# Former Atheist turns theist.



## Ronnie T (Jan 3, 2012)

"Holly Ordway was a highly educated atheist who thought Christianity was "a historical curiosity" or "a blemish on modern civilization," or both.
Smart people don’t become Christians," she thought, according to Biola University"


http://www.christianpost.com/news/formeratheist-christianity-really-does-make-sense-46146/

.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 3, 2012)

"a little knowledge leads one away from God; much knowledge brings you back"       Author Unknown.


reminds me of Anthony Flew


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> "a little knowledge leads one away from God; much knowledge brings you back"       Author Unknown.
> 
> 
> reminds me of Anthony Flew



I'm sure whomever wrote that was talking about knowledge of the Bible and not knowledge of a Chemistry book.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I'm sure whomever wrote that was talking about knowledge of the Bible and not knowledge of a Chemistry book.



I think biology, and the study of the cell in particular, has done more to make atheists jump ship than any other science...


----------



## gtparts (Jan 3, 2012)

*CI article 8/20/2011*

This is fairly interesting...... nominal "Christian" (with no personal relationship with God) ..... atheist...... and, finally, "back" to being a follower of Christ.

http://www.christianindex.org/7607.article


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I think biology, and the study of the cell in particular, has done more to make atheists jump ship than any other science...




Why do you think that scientists are less likely to be theists than the general population?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Why do you think that scientists are less likely to be theists than the general population?



maybe because they don't want to be responsible for how they live?   or maybe they keep hoping that science will explain how a cell with over 100 genes could come out of the mud before they die?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> maybe because they don't want to be responsible for how they live?   or maybe they keep hoping that science will explain how a cell with over 100 genes could come out of the mud before they die?



If you really want to know why the information is out there.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 3, 2012)

I thought Ms Ordway's explanation of her now acceptance of Christianity as the 'logical' explanation is very interesting.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I thought Ms Ordway's explanation of her now acceptance of Christianity as the 'logical' explanation is very interesting.



_"Learning more about the Incarnation and about God, the most holy Trinity, has further reinforced my confidence that Christianity really does make sense of the world in a way no other worldview does."_

Turns out it also allows one to make "sense" of all the ridiculous claims made by the Bible.  Is it any surprise that Muslims believe that Mohammed ACTUALLY rode up into the sky in a fiery chariot?

I refuse to go through life even considering the possibility of talking donkeys much less believing wholeheartedly that they have.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> _"Learning more about the Incarnation and about God, the most holy Trinity, has further reinforced my confidence that Christianity really does make sense of the world in a way no other worldview does."_
> 
> Turns out it also allows one to make "sense" of all the ridiculous claims made by the Bible.  Is it any surprise that Muslims believe that Mohammed ACTUALLY rode up into the sky in a fiery chariot?
> 
> I refuse to go through life even considering the possibility of talking donkeys much less believing wholeheartedly that they have.



So do you think her case  simply points out a flaw in some people's thinking and the way they reach 'conclusions'?  Or, in your opinion, does it prove that people simply believe what they will believe and noone really has a stronghold on logic?  Is there a remote possibility that you are wrong?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> So do you think her case  simply points out a flaw in some people's thinking and the way they reach 'conclusions'?



The basis for her belief in the Christian god is no more legitimate than a Muslim's or a Buddhist's belief in their god.  Are they flawed in your opinion?



Ronnie T said:


> Or, in your opinion, does it prove that people simply believe what they will believe and noone really has a stronghold on logic?  Is there a remote possibility that you are wrong?



I would say that someone who recognizes that donkeys don't, can't nor have ever spoken is a fair piece ahead of someone in the logic department from someone who believes they did.

By the way, would that donkey have spoken in Aramaic or Hebrew?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> _"Learning more about the Incarnation and about God, the most holy Trinity, has further reinforced my confidence that Christianity really does make sense of the world in a way no other worldview does."_
> 
> Turns out it also allows one to make "sense" of all the ridiculous claims made by the Bible.  Is it any surprise that Muslims believe that Mohammed ACTUALLY rode up into the sky in a fiery chariot?
> 
> I refuse to go through life even considering the possibility of talking donkeys much less believing wholeheartedly that they have.



I've read talking donkeys in many of your posts, what are you talking about? Just curious.

And I believe that Elijah rode to heaven in a fiery chariot....ever heard this old gospel song? 'swing low sweet chariot, comin' for to carry me home'


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I've read talking donkeys in many of your posts, what are you talking about? Just curious.
> 
> And I believe that Elijah rode to heaven in a fiery chariot....ever heard this old gospel song? 'swing low sweet chariot, comin' for to carry me home'



Numbers 22:28

EEEEEEEEEEE! AWWWWWWWWWW! 

2 Peter 2:16   EEE! EEE! huh-EEE! AAAWWWWWWWWW!

You believe in many odd and unfounded things.  Now you will have to believe in talking donkeys too.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Numbers 22:28
> 
> EEEEEEEEEEE! AWWWWWWWWWW!
> 
> ...



Sheesh I just ask, I didn't know it would send you over the edge...

Well if I believe all the things I believe, then talking donkeys is not too hard to believe. No more than my great great great great grandpaw was an ape or a fish...no harder to believe than that.

But thanks for your answer.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> The basis for her belief in the Christian god is no more legitimate than a Muslim's or a Buddhist's belief in their god.  Are they flawed in your opinion?*No more than you or they think my beliefs are flawed. But then again I'm not as wise as you are on Christianity, when it comes to their religions. I don't necessarily believe that we all don't believe in the same God, just understand it differently or incorrectly.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 That would depend on the hearer wouldn't it..  Course either language is not impossible to interpret are they?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Sheesh I just ask, I didn't know it would send you over the edge...
> 
> Well if I believe all the things I believe, then talking donkeys is not too hard to believe. No more than my great great great great grandpaw was an ape or a fish...no harder to believe than that.
> 
> But thanks for your answer.




And there, dear, sweet Annie is the heart of the matter in a nutshell.  

20 minutes ago you went from a rational, reasonable person to someone who believes in talking donkeys.  Why?  Not because it suddenly makes sense but because it says so in the Bible.  That's how it works.  And that's why it's no good.

They should make this a sticky.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> And there, dear, sweet Annie is the heart of the matter in a nutshell.
> 
> 20 minutes ago you went from a rational, reasonable person to someone who believes in talking donkeys.  Why?  Not because it suddenly makes sense but because it says so in the Bible.  That's how it works.  And that's why it's no good.
> 
> They should make this a sticky.



You musta missed my point. How are talking, used to be apes any different than a talking donkey?

If I believe in the supernatural why is it irrational or unreasonable that a burning bush can't speak to me, or a glowing figure in a field telling me to fear not that my saviour is born? 
If I believe in the supernatural then nothing is impossible.
And that includes the good, the bad, and the ugly.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> You musta missed my point. How are talking, used to be apes any different than a talking donkey?



If you watch something that I link you to and we can agree that we both understand what it is trying to say, not whether or not it is true, then I will discuss your question with you.  Deal?



mtnwoman said:


> If I believe in the supernatural why is it irrational or unreasonable that a burning bush can't speak to me, or a glowing figure in a field telling me to fear not that my saviour is born?
> If I believe in the supernatural then nothing is impossible.
> And that includes the good, the bad, and the ugly.



it's unreasonable and irrational to believe in the supernatural.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Why do you think that scientists are less likely to be theists than the general population?



Because they use science as a substitute for religion, which, by the way, is not the purpose of science.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If you watch something that I link you to and we can agree that we both understand what it is trying to say, not whether or not it is true, then I will discuss your question with you.  Deal?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Because they use science as a substitute for religion, which, by the way, is not the purpose of science.





ted_BSR said:


> This is your opinion, nothing more.



What kind of evidence would you need to believe in talking donkeys?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What kind of evidence would you need to believe in talking donkeys?



For past events, one would use the legal-historical method, as science can't 'reproduce' a past event.    For proving 'talking donkeys', or that you were at work yesterday, or anything in the past,  you'd need legal-historical evidence.   Eye witnesses accounts, computer login records, sales receipts, etc.   For the talking donkey, and many events of antiquity, all we have is the surviving written accounts.     

lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.   'A priori' defines your mindset....you believe 'before hand' that the supernatural does not occur, even though there are things that science will never be able to explain.  (OOL, butterfly genetic code, etc)


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 4, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> For past events, one would use the legal-historical method, as science can't 'reproduce' a past event.    For proving 'talking donkeys', or that you were at work yesterday, or anything in the past,  you'd need legal-historical evidence.   Eye witnesses accounts, computer login records, sales receipts, etc.   For the talking donkey, and many events of antiquity, all we have is the surviving written accounts.
> 
> lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.   'A priori' defines your mindset....you believe 'before hand' that the supernatural does not occur, even though there are things that science will never be able to explain.  (OOL, butterfly genetic code, etc)



Is it reasonable to think that a donkey could talk given our understanding of how vocal chords work?  I mean, even if a donkey could understand and think in Aramaic or Greek, does it have the physical components necessary to produce human speech?

Why are we even having this conversation?  Do you realize how idiotic the idea of a talking donkey is?  Step back and listen to yourself.  Listen to the words "I believe in talking donkeys" come out of your mouth.  Say them to a bank teller or a waitress.  The whole notion is simply ridiculous.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> it's unreasonable and irrational to believe in the supernatural.



Just as unreasonable for me to believe in evolution totally, like I said my great great great great grandpaw spoke in ape.......oooooooohhh aaaaaaaahhhhh


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What kind of evidence would you need to believe in talking donkeys?



Nothing more than evolution?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Why are we even having this conversation?



I for one, do not know....you brought it up.


----------



## Asath (Jan 4, 2012)

Folks, mocking a point you fail to understand is a far stretch away from making an intelligent point of your own.  It seems like threads like this are started here in this forum for no other reason than to create an ‘AMEN Chorus’ and attempt to make a point that remains unmade.

One former non-believer ‘found’ belief?  That is the whole thought?  Proving what exactly?  Oh!  Proving that one former non-believer found belief.  Nothing more.

Unfortunately, the larger point this sort of rhetorical nonsense seems designed to mask is the overall truth -- and statistics worldwide, untainted by odd ‘interpretations’ will bear it out – ‘believers’ are abandoning their religions in droves.  We’re not talking about validating your own odd thoughts by finding one person who ‘found’ your One True Way of thinking – that is the sort of thing Democrats do on the Convention floor to try to create an emotional appeal in the absence of facts.  We’re talking about tens of millions of Christians, Jews, and Islamists simply walking away and refusing to support their former beliefs either intellectually or financially.  This, folks, is actual truth on the grander scale of current reality.

For every one of us who dares to actually read the Holy Books you folks try to put forth as the rationale for everything, and use the Words that you so cherish as evidence that they, themselves cannot be true, there appear to be about ten thousand that read those same Books, laugh for about half an hour, and then vote with their feet.  Not everyone wishes to argue with zealots.  They simply put away their wallets.  And all around us we see what used to be Sacred Churches being put into reuse as homes, pool halls, rec centers, and homeless shelters.  If what y’all are saying is so self-evidently correct, as is asserted, then how can it be that your religions are slowly dying from lack of popular support?  Seems that your fiery condemnations of those who do not embrace your ‘logic’ are not only falling on deaf ears, increasingly, but are being openly laughed at.  That is the truth on the ground.  Church membership, in all sects, and in all denominations, is at an all-time low – and steadily dropping.  

Do you consider a science that has developed to the point that it can cure and/or effectively treat the vast majority of the diseases your munificent Creator created, and also measure the number of invisible neutrinos that naturally pass through your body every day, to be so flawed that the ‘logic’ of a few thousands years ago is more convincing?  Can your local fire and brimstone preacher explain a particle accelerator?  Does he know how or why a vaccine works?  Is he unable to view a single image from the Hubble Space Telescope?  C’mon now.

We’re growing weary of being hectored and bullied by folks who assert that the impossible is actually known intimately, by them alone, and that the known is actually a figment of our imaginations or a pale bit of fluff in the face of their own overwhelming access to cosmic truth.  We ask, quite reasonably, “Put up or shut up.”  Prove your position, or get out of the way.  You cannot prove your position, so please shove off and allow us to get on with the increasingly complex business of proving ours.

The vast majority of demonstrable evidence is on our side. And the feet on the ground are running from your own positions as fast as they can.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What kind of evidence would you need to believe in talking donkeys?



I've heard a donkey talk...He said HeeHaw HeeHaw!!!Also that donkey sounded like he was whistling too!!!
Is i read through the post in this section I have to remind myself of 2Timothy2:22-26.....God bless America.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> I've heard a donkey talk...He said HeeHaw HeeHaw!!!Also that donkey sounded like he was whistling too!!!
> Is i read through the post in this section I have to remind myself of 2Timothy2:22-26.....God bless America.



"Relax . Don't do it. When you want go to it."


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

Asath said:


> Folks, mocking a point you fail to understand is a far stretch away from making an intelligent point of your own.  It seems like threads like this are started here in this forum for no other reason than to create an ‘AMEN Chorus’ and attempt to make a point that remains unmade.
> 
> One former non-believer ‘found’ belief?  That is the whole thought?  Proving what exactly?  Oh!  Proving that one former non-believer found belief.  Nothing more.
> 
> ...



Example of the rest of the story.....The bible isn't taught in school, evolution is, and it's also only a theory. So I guess we all have a bone to pick, don't we? No one can prove that either. Can you tell me the difference in 'preaching either' one? We're all weary...not just one side....some of us can take it in stride and others cannot...to each his own.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 5, 2012)

Asath said:


> Folks, mocking a point you fail to understand is a far stretch away from making an intelligent point of your own.  It seems like threads like this are started here in this forum for no other reason than to create an ‘AMEN Chorus’ and attempt to make a point that remains unmade.
> 
> One former non-believer ‘found’ belief?  That is the whole thought?  Proving what exactly?  Oh!  Proving that one former non-believer found belief.  Nothing more.
> 
> ...



This is the biggest pile of garbage I've read in a while.


----------



## vowell462 (Jan 5, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> This is the biggest pile of garbage I've read in a while.



sounded spot on to me.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 5, 2012)

vowell462 said:


> sounded spot on to me.



Thats because you like to read garbage.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 5, 2012)

I just wanted to go on record as saying I absolutely believe in talking donkeys  just in case anyone was wondering


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I just wanted to go on record as saying I absolutely believe in talking donkeys  just in case anyone was wondering



You're a _Shrek_ fan?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I just wanted to go on record as saying I absolutely believe in talking donkeys  just in case anyone was wondering



How would you explain to a 14 year old Buddhist person that you believe in talking donkeys?  

If they laugh at you do you say to them "Oh yeah?  Well you believe in a blue, elephant headed, eight armed demi-god"?  

At what point in the conversation would it be OK for a passer by such as myself to laugh at both of you?


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> How would you explain to a 14 year old Buddhist person that you believe in talking donkeys?



The same way I would explain it you? 

I believe that the bible is right and everything else is wrong and if the bible says there was a talking donkey I beleive there was a talking donkey. 

I know that that makes you think about me but you're welcome to tell me again how unintelligent I am. 

Here is how this all breaks down for me in a nutshell. 

I believe that there was a historical figure named Jesus Christ. I believe that there are enough reliable historical documents (i.e. the gospels and Paul's writings) to affirm the works and life of this man. I believe that this man Jesus was not a raving lunatic but was who he said he was, the Son of the Most High God. I believe that this man Jesus believed the writings of the Old Testamant to be true including the stories of large fish swallowing men and talking donkeys. I believe that if the Son of the Most High God believes them to be true I wil too. 

You don't believe in Jesus, at least not as the Son of the Most High God, the Messiah. Neither does the 14 year old Buddhist. 

To try and reason this with you or him would be as effective as you trying to tell me I am wrong. I believe what I believe as do you. 

If it makes me unintelligent, a moron, an idiot, etc.....then these are the labels I will choose to live with for my lifetime. 

I am more than ok with it. The bible, which I believe, and you do not says this: 

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 1:18-31 ESV)


So this is how I answer you and the Buddhist and anyone else who considers the words and the works of God to be foolishness. (I see that you added some stuff to your previous post, so to answer that part, it is ok with me if you laugh at me anytime you feel like it, for my savior told me I would be laughed at and it is of no surprise to me, nor does it cause me any pain. So laugh away!)


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> The same way I would explain it you?
> 
> I believe that the bible is right and everything else is wrong and if the bible says there was a talking donkey I beleive there was a talking donkey.
> 
> ...



Intelligent people do weird things all the time.  I blow on dice, spit on fishing lures and cross my heart before i putt.  I also realize that these rituals have no effect on how gravity effects the outcome but they give me confidence to make a good cast or a good putt (the dice not so much).  

I don't think you're dumb. I think you and the Buddhist have been duped.  No shame in that.

So lets share a laugh together at the notion of a blue, eight armed, elephant headed god.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So lets share a laugh together at the notion of a blue, eight armed, elephant headed god.



We can do that


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> We can do that



By the way, I can see how you might have misinterpreted what I said.  I wouldn't be laughing at you individually.  It's not polite to laugh at people doing things that are really important to them, like medieval re-enactors or bad singers.  What I would be laughing at is that you would be both be claiming each others mythical creatures are false and that yours are real.   Maybe it's not so funny after all.....


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 5, 2012)

Well there are no hard feelings here no matter why you are laughing. Like I said, I've been warned and I expect it. 

As far as laughing at anything, probably the most humorous part of this to me is that we both pity the other for our beliefs. I think you are wrong and because of my beliefs I am afraid for the repercussions of that. 

You think I am wrong and in your words "duped."

We both feel somewhat sorry that we can't see what the other sees and there is some humor or at least irony in that.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Well there are no hard feelings here no matter why you are laughing. Like I said, I've been warned and I expect it.
> 
> As far as laughing at anything, probably the most humorous part of this to me is that we both pity the other for our beliefs. I think you are wrong and because of my beliefs I am afraid for the repercussions of that.
> 
> ...



Amen, brother. Triple cheers


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 5, 2012)

Why is it that you believe this way about the bible? About the bible... not about what it says happened or will happen, or that you will see the hand of god in your life, because it's the bible that tells you that will happen. Why is it that you are putting all of your faith in that particular book?



jmharris23 said:


> The same way I would explain it you?
> 
> I believe that the bible is right and everything else is wrong and if the bible says there was a talking donkey I beleive there was a talking donkey.
> 
> ...


----------



## gtparts (Jan 5, 2012)

The person, that will not concede that one particular donkey may have spoken at some point in the past, does not seem to recognize that he or she rules out the possibility of a unique exception. It is akin to saying emphatically that there was never an assassination of a Roman emperor on the ides of March. Whether there was or was not such an event cannot be proven scientifically, yet repeatedly we have folks throw out the challenge to provide scientific proof that God exists (and a myriad of other things relating to the Christian faith). Such a request is amusing in it's very essence. The underlying claim is that if science hasn't  or can't explain a phenomenon, it merits further investigation and, if the investigation is fruitless, the phenomenon is really just the fabrication of one or more fevered minds. I'll take the liberty of inserting the word "POPPYCOCK".

For the unbeliever, anything that fails to meet such a narrow criteria, is fiction and thus typically gives up the search and claims that as evidence. "It matters not what others know or believe; only the things that are personally real to me are real in the larger sense." My advice would be to stop using such a narrow and impossible set of criteria. Doing so would allow you to understand that some things of which you have little or no experience or evidence are nonetheless true. If you are truly interested in the truth, it must be pursued fully, honestly and completely.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 5, 2012)

So you're saying there is just as much "evidence" for talking donkeys as there is for evolution, so we should be just as open to talking donkeys as evolution?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2012)

gtparts said:


> The person, that will not concede that one particular donkey may have spoken at some point in the past, does not seem to recognize that he or she rules out the possibility of a unique exception. It is akin to saying emphatically that there was never an assassination of a Roman emperor on the ides of March. Whether there was or was not such an event cannot be proven scientifically, yet repeatedly we have folks throw out the challenge to provide scientific proof that God exists (and a myriad of other things relating to the Christian faith). Such a request is amusing in it's very essence. The underlying claim is that if science hasn't  or can't explain a phenomenon, it merits further investigation and, if the investigation is fruitless, the phenomenon is really just the fabrication of one or more fevered minds. I'll take the liberty of inserting the word "POPPYCOCK".
> 
> For the unbeliever, anything that fails to meet such a narrow criteria, is fiction and thus typically gives up the search and claims that as evidence. "It matters not what others know or believe; only the things that are personally real to me are real in the larger sense." My advice would be to stop using such a narrow and impossible set of criteria. Doing so would allow you to understand that some things of which you have little or no experience or evidence are nonetheless true. If you are truly interested in the truth, it must be pursued fully, honestly and completely.




Very eloquent.  Donkeys don't talk.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 5, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Why is it that you believe this way about the bible? About the bible... not about what it says happened or will happen, or that you will see the hand of god in your life, because it's the bible that tells you that will happen. Why is it that you are putting all of your faith in that particular book?



Our faith is focused on the person of Jesus, not the Bible, per se. Yes, we come to know and understand much of what God reveals about Himself, as well as our purpose, through the Bible. The heart of the matter is that it is confirmed in our experience, our relationship (if you will) with Him. 

And, to ambush80, while I am utterly convinced that what I believe of Christ is true, were I you, I would rather be "duped" than doomed. If I am duped, we will share the same end, You, on the other hand, expect to be doomed in either event, duped or not. 

What a sad way to approach life every day..... with no hope, no ultimate purpose, and no significance.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2012)

I think someone should try a little Bible razzle-ma-dazzle and support the possibility that the correct interpretation of the passage is that it is a metaphor or a fable.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Our faith is focused on the person of Jesus, not the Bible, per se. Yes, we come to know and understand much of what God reveals about Himself, as well as our purpose, through the Bible. The heart of the matter is that it is confirmed in our experience, our relationship (if you will) with Him.
> 
> And, to ambush80, while I am utterly convinced that what I believe of Christ is true, were I you, I would rather be "duped" than doomed. If I am duped, we will share the same end, You, on the other hand, expect to be doomed in either event, duped or not.
> 
> What a sad way to approach life every day..... with no hope, no ultimate purpose, and no significance.



I'm in a far better place than when I was filled with fear, guilt and worthlessness I experienced as a believer.  The fact that I quit believing in fairy tales was a bonus.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 5, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> So you're saying there is just as much "evidence" for talking donkeys as there is for evolution, so we should be just as open to talking donkeys as evolution?



Never mentioned evolution. Not really sure that it is relevant to the issue. Mtnwoman has a point though. At the heart of her post is the simple fact that those who believe in evolution only have pieces to the puzzle and have uncovered far more flaws in the Darwinian process that, to this point, have not been explained. 

The bottom line is that spiritual and scientific matters can not be viewed, examined, tested, or confirmed in the same manner. Trying to understand the spiritual based on scientific principles is like trying to rake leaves with a snowflake. They are both quite real, but the exercise is ultimately frustrating.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It's a far piece better than the fear, guilt and worthlessness I experienced as a believer.  The fact that I quit believing in fairy tales was a bonus.



With apologies, if that is your experience, you had to be operating under some huge misconceptions regarding Christianity. I experienced all those symptoms of sin as a non-believer. You sure you were being instructed by mature followers of Christ? Sounds like they had it all wrong and were just passing on the erroneous information they were taught.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Very eloquent.  Donkeys don't talk, in my experience.




Fixed it for you.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 5, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Why is it that you believe this way about the bible? About the bible... not about what it says happened or will happen, or that you will see the hand of god in your life, because it's the bible that tells you that will happen. Why is it that you are putting all of your faith in that particular book?



Because I believe in Jesus....and He believed in the bible


----------



## JFS (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Because I believe in Jesus....and He believed in the bible



Isn't that circular?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> The same way I would explain it you?
> 
> I believe that the bible is right and everything else is wrong and if the bible says there was a talking donkey I beleive there was a talking donkey.
> 
> ...



I must admit that even though I am on the other side of the fence religious wise........Well said!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 5, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Fixed it for you.



I am getting a better understanding of how the scriptures were written. If someone didn't like what was written they just change it to how they think it should be written.

There are a couple "authors" on here that are always "fixing" things that never actually need to be fixed. If needed to be fixed the original author would fix it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 5, 2012)

JFS said:


> Isn't that circular?



No different then trying to explain logic. One has to use logic to explain logic.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Because I believe in Jesus....and He believed in the bible



Was there anything called the bible back then?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 5, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Our faith is focused on the person of Jesus, not the Bible, per se. Yes, we come to know and understand much of what God reveals about Himself, as well as our purpose, through the Bible. The heart of the matter is that it is confirmed in our experience, our relationship (if you will) with Him.



Would you understand ANYTHING about this alleged relationship without the bible? It could much more easily be explained in other ways without the bible. Would there be any Jesus to speak of without the bible? Somewhere, maybe, but not with the esteem you put on him because of the bible... So why is it that you believe that the bible itself is true. Anything more than because you've always been told that's the way it is?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 5, 2012)

gtparts said:


> And, to ambush80, while I am utterly convinced that what I believe of Christ is true, were I you, I would rather be "duped" than doomed. If I am duped, we will share the same end, You, on the other hand, expect to be doomed in either event, duped or not.
> 
> What a sad way to approach life every day..... with no hope, no ultimate purpose, and no significance.



Who says there's no hope just because it's not hope in the god of the bible? Who says we're doomed? The guy that believes in a talking donkey just because the bible tells him so.  Our significance can come from ourselves. We don't have to be worthless without a god. Which seems like it would have more meaning in life... living to live or living to die?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 5, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Was there anything called the bible back then?



They didn't call it "the bible", but they had the Old Testament.  In the first century, they had the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 5, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Would you understand ANYTHING about this alleged relationship without the bible?



The early church did.  They had the Septuagint, but the NT came later.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Our faith is focused on the person of Jesus, not the Bible, per se. Yes, we come to know and understand much of what God reveals about Himself, as well as our purpose, through the Bible. The heart of the matter is that it is confirmed in our experience, our relationship (if you will) with Him.
> 
> And, to ambush80, while I am utterly convinced that what I believe of Christ is true, were I you, I would rather be "duped" than doomed. If I am duped, we will share the same end, You, on the other hand, expect to be doomed in either event, duped or not.
> 
> What a sad way to approach life every day..... with no hope, no ultimate purpose, and no significance.



OK. Then I choose to be a Buddhist.  Wow! You were right!   I feel so much better now; filled with purpose and understanding.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Because I believe in Jesus....and He believed in the bible




Maybe Jesus understood that the talking donkeys and giant fishes were metaphors or fables and understood the value of them as moral stories.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe understood that the talking donkeys and giant fishes were metaphors or fables and understood the value of them as moral stories.



I suppose an argument could be made for this? 

One could also make and argument that when Jesus spoke in metaphors and used moral stories he seemed to make it clear that is what he was doing. He would often say things like, " the kingdom of heaven is like......." and make a metaphor for what he was explaining or " your Father in heaven is like....." and make a metaphor to help us understand the Father better. 

When he spoke of Jonah he said, " just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale......" By doing this he used it as a typological metaphor for the crucifixion and resurrection, a miracle as well." 

Once again I won't pretend to make a real logical stab at this. You must remember that I believe that God created all things and as the creator he is not bound by the laws of creation or science rather they bow to His will any time He so chooses.

Because of this belief, great fish swallowing men and talking donkeys are really no big deal?  

Just more ramblings of a duped and deluded poor soul, do what you will with them


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I suppose an argument could be made for this?
> 
> One could also make and argument that when Jesus spoke in metaphors and used moral stories he seemed to make it clear that is what he was doing. He would often say things like, " the kingdom of heaven is like......." and make a metaphor for what he was explaining or " your Father in heaven is like....." and make a metaphor to help us understand the Father better.
> 
> ...



I will regard them as you regard Ganesh.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 5, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Who says there's no hope just because it's not hope in the god of the bible? Who says we're doomed? The guy that believes in a talking donkey just because the bible tells him so.  Our significance can come from ourselves. We don't have to be worthless without a god. Which seems like it would have more meaning in life... living to live or living to die?



To answer your question from another post and piggy back on this one: I believe in the bible because I believe it to be a historically factual grouping of letters and writings regarding God, His ways, and His church.  I believe it to be inspired by God and physically written and preserved by men.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I just wanted to go on record as saying I absolutely believe in talking donkeys  just in case anyone was wondering



We have one for a president right now. So where's the mystery?


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 5, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> We have one for a president right now. So where's the mystery?



Love the Avatar!


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I'm in a far better place than when I was filled with fear, guilt and worthlessness I experienced as a believer.  The fact that I quit believing in fairy tales was a bonus.



Then whoever you studied under was a false teacher. Christ gives us peace and joy and comfort...the bible tells us that.
My grandmother turned me onto Christ but she also told me there were bears under the bed in case I decided to get up and out of bed when she wanted me to stay in bed.

I still step way out from the bed when I get out, not because I'm afraid of Jesus or even the devil, I'm afraid from the manipulation that my grandmother instilled in me.

Whoever instilled that fear in you is at fault, not God, not Jesus.

Fairy tales you don't like? do you still believe that you'll put a bullet in the heart of the biggest buck on earth? or catch the biggest trout ever known to man? If you do, you still believe in fairy tales...


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> To answer your question from another post and piggy back on this one: I believe in the bible because I believe it to be a historically factual grouping of letters and writings regarding God, His ways, and His church.  I believe it to be inspired by God and physically written and preserved by men.



Can I get an amen to that???

Amen!!


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 5, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Once again I won't pretend to make a real logical stab at this. You must remember that I believe that God created all things and as the creator he is not bound by the laws of creation or science rather they bow to His will any time He so chooses.
> 
> Because of this belief, great fish swallowing men and talking donkeys are really no big deal?



Do you think it's a good idea to have people believe in these sorts of things handling retirement investment accounts, performing pediatric neurosurgery, constructing skyscrapers, etc?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> OK. Then I choose to be a Buddhist.  Wow! You were right!   I feel so much better now; filled with purpose and understanding.



Well I'm glad you are filled with something other than just yourself.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Do you think it's a good idea to have people believe in these sorts of things handling retirement investment accounts, performing pediatric neurosurgery, constructing skyscrapers, etc?



Like that's not what we have today? 
You honestly think those people named in your post are all on the up and up?
Wow!


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe Jesus understood that the talking donkeys and giant fishes were metaphors or fables and understood the value of them as moral stories.



Ya reckon?

Let's see you choose to be a buddhist?..watch out because the supernatural is envolved there, too....oooppps 'up jumped the boogie'.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 5, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Like that's not what we have today?
> You honestly think those people named in your post are all on the up and up?
> Wow!



It's a matter of having confidence in their judgment, not their ethics.  Thanks.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Do you think it's a good idea to have people believe in these sorts of things handling retirement investment accounts, performing pediatric neurosurgery, constructing skyscrapers, etc?




Yes


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> It's a matter of having confidence in their judgment, not their ethics.  Thanks.



I would rather depend on a professionals skill and faith, than their judgement and ethics.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Do you think it's a good idea to have people believe in these sorts of things handling retirement investment accounts, performing pediatric neurosurgery, constructing skyscrapers, etc?



Yes!!!


----------



## vowell462 (Jan 6, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Thats because you like to read garbage.



No I dont. I will say that the paragraph was absolutley well written as usual by the poster. It was a good read, not garbage.

I normally dont jump on people in the forum, but is it garbage to you because you are so close minded in your beliefs that you cant even hint to open up to what someone else believes? Or is it garbage because Asaths knack for the english language is so far beyond you that you are intellectually incapable of understanding what he writes?


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 6, 2012)

vowell462 said:


> No I dont. I will say that the paragraph was absolutley well written as usual by the poster. It was a good read, not garbage.
> 
> I normally dont jump on people in the forum, but is it garbage to you because you are so close minded in your beliefs that you cant even hint to open up to what someone else believes? Or is it garbage because Asaths knack for the english language is so far beyond you that you are intellectually incapable of understanding what he writes?


AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......You can jump on me all you want....I dont mind,I love it.Could you write a little slower though,Im having a hard time comprehending


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Like that's not what we have today?
> You honestly think those people named in your post are all on the up and up?
> Wow!



They are no more or less on the "up and up" than the writers of the Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2012)

vowell462 said:


> No I dont. I will say that the paragraph was absolutley well written as usual by the poster. It was a good read, not garbage.
> 
> I normally dont jump on people in the forum, but is it garbage to you because you are so close minded in your beliefs that you cant even hint to open up to what someone else believes? Or is it garbage because Asaths knack for the english language is so far beyond you that you are intellectually incapable of understanding what he writes?



Vowell, you have to take a step back and look at the whole picture. In another thread in another forum someone thinks that Satan is Google and is putting anti-Jesus ads all over the internet. Take all the bits and pieces and put them into perspective.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Yes



Okay.  Granted, they're doing it anyway in all likelihood.  

My concern is when somebody who believes a talking snake is 100% feasible says "I think God wants this deposit to go to my church instead of in Mr Ham's Roth IRA."  Or maybe when the surgeon who believes in a 13 foot tall giant abruptly declares during surgery "You know, it's just God's will that this child die of hydrocephalus.  Okay staff, let's close her up."


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I would rather depend on a professionals skill and faith, than their judgement and ethics.



I wasn't addressing ethics here.  But sure, I prefer them to be impeccable in that way.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 6, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......You can jump on me all you want....I dont mind,I love it.



You jumped on them first.  Not sure why you are taking pride when somebody just returns what you sent.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Okay.  Granted, they're doing it anyway in all likelihood.
> 
> My concern is when somebody who believes a talking snake is 100% feasible says "I think God wants this deposit to go to my church instead of in Mr Ham's Roth IRA."  Or maybe when the surgeon who believes in a 13 foot tall giant abruptly declares during surgery "You know, it's just God's will that this child die of hydrocephalus.  Okay staff, let's close her up."



Bad things don't happen with atheist CPA's and Doctors?

The CPA that doesn't believe in God puts it in his own bank account instead of a churches.

Don't pretend that the world would be great without people who believe in a talking snake or donkey.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Bad things don't happen with atheist CPA's and Doctors?



All the time.  I never asserted otherwise.  Again, I wasn't addressing ethics.




stringmusic said:


> Don't pretend that the world would be great without people who believe in a talking snake or donkey.



You missed my point entirely.  Someone who believes in talking animals...I automatically question their judgment.  That's it in a nutshell.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Okay.  Granted, they're doing it anyway in all likelihood.
> 
> My concern is when somebody who believes a talking snake is 100% feasible says "I think God wants this deposit to go to my church instead of in Mr Ham's Roth IRA."  Or maybe when the surgeon who believes in a 13 foot tall giant abruptly declares during surgery "You know, it's just God's will that this child die of hydrocephalus.  Okay staff, let's close her up."



While I know that there are extremes to all things, including Christians. I will have to say that this is, in my humble opinion, is a completely unfounded fear. Without being disrespectful it is also a little bit silly to say such a thing.

Do you honestly believe that a Christian investment banker is going to steal your money and give it to his church any more than an atheist investment banker would steal your money and give it to his wife?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> All the time.  I never asserted otherwise.  Again, I wasn't addressing ethics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is it just the talking animals that get you to questioning, or the bible as a whole, or God and Jesus?

Do you question the judgement of someone who believes that the earth and humanity was created by floating gulash in space?

What about someone who has no belief system to adhere to and does whatever makes them happy at any given moment?


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> All the time.  I never asserted otherwise.  Again, I wasn't addressing ethics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well I question the judgement of someone who believes we came from nothing. But I do trust them to make good decisions based on their profession and not their beliefs.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Without being disrespectful it is also a little bit silly to say such a thing.



I won't go into details but I have seen it happen.  It really disturbed me.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Is it just the talking animals that get you to questioning, or the bible as a whole, or God and Jesus?



Lots of things aside from talking animals.



stringmusic said:


> Do you question the judgement of someone who believes that the earth and humanity was created by floating gulash in space?



Yes, I would definitely question the judgment of such a person. What you describe is a lot like what scientologists believe, fwiw.



stringmusic said:


> What about someone who has no belief system to adhere to and does whatever makes them happy at any given moment?



Atheism = amorality ?  

This question I won't even address further.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I won't go into details but I have seen it happen.  It really disturbed me.



Well friend, I have seen preachers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, bankers, CPA's, professional athletes, coaches, people of all races, people of all backgrounds,  etc. do things that really disturb me. 

That does not make me think poorly of all people? I still trust someone until they give me a reason to do otherwise. I do business with believers and unbelievers alike, and whether they believe in talking donkeys has little to do with whether or not I trust them to do a good job.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 6, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> . But I do trust them to make good decisions based on their profession and not their beliefs.



X2. When it comes to business, a person's history is much more telling than their belief system (which could be nothing more than a claim, or lack of, anyway).


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Well friend, I have seen preachers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, bankers, CPA's, professional athletes, coaches, people of all races, people of all backgrounds,  etc. do things that really disturb me.
> 
> That does not make me think poorly of all people? I still trust someone until they give me a reason to do otherwise. I do business with believers and unbelievers alike, and whether they believe in talking donkeys has little to do with whether or not I trust them to do a good job.



I feel pretty much the same way.  I have a good friend and neighbor who believes in ghosts.  I think he's silly and he knows it but I don't throw it in his face.  

I think the biggest objection that most non-believers have with religion that it gets brought into the political arena.  Believe all you want in talking donkeys or haints.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2012)

Addendum:

I think that most non-believers, especially those who used to be believers, have carefully scrutinized the major religions and will probably admit that doctrine contains some good advice on how to treat your fellow man.  There is some very bad advice also and that is the problem with blindly accepting the thing in its entirety.  A talking donkey/snake/bush claim SHOULD be a sign that everything in there may not be on the up and up.  Still, no need to throw the 6lb.-8oz. sweet, wing-ed baby out with the bath water.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 6, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Yes, I would definitely question the judgment of such a person. What you describe is a lot like what scientologists believe, fwiw.


.. and a lot like what the atheist I have encountered believe. 





> Atheism = amorality ?


I never said that, an atheist can be very moral, but they don't have to choose to be moral and have no obligation to be. Would you not agree?


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Addendum:
> 
> I think that most non-believers, especially those who used to be believers, have carefully scrutinized the major religions and will probably admit that doctrine contains some good advice on how to treat your fellow man.  There is some very bad advice also and that is the problem with blindly accepting the thing in its entirety.  A talking donkey/snake/bush claim SHOULD be a sign that everything in there may not be on the up and up.  Still, no need to throw the 6lb.-8oz. sweet, wing-ed baby out with the bath water.



I get what you are saying here, but remember this. If a person believes in the creator God of the bible, then talking donkeys are no sweat


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I get what you are saying here, but remember this. If a person believes in the creator God of the Bible, then talking donkeys are no sweat



Or any god for that matter.

That's the "switch" that gets thrown in one's brain that allows for the acceptance of lots of kooky notions.  Don't you look kind of sideways at hippe crystal rubbers?  Like they're just a bit off?  Would you leave your kids with one of them? One of them that was REALLY into it?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Or any god for that matter.
> 
> That's the "switch" that gets thrown in one's brain that allows for the acceptance of lots of kooky notions.  Don't you look kind of sideways at hippe crystal rubbers?  Like they're just a bit off?  Would you leave your kids with one of them? One of them that was REALLY into it?



This comment makes it abundantly clear, to any kind of spiritual person, that you might as well be in the middle of the ocean paddling around looking for subject matter to bring into discussions of God.

We often forget that you aren't just a person who doesn't believe in God...... You are a devout proclaimer of the ignorance of believers!


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 6, 2012)

He makes his point, which he applies to all religious belief systems not just Christianity, and is making it in the correct forum.

Never seen anything said by ambush80 to be intended as personal insult towards anyone here.  I've been here a while...


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 6, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> He makes his point, which he applies to all religious belief systems not just Christianity, and is making it in the correct forum.
> 
> Never seen anything said by ambush80 to be intended as personal insult towards anyone here.  I've been here a while...



Then you and I disagree!


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Or any god for that matter.
> 
> That's the "switch" that gets thrown in one's brain that allows for the acceptance of lots of kooky notions.  Don't you look kind of sideways at hippe crystal rubbers?  Like they're just a bit off?  Would you leave your kids with one of them? One of them that was REALLY into it?



No I would probably not leave my child with a "hippy crystal rubber."

 I would however leave them with someone I trust who believes in talking donkeys. 

But I would also leave them with someone I trust who believes in nothing


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> This comment makes it abundantly clear, to any kind of spiritual person, that you might as well be in the middle of the ocean paddling around looking for subject matter to bring into discussions of God.
> 
> We often forget that you aren't just a person who doesn't believe in God...... You are a devout proclaimer of the ignorance of believers!



It's not ignorance nor stupidity.  It's something else.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 6, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Then you and I disagree!



On the interpretation of ambush80's posts as being intended as a personal insult to all Christians?

You made the statement, I'm just looking for the evidence to substantiate it.
I have not seen it in the entirety of my time on this website.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> No I would probably not leave my child with a "hippy crystal rubber."
> 
> I would however leave them with someone I trust who believes in talking donkeys.
> 
> But I would also leave them with someone I trust who believes in nothing



Why not the hippie?  

I leave my daughter with people who believe in talking donkeys all the time; my parents.  I also leave her with Christians who don't believe in talking donkeys; my in laws.  Honestly, I feel more at ease when she's with the in laws.

To illustrate a point: Say you're kid came home and said "At Billy's house before we had a snack, Billy's mom, Moonbeam had us all hold our hands up to the sky and thank the goddess Isis for our bounty."  How would you take that?  Well, that's how I feel every time I go to my parents house and they say grace.  I remain quiet and respectful but can't participate and I don't want them exposing my impressionable daughter to it either.  Is that unreasonable?

It's the same reason non-believers don't like prayer rituals in the public domain.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> On the interpretation of ambush80's posts as being intended as a personal insult to all Christians?
> 
> You made the statement, I'm just looking for the evidence to substantiate it.
> I have not seen it in the entirety of my time on this website.



You can stop. There is none.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 6, 2012)

Then, I have to view RT's post #102 as an appeal to emotions, and a call to believers to "circle the wagons" and rally against ambush80 unnecessarily.

I don't want to believe that was the intention...


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Why not the hippie?
> 
> I leave my daughter with people who believe in talking donkeys all the time; my parents.  I also leave her with Christians who don't believe in talking donkeys; my in laws.  Honestly, I feel more at ease when she's with the in laws.
> 
> ...




As I have said before, I in no way think you are unreasonable and if you don't believe and don't want your children to believe then I completely understand your hesitancy to expose them to those who do. 

As far as the hippy, I would rather my child be with someone who believes nothing that with someone who does not believe in my God, if that makes sense to you? 

As for prayer in a public place, I understand your frustration there as well, although from a different side probably.

 That said I still believe that all people have the right to express their beliefs in a public manner as long their beliefs bring me no physical harm , i.e. prayer, preaching, etc. 

I also respect your belief not to believe and you might notice have never pleaded with you in any way to accept my belief nor I have I threatened you with eternal ****ation because you do not accept my way. I don't treat anyone else in public any differently. If a Muslim wants to pray to Allah, or so on a so forth I say let him have at it. 

But tonight in the sanctuary of my home, at my bed before I go to sleep I will pray that my God, He of great men- swallowing fish and talking donkeys, will work in the heart of Ambush80 to bring him to a knowledge and love of Himself, the creator God, and an understanding of Him beyond rational and logical explanation. 

I will pray for you tonight and tomorrow night and for many nights to come just as I have for many months. 

Maybe God will answer my prayer, maybe he won't. But I will not pester you about it nor threaten you and I don't think anyone else should either. 

I do hope you can respect my concern and love for you based on my beliefs and even if you don't agree with me, also respect my approach.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 6, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> This comment makes it abundantly clear, to any kind of spiritual person, that you might as well be in the middle of the ocean paddling around looking for subject matter to bring into discussions of God.
> 
> We often forget that you aren't just a person who doesn't believe in God...... You are a devout proclaimer of the ignorance of believers!



I said nothing about personal insults!
You said that.
If you guyes are going to circle the wagons around me at least do it for the correct reasons.  

.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 6, 2012)

Then, what do you and I "disagree" on regarding ambush80's post #101, RT?

I saw nothing leading to any possible interpretation by any party of a personal insult, so I can not understand where you and I were in disagreement regarding the post.  Please note he said "any god" not just the Christian deity.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 6, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> Then, I have to view RT's post #102 as an appeal to emotions, and a call to believers to "circle the wagons" and rally against ambush80 unnecessarily.
> 
> I don't want to believe that was the intention...



Then you would be incorrect on all accounts.
My statement was what it was.  It wasn't a personal attack.  It was a stating of an understanding I believe and I'll bet he's comfortable with it.
No rallying against him at all that I saw.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 6, 2012)

I never said your post #102, or ambush80's post #101 was a personal attack. 

Your appeal to emotions posted response to him reflected a singularly Christian defensive posture pulling something from the air that simply was not there, in my opinion and in my interpretation.
You stated that you and I were in disagreement.
I just wanted to know over what exactly.

The internet is quite tough to communicate on sometimes.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 6, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> I never said your post #102, or ambush80's post #101 was a personal attack.
> 
> Your appeal to emotions posted response to him reflected a singularly Christian defensive posture pulling something from the air that simply was not there, in my opinion and in my interpretation.
> You stated that you and I were in disagreement.
> ...


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 6, 2012)

What purpose would God have had in speaking to a human through a donkey??

Didn't God know how rediculous it would sound while being read by an unbeliever today?  Yes.
Didn't God know it could be a point of contention between believers and unbelievers?  Yes.

But making a donkey talk is no big deal for the One that created that donkey.
Consider the stick that became a snake.  
And the man who was being carried to his grave but came back to life because God willed it.
Or the sun, that maintains it's course year after year, century after century.

If evolution were what it's suppose to be, that donkey should probably have evolved it's vocal cords by now and be able to speak english, or german.  I mean, it's had millions of years.

Truthfully, the world is filled with unexplainable things today.  A believer will believe in the unexplainable things of God.  An unbeliever will believe in the unexplainable things of the universe.
But we each must believe in the unexplainable.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Or any god for that matter.
> 
> That's the "switch" that gets thrown in one's brain that allows for the acceptance of lots of kooky notions.  Don't you look kind of sideways at hippe crystal rubbers?  Like they're just a bit off?  Would you leave your kids with one of them? One of them that was REALLY into it?



It can be applied to any idea that is yet unproven or unknown.  Some scientific theory beliefs, beliefs in the existance of other worlds or intelligent life within the universe, eternal life or even reincarnation can be considered unproven or unknown.

Where one person can discount the existance of other deities and gods, there are others who can discount the existance of all of them.

I continue to stand for the right of a free person to believe how they wish.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> If evolution were what it's suppose to be, that donkey should probably have evolved it's vocal cords by now and be able to speak english, or german.  I mean, it's had millions of years.



With all due respect Ron while we see things differently I have always admired your passion for your religion and your thoughtful and intelligent replies. In this case though, I think you are grossly uninformed about evolution and what it is supposed to be or how and why  creatures differ. For no other reason than to be better informed, even for discussion outside of these forums, you should try to look into it a little more.  I have no doubt your faith will withstand the extra knowledge.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 6, 2012)

No doubt I have looked into it.  But if I look at it in a rational way, why shouldn't that animal have learned to communicate with me on my level by this time in the evolutionary existance?  It is a plausable question.  It might not be to you, but the whole point of discussion is that one persons view doesn't limit another person's search for that which is reasonable.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> No doubt I have looked into it.  But if I look at it in a rational way, why shouldn't that animal have learned to communicate with me on my level by this time in the evolutionary existance?  It is a plausable question.  It might not be to you, but the whole point of discussion is that one persons view doesn't limit another person's search for that which is reasonable.



The end result of evolution is not necessarily speech or opposable thumbs.  It works differently for each organism. If that is how you think evolution works then you're mistaken.   Nothing wrong with being mistaken but with a little googleing you don't have to be.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> No doubt I have looked into it.  But if I look at it in a rational way, why shouldn't that animal have learned to communicate with me on my level by this time in the evolutionary existance?  It is a plausable question.  It might not be to you, but the whole point of discussion is that one persons view doesn't limit another person's search for that which is reasonable.



If the species needed to communicate with the human species it very well could have developed those skills. For all we know they may be in the process of doing that right now. It just might take another 40 million years for it to complete the process. If there is a reason that they need to communicate in "our" language it would have been kick started when "our" language skills became active and we are not here long enough to allow the donkeys to adapt.
OR
The species evolved exactly as it needed for that species to survive today and speech (as we know it to be)is not necessary for that survival.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 6, 2012)

How did the species know to evolve to the point it is at today?
Who decides how long the evolution process will continue for each species?  Or is it random and out of control?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> How did the species know to evolve to the point it is at today?
> Who decides how long the evolution process will continue for each species?  Or is it random and out of control?



Out of Necessity for the survival of the species. Adapt and live or don't and die.

Who? I don't think it is a who. It is a battle between the species and and ever changing environment.
Who is deciding the Polar Bears are losing their environment? Is that how someone decided to kill off the species or is it up to the Polar bears to adapt?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Out of Necessity for the survival of the species. Adapt and live or don't and die.
> 
> Who? I don't think it is a who. It is a battle between the species and and ever changing environment.
> Who is deciding the Polar Bears are losing their environment? Is that how someone decided to kill off the species or is it up to the Polar bears to adapt?



And there lies the problem of 'debating' an issue in the AAA forum.  Those who do not believe in an Almighty God as the creator and sustainer of all things have their beliefs based upon a completely different foundation than those who do believe in God as the creator and formulator of our existance.

People who believe in God believe that an evolution of sort has occurred, but that God is responsible for the final outcome.  That man is the master of the universe only because God made it so.
Our differences of beliefs are broad.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> And there lies the problem of 'debating' an issue in the AAA forum.  Those who do not believe in an Almighty God as the creator and sustainer of all things have their beliefs based upon a completely different foundation than those who do believe in God as the creator and formulator of our existance.
> 
> People who believe in God believe that an evolution of sort has occurred, but that God is responsible for the final outcome.  That man is the master of the universe only because God made it so.
> Our differences of beliefs are broad.



I see your reasoning Ron.

I see peoples reasoning for a God in the mix. I can see why people can and do owe the very beginning spark that got it all rolling to a higher power. As a human there is a part of me that still thinks/wants it to be possible.

What I do not see is the story of creation put forth by the organized religions throughout the world.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 6, 2012)

I consider myself a hippie. Perhaps you mean wiccans or pagans that rub stones and I do agree they do look like wanna be hippies. I use a lot of herbs and essential oils made from plants and flowers as natural healers...ie mostly stuff like lavender, eucalyptus, menthol, peppermint.

I also wear a copper bracelet as copper does help with pain from fibromyalgia and arthritis. So minerals and sometimes other organic things that come from the earth are also useful. God made all that for us to use. I thank God for those things....satan didn't create anything including rocks, and yes I know to give God the credit for anything that helps us and our infirmities.

I think a lot of those newagers, that rub crystals or wear crystals or whatever they do with them, are in the same category as a moped rider with harley gear on. They do it cause all those around them do it.
I do have a cut crystal, I don't rub it I hang it in my window and it makes tiny rainbows all over my room when the sun hits it just right.

Yes, I know, kind of off topic.

And I understand where you're coming from, ambush when it comes to your daughter.





ambush80 said:


> Why not the hippie?
> 
> I leave my daughter with people who believe in talking donkeys all the time; my parents.  I also leave her with Christians who don't believe in talking donkeys; my in laws.  Honestly, I feel more at ease when she's with the in laws.
> 
> ...


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I see your reasoning Ron.
> 
> I see peoples reasoning for a God in the mix. I can see why people can and do owe the very beginning spark that got it all rolling to a higher power. As a human there is a part of me that still thinks/wants it to be possible.*I think that was one of my points in the elect thread, that deep inside every human we do seek/believe/feel like/search for some kind of 'god', something greater than ourselves. I mean just look at all the 'graven images' all over the earth that proves that man does have that desire, some more than others.*
> 
> What I do not see is the story of creation put forth by the organized religions throughout the world. *Would you explain this a little more?*



Peace


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I think that was one of my points in the elect thread, that deep inside every human we do seek/believe/feel like/search for some kind of 'god', something greater than ourselves. I mean just look at all the 'graven images' all over the earth that proves that man does have that desire, some more than others.
> 
> Would you explain this a little more?



I think it is human nature to want to be "nature'd" We cannot except anything else other than something like us creating us so we gravitate toward a "super" us.

As far as the organized religions having the real scoop on creation....
Like above, it is human nature to owe it all to a higher power. It then boils down to Who's higher power is the actual higher power. In each religion and belief there is a story on how their higher power created everything. To get like-minded people on the same set of railroad tracks someone has to write the stories and the rules. IE: Get Organized. Once organized then the wheels are set in motion to have specific beliefs followed by large groups. the problem is that there are as many groups as there are Gods responsible for creating these groups and they ALL claim their God(s), their ways and their beliefs are the "right" ones.
For me, there are just too many people that believe in too many versions of too many different Gods and ALL claim theirs is the one that created creation.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I think it is human nature to want to be "nature'd" We cannot except anything else other than something like us creating us so we gravitate toward a "super" us.
> 
> As far as the organized religions having the real scoop on creation....
> Like above, it is human nature to owe it all to a higher power. It then boils down to Who's higher power is the actual higher power. In each religion and belief there is a story on how their higher power created everything. To get like-minded people on the same set of railroad tracks someone has to write the stories and the rules. IE: Get Organized. Once organized then the wheels are set in motion to have specific beliefs followed by large groups. the problem is that there are as many groups as there are Gods responsible for creating these groups and they ALL claim their God(s), their ways and their beliefs are the "right" ones.
> For me, there are just too many people that believe in too many versions of too many different Gods and ALL claim theirs is the one that created creation.



I haven't studied many other religions, ie Buddism, Muslem, nor other 'top' religions of the world. 
How close is their belief in creation to Christianity? Do we all believe about the same thing, just a different God? or what?

The first part of your post of our 'longing' to believe in a 'super us',  I've always felt that. I do not believe we are dead to it before God of Abraham sparks an interest in that, if in fact we might be chosen by Him. I believe we are born with that 'spark' and that we aren't chosen specially to receive that 'spark' that wakes us up to God...it's already there....built in like our desire to procreate.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I haven't studied many other religions, ie Buddism, Muslem, nor other 'top' religions of the world.
> How close is their belief in creation to Christianity? Do we all believe about the same thing, just a different God? or what?
> 
> The first part of your post of our 'longing' to believe in a 'super us',  I've always felt that. I do not believe we are dead to it before God of Abraham sparks an interest in that, if in fact we might be chosen by Him. I believe we are born with that 'spark' and that we aren't chosen specially to receive that 'spark' that wakes us up to God...it's already there....built in like our desire to procreate.



Yes, no, a little and not even close! Other religions vary so much from Christianity that hardy anything is similar and yet Christianity,Judaism and Islam all share the same God of Abraham and same Old Testament!

I can see your point about having the spark built in, but that is EXACTLY what the followers of other religions will tell you that their God built into them.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I can see your point about having the spark built in, but that is EXACTLY what the followers of other religions will tell you that their God built into them.



Absolutely. I agree. 

Obviously that 'spark' is there to seek something/someone/somegod.

I was just saying that in the elect thread which you probably didn't keep up with. Some believers of the 'tulip doctrine' believe that we are born dead to that spark and to be given that 'spark' you have to be prechosen by the God of Abraham, and you don't have it at all if you are not chosen/elected. I guess I believe it is sort of a natural instinct since there are so many gods all over the world that are worshiped because that 'spark' is not dead but alive in most of us. Not necessarily the right god, but some god.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I can see your point about having the spark built in, but that is EXACTLY what the followers of other religions will tell you that their God built into them.



If God exists, isn't their God also our God?  

My thoughts are that, even though I am a Christian, I don't think that means every other religion worships a different God.  It just seems many acknowledge God differently.  The God of Abraham is the God of Abraham.  Who acknowledges, or doesn't, is irrelevant to his existence.

So, as far as the "spark" is concerned, we can all be on the right track.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> If God exists, isn't their God also our God?
> 
> My thoughts are that, even though I am a Christian, I don't think that means every other religion worships a different God.  It just seems many acknowledge God differently.  The God of Abraham is the God of Abraham.  Who acknowledges, or doesn't, is irrelevant to his existence.
> 
> So, as far as the "spark" is concerned, we can all be on the right track.



It never sounds as good when the shoe is on the other foot though.

If there is but one God or any God it would be a simple feat to have everyone acknowledge him the same. For no other reason than to avoid the lives lost throughout time arguing over the same God with different names.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What kind of evidence would you need to believe in talking donkeys?



Denver 29 Pittsburg 23

.....you're welcome.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 9, 2012)

It finally dawned on me.....

Obama is a talking donkey....


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 9, 2012)

I believe in a FAR GREATER miracle than talking donkeys....      To be a Christian, I have to!   

We all believe in miracles, just depends on which one.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I believe in a FAR GREATER miracle than talking donkeys....      To be a Christian, I have to!
> 
> We all believe in miracles, just depends on which one.



I would be just as entertained by a talking donkey as a resurrection.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Denver 29 Pittsburg 23
> 
> .....you're welcome.



Like I said.....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/09/tebows-biblical-game-316-yards-invokes-key-verse/?test=faces

Tebow, just proved it all......


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 9, 2012)

i'm sure you'd be in the minority.    show me a 3-day-dead man resurrected over a talking donkey anyday!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Like I said.....
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/09/tebows-biblical-game-316-yards-invokes-key-verse/?test=faces
> 
> Tebow, just proved it all......



Not fair if they are playing with 12 .


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Not fair if they are playing with 12 .


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Denver 29 Pittsburg 23
> 
> .....you're welcome.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I would be just as entertained by a talking donkey as a resurrection.



Well if OBammy gets reelected will you then believe in resurrection?....cause he's more than 50% dead.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 9, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I believe in a FAR GREATER miracle than talking donkeys....      To be a Christian, I have to!
> 
> We all believe in miracles, just depends on which one.



Me, too.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I would be just as entertained by a talking donkey as a resurrection.



I think it would be entertaining to observe an organism come into existance where before hand there hadn't been any living thing at all.  Something from nothin.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I think it would be entertaining to observe an organism come into existance where before hand there hadn't been any living thing at all.  Something from nothin.



We always think either God poofed life into existence or life began from nothing. What if both are wrong?

What if this planet was sitting here with many of the ingredients in place and a piece of space debris brought the missing ingredient(s) to kick start the barbeque? 

What if this planet in it's early stages was uninhabitable by the simplest forms of life as we now know it and organisms that could survive in an acidic, toxic, poisonous environment thrived?  They may not have been as complex as needed nowand since alive could have adapted to be more complex as the Earth changed?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2012)

The "big-bang" for life on our planet could have been another planet hitting ours and forming our Moon. The gaseous highly toxic atmosphere due to the Volcanoes forming the land masses may have been altered with that impact and whatever hit the planet might have contained the missing ingredients needed to start life.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The "big-bang" for life on our planet could have been another planet hitting ours and forming our Moon. The gaseous highly toxic atmosphere due to the Volcanoes forming the land masses may have been altered with that impact and whatever hit the planet might have contained the missing ingredients needed to start life.



Interesting to think what happened when the universe was formed.  I imaging there were some pretty cool fireworks regardless of how it all began.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Interesting to think what happened when the universe was formed.  I imaging there were some pretty cool fireworks regardless of how it all began.



You ain't tellin no lies!


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> How would you explain to a 14 year old Buddhist person that you believe in talking donkeys?
> 
> If they laugh at you do you say to them "Oh yeah?  Well you believe in a blue, elephant headed, eight armed demi-god"?
> 
> At what point in the conversation would it be OK for a passer by such as myself to laugh at both of you?



I bet a 14 year old Buddhist would be intrigued by the notion, and would not discount the possibility because of the way science describes vocal chords work. They would most likely recognize the immensity of the universe and our limited understanding of how everything works. Very open minded those Buddhists.

I think it is more about the articulation of the tounge and mouth to form words than it is about vocal chords.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> We always think either God poofed life into existence or life began from nothing. What if both are wrong?
> 
> What if this planet was sitting here with many of the ingredients in place and a piece of space debris brought the missing ingredient(s) to kick start the barbeque?
> 
> What if this planet in it's early stages was uninhabitable by the simplest forms of life as we now know it and organisms that could survive in an acidic, toxic, poisonous environment thrived?  They may not have been as complex as needed nowand since alive could have adapted to be more complex as the Earth changed?



Even if I were an atheist, I consider the possibility of the above to be beyond mathmatical consideration.
What ever happened, happened with a purpose.  Whatever happened has been an impossibility on all other planets for billions and billions of years.  If it could have randomly happen on earth, to it's near perfection, it would have happened on another planet.

Everything has to have a beginning.  Nothing can come from nothing.
The creator God is the most logical and feasible conclusion for me.  For me, none of the other possibilities could have brought us where we are today.

Even the petroleum we pump from the ground, I believe God made provisions for that.  All part of the creation.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

Good point, Ronnie.    Flew, in his book "There is a God", makes the point that the universe having a beginning was a setback for atheists.   It would have been better for atheists had the universe just "been", without an apparent beginning.    He said that since the universe seems to have a beginning, there had to be a Cause.   

There is NO evidence for these hypothetical 'earliest' life forms.    There was no 'kick start', because chemicals could care less about their current state and were not 'purpose driven'.        We can't speak of life without inferring the teleological argument.    chemicals didn't want to be 'better'.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Even if I were an atheist, I consider the possibility of the above to be beyond mathmatical consideration.
> What ever happened, happened with a purpose.  Whatever happened has been an impossibility on all other planets for billions and billions of years.  If it could have randomly happen on earth, to it's near perfection, it would have happened on another planet.
> 
> Everything has to have a beginning.  Nothing can come from nothing.
> ...



The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 124.]


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

lol    Flew addresses that as well.    Hawking is 'speculating', with no evidence to what he is saying, while ALL the evidence points to a beginning.   good luck finding a scientist that does not believe in the big bang.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

1.Something cannot come from nothing.
2. Something cannot have always been.
Those are the arguments of Creationists as they tell me their God which has always been created something from nothing.
Go Figure.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    Flew addresses that as well.    Hawking is 'speculating', with no evidence to what he is saying, while ALL the evidence points to a beginning.   good luck finding a scientist that does not believe in the big bang.



What evidence does Mr.Flew have on WHO created that beginning?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 1.Something cannot come from nothing.
> 2. Something cannot have always been.
> Those are the arguments of Creationists as they tell me their God which has always been created something from nothing.
> Go Figure.



lol    wow....that's the same thing your science geeks are saying!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    wow....that's the same thing your science geeks are saying!



lol,wow.... probably because it is a darn good argument using your religious geeks own rules.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 10, 2012)

Bullet, everything I have ever read about the universe indicates it is currently expanding.   I think this is proven by redshift, which I am sure you know more about than I do.

If it is expanding, then Hawking has to be wrong.  If it has no end, how can it expand?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 1.Something cannot come from nothing. *Without the supernatural*
> 2. Something cannot have always been. *Without the supernatural.*
> Those are the arguments of Creationists as they tell me their God which has always been created something from nothing.
> Go Figure.



I had to add this to your first two statements for the latter statement to be true.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

LONG read but good.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9712/9712344v1.pdf


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I had to add this to your first two statements for the latter statement to be true.



The universe is supernatural.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The universe is supernatural.



Really?? Do tell.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Really?? Do tell.



Just pick whatever reasons you use.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Just pick whatever reasons you use.



The word of God and my relationship with Him?

I don't think that will work.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Bullet, everything I have ever read about the universe indicates it is currently expanding.   I think this is proven by redshift, which I am sure you know more about than I do.
> 
> If it is expanding, then Hawking has to be wrong.  If it has no end, how can it expand?



Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time 1988, pp. 8-9.]

Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.]


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The word of God and my relationship with Him?
> 
> I don't think that will work.



Works for me. My relationship with the Universe is why I follow it's word.

It talks to me because I believe.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Works for me. My relationship with the Universe is why I follow it's word.
> 
> It talks to me because I believe.



Hope that works out for ya.

I know you are but what am I....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Hope that works out for ya.
> 
> I know you are but what am I....



Certainly sounds silly when someone says it, huh?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time



Think I'll start calling that your bible!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Think I'll start calling that your bible!



Naaah, it has an actual known author and I don't consider it the words of any God.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> ...I don't consider it the words of any God.



That's debatable.       I appreciate the uppercase 'G'


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time 1988, pp. 8-9.]
> 
> Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.]



Now that's some kind of observation.

.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 10, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Now that's some kind of observation.
> 
> .



If Hubble said it, I believe it!


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 10, 2012)

gtparts said:


> If Hubble said it, I believe it!



Do you have to rub the side of it or clean the lense before asking it stuff?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

Hubble observations suggested........


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 10, 2012)

gtparts said:


> If Hubble said it, I believe it!



Does hubble really talk, kinda like a donkey?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Do you have to rub the side of it or clean the lense before asking it stuff?



You have much to learn young Jedi.....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Does hubble really talk, kinda like a donkey?



You and string are well aware of Edwin Powell Hubble the astronomer in which the telescope was named after....right?

don't reply, the answer is obvious


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

Sorry for the cut/paste, but as long as you all are learnin...im gonna keep pastin.

The Legacy of Edwin Hubble

The Hubble Space Telescope was named after astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble (1889–1953), who made some of the most important discoveries in modern astronomy. As an astronomer, Dr. Hubble was a late bloomer. Before discovering his passion for the stars, Dr. Hubble earned a law degree and served in World War I. However, after practicing law for one year, he decided to “chuck law for astronomy,” knowing that “even if [he] were second rate or third rate, it was astronomy that mattered.”

In the 1920s, while working at the Mt. Wilson Observatory with the most advanced technology of the time, Dr. Hubble showed that some of the numerous distant, faint clouds of light in the universe were actually entire galaxies—much like our own Milky Way. The realization that the Milky Way is only one of many galaxies forever changed the way astronomers viewed our place in the universe.

But perhaps his greatest discovery came in 1929, when Dr. Hubble determined that the farther a galaxy is from Earth, the faster it appears to move away. This notion of an "expanding" universe formed the basis of the Big Bang theory, which states that the universe began with an intense burst of energy at a single moment in time — and has been expanding ever since.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Sorry for the cut/paste, but as long as you all are learnin...im gonna keep pastin.
> 
> The Legacy of Edwin Hubble
> 
> ...



I know about it, yes, but try convincing someone 100 yrs ago, that it was possible. Like I said before, if you believe in the supernatural it isn't hard to believe in anything else.

Perhaps God had a big computer in the sky and made that donkey talk or the burning bush....who knows. I'm not much of a naysayer on anything.

 With no proof that it was possible, that if you and ambush lived 100 yrs ago, would both say it's impossible and make a joke of it....and only crazy people would believe in flying, much less flying to the moon.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You and string are well aware of Edwin Powell Hubble the astronomer in which the telescope was named after....right?
> 
> don't reply, the answer is obvious



Oh ye of little faith, woulda said the same thing 100 yrs ago.....that's my point.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Oh ye of little faith, woulda said the same thing 100 yrs ago.....that's my point.



I would have said WHAT 100 years ago?

This???? Does hubble really talk, kinda like a donkey?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I would have said WHAT 100 years ago?
> 
> This???? Does hubble really talk, kinda like a donkey?



No you woulda said that hubble was impossible, right along with phones, cars, etc....because there was no proof that it could possibly happen.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

The first telescope was made in 1608. 100 years ago I mighta had a clue people were looking into space with big binoculars.

I'm not "getting" your point though. 

I think your trying to say going back 100 years ago if people were talking about things that will happen in the future...and your saying I would not have believed it because of lack of proof. ?

On the contrary........I am always very interested in what could be and cannot wait to see what the next 30 years brings us.

I DO have a problem with things that are claimed to "BE" or "HAVE BEEN"  5000-2000 years ago and still to this day "ARE NOT"!


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 10, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Does hubble really talk, kinda like a donkey?



What a comeback.  What a comeback.
I'm humbled in your presents.
That was good lady, and quick.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 10, 2012)

In the distant past a small group of astronomers saw something that caused them to go on a quest to find the newly born savior.
Who knows, one day astronomers might all become believers in that little baby's heavenly father.  The Almighty God.
The creator of the endless universe.


----------



## Asath (Jan 10, 2012)

Actually, it is the folks above, nearly a hundred years later, still asserting that Hubble was wrong and the only explanation for everything is their own superstitions.

A fundamental problem with the ‘expanding universe’ theory, it was finally observed, was that no matter which way you looked, the rest of the observable universe appeared to be not just expanding, but moving rather uniformly AWAY from us.  Now, given that this is the only place known to have Democrats, that is hardly something we can blame them for, but clearly the situation required a better look.  So we looked in the Bible, and in the other major religious texts, and found no mention of the universe at all – there wasn’t, oddly enough, a single word about other galaxies, nebulas, quasars, black holes, or any of the thousands of things we have observed about the actual vastness and strangeness of the universe as it actually exists.

But, being conventional thinkers, before we went on to posit, test, and begin to synthesize some actual reasons why this appeared to be so, we first asked ourselves – Why would God do such a thing?  The religions had expanded their previously narrow superstitious territory to lay claim to scientific discoveries of all kinds, positing the oddly self-referential idea of the ‘natural-law’ argument through which all things, whether they understood them or not, fell within the purview of the ‘law’ of their god.  So, naturally, since these folks already knew everything, even though it wasn’t in any of their Books, we asked them first.  “Why?” we asked.   “Because God made it that way,” they responded.  

But, if this God made the ‘natural laws,’ just because he wanted to, then there is nothing at all natural about them.  And if this God himself is outside of space and time, and not subject to the ‘natural laws,’ then clearly there is something that is not beholden to these ‘laws,’ making them not ‘laws’ at all, but merely whims.  The chain is broken.  God himself becomes the uncaused first cause that the argument says is impossible.  On the other hand, if there was a reason for all of these ‘natural laws’ that govern the universe as we see it, then this God is subject to preexisting constraints, which violates the very definition of a god,  or is somehow his own cause, which the ‘natural law’ argument also makes impossible, since nothing can be the cause of itself within this logical frame.  

Right about there we realized that this was a game of pure rhetoric, since, if the argument is that – 1.  Everything must have a cause, and Step 2 is that nothing can cause itself, and Step 3 is that Causal chains cannot go on forever, and Step 4 is the conclusion that, ergo, there has to be a first cause,  then the assertion of a God as that cause cannot possibly follow unless God caused itself – in violation of Steps 1 through 4.  The argument negates itself, and really needs no further consideration.

So, rationally, we decided that we had given the earthly representatives of the supernatural quite enough of our time, and decided to get on with trying to figure out what is really going on around here . . . We’re making remarkable progress . . .


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

Asath said:


> Actually, it is the folks above, nearly a hundred years later, still asserting that Hubble was wrong and the only explanation for everything is their own superstitions.
> 
> A fundamental problem with the ‘expanding universe’ theory, it was finally observed, was that no matter which way you looked, the rest of the observable universe appeared to be not just expanding, but moving rather uniformly AWAY from us.  Now, given that this is the only place known to have Democrats, that is hardly something we can blame them for, but clearly the situation required a better look.  So we looked in the Bible, and in the other major religious texts, and found no mention of the universe at all – there wasn’t, oddly enough, a single word about other galaxies, nebulas, quasars, black holes, or any of the thousands of things we have observed about the actual vastness and strangeness of the universe as it actually exists.
> 
> ...



Now THAT is a comeback!


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Now THAT is a comeback!



I usually have to read his posts twice to really "get" what he is saying.....I'm not that deep.

But the only logical alternative to his statement is an infinite universe, which I guess implies infinite matter.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

We cannot even begin to understand our Universe and what is in it let alone all the other Universes that we know about let alone all the other Universes that are beyond our wildest dreams.

We cannot fathom the time and distance it takes to get to the farthest reaches of "our" Universe let alone any of the other Universes.

We think WE are special because our version of life exists on this planet.  We have not even scratched the surface of  exploration on the other planets in "our" system. We have no idea how life started on our planet, we have no idea if there is life like us or unlike us on any other planet close to us and we certainly have no idea what exists beyond that.

Some give us odds to the billionth power that something could not have come from nothing. They say SOMETHING could not always exist. They say everything has a beginning and to be alive there is a minimum amount of genes needed. The KICKER is as PROOF they offer up a invisible being that is the Poster Child for everything that they say CANNOT BE!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I usually have to read his posts twice to really "get" what he is saying.....I'm not that deep.
> 
> But the only logical alternative to his statement is an infinite universe, which I guess implies infinite matter.



Not sure if it is exactly an infinite universe. It could expand to a point where gravity pulls it back into itself possibly creating another Big Bang and the whole process starts over. I don't know if our current Universe is in the first of these cycles or 100th, certainly mankind has not been around long enough to witness any of it. It could take hundreds of billions of years to complete with expansion and contraction, black holes forming when the gravity starts pulling in the universe and inhaling everything until it condenses so tight that it explodes outward again with the results being different each and every time. These explosions could send matter into other universes and theirs here. The concoctions,possibilities and intertwining of particles could be endless.
I surely don't know and I don't mind admitting that but I love to challenge my brain with the possibilities.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

Scientists think another @1500-2000 years until another Ice Age. Who remembers the last one?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The first telescope was made in 1608. 100 years ago I mighta had a clue people were looking into space with big binoculars.
> 
> I'm not "getting" your point though.
> 
> ...



My whole point is that all these things that hubble sees, or that machines can talk, that virgins can give birth, or that the ark of the convenient was somehow a reciever, or was electrically charge, or the star of bethlehem could've been venus, or there are seashells in the middle of our united states, give me thought that people just like you at one time couldn't fathom what we have today, yet it exists and all the componants to make them work have always been here. How do you know that 10 yrs after you leave this earth that there will be proof of some of the things in the bible did happen/ exist. People 100 yrs ago, didn't get to drive a car, or have a cell phone, or a computer, yet all that stuff was there, just no one developed it and proved that it could be true.

That's my only point. How's about another 100 years we can prove everything in the bible was true? We have dreams of that happening just like the dreamers of the airplane and automobiles, etc. 

You are open minded to so many things that I cannot understand why you are so closed minded of the things that happened in the bible that seemed impossible.

How many years did it take newton to name/discover/realize what gravity was...more than 2000?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Scientists think another @1500-2000 years until another Ice Age. Who remembers the last one?



I do, I was in the 2nd grade.....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> My whole point is that all these things that hubble sees, or that machines can talk, that virgins can give birth, or that the ark of the convenient was somehow a reciever, or was electrically charge, or the star of bethlehem could've been venus, or there are seashells in the middle of our united states, give me thought that people just like you at one time couldn't fathom what we have today, yet it exists and all the componants to make them work have always been here. How do you know that 10 yrs after you leave this earth that there will be proof of some of the things in the bible did happen/ exist. People 100 yrs ago, didn't get to drive a car, or have a cell phone, or a computer, yet all that stuff was there, just no one developed it and proved that it could be true.
> 
> That's my only point. How's about another 100 years we can prove everything in the bible was true? We have dreams of that happening just like the dreamers of the airplane and automobiles, etc.
> 
> ...



I am trying to prove that what was in the Bible is true or happened, it is just I and lots of others cannot.

Nobody claimed gravity was true 2000 years ago and then Newton finally proved it later.

In less than 100 years we have made advancements in every aspect of our lives. We have made the impossible possible. We have thought of the future and made it possible today and are working on the next impossible feats to become reality. 
Despite our best efforts it has taken us 2000 years of trying with our finest technology to prove the claims of the Bible as being true. We cannot. There is just no evidence that it ever happened.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

Most likely in the future we will be able to walk on water, fly, and rise from the dead before we can prove anyone did it 2000 years before us.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> You are open minded to so many things that I cannot understand why you are so closed minded of the things that happened in the bible that seemed impossible.



For half of my life I did not think they were impossible when viewing them with the beliefs I had in place. For the last 20 years I have not been searching for the possibilities of them happening, I am searching for evidence of them happening. No where else, but in scripture, did they occur. The claims are made yet there is no evidence that any of it happened.
With science we are nipping at the heels of finding how life originated and how life is all linked together and we have made miracles into everyday ordinary commonplace occurrences. When we apply that same science to religion we can't even find a toothpick sized piece of wood from a boat large enough to hold two-four-or possibly seven of each animal on the planet.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> With science we are nipping at the heels of finding how life originated



LOL!!!   You know that's a lie!    Science is nowhere CLOSE to putting those pieces together, and you know it!

Took more than a couple chemicals 'accidentally' coming together to get that BBQ started


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 11, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I bet a 14 year old Buddhist would be intrigued by the notion, and would not discount the possibility because of the way science describes vocal chords work. They would most likely recognize the immensity of the universe and our limited understanding of how everything works. Very open minded those Buddhists.
> 
> I think it is more about the articulation of the tounge and mouth to form words than it is about vocal chords.



Are you equally intrigued by eight armed, blue, elephant headed Vishnu?  Do you not discount the possibility that Vishnu is real?  Are you as open minded as a 14 year old Buddhist?


----------



## proudfather2 (Jan 11, 2012)

@ fish hawk-"and then vote with their feet. Not everyone wishes to argue with zealots. They simply put away their wallets. And all around us we see what used to be Sacred Churches being put into reuse as homes, pool halls, rec centers, and homeless shelters. If what y’all are saying is so self-evidently correct, as is asserted, then how can it be that your religions are slowly dying from lack of popular support? "

http://www.sethbarnes.com/?filename=astounding-growth-in-the-church-worldwide
Here is a small part of what is said"There are now about 600 million Christians in Africa. Protestant Christianity grew 600 percent in Vietnam in the last decade. In China, where a 50,000-member megachurch was raided in Shanxi province a few weeks ago, there are now an estimated 130 million churchgoers"

By your logic if you are wrong about this point then I can only assume you have no clue about everything else you said.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> LOL!!!   You know that's a lie!    Science is nowhere CLOSE to putting those pieces together, and you know it!
> 
> Took more than a couple chemicals 'accidentally' coming together to get that BBQ started



Every day it gets closer and closer, even if it takes another 100 years progress is being made compared to 25 years ago.

What did it take Bandy?
Some invisible being with zero genes that always existed and has the ability to create something from nothing? Please do tell......


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2012)

I am happy that at least with science there is some progress and there are theories to discuss.Trial, error, setbacks and advancements.
I have not seen ANYTHING from the side of religion other than God made it. The people telling us how wrong science is have not provided a single shred of evidence to support their theory.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 11, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> "Holly Ordway was a highly educated atheist who thought Christianity was "a historical curiosity" or "a blemish on modern civilization," or both.
> Smart people don’t become Christians," she thought, according to Biola University"
> 
> 
> ...



She also said:
"I was a college professor – logical, intellectual, rational – and an atheist," she writes.
Though she knew next to nothing about Christianity, she began to mock Christians and belittle their faith, intelligence and character.
"_t was fun to consider myself superior to the unenlightened, superstitious masses, and to make snide comments about Christians," Ordway writes.
She was convinced that faith was by definition irrational__.

Ordway wasn't looking for God. She didn't believe He existed. But she began to be drawn to matters of faith.
One reason for her interest, she explains, is that her "naturalistic worldview was inadequate to explain the nature of reality in a coherent way: it could not explain the origin of the universe, nor could it explain morality."
"On the other hand, the theistic worldview was both consistent and powerfully explanatory: it offered a convincing, rationally consistent, and logical explanation for everything that the naturalistic worldview explained plus all the things that the naturalistic worldview couldn’t."



I guess some see the evidence of God's creation, and some just don't.

._


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> She also said:
> "I was a college professor – logical, intellectual, rational – and an atheist," she writes.
> Though she knew next to nothing about Christianity, she began to mock Christians and belittle their faith, intelligence and character.
> "_t was fun to consider myself superior to the unenlightened, superstitious masses, and to make snide comments about Christians," Ordway writes.
> ...


_

Did it say which God or how she came to know it is the Christian God?_


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2012)

Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist

Dan Barker

Looking for a good introduction to atheism without all the technical philosophical jargon? Barker's book is for you! As a former minister turned atheist, Dan Barker documents the arguments that "deconverted" him from Christian fundamentalist to atheist. Losing Faith in Faith is an arsenal for skeptics and a challenge to believers.

I guess some DON'T see the evidence of God's creation, and some just do.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 12, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> "On the other hand, the theistic worldview was both consistent and powerfully explanatory: it offered a convincing, rationally consistent, and logical explanation for everything that the naturalistic worldview explained plus all the things that the naturalistic worldview couldn’t."[/COLOR].



Exactly.  God is a logical conclusion for many, not a superstition.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 12, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Exactly.  God is a logical conclusion for many, not a superstition.



Explain to me again, if you would, why it is more rational to believe that a god has existed forever but not all the matter/energy? Or why all the matter and energy MUST have been created but not god?

Furthermore,  I don't really see how the concept of a god is a more "simple" or "elegant" solution to the problem of where we come from.  Seems to me that when the notion of god is considered it does nothing but muddy the waters.  If one were to consider a god, then which god and why?  Why not all of them?  Apparently, the proof of the contention rest solely on each individuals personal experience.  How's that not muddy?  Then there's the doctrines and texts.  They claim fiery chariots, eight armed demi-gods, tree spirits and talking donkeys.  The mental and metaphysical hoops that one has to jump through to be able to accept any of those claims are neither simple nor elegant.  

In my gut; in my heart I know that donkeys dont talk.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist
> 
> Dan Barker
> 
> ...



Not having read this, I'd be willing to bet that science didn't deconvert him.    I could be wrong, though, especially if Barker only believed what is taught in schools.   Science is why Flew and others are deconverting from atheism.   I take pride in knowing that there are many atheists out there wrestling with what science has discovered about the "simple" cell and the origin-of-life.   

perhaps even some of you?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 12, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Explain to me again, if you would why it is more rational to believe that a god has exited forever but not all the matter/energy? Or why all the matter and energy MUST have been created but not god?



As he stated.....Logic.   Scientists are all but unanimous on the fact that the universe had a beginning, and with a beginning, a Cause.   As former atheist Flew stated, it would have been better for atheists had there been no proof of a beginning.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 12, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Explain to me again, if you would why it is more rational to believe that a god has exited forever but not all the matter/energy? Or why all the matter and energy MUST have been created but not god?



Ok.

Without going into great detail, matter comes from matter. 
Take for instance how many elements we know of which were necessary for the formation of our tiny speck of a planet.  It is a soup of multiple things.

Was every element necessary for our planet infinite?  How many different gases were required to create such elements?  To argue that matter and energy is infinite we also have to argue that all the elements are infinite within our uiniverse at the same time arguing that that matter is unintelligent, and happened as an accident.

Otherwise, we would need to argue that one gas, or element "evolved."  What was it acted upon by and why did it evolve to so many different elements?

Basically, how many unintelligent things do you have to say are infinite in order to believe in the infinite ability of matter? 

If we say "matter is infinite" we have just given infinite qualites to an unlimited number of elements.  If we say God is infinite, it is just one.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Did it say which God or how she came to know it is the Christian God?



Doesn't matter which....her much-higher-than-average intelligence and logic lead her to believe that all we know was designed by a Mind.      Probably ate at her for years and years....   She, too, probably told countless others that science would eventually figure out how all those amino acid could congregate in one place, (but not in water) and come together in just the right sequence (and only left handed amino acids lol) and wait for the miraculous peptite bonds to get them together....and then pray for nucleic acids to come along!


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 12, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> As he stated.....Logic.   Scientists are all but unanimous on the fact that the universe had a beginning, and with a beginning, a Cause.   As former atheist Flew stated, it would have been better for atheists had there been no proof of a beginning.



You said it better


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 12, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If one were to consider a god, then which god and why?  Why not all of them?



But you are looking at this from one direction, think outside the box a bit.......

Religion is what has created multiple different Gods.  Religion is the reason for all of the things you see as irrational.  Forget religion for a moment. 

If there is a God, then it does not matter to him which one you think it is, because he is still God. You muddy the waters when you say "which God?"  The question is irrelevant to God's existence.  What you are asking is "which religion?"


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Doesn't matter which....her much-higher-than-average intelligence and logic lead her to believe that all we know was designed by a Mind.      Probably ate at her for years and years....   She, too, probably told countless others that science would eventually figure out how all those amino acid could congregate in one place, (but not in water) and come together in just the right sequence (and only left handed amino acids lol) and wait for the miraculous peptite bonds to get them together....and then pray for nucleic acids to come along!



So the higher the IQ............


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So the higher the IQ............



lol    not a defined rule....we all know that there are super smart people on both sides of the fence, but science is why Flew and Ordway bailed on atheism...


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

Flew...
Interesting article on Flew:

The Exploitation of Antony Flew

Have you heard the shocking news? The world's most notorious atheist has converted!

No, it's not Richard Dawkins.

Or Sam Harris.

Or Christopher Hitchens.

Or Dan Barker.

Or Michael Newdow.

Or Julia Sweeney.

No, this world-famous, notorious atheist convert is the philosopher Antony Flew.

If you're wondering, "Who?", you're probably not alone. Antony Flew is a British philosopher, now retired and of advanced age. Though fairly well-known in philosophical circles in his day, I doubt he was ever "the world's most notorious atheist" by any stretch. Yet now that he's converted - if in fact he has converted, which I'll get to in a minute - he's inevitably acquired this title thanks to Christian apologists who can't seem to accomplish a single goal without elevating it to the status of the most monumental victory over atheism ever. A recent New York Times article, "The Turning of an Atheist", gives the whole sordid story.

Flew came to prominence in the 1950s when he presented a famous paper titled "Theology and Falsification", in which he argued that claims about God have so many exceptions and qualifications that they are impossible to prove and should be disregarded. In subsequent years, he stood by this position with writings such as God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1984). Flew is also the coiner of the term "No True Scotsman Fallacy", in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking.

Flew retired in 1983 and today is 84 years old. After his retirement he shunned the spotlight for two decades, but in the early 2000s, the first rumblings of rumor were heard. In 2001, he quashed those speculations by writing an article for the Secular Web, "Sorry to Disappoint, But I'm Still an Atheist!"

But rumors of his conversion persisted. Starting in 2005, he apparently confirmed those rumors by stating a preference for Aristotelian deism, and seemed to endorse pseudoscientific speculations such as those of Gerald Schroeder. In response, Richard Carrier of the Secular Web wrote Flew a letter asking him if the rumors were true and pointing out the dubious scientific basis of these apologetics. Flew replied, expressed dismay that he'd been taken in by these charlatans, and promised to be more vigilant in the future, though he held to deism.

This brings up to the present and the subject of the Times article: a book has just been published, purportedly by Flew along with Christian apologist Roy Varghese, titled There Is a God. This book repeats many of the standard arguments for intelligent design creationism, and apparently once again endorses the claims of Gerald Schroeder.

Mark Oppenheimer of the Times went to Reading to interview Flew. Oppenheimer found that he was polite and agreeable, but suffering from serious memory gaps. Flew could not define terms like "abiogenesis" and was unfamiliar with the arguments advanced in the book. He freely admitted, and Varghese confirmed, that Varghese wrote all the original content of the book. Flew was simply persuaded to sign his name to it after it had been written for him.

The only conclusion I can draw is that these apologists are taking advantage of a confused, elderly man in a state of cognitive decline. There's little evidence that Flew even understands the controversy he's at the center of, much less that he changed his position as the result of any new arguments. These apologists insinuated themselves into his life, won his confidence, and then pushed him to agree to their claims when he no longer knew what he was agreeing to, and are now using him as a prop to promote their antiquated, irrational superstitions. (Although even by the most Christian-friendly interpretation of these events, Flew is now a deist, not a Christian - which one would think, in their eyes, leaves him just as darned(changed word to fit editing) as if he'd been an atheist.)

Just to be clear, I don't expect this to have the slightest impact on the atheist community. We are not atheists because we follow Antony Flew (or Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris). We follow these people because we are atheists and find their positions in agreement with our own. Even if Antony Flew had converted in his prime, that would have no persuasive effect on me unless he could show the facts and evidence that led to this decision. The Times article mentions "what others have at stake", but in fact there is nothing at stake other than the sad story of a worthy philosopher's legacy being coopted late in life by confidence tricksters.

On the other hand, the Christian evangelists who are trumpeting this as a great victory are truly reprehensible. These people congratulate themselves for every soul "saved" - regardless of whether that conversion took place through coercion, indoctrination or trickery - as if people's lives were goals in a game and the only objective was to score the most points. Like predators who hunt the sick and the weak, they target the people who are least able to resist them - those who are bereaved and emotionally vulnerable, who are suffering from dementia or cognitive decline, or even those who are dead and unable to defend themselves, as with the invented deathbed conversion stories of Charles Darwin and Thomas Paine. Against an informed atheist in possession of his own mind, their flimsy and irrational assertions easily splinter, so it's small surprise they pick on the stragglers instead.

I want to make it clear right now that, if I should ever sink into such a state, I want all religious evangelists kept far away from me. I will not be made into a pawn for their manipulative and dishonest games, and if my mind is gone, I will not let them gain possession of my shell so that they can display it as if it were a repudiation of the principles I've spent my life defending.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 12, 2012)

Bullet, he gave interviews reasserting his deism.  

Much like a Christian can convert to atheism, it sometimes happens that an intelligent atheist will convert to deism.  Thinking people will continue to think......


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm not sure, but I think I read somewhere that he was having misgivings about atheism back as far as 2003.   Yep, he gave numerous interviews...and his responses were very articulate.    

although the author of this article tries to downplay Flew's position in the atheist world, he was one of their primary outspoken evangelists who authored numerous books and articles on the subject.....even debating Craig, I believe.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Bullet, he gave interviews reasserting his deism.
> 
> Much like a Christian can convert to atheism, it sometimes happens that an intelligent atheist will convert to deism.  Thinking people will continue to think......



No doubt he did, but all of what was in that book that Bandy keeps referring to might just not be the words of Flew.

I have another more in depth article with correspondence from from Flew stating EXACTLY his beliefs and thoughts.

If anyone is interested.......which I doubt any of Flew's new fans will be.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No doubt he did, but all of what was in that book that Bandy keeps referring to might just not be the words of Flew.
> 
> I have another more in depth article with correspondence from from Flew stating EXACTLY his beliefs and thoughts.
> 
> If anyone is interested.......which I doubt any of Flew's new fans want to read.



I just read his book....twice....and awarded it to the winner of my recent contest on here for his review!    

I would be interested in reading your apocryphal Flew gospel, though.   lol


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article369.html

I can break it down and post in sections if anyone wants to read it but does not want to go to link.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article369.html
> 
> I can break it down and post in sections if anyone wants to read it but does not want to go to link.



hideous looking link!    lol   headed there now.....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> hideous looking link!    lol   headed there now.....



yeah but your not going to find this stuff on the pro-sites.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

I've learned to search pro and con to find the truth somewhere in the middle.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 12, 2012)

interesting read, Bullet.      interesting perspective.    I think the articles leaves little doubt that Flew was a theist...but the author (speculating as to Flew's cognitive and memory state) seems to think that he only converted because of dementia.

Anyway....a worthwhile read for me.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> interesting read, Bullet.      interesting perspective.    I think the articles leaves little doubt that Flew was a theist...but the author (speculating as to Flew's cognitive and memory state) seems to think that he only converted because of dementia.
> 
> Anyway....a worthwhile read for me.



Agreed. 
Although within some of that correspondence it seems that even Flew wasn't sure of any conversion.
I thought less of "Flew's" book after reading some of these other articles.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Agreed.
> Although within some of that correspondence it seems that even Flew wasn't sure of any conversion.
> I thought less of "Flew's" book after reading some of these other articles.



although I feel Flew's 'views' are expressed in the book, which he reaffirmed after the book was published, I will be less likely to quote him from here on out.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> although I feel Flew's 'views' are expressed in the book, which he reaffirmed after the book was published, I will be less likely to quote him from here on out.



In the words of Daniel Tosh "And for that we Thank You!"

lol!

It's all good Bandy. I appreciate the "whole nuva level" you bring to the table.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 12, 2012)

i gotta play fair!


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 12, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> As he stated.....Logic.   Scientists are all but unanimous on the fact that the universe had a beginning, and with a beginning, a Cause.   As former atheist Flew stated, it would have been better for atheists had there been no proof of a beginning.



"universe had a beginning, and with a beginning, a Cause"

This is still an unnecessary leap to me.  Firstly, I am aware of a theory that the Universe possibly expands and contracts, perhaps infinitely.  Do you think that maybe if the writers of the Bible (or any ancient creation myth) had been a bit more sophisticated in their thinking that they might have come up with a different idea of how things came to be?   

Secondly, What demands a cause, specifically a being with an agenda?  

Lets assume a being.  

Why not a super-duper powerful kid in another dimension playing with his ant farm?  

Why not the chemicals and energy that fueled the Big Bang were the results of some super being's sneeze?  

I'm sure many of us have read similar if not the same philosophies and science fictions.  So, at the end of the day, what you really have as the keystone of your belief is your personal experience with god that tells you that he is real.  It's not enough. You should demand more from yourselves.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 12, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> "universe had a beginning, and with a beginning, a Cause"
> 
> 
> So, at the end of the day, what you really have as the keystone of your belief is your personal experience with god that tells you that he is real.  It's not enough. You should demand more from yourselves.



Ya know Ambush, you could tell me any hunting story or even your life story but you have no way to prove that what you're telling me is the truth. You could even have witnesses that I could blow off as just your friends backing you up. I could mock you by telling you that you were just full of fish tails and that it would be ridiculous for those stories to be true. However that doesn't mean that for you those stories are not true, just because I didn't believe in them. Perhaps I could say well gee Ambush your words are just not enough and I think you should demand more of yourself than to go around believing your own delusional fairytales, I would believe you, but since you cannot prove it to me, I think your stories are just not enough for me to believe you.

I won't even ask you how you'd feel.....because I'm pretty sure you'd tell me that you didn't give too hoots what I thought, even though in your own heart you wouldn't want to be looked upon or called nothing more than a delusional fairy teller.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Ya know Ambush, you could tell me any hunting story or even your life story but you have no way to prove that what you're telling me is the truth. You could even have witnesses that I could blow off as just your friends backing you up. I could mock you by telling you that you were just full of fish tails and that it would be ridiculous for those stories to be true. However that doesn't mean that for you those stories are not true, just because I didn't believe in them. Perhaps I could say well gee Ambush your words are just not enough and I think you should demand more of yourself than to go around believing your own delusional fairytales, I would believe you, but since you cannot prove it to me, I think your stories are just not enough for me to believe you.
> 
> I won't even ask you how you'd feel.....because I'm pretty sure you'd tell me that you didn't give too hoots what I thought, even though in your own heart you wouldn't want to be looked upon or called nothing more than a delusional fairy teller.



I can see the point your trying to make, but no it is not the same.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I can see the point your trying to make, but no it is not the same.



It is to me.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 12, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Why not a super-duper powerful kid in another dimension playing with his ant farm?
> 
> Why not the chemicals and energy that fueled the Big Bang were the results of some super being's sneeze?



In either situation, the being would be God.

I think I wrote about this a few posts back (#213 & 216), but you are discussing religion (which God), not God's existence.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 12, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Ya know Ambush, you could tell me any hunting story or even your life story but you have no way to prove that what you're telling me is the truth. You could even have witnesses that I could blow off as just your friends backing you up. I could mock you by telling you that you were just full of fish tails and that it would be ridiculous for those stories to be true. However that doesn't mean that for you those stories are not true, just because I didn't believe in them. Perhaps I could say well gee Ambush your words are just not enough and I think you should demand more of yourself than to go around believing your own delusional fairytales, I would believe you, but since you cannot prove it to me, I think your stories are just not enough for me to believe you.
> 
> I won't even ask you how you'd feel.....because I'm pretty sure you'd tell me that you didn't give too hoots what I thought, even though in your own heart you wouldn't want to be looked upon or called nothing more than a delusional fairy teller.



So maybe you should consider the other stories I have told, like the one about the giant fish that swallowed me whole and I lived in it's belly for three days.  That should give me credibility. 



JB0704 said:


> In either situation, the being would be God.
> 
> I think I wrote about this a few posts back (#213 & 216), but you are discussing religion (which God), not God's existence.



OK.  I think its just as likely that the god of Abraham created all things as much as I think that we could be an extra terrestrial middle schooler's  science project.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So maybe you should consider the other stories I have told, like the one about the giant fish that swallowed me whole and I lived in it's belly for three days.  That should give me credibility..



What?!?!   That must have been awful!! 





ambush80 said:


> OK.  I think its just as likely that the god of Abraham created all things as much as I think that we could be an extra terrestrial middle schooler's  science project.



Ok.  But, if a fact, we would have to admit that the middle schooler is god.  Again, God's existence is not questioned by the variables presented.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 13, 2012)

With all that power any "God" could make it very easy to be clear who or what it is IF we are going by the claims of the major religions. No caring and loving God would let his children constantly kill each other over identifying who he really is. 
Now if that "God" is gravity, a distant planet from another universe or something else that has no conscience or is NOT an image like us then these major religions do not need all those stories of grandeur and the followers should feel duped.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> What?!?!   That must have been awful!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wasn't so much the acidic stomach juice but the lack of oxygen

I just don't see the need for a "being" in the equation.  Why does something need to have been made?


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So maybe you should consider the other stories I have told, like the one about the giant fish that swallowed me whole and I lived in it's belly for three days. That should give me credibility.


 
"Your" story has great credibility, Christ commented on it as truth. Plus, when you got vomited up on the seashore, you came to your senses and completed the mission at hand, albeit reluctantly.  Those nasty Ninevites didn't deserve any mercy and you really wanted the judgement of God to reign down on them... but God had other plans when the whole lot of them turned toward God.  

What amazing mercy. And on Jonah as well. Wether he "got" the whole message or not is meat for another talk. The other amazing thing is... I know you "get" the message/meaning of grace and mercy, Ambush.  I could wish for you that some perceptions of the illogical would be swallowed up (no pun intended) and made smaller in light of the mercy of the man at Calvary.  In the end, He (Christ) is all that will matter.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> "Your" story has great credibility, Christ commented on it as truth. Plus, when you got vomited up on the seashore, you came to your senses and completed the mission at hand, albeit reluctantly.  Those nasty Ninevites didn't deserve any mercy and you really wanted the judgement of God to reign down on them... but God had other plans when the whole lot of them turned toward God.
> 
> What amazing mercy. And on Jonah as well. Wether he "got" the whole message or not is meat for another talk. The other amazing thing is... I know you "get" the message/meaning of grace and mercy, Ambush.  I could wish for you that some perceptions of the illogical would be swallowed up (no pun intended) and made smaller in light of the mercy of the man at Calvary.  In the end, He (Christ) is all that will matter.



I am aware of and fully supportive of the philosopies of Jesus but not any of the extraordinary, nonsensical claims that the Bible makes.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I just don't see the need for a "being" in the equation.  Why does something need to have been made?



Because it is here, maybe?  I went through my thoughts a bit in #213, not sure if you checked them out, but our existence would require countless elements to be infinite unless there was a creative moment.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Because it is here, maybe?  I went through my thoughts a bit in #213, not sure if you checked them out, but our existence would require countless elements to be infinite unless there was a creative moment.



and, most all scientists agree that everything we see had a beginning.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.
> 
> Without going into great detail, matter comes from matter.
> Take for instance how many elements we know of which were necessary for the formation of our tiny speck of a planet.  It is a soup of multiple things.
> ...



Why is it more reasonable to say that god is infinite as opposed to the energy in the Universe?  I just don't see the need to introduce a "will" or consciousness into the mix.  It's neither elegant nor simple.




JB0704 said:


> Because it is here, maybe?  I went through my thoughts a bit in #213, not sure if you checked them out, but our existence would require countless elements to be infinite unless there was a creative moment.



"Stuff" happens.  



BANDERSNATCH said:


> and, most all scientists agree that everything we see had a beginning.



Except God.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Except God.



you're learning, Bush!!!   lol   slowly coming around!


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Why is it more reasonable to say that god is infinite as opposed to the energy in the Universe?  I just don't see the need to introduce a "will" or consciousness into the mix.  It's neither elegant nor simple.



What would be the source of the energy?  Even if it is infinite and without source, energy is not matter.  Our Existence requires both.  You would need both infinite energy and infinite matter, inclusive of all the elements within the universe, to have a "godless" existence.




ambush80 said:


> "Stuff" happens.


 
Not sure where to go with that.


Consider this, because you enjoy speaking of all possibilities, the God of Abraham could also be the God of wilziack on some other planet, but to us, he would still be the God of Abraham....and JB.....and Ambush.  Our interaction with him is limited to our understanding of him.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> you're learning, Bush!!!   lol   slowly coming around!



Oh I get it now.  You're using the scientific method to justify God but He himself is not subject to the scientific method.  It's so simple and elegant....


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Oh I get it now.  You're using the scientific method to justify God but He himself is not subject to the scientific method.  It's so simple and elegant....



Oh!   You were being sarcastic earlier!   My bad!


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> What would be the source of the energy?  Even if it is infinite and without source, energy is not matter.  Our Existence requires both.  You would need both infinite energy and infinite matter, inclusive of all the elements within the universe, to have a "godless" existence..



Matter is energy.



JB0704 said:


> Not sure where to go with that.



The point being that if something could have happened then it might have



JB0704 said:


> Consider this, because you enjoy speaking of all possibilities, the God of Abraham could also be the God of wilziack on some other planet, but to us, he would still be the God of Abraham....and JB.....and Ambush.  Our interaction with him is limited to our understanding of him.



He/She/It might exist.  I don't see "him" needing to exist necessarily to experience reality in a rational, honest and  fullfilled way.  As a matter of fact, for myself, the addition of a god concept has the opposite effect.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Oh!   You were being sarcastic earlier!   My bad!



Sarcastic might not be the right word....


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Matter is energy.



I am not a scientist, so could you follow up on this?  Matter occupies space and has volume.  It consists of charged particles, yes, but it is substantive.  Energy is the ability to act on matter....I think.....


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I am not a scientist, so could you follow up on this?  Matter occupies space and has volume.  It consists of charged particles, yes, but it is substantive.  Energy is the ability to act on matter....I think.....



Matter and energy can go from one state to the other.....and they can't be created or destroyed.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Matter and energy can go from one state to the other.....and they can't be created or destroyed.



Ok.  What acted on the energy to make it matter, or what acted on the matter to make it energy?  Also, are all the natural elements infinite?

The amount of energy in the universe is slowly decreasing, if I remember correctly.  If that is true, does it contradict the concept of infinite energy?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  What acted on the energy to make it matter, or what acted on the matter to make it energy?  Also, are all the natural elements infinite?



All we can say for certain is that the stuff bangs around and it goes from one state to another; that's been observed.  I don't have any practical experience with the infinite.



JB0704 said:


> The amount of energy in the universe is slowly decreasing, if I remember correctly.  If that is true, does it contradict the concept of infinite energy?



I think you're kind of referencing the notion that the Universe collapses and expands.  I think the theory states that The Universe is presently expanding, but slowing down and the energy is being turned into matter; things are becoming more dense.  Eventually the expansion is supposed to stop and things are so dense that gravity starts to pull everything back together until it collapses upon itself.  Then it expands again...with a bang.

If that's what happens, it could have been doing that forever.  Again, I don't have any experience with infinity.

These are all theories, but people can test them.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 19, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Oh I get it now.  You're using the scientific method to justify God but He himself is not subject to the scientific method.  It's so simple and elegant....



If in fact God created everything, that includes science. Perhaps God is the alltime best scientist ever and we are just now discovering what He created. Gosh it took us a long time to figure out gravity and electricity, but yet it always existed.....even when my greatgreatgreatgreatgreat grandfather was a toad, or a fish or an ape, there was electricity and gravity. Our scientists are just slow....millions/billions of years go by and no light bulb until the last 100 yrs or so. Look how long it took us to figure out about sound waves and cell phones, even though we had radios....heeelllllooooo out there mr scientist. Millions and billions of years all those things existed....science didn't create any of it...it was already there. I don't know of anything that science has created. I know of things discovered and other things developed from things that already existed.  Nothing new under the sun..

King James Version (KJV)
Ecc. 1:9

 9The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.



Now yes I've had a few so called "princes" that were really just toads, I do have to admit that.....
They turned into toads before my very eyes...


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 19, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> If in fact God created everything, that includes science. Perhaps God is the alltime best scientist ever and we are just now discovering what He created. Gosh it took us a long time to figure out gravity and electricity, but yet it always existed.....even when my greatgreatgreatgreatgreat grandfather was a toad, or a fish or an ape, there was electricity and gravity. Our scientists are just slow....millions/billions of years go by and no light bulb until the last 100 yrs or so. Look how long it took us to figure out about sound waves and cell phones, even though we had radios....heeelllllooooo out there mr scientist. Millions and billions of years all those things existed....science didn't create any of it...it was already there. I don't know of anything that science has created. I know of things discovered and other things developed from things that already existed.  Nothing new under the sun..
> 
> King James Version (KJV)
> Ecc. 1:9
> ...



I really don't know what to say.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 19, 2012)

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.


William Harvey discovered in the 1600's that this scripture is true as far as the life is in the blood, with no blood we have no life. He discovered how our blood circulated with oxygen and all that.

It also reminds me of dna.

Drs can take blood and just about discover every illness you may have. Yet it was in the Bible however many hundreds of years ago. How would anyone back then know that? obviously it wasn't understood until 1600 years after Christ died. Why didn't anyone discover that a trillion years ago, or a million years ago, or 10,000 yrs ago? Yet it always has been. Every person that ever existed had blood, so did every animal. Every person had a dna, and fingerprint distinct from anyone else. Yet we in the 20th and the 21st century all of sudden we think we are so smart.....actually we are just totally slow considering all the gazillion years that supposedly existed before today.


Scientists might be able to take a cell from me and clone/create another me, but they can't take nothing out of thin air and make another me.

They can't make a monkey or an ape or even another person without something to start with. Why can't they take a monkey cell and make a human baby?

And yet some of us still question how a virgin can have a baby, with all the scientific evidence of artificial insemination.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> i really don't know what to say.



x2!


----------



## Asath (Jan 25, 2012)

“ . . . and there is no new thing under the sun.   . . . “

Except for microwave ovens.  And automobiles.  And nuclear power plants . . . 

And computers . . .


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 25, 2012)

Asath said:


> “ . . . and there is no new thing under the sun.   . . . “
> 
> Except for microwave ovens.  And automobiles.  And nuclear power plants . . .
> 
> And computers . . .




... and Eco's new book, _The Prague Cemetery_.

Interesting, but not as good as _Foucault_.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 26, 2012)

Asath said:


> “ . . . and there is no new thing under the sun.   . . . “
> 
> Except for microwave ovens.  And automobiles.  And nuclear power plants . . .
> 
> And computers . . .



Well I can dig that....but the parts to make all that stuff was already here.  What are power plants powered by? Were autom
obiles fueled by something that always existed, like oil? or did someone invent the fuel that made them run? Did someone make microwaves? or were they already here and just rounded up? Computers, cellphones, cable/satelite tv has always been available hasn't it? It just wasn't always harnassed.  It's not like someone created all those things to make them work, they were already available. It just took someone smart like a scientist to figure out how to puzzle it together to make it work....he didn't create it....did he? He took the creations of God and worked them together to make something out of it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> x2!



Well I'm so surprised.....


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

I would say we're all born atheists, people turn theistic through indoctrination and mental / emotional trauma.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> I would say we're all born atheists, people turn theistic through indoctrination and mental / emotional trauma.



Yet, most cultures and people throughout history have had some form of belief in a higher power.

It seems to me that people are born believing in a higher power, and grow into atheism for various reasons.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> I would say we're all born atheists, people turn theistic through indoctrination and mental / emotional trauma.



Just like JB posted. There have been tribes found that have never been in contact with any type of civilization that believe in God.


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Just like JB posted. There have been tribes found that have never been in contact with any type of civilization that believe in God.



I don't see how that's relevant.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> I don't see how that's relevant.



How was that particular tribe indoctrinated? Or to use your other example, why did they turn to theism after having suffered emotional trauma if they were atheist to begin with? How would they even know what theism is?


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How was that particular tribe indoctrinated? Or to use your other example, why did they turn to theism after having suffered emotional trauma if they were atheist to begin with? How would they even know what theism is?



It either manifested through emotional trauma as a child, or was created as a tool for control by elder, weaker members. 

aka the whole "i have god on my side so i have to lead" thing


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> It either manifested through emotional trauma as a child, or was created as a tool for control by elder, weaker members.
> 
> aka the whole "i have god on my side so i have to lead" thing



Is this just something you came up with?


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Is this just something you came up with?



Yup. I've heard similar theories discussed before. It's noticed that those with mental trauma are more likely to suffer delusions, etc.

Regardless of speculation on my part. Wouldn't you agree that an infant doesn't understand the concept of god? They dont even have a concept of language.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> Yup. I've heard similar theories discussed before. It's noticed that those with mental trauma are more likely to suffer delusions, etc.
> 
> Regardless of speculation on my part. Wouldn't you agree that an infant doesn't understand the concept of god? They dont even have a concept of language.



I'd agree that an infant has no clue about a 'god'.   That comes as we mature and begin to be in awe of what we see....and wonder.     We've all seen lifelong atheists (adults) change their mind because of what science has told them about life.    No trauma....just science....facts...


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> Wouldn't you agree that an infant doesn't understand the concept of god? They dont even have a concept of language.



I think an infant is much more aware of their surrounding than they appear.  I have two kids, both as infants understood when daddy or mommy was holding them and when a stranger was holding them...it was an ingrained sense of security.

As far as trauma goes, and suffering delusions, I think that is a bit of a stretch.  Perhaps the Indians opened their TeePee, looked at the tree in the field that wasn't there five years ago, and realized it came from somewhere.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Just like JB posted. There have been tribes found that have never been in contact with any type of civilization that believe in God.



WHICH God do these tribes believe in? Has anyone ever "found" one of these tribes and has learned that they know the story of and believe in the God of Abraham,Christianity and Jesus?
What God are you referring to?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> WHICH God do these tribes believe in? Has anyone ever "found" one of these tribes and has learned that they know the story of and believe in the God of Abraham,Christianity and Jesus?
> What God are you referring to?



That's a great topic for another thread.   "What happens to those who never hear about Jesus?"     Not sure if this is the forum for it....but I'd enjoy a discussion.

Good question though.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> WHICH God do these tribes believe in? Has anyone ever "found" one of these tribes and has learned that they know the story of and believe in the God of Abraham,Christianity and Jesus?
> What God are you referring to?



No, God in particular that I'm aware of, although there are many people in Muslim countries having dreams about Jesus and turning to Him.

The point that was being discussed was not about which god though, it was just the point that tribes could not have been indoctrinated but yet they still believe in a higher being.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No, God in particular that I'm aware of, although there are many people in Muslim countries having dreams about Jesus and turning to Him.
> 
> The point that was being discussed was not about which god though, it was just the point that tribes could not have been indoctrinated but yet they still believe in a higher being.



good point.     definitely shows that people can believe in god just from what they see


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> WHICH God do these tribes believe in? Has anyone ever "found" one of these tribes and has learned that they know the story of and believe in the God of Abraham,Christianity and Jesus?
> What God are you referring to?



Look at it from the other direction, from God's perspective.  An Indian calls you "Buffalo King," and an American calls you "God of Abraham."  Does it change who you are?


----------



## Four (Jan 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Look at it from the other direction, from God's perspective.  An Indian calls you "Buffalo King," and an American calls you "God of Abraham."  Does it change who you are?



It does if the judao-christian scripture is to be believed.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 27, 2012)

Four said:


> It does if the judao-christian scripture is to be believed.



How so?

If God exists, then he is God.  An Indian may come to a conclusion on existence, but not acknowledge it the same way.  Again, look at it from God's perspective, not man's.


----------



## Four (Jan 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> How so?
> 
> If God exists, then he is God.  An Indian may come to a conclusion on existence, but not acknowledge it the same way.  Again, look at it from God's perspective, not man's.



If you believe the bible, god has a book prescribing how to live (and die) and if you don't follow it you burn forever... 

So that indian calls god Shiva, doesnt read the bible, then burns forever.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Look at it from the other direction, from God's perspective.  An Indian calls you "Buffalo King," and an American calls you "God of Abraham."  Does it change who you are?



Or they look up into the sky and call it Sun and worship it. Yes absolutely is changes who and what they worship. The Sun didn't inspire a handbook to be followed. The one only and true God did not inspire that handbook to different races and creeds to be written almost word for word by a vast array of the worlds people. If the same writings were found in various places all over the continents, all dated to be of the same time frame and all tell the same stories now that would be some hard core proof that a God inspired man to tell his story.

I know what your saying...Same God called by different names...but then each religions stories about how this ONE God came to be or created things or any specific details that explain anything about this One God are made up guesses at best. Because some tribe believes that the Sun, Earth, wind, water, Volcano or bird is responsible for everything is no smoking gun the path leads to one God.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 27, 2012)

Four said:


> So that indian calls god Shiva, doesnt read the bible, then burns forever.



There are many different thoughts on that concept.  I will leave it there.....


----------



## Four (Jan 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> There are many different thoughts on that concept.  I will leave it there.....



I dig, from what we've spoken about you tend to be less of a fundie then others around here.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I know what your saying...Same God called by different names...but then each religions stories about how this ONE God came to be or created things or any specific details that explain anything about this One God are made up guesses at best. Because some tribe believes that the Sun, Earth, wind, water, Volcano or bird is responsible for everything is no smoking gun the path leads to one God.



You are talking about the differences in religion, and I follow.  I am talking about the acknowledgement of a higher power.  As a Christian, I am going to believe he was revealed to humanity, it is what it is.  But, that does not mean that the God I worship is not the same God the Indians conceptualized through the sun....the God of Abraham by a different name.  Both see the hand of the creator.  

It is from that point which we all split in different directions, but God would be God regardless of what he is called by men.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 27, 2012)

Four said:


> I dig, from what we've spoken about you tend to be less of a fundie then others around here.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> You are talking about the differences in religion, and I follow.  I am talking about the acknowledgement of a higher power.  As a Christian, I am going to believe he was revealed to humanity, it is what it is.  But, that does not mean that the God I worship is not the same God the Indians conceptualized through the sun....the God of Abraham by a different name.  Both see the hand of the creator.
> 
> It is from that point which we all split in different directions, but God would be God regardless of what he is called by men.



I hear you but I also think there is a line where sacrificing a goat to a volcano is not a link to the same higher power that represents all.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I hear you but I also think there is a line where sacrificing a goat to a volcano is not a link to the same higher power that represents all.



 

That was funny.  Not sure how to counter.....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> That was funny.  Not sure how to counter.....



Seriously.... there is a part of me that can go along with the concept that the various religions and beliefs are like a wagon wheel with one God being the center hub and all the spokes lead to it. The outer band both separates and connects all the different religions and beliefs and as different as they are their individual efforts(spokes) lead to the same God in the end.

It sounds good that way and believe me I have thought about it....but then I keep thinking and I can find many examples to muddy that puddle too.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Seriously.... there is a part of me that can go along with the concept that the various religions and beliefs are like a wagon wheel with one God being the center hub and all the spokes lead to it. The outer band both separates and connects all the different religions and beliefs and as different as they are their individual efforts(spokes) lead to the same God in the end.
> 
> It sounds good that way and believe me I have thought about it....but then I keep thinking and I can find many examples to muddy that puddle too.



Deer are called deer in the English language.  In spanish, they are ciervo.  Everybody has a differnent way of hunting and cooking them.  Regardless of the differences in what we call them and cook them, they are deer.

I would also say that God is God, regardless of whether or not some dude dumps his goat into a volcano in his name.  The actions of one does not define the other.  But, I have no greater claim to God than you, 4, or the goat dumper.  Does that make sense?  If he is God, then he is all of our God.

The waters get muddied when I tell the goat dumper that Jesus says he doesn't have to kill that poor goat.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Seriously.... there is a part of me that can go along with the concept that the various religions and beliefs are like a wagon wheel with one God being the center hub and all the spokes lead to it. The outer band both separates and connects all the different religions and beliefs and as different as they are their individual efforts(spokes) lead to the same God in the end.
> 
> It sounds good that way and believe me I have thought about it....but then I keep thinking and I can find many examples to muddy that puddle too.



I often thought of this myself. The conclusions I have reached so far, has been that human emotion is responsible for the "gods". The need to feel like there is something more.  I have that feeling myself.  The abrhamic god is an emotional appealling entity.  It certainly appeals to our desire for immortality. 

What I try to do, and what has caused me to lose faith, is dwell on this without emotion to cloud my judgement.  It is incredibly hard to do, especially now that I am a father.  

When emotion is removed and you really dwell on the tough questions of exsistence, using the knowlede gained in the short span of human thought, the conclusions drawn are not of an emotional, caring, conscious, and interactive diety.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> If he is God, then he is all of our God.



I can tap mugs on that. But I would have to lean towards a non-interacting God along the lines of a Ron Popeil invention...."Set it and Forget it!"
Start creation and let it be. What happens happens. Because if it-she-he wanted itself to be known clearly and without doubt it could possibly be it's easiest accomplishment.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 27, 2012)

"Set it and Forget it!"



That pretty much the understanding I have reached.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Because if it-she-he wanted itself to be known clearly and without doubt it could possibly be it's easiest accomplishment.



I agree, and a few of us believe it happened


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I agree, and a few of us believe it happened



And exactly why I believe the way I do.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

Four said:


> If you believe the bible, god has a book prescribing how to live (and die) and if you don't follow it you burn forever...
> 
> So that indian calls god Shiva, doesnt read the bible, then burns forever.



No that indian comes back as uncle albert the reincarnated rat...or cow. So they let the rats eat the grain, that the world sends to feed them and let's their children die in the shadow of a cow....hey just eat the meat!! You have grinder teeth for a reason. My God sends them food, they let their belief in reincarnated rats eat it....
Why is it so hard to believe why the usa is so blessed by the God of Abraham? He sends us beef and we go to golden coral to eat it rather than worship it....wasn't there a golden calf involved in the idols of the OT? yep there was.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> No that indian comes back as uncle albert the reincarnated rat...or cow. So they let the rats eat the grain, that the world sends to feed them and let's their children die in the shadow of a cow....hey just eat the meat!! You have grinder teeth for a reason. My God sends them food, they let their belief in reincarnated rats eat it....
> Why is it so hard to believe why the usa is so blessed by the God of Abraham? He sends us beef and we go to golden coral to eat it rather than worship it....wasn't there a golden calf involved in the idols of the OT? yep there was.



*Their God does not allow them to eat meat so that you can. They sacrifice so that you can prosper. The golden calf has sent cows in it's image so you can eat beef. Why is that so hard to believe?

****The above was merely an attempt to counter the ridiculous with the ridiculous to show how ridiculous it was.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> *Their God does not allow them to eat meat so that you can. They sacrifice so that you can prosper. The golden calf has sent cows in it's image so you can eat beef. Why is that so hard to believe?
> 
> ****The above was merely an attempt to counter the ridiculous with the ridiculous to show how ridiculous it was.



Why is the truth ridiculous? Their children don't die from stavation while the cows are roaming the streets? Would you feed your children the cow or would you let your children starve? that's what's ridiculous. Would you let your pet rats eat your grain? because you believe they are reincarnated?  Funny how you only find what Christians believe is ridiculous....other beliefs are not, eh? alrighy then, I get it.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Why is the truth ridiculous? Their children don't die from stavation while the cows are roaming the streets? Would you feed your children the cow or would you let your children starve? that's what's ridiculous. Would you let your pet rats eat your grain? because you believe they are reincarnated?  Funny how you only find what Christians believe is ridiculous....other beliefs are not, eh? alrighy then, I get it.



TRUTH???? There is no truth that your God provides anything to them. That is your addition. That is the ridiculous part.
If you and I were born and raised in India and lived there right now, we would be doing the exact same thing. I find all religions ridiculous. I find some of the followers even more ridiculous because of their lines of thought and reasoning.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> TRUTH???? There is no truth that your God provides anything to them.*I send money to india, I have a heart from my God for them.....otherwise I could just gamble or do something else with my money, I'm convicted to send money for their aid.* That is your addition. That is the ridiculous part.*Ridiculous you say, well I agree, but I can't help but help them.*
> If you and I were born and raised in India and lived there right now, we would be doing the exact same thing. *Not if we believe in the God of abraham that can provide us to provide for them.*I find all religions ridiculous.*I find hunting and killing animals ridiculous, or fishing when you could be feeding the hungry or trying to get justice for child molestors with your weapons.* I find some of the followers even more ridiculous because of their lines of thought and reasoning.*I know, you hunt and fish and I will try to provide food for the starving people of the world.*



Whateva is alright with me...  personally I'm doing the right thing for me to do, and if you feel you're doing the right thing for you, then I can handle that, too.  Just don't judge me for doing what I do.....and yeah yeah I know we're on a hunting forum....so hunt and feed the less fortunate...could you do that?


----------



## Four (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm getting to that awkward part when talking to theists when i cant tell what is a joke / sarcasm and what isn't


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

Four said:


> I'm getting to that awkward part when talking to theists when i cant tell what is a joke / sarcasm and what isn't



Hey, glad you joined the club. I'm to the point that I don't know whether someone is ridiculing, mocking me or making a joke either.

I don't have to wonder though when someone is just downright prejudice towards Christians.....and everyone else can live and let live except for the Christians, they are ignert, lion/shark bait and believe in fairy tales....like no one else has fantasies of one kind or another, like a 50 point 2000lb buck. Deny it if you will, I know exactly the fantasies of a hunter.... Well maybe not all of them but when it comes to huntin' 'deer', or catchin' fish.....some can invision, in color, the biggest buck or fish ever caught in the great state of georgia. Tell me it ain't so!!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Hey, glad you joined the club. I'm to the point that I don't know whether someone is ridiculing, mocking me or making a joke either.
> 
> I don't have to wonder though when someone is just downright prejudice towards Christians.....and everyone else can live and let live except for the Christians, they are ignert, lion/shark bait and believe in fairy tales....like no one else has fantasies of one kind or another,



How many other religions are represented on here? How many Non-Christian religions are discussed on here? There is no prejudice towards one religion more than the other. You just think that is the case because (like hunnin and fishinn) it is the only religion represented here and gets the most air time.

You hit it right with fantasies, I'll give you that one!


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

bullethead said:


> How many other religions are represented on here? How many Non-Christian religions are discussed on here? There is no prejudice towards one religion more than the other. You just think that is the case because (like hunnin and fishinn) it is the only religion represented here and gets the most air time.*Thanks for going over that with me, but I already knew that. *
> 
> You hit it right with fantasies, I'll give you that one!*Ok so I'm not a nitwit in that area.....*



I've been on a few other forums debating with atheists, etc....trust me, they dog Christians more than anyone else, if a muslem, buddhist comes on to debate, no one dogs them out for some reason, they are usually still defended, because no one dares be predjudice towards them.....I can prove it if you don't believe it.  God said the Christians would be hated and they are.

I don't debate buddhist, muslems, hindus, etc etc. And usually they don't come to Christian forums, either. The religious seem more tolerant of each other than most people would like to admit. People just throw that into the mix for good measure. 

I doubt a person here has even debated a muslem, nor ridiculed, make fun of or dare say their beliefs are just fairy tales....it's like you just throw in a token religion....


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

OMGosh I just thought of something, a hindu would have a field day on here with you guys....or you'd have a field day with them.

Bambi reincarnated.....eeeeeek. And like you've said before they could be right.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I've been on a few other forums debating with atheists, etc....trust me, they dog Christians more than anyone else, if a muslem, buddhist comes on to debate, no one dogs them out for some reason, they are usually still defended, because no one dares be predjudice towards them.....I can prove it if you don't believe it.  God said the Christians would be hated and they are.





mtnwoman said:


> I can prove it if you don't believe it.  *God said the Christians would be hated and they are.*


Oh I hope you have more proof than that!!!!



mtnwoman said:


> I don't debate buddhist, muslems, hindus, etc etc. And usually they don't come to Christian forums, either. The religious seem more tolerant of each other than most people would like to admit. People just throw that into the mix for good measure.


Didn't know the AAA was a Christian forum.



mtnwoman said:


> I doubt a person here has even debated a muslem, nor ridiculed, make fun of or dare say their beliefs are just fairy tales....it's like you just throw in a token religion....



I would not rely on your doubts.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Oh I hope you have more proof than that!!!!
> 
> *Ahhhhh and yet you are one of the few that took offense to my hunter comments.....yet you expect me not to take offense when I believe someone is doggin' me out....surely you aren't a chauvinist are you or for that matter have delusions of granduer?
> 
> ...


*I'd love to check out a forum where many religions debate each other against atheists, can you direct me there?*

Don't leave me all up in here clueless...okay?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I've been on a few other forums debating with atheists, etc....trust me, they dog Christians more than anyone else, if a muslem, buddhist comes on to debate, no one dogs them out for some reason, they are usually still defended, because no one dares be predjudice towards them.....I can prove it if you don't believe it.  God said the Christians would be hated and they are.
> 
> I don't debate buddhist, muslems, hindus, etc etc. And usually they don't come to Christian forums, either. The religious seem more tolerant of each other than most people would like to admit. People just throw that into the mix for good measure.
> 
> I doubt a person here has even debated a muslem, nor ridiculed, make fun of or dare say their beliefs are just fairy tales....it's like you just throw in a token religion....




If it makes you feel better, I think Muslims are as ridiculous as Christians and you should too..


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If it makes you feel better, I think Muslims are as ridiculous as Christians and you should too..



I dare you to tell one that. I dare you to tell them how ignert and how their beliefs are but fairy tales. Muslims dislike atheists more than they do Christians....don't lose your mind/head over it......

You'd better holla Allah  when you see them coming and you will.  Even the Bible tells us, we will lose our heads by proclaiming to be Christians....ain't that a coinkidenky?

I think groundhog/squirel killers are ridiculous, too.....hahahahahahahaha...what do you use them for? Target practice?

Some people around here think there is logic in everything THEY do or say...but everyone else is imperfect and illogical in some things. Not you though, I suppose.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 1, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I think groundhog/squirel killers are ridiculous, too.....hahahahahahahaha...what do you use them for? Target practice?



I grew up eating squirrell.  Tastes like dark meat on a chicken.

Groundhogs are target practice.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> *I'd love to check out a forum where many religions debate each other against atheists, can you direct me there?*
> 
> Don't leave me all up in here clueless...okay?



30 seconds of your time on a search engine would answer many of your own questions.
First and foremost you have to want to know the answers before you ask the questions.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I dare you to tell one that. I dare you to tell them how ignert and how their beliefs are but fairy tales. Muslims dislike atheists more than they do Christians....don't lose your mind/head over it......
> 
> You'd better holla Allah  when you see them coming and you will.  Even the Bible tells us, we will lose our heads by proclaiming to be Christians....ain't that a coinkidenky?
> 
> ...




My sister in law is Muslim.  You're understanding of Muslims is incomplete.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> My sister in law is Muslim.



... your in-laws are United Church of Christ, and you're an atheist/agnostic.  Your family "get togethers" must be interesting.


----------



## applejuice (Feb 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> My sister in law is Muslim.  You're understanding of Muslims is incomplete.



My co worker is.

No beer and No Bacon???? No way jose 

Pretty similiar in tales

Mtnwoman, it would do you good to have a chat with a muslim. They believe in Jesus and a lot of the stories in the bible. Not so diff from my point of view


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... your in-laws are United Church of Christ, and you're an atheist/agnostic.  Your family "get togethers" must be interesting.



They are all progressive, even my Southerm Baptist mother is progressive.  My Dad is a hardliner but he's showing his age and doesn't raise a ruckus so much anymore.  In his heyday, when he first got Da Feva, he was a spectacle; talking donkeys, burning bushes and He11fire.  You guys would have liked him.

The rest of us all get along, bound by the common threads of reason and sound judgement; which supersede any dogmas associated with our chosen spiritual paths.

It can be done, people.  You can come out of the dark ages and stop living in alienation from your fellow man and get along.  You can even hold on to your cultural idiosyncrasies as long as you recognize them for what they are.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2012)

applejuice said:


> My co worker is.
> 
> No beer and No Bacon???? No way jose
> 
> ...



Kooks come in all colors: No dancin' unless your handlin' a cobra?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I dare you to tell one that. I dare you to tell them how ignert and how their beliefs are but fairy tales. Muslims dislike atheists more than they do Christians....don't lose your mind/head over it......
> 
> You'd better holla Allah  when you see them coming and you will.  Even the Bible tells us, we will lose our heads by proclaiming to be Christians....ain't that a coinkidenky?



No prejudice there!


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No prejudice there!



It's unwillingness to learn the truth.  It's almost unforgivable in this day and age that someone would not attempt to inform themselves.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> My sister in law is Muslim.  You're understanding of Muslims is incomplete.



Excuse me? So she's muslim, so what. Honestly do I have to put extreme muslims every time I mention a muslim, like Mr Bullet told me, I've already expressed my opinions of the difference in muslims and extreme muslims....please read ALL of my posts to find that....

My son in law's best friend is a muslim. He's a normal guy, goes to NC state games with us, parties with us, comes to church with us sometimes, comes to Christmas, Thanksgiving and hangs out any other time he wants to. My best guy friend in spartanburg was a muslim from palestine, biggest partier ever and a super good friend. I stayed with him a lot instead of driving back and forth to asheville sometimes...(oh let me put in I was working at ma bell until I could get my job back in asheville, better not leave that out) He was a great cook and so was his mom and I enjoyed their food very much. No love interest on my part, just friends.
That I know of we never even discussed religion. I wasn't back to the church at that time. I never have or never will have a problem with him.

I don't get your point.....y'all seem to think that everybody don't have a  so called 'token' muslim, christian, hindu, buddhist friend.

Your sisterinlaw didn't bomb the twin towers did she? She don't kill Christians or any one else does she. If y'all can't figure out what I'm talking about, I'll try to add more words and be more careful and tiptoe thru the tulips for you, so you can get it.

Sheesh....and I'm the narrowminded one.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It's unwillingness to learn the truth.  It's almost unforgivable in this day and age that someone would not attempt to inform themselves.



That goes both ways. Honestly you don't think that there is a lot of times, that I know that y'all don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to what Christians believe, and what the Bible says.  I'd rather have a chat or a debate rather than puttin' people down and telling you have 'ignernt' you are, nor do I try to trip you up with trick questions, you ask me and I tell you probably more than you want to know. Obviously you can't do that....that's ok....I'm not surprised. When you don't have an answer just spin the ball back to my court.

I ask questions and try to get informed of what y'all think/believe, and all I get is some link or something telling me the question has already been answered. So what's a girl suppose to do?....ask and not get anything or don't ask and still not get anything but get accused of not seeking.  Buncha doubletalk if you ask me


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> They are all progressive, even my Southerm Baptist mother is progressive.  My Dad is a hardliner but he's showing his age and doesn't raise a ruckus so much anymore.  In his heyday, when he first got Da Feva, he was a spectacle; talking donkeys, burning bushes and He11fire.  You guys would have liked him.
> 
> The rest of us all get along, bound by the common threads of reason and sound judgement; which supersede any dogmas associated with our chosen spiritual paths.
> 
> It can be done, people.  You can come out of the dark ages and stop living in alienation from your fellow man and get along.  You can even hold on to your cultural idiosyncrasies as long as you recognize them for what they are.



Why then ambush do you find it so hard to get along with folks here? I bet you don't say to them about how they believe in fairy tales, do ya, or make fun of talking donkeys do ya? I wonder if they really know how you feel about their beliefs? That you are laughing and mocking them behind your back.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No prejudice there!



Spare me   You were just waiting to find something like that weren't you? Because I'd played the prejudice card on ya earlier.....you are too funny.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

applejuice said:


> My co worker is.
> 
> No beer and No Bacon???? No way jose
> 
> ...



What makes you think I haven't?  I'm not referring to them in any kind of negative way, I'm using them as an example. I know what they believe. I don't know everything they believe, but I do know some of the differences and a lot of what we believe that is very similar.

I'm just saying how people will jump in to defend muslims, but no one ever defends the Christians.....you sorta proved my point, and so did ambush and really so did bullet, I've never seen either of them defend a Christian.....but muslims yeah they will. I say what I say for a reaction that I suspect and I'm hardly ever disappointed in what I believe will be said.

I promise you I have more in common with any other religion than ambush or bullet, who do not believe in anything religious......didn't I just say that?


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If it makes you feel better, I think Muslims are as ridiculous as Christians and you should too..



Do you tell your sister in law that, or just me?
Proving my point everytime you open your mouth, didn't I just say y'all wouldn't tell a muslim that?


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

applejuice said:


> My co worker is.
> 
> No beer and No Bacon???? No way jose
> 
> ...



Well my friend from spartanburg, drinks beer, alcohol, and has a drug problem. He's the first person I ever saw smoke crack in a cocacola can pipe.....scared me to death.  His mom had visted palestine and he had the run of the house when she was gone. I learned a lot about him during that time, things I'd rather not have known. Maybe I know more about some muslims than others.....and maybe you do.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... your in-laws are United Church of Christ, and you're an atheist/agnostic.  Your family "get togethers" must be interesting.



I doubt he says the things he says here, and would probably crawl under a rock if his family knew how he felt about what they believed. It's easy to own some brass on a forum ya know?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 2, 2012)

I would say i'm guilty of the "brass on a forum thing" too. When i'm in a group at home or work and they start talking religion/politics I try to stay out of it just to keep peace.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 2, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would say i'm guilty of the "brass on a forum thing" too. When i'm in a group at home or work and they start talking religion/politics I try to stay out of it just to keep peace.



I'm one of those annoying folks who loves talking religion and politics anywhere.........and the great pumpkin.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 2, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Why then ambush do you find it so hard to get along with folks here? I bet you don't say to them about how they believe in fairy tales, do ya, or make fun of talking donkeys do ya? I wonder if they really know how you feel about their beliefs? That you are laughing and mocking them behind your back.





mtnwoman said:


> Do you tell your sister in law that, or just me?
> Proving my point everytime you open your mouth, didn't I just say y'all wouldn't tell a muslim that?





mtnwoman said:


> I doubt he says the things he says here, and would probably crawl under a rock if his family knew how he felt about what they believed. It's easy to own some brass on a forum ya know?



No "brass" just the truth.  I will tell anyone to their face and have, that if they believe in talking donkeys, fiery chariots, rising from the dead or blue elephant headed super beings that I think that they are crazy.

You know what? They are still my friends and I get along with them just fine.  I have a friend who believes in ghosts.  When we are some place that he says there are ghosts I laugh at him; right to his face.  He takes it stride because he knows what a ridiculous claim he is making; even if he believes it.

As for my sister in law, she doesn't believe in the mythologies of her religion any more that my in laws believe the mythologies of their religion.  I guess that makes them bad Muslims and Christians, but good people in my book.  So, we all just share a laugh at people who believe in talking donkeys and fiery chariots and apply the Southern colloquialism: "Bless their hearts."


----------



## bullethead (Feb 2, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I dare you to tell one that. I dare you to tell them how ignert and how their beliefs are but fairy tales. Muslims dislike atheists more than they do Christians....don't lose your mind/head over it......
> 
> You'd better holla Allah  when you see them coming and you will.  Even the Bible tells us, we will lose our heads by proclaiming to be Christians....ain't that a coinkidenky





mtnwoman said:


> Spare me You were just waiting to find something like that weren't you? Because I'd played the prejudice card on ya earlier.....you are too funny.



If those are not prejudice comments then please tell me what you mean.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If those are not prejudice comments then please tell me what you mean.



Come on....dang

If you were debating a muslim about their beliefs would you tell them, since they have a God, that they just believe in fairy tales? would you tell them they live in a fantasy world? 

If they were telling you what they believe would you and ambush, say the things to them, that you say to Christians?

How is that prejudice?

Ambush states he feels the same about muslims as he does christians, I'm also asking him does he say the things to his family that he says about christians on here?


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> No "brass" just the truth.  I will tell anyone to their face and have, that if they believe in talking donkeys, fiery chariots, rising from the dead or blue elephant headed super beings that I think that they are crazy.
> 
> You know what? They are still my friends and I get along with them just fine.  I have a friend who believes in ghosts.  When we are some place that he says there are ghosts I laugh at him; right to his face.  He takes it stride because he knows what a ridiculous claim he is making; even if he believes it.
> 
> As for my sister in law, she doesn't believe in the mythologies of her religion any more that my in laws believe the mythologies of their religion.  I guess that makes them bad Muslims and Christians, but good people in my book.  So, we all just share a laugh at people who believe in talking donkeys and fiery chariots and apply the Southern colloquialism: "Bless their hearts."



You just said that your father believes in talking donkeys....Lord help me Jesus.....he does or he don't?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Come on....dang
> 
> If you were debating a muslim about their beliefs would you tell them, since they have a God, that they just believe in fairy tales? would you tell them they live in a fantasy world?
> 
> ...



I absolutely would say anything to anyone regardless of their religion that I have said on here whether it is face to face or not.

The only reason Christians get the brunt of my/our attention is because Christianity is WELL represented here! Although I'd love to see a few other representatives of other religions on here so I can watch one believer tell another believer how ridiculous their beliefs are(and that already happens within the Christians on here)....so it would be a sit-back grab the popcorn and enjoy the show event!

Discussing their beliefs is not prejudice. What I wouldn't do is stereotype them and accuse them of being be-headers, like you have done twice in this thread and other times in the past. I'm pretty sure you have a "flying planes into buildings" comment somewhere too.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> You just said that your father believes in talking donkeys....Lord help me Jesus.....he does or he don't?



He's a "The Bible says it. I believe it.  End of story." kind of Christian.  So, yes, he believes in talking donkeys.  Bless his heart.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I absolutely would say anything to anyone regardless of their religion that I have said on here whether it is face to face or not.
> 
> The only reason Christians get the brunt of my/our attention is because Christianity is WELL represented here! Although I'd love to see a few other representatives of other religions on here so I can watch one believer tell another believer how ridiculous their beliefs are(and that already happens within the Christians on here)....so it would be a sit-back grab the popcorn and enjoy the show event!
> 
> Discussing their beliefs is not prejudice. What I wouldn't do is stereotype them and accuse them of being be-headers, like you have done twice in this thread and other times in the past. I'm pretty sure you have a "flying planes into buildings" comment somewhere too.



You left out the part where I said the extreme muslim actions of some.  And are you saying they didn't or don't?
You can speak your truth, but no one else can?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 4, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> You left out the part where I said the extreme muslim actions of some.  And are you saying they didn't or don't?
> You can speak your truth, but no one else can?



You had no mention of EXTREMISTS! None!

I didn't say whether extremists didn't or don't because no one was talking about extremists. All religions have them and none are any better than the rest.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 4, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Excuse me? So she's muslim, so what. Honestly do I have to put extreme muslims every time I mention a muslim, like Mr Bullet told me, I've already expressed my opinions of the difference in muslims and extreme muslims....please read ALL of my posts to find that....
> 
> My son in law's best friend is a muslim. He's a normal guy, goes to NC state games with us, parties with us, comes to church with us sometimes, comes to Christmas, Thanksgiving and hangs out any other time he wants to. My best guy friend in spartanburg was a muslim from palestine, biggest partier ever and a super good friend. I stayed with him a lot instead of driving back and forth to asheville sometimes...(oh let me put in I was working at ma bell until I could get my job back in asheville, better not leave that out) He was a great cook and so was his mom and I enjoyed their food very much. No love interest on my part, just friends.
> That I know of we never even discussed religion. I wasn't back to the church at that time. I never have or never will have a problem with him.
> ...





I expressed here what I meant. Surely even you know that extreme muslim are the ones that bombed the twin towers and that behead people......do we have to express that every single time? 

I know what we were talking about.....


----------



## bullethead (Feb 4, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I expressed here what I meant. Surely even you know that extreme muslim are the ones that bombed the twin towers and that behead people......do we have to express that every single time?
> 
> I know what we were talking about.....



That was post #320.

No mention of extreme muslims 10 posts earlier. But a good attempt at dragging the tree branchs over the trail though!


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> That was post #320.
> 
> No mention of extreme muslims 10 posts earlier. But a good attempt at dragging the tree branchs over the trail though!




So!! We weren't talking about beheading and bombing the twin towers were we? We were talking about whether you and ambush would say the same things to your family or friends who believe the same or differently than I do, whether they be muslim, whatever. WOW...and you got all that out of that?

When you say Christians forced everyone to believe the earth was flat, you didn't specify ALL, every single Christian did, and if I didn't know better, I could assume that you you meant every single Christian, none left out that believed that. Yet I have sense enough to know that you couldn't possibly know that and that every single Christian would imprison or kill someone who thought otherwise.  I just took it as some Christians.  I could take offense to it, but I don't choose to do that because I've debated enough to know what you meant...and if I didn't I'd ask you before I accused you of 'profiling' Christians....but I don't expect the same from you. You've got us all bundled into one group looks like then, if you think that way.....my bad.




Oh Lordy why do I waste my breath.....


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 4, 2012)

I cannot find in this thread where I talked about beheading would you point me to the post where I implied muslims, all muslims did that, please?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 4, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I cannot find in this thread where I talked about beheading would you point me to the post where I implied muslims, all muslims did that, please?



Post #310


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Post #310



Did I not post shortly after that whom I was talking about? Do you personally know or know of or hear about any Muslims other than extreme muslims that kill people? I don't. 

Why didn't you call me on it 10 posts earlier? I know why.....

You still just wanted to find something to play the prejudice card back at me....first hunters then muslims....whatever


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Did I not post shortly after that whom I was talking about? Do you personally know or know of or hear about any Muslims other than extreme muslims that kill people? I don't.
> 
> Why didn't you call me on it 10 posts earlier? I know why.....
> 
> You still just wanted to find something to play the prejudice card back at me....first hunters then muslims....whatever



If I called you on it 10 posts earlier I would have done it 2 posts BEFORE you said it. I'm good but no that good. I called you on it when I saw it. You posted WHO you were talking about(ahem) after you were called out on it. 10 hours after your original post.

I'm not in the revenge business. Say it - forget it, write it - regret it. Once it's down you can't take it away.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If I called you on it 10 posts earlier I would have done it 2 posts BEFORE you said it. I'm good but no that good. I called you on it when I saw it. You posted WHO you were talking about(ahem) after you were called out on it. 10 hours after your original post.
> 
> I'm not in the revenge business. Say it - forget it, write it - regret it. Once it's down you can't take it away.





bullethead said:


> That was post #320.
> 
> No mention of extreme muslims 10 posts earlier. But a good attempt at dragging the tree branchs over the trail though!



You brought up the 10 posts earlier thing. Why didn't you call me immediately after I posted it if you thought I was being prejudice on that particular post?

I'm just taking your word it was 10 posts earlier, you were the counter, not me.

I'm not taking anything away. You're trying to say I make prejudice muslim remarks when it's just a straw man that everyone calls when they are trying to cover their own prejudice. I told you what I meant, why do you keep dwelling on it? Make it out what you want it to be....that covers you own remarks in past posts/threads which I'm sure everyone is aware of the remarks and predjudices you have regarding Christians. I used muslims as an example and you know it.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> You brought up the 10 posts earlier thing. Why didn't you call me immediately after I posted it if you thought I was being prejudice on that particular post?



Crazy little thing called work prevented me from being on here 24/7. I posted something as soon as I saw it.





mtnwoman said:


> I'm not taking anything away. You're trying to say I make prejudice muslim remarks when it's just a straw man that everyone calls when they are trying to cover their own prejudice. I told you what I meant, why do you keep dwelling on it? Make it out what you want it to be....that covers you own remarks in past posts/threads which I'm sure everyone is aware of the remarks and predjudices you have regarding Christians. I used muslims as an example and you know it.



I said it ONCE and have just replied to the questions you have asked me since. I am certainly not dwelling on it!
You might be protesting too much.

I'd be happy to see my prior "predjudices" if you will post them.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Crazy little thing called work prevented me from being on here 24/7. I posted something as soon as I saw it.



I didn't think you were, I'm not either I've been off for a couple of days myself. You're the one that took the time to count 10 posts of mine from the first to the whatever next one you referred to.  You posted as if I've posted throughout this entire thread with head chopping and the twin towers....actually it was only one post then 10 posts inbetween the time you called me on it and I expressed I meant extreme muslims....you'da thought this whole forum was filled with my prejudice against all muslims when actully in a short time I expressed to you whom I was talking about....10 posts....wow. 

I don't care how much you're on here, surely you can still follow a thread by reading before your accusations start...eh?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I didn't think you were, I'm not either I've been off for a couple of days myself. You're the one that took the time to count 10 posts of mine from the first to the whatever next one you referred to.  You posted as if I've posted throughout this entire thread with head chopping and the twin towers....actually it was only one post then 10 posts inbetween the time you called me on it and I expressed I meant extreme muslims....you'da thought this whole forum was filled with my prejudice against all muslims when actully in a short time I expressed to you whom I was talking about....10 posts....wow.
> 
> I don't care how much you're on here, surely you can still follow a thread by reading before your accusations start...eh?



If I were you I'd just drop it and here is why:

You made the "losing heads" post at 1:38AM.

I called you on that post at 8:43AM before I went to work.

You made your "clarification" post at 12:25PM. 10 HOURS after you made the first post and almost 4 hours after I called you out on it. 
SOOOO How could I follow a thread and read ahead BEFORE it is ever posted? My post was made after your first one and before your second one.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If I were you I'd just drop it and here is why:
> 
> You made the "losing heads" post at 1:38AM.
> 
> ...



Did you ever think, that I don't sit here 24/7 either... I chkd in when I was out of town and was a little surprised you were still on it...  You brought it up, I'll drop it if you will.

WOW!!


----------

