# A poem



## TheBishop (Apr 20, 2012)

I looked to the sky, I spoke for god, but heard no reply.

"Are you there? Do you care? Do you not hear me cry?"

But silence the voice that seems to be reply of choice, for this god I call, agian.

"My friend, can you hear? Am I not clear? Why do you fear to speak?"

Nothing new arose from the air, my despair grew, I had no clue the reason for no reply. I began to question why?  Am I to blame? Isn't it a shame if I am good and god curses my name? So I could do nothing more but try again.

"My lord, speak, please, for I am weak,  I seek your wisdom, truth, and all the promises, that in my youth, were told.  This reply is cold, and growing old. I am tired of speaking out, without reply. I am tired of wondering why. I tired of looking up to the sky and being ignored.  I am growing bored of this,  I wish you would set it straight.  Its not too late, but I cannot wait any longer.  My doubt is growing stronger and I feel it will win the day."

You cannot say I did not try, I have given it all I have got, but it is all for not, becuase I got, no reply.....


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2012)

"NO" is a reply
You didn't do it right
You were not sincere
You don't understand how God works
"If i regard iniquity in my heart,the Lord will not hear me"
You did not use Jesus' name
"Unbelief is doubt" And "doubt is sin" If you pray to God and nurse doubt in your heart, He will not answer your prayers.
You have offended God and are unforgiven
You Reject God
You forsake God
You are proud of heart
You are self-righteous
You have no faith
And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.......


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 20, 2012)




----------



## JB0704 (Apr 20, 2012)

Bullet, before you quit believing in God, you should have tried explaining to him how things should work, how he should answer, and why the current format was not good enough.  Who knows, maybe Jesus would have showed up on a unicorn.

Maybe God just didn't get the atheist memo that he wasn't doing it right


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 20, 2012)

I have journeyed through the darkness, to find light residing at its end. Though my travels perilous, I knew it would conclude with peace. All I had to pursue, was resilience against the dark. For I knew it could take me, if I ever dropped my guard. But I didn't, I knew the light would come, it would bring me to heighten sense of life, and give me purpose.

Faith is what is was, a distraction from a reality that was not true. Visions all lies, but my eyes were victims, as my heart and mind were not. The darkness is so foolish it tries to make you believe despair. Oh yes it is there painted like a portrait of a midnight, with no stars and no moon. Black, cold, and void of any spark that can give sight.

But it is a ruse, a false, simply a lie, to what truth has always been. What is an illusion of sight,the truth can be known by the heart, trusted by the mind and understood by the spirit. Like a midnight cloaked by the shadows of the dark, you must feel the light your mind knows is there. The darkness can only mask it, hide it from your sight, it cannot vanquish its existence. Like the blackest night, the light is always there. The stars that pierce the skies can only be hidden, not conquered. 

But there is something in my journey that I discovered about the dark. Darks relationship to its adversary is not on equal ground. Light can always vanquish darkness, banish it with illumination. It can conquer all that that is bleak and cold, and void darkness of its power. 

That is why sight is of such little importance. What you see is always not be accepted, especially if its darkness's gift of despair. Remember the light is always there. Though you might not see it, you must know it and trust that the dark cannot contain it. When the light comes it will vanquish all that is dark.


Man I posted this one  a while back and cuaght some serious flak from those who have exclusivity on spiritualilty.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Bullet, before you quit believing in God, you should have tried explaining to him how things should work, how he should answer, and why the current format was not good enough.  Who knows, maybe Jesus would have showed up on a unicorn.
> 
> Maybe God just didn't get the atheist memo that he wasn't doing it right



I called, I wrote, I emailed, asked out loud, prayed silently, read the bible and followed the directions, sent a certified letter, asked my wife to deliver one by UPS, sent an invitation (with colorful balloons on front), asked in church, have a round trip ticket ready for JC and the Unicorn and I STILL pray every single night.

Ooh Ooh Mr Kotter! I knows, nobody is showing up.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I called, I wrote, I emailed, asked out loud, prayed silently, read the bible and followed the directions, sent a certified letter, asked my wife to deliver one by UPS, sent an invitation (with colorful balloons on front), asked in church, have a round trip ticket ready for JC and the Unicorn and I STILL pray every single night.





At least you kept your sense of humor through all that rejection 




bullethead said:


> Ooh Ooh Mr Kotter! I knows, nobody is showing up.



Well, you are still making your own rules.  I would claim he did show up, just not in the manner you wanted.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> At least you kept your sense of humor through all that rejection
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gotta add that answer to the ones up top. But good excuse!

It is of no real value or help if someone does something in a way that is not known or understood to the person in need of that help.

No sense going to the grocery store and buying a can of Tomato soup when a buddy calls and asks if you can give him a ride because his car broke down.

"Dude, I waited alongside my broken down car for 3 hours until someone finally gave me a ride...where were you?"

"Well, dummy, I went to the store and bought you a can of tomato soup! You just didn't know I was helping you. Here's your soup."


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I called, I wrote, I emailed, asked out loud, prayed silently, read the bible and followed the directions, sent a certified letter, asked my wife to deliver one by UPS, sent an invitation (with colorful balloons on front), asked in church, have a round trip ticket ready for JC and the Unicorn and I STILL pray every single night.
> 
> Ooh Ooh Mr Kotter! I knows, nobody is showing up.



It sounds as if you are doing everything preachers tell you to do. God may or may not reveal himself to you. That is his choice, not yours. He is not obligated, in any way, to respond to your calling.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> It sounds as if you are doing everything preachers tell you to do. God may or may not reveal himself to you. That is his choice, not yours. He is not obligated, in any way, to respond to your calling.



I'm just doing what the Bible and Jesus tells me to do.

John 16:23 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

1 John 5:14-15 This is the assurance we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know He hears us, whatever we ask, we know we have what we ask of Him

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)

Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)


And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)

It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB)


????????????????


----------



## Asath (Apr 20, 2012)

A Free-Form Verse Thread!  Cool!
Can everyone play?

It was only upon reaching maturity
That I understood the insecurity
Of my forebears fear of obscurity
And the invention of God as their surety.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 21, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I looked to the sky, I spoke for god, but heard no reply.
> 
> "Are you there? Do you care? Do you not hear me cry?"
> 
> ...



It's probably because you aren't one of the "Elect" so there is not anything you can do. If you are one of the "Elect", you'll have to wait for your calling. Right now you are dead in sin. God will have to awaken you if it's in his master plan. Hopefully your name is in the big book already.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's probably because you aren't one of the "Elect" so there is not anything you can do. If you are one of the "Elect", you'll have to wait for your calling. Right now you are dead in sin. God will have to awaken you if it's in his master plan. Hopefully your name is in the big book already.



OH NO! In The Big Book! Predestined to be one of the Elect! Where"s the free Will??????!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 21, 2012)

Oh my!


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 21, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's probably because you aren't one of the "Elect" so there is not anything you can do. If you are one of the "Elect", you'll have to wait for your calling. Right now you are dead in sin. God will have to awaken you if it's in his master plan. Hopefully your name is in the big book already.



<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pBWcRqPesws?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pBWcRqPesws?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 22, 2012)

I sit upon a grassy hill.
I sit and wait and watch until,
The birds fly high,
Something drops from the sky,
The birds score one,
and I have nil.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 22, 2012)

"How to trap an atheist: 
Serve him a fine meal, then ask him if he 
believes there is a cook."


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 24, 2012)

If I asked to see or speak to the cook would you say no or just not respond?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 24, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> If I asked to see or speak to the cook would you say no or just not respond?



3X!  Haven't seen you poking around here in a while.  Good to see you back.  

As far as the post, is the meal the evidence of the cook?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> 3X!  Haven't seen you poking around here in a while.  Good to see you back.
> 
> As far as the post, is the meal the evidence of the cook?



No its not.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No its not.



Care to explain that one?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Care to explain that one?



Well if we use logic, we can probably come to the the assumption there is a cook.  But In order to say there was definetly a cook we would have to rule out all other possibilities. First we look at the meal.  What if it's a salad? What if its sushi?  We can deduce that those meals were prepared but does that constitute cooked, thus having someone to cook it? What if it was a microwaved or already prepared meal, like a stouffers?  They need to be cooked but does that nessecarily mean the person throwing them in the device is a chef? Or is the factory that processed the material the cook? 

Now the terminology used was "fine meal".  I might have a different definition of what fine meal is to others, but lets say it was a four course meal. Steak, baked potatoe, vegetables, and garlic bread.  If they were of high quality, and definitely not of the processed variety, I could _assume_ there was a cook. But if I asked to see him, and they refused it would cause to wonder the nature of the place I was eating. 

I would question why would the chef refuse to see me?  Is he above me? Is he too busy to waste the time on the one enjoying his work?  If he refused I could still assume a chef, but until he showed, I could not not rule other possibilitiest. Maybe they have discovered a way to process high quality food without the need for a chef.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Well if we use logic, we can probably come to the the assumption there is a cook.





The Bishop's Creed.

Logic...only use it when it is beneficial.  If not, ask more questions.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> The Bishop's Creed.
> 
> Logic...only use it when it is beneficial.  If not, ask more questions.



I can live with that.

It is certainly better than shut up, don't question, and blindly follow.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> If he refused I could still assume a chef, but until he showed, I could not not rule other possibilitiest. Maybe they have discovered a way to process high quality food without the need for a chef.



Perhaps.  But, the most logical conclusion would be the chef just don't want to talk.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I can live with that.



Really?  Sounds hypocritical to me.

Oh wait, we've already been down that path before.

Carry on...carry on.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Really?  Sounds hypocritical to me.
> 
> Oh wait, we've already been down that path before.
> 
> Carry on...carry on.



Care to expand? Hypocritical how?

By the way logic is always beneficial.  So I always use it, everday, all day.  It is not something I can shut off.  If I don't get answers that make sense, or are opened ended, I will seek more.  The conclusions I reach aren't always right. But I usually discover that by... asking more questions. 

I live by "question everything", ask questions until there are no more questions to ask.  I know the difficulties of this "creed".  There are always questions, but there are not always answers. 

Sometimes, heck everyday, I wish I could stop and just blindly accept things, but I cannot.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Perhaps.  But, the most logical conclusion would be the chef just don't want to talk.



That is the most logical _possibility_. But until you see him and see him cooking your meal, it is still just a possbility.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Care to expand? Hypocritical how?



You agreed to the fact of only using logic when it is beneficial.  When logic doesn't help propulgate your opinion, you default to other means...usually more questions.

If you truly believed that logic was the best form of gaining truth, you'd use it in both good/bad scenarios.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> You agreed to the fact of only using logic when it is beneficial.  When logic doesn't help propulgate your opinion, you default to other means...usually more questions.
> 
> If you truly believed that logic was the best form of gaining truth, you'd use it in both good/bad scenarios.



Asking questions is the main part of the logical process.  You cannot find the why, if at first you dont ask WHY?


I do not form an opinion if it isn't logical.   It might not be right but it will be logical.  And your right I don't use it unless its beneficial.  Its almost always beneficial, so I almost  always use it. I'm not spock, so emotions do intervene.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I live by "question everything", ask questions until there are no more questions to ask.



... and the award for the "Least Surprising Post of the Year" goes to ... TheBishop!


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> And your right I don't use it unless its beneficial.



And that is why I said it was hypocritical.

And we've already gone down that thread....

So...as I said before...carry on...carry on.



centerpin fan said:


> ... and the award for the "Least Surprising Post of the Year" goes to ... TheBishop!


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

> you'd use it in both good/bad scenarios.



What do you mean by good and bad scenerios?  Do you mean I cannot find the truth if I don't examine all possibilities?  If thats what you mean I agree 100%.  But In order to come to a conclusion you HAVE to examine ALL possiblilities.  Then you choose the best possible, and that is your best conclusion,but not always conclusively the right decision.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... and the award for the "Least Surprising Post of the Year" goes to ... TheBishop!



Centerpin it is not the the fear of the question you have, but the answer, and were it might lead.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> And that is why I said it was hypocritical.
> 
> And we've already gone down that thread....
> 
> So...as I said before...carry on...carry on.



What is hypocritical is the selective editing you are doing to show a answer that suits your position.  Carry on.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> What do you mean by good and bad scenerios?



You'd use it 100% of the time...when it helps further your own opinion and when it proves yourself wrong.



TheBishop said:


> What is hypocritical is the selective editing you are doing to show a answer that suits your position.  Carry on.



Please show me where I've changed up what you've said.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> 3X!  Haven't seen you poking around here in a while.  Good to see you back.
> 
> As far as the post, is the meal the evidence of the cook?



Not if it was a field green salad.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> That is the most logical _possibility_. But until you see him and see him cooking your meal, it is still just a possbility.



Yes.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 24, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Not if it was a field green salad.



Who put it in the bowl?


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 24, 2012)

Where did the green salad come from?

Did someone prepare it?  Was the salad premeditated?
If the salad or meal's preparer cannot, or will not, be identified does that mean no one prepared it?

And is it nutritious?  Is it well prepared?
Or was it without logic?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> You'd use it 100% of the time...when it helps further your own opinion and when it proves yourself wrong.
> I prove myself wrong all the time. And its logic that does it. My life is a constantly evolving process.  The more I question, and the more I learn.  My opinions are based on logic.  I do not profess my opinions and beliefs as facts. I understand the difference between what is opinion and belief, and what is truth and fact.
> 
> 
> Please show me where I've changed up what you've said.



Come on now its you that always screams about context.  You cannot take one part of a thought and convey it as a complete message.  Isn't it you that make such  accusations against others doing the same thing with the bible?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Where did the green salad come from?
> 
> Did someone prepare it?  Was the salad premeditated?
> If the salad or meal's preparer cannot, or will not, be identified does that mean no one prepared it?
> ...



The real and only question need asking is:

Does any of that matter for us to enjoy the meal?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Centerpin it is not the the fear of the question you have, but the answer, and were it might lead.



Not at all.

I wouldn't be posting in this forum if that were true.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> "How to trap an atheist:
> Serve him a fine meal, then ask him if he
> believes there is a cook."



Was the menu inspired?
Restaurants do not poof things into existence. Meals do not poof onto a plate at home either.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Come on now its you that always screams about context.  You cannot take one part of a thought and convey it as a complete message.  Isn't it you that make such  accusations against others doing the same thing with the bible?



So...you wrote above...that you only use logic when it is beneficial.

Are you now saying that that is not complete or true?

That is fine if you want to add clarification....thought can often times come across incomplete when responding on an internet forum.

Just don't agree to something...then try and come up with a creed that doesn't apply to anyone posting in this thread to deflect your own position's short-comings.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Was the menu inspired?.



Well, yes.  Some enterprising individual had a dream that was dinner.



bullethead said:


> Restaurants do not poof things into existence. Meals do not poof onto a plate at home either.



Exactly!  There was a cook.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Care to expand? Hypocritical how?
> 
> By the way logic is always beneficial.  So I always use it, everday, all day.  It is not something I can shut off.  If I don't get answers that make sense, or are opened ended, I will seek more.  The conclusions I reach aren't always right. But I usually discover that by... asking more questions.
> 
> ...



There ya go rj carified and expanded for ya.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Well, yes.  Some enterprising individual had a dream that was dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!  There was a cook.



Yep and yep.
All real living breathing humans. Through experiences we have had all throughout or lives, whether we are 5 or 95, we have come to know how the food process goes.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> There ya go rj carified and expanded for ya.




So in one place, you say you always use logic...then the next post, you say you only use it when it is beneficial.

Are you a politician?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> So in one place, you say you always use logic...then the next post, you say you only use it when it is beneficial.
> 
> Are you a politician?



If its always benificial, and I'm using it when its benificial, then I am always using it.  I dont always succeed, like I said, emotions do intervene.  Anger mostly.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

I see you lurkin huntin you know you want to join in TheBishop Bashin..


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> If its always benificial, and I'm using it when its benificial, then I am always using it.  I dont always succeed, like I said, emotions do intervene.  Anger mostly.




You said it is always beneficial...then you say it is "almost always beneficial."  

So which is it?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> You said it is always beneficial...then you say it is "almost always beneficial."
> 
> So which is it?



Your right I made a mistake.  It is always beneficial, always.  I do make mistakes.  Especially typing out quickly thought out responses.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Your right I made a mistake.  It is always beneficial, always.  I do make mistakes.  Especially typing out quickly thought out responses.



Then why not rely upon that logic in the meal scenario.  You can't have a meal without a cook.  Someone has to prepare it.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Then why not rely upon that logic in the meal scenario.  You can't have a meal without a cook.  Someone has to prepare it.



I am did you not read my reply to string, and JB?

There are meals that you can eat that does not have a cook.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I am did you not read my reply to string, and JB?





Is this turning into a circle?


You did until it proved non-beneficial...then you resorted to questions.

That is why I put your creed down.

Logic until not beneficial...then ask more questions.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 24, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Is this turning into a circle?
> 
> 
> You did until it proved non-beneficial...then you resorted to questions.
> ...



That is not at all the case.  I used the questions to show that not all the information is there to form a concrete conclusion.  It is logical to ask for pertinent information to form a conclusion.  Using the ambigous term meal, leaves it up to individual interpretation making the truth difficult to assertain.  

If instead, we define the parameters of meal, and cook,   then we are able to assertain more of complete conclusion, if not the exact truth.  For example:

If we say _meal_ always a _cook_, what about sushi? Some beleive its a meal but there is sushi that does not involvle cooking. If there is no cooking how can there be a cook? 

Then we expand and define meal as something to be cooked. Is  using the microwave, cooking? I would argue no, but we do know there are such things as microwaved meals.   Could the microwave user be the cook? I suppose, but they placed no ingredients together.  And so on.. 

My point is somethings that are seemingly cut and dry are not always so.  If we do not question, sometimes the whole truth eludes us completely and we are nothing but blind subjects. Part truth is as good as a lie. It is the whole "Apples are green" scenerio.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2012)

Who hired the cook?


----------



## Asath (Apr 24, 2012)

"How to trap an atheist: 
Serve him a fine meal, then ask him if he 
believes there is a cook." 


Really?  As analogies go, this is about the weakest I’ve seen.

So, instead of defending the analogy itself, the best strategy is to attack the man who questioned it.  Typical, but even weaker.

Break this one down for me, metaphorically, will you?  WHAT, exactly, is the ‘fine meal’ I’ve been served?  The majestic and beautiful ocean, which drowned my aunt, and five close friends, and has risen up to kill hundreds of thousands of people?  The lush and abundant forests and fields, which are teeming with predators both large and small, which have also killed hundreds of thousands of people?  The sustaining and life-giving Sun in the sky, which also burns millions of acres into drought, killing tens of thousands every year, besides the tens of thousands that die of heat-exhaustion and sun-stroke?  The miraculous firmament below our feet, which also rises up in earthquakes and volcanoes that take countless lives every year?

Perhaps this ‘fine meal’ isn’t meant quite so much on the physical level, since that would be silly, and refers more to the sumptuous offerings of the spiritual leaders and Holy Writings, which have led us to the promised land of Jihads, suicide bombers, tithing, persecution of scientists and intellectuals, murder of doctors, and endlessly conflicting sectarianism.  Is that the ‘fine meal’?

Now go back and revisit your analogy of the ‘fine meal.’  If there is a ‘Cook,’ as the metaphor puts forward, then that fella works in a restaurant that any competent person would shut down in a heart-beat.  

“God’s Kitchen – Our Motto:  Billions Served: Everyone Killed.”


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Was the menu inspired?
> Restaurants do not poof things into existence. Meals do not poof onto a plate at home either.



Why Not?

.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 24, 2012)

Asath said:


> "
> 
> Really?  As analogies go, this is about the weakest I’ve seen.
> 
> ...



Hey, we're talking about a cook here.  Not a terrorist leader or murderer.  We don't know why he prepared what he did, or why he prepared it the way he did.

A cook who prepared a meal.  Or a meal that prepared itself.
Maybe the meal did prepare itself.  It had an innate drive to create itself, and things just 'came together'.

And anyway, if the cook doesn't come out and show himself to us, why should we ever believe a cook actually prepared this meal?
Where's the proof?


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 24, 2012)

Okay, let's say we go into a Burger King and..........  never mind.        Sorry.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 25, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Okay, let's say we go into a Burger King and..........  never mind.        Sorry.




LOL...

I live alone.....I've yet to see a meal that someone or some'thing' didn't have to prepare.
I was watchin' wrestlin......hahahahahahahahahaha not.....and food appeared before me.

No was it, I opened the fridge and food leaped onto my plate?......nope not that either. I watched a pack of crackers open themselves and leap right over to my desk.

Going into a burger king requires some kind of preperation even if it's just driving there, rounding up the orders, getting the wallet out.....requires action.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 25, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Hey, we're talking about a cook here.  Not a terrorist leader or murderer.  We don't know why he prepared what he did, or why he prepared it the way he did.
> 
> A cook who prepared a meal.  Or a meal that prepared itself.
> Maybe the meal did prepare itself.  It had an innate drive to create itself, and things just 'came together'.
> ...


Ronnie Ronnie Ronnie, bud????
It was your chance to bring up something y'all weren't talking about either...like hilter......  you missed your chance to get bashed ronnie for trying to purposely confuse the issue....I kinda like it when they do that to me when they do it themselves...lol.....here we go round the mulberry bush.....drive in circles and then quiz for a while....


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Hey, we're talking about a cook here.  Not a terrorist leader or murderer.  We don't know why he prepared what he did, or why he prepared it the way he did.
> 
> A cook who prepared a meal.  Or a meal that prepared itself.
> Maybe the meal did prepare itself.  It had an innate drive to create itself, and things just 'came together'.
> ...



You assume that someone who does not believe in God also does not believe in cooks, when in all actuality they have cooked themselves. If someone would like, they can go to cooking school. Man creates meals and Bibles. It is quite easy to jump on this God/cook bandwagon if you choose overlook logic and facts and I guess that is why we have people who believe in invisible chefs that live in a kitchen in the sky.  Gordon Ramsay must be the Son sent to save us, albeit a little less nasty and vengeful, but still a my way or the highway kind of guy.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Was the menu inspired?
> Restaurants do not poof things into existence. Meals do not poof onto a plate at home either.



You ever work in the resteraunt business?

Poof, it happens.


----------



## Asath (Apr 27, 2012)

"Poof, it happens."

Really?

No ingredients, no process, no time involved, no melding or blending of flavors, no marinating, no waiting, no limits to what one can order?

I just walk into the restaurant, express my will, and 'Poof'?  

C'mon.  This is the silliest analogy ever.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2012)

Asath said:


> "Poof, it happens."
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...



It is the perfect analogy. You have obviously never worked in the restaurant industry.


----------



## Asath (Apr 28, 2012)

Who knew?  

I always thought that restaurants had some sort of ingredients in the Kitchen.  But now I'm enlightened, Born Again, so to speak, and I know that they don't.

I place an order, and 'Poof' it appears!

News Flash:  'God Owns Restaurants!'  

Darn.  I learn something new every day.  This is why I come here, to learn new stuff from folks who think this way.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> You ever work in the resteraunt business?
> 
> Poof, it happens.



Work? LOL, you have no idea....
Grandparents owned a Diner for 30 years.
Father owned a Diner for 14 years.
I owned a restaurant  and was the Head Cook for 9 years. Enlighten me Ted........


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Work? LOL, you have no idea....
> Grandparents owned a Diner for 30 years.
> Father owned a Diner for 14 years.
> I owned a restaurant  and was the Head Cook for 9 years. Enlighten me Ted........



Ahh, then you will get the analogy. Regular Joe walks into the place and orders food. He never sees the delivery truck, the people checking in the order, organizing the freezer, doing the thaw pull, prepping, stocking the line, he doesn't realize the line cook is having a bad day and clumsily knocks his steak of the cutting board. He doesn't know his waitress is 4 months pregnant by the bus boy and she can't pay her gas bill. His $2 will only buy her a half a pack of cigarettes. Most people believe that "poof" here is their food, and how in the world did the waitress overcook their steak????


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 28, 2012)

In my sight I see I'm blind, I can find no truth, I have no proof, I'm to obtuse, to use logic, and its too much a project to think,  So just to cause a stink,  I bust, slander, and pander to the much weaker of mind, I find there just my kind, I whine with no facts, my attacks, show my lax of truth in my say, I play with words, and to this day, with no proof in what I've said, My name is......


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Ahh, then you will get the analogy. Regular Joe walks into the place and orders food. He never sees the delivery truck, the people checking in the order, organizing the freezer, doing the thaw pull, prepping, stocking the line, he doesn't realize the line cook is having a bad day and clumsily knocks his steak of the cutting board. He doesn't know his waitress is 4 months pregnant by the bus boy and she can't pay her gas bill. His $2 will only buy her a half a pack of cigarettes. Most people believe that "poof" here is their food, and how in the world did the waitress overcook their steak????



That sounds like a #2 Combo from the Old and New Testament menus.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> In my sight I see I'm blind, I can find no truth, I have no proof, I'm to obtuse, to use logic, and its too much a project to think,  So just to cause a stink,  I bust, slander, and pander to the much weaker of mind, I find there just my kind, I whine with no facts, my attacks, show my lax of truth in my say, I play with words, and to this day, with no proof in what I've said, My name is......



I see your attacks are more creative than ever Bishop.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> That sounds like a #2 Combo from the Old and New Testament menus.



Jesus is the cleaning crew!!! I like it!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Jesus is the cleaning crew!!! I like it!



LOLOLOLOLOLOL! In more ways than one! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!


----------



## Asath (Apr 29, 2012)

And when the day
Has slipped away
I look askance
At random chance
And wonder why
And heave a sigh
At thoughtless imitation.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 4, 2012)

Asath said:


> And when the day
> Has slipped away
> I look askance
> At random chance
> ...



Nice and short Asath, I like it.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 4, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> In my sight I see I'm blind, I can find no truth, I have no proof, I'm to obtuse, to use logic, and its too much a project to think,  So just to cause a stink,  I bust, slander, and pander to the much weaker of mind, I find there just my kind, I whine with no facts, my attacks, show my lax of truth in my say, I play with words, and to this day, with no proof in what I've said, My name is......



I accept your mockery of me with a gracious attitude. What you consider me to be, is surely what I project. I will work on how I project myself.


----------



## TheBishop (May 7, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I accept your mockery of me with a gracious attitude. What you consider me to be, is surely what I project. I will work on how I project myself.



I have no animosity tward you.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> In my sight I see I'm blind, I can find no truth, I have no proof, I'm to obtuse, to use logic, and its too much a project to think,  So just to cause a stink,  I bust, slander, and pander to the much weaker of mind, I find there just my kind, I whine with no facts, my attacks, show my lax of truth in my say, I play with words, and to this day, with no proof in what I've said, My name is......



Huh? I think you might be kidding yourself there Bishop. Don't take a leak down my back and tell me it is raining.


----------



## TheBishop (May 12, 2012)

Posited.



ted_BSR said:


> I accept your mockery of me with a gracious attitude. What you consider me to be, is surely what I project. I will work on how I project myself.



Verified.



> Huh? I think you might be kidding yourself there Bishop. Don't take a leak down my back and tell me it is raining.


----------



## G20 (May 12, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Well if we use logic, we can probably come to the the assumption there is a cook.  But In order to say there was definetly a cook we would have to rule out all other possibilities. First we look at the meal.  What if it's a salad? What if its sushi?  We can deduce that those meals were prepared but does that constitute cooked, thus having someone to cook it? What if it was a microwaved or already prepared meal, like a stouffers?  They need to be cooked but does that nessecarily mean the person throwing them in the device is a chef? Or is the factory that processed the material the cook?
> 
> Now the terminology used was "fine meal".  I might have a different definition of what fine meal is to others, but lets say it was a four course meal. Steak, baked potatoe, vegetables, and garlic bread.  If they were of high quality, and definitely not of the processed variety, I could _assume_ there was a cook. But if I asked to see him, and they refused it would cause to wonder the nature of the place I was eating.
> 
> I would question why would the chef refuse to see me?  Is he above me? Is he too busy to waste the time on the one enjoying his work?  If he refused I could still assume a chef, but until he showed, I could not not rule other possibilitiest. Maybe they have discovered a way to process high quality food without the need for a chef.



Bin...go!!!  Nail head...meet hammer.  Spot-on.

The mind is a powerful thing, ain't it?  Sheep will always go, "Baaaaaaah".  People who actually think for themselves will always question and wonder...


----------



## ted_BSR (May 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Posited.
> 
> 
> 
> Verified.



Well, I am not gonna project myself as spineless and silently put up with your bashings Bishop.


----------

