# Are gluttons "real" christians?



## atlashunter

Been told many times that while real christians aren't perfect they must repent and turn away from their sins. That doesn't seem to apply to the sin of gluttony for some reason. I've never heard it said that some obese preacher wasn't a real christian because he refused to put down the fried chicken.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> Been told many times that while real christians aren't perfect they must repent and turn away from their sins. That doesn't seem to apply to the sin of gluttony for some reason. I've never heard it said that some obese preacher wasn't a real christian because he refused to put down the fried chicken.





> I've never heard it said that some obese preacher wasn't a real christian because he refused to put down the fried chicken.



Yeah, me either, but then again ....maybe there’s a reason for that. Dunno.  Just guessing.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> Been told many times that while real christians aren't perfect they must repent and turn away from their sins. That doesn't seem to apply to the sin of gluttony for some reason. I've never heard it said that some obese preacher wasn't a real christian because he refused to put down the fried chicken.



1)Obesity equates to gluttony in every case?
2)People with sin can't be "real" Christians?
3)If a glutton repents of his gluttony(insert any sin),  has he then made himself fit for "real" Christianity?


----------



## ky55

welderguy said:


> 1)Obesity equates to gluttony in every case?
> 2)People with sin can't be "real" Christians?
> 3)If a glutton repents of his gluttony(insert any sin),  has he then made himself fit for "real" Christianity?



It’s really not all that complicated. 
If they can’t keep a fork and a spoon out of their face long enough to drop the weight  they can always pray for a good surgeon to do the surgery needed to lose the couple hundred pounds they need to drop to keep from dying at the ripe old age of 45. 
And then they can give all the glory to the lord.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> 1)Obesity equates to gluttony in every case?
> 2)People with sin can't be "real" Christians?
> 3)If a glutton repents of his gluttony(insert any sin),  has he then made himself fit for "real" Christianity?





> 2)People with sin can't be "real" Christians?


That's the same question we ask when you guys try to separate out real/good Christians from fake/bad Christians.
If the whole idea is that all men sin then there is no good/bad/real/fake etc.
Then it all boils down to which sins/behaviors are worse than others or if sin is sin.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> That's the same question we ask when you guys try to separate out real/good Christians from fake/bad Christians.
> If the whole idea is that all men sin then there is no good/bad/real/fake etc.
> Then it all boils down to which sins/behaviors are worse than others or if sin is sin.



The response we receive is you know a tree by its fruits. Ok... Is obesity not a fruit of gluttony? These double standards are really something.


----------



## JustUs4All

*



			Are gluttons "real" christians?
		
Click to expand...

*


> To get a meaningful answer you must define Christian for us.  The premise of your post seems to be that the meaning is "perfect christian".  Those are precious hard to come by just like perfect anything else.
> 
> My take would be that a gluttonous christian would be an imperfect christian but a christian none the less if he believes the doctrine.  I suspect that we are no less hunters or fishermen because our skills are not perfect.
Click to expand...


----------



## j_seph

Is it really the amount of food he/she is eating? Have a guy in our church over 400 pounds. He eats less than me and I am no where near that weight.


----------



## j_seph

atlashunter said:


> The response we receive is you know a tree by its fruits. Ok... Is obesity not a fruit of gluttony? These double standards are really something.


Not always!


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> That's the same question we ask when you guys try to separate out real/good Christians from fake/bad Christians.
> If the whole idea is that all men sin then there is no good/bad/real/fake etc.
> Then it all boils down to which sins/behaviors are worse than others or if sin is sin.


I usually just question those that can “see” sin. As in the example here in this thread.......just because a man is obese......how does that automatically connect him to gluttony and “can’t keep the fork out of his mouth”?


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> Not always!



The overwhelming majority of the time.


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> Is it really the amount of food he/she is eating? Have a guy in our church over 400 pounds. He eats less than me and I am no where near that weight.



Bull. You boys are shuckin and jiving big time. You think we never been out to lunch on a Sunday and seen all the rotund flock stuffing their faces at the buffet?


----------



## Spotlite

j_seph said:


> Is it really the amount of food he/she is eating? Have a guy in our church over 400 pounds. He eats less than me and I am no where near that weight.


Yup. I know a wormy fella that eats heavy 4 meals a day. High metabolism. He’s wearing the food out and craves it. 
And I know one that’s pushing 550 due to thyroid issues and been on a 1200 calorie per day diet for most of his life. Yet the heavy fella is the one guilty of gluttony based on an outward appearance.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> Bull. You boys are shuckin and jiving big time. You think we never been out to lunch on a Sunday and seen all the rotund flock stuffing their faces at the buffet?



Were you there to just observe, or were you not also "stuffing" your face? Oh wait...since you're not obese, I suppose it's not gluttony in your case.?


----------



## GunnSmokeer

I would agree that when a believer is obviously caught up in sinful and self destructive behavior, it makes that person less effective as a role model, less able to fulfull the Great Commission to attract people to the faith.

Obesity, alcoholism and bibge drinking,  recreational drug use, drug addiction (whether illicit street drugs or blatant abuse of prescription drugs), sexual misbehavior (where it is known) all get in the way of sanctification  and prosthelytyzation.


----------



## j_seph

atlashunter said:


> Bull. You boys are shuckin and jiving big time. You think we never been out to lunch on a Sunday and seen all the rotund flock stuffing their faces at the buffet?


My late wife became overweight to the point she even went and had the Lapband surgery done. Even at that she only lost a few pounds and put it right back on. In case you don't know with the Lapband you cannot eat as much. She continued to get bigger. Not because of the food she ate, the lack of or amount of. But because of the meds she had to take, the fact that she could not get up and move around and be active. There is a verse in this thing we call a Bible that mentions Judge not. I believe I have even heard you make mention of painting with a wide brush/stereotyping. Maybe the next time you see the heavily obese person you should 1st go ask them how they became that way. Better idea is maybe go ask them if they would like help, and be prepared to explain to them how they can lose it and how much better their life could be if they'd just listen to you. For those that do act in gluttony that is their sin, their business not mine or ours, it is their personal walk with Christ.


----------



## Ruger#3

Gluttony is not just weight. Many would dread a close scrutiny of what they crave and indulge to excess in their lives. The consequence of that is between them and God and no other.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Yup. I know a wormy fella that eats heavy 4 meals a day. High metabolism. He’s wearing the food out and craves it.
> And I know one that’s pushing 550 due to thyroid issues and been on a 1200 calorie per day diet for most of his life. Yet the heavy fella is the one guilty of gluttony based on an outward appearance.





> Yup. I know a wormy fella that eats heavy 4 meals a day. High metabolism. He’s wearing the food out and craves it.


I have a friend like that. When we go camping he literally eats at least 3 times as much as I do. I think he burns it off faster than he can chew. He probably doesnt weigh 140 lbs soaking wet.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> Were you there to just observe, or were you not also "stuffing" your face? Oh wait...since you're not obese, I suppose it's not gluttony in your case.?



I don’t claim to be a Christian and I don’t decide who is and isn’t a “real” Christian. I’m just wondering if you folks actually have an objective standard on these classifications or not.


----------



## atlashunter

Ruger#3 said:


> Gluttony is not just weight. Many would dread a close scrutiny of what they crave and indulge to excess in their lives. The consequence of that is between them and God and no other.



Why not say they aren’t really Christians if they aren’t turning away from their sin? Doesn’t seem to be a problem when we are talking about other people and groups Christians don’t want to be associated with.


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> My late wife became overweight to the point she even went and had the Lapband surgery done. Even at that she only lost a few pounds and put it right back on. In case you don't know with the Lapband you cannot eat as much. She continued to get bigger. Not because of the food she ate, the lack of or amount of. But because of the meds she had to take, the fact that she could not get up and move around and be active. There is a verse in this thing we call a Bible that mentions Judge not. I believe I have even heard you make mention of painting with a wide brush/stereotyping. Maybe the next time you see the heavily obese person you should 1st go ask them how they became that way. Better idea is maybe go ask them if they would like help, and be prepared to explain to them how they can lose it and how much better their life could be if they'd just listen to you. For those that do act in gluttony that is their sin, their business not mine or ours, it is their personal walk with Christ.



So when it’s WBC we can say those aren’t real Christians because we can judge them by their fruits but when it’s a lard laden brother or sister we shouldn’t judge because that hits a little closer to home. Got it.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> So when it’s WBC we can say those aren’t real Christians because we can judge them by their fruits but when it’s a lard laden brother or sister we shouldn’t judge because that hits a little closer to home. Got it.


Not really Atlas. You’re not fooling anyone to make your point. If you can’t see WBC for what they really are regardless of what they call themselves, there are issue deeper than your thread topic.

We ARE NOT judging anyone by their outward appearance. Their fruits reveal what they are regardless of what you and I see.

A fat man eating doesn’t mean he’s guilty of gluttony. A man / group promoting and shouting hatred is self explanatory.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Not really Atlas. You’re not fooling anyone to make your point. If you can’t see WBC for what they really are regardless of what they call themselves, there are issue deeper than your thread topic.
> 
> We ARE NOT judging anyone by their outward appearance. Their fruits reveal what they are regardless of what you and I see.
> 
> A fat man eating doesn’t mean he’s guilty of gluttony. A man / group promoting and shouting hatred is self explanatory.



Is your issue with properly identifying a glutton or with saying those who don’t turn away from gluttony aren’t real Christians?


----------



## atlashunter

WBC uses a lot of scripture to back up what they say. Is “God hates f**s” hateful? Perhaps. Do you find it any less hateful to say homosexuality is an abomination to God? Should Christians not proclaim to others those parts of the Bible that come across as hateful? If that’s the case I would love to know your scriptural basis for that position.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> WBC uses a lot of scripture to back up what they say. Is “God hates f**s” hateful? Perhaps. Do you find it any less hateful to say homosexuality is an abomination to God? Should Christians not proclaim to others those parts of the Bible that come across as hateful? If that’s the case I would love to know your scriptural basis for that position.



Big difference in hating the act and hating the act-er.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> Big difference in hating the act and hating the act-er.



Thrown anyone you love in a fire lately?


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> Big difference in hating the act and hating the act-er.



https://carm.org/does-god-hate-anyone

*Does God hate anyone?*
Does God hate anyone? The answer is yes.


*Psalm 5:5*, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity."
*Psalm 11:5*, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."
*Lev. 20:23*, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."
*Prov. 6:16-19*, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."
*Hosea 9:15*, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."


----------



## NCHillbilly

If I see someone who is morbidly obese, yes, I generally think of them as being gluttonous. If you saw someone who was intoxicated every time you met them, you would probably judge them as being a drunkard.


----------



## j_seph

atlashunter said:


> WBC uses a lot of scripture to back up what they say. Is “God hates f**s” hateful? Perhaps. Do you find it any less hateful to say homosexuality is an abomination to God? Should Christians not proclaim to others those parts of the Bible that come across as hateful? If that’s the case I would love to know your scriptural basis for that position.


Charles Manson used a lot of scripture as well! God is Love, to be Christ like is to love. Just because they are gay/homo or whatever the commandment is to love them. It does not say to approve of them, nor does it say to judge them, we are told to witness to them, let them know that what they are doing is a sin, but overall we are to love them regardless.


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> Charles Manson used a lot of scripture as well! God is Love, to be Christ like is to love. Just because they are gay/homo or whatever the commandment is to love them. It does not say to approve of them, nor does it say to judge them, we are told to witness to them, let them know that what they are doing is a sin, but overall we are to love them regardless.



“God is love” Nice bumper sticker. Your own religious text clearly states otherwise. Don’t blame us. We didn’t write it. I think what grates Christians the most about WBC is that they actually take the scriptures seriously enough to make their religion look bad.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> https://carm.org/does-god-hate-anyone
> 
> *Does God hate anyone?*
> Does God hate anyone? The answer is yes.
> 
> 
> *Psalm 5:5*, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity."
> *Psalm 11:5*, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."
> *Lev. 20:23*, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."
> *Prov. 6:16-19*, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."
> *Hosea 9:15*, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."



You forgot the one about hating your wife. ?


----------



## bullethead

Is everyone ignoring the people who do not have a medical or genetic problem that made them gluttonous ?(pick any one... food, booze, sex, gambling, hoarding, collecting anything in amounts above and beyond more than is necessary, etc etc, etc...) And got themselves to the point where there actions are solely responsible for their excess.  You Real Chriatians are now just making more excuses using extremely small percentages of examples of people while ignoring the vast majority of people who in this case are just not only fat but morbidly  obese because they do in fact eat too much (watch 600lb life). You Real Christians are doing it to avoid the fact that there are very few "real" Christians. Period. The only "real" Christian seen is the one in the mirror, everyone else just isn't quite at your level are they?

To the believers,  Which other believers in here make your "real" Christian list?, and do not forget to explain why...


----------



## atlashunter

Excuses is right bullethead. When it hits close to home they sure are quick to cite the exceptions to the rule!


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Is everyone ignoring the people who do not have a medical or genetic problem that made them gluttonous ?(pick any one... food, booze, sex, gambling, hoarding, collecting anything in amounts above and beyond more than is necessary, etc etc, etc...) And got themselves to the point where there actions are solely responsible for their excess.  You Real Chriatians are now just making more excuses using extremely small percentages of examples of people while ignoring the vast majority of people who in this case are just not only fat but morbidly  obese because they do in fact eat too much (watch 600lb life). You Real Christians are doing it to avoid the fact that there are very few "real" Christians. Period. The only "real" Christian seen is the one in the mirror, everyone else just isn't quite at your level are they?
> 
> To the believers,  Which other believers in here make your "real" Christian list?, and do not forget to explain why...



I'm still waiting on Atlas...or anyone for that matter ,to define what a "real" Christian is.
I can't answer any of the questions because I don't even know what constitutes your "real Christian". Please define him.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> I'm still waiting on Atlas...or anyone for that matter ,to define what a "real" Christian is.
> I can't answer any of the questions because I don't even know what constitutes your "real Christian". Please define him.



 You askin’ The wrong folks! It’s team Jesus in here that often tells us how “those aren’t real Christians”. That’s what prompted this in the first place. Heck we even have the case being made here that WBC ain’t real Christians. We been told time and again that Hitler wasn’t a real Christian. So get together with your fellow Christians and when you sort out who is and isn’t a real Christian let us know. I’d like to at least see some consistency on this one.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'm still waiting on Atlas...or anyone for that matter ,to define what a "real" Christian is.
> I can't answer any of the questions because I don't even know what constitutes your "real Christian". Please define him.


Many are quick to point out who is not a Christian...read "real" Christian....if they can make that judgment then they must base it off of examples of Christians ie "real" Christians.

Is/are WBB Christians? Why or why not, and who are you comparing them to, and then who are you comparing them to????


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> You askin’ The wrong folks! It’s team Jesus in here that often tells us how “those aren’t real Christians”. That’s what prompted this in the first place. Heck we even have the case being made here that WBC ain’t real Christians. We been told time and again that Hitler wasn’t a real Christian. So get together with your fellow Christians and when you sort out who is and isn’t a real Christian let us know. I’d like to at least some consistency on this one.



Could this be the answer we're looking for?

John 4:23-24 
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


----------



## NCHillbilly

bullethead said:


> Is everyone ignoring the people who do not have a medical or genetic problem that made them gluttonous ?(pick any one... food, booze, sex, gambling, hoarding, collecting anything in amounts above and beyond more than is necessary, etc etc, etc...) And got themselves to the point where there actions are solely responsible for their excess.  You Real Chriatians are now just making more excuses using extremely small percentages of examples of people while ignoring the vast majority of people who in this case are just not only fat but morbidly  obese because they do in fact eat too much (watch 600lb life). You Real Christians are doing it to avoid the fact that there are very few "real" Christians. Period. The only "real" Christian seen is the one in the mirror, everyone else just isn't quite at your level are they?
> 
> To the believers,  Which other believers in here make your "real" Christian list?, and do not forget to explain why...


A peek into the front grocery-toting part of that electric cart that the obese lady at walmart is riding around on is usually very, very telling.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Many are quick to point out who is not a Christian...read "real" Christian....if they can make that judgment then they must base it off of examples of Christians ie "real" Christians.
> 
> Is/are WBB Christians? Why or why not, and who are you comparing them to, and then who are you comparing them to????



I assume that WBB stands for Westboro Baptist Church. If so, I know very little about them, only what you guys have said, and I've forgotten most of that. Maybe you could refresh me.
But, if they are not in line with what Jesus said in John 4:23-24, then they are not true worshippers.


----------



## welderguy

NCHillbilly said:


> A peek into the front grocery-toting part of that electric cart that the obese lady at walmart is riding around on is usually very, very telling.



How do you know she's not a very hungry atheist? ?


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> Could this be the answer we're looking for?
> 
> John 4:23-24
> 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
> 
> 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.



The one that usually gets trotted out is the one about knowing a tree by its fruits. But for some reason that doesn’t seem to apply when identifying gluttons by their rotundity. I guess all those worshippers at the buffet are just big boned.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> The one that usually gets trotted out is the one about knowing a tree by its fruits. But for some reason that doesn’t seem to apply when identifying gluttons by their rotundity. I guess all those worshippers at the buffet are just big boned.



I think, even though Jesus defines what a true worshipper is, He never gave us the task of judging who is or who isn't. God is the one who searches the heart. We don't have that power.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Is your issue with properly identifying a glutton or with saying those who don’t turn away from gluttony aren’t real Christians?


Probably more along the lines of identifying based on appearance - I don’t have the ability to tell them apart based on appearance. Maybe if I watched to see how many times they went back for seconds or thirds or.....but I’m not convinced that obese people are gluttons just because they’re obese. 

That coupled with the way some identify others based solely on the individuals self identification. I’m still not convinced that Bruce Jenner is a woman and I just can’t bring myself to identify him as a she. 

As far as fake Christians.......I’m not convinced there is such a thing called fake Christian. You’re either following Christ and his teachings or you’re not. 

Maybe it’s just me. As far as WBC......based on their hate speeches.....I put them in the anti American group, setting aside anything they claim in the name of religion, they make me sick at the way they treat our Veterans. They’re no different than Hitler or Jim Jones. Religion is a tool for them, not a way of life.


----------



## Spotlite

Maybe this sums it up better - you can put lipstick and a dress on a pig.....but it’s still a pig.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> I think, even though Jesus defines what a true worshipper is, He never gave us the task of judging who is or who isn't. God is the one who searches the heart. We don't have that power.



Yet your fellow believers continue to do so.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Probably more along the lines of identifying based on appearance - I don’t have the ability to tell them apart based on appearance. Maybe if I watched to see how many times they went back for seconds or thirds or.....but I’m not convinced that obese people are gluttons just because they’re obese.
> 
> That coupled with the way some identify others based solely on the individuals self identification. I’m still not convinced that Bruce Jenner is a woman and I just can’t bring myself to identify him as a she.
> 
> As far as fake Christians.......I’m not convinced there is such a thing called fake Christian. You’re either following Christ and his teachings or you’re not.
> 
> Maybe it’s just me. As far as WBC......based on their hate speeches.....I put them in the anti American group, setting aside anything they claim in the name of religion, they make me sick at the way they treat our Veterans. They’re no different than Hitler or Jim Jones. Religion is a tool for them, not a way of life.



So once identified you’ve got no problem saying a glutton isn’t a real christian. You’re just slower to call a spade on that one than on WBC.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Could this be the answer we're looking for?
> 
> John 4:23-24
> 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
> 
> 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


Can find the same answer by man in every religions books


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I assume that WBB stands for Westboro Baptist Church. If so, I know very little about them, only what you guys have said, and I've forgotten most of that. Maybe you could refresh me.
> But, if they are not in line with what Jesus said in John 4:23-24, then they are not true worshippers.


Good to know.
It is going to be a very short list so can you tell me which Christian is "in line" with each and every one of "Jesus" sayings, verses, quotes, words,commands?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Good to know.
> It is going to be a very short list so can you tell me which Christian is "in line" with each and every one of "Jesus" sayings, verses, quotes, words,commands?



I cannot. And it's not my job to try.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I cannot. And it's not my job to try.


Then why exactly are you participating if you cannot tell who is or who isn't?


----------



## bullethead

Largest religion #s wise suddenly really doesn't have that many members after all.
Possibly Wanna Be Xtians should hold the title


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Then why exactly are you participating if you cannot tell who is or who isn't?



Why not? Can't we just converse without all the judgement and animosity. We are not enemies. We are on the same team. We both have an adversary that is not of flesh and blood. If more people could realize that, there would be far less strife.


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> Is everyone ignoring the people who do not have a medical or genetic problem that made them gluttonous ?(pick any one... food, booze, sex, gambling, hoarding, collecting anything in amounts above and beyond more than is necessary, etc etc, etc...) And got themselves to the point where there actions are solely responsible for their excess.  You Real Chriatians are now just making more excuses using extremely small percentages of examples of people while ignoring the vast majority of people who in this case are just not only fat but morbidly  obese because they do in fact eat too much (watch 600lb life). You Real Christians are doing it to avoid the fact that there are very few "real" Christians. Period. The only "real" Christian seen is the one in the mirror, everyone else just isn't quite at your level are they?
> 
> To the believers,  Which other believers in here make your "real" Christian list?, and do not forget to explain why...



They are all “Real Christians”


NCHillbilly said:


> A peek into the front grocery-toting part of that electric cart that the obese lady at walmart is riding around on is usually very, very telling.



Yeah, not a lot from the produce department.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> So once identified you’ve got no problem saying a glutton isn’t a real christian. You’re just slower to call a spade on that one than on WBC.


Let me clarify........I don’t have a problem calling a glutton a sinner.......I just don’t see me identifying the individual person. 

As for WBC......they’ve stepped up to the plate and identified themselves with the way they behave.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Is everyone ignoring the people who do not have a medical or genetic problem that made them gluttonous ?(pick any one... food, booze, sex, gambling, hoarding, collecting anything in amounts above and beyond more than is necessary, etc etc, etc...) And got themselves to the point where there actions are solely responsible for their excess.  You Real Chriatians are now just making more excuses using extremely small percentages of examples of people while ignoring the vast majority of people who in this case are just not only fat but morbidly  obese because they do in fact eat too much (watch 600lb life). You Real Christians are doing it to avoid the fact that there are very few "real" Christians. Period. The only "real" Christian seen is the one in the mirror, everyone else just isn't quite at your level are they?
> 
> To the believers,  Which other believers in here make your "real" Christian list?, and do not forget to explain why...


I don’t think anyone is ignoring anything. The trend of this thread turned to “the fat man is a glutton” instead of “is the glutton a fake Christian” Gluttony is wrong....period. Being obese isn’t if isn’t related to glutton. 

That’s just wrong in so many ways. To make that judgment, you’re ignoring EVERYTHING that could be medically causing it. He may be glutton. But being obese isn’t and shouldn’t be the automatic qualifier.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Let me clarify........I don’t have a problem calling a glutton a sinner.......I just don’t see me identifying the individual person.
> 
> As for WBC......they’ve stepped up to the plate and identified themselves with the way they behave.



And... Christians that don’t turn away from their sins aren’t “real Christians” according to some. That sure is a wide net to be casting just to disassociate yourself from WBC.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Why not? Can't we just converse without all the judgement and animosity. We are not enemies. We are on the same team. We both have an adversary that is not of flesh and blood. If more people could realize that, there would be far less strife.


I disagree


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> And... Christians that don’t turn away from their sins aren’t “real Christians” according to some. That sure is a wide net to be casting just to disassociate yourself from WBC.


Well the whole point is to turn away from your sins is what I’ve always been taught. Maybe some that feel they can still indulge in whatever could help us out. 

Not casting a net to disassociate with WBC.........I think you’re missing what I’m saying. Them stepping up to the plate to identify themselves is no different than someone beating his wife. I don’t have to identify them, they did themselves.

If you’re confident calling WBC Christianity, that’s all well and good. But for those of us that feel like they are an embarrassment and not what we represent, don’t call us judge-mental because we don’t embrace their actions.

Although poachers are in the same woods dressed like hunters, does that mean they’re hunters? Do they represent the image of hunting? They too, are an embarrassment to me. Maybe I am just judge-mental.


----------



## bullethead

Still, nobody is willing to step up and name some names along with explanations on who they consider A real Christian.  Lets call it a role model Christian. Which believer in here is a role model Christian,  why?

Welder is able to find a biblical verse the eliminates an individual from being a Christian . Can anyone name a person that is not under the same umbrella... name a person who follows and fulfills every verse to being Christ Like??


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Well the whole point is to turn away from your sins is what I’ve always been taught. Maybe some that feel they can still indulge in whatever could help us out.
> 
> Not casting a net to disassociate with WBC.........I think you’re missing what I’m saying. Them stepping up to the plate to identify themselves is no different than someone beating his wife. I don’t have to identify them, they did themselves.
> 
> If you’re confident calling WBC Christianity, that’s all well and good. But for those of us that feel like they are an embarrassment and not what we represent, don’t call us judge-mental because we don’t embrace their actions.
> 
> Although poachers are in the same woods dressed like hunters, does that mean they’re hunters? Do they represent the image of hunting? They too, are an embarrassment to me. Maybe I am just judge-mental.



They identify themselves as Christians. You’re the one identifying them as something other than that.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Still, nobody is willing to step up and name some names along with explanations on who they consider A real Christian.  Lets call it a role model Christian. Which believer in here is a role model Christian,  why?
> 
> Welder is able to find a biblical verse the eliminates an individual from being a Christian . Can anyone name a person that is not under the same umbrella... name a person who follows and fulfills every verse to being Christ Like??



The question was asked long ago, "Who then is my neighbor?" 
The dirty rotten Samaritan, whom we don't associate with because he's lower class? Or maybe the fella in the ditch is the neighbor. Do we consider him unworthy of attention and walk on the other side to avoid him?
All this picking and choosing who's in and who's out doesn't make for very good neighborly love. We're told to be not a respector of persons. Even love our enemies. Those who persecute us. I don't believe that leaves any room to consider someone as not your neighbor....even WBC
(remember, we wrestle not against flesh and blood....)


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> They identify themselves as Christians. You’re the one identifying them as something other than that.


Ok that’s a fair argument. If you got technical, you’re correct. To me, it’s no different than the Bruce Jenner analogy He identifies himself as a woman. All of the evidence proves otherwise. I’m seeing what the evidence is revealing.

I didn’t decide that WBC misrepresents the American, their actions of protesting American soldier’s funerals with hate speeches did it for them. I’m just seeing the results for what they really are. I didn’t decide that they don’t represent Christianity, I read where love thy brother, your neighbor, pray for your enemies  and doing unto others are characteristics of Christianity......opposite approach of WBC.

If I saw any size man over eating just because he wants to, I’d see the results of gluttony. If I see a man on the beach with a beer, or a cooler of beer, I don’t see an alcoholic. If I he comes up to me asking money for food and I see him hitting the bottle under the bridge, then I see the alcoholic.

What I’m trying to say is I don’t know who is what just by looking at them, but when they do specific things, you should be able read that. If that’s judgement, I’m guilty.


----------



## Spotlite

welderguy said:


> The question was asked long ago, "Who then is my neighbor?"
> The dirty rotten Samaritan, whom we don't associate with because he's lower class? Or maybe the fella in the ditch is the neighbor. Do we consider him unworthy of attention and walk on the other side to avoid him?
> All this picking and choosing who's in and who's out doesn't make for very good neighborly love. We're told to be not a respector of persons. Even love our enemies. Those who persecute us. I don't believe that leaves any room to consider someone as not your neighbor....even WBC
> (remember, we wrestle not against flesh and blood....)


Thst is true......as long as folks understand that praying for your neighbors and loving them doesn’t mean you accept / approve their behavior.........and not accepting / approving their behavior isn’t not loving and praying for them.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The question was asked long ago, "Who then is my neighbor?"
> The dirty rotten Samaritan, whom we don't associate with because he's lower class? Or maybe the fella in the ditch is the neighbor. Do we consider him unworthy of attention and walk on the other side to avoid him?
> All this picking and choosing who's in and who's out doesn't make for very good neighborly love. We're told to be not a respector of persons. Even love our enemies. Those who persecute us. I don't believe that leaves any room to consider someone as not your neighbor....even WBC
> (remember, we wrestle not against flesh and blood....)





> All this picking and choosing who's in and who's out doesn't make for very good neighborly love.


That ^ made me chuckle.
You subscribe to a religion that at its foundation does exactly that..... picks and chooses who's in and who's out.
But you know what? I think your statement is certainly accurate when you consider history and what "who's in and who's out" has caused.


----------



## welderguy

Spotlite said:


> Thst is true......as long as folks understand that praying for your neighbors and loving them doesn’t mean you accept / approve their behavior.........and not accepting / approving their behavior isn’t not loving and praying for them.



Sure. But too often we find ourselves doing like those that brought the woman caught in the act of adultery. We accuse and then pick up the rocks ready to stone, never even considering our own guilt.
A very humble man said this to me once." I'd rather err on the side of mercy a thousand times than to err on the side of judgement once."


----------



## atlashunter

Spot they are reading the same book you are. They are just emphasizing different parts of it from you. If real Christians aren’t guilty of that then there is no such thing as a Christian. The Bible cites repeated examples of Yahweh punishing wicked nations. That’s not controversial in Christian circles. Nor is the claim that the US has become a wicked nation. WBC puts those two together and reaches the conclusion that American soldiers die because they serve a wicked nation. You might find the conclusion crass but you can’t deny the premises used to reach it are common in mainstream Christianity.


----------



## Jack Ryan

Who is it God says has the job of judging sinners?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The question was asked long ago, "Who then is my neighbor?"
> The dirty rotten Samaritan, whom we don't associate with because he's lower class? Or maybe the fella in the ditch is the neighbor. Do we consider him unworthy of attention and walk on the other side to avoid him?
> All this picking and choosing who's in and who's out doesn't make for very good neighborly love. We're told to be not a respector of persons. Even love our enemies. Those who persecute us. I don't believe that leaves any room to consider someone as not your neighbor....even WBC
> (remember, we wrestle not against flesh and blood....)


I can read between the lines.
There isn't a person that you can think of and/or give good reasons why you think they are a  Top Notch Christian.
I get it.

Knock the debbil rastlin off, it is a joke.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Spot they are reading the same book you are. They are just emphasizing different parts of it from you. If real Christians aren’t guilty of that then there is no such thing as a Christian. The Bible cites repeated examples of Yahweh punishing wicked nations. That’s not controversial in Christian circles. Nor is the claim that the US has become a wicked nation. WBC puts those two together and reaches the conclusion that American soldiers die because they serve a wicked nation. You might find the conclusion crass but you can’t deny the premises used to reach it are common in mainstream Christianity.


And???? Atheist read the same book, too.


----------



## Havana Dude

Wah wah, don’t judge me, but I’ll judge every single move a Christian makes.........hilarious. 

You guys MUST have something better to do???


----------



## Squadron77

Jesus + nothing = Salvation. Don't put the standard of being slim and in good shape as where salvation comes from. You can spend to much time hunting, fishing, watching football or anything that take you away from time with God. Daniel ate vegetables and was in great shape but Eli was obese but was the judge for Israel for 40 years. Jesus paid the price for all of our sins past and future.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I can read between the lines.
> There isn't a person that you can think of and/or give good reasons why you think they are a  Top Notch Christian.
> I get it.
> 
> Knock the debbil rastlin off, it is a joke.


Interesting.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> That's the same question we ask when you guys try to separate out real/good Christians from fake/bad Christians.
> If the whole idea is that all men sin then there is no good/bad/real/fake etc.
> Then it all boils down to which sins/behaviors are worse than others or if sin is sin.


I have to agree with you here. I don’t know anything about real, fake, good, bad or top notch Christians.....I’m more along the lines of eliminating the grey and going with either you are, or you’re not. 

However, I guess I do have a hang up, or at least reservations with just believing everyone is what they are claiming based on their word. 

If a man has been on this earth long enough to get out of high school and can’t tell when folks “ain’t what they claim”......well, life is going to be tough for a fella like that. He doesn’t need to go to a used car lot alone. You have to have enough walking around sense to not be naive. 

The Jim Jones followers would have faired out a lot better had they recognized a wolf in sheep’s clothing.


----------



## Israel

Spotlite said:


> I have to agree with you here. I don’t know anything about real, fake, good, bad or top notch Christians.....I’m more along the lines of eliminating the grey and going with either you are, or you’re not.
> 
> However, I guess I do have a hang up, or at least reservations with just believing everyone is what they are claiming based on their word.
> 
> If a man has been on this earth long enough to get out of high school and can’t tell when folks “ain’t what they claim”......well, life is going to be tough for a fella like that. He doesn’t need to go to a used car lot alone. You have to have enough walking around sense to not be naive.
> 
> The Jim Jones followers would have faired out a lot better had they recognized a wolf in sheep’s clothing.






> The Jim Jones followers would have faired out a lot better had they recognized a wolf in sheep’s clothing.



That's a question never far from me...because I know I cannot answer it for myself. Nor can any other man...not even my wife.

Wolves never think they are...just as the Devil cannot know he is evil, for that would require the one thing he does not and can never have...light. In truth, the Devil can easily appear as the "nicest" guy around.

"All of a man's ways are right in his own eyes" 

This truth is not suspended, nor indulgence given..._even_ for the "christian".


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> And???? Atheist read the same book, too.



Sure but unlike you and WBC they know fiction when they see it.


----------



## atlashunter

Squadron77 said:


> Jesus + nothing = Salvation. Don't put the standard of being slim and in good shape as where salvation comes from. You can spend to much time hunting, fishing, watching football or anything that take you away from time with God. Daniel ate vegetables and was in great shape but Eli was obese but was the judge for Israel for 40 years. Jesus paid the price for all of our sins past and future.



Tell that to the folks who say you ain’t really a Christian if you don’t turn away from your sins.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Sure but unlike you and WBC they know fiction when they see it.


Wow ok. See I thought you were discussing gluttony. This is how you know an atheist has run out of discussion lol????? The problem with your statement is it’s false. I am more confident in my conclusion of Santa than you are of this “fiction”. The sad part, is you hold both in the same league. I assume you’re still leaving milk and cookies out on Christmas Eve. Have a nice day!


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Wow ok. See I thought you were discussing gluttony. This is how you know an atheist has run out of discussion lol????? The problem with your statement is it’s false. I am more confident in my conclusion of Santa than you are of this “fiction”. The sad part, is you hold both in the same league. I assume you’re still leaving milk and cookies out on Christmas Eve. Have a nice day!


The Santa/God of the Bible comparison has been covered, answered, answered again  and re-answered. Yet you are still back at the beginning and you claim Atlas has run out of Discussion!?!?!?!????


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> That's a question never far from me...because I know I cannot answer it for myself. Nor can any other man...not even my wife.
> 
> Wolves never think they are...just as the Devil cannot know he is evil, for that would require the one thing he does not and can never have...light. In truth, the Devil can easily appear as the "nicest" guy around.
> 
> "All of a man's ways are right in his own eyes"
> 
> This truth is not suspended, nor indulgence given..._even_ for the "christian".





> In truth, the Devil can easily appear as the "nicest" guy around.


Yes thats the danger in worshipping based on "appearances".


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> The Santa/God of the Bible comparison has been covered, answered, answered again  and re-answered. Yet you are still back at the beginning and you claim Atlas has run out of Discussion!?!?!?!????


I assume you’re leaving the milk and cookies out, too? Some of you pick and choose out of convenience when to compare the two and place them in the same category of mythical characters, yet none of you can say you’re 100% confident of the one. It only leaves the option open that the other might be out there, too.

It’s this easy, I’m absolutely 100% confident in saying I’m 100% certain that Santa is a myth. Period.

If you can’t, you can’t honestly say it’s fiction.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I assume you’re leaving the milk and cookies out, too? Some of you pick and choose out of convenience when to compare the two and place them in the same category of mythical characters, yet none of you can say you’re 100% confident of the one. It only leaves the option open that the other might be out there, too.
> 
> It’s this easy, I’m absolutely 100% confident in saying I’m 100% certain that Santa is a myth. Period.
> 
> If you can’t, you can’t honestly say it’s fiction.


Spotlite, again you continue on trying hard to use the Santa and YOUR god examples that I Personally addressed numerous times. 

I am 100% confident that there is No Santa and am 100% confident there is no god as described in the Bible. Both equal in the Myth department.
How many more times, and in how many different ways can I say he SAME THING before you understand, it, you retain it,  and you reference it before you bring it up as some sort of point yet again????


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Spotlite said:


> I assume you’re leaving the milk and cookies out, too? Some of you pick and choose out of convenience when to compare the two and place them in the same category of mythical characters, yet none of you can say you’re 100% confident of the one. It only leaves the option open that the other might be out there, too.
> 
> It’s this easy, I’m absolutely 100% confident in saying I’m 100% certain that Santa is a myth. Period.
> 
> If you can’t, you can’t honestly say it’s fiction.



If you haven’t figured it out, intellectual dishonesty along with any moral conviction to adhere to ANY truth what-so-ever is the cardinal sign of those who have, and display a resentment toward God or anything they interprete to represent him.  It’s why it’s pointless to attempt to debate them; no allegiance to truth or reality.  In short, it’s the most vacuous form of insanity.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Wow ok. See I thought you were discussing gluttony. This is how you know an atheist has run out of discussion lol????? The problem with your statement is it’s false. I am more confident in my conclusion of Santa than you are of this “fiction”. The sad part, is you hold both in the same league. I assume you’re still leaving milk and cookies out on Christmas Eve. Have a nice day!



Must have hit a nerve.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you haven’t figured it out, intellectual dishonesty along with any moral conviction to adhere to ANY truth what-so-ever is the cardinal sign of those who have, and display a resentment toward God or anything they interprete to represent him.  It’s why it’s pointless to attempt to debate them; no allegiance to truth or reality.  In short, it’s the most vacuous form of insanity.


Not a single one of you let alone any human ever, has been able to do anything but assert claims of a god, then you bark out about intellectual honesty as if you are the pinnacle of which all others are judged. Typical SFD  move.
Show us the god you assert and enter the intellectual world that you pretend to be a member of.
Intellect:
*a: *the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will *: *the capacity for knowledge
b*: *the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed

SFD, you posses neither a or b.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Must have hit a nerve.


Nope. Just curious as to why the resorting back to the “fiction” issue rather than discussing the topic. But ok. If you’re going with fictional characters and ruling them all out the same, and taking “one god further”.......then do exactly that. Stop being uncertain, be a man and say you’re 100% certain, or at least you’re as certain as you are with the rest of them. If you got them all lumped together, by keeping the small amount of possibilities open to one, that means it’s open to all of them and you’re still not 100% certain that the reason you can’t catch ole Nick is he might just have you on the naughty list.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I assume you’re leaving the milk and cookies out, too? Some of you pick and choose out of convenience when to compare the two and place them in the same category of mythical characters, yet none of you can say you’re 100% confident of the one. It only leaves the option open that the other might be out there, too.
> 
> It’s this easy, I’m absolutely 100% confident in saying I’m 100% certain that Santa is a myth. Period.
> 
> If you can’t, you can’t honestly say it’s fiction.



I don’t leave milk and cookies out but if I did I would be as confident that Saint Nick won’t be eating them as I am that your prayers for an amputee to regrow their severed limb will go unanswered. You boys talk a good game about how confident you are in the existence of a divine being who acts on your behalf yet you still go to the doctor, buy insurance and carry firearms. I’ll issue you the same challenge I’ve issued before. I’ll go out of the plane with a parachute, you go out with your Bible and a prayer, and I’ll meet you on the ground to find out what answer you got.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, again you continue on trying hard to use the Santa and YOUR god examples that I Personally addressed numerous times.
> 
> I am 100% confident that there is No Santa and am 100% confident there is no god as described in the Bible. Both equal in the Myth department.
> How many more times, and in how many different ways can I say he SAME THING before you understand, it, you retain it,  and you reference it before you bring it up as some sort of point yet again????


So the last time I asked you, you couldn’t say you were 100%  certain and gave a technical response for being 100% certain of anything. Yes I bring it up when it’s referred to as fiction by someone who can’t say they’re certain. If you’re certain, then this doesn’t apply to you. Why did you chime in?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> So the last time I asked you, you couldn’t say you were 100%  certain and gave a technical response for being 100% certain of anything. Yes I bring it up when it’s referred to as fiction by someone who can’t say they’re certain. If you’re certain, then this doesn’t apply to you. Why did you chime in?


You better go back and re-read it a 5th time.
I have always said that I am certain that the god of and as told in the bible, and any god as told by any human do not exist.

I have no idea of knowing about something I have not heard of or had any dealings with.

I chime in when I see you are misrepresenting what was actually said for what you think was said.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You better go back and re-read it a 5th time.
> I have always said that I am certain that the god of and as told in the bible, and any god as told by any human do not exist.
> 
> I have no idea of knowing about something I have not heard of or had any dealings with.
> 
> I chime in when I see you are misrepresenting what was actually said for what you think was said.


Then why are you even trying to answer a reply that wasn’t even for you????? I asked Atlas. If you feel the need to chime in on waters already chartered, then expect to hear it again.

But since you’re here, are you 100% certain / positive that God is a myth? You know this as a fact??  Simple yes or no.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Then why are you even trying to answer a reply that wasn’t even for you????? I asked Atlas. If you feel the need to chime in on waters already chartered, then expect to hear it again.


You didn't ask anyone, you assert in order to make a point you are trying to make seem valid. You are dying to find someone to use the Santa/God you believe in analogy in the hopes that it works .
By all means Carry on, the fact that you use a god, your god, any god in same category as Santa is nothing for me to argue against.


----------



## atlashunter

Spot you’re the one that went off on the silly tangent about atheists reading the bible. In that context making the distinction that excludes them from you and WBC in the question of what makes a real Christian conversation was entirely on point. Atheists by virtue of the definition of the term do not believe in the mythologies you and WBC share a belief in. And biblically speaking, belief is a key characteristic in being a Christian is it not? It is according to John 3:16. So why did you go off topic by bringing up those who don’t believe and don’t pretend to? I never suggested WBC are Christians because they read the Bible. The point was that they find sanction for what you consider hateful activity in the very Bible you think discredits them. I also never said I was any less certain that Yahweh is a fictional character than fairies or Santa Claus or any other myth so I don’t know where you got that from.


----------



## j_seph

Spotlite said:


> I have to agree with you here. I don’t know anything about real, fake, good, bad or top notch Christians.....I’m more along the lines of eliminating the grey and going with either you are, or you’re not.
> 
> However, I guess I do have a hang up, or at least reservations with just believing everyone is what they are claiming based on their word.
> 
> If a man has been on this earth long enough to get out of high school and can’t tell when folks “ain’t what they claim”......well, life is going to be tough for a fella like that. He doesn’t need to go to a used car lot alone. You have to have enough walking around sense to not be naive.
> 
> The Jim Jones followers would have faired out a lot better had they recognized a wolf in sheep’s clothing.


I believe the bible tells us also that the spirit will bare witness


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you haven’t figured it out, intellectual dishonesty along with any moral conviction to adhere to ANY truth what-so-ever is the cardinal sign of those who have, and display a resentment toward God or anything they interprete to represent him.  It’s why it’s pointless to attempt to debate them; no allegiance to truth or reality.  In short, it’s the most vacuous form of insanity.



Sounds like something any brainwashed cultist would say. Here is some intellectual honesty for you. Prayers to Jesus are no more effective than prayers to Santy Claus. Prove me wrong.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You didn't ask anyone, you assert in order to make a point you are trying to make seem valid. You are dying to find someone to use the Santa/God you believe in analogy in the hopes that it works .
> By all means Carry on, the fact that you use a god, your god, any god in same category as Santa is nothing for me to argue against.


Lol you’re drowning dude. I quoted a post Atlas made.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Lol you’re drowning dude. I quoted a post Atlas made.


Atlas himself made his views on your god clear a few posts above.
Lol, tee'hee, giggity giggity, dude.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Spot you’re the one that went off on the silly tangent about atheists reading the bible. In that context making the distinction that excludes them from you and WBC in the question of what makes a real Christian conversation was entirely on point. Atheists by virtue of the definition of the term do not believe in the mythologies you and WBC share a belief in. And biblically speaking, belief is a key characteristic in being a Christian is it not? It is according to John 3:16. So why did you go off topic by bringing up those who don’t believe and don’t pretend to? I never suggested WBC are Christians because they read the Bible. The point was that they find sanction for what you consider hateful activity in the very Bible you think discredits them. I also never said I was any less certain that Yahweh is a fictional character than fairies or Santa Claus or any other myth so I don’t know where you got that from.






atlashunter said:


> Sure but unlike you and WBC they know fiction when they see it.


If WBC reading the same Bible that I do and using it to support their conclusions......finds their “sanctions” That ultimately connects them to being “Christian”. What difference are they than you??

The other issues is in reference to back tracking to the fictional debate. If you believe it’s fictional, ok I’m good with that. If you’ve ruled them all out and took it one god further, I’m good with that, too. But if you’re leaving a small, minimum chance of a small possibility  that this one isn’t ruled out.....then you haven’t taken it one god further after all. And any comparison to this one to any other fictional character ever used here means they’re not ruled out either.

If that small opening is there, your “fictional” statement is false hope. THAT’S my point.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Atlas himself made his views on your god clear a few posts above.
> Lol, tee'hee, giggity giggity, dude.


Lol ok then. I stand corrected. I’m not opposed to that you know. (Read the above post and see if you nailed it)

BTW.....didn’t you recently say something along the lines “the door is shut, but unlocked”......when it came to your certainty of no God???? 

I’ve locked the door on all the others lol ?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> If WBC reading the same Bible that I do and using it to support their conclusions......finds their “sanctions” What difference are they than you??
> 
> The other issues is in reference to back tracking to the fictional debate. If you believe it’s fictional, ok I’m good with that. If you’ve ruled them all out and took it one god further, I’m good with that, too. But if you’re leaving a small, minimum chance of a small possibility  that this one isn’t ruled out.....then you haven’t taken it one god further after all. And any comparison to this one to any other fictional character ever used here means they’re not ruled out either.
> 
> If that small opening is there, your “fictional” statement is false hope. THAT’S my point.



I already pointed out the difference in the post that seemed to ruffle your feathers. They (like you) believe the claims of the Bible are true, specifically with respect to the claims surrounding the resurrection and salvation by way of a human sacrifice. Atheists don’t. That is the difference. That doesn’t mean we can’t read the book and discuss what is written in it without believing it is true. If you can’t make that distinction I don’t know what to tell you.

Concerning there being a chance... you’re much like Lloyd Christmas from Dumb and Dumber. There is always a chance we could be wrong about any mythology but I wouldn’t bet on it.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Lol ok then. I stand corrected. I’m not opposed to that you know. (Read the above post and see if you nailed it)
> 
> BTW.....didn’t you recently say something along the lines “the door is shut, but unlocked”......when it came to your certainty of no God????
> 
> I’ve locked the door on all the others lol ?



Your god was originally one of many Canaanite gods. You say they were all myth, except for one. That seems to me unlikely in the extreme. Other than childhood indoctrination why should you or anyone else believe El is any more real than Asherah?


----------



## bobocat

1 Corinthians 2:14 

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Lol ok then. I stand corrected. I’m not opposed to that you know. (Read the above post and see if you nailed it)
> 
> BTW.....didn’t you recently say something along the lines “the door is shut, but unlocked”......when it came to your certainty of no God????
> 
> I’ve locked the door on all the others lol ?


Spot, if you care to look over what I said IN IT'S ENTIRETY,  you will plainly see then, as I have said now, and as I have said numerous times in between...
I have ruled out all/every/ THE, Any, gods that humans have introduced, believed in, written about, spoken about , worshipped . That includes ALL of the gods you have ruled out and ESPECIALLY the god you currently worship.

The door is unlocked for anything that I am currently unaware of to contact me whether it be a thing we humans would call a god, aliens, ghosts, Foots that are Big, Santa, Mighty Mouse, Darth Vader, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, The Blob, Godzilla, The Hulk, Scooby Doo Leprechauns and/or any creature, comic book character, local legend, cartoon character, entity, demon, etc etc etc^10.

I keep my house door locked and my vehicles locked because I do not want anyone else in.

Your belief door is locked because you do not want to allow anyone else in.

My belief door is unlocked because I dont have a concern that anyone or anything is around to open it. Call me confident.

I will say it again to you, and to whatever thing you want to be out there, and to anything neither of us know about that *may* be out there which is unknown....bring it. Contact me. I Triple Dogg Dare you.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> I keep my house door locked and my vehicles locked because I do not want anyone else in.
> 
> Your belief door is locked because you do not want to allow anyone else in.



An excellent point that will probably go right over their heads. If anyone is guilty of seeking out what is true at the risk of accepting deeply held beliefs might be wrong it is the atheist who was once a believer.


----------



## Squadron77

All Christians will be considered fools if we are wrong. I can only testify that I was a drunkard, womanizer and a drug addict until the moment Jesus called me. I am still a sinner but saved by grace and I have to keep that hope or fall back into a life of death. Even the atheist should rejoice in a changed life though they consider me a fool.

1 Corinthians

*12*But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? *13*If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. *14*And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. *15*In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God. For we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead, but He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised.
*16*For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. *17*And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. *18*Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. *19*If our hope in Christ is for this life alone, we are to be pitied more than all men.


----------



## atlashunter

Squadron77 said:


> 1 Corinthians
> 
> *12*But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? *13*If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. *14*And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. *15*In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God. For we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead, but He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised.
> *16*For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. *17*And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. *18*Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. *19*If our hope in Christ is for this life alone, we are to be pitied more than all men.



“We are hopeless if zombies aren’t real.”


----------



## ambush80

Squadron77 said:


> All Christians will be considered fools if we are wrong. I can only testify that I was a drunkard, womanizer and a drug addict until the moment Jesus called me. I am still a sinner but saved by grace and I have to keep that hope or fall back into a life of death. Even the atheist should rejoice in a changed life though they consider me a fool.
> 
> 1 Corinthians
> 
> *12*But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? *13*If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. *14*And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. *15*In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God. For we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead, but He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised.
> *16*For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. *17*And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. *18*Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. *19*If our hope in Christ is for this life alone, we are to be pitied more than all men.



I'm glad that you've turned your life around.  Are you open to the possibility that you could have changed your life some other way?  I recognize that the influence  of Christianity is not only part of our Western culture but that it's ubiquitous in our society, and as a result,  it's quite easy to encounter it and adopt it as a lifestyle choice.  You seem to recognize that your life is better.  Isn't that enough reason to "be good"?   What is it about your Christianity that keeps you on the "straight and narrow"?  Is it the fear of letting Jesus down or going to He11?  What would cause you to "slip up" if you didn't have your faith?  

"There's no need to do good things for bad reasons when good reasons are readily available."

-- Sam Harris


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> “We are hopeless if zombies aren’t real.”



That's one way to put it, but what would be the most charitable way to express that same thing?


----------



## atlashunter

Worked with an American sailor in Japan years ago that had converted to Buddhism. He told me a story once about how he was once stranded with a broke down car. I don’t recall all the details now but basically he started repeating these Buddhist chants and shortly thereafter a solution to his delimma came. That was his experience and he was convinced it was his Buddhist chants that helped him. I remember it struck me at the time how similar it was to Christian testimonies of prayer being answered. Few years ago I was in Delphi. There is a building there in the ancient ruins that a wealthy man built and dedicated to one of the Greek gods after his blind wife recovered her sight, apparently thanks to that god. If similar experiences can be used to validate different contradictory beliefs maybe a higher standard of validation is called for.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> That's one way to put it, but what would be the most charitable way to express that same thing?



Sorry ambush. I’m fresh out of lipstick and silk hats today.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Sorry ambush. I’m fresh out of lipstick and silk hats today.



I'm wondering if there's any utility to the belief that _“We are hopeless if zombies aren’t real.”  _ Maybe if it were expressed in a different way.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Worked with an American sailor in Japan years ago that had converted to Buddhism. He told me a story once about how he was once stranded with a broke down car. I don’t recall all the details now but basically he started repeating these Buddhist chants and shortly thereafter a solution to his delimma came. That was his experience and he was convinced it was his Buddhist chants that helped him. I remember it struck me at the time how similar it was to Christian testimonies of prayer being answered. Few years ago I was in Delphi. There is a building there in the ancient ruins that a wealthy man built and dedicated to one of the Greek gods after his blind wife recovered her sight, apparently thanks to that god. If similar experiences can be used to validate different contradictory beliefs maybe a higher standard of validation is called for.




That's how superstition works.  People are prone to remember the hits and not the misses.  A coworker of mine died the night before one of my earliest deer hunts.  As I sat shivering up a tree I asked "Bob, send me a deer".  Some time later a 6 pointer showed up and I killed my first deer.  Almost 30 years later I still sometimes say "Bob, send me a deer".  Sometime he does.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> That's one way to put it, but what would be the most charitable way to express that same thing?


We are hopeless if life does not conquer death.


----------



## Israel

Ohhh boy oh boy, but ain't we a creative lot? (Wonder where we get it from?)

Kinda like some took an assignment "go see how many ways you can say another man is a fool...without actually using the word _fool_."

Now, the award ceremony is coming up, not for believing the Reality can hear, not for believing the Reality can see, remember, nor even for believing the Reality is conscious (and that...all of it). Nope, there ain't no awards for that...even the devils know it. And tremble. 

The award ceremony is for those who came as close to fulfilling that assignment without resorting to the word fool. I see some real contenders.

Now often, awards don't really feel like awards. Kinda like that slap in the face to wake you before you know the house is on fire...don't really feel like a_ kindness_ at all. Lotsa folks wake up swingin'. Fists and elbows go up and everything. But when one settles down and smells the smoke...comes to _their senses..._

_that someone thought enough of you to wake you..._

Now, in _our creativity_ when finally awoken to the one who didn't "make up" a thing he said (instead studiously speaking what he heard from his Father) we get glad to finally hear him more clearly. The slap may once have seemed unkind...but the words that follow do far more to remove that seeming rudeness than anything else ever could.

We get real glad, and I mean _real glad _that in all the ways we have said another is a fool (because we have first surely thought it) He _didn't say_ one such is utterly bound for the he11 of fire. That what He did say is one is in danger of it. 

Now, before I get accused of encouraging any to push the envelope...see how close to the edge one can come...do experiments with God's patience and see if one can out clever Him "Hey, I didn't _say_ _fool_!"

Just say no.

The merest taste of being awoken to the danger of he11 fire feels all to a man as though he is in the worst possible estate beyond conception. And that's just the taste of...the danger of it. You'd think at that time...no one could ever be thankful...for this. Ever.

Then you get glad you got woken up...and not cast into it. And glad for all that Jesus says. And in His saying...saves.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Ohhh boy oh boy, but ain't we a creative lot? (Wonder where we get it from?)
> 
> Kinda like some took an assignment "go see how many ways you can say another man is a fool...without actually using the word _fool_."
> 
> Now, the award ceremony is coming up, not for believing the Reality can hear, not for believing the Reality can see, remember, nor even for believing the Reality is conscious (and that...all of it). Nope, there ain't no awards for that...even the devils know it. And tremble.
> 
> The award ceremony is for those who came as close to fulfilling that assignment without resorting to the word fool. I see some real contenders.
> 
> Now often, awards don't really feel like awards. Kinda like that slap in the face to wake you before you know the house is on fire...don't really feel like a_ kindness_ at all. Lotsa folks wake up swingin'. Fists and elbows go up and everything. But when one settles down and smells the smoke...comes to _their senses..._
> 
> _that someone thought enough of you to wake you..._
> 
> Now, in _our creativity_ when finally awoken to the one who didn't "make up" a thing he said (instead studiously speaking what he heard from his Father) we get glad to finally hear him more clearly. The slap may once have seemed unkind...but the words that follow do far more to remove that seeming rudeness than anything else ever could.
> 
> We get real glad, and I mean _real glad _that in all the ways we have said another is a fool (because we have first surely thought it) He _didn't say_ one such is utterly bound for the he11 of fire. That what He did say is one is in danger of it.
> 
> Now, before I get accused of encouraging any to push the envelope...see how close to the edge one can come...do experiments with God's patience and see if one can out clever Him "Hey, I didn't _say_ _fool_!"
> 
> Just say no.
> 
> The merest taste of being awoken to the danger of he11 fire feels all to a man as though he is in the worst possible estate beyond conception. And that's just the taste of...the danger of it. You'd think at that time...no one could ever be thankful...for this. Ever.
> 
> Then you get glad you got woken up...and not cast into it. And glad for all that Jesus says. And in His saying...saves.


You'll never be accused of being specific, clear, concise, factual or to the point.


----------



## Havana Dude

In contrast to the OP title..........Are atheists real atheists if they  continually talk about God?


----------



## atlashunter

Havana Dude said:


> In contrast to the OP title..........Are atheists real atheists if they  continually talk about God?



Be glad they are here. Without them this forum would be as dull as the rest of the spiritual forums.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Be glad they are here. Without them this forum would be as dull as the rest of the spiritual forums.


More lively here with much less Christian-like fighting. Warnings posted at the top of the threads posted in the Christian Forum....priceless.


----------



## Havana Dude

As I figured, no response.


----------



## ambush80

Havana Dude said:


> In contrast to the OP title..........Are atheists real atheists if they  continually talk about God?



Yes, I believe they can be.  I don't continually talk about god(s) or religion.  This is one of the only places that I do.  But even if I were an anthropologist, psychologist or theologian I could be an atheist and talk about god quite a bit.  I'm interested in the ways that the ideas of god(s) and religions affect individuals and society.


----------



## bullethead

Havana Dude said:


> In contrast to the OP title..........Are atheists real atheists if they  continually talk about God?


They are Top Tier Atheists when they continually talk about why gods do not exist. What else do you expect an Atheist to talk about when in Atheist mode?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> You'll never be accused of being specific, clear, concise, factual or to the point.




Not a chance...huh?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> They are Top Tier Atheists when they continually talk about why gods do not exist. What else do you expect an Atheist to talk about when in Atheist mode?




You write this stuff with a straight face?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> You write this stuff with a straight face?
> 
> View attachment 971105


I write it with my thumbs


----------



## Havana Dude

bullethead said:


> They are Top Tier Atheists when they continually talk about why gods do not exist. What else do you expect an Atheist to talk about when in Atheist mode?



I have no idea, but I tend to not bloviate on subjects I do not believe in. ITs kind of like talking about all the rain we didn’t receive yesterday. Quite literally a waste of time.


----------



## bullethead

Havana Dude said:


> I have no idea, but I tend to not bloviate on subjects I do not believe in. ITs kind of like talking about all the rain we didn’t receive yesterday. Quite literally a waste of time.


So then participating in conversations where you question others about how they spend their time is not a waste of time?
I don't care what forum or subject or topic there is, you will have Pro and Con. Every forum has a side that they argue. I find it extremely hard to believe that you do not participate in conversations where you make a case against something you do not believe in, or hunting tactics you do not use, or political views that are not yours but I guess it is possible if all you do on forums is to go in and question how others spend their time...that takes up a lot of time.
With 5200+ posts on here, I think you might be fibbing.


----------



## atlashunter

Havana Dude said:


> I have no idea, but I tend to not bloviate on subjects I do not believe in. ITs kind of like talking about all the rain we didn’t receive yesterday. Quite literally a waste of time.



Different strokes for different folks. I’m sure some people who spend copious amounts of time studying mythology or collecting comic books or reading novels would say sitting in a tree stand is a waste of time.


----------



## WaltL1

Havana Dude said:


> I have no idea, but I tend to not bloviate on subjects I do not believe in. ITs kind of like talking about all the rain we didn’t receive yesterday. Quite literally a waste of time.


Feel better about yourself now that you have informed us we are wasting our time?


----------



## Havana Dude

?


----------



## bullethead

Havana Dude said:


> ?


Better reply than biblical verses, not worthys, and god wants....


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> So then participating in conversations where you question others about how they spend their time is not a waste of time?
> I don't care what forum or subject or topic there is, you will have Pro and Con. Every forum has a side that they argue. I find it extremely hard to believe that you do not participate in conversations where you make a case against something you do not believe in, or hunting tactics you do not use, or political views that are not yours but I guess it is possible if all you do on forums is to go in and question how others spend their time...that takes up a lot of time.
> With 5200+ posts on here, I think you might be fibbing.






WaltL1 said:


> Feel better about yourself now that you have informed us we are wasting our time?






atlashunter said:


> Different strokes for different folks. I’m sure some people who spend copious amounts of time studying mythology or collecting comic books or reading novels would say sitting in a tree stand is a waste of time.




I get a lot out of "war" movies. Or at least _I think_ I do. But then, in thinking, there are very few movies that I have ever seen that cannot be reduced to such...as being _war movies_. War is broad contest made plain, but even what may first appear as _only_ personal contest can find itself expanded in thought to such broad contest.

Contest. Its beckoning may be, on some level so fundamental as to be irresistible to us.

So I recently caught a war movie and watched all the wars taking place within it. There's now almost always a moment in everything I see, watch (if it be such as a movie), experience, perceive...that has in that _some moment (highlighted _to my mind) of essential-ity. It's the moment that teaches me...but I would not be as presumptuous as to say it is the sole or even _paramount teachable moment_ because every man finds what he finds that _teaches him. _Or confirms something to him. (We may later argue whether is solely based in predisposition, that bias so many are fond of labeling "confirmation bias"...by which such labeling sounds, to those who use it...so very very perceptive...ha ha ha! As though simple recognition of a thing inures one to its effects!)

In "The Imitation Game" it came when Turing was in exchange with the detective whose questions about his previous work and development of the machine he called "Christopher" to the cracking of the Enigma Code, took this form in words:

"Do you ever think that such machines will be able to think _like us_." Said the detective. (No doubt if this were not the actual exchange, the writers had a present eye to the matter of AI)

In his bluntness Turing responded "That's a stupid question". And then went on to explain the _why_ of his response. And all the little wars come to light...as in this movie _in part_ (only) is against the backdrop of the larger one.

But, since I appear to not think as some of you do, it would be cruel to try and force you to a teachable moment...unless you already are in it. In which case I am also unnecessary.


----------



## bullethead

Wind Talkers  was a good war movie, hard to decipher the Apache Code.... the Germans had it good for a while until we captured a sub....what Enigma machine should we use to decipher yours?
In order to have a teachable moment the teacher must be clear and concise in his ways and his lessons must be in ways that make them easily understood and most of all interesting to the students.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Wind Talkers  was a good war movie, hard to decipher the Apache Code.... the Germans had it good for a while until we captured a sub....what Enigma machine should we use to decipher yours?
> In order to have a teachable moment the teacher must be clear and concise in his ways and his lessons must be in ways that make them easily understood and most of all interesting to the students.



Good one! I'm not only obtuse...but uninteresting. 

But I'm not the teacher...each one finds that to themselves in the moment. I'm here, but unnecessary.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Havana Dude said:


> In contrast to the OP title..........Are atheists real atheists if they  continually talk about God?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Good one! I'm not only obtuse...but uninteresting.
> 
> But I'm not the teacher...each one finds that to themselves in the moment. I'm here, but unnecessary.


I laid out the criteria, you made the calls.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I laid out the criteria, you made the calls.


Now you're just being clever...remember 

"AS always, I speak honestly".


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Wind Talkers  was a good war movie, hard to decipher the Apache Code.... the Germans had it good for a while until we captured a sub....what Enigma machine should we use to decipher yours?
> In order to have a teachable moment the teacher must be clear and concise in his ways and his lessons must be in ways that make them easily understood and most of all interesting to the students.



I imagine there is a point in most of his posts but I've never found the juice to be worth the squeeze.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Now you're just being clever...remember
> 
> "AS always, I speak honestly".


Not a thing dishonest about what I said.


----------



## Israel

Gee, (in quoting you) seems Atlas obviously has no difficulty making the connection and reference. Is Atlas...obtuse...not getting what you say?



atlashunter said:


> I imagine there is a point in most of his posts but I've never found the juice to be worth the squeeze.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> Gee, (in quoting you) seems Atlas obviously has no difficulty making the connection and reference. Is Atlas...obtuse...not getting what you say?



If by obtuse you mean not interested in trying to make sense of inane ramblings, absolutely.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Gee, (in quoting you) seems Atlas obviously has no difficulty making the connection and reference. Is Atlas...obtuse...not getting what you say?


Looks like #138 covered it.

And...
I have never used the word obtuse in any of our conversations. Don't put your words in my thumbs and then call me on it.


----------



## Israel

Good, now at least yer both on board. Let's settle on the agreement to inane ramblings at least if this in any part is meant to construe an_ honesty of agreement:_



bullethead said:


> Looks like #138 covered it.
> 
> And...
> I have never used the word obtuse in any of our conversations. Don't put your words in my thumbs and then call me on it.



Yes, I'll submit and dispense with using "obtuse" as the reference and go with "inane ramblings", which is at the very least as good a conveyance of some sort of appraisal.

It's odd that you think I was "calling you" on any particular description, for even had you used "obtuse" that was never the matter at hand. Do you imagine that I have not been called such, or described as (perhaps) worse, (what vegetables may be thrown often have yet a core of delicious sustenance) even in these discussions over the last years as to now suddenly take some sort of umbrage? Hasn't anyone ever told you reading is fundamental?

The matter I see you now ducking and dodging has not at all to do with anything you think _of me, _but rather an attempt to un-link a plain linkage of being purposely cryptic



> what Enigma machine should we use to decipher yours?



and then going on to state "but I was not talking _about you, _you have merely _taken _that labeling..."

I have no problem in appearing cryptic, no problem in being labeled even as one who to _my own purpose and pleasure _appears as one seeking to be so. Of course they appear as inane ramblings to you (both?) to the one who remains the writer that encouraged believers to "come down here (to the AA forum) where the _more intelligent are_" and the other who who states "As always, I speak honestly".

It is not in code that such plain speaking is made, so there is no need of deciphering.

What is on the table, and has been from the very outset in all, are these true statements...and what are statements made _in truth?_

Perhaps you both think this cryptic, inane, ridiculous... to "a believer" that they might find themselves facing what declares of itself "I am(or we are) the more intelligent, I am _the more _(if not completely) honest one."

But, you see, for the believer in Jesus Christ (many), who has met Jesus Christ (many), has had intercourse with Jesus Christ (many) and knows where all knowing resides, where all truth resides, for men to make such statements is not surprising at all. He's already told them where men will take their stand in opposition.

So, let them.


----------



## atlashunter

Nobody living has either met or had intercourse with someone who died 2,000 years ago. Perhaps it was arrogant of me to call atheists the more intelligent (although having been on both sides of the fence I do believe it more often than not true) but it strikes me as far more arrogant to claim to have met, know and speak on behalf of a god.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Good, now at least yer both on board. Let's settle on the agreement to inane ramblings at least if this in any part is meant to construe an_ honesty of agreement:_
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'll submit and dispense with using "obtuse" as the reference and go with "inane ramblings", which is at the very least as good a conveyance of some sort of appraisal.
> 
> It's odd that you think I was "calling you" on any particular description, for even had you used "obtuse" that was never the matter at hand. Do you imagine that I have not been called such, or described as (perhaps) worse, (what vegetables may be thrown often have yet a core of delicious sustenance) even in these discussions over the last years as to now suddenly take some sort of umbrage? Hasn't anyone ever told you reading is fundamental?
> 
> The matter I see you now ducking and dodging has not at all to do with anything you think _of me, _but rather an attempt to un-link a plain linkage of being purposely cryptic
> 
> 
> 
> and then going on to state "but I was not talking _about you, _you have merely _taken _that labeling..."
> 
> I have no problem in appearing cryptic, no problem in being labeled even as one who to _my own purpose and pleasure _appears as one seeking to be so. Of course they appear as inane ramblings to you (both?) to the one who remains the writer that encouraged believers to "come down here (to the AA forum) where the _more intelligent are_" and the other who who states "As always, I speak honestly".
> 
> It is not in code that such plain speaking is made, so there is no need of deciphering.
> 
> What is on the table, and has been from the very outset in all, are these true statements...and what are statements made _in truth?_
> 
> Perhaps you both think this cryptic, inane, ridiculous... to "a believer" that they might find themselves facing what declares of itself "I am(or we are) the more intelligent, I am _the more _(if not completely) honest one."
> 
> But, you see, for the believer in Jesus Christ (many), who has met Jesus Christ (many), has had intercourse with Jesus Christ (many) and knows where all knowing resides, where all truth resides, for men to make such statements is not surprising at all. He's already told them where men will take their stand in opposition.
> 
> So, let them.


I'm not ducking or dodging, I wanted to know how I could understand you better as to what and why you say what you do and how what you say can be linked to any facts that back it up. 

And as you continue on above...My position has not changed.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Good, now at least yer both on board. Let's settle on the agreement to inane ramblings at least if this in any part is meant to construe an_ honesty of agreement:_
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'll submit and dispense with using "obtuse" as the reference and go with "inane ramblings", which is at the very least as good a conveyance of some sort of appraisal.
> 
> It's odd that you think I was "calling you" on any particular description, for even had you used "obtuse" that was never the matter at hand. Do you imagine that I have not been called such, or described as (perhaps) worse, (what vegetables may be thrown often have yet a core of delicious sustenance) even in these discussions over the last years as to now suddenly take some sort of umbrage? Hasn't anyone ever told you reading is fundamental?
> 
> The matter I see you now ducking and dodging has not at all to do with anything you think _of me, _but rather an attempt to un-link a plain linkage of being purposely cryptic
> 
> 
> 
> and then going on to state "but I was not talking _about you, _you have merely _taken _that labeling..."
> 
> I have no problem in appearing cryptic, no problem in being labeled even as one who to _my own purpose and pleasure _appears as one seeking to be so. Of course they appear as inane ramblings to you (both?) to the one who remains the writer that encouraged believers to "come down here (to the AA forum) where the _more intelligent are_" and the other who who states "As always, I speak honestly".
> 
> It is not in code that such plain speaking is made, so there is no need of deciphering.
> 
> What is on the table, and has been from the very outset in all, are these true statements...and what are statements made _in truth?_
> 
> Perhaps you both think this cryptic, inane, ridiculous... to "a believer" that they might find themselves facing what declares of itself "I am(or we are) the more intelligent, I am _the more _(if not completely) honest one."
> 
> But, you see, for the believer in Jesus Christ (many), who has met Jesus Christ (many), has had intercourse with Jesus Christ (many) and knows where all knowing resides, where all truth resides, for men to make such statements is not surprising at all. He's already told them where men will take their stand in opposition.
> 
> So, let them.


Talk of statements made in truth...and then claims of meeting a dead man....

Label yourself as you will


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> I'm not ducking or dodging, I wanted to know how I could understand you better as to what and why you say what you do and how what you say can be linked to any facts that back it up.
> 
> And as you continue on above...My position has not changed.



When someone who can communicate clearly insists on being cryptic it tells me they want their message to be either difficult for the other to get or they don’t want it received at all. For me that is always going to be a one way conversation because I’m just not going to bother sifting through it. Israel can always have the last word with me. Now that I think of it Walt is probably the only one here that attempts to engage when he does that.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Nobody living has either met or had intercourse with someone who died 2,000 years ago. Perhaps it was arrogant of me to call atheists the more intelligent (although having been on both sides of the fence I do believe it more often than not true) but it strikes me as far more arrogant to claim to have met, know and speak on behalf of a god.





> Perhaps it was arrogant of me to call atheists the more intelligent (although having been on both sides of the fence I do believe it more often than not true)


FOR ME, the use of the word "intelligent", even though that's the word that gets used 99% of the time, is problematic.
Is a brain surgeon that believes in a god .... less "intelligent"?
A mathematician that believes in god......
The average Joe who gets up every day and goes to work and raises a family and all that goes with it...... less "intelligent" ?
We need to come up with a new word that conveys "the suspension of what would be considered critical/logical/fact based thought process on a particular subject"....
Or something like that. That seems to be more accurate than "intelligent".
Seems like belief in a god OR NOT, would be but one minor data point in a plethora of possible data points.... that would determine "intelligence".


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> FOR ME, the use of the word "intelligent", even though that's the word that gets used 99% of the time, is problematic.
> Is a brain surgeon that believes in a god .... less "intelligent"?
> A mathematician that believes in god......
> The average Joe who gets up every day and goes to work and raises a family and all that goes with it...... less "intelligent" ?
> We need to come up with a new word that conveys "the suspension of what would be considered critical/logical/fact based thought process on a particular subject"....
> Or something like that. That seems to be more accurate than "intelligent".
> Seems like belief in a god OR NOT, would be but one minor data point in a plethora of possible data points.... that would determine "intelligence".



That's a fair point. Plenty of intelligent people are victims of childhood indoctrination and that's not easy to overcome. On the other hand those who do break away from it or never fall victim to it tend to be above average intelligence. It does help. Nobody would accuse Newton of lacking intelligence even though he was a believer. But I don't think had he been less intelligent it would have made him more likely to reject religion. Tends to be the other way around.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> That's a fair point. Plenty of intelligent people are victims of childhood indoctrination and that's not easy to overcome. On the other hand those who do break away from it or never fall victim to it tend to be above average intelligence. It does help. Nobody would accuse Newton of lacking intelligence even though he was a believer. But I don't think had he been less intelligent it would have made him more likely to reject religion. Tends to be the other way around.


Probably an unanswerable question but it just kinda popped in my head....


> On the other hand those who do break away from it or never fall victim to it tend to be above average intelligence.


I wonder if that ability (break away/avoid) actually is an "emotional" condition as opposed to an "intelligence" condition.
Does needing (an emotion) or not needing or no longer needing religion/belief in a god
determine the whole ball of wax and "intelligence" (an ability?) really doesnt have squat to do with it?
If you remove "the need" did you suddenly become more intelligent or is it just you can now better utilize the intelligence level you already had because your need is no longer blocking critical thought/logic etc on this particular subject?
Ok Im rambling...…


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> Probably an unanswerable question but it just kinda popped in my head....
> 
> I wonder if that ability (break away/avoid) actually is an "emotional" condition as opposed to an "intelligence" condition.
> Does needing (an emotion) or not needing or no longer needing religion/belief in a god
> determine the whole ball of wax and "intelligence" (an ability?) really doesnt have squat to do with it?
> If you remove "the need" did you suddenly become more intelligent or is it just you can now better utilize the intelligence level you already had because your need is no longer blocking critical thought/logic etc on this particular subject?
> Ok Im rambling...…



Maybe intelligence is a factor for their emotional need for an adult Santa Claus? I'm going with Occam's Razor on this one. Some folks are just not very bright. Be honest Walt, does Ray Comfort seem like an intelligent individual to you?


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Maybe intelligence is a factor for their emotional need for an adult Santa Claus? I'm going with Occam's Razor on this one. Some folks are just not very bright. Be honest Walt, does Ray Comfort seem like an intelligent individual to you?





> Be honest Walt, does Ray Comfort seem like an intelligent individual to you?


Dont mean to be a problem child here but you said be honest so.....
He's a successful author, business man, writer, producer.....
Should that determine my response?
Or should WHAT he writes about, produces, etc etc.....
Determine my response?
I have to give the first one more weight.
I kind of look at it this way - even if what he writes/produces/sells etc etc is utter and complete nonsense.... he's intelligent enough to make a living at it which entails business decisions, planning, marketing and all that stuff.

On a side note, does the fact that I had to look up who Ray Comfort was determine my intelligence?


----------



## bobocat

All I see on this thread is a few modern day "prodigals". Yall better get back home. The Father is waiting.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> Dont mean to be a problem child here but you said be honest so.....
> He's a successful author, business man, writer, producer.....
> Should that determine my response?
> Or should WHAT he writes about, produces, etc etc.....
> Determine my response?
> I have to give the first one more weight.
> I kind of look at it this way - even if what he writes/produces/sells etc etc is utter and complete nonsense.... he's intelligent enough to make a living at it which entails business decisions, planning, marketing and all that stuff.
> 
> On a side note, does the fact that I had to look up who Ray Comfort was determine my intelligence?



So he's not really as dumb as he sounds and he's just profiting off of those who are? That's pretty generous. I think really is as dumb as he sounds. The fact that he has a lot of supporters just says as much about them as it does about him. Even if you're right about him doesn't the fact that there are so many christians he can fleece make my point?


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> So he's not really as dumb as he sounds and he's just profiting off of those who are? That's pretty generous. I think really is as dumb as he sounds. The fact that he has a lot of supporters just says as much about them as it does about him. Even if you're right about him doesn't the fact that there are so many christians he can fleece make my point?


I can see where and from who some in here get their "facts" from.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> I can see where and from who some in here get their "facts" from.



I love Robertsons laugh at 3:26. You got em now Ray!


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> So he's not really as dumb as he sounds and he's just profiting off of those who are? That's pretty generous. I think really is as dumb as he sounds. The fact that he has a lot of supporters just says as much about them as it does about him. Even if you're right about him doesn't the fact that there are so many christians he can fleece make my point?





> So he's not really as dumb as he sounds and he's just profiting off of those who are? That's pretty generous.


He's got a gig that he is profiting off at the expense of others.
Is that "dumb"? Or is that how smart business works?
Even if he is selling little bags of dog poop that he says is magical does that make him dumb if he cant keep them in stock because they sell so fast?
You are focused on WHAT he is selling.
I am focused on the fact that he is selling it and selling it successfully.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> He's got a gig that he is profiting off at the expense of others.
> Is that "dumb"? Or is that how smart business works?
> Even if he is selling little bags of dog poop that he says is magical does that make him dumb if he cant keep them in stock because they sell so fast?
> You are focused on WHAT he is selling.
> I am focused on the fact that he is selling it and selling it successfully.



I think you haven't listened much to him. That boy is dumber than a bag of hammers. But even if he's not and he is just fleecing a bunch of dumb superstitious people the original point remains.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> I think you haven't listened much to him. That boy is dumber than a bag of hammers. But even if he's not and he is just fleecing a bunch of dumb superstitious people the original point remains.





> I think you haven't listened much to him.


Not one word.
Regardless, do I think you can accurately judge a person's "intelligence" based off of ONE particular subject? No, I do not.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> Nobody living has either met or had intercourse with someone who died 2,000 years ago. Perhaps it was arrogant of me to call atheists the more intelligent (although having been on both sides of the fence I do believe it more often than not true) but it strikes me as far more arrogant to claim to have met, know and speak on behalf of a god.




So, as  (if?) intelligence has a scale from the less to the more (or vice versa) it would appear another thing called "arrogance" has no less. One may appear "more arrogant" as one might appear "more intelligent" and/or less than another. And so Walt's appraisal of "things" by the boatload that are perceived in influence comes to bear.



> Seems like belief in a god OR NOT, would be but one minor data point in a plethora of possible data points



But we take such things as he calls _data points_ (and, as we assign them) quite generally with _no less _an assignment of quality _as to_ quantity_. And generally to_ that scale we also carry all those assumptions of a quality. Do we not? 

Is more intelligence "better"? Is more arrogance...worse? But these are merely two (of that plethora) we might name of attributes we could consider. I'm going to merely assume that you all, _no less than I, _have a probably innumerable amount of things _in signal_ (that we are attuned to) at any given moment in perception of another...and each seems to appear as against its counter; the _more_ kind, perceptive, patient, humble, intelligent (that list could go on and on) appear against their counters (and generally...assorted to their significance to us, in our attune-ment to them) of cruelty, denseness, ill-temper, arrogance, and stupidity.

Simply the "more kind" is less cruel, the more perceptive, less dense, etc.

And each of us, without _any doubt_, carry these scales, measuring as we go. And if we were to _truly_ speak of "confirmation bias" we'd see that _our hand _holding the scale is not _at all_ the fit pivot, nor the straight and true plumbline, the completely stable and uninfluenced by appearance, it's always in adjustment to things upon which we place the greater value...consider the finer quality...to us. We...tilt...

So one would now tilt away from "intelligence" being the signal measure and even admit to a perhaps arrogance in "throwing it out there" as some fitness to hold and adjust the scale. But even if _it were_ arrogance has tilted, or sought to tilt that scale by touting intelligence, it is "still less" arrogance (more humility) than in what is_ argued against. So, now the metric has simply changed. _But_ the tilt is the same._

But I am quite content without offense to let things lie where they originally lie...but off the scale. Completely off the scale. For truth is not "less lie" anymore than a lie is "less truth".

Be free to think whatever you care to of yourself. Be it more intelligent, less arrogant, more (or completely) honest. Better.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> Not one word.
> Regardless, do I think you can accurately judge a person's "intelligence" based off of ONE particular subject? No, I do not.



It’s not just one subject in his case. He happens to be best known for the laughing stock he made himself along with Kirk Cameron teaching viewers the banana was designed with us in mind only later to learn the banana you find in a grocery store did not occur naturally and was the result of selection by humans. But you can also listen to his street preaching and form your own opinion. It’s true that you can’t accurately judge intelligence at the individual level based on one subject. But on larger scales we can see differences in distribution between groups with different characteristics.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> It’s not just one subject in his case. He happens to be best known for the laughing stock he made himself along with Kirk Cameron teaching viewers the banana was designed with us in mind only later to learn the banana you find in a grocery store did not occur naturally and was the result of selection by humans. But you can also listen to his street preaching and form your own opinion. It’s true that you can’t accurately judge intelligence at the individual level based on one subject. But on larger scales we can see differences in distribution between groups with different characteristics.


The banana thing was him? 
But still I have issues with using that to determine his intelligence.
What if after he made that seemingly "stupid" claim..... 
He walked out to his garage and repaired his modern day car engine that has so much crap on it nowadays that most folks just take it to a mechanic?
Is he not intelligent because of the banana thing?
Intelligent because he could fix the modern day engine?
How many "stupid" or "smart" things puts you in the dumb or intelligent category?


> But on larger scales we can see differences in distribution between groups with different characteristics.


That's true and Im also aware you can pretty easily provide data/studies/etc that back up your overall point.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> The banana thing was him?
> But still I have issues with using that to determine his intelligence.
> What if after he made that seemingly "stupid" claim.....
> He walked out to his garage and repaired his modern day car engine that has so much crap on it nowadays that most folks just take it to a mechanic?
> Is he not intelligent because of the banana thing?
> Intelligent because he could fix the modern day engine?
> How many "stupid" or "smart" things puts you in the dumb or intelligent category?
> 
> That's true and Im also aware you can pretty easily provide data/studies/etc that back up your overall point.



Yep.

As the refuse tycoon said to the poor nuclear physicist during a heated argument "At least _I know_ that Wednesdays are when we pick up da yellow lidded trash cans!".


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> The banana thing was him?
> But still I have issues with using that to determine his intelligence.
> What if after he made that seemingly "stupid" claim.....
> He walked out to his garage and repaired his modern day car engine that has so much crap on it nowadays that most folks just take it to a mechanic?
> Is he not intelligent because of the banana thing?
> Intelligent because he could fix the modern day engine?
> How many "stupid" or "smart" things puts you in the dumb or intelligent category?
> 
> That's true and Im also aware you can pretty easily provide data/studies/etc that back up your overall point.



Like I said, if you watch some of his interviews and street preaching videos and the arguments he uses you can form your own opinion. I’m not saying there aren’t brilliant people who are also believers. Of course there are. That doesn’t mean the distributions are the same.


----------



## Israel

Statistics of whatever variety, or the criteria and metric of those statistics are less than useless in the matter of determining truth. It's (statistical analysis) doesn't tell a man whether such a thing is so _in truth._ And they are  found _less than useless_, being _precisely_ counter to the fundamental matter of truth, for truth stands un-increased by the many's acceptance of it, nor is it diminished by their rejection.

So the matter of distributions (based on whatever criteria) is pointless...except in this _one thing, _it reveals what is being elevated as determining factor to the status of _the _determining factor of most value.

Intelligence (and distributions of it according to first, what it is, and secondly how many on _either side _possess "it" in whatever measure as is used to measure it) is as useless a factor to determining whether Jesus Christ is the living son of God as having brown or blue eyes.

You concede there are "some" brilliant (by man's standards) who believe. Yes, by man's standards there are also many who do not, perhaps more. Perhaps even the more/most brilliant of the brilliant-est (should we use...what...IQ?) according to man, rejects. But, I do not know that, and neither do you.

It's as useless as if, and/or when any so called believer would protest "but there have been (or are) so many believers...are you saying they (we) are all wrong?" One man may be _right in truth_, a million or more men may be...or none, at all.

Intelligence (as one metric) which is rarely as clearly definable as it may appear, is as useless as the silliness of which I have also seen in other matters: "Studies show religious people are "happier"..." or whatever other tripe may be paraded. So what? Studies show religious people have lower IQ? Higher IQ? More money? Less money? Are more "successful? Less successful? Besides being of no utility to to any endeavor (besides the necessity of definition of "religious people") to see truth in a matter, they simply show an elevation of whatever metric esteemed by its use as _the metric. _Truth can as easily _in appearance_ make a man very sad, and poor, and troubled _to death in his relationship to it..._so that _even enticements _that might be used to it are shown valueless. No less nor more than what is esteemed may repulse from it. As in "my intelligence will not let me accept this". Hardly...one is simply exalting their metric, which is meaningless here, useless here, completely voided...here.

Truth is a person.

My testimony is that One is. And so is the testimony of all my brothers.  (And I do not at all consider myself a "religious person"...but if anything, _practical;_ that also being up for revision to my sight and understanding)

One is the living repository of all truth, no lie or deception found in Him, and that He lives. Our intercourse is among the living, not the dead as you suppose by your proclamation.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Statistics of whatever variety, or the criteria and metric of those statistics are less than useless in the matter of determining truth. It's (statistical analysis) doesn't tell a man whether such a thing is so _in truth._ And they are  found _less than useless_, being _precisely_ counter to the fundamental matter of truth, for truth stands un-increased by the many's acceptance of it, nor is it diminished by their rejection.
> 
> So the matter of distributions (based on whatever criteria) is pointless...except in this _one thing, _it reveals what is being elevated as determining factor to the status of _the _determining factor of most value.
> 
> Intelligence (and distributions of it according to first, what it is, and secondly how many on _either side _possess "it" in whatever measure as is used to measure it) is as useless a factor to determining whether Jesus Christ is the living son of God as having brown or blue eyes.
> 
> You concede there are "some" brilliant (by man's standards) who believe. Yes, by man's standards there are also many who do not, perhaps more. Perhaps even the more/most brilliant of the brilliant-est (should we use...what...IQ?) according to man, rejects. But, I do not know that, and neither do you.
> 
> It's as useless as if, and/or when any so called believer would protest "but there have been (or are) so many believers...are you saying they (we) are all wrong?" One man may be _right in truth_, a million or more men may be...or none, at all.
> 
> Intelligence (as one metric) which is rarely as clearly definable as it may appear, is as useless as the silliness of which I have also seen in other matters: "Studies show religious people are "happier"..." or whatever other tripe may be paraded. So what? Studies show religious people have lower IQ? Higher IQ? More money? Less money? Are more "successful? Less successful? Besides being of no utility to to any endeavor (besides the necessity of definition of "religious people") to see truth in a matter, they simply show an elevation of whatever metric esteemed by its use as _the metric. _Truth can as easily _in appearance_ make a man very sad, and poor, and troubled _to death in his relationship to it..._so that _even enticements _that might be used to it are shown valueless. No less nor more than what is esteemed may repulse from it. As in "my intelligence will not let me accept this". Hardly...one is simply exalting their metric, which is meaningless here, useless here, completely voided...here.
> 
> Truth is a person.
> 
> My testimony is that One is. And so is the testimony of all my brothers.  (And I do not at all consider myself a "religious person"...but if anything, _practical;_ that also being up for revision to my sight and understanding)
> 
> One is the living repository of all truth, no lie or deception found in Him, and that He lives. Our intercourse is among the living, not the dead as you suppose by your proclamation.


Actions are Stronger than words. Testimony is nothing if it cannot be backed up.


----------



## atlashunter

Reason is how we discover what is true. The exercise of reason requires intelligence. It’s an ongoing process and it’s not perfect but it’s been demonstrated to work. Faith has been demonstrated to not work time and again. Saying “truth is a person” is meaningless. It’s a statement of faith. A baseless assertion. It doesn’t even qualify as apologetics.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Reason is how we discover what is true. The exercise of reason requires intelligence. It’s an ongoing process and it’s not perfect but it’s been demonstrated to work. Faith has been demonstrated to not work time and again. Saying “truth is a person” is meaningless. It’s a statement of faith. A baseless assertion. It doesn’t even qualify as apologetics.


I don't know..... Ive done some things that seemed reasonable at the time that turned out not to be very intelligent at all


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> I don't know..... Ive done some things that seemed reasonable at the time that turned out not to be very intelligent at all



How did you make the determination they weren’t intelligent after all?


----------



## 660griz

atlashunter said:


> How did you make the determination they weren’t intelligent after all?


In my case, usually pain was involved.


----------



## atlashunter

660griz said:


> In my case, usually pain was involved.



Yep. What else was involved?


----------



## atlashunter

“Life is hard; it’s even harder when you’re stupid.”


----------



## 660griz

atlashunter said:


> “Life is hard; it’s even harder when you’re stupid.”


It can be a lot shorter too.


----------



## 660griz

atlashunter said:


> Yep. What else was involved?


A brick, and a broken pallet. 5th grade recess.


----------



## atlashunter

660griz said:


> A brick, and a broken pallet. 5th grade recess.



Reaching the conclusion that what you did to cause pain was ill advised wasn’t a matter of faith. It was a combination of evidence, perhaps previously unavailable to you, and reason.


----------



## 660griz

atlashunter said:


> Reaching the conclusion that what you did to cause pain was ill advised wasn’t a matter of faith. It was a combination of evidence, perhaps previously unavailable to you, and reason.


Correct. I didn't think it through. Faith? My definition of faith and the religious definition is not related.
My 'faith' is based on evidence. My definition of evidence is different too.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Yep. What else was involved?


Handcuffs and lawyer fees


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Handcuffs and lawyer fees


You win.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Intelligence and gullibility are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## NCHillbilly

atlashunter said:


> When someone who can communicate clearly insists on being cryptic it tells me they want their message to be either difficult for the other to get or they don’t want it received at all. For me that is always going to be a one way conversation because I’m just not going to bother sifting through it. Israel can always have the last word with me. Now that I think of it Walt is probably the only one here that attempts to engage when he does that.



I think Israel probably has a good point buried somewhere down in most of his posts, but I don't have the ability or perception to dig it out. If he had written"See Spot Run," it would come out as:

"What is the true meaning of vision, physical sight_, beholding_ of an item or physical commodity, if you will? I have often seen things, but did I see them as I wished they were or as they were on the outside, or did I truly _behold_ them on a metaphysical, transcendent scale?

Once I beheld (or _supposed_ I beheld,) a small specimen of _Canis familiaris _of piebald hue, which appeared to be engaged in earnest flight from some entity or entities unknown.

Or, I contemplated, perhaps this small, dappled creature was not fleeing in terror from imminent destruction or bodily harm; but was instead eagerly darting toward some tangible reward that it anticipated it would receive once arrived at its ultimate destination?

Such is the inherent duality of our existence. As Plutarch once said so succinctly,
_"To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future."_


----------



## 660griz

NCHillbilly said:


> What is the true meaning of vision, physical sight_, beholding_ of an item or physical commodity, if you will? I have often seen things, but did I see them as I wished they were or as they were on the outside, or did I truly _behold_ them on a metaphysical, transcendent scale?
> 
> Once I beheld (or _supposed_ I beheld,) a small specimen of _Canis familiaris _of piebald hue, which appeared to be engaged in earnest flight from some entity or entities unknown.
> 
> Or, I contemplated, perhaps this small, dappled creature was not fleeing in terror from imminent destruction or bodily harm; but was instead eagerly darting toward some tangible reward that it anticipated it would recieve once arrived at its ultimate destination?
> 
> Such is the inherent duality of our existence. As Plutarch once said so succinctly,
> _"To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future."_
> 
> 
> 
> I think Israel probably has a good point buried somewhere down in most of his posts, but I don't have the ability or perception to dig it out. If he had written"See Spot Run," it would come out as:
> 
> "What is the true meaning of vision, physical sight_, beholding_ of an item or physical commodity, if you will? I have often seen things, but did I see them as I wished they were or as they were on the outside, or did I truly _behold_ them on a metaphysical, transcendent scale?
> 
> Once I beheld (or _supposed_ I beheld,) a small specimen of _Canis familiaris _of piebald hue, which appeared to be engaged in earnest flight from some entity or entities unknown.
> 
> Or, I contemplated, perhaps this small, dappled creature was not fleeing in terror from imminent destruction or bodily harm; but was instead eagerly darting toward some tangible reward that it anticipated it would receive once arrived at its ultimate destination?
> 
> Such is the inherent duality of our existence. As Plutarch once said so succinctly,
> _"To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future."_


That was good.


----------



## atlashunter

NCHillbilly said:


> Intelligence and gullibility are not mutually exclusive.



That’s true but religion sure depends on gullibility.


----------



## ambush80

NCHillbilly said:


> I think Israel probably has a good point buried somewhere down in most of his posts, but I don't have the ability or perception to dig it out. If he had written"See Spot Run," it would come out as:
> 
> "What is the true meaning of vision, physical sight_, beholding_ of an item or physical commodity, if you will? I have often seen things, but did I see them as I wished they were or as they were on the outside, or did I truly _behold_ them on a metaphysical, transcendent scale?
> 
> Once I beheld (or _supposed_ I beheld,) a small specimen of _Canis familiaris _of piebald hue, which appeared to be engaged in earnest flight from some entity or entities unknown.
> 
> Or, I contemplated, perhaps this small, dappled creature was not fleeing in terror from imminent destruction or bodily harm; but was instead eagerly darting toward some tangible reward that it anticipated it would receive once arrived at its ultimate destination?
> 
> Such is the inherent duality of our existence. As Plutarch once said so succinctly,
> _"To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future."_





660griz said:


> That was good.



That was good.  It would have been better if at the end he had added the performative

_"I am as nothing in the presence of Spot..._

_who..._

_....is."_

 atcha Izzy.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> That’s true but religion sure depends on gullibility.
> 
> View attachment 971856




Many of the 911 terrorists had Western secondary educations and came from good homes.  I've heard Douglass Murray and Jonathan Haidt suggest that mentally acute people can become extremely dogmatic because they are good at coming up with reasons for what they believe.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> Many of the 911 terrorists had Western secondary educations and came from good homes.  I've heard Douglass Murray and Jonathan Haidt suggest that mentally acute people can become extremely dogmatic because they are good at coming up with reasons for what they believe.



Having a degree from a western school is no guarantee a person exercises reason in every aspect of their life.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Having a degree from a western school is no guarantee a person exercises reason in every aspect of their life.



That's right.  My point is that people who reason well may actually be prone to very durable dogmatism.  Reason should be paired with skepticism.  A rational case can even be made for skepticism as a good starting point for reasoning.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> That's right.  My point is that people who reason well may actually be prone to very durable dogmatism.  Reason should be paired with skepticism.  A rational case can even be made for skepticism as a good starting point for reasoning.



But was it reason that led them to their actions? Or faith? Sure reason could have prevented them from doing it and didn’t. Maybe they sucked at it or maybe there was just an aspect of their life where faith took higher priority in their actions. The argument is not that reason never leads one to error but that faith fails to lead one away from error. If you’re a flagellent during the plague and whipping yourself in an effort to atone for the disease you think is punishment from god, faith does not provide you with a pathway to discovering the real cause of the disease and doing something about it. Reason does.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> But was it reason that led them to their actions? Or faith? Sure reason could have prevented them from doing it and didn’t. Maybe they sucked at it or maybe there was just an aspect of their life where faith took higher priority in their actions. The argument is not that reason never leads one to error but that faith fails to lead one away from error. If you’re a flagellent during the plague and whipping yourself in an effort to atone for the disease you think is punishment from god, faith does not provide you with a pathway to discovering the real cause of the disease and doing something about it. Reason does.



Did you see that video I posted of Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson at the O2 Arena moderated by Douglass Murray?  Murray and Peterson both worry that reason may not be enough.  I want to disagree with them but their arguments are pretty good.  Consider the possibility that Muhammad Atta's faith was at arrived at through a rational process.  Perhaps he was unable to reconcile some seemingly unanswerable problem of being and ironically, surrendering secular humanist reasoning became a rational solution to the problem.  I don't quite get it myself but I can sometimes glimpse how it might happen.  My own faith based belief was devoid of reasoning but rationally examining faith based belief has revealed some utility in it.


----------



## atlashunter

Not sure if I did or not. I know I saw a talk with the three of them but I’m not recalling the part you are talking about.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Not sure if I did or not. I know I saw a talk with the three of them but I’m not recalling the part you are talking about.



What I thought they said was that we're evolutionarily wired to seek what Peterson calls "The Logos".  They claim that secular humanism and reason have been inadequate thus far in scratching that itch.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> What I thought they said was that we're evolutionarily wired to seek what Peterson calls "The Logos".  They claim that secular humanism and reason have been inadequate thus far in scratching that itch.



That’s pretty nebulous. Did Sam agree?

I can think of ways in which reason could lead someone to a false conclusion based on incomplete observation or logical fallacy. That can happen. But that doesn’t invalidate reason because it would be by reason that you discover and correct that error.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> That’s pretty nebulous. Did Sam agree?
> 
> I can think of ways in which reason could lead someone to a false conclusion based on incomplete observation or logical fallacy. That can happen. But that doesn’t invalidate reason because it would be by reason that you discover and correct that error.



Sam does not agree.  This is where he and Peterson are at an impasse. If you grant that our observation is always incomplete, that's a pretty big gap that "god" or "the logos" could still be hiding in. How does reason inform how to resolve this issue raised in the PF?

http://forum.gon.com/threads/of-child-suicide-and-abortion-eugenics.944470/#post-11742926


----------



## atlashunter

Reminds me of Hitchens when he would talk about the transcendent. I guess the question is first is that something the human psyche longs for (needs?)? And secondly is it possible to explore and fulfill that aspect of our existence without resorting to woo?


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Reminds me of Hitchens when he would talk about the transcendent. I guess the question is first is that something the human psyche longs for (needs?)?



That's worth examining.



atlashunter said:


> And secondly is it possible to explore and fulfill that aspect of our existence without resorting to woo?



There's different kinds of woo.  There's the kind that Ravi traffics in where he tries to mix what we're pretty sure we do know with what we don't, and then there's the kind of woo that may exist in the gaps of our knowledge.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> Sam does not agree.  This is where he and Peterson are at an impasse. If you grant that our observation is always incomplete, that's a pretty big gap that "god" or "the logos" could still be hiding in. How does reason inform how to resolve this issue raised in the PF?
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/threads/of-child-suicide-and-abortion-eugenics.944470/#post-11742926



If there is a god I have no hope of winning a game of hide and seek with them. It is entirely up to them to make themself known. Until that happens Occam’s Razor says the simplest explanation for the lack of evidence of a god is the most likely, that no such animal exists. In either case it’s not something worth losing sleep over.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Reminds me of Hitchens when he would talk about the transcendent. I guess the question is first is that something the human psyche longs for (needs?)?



Consider that if it's an evolved trait that it had to have had some utility.  That's kind of what Bret Weinstein argues with Dawkins about, I think....


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> That's worth examining.
> 
> 
> 
> There's different kinds of woo.  There's the kind that Ravi traffics in where he tries to mix what we're pretty sure we do know with what we don't, and then there's the kind of woo that may exist in the gaps of our knowledge.



Is it something you need?


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> If there is a god I have no hope of winning a game of hide and seek with them. It is entirely up to them to make themself known. Until that happens Occam’s Razor says the simplest explanation for the lack of evidence of a god is the most likely, that no such animal exists. In either case it’s not something worth losing sleep over.



That's sensible.  I'm more interested in the idea of god at this point.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Is it something you need?



check out the vids i posted.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Is it something you need?



The idea of god may be a useful lever to pull in order to advance society.


----------



## NCHillbilly

ambush80 said:


> The idea of god may be a useful lever to pull in order to advance control society.


FIFY.


----------



## atlashunter

NCHillbilly said:


> FIFY.



Constantine sure found it a useful lever and he wasn’t the first or the last.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> The idea of god may be a useful lever to pull in order to advance society.



Is some transcendent experience, whatever that means to you, something you feel a need for?


----------



## ambush80

Yes, it is a good lever for that but it's simplistic to say that it hasn't also been useful for some positive things.

Redefine it not as a "guy" but as an ideal.  Then get people to see the rational utility of it.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Is some transcendent experience, whatever that means to you, something you feel a need for?



I have a sense that it exists from similar experiences to Sam's. That makes it interesting enough to examine.  It may just be a feature of being meat but I would still like to understand it better.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> Yes it is a good lever for that but it's simplistic to say that it hasn't also been useful for some positive things.
> 
> Redefine it not as a "guy" but as an ideal.  Then get people to see the rational utility of it.



I think I touched on that in my thread about a post Christianity west.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> I think I touched on that in my thread about a post Christianity west.



Yep.  That was a good discussion.  If it's true that meat bags crave some kind of transcendent experience then it's best that we provide it in a way that isn't divisive to the point that we kill each other.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> Yep.  That was a good discussion.  If it's true that meat bags crave some kind of transcendent experience then it's best that we provide it in a way that isn't divisive to the point that we kill each other.



I wish it had been more of a discussion. Seems a topic that deserves greater consideration from non believers. I’m convinced we (we meaning western civilization)can do better than Christianity but I’m not convinced that we will. I think Sam Harris has made an effort at mapping out what that looks like but much more is needed.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> I wish it had been more of a discussion. Seems a topic that deserves greater consideration from non believers. I’m convinced we (we meaning western civilization)can do better than Christianity but I’m not convinced that we will. I think Sam Harris has made an effort at mapping out what that looks like but much more is needed.



For myself, I care less about how stupid someone's beliefs are as long as it keeps them in line.  I think that's why there isn't as big a push to try to convince people to be good for good reasons; the net is a positive....mostly...in the West.  Besides, as long as I can see that superstition is being beaten back by the advance of secularism at a pretty good pace (in my half-life) I'm content to let the fudamentalists die out.

Moving away from literalism and fundamentalism is a good step.  GeorgiaBob is actually an example of this:

http://forum.gon.com/threads/how-archaeology-disproves-noahs-flood.944431/#post-11741655

I think Peterson may also be helpful in this endeavor, though he wishy-washily clings to the idea of the supernatural.


----------



## atlashunter

I think it matters how people reach their conclusions just as much as the conclusions themselves. The mechanism that allows one to believe in a talking donkey is the same mechanism that told Andrea Yates to drown her kids. A particular irrational belief may be harmless but irrationality itself is not some thing we should be indifferent to.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> I think it matters how people reach their conclusions just as much as the conclusions themselves. The mechanism that allows one to believe in a talking donkey is the same mechanism that told Andrea Yates to drown her kids. A particular irrational belief may be harmless but irrationality itself is not some thing we should be indifferent to.



How about the Jains.  Their beliefs are completely irrational but I can't see a reason to be concerned with them.  I'm truly indifferent to them.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> I think it matters how people reach their conclusions just as much as the conclusions themselves. The mechanism that allows one to believe in a talking donkey is the same mechanism that told Andrea Yates to drown her kids. A particular irrational belief may be harmless but irrationality itself is not some thing we should be indifferent to.



That mechanism also gets people off smack sometimes.  We should learn how to use it properly and/or find an equally useful lever.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> How about the Jains.  Their beliefs are completely irrational but I can't see a reason to be concerned with them.  I'm truly indifferent to them.



If it’s woo woo I’m leery of it. It’s really hard to foresee all of the various ways structuring our lives according to a false understanding of reality can cause harm. It isn’t always intentional. Not saying anyone has a complete understanding of reality. Just saying reason is really the only effective game in town for improving our understanding of it.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> If it’s woo woo I’m leery of it. It’s really hard to foresee all of the various ways structuring our lives according to a false understanding of reality can cause harm. It isn’t always intentional. Not saying anyone has a complete understanding of reality. Just saying reason is really the only effective game in town for improving our understanding of it.



...for now.

And we should continue to rely on it.


----------



## Israel

NCHillbilly said:


> Intelligence and gullibility are not mutually exclusive.



Yes.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spot, if you care to look over what I said IN IT'S ENTIRETY,  you will plainly see then, as I have said now, and as I have said numerous times in between...
> I have ruled out all/every/ THE, Any, gods that humans have introduced, believed in, written about, spoken about , worshipped . That includes ALL of the gods you have ruled out and ESPECIALLY the god you currently worship.
> 
> The door is unlocked for anything that I am currently unaware of to contact me whether it be a thing we humans would call a god, aliens, ghosts, Foots that are Big, Santa, Mighty Mouse, Darth Vader, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, The Blob, Godzilla, The Hulk, Scooby Doo Leprechauns and/or any creature, comic book character, local legend, cartoon character, entity, demon, etc etc etc^10.
> 
> I keep my house door locked and my vehicles locked because I do not want anyone else in.
> 
> Your belief door is locked because you do not want to allow anyone else in.
> 
> My belief door is unlocked because I dont have a concern that anyone or anything is around to open it. Call me confident.
> 
> I will say it again to you, and to whatever thing you want to be out there, and to anything neither of us know about that *may* be out there which is unknown....bring it. Contact me. I Triple Dogg Dare you.


Ok, I misread your unlocked door comment. I have been known to misread plenty of times. 

Not to beat a dead horse, I guess pretty straight forward - are you 100% sure that God does not exist? If not, are you 100% sure that Santa, any other mythical character, or other gods do not exist? 

Maybe this a broader question instead of just for you - how can Atheist / Agnostic place God in a group of mythical characters, or other gods when they aren't 100% certain of their non existence God claim?  

If ya`ll are not 100% for the one God, how did you use the same logic, principles, rational thinking, critical thinking, asking the hard questions, going where the evidence leads,  to "take it one God further"? Or is there a possibility that the rest, including Santa, and all of the other mythical characters / invisible friends that are often lumped together, exist?  

I have nothing to prove with my question, it really does not even require a reply. I am just not following how the above happens.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Ok, I misread your unlocked door comment. I have been known to misread plenty of times.
> 
> Not to beat a dead horse, I guess pretty straight forward - are you 100% sure that God does not exist? If not, are you 100% sure that Santa, any other mythical character, or other gods do not exist?
> 
> Maybe this a broader question instead of just for you - how can Atheist / Agnostic place God in a group of mythical characters, or other gods when they aren't 100% certain of their non existence God claim?
> 
> If ya`ll are not 100% for the one God, how did you use the same logic, principles, rational thinking, critical thinking, asking the hard questions, going where the evidence leads,  to "take it one God further"? Or is there a possibility that the rest, including Santa, and all of the other mythical characters / invisible friends that are often lumped together, exist?
> 
> I have nothing to prove with my question, it really does not even require a reply. I am just not following how the above happens.


It's been answered the same way every time you have asked the same question.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> I already pointed out the difference in the post that seemed to ruffle your feathers. They (like you) believe the claims of the Bible are true, specifically with respect to the claims surrounding the resurrection and salvation by way of a human sacrifice. Atheists don’t. That is the difference. That doesn’t mean we can’t read the book and discuss what is written in it without believing it is true. If you can’t make that distinction I don’t know what to tell you.
> 
> Concerning there being a chance... you’re much like Lloyd Christmas from Dumb and Dumber. There is always a chance we could be wrong about any mythology but I wouldn’t bet on it.


No, I think you are relying solely on your criticism to ignorantly guide you rather than comprehend what I am actually saying here. BTW - I have no interest in comparing you to any TV character, sorry, not my cup of tea. 

What I am saying is YOU can selectively use the scriptures to support any of your arguments, just as well as they can. It makes neither of you any more Christian, or Atheist than anyone else. What is ironic here is the claim by some Atheist that says "they followed the words of your book so that makes them Christian" (how convenient?? I am betting that you were to go there before I pointed out the fact that Atheist read the Book, too ). My point is when you or WBC want to support your ideology, you both can, and will resort to the "Book" for at least one passage of scripture. You are no different than they are, the Book is a tool for you both. There is no claim or stake that you can find to support the idea that you are automatically Christian because you believe all or just some scripture, as truth. There are many that claim to believe there is a God and the resurrection, but make no claim on being Christian.      

And, feathers are not ruffled lol. Just pointing out that most of us are aware that everyone wearing a suit and tie quoting scripture isn't Christian, no matter how bad you, or even themselves are convinced and want the rest world to believe they are. Being Christian is not just a claim. If you can`t understand that, you have not read and understood the Book as you have claimed. That Book is full of examples / warnings of such people.   

I used to wonder how people like Jim Jones can gain followers


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> It's been answered the same way every time you have asked the same question.


Same way, yes. I agree. But, help me out, where can I find bullethead on record with the simple answer of "I am 100% certain that God, the God of the Bible does not exist?

Are you 100% certain?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> No, I think you are relying solely on your criticism to ignorantly guide you rather than comprehend what I am actually saying here. BTW - I have no interest in comparing you to any TV character, sorry, not my cup of tea.
> 
> What I am saying is YOU can selectively use the scriptures to support any of your arguments, just as well as they can. It makes neither of you any more Christian, or Atheist than anyone else. What is ironic here is the claim by some Atheist that says "they followed the words of your book so that makes them Christian" (how convenient?? I am betting that you were to go there before I pointed out the fact that Atheist read the Book, too ). My point is when you or WBC want to support your ideology, you both can, and will resort to the "Book" for at least one passage of scripture. You are no different than they are, the Book is a tool for you both. There is no claim or stake that you can find to support the idea that you are automatically Christian because you believe all or just some scripture, as truth. There are many that claim to believe there is a God and the resurrection, but make no claim on being Christian.
> 
> And, feathers are not ruffled lol. Just pointing out that most of us are aware that everyone wearing a suit and tie quoting scripture isn't Christian, no matter how bad you, or even themselves are convinced and want the rest world to believe they are. Being Christian is not just a claim. If you can`t understand that, you have not read and understood the Book as you have claimed. That Book is full of examples / warnings of such people.
> 
> I used to wonder how people like Jim Jones can gain followers



There is nothing ironic about the fact that people discussing what a book says would actually refer to that book. Anyone can read the Bible and discuss what they read. What sets atheists apart from you and WBC is we don’t consider it (if you’ll pardon the phrase) gospel truth.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Same way, yes. I agree. But, help me out, where can I find bullethead on record with the simple answer of "I am 100% certain that God, the God of the Bible does not exist?
> 
> Are you 100% certain?


Post #81 and now post # 218


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Post #81 and now post # 218



Now the games will start with how we can’t have absolute certainty about anything.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Now the games will start with how we can’t have absolute certainty about anything.



It's a worthwhile exercise.  Sometimes people have to hear it a few times before it sinks in.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> It's a worthwhile exercise.  Sometimes people have to hear it a few times before it sinks in.



Yep. Make sure that lesson gets paired with the broad range of potential probabilities in a possibility.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Yep. Make sure that lesson gets paired with the broad range of potential probabilities in a possibility.



By his line of questioning he doesn't seem to understand that there are different levels of proof for different claims and different levels of belief.  Like the difference between believing in the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of gravity or the theory that "this chair will hold up my butt".


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Post #81 and now post # 218


Ok that didn't sound like this. bullethead - "_All of your previous points have been addressed. Me being unable to 100% dismiss a god does NOT mean, in any way shape or form, that the statement means your god is in the running. I say I am not 100% because I have ZERO actual clue or knowledge to what a god may or may not be or if in fact..."_




atlashunter said:


> Now the games will start with how we can’t have absolute certainty about anything.


No games. Just trying to see which stance he`s going with.
Either he is 100% in one post or not in the other.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> By his line of questioning he doesn't seem to understand that there are different levels of proof for different claims and different levels of belief.  Like the difference between believing in the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of gravity or the theory that "this chair will hold up my butt".


Who is the "his"??? If you are referring to me, a closer read will inform you that levels of proof has nothing to do with my line of questioning.  It has everything to do with being consistent.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Ok that didn't sound like this. bullethead - "_All of your previous points have been addressed. Me being unable to 100% dismiss a god does NOT mean, in any way shape or form, that the statement means your god is in the running. I say I am not 100% because I have ZERO actual clue or knowledge to what a god may or may not be or if in fact..."_
> 
> 
> 
> No games. Just trying to see which stance he`s going with.
> Either he is 100% in one post or not in the other.


Spotlite you honestly cannot be as dense as you are making yourself out to be. If you searched back through all those posts to cherry pick that one, you HAD to read over the ones that specifically expounded upon the very one you chose. You acknowledged the "unlocked door" post of mine a few posts ago and yet you totally disregard it in favor of trying to find a morsel of something, anything that you can try to make fit what you obviously cannot get straight in your own head despite being told and shown at least a half dozen times. 
If this isnt games on your end then you have officially taken over for Welder and String as the one who asks, gets an answer and then continues to ask the SAME question and get the SAME answer but obviously cannot comprehend what you have clearly been told.
You provide great insight on how a person has information right in front them but only retains what he wants.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spotlite you honestly cannot be as dense as you are making yourself out to be. If you searched back through all those posts to cherry pick that one, you HAD to read over the ones that specifically expounded upon the very one you chose. You acknowledged the "unlocked door" post of mine a few posts ago and yet you totally disregard it in favor of trying to find a morsel of something, anything that you can try to make fit what you obviously cannot get straight in your own head despite being told and shown at least a half dozen times.
> If this isnt games on your end then you have officially taken over for Welder and String as the one who asks, gets an answer and then continues to ask the SAME question and get the SAME answer but obviously cannot comprehend what you have clearly been told.
> You provide great insight on how a person has information right in front them but only retains what he wants.


Weather YOU are 100% sure or not really isn't important.  But no, the answer is not the same every time. 

Most importantly - my focus and interest is how anyone is not 100% sure (not intended to be you personally), but claim to have taken it one god further, and the other little slogans such as placing all the mythical characters & imaginary friends in the same pool, and God is the adult Santa. 

If they are going to be compare at any level or imaginary or non-existent, they should be compared fully???

What percentage of certainty is there that one of the other mythical characters do not exist????

It has been pointed out there are different levels of proof - are there different levels of certainty? If so, based on what?? Do you have more proof of the one you can`t dismiss 100%? 

Is it 99.9998% that God isn't there, 99.9999% that Poseidon isn't there? Or 100% that Poseidon isn't there?

Or, 99.999999% that they all are mythical?? If they are all mythical, what about Santa since he is compared at times - 100%,  99.9999%, what level? 

Before you think these are unreasonable questions, you often ask Christians "how do you know which god to give credit to" and "you have to consider all of them". If you cant fully dismiss the one, there must be different levels of certainty, or you haven't ruled them all out????    
Nothing personal, and hope you don`t take it that way


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Weather YOU are 100% sure or not really isn't important.  But no, the answer is not the same every time.
> 
> Most importantly - my focus and interest is how anyone is not 100% sure (not intended to be you personally), but claim to have taken it one god further, and the other little slogans such as placing all the mythical characters & imaginary friends in the same pool, and God is the adult Santa.
> 
> If they are going to be compare at any level or imaginary or non-existent, they should be compared fully???
> 
> What percentage of certainty is there that one of the other mythical characters do not exist????
> 
> It has been pointed out there are different levels of proof - are there different levels of certainty? If so, based on what?? Do you have more proof of the one you can`t dismiss 100%?
> 
> Is it 99.9998% that God isn't there, 99.9999% that Poseidon isn't there? Or 100% that Poseidon isn't there?
> 
> Or, 99.999999% that they all are mythical?? If they are all mythical, what about Santa since he is compared at times - 100%,  99.9999%, what level?
> 
> Before you think these are unreasonable questions, you often ask Christians "how do you know which god to give credit to" and "you have to consider all of them". If you cant fully dismiss the one, there must be different levels of certainty, or you haven't ruled them all out????
> Nothing personal, and hope you don`t take it that way


Spotlite everything you CONTINUE to ask has been answered.
Why do you keep asking the same questions?
You obviously eventually read some of my unlocked door post, it says it all in that post. It answered your questions PAGES ago. Read the ENTIRE post.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Weather YOU are 100% sure or not really isn't important.  But no, the answer is not the same every time.
> 
> Most importantly - my focus and interest is how anyone is not 100% sure (not intended to be you personally), but claim to have taken it one god further, and the other little slogans such as placing all the mythical characters & imaginary friends in the same pool, and God is the adult Santa.
> 
> If they are going to be compare at any level or imaginary or non-existent, they should be compared fully???
> 
> What percentage of certainty is there that one of the other mythical characters do not exist????
> 
> It has been pointed out there are different levels of proof - are there different levels of certainty? If so, based on what?? Do you have more proof of the one you can`t dismiss 100%?
> 
> Is it 99.9998% that God isn't there, 99.9999% that Poseidon isn't there? Or 100% that Poseidon isn't there?
> 
> Or, 99.999999% that they all are mythical?? If they are all mythical, what about Santa since he is compared at times - 100%,  99.9999%, what level?
> 
> Before you think these are unreasonable questions, you often ask Christians "how do you know which god to give credit to" and "you have to consider all of them". If you cant fully dismiss the one, there must be different levels of certainty, or you haven't ruled them all out????
> Nothing personal, and hope you don`t take it that way



For me they are all in the same boat. I can’t prove Yahweh doesn’t exist any more than I can prove any other mythical creature doesn’t exist. They are all in the same boat but that could change. For it to change I would need to see something more than what I would expect to see if they didn’t exist. And the degree of change in my view of the probability of their existence would depend on the quality of evidence that one could provide that would be expected if they exist. My question is what evidence does the believer have that skews the probability in favor of their chosen deity (who just happens to be the one their culture believes and who they were taught from early childhood to believe) over any other mythical figure? Are they really applying the same standard to all or are they trying to rig the game to get the outcome that fits their preconception?


----------



## Israel

> I can’t prove Yahweh doesn’t exist any more than I can prove any other mythical creature doesn’t exist.





> My question is what evidence does the believer have that skews the probability in favor of their chosen deity



There's no skew at all. It's a steady convincing. Over and over again, and time and time again. It's seen in the longsuffering and mercy of _that God_ toward a creature that would think of his creator as no more than creature like himself. 

It's more than an odd thinking, it's a perverse thinking; a perversity of reason whereby the self vaunting reason uses _its reason _to disqualify the reason of, and for all. You are neither the first man, nor the only to think this way, finding fault with the reason found of _that_ God. The One who remains unsubmitted but sovereign in all over all the reasonings of man.

That He might allow dare, allow challenge against Himself, but withholding for such time as man might think better in repentance, even hear the things the man says _of himself _to such challenge, is all the work of the God who spared not his own Son in demonstration of irrefutable patience toward, and love for _that perverse thinking man_. Someone thinking quite clearly was presented, even given as soul sacrificed to be made offering for that unthinking man, that that soul be made an offering for sin. That soul that is perfect in both patience and obedience, even to death. That soul is given to be known.

It is experienced daily, it is evidence. And man may be reminded of it in this:

These _things_ hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether _such an one_ as thyself: _but_ I will reprove thee, and set _them_ in order before thine eyes.

It is a terrible thing to behold patience and mistake that for absence, or worse a weakness whereby one might be accused of being weak _in a thing. _The power that is found in patience bears appeal, and even for such time as seen fit, bears refutation and despising.

For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you. 

We say such and such has a weakness toward gambling, toward womanizing, toward lying, perverse affections in all whereby the man may be taken advantage.

The weakness of God toward man demonstrated in such love as to give the righteous for the unrighteous, is often by man taken advantage by perversity in mind, abused as no less a weakness such as his own. Thinking in that he might take advantage...of God. What _is given_ is all to man's advantage already...but not _over God._

In that sense God attributes to man by His demonstration of such love His value and esteem of him, made plain in incorruptible blood to show his worth. He will allow even, by what considers such love a "weakness" to be seen to despising, and taken advantage of, for such time as suits His purposes.

I marvel equally in God's speaking, but no less in His maintenance of silence of forbearance.

Jesus said: 

Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Don't, for the love of God, mistake His patience as something with which to do experimentation. Will a man try God's patience?


----------



## atlashunter

“It's seen in the longsuffering and mercy of _that God_ toward a creature that would think of his creator as no more than creature like himself.”

Like I said before, there is no god more patient and long suffering than the one that doesn’t exist. Show me a god that is any less long suffering than the one you believe in.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> “It's seen in the longsuffering and mercy of _that God_ toward a creature that would think of his creator as no more than creature like himself.”
> 
> Like I said before, there is no god more patient and long suffering than the one that doesn’t exist. Show me a god that is any less long suffering than the one you believe in.



God forbid!

May the Lord help you to see that for which you ask, and repent. Rethink friend. You have no idea of that for which you ask.

Mercy is already yours, bask in it. Don't try it.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> God forbid!
> 
> May the Lord help you to see that for which you ask, and repent. Rethink friend. You have no idea of that for which you ask.
> 
> Mercy is already yours, bask in it. Don't try it.



^This is a threat which anyone can make on behalf of any deity.

Again, show me a god that is any less patient than your own.


----------



## atlashunter

If being long suffering is evidence that skews (or convinces one) the probability is greater of one gods existence over the other then that must mean those other gods are somehow less long suffering. Right? Otherwise they are either more long suffering in which case the logic dictates they are more likely to exist or they are equally long suffering in which case any impact on the probability would be the same for all of them. So which is it?


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> If being long suffering is evidence that skews (or convinces one) the probability is greater of one gods existence over the other then that must mean those other gods are somehow less long suffering. Right? Otherwise they are either more long suffering in which case the logic dictates they are more likely to exist or they are equally long suffering in which case any impact on the probability would be the same for all of them. So which is it?


----------



## Israel

If steady convincing appears to you as mere "probablity" I cannot argue.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> If steady convincing appears to you as mere "probablity" I cannot argue.


You cannot argue and you cannot convince by providing facts to back up the assertions and claims. Mere probability is a heck of a lot more than your contributions of needability.
We would like if you could offer anything more.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> If steady convincing appears to you as mere "probablity" I cannot argue.



We are still talking about the probability even if you were steadily convinced that the probability is 100%.


----------



## atlashunter

atlashunter said:


> If being long suffering is evidence that skews (or convinces one) the probability is greater of one gods existence over the other then that must mean those other gods are somehow less long suffering. Right? Otherwise they are either more long suffering in which case the logic dictates they are more likely to exist or they are equally long suffering in which case any impact on the probability would be the same for all of them. So which is it?



Still unanswered.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Still unanswered.


Facts elude the answers of the defenders of such gods. Why is it so hard to come up with facts about truth?
Assertions, Claims and Excuses are all that is ever given. You stumped them with this latest one though.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> You cannot argue and you cannot convince by providing facts to back up the assertions and claims. Mere probability is a heck of a lot more than your contributions of needability.
> We would like if you could offer anything more.



Of course I cannot convince. I am quite sure that even in those places where I may appear argumentative I have never maintained that anything I do or say can or will, convince any.
I am just a witness here in this earth to testify of the things I have seen and know. What men do with my testimony is beyond my ability of any control.

What it seems you have been able to identify, if not receive of me, is that I bear in part testimony of (as you call it) "needability" or necessity. It is the merest part of my testimony, just a primer of what is perhaps key on man's side of the matter (for I cannot deny I am a man) for entrance. Man _must be_ saved.

The what of workings, the _how_ this has been made seen to be true by me, the why of how I no longer am lost in wondering about the testimony of others in even words written as to their veracity even to the particularly troubling matter of exclusivity as in

"and there is not salvation in any other, for there is no other name under the heaven that hath been given among men, in which it behoveth us to be saved."

Which is Young's translation, more often quoted as:

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

What is moved by what is the self evidence of necessity, as I have been reduced to, may find all the help there is to its resolution in _that name. And it (that name) _bears repeating, Jesus Christ.

Exclusivity and necessity are a matter in which I say _we all _move. If this is not self evident or in some way arguable as not _self evident _to some then I can only receive their testimony as lacking its evidence. Some...need to argue.

But, surely, not here, now, among the few I find myself speaking. They have had their opportunity to refute testimony of necessity in a previous thread, but haven't.

*Why do we(anything) need to eat?*

The self evidence there was never called to question. Not one responded with "that need is not sufficient in evidence to be called need or necessity in regard to eating" and besides that, that thing described as need has been abnegated many times. And at least once famously in recent memory (see Bobby Sands).

Will one say his denial of _that_ need, in fact proved the need? He died! 

Be careful then, if you try that argument as sufficient to me. That "Only denying the need...proves the need!" argument. For I will not argue against it, but for it. I am often found among what denies the need of salvation.

Exclusivity also enters. A hungry man looks for food, not for rocks. But I will not belabor this. Rocks in other instances may be very useful, and at other times precisely that for which he may be found seeking. But when he is reduced to hunger in the extreme, he _may not see_ any of their use. But...later...

It is an interesting thread, that. First in its reception of self evidence as to a true proposition. Secondly in its almost complete absence of address of other things a man might find in need of feeding. But a man may not even know he has a soul, just as a baby may not even have a full knowing of having a body, but it does respond to hunger. Eventually it may come to reason "this body I have is to me a real thing now, made known by its necessities and its limits...and being made all the more aware of it as necessity presses upon it"

I have gone days, weeks, months, barely aware of having teeth. Just as I have had, overall, very few days of remembering my kidneys. (I laughed at the ad I saw recently "Just ignore your teeth and they will go away") Have you ever had a toothache? A renal calculus? I even often forget I have toes, till I stub one.
And I am, again, often among those completely unaware to the point of denying their soul.

Just as I am no surgeon adequate to prove to a primitive he has a kidney or a brain, and there show it to him and return to him to such estate that he would now know this is also so of him, I yet maintain in the face of what may still seek denial...there is a soul to be, and that is for the "must be" to be saved. Necessity.

It is where the God of salvation appears...in that necessity, just as He appears to the presentation of that necessity by giving man the knowledge he indeed has a soul, and that needing to be saved. He does...all the work. He is the waking up to that pain in a place which man, if left alone (and it is not good for the man to be alone) would never seek resolution or even identification to having.

As the tin man said "Now I know I have a heart because I can feel it breaking"

But of myself I am too well aware I cannot prove these things to you, argue you successfully to the place where I would know I have of myself achieved any success.
I can't make one a living soul or put a soul in you, or breath of life, nor can I extract yours to make you see. Not safely for you, and surely not as a safe act for me. That is not my necessity nor could it be, for I myself had to be convinced by another of their reality.
To Him alone is my delight in referral. The savior of my soul. Exclusively, Jesus Christ.

Some need argument, love it to the point of its apparently appearing necessity, as though some triumph in argument equates with demonstration of truth. This, they assert. The one who, when told the sky is blue is compelled to add, "no it is cerulean" thinking the other has no knowledge of shades of blue. It's OK.

Those who need to live by argument with men to settle truth to themselves, to eat of necessity argument with men...have their own necessity. It works. If only to futility. Necessity...works.

My necessity of eating has been suffering change. From one place...to another. I also once, never believed it could be so. Necessity works.

And that...through the _only necessary_ One.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Of course I cannot convince. I am quite sure that even in those places where I may appear argumentative I have never maintained that anything I do or say can or will, convince any.
> I am just a witness here in this earth to testify of the things I have seen and know. What men do with my testimony is beyond my ability of any control.
> 
> What it seems you have been able to identify, if not receive of me, is that I bear in part testimony of (as you call it) "needability" or necessity. It is the merest part of my testimony, just a primer of what is perhaps key on man's side of the matter (for I cannot deny I am a man) for entrance. Man _must be_ saved.
> 
> The what of workings, the _how_ this has been made seen to be true by me, the why of how I no longer am lost in wondering about the testimony of others in even words written as to their veracity even to the particularly troubling matter of exclusivity as in
> 
> "and there is not salvation in any other, for there is no other name under the heaven that hath been given among men, in which it behoveth us to be saved."
> 
> Which is Young's translation, more often quoted as:
> 
> Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
> 
> What is moved by what is the self evidence of necessity, as I have been reduced to, may find all the help there is to its resolution in _that name. And it (that name) _bears repeating, Jesus Christ.
> 
> Exclusivity and necessity are a matter in which I say _we all _move. If this is not self evident or in some way arguable as not _self evident _to some then I can only receive their testimony as lacking its evidence. Some...need to argue.
> 
> But, surely, not here, now, among the few I find myself speaking. They have had their opportunity to refute testimony of necessity in a previous thread, but haven't.
> 
> *Why do we(anything) need to eat?*
> 
> The self evidence there was never called to question. Not one responded with "that need is not sufficient in evidence to be called need or necessity in regard to eating" and besides that, that thing described as need has been abnegated many times. And at least once famously in recent memory (see Bobby Sands).
> 
> Will one say his denial of _that_ need, in fact proved the need? He died!
> 
> Be careful then, if you try that argument as sufficient to me. That "Only denying the need...proves the need!" argument. For I will not argue against it, but for it. I am often found among what denies the need of salvation.
> 
> Exclusivity also enters. A hungry man looks for food, not for rocks. But I will not belabor this. Rocks in other instances may be very useful, and at other times precisely that for which he may be found seeking. But when he is reduced to hunger in the extreme, he _may not see_ any of their use. But...later...
> 
> It is an interesting thread, that. First in its reception of self evidence as to a true proposition. Secondly in its almost complete absence of address of other things a man might find in need of feeding. But a man may not even know he has a soul, just as a baby may not even have a full knowing of having a body, but it does respond to hunger. Eventually it may come to reason "this body I have is to me a real thing now, made known by its necessities and its limits...and being made all the more aware of it as necessity presses upon it"
> 
> I have gone days, weeks, months, barely aware of having teeth. Just as I have had, overall, very few days of remembering my kidneys. (I laughed at the ad I saw recently "Just ignore your teeth and they will go away") Have you ever had a toothache? A renal calculus? I even often forget I have toes, till I stub one.
> And I am, again, often among those completely unaware to the point of denying their soul.
> 
> Just as I am no surgeon adequate to prove to a primitive he has a kidney or a brain, and there show it to him and return to him to such estate that he would now know this is also so of him, I yet maintain in the face of what may still seek denial...there is a soul to be, and that is for the "must be" to be saved. Necessity.
> 
> It is where the God of salvation appears...in that necessity, just as He appears to the presentation of that necessity by giving man the knowledge he indeed has a soul, and that needing to be saved. He does...all the work. He is the waking up to that pain in a place which man, if left alone (and it is not good for the man to be alone) would never seek resolution or even identification to having.
> 
> As the tin man said "Now I know I have a heart because I can feel it breaking"
> 
> But of myself I am too well aware I cannot prove these things to you, argue you successfully to the place where I would know I have of myself achieved any success.
> I can't make one a living soul or put a soul in you, or breath of life, nor can I extract yours to make you see. Not safely for you, and surely not as a safe act for me. That is not my necessity nor could it be, for I myself had to be convinced by another of their reality.
> To Him alone is my delight in referral. The savior of my soul. Exclusively, Jesus Christ.
> 
> Some need argument, love it to the point of its apparently appearing necessity, as though some triumph in argument equates with demonstration of truth. This, they assert. The one who, when told the sky is blue is compelled to add, "no it is cerulean" thinking the other has no knowledge of shades of blue. It's OK.
> 
> Those who need to live by argument with men to settle truth to themselves, to eat of necessity argument with men...have their own necessity. It works. If only to futility. Necessity...works.
> 
> My necessity of eating has been suffering change. From one place...to another. I also once, never believed it could be so. Necessity works.
> 
> And that...through the _only necessary_ One.


So your reply in this thread is to talk about another thread in your same manners.......


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> So your reply in this thread is to talk about another thread in your same manners.......


Have you guys noticed that when you complain about Israel's "style" he fires right back with even more of which chaps your butt?
He's got your number ...….


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Have you guys noticed that when you complain about Israel's "style" he fires right back with even more of which chaps your butt?
> He's got your number ...….


We know the game and it isn't a game of one....or One, errrr (One?) , I mean _ONE_ , Won perhaps if I may you ask.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> Have you guys noticed that when you complain about Israel's "style" he fires right back with even more of which chaps your butt?
> He's got your number ...….



Ever heard the phrase, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull squeeze."? Every time he does it I'm reminded of an ex who did the same thing. It was her way of shutting me down. Used to drive me nuts but I eventually figured out it took her a lot more time and energy to write it than it did for me to disregard it.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull squeeze."


 

And which one do you believe you are about doing?


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Of course I cannot convince. I am quite sure that even in those places where I may appear argumentative I have never maintained that anything I do or say can or will, convince any.
> I am just a witness here in this earth to testify of the things I have seen and know. What men do with my testimony is beyond my ability of any control.
> 
> What it seems you have been able to identify, if not receive of me, is that I bear in part testimony of (as you call it) "needability" or necessity. It is the merest part of my testimony, just a primer of what is perhaps key on man's side of the matter (for I cannot deny I am a man) for entrance. Man _must be_ saved.
> 
> The what of workings, the _how_ this has been made seen to be true by me, the why of how I no longer am lost in wondering about the testimony of others in even words written as to their veracity even to the particularly troubling matter of exclusivity as in
> 
> "and there is not salvation in any other, for there is no other name under the heaven that hath been given among men, in which it behoveth us to be saved."
> 
> Which is Young's translation, more often quoted as:
> 
> Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
> 
> What is moved by what is the self evidence of necessity, as I have been reduced to, may find all the help there is to its resolution in _that name. And it (that name) _bears repeating, Jesus Christ.
> 
> Exclusivity and necessity are a matter in which I say _we all _move. If this is not self evident or in some way arguable as not _self evident _to some then I can only receive their testimony as lacking its evidence. Some...need to argue.
> 
> But, surely, not here, now, among the few I find myself speaking. They have had their opportunity to refute testimony of necessity in a previous thread, but haven't.
> 
> *Why do we(anything) need to eat?*
> 
> The self evidence there was never called to question. Not one responded with "that need is not sufficient in evidence to be called need or necessity in regard to eating" and besides that, that thing described as need has been abnegated many times. And at least once famously in recent memory (see Bobby Sands).
> 
> Will one say his denial of _that_ need, in fact proved the need? He died!
> 
> Be careful then, if you try that argument as sufficient to me. That "Only denying the need...proves the need!" argument. For I will not argue against it, but for it. I am often found among what denies the need of salvation.
> 
> Exclusivity also enters. A hungry man looks for food, not for rocks. But I will not belabor this. Rocks in other instances may be very useful, and at other times precisely that for which he may be found seeking. But when he is reduced to hunger in the extreme, he _may not see_ any of their use. But...later...
> 
> It is an interesting thread, that. First in its reception of self evidence as to a true proposition. Secondly in its almost complete absence of address of other things a man might find in need of feeding. But a man may not even know he has a soul, just as a baby may not even have a full knowing of having a body, but it does respond to hunger. Eventually it may come to reason "this body I have is to me a real thing now, made known by its necessities and its limits...and being made all the more aware of it as necessity presses upon it"
> 
> I have gone days, weeks, months, barely aware of having teeth. Just as I have had, overall, very few days of remembering my kidneys. (I laughed at the ad I saw recently "Just ignore your teeth and they will go away") Have you ever had a toothache? A renal calculus? I even often forget I have toes, till I stub one.
> And I am, again, often among those completely unaware to the point of denying their soul.
> 
> Just as I am no surgeon adequate to prove to a primitive he has a kidney or a brain, and there show it to him and return to him to such estate that he would now know this is also so of him, I yet maintain in the face of what may still seek denial...there is a soul to be, and that is for the "must be" to be saved. Necessity.
> 
> It is where the God of salvation appears...in that necessity, just as He appears to the presentation of that necessity by giving man the knowledge he indeed has a soul, and that needing to be saved. He does...all the work. He is the waking up to that pain in a place which man, if left alone (and it is not good for the man to be alone) would never seek resolution or even identification to having.
> 
> As the tin man said "Now I know I have a heart because I can feel it breaking"
> 
> But of myself I am too well aware I cannot prove these things to you, argue you successfully to the place where I would know I have of myself achieved any success.
> I can't make one a living soul or put a soul in you, or breath of life, nor can I extract yours to make you see. Not safely for you, and surely not as a safe act for me. That is not my necessity nor could it be, for I myself had to be convinced by another of their reality.
> To Him alone is my delight in referral. The savior of my soul. Exclusively, Jesus Christ.
> 
> Some need argument, love it to the point of its apparently appearing necessity, as though some triumph in argument equates with demonstration of truth. This, they assert. The one who, when told the sky is blue is compelled to add, "no it is cerulean" thinking the other has no knowledge of shades of blue. It's OK.
> 
> Those who need to live by argument with men to settle truth to themselves, to eat of necessity argument with men...have their own necessity. It works. If only to futility. Necessity...works.
> 
> My necessity of eating has been suffering change. From one place...to another. I also once, never believed it could be so. Necessity works.
> 
> And that...through the _only necessary_ One.



I get it.  You've been commanded and compelled to testify about your invisible friend.  He said to.  _It _said to. 

I really wish you would include something more substantial to back up your claims.  This subforum IS called apologetics after all.  Doesn't it bother you at all that you're not respecting the intent of this forum?


----------



## Israel

You do have some familiarity with, if not understanding of, the legal term and concept of "standing" in regards to bringing _an action_, do you not?

Regardless of that I am not here (in these fora) by command, but invitation I heard long before it was uttered. Nevertheless uttered finally and succinctly it was, and if not extended to me or for me, I'll submit to a dis-allowance and accept my having acted in presumption.
If I am excluded from being among the "more intelligent", so be it. Or to be denied intercourse with what claims it always speaks honestly, (now what "it" is being cruel?)
I cannot but concede.

But "being bothered", not at all, no, not in the least.


----------



## atlashunter

He’s not going to engage in apologetics.


----------



## welderguy

Apologetics is wasted here. Just my opinion. Most in here are too hardened to it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Apologetics is wasted here. Just my opinion. Most in here are too hardened to it.


There were but a handful that ever tried apologetics, and they made fantastic points with explanations to back them up. They certainly made me think. They discussed. They did not preach, proselytize, use verses to back up verses, they didnt use their own opinions as facts and they did not make claims and assertions without attempting to back them up historically  and with facts and evidence.
We are hardened to the tactics you think are apologetics....because they are not.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> For me they are all in the same boat. I can’t prove Yahweh doesn’t exist any more than I can prove any other mythical creature doesn’t exist. They are all in the same boat but that could change. For it to change I would need to see something more than what I would expect to see if they didn’t exist. And the degree of change in my view of the probability of their existence would depend on the quality of evidence that one could provide that would be expected if they exist. My question is what evidence does the believer have that skews the probability in favor of their chosen deity (who just happens to be the one their culture believes and who they were taught from early childhood to believe) over any other mythical figure? Are they really applying the same standard to all or are they trying to rig the game to get the outcome that fits their preconception?


That’s actually all I’m asking when you say the above, and took it one god further. You’re supposed to laugh at me if I said “that could change” if I made the sane comment about Santa.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spotlite everything you CONTINUE to ask has been answered.
> Why do you keep asking the same questions?
> You obviously eventually read some of my unlocked door post, it says it all in that post. It answered your questions PAGES ago. Read the ENTIRE post.


See the post I replied to Atlas with.

bullethead, no offense, but in order to discuss, even with hard headed folks like myself, comparing one another to other members shouldn’t be the tactic of choice. .

I’ve actually enjoyed the conversations. But, I think my time is better spent and more productive focusing on other things now. 

Time I’ve spent on here since 05 could have been spent on a creek bank. I don’t know if I will log back in or not, but for now -


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> That’s actually all I’m asking when you say the above, and took it one god further. You’re supposed to laugh at me if I said “that could change” if I made the sane comment about Santa.



Well if you could tell me what it would take for your viewpoint to change and it made sense it might be really unlikely but I don’t think I would laugh at that.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> There were but a handful that ever tried apologetics, and they made fantastic points with explanations to back them up. They certainly made me think. They discussed. They did not preach, proselytize, use verses to back up verses, they didnt use their own opinions as facts and they did not make claims and assertions without attempting to back them up historically  and with facts and evidence.
> We are hardened to the tactics you think are apologetics....because they are not.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> See the post I replied to Atlas with.
> 
> bullethead, no offense, but in order to discuss, even with hard headed folks like myself, comparing one another to other members shouldn’t be the tactic of choice. .
> 
> I’ve actually enjoyed the conversations. But, I think my time is better spent and more productive focusing on other things now.
> 
> Time I’ve spent on here since 05 could have been spent on a creek bank. I don’t know if I will log back in or not, but for now -


Spotlite, if you are unable or unwilling to accept the answers given to you, then given again to make sure something was not misunderstood,  then given again and expounded upon in depth so there can be no chance of misinterpretation and you STILL come back a 4th 5th 6th time to ask the same question in the same manner as a few others have done in here...well, you put yourself in that company and maybe me saying it was enough to make you think about it in another perspective.
You may catch something off that creek bank on your 5th cast, but not here.
Truly sorry to see you go. I have no hard feelings. I actually agree with you though, you were fishing in the wrong spot all those years.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> That’s actually all I’m asking when you say the above, and took it one god further. You’re supposed to laugh at me if I said “that could change” if I made the sane comment about Santa.


There is absolutely no way to KNOW the unknown, the impossible,  or the non existent. Like YOU, we have eliminated all the other gods man has talked about, worshipped and still worships including the god you worship for any and all of the reasons we give in here daily. 
Like Santa, the vast majority of children first learn about a God from an early age from Parents, family and society when the brain is growing and gathering all the knowledge it can at a tremendous rate. We are as sure as whatever god/santa exists because we are told about for years. It is as truthful to us as Mom is Mom and Dad is Dad.
At some point though between a certain age we find out that we have been bamboozled about one or both.
The difference is that and argument can be made that many "found" a god after childhood. I say, they are making up for lost time early on.
I can't ever remember hearing that anyone "found" Santa after a certain age or as the result of a crisis. And rightly so, that wasn't the story that went along with him. On the other hand, depending upon where a person is born, how they are raised and the culture, society and geographical location they live in....the god story is constantly around them whether they are paying attention or not. And the truth is, it is just a story that captivates adults the same as santa captivates kids.
We,... "we" have moved on from all of that. If there is anything more, I don't know of it or about it and I am not going to pretend to like many believers do.


----------



## hummerpoo

Spotlite said:


> See the post I replied to Atlas with.
> 
> bullethead, no offense, but in order to discuss, even with hard headed folks like myself, comparing one another to other members shouldn’t be the tactic of choice. .
> 
> I’ve actually enjoyed the conversations. But, I think my time is better spent and more productive focusing on other things now.
> 
> Time I’ve spent on here since 05 could have been spent on a creek bank. I don’t know if I will log back in or not, but for now -


For most of us (some sooner, some much later) attempting to dissuade from the discussion of a caricature as though it were an accurate image becomes too tiresome to endure.

Creek banks are surely near the pinnacle of God's creation.


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> For most of us (some sooner, some much later) attempting to dissuade from the discussion of a caricature as though it were an accurate image becomes too tiresome to endure.
> 
> Creek banks are surely near the pinnacle of God's creation.



You've never presented yourself as a caricature and I don't think I've ever seen you addressed like one.  You have always been respectful of other people's beliefs and have received the same in return.  Perhaps you should encourage those who do present themselves as the typical Bible thumping caricature to try a different approach with the goal of creating real dialogue.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> You've never presented yourself as a caricature and I don't think I've ever seen you addressed like one.  You have always been respectful of other people's beliefs and have received the same in return.  Perhaps you should encourage those who do present themselves as the typical Bible thumping caricature to try a different approach with the goal of creating real dialogue.




*I made clear, or at least attempted to make clear, from my first engagement on this sub-forum, that my primary purpose was to show that a significant portion of the positions taken, and arguments made, by the AAs were grounded in self-promoting bigotry at the expense of those believed to be, unintelligent, mentally lazy, indoctrinated,  dishonest, delusional, gullible, insecure, brainwashed sheep of an irredeemably rapacious, avaricious, autocratic, tyrannical, predatory theocracy.  Of coarse, that purpose did not require that I execute my efforts in an uncivil manor; although I'm sure that some efforts have failed.*


*It occurs to me that the other side of your suggestion, for action by me, would be that those I address above could be encouraged, from within their tribe, to abandon the juvenile playground tactics of the New Atheists, — typified by, but not at all restricted to: presupposition,  strawman, ad hominem, and other fallacious arguments ; the use of terms such as mythical, imaginary, bronze age, sky daddy, invisible friend, flying spaghetti monster, etc.; along with a "boat load" of other equally baseless and disrespectful rhetorical maneuvers — in favor of oppositional techniques more likely to engage one's adversary in thoughtful discussion.*

*Now, me and my Bible are going back to the creek bank, with no immediate plan to return.  (Creek banks here'bouts have been under water quite a bit lately.)*


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> We know the game and it isn't a game of one....or One, errrr (One?) , I mean _ONE_ , Won perhaps if I may you ask.


One-One was a racehorse.
Two-Two was one too.
One-One won one race.
Two-Two won one too.

I couldn't help it.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> *I made clear, or at least attempted to make clear, from my first engagement on this sub-forum, that my primary purpose was to show that a significant portion of the positions taken, and arguments made, by the AAs were grounded in self-promoting bigotry at the expense of those believed to be, unintelligent, mentally lazy, indoctrinated,  dishonest, delusional, gullible, insecure, brainwashed sheep of an irredeemably rapacious, avaricious, autocratic, tyrannical, predatory theocracy.  Of coarse, that purpose did not require that I execute my efforts in an uncivil manor; although I'm sure that some efforts have failed.*
> 
> 
> *It occurs to me that the other side of your suggestion, for action by me, would be that those I address above could be encouraged, from within their tribe, to abandon the juvenile playground tactics of the New Atheists, — typified by, but not at all restricted to: presupposition,  strawman, ad hominem, and other fallacious arguments ; the use of terms such as mythical, imaginary, bronze age, sky daddy, invisible friend, flying spaghetti monster, etc.; along with a "boat load" of other equally baseless and disrespectful rhetorical maneuvers — in favor of oppositional techniques more likely to engage one's adversary in thoughtful discussion.*
> 
> *Now, me and my Bible are going back to the creek bank, with no immediate plan to return.  (Creek banks here'bouts have been under water quite a bit lately.)*



Most of those terms aren’t baseless at all in these discussions.


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> Most of those terms aren’t baseless at all in these discussions.


I respectfully deny your claim of mindreading and emotional analysis.

Now, with apologies, I really gotta go.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> *I made clear, or at least attempted to make clear, from my first engagement on this sub-forum, that my primary purpose was to show that a significant portion of the positions taken, and arguments made, by the AAs were grounded in self-promoting bigotry at the expense of those believed to be, unintelligent, mentally lazy, indoctrinated,  dishonest, delusional, gullible, insecure, brainwashed sheep of an irredeemably rapacious, avaricious, autocratic, tyrannical, predatory theocracy.  Of coarse, that purpose did not require that I execute my efforts in an uncivil manor; although I'm sure that some efforts have failed.*
> 
> 
> *It occurs to me that the other side of your suggestion, for action by me, would be that those I address above could be encouraged, from within their tribe, to abandon the juvenile playground tactics of the New Atheists, — typified by, but not at all restricted to: presupposition,  strawman, ad hominem, and other fallacious arguments ; the use of terms such as mythical, imaginary, bronze age, sky daddy, invisible friend, flying spaghetti monster, etc.; along with a "boat load" of other equally baseless and disrespectful rhetorical maneuvers — in favor of oppositional techniques more likely to engage one's adversary in thoughtful discussion.*
> 
> *Now, me and my Bible are going back to the creek bank, with no immediate plan to return.  (Creek banks here'bouts have been under water quite a bit lately.)*


I think at least one word should be taken off that list and that is "indoctrinated".
Its just a simple fact that indoctrinated applies on the subject of religion and a hundred other subjects for that matter.
If someone is insulted by the use of "indoctrination" then they are insulted by the use of facts and that's their problem not mine/ours.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> I respectfully deny your claim of mindreading and emotional analysis.
> 
> Now, with apologies, I really gotta go.



It’s not mind reading nor is it disrespectful to call a myth a myth.

You look up the words you take issue with most of them have definitions that apply in the context of these discussions. If that offends you then best stay on that creek bank with your bible.


----------



## hummerpoo

*Because I feel obligated to clarify what is an apparent communication failure in the following post:*



hummerpoo said:


> *I made clear, or at least attempted to make clear, from my first engagement on this sub-forum, that my primary purpose was to show that a significant portion of the positions taken, and arguments made, by the AAs were grounded in self-promoting bigotry at the expense of those believed to be, unintelligent, mentally lazy, indoctrinated,  dishonest, delusional, gullible, insecure, brainwashed sheep of an irredeemably rapacious, avaricious, autocratic, tyrannical, predatory theocracy.  Of coarse, that purpose did not require that I execute my efforts in an uncivil manor; although I'm sure that some efforts have failed.*
> 
> 
> *It occurs to me that the other side of your suggestion, for action by me, would be that those I address above could be encouraged, from within their tribe, to abandon the juvenile playground tactics of the New Atheists, — typified by, but not at all restricted to: presupposition,  strawman, ad hominem, and other fallacious arguments ; the use of terms such as mythical, imaginary, bronze age, sky daddy, invisible friend, flying spaghetti monster, etc.; along with a "boat load" of other equally baseless and disrespectful rhetorical maneuvers — in favor of oppositional techniques more likely to engage one's adversary in thoughtful discussion.*
> 
> *Now, me and my Bible are going back to the creek bank, with no immediate plan to return.  (Creek banks here'bouts have been under water quite a bit lately.)*



*"other equally baseless and disrespectful" refers to "rhetorical maneuvers"; not to the list of  terms (in which I should have identified their pejorative use, as not every use of the words is pejorative).  The "rhetorical maneuvers" mentioned in the post are fallacious arguments and pejorative terms; "other equally baseless and disrespectful" could include things such as name calling , unfounded accusation of motivation, instructions to do the obvious, etc.  I hope this serves to clarify my meaning, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.*


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> *Because I feel obligated to clarify what is an apparent communication failure in the following post:*
> 
> 
> 
> *"other equally baseless and disrespectful" refers to "rhetorical maneuvers"; not to the list of  terms (in which I should have identified their pejorative use, as not every use of the words is pejorative).  The "rhetorical maneuvers" mentioned in the post are fallacious arguments and pejorative terms; "other equally baseless and disrespectful" could include things such as name calling , unfounded accusation of motivation, instructions to do the obvious, etc.  I hope this serves to clarify my meaning, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.*


In essence :
The AAA forum is not as bad as the forums above it regarding similar behavior,  but if I have to pick a side I would rather choose to participate in forums with misbehaving believers rather than non believers. Yes, it does get a little of track at times but since I am unable to refute most of the AA replies or make a good enough case for my religion, it is best that I try to step away and make it as graceful as I can while still blaming others.

You are just calling us bad names nicely.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> In essence :
> The AAA forum is not as bad as the forums above it regarding similar behavior,  but if I have to pick a side I would rather choose to participate in forums with misbehaving believers rather than non believers. Yes, it does get a little of track at times but since I am unable to refute most of the AA replies or make a good enough case for my religion, it is best that I try to step away and make it as graceful as I can while still blaming others.
> 
> You are just calling us bad names nicely.





hummerpoo said:


> *Because I feel obligated to clarify what is an apparent communication failure in the following post:*
> 
> *"other equally baseless and disrespectful" refers to "rhetorical maneuvers"; not to the list of  terms (in which I should have identified their pejorative use, as not every use of the words is pejorative).  The "rhetorical maneuvers" mentioned in the post are fallacious arguments and pejorative terms; "other equally baseless and disrespectful" could include things such as name calling , unfounded accusation of motivation, instructions to do the obvious, etc.  I hope this serves to clarify my meaning, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.*



<<<edit>>> I hurried too much I forgot to mention the
TU QUOQUE fallacy.

AND
Yes, I am, in a way, "calling you bad names nicely"
and I thank you for pointing out the futility of that effort.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> <<<edit>>> I hurried too much I forgot to mention the
> TU QUOQUE fallacy.
> 
> AND
> Yes, I am, in a way, "calling you bad names nicely"
> and I thank you for pointing out the futility of that effort.


"Tu Quoque fallacy" claim and then you admit to doing it.
Peas in a pod, pot/kettle, podium, soap box, better than thou....
Thanks for gracing us with your presence when you felt we deserved it.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> "Tu Quoque fallacy" claim and then you admit to doing it.
> Peas in a pod, pot/kettle, podium, soap box, better than thou....
> Thanks for gracing us with your presence when you felt we deserved it.


Thank you once again.


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

Real Christian term is man made term.. A Christian is someone who believes in Christ word.


----------



## bullethead

Fuzzy D Fellers said:


> Real Christian term is man made term.. A Christian is someone who believes in Christ word.


Agreed. From Westboro to the Pope one and all..


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Thank you once again.


Good 'net service on the bank today


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

bullethead said:


> Agreed. From Westboro to the Pope one and all..


Yes, it's Christ who seperates the wheat from the chaff in christianity not man.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Good 'net service on the bank today


Unfortunately, not on the bank today — By God's grace, maybe before dark.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Fuzzy D Fellers said:


> Yes, it's Christ who seperates the wheat from the chaff in christianity not man.


Any idea what criteria he uses? If someone wants in, he may need to know the requirements.

I guess if the glutton doesn't repent, it's no different that the drunkard or homosexual that never repents. Or the person with anger, lust, hate, unforgiveness, etc. 

I'm not sure I have repented any more that the glutton or drunkard. My weakness is lust. Maybe I only have to "see" it as sin. Do the gluttons actually "see" their weakness as a sin?


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

Artfuldodger said:


> Any idea what criteria he uses? If someone wants in, he may need to know the requirements.
> 
> I guess if the glutton doesn't repent, it's no different that the drunkard or homosexual that never repents. Or the person with anger, lust, hate, unforgiveness, etc.
> 
> I'm not sure I have repented any more that the glutton or drunkard. My weakness is lust. Maybe I only have to "see" it as sin. Do the gluttons actually "see" their weakness as a sin?



You are  talking legslistc theology, and being antagonistic.


----------



## ambush80

Fuzzy D Fellers said:


> You are  talking legalistic theology, and being antagonistic.



In Artful's defense and in the hopes of continuing, civil dialogue I have to disagree with you that he's being anatgonistic.  He asks hard questions with the utmost sincerity and respect.    I urge you to read him in the most charitable way possible.


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

Antagonist is being antognistic as the name of this sub-forum. Im sure @Artfuldodger didn't take it as an insult.


----------



## bullethead

Fuzzy D Fellers said:


> Yes, it's Christ who seperates the wheat from the chaff in christianity not man.





Fuzzy D Fellers said:


> Real Christian term is man made term.. A Christian is someone who believes in Christ word.



So which is it?


----------



## ambush80

Fuzzy D Fellers said:


> Antagonist is being antognistic as the name of this sub-forum. Im sure @Artfuldodger didn't take it as an insult.




Please re-read the name of this subforum.    Atheists/Agnostics/Apologetics   .

The word "antagonist" is not included.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Unfortunately, not on the bank today — By God's grace, maybe before dark.


Good luck.
I am glad you thought enough of us to spend some of your non creek bank time here.


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

bullethead said:


> So which is it?


The websters definition is one who follows Christ is a Christian.
Its Christ who decideds who actually is a Christian.


----------



## bullethead

Fuzzy D Fellers said:


> The websters definition is one who follows Christ is a Christian.
> Its Christ who decideds who actually is a Christian.


I am just seeking to clarify my thoughts that the claim of Christianity having the most followers isn't really true at all based on the final tally. 
I appreciate your input.

Now, would you say that you have a good chance and are confident of making it to the 2nd round of Christianity?


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

ambush80 said:


> Please re-read the name of this subforum.    Atheists/Agnostics/Apologetics   .
> 
> The word "antagonist" is not included.


Good point..  however i dont see it as an insult.. being antagonistic is just a different opionion stated tin a way to draw more reaction.


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

bullethead said:


> I am just seeking to clarify my thoughts that the claim of Christianity having the most followers isn't really true at all based on the final tally.
> I appreciate your input.
> 
> Now, would you say that you have a good chance and are confident of making it to the 2nd round of Christianity?


It's my faith and hope, but i can't say for sure it's Christ decsion.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Fuzzy D Fellers said:


> Antagonist is being antognistic as the name of this sub-forum. Im sure @Artfuldodger didn't take it as an insult.


I didn't, just pointing out the enigma of Christianity.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think one thing I see within Christianity in America is it may have two different meanings. One is more along the lines of a social definition. Many folks consider themselves Christian having grown up in a Christian family, etc. 
The other is a more religious definition. I guess if one believes he is a Christian and is a glutton, then if he believes he is, then for all purposes, he is. I mean as far as it concerns me, how do I know? I don't see many of them repenting but then again, it's not me.

That's where the enigma comes in. Either it's all from God or it's not.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I guess if the glutton can be non-repentant and still be a Christian, then so can I having lust in my heart. I can't say I've repented from that weakness.

In that same way of thinking, then so can the homosexual or the drunkard. So maybe I am looking at it from a Legalistic approach instead of an "all from God, grace approach."


----------



## atlashunter

Hummer instead of just grabbing a bunch of terms and making a sweeping accusation of their use as a “rhetorical maneuver” maybe you can point to specific examples where they were used when they shouldn’t have been. As far as ad hominem attacks go that does happen on occasion but I think it’s pretty minimal here.


----------



## atlashunter

Artfuldodger said:


> I guess if the glutton can be non-repentant and still be a Christian, then so can I having lust in my heart. I can't say I've repented from that weakness.
> 
> In that same way of thinking, then so can the homosexual or the drunkard. So maybe I am looking at it from a Legalistic approach instead of an "all from God, grace approach."



Christians seem to focus on the sins that don’t apply to them far mor than the ones that do.


----------



## Artfuldodger

atlashunter said:


> Christians seem to focus on the sins that don’t apply to them far mor than the ones that do.



Then say salvation is "all from grace" and then start adding stipulations from man. Stipulations that they, as individuals, adhere to but keep the others from acquiring salvation. 

The main stipulation I see is repentance but the definition is always different.  It ranges from  quit sinning to trying to quit sinning. Maybe a change of mind to a change of actions. 

Then when it is "all from God," the repentance ability is always from God's Spirit. Man has no part in it. Therefore one's lack of ability at repenting means his salvation wasn't granted in the first place.

The drunkards and the gluttons seem to always get a pass in the repentance department. I guess because they were born that way and it wasn't a "choice." 
But, in a way, we were all born with a certain sin curse that we often struggle to the grave to overcome.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Then say salvation is "all from grace" and then start adding stipulations from man. Stipulations that they, as individuals, adhere to but keep the others from acquiring salvation.
> 
> The main stipulation I see is repentance but the definition is always different.  It ranges from  quit sinning to trying to quit sinning. Maybe a change of mind to a change of actions.
> 
> Then when it is "all from God," the repentance ability is always from God's Spirit. Man has no part in it. Therefore one's lack of ability at repenting means his salvation wasn't granted in the first place.
> 
> The drunkards and the gluttons seem to always get a pass in the repentance department. I guess because they were born that way and it wasn't a "choice."
> But, in a way, we were all born with a certain sin curse that we often struggle to the grave to overcome.


Didn't god send Jesus to death to cover all that? Past ,Present, Future..?


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

Artfuldodger said:


> Then say salvation is "all from grace" and then start adding stipulations from man. Stipulations that they, as individuals, adhere to but keep the others from acquiring salvation.
> 
> The main stipulation I see is repentance but the definition is always different.  It ranges from  quit sinning to trying to quit sinning. Maybe a change of mind to a change of actions.
> 
> Then when it is "all from God," the repentance ability is always from God's Spirit. Man has no part in it. Therefore one's lack of ability at repenting means his salvation wasn't granted in the first place.
> 
> The drunkards and the gluttons seem to always get a pass in the repentance department. I guess because they were born that way and it wasn't a "choice."
> But, in a way, we were all born with a certain sin curse that we often struggle to the grave to overcome.


That is why Christ died for our sins, because we cant stop sinning. Once one has been born again they are still in the flesh, and the flesh is sinful. There is no magic transition to godliness once Christ is accepted. Im drinking a beer now while my live in girlfriend is cooking dinner.


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

I dont believe there are angels in heaven taking tally marks everytime one sins. Imo people who judge and pretend to be sin free are seeking glory from men and not from God.


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

Reading the words in red Jesus heeled the sick, saved the sinners, and condemned the religious leaders. When He comes back the same will happen.


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

To sum it up if a man cant feel forgiven for his sins, then he is following judgement from men and not the teachings of Christ.

He who is without sin cast the first stone... That says it all to me.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Good luck.
> I am glad you thought enough of us to spend some of your non creek bank time here.



Me too.
I think about _you guys_ (whomever can hear this) what seems a lot. Whether it's _enough_, I don't know. And when I do, I am wonderfully reminded that the Lord doesn't love you a whit more than He loves me. It's a real, and deep, encouragement.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Me too.
> I think about _you guys_ (whomever can hear this) what seems a lot. Whether it's _enough_, I don't know. And when I do, I am wonderfully reminded that the Lord doesn't love you a whit more than He loves me. It's a real, and deep, encouragement.



Then why would a god that loves me let me burn in a lake of fire for eternity or any soul for that matter, regardless of what I did or didn't do?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Me too.
> I think about _you guys_ (whomever can hear this) what seems a lot. Whether it's _enough_, I don't know. And when I do, I am wonderfully reminded that the Lord doesn't love you a whit more than He loves me. It's a real, and deep, encouragement.


Dads that burn their kids with cigarettes say they love their kids too. Bigger dad, bigger burn, same love.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Dads that burn their kids with cigarettes say they love their kids too. Bigger dad, bigger burn, same love.



For eternity.  And for what?  If that God were real, he's not worthy of respect, fear perhaps, but not respect.


----------



## atlashunter

Fuzzy D Fellers said:


> That is why Christ died for our sins, because we cant stop sinning. Once one has been born again they are still in the flesh, and the flesh is sinful. There is no magic transition to godliness once Christ is accepted. Im drinking a beer now while my live in girlfriend is cooking dinner.



Is it necessary to make your best effort to not sin then? And what happens if you don't? Or can you pretty much do what you want because you aren't perfect and bound to sin anyway? Seems problematic in either case.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Is it necessary to make your best effort to not sin then? And what happens if you don't? Or can you pretty much do what you want because you aren't perfect and bound to sin anyway? Seems problematic in either case.


Or, as some believe,  made to burn from the start no matter how sinless and faithful you led your life.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Is it necessary to make your best effort to not sin then? And what happens if you don't? Or can you pretty much do what you want because you aren't perfect and bound to sin anyway? Seems problematic in either case.



Seeing as we're debating the logical consistency of a doctrine that none of us believe is divine, it almost seems like debating whether or not ejecting the dilithium crystals into the black hole will cause an explosion big enough to eject a starship from the black hole's gravitational pull.  

As I read it, a believer is to feel repentant about every gluttonous piece of fried chicken and every homosexual thought and try their best not to do it again.  There's an actual number for how many times you can be forgiven for the same sin.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Or, as some believe,  made to burn from the start no matter how sinless and faithful you led your life.



The Vessels of Wrath.  They serve one of those "mysterious ways" that believers are to trust in the goodness of.  That actually makes the only sense granting an omniscient, omnipotent being.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Then why would a god that loves me let me burn in a lake of fire for eternity or any soul for that matter, regardless of what I did or didn't do?



First, I do not accept that _you_ are irredeemably lost. I believe you. I believe you have not had any experience of Jesus Christ that would put you in this place:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age— and then have fallen away—to be restored again to repentance, because they themselves are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to open shame.

I believe you in your statement of experience. Some belief to some form, some zeal even to "sharing the gospel" as you understood it. Even in believing you yet bear a bit of shame? embarrassment? in seeing yourself telling your college classmate he is bound for **** if not believing what you presented to him of "that gospel".

You see a hubris now, a pride now...even some sight of significance of how you now view a man in bloated religiosity (which you equate with any who carry that name at all...except your mom) and you are very keen (for _it has_ wounded you...such sight of a man, such personal experience of a man...even to a repulsion) to assign any that may come to you as in that name the same. I get that. Not only do I "get it" as though I sum you up and all your experience in my eyes or mind, I get it because I can relate. And I get it because once having tasted for oneself what greasy and rancid product can be brought forth from a man in judgment of another...one never wants to experience _that nausea_ again. And I too well understand how easy it is to lump all together as bearing that same rancid stew. To you it is precisely _that baby_ in the bathwater that is itself the very pollutant.

"Believing in God...(and specifically the God that calls itself/himself the God of salvation) makes one so overwhelming proud as is all that is now insufferable to my sight" Because _you have_ tasted it. And you remain in ready agreement with all who see so...to certain points. And any who may appear as having any hope. or claim, or see any stake in this salvation at all, do so...only because "once one embraces there's power to save...(For_ I see_ the only _real enticement that is implicit in it!_)...there is likewise power of condemnation" I am not sorry at all that in whatever form you bear a despising of pride.

You may think, (do you think this?)...you have drank of pride to its grossest dregs. And are now able to discern its every motion and hiding place (religion is surely a "good" one) whenever you seem to sniff it. And in my judgment...(for I really do not know, nor have been informed) you may of all men now in the earth be the most informed in that. I know you are keen to it (in my assessments) but how keen...is not in my knowing. In this, for all I know...you have been set as _my instructor, _one through whom for a time is set (sent) to the opening of my eyes to a better understanding. But, I do not mistake you as_ the teacher. The rabbi._

You have a keen interest in reform. Even to seeking to help some colleagues to not go about in word or attitude that might hinder it (reform) when you perceive what is found among the "religious" (as you see them) as some incipient inclination to it. "See, they (or one) are moving away from a "literal" appreciation of the Bible as the word of (a) God, be careful not to repulse them from it". You, in that sense, are "the evangelical", seeking to guard and even nurture what _you see_ as a wholesome abandonment of superstition. (as you would/might define any belief in "a" god as such). You...urge care.

But the question remains as you (to my mind) exalt reason as key in all...but such reason as must be totally divorced in every way, shape, and form from any and all referencing to God, or gods. Then (do you imagine this to be so?) the new age shall come, the new enlightenment of no limitation (I agree, superstition is a major impediment and is to have "no place") where man may fly free! When "God/gods is dead" (in consciousness)...man is free? There is _no overseer!_ (For such an eye to you must always appear malignant?) We have no limits! We are under no one's eye...but our own!

I do not mean to reduce you to my understanding as would seem most readily my whole exercise. If I see anything (do I?) I must concede to you what I am learning to concede of God, I see the merest tip of the ice berg. I am forced to it. You are much larger than I can contain in my mind or eye of observation. I may (at times) see you only...as a tree walking...but I get reproved. You are not_ that._


(And now Ambush, I will not continue publicly with you in this unless you care to)

But I will share this, not in observation of any man but myself. That taste of pride, which I may concede that of all forms (do you think really...it takes only one form?) may be most perniciously tasted in religion is the fault of Christ, or provoked to be manifest by the presence of Christ? I have been pressed to this...especially when tasting it coming up and out of myself in a bilious plume. Oh, and it has! I see no pride in Him...and yet...

Shall I blame Him...or acknowledge its residence by not denying I am coming to see its true source...and that for which he was even sent...to make plain a need of its right judgment. I understand why some can simply think "it is the gospel" that makes men proud to the place of assigning (under the guise of salvation)...judgment. And condemnation. But, I cannot blame Him...or His being, I can only admit such plume I may taste or smell...especially of myself...is due to His burnings of what remains unlike Him. The gospel doesn't make one proud...it merely exposes it where it has been resident, and woe is me should I lie and pretend some have it in greater measure than myself...to be dealt with.

Make no mistake...I have personally experienced _much offense _in what could be described as my association with Jesus Christ. And I have not "been above"...blaming Him. I have often pitied myself for what he has allowed me to see and experience. I have blamed God for being irreconcilable to my own understanding. The only testimony I can bear of myself is just that.

Yet, He remains...faithful.


----------



## atlashunter

“But the question remains as you (to my mind) exalt reason as key in all...but such reason as must be totally divorced in every way, shape, and form from any and all referencing to God, or gods.”

Must it?


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> “But the question remains as you (to my mind) exalt reason as key in all...but such reason as must be totally divorced in every way, shape, and form from any and all referencing to God, or gods.”
> 
> Must it?


For me, if one has to totally divorce  reason in any way, shape or form about something that is supposed to be or claimed to be true/factual, the alarm bells start going off.


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> Hummer instead of just grabbing a bunch of terms and making a sweeping accusation of their use as a “rhetorical maneuver” maybe you can point to specific examples where they were used when they shouldn’t have been. As far as ad hominem attacks go that does happen on occasion but I think it’s pretty minimal here.



The purpose of the listing of terms being to identify a type of rhetorical maneuver  I find no benefit in exploring the examples used.  In the discussion of effective communication between believer and nonbeliever, the use of the epithet "your Heavenly Father" by a believer or the use of the epithet "your Sky Daddy" by a nonbeliever, seem to me to, have the effect of impeding communication; and this would apply across the range of terms.

Since logicians don't agree on the categorization of ad hominem, I think that any attempt that we might make at quantifying, and/or qualifying, would be doomed.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> The purpose of the listing of terms being to identify a type of rhetorical maneuver (which phrase is not an accusation in itself, but a technique which may, or may not, be appropriate, according to the purpose at hand), I find no benefit in exploring the examples used.  In the discussion of effective communication between believer and nonbeliever, the use of the epithet "your Heavenly Father" by a believer or the use of the epithet "your Sky Daddy" by a nonbeliever, seem to me to, have the effect of impeding communication; and this would apply across the range of terms.
> 
> Since logicians don't agree on the categorization of ad hominem, I think that any attempt that we might make at quantifying, and/or qualifying, would be doomed.


Do you put "you're going to he11" and "your Sky Daddy" into different categories?
Arent they both an expression of one's beliefs?
Do you find one insulting and the other not?


----------



## hummerpoo

hummerpoo said:


> The purpose of the listing of terms being to identify a type of rhetorical maneuver (which phrase is not an accusation in itself, but a technique which may, or may not, be appropriate, according to the purpose at hand), I find no benefit in exploring the examples used.  In the discussion of effective communication between believer and nonbeliever, the use of the epithet "your Heavenly Father" by a believer or the use of the epithet "your Sky Daddy" by a nonbeliever, seem to me to, have the effect of impeding communication; and *this would apply across the range of terms.*
> 
> Since logicians don't agree on the categorization of ad hominem, I think that any attempt that we might make at quantifying, and/or qualifying, would be doomed.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


WaltL1 said:


> Do you put "you're going to he11" and "your Sky Daddy" into different categories?
> Arent they both an expression of one's beliefs?
> Do you find one insulting and the other not?


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Discussion is only impeded if someone takes their ball and goes home.
One could take Sky Daddy as no more than "Our Father (Daddy) who art in 
Heaven (in the sky)" = Sky Daddy
And one could take "you're going to He11" as an opportunity to question the person about the existence of He11.
Either can create, not impede, discussion if we all wear our big girl panties.
But I do agree that a line can be crossed. And it occasionally has been.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, if you are unable or unwilling to accept the answers given to you, then given again to make sure something was not misunderstood,  then given again and expounded upon in depth so there can be no chance of misinterpretation and you STILL come back a 4th 5th 6th time to ask the same question in the same manner as a few others have done in here...well, you put yourself in that company and maybe me saying it was enough to make you think about it in another perspective.
> You may catch something off that creek bank on your 5th cast, but not here.
> Truly sorry to see you go. I have no hard feelings. I actually agree with you though, you were fishing in the wrong spot all those years.



Let me clarify for you, when I said "fishing", and "creek bank" I am literally speaking of the river and catfish, and nothing more. And when I said "time on here", I am not speaking of this sub forum, I am speaking of the time spent on the entire place......other things have become more important to me now. 

But to your point, it was not a multiple choice question. It was yes or no, and you gave both answers.


bullethead said:


> There is absolutely no way to KNOW the unknown, the impossible,  or the non existent. Like YOU, we have eliminated all the other gods man has talked about, worshipped and still worships including the god you worship for any and all of the reasons we give in here daily.
> Like Santa, the vast majority of children first learn about a God from an early age from Parents, family and society when the brain is growing and gathering all the knowledge it can at a tremendous rate. We are as sure as whatever god/santa exists because we are told about for years. It is as truthful to us as Mom is Mom and Dad is Dad.
> At some point though between a certain age we find out that we have been bamboozled about one or both.
> The difference is that and argument can be made that many "found" a god after childhood. I say, they are making up for lost time early on.
> I can't ever remember hearing that anyone "found" Santa after a certain age or as the result of a crisis. And rightly so, that wasn't the story that went along with him. On the other hand, depending upon where a person is born, how they are raised and the culture, society and geographical location they live in....the god story is constantly around them whether they are paying attention or not. And the truth is, it is just a story that captivates adults the same as santa captivates kids.
> We,... "we" have moved on from all of that. If there is anything more, I don't know of it or about it and I am not going to pretend to like many believers do.


I am not sure how you have eliminated any of them if there absolutely no way to KNOW the unknown. You seem to be able to compare them all equally until it is time to rule the one out 100%.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify my stance - nothing personal. Just making my time count where it counts the most.

Now, all cookies and history are clean, fishing junk is in the truck. if I ever log in again, I will be sure to say hello.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> First, I do not accept that _you_ are irredeemably lost. I believe you. I believe you have not had any experience of Jesus Christ that would put you in this place:
> 
> It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age— and then have fallen away—to be restored again to repentance, because they themselves are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to open shame.
> 
> I believe you in your statement of experience. Some belief to some form, some zeal even to "sharing the gospel" as you understood it. Even in believing you yet bear a bit of shame? embarrassment? in seeing yourself telling your college classmate he is bound for **** if not believing what you presented to him of "that gospel".
> 
> You see a hubris now, a pride now...even some sight of significance of how you now view a man in bloated religiosity (which you equate with any who carry that name at all...except your mom) and you are very keen (for _it has_ wounded you...such sight of a man, such personal experience of a man...even to a repulsion) to assign any that may come to you as in that name the same. I get that. Not only do I "get it" as though I sum you up and all your experience in my eyes or mind, I get it because I can relate. And I get it because once having tasted for oneself what greasy and rancid product can be brought forth from a man in judgment of another...one never wants to experience _that nausea_ again. And I too well understand how easy it is to lump all together as bearing that same rancid stew. To you it is precisely _that baby_ in the bathwater that is itself the very pollutant.
> 
> "Believing in God...(and specifically the God that calls itself/himself the God of salvation) makes one so overwhelming proud as is all that is now insufferable to my sight" Because _you have_ tasted it. And you remain in ready agreement with all who see so...to certain points. And any who may appear as having any hope. or claim, or see any stake in this salvation at all, do so...only because "once one embraces there's power to save...(For_ I see_ the only _real enticement that is implicit in it!_)...there is likewise power of condemnation" I am not sorry at all that in whatever form you bear a despising of pride.
> 
> You may think, (do you think this?)...you have drank of pride to its grossest dregs. And are now able to discern its every motion and hiding place (religion is surely a "good" one) whenever you seem to sniff it. And in my judgment...(for I really do not know, nor have been informed) you may of all men now in the earth be the most informed in that. I know you are keen to it (in my assessments) but how keen...is not in my knowing. In this, for all I know...you have been set as _my instructor, _one through whom for a time is set (sent) to the opening of my eyes to a better understanding. But, I do not mistake you as_ the teacher. The rabbi._
> 
> You have a keen interest in reform. Even to seeking to help some colleagues to not go about in word or attitude that might hinder it (reform) when you perceive what is found among the "religious" (as you see them) as some incipient inclination to it. "See, they (or one) are moving away from a "literal" appreciation of the Bible as the word of (a) God, be careful not to repulse them from it". You, in that sense, are "the evangelical", seeking to guard and even nurture what _you see_ as a wholesome abandonment of superstition. (as you would/might define any belief in "a" god as such). You...urge care.
> 
> But the question remains as you (to my mind) exalt reason as key in all...but such reason as must be totally divorced in every way, shape, and form from any and all referencing to God, or gods. Then (do you imagine this to be so?) the new age shall come, the new enlightenment of no limitation (I agree, superstition is a major impediment and is to have "no place") where man may fly free! When "God/gods is dead" (in consciousness)...man is free? There is _no overseer!_ (For such an eye to you must always appear malignant?) We have no limits! We are under no one's eye...but our own!



If by reason a god be revealed then it will just be the truth, like gravity.





Israel said:


> I do not mean to reduce you to my understanding as would seem most readily my whole exercise. If I see anything (do I?) I must concede to you what I am learning to concede of God, I see the merest tip of the ice berg. I am forced to it. You are much larger than I can contain in my mind or eye of observation. I may (at times) see you only...as a tree walking...but I get reproved. You are not_ that._
> 
> 
> (And now Ambush, I will not continue publicly with you in this unless you care to)
> 
> But I will share this, not in observation of any man but myself. That taste of pride, which I may concede that of all forms (do you think really...it takes only one form?) may be most perniciously tasted in religion is the fault of Christ, or provoked to be manifest by the presence of Christ? I have been pressed to this...especially when tasting it coming up and out of myself in a bilious plume. Oh, and it has! I see no pride in Him...and yet...
> 
> Shall I blame Him...or acknowledge its residence by not denying I am coming to see its true source...and that for which he was even sent...to make plain a need of its right judgment. I understand why some can simply think "it is the gospel" that makes men proud to the place of assigning (under the guise of salvation)...judgment. And condemnation. But, I cannot blame Him...or His being, I can only admit such plume I may taste or smell...especially of myself...is due to His burnings of what remains unlike Him. The gospel doesn't make one proud...it merely exposes it where it has been resident, and woe is me should I lie and pretend some have it in greater measure than myself...to be dealt with.



This seems to me to be an assertion that you have used some kind of sense to confirm his existence?  What method did you use to interrogate the truth of his existence?  Is it available to anyone?



Israel said:


> Make no mistake...I have personally experienced _much offense _in what could be described as my association with Jesus Christ. And I have not "been above"...blaming Him. I have often pitied myself for what he has allowed me to see and experience. I have blamed God for being irreconcilable to my own understanding. The only testimony I can bear of myself is just that.
> 
> Yet, He remains...faithful.



Explain this to me like we're crappie fishing.  What is your sense of "he"?   Is it a voice?  A thought?  


I'm glad that you take me seriously.  I'm trying very hard to talk about this stuff in a respectful and serious way.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Let me clarify for you, when I said "fishing", and "creek bank" I am literally speaking of the river and catfish, and nothing more. And when I said "time on here", I am not speaking of this sub forum, I am speaking of the time spent on the entire place......other things have become more important to me now.
> 
> But to your point, it was not a multiple choice question. It was yes or no, and you gave both answers.
> 
> I am not sure how you have eliminated any of them if there absolutely no way to KNOW the unknown. You seem to be able to compare them all equally until it is time to rule the one out 100%.
> 
> Anyway, just wanted to clarify my stance - nothing personal. Just making my time count where it counts the most.
> 
> Now, all cookies and history are clean, fishing junk is in the truck. if I ever log in again, I will be sure to say hello.


I have eliminated them due to the knowledge that I currently have.
The definition of Unknown speaks for itself.


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

atlashunter said:


> Is it necessary to make your best effort to not sin then? And what happens if you don't? Or can you pretty much do what you want because you aren't perfect and bound to sin anyway? Seems problematic in either case.


I cant answer  that question. Read the words in red in gospels and pray for guidance.


----------



## atlashunter

Fuzzy D Fellers said:


> I cant answer  that question. Read the words in red in gospels and pray for guidance.



I suspect you have an opinion on the matter but I have to say it’s refreshing to find a believer willing to admit something they don’t know.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> The purpose of the listing of terms being to identify a type of rhetorical maneuver  I find no benefit in exploring the examples used.  In the discussion of effective communication between believer and nonbeliever, the use of the epithet "your Heavenly Father" by a believer or the use of the epithet "your Sky Daddy" by a nonbeliever, seem to me to, have the effect of impeding communication; and this would apply across the range of terms.
> 
> Since logicians don't agree on the categorization of ad hominem, I think that any attempt that we might make at quantifying, and/or qualifying, would be doomed.



Now the terms at issue are narrowed. It’s true the use of terms like sky daddy are intended to show how silly a belief appears but it only stings a bit because it’s a less informal way of expressing what believers themselves express. Likewise believers refer to themselves as sheep yet take issue with others referring to them as the same. And while these terms have been used here on occasion it’s not as common as you make it sound even if they were baseless, which they are not.


----------



## bullethead

Lets face it, until a believer can prove more about their "Father" who lives in "Heaven" and no one has ever seen or  is allowed to "See" therefore un-seeable, the term Invisible Sky Daddy is a term that says the same thing but in a different way. If believers are offended by it or at least think ISD sounds ridiculous then they now know how words that mean the same thing sound to nonbelievers...yet they keep on using the terms and words that are no different.
Put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.


----------



## bullethead

Then again, it's 2019, and most times I forget how it is so in style to be offended by everything.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> For me, if one has to totally divorce  reason in any way, shape or form about something that is supposed to be or claimed to be true/factual, the alarm bells start going off.



Same here. Why would any deity require that you abandon the greatest tool you have (that they apparently gave you) for understanding the universe in order to know they exist? I see a universe wide open to exploration and inquiry. If there is a being that created it I don’t see in their creation of either us or the rest of the universe a high value placed on credulity. Quite to the contrary.

Do gods or a god exist? There is a true answer to that question. If faith and revelation were sufficient to getting the correct answer we wouldn’t have the plethora of contradictory faiths that we have.


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> Now the terms at issue are narrowed.



No, not really; the issue is still pejorative terminology generally.  A representative example has been isolated in an attempt to demonstrate that pejorative terminology is detrimental to a goal of constructive communication, and that discussion of the individual terms can only serve as a channel to the same nonproductive barstool banter that provides job security for bouncers, or leaves both parties fully satisfied that they can return to the same stool and have essentially the same conversation again tomorrow night.  And that "this would apply across the range of terms."




> It’s true the use of terms like sky daddy are intended to show how silly a belief appears but it only stings a bit because it’s a less informal way of expressing what believers themselves express.



Both parties being fully aware that there is no silliness intended in the term Holy Father, either in scripture or when used as an epithetical expression of reverence for God (we can forego the theological dissection of the term), and that reverence does not exist for those who are not moved to use the term in accordance with its intended purpose; does the trivializing of that reverential expression naturally move the conversation toward mutual understanding or does it simply show disdain for the heartfelt awe that both parties know the  believer feels for, what is for him, the Almighty Power and Sustainer of his being?  If anyone were so foolish as to refer to Ambush as his daughter's sperm donor, none of us would  consider it a concise expression of his world view, but would likely conclude either, that he's looking for a fight, or that he had no understanding of the relationship involved; then again, he could just be trolling.  At this point it should be noted that there was, in my previous post, mention of a converse situation.  So what purpose does the use of pejorative terminology serve?  Surely no one believes that it is going to cause anyone to seriously question their strongly held beliefs.  It would be absurd to suggest that such an approach opens the door to mutual understanding.  I suggested one possible answer in my statement of purpose, and in my last previous post said it impeded communication.
My stance on the issue of pejorative terminology assumes that unbelievers are fully capable of expressing their thoughts and emotions in a more constructive form, and I genuinely believe that to be the case, although I also recognize that much hard work is required. 




> Likewise believers refer to themselves as sheep yet take issue with others referring to them as the same.



You will forgive me if I do not go into the "silliness" of drawing comparative lines between submission to God and submission to men.



> And while these terms have been used here on occasion it’s not as common as you make it sound even if they were baseless, which they are not.


On the contrary, the prevelance, or at least sufficiency, is indicated by the fruitlessness, or lack of progress.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> No, not really; the issue is still pejorative terminology generally.  A representative example has been isolated in an attempt to demonstrate that pejorative terminology is detrimental to a goal of constructive communication, and that discussion of the individual terms can only serve as a channel to the same nonproductive barstool banter that provides job security for bouncers, or leaves both parties fully satisfied that they can return to the same stool and have essentially the same conversation again tomorrow night.  And that "this would apply across the range of terms."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both parties being fully aware that there is no silliness intended in the term Holy Father, either in scripture or when used as an epithetical expression of reverence for God (we can forego the theological dissection of the term), and that reverence does not exist for those who are not moved to use the term in accordance with its intended purpose; does the trivializing of that reverential expression naturally move the conversation toward mutual understanding or does it simply show disdain for the heartfelt awe that both parties know the  believer feels for, what is for him, the Almighty Power and Sustainer of his being?  If anyone were so foolish as to refer to Ambush as his daughter's sperm donor, none of us would  consider it a concise expression of his world view, but would likely conclude either, that he's looking for a fight, or that he had no understanding of the relationship involved; then again, he could just be trolling.  At this point it should be noted that there was, in my previous post, mention of a converse situation.  So what purpose does the use of pejorative terminology serve?  Surely no one believes that it is going to cause anyone to seriously question their strongly held beliefs.  It would be absurd to suggest that such an approach opens the door to mutual understanding.  I suggested one possible answer in my statement of purpose, and in my last previous post said it impeded communication.
> My stance on the issue of pejorative terminology assumes that unbelievers are fully capable of expressing their thoughts and emotions in a more constructive form, and I genuinely believe that to be the case, although I also recognize that much hard work is required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will forgive me if I do not go into the "silliness" of drawing comparative lines between submission to God and submission to men.
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the prevelance, or at least sufficiency, is indicated by the fruitlessness, or lack of progress.





> or lack of progress


The funny thing about "progress" is it isn't always obvious or publicly displayed.
Nor does progress have to mean a reversal of one's beliefs.
If for even one minute our debate/discussions results in one side putting themselves in the other side's shoes.... then in my opinion, progress has been made.
If one pays close attention, there are a number of examples (from both sides) of
"I can see why you would think that but....". Even if what follows the but is vehement disagreement, it was the "I can see why you would think that" that is the progress.
Progress isn't necessarily pretty or displayed by joining hands and singing kumbaya.


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> No, not really; the issue is still pejorative terminology generally.  A representative example has been isolated in an attempt to demonstrate that pejorative terminology is detrimental to a goal of constructive communication, and that discussion of the individual terms can only serve as a channel to the same nonproductive barstool banter that provides job security for bouncers, or leaves both parties fully satisfied that they can return to the same stool and have essentially the same conversation again tomorrow night.  And that "this would apply across the range of terms."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both parties being fully aware that there is no silliness intended in the term Holy Father, either in scripture or when used as an epithetical expression of reverence for God (we can forego the theological dissection of the term), and that reverence does not exist for those who are not moved to use the term in accordance with its intended purpose; does the trivializing of that reverential expression naturally move the conversation toward mutual understanding or does it simply show disdain for the heartfelt awe that both parties know the  believer feels for, what is for him, the Almighty Power and Sustainer of his being?  If anyone were so foolish as to refer to Ambush as his daughter's sperm donor, none of us would  consider it a concise expression of his world view, but would likely conclude either, that he's looking for a fight, or that he had no understanding of the relationship involved; then again, he could just be trolling.  At this point it should be noted that there was, in my previous post, mention of a converse situation.  So what purpose does the use of pejorative terminology serve?  Surely no one believes that it is going to cause anyone to seriously question their strongly held beliefs.  It would be absurd to suggest that such an approach opens the door to mutual understanding.  I suggested one possible answer in my statement of purpose, and in my last previous post said it impeded communication.
> My stance on the issue of pejorative terminology assumes that unbelievers are fully capable of expressing their thoughts and emotions in a more constructive form, and I genuinely believe that to be the case, although I also recognize that much hard work is required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will forgive me if I do not go into the "silliness" of drawing comparative lines between submission to God and submission to men.
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the prevelance, or at least sufficiency, is indicated by the fruitlessness, or lack of progress.



I wouldn't think anything of it.  We often joke among her and her mother and I that her mother married me for my sperm, which was in fact true.  We had lived together for ten years and she said "I want to get married and I want you to give me a baby", which I did.   That's the thing about offense, it takes two to tango.

A good analysis of "offense":







"In order to think, you have to risk being offensive"


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> I wouldn't think anything of it.  We often joke among her and her mother and I that her mother married me for my sperm, which was in fact true.  We had lived together for ten years and she said "I want to get married and I want you to give me a baby", which I did.   That's the thing about offense, it takes two to tango.
> 
> A good analysis of "offense":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In order to think, you have to risk being offensive"



Check the logic on this.
If he talks about offensive communication,
then he is offended.

Doesn't work does it.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> The funny thing about "progress" is it isn't always obvious or publicly displayed.
> Nor does progress have to mean a reversal of one's beliefs.
> If for even one minute our debate/discussions results in one side putting themselves in the other side's shoes.... then in my opinion, progress has been made.
> If one pays close attention, there are a number of examples (from both sides) of
> "I can see why you would think that but....". Even if what follows the but is vehement disagreement, it was the "I can see why you would think that" that is the progress.
> Progress isn't necessarily pretty or displayed by joining hands and singing kumbaya.


Excellent post Walt.
Maybe I expect too much, but I will probably keep it up.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> I wouldn't think anything of it.  We often joke among her and her mother and I that her mother married me for my sperm, which was in fact true.  We had lived together for ten years and she said "I want to get married and I want you to give me a baby", which I did.   That's the thing about offense, it takes two to tango.
> 
> A good analysis of "offense":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In order to think, you have to risk being offensive"


You describe a great relationship with your daughter, which is what prompted me to use you as a part of making my point; which depends on the common use of the term sperm donor as one who is the biological father of a child but has no other relationship with, or responsibility for, that child.  I have seen it used in making the claim that fathers are otherwise useless.

So, do you think that your post has other than an anecdotal effect on my point.?


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> You describe a great relationship with your daughter, which is what prompted me to use you as a part of making my point; which depends on the common use of the term sperm donor as one who is the biological father of a child but has no other relationship with, or responsibility for, that child.  I have seen it used in making the claim that fathers are otherwise useless.
> 
> So, do you think that your post has other than an anecdotal effect on my point.?



The point of my post is twofold.  First, that for there to be offense, someone has to get offended.  That's not an objective state of mind, it's a feeling.  Secondly, even if one is offended, or as Peterson said "made uncomfortable", that needn't preclude further discussion of a sensitive matter.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> The funny thing about "progress" is it isn't always obvious or publicly displayed.
> Nor does progress have to mean a reversal of one's beliefs.
> If for even one minute our debate/discussions results in one side putting themselves in the other side's shoes.... then in my opinion, progress has been made.
> If one pays close attention, there are a number of examples (from both sides) of
> "I can see why you would think that but....". Even if what follows the but is vehement disagreement, it was the "I can see why you would think that" that is the progress.
> Progress isn't necessarily pretty or displayed by joining hands and singing kumbaya.



Even more why the practice of steelmanning someone's position is so useful when discussing sensitive subjects.  There was a thread where I stated what I believe to be believer's positions as clearly as I could.  No one objected or told me that my decription of their beliefs was inaccurate.


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> Check the logic on this.
> If he talks about offensive communication,
> then he is offended.
> 
> Doesn't work does it.



I don't understand the point you're trying to make.  It's just communication until someone gets their feelings hurt.  At that point, one side thinks it's "offensive communication". 

One is truly in control of what offends them and how they react to it.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> The point of my post is twofold.  First, that for there to be offense, someone has to get offended.  That's not an objective state of mind, it's a feeling.  Secondly, even if one is offended, or as Peterson said "made uncomfortable", that needn't preclude further discussion of a sensitive matter.



To the first, it sounds like you are trying to excuse the offender of any responsibility.  Or are there no offenders in your world?

To the second, sure, if there is substance to be discussed.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> I don't understand the point you're trying to make.  It's just communication until someone gets their feelings hurt.  At that point, one side thinks it's "offensive communication".
> 
> One is truly in control of what offends them and how they react to it.



So there are no offenders,

And to illustrate by the absurd, no woman was ever raped. (I should have said outlandishly absurd.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> The funny thing about "progress" is it isn't always obvious or publicly displayed.
> Nor does progress have to mean a reversal of one's beliefs.
> If for even one minute our debate/discussions results in one side putting themselves in the other side's shoes.... then in my opinion, progress has been made.
> If one pays close attention, there are a number of examples (from both sides) of
> "I can see why you would think that but....". Even if what follows the but is vehement disagreement, it was the "I can see why you would think that" that is the progress.
> Progress isn't necessarily pretty or displayed by joining hands and singing kumbaya.



Takes time for a seed to grow. I can recall a time when I was confronted by someone with contradictions in the Bible. It made me uncomfortable and them being an atheist of course meant they just didn’t have any understanding of theology. I didn’t want to get into it with them. Maybe for the same reason few believers really try to defend the Genesis flood account. Deep down there is doubt but you dare not acknowledge it. That stuck with me for years until I was ready to really consider the possibility what I was taught about the Bible was wrong.


----------



## atlashunter

Hummer you’re right that it expresses disdain (deservedly so IMO considering the threats made by your own side toward skeptics) and that it isn’t conducive to really getting into the meat of the topic. That’s why terms like sky daddy are generally not used. Terms like myth are accurate and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. If that offends you then prove the characterization wrong. If you can’t do that and the truth hurts I don’t know what to tell you.


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> So there are no offenders,
> 
> And to illustrate by the absurd, no woman was ever raped. (I should have said outlandishly absurd.



Really?  Comparing rape to offensive speech? Really?

There's physical evidence in rape.  Not so in offensive speech.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> Really?  Comparing rape to offensive speech? Really?


No, not really, not close to really. Comparing, no not comparing, absurdly illustrating, that indicates that comparing would be absurd.



> There's physical evidence in rape.  Not so in offensive speech.


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> Hummer you’re right that it expresses disdain (deservedly so IMO considering the threats made by your own side toward skeptics) and that it isn’t conducive to really getting into the meat of the topic. That’s why terms like sky daddy are generally not used. Terms like myth are accurate and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. If that offends you then prove the characterization wrong. If you can’t do that and the truth hurts I don’t know what to tell you.


Please help me out with the threats, I don't know what that is.

You seem kinda locked up on "myth"; we can drop it all together, or I'll stipulate it, what ever you want.  As I explained earlier, it's not even a point in anything I have argued, just one example of a type.

No one is offended yet, but it does sound a tiny bit frustrated, but I'm probably hearing things.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> Please help me out with the threats, I don't know what that is.
> 
> You seem kinda locked up on "myth"; we can drop it all together, or I'll stipulate it, what ever you want.  As I explained earlier, it's not even a point in anything I have argued, just one example of a type.
> 
> No one is offended yet, but it does sound a tiny bit frustrated, but I'm probably hearing things.



The threat of eternal fire if you don’t believe as I do. No offense meant or taken. Just disagreement.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Excellent post Walt.
> Maybe I expect too much, but I will probably keep it up.


Baby steps 
Look at it this way - about the only thing that ensures stagnancy is "They are stupid, I dont care what they have to say and I dont even want to hear what they have to say".
Debate by definition requires both sides to at least listen to the other even if they completely disagree.
Listening, in general, leads to better understanding and understanding, again even if you completely disagree, is progress.


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> Check the logic on this.
> If he talks about offensive communication,
> then he is offended.
> 
> Doesn't work does it.





ambush80 said:


> I don't understand the point you're trying to make.  It's just communication until someone gets their feelings hurt.  At that point, one side thinks it's "offensive communication".
> 
> One is truly in control of what offends them and how they react to it.



Make no mistake...Peterson is offended. He is saying "look...look here" while the interviewer is looking an entirely different place. The interviewer is trying to pigeonhole Peterson as being "offended" by the words...while Peterson is totally offended not at those lesser things "zher" Zhee" or whatever (flying spaghetti monster, invisible friend, sky daddy) than he is with the assault against reason and reasonable pursuit found in compulsion to their usage.

She wants him to be SEEN offended in a small thing "why won't you just say "zher"...are you that nitpicky?"..."hey everyone...look...Jordan Peterson is so nitpicky and small minded as to be offended by a 4 letter word...being requested." But it's not at all..."being requested". It's being imposed.

But Peterson is having none of it. That is not the issue he is saying..."look,...look here" this is the issue...with which I have issue...this is the offense...not with whether I will concede to addressing anyone the way they want to be addressed, or seek to offend by not doing so...THE OFFENSE is in any demand by government, by power so called instituted to ensure liberty and liberties, that now is plainly showing itself not so...in demand (under law...with consequences) that I do so. And to that, I will not...concede.

Peterson I believe is not offended in anything but this...the duplicity. The duplicity of those who "say"...you have free speech...as long as you put it this way. Say anything you want...as long as you put it "this way" Have any ice cream...as long as it's vanilla.

I think Hummer is not offended anymore than I am by "flying spaghetti monster", "sky daddy"...as he is by what would present "be free to come here, be here, exchange here, communicate here...for we are reasonable men seeking reasonable and constructive communication with absolutely NO AGENDA other than this end...wholesome and productive communication offered in absolute good faith...to that one end...reason and truth".

(But, by the way...we'll describe what we perceive you hold in _our terms_ which if you at all find less than fitting to describing what "you hold" as perfectly defining to what you present...you must be the nitpicky and offended one. And if you see this is what is "really going on" and try to address it...it is only because ...see...how easily you are offended!...nitpicky one, jejune one, infantile...one"

I am not at all troubled, nor am I much persuaded Hummer is at all...by some of your use of terms. The "why" some find their use..."useful" is another matter. My "invisible friend" as He must be so to some (I believe them!), my "sky daddy"...even my (our) so called "zombie Lord" as one back from the dead...can bear what comes out from the mouth...because He has already seen what is in the heart that would form such words...and has shown (not only) me...He was able to descend there, but come back unscathed...unreeking.

When God is called "creature", I don't advise because I am offended...or because He is at such...it only shows me a mind that has not at all considered...even in merest and most rudimentary philosophy (which ends up falling far short anyways...) any thoughtfulness at all to the matter.

If Jesus be called "zombie" it only displays the manifest ignorance of consideration of what constitutes life "in a thing"  as opposed to mere motions.

Invisible friend? Of course to some. If any of what you consider _your friends_ are coming from anything but the _invisible place_...well...all I can tell you is you will find out how very shallow your friends, lovers, wives, children _are to you. _I am not saying they are shallow, they have immeasurable depths in themselves...even to themselves...but...well...if all you deal with is what YOU apprehend of them as having no invisibility to YOUR eye...(not granting them invisible depth)...I will tell you...(and how you hate to be told things, as have I) have things asserted to you (as have I, no less)...watch them as they go away. You are losing everything..._you think _you have. You'd better learn to _allow for the invisible to you_...or watch all disappear to you.

In short, if you cannot accept, will not accept, refuse to accept and yet find a utility in cleverness to the resistance of the MOST self evident and rudimentary matter to _every man...in short again, _if you refuse to hear the truth said without always finding a clever response, or an ad hominem because you will be told nothing_.._.you will find yourselves...in the place...where you are told nothing. I cannot send you there, and God forbid I be found trying to, or hoping it for you.

And this is the fundamental beyond which no man goes. Not you, nor I, any of us, nor any man...ever...

Everything _you think you know, _everything _any man_ has ever thought he knows, has come to him _from the unknown. Everything he has ever seen..._

Some accept this in very form as truth. They live with a life I am told some will never know.

Some want to shame with this, as though they themselves are ashamed with its self evidence. They would seek to show they have the "more". They have what is unreceived...but native to them. The "more intelligent". I cannot help you at all, I cannot help you find the laughter in that. I cannot help you find the laughter at what declares itself...always honest. Not to the end of honesty...but to declaring another...less so.

This writer guy, who _I think_ makes his living in thinking but also writes...Cormac McCarthy...obviously thinks a lot. Of course you may not think much of him, there's no obligation at all, but he sees things. He sees things some of you don't. Some of us don't.

He sees a man who says this:

“Whatever _exists_, he said. Whatever in creation _exists without my knowledge exists without my _consent."



The devils already know there is God...and they are not persuaded _to Him. _Their consent of knowing is of no use whatsoever to them. They don't know him as Savior, so their knowing _of Him_...is vain, useless, a torment, He is faceless to them except as dynamo of unending power opposed.

Do you think we are here to get, or bring you to some "consent" of God? To "get you" to believe in God by agreement? To test our reason against yours...to a triumph...see who is "more intelligent"? As though a fundamental victory is found in consent or can be demonstrated to a consent...to allow for God?


How wrong you are. We preach the very God who forgives man for entertaining the notion He must be consented to be...in being. _We are_ the what that is "being allowed". We _are creature_.

Ambush...I think you didn't understand Hummer at all, as you misunderstood me a few months back in reference to "evidence". Hummer did not mean at all that to speak of or mention offense must therefore mean that one is offended. Otherwise Peterson has no grounds to speak at all. But some would like that. By maneuvering him to being shut up by attributing motive of pickiness...small mindedness, silliness to just "resist using a small word, or set of them" to be just...well...be "kind".

Or to be so bent by not hearing...they think Hummer is equating a rape to a verbal assault. He is not. He is saying "offense" can be a real thing...and just declaring it is...does not mean the proclamation is made by one who is therefore merely prickly and "complaining about it". Because they are in some small minded way offended.

Oh...make no mistake, we don't deny its effect to some, upon some. The timid, the weary...the one who can be dissuaded _by insult._ (And the perhaps _wiser_ who see _all of the game_) The one who does not yet know what he "really" believes. And can be beaten down by words in opposition..."Just accept you are talking about a zombie...that's all"...unless you be too "small minded" to accept _our right appraisal_.
You've already found more than enough to laugh about in me, but I would not have you fall short. I like laughter...too.

The error, the fault, the worm in the apple...is not the worm at all, it is the apple that because it is corruptible...is made subject to the worms burrowing.

So it is with_ man's reason. And reasonings..._tested always against the One who speaks from the unknown. "Come, let us reason together".

The "because" in man's reason as foundation, applicable to every step in man's knowing from first thing to second to third and onward...

God _has no reason_ to be. You will not find, nor shall I, ever...his "because" to His being. It's what _is not._
So when speaking of evidence the fault is found when a man seeks to present "some" evidence...for God. Picking through...taking a "piece" to present as may be found "reasonable" to another. The _fault is in the picking. The fault is in the believing there is "some evidence"...._and some_...not evidence._

The turn of "because", the turn to "because" from that first step...as may be found, as you say "cuz Adam" in Adam...is easily seen.

A refusal to stay in first place as first place...and only place...ever provided, and also, undeniable. Which Adam had to learn. Through all his forays into a "because" swallowed.

Everything I have, everything I think I know...comes to me from the unknown. I am made to stay there. And, I am not alone.


----------



## Israel

Each man can ask himself, and he will do so either in a knowing presence...or not...and he will find where he stands whether in a knowing presence...or not.

Is it possible for truth to be asserted without threat?

I say it is only ever so...truth is without threat...threat is only found in making the man's place apparent to him _relative to truth._

_Feel threatened? God knows._

_Or what king, proceeding to engage with another king in war, will not, having sat down, first take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet the one coming against him with twenty thousand? _

Some will only see in this Jesus' threatening. That increases...opposition as it must.

Some will see something else...


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> Hummer you’re right that it expresses disdain (deservedly so IMO considering the threats made by your own side toward skeptics) and that it isn’t conducive to really getting into the meat of the topic. That’s why terms like sky daddy are generally not used. Terms like myth are accurate and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. If that offends you then prove the characterization wrong. If you can’t do that and the truth hurts I don’t know what to tell you.





atlashunter said:


> The threat of eternal fire if you don’t believe as I do. No offense meant or taken. Just disagreement.


To sumerize 6 days of conversation:
•By implication of lack of discussion; avoiding fallacious reasoning would improve the quality of communication.
•Because pejorative terms are justified by threats of darnation, if believers refrain from such threats AAs will refrain from using pejorative terms resulting in more substantive discussion.  (the "why do you care if you don't believe it exists?" seems to relate to the offence question which is still open).
•We should maintain a low level of expectation to avoid disappointment.
•In deference to the expectation level, we can postpone name calling, unfounded accusation of motivation, and instruction to do the obvious, and use them as "starter" (like sourdough) to keep things going.
•Offence is an open question.

I'm sorry Walt, but that still looks like some really inefficient work to me; but the other side is that we know for sure that it has been going for longer than man has known how to write.


----------



## atlashunter

“I'm sorry Walt, but that still looks like some really inefficient work to me; but the other side is that we know for sure that it has been going for longer than man has known how to write.”

Which should tell us something about the usefulness of faith as a pathway to knowledge.


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> “I'm sorry Walt, but that still looks like some really inefficient work to me; but the other side is that we know for sure that it has been going for longer than man has known how to write.”
> 
> Which should tell us something about the usefulness of faith as a pathway to knowledge.



Unless the useful knowledge is of our own fallibility.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> Unless the useful knowledge is of our own fallibility.



That knowledge doesn’t require faith either.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> To sumerize 6 days of conversation:
> •By implication of lack of discussion; avoiding fallacious reasoning would improve the quality of communication.
> •Because pejorative terms are justified by threats of darnation, if believers refrain from such threats AAs will refrain from using pejorative terms resulting in more substantive discussion.  (the "why do you care if you don't believe it exists?" seems to relate to the offence question which is still open).
> •We should maintain a low level of expectation to avoid disappointment.
> •In deference to the expectation level, we can postpone name calling, unfounded accusation of motivation, and instruction to do the obvious, and use them as "starter" (like sourdough) to keep things going.
> •Offence is an open question.
> 
> I'm sorry Walt, but that still looks like some really inefficient work to me; but the other side is that we know for sure that it has been going for longer than man has known how to write.





> I'm sorry Walt, but that still looks like some really inefficient work to me; but the other side is that we know for sure that it has been going for longer than man has known how to write.


I'll be honest, Im really not sure what it is you are looking for 
Maybe I painted too rosey of a picture.
This is still and likely always be an adversarial subject.
I think it would be foolish/unrealistic to expect either side to come here solely for the reason to learn about each other.
Lets be honest, underneath it all is the fact that either side is a threat to the others preferred way of life.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Make no mistake...Peterson is offended. He is saying "look...look here" while the interviewer is looking an entirely different place. The interviewer is trying to pigeonhole Peterson as being "offended" by the words...while Peterson is totally offended not at those lesser things "zher" Zhee" or whatever (flying spaghetti monster, invisible friend, sky daddy) than he is with the assault against reason and reasonable pursuit found in compulsion to their usage.
> 
> She wants him to be SEEN offended in a small thing "why won't you just say "zher"...are you that nitpicky?"..."hey everyone...look...Jordan Peterson is so nitpicky and small minded as to be offended by a 4 letter word...being requested." But it's not at all..."being requested". It's being imposed.
> 
> But Peterson is having none of it. That is not the issue he is saying..."look,...look here" this is the issue...with which I have issue...this is the offense...not with whether I will concede to addressing anyone the way they want to be addressed, or seek to offend by not doing so...THE OFFENSE is in any demand by government, by power so called instituted to ensure liberty and liberties, that now is plainly showing itself not so...in demand (under law...with consequences) that I do so. And to that, I will not...concede.
> 
> Peterson I believe is not offended in anything but this...the duplicity. The duplicity of those who "say"...you have free speech...as long as you put it this way. Say anything you want...as long as you put it "this way" Have any ice cream...as long as it's vanilla.
> 
> I think Hummer is not offended anymore than I am by "flying spaghetti monster", "sky daddy"...as he is by what would present "be free to come here, be here, exchange here, communicate here...for we are reasonable men seeking reasonable and constructive communication with absolutely NO AGENDA other than this end...wholesome and productive communication offered in absolute good faith...to that one end...reason and truth".
> 
> (But, by the way...we'll describe what we perceive you hold in _our terms_ which if you at all find less than fitting to describing what "you hold" as perfectly defining to what you present...you must be the nitpicky and offended one. And if you see this is what is "really going on" and try to address it...it is only because ...see...how easily you are offended!...nitpicky one, jejune one, infantile...one"
> 
> I am not at all troubled, nor am I much persuaded Hummer is at all...by some of your use of terms. The "why" some find their use..."useful" is another matter. My "invisible friend" as He must be so to some (I believe them!), my "sky daddy"...even my (our) so called "zombie Lord" as one back from the dead...can bear what comes out from the mouth...because He has already seen what is in the heart that would form such words...and has shown (not only) me...He was able to descend there, but come back unscathed...unreeking.
> 
> When God is called "creature", I don't advise because I am offended...or because He is at such...it only shows me a mind that has not at all considered...even in merest and most rudimentary philosophy (which ends up falling far short anyways...) any thoughtfulness at all to the matter.
> 
> If Jesus be called "zombie" it only displays the manifest ignorance of consideration of what constitutes life "in a thing"  as opposed to mere motions.
> 
> Invisible friend? Of course to some. If any of what you consider _your friends_ are coming from anything but the _invisible place_...well...all I can tell you is you will find out how very shallow your friends, lovers, wives, children _are to you. _I am not saying they are shallow, they have immeasurable depths in themselves...even to themselves...but...well...if all you deal with is what YOU apprehend of them as having no invisibility to YOUR eye...(not granting them invisible depth)...I will tell you...(and how you hate to be told things, as have I) have things asserted to you (as have I, no less)...watch them as they go away. You are losing everything..._you think _you have. You'd better learn to _allow for the invisible to you_...or watch all disappear to you.
> 
> In short, if you cannot accept, will not accept, refuse to accept and yet find a utility in cleverness to the resistance of the MOST self evident and rudimentary matter to _every man...in short again, _if you refuse to hear the truth said without always finding a clever response, or an ad hominem because you will be told nothing_.._.you will find yourselves...in the place...where you are told nothing. I cannot send you there, and God forbid I be found trying to, or hoping it for you.
> 
> And this is the fundamental beyond which no man goes. Not you, nor I, any of us, nor any man...ever...
> 
> Everything _you think you know, _everything _any man_ has ever thought he knows, has come to him _from the unknown. Everything he has ever seen..._
> 
> Some accept this in very form as truth. They live with a life I am told some will never know.
> 
> Some want to shame with this, as though they themselves are ashamed with its self evidence. They would seek to show they have the "more". They have what is unreceived...but native to them. The "more intelligent". I cannot help you at all, I cannot help you find the laughter in that. I cannot help you find the laughter at what declares itself...always honest. Not to the end of honesty...but to declaring another...less so.
> 
> This writer guy, who _I think_ makes his living in thinking but also writes...Cormac McCarthy...obviously thinks a lot. Of course you may not think much of him, there's no obligation at all, but he sees things. He sees things some of you don't. Some of us don't.
> 
> He sees a man who says this:
> 
> “Whatever _exists_, he said. Whatever in creation _exists without my knowledge exists without my _consent."
> 
> 
> 
> The devils already know there is God...and they are not persuaded _to Him. _Their consent of knowing is of no use whatsoever to them. They don't know him as Savior, so their knowing _of Him_...is vain, useless, a torment, He is faceless to them except as dynamo of unending power opposed.
> 
> Do you think we are here to get, or bring you to some "consent" of God? To "get you" to believe in God by agreement? To test our reason against yours...to a triumph...see who is "more intelligent"? As though a fundamental victory is found in consent or can be demonstrated to a consent...to allow for God?
> 
> 
> How wrong you are. We preach the very God who forgives man for entertaining the notion He must be consented to be...in being. _We are_ the what that is "being allowed". We _are creature_.
> 
> Ambush...I think you didn't understand Hummer at all, as you misunderstood me a few months back in reference to "evidence". Hummer did not mean at all that to speak of or mention offense must therefore mean that one is offended. Otherwise Peterson has no grounds to speak at all. But some would like that. By maneuvering him to being shut up by attributing motive of pickiness...small mindedness, silliness to just "resist using a small word, or set of them" to be just...well...be "kind".
> 
> Or to be so bent by not hearing...they think Hummer is equating a rape to a verbal assault. He is not. He is saying "offense" can be a real thing...and just declaring it is...does not mean the proclamation is made by one who is therefore merely prickly and "complaining about it". Because they are in some small minded way offended.
> 
> Oh...make no mistake, we don't deny its effect to some, upon some. The timid, the weary...the one who can be dissuaded _by insult._ (And the perhaps _wiser_ who see _all of the game_) The one who does not yet know what he "really" believes. And can be beaten down by words in opposition..."Just accept you are talking about a zombie...that's all"...unless you be too "small minded" to accept _our right appraisal_.
> You've already found more than enough to laugh about in me, but I would not have you fall short. I like laughter...too.
> 
> The error, the fault, the worm in the apple...is not the worm at all, it is the apple that because it is corruptible...is made subject to the worms burrowing.
> 
> So it is with_ man's reason. And reasonings..._tested always against the One who speaks from the unknown. "Come, let us reason together".
> 
> The "because" in man's reason as foundation, applicable to every step in man's knowing from first thing to second to third and onward...
> 
> God _has no reason_ to be. You will not find, nor shall I, ever...his "because" to His being. It's what _is not._
> So when speaking of evidence the fault is found when a man seeks to present "some" evidence...for God. Picking through...taking a "piece" to present as may be found "reasonable" to another. The _fault is in the picking. The fault is in the believing there is "some evidence"...._and some_...not evidence._
> 
> The turn of "because", the turn to "because" from that .........


You act and talk in a manner that you assume all non believers know of/about and actually do believe that the god of the bible is real and true but that they purposely do not acknowledge it. That mindset gives you the inspiration to keep on talking as if we know you are correct but are being spiteful. You need to combine your claims and assertions with facts and proof before you can go on and on as you do assuming that others agree with you.
You are in a conversation with yourself the majority of the time as can be seen by you asking yourself questions as if another person has asked it. You expound upon a point you make as if someone else has inquired about it.

All you need to do is back up what you say. Why is that so hard?


----------



## atlashunter

If I call Asherah the Canaanite goddess and consort of El, the god of Abraham, a myth no believer would take issue with that. But if I call El an equally mythical being now I’m accused of making a baseless “rhetorical maneuver”. I’d like to know what evidence beyond mere assertion leads the believer to conclude El is real but Asherah is not.


----------



## hummerpoo

It would have been so, so nice to have had another 24 hrs. before I learned that I had wasted nearly a week.  No one should misunderstand, no one else wasted my time, only me.  Unless, of course, as so often happens I discover tomorrow, or next year, or the year after, that I was mistaken about wasting that time.


----------



## atlashunter

Doesn't have to be a waste. Indeed it's your choice. Let's move beyond the walking on eggshells and get to the heart of the issue. What differentiates your beliefs from the beliefs of others that you recognize as superstition?


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> Doesn't have to be a waste. Indeed it's your choice. Let's move beyond the walking on eggshells and get to the heart of the issue. What differentiates your beliefs from the beliefs of others that you recognize as superstition?






> the beliefs of others that you recognize as superstition?



After thinking about it for about 5min., I can't think of any.  So, like you said "it's [my] choice" and I choose — that's enough.


----------



## bullethead

When the going gets tough,  some say Enough.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> You act and talk in a manner that you assume all non believers know of/about and actually do believe that the god of the bible is real and true but that they purposely do not acknowledge it. That mindset gives you the inspiration to keep on talking as if we know you are correct but are being spiteful. You need to combine your claims and assertions with facts and proof before you can go on and on as you do assuming that others agree with you.
> You are in a conversation with yourself the majority of the time as can be seen by you asking yourself questions as if another person has asked it. You expound upon a point you make as if someone else has inquired about it.
> 
> All you need to do is back up what you say. Why is that so hard?





> You need to combine your claims and assertions with facts and proof before you can go on and on as you do assuming that others agree with you.



I am not the self evident one.

And how could you understand that because He is who He is, I am under no obligation to do anything? I surrender of necessity to necessity.

But you are a child, a worldling, a groper in mud seeking to wring from other mud some compliance, some bending of will to will, and you do not know how you cut the legs out from under your own idol. You do a thing, not knowing a thing. You speak a thing, not knowing whereof you speak.



bullethead said:


> This is life, Live it.



You declare/assert self evidence with command and/or instruction to it. One would think that in the so often using "pot /kettle" a man would understand his use of it. But it is not so.

A man would think that one who sees to the end of a thing to its declaration



bullethead said:


> Once dead, its over


 could or would take some instruction from it.

If death be all and only final, if eons upon eons stacked up upon one another of that inevitable coming silence in that "the dead cannot speak" were even _barely perceived_  by such speaker in their stacking, so that what would remain to be added to such a stack would itself remain indeterminable, he might find his vanity.

If that is "final lesson" all that is ultimate destination, as one truly sees it to its declaration...how very vain it would be to keep speaking. Or expect in any way that such a thing might exert _any force_ of it's demand of need to another such thing.

We are both, and all..."made up things". If all and only chemicals/atoms, space to some reaction in mixture to a speaking/writing, why can't _you see _that the demand of a made up thing toward another to "make sense to him" by reception of _your need_



> All _you need_ to do is back up what you say.



is the greatest folly of all? Will you convene to a thing? Gather together to it?
Will you say I met a rock this morning and it made no sense to me? Who are _you._..(or any of such) made up things to expect anything _at all _from another_ made up thing?_

I am a _made up_ thing. I am creature. Only in all, that is what I am. If in any way there is finding of insufficiency of such carbons, hydrogens, oxygens, nitrogens, etc, arrayed in this specific place...don't be fool enough to believe a different array of such base things will be found to your satisfaction. You and I are _allowed preferences, _but lies cannot stand. "This array_ is innately better_ than that array."

What does it profit it a man to gain the whole of the world and lose his own soul? What will he give in exchange for his soul?


Jesus spoke to what could only see atoms/chemicals, spaces, and their reactions to one another as all, and by _their esteem_ of them in array assigned their _own glory_ to them. Some arrays...they "liked" very much. Some they despised.

He knew they didn't understand at all, and in their lack of sight mistake...

"Tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in three days"

They knew, even in mistake, their glory was being torn down, their reasonings derided, their assignment of glory (and _more specifically_ their withholding _in denial_) meant nothing.

Accept or reject Him, each made up thing will be, and is, what it is made up to be.

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

I am learning to expect nothing of other made up things, for any burden I put upon them to be anything but what they are must likewise be placed upon me to_ try and be either more, or different._

Change does not come even in _greatest desire_ toward it. It does not come in response to made up things. For made up things only exist by command of purpose, and if there is change, can only be changed by such command.

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

This command alone "repent ye and believe the gospel", no less than "let there be light" issues from the same Being, and is alone given of _that power _to repentance by faith.

I cannot convince you, nor would exert any motion at all toward it (such proving), that if all and only you shall ever hear from...is mud...speaking...(even, and only to itself) that I have something more for you. And that...according_ to your command?_

Your own stance (if it be so?) that this is all and only ever there is...should in practice, if you be "honest",  lead you to expect no more from me (or any other) than the puddle you pass through on your way to a deer stand.

Or, does it_ tell you_ something?

I hear rocks singing. I see trees clapping. And I hear silence...all at once.

And yes...I do indeed...hear voices. _Even_ coming through mud.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> When the going gets tough,  some say Enough.


Childishness is only tough when love is involved.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I am not the self evident one.
> 
> And how could you understand that because He is who He is, I am under no obligation to do anything? I surrender of necessity to necessity.
> 
> But you are a child, a worldling, a groper in mud seeking to wring from other mud some compliance, some bending of will to will, and you do not know how you cut the legs out from under your own idol. You do a thing, not knowing a thing. You speak a thing, not knowing whereof you speak.
> 
> 
> 
> You declare/assert self evidence with command and/or instruction to it. One would think that in the so often using "pot /kettle" a man would understand his use of it. But it is not so.
> 
> A man would think that one who sees to the end of a thing to its declaration
> 
> could or would take some instruction from it.
> 
> If death be all and only final, if eons upon eons stacked up upon one another of that inevitable coming silence in that "the dead cannot speak" were even _barely perceived_  by such speaker in their stacking, so that what would remain to be added to such a stack would itself remain indeterminable, he might find his vanity.
> 
> If that is "final lesson" all that is ultimate destination, as one truly sees it to its declaration...how very vain it would be to keep speaking. Or expect in any way that such a thing might exert _any force_ of it's demand of need to another such thing.
> 
> We are both, and all..."made up things". If all and only chemicals/atoms, space to some reaction in mixture to a speaking/writing, why can't _you see _that the demand of a made up thing toward another to "make sense to him" by reception of _your need_
> 
> 
> 
> is the greatest folly of all? Will you convene to a thing? Gather together to it?
> Will you say I met a rock this morning and it made no sense to me? Who are _you._..(or any of such) made up things to expect anything _at all _from another_ made up thing?_
> 
> I am a _made up_ thing. I am creature. Only in all, that is what I am. If in any way there is finding of insufficiency of such carbons, hydrogens, oxygens, nitrogens, etc, arrayed in this specific place...don't be fool enough to believe a different array of such base things will be found to your satisfaction. You and I are _allowed preferences, _but lies cannot stand. "This array_ is innately better_ than that array."
> 
> What does it profit it a man to gain the whole of the world and lose his own soul? What will he give in exchange for his soul?
> 
> 
> Jesus spoke to what could only see atoms/chemicals, spaces, and their reactions to one another as all, and by _their esteem_ of them in array assigned their _own glory_ to them. Some arrays...they "liked" very much. Some they despised.
> 
> He knew they didn't understand at all, and in their lack of sight mistake...
> 
> "Tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in three days"
> 
> They knew, even in mistake, their glory was being torn down, their reasonings derided, their assignment of glory (and _more specifically_ their withholding _in denial_) meant nothing.
> 
> Accept or reject Him, each made up thing will be, and is, what it is made up to be.
> 
> Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
> 
> I am learning to expect nothing of other made up things, for any burden I put upon them to be anything but what they are must likewise be placed upon me to_ try and be either more, or different._
> 
> Change does not come even in _greatest desire_ toward it. It does not come in response to made up things. For made up things only exist by command of purpose, and if there is change, can only be changed by such command.
> 
> Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
> 
> This command alone "repent ye and believe the gospel", no less than "let there be light" issues from the same Being, and is alone given of _that power _to repentance by faith.
> 
> I cannot convince you, nor would exert any motion at all toward it (such proving), that if all and only you shall ever hear from...is mud...speaking...(even, and only to itself) that I have something more for you. And that...according_ to your command?_
> 
> Your own stance (if it be so?) that this is all and only ever there is...should in practice, if you be "honest",  lead you to expect no more from me (or any other) than the puddle you pass through on your way to a deer stand.
> 
> Or, does it_ tell you_ something?
> 
> I hear rocks singing. I see trees clapping. And I hear silence...all at once.
> 
> And yes...I do indeed...hear voices. _Even_ coming through mud.


Bad thing, (yep it be so!)


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Childishness is only tough when love is involved.


Maybe so


hummerpoo said:


> After thinking about it for about 5min., I can't think of any.  So, like you said "it's [my] choice" and I choose — that's enough.


Differentiating beliefs is admittedly tough above.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Maybe so
> 
> Differentiating beliefs is admittedly tough above.


No, because I recognize no beliefs as "superstition",   as I recognize all as under the providence of God.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I am not the self evident one.


You just referred to yourself as I. That is being self evident



Israel said:


> And how could you understand that because He is who He is, I am under no obligation to do anything? I surrender of necessity to necessity.


How can I understand what? You have started a new paragraph so I have no idea as to what you are referring to, and the statement combined with a question mark  just muddies it all further.




Israel said:


> But you are a child, a worldling, a groper in mud seeking to wring from other mud some compliance, some bending of will to will, and you do not know how you cut the legs out from under your own idol. You do a thing, not knowing a thing. You speak a thing, not knowing whereof you speak.


Seriously,WHAT?





Israel said:


> You declare/assert self evidence with command and/or instruction to it. One would think that in the so often using "pot /kettle" a man would understand his use of it. But it is not so.


I gave advice.



Israel said:


> A man would think that one who sees to the end of a thing to its declaration


What "thing"? Be specific



Israel said:


> could or would take some instruction from it.
> 
> If death be all and only final, if eons upon eons stacked up upon one another of that inevitable coming silence in that "the dead cannot speak" were even _barely perceived_  by such speaker in their stacking, so that what would remain to be added to such a stack would itself remain indeterminable, he might find his vanity.


I find reality.



Israel said:


> If that is "final lesson" all that is ultimate destination, as one truly sees it to its declaration...how very vain it would be to keep speaking. Or expect in any way that such a thing might exert _any force_ of it's demand of need to another such thing.
> 
> We are both, and all..."made up things". If all and only chemicals/atoms, space to some reaction in mixture to a speaking/writing, why can't _you see _that the demand of a made up thing toward another to "make sense to him" by reception of _your need _


_
Honest be specific, what the heck are you talking about??_





Israel said:


> is the greatest folly of all? Will you convene to a thing? Gather together to it?
> Will you say I met a rock this morning and it made no sense to me? Who are _you._..(or any of such) made up things to expect anything _at all _from another_ made up thing?_


_
What thing?
I apparently say a lot of things in your made up self conversations in order to further your THINGS._



Israel said:


> I am a _made up_ thing. I am creature. Only in all, that is what I am. If in any way there is finding of insufficiency of such carbons, hydrogens, oxygens, nitrogens, etc, arrayed in this specific place...don't be fool enough to believe a different array of such base things will be found to your satisfaction. You and I are _allowed preferences, _but lies cannot stand. "This array_ is innately better_ than that array."


Clearly one array is better



Israel said:


> What does it profit it a man to gain the whole of the world and lose his own soul? What will he give in exchange for his soul?


In detail and as coherently as possible, explain how and why there is something to give a soul to.




Israel said:


> Jesus spoke to what could only see atoms/chemicals, spaces, and their reactions to one another as all, and by _their esteem_ of them in array assigned their _own glory_ to them. Some arrays...they "liked" very much. Some they despised.
> 
> He knew they didn't understand at all, and in their lack of sight mistake...
> 
> "Tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in three days"
> 
> They knew, even in mistake, their glory was being torn down, their reasonings derided, their assignment of glory (and _more specifically_ their withholding _in denial_) meant nothing.
> 
> Accept or reject Him, each made up thing will be, and is, what it is made up to be.
> 
> Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


We knew it was coming, it wouldn't be an Izzy special "thing" without the insertion of some biblical rant "thing".



Israel said:


> I am learning to expect nothing of other made up things, for any burden I put upon them to be anything but what they are must likewise be placed upon me to_ try and be either more, or different._
> 
> Change does not come even in _greatest desire_ toward it. It does not come in response to made up things. For made up things only exist by command of purpose, and if there is change, can only be changed by such command.


You worship made up things



Israel said:


> Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
> 
> This command alone "repent ye and believe the gospel", no less than "let there be light" issues from the same Being, and is alone given of _that power _to repentance by faith.


Wasted bandwith as we are not in a bible verse discussion.



Israel said:


> I cannot convince you, nor would exert any motion at all toward it (such proving), that if all and only you shall ever hear from...is mud...speaking...(even, and only to itself) that I have something more for you. And that...according_ to your command? _


_
If the last THOUSANDS of type is not exertion on your behalf, what is it?_



Israel said:


> Your own stance (if it be so?) that this is all and only ever there is...should in practice, if you be "honest",  lead you to expect no more from me (or any other) than the puddle you pass through on your way to a deer stand.


Puddles dont make the effort to do what you do. I am honest enough to know the difference between and expectations of each.



Israel said:


> Or, does it_ tell you_ something?


Oh, yes, it absolutely tells me something alright



Israel said:


> I hear rocks singing. I see trees clapping. And I hear silence...all at once.
> 
> 
> And yes...I do indeed...hear voices. _Even_ coming through mud.



Some start out as puddles and end up as just water in a jar.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> No, because I recognize no beliefs as "superstition",   as I recognize all as under the providence of God.



Let’s start by defining the term.

*noun*
a belief or notion, notbased on reason or knowledge, in or of theominous significance of a particular thing,circumstance,occurrence, proceeding,or the like.

a system or collection of such beliefs.
a custom or act based on such a belief.
irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious,especially in connectionwith religion.
any blindly acceptedbelief or notion.

Are you telling us there is no belief in a deity that meets this definition? That they are all credible? If they aren’t all credible then what makes El more credible than Asherah? They originated from the same pantheon of deities so what evidence leads you to think one is real and the other is a myth?


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> No, because I recognize no beliefs as "superstition",   as I recognize all as under the providence of God.


Are you saying that the beliefs in other gods are actually beliefs in your god? That those believers are misled into worshipping one god while their efforts benefit another(your) god?


----------



## Fuzzy D Fellers

atlashunter said:


> I suspect you have an opinion on the matter but I have to say it’s refreshing to find a believer willing to admit something they don’t know.


There is allot i dont know, it is all about faith.


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> Let’s start by defining the term.
> 
> *noun*
> a belief or notion, notbased on reason or knowledge, in or of theominous significance of a particular thing,circumstance,occurrence, proceeding,or the like.
> 
> a system or collection of such beliefs.
> a custom or act based on such a belief.
> irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious,especially in connectionwith religion.
> any blindly acceptedbelief or notion.
> 
> Are you telling us there is no belief in a deity that meets this definition? That they are all credible? If they aren’t all credible then what makes El more credible than Asherah? They originated from the same pantheon of deities so what evidence leads you to think one is real and the other is a myth?



I think you are complicating the thing more than is necessary to grasp what I'm saying.

I suspect that you are mixing your issues.

I think that a really smart guy (not me) could easily produce 20,000 words responding to your post.

I think I probably wont take the 2 to 3 hours it would take me to produce a response that I was satisfied with.

I think the frustration caused by my computer apparently being incompatible with GON (it caused no trouble when I stayed away for a couple of months) driving me away.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Are you saying that the beliefs in other gods are actually beliefs in your god?​


​
No.​


> That those believers are misled into worshipping one god while their efforts benefit another(your) god?


I believe all things, both physical and spiritual, "benefit" God.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> No.
> 
> 
> I believe all things, both physical and spiritual, "benefit" God.


Like believers in different gods killing each other is "beneficial" to your god?


----------



## hummerpoo

Bullet, I knew I had read a relevant scripture quote this morning.  If your interested its in Israel's post that you responded to.


> Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Like believers in different gods killing each other is "beneficial" to your god?


"all" is the best word that I have.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Bullet, I knew I had read a relevant scripture quote this morning.  If your interested its in Israel's post that you responded to.


Those type of quotes are found in many of the religious verses of many religions.
None are any more or any less relevant than the next.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> "all" is the best word that I have.


Would you care to attempt to explain how the killings in your gods name and the killings in the name of other gods (the blatant, willful and purposefully killing of "gods children" by "gods children" just because they think they know one god better than the next) benefit your god?
Or is it just easier to let "all" be said without any further thought or explanation into it?  In other words..."enough"...


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> I think you are complicating the thing more than is necessary to grasp what I'm saying.
> 
> I suspect that you are mixing your issues.
> 
> I think that a really smart guy (not me) could easily produce 20,000 words responding to your post.
> 
> I think I probably wont take the 2 to 3 hours it would take me to produce a response that I was satisfied with.
> 
> I think the frustration caused by my computer apparently being incompatible with GON (it caused no trouble when I stayed away for a couple of months) driving me away.



I think you are avoiding the question which is simple. Doesn’t take 20,000 words to say whether you think Asherah is just as real as El and on what basis you think it. That’s simple. Don’t avoid it by calling it complicated.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Like believers in different gods killing each other is "beneficial" to your god?



Don’t follow that red herring. The effect of a superstition has no bearing on the question of whether or not it is a superstition. A myth that benefits his deity is no less a myth because of it. I want to know why he considers Asherah a myth but not El.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> I think you are avoiding the question which is simple. Doesn’t take 20,000 words to say whether you think Asherah is just as real as El and on what basis you think it. That’s simple. Don’t avoid it by calling it complicated.


I have never seen such great lengths taken to avoid what is claimed to be the truth.  How can the truth be so complicated? How can the truth not be easily explainable.  It makes much more sense that a complex lengthy answer would be required in order to doctor things that are untrue into sounding good enough.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Don’t follow that red herring. The effect of a superstition has no bearing on the question of whether or not it is a superstition. A myth that benefits his deity is no less a myth because of it. I want to know why he considers Asherah a myth but not El.


He said all things physical and spiritual benefit his god.  That is the example I'd like to know more about.  It's not a red herring. I am not leading him away or distracting him away from something he said, I am asking him to expound upon it.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Those type of quotes are found in many of the religious verses of many religions.
> None are any more or any less relevant than the next.


So your not interested.  O.K.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Would you care to attempt to explain how the killings in your gods name and the killings in the name of other gods (the blatant, willful and purposefully killing of "gods children" by "gods children" just because they think they know one god better than the next) benefit your god?
> Or is it just easier to let "all" be said without any further thought or explanation into it?  In other words..."enough"...



I'm willing to try, although I know that it would be very difficult, or more likely impossible, to explain in a way that someone coming from your perspective would take seriously enough to give real consideration.  But I will only do that after you explain to me why you felt it necessary to add the antagonizing goad after your question.

I have to add that while I was reading your post and typing my response the screen jumped to the top of the page 5 times (make that 6) (now 8), additionally, I had to recover the page twice (thrice).  I've about had it withy that.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I'm willing to try, although I know that it would be very difficult, or more likely impossible, to explain in a way that someone coming from your perspective would take seriously enough to give real consideration.  But I will only do that after you explain to me why you felt it necessary to add the antagonizing goad after your question.
> 
> I have to add that while I was reading your post and typing my response the screen jumped to the top of the page 5 times (make that 6) (now 8), additionally, I had to recover the page twice (thrice).  I've about had it withy that.


Ive had a number of issues, including this jump to the top of the page thing since they upgraded the site. Ive come dangerously close to smashing the computer against the wall more than once


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> So your not interested.  O.K.


I have Bible quotes available to me anytime I want.
You know my stance on the Bible and it's contents. If I believed it or it had any importance to me we would not be having these conversations and I would be trying my Apologetic skills here.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I'm willing to try, although I know that it would be very difficult, or more likely impossible, to explain in a way that someone coming from your perspective would take seriously enough to give real consideration.  But I will only do that after you explain to me why you felt it necessary to add the antagonizing goad after your question.
> 
> I have to add that while I was reading your post and typing my response the screen jumped to the top of the page 5 times (make that 6) (now 8), additionally, I had to recover the page twice (thrice).  I've about had it withy that.


Not goading at all. I wanted to to know if you had an explanation greater than "all" or if you felt "all" was enough.

And yes, this site is extremely taxing between the page jumping, "congratulations you are an Amazon winner" pages randomly popping up, and just as I am about to click or press a button the page shifts a slight amount so that an ad(that all of a sudden appears) is clicked on instead.

I share your frustrations.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Ive had a number of issues, including this jump to the top of the page thing since they upgraded the site. Ive come dangerously close to smashing the computer against the wall more than once


I use my phone 99% of the time.
I have also thought of going full ape on it due to the issues of this site.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Not goading at all. I wanted to to know if you had an explanation greater than "all" or if you felt "all" was enough.



In that case, I would think you would want to do some serious work on self expression.  "would it be easier" makes yours a question that can only be answered "yes".  It would have been easier not to have wrestled with question after question, year after year; questions without easy answers, questions that had answers I didn't like; while remembering that life was so much "easier" before I started asking questions that I couldn't help but ask and to which the answers waivered between uncomfortable and nearly unbearable; when I could comfortable parrot the answers I had heard from others, like "Faith is a crutch for those who can't walk on their own", "God is used to explain what is not understood", "We know more now than they did then", etc.  "Yes" it would be easier to quit asking those questions right now and never ask one of them again. For now, ""all" is the best word that I have.", because I have yet to find an exception that stands up.  So, your question, as originally phased, is duplicative and therefore goading in nature, IMHO.



bullethead said:


> Would you care to attempt to explain how the killings in your gods name and the killings in the name of other gods (the blatant, willful and purposefully killing of "gods children" by "gods children" just because they think they know one god better than the next) benefit your god?
> Or is it just easier to let "all" be said without any further thought or explanation into it?  In other words..."enough"...




I believe that cause and effect is a real, notwithstanding arguments to the contrary.  I find to be sound the idea that all ontological arguments must end up infinitely regressive, circular, arbitrarily ended, or foundational and that the first three are unacceptable (I'm relatively early in this line of thinking, couple of years or so, so we'll see).  My belief that the necessary foundation is an "omni-everything" Being, (with gratitude to whoever it was here that gave me that term, and apology for not remembering who) existing in a realm that includes but extends beyond, that which is sensible in this realm is attributable to a "knowing" which is compatible with the idea of a foundation and not defeated by reasoning of my own or of others that I have found.

The scope of this answer does not require that I cover the many steps required to get to God revealing Himself in the created realm, but that revealing is what can be found in the events which you describe.  If we back off to the really big picture, we can get a glimpse, and only a glimpse, of God as the First Cause in the "evil" that exists in this realm, in that the evil is only known in contrast to the good.  In an existence that only displayed the evil it could not be known as evil.  Likewise, in an existence that only displayed the good it could not be known as the good.  In this realm, as it is, both evil and good are known, and in that knowledge, and our effort to understand our being, the First Cause can be confirm.  Thus, the benefit to God of the events you describe, and many others, is that He is known in the created realm.

Does evil exist beyond the created realm?  My sense is no, but that is an interesting question.  Maybe I'll get to it someday, but I doubt it.

As to the thought that an omni-everything Being could have found another way to reveal Himself without the evil that effects His creation.  I would think that only an omni-everything being existing in and beyond the created realm would have the perspective to know that.  But we do try to claim that position, don't we.



hummerpoo said:


> I'm willing to try, although I know that it would be very difficult, or more likely impossible, to explain in a way that someone coming from your perspective would take seriously enough to give real consideration.  But I will only do that after you explain to me why you felt it necessary to add the antagonizing goad after your question.
> 
> I have to add that while I was reading your post and typing my response the screen jumped to the top of the page 5 times (make that 6) (now 8), additionally, I had to recover the page twice (thrice).  I've about had it withy that.



If the unlikely were it happen, you have available to you a plethora of authors and thinkers far more qualified than myself who may help you with further consideration.  I am really a poor place to lay your question.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Ive had a number of issues, including this jump to the top of the page thing since they upgraded the site. Ive come dangerously close to smashing the computer against the wall more than once



I'm sorry Walt, but I think that would be terribly unfair to the wall.  It didn't do anything wrong did it.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> In that case, I would think you would want to do some serious work on self expression.  "would it be easier" makes yours a question that can only be answered "yes".  It would have been easier not to have wrestled with question after question, year after year; questions without easy answers, questions that had answers I didn't like; while remembering that life was so much "easier" before I started asking questions that I couldn't help but ask and to which the answers waivered between uncomfortable and nearly unbearable; when I could comfortable parrot the answers I had heard from others, like "Faith is a crutch for those who can't walk on their own", "God is used to explain what is not understood", "We know more now than they did then", etc.  "Yes" it would be easier to quit asking those questions right now and never ask one of them again. For now, ""all" is the best word that I have.", because I have yet to find an exception that stands up.  So, your question, as originally phased, is duplicative and therefore goading in nature, IMHO.


Since this is an informal forum, I do as I see fit according to conversation at hand. If this were a term paper, I would have been more carefully worded.






hummerpoo said:


> I believe that cause and effect is a real, notwithstanding arguments to the contrary.  I find to be sound the idea that all ontological arguments must end up infinitely regressive, circular, arbitrarily ended, or foundational and that the first three are unacceptable (I'm relatively early in this line of thinking, couple of years or so, so we'll see).  My belief that the necessary foundation is an "omni-everything" Being, (with gratitude to whoever it was here that gave me that term, and apology for not remembering who) existing in a realm that includes but extends beyond, that which is sensible in this realm is attributable to a "knowing" which is compatible with the idea of a foundation and not defeated by reasoning of my own or of others that I have found.


..........



hummerpoo said:


> The scope of this answer does not require that I cover the many steps required to get to God revealing Himself in the created realm, but that revealing is what can be found in the events which you describe.


Those steps are an important part to help others understand how you get to the next part. Without including them we have no idea how you get from point A to Z and we just have to take your word for it.



hummerpoo said:


> If we back off to the really big picture, we can get a glimpse, and only a glimpse, of God as the First Cause in the "evil" that exists in this realm, in that the evil is only known in contrast to the good.  In an existence that only displayed the evil it could not be known as evil.  Likewise, in an existence that only displayed the good it could not be known as the good.  In this realm, as it is, both evil and good are known, and in that knowledge, and our effort to understand our being, the First Cause can be confirm.  Thus, the benefit to God of the events you describe, and many others, is that He is known in the created realm.


I know this is your explanation that obviously makes sense to you, but I would have to disagree with running with an unproven assumption or assertion.



hummerpoo said:


> Does evil exist beyond the created realm?  My sense is no, but that is an interesting question.  Maybe I'll get to it someday, but I doubt it.


Didn't Lucifer exist prior to the created realm?



hummerpoo said:


> As to the thought that an omni-everything Being could have found another way to reveal Himself without the evil that effects His creation.  I would think that only an omni-everything being existing in and beyond the created realm would have the perspective to know that.  But we do try to claim that position, don't we.
> 
> 
> 
> If the unlikely were it happen, you have available to you a plethora of authors and thinkers far more qualified than myself who may help you with further consideration.  I am really a poor place to lay your question.


So, how does millions of deaths for and against your God's name benefit him? I did not see where you addressed that question.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I'm sorry Walt, but I think that would be terribly unfair to the wall.  It didn't do anything wrong did it.


Sometimes a certain level of collateral damage is unavoidable


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Since this is an informal forum, I do as I see fit according to conversation at hand. If this were a term paper, I would have been more carefully worded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..........
> 
> 
> Those steps are an important part to help others understand how you get to the next part. Without including them we have no idea how you get from point A to Z and we just have to take your word for it.
> 
> 
> I know this is your explanation that obviously makes sense to you, but I would have to disagree with running with an unproven assumption or assertion.
> 
> 
> Didn't Lucifer exist prior to the created realm?
> 
> 
> So, how does millions of deaths for and against your God's name benefit him? I did not see where you addressed that question.



He does make a small leap here and there to get where he wants to be.


----------



## atlashunter

atlashunter said:


> I think you are avoiding the question which is simple. Doesn’t take 20,000 words to say whether you think Asherah is just as real as El and on what basis you think it. That’s simple. Don’t avoid it by calling it complicated.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Since this is an informal forum, I do as I see fit according to conversation at hand. If this were a term paper, I would have been more carefully worded.



That is not in question.  I only pointed out that you did it and ask why.




> Those steps are an important part to help others understand how you get to the next part. Without including them we have no idea how you get from point A to Z and we just have to take your word for it.



You are exactly right.  It is not intended that anyone should take my word for the voluminous material, on very difficult concepts, that is required to fill in the gaps.  These things are not amenable to sound-bites (or type-bits).  "A" is only there to show generally which of the many available starting points I have come to consider valid, and I suggest that there is a road from there that leads to "Z".  In cases such as this, even an outline only provides stepping stones below the surface for someone, who has a similar background, to follow.



> I know this is your explanation that obviously makes sense to you, but I would have to disagree with running with an unproven assumption or assertion.



Sure, I understand that.  We know that the question you have ask is one that has been around, figuratively, "forever"; with very little agreement having been reached between groups or within any group.  Please keep in mind that I am not attempting to convert you to my understanding.  Because you asked, I willingly offer my view hoping that it might, somehow, help you to understand some of those with whom you disagree.



> Didn't Lucifer exist prior to the created realm?



No, I understand Lucifer to be a created being.  I think most agree.



> So, how does millions of deaths for and against your God's name benefit him? I did not see where you addressed that question.



It's here.....



> that revealing is what can be found in the events which you describe


I should mention that it is only one of many places where that revealing can be found.


> the benefit to God of the events you describe, and many others, is that He is known in the created realm




I would suggest that, before listing the page full of easily anticipated objections, you watch the movie "Arrival", which I only discovered a couple of weeks ago(if you are as dense as I am, which I doubt, you will need to watch it more than once) .  The prospective is atheist to neutral, leaning atheist; but the theme is compatible with, even supportive of, some of the major points that are in that big gap between A and Z, and greatly mitigate or eliminate many "first thought" objections.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Sometimes a certain level of collateral damage is unavoidable


Yeah, I got it, like a while ago when I almost gave up because this stupid thing wouldn't even hold the web sight.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> That is not in question.  I only pointed out that you did it and ask why.


I explained why.
You proceeded to instruct me on how my why could have and should have been more to your liking.






hummerpoo said:


> You are exactly right.  It is not intended that anyone should take my word for the voluminous material, on very difficult concepts, that is required to fill in the gaps.  These things are not amenable to sound-bites (or type-bits).  "A" is only there to show generally which of the many available starting points I have come to consider valid, and I suggest that there is a road from there that leads to "Z".  In cases such as this, even an outline only provides stepping stones below the surface for someone, who has a similar background, to follow.


These (B-Y) are things many of us want to hear in here. So few even try.





hummerpoo said:


> Sure, I understand that.  We know that the question you have ask is one that has been around, figuratively, "forever"; with very little agreement having been reached between groups or within any group.  Please keep in mind that I am not attempting to convert you to my understanding.  Because you asked, I willingly offer my view hoping that it might, somehow, help you to understand some of those with whom you disagree.


Appreciated





hummerpoo said:


> No, I understand Lucifer to be a created being.  I think most agree.


I guess that makes sense,
But
He was spawned from the evil that was used to create him.
If God always existed, both good and evil always existed within him. If one believes Creation/Created came from an Omnipotent  and Omniscient being, then both good and evil also came from that being. Creation would have had to be Created from within.





hummerpoo said:


> It's here.....


I'd like the "revealing" explained. All that was said is that the revealing was here, in that quote above, without any details of what the revealing actually is.




hummerpoo said:


> I should mention that it is only one of many places where that revealing can be found.


I have not found that to be accurate. Something touted as the Universal and Ultimate truth should be Universally and Ultimately known. That is nowhere near the case. Not even among like minded believers within the same religion.





hummerpoo said:


> I would suggest that, before listing the page full of easily anticipated objections, you watch the movie "Arrival", which I only discovered a couple of weeks ago(if you are as dense as I am, which I doubt, you will need to watch it more than once) .  The prospective is atheist to neutral, leaning atheist; but the theme is compatible with, even supportive of, some of the major points that are in that big gap between A and Z, and greatly mitigate or eliminate many "first thought" objections.


I saw the movie.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I explained why.
> You proceeded to instruct me on how my why could have and should have been more to your liking.



Didn't I talk about the 1st post rather than the "why" given in the 2nd.
I thought I was talking about what I thought might improve communication rather than what I liked.  I guess I failed.



> These (B-Y) are things many of us want to hear in here. So few even try.



I think anyone expecting to hear (B-Y) here misunderstands what (B-Y) are, or they are not serious about wanting to hear.  For example,  what I have said about A&Z are two sub-items in the Table of Contents.



> I guess that makes sense,
> But
> He was spawned from the evil that was used to create him.
> If God always existed, both good and evil always existed within him. If one believes Creation/Created came from an Omnipotent  and Omniscient being, then both good and evil also came from that being. Creation would have had to be Created from within.



First try thinking of evil as absence of good (like cold is absence of heat).

Your other point is tougher and requires work outside of "here".  It involves Simple Being creating Compound Being, which then makes CB separable; which makes no sense until one has looked there very intently, rather than here. 



> I'd like the "revealing" explained. All that was said is that the revealing was here, in that quote above, without any details of what the revealing actually is.
> 
> I have not found that to be accurate. Something touted as the Universal and Ultimate truth should be Universally and Ultimately known. That is nowhere near the case. Not even among like minded believers within the same religion.



I think I understand what you are saying: you understand that "what" is revealed is God; but the "how" is not explained; and neither the what nor the how appear to have been effective for the reasons you give.

I'm going to ask you to confirm my understanding, because a way to attempt explanation that does not immediately present itself.  The first thing that jumps out is your use of the word "known"; should that possibly be thought of as "seen", or possibly something else?  I think that an explanation in our case, as believer and nonbeliever, may well be an "I don't know how" situation; but I'm not yet ready to give up.  If you could confirm that I am working on the right question, I promise to continue to work on it in the hope that it's not "I don't know how".



> I saw the movie.


Then you are aware that — according to the movie, and I agree (although I obviously got there by a different path) — the perception of pain and suffering when viewed from an eternal perspective is totally different than the perception of pain and suffering when viewed from a temporal perceptive.

It isn't insignificant that the perception of life itself is necessarily different.

It's also interesting that those who made the movie revealed that Ian "was not ready to hear" what Louise told him, resulting in his withdrawal from the relationship.


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> That is not in question.  I only pointed out that you did it and ask why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are exactly right.  It is not intended that anyone should take my word for the voluminous material, on very difficult concepts, that is required to fill in the gaps.  These things are not amenable to sound-bites (or type-bits).  "A" is only there to show generally which of the many available starting points I have come to consider valid, and I suggest that there is a road from there that leads to "Z".  In cases such as this, even an outline only provides stepping stones below the surface for someone, who has a similar background, to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I understand that.  We know that the question you have ask is one that has been around, figuratively, "forever"; with very little agreement having been reached between groups or within any group.  Please keep in mind that I am not attempting to convert you to my understanding.  Because you asked, I willingly offer my view hoping that it might, somehow, help you to understand some of those with whom you disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I understand Lucifer to be a created being.  I think most agree.
> 
> 
> 
> It's here.....
> 
> 
> I should mention that it is only one of many places where that revealing can be found.
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that, before listing the page full of easily anticipated objections, you watch the movie "Arrival", which I only discovered a couple of weeks ago(if you are as dense as I am, which I doubt, you will need to watch it more than once) .  The prospective is atheist to neutral, leaning atheist; but the theme is compatible with, even supportive of, some of the major points that are in that big gap between A and Z, and greatly mitigate or eliminate many "first thought" objections.




LOL...now ain't that interesting?

http://forum.gon.com/threads/i-got-an-affinity.896678/ 

Glad you mentioned Arrival...pretty heavy concept there. The linear versus the circular. One method gives the appearance of "arriving" through linear thought and expression at understanding, A-b-c-d etc. right up to some imagined Z. But the whole movie leads to the crescendo of existential peril found in having nothing but that. 

Yeah...there's a lot going on in it. 

I also like what I heard a character of Kevin Bacon's said the other night on some show...

"an error must be allowed to have its full course before it can be combated" or something very much like that.


In the fullness of time...(Gal 4)

Now to what says..."Wait! Wait! But I ain't done yet" that's gotta be one frustrating truth to contend in, and against. "When do I get to 'show my stuff?' "

Everywhere, in every _thing_, _in all, _the end is revealed in the beginning. And it is only seen in gift.

Makes me wonder why anything so convinced it sees the end is silence...keeps speaking...kinda disannuls its claim of seeing.


----------



## atlashunter

Good and evil, therefore god. No reason given. Just a massive leap and assertion. May as well say trees, therefore god. Sometimes we are told god created hades to separate evil from himself. That it’s a separation. Oh but he is omni present so he is in hades too. And he created everything including evil and all who do evil so he is the ultimate source of evil. But he is omni benevolent and never commits evil. Must be a pretty conflicted dude. There will be no evil in heaven, (which is a necessary consequence of free will we are told) so apparently no free will in heaven. Even though Lucifer started out there and was evil. Think of evil as the absence of good like heat and cold. Guess without humans on the planet to do what we call good the world must have been an incredibly evil place by default. If good can’t be without evil then how can a place like heaven which is the complete abcense of evil be? Is hades the necessary counterpart? How then did heaven exist prior to hades? Why can’t god destroy hades while leaving heaven? Why can’t he destroy evil while leaving the good? If he can’t do that then he is constrained in his ability and not omnipotent. If he can but chooses not to then your argument that one can’t exist without the other falls apart and you’re left with a god who chooses for evil to be even though it doesn’t have to.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Didn't I talk about the 1st post rather than the "why" given in the 2nd.
> I thought I was talking about what I thought might improve communication rather than what I liked.  I guess I failed.








hummerpoo said:


> I think anyone expecting to hear (B-Y) here misunderstands what (B-Y) are, or they are not serious about wanting to hear.  For example,  what I have said about A&Z are two sub-items in the Table of Contents.


It is impossible to misunderstand B-Y when B-Y are skipped over and not mentioned. B-Y are never mentioned and unknown.





hummerpoo said:


> First try thinking of evil as absence of good (like cold is absence of heat).


Or like Good is the absence of Evil.
You are asserting that you somehow know, or are at least starting out with what you think the god you worship is as the basis of your claim. God must equal Good. 
But I do not think either are 100% accurate. If your god can think thoughts into existence then those thoughts already exist within him. Good and Evil, along with everything else created had to already exist within him.  If humans are made in his image (and judging by the actions and emotions of your god within the bible) his image is not just confined to looks but actions also. Either we are very god like, or god is very human like as both think, act, react, love, hate, spite, smite, kill, reward for all of the same reasons.



hummerpoo said:


> Your other point is tougher and requires work outside of "here".  It involves Simple Being creating Compound Being, which then makes CB separable; which makes no sense until one has looked there very intently, rather than here.


I see it 180deg the other way. It made much more sense when I never looked into it. The more I looked into the results never matched the claims.





hummerpoo said:


> I think I understand what you are saying: you understand that "what" is revealed is God; but the "how" is not explained; and neither the what nor the how appear to have been effective for the reasons you give.
> 
> I'm going to ask you to confirm my understanding, because a way to attempt explanation that does not immediately present itself.  The first thing that jumps out is your use of the word "known"; should that possibly be thought of as "seen", or possibly something else?  I think that an explanation in our case, as believer and nonbeliever, may well be an "I don't know how" situation; but I'm not yet ready to give up.  If you could confirm that I am working on the right question, I promise to continue to work on it in the hope that it's not "I don't know how".


Seen, seeing, saw, can be misinterpreted.  Some people "seen" a Sunrise and think it is proof of God, Allah, Rah etc.. jumping past what is known in order to make sense of the unknown.

Known is the word I used because it is information that is backed up by facts and proof which confirms it.




hummerpoo said:


> Then you are aware that — according to the movie, and I agree (although I obviously got there by a different path) — the perception of pain and suffering when viewed from an eternal perspective is totally different than the perception of pain and suffering when viewed from a temporal perceptive.


As far as the movie goes, yes I agree.
 But I realize it is a movie, with a script. Amy Adams (Louise) did not actually learn a language which helped her then see the future. The premise of the brain rewiring itself to understand the perception of time simply by learning another language is the SciFi part.
You don't take 2yrs of French in High School and then all of a sudden understand the political views of all the French speaking people and those are "real" people with a "real" language.
Nor, and way more accurate to the movie, do you learn the real but very fake Klingon language when you become a Trekkie and all of a sudden have your mind understand the soil composition of a fictional planet.



hummerpoo said:


> It isn't insignificant that the perception of life itself is necessarily different.
> 
> It's also interesting that those who made the movie revealed that Ian "was not ready to hear" what Louise told him, resulting in his withdrawal from the relationship.


Yes, Ian could not get past Louise knowing about her child's condition and end result before she had her, and then willingly having the child anyway.
Louise could make sense of it because she saw the bigger picture due to her understanding the Alien circular language/time frame rather than the human straight line understanding.

The movie was based off of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

A good explanation is here:

*



			Can learning a new language really “rewire your brain”?
		
Click to expand...

*


> Er, not like this. The movie’s premise revolves around a theory of linguistic relativity called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which proposes that the language we speak reflects or shapes (depending on who you ask) the way we think. The hypothesis, which comes from the work of early 20th-century American linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, is already widely disputed in the world of linguistics, but the way the movie uses it is pure science fiction. Betty Birner, a professor of linguistics and cognitive science at Northern Illinois University, told *Slate* that while the language you grow up speaking can influence your worldview, learning a new language definitely won’t suddenly radically alter your perception of time: “It would be like learning Swahili and saying, ‘I completely see how the speakers of Swahili view plant life now.’ ”



The movie certainly makes a person think, but it is science fiction, and allows the viewer to glimpse into more science fiction, not reality.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Good and evil, therefore god. No reason given. Just a massive leap and assertion. May as well say trees, therefore god. Sometimes we are told god created hades to separate evil from himself. That it’s a separation. Oh but he is omni present so he is in hades too. And he created everything including evil and all who do evil so he is the ultimate source of evil. But he is omni benevolent and never commits evil. Must be a pretty conflicted dude. There will be no evil in heaven, (which is a necessary consequence of free will we are told) so apparently no free will in heaven. Even though Lucifer started out there and was evil. Think of evil as the absence of good like heat and cold. Guess without humans on the planet to do what we call good the world must have been an incredibly evil place by default. If good can’t be without evil then how can a place like heaven which is the complete abcense of evil be? Is hades the necessary counterpart? How then did heaven exist prior to hades? Why can’t god destroy hades while leaving heaven? Why can’t he destroy evil while leaving the good? If he can’t do that then he is constrained in his ability and not omnipotent. If he can but chooses not to then your argument that one can’t exist without the other falls apart and you’re left with a god who chooses for evil to be even though it doesn’t have to.



These problems are solved by the necessary acceptance that God is sovereign and in control of all things, that the existence of He11 and all the eternal suffering is some sort of beautiful, just, righteous, and loving plan that we can't understand because we are neither all mighty or all knowing.  It's the only logically consistent position to take.  Even then someone might argue that any position need not be "logically consistent" because Gods' wisdom confounds man's logic.  
It's the Vessels of Wrath.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> These problems are solved by the necessary acceptance that God is sovereign and in control of all things, that the existence of He11 and all the eternal suffering is some sort of beautiful, just, righteous, and loving plan that we can't understand because we are neither all mighty or all knowing.  It's the only logically consistent position to take.  Even then someone might argue that any position need not be "logically consistent" because Gods' wisdom confounds man's logic.
> It's the Vessels of Wrath.


Big difference between an Excuse and Fact.
The Bible admits god was surprised and displeased, and had to go look for Adam and Eve, he cannot be all knowing if that is the case.
He cannot be almighty if he cannot drive Chariots out of the Valley because they were made of Iron.

Their scripture refutes the all knowing and almighty.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> These problems are solved by the necessary acceptance that God is sovereign and in control of all things, that the existence of He11 and all the eternal suffering is some sort of beautiful, just, righteous, and loving plan that we can't understand because we are neither all mighty or all knowing.  It's the only logically consistent position to take.  Even then someone might argue that any position need not be "logically consistent" because Gods' wisdom confounds man's logic.
> It's the Vessels of Wrath.



I’m willing to grant the god is in charge retort. It doesn’t change the logical contradictions in their claims. This is what happens when you just make things up as you go. 

Good and evil to my mind stand in rebuttal to the claim that some being is in control. A world in which there was no god or even the deists god would be one in which any thing that could happen eventually would happen. Wars, famines, suffering and all manner of evil would take place with nobody in control. That is what we would expect. People could suffer and die by the tens of millions without any consequence except for the consequence or intervention which we could muster ourselves. And yes the good too would also only be because we made it so. On our shoulders alone would rest the responsibility for the good and evil in the world. That’s the world I would expect with no supreme being in control and that’s the reality we live in.


----------



## ky55

atlashunter said:


> I’m willing to grant the god is in charge retort. It doesn’t change the logical contradictions in their claims. This is what happens when you just make things up as you go.
> 
> Good and evil to my mind stand in rebuttal to the claim that some being is in control. A world in which there was no god or even the deists god would be one in which any thing that could happen eventually would happen. Wars, famines, suffering and all manner of evil would take place with nobody in control. That is what we would expect. People could suffer and die by the tens of millions without any consequence except for the consequence or intervention which we could muster ourselves. And yes the good too would also only be because we made it so. On our shoulders alone would rest the responsibility for the good and evil in the world. That’s the world I would expect with no supreme being in control and that’s the reality we live in.



“If men neglected "God's poor" and "God's stricken and helpless ones" as He does, what would become of them? The answer is to be found in those dark lands where man follows His example and turns his indifferent back upon them: they get no help at all; they cry, and plead and pray in vain, they linger and suffer, and miserably die. If you will look at the matter rationally and without prejudice, the proper place to hunt for the facts of His mercy, is not where man does the mercies and He collects the praise, but in those regions where He has the field to Himself.”

Mark Twain


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> I’m willing to grant the god is in charge retort. It doesn’t change the logical contradictions in their claims. This is what happens when you just make things up as you go.



The boilerplate rebuttal to this will be that man's logic can't grasp the righteousness of the "plan".  Trust and obey.  It's foolproof and beyond reproach.  I just don't understand why no one seems to be able to explain why they would trust so deeply and without hesitation.  That's all I've ever asked of them.  The usual answer is "You won't believe it until you believe it and then you'll know how real it is".



atlashunter said:


> Good and evil to my mind stand in rebuttal to the claim that some being is in control. A world in which there was no god or even the deists god would be one in which any thing that could happen eventually would happen. Wars, famines, suffering and all manner of evil would take place with nobody in control. That is what we would expect. People could suffer and die by the tens of millions without any consequence except for the consequence or intervention which we could muster ourselves. And yes the good too would also only be because we made it so. On our shoulders alone would rest the responsibility for the good and evil in the world. That’s the world I would expect with no supreme being in control and that’s the reality we live in.



There's a possibility that all these things you describe could be part of some secret plan.  I would like to know why anyone thinks that might be true.  What makes them believe such a thing?  Is it a miracle that they experieneced?  Sometimes that's the explanation but most often it seems like a preference.


----------



## atlashunter

atlashunter said:


> I think you are avoiding the question which is simple. Doesn’t take 20,000 words to say whether you think Asherah is just as real as El and on what basis you think it. That’s simple. Don’t avoid it by calling it complicated.



^Still unanswered.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> It is impossible to misunderstand B-Y when B-Y are skipped over and not mentioned. B-Y are never mentioned and unknown.



The use of (B-Y) was, I thought obviously, not intended to refer to each item in the set as to their title, subject, etc., but to the common nature of the members of the set, as was, I thought, clearly illustrated after I said "For example, ......"



> Or like Good is the absence of Evil.
> You are asserting that you somehow know, or are at least starting out with what you think the god you worship is as the basis of your claim. God must equal Good.



Yes, I am starting out with "God is good", but I'm not trying to get you to believe that, only saying that if you want to understand the counter argument that "both good and evil always existed within him" does not follow from the existence of evil in creation, it might be wise to save yourself a lot of work by "first try thinking of evil as absence of good" since that's where a lot of people, who deal with the issue, end up after you wade through several pages of their super dense argumentation.



> But I do not think either are 100% accurate. If your god can think thoughts into existence then those thoughts already exist within him. Good and Evil, along with everything else created had to already exist within him.  If humans are made in his image (and judging by the actions and emotions of your god within the bible) his image is not just confined to looks but actions also. Either we are very god like, or god is very human like as both think, act, react, love, hate, spite, smite, kill, reward for all of the same reasons.​


​


> Thoughts into existance


ex nihilo


> the actions


anthropopraxy


> emotions


anthropopathy


> looks


anthropomorphism

God doesn't "raise" His "arm", but that is said to convey an idea to someone whose experience is limited to the physical.

Again, believe it, don't believe it, whatever; I'm just pointing toward the arguments.  I don't think, in this session I have pointed to any that I have serious questions about; there are many more issues, both upstream and downstream, which bare upon or depend upon each of the ones that have been mentioned.  The greatest portion of my life is behind me, and I can't help but wish, if only momentarily, that I had seen more of it in the past, was seeing more of it now, and had more time to see it in the future.  But that is only a momentary thought.

​


> I see it 180deg the other way. It made much more sense when I never looked into it. The more I looked into the results never matched the claims.​


​
Simple Being and Compound Being refer to what is known as the Doctrine of Simplicity which you can look up.  It happens to be in some turmoil right now in the theological community (mostly not about whether it is true, but how it fits into Systematic Theology and how it should be taught),  which means you can find some conflicting ideas through Google, but if someone were so inclined, I think it would be best to start with earlier stuff, maybe Augustine and Aquinas.  I know you probably don't want to do that, I'm just emphisizing my point that this is not sound-bite stuff.
BTW, I do not intend to imply that I know and understand all about this stuff, although I did read A & A and maybe half-a-dozen others on the subject of simplicity a while back, and I do have a layman's understanding of the Doctrine, that's as far as I would go.


​


> Seen, seeing, saw, can be misinterpreted.  Some people "seen" a Sunrise and think it is proof of God, Allah, Rah etc.. jumping past what is known in order to make sense of the unknown.
> 
> Known is the word I used because it is information that is backed up by facts and proof which confirms it.​


​
You addressed an off-the-cuff maybe and failed to address the meat of my request: could you please confirm or correct my understanding of what you had said in the previous post.



> As far as the movie goes, yes I agree.
> But I realize it is a movie, with a script. Amy Adams (Louise) did not actually learn a language which helped her then see the future. The premise of the brain rewiring itself to understand the perception of time simply by learning another language is the SciFi part.
> You don't take 2yrs of French in High School and then all of a sudden understand the political views of all the French speaking people and those are "real" people with a "real" language.
> Nor, and way more accurate to the movie, do you learn the real but very fake Klingon language when you become a Trekkie and all of a sudden have your mind understand the soil composition of a fictional planet.
> 
> 
> Yes, Ian could not get past Louise knowing about her child's condition and end result before she had her, and then willingly having the child anyway.
> Louise could make sense of it because she saw the bigger picture due to her understanding the Alien circular language/time frame rather than the human straight line understanding.
> 
> The movie was based off of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
> 
> A good explanation is here:
> 
> 
> 
> The movie certainly makes a person think, but it is science fiction, and allows the viewer to glimpse into more science fiction, not reality.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> LOL...now ain't that interesting?
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/threads/i-got-an-affinity.896678/
> 
> Glad you mentioned Arrival...pretty heavy concept there. The linear versus the circular. One method gives the appearance of "arriving" through linear thought and expression at understanding, A-b-c-d etc. right up to some imagined Z. But the whole movie leads to the crescendo of existential peril found in having nothing but that.
> 
> Yeah...there's a lot going on in it.
> 
> I also like what I heard a character of Kevin Bacon's said the other night on some show...
> 
> "an error must be allowed to have its full course before it can be combated" or something very much like that.
> 
> 
> In the fullness of time...(Gal 4)
> 
> Now to what says..."Wait! Wait! But I ain't done yet" that's gotta be one frustrating truth to contend in, and against. "When do I get to 'show my stuff?' "
> 
> Everywhere, in every _thing_, _in all, _the end is revealed in the beginning. And it is only seen in gift.
> 
> Makes me wonder why anything so convinced it sees the end is silence...keeps speaking...kinda disannuls its claim of seeing.





> Makes me wonder why anything so convinced it sees the end is silence...keeps speaking...kinda disannuls its claim of seeing.



The second smile is for myself because I have some beliefs to which the same argument applies.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> The use of (B-Y) was, I thought obviously, not intended to refer to each item in the set as to their title, subject, etc., but to the common nature of the members of the set, as was, I thought, clearly illustrated after I said "For example, ......"
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am starting out with "God is good", but I'm not trying to get you to believe that, only saying that if you want to understand the counter argument that "both good and evil always existed within him" does not follow from the existence of evil in creation, it might be wise to save yourself a lot of work by "first try thinking of evil as absence of good" since that's where a lot of people, who deal with the issue, end up after you wade through several pages of their super dense argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ex nihilo
> 
> anthropopraxy
> 
> anthropopathy
> 
> anthropomorphism
> 
> God doesn't "raise" His "arm", but that is said to convey an idea to someone whose experience is limited to the physical.
> 
> Again, believe it, don't believe it, whatever; I'm just pointing toward the arguments.  I don't think, in this session I have pointed to any that I have serious questions about; there are many more issues, both upstream and downstream, which bare upon or depend upon each of the ones that have been mentioned.  The greatest portion of my life is behind me, and I can't help but wish, if only momentarily, that I had seen more of it in the past, was seeing more of it now, and had more time to see it in the future.  But that is only a momentary thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple Being and Compound Being refer to what is known as the Doctrine of Simplicity which you can look up.  It happens to be in some turmoil right now in the theological community (mostly not about whether it is true, but how it fits into Systematic Theology and how it should be taught),  which means you can find some conflicting ideas through Google, but if someone were so inclined, I think it would be best to start with earlier stuff, maybe Augustine and Aquinas.  I know you probably don't want to do that, I'm just emphisizing my point that this is not sound-bite stuff.
> BTW, I do not intend to imply that I know and understand all about this stuff, although I did read A & A and maybe half-a-dozen others on the subject of simplicity a while back, and I do have a layman's understanding of the Doctrine, that's as far as I would go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You addressed an off-the-cuff maybe and failed to address the meat of my request: could you please confirm or correct my understanding of what you had said in the previous post.


I understand and "get" the arguments and counter arguments.
I am curious as to when someone is going to include some examples that are backed up with facts and evidence that give the arguments and counterarguments some validity. As of now it is just assertions and claims with a lot of assumption gaps in between.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> I understand and "get" the arguments and counter arguments.
> I am curious as to when someone is going to include some examples that are backed up with facts and evidence that give the arguments and counterarguments some validity. As of now it is just assertions and claims with a lot of assumption gaps in between.


I don't think you/we are asking for something that can be given.
Other than a few basics (a few people and places etc) all there is to give is assertions and claims and various understandings.
We have/had some very learned Christians here. If there were actual facts to be given we would have gotten them.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think you/we are asking for something that can be given.
> Other than a few basics (a few people and places etc) all there is to give is assertions and claims and various understandings.
> We have/had some very learned Christians here. If there were actual facts to be given we would have gotten them.


Walt, I have to disagree. While I do think what you are saying has some merit as not everything can be validated, I also am 100% convinced that a Being who is touted as being everywhere at all times and is so involved in people's lives that there would be actual factual evidence somewhere. The learned Christians in here tell us very specific claims and assertions and yet have not provided a single tangible snippet of evidence to back any of it up. And, except for a name change here and there, their claims and experiences are no different than what believers in other gods claim.
For those reasons  I have an extremely hard time believing that ALL these gods are roaming our realm constantly "doing, saying, and thinking" things yet go completely unnoticed except for  specific believers in that or a particular god.
The evidence(lack of really) shows that no god is actually involved and physically doing anything that these believers claim.
I am hoping for that special learned Believer to step up and show us, like in the bible when believers called upon their god, that a god does indeed exist, is involved and like in the 1500years of interaction in bible,  leaves clear evidence.
Why would the god be so available for 1500 years (where the only evidence is in the books of ancient cultures) and literally be untraceable now?

I have a good idea...


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> The second smile is for myself because I have some beliefs to which the same argument applies.



As do I.
As did Paul. Or _the man _he was talking about.

He obviously trusted him to the extent to believe his experience and telling of it.

If the man is true...his testimony is true. Even if testifying of silence to a certain matter.

I believe you. (which matters not a whit...and is perfect)

I can add nothing to the truth. For I would then have power to diminish it.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Walt, I have to disagree. While I do think what you are saying has some merit as not everything can be validated, I also am 100% convinced that a Being who is touted as being everywhere at all times and is so involved in people's lives that there would be actual factual evidence somewhere. The learned Christians in here tell us very specific claims and assertions and yet have not provided a single tangible snippet of evidence to back any of it up. And, except for a name change here and there, their claims and experiences are no different than what believers in other gods claim.
> For those reasons  I have an extremely hard time believing that ALL these gods are roaming our realm constantly "doing, saying, and thinking" things yet go completely unnoticed except for  specific believers in that or a particular god.
> The evidence(lack of really) shows that no god is actually involved and physically doing anything that these believers claim.
> I am hoping for that special learned Believer to step up and show us, like in the bible when believers called upon their god, that a god does indeed exist, is involved and like in the 1500years of interaction in bible,  leaves clear evidence.
> Why would the god be so available for 1500 years (where the only evidence is in the books of ancient cultures) and literally be untraceable now?
> 
> I have a good idea...


All those things you listed - touted as being everywhere at all times and all the others...
are the assertions/understandings/claims etc.
Asking for the facts to back any of that up cant be given.... which is why we never get them regardless of how many times we ask.
And of course, continuing to make assertions and claims without ever backing them up with facts is a whole different subject.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> As do I.


Start with you..


Israel said:


> As did Paul.


Add in someone biblical as if to validate your next thought...


Israel said:


> Or _the man _he was talking about.


There is it... now you AND Paul are two peas in a pod both connected to and by Joshua



Israel said:


> He obviously trusted him to the extent to believe his experience and telling of it.


Yeah, obviously... he trusted a person he never met..
But it would make sense that he pretended to believe the religion he created.



Israel said:


> If the man is true...his testimony is true. Even if testifying of silence to a certain matter.


That covers a lot of men



Israel said:


> I believe you. (which matters not a whit...and is perfect)


.....



Israel said:


> I can add nothing to the truth. For I would then have power to diminish it.


YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
(just had to)


----------



## Israel

.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> .


Your
Best
Reply
Ever!


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I understand and "get" the arguments and counter arguments.
> I am curious as to when someone is going to include some examples that are backed up with facts and evidence that give the arguments and counterarguments some validity. As of now it is just assertions and claims with a lot of assumption gaps in between.





WaltL1 said:


> I don't think you/we are asking for something that can be given.
> Other than a few basics (a few people and places etc) all there is to give is assertions and claims and various understandings.
> We have/had some very learned Christians here. If there were actual facts to be given we would have gotten them.



After finding a bunch of stuff in the compose window that I don't remember having put there, an a big list of other jumps, dumps, and other uncontrollable stuff I threw it all away except for this 

"Walt, from my point of view, your within a click or two of zero on this one, ….


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> After finding a bunch of stuff in the compose window that I don't remember having put there, an a big list of other jumps, dumps, and other uncontrollable stuff I threw it all away except for this
> 
> "Walt, from my point of view, your within a click or two of zero on this one, ….



Zero, agreed, but a different meaning than yours.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> After finding a bunch of stuff in the compose window that I don't remember having put there, an a big list of other jumps, dumps, and other uncontrollable stuff I threw it all away except for this
> 
> "Walt, from my point of view, your within a click or two of zero on this one, ….


You will have to explain. I dont want to misunderstand your point.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> You will have to explain. I dont want to misunderstand your point.


 I think that only fine adjustment remains. (Scope sight analogy).
But I have been wrong a few times.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I think that only fine adjustment remains. (Scope sight analogy).
> But I have been wrong a few times.


Now that I can understand 
I totally missed the analogy. Glad I asked.


----------



## Israel

Loving God _is the reward_ in the revelation of God's love in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Israel

Logic and/or reason will not bring any _thing_ to what has no reason to be. Only _things_ have reason to be.

Logic and reason can only bring a _thing_ (even such as man) to_ another thing_ that can be made _subject to the reason _of the _seeming_ primary. Only _things_ have reason to be.

We do not preach what is _subject _to the reason of any _thing_ (even the most brilliant mind _of creation_) and are made unashamed in that assertion. We do not take our stand upon any of the cleverest or _most apparently_ seasoned in reason, and therefore cannot be rebuffed, nor persuaded to any thing in position that might take its stand as such. The _more intelligent_, the _more honest_ will not be demonstrated to us by their self proclamation, for as (we) things are no more nor less than they themselves, we _know the reason_ of such self proclamation. But, we are persuaded to truth in assertion. Is it there?

We accept truth as _the assertive_. Not an assertive..but _the assertive. _Nothing can be done _against it. _But only _for it. _The discerning (if there is any) is in the knowing not all assertions are true. We do not dispute the reality of "more intelligence" any more than we dispute the reality of total honesty, but we are given to truth of such matters declared (asserted) to their origin, whether such assertions come _in truth. _What is born in lie...cannot help but _show the truth_ that it is so.

Some deride circular reasoning, not even bearing its proposition to any form of (even man's) intelligent projection. We patiently bear with man (what choice do we have? being man ourself) to the awakening to all of what is "over its head". This is made clear to us by _reason given_ and no attainment of our own labors in it. We are neither the more intelligent, nor the less...neither the _more_ honest, nor the less for the thing will and can only respond to what _is placed_ over its head.

To come to that place of futility _is gift._ To deny it is not only futile to the perfection of futility, but to not see it by refusal in what one claims already _to see, _is lie. Go to the ant, you sluggard. Find what _things_ you are made subject to in investigation of truth _as thing, _and you will not be able to bear your own reduction to the most base things having rule over you. This futility when seen, and acknowledged, this despair of being no more than thing...subject in all _to things_...is by appointment.

Be the wisest, be the most intelligent, be the most sincere investigator (and honest) proclaimer thing of all _things, _and each will at best always and only be under the tutelage _of thing. _Tout reason, be brilliant, investigate matters (and matter) to its smallest dimension possible and grandest expanse imaginable. Still, under thing.
Be the man whose wisdom is so great, imagination _of such intelligence_ to a vastness as to infer a thing _must exist..._and discover it. Uncover it to man. _Prove_ what _you knew_ had to be in_ the arena of things _by demonstrating _thing_ is subject to your exertion of reason and demonstrability. Do it, by all means. (Think neutrino or Higgs Boson)

Find...all the things! Find carbon atoms, oxygen atoms, hydrogen atoms (and whatever may be smaller constituents...keep going! elements not yet known!) and find all the most distant galaxies, every stellar, collapsing stellar, collapsed stellar_ thing_...and all and anything that may be in space between them of gravity and forces seemingly invisible...speaking if they must, if they do, if they can...to your mind. Be very smartest of the smart...most intelligent of the _more intelligent _things.
And find you still can never be more than thing, no more than what you may consider the dumbest (voiceless? atom) or even a far greater agglomeration of them; still no more than a rock. Or a sackful. No wiser than a bag of hammers. And certainly no more in constituency. Who could ever know to a certainty if having "more iron" is not the better? Just as "more intelligence" _thinks_ it can tout itself?

yes! By all means torture every truth you can wring from things under smallest inspection to widest scope, as need be. Breathe the air dying Caesar breathed. Drink of the pi** of untold generations before, find all things...eventually if even knowing of all things...closed. And you are thing in things...only thinking while impulses react between things...no more than "your" atoms...speaking to one another, even in being pulled and pushed about by effect of the loneliest and most solitary hydrogen atom in the greatest distance of the universe from yourself. Yes...know _all things _and yet still be _subject _to a speck of dust you cannot see. And think...but now I know.

And all of this will bring you no closer (nor farther) than the all that cannot be made subject to your reason. For He is not_ in subject_ to reason in, or for, His being. There is no reason "for Him" to be by which He can be held. Or known.

He is.

Father is all.

And in reason (that which He alone ...is) He has sent His son, Jesus Christ, to appear as thing amongst and in things. To show another _thing _in which the even knowing of all by thing in things...can never be found to have reason...for.

Mercy.


----------



## atlashunter

No thing is beyond reason. Not even the gods. They either exist or they do not. The Bible makes testable claims that if true would provide reasonable evidence of the existence of the biblical god. When put to the test they don’t hold true. That in itself is evidence that can be used to reach reasonable conclusions. So is the attempt to exempt the question of the existence of any gods from the application of reason. That’s only necessary for those who have a vested interest in not having reason applied.


----------



## atlashunter

“Logic and/or reason will not bring any _thing_ to what has no reason to be.”

This is simply not true. It’s entirely possible to confirm with reason and evidence that something exists without answering the perhaps unanswerable question of why it exists.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Logic and/or reason will not bring any _thing_ to what has no reason to be. Only _things_ have reason to be.



Does that mean that every unimaginable thing must exist just because, or only the ones that you like?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Logic and/or reason will not bring any _thing_ to what has no reason to be. Only _things_ have reason to be.
> 
> Logic and reason can only bring a _thing_ (even such as man) to_ another thing_ that can be made _subject to the reason _of the _seeming_ primary. Only _things_ have reason to be.
> 
> We do not preach what is _subject _to the reason of any _thing_ (even the most brilliant mind _of creation_) and are made unashamed in that assertion. We do not take our stand upon any of the cleverest or _most apparently_ seasoned in reason, and therefore cannot be rebuffed, nor persuaded to any thing in position that might take its stand as such. The _more intelligent_, the _more honest_ will not be demonstrated to us by their self proclamation, for as (we) things are no more nor less than they themselves, we _know the reason_ of such self proclamation. But, we are persuaded to truth in assertion. Is it there?
> 
> We accept truth as _the assertive_. Not an assertive..but _the assertive. _Nothing can be done _against it. _But only _for it. _The discerning (if there is any) is in the knowing not all assertions are true. We do not dispute the reality of "more intelligence" any more than we dispute the reality of total honesty, but we are given to truth of such matters declared (asserted) to their origin, whether such assertions come _in truth. _What is born in lie...cannot help but _show the truth_ that it is so.
> 
> Some deride circular reasoning, not even bearing its proposition to any form of (even man's) intelligent projection. We patiently bear with man (what choice do we have? being man ourself) to the awakening to all of what is "over its head". This is made clear to us by _reason given_ and no attainment of our own labors in it. We are neither the more intelligent, nor the less...neither the _more_ honest, nor the less for the thing will and can only respond to what _is placed_ over its head.
> 
> To come to that place of futility _is gift._ To deny it is not only futile to the perfection of futility, but to not see it by refusal in what one claims already _to see, _is lie. Go to the ant, you sluggard. Find what _things_ you are made subject to in investigation of truth _as thing, _and you will not be able to bear your own reduction to the most base things having rule over you. This futility when seen, and acknowledged, this despair of being no more than thing...subject in all _to things_...is by appointment.
> 
> Be the wisest, be the most intelligent, be the most sincere investigator (and honest) proclaimer thing of all _things, _and each will at best always and only be under the tutelage _of thing. _Tout reason, be brilliant, investigate matters (and matter) to its smallest dimension possible and grandest expanse imaginable. Still, under thing.
> Be the man whose wisdom is so great, imagination _of such intelligence_ to a vastness as to infer a thing _must exist..._and discover it. Uncover it to man. _Prove_ what _you knew_ had to be in_ the arena of things _by demonstrating _thing_ is subject to your exertion of reason and demonstrability. Do it, by all means. (Think neutrino or Higgs Boson)
> 
> Find...all the things! Find carbon atoms, oxygen atoms, hydrogen atoms (and whatever may be smaller constituents...keep going! elements not yet known!) and find all the most distant galaxies, every stellar, collapsing stellar, collapsed stellar_ thing_...and all and anything that may be in space between them of gravity and forces seemingly invisible...speaking if they must, if they do, if they can...to your mind. Be very smartest of the smart...most intelligent of the _more intelligent _things.
> And find you still can never be more than thing, no more than what you may consider the dumbest (voiceless? atom) or even a far greater agglomeration of them; still no more than a rock. Or a sackful. No wiser than a bag of hammers. And certainly no more in constituency. Who could ever know to a certainty if having "more iron" is not the better? Just as "more intelligence" _thinks_ it can tout itself?
> 
> yes! By all means torture every truth you can wring from things under smallest inspection to widest scope, as need be. Breathe the air dying Caesar breathed. Drink of the pi** of untold generations before, find all things...eventually if even knowing of all things...closed. And you are thing in things...only thinking while impulses react between things...no more than "your" atoms...speaking to one another, even in being pulled and pushed about by effect of the loneliest and most solitary hydrogen atom in the greatest distance of the universe from yourself. Yes...know _all things _and yet still be _subject _to a speck of dust you cannot see. And think...but now I know.
> 
> And all of this will bring you no closer (nor farther) than the all that cannot be made subject to your reason. For He is not_ in subject_ to reason in, or for, His being. There is no reason "for Him" to be by which He can be held. Or known.
> 
> He is.
> 
> Father is all.
> 
> And in reason (that which He alone ...is) He has sent His son, Jesus Christ, to appear as thing amongst and in things. To show another _thing _in which the even knowing of all by thing in things...can never be found to have reason...for.
> 
> Mercy.


The storybook claims your thing was was available, active, involved,  engaged, and with reason to be for 1500 years. 
Today you need to make excuses for this things disappearance, then when shown the storybook is fable you need to make excuses for this things non existence,  and all you have left is need to make claims and assertions about this thing which had never been.


----------



## bullethead




----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> The storybook claims your thing was was available, active, involved,  engaged, and with reason to be for 1500 years.
> Today you need to make excuses for this things disappearance, then when shown the storybook is fable you need to make excuses for this things non existence,  and all you have left is need to make claims and assertions about this thing which had never been.




And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how a Strawman is built from a Caricature.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how a Strawman is built from a Caricature.


Are you saying that the bible does not literally say that God was all of those things within it's very pages?


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Are you saying that the bible does not literally say that God was all of those things within it's very pages?



Rhetorical question, right?

I do not believe you are playing games here, but in attempting to discuss these things with you, you might as well be.  I know I've been around for a good while, and I think I pay attention to what is around me, and I have been told, more than once, that I see enough to make me a pain in the butt.  However, I have never run on to anybody who really believed the things that you have said about God or the Bible in the last few days; maybe one or two things, scattered here and there, but not a blanket approach like yours.  If you believe them, and I think you do, you should stay with them, but, it is not without sadness that I conclude that, you or I will never benefit from further effort.  God Bless, or if you prefer Good Luck


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Rhetorical question, right?
> 
> I do not believe you are playing games here, but in attempting to discuss these things with you, you might as well be.  I know I've been around for a good while, and I think I pay attention to what is around me, and I have been told, more than once, that I see enough to make me a pain in the butt.  However, I have never run on to anybody who really believed the things that you have said about God or the Bible in the last few days; maybe one or two things, scattered here and there, but not a blanket approach like yours.  If you believe them, and I think you do, you should stay with them, but, it is not without sadness that I conclude that, you or I will never benefit from further effort.  God Bless, or if you prefer Good Luck


It is a yes or no question but yet another question that eventually in all of the threads you participate in you ignore at various points along the way. 
Atlas asked you a question at least twice and you avoided it.
My question above I think is legitimate. 

Izzy throws out his claims and assertions and I pointed out that the contents of his bible refute what he is saying. I absolutely put it in different words because the same old same old gets old. Say the same differently and it gets noticed.
I try to cut to the chase and eliminate all the filler conversations that we have had on here hundreds of times already. I don't think my beliefs or non beliefs are any more drastic or radical than any other non believer. It may just be that you bow out of conversations before you hear similar from others.

If you disagree with what I say about your god or the bible then refute it. I am positive that I try to back what up I say with examples. If an example isnt given here it is because I have provided previously elsewhere.
God Bless does not offend me, I know the intent.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> It is a yes or no question but yet another question that eventually in all of the threads you participate in you ignore at various points along the way.
> Atlas asked you a question at least twice and you avoided it.
> My question above I think is legitimate.
> 
> Izzy throws out his claims and assertions and I pointed out that the contents of his bible refute what he is saying. I absolutely put it in different words because the same old same old gets old. Say the same differently and it gets noticed.
> I try to cut to the chase and eliminate all the filler conversations that we have had on here hundreds of times already. I don't think my beliefs or non beliefs are any more drastic or radical than any other non believer. It may just be that you bow out of conversations before you hear similar from others.
> 
> If you disagree with what I say about your god or the bible then refute it. I am positive that I try to back what up I say with examples. If an example isnt given here it is because I have provided previously elsewhere.
> God Bless does not offend me, I know the intent.



It is not a yes or no question.

Atlas ask a question to which I responded with several points.  He rejected my response and proceeded to insist that I respond to his refusal while mischaracterizing at least one of my points.  "I do as I please" is what you taught me. 

You know the difference between literal and literary but "You do as you please".  Why should I explain to a grown man that God does not have hands?

Now continue with you Caricaturing activities without my assistance.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> It is not a yes or no question.
> 
> Atlas ask a question to which I responded with several points.  He rejected my response and proceeded to insist that I respond to his refusal while mischaracterizing at least one of my points.  "I do as I please" is what you taught me.
> 
> You know the difference between literal and literary but "You do as you please".  Why should I explain to a grown man that God does not have hands?
> 
> Now continue with you Caricaturing activities without my assistance.



It was a yes or no question, only more than that if you feel you need to add extra excuses.

I never knew a grown man (or anyone) to know that a god didn't have hands. Who cares about the hands, I am more interested in hearing how you know what a god does or does not have.

You act as if "we" know not just of a god but actually believe in the god you worship and we purposely fight the power just to be argumentative. 
No two believers versions of your god are exactly the same, no beliefs are exactly the same, no believer has ever seen or conversed with a god of any sort and yet those same believers all have it figured out and expect the non believers to conform to their individual beliefs.

Will chat with you again when you chime in another thread down the road because you think we have forgotten about this one. 
No Mas Amigo


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> No thing is beyond reason. Not even the gods. They either exist or they do not. The Bible makes testable claims that if true would provide reasonable evidence of the existence of the biblical god. When put to the test they don’t hold true. That in itself is evidence that can be used to reach reasonable conclusions. So is the attempt to exempt the question of the existence of any gods from the application of reason. That’s only necessary for those who have a vested interest in not having reason applied.




Everything is beyond man's reason.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Everything is beyond man's reason.



That sounds like Post Modern Nihilism.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> Everything is beyond man's reason.



How would you know?


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> It is not a yes or no question.
> 
> Atlas ask a question to which I responded with several points.  He rejected my response and proceeded to insist that I respond to his refusal while mischaracterizing at least one of my points.  "I do as I please" is what you taught me.
> 
> You know the difference between literal and literary but "You do as you please".  Why should I explain to a grown man that God does not have hands?
> 
> Now continue with you Caricaturing activities without my assistance.



Which post was that? I asked a very simple question which you’ve repeatedly avoided answering first by claiming it too complicated to answer absent a 20,000 word response and then by just ignoring it. A question that should be quite easy for you or any other believer to answer. But apparently isn’t...


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> How would you know?


I'm a believer.

I believe you.


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> Which post was that? I asked a very simple question which you’ve repeatedly avoided answering first by claiming it too complicated to answer absent a 20,000 word response and then by just ignoring it. A question that should be quite easy for you or any other believer to answer. But apparently isn’t...



Dear Heavenly Father,

Thank You for the lesson of the myth.

Amen


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> I think you are avoiding the question which is simple. Doesn’t take 20,000 words to say whether you think Asherah is just as real as El and on what basis you think it. That’s simple. Don’t avoid it by calling it complicated.





atlashunter said:


> ^Still unanswered.





hummerpoo said:


> Dear Heavenly Father,
> 
> Thank You for the lesson of the myth.
> 
> Amen


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> Dear Heavenly Father,
> 
> Thank You for the lesson of the myth.
> 
> Amen



I think what he means that they're ALL real, Ashera and El et ALL the rest.  The "myth" is that they're not the same guy.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


>


From what I glean from you post, I think your research methodology reveals a great deal, and probably far beyond this.  You look at about 25% of one side of the available data, then shrug your shoulders; which takes us right back to #257


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> I think what he means that they're ALL real, Ashera and El et ALL the rest.  The "myth" is that they're not the same guy.



Nope, but your post shows that you are paying attention, which is refreshing.


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> Nope, but your post shows that you are paying attention, which is refreshing.



I feel like this poor guy who thinks he understands the cryptic and conflicting message given to him.






Just for clarification, do you find it refreshing that I'm paying attention NOW, as if I hadn't been paying attention before?


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> I feel like this poor guy who thinks he understands the cryptic and conflicting message given to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for clarification, do you find it refreshing that I'm paying attention NOW, as if I hadn't been paying attention before?



Why be cryptic? The question is simple. Asherah and El are either real or they aren’t. If he thinks they are both real I would like to know why. If he thinks one is real and the other isn’t I would like to know why. If someone asked me why I thought Elvis was real and Santa wasn’t I could easily answer that. There would be no need for all the evasion of the question we are seeing here.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> I feel like this poor guy who thinks he understands the cryptic and conflicting message given to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for clarification, do you find it refreshing that I'm paying attention NOW, as if I hadn't been paying attention before?



I don't see a cryptic or conflicting message at all.
And I feel like Edward Norton running out of the room covering his ears and/or tearing at his hair because the ancillary premise is totally dominating the minds of those around him while, even in shouting, he can't move them on to the main point.

No, your post shows that you have been paying attention at least from Atlas's inquiry.  Darn, I wish you hadn't ask, I just realized that there is not an indication, that I see, that you have considered anything prior to that point.  Hope I'm wrong about that.  Either way, it's good that not everything has been ignored.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> I'm a believer.
> 
> I believe you.



The irony is you owe your life to reason and sit there posting everything is beyond man’s reason from a device and over a network that only exists because of man’s reason.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> I don't see a cryptic or conflicting message at all.
> And I feel like Edward Norton running out of the room covering his ears and/or tearing at his hair because the ancillary premise is totally dominating the minds of those around him while, even in shouting, he can't move them on to the main point.
> 
> No, your post shows that you have been paying attention at least from Atlas's inquiry.  Darn, I wish you hadn't ask, I just realized that there is not an indication, that I see, that you have considered anything prior to that point.  Hope I'm wrong about that.  Either way, it's good that not everything has been ignored.



Just to point out the obvious... you still have not said whether or not you believe Asherah is a real deity or explained why you would think either Asherah or El is real. The first believers in El were polytheists who also believed in other gods. On what evidence does one discard some of their gods but not all of them?


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> Dear Heavenly Father,
> 
> Thank You for the lesson of the myth.
> 
> Amen



You came here complaining of snide responses that don’t move the conversation forward. Yet this is how you respond to a legit question.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> From what I glean from you post, I think your research methodology reveals a great deal, and probably far beyond this.  You look at about 25% of one side of the available data, then shrug your shoulders; which takes us right back to #257


I'm 100% sure your gleanAbility isn't what it should be.


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> ... What differentiates your beliefs from the beliefs of others that you recognize as superstition?





hummerpoo said:


> ..., I can't think of any. ...





bullethead said:


> … Differentiating beliefs is admittedly tough above.





hummerpoo said:


> No, because I recognize no beliefs as "superstition",   as I recognize all as under the providence of God.





> ...as I recognize all as under the providence of God.


Ignored


hummerpoo said:


> ...I think that a really smart guy (not me) could easily produce 20,000 words responding to your post. ...



Variously misrepresented
from


atlashunter said:


> … Doesn’t take 20,000 words to say whether you think Asherah is just as real as El and on what basis you think it. ...



I had already said that all fall under the providence of God


atlashunter said:


> ... by claiming it too complicated to answer absent a 20,000 word response ...



funny how the misrepresentation grew, like it was going to become more believable.


Back to the top, sorta:



hummerpoo said:


> No, because I recognize no beliefs as "superstition",   as I recognize all as under the providence of God.





hummerpoo said:


> I think you are complicating the thing more than is necessary to grasp what I'm saying.
> 
> I suspect that you are mixing your issues. ...



Mixing issues can be read as "throwing in a Red Herring".  The main point is that I recognize (not you recognize, or you should recognize, but) I recognize the providence of God in all.  Going into analyze/tear down or convince me that when I say "all" I do not mean all, while ignoring that I had said it, is a Red Herring
.



hummerpoo said:


> … I think I probably wont take the 2 to 3 hours it would take me to produce a response that I was satisfied with. ...



Ignored, and, after the misrepresentation in #368, the word "probably" was no longer applicable.



atlashunter said:


> You came here complaining of snide responses that don’t move the conversation forward. Yet this is how you respond to a legit question.




A pair of D-11 Cats in tandem couldn't move the conversation forward.

The "lesson of the myth" is that the same kind of misrepresentations took place in the previous discussion (i.e. myth is not baseless) and I explained why they were misrepresentations.  And now I've done nearly the same again ... that's on me.

"Legit question" — see above.

 If someone were to objectively review the discussion from #257 forward I'm confident that they will find other items, both supporting and opposing what I have said.  But if they did that, they will have put forth the effort required to actually have an opinion of their own.

Now, I think I'll go see if I can find Ed Norton and buy him a cold beverage.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I'm 100% sure your gleanAbility isn't what it should be.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Ignored
> 
> 
> Variously misrepresented
> from
> 
> 
> I had already said that all fall under the providence of God
> 
> 
> funny how the misrepresentation grew, like it was going to become more believable.
> 
> 
> Back to the top, sorta:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mixing issues can be read as "throwing in a Red Herring".  The main point is that I recognize (not you recognize, or you should recognize, but) I recognize the providence of God in all.  Going into analyze/tear down or convince me that when I say "all" I do not mean all, while ignoring that I had said it, is a Red Herring
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Ignored, and, after the misrepresentation in #368, the word "probably" was no longer applicable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pair of D-11 Cats in tandem couldn't move the conversation forward.
> 
> The "lesson of the myth" is that the same kind of misrepresentations took place in the previous discussion (i.e. myth is not baseless) and I explained why they were misrepresentations.  And now I've done nearly the same again ... that's on me.
> 
> "Legit question" — see above.
> 
> If someone were to objectively review the discussion from #257 forward I'm confident that they will find other items, both supporting and opposing what I have said.  But if they did that, they will have put forth the effort required to actually have an opinion of their own.
> 
> Now, I think I'll go see if I can find Ed Norton and buy him a cold beverage.


Which part is Apologetic?


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


>


Hummerpoo, can you suggest how I should view this? Objectively(ie: as You see it)? Or Non Objectively (ie: as everyone else sees it)?
I just don't know what to do without guidance..


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Which part is Apologetic?


My post that you quoted? None.  If that ship was in port, it had already sailed.


----------



## atlashunter

Saying “all is under the providence of god” is a dodge of the question. I didn’t ask you what you consider under god. I asked if you consider Asherah as real as El. You still have not said if you believe Asherah is real or myth. Why is that so difficult for you? You said you don’t recognize any beliefs as superstitions. Does that mean you consider belief in Asherah just as credible as belief in El? If so, why? If not, why not?

The red herring is that you would rather answer a question I didn’t ask than the one I did. You are trying to muddy the waters but in spite of your best efforts it isn’t working. The question. The very simple question that I’ve repeatedly posed, remains unanswered.

Here it is yet again.

Do you believe Asherah is as real as El? Why or why not?

I want to know what evidence makes your belief in El any more credible than those ancient peoples who believed not only in El but many other deities. What convinces you they got it wrong on every god except the one you were taught to believe in?


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Hummerpoo, can you suggest how I should view this? Objectively(ie: as You see it)? Or Non Objectively (ie: as everyone else sees it)?
> I just don't know what to do without guidance..



You got me on that one. The same thing crossed my mind as soon as the word hit the screen.  
>>>edit<<< I deleted most of what I posted earlier because I did every bit as bad a job as I thought I would do.  Maybe, as neutral as we can do is it.
BTW - objective, and as I see it are not the same thing.  I'm seldom happy with my attempts to slide over in that direction.


----------



## Spotlite

hummerpoo said:


> Dear Heavenly Father,
> 
> Thank You for the lesson of the myth.
> 
> Amen


Their question is mirrored to the one I asked that they can’t provide a yes or no answer to. Basically, which myth is more mythical? They’re not 100% about one, although they supposedly took him one god further.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Their question is mirrored to the one I asked that they can’t provide a yes or no answer to. Basically, which myth is more mythical? They’re not 100% about one, although they supposedly took him one god further.



They are all equally mythical.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> They are all equally mythical.


Great. If they’re all equal - then you’re not 100% positive about any of them. I believe you once said something along the lines of just a “small minuscule chance” about the one God you took further.

I’m good with that, at least that’s better than the 20,000 word explanation of being impossible to know everything without actually taking a stance.

I will give you my answer about why I think mine is more real - it’s simple, I believe he is. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong.


----------



## atlashunter

There's as much evidence that Yahweh exist as there is that Poseidon and Zeus exists, which is to say none whatsoever. It's possible any or all of them could exist. Maybe you find it encouraging that a nonbeliever acknowledges that. But that's only because we don't see the same gap between possibility and probability.


----------



## Israel

Everything is..........(just is...no _reason_ for it; or _to it_, at least in one view).........


Big Bang, the "something happens" (postulated, but that's ok).......................


Lotsa stuff happens  (stuff spreads, stuff comes together, hot stuff cools, etc etc...)..................................................stuff still happening..............(but all, in one view, "without reason")

Planets are, stars are, space is, and whatever else (and here is where, if there be "sides" both sides agree...man is not seen...yet)....and then.................


Man is. Man appears.
And then in man,_ reason_ appears. Man's reason. At least as man states. (Though he rarely calls it "man's reason"...most usually...just "reason")

It matters not at all as to time or distances, or distances in time, or steps to or from one thing to another; whether man considers them large, small, immeasurable, comprehend-able or incomprehensible...man "was" not (reason was not)...and then is.


The "everything" that is, was, and will be....is....whether long, short, interminably long or infinitesimally small in distance from man...is apart, and was apart, and will be apart from man's reason. It matters not at all to which direction you "direct" time...what seems past, what seems future....the everything that is....is as distantly apart from man's reason in at least one direction, though I contend all, as ever it could be. In interminable past (of things)....man was not, man's reason...was not. Yet everything...is.


Now, as to whether one wants to postulate _reason_ as less than a "thing", less than a reality of _some substance _(and let's be honest brokers...I hear it's not only a "thing" but a thing being touted to which even I myself "owe everything") then it is a thing that did (according to some) once not exist....and then now does.

And I believe I hear (from many of the touters) "We are not saying everything (or anything) came from nothing" Do I not? "We can say the everything that everything is...just always was." Turtles all the way down...

Well, that's fine if you include "reason" as always "was" also...unless you can concede it has otherwise come from nothing. Appearing in _an everything_ that once "never had it".

You will either concede reason is in or to everything, always was, always will be, regardless of man's presence...and "his reason"...or it's just not a thing...not a real thing...not a thing _of substance._


I'll gladly share this view with any that care to, the potential for reason is "at the beginning" when everything that is everything is/was as we see (or may only imagine we see) it.

And Jesus Christ is sent, to speak reason into what has the potential for it.


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> Saying “all is under the providence of god” is a dodge of the question. I didn’t ask you what you consider under god. I asked if you consider Asherah as real as El. You still have not said if you believe Asherah is real or myth. Why is that so difficult for you? You said you don’t recognize any beliefs as superstitions. Does that mean you consider belief in Asherah just as credible as belief in El? If so, why? If not, why not?
> 
> The red herring is that you would rather answer a question I didn’t ask than the one I did. You are trying to muddy the waters but in spite of your best efforts it isn’t working. The question. The very simple question that I’ve repeatedly posed, remains unanswered.
> 
> Here it is yet again.
> 
> Do you believe Asherah is as real as El? Why or why not?
> 
> I want to know what evidence makes your belief in El any more credible than those ancient peoples who believed not only in El but many other deities. What convinces you they got it wrong on every god except the one you were taught to believe in?



That is really funny, you have already proven that you won't accept an answer [as truthful] unless it agrees with what you were taught and then rejected.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Their question is mirrored to the one I asked that they can’t provide a yes or no answer to. Basically, which myth is more mythical? They’re not 100% about one, although they supposedly took him one god further.


Spotlite, I see you are back still clinging to your old question which HAS been answered.
We are 100% sure about one(yours). And we are 100% sure about all the other known gods that exist only through man's saying so.
What we consistently said is that we are open to contact from anything (god, beast or boogeyman) that may exist that we have never heard of.

Even though you continue to misrepresent what was actually said multiple times, it does not change it to suit you.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Their question is mirrored to the one I asked that they can’t provide a yes or no answer to. Basically, which myth is more mythical? They’re not 100% about one, although they supposedly took him one god further.





> Basically, which myth is more mythical?


Something is either a myth or it is not a myth.
There is no "more mythical" or  "less mythical".


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Does that mean that every unimaginable thing must exist just because, or only the ones that you like?


Though that may not be _The_ question, it is certainly an excellent one.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Though that may not be _The_ question, it is certainly an excellent one.


If only a half decent answer that directly addresses the question would ever follow...


----------



## 660griz

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Isn't that a strange command coming from the 'only' God? Almost like the writers were trying to monopolize the Gods. They must have known the human inclination to invent gods.
Or, God is admitting there are other gods but, they are not as awesome as he.


----------



## hummerpoo

660griz said:


> "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."
> Isn't that a strange command coming from the 'only' God? Almost like the writers were trying to monopolize the Gods. They must have known the human inclination to invent gods.
> Or, God is admitting there are other gods but, they are not as awesome as he.


Did you write your own translation?  I looked at 54 English translations and found gods capitalized only in the YLT where the translation is completely different and the sentence is declarative rather than imperative.


----------



## bullethead

*Exodus 20:3-11 King James Version (KJV)*
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lordthy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;


Bible gateway has many english translations that include godS


----------



## bullethead

Bible hub also..

https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-3.htm


----------



## hummerpoo

660griz said:


> "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."
> Isn't that a strange command coming from the 'only' God? Almost like the writers were trying to monopolize the Gods. They must have known the human inclination to invent gods.
> Or, God is admitting there are other gods but, they are not as awesome as he.





hummerpoo said:


> Did you write your own translation?  I looked at 54 English translations and found gods capitalized only in the YLT where the translation is completely different and the sentence is declarative rather than imperative.





bullethead said:


> *Exodus 20:3-11 King James Version (KJV)*
> 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> 
> 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
> 
> 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lordthy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
> 
> 
> Bible gateway has many english translations that include godS


----------



## hummerpoo

It's no wonder that I am burdened by the time spent here; everything has to be done at least twice.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."
> Isn't that a strange command coming from the 'only' God? Almost like the writers were trying to monopolize the Gods. They must have known the human inclination to invent gods.
> Or, God is admitting there are other gods but, they are not as awesome as he.



For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us _there is but_ one God, the Father, of whom _are_ all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom _are_ all things, and we by him.

Each man is in placement. We only declare the resolution to any who are not satisfied with theirs. Or, by God's grace (as in all) may become so.


----------



## hummerpoo

Which makes me realize that I probably need to make clear that the reason for pointing out the error is the caricaturizing effect of "Gods" being substituted for "gods"


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> It's no wonder that I am burdened by the time spent here; everything has to be done at least twice.


More then that if you ever take the time to explain it and back it up with examples.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> More then that if you ever take the time to explain it and back it up with examples.


Are you saying that I need to explain the above even further, or are you just throwing out your cliché.


----------



## WaltL1

*God (capitalization)*
*God *is capitalized when it functions as a name. In this use, _God _is a proper noun like any other name and does not take a definite or indefinite article. But in phrases like _the Biblical god_ and _a forgiving god_, which do have articles, there’s no need to capitalize _god_ because it is a common noun rather than a name—yet many religiously inclined writers still capitalize the word in these instances.
When the noun _god _is used generically, especially in reference to a non-Biblical god, it is not capitalized.

English speakers also traditionally capitalize the pronoun _He _in reference to God. This remains a common practice among people of faith, but it is by no means obligatory.

In phrases like _for God’s sake_, _by God_, and _thank God_, the word is capitalized because it generally refers to the god of the Bible and treats the word as a name.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Are you saying that I need to explain the above even further, or are you just throwing out your cliché.


So you are saying the capitalization is the difference, not that the "s" on the end of "god" makes it plural....

Maybe it was exclamatory


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> So you are saying the capitalization is the difference, not that the "s" on the end of "god" makes it plural....
> 
> Maybe it was exclamatory



You have got to be jerking my chain!


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Something is either a myth or it is not a myth.
> There is no "more mythical" or  "less mythical".


And I would agree. And there’s no “more real” or “less real”, either.  The non believer requires tangible evidence as proof of something that’s clearly faith based, everything written, either true or false says it’s faith based. Why is there a need to require something different than the story? 

If they could ever get “self” out of the way, God wouldn’t hide from them. He’s not a yo-yo or a stick horse that you drive when, where, or how you choose. And, it’s ok not to believe in him, but failure to find him or the evidence you require is not ever the proof that eliminates his existence. 

It’s obvious that we’ve all eliminated the others, the A/A”s claim to have taken it one God further - since they’re always compared as equal. I only wanted to see if the A/A’s are not 100% positive about any myth, or if they actually took it one god further as claimed.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> And I would agree. And there’s no “more real” or “less real”, either.  The non believer requires tangible evidence as proof of something that’s clearly faith based, everything written, either true or false says it’s faith based. Why is there a need to require something different than the story?
> 
> If they could ever get “self” out of the way, God wouldn’t hide from them. He’s not a yo-yo or a stick horse that you drive when, where, or how you choose. And, it’s ok not to believe in him, but failure to find him or the evidence you require is not ever the proof that eliminates his existence.
> 
> It’s obvious that we’ve all eliminated the others, the A/A”s claim to have taken it one God further - since they’re always compared as equal. I only wanted to see if the A/A’s are not 100% positive about any myth, or if they actually took it one god further as claimed.


And that has been answered 6 to 12 already.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, I see you are back still clinging to your old question which HAS been answered.
> We are 100% sure about one(yours). And we are 100% sure about all the other known gods that exist only through man's saying so.
> What we consistently said is that we are open to contact from anything (god, beast or boogeyman) that may exist that we have never heard of.
> 
> Even though you continue to misrepresent what was actually said multiple times, it does not change it to suit you.


Just saying hello bullet. I said I would if I logged back in. Might do it again, who knows lol. Definitely not getting bogged down. 

You can explain it away all you want, but more times than one you’ve not been able to say you are absolutely 100% positive that God does not exist. If you were, you wouldn’t be here to see if you missed anything - another one of your past statements of why you ask questions here.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> You have got to be jerking my chain!



Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Explain what is meant by "gods" in that translation and in all of the others that have it translated that way.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> And that has been answered 6 to 12 already.


I would then suggest to stop answering.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Just saying hello bullet. I said I would if I logged back in. Might do it again, who knows lol. Definitely not getting bogged down.
> 
> You can explain it away all you want, but more times than one you’ve not been able to say you are absolutely 100% positive that God does not exist. If you were, you wouldn’t be here to see if you missed anything - another one of your past statements of why you ask questions here.


No spotlite, I have clarified my stance on your god many times.
I am here looking for evidence and discussion.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I would then suggest to stop answering.


You seem to keep missing the answers that are available to you, because if not you are intentionally misrepresenting them to further your claims.
I feel that I should help you when needed


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> And I would agree. And there’s no “more real” or “less real”, either.  The non believer requires tangible evidence as proof of something that’s clearly faith based, everything written, either true or false says it’s faith based. Why is there a need to require something different than the story?
> 
> If they could ever get “self” out of the way, God wouldn’t hide from them. He’s not a yo-yo or a stick horse that you drive when, where, or how you choose. And, it’s ok not to believe in him, but failure to find him or the evidence you require is not ever the proof that eliminates his existence.
> 
> It’s obvious that we’ve all eliminated the others, the A/A”s claim to have taken it one God further - since they’re always compared as equal. I only wanted to see if the A/A’s are not 100% positive about any myth, or if they actually took it one god further as claimed.





> The non believer requires tangible evidence as proof of something that’s clearly faith based, everything written, either true or false says it’s faith based.


Because, in general, Christians don't leave it at "faith based".
They claim God IS real, pass laws as though God IS real, reject other religions because God IS the top dog, feel God should be taught in public schools because God IS real..........


> Why is there a need to require something different than the story?


Because stories arent necessarily true.


> If they could ever get “self” out of the way, God wouldn’t hide from them.


In other words, "If you would just believe, you would believe".


> since they’re always compared as equal


No god, any of them, has been proven to exist. In that they are "equal".
Only the stories/claims/beliefs of their followers attempt to make them not equal.
Example - the one True god.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> 
> Explain what is meant by "gods" in that translation and in all of the others that have it translated that way.



First, as responded to, it's in quotes.
It is not identified as a quote from a specific source.
It is commonly known as one of the "ten commandments" and is therefore being presented a scriptural quotation.
No translation renders it in that way.
It is a falsehood, and if done with intent, would properly be characterized as a lie.
The effect of the falsehood is to elevate gods to an equivalency with God; which creates a caricature for which there is no supported scripture or any interpreter of scripture of which I am aware.

Answers to your question are readily available from hundreds of sources.  If you don't read at least three, of more than 1/3 page length, your not looking for understanding. If you are trying to get at any particular anomalous point that I might make, you can go back to #356 where I made that clear, before the heavy fish smell fogged things up.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> That is really funny, you have already proven that you won't accept an answer [as truthful] unless it agrees with what you were taught and then rejected.



You never offered an answer. You just tried to pass off an answer to a different question.

Here it is again.

Is Asherah a real god or a myth? Is El a real god or a myth? What evidence supports your answers to those questions?

You come here complaining about your god of choice being called a myth yet you dare not even call other deities myths or make an attempt to show there is any more evidence to support yours than any other.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> First, as responded to, it's in quotes.
> It is not identified as a quote from a specific source.
> It is commonly known as one of the "ten commandments" and is therefore being presented a scriptural quotation.
> No translation renders it in that way.
> It is a falsehood, and if done with intent, would properly be characterized as a lie.
> The effect of the falsehood is to elevate gods to an equivalency with God; which creates a caricature for which there is no supported scripture or any interpreter of scripture of which I am aware.
> 
> Answers to your question are readily available from hundreds of sources.  If you don't read at least three, of more than 1/3 page length, your not looking for understanding. If you are trying to get at any particular anomalous point that I might make, you can go back to #356 where I made that clear, before the heavy fish smell fogged things up.



Who is that verse referring to when it refers to gods? Whether they are viewed as gods on the same level as El is irrelevant. The point is that there were other gods being worshipped and this scriptures gives recognition to those gods.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> First, as responded to, it's in quotes.
> It is not identified as a quote from a specific source.
> It is commonly known as one of the "ten commandments" and is therefore being presented a scriptural quotation.
> No translation renders it in that way.
> It is a falsehood, and if done with intent, would properly be characterized as a lie.
> The effect of the falsehood is to elevate gods to an equivalency with God; which creates a caricature for which there is no supported scripture or any interpreter of scripture of which I am aware.
> 
> Answers to your question are readily available from hundreds of sources.  If you don't read at least three, of more than 1/3 page length, your not looking for understanding. If you are trying to get at any particular anomalous point that I might make, you can go back to #356 where I made that clear, before the heavy fish smell fogged things up.



https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-3.htm
23 out of 27 translate it to be *gods*


----------



## bullethead

Genesis 1:26
Let US make man in OUR image..

Who's image is that?
Another mistranslation that us translated just like that in many translations?
Does OUR image include hands?

Us and Our, whose else was making humans?


----------



## bullethead

Us and Our


Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth,” (Gen. 1:26, NASB).
"Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," (Gen. 3:22, NASB).
“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech,” (Gen. 11:7, NASB).
"Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” (Isaiah 6:8, NASB)


----------



## atlashunter

That biblical reference to other gods isn’t even the most damaging.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/faith...aughters-of-god-in-the-hebrew-bible-part-iii/


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> First, as responded to, it's in quotes.
> It is not identified as a quote from a specific source.
> It is commonly known as one of the "ten commandments" and is therefore being presented a scriptural quotation.
> No translation renders it in that way.
> It is a falsehood, and if done with intent, would properly be characterized as a lie.
> The effect of the falsehood is to elevate gods to an equivalency with God; which creates a caricature for which there is no supported scripture or any interpreter of scripture of which I am aware.
> 
> Answers to your question are readily available from hundreds of sources.  If you don't read at least three, of more than 1/3 page length, your not looking for understanding. If you are trying to get at any particular anomalous point that I might make, you can go back to #356 where I made that clear, before the heavy fish smell fogged things up.


I thought maybe you were a source that would explain how you know, and then provide additional sources that back up you up.
Hundreds of sources.....like:


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> That biblical reference to other gods isn’t even the most damaging.
> 
> https://www.patheos.com/blogs/faith...aughters-of-god-in-the-hebrew-bible-part-iii/


Yes, in Hebrew history they worshiped many gods. 
Eventually the story came about that One of those gods decided that it would be the god of the Hebrew people. It was their god. They were to worship that particular god only. That god made those people as it's own personal tribe, race, people.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Yes, in Hebrew history they worshiped many gods.
> Eventually the story came about that One of those gods decided that it would be the god of the Hebrew people. It was their god. They were to worship that particular god only. That god made those people as it's own personal tribe, race, people.



And of course their nation and their god was the greatest of all.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> And of course their nation and their god was the greatest of all.


Well, yeah! That's the #1 consistency among ALL the different believers in ALL the different religions.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Well, yeah! That's the #1 consistency among ALL the different believers in ALL the different religions.



I would be more impressed if they had said something like they were somewhere in the middle of the pack of the seventy nations and gods. Seems just a bit suspicious that everyone claims to hold the number one spot. It’s almost as if they just made it up.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> And of course their nation and their god was the greatest of all.



Which was proved time and time again to them when they would go after other gods.

Have you ever once considered why a people's "Holy" book would be so scrupulously attentive to including all of their own foibles, errors, sins, treacheries and even blasphemies against the God they nevertheless purport; with such great care as to not omit any story or history of self indictment and disobedience?

If you want to accuse the scribes of being phantasmagorical in imagination, at least be honest enough in any accusation of their deception (you who seem to know so much of man's predilection to preference...except of course, your own) that concomitant with that (if you do truly have any self awareness, at all) comes no less the preference of presenting one's self in the "better light". As in "more intelligent"...or "always honest".

But really,  how could I be amazed at such density...knowing what I know of myself?


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> I would be more impressed if they had said something like they were somewhere in the middle of the pack of the seventy nations and gods. Seems just a bit suspicious that everyone claims to hold the number one spot. It’s almost as if they just made it up.


Made it up!?!?
Nooooo
See, it says it right here in this book written by men who worshipped him that he is A#1 and backed up elsewhere in the same book.....ohhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Which was proved time and time again to them when they would go after other gods.
> 
> Have you ever once considered why a people's "Holy" book would be so scrupulously attentive to including all of their own foibles, errors, sins, treacheries and even blasphemies against the God they nevertheless purport; with such great care as to not omit any story or history of self indictment?
> 
> If you want to accuse the scribes of being phantasmagorical in imagination, at least be honest enough in any accusation of their deception (you who seem to know so much of man's predilection to preference...except of course, your own) that concomitant with that (if you do truly have any self awareness, at all) comes no less the preference of presenting one's self in the "better light". As in "more intelligent"...or "always honest".
> 
> But really,  how could I be amazed at such density...knowing what I know of myself?


Like when they got sick of one god and had to invent a Mini Me version to include the non Jews ?

The contents of the bible was compiled over 1500 years. It includes those foibles etc because that was the best they had. There are no originals to compare to so we have no idea what differs, what was changed, included, or omitted. 
Do you think think it would include the writings of all the other gods that were being worshiped and written about also?
The Jews always had multiple gods and the worship and writings about those gods went on the same time this god was being worshiped and written about.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> Which was proved time and time again to them when they would go after other gods.
> 
> Have you ever once considered why a people's "Holy" book would be so scrupulously attentive to including all of their own foibles, errors, sins, treacheries and even blasphemies against the God they nevertheless purport; with such great care as to not omit any story or history of self indictment and disobedience?
> 
> If you want to accuse the scribes of being phantasmagorical in imagination, at least be honest enough in any accusation of their deception (you who seem to know so much of man's predilection to preference...except of course, your own) that concomitant with that (if you do truly have any self awareness, at all) comes no less the preference of presenting one's self in the "better light". As in "more intelligent"...or "always honest".
> 
> But really,  how could I be amazed at such density...knowing what I know of myself?



If only that were the case. We have ample evidence of attempts by scribes to cover up or alter the history of judaisms polytheistic origins. What I find funny is the very people who rail against evolution follow a religion that itself evolved and we can still find the vestigial structures of that evolution in their religious texts.


----------



## atlashunter

And should we find it in the least surprising that religious men would use their nations hardships for their own selfish reasons? Not in the least.


----------



## atlashunter

If the rise and fall of nations serves as evidence of the credibility of their gods what are we to make of the fact the Roman Empire arose under pagan gods and fell under the Christian god?


----------



## 660griz

hummerpoo said:


> Did you write your own translation?  I looked at 54 English translations and found gods capitalized only in the YLT where the translation is completely different and the sentence is declarative rather than imperative.


So sorry about that. I was just typing and sometimes I capitalize out of reflex.
I really didn't think it would prevent an answer and off we go on another tangent. Got to say, I didn't expect it but, I am not Surprised.
I did state it was a commandment though.

I fixed it. Ready for any other grammar, punctuation, or other distraction to come. Any comments on my avatar, signature...?


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Because, in general, Christians don't leave it at "faith based".
> They claim God IS real, pass laws as though God IS real, reject other religions because God IS the top dog, feel God should be taught in public schools because God IS real..........


Why is the school issue a problem on land where the Settlers, settled? Puritans felt it was necessary, along with everything else that we were settled on. I am not one that believes that what I think is sin or not needs a law to regulate it - no comment there.


> Because stories arent necessarily true.


While this is an accurate statement - the truthfulness of this story isn't relevant. The story itself is plain as to how to find the character in it. You cant change the requirements of that story.  


> In other words, "If you would just believe, you would believe".


That has as about the same affect as just believing in the constitution of marriage makes you married.


WaltL1 said:


> No god, any of them, has been proven to exist. In that they are "equal".
> Only the stories/claims/beliefs of their followers attempt to make them not equal.
> Example - the one True god.


Ok, I can buy that they are all equal in the fact that they have not been proven to exist to you, or any other that takes that stance. But, that in no way proves that none of them, one of them, or all of them exist / non-exist. But that has not been the focus. The focus is making them all equal except the surety of just the one.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-3.htm
> 23 out of 27 translate it to be *gods*


I'm unsure why you posted this, but if it adds anything for you the three that have "god" are dynamic equivalency (sometimes called paraphrase).  Nothing wrong with that if not used for serious study and the theological school of the interpreter is known up front.  Anyway, that explains the nonstandard sentence structure and choice of words.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Genesis 1:26
> Let US make man in OUR image..
> 
> Who's image is that?
> Another mistranslation that us translated just like that in many translations?
> Does OUR image include hands?
> 
> Us and Our, whose else was making humans?





bullethead said:


> Us and Our
> 
> 
> Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth,” (Gen. 1:26, NASB).
> "Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," (Gen. 3:22, NASB).
> “Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech,” (Gen. 11:7, NASB).
> "Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” (Isaiah 6:8, NASB)


We attempted The Problem of Evil, and on that trip found potholes, sinkholes, roadblock, and landslides, as well as having to battle the cross-traffic all the way.  I'm sure that nothing new would be found if we attempted The Trinity.

And I've got to get out of here for multiple reasons that are not going to wait forever.


----------



## Spineyman

Luke 5:30-32
30 But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 19:10
10For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> That biblical reference to other gods isn’t even the most damaging.
> 
> https://www.patheos.com/blogs/faith...aughters-of-god-in-the-hebrew-bible-part-iii/



Atheists love Textural Criticism.  It's probably the commonality of methodology.  First you establish rules of investigation that negate everything spiritual, then you tout the nonspiritual outcome of the investigation.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I thought maybe you were a source that would explain how you know, and then provide additional sources that back up you up.
> Hundreds of sources.....like:



That's not me, all I can do is point in a direction I have found fruitful.  I suppose I learned from those that I search out to learn from.  That makes me think of one book that I found very helpful.  The author devoted the first chapter, 30 pages if I remember correct, to explaining how he would be using 12-15 words that would be used throughout the text.  Then at the opening of chapter 3 he spent the first 1 1/2 pages explaining the way he would use another word in that chapter.  Both Hume and Kant published books that were not at first received well.  Each of them then publish another book to help their readers understand the first book (they approached their second books differently, but the idea was the same).  BTW, I'm not recommending those two guys; they are tough reading for me.  Of course, one can always read one of the umpteen books that tell you what you should think they said, but then you aren't really sure that your author isn't telling you what he wants you to believe.


----------



## hummerpoo

660griz said:


> So sorry about that. I was just typing and sometimes I capitalize out of reflex.
> I really didn't think it would prevent an answer and off we go on another tangent. Got to say, I didn't expect it but, I am not Surprised.
> I did state it was a commandment though.
> 
> I fixed it. Ready for any other grammar, punctuation, or other distraction to come. Any comments on my avatar, signature...?



Accuracy of expression is a distraction; I'll remember that.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I'm unsure why you posted this, but if it adds anything for you the three that have "god" are dynamic equivalency (sometimes called paraphrase).  Nothing wrong with that if not used for serious study and the theological school of the interpreter is known up front.  Anyway, that explains the nonstandard sentence structure and choice of words.


What is meant by the word gods in that verse?
The plural of god is used many times in the Bible. Your god refers to us and our. 
You can go scholastic on grammar&punctuation but you still have not explained what we are talking about.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> We attempted The Problem of Evil, and on that trip found potholes, sinkholes, roadblock, and landslides, as well as having to battle the cross-traffic all the way.  I'm sure that nothing new would be found if we attempted The Trinity.
> 
> And I've got to get out of here for multiple reasons that are not going to wait forever.


Agreed, adding another unprovable claim won't help.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> That's not me, all I can do is point in a direction I have found fruitful.  I suppose I learned from those that I search out to learn from.  That makes me think of one book that I found very helpful.  The author devoted the first chapter, 30 pages if I remember correct, to explaining how he would be using 12-15 words that would be used throughout the text.  Then at the opening of chapter 3 he spent the first 1 1/2 pages explaining the way he would use another word in that chapter.  Both Hume and Kant published books that were not at first received well.  Each of them then publish another book to help their readers understand the first book (they approached their second books differently, but the idea was the same).  BTW, I'm not recommending those two guys; they are tough reading for me.  Of course, one can always read one of the umpteen books that tell you what you should think they said, but then you aren't really sure that your author isn't telling you what he wants you to believe.


You told me about authors that you recommend I do not read, then mention umpteen books(none by name) that you say will leave the reader unsure.

I wanted to know a few of the hundreds if sources you know of from a few pages back.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> Atheists love Textural Criticism.  It's probably the commonality of methodology.  First you establish rules of investigation that negate everything spiritual, then you tout the nonspiritual outcome of the investigation.



Draw whatever theological conclusions you want of the alterations that have been made over time to the texts. Doesn’t change the fact they exist. Facts are stubborn things.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> Accuracy of expression is a distraction; I'll remember that.



If you really care about accuracy the Bible must really give you fits. Of course your nitpicking has far less to do with accuracy and much more to do with avoiding his point. Anything to avoid that. Squirrel!


----------



## atlashunter

There has been one believer who actually answered the question I asked and it wasn’t hummer. They were honest enough to not pretend their position was based on reason or evidence.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Accuracy of expression is a distraction; I'll remember that.


You know exactly what we mean and  exactly what we are talking about. But instead of answering us, you are grading papers. If you can pick out our mistakes and tell us how they should be corrected, then you know what we are asking and saying.


----------



## Israel

Philosophy, of itself, may seem a most useless thing to a man changing a tire in the rain.

Or when a man stops breathing in front of you and you immediately need to know your part in that matter. Or a person you are talking to in one moment suddenly rolls their eyes back in their head in the next and for you they have very much stopped "being there".

It's easy to think that there are just "some times" when life and death (even if it be physical life and death) are on the line and have some vague hope that if and when...or when you are found facing it, you acquit yourself in such a manner your conscience comes through unscathed.

I don't expect children to understand the above. I expect children to have so little concern of conscience in most everything that they are easily satisfied with colleagues, in whatever form in mind "men around them" take in their authority to relieve (or accuse)...to be their final adjudicator. This itself sounds so vainly philosophical to them, as to be coming from the place of ultimate impracticality. It appears so useless a preoccupation where all that seems of matter is...if you are able to convince (first yourself) then others, that you have "done the best you can", you'll be fine.

To children, only _some things _are of import. They really do believe (and I believe them)...some things _don't matter at all. _That some things are able to be suspended in a place of zero consequence in themselves, and only determined _by themselves_, while they themselves unknowingly pursue what to them rebounds as "good consequence" tirelessly. _In everything._ Relentlessly. Doggedly. Even, rabidly. Dear, and ignorant, children. Believing the doing of "A" leads to "B", thence to "C" to _my desired outcome_, inevitably. And practice only reinforces to them, as it will, and must, their mistaken sufficiency in understanding, and also likewise reinforces to them...some things can be held to no consequence at all...as I am yet able to (in this order _of mine) achieve. _No hindrance is yet adequately known. No _sufficient stumble _is yet experienced.

The seeing of children does not make one's self a man. Children may see other children even to an identifying in differentiation from what they see as men. And just as seeing children does not make them full grown, neither should seeing of man be mistaken for apprehension of what it means to be...a man. All it means is power of observation to a differentiation with no implication that "if I see a man I must therefore be a man". I see a man.

I see a man. I see a man casually described as squirrel. I know why children like to speak thus. It's king of the hill play. Do you think I am either not a child, nor ever have been? It's "I can yet hold something to zero consequence...without consequence".

But the man I see holds the knowledge of a stumbling. And in this even appears to some as stumbling, perhaps mumbling...and is far more easily accused of being devious...than seen. Because one has not yet experienced the stumbling in themselves. Their wings, to them, remain all intact, lovely, perfect. They love their _own image_. But, this man? Just too easy to deride, too easy to dismiss...why...it would almost be a crime...not to.

Such a man to me, speaks of things, and seeks to, from his understanding _honestly with a knowing _that is very easily and casually, and must be, dismissed by children...they are simply not made able to bear such knowing. It is the knowing that _all things are of consequence_ and this even to the things children spend promiscuously and in great incontinence...their own words. This man has learned that it is not "sometimes" life and death are on the line, but always present. Children of course, simply cannot appreciate or see his, or this discipline...or that to which he has made himself subject in the learning of it. To them, he is able to be called "squirrel" with no regard. Or squirrelly...or easily given to distraction or its employment deviously.

Now, just because I see a man...does not make me a man at all, I can still play "king of the hill" with the best of them...even if often losing...I can play. But one might be wise to consider when playing in the arena that is touted for the "more intelligent" that you don't run off one by deriding, or calling him a squirrel, a very one whose presence may be the _only thing_ that makes it so.

I see, and smell cheesiness, oh! yes I do!




Hey guys...is it always only "he who smelt it dealt it?"

When there are only two guys in the elevator, each absolutely knows who dealt it. But when the third walks in on the 4th floor...he'll see whether he's subject to subterfuge. And so will the one who dealt it...see who responds to subterfuge. I don't wonder why you guys hold so many side bars with one another to collectively judge a thing. And reinforce to one another, your standing in a matter. Or regard for a person. Hey, even some "so called" christians lap those dregs with fervor.

There's maybe one "of you" who's a little embarrassed to see it done and rarely will engage in what is nothing else than open gossip. Like women deciding about the clothes on a third...or tacky shoes...or whatever. Not unlike...mean girls...at all. I'm just a child, but I have seen a few things...wives really don't like it when they discover their man has brought another woman home. Or is the "other woman".

Edited at 0933.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> What is meant by the word gods in that verse?



I don't understand why you want this answer from me.  I have no particular insight, or any particular question of my own , on the verse; if I did that would be different. There are many others who are more extensive in their knowledge, articulate in their presentation, and are easily accessed.  If you would spend the time it takes me to answer, you could read several of them.  But, just because your such a nice guy, I'll take a shot at it, with no assurance that I'm going to put in the time it would take to provide a product I would consider my best effort
 "gods" refers to any thing "other" which is worshiped.  The sun god Ra would be one type, Pharaoh or pre-WW2 Japanese Emperors another, a carved wooden anteater another ?, ones ancestors another, and I'm sure there are a plethora of others of that species.  Hindu gods, Buddhist gods, etc. I think of as another species.  I can't remember the word for the mountain, river, tree, animal, etc. gods.  Less thought of, but in application, just as important, and common to most of us, but not identifiable outside of self is a class which might include, baseball, cars, fishing, money, titles, a political party, power (both true and imagined) and a whole host of others.  This class of things become a god when their importance becomes greater in ones life than God; they are worshiped (worth-ship).  So if your neighbor plays golf on Sunday morning, rather than going to church, has he broken the commandment.  How would I know, or you know, or any man know; it's not about how he spends his time, or where he goes, or what he does, it's about his heart; does he love God above all else, or does he worship something "other"?



> The plural of god is used many times in the Bible. Your god refers to us and our.



That can not but lead to Trinity, which we are not going to discuss.

​


> You can go scholastic on grammar&punctuation but you still have not explained what we are talking about.



Don't want to deny any impression you have; it's yours and I can't know it; but I don't see how an old, skinny, worn-out, redneck, country carpenter from Missouri "can go scholastic" on anything.  I use grammar & punctuation, often in violation of someone's rules, in an attempt to communicate as accurately as possible.  The results show that I am not good at it, but that is my intent.  I think people, with perhaps some exceptions, deserve the respect that I hope is reflected in my effort to be clear.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I don't understand why you want this answer from me.  I have no particular insight, or any particular question of my own , on the verse; if I did that would be different. There are many others who are more extensive in their knowledge, articulate in their presentation, and are easily accessed.  If you would spend the time it takes me to answer, you could read several of them.  But, just because your such a nice guy, I'll take a shot at it, with no assurance that I'm going to put in the time it would take to provide a product I would consider my best effort
> "gods" refers to any thing "other" which is worshiped.  The sun god Ra would be one type, Pharaoh or pre-WW2 Japanese Emperors another, a carved wooden anteater another ?, ones ancestors another, and I'm sure there are a plethora of others of that species.  Hindu gods, Buddhist gods, etc. I think of as another species.  I can't remember the word for the mountain, river, tree, animal, etc. gods.  Less thought of, but in application, just as important, and common to most of us, but not identifiable outside of self is a class which might include, baseball, cars, fishing, money, titles, a political party, power (both true and imagined) and a whole host of others.  This class of things become a god when their importance becomes greater in ones life than God; they are worshiped (worth-ship).  So if your neighbor plays golf on Sunday morning, rather than going to church, has he broken the commandment.  How would I know, or you know, or any man know; it's not about how he spends his time, or where he goes, or what he does, it's about his heart; does he love God above all else, or does he worship something "other"?


Very well explained and easily understood.
Thank you.

In your opinion, eliminating the worldly idols and earthly items that you describe above, could the bible verse in question be referring to other gods that live/exist/dwell in a realm beyond our universe? In short, is your god acknowledging other gods similar to him?





hummerpoo said:


> That can not but lead to Trinity, which we are not going to discuss.


It can lead to other than Trinity if you take the advice you give me and read up on all the other gods that the people who wrote the Torah also believed existed in addition to the god of Abraham. There is a reason he is called the god of Abraham.





hummerpoo said:


> Don't want to deny any impression you have; it's yours and I can't know it; but I don't see how an old, skinny, worn-out, redneck, country carpenter from Missouri "can go scholastic" on anything.  I use grammar & punctuation, often in violation of someone's rules, in an attempt to communicate as accurately as possible.  The results show that I am not good at it, but that is my intent.  I think people, with perhaps some exceptions, deserve the respect that I hope is reflected in my effort to be clear.


And your efforts are acknowledged and appreciated.  Unfortunately, and  I know I am guilty of it, with the way this site acts I try to get out what I am saying in short order to avoid having to lose a lengthy and properly spelled, punctuated, and capitalized reply.
I start short and expound upon as needed.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Philosophy, of itself, may seem a most useless thing to a man changing a tire in the rain.
> 
> Or when a man stops breathing in front of you and you immediately need to know your part in that matter. Or a person you are talking to in one moment suddenly rolls their eyes back in their head in the next and for you they have very much stopped "being there".


This is usually about the time in your posts where we realize that you are not addressing anything we are talking about and are going off on a tangent instead.
The eyes rolling back in our heads is unavoidable 



Israel said:


> It's easy to think that there are just "some times" when life and death (even if it be physical life and death) are on the line and have some vague hope that if and when...or when you are found facing it, you acquit yourself in such a manner your conscience comes through unscathed.
> 
> I don't expect children to understand the above. I expect children to have so little concern of conscience in most everything that they are easily satisfied with colleagues, in whatever form in mind "men around them" take in their authority to relieve (or accuse)...to be their final adjudicator. This itself sounds so vainly philosophical to them, as to be coming from the place of ultimate impracticality. It appears so useless a preoccupation where all that seems of matter is...if you are able to convince (first yourself) then others, that you have "done the best you can", you'll be fine.
> 
> To children, only _some things _are of import. They really do believe (and I believe them)...some things _don't matter at all. _That some things are able to be suspended in a place of zero consequence in themselves, and only determined _by themselves_, while they themselves unknowingly pursue what to them rebounds as "good consequence" tirelessly. _In everything._ Relentlessly. Doggedly. Even, rabidly. Dear, and ignorant, children. Believing the doing of "A" leads to "B", thence to "C" to _my desired outcome_, inevitably. And practice only reinforces to them, as it will, and must, their mistaken sufficiency in understanding, and also likewise reinforces to them...some things can be held to no consequence at all...as I am yet able to (in this order _of mine) achieve. _No hindrance is yet adequately known. No _sufficient stumble _is yet experienced.
> 
> The seeing of children does not make one's self a man. Children may see other children even to an identifying in differentiation from what they see as men. And just as seeing children does not make them full grown, neither should seeing of man be mistaken for apprehension of what it means to be...a man. All it means is power of observation to a differentiation with no implication that "if I see a man I must therefore be a man". I see a man.
> 
> I see a man. I see a man casually described as squirrel. I know why children like to speak thus. It's king of the hill play. Do you think I am either not a child, nor ever have been? It's "I can yet hold something to zero consequence...without consequence".
> 
> But the man I see holds the knowledge of a stumbling. And in this even appears to some as stumbling, perhaps mumbling...and is far more easily accused of being devious...than seen. Because one has not yet experienced the stumbling in themselves. Their wings, to them, remain all intact, lovely, perfect. They love their _own image_. But, this man? Just too easy to deride, too easy to dismiss...why...it would almost be a crime...not to.
> 
> Such a man to me, speaks of things, and seeks to, from his understanding _honestly with a knowing _that is very easily and casually, and must be, dismissed by children...they are simply not made able to bear such knowing. It is the knowing that _all things are of consequence_ and this even to the things children spend promiscuously and in great incontinence...their own words. This man has learned that it is not "sometimes" life and death are on the line, but always present. Children of course, simply cannot appreciate or see his, or this discipline...or that to which he has made himself subject in the learning of it. To them, he is able to be called "squirrel" with no regard.
> 
> Now, just because I see a man...does not make me a man at all, I can still play "king of the hill" with the best of them...even if often losing...I can play. But one might be wise to consider when playing in the arena that is touted for the "more intelligent" that you don't run off one by deriding, or calling him a squirrel, a very one whose presence may be the _only thing_ that makes it so.
> 
> I see, and smell cheesiness, oh! yes I do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys...is it always only "he who smelt it dealt it?"
> 
> When there are only two guys in the elevator, each absolutely knows who dealt it. But when the third walks in on the 4th floor...he'll see whether he's subject to subterfuge. And so will the one who dealt it...see who responds to subterfuge. I don't wonder why you guys hold so many side bars with one another to collectively judge a thing. And reinforce to one another, your standing in a matter. Or regard for a person.
> 
> There's maybe one "of you" who's a little embarrassed to see it done and rarely will engage in what is nothing else than open gossip. Like women deciding about the clothes on a third...or tacky shoes...or whatever. Not unlike...mean girls...at all. I'm just a child, but I have seen a few things...wives really don't like it when they discover their man has brought another woman home. Or is the "other woman".


So then, is that why words like gods, us and our are used in the bible?


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> You told me about authors that you recommend I do not read, then mention umpteen books(none by name) that you say will leave the reader unsure.




I am sorry.  I see that I said "I'm not recommending" and gave the reason which applies to my ability to comprehend them (that does not mean that you can't do much better).  I didn't know that you would take my "not recommending" to mean that I recommend that you "do not read".  As I have seen, and heard, "not recommending" I understood it be a neutral stance, neither encouraging or discouraging; although I do recall it being used as a threat similar to " if you do I'll xxx"  .  I failed in my effort to be clear.

As for the umpteen books; I don't know the names, I haven't read them.  It's not that I never read books *about* philosophers or theologians, but I shy away from them in preference to getting it from the original source.  Those umpteen are easily found by putting the subject authors name in the "keyword" search of any major book seller.  Such opinion pieces are probably available on line as well.



> I wanted to know a few of the hundreds if sources you know of from a few pages back.



As I recall that refered to something that is available in every, or nearly every, Bible Commentary, of which there are hundreds.  Why would you want one opinion when you have hundreds available at your fingertips.  I believe that was my point.  You can even tell them that they don't know what they are talking about, or that they give no consideration to x,y, or z.  I do it all the time.


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> Draw whatever theological conclusions you want of the alterations that have been made over time to the texts. Doesn’t change the fact they exist. Facts are stubborn things.



Sure the texts have changed over time, for a variety of reasons, some incidental and some nefarious.  But I fail to see how accurate conclusions can be arrived at when all spiritual considerations are ignored while working with texts written by spiritual men concerning spiritual subjects.  Makes no sense to this hillbilly.


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> If you really care about accuracy the Bible must really give you fits. Of course your nitpicking has far less to do with accuracy and much more to do with avoiding his point. Anything to avoid that. Squirrel!



I don't know what the point was, when I saw that it was based on error I read it but didn't pay attention to what I was reading.
Squirrel!  You should meet my Sweetie, she's the squirrel chaser.  She'll make you dizzy going over the grocery list.  If she were a squirrel dog she'd be down over the hill every time a leaf fell.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> You know exactly what we mean and  exactly what we are talking about. But instead of answering us, you are grading papers. If you can pick out our mistakes and tell us how they should be corrected, then you know what we are asking and saying.



* We are talking about the First Commandment of the Ten Commandments, you don't have to be a Bible student to know how it goes; what is it, 7 or 8 words.
*Didn't I tell you a couple day ago that I was a pain in the butt.
*Please quite asking me questions and tell me to go home.  I desperately need to do that anyway; and could be pushed to it at any time.

Oh, your last sentence is a non sequitur.


----------



## 660griz

hummerpoo said:


> Accuracy of expression is a distraction; I'll remember that.


You are not alone in your ease to distract.
The Expression was Clear. Especially when taken in context. OR, you could ask for clarification if you were confused. Or, you could answer considering both usage. Instead, you spout nonsense about making up my own translation. Seems like your goal is to avoid the discussion.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Very well explained and easily understood.
> Thank you.
> 
> In your opinion, eliminating the worldly idols and earthly items that you describe above, could the bible verse in question be referring to other gods that live/exist/dwell in a realm beyond our universe? In short, is your god acknowledging other gods similar to him?




No, that would contradict the whole.  "I AM WHO I AM”; “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’" and much, much more.





> It can lead to other than Trinity if you take the advice you give me and read up on all the other gods that the people who wrote the Torah also believed existed in addition to the god of Abraham. There is a reason he is called the god of Abraham.




That's not the physical author; your talking about his brother-in-law, and his neighbor down the street, and the guy who runs the fish market.






> And your efforts are acknowledged and appreciated.  Unfortunately, and  I know I am guilty of it, with the way this site acts I try to get out what I am saying in short order to avoid having to lose a lengthy and properly spelled, punctuated, and capitalized reply.
> I start short and expound upon as needed.



My method doesn't seem to avoid the "expound upon as needed".

I can't spend the rest of life expounding as needed, as this forum would require.


----------



## 660griz

hummerpoo said:


> Atheists love Textural Criticism.


Not sure what you are talking about. Seems way more prevalent in religious circles with biblical scholars.
"*Textual criticism is the discipline that guides scholars in establishing what the authors of the Bible wrote."*


----------



## hummerpoo

660griz said:


> Not sure what you are talking about. Seems way more prevalent in religious circles with biblical scholars.
> "*Textual criticism is the discipline that guides scholars in establishing what the authors of the Bible wrote."*


Go deeper.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> Sure the texts have changed over time, for a variety of reasons, some incidental and some nefarious.  But I fail to see how accurate conclusions can be arrived at when all spiritual considerations are ignored while working with texts written by spiritual men concerning spiritual subjects.  Makes no sense to this hillbilly.



Well I guess we would need a specific example to discuss. The one I linked to shows how Deuteronomy is different in the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls than in the later Masoretic text. It looks like a passage that described the nations of the world being divided among multiple gods was altered to hide the nod to polytheism from which your god originated. I’ll leave the spiritual conclusions to you. The conclusion I draw from the text is that the Hebrew god was once one of many gods these people believed were real and the Bible speaks of them as if they are real.


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> I don't know what the point was, when I saw that it was based on error I read it but didn't pay attention to what I was reading.
> Squirrel!  You should meet my Sweetie, she's the squirrel chaser.  She'll make you dizzy going over the grocery list.  If she were a squirrel dog she'd be down over the hill every time a leaf fell.



The point is the Bible attests to other gods. Funny that a single capitalization was enough to cause you to miss the point but you don’t have any problem with the many contradictions in the Bible.


----------



## atlashunter

“Sure the texts have changed over time, for a variety of reasons, some incidental and some nefarious.”

You say this so cavalierly. I’d like to know how you can reach accurate conclusions based on a text that no longer exists in original form. You read the KJV and treat it as if it is the authoritative message of the creator of the universe when we know it is based on altered copies of originals that are lost to history. You have no way of knowing all the changes that have been made over time nor have you even bothered to explore the changes we do know about. Accuracy is important to understanding the message even down to the capitalization of a single letter, right? Yet all you have are altered copies of a message that you have no way of knowing which parts are true to the original and which aren’t.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I am sorry.  I see that I said "I'm not recommending" and gave the reason which applies to my ability to comprehend them (that does not mean that you can't do much better).  I didn't know that you would take my "not recommending" to mean that I recommend that you "do not read".  As I have seen, and heard, "not recommending" I understood it be a neutral stance, neither encouraging or discouraging; although I do recall it being used as a threat similar to " if you do I'll xxx"  .  I failed in my effort to be clear.
> 
> As for the umpteen books; I don't know the names, I haven't read them.  It's not that I never read books *about* philosophers or theologians, but I shy away from them in preference to getting it from the original source.  Those umpteen are easily found by putting the subject authors name in the "keyword" search of any major book seller.  Such opinion pieces are probably available on line as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall that refered to something that is available in every, or nearly every, Bible Commentary, of which there are hundreds.  Why would you want one opinion when you have hundreds available at your fingertips.  I believe that was my point.  You can even tell them that they don't know what they are talking about, or that they give no consideration to x,y, or z.  I do it all the time.


I am not engaged in conversation with any of them. I asked you because we are engaged in conversation and I wanted your opinion and reason(s) how you came to that opinion/conclusion/ line of thought.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Sure the texts have changed over time, for a variety of reasons, some incidental and some nefarious.  But I fail to see how accurate conclusions can be arrived at when all spiritual considerations are ignored while working with texts written by spiritual men concerning spiritual subjects.  Makes no sense to this hillbilly.


With spiritual agendas.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> This is usually about the time in your posts where we realize that you are not addressing anything we are talking about and are going off on a tangent instead.
> The eyes rolling back in our heads is unavoidable
> 
> 
> So then, is that why words like gods, us and our are used in the bible?






> The eyes rolling back in our heads is unavoidable



Ha! That's funny, good one...the visual is so...um...perfect.

I'll check your chart, no DNR, check your chest, no tattoo, (that's the realm of lawyers) and probably stay with you as long as I am allowed. I know there's no question in that, but I live where I see almost every observation has a question in it...am I to respond in having anything at all to do with what I am seeing? Is there something to be done? Nothing? If something is it my part, or another's? Even if a something looks like it's being demanded?

You presented a very funny snapshot. And really at this point I think the only sensible response is with what I do not infrequently tell my patients when they are about to undergo (in some trepidation) a relatively uncomfortable/painful awake procedure. I offer them the cocktail of drugs prescribed for sedation or ask if they would like to hear me talk about myself, my life story...both have the same consequence.

Without deviation all ask for the drugs.

Have you been talkin' to them? About what _real pain_ can be?


As to your question about god/gods...the us and our, looks to me like Hummer has taken the field in that regard, but I do appreciate your inclusion of me as a possible responder.

Nevertheless I will ask you this. (You still awake?)

Ever had this experience in yourself, which if you had to give voice to to describe to another might take something of the form of "yep, I got up that morning and wondered what gun to take" or...of some form I asked myself, "what am I going to do?" Or in the woods had this form of thought when hearing rustling "is that a squirrel or a deer?" A zebra? No, no, I know we _should first_ think horses when we hear hooves. At least so's I've heard...

I know the above only address a wondering, a questioning to a resolution...but they might just as easily take a declarative form..."I'm going to take the .270"

I also know that these thoughts don't always appear to us in sentences or words...but, you also wouldn't be the first or only man to ever "talk to himself"

Do we not all have, have we not all had some sort of awareness that within ourself we find a questioner bringing the thing in question to another "part" of ourself...and yet never think of ourself as "two...or three, or eight or five..."

I often am "observer" of my thoughts, or made aware that's what I am...perhaps it's that awareness making me aware...I always am...observer of thoughts. I think "elephant", I see elephant projected in image somewhere within...and I have been pressed to see a man in audience of himself...and wondered...am I the guy sitting and watching...am I the "screen" upon which image of elephant reflects to me in my inner sight...or am I the projectionist? Where am I, What am I? Who am I? How is this stuff working?

This doesn't answer your question, forgive me...but maybe helps you see the questions I ask "in one" (myself) that I would surely describe to you as "one" "I am Israel"...yet seems to have within even a recognition of operations of thought that have involved at least a questioner (who doesn't know...or yet know) and a part to which I make appeal for that resolution. "Is this right or left hand thread?"

Hey...stop snoring...I have song I'd like to sing you...


Which brings me to another very funny story...but not as funny as the image you projected into me. It looks something like this:


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> No, that would contradict the whole.  "I AM WHO I AM”; “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’" and much, much more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the physical author; your talking about his brother-in-law, and his neighbor down the street, and the guy who runs the fish market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My method doesn't seem to avoid the "expound upon as needed".
> 
> I can't spend the rest of life expounding as needed, as this forum would require.


I can say I AM WHO I AM and still mean me despite the other 7 billion people on the planet.
In a book full of contradictions what is one more?

I am talking about the physical authors who wrote about other gods. 
I have no reason to talk about non physical authors.

Well, you are in here, and you do engage in conversation.  Do you take the first answer or first statement by others as acceptable and move on or do you ask and expect them to expound upon if necessary for clarification?
You seem to spend a lot of time where you say you don not have time for. There would be less time spent if you answered the questions directly and to the point.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Ha! That's funny, good one...the visual is so...um...perfect.
> 
> I'll check your chart, no DNR, check your chest, no tattoo, (that's the realm of lawyers) and probably stay with you as long as I am allowed. I know there's no question in that, but I live where I see almost every observation has a question in it...am I to respond in having anything at all to do with what I am seeing? Is there something to be done? Nothing? If something is it my part, or another's? Even if a something looks like it's being demanded?
> 
> You presented a very funny snapshot. And really at this point I think the only sensible response is with what I do not infrequently tell my patients when they are about to undergo (in some trepidation) a relatively uncomfortable/painful awake procedure. I offer them the cocktail of drugs prescribed for sedation or ask if they would like to hear me talk about myself, my life story...both have the same consequence.
> 
> Without deviation all ask for the drugs.
> 
> Have you been talkin' to them? About what _real pain_ can be?
> 
> 
> As to your question about god/gods...the us and our, looks to me like Hummer has taken the field in that regard, but I do appreciate your inclusion of me as a possible responder.
> 
> Nevertheless I will ask you this. (You still awake?)
> 
> Ever had this experience in yourself, which if you had to give voice to to describe to another might take something of the form of "yep, I got up that morning and wondered what gun to take" or...of some form I asked myself, "what am I going to do?" Or in the woods had this form of thought when hearing rustling "is that a squirrel or a deer?" A zebra? No, no, I know we _should first_ think horses when we hear hooves. At least so's I've heard...
> 
> I know the above only address a wondering, a questioning to a resolution...but they might just as easily take a declarative form..."I'm going to take the .270"
> 
> I also know that these thoughts don't always appear to us in sentences or words...but, you also wouldn't be the first or only man to ever "talk to himself"
> 
> Do we not all have, have we not all had some sort of awareness that within ourself we find a questioner bringing the thing in question to another "part" of ourself...and yet never think of ourself as "two...or three, or eight or five..."
> 
> I often am "observer" of my thoughts, or made aware that's what I am...perhaps it's that awareness making me aware...I always am...observer of thoughts. I think "elephant", I see elephant projected in image somewhere within...and I have been pressed to see a man in audience of himself...and wondered...am I the guy sitting and watching...am I the "screen" upon which image of elephant reflects to me in my inner sight...or am I the projectionist? Where am I, What am I? Who am I? How is this stuff working?
> 
> This doesn't answer your question, forgive me...but maybe helps you see the questions I ask "in one" (myself) that I would surely describe to you as "one" "I am Israel"...yet seems to have within even a recognition of operations of thought that have involved at least a questioner (who doesn't know...or yet know) and a part to which I make appeal for that resolution. "Is this right or left hand thread?"
> 
> Hey...stop snoring...I have song I'd like to sing you...
> 
> 
> Which brings me to another very funny story...but not as funny as the image you projected into me. It looks something like this:View attachment 975737


That made me laugh so hard my dang belly hurts


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Ha! That's funny, good one...the visual is so...um...perfect.
> 
> I'll check your chart, no DNR, check your chest, no tattoo, (that's the realm of lawyers) and probably stay with you as long as I am allowed. I know there's no question in that, but I live where I see almost every observation has a question in it...am I to respond in having anything at all to do with what I am seeing? Is there something to be done? Nothing? If something is it my part, or another's? Even if a something looks like it's being demanded?
> 
> You presented a very funny snapshot. And really at this point I think the only sensible response is with what I do not infrequently tell my patients when they are about to undergo (in some trepidation) a relatively uncomfortable/painful awake procedure. I offer them the cocktail of drugs prescribed for sedation or ask if they would like to hear me talk about myself, my life story...both have the same consequence.
> 
> Without deviation all ask for the drugs.
> 
> Have you been talkin' to them? About what _real pain_ can be?
> 
> 
> As to your question about god/gods...the us and our, looks to me like Hummer has taken the field in that regard, but I do appreciate your inclusion of me as a possible responder.
> 
> Nevertheless I will ask you this. (You still awake?)
> 
> Ever had this experience in yourself, which if you had to give voice to to describe to another might take something of the form of "yep, I got up that morning and wondered what gun to take" or...of some form I asked myself, "what am I going to do?" Or in the woods had this form of thought when hearing rustling "is that a squirrel or a deer?" A zebra? No, no, I know we _should first_ think horses when we hear hooves. At least so's I've heard...
> 
> I know the above only address a wondering, a questioning to a resolution...but they might just as easily take a declarative form..."I'm going to take the .270"
> 
> I also know that these thoughts don't always appear to us in sentences or words...but, you also wouldn't be the first or only man to ever "talk to himself"
> 
> Do we not all have, have we not all had some sort of awareness that within ourself we find a questioner bringing the thing in question to another "part" of ourself...and yet never think of ourself as "two...or three, or eight or five..."
> 
> I often am "observer" of my thoughts, or made aware that's what I am...perhaps it's that awareness making me aware...I always am...observer of thoughts. I think "elephant", I see elephant projected in image somewhere within...and I have been pressed to see a man in audience of himself...and wondered...am I the guy sitting and watching...am I the "screen" upon which image of elephant reflects to me in my inner sight...or am I the projectionist? Where am I, What am I? Who am I? How is this stuff working?
> 
> This doesn't answer your question, forgive me...but maybe helps you see the questions I ask "in one" (myself) that I would surely describe to you as "one" "I am Israel"...yet seems to have within even a recognition of operations of thought that have involved at least a questioner (who doesn't know...or yet know) and a part to which I make appeal for that resolution. "Is this right or left hand thread?"
> 
> Hey...stop snoring...I have song I'd like to sing you...
> 
> 
> Which brings me to another very funny story...but not as funny as the image you projected into me. It looks something like this:View attachment 975737


So what does the plural of "gods" mean?  And why are the words such as "us" used when your god is mentioning who is making humans and "our" when he mentioning the image humans will be in?

Hummer vaguely mentioned the trinity but does not want to get into it any further. In one post a while ago he mentioned about God not having hands, and the holy spirit isn't a human form (then again if we are made in their image, wouldn't we be in God-like form and not human form?)
So who is god referring to?


----------



## hummerpoo

I'm deleting the off-topic for clarity, I hope.




bullethead said:


> In your opinion, eliminating the worldly idols and earthly items that you describe above, could the bible verse in question be referring to other gods that live/exist/dwell in a realm beyond our universe? In short, is your god acknowledging other gods similar to him?
> 
> 
> It can lead to other than Trinity if you take the advice you give me and read up on all the other gods that the people who wrote the Torah also believed existed in addition to the god of Abraham. There is a reason he is called the god of Abraham.





hummerpoo said:


> No, that would contradict the whole.  "I AM WHO I AM”; “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’" and much, much more.






bullethead said:


> I can say I AM WHO I AM and still mean me despite the other 7 billion people on the planet.



Some of the more
All from the Torah (Deu.)



> To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him.





> Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.





> “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> So what does the plural of "gods" mean?  And why are the words such as "us" used when your god is mentioning who is making humans and "our" when he mentioning the image humans will be in?
> 
> Hummer vaguely mentioned the trinity but does not want to get into it any further. In one post a while ago he mentioned about God not having hands, and the holy spirit isn't a human form (then again if we are made in their image, wouldn't we be in God-like form and not human form?)
> So who is god referring to?



Since you are asking me directly and I find none of Hummer's expositions lacking in directness and a right provocation toward what are to me, the "more" and right questions...even if they seem vaguely forming or "just more questions", I'm kinda feeling limited in response. (hey, is that a "miracle?")

I will say this to you though brother, a thing I don't doubt you have heard from me as perhaps tedious beating of drum but which to me remains the glorious rhythms of heaven...Jesus Christ is key. I must "think" in no other way for understanding even if I be told I am totally bereft of it. There's too much for me to say about this, but that is what I had hoped to touch when speaking of _a_ philosophy, a manner of thought (but to me so much more) to hold thought about all things, especially every word one may find in the Bible, to a discipline.

I appreciate that, despite what _may appear between us, _you yet find me somehow worthy of appeal for questioning.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I'm deleting the off-topic for clarity, I hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the more
> All from the Torah (Deu.)


Yes. I agree but for a different reason.
The author of Deut is saying that particular god is the one and only god for the people of Israel.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Since you are asking me directly and I find none of Hummer's expositions lacking in directness and a right provocation toward what are to me, the "more" and right questions...even if they seem vaguely forming or "just more questions", I'm kinda feeling limited in response. (hey, is that a "miracle?")
> 
> I will say this to you though brother, a thing I don't doubt you have heard from me as perhaps tedious beating of drum but which to me remains the glorious rhythms of heaven...Jesus Christ is key. I must "think" in no other way for understanding even if I be told I am totally bereft of it. There's too much for me to say about this, but that is what I had hoped to touch when speaking of _a_ philosophy, a manner of thought (but to me so much more) to hold thought about all things, especially every word one may find in the Bible, to a discipline.
> 
> I appreciate that, despite what _may appear between us, _you yet find me somehow worthy of appeal for questioning.


Jesus Christ was not part of the Torah. In the Torah the Israelites had one god that chose them. Their god did not need to make a version 2.0 in order to correct the previous mistakes it made. Their god does not manifest itself in human form. In the Torah they are instructed to wait for the son of god.
In the bible it says the son of god has arrived.
The new Testament does not fulfill the Torah.
And the reason I am saying all that is because the Deuteronomy verses used above by Hummer do speak of one god, the one and only god for the Hebrews. If the OT is to be used then it should be used correctly. One god not one god divided into different parts.

Here is a small introduction to the differences, go to https://classroom.synonym.com/jewish-beliefs-on-the-new-testament-12086664.html for the rest.
The pope prays at the Wailing Wall, one of Judaism's holiest sites.
"Why don't Jews believe in the New Testament?" many Christians ask. "After all it includes the Old Testament." That is exactly the problem. To Jews, there is no Old Testament, so there can be no New Testament. There is the Hebrew Bible (Torah) and the Christian Bible (the gospels). One contains the law of Moses; the other the law of Christ. One is considered the immutable word of God; the other claims to add to and alter his word. Perhaps, most importantly, one holds hope for the coming of the Messiah (Mashiach) while the other claims that Christ was the Messiah who died for mankind's sins.


*The Torah vs. the Gospels*
The Torah teaches that God is one, indivisible, all-powerful. It continues that God is incorporeal, that is, without a body and that he does not manifest himself in the form of a human being. The Torah also teaches that mankind is born pure and without sin but that he has freewill to do good or evil. The basic lessons of the Gospels, on the other hand, is that God brought himself down from the heavens in the form of a man, that man is inherently evil, and that Jesus Christ, because of original sin, died on the cross to save mankind.


----------



## bullethead

http://jbuff.com/c030107.htm


----------



## bullethead

Contradictions and Mistranslations between the Torah and New Testament. 
The NT is not a continuation but the start of a new god and new religion.

https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/why-jews-cannot-accept-the-new-testament/


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Jesus Christ was not part of the Torah. In the Torah the Israelites had one god that chose them. Their god did not need to make a version 2.0 in order to correct the previous mistakes it made. Their god does not manifest itself in human form. In the Torah they are instructed to wait for the son of god.
> In the bible it says the son of god has arrived.
> The new Testament does not fulfill the Torah.
> And the reason I am saying all that is because the Deuteronomy verses used above by Hummer do speak of one god, the one and only god for the Hebrews. If the OT is to be used then it should be used correctly. One god not one god divided into different parts.
> 
> Here is a small introduction to the differences, go to https://classroom.synonym.com/jewish-beliefs-on-the-new-testament-12086664.html for the rest.
> The pope prays at the Wailing Wall, one of Judaism's holiest sites.
> "Why don't Jews believe in the New Testament?" many Christians ask. "After all it includes the Old Testament." That is exactly the problem. To Jews, there is no Old Testament, so there can be no New Testament. There is the Hebrew Bible (Torah) and the Christian Bible (the gospels). One contains the law of Moses; the other the law of Christ. One is considered the immutable word of God; the other claims to add to and alter his word. Perhaps, most importantly, one holds hope for the coming of the Messiah (Mashiach) while the other claims that Christ was the Messiah who died for mankind's sins.
> 
> 
> *The Torah vs. the Gospels*
> The Torah teaches that God is one, indivisible, all-powerful. It continues that God is incorporeal, that is, without a body and that he does not manifest himself in the form of a human being. The Torah also teaches that mankind is born pure and without sin but that he has freewill to do good or evil. The basic lessons of the Gospels, on the other hand, is that God brought himself down from the heavens in the form of a man, that man is inherently evil, and that Jesus Christ, because of original sin, died on the cross to save mankind.



Just sat down at this blackhole of knowledge, whose only salvation is that it has readily available copies of real works, read your post, read you link, and said to my self "What a crock".  Now I'm going to go into the other room to see if Thomas and Friends is on.  Sometime later I may, or may not, come back to explain.


----------



## hummerpoo

More morning report.
Was making a cup of coffee and remembered that I had not closed this website, which may or may not aggravate the site's problem.  While closing to site, I noticed that you had posted more links.  Not going to read them now, may not read them later.  Have a good day.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Just sat down at this blackhole of knowledge, whose only salvation is that it has readily available copies of real works, read your post, read you link, and said to my self "What a crock".  Now I'm going to go into the other room to see if Thomas and Friends is on.  Sometime later I may, or may not, come back to explain.


I would not expect you to say anything else to yourself about the things that directly refute your religion and your beliefs.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> More morning report.
> Was making a cup of coffee and remembered that I had not closed this website, which may or may not aggravate the site's problem.  While closing to site, I noticed that you had posted more links.  Not going to read them now, may not read them later.  Have a good day.


Unsurprising


----------



## bullethead

Here is another link for everyone to read.
Hummer, I understand that you may or may not.
https://sites.google.com/site/yahwehelohiym/an-ancient-view-of-god/one-god-or-many-gods


----------



## bullethead

God of Israel
https://www.nas.org/blogs/dicta/ask_a_scholar_what_does_yhwh_elohim_mean


----------



## atlashunter

hummerpoo said:


> More morning report.
> Was making a cup of coffee and remembered that I had not closed this website, which may or may not aggravate the site's problem.  While closing to site, I noticed that you had posted more links.  Not going to read them now, may not read them later.  Have a good day.


----------



## bullethead

More non reading material or reading material for who ever either may apply...

http://booksnthoughts.com/ancient-jews-believed-in-the-existence-of-many-gods/

Whoops, maybe whomever...
I don't want the link redlined because I may have been in error grammatically.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


>


Smart move really.  If someone does not read them(or claims to have not read them) then they do not have to admit they have been informed and can continue on with claims and assertions that have have long been countered and refuted.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Smart move really.  If someone does not read them(or claims to have not read them) then they do not have to admit they have been informed and can continue on with claims and assertions that have have long been countered and refuted.



There is nothing that could move him off his preconceptions. He’s simply not open to the possibility he is wrong.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Jesus Christ was not part of the Torah. In the Torah the Israelites had one god that chose them. Their god did not need to make a version 2.0 in order to correct the previous mistakes it made. Their god does not manifest itself in human form. In the Torah they are instructed to wait for the son of god.
> In the bible it says the son of god has arrived.
> The new Testament does not fulfill the Torah.
> And the reason I am saying all that is because the Deuteronomy verses used above by Hummer do speak of one god, the one and only god for the Hebrews. If the OT is to be used then it should be used correctly. One god not one god divided into different parts.
> 
> Here is a small introduction to the differences, go to https://classroom.synonym.com/jewish-beliefs-on-the-new-testament-12086664.html for the rest.
> The pope prays at the Wailing Wall, one of Judaism's holiest sites.
> "Why don't Jews believe in the New Testament?" many Christians ask. "After all it includes the Old Testament." That is exactly the problem. To Jews, there is no Old Testament, so there can be no New Testament. There is the Hebrew Bible (Torah) and the Christian Bible (the gospels). One contains the law of Moses; the other the law of Christ. One is considered the immutable word of God; the other claims to add to and alter his word. Perhaps, most importantly, one holds hope for the coming of the Messiah (Mashiach) while the other claims that Christ was the Messiah who died for mankind's sins.
> 
> 
> *The Torah vs. the Gospels*
> The Torah teaches that God is one, indivisible, all-powerful. It continues that God is incorporeal, that is, without a body and that he does not manifest himself in the form of a human being. The Torah also teaches that mankind is born pure and without sin but that he has freewill to do good or evil. The basic lessons of the Gospels, on the other hand, is that God brought himself down from the heavens in the form of a man, that man is inherently evil, and that Jesus Christ, because of original sin, died on the cross to save mankind.




Praise God! You defend Torah like a believer! You're jealous for it, zealous for it, that it not be misused nor misunderstood! You almost sound...a Jew!

I am loving your zeal in this.

"God is not a man that he should lie
Nor the son of man that he should repent"!


Oh in such a thing is the greatest conundrum, the greatest mystery, the greatest form of entrance through such a small place,

וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם ---the Hebrew word used and found in God's condition of heart before the flood.

וְיִתְנֶחָ֑ם---the Hebrew word used and found in "nor a son man that He should repent."

Both found in Strongs 5162! Oh, dear Bullet, this is not a gotcha!  It's a "gotme".

Why would God do what He has no compelling to "should" do?

Oh grace brother, grace brother...just as Noah found in the eyes of the Lord...something no other bore testimony of! Seek! Be zealous! I receive any sternness, any rebuke, any reviling...but seek!

How can this be...God doing what He need not do? How can this be explained? He who can feel no force against Him sufficient to move Him to anything...is yet moved to the most severe _seeming reversal?_

I cannot (explain), no man can...but I am allowed this most ridiculously and laughable and joyful testifying...God makes way for another! Even for one so resistant, hard hearted, inured seemingly to all correction as myself.  It is now time for a Hymn...even if it raise the fires of theological correctness in any verse...it's as much for you as it is for me, brother...may we both hear who sings over us with joy.






The LORD thy God in the midst of thee _is_ mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing. 

God yet looked for Adam after his betrayal...as He no less searched me out diligently in mine. I'm just a found traitor.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Praise God! You defend Torah like a believer! You're jealous for it, zealous for it, that it not be misused nor misunderstood! You almost sound...a Jew!
> 
> I am loving your zeal in this.
> 
> "God is not a man that he should lie
> Nor the son of man that he should repent"!
> 
> 
> Oh in such a thing is the greatest conundrum, the greatest mystery, the greatest form of entrance through such a small place,
> 
> וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם ---the Hebrew word used and found in God's condition of heart before the flood.
> 
> וְיִתְנֶחָ֑ם---the Hebrew word used and found in "nor a son man that He should repent."
> 
> Both found in Strongs 5162! Oh, dear Bullet, this is not a gotcha!  It's a "gotme".
> 
> Why would God do what He has no compelling to "should" do?
> 
> Oh grace brother, grace brother...just as Noah found in the eyes of the Lord...something no other bore testimony of! Seek! Be zealous! I receive any sternness, any rebuke, any reviling...but seek!
> 
> How can this be...God doing what He need not do? How can this be explained? He who can feel no force against Him sufficient to move Him to anything...is yet moved to the most severe _seeming reversal?_
> 
> I cannot (explain), no man can...but I am allowed this most ridiculously and laughable and joyful testifying...God makes way for another! Even for one so resistant, hard hearted, inured seemingly to all correction as myself.  It is now time for a Hymn...even if it raise the fires of theological correctness in any verse...it's as much for you as it is for me, brother...may we both hear who sings over us with joy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The LORD thy God in the midst of thee _is_ mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.
> 
> God yet looked for Adam after his betrayal...as He no less searched me out diligently in mine. I'm just a found traitor.


All I am doing is showing  that Christianity is yet another religion that was created off a previous religion and that no matter how much Christians want to claim and assert than Christianity is a continuation it is not.
I can argue for Judaism when needed, and then show how it got it's start from previous religions before it. I can go all the way back to show the flaws in each all along the way and show how much those flaws grow to suit.
But for this conversation where Christians are trying to tie into Judaism to reinforce their claims, Judaism refutes those claims. History is quite compelling.

Keep reading the links I posted.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> All I am doing is showing ...



All you are doing is showing that logic, by which reason is tested, and caused me to say "What a crock" this morning, does not exist in your world.

Have fun; just like the boys standing on the corner across the street from the high school, talking about the girls, and the jocks, and the nerds, and the wetbacks, and the darkies.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> All you are doing is showing that logic, by which reason is tested, and caused me to say "What a crock" this morning, does not exist in your world.
> 
> Have fun; just like the boys standing on the corner across the street from the high school, talking about the girls, and the jocks, and the nerds, and the wetbacks, and the darkies.


Strawman and red herring all in the same post.
I get it, you have absolutely no historical, physical, or scientific proof to refute any of it. You try to insert logic into a conversation where you base the truth off of your beliefs and those beliefs include people that come back from the dead and ascend skyward. You dodge and deflect  and act as if you cannot possibly lower yourself to dignify the conversation with an answer. But we know the truth. You have no answer that refutes what has been said and every time you hit that wall then you have no time, or are going to spend that time on the creek bank, pick apart grammar, spelling, and punctuation or come up with some excuse, ANY excuse to avoid admitting that you just flat out got nothing.
If you did, it would have been said, backed up with evidence and been done and over with pages ago.

I feel bad that those boys were mean to you at some point or throughout your life and you now feel the need to lump me in with them, but I was never part of that crowd.


----------



## hummerpoo

Atlas knows that I use the KJV and you know that I was bullied in high school.
You guys are laughable, sad but laughable.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Atlas knows that I use the KJV and you know that I was bullied in high school.
> You guys are laughable, sad but laughable.


I can only go off of whatever information you gave me in that last post. I never said you were bullied but since you brought up a very specific group of boys with very specific details about what they were doing and talking about it seemed like you were speaking from experience. 
Sad, laughable yet able to back up our claims with evidence. 
I can't help but notice that you still have not refuted any of the information that I posted about the early Hebrews and their beliefs or how their words are used in the bible.


----------



## Israel

There is no way I can budge you, nor would care to...(only after learning of the direness of futility) that I am not a member of "christianity". Hey...I couldn't even get myself to see that, anymore than I could make myself discover a peculiar film over a mind that once was very inclined to think of "Jesus Christ as the founder of christianity"

Christianity is what men have done with Jesus Christ. I can't fault any man, I myself was no less once persuaded to it. I was not "allowed" to stay there. And surely there was a time I even thought it almost a blasphemy to think in any other manner. To be even more blunt, but with no hope of stumbling to any who may read, I am not at all convinced my Father Himself "sees" me as _a christian. _Anymore than He sees Jesus Christ thus.

This knowing of faith has brought me no less into conflict with what calls itself "of christianity" than the little bit of resistance I encounter anywhere else. Upstairs, downstairs...makes no difference...except I will say this...no professing atheist (as opposed to professing christian) has ever called the cops on me to an incarceration. (Now if that sounds like a bitterness or sour grapes I cannot help with anything about which it may sound. I had lessons to learn. They had "work" to do...in "the name of the Lord". I had much to learn about love. Still do.) None (atheists) have predicted my soon coming doom.  But, I dare not scoff at that, God forbid, my wrongness in certain matters surely merits no less.

It's just really "who" gets to say it. One may say it because they really enjoy it, the speaking of doom to another with which they do not agree and can find no resolution. But...there's also a mouth that will soon speak "yer done" against which I have no appeal or means of escape...my only plea there is that may it be "done" as in the way a chef announces, not as an enemy with me in crosshairs.

But...that is also entirely out of my hands...and it's sufficiently joyous to me now how "do not worry, do not fret" lays out a path through all worry, fret and doubt to its exposure as vain things. I am convinced there is only one thing ever found or given in which worry cannot be found. Salvation. There's just no "bad news" in the good news. Even when christians say..."don't worry about anything except the fate of your soul" As if Jesus is sent to add more worry to everything that is already on the edge of its seat. Wound tighter than a drum head.

But yeah, and again, I can fault no man for seeing thus...there is a singular need of attention, or need of singular attention. I just had to be (and must continually be) won to that, and it is only in the flagging, I even begin to sense worry so that I dare not despise any "Beware of being lost" injunctions, because they redirect me to where this is not possible. God isn't "losing track". An eye inescapable...upon me in mercy.
And upon you, _no less._

Look, God didn't suddenly go blind in the garden. "Where are you?" is not to show God's sudden loss of awareness and knowledge of all. Wouldn't that be a ludicrous thing for a man's motive in writing of "the God who knows all"? Do you really think a man trying to "trick" others into believing there's a God who knows all...would pretty early "in the story" suddenly have that God appear...clueless as to a man's location? (but none of this is the why of "why I believe" as though I have suddenly come to some claim "look, the scribe was too clever to not lay out a good story...it must be true!"  The scribe may indeed have been a liar...but the hand he was in...) Oh, wait, am I making a case for God having hands?

Yes, you can take the view (if one cares to) I have no right to infer anything. _See anything._ I have _no right_ to see it as a telling instead of a God in willingness of search...in willingness of "looking for" what has by treachery made itself lost to Him. I have no right to see it as God's asking, not because of blindness, but because of sight...and that being said to a thing now in dying of, dying to sight...to awake and consider to itself "yes, where am I?" I am just Adam who has heard differently is all, after wending all my way through the darkness I have been told I would know in disobedience. In believing (to a hiding) "God is after you now because you know you need a walloping". You know..."what you did". Caught! Knowing a presence I once was "at home with" is now the very presence to my perverted mind (in understanding)...that now speaks only of doom. No home. No place. No seeming way "back".


Yes, I must agree. I deserve death. The judgment is all and only what is right and just for treachery. But God! How can I admit that without accepting that as the  truth I must then, by admission, enter? Is that it? Is this it, God? I was made for you to kill? You knew! You knew! It's not fair...but God Oh God, I cannot deny...it is right. I can no longer deny it is right!

Do you remember Paul saying this?

Once I was alive apart from the law; _but when the commandment came_, sin sprang to life and I died.

Something_ had to die _by commandment in which sin took advantage to that death. Something of dust was under commandment to change to something dust could never attain, and even in that sin was allowed to be grist for that mill...resistance to _that_ change that dust can only know as death to itself. Disobedience worked all it had to...as only a foil, a mere backdrop for what is to be displayed in all obedience to its eclipse...Jesus Christ.

I cannot explain how protestation against all that seems "unfair"...and I mean as strenuously against; as _in your face against,_ as down to the root against...as all opposition that might be summoned by _reason against _what appears _unfair, not right, not good, not...love...._works.

I can only say that God is waiting to show the most unfair thing a man may ever perceive, cannot reason to, cannot make up in his imaginations, cannot ever "expect" to show up in his hiding place...mercy. And all because, and only, it's His pleasure to do so.

Surprise kids! I'm home! (I never left _you!_)


Yes, Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. His appearing does all it must to dust. Because of His obedience to allow to "his dust" what He suffered (allowed God) in the doing of His doing...with dust.

_I am_ he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of **** and of death.


----------



## atlashunter

Saying “what a crock” is easy. Demonstrating it is another matter.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> There is no way I can budge you, nor would care to...(only after learning of the direness of futility) that I am not a member of "christianity". Hey...I couldn't even get myself to see that, anymore than I could make myself discover a peculiar film over a mind that once was very inclined to think of "Jesus Christ as the founder of christianity"
> 
> Christianity is what men have done with Jesus Christ. I can't fault any man, I myself was no less once persuaded to it. I was not "allowed" to stay there. And surely there was a time I even thought it almost a blasphemy to think in any other manner. To be even more blunt, but with no hope of stumbling to any who may read, I am not at all convinced my Father Himself "sees" me as _a christian. _Anymore than He sees Jesus Christ thus.
> 
> This knowing of faith has brought me no less into conflict with what calls itself "of christianity" than the little bit of resistance I encounter anywhere else. Upstairs, downstairs...makes no difference...except I will say this...no professing atheist (as opposed to professing christian) has ever called the cops on me to an incarceration. (Now if that sounds like a bitterness or sour grapes I cannot help with anything about which it may sound. I had lessons to learn. They had "work" to do...in "the name of the Lord". I had much to learn about love. Still do.) None (atheists) have predicted my soon coming doom.  But, I dare not scoff at that, God forbid, my wrongness in certain matters surely merits no less.
> 
> It's just really "who" gets to say it. One may say it because they really enjoy it, the speaking of doom to another with which they do not agree and can find no resolution. But...there's also a mouth that will soon speak "yer done" against which I have no appeal or means of escape...my only plea there is that may it be "done" as in the way a chef announces, not as an enemy with me in crosshairs.
> 
> But...that is also entirely out of my hands...and it's sufficiently joyous to me now how "do not worry, do not fret" lays out a path through all worry, fret and doubt to its exposure as vain things. I am convinced there is only one thing ever found or given in which worry cannot be found. Salvation. There's just no "bad news" in the good news. Even when christians say..."don't worry about anything except the fate of your soul" As if Jesus is sent to add more worry to everything that is already on the edge of its seat. Wound tighter than a drum head.
> 
> But yeah, and again, I can fault no man for seeing thus...there is a singular need of attention, or need of singular attention. I just had to be (and must continually be) won to that, and it is only in the flagging, I even begin to sense worry so that I dare not despise any "Beware of being lost" injunctions, because they redirect me to where this is not possible. God isn't "losing track". An eye inescapable...upon me in mercy.
> And upon you, _no less._
> 
> Look, God didn't suddenly go blind in the garden. "Where are you?" is not to show God's sudden loss of awareness and knowledge of all. Wouldn't that be a ludicrous thing for a man's motive in writing of "the God who knows all"? Do you really think a man trying to "trick" others into believing there's a God who knows all...would pretty early "in the story" suddenly have that God appear...clueless as to a man's location? (but none of this is the why of "why I believe" as though I have suddenly come to some claim "look, the scribe was too clever to not lay out a good story...it must be true!"  The scribe may indeed have been a liar...but the hand he was in...) Oh, wait, am I making a case for God having hands?
> 
> Yes, you can take the view (if one cares to) I have no right to infer anything. _See anything._ I have _no right_ to see it as a telling instead of a God in willingness of search...in willingness of "looking for" what has by treachery made itself lost to Him. I have no right to see it as God's asking, not because of blindness, but because of sight...and that being said to a thing now in dying of, dying to sight...to awake and consider to itself "yes, where am I?" I am just Adam who has heard differently is all, after wending all my way through the darkness I have been told I would know in disobedience. In believing (to a hiding) "God is after you now because you know you need a walloping". You know..."what you did". Caught! Knowing a presence I once was "at home with" is now the very presence to my perverted mind (in understanding)...that now speaks only of doom. No home. No place. No seeming way "back".
> 
> Yes, I must agree. I deserve death. The judgment is all and only what is right and just for treachery. But God! How can I admit that without accepting that as the  truth I must then, by admission, enter? Is that it? Is this it, God? I was made for you to kill? You knew! You knew! It's not fair...but God Oh God, I cannot deny...it is right. I can no longer deny it is right!
> 
> I cannot explain how protestation against all that seems "unfair"...and I mean as strenuously against; as _in your face against,_ as down to the root against...as all opposition that might be summoned by _reason against _what appears _unfair, not right, not good, not...love...._works.
> 
> I can only say that God is waiting to show the most unfair thing a man may ever perceive, cannot reason to, cannot make up in his imaginations, cannot ever "expect" to show up in his hiding place...mercy. And all because, and only, it's His pleasure to do so.
> 
> Surprise kids! I'm home!
> 
> 
> Yes, Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.



Yep, hanging out on Jo Dee Messina’s porch last we heard.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> There is no way I can budge you, nor would care to...(only after learning of the direness of futility) that I am not a member of "christianity". Hey...I couldn't even get myself to see that, anymore than I could make myself discover a peculiar film over a mind that once was very inclined to think of "Jesus Christ as the founder of christianity"
> 
> Christianity is what men have done with Jesus Christ. I can't fault any man, I myself was no less once persuaded to it. I was not "allowed" to stay there. And surely there was a time I even thought it almost a blasphemy to think in any other manner. To be even more blunt, but with no hope of stumbling to any who may read, I am not at all convinced my Father Himself "sees" me as _a christian. _Anymore than He sees Jesus Christ thus.
> 
> This knowing of faith has brought me no less into conflict with what calls itself "of christianity" than the little bit of resistance I encounter anywhere else. Upstairs, downstairs...makes no difference...except I will say this...no professing atheist (as opposed to professing christian) has ever called the cops on me to an incarceration. (Now if that sounds like a bitterness or sour grapes I cannot help with anything about which it may sound. I had lessons to learn. They had "work" to do...in "the name of the Lord". I had much to learn about love. Still do.) None (atheists) have predicted my soon coming doom.  But, I dare not scoff at that, God forbid, my wrongness in certain matters surely merits no less.
> 
> It's just really "who" gets to say it. One may say it because they really enjoy it, the speaking of doom to another with which they do not agree and can find no resolution. But...there's also a mouth that will soon speak "yer done" against which I have no appeal or means of escape...my only plea there is that may it be "done" as in the way a chef announces, not as an enemy with me in crosshairs.
> 
> But...that is also entirely out of my hands...and it's sufficiently joyous to me now how "do not worry, do not fret" lays out a path through all worry, fret and doubt to its exposure as vain things. I am convinced there is only one thing ever found or given in which worry cannot be found. Salvation. There's just no "bad news" in the good news. Even when christians say..."don't worry about anything except the fate of your soul" As if Jesus is sent to add more worry to everything that is already on the edge of its seat. Wound tighter than a drum head.
> 
> But yeah, and again, I can fault no man for seeing thus...there is a singular need of attention, or need of singular attention. I just had to be (and must continually be) won to that, and it is only in the flagging, I even begin to sense worry so that I dare not despise any "Beware of being lost" injunctions, because they redirect me to where this is not possible. God isn't "losing track". An eye inescapable...upon me in mercy.
> And upon you, _no less._
> 
> Look, God didn't suddenly go blind in the garden. "Where are you?" is not to show God's sudden loss of awareness and knowledge of all. Wouldn't that be a ludicrous thing for a man's motive in writing of "the God who knows all"? Do you really think a man trying to "trick" others into believing there's a God who knows all...would pretty early "in the story" suddenly have that God appear...clueless as to a man's location? (but none of this is the why of "why I believe" as though I have suddenly come to some claim "look, the scribe was too clever to not lay out a good story...it must be true!"  The scribe may indeed have been a liar...but the hand he was in...) Oh, wait, am I making a case for God having hands?
> 
> Yes, you can take the view (if one cares to) I have no right to infer anything. _See anything._ I have _no right_ to see it as a telling instead of a God in willingness of search...in willingness of "looking for" what has by treachery made itself lost to Him. I have no right to see it as God's asking, not because of blindness, but because of sight...and that being said to a thing now in dying of, dying to sight...to awake and consider to itself "yes, where am I?" I am just Adam who has heard differently is all, after wending all my way through the darkness I have been told I would know in disobedience. In believing (to a hiding) "God is after you now because you know you need a walloping". You know..."what you did". Caught! Knowing a presence I once was "at home with" is now the very presence to my perverted mind (in understanding)...that now speaks only of doom. No home. No place. No seeming way "back".
> 
> Yes, I must agree. I deserve death. The judgment is all and only what is right and just for treachery. But God! How can I admit that without accepting that as the  truth I must then, by admission, enter? Is that it? Is this it, God? I was made for you to kill? You knew! You knew! It's not fair...but God Oh God, I cannot deny...it is right. I can no longer deny it is right!
> 
> I cannot explain how protestation against all that seems "unfair"...and I mean as strenuously against; as _in your face against,_ as down to the root against...as all opposition that might be summoned by _reason against _what appears _unfair, not right, not good, not...love...._works.
> 
> I can only say that God is waiting to show the most unfair thing a man may ever perceive, cannot reason to, cannot make up in his imaginations, cannot ever "expect" to show up in his hiding place...mercy. And all because, and only, it's His pleasure to do so.
> 
> Surprise kids! I'm home!
> 
> 
> Yes, Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.


When God says "Where are You
?" What does it show?


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> There is no way I can budge you, nor would care to...(only after learning of the direness of futility) that I am not a member of "christianity". Hey...I couldn't even get myself to see that, anymore than I could make myself discover a peculiar film over a mind that once was very inclined to think of "Jesus Christ as the founder of christianity"
> 
> Christianity is what men have done with Jesus Christ. I can't fault any man, I myself was no less once persuaded to it. I was not "allowed" to stay there. And surely there was a time I even thought it almost a blasphemy to think in any other manner. To be even more blunt, but with no hope of stumbling to any who may read, I am not at all convinced my Father Himself "sees" me as _a christian. _Anymore than He sees Jesus Christ thus.
> 
> This knowing of faith has brought me no less into conflict with what calls itself "of christianity" than the little bit of resistance I encounter anywhere else. Upstairs, downstairs...makes no difference...except I will say this...no professing atheist (as opposed to professing christian) has ever called the cops on me to an incarceration. (Now if that sounds like a bitterness or sour grapes I cannot help with anything about which it may sound. I had lessons to learn. They had "work" to do...in "the name of the Lord". I had much to learn about love. Still do.) None (atheists) have predicted my soon coming doom.  But, I dare not scoff at that, God forbid, my wrongness in certain matters surely merits no less.
> 
> It's just really "who" gets to say it. One may say it because they really enjoy it, the speaking of doom to another with which they do not agree and can find no resolution. But...there's also a mouth that will soon speak "yer done" against which I have no appeal or means of escape...my only plea there is that may it be "done" as in the way a chef announces, not as an enemy with me in crosshairs.
> 
> But...that is also entirely out of my hands...and it's sufficiently joyous to me now how "do not worry, do not fret" lays out a path through all worry, fret and doubt to its exposure as vain things. I am convinced there is only one thing ever found or given in which worry cannot be found. Salvation. There's just no "bad news" in the good news. Even when christians say..."don't worry about anything except the fate of your soul" As if Jesus is sent to add more worry to everything that is already on the edge of its seat. Wound tighter than a drum head.
> 
> But yeah, and again, I can fault no man for seeing thus...there is a singular need of attention, or need of singular attention. I just had to be (and must continually be) won to that, and it is only in the flagging, I even begin to sense worry so that I dare not despise any "Beware of being lost" injunctions, because they redirect me to where this is not possible. God isn't "losing track". An eye inescapable...upon me in mercy.
> And upon you, _no less._
> 
> Look, God didn't suddenly go blind in the garden. "Where are you?" is not to show God's sudden loss of awareness and knowledge of all. Wouldn't that be a ludicrous thing for a man's motive in writing of "the God who knows all"? Do you really think a man trying to "trick" others into believing there's a God who knows all...would pretty early "in the story" suddenly have that God appear...clueless as to a man's location? (but none of this is the why of "why I believe" as though I have suddenly come to some claim "look, the scribe was too clever to not lay out a good story...it must be true!"  The scribe may indeed have been a liar...but the hand he was in...) Oh, wait, am I making a case for God having hands?
> 
> Yes, you can take the view (if one cares to) I have no right to infer anything. _See anything._ I have _no right_ to see it as a telling instead of a God in willingness of search...in willingness of "looking for" what has by treachery made itself lost to Him. I have no right to see it as God's asking, not because of blindness, but because of sight...and that being said to a thing now in dying of, dying to sight...to awake and consider to itself "yes, where am I?" I am just Adam who has heard differently is all, after wending all my way through the darkness I have been told I would know in disobedience. In believing (to a hiding) "God is after you now because you know you need a walloping". You know..."what you did". Caught! Knowing a presence I once was "at home with" is now the very presence to my perverted mind (in understanding)...that now speaks only of doom. No home. No place. No seeming way "back".
> 
> 
> Yes, I must agree. I deserve death. The judgment is all and only what is right and just for treachery. But God! How can I admit that without accepting that as the  truth I must then, by admission, enter? Is that it? Is this it, God? I was made for you to kill? You knew! You knew! It's not fair...but God Oh God, I cannot deny...it is right. I can no longer deny it is right!
> 
> Do you remember Paul saying this?
> 
> Once I was alive apart from the law; _but when the commandment came_, sin sprang to life and I died.
> 
> Something_ had to die _by commandment in which sin took advantage to that death. Something of dust was under commandment to change to something dust could never attain, and even in that sin was allowed to be grist for that mill...resistance to _that_ change that dust can only know as death to itself. Disobedience worked all it had to...as only a foil, a mere backdrop for what is to be displayed in all obedience to its eclipse...Jesus Christ.
> 
> I cannot explain how protestation against all that seems "unfair"...and I mean as strenuously against; as _in your face against,_ as down to the root against...as all opposition that might be summoned by _reason against _what appears _unfair, not right, not good, not...love...._works.
> 
> I can only say that God is waiting to show the most unfair thing a man may ever perceive, cannot reason to, cannot make up in his imaginations, cannot ever "expect" to show up in his hiding place...mercy. And all because, and only, it's His pleasure to do so.
> 
> Surprise kids! I'm home!
> 
> 
> Yes, Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.



What a naughty boy you’ve been. And yet so penitent. Color me impressed.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I can only go off of whatever information you gave me in that last post. I never said you were bullied but since you brought up a very specific group of boys with very specific details about what they were doing and talking about it seemed like you were speaking from experience.
> Sad, laughable yet able to back up our claims with evidence.
> I can't help but notice that you still have not refuted any of the information that I posted about the early Hebrews and their beliefs or how their words are used in the bible.


Much of the problem, both from that which is included and that which is withheld, stems from what you call evidence being the same that, among those who know and apply logic, is called trash.  That is something that can change.


----------



## Israel

Gee, I was more expecting this one...if needed response


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> Gee, I was more expecting this one...if needed response



That’s for pikers. I know you’re the real deal.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> That’s for pikers. I know you’re the real deal.


LOL


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Much of the problem, both from that which is included and that which is withheld, stems from what you call evidence being the same that, among those who know and apply logic, is called trash.  That is something that can change.


Still waiting for you to provide evidence and logic that refutes what I have said and then I backed up with links that explain it deeper and provide examples

So far, you have not been able to refute a sad, laughable, illogical and trashy guy that has provided you with a number of specific topics and examples to try to do so.
You just keep yapping and throwing out baseless statements which have already been debunked.

Those who know and apply logic, priceless...


----------



## bullethead

bullethead said:


> When God says "Where are You
> ?" What does it show?


Israel?
You proceeded to use a specific verse in the bible and despite it being there as written you told us what it does not mean.
Tell us what that verse as written does mean and by all means include anything that backs up your statement.


----------



## 660griz

hummerpoo said:


> Go deeper.


Just the right depth based on research and definitions instead of ad hominem attacks.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Contradictions and Mistranslations between the Torah and New Testament.
> The NT is not a continuation but the start of a new god and new religion.
> 
> https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/why-jews-cannot-accept-the-new-testament/



I knew a few of those but not most of them. Good information. ??


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Israel?
> You proceeded to use a specific verse in the bible and despite it being there as written you told us what it does not mean.
> Tell us what that verse as written does mean and by all means include anything that backs up your statement.





> Yes, you can take the view (if one cares to) I have no right to infer anything. See anything. I have no right to see it as a telling instead of a God in willingness of search...in willingness of "looking for" what has by treachery made itself lost to Him. I have no right to see it as God's asking, not because of blindness, but because of sight...and that being said to a thing now in dying of, dying to sight...to awake and consider to itself "yes, where am I?" I am just Adam who has heard differently is all, after wending all my way through the darkness I have been told I would know in disobedience.



I don't believe I am able to make it clearer than that.

For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of _them_ whose heart _is_ perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.

Because no one was found with a heart perfect toward Him, men in preference of wars, strivings, to play king of the hill with one another (for there _it seems _a victory is accessible) a ready invitation to "show their stuff" as superior...they may have their desire. God tells us of the utter unwise-ness of not heeding Him who tries the reins, tests the hearts. And I would be fool indeed if claiming to know Him in any measure, to not ask "in what am I being tried?"

It's not for me to do anything about any obtuseness but my own...to not be found in pretense of not understanding a one plain thing..that I can engage in another thing I more relish.
God knows if I have had enough of wars, for I have seen that such battling in relish follows a man home...foolishly thinking he will leave the field and not find this delight pressing to exercise among his own kin and kind. Wounding instead his own household.

Jesus wept over Jerusalem in all righteousness of their not knowing the way of peace. There is a gulf between not seeing, or not having seen yet...and refusal to see.

I cannot accuse you, but only ask myself what I hear "where are you"? Where am I? Is there anything I am in refusal of seeing, that is very plain?

As surely as it is not my part to "win you over" it is just as sure to see the folly of seeking to "win over you".

I say the Lord is looking, searching, and trying the hearts and reins. There is an eye and consciousness to which no thing is hidden. Even to what we may not see of ourselves...in ourselves. We take part in consciousness...but we did not "create" it. It's origin is not found in man. I say this.

You say, and will, what you say. I will leave you to your confession...it is yours and "off limits" to me for battle. It is not even for me to decide to a rightness or wrongness...for you. You have what to you are the most reasonable of reasons for being as you are.

I have mine. And all is subject to change. All is subject.

Because He searched...and searches still, I am found. Yet while not in the knowing of being found out, my testimony was not at all different...it _seems no one_ is looking. "I will therefore. go about in my preferences." Where mine led me may well not be at all where yours must lead you. I must leave you to them.


Thanks for finding me in at least some form fit for conversation with you. I am very much more pleased to "see it" that way, than any other.

Be well Bullet. Peace to you and your household.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I don't believe I am able to make it clearer than that.
> 
> For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of _them_ whose heart _is_ perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.
> 
> Because no one was found with a heart perfect toward Him, men in preference of wars, strivings, to play king of the hill with one another (for there _it seems _a victory is accessible) a ready invitation to "show their stuff" as superior...they may have their desire. God tells us of the utter unwise-ness of not heeding Him who tries the reins, tests the hearts. And I would be fool indeed if claiming to know Him in any measure, to not ask "in what am I being tried?"
> 
> It's not for me to do anything about any obtuseness but my own...to not be found in pretense of not understanding a one plain thing..that I can engage in another thing I more relish.
> God knows if I have had enough of wars, for I have seen that such battling in relish follows a man home...foolishly thinking he will leave the field and not find this delight pressing to exercise among his own kin and kind. Wounding instead his own household.
> 
> Jesus wept over Jerusalem in all righteousness of their not knowing the way of peace. There is a gulf between not seeing, or not having seen yet...and refusal to see.
> 
> I cannot accuse you, but only ask myself what I hear "where are you"? Where am I? Is there anything I am in refusal of seeing, that is very plain?
> 
> As surely as it is not my part to "win you over" it is just as sure to see the folly of seeking to "win over you".
> 
> I say the Lord is looking, searching, and trying the hearts and reins. There is an eye and consciousness to which no thing is hidden. Even to what we may not see of ourselves...in ourselves. We take part in consciousness...but we did not "create" it. It's origin is not found in man. I say this.
> 
> You say, and will, what you say. I will leave you to your confession...it is yours and "off limits" to me for battle. It is not even for me to decide to a rightness or wrongness...for you. You have what to you are the most reasonable of reasons for being as you are.
> 
> I have mine. And all is subject to change. All is subject.
> 
> Because He searched...and searches still, I am found. Yet while not in the knowing of being found out, my testimony was not at all different...it _seems no one_ is looking. "I will therefore. go about in my preferences." Where mine led me may well not be at all where yours must lead you. I must leave you to them.
> 
> 
> Thanks for finding me in at least some form fit for conversation with you. I am very much more pleased to "see it" that way, than any other.
> 
> Be well Bullet. Peace to you and your household.


The first 12 words were a cop out but enough.


----------



## BassMan31

Motes, beams, and eyes come to mind.


----------



## Big7

atlashunter said:


> The response we receive is you know a tree by its fruits. Ok... Is obesity not a fruit of gluttony? These double standards are really something.



There are MANY contradictions all throughout the Bible.

The Bible is not to decern yourself. One says this, one says that and the other says this, that and the other.

Pretty soon, you can't count the number of splinters and schisms from God's original Christian Church.

Oh... Wait... We already have that now.?


----------

