus....


Agreed


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Yes you do. You know exactly what/how the Trinity is presented to us.
> And I think the rest of your post may show the folly in it.



I_ do not _present it. What makes you believe I am accountable for what other men present? Or responsible to seek to enter into _their_ understanding?

Jesus never spoke of any participation, or _being_ "in a trinity" ever. What he does speak of is a unity, a one, into which by revelation of Himself, men are found.

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, _art_ in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.

Men know all about work arounds...all about circumventing, all about seeking to "go right to the top and forget the middleman"...never knowing in whom the middleman (intercessor) is only and ever seen.


----------



## bullethead

Bitheism instead of tritheism. Neither is monotheism.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Bitheism instead of tritheism. Neither is monotheism.



What many try to label as either, may be a type of Oneness or just plain old unity. In some way or form Jesus was with God before his incarnation.
No one wants to admit to worshiping two Gods so they need another comforting way to visualize it. They choose bitheism or tritheism.

Then what that is suppose to do is make it easier to believe. It may make it easier to believe but waay harder to undesrtand.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> I_ do not _present it. What makes you believe I am accountable for what other men present? Or responsible to seek to enter into _their_ understanding?
> 
> Jesus never spoke of any participation, or _being_ "in a trinity" ever. What he does speak of is a unity, a one, into which by revelation of Himself, men are found.
> 
> That they all may be one; as thou, Father, _art_ in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
> 
> This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.
> 
> Men know all about work arounds...all about circumventing, all about seeking to "go right to the top and forget the middleman"...never knowing in whom the middleman (intercessor) is only and ever seen.





> What makes you believe I am accountable for what other men present?


I don't believe you are. In fact most of your posts seek to minimize "man's presentations".
But you are aware of how it is presented. That was my point.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> What many try to label as either may be a type of Oneness or just plain old unity. In some way or form Jesus was with God before his incarnation.
> No one wants to admit to worshiping two Gods so they need another comforting way to visualize it. They choose bitheism or tritheism.
> 
> Then what that is suppose to do is make it easier to believe. It may make it easier to believe but waay harder to undesrtand.


And nearly impossible to explain to folks like "us".


----------



## Artfuldodger

One thing that got me questioning the Trinity is Paul's salutations to the Churches never included the Holy Spirit. This was after the ascension
 when Jesus said, his Father would send His spirit.

If in fact this was an always being 1/3 of the Godhead, Paul would have included that position of God in his salutations to the Churches.

If God is all three and Paul only includes God and Jesus, eventually the Holy Spirit will feel left out.

Also the Word was with God and or God. Why no mention of the Holy Spirit as being a part of that Word? John is showing a bitheism instead of a tritheism.

I could see it as bitheism(Father & Son) until the ascension, and then it morphing into tritheism, with the giving of God's spirit as a separate entity.
Still though Paul would have that revelation and include the Holy Spirit in his salutations. That third person just wasn't addressed.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> And nearly impossible to explain to folks like "us".



And some feel they understand it because God gave them that gift at their conversion. That if you are still blinded, you may not have received the conversion gift as well.

To think that all the Oneness believers didn't get the conversion gift because they didn't get the insider information gift on the Trinity.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> What many try to label as either, may be a type of Oneness or just plain old unity. In some way or form Jesus was with God before his incarnation.
> No one wants to admit to worshiping two Gods so they need another comforting way to visualize it. They choose bitheism or tritheism.
> 
> Then what that is suppose to do is make it easier to believe. It may make it easier to believe but waay harder to undesrtand.


If there is any truth to the bible,we were all with god before our incarnations.
If you pray to God and also pray to Jesus, that is two. Any more than that...well, we all can do simple math.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Bitheism instead of tritheism. Neither is monotheism.


Way too many labels now, even with Atheism. Its not so cut and dried anymore on either a believer or non believer. 

Regardless if it’s true or false, the Bible is specific about “one” God with different functions. Our interpretations doesn’t and shouldn’t change the intent.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> If there is any truth to the bible,we were all with god before our incarnations.
> If you pray to God and also pray to Jesus, that is two. Any more than that...well, we all can do simple math.



Most Christians pray to God, in the name of Jesus. Again excluding the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> If there is any truth to the bible,we were all with god before our incarnations.
> If you pray to God and also pray to Jesus, that is two. Any more than that...well, we all can do simple math.



I've heard a few folks say we pre-existed with God before our spirits were installed in human bodies. Exactly where in scripture is this mentioned?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Way too many labels now, even with Atheism. Its not so cut and dried anymore on either a believer or non believer.
> 
> Regardless if it’s true or false, the Bible is specific about “one” God with different functions. Our interpretations doesn’t and shouldn’t change the intent.


I would think a god could handle all functions solo.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I've heard a few folks say we pre-existed with God before our spirits were installed in human bodies. Exactly where in scripture is this mentioned?


Are you asking me for a verse where god says that he knew us before we were born?

Here is 100 of them

https://www.openbible.info/topics/god_knew_us_before_we_were_born


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I would think a god could handle all functions solo.


I believe that’s exactly what he’s doing regardless of how (function) he reveals himself to us.

But my point is it doesn’t matter what you and I believe or think, the Bible is specific with one God, different functions, all being one in spirit.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Are you asking me for a verse where god says that he knew us before we were born?
> 
> Here is 100 of them
> 
> https://www.openbible.info/topics/god_knew_us_before_we_were_born



Then in that way. The same way that God knew fore-knew us, the Word was with God.
At least that is how some perceive the Oneness aspect of Jesus' pre-existance. Meaning he didn't actually pre-exist but in Word.

Maybe we all existed in Word or God's mind. It just seems like God is saying it was more than just a pre-existance in his mind. God and Jesus has a relationship. Jesus did remember this relationship he had with his Father before his incarnation. Jesus talked about the relationship he shared with his Father before he came to the Earth as a human.
I'm not sure that relationship makes the Son and equal part of the Godhead though. Again God sent his Son.

Now getting back to my pre-existance, I don't remember it. I'm not saying I didn't have one, energy can not be created or destroyed. That is from God himself. As the Great Architect, He made that Law of the Universe.


----------



## Artfuldodger

The disciples may have pre-existed as spirits with God. God knew them before they were born.

Yet they didn't have the same relationship that Jesus shared with his Father. Maybe they didn't have the Father's spirit dwelling withing them. Maybe they weren't anointed by God with His spirit.

Regardless they didn't have the unity and Oneness that Jesus had with his Father. He wanted the disciples to have "that."
Therefore "that" can't be God or can it?


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Then in that way. The same way that God knew fore-knew us, the Word was with God.
> At least that is how some perceive the Oneness aspect of Jesus' pre-existance. Meaning he didn't actually pre-exist but in Word.
> 
> Maybe we all existed in Word or God's mind. It just seems like God is saying it was more than just a pre-existance in his mind. God and Jesus has a relationship. Jesus did remember this relationship he had with his Father before his incarnation. Jesus talked about the relationship he shared with his Father before he came to the Earth as a human.
> I'm not sure that relationship makes the Son and equal part of the Godhead though. Again God sent his Son.
> 
> Now getting back to my pre-existance, I don't remember it. I'm not saying I didn't have one, energy can not be created or destroyed. That is from God himself. As the Great Architect, He made that Law of the Universe.


Can you fathom the amount of people running around in ancient times claiming that knew things about god or they were somehow more special than the next person because they were closer to god?
I don't have an exact number, but I would guess it was a lot, and I'd also bet that there are more...WAY more than that running around today. Heck we see it in here daily. 
What Jesus claimed and what really was are two different things. 

Research other Jewish messiah candidates. Jesus was one of MANY


----------



## bullethead

Here is a read that should kickstart some thinking.

https://jamestabor.com/one-or-two-messiahs-what-christians-and-jews-have-overlooked/


----------



## bullethead

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-is-the-messiah/

A Successful Philosopher/King/General

If a king from the House of David studies Torah, busies himself with the commandments like David did, observes the laws of the written and the oral law, convinces Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to repair its breaches, and fights the battles of the Lord, it may be assumed that he is the Messiah. If he succeeds at these things, rebuilds the Temple on its site, and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is beyond all doubt the Messiah…But if he does not succeed fully, or is slain, it is obvious that he is not the Messiah promised in the Torah.

–Maimonides, Laws of Kings 11:3-4 (uncensored version)


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-is-the-messiah/
> 
> A Successful Philosopher/King/General
> 
> If a king from the House of David studies Torah, busies himself with the commandments like David did, observes the laws of the written and the oral law, convinces Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to repair its breaches, and fights the battles of the Lord, it may be assumed that he is the Messiah. If he succeeds at these things, rebuilds the Temple on its site, and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is beyond all doubt the Messiah…But if he does not succeed fully, or is slain, it is obvious that he is not the Messiah promised in the Torah.
> 
> –Maimonides, Laws of Kings 11:3-4 (uncensored version)



There is enough scripture in the Old Testament that pointed to the Messiah being the Son of God.

In Romans 11, a remnant was picked from the Jews, the rest were hardened to allow salvation to come to the Gentiles.

That's the reason why they don't believe. They truly were blinded. The disciples knew he was the Son of the living God.
Beyond that revelation, the Trinity or Oneness isn't a requirement for salvation.

*1 John 2:22-23*
Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

One must believe they "both" exist. That is a requirement as well if one wants the Father and Son.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> There is enough scripture in the Old Testament that pointed to the Messiah being the Son of God.
> 
> In Romans 11, a remnant was picked from the Jews, the rest were hardened to allow salvation to come to the Gentiles.
> 
> That's the reason why they don't believe. They truly were blinded. The disciples knew he was the Son of the living God.
> Beyond that revelation, the Trinity or Oneness isn't a requirement for salvation.
> 
> *1 John 2:22-23*
> Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
> 
> One must believe they "both" exist. That is a requirement as well if one wants the Father and Son.


Now, are you expecting me to take the words of the NT that were specifically written to suit some things that were written in the OT in order to form a new religion around a new man?
There were other men who fulfilled more prophesy than Jesus did, and STILL did not fulfill enough.
This "hardened hearts and people " stuff are excuses to explain why whats written in the NT is not backed up by the OT.

Ps, ALL the wanna be Messiahs and street preachers had Disciples who all KNEW those guys were the real deal too.
You know what the bible says. Now back it up with History. I tried.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Yes, there have been many claimants. Did any of those claim to be the Son of God?


----------



## bullethead

From:
https://jewsforjudaism.ca/why-jesus-is-not-the-jewish-messiah/

Christian missionaries, like Jews for Jesus, profess that Jesus is the Jewish messiah.

Why has Judaism rejected this claim for 2,000 years?

The concept of the Messiah has its foundation in our Jewish Bible, the Tanach, which teaches that all of the following criteria must be fulfilled before any person can be acknowledged as the Messiah:

The Messiah must be from the Tribe of Judah and a Descendant of King David AND King Solomon

The Messiah must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct descendant of King David & King Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-14; 1 Chronicles 22:9-10). Genealogy in the Bible is only passed down from father to son (Numbers 1:1-18).

There is no evidence that Jesus really had this pedigree, and the Christian Bible actually claims that he did not have a “birth-father” from the tribe of Judah descending from King David and King Solomon (Matt. 1:18-20).

Ingathering of the Jewish Exiles

When the Messiah is reigning as King of Israel, the Jews will be ingathered from their exile and will return to Israel, their homeland (Deut. 30:3; Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 30:3, 32:37; Ezekiel 11:17, 36:24).
This has clearly not yet happened and we still await its fulfillment.

Rebuilding of the Holy Temple

The Temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt (Isaiah 2:2-3, 56:6-7, 60:7, 66:20; Ezekiel 37:26–27; Malachi 3:4; Zech. 14:20-21).

The Temple was still standing in Jesus’ day. It was destroyed 38 years after Jesus’ crucifixion and it has not yet been rebuilt.

Worldwide Reign of Peace

There will be universal disarmament and worldwide peace with a complete end to war (Micah 4:1-4; Hoseah 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18).

Wars have increased dramatically in the world since the start of Christianity.

Observance of the Torah Embraced by All Jews

The Messiah will reign as King at a time when all the Jewish people will observe G-d’s commandments (Ezekiel 37:24; Deut. 30:8,10; Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27).

Jesus never ruled as King, nor have all Jews embraced the commandments of G-d’s Torah.

Universal Knowledge of G-d

The Messiah will rule at a time when all the people of the world will come to acknowledge and serve the one true G-d (Zechariah 3:9, 8:23,14:9,16; Isaiah 45:23, 66:23; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 38:23; Psalm 86:9; Zeph. 3:9).

This, as well, has not yet taken place and we await its fulfillment.

A Biblical Portrait of the Messiah

All of these criteria for the Messiah are found in numerous places in the Jewish Bible. One foundational example is in the book of Ezekiel, Chapter 37:24-28:

“24 And My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd, and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them

25 and they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers have lived; and they shall live there, they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever; and My servant David will be their prince for ever.

26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant, which I will give them; and I will multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever

27 and My tabernacle shall be with them, and I will be their God and they will be My people.

28 And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.”

Anyone can claim to be the Messiah or a group of people can claim that someone is the Messiah. However, if that person fails to fulfill all the criteria found in the Jewish Bible, he cannot be the Messiah.

According to the Christian scriptures, Jesus seems to have understood this. As he was being crucified by the Romans, he cried out “My G-d, my G-d, why have You forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46).

The Christian Rebuttal

In order to deal with Jesus’ failure to fulfill the Biblical messianic prophecies, missionaries argue that he will accomplish them when he returns in the future.

It’s important to understand that this second coming doctrine is an admission that Jesus didn’t fulfill the Messianic criteria. This ration- alization for his failure certainly provides no reason to accept him as the Messiah today.

Furthermore, the Jewish Bible does not have a Messianic “installment plan” where Messiah comes, fails in his mission, and then returns thousands of years later to finally succeed.

Missionaries will claim that because Jesus performed miracles, he must be the Messiah. However, we have no real evidence that Jesus actually performed any miracles. More signific-antly, even if Jesus did perform miracles, they would not prove that he was the Messiah.

Our Bible never says that we will be able to recognize the Messiah through the miracles that he will do. The Torah actually teaches that even false prophets can have the ability to perform supernatural miracles (Deut. 13:2-6).

The Real Messiah

We Jews prefer to wait for the “real thing” according to G-d’s promises and guidelines. The Jewish Bible provides a clear and consistent description of what the world will look like when the Messiah comes and this has clearly not yet transpired. So, we still await the coming of the true Messiah. May he and a utopian world come soon!


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes, there have been many claimants. Did any of those claim to be the Son of God?


Not a requirement for the Messiah, in fact, because lineage must come from the father and not the mother, it is one of many issues with Jesus not fulfilling prophesy.


----------



## bullethead

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/what-do-jews-believe-about-jesus/


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Not a requirement for the Messiah, in fact, because lineage must come from the father and not the mother, it is one of many issues with Jesus not fulfilling prophesy.



_ I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.”_ (II Samuel 7:12-14)

I think there are more, I'll look tomorrow.

*Isaiah 9:6*. 6 For a child is born to us, A son is given to us; And the government Is upon His shoulder; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Not that you agree but feel free to help me find some verses.

Maybe to show proof that the Trinity isn't so. Think about it, if the Messiah is the Son, he isn't the Father.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Isaiah 9:6 kinda shows a Oneness belief. Oh well, at least it's not showing a Trinity!


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Bitheism instead of tritheism. Neither is monotheism.



No, not at all.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> _ I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.”_ (II Samuel 7:12-14)
> 
> I think there are more, I'll look tomorrow.
> 
> *Isaiah 9:6*. 6 For a child is born to us, A son is given to us; And the government Is upon His shoulder; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
> 
> Isaiah 7:14
> Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
> 
> Not that you agree but feel free to help me find some verses.
> 
> Maybe to show proof that the Trinity isn't so. Think about it, if the Messiah is the Son, he isn't the Father.


Alma is young woman, not virgin


----------



## Artfuldodger

Artfuldodger said:


> Isaiah 9:6 kinda shows a Oneness belief. Oh well, at least it's not showing a Trinity!



Maybe it means he is a mirror of the everlasting Father. The prophesy that he would possess all the same attributes of God.

Not what he shall be called but what his "name" shall be.

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father." 

He is an image of the Father.


----------



## bullethead

Immanuel is a title, not a name. Immanuel describes the person who will be the Messiah. Jesus did not fulfill those prophecies.


----------



## bullethead

If samuel and Isiah were talking about Jesus 700 years before Jesus was born (think about that SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS.. twice as long as we are a Country) , and Jesus in fact fulfilled the prophecy,  the Jews would not still be looking for the Messiah 2000 years later.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Alma is young woman, not virgin



Isaiah 7:14
Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel.'

_"I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.”_

Many believe Jesus had both an earthly father and mother. It's possible.

God "became" his Father, such as "I will be his Father" or "today I have become your Father."

Psalm 2:7
I will proclaim the LORD's decree: He said to me, "You are my son; today I have become your father.

Hebrews 1:5
For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?

Would not the Hebrews 1:5 passage show that Jesus wasn't God? What angel did God ever say "today I have become your Father?"

God had the angels worship Jesus. Jesus was that image of God, the firstborn of that image. The firstborn of many predestined to have that same image.

If Jesus had been God, he would not have had to tell the angels to worship him. They would have already known.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

Jesus was the image of God, and those God foreknew will be in the image of Jesus. Which is the image of God.

I can see why some people believe we will become gods.


----------



## Artfuldodger

1 john 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

God had to foreknow. He predestined those he foreknew for that image. Christ was the first to have that image. We will follow.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> If samuel and Isiah were talking about Jesus 700 years before Jesus was born (think about that SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS.. twice as long as we are a Country) , and Jesus in fact fulfilled the prophecy,  the Jews would not still be looking for the Messiah 2000 years later.



They were blinded until the full number of Gentiles comes in. They are still blinded until this very day! Some were chosen, the rest were blinded.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Immanuel is a title, not a name. Immanuel describes the person who will be the Messiah. Jesus did not fulfill those prophecies.



Maybe he'll finish the list when he returns.

Isaiah 11:10
On that day the root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples. The nations will seek Him, and His place of rest will be glorious.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> They were blinded until the full number of Gentiles comes in.


Ahhh, yes! BLINDED!!!!
That translates into: We made different rules that they don't follow, so obviously God toyed with their psyche so they would live their lives for hundreds of generations incorrectly


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe he'll finish the list when he returns.


Once dead, its over.

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Ahhh, yes! BLINDED!!!!
> That translates into: We made different rules that they don't follow, so obviously God toyed with their psyche so they would live their lives for hundreds of generations incorrectly



"Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?"

Romans 11:33
Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!

If I had to speculate, I'd say that when he returns, he'll lift the blindness from physical Israel. Maybe even save them all for using them the way he did.
He can have mercy on whom he will have mercy. He gets to make the rules. It's his game, he could even change the rules right in the middle of the game.


----------



## bullethead

Those are not my rules.
Those are the rules of the people which Jesus belonged to. Those rules (The OT/Torah) are what Jesus followed. Jesus called it law. He himself did not start out to be worshipped or be called God. He told others to obey the Torah. He absolutely and positively did not fulfill the prophecy as written in the very book he followed himself.
A god would know what has to be done and DO it in order to fulfill the prophecies. Jesus did not therefore Jesus is not god.
And the Messiah is of MAN not god, and had to fulfill prophecy during his lifetime.
Jesus did not do it during his lifetime therefore he is not the Messiah.


----------



## Israel

for of more glory than Moses hath this one been counted worthy, inasmuch as more honour than the house hath he who doth build it,


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> "Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?"
> 
> Romans 11:33
> Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!
> 
> If I had to speculate, I'd say that when he returns, he'll lift the blindness from physical Israel. Maybe even save them all for using them the way he did.


Why do you hang your hat on some verses and ignore others?
Prophecy HAD to be fulfilled during his lifetime. Not in a 2nd act.
 There is good reason why there is an OT and a NT.
400 years passed between the last writings of what already was the OT and the new writings of what was to become the NT. (Go back 400 years in our country and see what is still similar). There were constant religious movement away from the core judaism. There were writings that didnt make the NT. Try as they might, even the ones that did make the NT failed to fulfill OT prophesy with their new character. I can only surmise that it is because Jesus did not fulfill the prophesy so the writings had to include excuses as to why he did but the OT followers just didn't see it. IE:  they moved the goal posts in order to suit. Paul is a vital contributor in this.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Once dead, its over.
> 
> The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.
> 
> It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach.



He didn't stay dead, is that a loophole?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> for of more glory than Moses hath this one been counted worthy, inasmuch as more honour than the house hath he who doth build it,


The story of Moses and the Exodus HATH been shown to HATH been a fable.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> He didn't stay dead, is that a loophole?


Is he hiding for 1,985 years?

If the very people he lived among didnt see him rise from the dead, and if they did were not impressed.....I cant be either.

The tomb was empty because nobody was ever in it. Like all that were crucified their bodies were left to rot and be picked apart by birds and animals until it fell off the cross and the remnants were thrown in the dump.
Crucifixion was meant to set an example. Not do something so harsh and violent only to show compassion afterwards.


----------



## Israel

When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph, who himself was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him.   So Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth


----------



## bullethead

So far we have established that a two part book has contradicting verses.
That the requirement for Messiah changes in each part so much so that the newest part has to use a god to blind the believers in the oldest part in order to sell the new parts verses.
And to top it off, most of what is found in both parts has been shown to be inaccurate, contain errors and contradictions, made up of fables and has not been backed up by history or archeology nor any sources outside of itself.
Basically it is a book of two different gods (old and new) which was made for different cultures during painfully long intervals of religious turmoil and cannot validate itself let alone be validated anywhere else.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph, who himself was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him.   So Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth


Like I said, the writers had to constantly break protocol in order to make it fit.
Read up on crucifixion. 
They don't give the body away to people who ask nicely


----------



## bullethead

From:
https://ehrmanblog.org/why-romans-crucified-people/
Why Romans Crucified People

I am getting close to the point where I can deal directly with Craig Evans’ counter-argument to the position that I take in How Jesus Became God, in which I argue, as you have seen in two previous posts, that it is likely that Jesus was not given a decent burial, as described in the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea and his request for the body on the afternoon of the crucifixion.  Rather, it is more likely that – as was the case virtually every other crucified person in all of Roman antiquity – Jesus’ body was left on the cross for several days before being tossed into some kind of pit.  It sounds bizarre, but I think that’s what the evidence suggests.  And Craig thinks otherwise.  This will be an interesting point/counter-point/counter-counter-point, I hope – as it is obviously a very important issue for a very great number of people.

Before taking on Craig’s arguments, I want to make one overarching point of my own that cannot be stressed enough, since it is the single most important key to the entire question.  It has to do with why Romans crucified people – and in particular (even *more* important)  why they crucified people for insurrection against the state or for intended (in the Roman eyes) insurrection.

Crucifixion was not invented by the Romans, but they used it a lot.  It was thought of as the most horrible, painful, tortuous, and humiliating form of execution possible.   If Romans wanted simply to kill someone without a fuss, there were plenty of other means available – for example, beheading.   Crucifixion was reserved for special cases.

But there were lots of special cases.  Two of the most common were low-life criminals and enemies of the state.   These are two very different matters – they are not the same thing.  Low life criminals would include, for example, slaves who had escaped from their masters and committed a crime.   If caught, a slave could be crucified.   There were two reasons they were subjected to such a tortuous, slow, and humiliating death.    They were receiving the “ultimate” punishment for their crime and, possibly more important, they were being used as a spectacle to warn any other slave who was thinking about escaping or committing crimes what could happen to *them*.

The Romans had a very different view of capital punishment from ours.  In the U.S., if someone is to be executed, there are enormous concerns about due process.   Appeals can take almost literally forever in some places.  The executions themselves are done in private, and the goal (well, the stated goal, anyway) is to make the death as swift and painless as possible, away from the public view.

That’s not how the Romans did it.   The Romans did not have a procedure for due process, trial by jury, right of appeal; they did not delay punishment; and they wanted some executions (for example, of low lifes and enemies of the state) to be as public, torturous, long and drawn out, degrading, and humiliating as possible.    If someone in New Jersey is convicted of carjacking, they may need to spend some time behind bars away from public view.  If something like that happened in the Roman empire (chariot-jacking?) (well, OK, horse theft) they would nail the lout to a cross, in a public place, so everyone passing by could hear him scream and watch him writhe for a couple of days.   And then they’d leave the body on the cross so that the birds and dogs could get at it.    Do that a few times for horse-theft, and see how many horse thieves you’ll find.  It was an exceedingly more effective disincentive for crime.  Or so the Romans reasoned, in any event.

Worse than escaping as a slave or stealing a horse –very much worse – was opposing the Roman state itself.  This is something the Romans WOULD NOT tolerate.   Enemies of the state had to be shown what the power of the state was.  And crucifixion was how it was done.   If you were a resistor to Roman military action – crucified.  If you were caught attacking Roman troops – crucified.  If you plotted to overthrow the local Roman government – crucified.

Crucifixion was a particularly poignant statement when it came to enemies of the state.  Those who were opposed to Rome – I don’t mean those who didn’t much like the Romans running the show, or those who wished things were different, or those who hoped something better would come along, but instead, those who actively sought to oppose the state, or at least were *thought* by the Roman authorities to seek to oppose the state – were unceremoniously condemned to be crucified precisely in order to show how absolutely HELPLESS anyone is who thinks they can oppose the power of Rome.

Roman power was very real, very tangible, very palpable.  And it was played out on the bodies of those who tried to oppose it.  Crucifixion was the perfect mode of execution for anyone engaging in, supporting, or endorsing violent opposition to the Roman state.  You think you can oppose US?  Well then, this is what we’ll do to YOU to show you how powerful you really are.   We will take you, strip you naked, drag you to a public place, nail your hands (wrists) to a cross beam, nail your feet to an upright, set you up as a public spectacle for people to see and mock.    By doing so we will not only torture you to death  (often it took a couple of days for a person to die of asphyxiation).  We will reveal to all who can see how helpless you are.

Your hands and feel will be nailed securely to wood and you will be left to hang in a position where you cannot fend for yourself.   You will not be able move your body.  You will not be able to wave off the scavenging birds.  You will not be able to kick away the roaming dogs.  You will not be able to lift life a finger to help yourself.  We can do this to you.  And if you oppose our power, this *is* what we will do to you.

Crucifixion was not merely a death by torture.  It was a symbolic statement that WE are Roman power and YOU are nothing.  And if you oppose us, we will prove it, by rendering you absolutely, completely powerless, while we wrack your body with pain and make you scream.

And the proof did not end with your last breath.   Romans left bodies on the cross for clear and distinct reasons.

Everyone wanted a decent burial in the ancient world.  It was far more important to people then than it is to people today.  A decent burial, for many, was required for a decent afterlife.  It honored the body of the one departed.  Not to receive a decent burial was disgusting, scandalous, gut-wrenching, debasing, humiliating.   And so Romans did not allow crucified victims – especially enemies of the state – to be buried.  They left them on the crosses as their bodies rot and the scavengers went on the attack.  To allow a decent burial was to cave into the desires precisely of the people who were being mocked and taught a lesson.  No decency allowed.  The body has to rot, and then we’ll toss it into a grave.

This was especially the case – I reiterate – for enemies of the state.  Rare exceptions might be made for low-life criminals – escaped slaves, horse thieves, general riff-raff who did not matter to anyone in power.  But enemies of the state did matter to those in power.  Because these enemies had the temerity, stupidity, and willfulness to want to oppose that power.  If that’s what they choose to do, this is the price they will pay – and everyone will see it, for days.

Jesus was not executed as a member of the riff-raff, as a slave who committed a crime against his owner, as a lowly criminal from the lower classes.   He was executed for calling himself King of the Jews.  Craig Evans agrees with that.  Virtually everyone agrees with that.   Jesus was killed on a political charge.  By calling himself king – in Roman eyes (whether this is what he personally meant or not) – he was making a political claim, that he was going to replace the Roman governance of Judea with a kingdom in which he himself would be king.   This could happen (in Roman eyes) only if there was a rebellion.  Rebellions have to be suppressed – and if you’re Roman, they have to be suppressed violently, forcefully, mercilessly.   If you think you are going to replace the Roman ruler,  if you think you can start an insurrection against the state, if you think you can take our power away and exert your own power, well, we’ll SHOW you how much power you have.

The crucifixion of Jesus was a forceful and unmistakable demonstration of Roman power.   They humiliated him, tortured him, nailed him to a cross so that he couldn’t raise a hand in his own defense, let alone overthrow the ruling Roman authority.  It is what Romans did to insurrectionists and prospective insurrectionists, to anyone who opposed their power by proposing to set up their own kingdom.   The humiliation and show of force was not limited to a six-hour (in Jesus’ case, somewhat unusually, if the Gospels can be trusted on this point) torture.  To show what Roman power is, the body would be left on the cross, so everyone in that public place could see what happens to anyone who thinks they can cross the power of Rome.   There was no quarter, no mercy, no sympathy.   Instead, there was public humiliation and torture and the public display, for days, of the bodies of those who think that they will start their own kingdom.

This ideology of crucifixion needs to be firmly born in mind when thinking about whether Romans made an exception to their policies of crucifixion in the case of Jesus


----------



## bullethead

"When a group has staked everything on a religious belief, and 'burned their bridges behind them,' only to find this belief disconfirmed by events, they may find disillusionment too painful to endure. They soon come up with some explanatory rationalization, the plausibility of which will be reinforced by the mutual encouragement of fellow-believers in the group. In order to increase further the plausibility of their threatened belief, they may engage in a massive new effort at proselytizing. The more people who can be convinced, the truer it will seem. In the final analysis, then, a radical disconfirmation of belief may be just what a religious movement needs to get off the ground."
~Robert Price


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> "When a group has staked everything on a religious belief, and 'burned their bridges behind them,' only to find this belief disconfirmed by events, they may find disillusionment too painful to endure. They soon come up with some explanatory rationalization, the plausibility of which will be reinforced by the mutual encouragement of fellow-believers in the group. In order to increase further the plausibility of their threatened belief, they may engage in a massive new effort at proselytizing. The more people who can be convinced, the truer it will seem. In the final analysis, then, a radical disconfirmation of belief may be just what a religious movement needs to get off the ground."
> ~Robert Price



Reminds me of this scene from Fight Club.  For those who haven't seen it, the gist of the scene is this:  Project Mayhem is a cult.  One of their rules is that no one has a name. But the leader tells them that the dead man's names is Robert Paulson.  So one of them makes up a story in order to reconcile the two contradicting orders.  It's a perfect example of "discernment".  "I understand".


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> "When a group has staked everything on a religious belief, and 'burned their bridges behind them,' only to find this belief disconfirmed by events, they may find disillusionment too painful to endure. They soon come up with some explanatory rationalization, the plausibility of which will be reinforced by the mutual encouragement of fellow-believers in the group. In order to increase further the plausibility of their threatened belief, they may engage in a massive new effort at proselytizing. The more people who can be convinced, the truer it will seem. In the final analysis, then, a radical disconfirmation of belief may be just what a religious movement needs to get off the ground."
> ~Robert Price


He's got an interesting resume.
Price was born in Jackson, Mississippi in 1954 and moved to New Jersey in 1964. He received a Master of Theological Studies in New Testament from Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary in 1978. At Drew University he was awarded one Ph.D. in Systematic Theology in 1981 and another in New Testament in 1991. He was pastor of the First Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey.[1] He has served as Professor of Religion at Mount Olive College, Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary and Professor of Biblical Criticism for the Center for Inquiry Institute in Amherst, New York.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> He's got an interesting resume.
> Price was born in Jackson, Mississippi in 1954 and moved to New Jersey in 1964. He received a Master of Theological Studies in New Testament from Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary in 1978. At Drew University he was awarded one Ph.D. in Systematic Theology in 1981 and another in New Testament in 1991. He was pastor of the First Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey.[1] He has served as Professor of Religion at Mount Olive College, Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary and Professor of Biblical Criticism for the Center for Inquiry Institute in Amherst, New York.



"His discernment is broken"

"He has allowed the foolishness of the world to taint his belief"

"You can't get The Knowing from no readin' book".


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> He's got an interesting resume.
> Price was born in Jackson, Mississippi in 1954 and moved to New Jersey in 1964. He received a Master of Theological Studies in New Testament from Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary in 1978. At Drew University he was awarded one Ph.D. in Systematic Theology in 1981 and another in New Testament in 1991. He was pastor of the First Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey.[1] He has served as Professor of Religion at Mount Olive College, Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary and Professor of Biblical Criticism for the Center for Inquiry Institute in Amherst, New York.


Durn Atheist !
Faker
Not REALLY a Christian
Uneducated


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> From:
> https://ehrmanblog.org/why-romans-crucified-people/
> Why Romans Crucified People
> 
> I am getting close to the point where I can deal directly with Craig Evans’ counter-argument to the position that I take in How Jesus Became God, in which I argue, as you have seen in two previous posts, that it is likely that Jesus was not given a decent burial, as described in the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea and his request for the body on the afternoon of the crucifixion.  Rather, it is more likely that – as was the case virtually every other crucified person in all of Roman antiquity – Jesus’ body was left on the cross for several days before being tossed into some kind of pit.  It sounds bizarre, but I think that’s what the evidence suggests.  And Craig thinks otherwise.  This will be an interesting point/counter-point/counter-counter-point, I hope – as it is obviously a very important issue for a very great number of people.
> 
> Before taking on Craig’s arguments, I want to make one overarching point of my own that cannot be stressed enough, since it is the single most important key to the entire question.  It has to do with why Romans crucified people – and in particular (even *more* important)  why they crucified people for insurrection against the state or for intended (in the Roman eyes) insurrection.
> 
> Crucifixion was not invented by the Romans, but they used it a lot.  It was thought of as the most horrible, painful, tortuous, and humiliating form of execution possible.   If Romans wanted simply to kill someone without a fuss, there were plenty of other means available – for example, beheading.   Crucifixion was reserved for special cases.
> 
> But there were lots of special cases.  Two of the most common were low-life criminals and enemies of the state.   These are two very different matters – they are not the same thing.  Low life criminals would include, for example, slaves who had escaped from their masters and committed a crime.   If caught, a slave could be crucified.   There were two reasons they were subjected to such a tortuous, slow, and humiliating death.    They were receiving the “ultimate” punishment for their crime and, possibly more important, they were being used as a spectacle to warn any other slave who was thinking about escaping or committing crimes what could happen to *them*.
> 
> The Romans had a very different view of capital punishment from ours.  In the U.S., if someone is to be executed, there are enormous concerns about due process.   Appeals can take almost literally forever in some places.  The executions themselves are done in private, and the goal (well, the stated goal, anyway) is to make the death as swift and painless as possible, away from the public view.
> 
> That’s not how the Romans did it.   The Romans did not have a procedure for due process, trial by jury, right of appeal; they did not delay punishment; and they wanted some executions (for example, of low lifes and enemies of the state) to be as public, torturous, long and drawn out, degrading, and humiliating as possible.    If someone in New Jersey is convicted of carjacking, they may need to spend some time behind bars away from public view.  If something like that happened in the Roman empire (chariot-jacking?) (well, OK, horse theft) they would nail the lout to a cross, in a public place, so everyone passing by could hear him scream and watch him writhe for a couple of days.   And then they’d leave the body on the cross so that the birds and dogs could get at it.    Do that a few times for horse-theft, and see how many horse thieves you’ll find.  It was an exceedingly more effective disincentive for crime.  Or so the Romans reasoned, in any event.
> 
> Worse than escaping as a slave or stealing a horse –very much worse – was opposing the Roman state itself.  This is something the Romans WOULD NOT tolerate.   Enemies of the state had to be shown what the power of the state was.  And crucifixion was how it was done.   If you were a resistor to Roman military action – crucified.  If you were caught attacking Roman troops – crucified.  If you plotted to overthrow the local Roman government – crucified.
> 
> Crucifixion was a particularly poignant statement when it came to enemies of the state.  Those who were opposed to Rome – I don’t mean those who didn’t much like the Romans running the show, or those who wished things were different, or those who hoped something better would come along, but instead, those who actively sought to oppose the state, or at least were *thought* by the Roman authorities to seek to oppose the state – were unceremoniously condemned to be crucified precisely in order to show how absolutely HELPLESS anyone is who thinks they can oppose the power of Rome.
> 
> Roman power was very real, very tangible, very palpable.  And it was played out on the bodies of those who tried to oppose it.  Crucifixion was the perfect mode of execution for anyone engaging in, supporting, or endorsing violent opposition to the Roman state.  You think you can oppose US?  Well then, this is what we’ll do to YOU to show you how powerful you really are.   We will take you, strip you naked, drag you to a public place, nail your hands (wrists) to a cross beam, nail your feet to an upright, set you up as a public spectacle for people to see and mock.    By doing so we will not only torture you to death  (often it took a couple of days for a person to die of asphyxiation).  We will reveal to all who can see how helpless you are.
> 
> Your hands and feel will be nailed securely to wood and you will be left to hang in a position where you cannot fend for yourself.   You will not be able move your body.  You will not be able to wave off the scavenging birds.  You will not be able to kick away the roaming dogs.  You will not be able to lift life a finger to help yourself.  We can do this to you.  And if you oppose our power, this *is* what we will do to you.
> 
> Crucifixion was not merely a death by torture.  It was a symbolic statement that WE are Roman power and YOU are nothing.  And if you oppose us, we will prove it, by rendering you absolutely, completely powerless, while we wrack your body with pain and make you scream.
> 
> And the proof did not end with your last breath.   Romans left bodies on the cross for clear and distinct reasons.
> 
> Everyone wanted a decent burial in the ancient world.  It was far more important to people then than it is to people today.  A decent burial, for many, was required for a decent afterlife.  It honored the body of the one departed.  Not to receive a decent burial was disgusting, scandalous, gut-wrenching, debasing, humiliating.   And so Romans did not allow crucified victims – especially enemies of the state – to be buried.  They left them on the crosses as their bodies rot and the scavengers went on the attack.  To allow a decent burial was to cave into the desires precisely of the people who were being mocked and taught a lesson.  No decency allowed.  The body has to rot, and then we’ll toss it into a grave.
> 
> This was especially the case – I reiterate – for enemies of the state.  Rare exceptions might be made for low-life criminals – escaped slaves, horse thieves, general riff-raff who did not matter to anyone in power.  But enemies of the state did matter to those in power.  Because these enemies had the temerity, stupidity, and willfulness to want to oppose that power.  If that’s what they choose to do, this is the price they will pay – and everyone will see it, for days.
> 
> Jesus was not executed as a member of the riff-raff, as a slave who committed a crime against his owner, as a lowly criminal from the lower classes.   He was executed for calling himself King of the Jews.  Craig Evans agrees with that.  Virtually everyone agrees with that.   Jesus was killed on a political charge.  By calling himself king – in Roman eyes (whether this is what he personally meant or not) – he was making a political claim, that he was going to replace the Roman governance of Judea with a kingdom in which he himself would be king.   This could happen (in Roman eyes) only if there was a rebellion.  Rebellions have to be suppressed – and if you’re Roman, they have to be suppressed violently, forcefully, mercilessly.   If you think you are going to replace the Roman ruler,  if you think you can start an insurrection against the state, if you think you can take our power away and exert your own power, well, we’ll SHOW you how much power you have.
> 
> The crucifixion of Jesus was a forceful and unmistakable demonstration of Roman power.   They humiliated him, tortured him, nailed him to a cross so that he couldn’t raise a hand in his own defense, let alone overthrow the ruling Roman authority.  It is what Romans did to insurrectionists and prospective insurrectionists, to anyone who opposed their power by proposing to set up their own kingdom.   The humiliation and show of force was not limited to a six-hour (in Jesus’ case, somewhat unusually, if the Gospels can be trusted on this point) torture.  To show what Roman power is, the body would be left on the cross, so everyone in that public place could see what happens to anyone who thinks they can cross the power of Rome.   There was no quarter, no mercy, no sympathy.   Instead, there was public humiliation and torture and the public display, for days, of the bodies of those who think that they will start their own kingdom.
> 
> This ideology of crucifixion needs to be firmly born in mind when thinking about whether Romans made an exception to their policies of crucifixion in the case of Jesus



 yep. the Romans had no choice in the matter.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> yep. the Romans had no choice in the matter.


Meaning what?
The Romans did what the Romans wanted done. Not what writers who were unfamiliar with their practices thought happened.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> He's got an interesting resume.
> Price was born in Jackson, Mississippi in 1954 and moved to New Jersey in 1964. He received a Master of Theological Studies in New Testament from Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary in 1978. At Drew University he was awarded one Ph.D. in Systematic Theology in 1981 and another in New Testament in 1991. He was pastor of the First Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey.[1] He has served as Professor of Religion at Mount Olive College, Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary and Professor of Biblical Criticism for the Center for Inquiry Institute in Amherst, New York.


Jerry Clower once referred to someone as being educated beyond their intelligence.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Jerry Clower once referred to someone as being educated beyond their intelligence.



Stupid uneducated people love that meme


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Jerry Clower once referred to someone as being educated beyond their intelligence.


You ARE referring to the comedian right?


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Jerry Clower once referred to someone as being educated beyond their intelligence.


While that may be true in some cases, Im guessing you would rather have a brain surgeon working on a loved one as opposed to say …. me for example.


----------



## redwards

bullethead said:


> *Once dead, its over.*
> 
> The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.
> 
> It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach.



According to this below...*"once Dead, it's over"*...may not necessarily be true...

*Note to self: 'Cancel credit cards prior to death!*'                  
*Be sure and cancel your credit cards before you die! This is so priceless, and so easy to see happening - Customer Service being what it is today!* 

                     A lady died this past January, and ANZ bank billed her for February and March for their annual service charges on her credit card, and then added late fees and interest on the monthly charge The balance had been $0.00, but now is somewhere around $60.00. 

                     A family member placed a call to the ANZ Bank: 
*Family Member: *
                     'I am calling to tell you that she died in January.' 
*  ANZ: *
                     'The account was never closed and the late fees and charges still apply.'                      *
                     Family Member: *
                     'Maybe, you should turn it over to collections.' 
*ANZ: *
                     'Since it is two months past due, it already has been.'                      *
                     Family Member: *
                     So, what will they do when they find out she is dead?'                      *
                     ANZ: *
                     'Either report her account to the frauds division or report her to the credit bureau, maybe both!' 
*Family Member: *
                     'Do you think God will be mad at her?' 
* ANZ: *
                     'Excuse me?' 
*Family Member: *
                     'Did you just get what I was telling you .. . . The part about her being dead?' 
*ANZ: *
                     'Sir, you'll have to speak to my supervisor.' 
*
                     Supervisor gets on the phone: *
*Family Member: *
                     'I'm calling to tell you, she died in January.' 
* ANZ: *
                     'The account was never closed and the late fees and charges still apply.' 
*  Family Member: *
                     'You mean you want to collect from her estate?' 
* ANZ: *
                     (Stammer) 'Are you her lawyer?' 
* Family Member: *
                     'No, I'm her great nephew.' 
                     (Lawyer info given) 
*ANZ: *
                     'Could you fax us a certificate of death?'
*Family Member: *
                     'Sure.' 
                     ( *fax number is given *) 
                     After they get the fax:​
*ANZ: *
                     'Our system just isn't set up for death. I don't know what more I can do to help.' 
*Family Member: *
                     'Well, if you figure it out, great! If not, you could just keep billing her. I don't think she will care...' 
*ANZ: *
                     'Well, the late fees and charges do still apply.' 
*Family Member: *
                     'Would you like her new billing address?' 
*ANZ: *
                     'That might help..' 
*Family Member: *
                     ' Rookwood Memorial Cemetery , 1249 Centenary Rd, Sydney. Plot Number 1049.' 
* ANZ: *
                     'Sir, that's a cemetery!' 
*Family Member: *
                     'Well, what exactly do you do with dead people on *YOUR *planet?'​


----------



## Israel

Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged _him_. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put _it_ on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. 

Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And _Pilate_ saith unto them, Behold the man! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify _him_, crucify _him_. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify _him_: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power _at all_ against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with _him_, away with _him_, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.


Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led _him_ away.

And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called _the place_ of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. And Pilate wrote a title, and put _it_ on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, _and_ Greek, _and_ Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged _him_. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put _it_ on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
> 
> Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And _Pilate_ saith unto them, Behold the man! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify _him_, crucify _him_. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify _him_: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
> 
> When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power _at all_ against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
> 
> When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with _him_, away with _him_, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
> 
> 
> Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led _him_ away.
> 
> And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called _the place_ of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. And Pilate wrote a title, and put _it_ on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, _and_ Greek, _and_ Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.


And that accomplished what exactly? What point are you making?
We already know the stories. 
We already know their weaknesses.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> While that may be true in some cases, Im guessing you would rather have a brain surgeon working on a loved one as opposed to say …. me for example.


Of course, Walt. But I’d probably do more than just look for a brain surgeon certification. A lot of folks have completed...........but don’t know what they completed or how to use it. 

Not knocking the guy you spoke about, don’t know him. Just saying completing those studies doesn’t automatically make him correct. I’m sure there are many that completed the same that disagree with him.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You ARE referring to the comedian right?


That’d be correct.


----------



## Israel

What it always accomplishes. A confession.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Stupid uneducated people love that meme



I wouldn’t know, I’ve never really looked at the uneducated as being stupid. 

But, I think the point of the slogan is to look at people’s abilities rather than their certificates.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Of course, Walt. But I’d probably do more than just look for a brain surgeon certification. A lot of folks have completed...........but don’t know what they completed or how to use it.
> 
> Not knocking the guy you spoke about, don’t know him. Just saying completing those studies doesn’t automatically make him correct. I’m sure there are many that completed the same that disagree with him.


Hey if you can't pick his work apart,and you can't pick his accomplishments apart,and you cannot pick his schooling and positions apart......


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> What it always accomplishes. A confession.


Ok, I hoped you had a fact based rebuttle. My bad


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I wouldn’t know, I’ve never really looked at the uneducated as being stupid.
> 
> But, I think the point of the slogan is to look at people’s abilities rather than their certificates.



They are not the same but they both like that meme.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I wouldn’t know, I’ve never really looked at the uneducated as being stupid.
> 
> But, I think the point of the slogan is to look at people’s abilities rather than their certificates.



Those are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Of course, Walt. But I’d probably do more than just look for a brain surgeon certification. A lot of folks have completed...........but don’t know what they completed or how to use it.
> 
> Not knocking the guy you spoke about, don’t know him. Just saying completing those studies doesn’t automatically make him correct. I’m sure there are many that completed the same that disagree with him.


I didn't say he was correct. I said he had an interesting resume.
However he didn't get all those degrees and positions without doing the work and research.

Lets be honest. You didn't like what he said. Therefore you float the "educated beyond his intelligence" theory.
If you liked what he said he would have been a "well qualified, highly educated scholar" on the subject.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I didn't say he was correct. I said he had an interesting resume.
> However he didn't get all those degrees and positions without doing the work and research.
> 
> Lets be honest. You didn't like what he said. Therefore you float the "educated beyond his intelligence" theory.
> If you liked what he said he would have been a "well qualified, highly educated scholar" on the subject.




It seems that what he said is the “let’s jump on board with him” key by non believers......because they like what he said. The question is will the non believers be willing to jump on board with someone that graduated with this guy that has an opposite opinion? 

If not, it has nothing to do with the resume.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Those are not mutually exclusive.



Ok.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I didn't say he was correct. I said he had an interesting resume.
> However he didn't get all those degrees and positions without doing the work and research.
> 
> Lets be honest. You didn't like what he said. Therefore you float the "educated beyond his intelligence" theory.
> If you liked what he said he would have been a "well qualified, highly educated scholar" on the subject.


Yeah, I wonder if Ravi Zacharias fits in the same category?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Ok, I hoped you had a fact based rebuttle. My bad



Ther are no facts in the majority of ones quotes. They’re just quotes. 

No rebuttle was sought - just a quote that could mean that there are some highly educated people out there with no walking around sense that can’t tie their shoes. Nothing more.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> It seems that what he said is the “let’s jump on board with him” key by non believers......because they like what he said. The question is will the non believers be willing to jump on board with someone that graduated with this guy that has an opposite opinion?
> 
> If not, it has nothing to do with the resume.


Can you name another person that graduated with him and holds those same titles?
If so, post his or her resume and we can check em out.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Ther are no facts in the majority of ones quotes. They’re just quotes.
> 
> No rebuttle was sought - just a quote that could mean that there are some highly educated people out there with no walking around sense that can’t tie their shoes. Nothing more.


I was talking more about the practices of crucifixion that I posted that go against giving the body of Jesus away to be buried.
Israel is on another verse kick so we didn't get anywhere with him.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged _him_. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put _it_ on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
> 
> Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And _Pilate_ saith unto them, Behold the man! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify _him_, crucify _him_. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify _him_: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
> 
> When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power _at all_ against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
> 
> When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with _him_, away with _him_, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
> 
> 
> Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led _him_ away.
> 
> And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called _the place_ of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. And Pilate wrote a title, and put _it_ on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, _and_ Greek, _and_ Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.


John..lets see how those Gospels stack up against each other.

Internal Discrepancies

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the few stories that is told repeatedly in the bible--more than 5 times--so it provides an excellent test for the orthodox claim of scriptural inerrancy and reliability. When we compare the accounts, we see they don't agree.

What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn(NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13[23])
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at that first appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in GalileeMark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascensionActs: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

It is not just atheist critics who notice these problems. Christian scholars agree that the stories are discrepant. Culver H. Nelson: "In any such reading, it should become glaringly obvious that these materials often contradict one another egregiously. No matter how eagerly one may wish to do so, there is simply no way the various accounts of Jesus' post-mortem activities can be harmonized."[24] A. E. Harvey: "All the Gospels, after having run closely together in their accounts of the trial and execution, diverge markedly when they come to the circumstance of the Resurrection. It's impossible to fit their accounts together into a single coherent scheme."[25] Thomas Sheehan agrees: "Despite our best efforts, the Gospel accounts of Jesus' post-mortem activities, in fact, cannot be harmonized into a consistent Easter chronology."[26] The religiously independent (though primarily Christian) scholars in the Westar Institute, which includes more than 70 bible scholars with Ph.D or equivalent, conclude: "The five gospels that report appearances (Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, Gospel of the Hebrews) go their separate ways when they are not rewriting Mark; their reports cannot be reconciled to each other. Hard historical evidence is sparse."[27]

I (Dan Barker) have challenged believers to provide a simple non-contradictory chronological narrative of the events between Easter Sunday and the ascension, without omitting a single biblical detail[28]. So far, without misinterpreting words or drastically rearranging passages, no one has given a coherent account. Some have offered "harmonies" (apparently not wondering why the work of a perfect deity should have to be harmonized), but none have met the reasonable request to simply tell the story.


----------



## bullethead

It all ties in with incorrect stories about crucifixion, incorrect stories about Jesus body being released to a non family member, let alone released at all and ends with all of these supposed eye witness disciples all telling different stories about the tomb.

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"~ Mark Twain 1894


----------



## hummerpoo

Spotlite said:


> It seems that what he said is the “let’s jump on board with him” key by non believers......because they like what he said. The question is will the non believers be willing to jump on board with someone that graduated with this guy that has an opposite opinion?
> 
> If not, it has nothing to do with the resume.


Have you spent much time wondering why those with theological training that non believers like to quote are, almost exclusively, from the "higher criticism" disciplines?  I confess that I have not.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> John..lets see how those Gospels stack up against each other.
> 
> Internal Discrepancies
> 
> The resurrection of Jesus is one of the few stories that is told repeatedly in the bible--more than 5 times--so it provides an excellent test for the orthodox claim of scriptural inerrancy and reliability. When we compare the accounts, we see they don't agree.
> 
> What time did the women visit the tomb?
> Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
> Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
> Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn(NRSV)
> John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
> Who were the women?
> Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
> Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
> Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
> John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
> What was their purpose?
> Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
> Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
> Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
> John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
> Was the tomb open when they arrived?
> Matthew: No (28:2)
> Mark: Yes (16:4)
> Luke: Yes (24:2)
> John: Yes (20:1)
> Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
> Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
> Mark: One young man (16:5)
> Luke: Two men (24:4)
> John: Two angels (20:12)
> Where were these messengers situated?
> Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
> Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
> Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
> John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
> What did the messenger(s) say?Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
> Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
> Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
> John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
> Did the women tell what happened?Matthew: Yes (28:8)
> Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
> Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
> John: Yes (20:18)When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
> Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
> Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
> John: No (20:2)
> When did Mary first see Jesus?Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
> Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
> John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
> Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
> Matthew: Yes (28:9)
> John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
> After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
> Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
> Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
> Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
> John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
> Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
> Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
> Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
> Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
> Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
> John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
> Did the disciples believe the two men?
> Mark: No (16:13[23])
> Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
> What happened at that first appearance?
> Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
> Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
> Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
> John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
> Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
> Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
> Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
> John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
> Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
> Where did the ascension take place?Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in GalileeMark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
> Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
> John: No ascension
> Paul: No ascensionActs: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
> 
> It is not just atheist critics who notice these problems. Christian scholars agree that the stories are discrepant. Culver H. Nelson: "In any such reading, it should become glaringly obvious that these materials often contradict one another egregiously. No matter how eagerly one may wish to do so, there is simply no way the various accounts of Jesus' post-mortem activities can be harmonized."[24] A. E. Harvey: "All the Gospels, after having run closely together in their accounts of the trial and execution, diverge markedly when they come to the circumstance of the Resurrection. It's impossible to fit their accounts together into a single coherent scheme."[25] Thomas Sheehan agrees: "Despite our best efforts, the Gospel accounts of Jesus' post-mortem activities, in fact, cannot be harmonized into a consistent Easter chronology."[26] The religiously independent (though primarily Christian) scholars in the Westar Institute, which includes more than 70 bible scholars with Ph.D or equivalent, conclude: "The five gospels that report appearances (Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, Gospel of the Hebrews) go their separate ways when they are not rewriting Mark; their reports cannot be reconciled to each other. Hard historical evidence is sparse."[27]
> 
> I (Dan Barker) have challenged believers to provide a simple non-contradictory chronological narrative of the events between Easter Sunday and the ascension, without omitting a single biblical detail[28]. So far, without misinterpreting words or drastically rearranging passages, no one has given a coherent account. Some have offered "harmonies" (apparently not wondering why the work of a perfect deity should have to be harmonized), but none have met the reasonable request to simply tell the story.


 
What I can't understand is why didn't those reps sitting at that table in Nicea see all of this when choosing books for Canon?


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> It seems that what he said is the “let’s jump on board with him” key by non believers......because they like what he said. The question is will the non believers be willing to jump on board with someone that graduated with this guy that has an opposite opinion?
> 
> If not, it has nothing to do with the resume.


First -
Its human nature to seek out that which confirms what we already believe. Both believers and non-believers can be guilty of doing it.
The hard part is purposely seeking out that which contradicts what you already believe. You get both sides of the story, then you keep going to try to find out where the preponderance of the evidence falls.
You've heard us say a number of times "the only place you hear that is in the Bible".
That comes from trying to find out from outside of the Bible agreement or disagreement.
Its why you almost never see us post anything from an Atheist website. Its not a whole lot different from posting only from a Christian website. You will only get one side of the story.
How did I know about this guy's resume? I didn't have a clue who he was/is.
First thing I did was try to find out more about him, his qualifications, his beliefs etc.
If it said he was the Pres. of The Christian Haters Club I would have wrote him off immediately. Instead I find out he was a Baptist minister, holds multiple Phd's, high ranking positions in Religious Research etc etc.
Does that mean he poops Tiffany cuff links? Nope but it adds to his credibility and makes it worth looking into further.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Have you spent much time wondering why those with theological training that non believers like to quote are, almost exclusively, from the "higher criticism" disciplines?  I confess that I have not.



At least he is a Republican. What religion is he? He believes in the Old Testament God but not Jesus? I'm assuming that he isn't a Christian.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> What I can't understand is why didn't those reps sitting at that table in Nicea see all of this when choosing books for Canon?


Because those were the best choices available. Imagine what the other writings said?!?!? There is a reason "the church" destroyed everything else they could find.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> At least he is a Republican. What religion is he? He believes in the Old Testament God but not Jesus? I'm assuming that he isn't a Christian.


From Walt:

He's got an interesting resume.
Price was born in Jackson, Mississippi in 1954 and moved to New Jersey in 1964. He received a Master of Theological Studies in New Testament from Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary in 1978. At Drew University he was awarded one Ph.D. in Systematic Theology in 1981 and another in New Testament in 1991. He was pastor of the First Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey.[1] He has served as Professor of Religion at Mount Olive College, Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary and Professor of Biblical Criticism for the Center for Inquiry Institute in Amherst, New York.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Because those were the best choices available. Imagine what the other writings said?!?!? There is a reason "the church" destroyed everything else they could find.



I would have just chose the best of Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Whichever of those three matched the existing story. Then burn the other two books.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> First -
> Its human nature to seek out that which confirms what we already believe. Both believers and non-believers can be guilty of doing it.
> The hard part is purposely seeking out that which contradicts what you already believe. You get both sides of the story, then you keep going to try to find out where the preponderance of the evidence falls.
> You've heard us say a number of times "the only place you hear that is in the Bible".
> That comes from trying to find out from outside of the Bible agreement or disagreement.
> Its why you almost never see us post anything from an Atheist website. Its not a whole lot different from posting only from a Christian website. You will only get one side of the story.
> How did I know about this guy's resume? I didn't have a clue who he was/is.
> First thing I did was try to find out more about him, his qualifications, his beliefs etc.
> If it said he was the Pres. of The Christian Haters Club I would have wrote him off immediately. Instead I find out he was a Baptist minister, holds multiple Phd's, high ranking positions in Religious Research etc etc.
> Does that mean he poops Tiffany cuff links? Nope but it adds to his credibility and makes it worth looking into further.


These are the things I have found while trying to prove the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> From Walt:
> 
> He's got an interesting resume.
> Price was born in Jackson, Mississippi in 1954 and moved to New Jersey in 1964. He received a Master of Theological Studies in New Testament from Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary in 1978. At Drew University he was awarded one Ph.D. in Systematic Theology in 1981 and another in New Testament in 1991. He was pastor of the First Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey.[1] He has served as Professor of Religion at Mount Olive College, Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary and Professor of Biblical Criticism for the Center for Inquiry Institute in Amherst, New York.


 
I read his Wiki, but it didn't say what religion he was.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I read his Wiki, but it didn't say what religion he was.


You'll love this:
Christian Atheist!!

https://skeptiko.com/christian-atheist-dr-robert-price/


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I would have just chose the best of Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Whichever of those three matched the existing story. Then burn the other two books.


I take it a step further and have to wonder Why, if a god is involved at all, doesn't it all match?


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> You'll love this:
> Christian Atheist!!
> 
> https://skeptiko.com/christian-atheist-dr-robert-price/



For some reason his story/bio reminds me of the Atheist who wants to be a Navy Chaplain. He studied so much he no longer believes but he still has all that knowledge to teach and help.
The Navy keeps denying him. 

I know it seems ironic, but the Navy's denial seems discriminatory as well.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> I take it a step further and have to wonder Why, if a god is involved at all, doesn't it all match?



Why would God need a council of men to begin with? Think about it, we need a council of men to tell us what God had to say.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Why would God need a council of men to begin with? Think about it, we need a council of men to tell us what God had to say.



An excellent question.  You're two steps down the rabbit hole.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Artfuldodger said:


> For some reason his story/bio reminds me of the Atheist who wants to be a Navy Chaplain. He studied so much he no longer believes but he still has all that knowledge to teach and help.
> The Navy keeps denying him.
> 
> I know it seems ironic, but the Navy's denial seems discriminatory as well.



If Jude can quote Enoch, then maybe Christian Atheist can make good Chaplains.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> An excellent question.  You're two steps down the rabbit hole.



Down or out? Is the rabbit hole a Matrix?


----------



## Artfuldodger

To continue and this is even a part of a mainstream Reformed view, why would God need me to go to a remote island and tell them about God?
God already knows who his children are.

I can't see God needing man to tell us what he says. I'm not to say that he doesn't use man to tell us what he says, but he doesn't have to. 

I'm thinking about Paul. He did use Paul. But still did Paul reach every Gentile in the whole wide world?


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Why would God need a council of men to begin with? Think about it, we need a council of men to tell us what God had to say.


And if the Cardinals lock themselves in a room for guidance from God to pick the Pope, why isn't it always unanimous if God tells them?????


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> To continue and this is even a part of a mainstream Reformed view, why would God need me to go to a remote island and tell them about God?
> God already knows who his children are.
> 
> I can't see God needing man to tell us what he says. I'm not to say that he doesn't use man to tell us what he says, but he doesn't have to.
> 
> I'm thinking about Paul. He did use Paul. But still did Paul reach every Gentile in the whole wide world?


I was with you till Paul.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> I was with you till Paul.



Ironic twist to the Reformed plot that God can and has elected his own.


----------



## Spotlite

hummerpoo said:


> Have you spent much time wondering why those with theological training that non believers like to quote are, almost exclusively, from the "higher criticism" disciplines?  I confess that I have not.


No Sir, I have not.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> First -
> Its human nature to seek out that which confirms what we already believe. Both believers and non-believers can be guilty of doing it.
> The hard part is purposely seeking out that which contradicts what you already believe. You get both sides of the story, then you keep going to try to find out where the preponderance of the evidence falls.
> You've heard us say a number of times "the only place you hear that is in the Bible".
> That comes from trying to find out from outside of the Bible agreement or disagreement.
> Its why you almost never see us post anything from an Atheist website. Its not a whole lot different from posting only from a Christian website. You will only get one side of the story.
> How did I know about this guy's resume? I didn't have a clue who he was/is.
> First thing I did was try to find out more about him, his qualifications, his beliefs etc.
> If it said he was the Pres. of The Christian Haters Club I would have wrote him off immediately. Instead I find out he was a Baptist minister, holds multiple Phd's, high ranking positions in Religious Research etc etc.
> Does that mean he poops Tiffany cuff links? Nope but it adds to his credibility and makes it worth looking into further.



I can’t argue with that, but this is the meat of it.

“First -
Its human nature to seek out that which confirms what we already believe”

Although I quoted you, my original post wasn’t exactly intended to question the reason you posted it. Since a little sarcasm followed, it was only to point out that the “resume” doesn’t automatically make him “accurate”.

If that were the case, we could have just went to him over 1000 post ago.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Can you name another person that graduated with him and holds those same titles?
> If so, post his or her resume and we can check em out.


No, I don’t. But I do know some individuals with a an education in theology that disagree with him.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I was talking more about the practices of crucifixion that I posted that go against giving the body of Jesus away to be buried.
> Israel is on another verse kick so we didn't get anywhere with him.


10-4


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> No, I don’t. But I do know some individuals with a an education in theology that disagree with him.


What is their Education/Intelligence ratio?


----------



## Israel

I once found the desire to know what the temperature of the water was. To know something _about it_. I put in a thermometer. It read something.

But, then I knew.

What I _had done_ "to know" had changed everything, even to including myself. I knew the thermometer itself had changed the temperature of the water, (the wiser among you will realize it matters not if it be beaker, pool, lake, or ocean) and not only so to itself, but also by the friction that was developed by my insertion. And though I now had "information", neither the water nor myself were now in that state where desire to know was first apprehended. I was _that man_, but_ informed_ now (was I then still_ that _man?)...how would I know what effects _information_ had wrought?
What was reliable now?

Could I even now...in_ seeming_ looking back_ with information _as to once was "that man"_...trust I was even seeing him, _rightly?_ Could I ever "know" that man...who once was "without information"? _I_, acting upon desire to know, when found _in _recognition of a place of not knowing, _had_, by acting _truly affected everything, and in particular the_ very particular _about which I had wanted to know_. _I didn't know if I had affected the molecular structure of water, its compression (for I didn't yet seek to measure that, or even know it)...but of all I could be sure of, I could be sure of this: that the very thing I wanted to know, and set out to measure had, irrefutably been changed _by insertion of device used_ _to know. That particular_ about the water, once sought...was _the very thing_  by acting upon was that which precisely, exactly, undeniably...kept me from knowing "that particular".

I have probed God with my consciousness. (so what? who hasn't?) Not understanding my consciousness, this (my) device, already has a "temperature" of its own, affecting all information _I might read _as gleaned. Also, and no less, affected by the manner in which it _is inserted_.  Right you are to not trust this device, and its information for, even I cannot. What I "bring back" as info remains just that...information. _My scouting_ is already contaminated by a hobbling in things of which I barely apprehend. Also a thrusting I may try to account for...but cannot.

I cannot deny "he's a proud scout, and it affects his seeing", "fearful scout", "ignorant scout", "biased scout", "scout with double vision", "reckless scout kicking over important evidence", "self absorbed and presumptuous scout and everything he says or says he finds is just spurious info", "superstitious scout who draws back at a leave's rustle" "foolhardy scout not knowing he stands on an undercut which is about to collapse under him, while he thinks he stands at the summit". All and every one of these is true...and so many more.

The desire _to know _has tripped me up_ completely_ by _my allowance _of allowing myself a _questing after _it. A presumption. I was self convinced _my desire _was a sufficient motive to "go and do". After all it was all I could see around me...billions of other scouts, looking into what is unknown (once) to them and coming back with a known now...mined there, discovered there, in their excursions. Their scoutings.

To say I was _completely unaware_ it was an envy, a jealousy being provoked _in a thing that _caused such movement, such action of _likewise exercise of inserting _(where desire was _taken advantage of_ to move) would be complete...understatement. I could, and did (God knows) blame the _other things _for this provoking when found out. If they could scout...then I could scout! How could I know my normal "temperature" was jealous rage? I was all of normal...to _myself._

Again, to say I had zero notion that I could not _take allowance_ from them...had to be proven again, and again, and again to the fact that the more scouting and insertion I was found "doing"...was pushing all knowing further from me..._even to the eventual knowing_ that I may not be seeing "them" clearly at all. Maybe they weren't scouts? Not moving...remaining totally and always consistent in identity. Maybe _they were _abiding? Maybe they were not moving at all, and I was deceived, believing I perceived by what I saw as _their change of relative position_, was all and solely attributable to my being the one rambling about? Of course!...how could I ever know...unless I was completely...stopped? Could I stop myself? Could I "set out to know"...how to be stopped? (Just more moving about...scouting things out, continually confounding the knowing of the thing I thought I needed to seek) Could there ever be "clean slate" estate...even for me? How many brambles now clung (from all my unsettled moving "to know")...and to such clinging I couldn't tell at all, them from me. On eyes, in eyes, around eyes hanging...

How could I know...the very thing perceived in my motive to move...the frustration of "not knowing"...was the very thing when met_ to perfection _is _the very remedy? _Knowing the very thing I _could not do _for myself...stopping...is what is needed...not _most of all..._but all of all. Unless something presented itself into my _desire to know _as greater, over it, conquering its being able to be taken advantage of to my moving, and I see _this not in the world_ at all, I know, if nothing else...all knowing and hope of it, is lost to me. Is there _anything to know_...that is greater than my desire...to know? That can still that desire to a keeping from not moving...into the changes that only and always testify to further not knowing?

Before Jesus Christ made perfect sense _to me He allowed himself to _even be seen as_ "idol", _his friendship so great to _even_ the bearing of that. If need be research Nahushtan...and what the people did...of it. Hear what Jesus says of allowing himself in lifting like the brazen serpent. His appointment. Hear of his entrance into stopping, of being stopped. But not...for His own sake. His submission to being stopped...bramble-less...having _never wandered _"to know". Though being surely tempted. If one is at all able to look...to see steadfastness immutable...look. To see what knowing...looks like...look. And you will not find Him..._dumb_ idol. No, you will not find Him idol at all. The continual doer and speaker of all and only that has and is being...done. The knower of all that yet moves around his immovability. And His gracious stopping of it, for all who believe. Either_ in knowing_...or still seeking it. As though _a thing outside_...to be "scouted" into.

for the love of the Christ doth constrain us, having judged thus: that if one for all died, then the whole died,

Who can believe the relief is in the stopping?
Who can resist _the trying _to do_..._to do?
Let patience have her perfect work...

Be still _and know_, I am God.

Receive the stilling that is preached from Heaven in, and through, Jesus Christ alone.
Desire need not be taken advantage of to vain motions.
Let it burn past your ability_ to do_ anything about it. Enjoy it. "who can dwell with everlasting burnings...? The scripture both asks...and answers.

And the Lord be praised.

"I will not leave you as orphans, I will come to you..."

Be still...wait.


----------



## bullethead

^Robert Price was spot on^

When the going gets tough, start proselyltizing.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Jesus said; You are either with me or against me.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus said; You are either with me or against me.


So did Arthur Spooner


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> ^Robert Price was spot on^
> 
> When the going gets tough, start proselyltizing.



It’s all they have left.


----------



## bullethead

ky55 said:


> It’s all they have left.


I can appreciate the ones who have some apologetic capabilities. Discussion and explanation on why is a welcome skill.
That above though.....is awful,  mix in the overload of italics tourettes and it is painful.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus said; You are either with me or against me.


Can a person be "with" Jesus but not believe he was God/God's son?
I can appreciate much of what is said about him. Just don't believe all the miracle stuff etc.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Can a person be "with" Jesus but not believe he was God/God's son?
> I can appreciate much of what is said about him. Just don't believe all the miracle stuff etc.



I think one must believe he is in some way God's Son. That doesn't necessarily have to mean Jesus is 1/3 of the God head incarnate. It could mean he was the One God incarnate as the Father becoming the Son but one doesn't have to believe that either.

Most Christians do believe that Jesus is the Son of God in some capacity.

I think the only requirement is to believe he died for your sins. If one does that then he is "with" Jesus.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> What is their Education/Intelligence ratio?


I don’t know if the ratio is an important factor. 

I think what’s important is to realize that the education / intelligence level doesn’t make your belief / non belief in religion more or less credible. There are highly intelligent believers and non believers.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I don’t know if the ratio is an important factor.
> 
> I think what’s important is to realize that the education / intelligence level doesn’t make your belief / non belief in religion more or less credible. There are highly intelligent believers and non believers.


Well I, and I would say most of We knew that, but you brought it up about Robert Price so I wondered how the other people you mentioned(sort of) compared?


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> I think one must believe he is in some way God's Son. That doesn't necessarily have to mean Jesus is 1/3 of the God head incarnate. It could mean he was the One God incarnate as the Father becoming the Son but one doesn't have to believe that either.
> 
> Most Christians do believe that Jesus is the Son of God in some capacity.
> 
> I think the only requirement is to believe he died for your sins. If one does that then he is "with" Jesus.


You may be right.
But I'll be honest, that sounds more like worshipping the religion instead of Jesus.
Even if he was "just a man" he did a lot of things worth admiring (supposedly).
Hanging out with the less than desirables, feeding the masses, helping those in need etc.
Its a shame he's got all these "religious requirements" that go along with him.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> You may be right.
> But I'll be honest, that sounds more like worshipping the religion instead of Jesus.
> Even if he was "just a man" he did a lot of things worth admiring (supposedly).
> Hanging out with the less than desirables, feeding the masses, helping those in need etc.
> Its a shame he's got all these "religious requirements" that go along with him.



Religious requirements!
That's an enigma within Christianity. Did Jesus die for out inability to keep those religious requirements? Paul says he did but Jesus was still teaching them.

1st with Jesus though was that he was only able to do what he did because of his Father being in him. Jesus doesn't take any credit.
Therefore, the worship goes to the Father.

I guess maybe his Earthly life was to show us what man could be if man was God. To show us that perfect image that we could never be.

So I think maybe it would have been better if Jesus had said, this is what one can do if he is the image of God. Not that you will or can do it as I can, but one should maybe still strive to do it.

I don't think any of us are that exact image yet. Maybe when we see Jesus as he is, we will become like him. 

I'll admit some of the pieces of the works vs. grace pieces of the puzzle are missing. All I can do is like we learned in the military. Follow the commands of the last officer. So to me that is Paul. 

If it turns out Paul is a fake, we are all in trouble.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Maybe if Jesus had said, look at my life and strive to be as close as you can in regards to love, peace, and harmony. Forget the religious aspects as taught by the Pharisees.
I will eventually die for the religious part of it all. All that was to just show the world me.

Then Jesus would say "me" is God. I'm actually showing you God. If you believe that then eventually you will see me as I am.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Religious requirements!
> That's an enigma within Christianity. Did Jesus die for out inability to keep those religious requirements? Paul says he did but Jesus was still teaching them.
> 
> 1st with Jesus though was that he was only able to do what he did because of his Father being in him. Jesus doesn't take any credit.
> Therefore, the worship goes to the Father.
> 
> I guess maybe his Earthly life was to show us what man could be if man was God. To show us that perfect image that we could never be.
> 
> So I think maybe it would have been better if Jesus had said, this is what one can do if he is the image of God. Not that you will or can do it as I can, but one should maybe still strive to do it.
> 
> I don't think any of us are that exact image yet. Maybe when we see Jesus as he is, we will become like him.
> 
> I'll admit some of the pieces of the works vs. grace pieces of the puzzle are missing. All I can do is like we learned in the military. Follow the commands of the last officer. So to me that is Paul.
> 
> If it turns out Paul is a fake, we are all in trouble.


Paul was not happy with the current Jewish religious leaders.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians 25 years after Jesus was dead. Corinth was about 1500 miles away. Do you think ANYbody from there traveled that distance to confirm ANY of it?
Paul wrote his stuff BEFORE the Gospels.
3 gospel authors were anonymous. Luke was Pauls understudy.

Paul wasn't a fake. His writings.......that's another story.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe if Jesus had said, look at my life and strive to be as close as you can in regards to love, peace, and harmony. Forget the religious aspects as taught by the Pharisees.
> I will eventually die for the religious part of it all. All that was to just show the world me.
> 
> Then Jesus would say "me" is God. I'm actually showing you God. If you believe that then eventually you will see me as I am.


If Jesus actually wrote anything down that he said, many things would be different.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Well I, and I would say most of We knew that, but you brought it up about Robert Price so I wondered how the other people you mentioned(sort of) compared?


Not really, my post was more about a long “resume” full of credentials - I agree with Walt, it is interesting. But all I said was Jerry Clower once referred to someone as being educated beyond their intelligence ? Meaning you “can” have an educated idiot. 

Robert Price may or may not fit that, I wouldn’t know, but it seems that you like what he says so my comment sparked you to questions. 

Not sure what you were were trying to “assume” below, as if his resume automatically makes him credible, or is what he has to say???? 

So I too, wonder how other people mentioned (sort of) compare; are they more credible if they’re a believer or a non believer? 


bullethead said:


> Durn Atheist !
> Faker
> Not REALLY a Christian
> Uneducated


----------



## Israel

What _cred_-entials will a man bring? He is either in the man of truth, or he is not...relying on cred-entials to justify his speaking and doing. But he will find if he concedes to a _thing_ to speak for him, to justify him, he likewise concedes to the being bounded by the limit _of things. _Eventually he will find _their constriction _in their _appointed_ restrictions to limit. Vanity and frustration.

Indeed, some _things_ may have a relative exceeding to others...but they remain..._things_. (Paul speaks of relative glories) Glories, at best, may point (lead) a man to the conviction of the being of Glory, not as a _thing relative,_ but in absolute. But its mere perception in mind as _having being _in the absolute is eventually shown him a vain thing till he is made ready to receive entrance. 

(Chinese people may indeed testify convincingly in their person of "being from China" to the point a man believes such a place is. And the man may even believe he knows much of it by their telling, but eventually, he understands that _even in the sum of all their telling..._to _know China_, he must go)

We testify not of ourselves...but _the man_ of truth. We testify not of religion, nor even of _religious doctrines _as things_ if  (seemingly) apprehended _or consented to (by whatever vanity a man may think_ his consent adds anything_) but of Jesus Christ and Him, crucified. He speaks truth...but_ exceeds, _being the essential and absolute of it, Himself. He is resurrected...and _yet exceeds_, He is Himself _the resurrection and the life_. He speaks of Heaven...and_ yet more, _is the very One speaking while "in earth" _while_ fully in the occupying_ of there._ Unlike China that may be testified of by those at some remove, Jesus Christ is Himself the man in whom occupation of Heaven is _only found._ He is the Son of Man _who is in Heaven._

Of course _what believes_ its consenting to _"adds" _cannot receive our testimony. Their testimony is all and only what _is added_ among men to a thing (such as cred-entialing) a thing which _only testifies_ to lying man. Such_ cred_ given by man, to man for endorsement_ by man_ is none of our concern. The man approved of Heaven is all, and only, the disciple's delight.

We marvel not at this:

How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?


----------



## bullethead

Ye babbles nonsenseth without a shreddith of factAmundo.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Not really, my post was more about a long “resume” full of credentials - I agree with Walt, it is interesting. But all I said was Jerry Clower once referred to someone as being educated beyond their intelligence ? Meaning you “can” have an educated idiot.
> 
> Robert Price may or may not fit that, I wouldn’t know, but it seems that you like what he says so my comment sparked you to questions.
> 
> Not sure what you were were trying to “assume” below, as if his resume automatically makes him credible, or is what he has to say????
> 
> So I too, wonder how other people mentioned (sort of) compare; are they more credible if they’re a believer or a non believer?


What Price said is accurate and backed up in here daily. Surely you can see that.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> It seems that what he said is the “let’s jump on board with him” key by non believers......because they like what he said. The question is will the non believers be willing to jump on board with someone that graduated with this guy that has an opposite opinion?
> 
> If not, it has nothing to do with the resume.


Since you proposed the question about the willingness of nonbelievers jumping on board with someone who graduated with Price but has an opposite opinion, I thought that possibly you could provide one classmate as an example. Then,  like I do with many authors, I could check their degrees/accomplishments and read some of their work, and decide whether or not that person makes enough sense and has enough facts for me to follow.

Like I said above, since you brought up another "what if" , I thought you had something to also back it up.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> What _cred_-entials will a man bring? He is either in the man of truth, or he is not...relying on cred-entials to justify his speaking and doing. But he will find if he concedes to a _thing_ to speak for him, to justify him, he likewise concedes to the being bounded by the limit _of things. _Eventually he will find _their constriction _in their _appointed_ restrictions to limit. Vanity and frustration.
> 
> Indeed, some _things_ may have a relative exceeding to others...but they remain..._things_. (Paul speaks of relative glories) Glories, at best, may point (lead) a man to the conviction of the being of Glory, not as a _thing relative,_ but in absolute. But its mere perception in mind as _having being _in the absolute is eventually shown him a vain thing till he is made ready to receive entrance.
> 
> (Chinese people may indeed testify convincingly in their person of "being from China" to the point a man believes such a place is. And the man may even believe he knows much of it by their telling, but eventually, he understands that _even in the sum of all their telling..._to _know China_, he must go)
> 
> We testify not of ourselves...but _the man_ of truth. We testify not of religion, nor even of _religious doctrines _as things_ if  (seemingly) apprehended _or consented to (by whatever vanity a man may think_ his consent adds anything_) but of Jesus Christ and Him, crucified. He speaks truth...but_ exceeds, _being the essential and absolute of it, Himself. He is resurrected...and _yet exceeds_, He is Himself _the resurrection and the life_. He speaks of Heaven...and_ yet more, _is the very One speaking while "in earth" _while_ fully in the occupying_ of there._ Unlike China that may be testified of by those at some remove, Jesus Christ is Himself the man in whom occupation of Heaven is _only found._ He is the Son of Man _who is in Heaven._
> 
> Of course _what believes_ its consenting to _"adds" _cannot receive our testimony. Their testimony is all and only what _is added_ among men to a thing (such as cred-entialing) a thing which _only testifies_ to lying man. Such_ cred_ given by man, to man for endorsement_ by man_ is none of our concern. The man approved of Heaven is all, and only, the disciple's delight.
> 
> We marvel not at this:
> 
> How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?




10,000 compiled words of you telling us that you have a _thing _that was given to you that we don't have that allows you to make sense of yourself.


----------



## Brother David

Ever wondered how many of those who spend countless hours disclaiming God the Father , Son and Holy Spirit , really believe deep down . I am not referring to the persona they portray , I am talking deep down in their hearts . I believe they want someone so badly to give them that SUPER WOW moment so all the doubt can be erased and they can start their daily walk . I have tried and failed so I defer to the Hope Apostle Peter . 

1 Peter 1

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,   
2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.   
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,   
4 unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,   
5 who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.   
6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, ye have been put to grief in manifold trials,   
7 that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold that perisheth though it is proved by fire, may be found unto praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ:   
8 whom not having seen ye love; on whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice greatly with joy unspeakable and full of glory:   
9 receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.   
10 Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:   
11 searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them.   
12 To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angel desire to look into.


----------



## bullethead

O 





Brother David said:


> Ever wondered how many of those who spend countless hours disclaiming God the Father , Son and Holy Spirit , really believe deep down . I am not referring to the persona they portray , I am talking deep down in their hearts . I believe they want someone so badly to give them that SUPER WOW moment so all the doubt can be erased and they can start their daily walk . I have tried and failed so I defer to the Hope Apostle Peter .
> 
> 1 Peter 1
> 
> 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
> 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.
> 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
> 4 unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
> 5 who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
> 6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, ye have been put to grief in manifold trials,
> 7 that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold that perisheth though it is proved by fire, may be found unto praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ:
> 8 whom not having seen ye love; on whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice greatly with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
> 9 receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
> 10 Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
> 11 searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them.
> 12 To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angel desire to look into.


Would guess the number is very close to the same number of people who spend countless hours proclaiming Jesus and God but deep down know they are probably wrong but do it because they need to in order to cope with their mortality....despite the persona they display.

Pete was treat.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> O
> Would guess the number is very close to the same number of people who spend countless hours proclaiming Jesus and God but deep down know they are probably wrong but do it because they need to in order to cope with their mortality....despite the persona they display.
> 
> Pete was treat.


I think you swung and missed on that one . I seriously doubt anyone in a true love relationship with God doubts . If they do doubt their not in a love relationship on an superficial one .


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Ever wondered how many of those who spend countless hours disclaiming God the Father , Son and Holy Spirit , really believe deep down . I am not referring to the persona they portray , I am talking deep down in their hearts . I believe they want someone so badly to give them that SUPER WOW moment so all the doubt can be erased and they can start their daily walk . I have tried and failed so I defer to the Hope Apostle Peter .
> 
> 1 Peter 1
> 
> 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
> 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.
> 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
> 4 unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
> 5 who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
> 6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, ye have been put to grief in manifold trials,
> 7 that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold that perisheth though it is proved by fire, may be found unto praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ:
> 8 whom not having seen ye love; on whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice greatly with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
> 9 receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
> 10 Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
> 11 searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them.
> 12 To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angel desire to look into.


You are assuming that if all doubt was erased, a non-believer would start a daily walk.
Christianity has given God a number of personal traits that I don't find worthy of worship. Acknowledge his existence? Sure. Worship and walk with him?
Probably not.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I think you swung and missed on that one . I seriously doubt anyone in a true love relationship with God doubts . If they do doubt their not in a love relationship on an superficial one .


Yes Dave, how absent minded of me to doubt the true intentions of anyone pro god. Only the non believers are faking it.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> You are assuming that if all doubt was erased, a non-believer would start a daily walk.
> Christianity has given God a number of personal traits that I don't find worthy of worship. Acknowledge his existence? Sure. Worship and walk with him?
> Probably not.


No no Walt, Dave knows better. His wonderings are more accurate.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Since you proposed the question about the willingness of nonbelievers jumping on board with someone who graduated with Price but has an opposite opinion, I thought that possibly you could provide one classmate as an example. Then,  like I do with many authors, I could check their degrees/accomplishments and read some of their work, and decide whether or not that person makes enough sense and has enough facts for me to follow.
> 
> Like I said above, since you brought up another "what if" , I thought you had something to also back it up.


Not exactly, I just said Jerry Clower once.....

The other was just in response to your questions.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Not exactly, I just said Jerry Clower once.....
> 
> The other was just in response to your questions.


What a coincidence that you just happened to bring up the Jerry Clower quote. My bad. I thought that you were implying something towards Price. Apologies. I totally was way off.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Not exactly, I just said Jerry Clower once.....
> 
> The other was just in response to your questions.


Just a side note -
Jerry was a great comedian/story teller. He definitely could make me laugh. They don't do comedy like that any more.


----------



## AceyFlyer

“I seriously doubt anyone in a true love relationship with God doubts.”
Do you not love God?


----------



## Brother David

AceyFlyer said:


> “I seriously doubt anyone in a true love relationship with God doubts.”
> Do you not love God?


My apologies for my Southern use of the English language . I shouldn't have started the sentence with I seriously doubt . 

Walt , BH , why do you men always take that my post are directed towards you . The post was anyone who is seeking !


----------



## 660griz

Spotlite said:


> I want to know if you’re 100% sure there isn’t a God???


Yes I am.
Are you 100% sure there is only one?


----------



## 660griz

Artfuldodger said:


> Did Jesus die for out inability to keep those religious requirements? Paul says he did but Jesus was still teaching them.


 Obviously, Jesus died because he father could not save him. His father, like most fathers, was not perfect. Had to kill most everyone on earth one time. Known as the big "do over". Then, he let's his only son be tortured and crucified when he could have nodded the sins away. Glad he wasn't my father.


> And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> My apologies for my Southern use of the English language . I shouldn't have started the sentence with I seriously doubt .
> 
> Walt , BH , why do you men always take that my post are directed towards you . The post was anyone who is seeking !


My response was -


> You are assuming that if all doubt was erased, a non-believer would start a daily walk.


"a non-believer" is a whole group of people. That shows I didnt take it as me personally.
The next sentence tells you what I, as a member of the non-believer group, personally thinks about it.
Its how you are reading it, not how we are saying it that is the problem in this case.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> My apologies for my Southern use of the English language . I shouldn't have started the sentence with I seriously doubt .
> 
> Walt , BH , why do you men always take that my post are directed towards you . The post was anyone who is seeking !


You started your post as "Ever wondered........" since about 10 or 12 regulars post in here I figured you were addressing everyone in here. 
If you want specific answers from Specific people, be SPECIFIC and PM them. If you post on an open thread in order to get responses where over a thousand responses have been made already you are going to get responses that you didn't prepare for. Don't blame the messengers. You mentioned non-believers. You got non believer replies.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> 10,000 compiled words of you telling us that you have a _thing _that was given to you that we don't have that allows you to make sense of yourself.



I don't know what you, or any, "don't have". As to 10,000 compiled words, without counting I'm fairly sure that particular post falls far short. With counting I have no doubt posts with my tag would far exceed that.

Your point?

These conversations you post by men, between men (many easily exceeding an hour in length) not unusually with some sort of recommendation as to interest, some salience found by you (in recommendation) tells me you are not deterred (unless you yourself are recommending what you have not even heard) by _some measure_ of time devoted to their hearing. And, they are in every way...optional. Therefore it would be foolhardy for me if seeking to find any place of accusation. But also I must ask...where is yours?

Now you_ may say_ "I don't accuse you (Israel) of anything, I am just speaking the truth."
Yes!

But am I speaking less in saying "Who I may be, what I may post, what I may say, or do...is also no less...entirely optional?" I am at complete disposal _in option_.

Don't think I in any way can find fault with option you present. To accuse you leaves me perfectly bound in accusation, no less. And besides, I would also be  found liar, for I have very much enjoyed your introduction to JBP. (Never heard of him before your recommendation.)

(An aside)

And now it seems (to me at least) I see an interesting thing "all a happenin' " about him (post your introduction to me; of him, even that "little" time ago)...he is more being maneuvered to have to try and account for what has become a great(er) (and quite profitable) following, a "voice" now with influences far beyond his classroom and an odd You Tube post, or Rogan interview. Best sellers, paid subscriptions, quite elevated platforms from which to now speak. "Numbers"...on his side...now. (Remember...you knew him...when!) In one sense he has (as it would appear by _a popularity_) ascended to being "less optional". Why...he's now...in demand! Almost like Coke.

And with it comes the more and more demand from _other voices_ for him to have to defend "_his popularity_". It's so funny _right?_ What an interesting issue (problem?) to have...to seek to _now _resolve that in sight of, and by demand of, others. "Jordan...why do you think you have become so popular?" Oy.

Did he imagine he would ever have it? Have to do it?  Was that the _whole and sole purpose_ of his ever speaking? To have the (LOL...painful) problem(?) of being, as some voices would seem to assume...so popular...and to some, too popular? Did he...see this coming? He ain't being pod cast...he's being broad cast! He's now having to spend at least as much time addressing "his reason" for becoming a darling (as some would say) of the alt right as anything else he might hope to say.

(Not an aside)
I see enough of this to know it holds no interest _now_. I don't buy his books (nor ever have), nor pay as subscriber to hear him, (and never have), nor spend much time in listening for him or to him...(and not that I ever did  "much time")...I can't deny a gleaning.
Not because I dislike his "now" or what he is now...(God knows he has more than a plateful to_ now consider_) but the "popular" JBP does not for me exceed the once "lesser" JBP.

And until such time as he is referred to me again (as well he may be for "the hearing") I continue in some like mindedness to a thing I heard in him (and believe I did indeed hear) even if not that I am able to recall it as explicitly and _succinctly said. _

Nevertheless what I believe I heard "of him" in some ways expressed _by him _as best I could hear was this:

What would...(or attempt) to _control the language_, the words, the speaking, is all in service to controlling the thoughts and _mind. _What can (or is allowed) to control _by limit_ of language, and is _conceded to_...limits mind and idea.

It's sorta funny now, how his once apprehension in expression, is something he must now wend his way through in _practicality_. In what I see as far greater _in experience _than just concept. Things now being said "about him" to the (hopeful?) increase of a perception of him, an idea of who "he is" (iconoclast? spiteful homophobe? misogynist? right wing loon?)...will leave him either trying to _correct such notion_ by_ his imposing_ of "true" meaning to his words in opposition to what he may hear "being said"...that work to the forming _in idea _and apprehension what conforms to his approval of "how he is seen".
Yeah, he's got _his work_ cut out for him.

Every word he speaks is either going to be attributed to either "self defense", self aggrandizement, self promotion or self maintenance. (To all that are now gathering like hyenas around his feet looking for a shred of something now lifted up _in popularity_, that once they never even noticed.) (Remember, you knew him when!) Yeah, I think he will go through, is going through...a test.

Do _you wonder_ if _he wonders_ how many clamor both _to him_...and clamor now to oppose him...solely now on the basis of a "now" popularity? (get him as guest so I can skewer him! get him as guest so I can give him a larger platform!)

How many...might (to himself) not _see him,_ at all? Do _you wonder_ if this causes him to now consider _in himself_ and _of himself_..."who am I, what am I, what was I...what did I represent, what am I representing?" Something happened...in his speaking, his expression of self...and it is happening...to him. And _in him. _(Unless, of course, one can believe he is _entirely inured_ to opinion of men...both "good" and "bad")

Gee, just like you and I. Stuff "happens" in exchange.

What will happen_ to you_ when I agree "a man is just trying to make sense of himself"?

And what will happen _in you_ if such a man might say "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all"?

That the sense a man might have "of himself"...means _nothing at all_?

But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental _things_, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?

What a help you are...in every moment when I am tempted to tell God he doesn't know you as I do. And something should be done "about you". To help..._you._

Do you like laughter? I do.


----------



## bullethead

???


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> You started your post as "Ever wondered........" since about 10 or 12 regulars post in here I figured you were addressing everyone in here.
> If you want specific answers from Specific people, be SPECIFIC and PM them. If you post on an open thread in order to get responses where over a thousand responses have been made already you are going to get responses that you didn't prepare for. Don't blame the messengers. You mentioned non-believers. You got non believer replies.


My deceased Father used to always say , the bit dog hollered the loudest . So maybe I under estimated the effects of the post .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> My deceased Father used to always say , the bit dog hollered the loudest . So maybe I under estimated the effects of the post .


What is your purpose in here?
Do you not yet know your audience?
You post in here to spew your sermon and then act surprised that you get the answers that you do all the while playing innocent.
My reply to your father would have been to not let the dogs together unless you are looking for one to get bit.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> My deceased Father used to always say , the bit dog hollered the loudest . So maybe I under estimated the effects of the post .


You asked 2 people a question -


> Walt , BH , why do you men always take that my post are directed towards you . The post was anyone who is seeking !


Those 2 people responded.
Somehow you see that as bit dogs hollering.
WOW.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> You asked 2 people a question -
> 
> Those 2 people responded.
> Somehow you see that as bit dogs hollering.
> WOW.


It's an act Walt.
All day he thinks of something to say, can't wait to post it, does not get the response he thought he would get, and then plays the victim blaming those who responded to his questions. The best is he acts perplexed why the people he purposely mentioned by name answers him.


----------



## Spotlite

660griz said:


> Yes I am.
> Are you 100% sure there is only one?


I’m 100% sure there’s only one true one.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Just a side note -
> Jerry was a great comedian/story teller. He definitely could make me laugh. They don't do comedy like that any more.


I dont believe there’ll ever be anyone  else to compare to his stories. I still love them!!


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> What a coincidence that you just happened to bring up the Jerry Clower quote. My bad. I thought that you were implying something towards Price. Apologies. I totally was way off.


Lol no I was just quoting Jerry Clower to imply in general that a stack of certificates may or may not mean anything. Not specifically that Price”s didn’t.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> You are assuming that if all doubt was erased, a non-believer would start a daily walk.
> Christianity has given God a number of personal traits that I don't find worthy of worship. Acknowledge his existence? Sure. Worship and walk with him?
> Probably not.


Unfortunately, Christianity / Religion has given a lot traits that shouldn’t be there. Sometimes I shake my head.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Just a side note -
> Jerry was a great comedian/story teller. He definitely could make me laugh. They don't do comedy like that any more.


Lots of good one's, but my all time favorite is "Marcel and His Talking Chainsaw"; I laugh every time the table goes "WHOP".


----------



## AceyFlyer

Brother David I admire your zeal and steadfastness.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Lots of good one's, but my all time favorite is "Marcel and His Talking Chainsaw"; I laugh every time the table goes "WHOP".


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> You are assuming that if all doubt was erased, a non-believer would start a daily walk.
> Christianity has given God a number of personal traits that I don't find worthy of worship. Acknowledge his existence? Sure. Worship and walk with him?
> Probably not.



You mean to say that if all doubt was removed, you still wouldn't worship God because you don't agree with some of he traits?
Someone with that power and you wouldn't worship Him out of fear?

That it would take a God that you picture as having more fair traits to worship? I guess it's possible to believe in a God from evidence and still not worship him.

Even to the point of know he isn't going to grant you eternal life. That maybe you'll take the option of everlasting death.

What if when all doubt was removed, you learned that He11 was an everlasting punishment? Even I don't believe it is.

I'm not sure that if that revelation was made to me if I could worship God either. That not everyone is going to Heaven, I don't have a problem with that.

"Who is to say, why does God still blame me then?"


----------



## Artfuldodger

660griz said:


> Obviously, Jesus died because he father could not save him. His father, like most fathers, was not perfect. Had to kill most everyone on earth one time. Known as the big "do over". Then, he let's his only son be tortured and crucified when he could have nodded the sins away. Glad he wasn't my father.


Could God change the plan that he had already foresaw? There is no "do over'" for an omniscient God. I can't say that I totally understand His plan but it included a blood sacrifice. Not that I understand that either.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If God wants to call individuals he predestined to live with him in Heaven, and I'm not one of them, I'd still worship Him.

Who am I to question my Maker? I'll just die when I die. Who am I to question God?  I don't have a problem with God not choosing me before time.
Now if he tells me I must spend an eternity in He!!? To burn forever, then no, I would not worship him if not given a choice.

If he sends the whole world to eternal death except his Elect, no problem. I can see and understand that. He calls His own.

If he sends  the world to a burning fire because I didn't call them, then I see a problem.

I do believe that God can have mercy on whom he has mercy. But to blame man because we didn't make it to their village or island, no.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> You mean to say that if all doubt was removed, you still wouldn't worship God because you don't agree with some of he traits?
> Someone with that power and you wouldn't worship Him out of fear?
> 
> That it would take a God that you picture as having more fair traits to worship? I guess it's possible to believe in a God from evidence and still not worship him.
> 
> Even to the point of know he isn't going to grant you eternal life. That maybe you'll take the option of everlasting death.
> 
> What if when all doubt was removed, you learned that He11 was an everlasting punishment? Even I don't believe it is.
> 
> I'm not sure that if that revelation was made to me if I could worship God either. That not everyone is going to Heaven, I don't have a problem with that.
> 
> "Who is to say, why does God still blame me then?"


My opinion -
Fearing is not worshipping.
So I would assume he would know I feared him not worshipped him.
If he was ok with that then he's basically just a bully. Im not down with that.
As far as "if he had more fair traits"....
Its been mentioned a zillion times before but...…. The Flood for starters. I cant justify it the way a Christian can. I cant help but view it as a couple folks away from genocide because those folks wouldn't act right. Kids, newborns, women, pregnant women...….. floating.... bloating....
Not sure how "fair" God would have to be to make up for that in my eyes.
He11.... if it exists, and depending on which one of the various understandings of it might be true might be a quick pfffffttttt or eternal torment or nothingness or …...
Either way, if I pretend to worship just to avoid that I would have to assume God would know so.........
When you used to be a believer and walk away from it, you've already asked yourself all these type questions and are aware of the possible consequences.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> My opinion -
> Fearing is not worshipping.
> So I would assume he would know I feared him not worshipped him.
> If he was ok with that then he's basically just a bully. Im not down with that.
> As far as "if he had more fair traits"....
> Its been mentioned a zillion times before but...…. The Flood for starters. I cant justify it the way a Christian can. I cant help but view it as a couple folks away from genocide because those folks wouldn't act right. Kids, newborns, women, pregnant women...….. floating.... bloating....
> Not sure how "fair" God would have to be to make up for that in my eyes.
> He11.... if it exists, and depending on which one of the various understandings of it might be true might be a quick pfffffttttt or eternal torment or nothingness or …...
> Either way, if I pretend to worship just to avoid that I would have to assume God would know so.........
> When you used to be a believer and walk away from it, you've already asked yourself all these type questions and are aware of the possible consequences.



Now that you mention it, God could see right through someone worshiping him out of fear and not love. I guess that would not go over too well with God, even if you suddenly believed he was 
God.


----------



## AceyFlyer

“When you used to be a believer and walk away from it, you've already asked yourself all these type questions and are aware of the possible consequences.”
Does being aware of the consequences haunt you deep in your soul or over time do you just grow comfortable with them?


----------



## Israel

Things that recede do not attest to their non-presence...but to a forgetfulness endemic.


----------



## bullethead

Aww Mannnn, and I just ripped off the last page of my 2018 word of the day calendar. Dang it


----------



## Artfuldodger

I just flossed my teeth for the last time in 2018! The Boar's Head Beef Stick was worth it though. 

Maybe soy-sage for 2019 breakfast?


----------



## bullethead

HNY men


----------



## WaltL1

AceyFlyer said:


> “When you used to be a believer and walk away from it, you've already asked yourself all these type questions and are aware of the possible consequences.”
> Does being aware of the consequences haunt you deep in your soul or over time do you just grow comfortable with them?


I can only speak for myself here -
Haunt me? No.
Pop into my head every once in a while? Yes.
On the flip side, pretending to still believe isn't fun either and walking away can be very "freeing".


----------



## Brother David

Happy New Year !
Reminder that Christ is the Alpha and the Omega , and that one day Christ is going to make everything NEW !


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Happy New Year !
> Reminder that Christ is the Alpha and the Omega , and that one day Christ is going to make everything NEW !


Hide and Seek Champ, 0ne Thousand NIne Hundred Eighty Six years and counting.


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> Hide and Seek Champ, 0ne Thousand NIne Hundred Eighty Six years and counting.


Why ? 
You think I sit around and try to figure out ways to post gotcha moments . When in truth I just try to be Geniune . I simply posted Happy New Year , and from my Beliefs that Christ makes all things new and instead of simply responding with a polite response from your point of view , this . Why must even good intentions be meet with a bash ?

To everyone except those who are offended.
Happy New year!
Reminder that Christ is the Alpha and the Omega and that one day Christ is going to make everything NEW !


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Why ?
> You think I sit around and try to figure out ways to post gotcha moments . When in truth I just try to be Geniune . I simply posted Happy New Year , and from my Beliefs that Christ makes all things new and instead of simply responding with a polite response from your point of view , this . Why must even good intentions be meet with a bash ?
> 
> To everyone except those who are offended.
> Happy New year!
> Reminder that Christ is the Alpha and the Omega and that one day Christ is going to make everything NEW !


2019 resolution. I'm done being nice.(lol)
2 posts above yours I gave a HNY to everyone without any added fluff or "Reminders"

I see you are still playing the antagonistic victim for 2019.
Reminder, I'll play along.

To everyone except those that conduct themselves in AAA type discussion:
Reminder, it is a big sandbox and lots of kids play in it. Be careful the sand might give you diaper rash.


----------



## Israel

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



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


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Hide and Seek Champ, 0ne Thousand NIne Hundred Eighty Six years and counting.




I remember the little fat kid that came to my bday late and mom hid the leftover cake until he left - he still thinks we had a cakeless party ?


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Happy New Year !
> Reminder that Christ is the Alpha and the Omega , and that one day Christ is going to make everything NEW !


Happy New Year!

This is my simple religion.  There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy.  Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.
Dalai Lama


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I remember the little fat kid that came to my bday late and mom hid the leftover cake until he left - he still thinks we had a cakeless party ?


----------



## Brother David

WaltL1 said:


> Happy New Year!
> 
> This is my simple religion.  There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy.  Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.
> Dalai Lama


Your correct Sir , Our bodies are a Temple .

P.S. when I get a chance to go , I am going to grab a couple of buck shad and get you out of that kayak   .


----------



## hobbs27

I believe if anyone truly believes the Bible then theres no way they can believe Jesus is coming back in the future.


----------



## NCHillbilly

WaltL1 said:


> My opinion -
> Fearing is not worshipping.
> So I would assume he would know I feared him not worshipped him.
> If he was ok with that then he's basically just a bully. Im not down with that.
> As far as "if he had more fair traits"....
> Its been mentioned a zillion times before but...…. The Flood for starters. I cant justify it the way a Christian can. I cant help but view it as a couple folks away from genocide because those folks wouldn't act right. Kids, newborns, women, pregnant women...….. floating.... bloating....
> Not sure how "fair" God would have to be to make up for that in my eyes.
> He11.... if it exists, and depending on which one of the various understandings of it might be true might be a quick pfffffttttt or eternal torment or nothingness or …...
> Either way, if I pretend to worship just to avoid that I would have to assume God would know so.........
> When you used to be a believer and walk away from it, you've already asked yourself all these type questions and are aware of the possible consequences.


Don't forget that all those folks floating and bloating were acting exactly how their creator designed them to act. Old Bible God is sadistic, petty, murderous, and jealous. Completely at odds with New Testament Hippy God 2.0. Yet, we're supposed to believe they are one and the same, with a holy haint thrown in for good measure?


----------



## Spotlite

hobbs27 said:


> I believe if anyone truly believes the Bible then theres no way they can believe Jesus is coming back in the future.


“Truly believes” is probably not the word you’re looking for. Many truly believe regardless if they’re correct or incorrect with their interpretation. 

Let’s say you’re right with your AD70 doctrine. - how do explain the “confusion” that many have with the difference between ascending and descending?


----------



## hobbs27

Spotlite said:


> “Truly believes” is probably not the word you’re looking for. Many truly believe regardless if they’re correct or incorrect with their interpretation.
> 
> Let’s say you’re right with your AD70 doctrine. - how do explain the “confusion” that many have with the difference between ascending and descending?



Are you reading a redacted version? 

*Matthew 16:28 King James Version (KJV)*
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man co9ming in his kingdom.

To truly believe the book of Revelation on must understand that the things of that book must shortly come to pass, from the moment it was written.

*Revelation 1:1 King James Version (KJV)*
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Theres over 100 statements in scripture that places Christs coming in the first century, not a single one that puts it past the first century. The problem? Self redaction of the time statements because of tradition.


----------



## Brother David

I heard Elvis wasn't dead , any truth to this rumor ?


----------



## Spotlite

hobbs27 said:


> Are you reading a redacted version?
> 
> *Matthew 16:28 King James Version (KJV)*
> 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man co9ming in his kingdom.
> 
> To truly believe the book of Revelation on must understand that the things of that book must shortly come to pass, from the moment it was written.
> 
> *Revelation 1:1 King James Version (KJV)*
> 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
> 
> Theres over 100 statements in scripture that places Christs coming in the first century, not a single one that puts it past the first century. The problem? Self redaction of the time statements because of tradition.


Nothing from the Old Testament prophecies?


----------



## Spotlite

Brother David said:


> I heard Elvis wasn't dead , any truth to this rumor ?



Absolutely. I just heard him sing Blue Christmas on the radio last week.


----------



## hobbs27

Spotlite said:


> Nothing from the Old Testament prophecies?



Daniel 12:7


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Daniel 12:7


What is the shattering of the "power" of the holy people has finally come to an end?
Who are the holy people and what is their power that was shattered?


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> What is the shattering of the "power" of the holy people has finally come to an end?
> Who are the holy people and what is their power that was shattered?



The Holy People were the Jews, their power was the priesthood and Temple system. The shattering of that was the events that were for a time. times and a half. Or 42 months from AD66- AD 70


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Daniel 12:7


How does Michael tie in to the war in the sky/heaven over Jerusalem as the physical war raged below between Israel and Rome?
Was Jesus in the heavenly battle or was Michael actually Jesus?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> The Holy People were the Jews, their power was the priesthood and Temple system. The shattering of that was the events that were for a time. times and a half. Or 42 months from AD66- AD 70


What was God's purpose in shattering the power of holy people?


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> What was God's purpose in shattering the power of holy people?


Luke 21 calls it the day of vengeance.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Daniel told God that he didn't understand. God said; “Go on your way, Daniel,” he replied, “for the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end.

Where are those words revealed now that the time of the end has happened? Wasn't Revelation "before" the end?

Revelation 22:10
Then he instructed me, "Do not seal up the prophetic words in this book, for the time is near.

The same event, both future to Daniel and John. Who wrote of it "after the time of the end?" Daniel sealed the story until the end. John opened the story but it wasn't the end. It may have been close, but not the actual end.

I guess it was close enough to the end that John opened it back up. It just seems like there needs to be "another" book. A book written "after" the end.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Luke 21 calls it the day of vengeance.



What it the correlation with God shattering the holy people(Israel) on the ground and Michael's battle with Satan in the air and where was Jesus?

I guess it was like a physical vengeance and reconciliation/restoration on the ground and a spiritual one in the air. Both happening simultaneously, perhaps one a mirror of the other.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If John is predicting the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, then why not a book telling us about it "after" the fall if that is what Revelation is all about?

It may be but if it is, it appears to be an unfinished story. Why didn't God have John write another book about it "after" the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Something like: OK folks, I told you this was gonna happen soon in Revelation. God told me to open the book of the story and to leave it open.
Now that it has come to pass, the book is still open. Let me finish. Let me give a summary of what all just happened. Let me tell you from God, what it all means for you from this moment forward. Now that the reconciliation is finished.
The reconciliation is finished, Jesus has handed the kingdom over to his Father,  but the book is still open. You are still here. Generations, eternal, must come and go physically and spiritually.
Let me tell you that in my next book. So that 500 years from now people want be wondering, they can just read my next book.

Maybe there is a book and the Nicene Council guys left it out. Maybe for some political reason they were Futurists. I'm sure the early Church were Preterist. Then for some reason by Canon time, they became Futurist.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> If John is predicting the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, then why not a book telling us about it "after" the fall if that is what Revelation is all about?
> 
> It may be but if it is, it appears to be an unfinished story. Why didn't God have John write another book about it "after" the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.
> 
> Something like: OK folks, I told you this was gonna happen soon in Revelation. God told me to open the book of the story and to leave it open.
> Now that it has come to pass, the book is still open. Let me finish. Let me give a summary of what all just happened. Let me tell you from God, what it all means for you from this moment forward. Now that the reconciliation is finished.
> The reconciliation is finished, Jesus has handed the kingdom over to his Father,  but the book is still open. You are still here. Generations, eternal, must come and go physically and spiritually.
> Let me tell you that in my next book.



So you can deal with Matthew 24 being about the prediction of the temple destruction and no new book saying, see I told you?

How am I to know why nothing else was written, other than Luke 21 said it was a time in which all that is written would be fulfilled?

Revelation is John's olivet Discourse....and if Jesus was planning on returning after the first century why did He lie so much about it? Why didnt He ever say, the end is far off?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> So you can deal with Matthew 24 being about the prediction of the temple destruction and no new book saying, see I told you?
> 
> How am I to know why nothing else was written, other than Luke 21 said it was a time in which all that is written would be fulfilled?
> 
> Revelation is John's olivet Discourse....and if Jesus was planning on returning after the first century why did He lie so much about it? Why didnt He ever say, the end is far off?



I'm not saying you got it wrong. I can see where you are coming from. It's very convincing. Was the early Church, Preterist? If so, how did it get perceived to be a future event? How did all of those Trinitarians and He!! believers get so much wrong?

Would you agree that there should be another book? Just one more past Revelation written in 71AD describing what just happened and how the finishing reconciliation just restored spiritual Jerusalem? No more prediction as in Revelation of what was "about" to come. A book describing what did just come?

John reopened the book God had Daniel close. God told Daniel not to worry about not understanding. He told John to leave the book open because the time is near. Did God tell John to close the book?

Where is the rest of the book? John wrote when the time was near. Somebody must have finished the book John left open. Nobody writes a book and leaves it unfinished just before the ending.

Maybe the Futurist Romans burned it.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Fearing is not worshipping.
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, if I pretend to worship just to avoid that I would have to assume God would know so.........



Pretense. Is that a big deal? Does it have anything to do with being _found false? _That in the eyes of the finder of pretense it would_ be displeasing_? It appears you are concerned with true-ness...and specifically true-ness of worship as you describe it. (At the very least as "what it ain't") _Is pretense_ an affront to truth?

You assert "Fearing is not worshipping".

I can only assume then that in some way, after whatever fashion, you have a notion as to how true worship appears in ability to distinguish it from the "what it is not". You may or may not have a fullness of definition...(I am not here seeking to imply "I know")...but that, to you...you have enough perception to know for yourself "what it ain't".

No less some perception of God as knower of pretense when He sees it. A god that can be fooled by man...is no God, at all.

Though you are not created for my approval so that I cannot add to you, nor diminish you, if you are saying (are you saying?) true worship would (or must) come from a place "in the man" where fear for himself is not tainting it...(nor any form of pretense for that matter)...to me you sound like a man who has been hearing from Jesus Christ.

If I have come off, seemed to be presenting myself in such a light as one imbued with an excess of goodness so that I have "enough to spare" to give to Jesus Christ, as though I do _Him the favor_ (in my goodness) of believing in Him...(and I am not sure I haven't)...let me be as clear as words I can find will allow.

I am like a man being choked out discovering very real-ly (clawing at my throat, frantic in need, heaving almost convulsively, no doubt appearing blue in the face) my _need of air_. I don't "choose to" flop about, don't choose to flail, don't choose to even decide "I suppose I'll do such and such _because_ it might get me some air...". Oh, it's way past choice and choosing in regard to "how I may feel about air" (For it? Against it?) Way past any thoughts about its (oxygen's) molecular structure or composition. Knowing "about" air is totally useless here. That's my relationship...to Jesus Christ. And I have the peculiar sense...that as much as I may be able to think, or find words for my need...even that to the extreme...falls short.

If pretense _is a troubling thing_...a contaminating thing, a ubiquitous...thing, (is it?) ...for if pretense is indeed all and only that a man may see and know (unless he exempts himself thinking "it's in everyone except me...that's why I can see it..") for if that be so...pretense is all...where could _any thought_ of purity come from...that then appears to make pretense so troubling?

Wouldn't it be like saying "I am troubled that men have 5 fingers per hand?"

Unless a "better" is somehow perceived that puts "to shame" the lesser as lesser, there can be no perceived "lesser"...only what is.

I would ask you this, not because it is a question "for you" from me, but precisely because this has come to me, provoked by what you have provoked to me. In me.

Am I? (are you) truly troubled by pretense? Or is it all askew?

It is the notion of purity that is _the truly_ troubling thing?

What are we set to in this troubling?...the tearing down of pretense (lies)...or the getting rid of purity...that we may find the source of all the "troubling"? Either way...man reacts in hope to reduce his troubling.

We don't accuse rocks of lying. Men ask..."where then is the universality that of necessity must accompany the knowledge of God?"

Flailing persists, do we perish from immersion in pretense...or from dire need of purity to be seen?

God knows.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I heard Elvis wasn't dead , any truth to this rumor ?


According to Agent K, Elvis isn't dead, he just went home.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not saying you got it wrong. I can see where you are coming from. It's very convincing. Was the early Church, Preterist? If so, how did it get perceived to be a future event? How did all of those Trinitarians and He!! believers get so much wrong?
> 
> Would you agree that there should be another book? Just one more past Revelation written in 71AD describing what just happened and how the finishing reconciliation just restored spiritual Jerusalem? No more prediction as in Revelation of what was "about" to come. A book describing what did just come?
> 
> John reopened the book God had Daniel close. God told Daniel not to worry about not understanding. He told John to leave the book open because the time is near. Did God tell John to close the book?
> 
> Where is the rest of the book? John wrote when the time was near. Somebody must have finished the book John left open. Nobody writes a book and leaves it unfinished just before the ending.
> 
> Maybe the Futurist Romans burned it.



I dont know why man has made such a mess with Christianity,  but there was a lot of errors made in the early church. I once thought they must have been closer to the truth and over time men started making up new doctrines, but after studying the writings of many of those church fathers it's clear they were at odds with one another. Now I believe we are actually getting closer to the truth with scriptures and beginning to correct alot of their original errors.It must have been hard for Constatine to create a new religion for the Roman empire in the fourth century, because man doesnt give up on tradition very easily.  The merging of Christianity with Paganism brought in many false doctrines such as the eternal torments doctrine that's still very strong in mainstream religion today.
I try not to focus too much on mans doctrines, and just focus on the word.

As for more writings of scripture. If the entire book is about man falling away from God and Jesus redeeming man, and Jesus work is complete as the bible suggests, then what else is there to say? It seems the new covenant is fully established and the covenant is producing children of God in an everlasting age ( Ephesians 3:21).


----------



## Spotlite

hobbs27 said:


> Daniel 12:7



Jesus told his disciples that if he goes......he will return.

Obviously there’s prophecy in the old and promises in the new that leave an expectation of two separate events; one leaving, one returning.

Let me be more specific in what I’m asking; 

When did both take place?


----------



## hobbs27

Spotlite said:


> Jesus told his disciples that if he goes......he will return.
> 
> Obviously there’s prophecy in the old and promises in the new that leave an expectation of two separate events; one leaving, one returning.
> 
> Let me be more specific in what I’m asking;
> 
> When did both take place?



Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

All things written were fulfilled when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies and the days of vengeance come to its conclusion. AD 70

His leaving was at His ascension, or could be at the cross.


----------



## Spotlite

hobbs27 said:


> Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
> 
> All things written were fulfilled when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies and the days of vengeance come to its conclusion. AD 70
> 
> His leaving was at His ascension, or could be at the cross.


So if his leaving was at the ascension, how is his return the same event? I could somewhat relate with the cross as his leaving but it really doesn’t fit the concept of going away to prepare a place?

If I understand what you previously said about that day (in another thread) or what preterist believe, when they (witnesses there) saw Jesus taken away in the clouds, that was it, the return? 

Or, am I misunderstanding the doctrine?


----------



## hobbs27

Spotlite said:


> So if his leaving was at the ascension, how is his return the same event? I could somewhat relate with the cross as his leaving but it really doesn’t fit the concept of going away to prepare a place?
> 
> If I understand what you previously said about that day (in another thread) or what preterist believe, when they (witnesses there) saw Jesus taken away in the clouds, that was it, the return?
> 
> Or, am I misunderstanding the doctrine?



 His ascension was definitely not His return. His return would have been when He came on the clouds in the power and glory of the Father. Many strict literalist thinks this means a physical Jewish man physically riding on clouds, but a little study in old testament apocalyptic language proves that the term coming on the clouds or riding on a cloud simply means a day of judgement,  when no one actually saw God, but they saw His wrath..IE, they saw Him on a cloud.


----------



## Spotlite

hobbs27 said:


> His ascension was definitely not His return. His return would have been when He came on the clouds in the power and glory of the Father. Many strict literalist thinks this means a physical Jewish man physically riding on clouds, but a little study in old testament apocalyptic language proves that the term coming on the clouds or riding on a cloud simply means a day of judgement,  when no one actually saw God, but they saw His wrath..IE, they saw Him on a cloud.


I guess that’s where I’m confused. I’m still thinking that what you once described as his return is what I’m thinking was his ascension. 

For your doctrine, can you point me to the two events; the ascension and the return? I’m not doubting you, I’m just not clear.


----------



## hobbs27

Spotlite said:


> I guess that’s where I’m confused. I’m still thinking that what you once described as his return is what I’m thinking was his ascension.
> 
> For your doctrine, can you point me to the two events; the ascension and the return? I’m not doubting you, I’m just not clear.



Luke 24:51= ascension 
Luke 21 ,Matthew24-25, Mark13, 1Corinthians 15, 1Thessalonians 4, Revelation= return


----------



## hobbs27

Btw, it's not exactly a new doctrine, it's just one that hasnt yet been fully accepted into the mainstream of Christianity. 

Eusebius of Caesarea
*Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine*
*(263 - 339)*​*"When, then, we see what was of old foretold for the nations fulfilled in our day, and when the lamentation and wailing that was predicted for the Jews, and the burning of the Temple and its utter desolation, can also be seen even now to have occurred according to the prediction, surely we must also agree that the King who was prophesied, the Christ of God, has come, since the signs of His coming have been shewn in each instance I have treated to have been clearly fulfilled.*​


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> According to Agent K, Elvis isn't dead, he just went home.


 I wonder if he got to keep his white jumpsuit and cape?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Two opposites I see about this. We've got some members on here that say those men of old in Nicea got everything right and nothing wrong. That they were just the next to follow the apostles. They see their finishing work at the councils as the gospel.

Now someone like you comes along that says it was all finished before they even convened, someone like me who says the Trinity is wrong, and then another who says salvation is universal really throws a wrench into their council decisions.

Not to even mention the protest schism about salvation by works being really, really wrong. How did they miss salvation by grace?

Eusebius was real close to coming after 70AD. He saw it as you do. Maybe there were more.
Isn't there a verse that says as time moves forward, we will gain knowledge?
Time never ending, just imagine how smart man will be in 5,000 years. By then the whole Nicene councils may be rebuffed.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Pretense. Is that a big deal? Does it have anything to do with being _found false? _That in the eyes of the finder of pretense it would_ be displeasing_? It appears you are concerned with true-ness...and specifically true-ness of worship as you describe it. (At the very least as "what it ain't") _Is pretense_ an affront to truth?
> 
> You assert "Fearing is not worshipping".
> 
> I can only assume then that in some way, after whatever fashion, you have a notion as to how true worship appears in ability to distinguish it from the "what it is not". You may or may not have a fullness of definition...(I am not here seeking to imply "I know")...but that, to you...you have enough perception to know for yourself "what it ain't".
> 
> No less some perception of God as knower of pretense when He sees it. A god that can be fooled by man...is no God, at all.
> 
> Though you are not created for my approval so that I cannot add to you, nor diminish you, if you are saying (are you saying?) true worship would (or must) come from a place "in the man" where fear for himself is not tainting it...(nor any form of pretense for that matter)...to me you sound like a man who has been hearing from Jesus Christ.
> 
> If I have come off, seemed to be presenting myself in such a light as one imbued with an excess of goodness so that I have "enough to spare" to give to Jesus Christ, as though I do _Him the favor_ (in my goodness) of believing in Him...(and I am not sure I haven't)...let me be as clear as words I can find will allow.
> 
> I am like a man being choked out discovering very real-ly (clawing at my throat, frantic in need, heaving almost convulsively, no doubt appearing blue in the face) my _need of air_. I don't "choose to" flop about, don't choose to flail, don't choose to even decide "I suppose I'll do such and such _because_ it might get me some air...". Oh, it's way past choice and choosing in regard to "how I may feel about air" (For it? Against it?) Way past any thoughts about its (oxygen's) molecular structure or composition. Knowing "about" air is totally useless here. That's my relationship...to Jesus Christ. And I have the peculiar sense...that as much as I may be able to think, or find words for my need...even that to the extreme...falls short.
> 
> If pretense _is a troubling thing_...a contaminating thing, a ubiquitous...thing, (is it?) ...for if pretense is indeed all and only that a man may see and know (unless he exempts himself thinking "it's in everyone except me...that's why I can see it..") for if that be so...pretense is all...where could _any thought_ of purity come from...that then appears to make pretense so troubling?
> 
> Wouldn't it be like saying "I am troubled that men have 5 fingers per hand?"
> 
> Unless a "better" is somehow perceived that puts "to shame" the lesser as lesser, there can be no perceived "lesser"...only what is.
> 
> I would ask you this, not because it is a question "for you" from me, but precisely because this has come to me, provoked by what you have provoked to me. In me.
> 
> Am I? (are you) truly troubled by pretense? Or is it all askew?
> 
> It is the notion of purity that is _the truly_ troubling thing?
> 
> What are we set to in this troubling?...the tearing down of pretense (lies)...or the getting rid of purity...that we may find the source of all the "troubling"? Either way...man reacts in hope to reduce his troubling.
> 
> We don't accuse rocks of lying. Men ask..."where then is the universality that of necessity must accompany the knowledge of God?"
> 
> Flailing persists, do we perish from immersion in pretense...or from dire need of purity to be seen?
> 
> God knows.




It's less like breathing and more like a "forgiveness junkie" in need of a "fix".  Not everybody has your "itch" or needs your "cure".  It's clear to me that some people were able to "kick the habit" and are just fine without it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Every so often in my religious journey towards the Light of the Truth, I find things to stumble over. I'm not sure if it's the real Stumbling Stone, or if it's from other spirits that I must test.

Preterism, Oneness, Universal salvation, physical resurrection vs spiritual resurrection, free will, and election.
It really is a lot to think about and compare. Then someone tells me the men at Nicea did this for me. Well thank you men but you did a terrible job. I think your politics and alliances got in the way.

Now on Preterism and a spiritual resurrection only, It's a terrible shame that many a good man died thinking that one day Jesus was going to come back and get him.
Now if he is sleeping in the ground is one thing. If he is already in Heaven via a Spiritual resurrection, he already realizes he has no need to return to the earth to be zapped back in his body.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder if he got to keep his white jumpsuit and cape?


It's ALL about the sequins!!!


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> It's ALL about the sequins!!!


I hope he has finally got to leave all of his demons behind and maybe even got to loose a little weight. He should with his new doctor.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> It's less like breathing and more like a "forgiveness junkie" in need of a "fix".  Not everybody has your "itch" or needs your "cure".  It's clear to me that some people were able to "kick the habit" and are just fine without it.


Oh yes, I am in constant need of fixing.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Concerning the "end." Strange that their is an "end" within eternity. Maybe it's the end for some but not all.
It sounds like it's to happen at something called the "Resurrection." That after the "Resurrection," the "end" happens.

Paul gives his Resurrection Discourse in 1 Corinthians 15;

1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

1 Corinthians 15:54
When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

Regardless of what that means, scripture will be fulfilled when"Death is swallowed up in victory." When death has been destroyed.
Maybe it has. Maybe we have already been clothed with the imperishable. Maybe the mortal have become immortal.

If we haven't then we'll either sleep in the ground until then or we'll all die when we die a physical death. How can one go to heaven when they die if they haven't gained immortality? If death hasn't been destroyed? If we are still perishable and mortal?

So if the resurrection hasn't happened yet, we must wait in the ground until death has been swallowed up in victory. I don't think you get to have it both ways. It has to be one or the other.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Oh yes, I am in constant need of fixing.



I liked the original version of your post better.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Pretense. Is that a big deal? Does it have anything to do with being _found false? _That in the eyes of the finder of pretense it would_ be displeasing_? It appears you are concerned with true-ness...and specifically true-ness of worship as you describe it. (At the very least as "what it ain't") _Is pretense_ an affront to truth?
> 
> You assert "Fearing is not worshipping".
> 
> I can only assume then that in some way, after whatever fashion, you have a notion as to how true worship appears in ability to distinguish it from the "what it is not". You may or may not have a fullness of definition...(I am not here seeking to imply "I know")...but that, to you...you have enough perception to know for yourself "what it ain't".
> 
> No less some perception of God as knower of pretense when He sees it. A god that can be fooled by man...is no God, at all.
> 
> Though you are not created for my approval so that I cannot add to you, nor diminish you, if you are saying (are you saying?) true worship would (or must) come from a place "in the man" where fear for himself is not tainting it...(nor any form of pretense for that matter)...to me you sound like a man who has been hearing from Jesus Christ.
> 
> If I have come off, seemed to be presenting myself in such a light as one imbued with an excess of goodness so that I have "enough to spare" to give to Jesus Christ, as though I do _Him the favor_ (in my goodness) of believing in Him...(and I am not sure I haven't)...let me be as clear as words I can find will allow.
> 
> I am like a man being choked out discovering very real-ly (clawing at my throat, frantic in need, heaving almost convulsively, no doubt appearing blue in the face) my _need of air_. I don't "choose to" flop about, don't choose to flail, don't choose to even decide "I suppose I'll do such and such _because_ it might get me some air...". Oh, it's way past choice and choosing in regard to "how I may feel about air" (For it? Against it?) Way past any thoughts about its (oxygen's) molecular structure or composition. Knowing "about" air is totally useless here. That's my relationship...to Jesus Christ. And I have the peculiar sense...that as much as I may be able to think, or find words for my need...even that to the extreme...falls short.
> 
> If pretense _is a troubling thing_...a contaminating thing, a ubiquitous...thing, (is it?) ...for if pretense is indeed all and only that a man may see and know (unless he exempts himself thinking "it's in everyone except me...that's why I can see it..") for if that be so...pretense is all...where could _any thought_ of purity come from...that then appears to make pretense so troubling?
> 
> Wouldn't it be like saying "I am troubled that men have 5 fingers per hand?"
> 
> Unless a "better" is somehow perceived that puts "to shame" the lesser as lesser, there can be no perceived "lesser"...only what is.
> 
> I would ask you this, not because it is a question "for you" from me, but precisely because this has come to me, provoked by what you have provoked to me. In me.
> 
> Am I? (are you) truly troubled by pretense? Or is it all askew?
> 
> It is the notion of purity that is _the truly_ troubling thing?
> 
> What are we set to in this troubling?...the tearing down of pretense (lies)...or the getting rid of purity...that we may find the source of all the "troubling"? Either way...man reacts in hope to reduce his troubling.
> 
> We don't accuse rocks of lying. Men ask..."where then is the universality that of necessity must accompany the knowledge of God?"
> 
> Flailing persists, do we perish from immersion in pretense...or from dire need of purity to be seen?
> 
> God knows.





> I can only assume then that in some way, after whatever fashion, you have a notion as to how true worship appears in ability to distinguish it from the "what it is not". You may or may not have a fullness of definition...(I am not here seeking to imply "I know")...but that, to you...you have enough perception to know for yourself "what it ain't".


I think... yes.
For me, worship can not be based on fear. For me, fear would /will turn into resentment which will turn into how do I get away from/eliminate/revolt against/plot the destruction of, that which I fear.
On the flip side, I could RESPECT the ability for God to crush me like an ant or eternally torture me but that's different than fear.
And I would be much more likely to respect that if its not being used to threaten me into submission.


> No less some perception of God as knower of pretense when He sees it. A god that can be fooled by man...is no God, at all.


Yes.
Specifically a God that is supposedly all seeing.


> true worship would (or must) come from a place "in the man" where fear for himself is not tainting it.


Yes I think that's pretty much it.


> ..to me you sound like a man who has been hearing from Jesus Christ.


Uh Oh.... I think I might have mistaken him for a bill collector and blocked his number......


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I think... yes.
> For me, worship can not be based on fear. For me, fear would /will turn into resentment which will turn into how do I get away from/eliminate/revolt against/plot the destruction of, that which I fear.
> On the flip side, I could RESPECT the ability for God to crush me like an ant or eternally torture me but that's different than fear.
> And I would be much more likely to respect that if its not being used to threaten me into submission.
> 
> Yes.
> Specifically a God that is supposedly all seeing.
> 
> Yes I think that's pretty much it.
> 
> Uh Oh.... I think I might have mistaken him for a bill collector and blocked his number......


I wonder if we really understand the use of “fear”? I’ve never viewed it as “scare”. I view it as respect in the way that you just described.

Sort of like with my wife. I do things with a “fear” that I don’t mess it up. But then again, I respect her enough to not want to mess up.


----------



## Brother David

Spotlite said:


> I wonder if we really understand the use of “fear”? I’ve never viewed it as “scare”. I view it as respect in the way that you just described.
> 
> Sort of like with my wife. I do things with a “fear” that I don’t mess it up. But then again, I respect her enough to not want to mess up.


Sorry guys , but the fear must be in respect of and of the d---nation that God can render . This is the reason Christianity is failing and every week we another expert Theologian who knows exactly what Peter was trying to imply 2000 years ago . People have no Fear of God and his judgement .

God is a jealous God who dealt with his family and others with love and chastisement in the Old and New Testament. The quotes about a Cruel God or a Unassuming God is Hogwash . God is Good and we don't understand all his way .
As soon as we stop trying to figure what God meant and get back to Worship ( and don't mean singing a song ) and Following the laws set down the better off we'll be .

One day the only the son of the living God Jesus Christ is returning to gather those who believe in the Holy Trinity . I believe the word of God at it's face value , not some water downed version so we can put meat in the seats . I pray you hear these words for every knee will bow and every tongue will confess .

I am fully aware of the attacks that will follow this post , but not just from the Athesist or Agnostic , at least these two groups can admire my cander even if they disagree . The wavering and pandering is for those who want a relationship on their terms not Gods .


----------



## hummerpoo

I think that anyone who looks will find, in a good dictionary or lexicon, at least one, but most often both words "awe" and "reverence" along with "terror" and/or "alarm".  Context, along with an attitude of putting together, and not taking apart, will give the correct interpretation.


----------



## hobbs27

Brother David said:


> Sorry guys , but the fear must be in respect of and of the d---nation that God can render . This is the reason Christianity is failing and every week we another expert Theologian who knows exactly what Peter was trying to imply 2000 years ago . People have no Fear of God and his judgement .
> 
> God is a jealous God who dealt with his family and others with love and chastisement in the Old and New Testament. The quotes about a Cruel God or a Unassuming God is Hogwash . God is Good and we don't understand all his way .
> As soon as we stop trying to figure what God meant and get back to Worship ( and don't mean singing a song ) and Following the laws set down the better off we'll be .
> 
> One day the only the son of the living God Jesus Christ is returning to gather those who believe in the Holy Trinity . I believe the word of God at it's face value , not some water downed version so we can put meat in the seats . I pray you hear these words for every knee will bow and every tongue will confess .
> 
> I am fully aware of the attacks that will follow this post , but not just from the Athesist or Agnostic , at least these two groups can admire my cander even if they disagree . The wavering and pandering is for those who want a relationship on their terms not Gods .



I'm not attacking you, but I've never read in the bible where it says Jesus is returning to gather those that believe in the Holy Trinity. Is that a false teaching, or can you show me that exact context? Thanks


----------



## Artfuldodger

Brother David said:


> Sorry guys , but the fear must be in respect of and of the d---nation that God can render . This is the reason Christianity is failing and every week we another expert Theologian who knows exactly what Peter was trying to imply 2000 years ago . People have no Fear of God and his judgement .
> 
> God is a jealous God who dealt with his family and others with love and chastisement in the Old and New Testament. The quotes about a Cruel God or a Unassuming God is Hogwash . God is Good and we don't understand all his way .
> As soon as we stop trying to figure what God meant and get back to Worship ( and don't mean singing a song ) and Following the laws set down the better off we'll be .
> 
> One day the only the son of the living God Jesus Christ is returning to gather those who believe in the Holy Trinity . I believe the word of God at it's face value , not some water downed version so we can put meat in the seats . I pray you hear these words for every knee will bow and every tongue will confess .
> 
> I am fully aware of the attacks that will follow this post , but not just from the Athesist or Agnostic , at least these two groups can admire my cander even if they disagree . The wavering and pandering is for those who want a relationship on their terms not Gods .



What if one believed Jesus died for his sins but believes Jesus didn't pre-exist. That the one God incarnate as the Son and thus believes in incarnational sonship instead of eternal sonship?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Brother David said:


> Sorry guys , but the fear must be in respect of and of the d---nation that God can render . This is the reason Christianity is failing and every week we another expert Theologian who knows exactly what Peter was trying to imply 2000 years ago . People have no Fear of God and his judgement .
> 
> God is a jealous God who dealt with his family and others with love and chastisement in the Old and New Testament. The quotes about a Cruel God or a Unassuming God is Hogwash . God is Good and we don't understand all his way .
> As soon as we stop trying to figure what God meant and get back to Worship ( and don't mean singing a song ) and Following the laws set down the better off we'll be .
> 
> One day the only the son of the living God Jesus Christ is returning to gather those who believe in the Holy Trinity . I believe the word of God at it's face value , not some water downed version so we can put meat in the seats . I pray you hear these words for every knee will bow and every tongue will confess .
> 
> I am fully aware of the attacks that will follow this post , but not just from the Athesist or Agnostic , at least these two groups can admire my cander even if they disagree . The wavering and pandering is for those who want a relationship on their terms not Gods .



Would you believe in God if you didn't have a fear of eternally burning in He11? Would an everlasting life with God be enough?

If fear of He11 is needed to keep the Christian numbers up,  it's not saying much for recruiting members?
Why wouldn't everlasting life be a good enough selling point?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Artfuldodger said:


> Would you believe in God if you didn't have a fear of eternally burning in He11? Would an everlasting life with God be enough?
> 
> If fear of He11 is needed to keep the Christian numbers up,  it's not saying much for recruiting members?
> Why wouldn't everlasting life be a good enough selling point?



Why can't love be enough? Why does there have to be a fear factor to sell it?


----------



## Brother David

hobbs27 said:


> I'm not attacking you, but I've never read in the bible where it says Jesus is returning to gather those that believe in the Holy Trinity. Is that a false teaching, or can you show me that exact context? Thanks


I am not here to teach theology , but try Thessalonians ( both ) and then Revelation, not the letter to the Churches .

If still confused Start Matthew 1 through Revelation 21 .

While you're at it try to figure out how you get your name in Revelation 20:15 . If I were you I would read Revelation 20 more than once and maybe even 19  .

Please read Acts 2 and 2Timothy 4 !

Also John 14

Try this


----------



## hobbs27

Brother David said:


> I am not here to teach theology , but try Thessalonians ( both ) and then Revelation, not the letter to the Churches .
> 
> If still confused Start Matthew 1 through Revelation 21 .
> 
> While you're at it try to figure out how you get your name in Revelation 20:15 . If I were you I would read Revelation 20 more than once and maybe even 19  .
> 
> Please read Acts 2 and 2Timothy 4 !
> 
> Also John 14
> 
> Try this
> View attachment 955003



Thanks, all you had to say is it's not in there and you made it up.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> I am not here to teach theology , but try Thessalonians ( both ) and then Revelation, not the letter to the Churches .
> 
> If still confused Start Matthew 1 through Revelation 21 .
> 
> While you're at it try to figure out how you get your name in Revelation 20:15 . If I were you I would read Revelation 20 more than once and maybe even 19  .
> 
> Please read Acts 2 and 2Timothy 4 !
> 
> Also John 14
> 
> Try this
> View attachment 955003


While you may not agree on interpretation, recommending that book to hobbs is kind of like recommending "Math for Dummies" to a mathematician


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> I think... yes.
> For me, worship can not be based on fear. For me, fear would /will turn into resentment which will turn into how do I get away from/eliminate/revolt against/plot the destruction of, that which I fear.
> On the flip side, I could RESPECT the ability for God to crush me like an ant or eternally torture me but that's different than fear.
> And I would be much more likely to respect that if its not being used to threaten me into submission.
> 
> Yes.
> Specifically a God that is supposedly all seeing.
> 
> Yes I think that's pretty much it.
> 
> Uh Oh.... I think I might have mistaken him for a bill collector and blocked his number......



If pretense is an affront, and just fear for one's own skin the motive, then what _of man _is left off the table of inspection?

You know what has been said about torture's ineffectiveness? Submit a man to enough and he'll say anything, do anything, come up with _any information_ to get it to stop. The tortured man will enter into whatever pretense (lies) in attempt of appease and relief.

The tormented man would find himself entering (and giving) any form (or every form) of _insincerity, _and the tormentors get all that is bogus, which is as far from their_ presumed intent as possible..._the_ so called _getting to the truth. (and the significance of their _presumption_ of seeking the truth is not to be lost on us). Nevertheless, some still hold torture as effective (if need be refer to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and water boarding)

The flip side of this, often recommended _instead...is "gain their trust". _But you can see where this "reversal" now leaves the interrogators entering into flattery and deceit...again, to that _presumed_ purpose of_ gaining the truth_.

The truth then becomes at best a slippery thing _in the circumstance..._if we are specifically talking about matters of (large T) Truth.

It becomes "a wash". But there is (small t) truth _signaled _no less_, in both. _Pressed enough and a man would give up all. Flattered enough, likewise. So easily moved by pleasure and by pain. When a man recognizes this about himself, yes, sincerity (and Truth) become an issue not of "concept" for mere abstract musing...but something he can no longer just assign there.

"I am manipulable"
I am man.
Man is manipulable.

I would say ask any back seat Romeo, but he remains more convinced everyone else is. He hasn't even learned yet, the truth of _himself. _He's a very clever guy. But not knowing the very cleverness in which he so delights is the very thing masking truth from his eyes.

The question becomes then how could estate, true estate of man ever be revealed to what delights in being manipulated and manipulating...loves and makes...lies. Lies to speak, and lies to receive. "He's a clever boy...smarter than most" with a pat on the head. "I'm a clever boy, smarter than most" now taught to pat his own head.

Yeah...sincerity and truth. Or Sincerity and Truth. One can begin to see how this would be paramount issue in any intercourse with who already knows ALL.

Unless of course...one serves what is dupe-able.

There's a thing about the Devil I once could never have imagined.
He really believes he's a nice guy. A reasonable...guy.
He'd have to have some light to even know himself as evil.
And he's got...none.


----------



## Brother David

hobbs27 said:


> Thanks, all you had to say is it's not in there and you made it up.


Your right , you don't have to believe in the Holy Trinity to get to heaven .
Matthew 10:14, 15: 24-26


----------



## Brother David

hobbs27 said:


> Btw, it's not exactly a new doctrine, it's just one that hasnt yet been fully accepted into the mainstream of Christianity.
> 
> Eusebius of Caesarea
> *Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine
> (263 - 339)*​*"When, then, we see what was of old foretold for the nations fulfilled in our day, and when the lamentation and wailing that was predicted for the Jews, and the burning of the Temple and its utter desolation, can also be seen even now to have occurred according to the prediction, surely we must also agree that the King who was prophesied, the Christ of God, has come, since the signs of His coming have been shewn in each instance I have treated to have been clearly fulfilled.*​


Elvis was abducted by Aliens and didn't really die .


----------



## Brother David

Brother David said:


> Elvis was abducted by Aliens and didn't really die .


While you're quoting today read Hebrews 6 with your focus on the first 8 verses .


----------



## Spotlite

Brother David said:


> Sorry guys , but the fear must be in respect of and of the d---nation that God can render . This is the reason Christianity is failing and every week we another expert Theologian who knows exactly what Peter was trying to imply 2000 years ago . People have no Fear of God and his judgement .


Just a quick clarification, this is not an attack - but if you’re going to quote someone, you can almost expect a reply. If you’re going to interact, don’t play a victim with everything as if others are attacking you when they respond. A victim is someone without a choice.

It doesn’t take an expert in theology to comprehend the use of a word. Obviously, my wondering if we really understand the use of fear means exactly that - some don’t. That book that you suggested someone try is also a “study”........and a quick study will reveal a fear of God...AKA.....reverence, adoration, etc.......

Not directly aimed at you because I know nothing of you other than you’re own admitting to being a preacher, but part of a “failing” Christianity is the result from an overbearing correction from those who fail to study and are on shifting sand when it comes to explanations. There’s an exploding number of new preachers that have taken no time to receive any teaching from their elders before they try to teach others.

As a Christian, if you’re going to advertise what Peter was trying to imply 2000 years ago, you better try to figure out what he was implying before you advertise it.





Brother David said:


> The quotes about a Cruel God or a Unassuming God is Hogwash . God is Good and we don't understand all his way .


While true.......figure out how to show that “good” rather than just the “fearful” scare tactics that only get short term results.


Brother David said:


> As soon as we stop trying to figure what God meant  .


“I don’t know......just worship” is not a good answer to give young converts. And some think that Christianity is failing due to those that actually study........


----------



## Israel

Artfuldodger said:


> Why can't love be enough? Why does there have to be a fear factor to sell it?



Jesus wasn't selling anything.

He's the man walking in full disclosure.

If we want snake oil read what the wise virgins told the foolish. Go and buy it from those that sell it.

What's up for barter He purchased. Re-deemed.

He's having what is His.


----------



## Brother David

Spotlite said:


> Just a quick clarification, this is not an attack - but if you’re going to quote someone, you can almost expect a reply. If you’re going to interact, don’t play a victim with everything as if others are attacking you when they respond. A victim is someone without a choice.
> 
> It doesn’t take an expert in theology to comprehend the use of a word. Obviously, my wondering if we really understand the use of fear means exactly that - some don’t. That book that you suggested someone try is also a “study”........and a quick study will reveal a fear of God...AKA.....reverence, adoration, etc.......
> 
> Not directly aimed at you because I know nothing of you other than you’re own admitting to being a preacher, but part of a “failing” Christianity is the result from an overbearing correction from those who fail to study and are on shifting sand when it comes to explanations. There’s an exploding number of new preachers that have taken no time to receive any teaching from their elders before they try to teach others.
> 
> As a Christian, if you’re going to advertise what Peter was trying to imply 2000 years ago, you better try to figure out what he was implying before you advertise it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While true.......figure out how to show that “good” rather than just the “fearful” scare tactics that only get short term results.
> 
> “I don’t know......just worship” is not a good answer to give young converts. And some think that Christianity is failing due to those that actually study........



I wasn't aware we were speaking to new converts , I thought I was speaking to seasoned readers .
Please don't continue to make Christianity flexible and Political .

Christ promise is completely dependant on obedience . It's a way of life , conversion !

I ask with a humble heart that you perform a indepth study of Jeremiah and Lamentations . I would suggest starting with the Lament then it's easier to understand the case against , the foresakeness , forgotten , request to return, sorry , prophesy of destruction , punishment , words , judgement on Religion , etc. .
We must continue to Teach the Soils ( all of them ) the Prodigal Son ( Both ) , many are called few are Chosen , there is going to be a falling away , I am the WAY , TRUTH , LIFE.

Christ didn't come to pad our bank accounts and make everyday Rosey . He came to save our souls from eternal torment ! I preach and share that with acceptance Christ makes it easier and will bless . Please don't be a prosperity pusher without explaining the penalties for not following , it does an injustice to the sacrifice that Christ made by shedding his blood for the remission of Sin .


----------



## Spotlite

hobbs27 said:


> Btw, it's not exactly a new doctrine


Honestly hadn’t heard / read a lot about it in depth. For the record, my questions are out of curiosity and not meant to be criticism.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Jesus wasn't selling anything.



BINGO

Yet SOMEONE started a sales pitch FOR Jesus.
Who was the earliest NT writer?


----------



## Spotlite

Brother David said:


> I wasn't aware we were speaking to new converts , I thought I was speaking to seasoned readers .
> Please don't continue to make Christianity flexible and Political .
> 
> Christ promise is completely dependant on obedience . It's a way of life , conversion !
> 
> I ask with a humble heart that you perform a indepth study of Jeremiah and Lamentations . I would suggest starting with the Lament then it's easier to understand the case against , the foresakeness , forgotten , request to return, sorry , prophesy of destruction , punishment , words , judgement on Religion , etc. .
> We must continue to Teach the Soils ( all of them ) the Prodigal Son ( Both ) , many are called few are Chosen , there is going to be a falling away , I am the WAY , TRUTH , LIFE.
> 
> Christ didn't come to pad our bank accounts and make everyday Rosey . He came to save our souls from eternal torment ! I preach and share that with acceptance Christ makes it easier and will bless . Please don't be a prosperity pusher without explaining the penalties for not following , it does an injustice to the sacrifice that Christ made by shedding his blood for the remission of Sin .


I think you missed the point. I don’t push prosperity and I don’t eliminate punishment.

My point is to fear God is to love, awe, honor, reverence, etc. And to fear judgment is cautionary. There’s a difference. 

If perfect love cast out fear, how are you teaching fear something you love???


----------



## hobbs27

Brother David said:


> While you're quoting today read Hebrews 6 with your focus on the first 8 verses .



 Sir. I'll be glad to have any discussion on scripture, doctrines, etc you like as time allows me, but to make it easier on us both, you need to be more specific. What in Hebrews 6 are you trying to show me? I've read it all before and I love every word of the scriptures.


----------



## hobbs27

I'd say Jesus was a traveling salesman. Prove me wrong.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> I'd say Jesus was a traveling salesman. Prove me wrong.


With what Jesus wrote down there is absolutely no evidence of his intentions and there nothing to use as proof.
We have to use the words of others who had never even met the man.  And while using those very words we have discussions (like going in here right now) between people who all believe in the same person in which there is no clear meaning or understanding of what is written.
You guys are discussing words written by someone else which are interpretations of their self understanding of what someone they never knew or met may or may not have said or done. None of these people were with Jesus recording his every word. You are relying on 1900 year old Israel types as your source and must decipher their minds in order to obtain your own interpretation of knowledge of your god.
Good luck.


----------



## hummerpoo

With thanks to Bro. Gordon



> Pharasaic zeal and Antinomian security are the two engines of Satan, with which he grinds the church in all ages, as betwixt the upper and nether millstone.  The space between them is much narrower and harder to find than most men imagine.  It is a path which the vulture's eye hath not seen, and none can show it us but the Holy Ghost.
> 
> Joseph Hart


----------



## hobbs27

Bullethead..You dont think John was with Jesus, or do you not think John was the author of his gospel account?


----------



## Brother David

hobbs27 said:


> I'd say Jesus was a traveling salesman. Prove me wrong.


I believe he was the Son of the living God .
John 1:1


----------



## bullethead

And to be clear, that is NOT meant to be an insult to Izzy in any way. I feel he could write well.

I look at it like this.

Imagine if we could,,,,Hobbs, Brother David, Israel and Spotlite all write down their own stories of Jesus from memory of their own interpretations of what they have read and what they have heard for the last 30-60 years. 

Would a new person who is unfamiliar with any of the stories which are contained in the bible read the old stories and then read these new stories and come away with the same version ?


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Bullethead..You dont think John was with Jesus, or do you not think John was the author of his gospel account?


I do not think that John was the actual author.
I am positive that none of the 12 disciples were with Jesus every second of every day. And the stories in the bible back that up.
Jesus with Satan...for an example.


----------



## bullethead

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/which-john


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> I do not think that John was the actual author.
> I am positive that none of the 12 disciples were with Jesus every second of every day. And the stories in the bible back that up.
> Jesus with Satan...for an example.



I believe the apostle John is the author  of his gospel account, his epistles, and revelation. I know he wasnt with Jesus and His adversaries in the wilderness as they tested Him, but I'm sure Jesus told him of the event.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> I believe the apostle John is the author  of his gospel account, his epistles, and revelation. I know he wasnt with Jesus and His adversaries in the wilderness as they tested Him, but I'm sure Jesus told him of the event.


And then that same John decided to write about it in his 90's?

Too many Johns in the bible. John the apostle was supposed to be humble yet the author of John describes himself as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved". None of the other gospels refer to John as that. No way the same person that wrote John also wrote Revelations. Different styles.


----------



## hobbs27

Bullet..I dont believe John wrote about it in his 90s. That's just crazy that folks believe he penned Revelation after AD70.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Bullet..I dont believe John wrote about it in his 90s. That's just crazy that folks believe he penned Revelation after AD70.


I sort of agree, but I'll take it a step more and say that I think it is crazy that people think John the Apostle penned either of them.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I sort of agree, but I'll take it a step more and say that I think it is crazy that people think John the Apostle penned either of them.


Do you think John of Patmos and John the Apostle are two different men?


----------



## bullethead

Same as post #1242, but it explains the why's.
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/which-john


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Same as post #1242, but it explains the why's.
> https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/which-john


It only explains the writer”s opinion as he refers to “some scholars” but never names the source. 

Wonder how good his Greek reading is?


----------



## bullethead

All I can say about that is that a few biblical scholars say the same thing and they have come to that conclusion based off of their research inside and outside the bible. A few more biblical scholars say they are the same person based off of their research and understanding based off of what is written in scripture.

All I did was list one in a short and simple article so it was easy to access and read.
If I find one that states they have an excellent understanding of greek would it change your mind?
Exactly.

I leave any and all other further research into your hands if you so choose to find out more. All I did was point you in the direction.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> It only explains the writer”s opinion as he refers to “some scholars” but never names the source.
> 
> Wonder how good his Greek reading is?


I sometimes have to wonder just how sincere your wondering really is. 
At the end of the article:
James F. McGrath 
Professor, Butler University

James F. McGrath is a professor in New Testament language and literature at Butler University in Indianapolis.

(Man I wish that I could "like" this one myself)


----------



## bullethead

"Opinion"....I love it...

James McGrath earned his diploma in religious studies (with distinction) from the University of Cambridge in 1993. He went on to receive his Bachelor of Divinity from the University of London, in which he was awarded Second Class, First Degree honors in 1995. He completed his Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Durham in 1998, under the supervision of James D. G. Dunn. He has served as assistant professor of New Testament at Emmanuel Universityand the University of Oradea (1998-2001), an adjunct professor at Biblical Theological Seminary and Alliance Theological Seminary (2001-2002), and professor of Religion at Butler University(2002–present). In 2010, he was appointed the Clarence L. Goodwin Chair of New Testament Language and Literature.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I sometimes have to wonder just how sincere your wondering really is.
> At the end of the article:
> James F. McGrath
> Professor, Butler University
> 
> James F. McGrath is a professor in New Testament language and literature at Butler University in Indianapolis.
> 
> (Man I wish that I could "like" this one myself)


Ok I guess I will have to be more specific......

The question was “Do you think John of Patmos and John the Apostle are two different men?”

Your answer was “same as post #1242, but it explains the whys” with what a professor thinks in an attached link to an article. And post #1242 was just a link.

This “regurgitating” links with no thought put into it is as easy as regurgitating scriptures.
Here’s what I think, but it explains the whys:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> All I can say about that is that a few biblical scholars say the same thing and they have come to that conclusion based off of their research inside and outside the bible. A few more biblical scholars say they are the same person based off of their research and understanding based off of what is written in scripture.
> 
> All I did was list one in a short and simple article so it was easy to access and read.
> If I find one that states they have an excellent understanding of greek would it change your mind?
> Exactly.
> 
> I leave any and all other further research into your hands if you so choose to find out more. All I did was point you in the direction.


I’m aware of many links about the subject, part of the reason I questioned just the one since it aligns with you. I’m aware that there’s no definitive answer. That’s why I only asked you what you “think”. 

But, no, they don’t have to have an excellent understanding of Greek, just be nice to have more than just their word when they’re comparing writings. If I told you something similar as that professor did, your reply wouldn’t have anything to do with assertions, evidence, or sources, would it?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Ok I guess I will have to be more specific......
> 
> The question was “Do you think John of Patmos and John the Apostle are two different men?”
> 
> Your answer was “same as post #1242, but it explains the whys” with what a professor thinks in an attached link to an article. And post #1242 was just a link.
> 
> This “regurgitating” links with no thought put into it is as easy as regurgitating scriptures.
> Here’s what I think, but it explains the whys:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers


The link absolutely explains the whys in depth.
I post the link because it backs up what I think. And I think these things because people who are much more educated in specific areas than I am have studied these things for a lifetime whereas I just scratch the surface.
I DID post what I think about the different Johns in this thread and then I back it up a link that explains why from an outside source.
Scripture uses no outside sources.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I’m aware of many links about the subject, part of the reason I questioned just the one since it aligns with you. I’m aware that there’s no definitive answer. That’s why I only asked you what you “think”.
> 
> But, no, they don’t have to have an excellent understanding of Greek, just be nice to have more than just their word when they’re comparing writings. If I told you something similar as that professor did, your reply wouldn’t have anything to do with assertions, evidence, or sources, would it?


I told you what I think and why I think it with an example.
The man I used,  because of his understanding of Greek and his education, makes a good case as to why the John's are different.  I agree with him.

It goes like this, I can tell you what I think and then back it up with a source for you to also check out OR I can give you the source to check out and tell you the source is the reason I think the way I do. 
Same results. 

I always try to give my answer and show the information why/where that leads me to that answer.

I do not think because a chapter in the Bible was given the name John long after it was written ,that the chapter was written by a specific John that is also an Apostle. It think it was written about a John not by a John. And since nowhere in the chapter does the author state  "I am John the Apostle" and this is my story " It leaves itself open to scrutiny.  Revelations mentions  a John but the writing styles , language and spelling within the earliest copies differ so much.. that they are most likely two different authors. 
These are things that I cannot study. I don't know Koine Greek and I do not have access to the earliest known copies. Like you, I have access to the most modern copies which have been cleaned up over time to read better.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> The link absolutely explains the whys in depth.
> I post the link because it backs up what I think. And I think these things because people who are much more educated in specific areas than I am have studied these things for a lifetime whereas I just scratch the surface.
> I DID post what I think about the different Johns in this link and then I back it up a link that explains why from an outside source.
> Scripture uses no outside sources.


I guess I see things differently......that outside source compared written scriptures. You and are outside sources, too. The only difference is we are not professors. If outcomes are resting on being a professor or not, it seems that the parameters for evidence have changed. 

But I agree, it’s just one of many on the topic and they don’t all agree. 

My original question was to get a simple answer of what you think  I read the link, I agree he makes a good case......for himself. But I can’t ask him anything. 

 I still don’t know if your ”whys” was the argument over “the Gospel according to John” as a reason you don’t believe he penned it, that’s a legitimate stance but not necessarily solid. At a minimum, it doesn’t remove biography. I don’t know if he actually penned it or if someone penned what he said. 

Could that be the “style” that’s considered poorer than Revelation’s “I John” ? Who knows, the professor only tells you it’s poorer. Neither of you detail how with anything. If the style is one of your whys, what is the difference in the styles that makes one poorer than another? If someone else penned what he said in another book and John penned Revelation, wouldn’t that be a style difference?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I told you what I think and why I think it with an example.
> The man I used,  because of his understanding of Greek and his education, makes a good case as to why the John's are different.  I agree with him.
> 
> It goes like this, I can tell you what I think and then back it up with a source for you to also check out OR I can give you the source to check out and tell you the source is the reason I think the way I do.
> Same results.
> 
> I always try to give my answer and show the information why/where that leads me to that answer.
> 
> I do not think because a chapter in the Bible was given the name John long after it was written ,that the chapter was written by a specific John that is also an Apostle. It think it was written about a John not by a John. And since nowhere in the chapter does the author state  "I am John the Apostle" and this is my story " It leaves itself open to scrutiny.  Revelations mentions  a John but the writing styles , language and spelling within the earliest copies differ so much.. that they are most likely two different authors.
> These are things that I cannot study. I don't know Koine Greek and I do not have access to the earliest known copies. Like you, I have access to the most modern copies which have been cleaned up over time to read better.


Nothing wrong with scrutiny. I imagine that our rules of writing today are different.


----------



## hobbs27

Spotlite said:


> Nothing wrong with scrutiny. I imagine that our rules of writing today are different.


Not to mention it was common in those days to use scribes. The disciples Jesus chose were not the most educated , more blue collar types to put it in layman terms. The use of scribes could show different writing styles from the same author.
 Paul was probably the most educated apostle, while Luke was probably the most educated inspired writer, and their style of writing is pretty consistent with only the book of Hebrews being in question as authored by Paul or not.


----------



## Brother David

hobbs27 said:


> Not to mention it was common in those days to use scribes. The disciples Jesus chose were not the most educated , more blue collar types to put it in layman terms. The use of scribes could show different writing styles from the same author.
> Paul was probably the most educated apostle, while Luke was probably the most educated inspired writer, and their style of writing is pretty consistent with only the book of Hebrews being in question as authored by Paul or not.


Many believe that the thorn in Paul's side was his eye sight . I have often wondered if Paul quoted and someone else penned Hebrews . The line of Belief is definitely Paulinian but the Writing seems to be evidence of a outside Author .
Something else that many over look today is that at this time in history we were still dealing with a very Nomadic people . They often travelled with only the necessary items . Scrolls, Books weren't necessary .  History and teachings were passed on from memory ( no room for Books ) . Make no mistake there information was percise and or exact or else lessons learned weren't going to be useful .


----------



## Brother David

bullethead said:


> I told you what I think and why I think it with an example.
> The man I used,  because of his understanding of Greek and his education, makes a good case as to why the John's are different.  I agree with him.
> 
> It goes like this, I can tell you what I think and then back it up with a source for you to also check out OR I can give you the source to check out and tell you the source is the reason I think the way I do.
> Same results.
> 
> I always try to give my answer and show the information why/where that leads me to that answer.
> 
> I do not think because a chapter in the Bible was given the name John long after it was written ,that the chapter was written by a specific John that is also an Apostle. It think it was written about a John not by a John. And since nowhere in the chapter does the author state  "I am John the Apostle" and this is my story " It leaves itself open to scrutiny.  Revelations mentions  a John but the writing styles , language and spelling within the earliest copies differ so much.. that they are most likely two different authors.
> These are things that I cannot study. I don't know Koine Greek and I do not have access to the earliest known copies. Like you, I have access to the most modern copies which have been cleaned up over time to read better.


Don't all of us look for the information that proves what we want to prove ? 
I have a question about a possible book , that regardless of who the Author of Revelation is , refers to .
The books of Revelation 20:12 . Who do you suppose is writing them . According to Romans 14 : 10-13 we're practically writing them ourselves !


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Don't all of us look for the information that proves what we want to prove ?
> I have a question about a possible book , that regardless of who the Author of Revelation is , refers to .
> The books of Revelation 20:12 . Who do you suppose is writing them . According to Romans 14 : 10-13 we're practically writing them ourselves !


For the thousandth time. I read both Pro and Con and go with what seems more likely than not based off of EVIDENCE. I do not look for or want it to say what I think. I think the way I do because of what the evidence provides.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Don't all of us look for the information that proves what we want to prove ?
> I have a question about a possible book , that regardless of who the Author of Revelation is , refers to .
> The books of Revelation 20:12 . Who do you suppose is writing them . According to Romans 14 : 10-13 we're practically writing them ourselves !


12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

Doesn't say anything about believing in anyone getting you through the gates. It says the dead will be judged by what they had done as recorded in the books.
So ya better be good for goodness sake....


----------



## amoore28

Brother David said:


> Everyone has to believe in something !
> 
> I believe in Jehovah God ( Yaweh ) .
> I believe in creation !
> I believe in Christ !
> I believe in the God Gene !
> I believe Christ will return !
> I believe in the Holy Trinity !
> I believe the Bible to be a accurate account !
> I believe every knee shall bow !
> I believe every tongue will confess !
> 
> I believe someone will try to prove myself wrong instead of stating there beliefs !
> 
> What do you BELIEVE ?


I believe what you believe


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Brother David said:


> Many believe that the thorn in Paul's side was his eye sight . I have often wondered if Paul quoted and someone else penned Hebrews . The line of Belief is definitely Paulinian but the Writing seems to be evidence of a outside Author .
> Something else that many over look today is that at this time in history we were still dealing with a very Nomadic people . They often travelled with only the necessary items . Scrolls, Books weren't necessary .  History and teachings were passed on from memory ( no room for Books ) . Make no mistake there information was percise and or exact or else lessons learned weren't going to be useful .



Brother, it's widely known and documented how reliable the oral record was.  With today's technology it seems almost unfathomable, but yet here it is today, just as it was when it was given.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother, it's widely known and documented how reliable the oral record was.  With today's technology it seems almost unfathomable, but yet here it is today, just as it was when it was given.


The longevity and inaccuracy of oral fiction has never been questioned. History shows that man is phenomenal at making things up and going with it despite the evidence showing otherwise. 
Or have there been any recent Krakken sightings that have eluded the news outlets?


----------



## jiminbogart

Brother David said:


> What do you BELIEVE ?



I believe that I shouldn't have to subsidize other people's "religions" with my tax dollars.


----------



## jiminbogart

bullethead said:


> Or have there been any recent Krakken sightings that have eluded the news outlets?



I saw a leftist skeezer in Athens the other day that looked(and smelled) like the Krakken. I was too scared to take her picture though. 
Picture Slayer in a tie die t-shirt, dreadlocks and no shower for a couple weeks. Wait, forget the shower part, that's redundant.


----------



## WaltL1

jiminbogart said:


> I believe that I shouldn't have to subsidize other people's "religions" with my tax dollars.


I wrestle with this subject.
On one hand, tax dollars go to a whole slew of things that I personally don't agree with or use or will benefit me.
Example - companies getting big tax breaks. Im not going to work there, just increases the population in my area driving up land/house prices etc, increased traffic....
HOWEVER. its going to benefit a lot of other folks so the softy in me just accepts it without it causing me too much heartburn.
When it comes to religion, they are YOUR beliefs. You cant even prove your god to exist. Its only going to benefit you etc etc.
YOU pay for it!
Cant decide if Im unfairly separating religion out or not.


----------

