# A question for believers



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2018)

What if I or Bullethead or Walt said in our next post "I heard the voice of God.  I'm certain of it."  Would you rejoice?  Would you tell us to go see a shrink?  Would it depend on what He said to us?  What if we said it was Allah?


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What if I or Bullethead or Walt said in our next post "I heard the voice of God.  I'm certain of it."  Would you rejoice?  Would you tell us to go see a shrink?  Would it depend on what He said to us?  What if we said it was Allah?


I would probably move on to the another thread, but don't let my skepticism deter you.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 27, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> I would probably move on to the another thread, but don't let my skepticism deter you.


That's a really interesting response.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> I would probably move on to the another thread, but don't let my skepticism deter you.



Do you mean you wouldn't believe it?


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What if I or Bullethead or Walt said in our next post "I heard the voice of God.  I'm certain of it."  Would you rejoice?  Would you tell us to go see a shrink?  Would it depend on what He said to us?  What if we said it was Allah?


You haven't each said that dozens of times?  (Rhetorical ?)


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Do you mean you wouldn't believe it?


I find that to be my default position most of the time. I also find that when I invest in unbelief, I reap it.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> You haven't each said that dozens of times?  (Rhetorical ?)



I meant right now.  I suppose as an exclamation of "Re-Conversion".  How would you take it?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> I find that to be my default position most of the time. I also find that when I invest in unbelief, I reap it.



Good point.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I meant right now.  I suppose as an exclamation of "Re-Conversion".  How would you take it?


With the caveat that you are asking me to guess, or prophesy, the future; my first reaction would probably be to wait for the anticipated troll showing itself, as experience has shown that it will.  If that became doubtful I would start gleaning for evidence that my current belief, that re-conversion is conceptually impossible, is incorrect.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> With the caveat that you are asking me to guess, or prophesy, the future; my first reaction would probably be to wait for the anticipated troll showing itself, as experience has shown that it will.  If that became doubtful I would start gleaning for evidence that my current belief, that re-conversion is conceptually impossible, is incorrect.



Thanks for your honest and serious answer.


----------



## Israel (Oct 28, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I meant right now.  I suppose as an exclamation of "Re-Conversion".  How would you take it?



Playing "what if" with God, or by extension a form of something that is His as in a chess game (what if I make this move, or that...what _might_ the result be?) may be a thing with which none of us is unfamiliar.

Hummerpoo and Gem speak well to the matter of hypotheticals. I could be very wrong (but that doesn't matter, _at all_) I interpret their well speaking (and by extension...grasp) of the hypothetical _in concept _as a thing, or tool of use to_ their science_ for the testing of _their science _as having been revealed to them as not strongest of complement afforded them in Jesus Christ. At least when dealing with other "things".

It is (to me, anyway) not that "what if" is always, or never of any use...or even, by any means... "off limits". "What if", in the context of reasoning with God I am persuaded, may indeed help through wonder to deeper conviction. (That may lead to even deeper wonder!)
But such reasoning together with God as "place" entered becomes, over experience, progressively less (all are as free to disabuse me, as I am to assert) far less of "what will your next move be...I wonder" than "who are you?" Who am I relating to? _How_...are you? How are you the you...you are?

(I wonder (!) "if" any find this sensible before their science of God that the very return of that last question above, into themselves, is not only heard, but proven salutary?)

Your question I don't deride, I am glad for it. The asking of "what would your move be" if _I said_ "I heard from God"? Is a blunt way of asking "who are you guys, _now_?" But I don't mean blunt as in obtuse or in a derogatory fashion. I think it's a help.
The "what would you do...if..." may help a man see and consider "how he is". Whether the question _seems _to come from "on high" or even _seems_ to come from somewhere else...it may still help a man to hearing himself asked..."how are you the you...you are?"

In times past, I am persuaded, some have viewed the scriptures and their relation to them (by certain calling themselves believers) as a thing sought _to fit into_. I think this notion is not foreign to what may, to such a time, prefer to call itself unbeliever. Seeing it (and them...contained) not unlike a playbook a team is given to memorize and learn...and conform to that they might find their proper "place" on the team. A sort of nothing more than "trying to do" the Bible.

But the Bible is full of men who had absolutely no idea what they would do "if". They had to find out.

"If" you heard the voice of God, I have no more idea of what I "would do" than I could be sure you would even "say so". I most rarely even know what I _would_ do, _should _do in hearing what I believe to be His voice. Till...I do. All my own surmisings remain just that. Makes me ask "what sort of man am I"? And I find...just like any other...not knowing the "if" and my response to it "till".

And suppose such a man were able to say he has never found one right thing in his doing? I have boasted like Goliath...till. I have sworn like Peter what I would do...till.
I have rebuked rebels like Moses...till. I have eaten like Adam...till. I have thought I have known myself...till.

And I see many many men...just like me. Only one stands out in His meeting of the "if" and the "till".

I cannot make you change your science anymore than I can change my own. What I believe I am able to say, I do. Both your science and my own will remain until.

I "even" believe sight of the resurrection has imparted _some_ understanding, and that may be shown to be my very greatest presumption...of all. I cannot know until.

What _I think_ I know...always shames me. Who knows me...however...

But now, after that ye have _known God_, _or rather are known_ of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements

I really don't know any or all that any other man might do when he discovers how thoroughly known of God he is. Your question prompts me.

"If" being known of God _seems_ in any way less than sufficient...such a man is remaining in the "seems"...even till...now.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 28, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What if I or Bullethead or Walt said in our next post "I heard the voice of God.  I'm certain of it."  Would you rejoice?  Would you tell us to go see a shrink?  Would it depend on what He said to us?  What if we said it was Allah?


Depends on what you described as “hearing”.

Is it audible as the way you and I would communicate at the gas pump? Being that God is a spirit, my initial thought would be as others have said.......”trolling”


----------



## bullethead (Oct 28, 2018)

Israel said:


> Playing "what if" with God, or by extension a form of something that is His as in a chess game (what if I make this move, or that...what _might_ the result be?) may be a thing with which none of us is unfamiliar.
> 
> Hummerpoo and Gem speak well to the matter of hypotheticals. I could be very wrong (but that doesn't matter, _at all_) I interpret their well speaking (and by extension...grasp) of the hypothetical _in concept _as a thing, or tool of use to_ their science_ for the testing of _their science _as having been revealed to them as not strongest of complement afforded them in Jesus Christ. At least when dealing with other "things".
> 
> ...


We all play "What If" every second of every day in everything we do. Certainty is never.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 28, 2018)

bullethead said:


> We all play "What If" every second of every day in everything we do. Certainty is never.


Self-defeating.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 28, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What if I or Bullethead or Walt said in our next post "I heard the voice of God.  I'm certain of it."  Would you rejoice?  Would you tell us to go see a shrink?  Would it depend on what He said to us?  What if we said it was Allah?



There's also this 
matter of fruits. Don't you agree?

..."by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another"


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2018)

bullethead said:


> We all play "What If" every second of every day in everything we do. Certainty is never.





gemcgrew said:


> Self-defeating.



"Certainty is never"

Are you certain?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

Although you asked believers......
I would be more inclined to believe you or Bullet than a Christian based on I think you would exhaust most possibilities before being certain it was God.
Then I would get you an Uber to the nearest shrink


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Depends on what you described as “hearing”.
> 
> Is it audible as the way you and I would communicate at the gas pump? Being that God is a spirit, my initial thought would be as others have said.......”trolling”




The question is very open ended...no?

But I don't think questions are, of themselves, _less_ good or _more_ evil till they are plumbed as fully as necessary to reveal their source.
But that is not "of us", is it?

That "as fully as necessary" thing.

The matter of assertion being "answered" by...question. 

Well...I don't know if it's deep or the most very obvious thing to everyone, that I am (as most _retarded_ of all) just beginning to glimpse as "operation".
So, as admittedly just beginning in glimpses, not knowing at all if such _operation_ (which I am persuaded is not "off limits" as found in many encouragements) but is then, no less, matter "of necessity".

So my appeal comes in question. Anyone have light on this to help? I ask in the temple believing rebuke is no less set to our establishment than all other. I _need _exposure of motive.


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Although you asked believers......
> I would be more inclined to believe you or Bullet than a Christian based on I think you would exhaust most possibilities before being certain it was God.
> Then I would get you an Uber to the nearest shrink



But...would you "go with them"...to the shrink? Or just send them?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> But...would you "go with them"...to the shrink? Or just send them?


I would just send them.
If they were certain it was God they might start blasting me with scripture and what a nightmare of a ride that would be


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I would just send them.
> If they were certain it was God they might start blasting me with scripture and what a nightmare of a ride that would be


Or worse, talk in a manner and use words to mimmick scripture to mix in along with the scripture.
The Uber driver would probably engage the child proof locks and bail out just after steering for a large wall.


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I would just send them.
> If they were certain it was God they might start blasting me with scripture and what a nightmare of a ride that would be


So then...the friend you are inclined to believe exhaustive (to whatever extent) to the ruling out of "other possibilities" is now (or _could be_) nightmarishly hard to endure?

I laugh...not in derision. In recognition.


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Or worse, talk in a manner and use words to mimmick scripture to mix in along with the scripture.
> The Uber driver would probably engage the child proof locks and bail out just after steering for a large wall.




He/she'd want drastic relief, too?
And this might be found in _their demise?
Only?_


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> He/she'd want drastic relief, too?
> And this might be found in _their demise?
> Only?_


Demise? Maybe?
If they were "real believers" the wall incident may have one thanking god for stepping in and saving them while the others were mashed into unworthy pancakes?
But? Only? If? Real?


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2018)

That's odd. Your friend Walt has already identified you as (perhaps...Ambush the other) being not the driver...but one in the back seat. Being either _sent to the shrink,_ or accompanied. But accompaniment, _by Walt_, has already been ruled out for his reasons.
But you have spoken (as?) for the driver.


No. You, or Ambush are in the back seat...now unaccompanied by Walt. Sent to the shrink.

Your issue is with Walt; if what he has set up to enoble you as *diligently *critical and skeptical...to a fault...is now the very thing in which he discovers a prompting to part ways.
He's already said _he won't be there._ Your erstwhile exemplary skepticism if "overturned" to the certainty of God...he admits he could not (probably) bear.

Your inference that the driver could also now find you (or Ambush) unbearable is interesting to the point that you could see he might desire your (or Ambush's) demise for relief. Abandoned by both friend and even stranger/driver.  Alone, locked in the vehicle...headed for a wall?


Be the passenger.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> So then...the friend you are inclined to believe exhaustive (to whatever extent) to the ruling out of "other possibilities" is now (or _could be_) nightmarishly hard to endure?
> 
> I laugh...not in derision. In recognition.


Yep.
In the end I would believe them to the same extent I believe you or Spotlite or my Christian friends or......
I would believe that they believe it was "God".
There's only one thing that can make ME believe and that's not going to come out of a human mouth or a book...……..


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> That's odd. Your friend Walt has already identified you as (perhaps...Ambush the other) being not the driver...but one in the back seat. Being either _sent to the shrink,_ or accompanied. But accompaniment, _by Walt_, has already been ruled out for his reasons.
> But you have spoken (as?) for the driver.
> 
> 
> ...





> he discovers a need to part ways.


I would be there when they got back.
If they can handle my lack of belief I can handle their belief.
And by handling I mean accepting.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> That's odd. Your friend Walt has already identified you as (perhaps...Ambush the other) being not the driver...but one in the back seat. Being either _sent to the shrink,_ or accompanied. But accompaniment, _by Walt_, has already been ruled out for his reasons.
> But you have spoken (as?) for the driver.
> 
> 
> ...


I would expect Walt to look out for me like that. Thank you Walt!

It could all be a test by god. Meant to be. If we all walk away we are all "real" believers. If we all die, we were not "real".  At least we willingly got into the vehicle and tried it. What other way is there to test to see if someone is truly chosen to have a god step in than slam into a wall at a high speed?
Seems as though there were no chosen among the 189 on the jet over in India....


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> That's odd. Your friend Walt has already identified you as (perhaps...Ambush the other) being not the driver...but one in the back seat. Being either _sent to the shrink,_ or accompanied. But accompaniment, _by Walt_, has already been ruled out for his reasons.
> But you have spoken (as?) for the driver.
> 
> 
> ...


If in fact we were true believers, are we really abandoned and alone? We should be thankful, despite the actions of the mortals. Right?


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I would be there when they got back.
> If they can handle my lack of belief I can handle their belief.
> And by handling I mean accepting.



That's also interesting. Because in Bullet's scenario he's at the least...been locked in a moving driverless car. Headed for a wall. Possibly hit a wall. Possibly...mashed up...or dead.

How nice of you to be waiting! _You_ sent him. You sure you got "what it takes" in the "if"? It seems all contingent, but_ not on_ you. Can you face the man you may have sent to his death...(or at least a questionably scary ride?) and then feel free to yet confront him with "if you can receive me, I can receive you"?

How very nice of you.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Although you asked believers......
> I would be more inclined to believe you or Bullet than a Christian based on I think you would exhaust most possibilities before being certain it was God.
> Then I would get you an Uber to the nearest shrink


Oh boy 

It just occurred to me, many non believers, a lot, maybe the majority have assumed way too much..............

And it just keeps reinforcing the fact that they did not examine this in full, they were only exposed to their organization.


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2018)

bullethead said:


> If in fact we were true believers, are we really abandoned and alone? We should be thankful, despite the actions of the mortals. Right?


When "should" becomes would...


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> That's also interesting. Because in Bullet's scenario he's at the least...been locked in a moving driverless car. Headed for a wall. Possibly hit a wall. Possibly...mashed up...or dead.
> 
> How nice of you to be waiting! _You_ sent him. You sure you got "what it takes" in the "if"? It seems all contingent, but_ not on_ you. Can you face the man you may have sent to his death...(or at least a questionably scary ride?) and then feel free to yet confront him with "if you can receive me, I can receive you"?
> 
> How very nice of you.


Walt wouldn't be responsible for the drivers actions.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> When "should" becomes would...


When exactly is that?


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Walt wouldn't be responsible for the drivers actions.


That's right.

So...might you be seeing something?

Where Walt has premised his need (to not accompany) as a result of you having been once so very very skeptical and critical in thinking as the very thing, if unseated, or changed to faith in God would speak "to him" as being the most very convincing that you could now be unbearable (due in at least part it would "take a lot" to convince you...and thereby that "a lot" might be too much for him to accompany).

The thing that makes you "friend/believable" to Walt...diligent skepticism...is also the thing (he perceives) that would make you...if "in turning" quite unbearable. But he's willing to concede "if" you can bear him...he'll bear you.

You may understand this...about Walt. Walt is a diligent skeptic...so "I can understand why it's so hard...for him" That's a step.

But...knowing nothing of the driver, you have still inferred what he'd _probably do_.

I am not looking at or for any presumption in this matter, by you.

What I hear is a soul with an inkling. Somehow what at times may appear as dug in to all resistance (like you, like me)...yet knows a something. And that something has been said before.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Oh boy
> 
> It just occurred to me, many non believers, a lot, maybe the majority have assumed way too much..............
> 
> And it just keeps reinforcing the fact that they did not examine this in full, they were only exposed to their organization.


Enlighten us on what a full examination WILL produce based off of your full examination.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> That's right.
> 
> So...might you be seeing something?
> 
> ...



I think what he's saying is that you wouldn't have such an "allergic" reaction to the thought of having to listen to a passenger who just heard God if there wasn't some powerful truth about hearing God that you want to deny.  

Not a great argument, but notice how less impressive of an argument it is without the verbosity.

What does _THAT _reveal?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Enlighten us on what a full examination WILL produce based off of your full examination.




The common answer I hear in response to a question like this is "I can't tell you, Brother, but when you get the Fever, you'll know all about it.  It will be undeniable".


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> That's right.
> 
> So...might you be seeing something?
> 
> ...


I was thinking best case scenario. Test to see if I am in fact not only a believer but worthy of super special believer status by having god step in and interacting with my earthly life. If I die and I believe I go to heaven. If I believe and life I am special.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Depends on what you described as “hearing”.
> 
> Is it audible as the way you and I would communicate at the gas pump? Being that God is a spirit, my initial thought would be as others have said.......”trolling”



Some believers have described it to me just that way.  Isreal, how does God sound to you?


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I think what he's saying is that you wouldn't have such an "allergic" reaction to the thought of having to listen to a passenger who just heard God if there wasn't some powerful truth about hearing God that you want to deny.
> 
> Not a great argument, but notice how less impressive of an argument it is without the verbosity.
> 
> What does _THAT _reveal?


That I am verbose?

How late to a party can you be?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

welderguy said:


> There's also this
> matter of fruits. Don't you agree?
> 
> ..."by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another"



So you wouldn't believe me until I can demonstrate that "I got the Fever"?  How would that look?  Would I get more quiet and introspective or use ALL CAPS!!!! LIKE I GOT THE FEVER!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> The common answer I hear in response to a question like this is "I can't tell you, Brother, but when you get the Fever, you'll know all about it.  It will be undeniable".


Yeah, when I get it....ill be able to understand god AND spotlite and everyone else who has all the answers without being able to adequately provide any answer.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> That I am verbose?
> 
> How late to a party can you be?



I like your verbosity.  It's fun.  But it also alludes to something and I'll tell you what that is in as plain language as I can muster.  I think you adopt the writing style of a mystic or shaman because it's become habitual to do so when talking about subjects that have a high "woo woo" content.  It's almost like the "jargon" of mysticism.  I like it.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, when I get it....ill be able to understand god AND spotlite and everyone else who has all the answers without being able to adequately provide any answer.



"You guys can meet up and draw a fish in the sand with your toe and with a nod and a wink you will be in full agreement about a brave new world that we who lack the gift can't see."  It doesn't seem like it works like that.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Some believers have described it to me just that way.  Isreal, how does God sound to you?


I have a hard time figuring out why believers put limits on a god that has no limits unless they do not belive themselves deep down.
So god is a spirit and has to communicate as such... REALLY?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I would just send them.
> If they were certain it was God they might start blasting me with scripture and what a nightmare of a ride that would be



That brings up part of the original question, would it be less annoying to listen to me if I had heard The Buddah or Ganesh or Zeus?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Oh boy
> 
> It just occurred to me, many non believers, a lot, maybe the majority have assumed way too much..............
> 
> And it just keeps reinforcing the fact that they did not examine this in full, they were only exposed to their organization.



Don't you find Pnome's de-conversion from atheism interesting?  I know believers love to tell non-believers about some guy who was a "rabid atheist" that saw the light.  What is it about their stories that's more impressive than a cradle to grave believer?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That brings up part of the original question, would it be less annoying to listen to me if I had heard The Buddah or Ganesh or Zeus?


Nah, same level of annoying. Many Christians don't answer the doors when the WatchTower brigade is out with their pamphlets and wanting to talk, or better yet shut the doors in their face and toss the pamphlets.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Don't you find Pnome's de-conversion from atheism interesting?  I know believers love to tell non-believers about some guy who was a "rabid atheist" that saw the light.  What is it about their stories that's more impressive than a cradle to grave believer?


Pnome isnt "fully" deconverted/converted to "real" believers.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I have a hard time figuring out why believers put limits on a god that has no limits unless they do not belive themselves deep down.
> So god is a spirit and has to communicate as such... REALLY?



That's a partial picture of what I observe.  I see them saying that the parts that are hard to understand like suffering and He11 are meant to be mysterious and we should "trust in a plan" but the parts about what people should or shouldn't do with their genitals are plain and obvious.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That's a partial picture of what I observe.  I see them saying that the parts that are hard to understand like suffering and He11 are meant to be mysterious and we should "trust in a plan" but the parts about what people should or shouldn't do with their genitals are plain and obvious.


Any and all ways to tap dance around the claims that someone can KNOW a god.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Oh boy
> 
> It just occurred to me, many non believers, a lot, maybe the majority have assumed way too much..............
> 
> And it just keeps reinforcing the fact that they did not examine this in full, they were only exposed to their organization.


Being more inclined to believe them has zero to do with what I think of your examination.
They dont believe which means that they are less inclined to immediately jump to "God" it.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Any and all ways to tap dance around the claims that someone can KNOW a god.



I'll allow it.  They would say, and reasonably so, that they understand the parts about God that He wants them to understand (which are the parts that they often care the most about) and there are parts that we can't know about at all, being mere mortals.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That brings up part of the original question, would it be less annoying to listen to me if I had heard The Buddah or Ganesh or Zeus?


Lets not stray too far .... I said being blasted with scripture would be a nightmare.
The stories of the experiences I would find interesting.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Oh boy
> 
> It just occurred to me, many non believers, a lot, maybe the majority have assumed way too much..............
> 
> And it just keeps reinforcing the fact that they did not examine this in full, they were only exposed to their organization.





WaltL1 said:


> Being more inclined to believe them has zero to do with what I think of your examination.
> They dont believe which means that they are less inclined to immediately jump to "God" it.



We all have to admit that we could be wrong and we should all be trying to refine how we assess what's true and what's false.  That's what all these discussions are really good for.   I listen intently when someone says "You're thinking about this all wrong".  It means something new and exiting might happen in my head depending on what they say.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Lets not stray too far .... I said being blasted with scripture would be a nightmare.
> The stories of the experiences I would find interesting.




I love testimony.  I love miracle stories even more.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Although you asked believers......
> I would be more inclined to believe you or Bullet than a Christian based on I think you would exhaust most possibilities before being certain it was God.
> Then I would get you an Uber to the nearest shrink





Spotlite said:


> Oh boy
> 
> It just occurred to me, many non believers, a lot, maybe the majority have assumed way too much..............
> 
> And it just keeps reinforcing the fact that they did not examine this in full, they were only exposed to their organization.



If I am to believe my own experience, I can safely disregard this mornings discussion—notwithstanding several points which I believe to be insightful and accurate—because it's primary premise is false ("assumed way to much" as Spot said).  You see, I have found that the fourth most often asked question (4th not being an empirically derived position) among believers is "How do I know that it is God" or as a fellow inquirer once said "Is it God or that pizza I ate at bedtime".  Add that to my observation of the positions taken by nonbelievers are often based on a misunderstanding, or skewed statement of, what a believer thinks or does, and I am left with very little.

IOW, nonbelievers understanding of believers is extremely limited and that is unlikely to change, and the reverse is likely true, but I am not in a position to know the latter, only the former.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I'll allow it.  They would say, and reasonably so, that they understand the parts about God that He wants them to understand (which are the parts that they often care the most about) and there are parts that we can't know about at all, being mere mortals.


Would it be safe to say that god is capable of letting us understand everything also and god is capable of communicating with each individual in a way that is understandable, clear and leaves nothing to interpretation?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Would it be safe to say that god is capable of letting us understand everything also and god is capable of communicating with each individual in a way that is understandable, clear and leaves nothing to interpretation?



I think so.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> If I am to believe my own experience, I can safely disregard this mornings discussion—notwithstanding several points which I believe to be insightful and accurate—because it's primary premise is false ("assumed way to much" as Spot said).  You see, I have found that the fourth most often asked question (4th not being an empirically derived position) among believers is "How do I know that it is God" or as a fellow inquirer once said "Is it God or that pizza I ate at bedtime".  Add that to my observation of the positions taken by nonbelievers are often based on a misunderstanding, or skewed statement of, what a believer thinks or does, and I am left with very little.
> 
> IOW, nonbelievers understanding of believers is extremely limited and that is unlikely to change, and the reverse is likely true, but I am not in a position to know the latter, only the former.



Do you mean that you've always been a believer and so you don't know what it's like to not believe?  And the inverse would be that you don't think a non-believer, even a former believer, can know what it's like to be a believer.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Would it be safe to say that god is capable of letting us understand everything also and god is capable of communicating with each individual in a way that is understandable, clear and leaves nothing to interpretation?



I suppose it's equally valid to say "I don't know why He does it that way".  It seems less valid to say "I _DO_ know why He does it that way", and yet they claim it often.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Do you mean that you've always been a believer and so you don't know what it's like to not believe?  And the inverse would be that you don't think a non-believer, even a former believer, can know what it's like to be a believer.


No, I believe that God put me in a place of nonbelieving for a specific  +/-27 yr. period so that I would know, but there are aspects of the positions taken here that were not included in that experience. My faith tells me that every detail of that experience, both affirmative and negative, serves His purpose.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> No, I believe that God put me in a place of nonbelieving for a specific  +/-27 yr. period so that I would know, but there are aspects of the positions taken here that were not included in that experience. My faith tells me that every detail of that experience, both affirmative and negative, serves His purpose.




Like what?


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Like what?


I guess you haven't been paying attention.

Which points to the tendency to "pick it apart" as opposed to "put it together".


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What if I or Bullethead or Walt said in our next post "I heard the voice of God.  I'm certain of it."  Would you rejoice?  Would you tell us to go see a shrink?  Would it depend on what He said to us?  What if we said it was Allah?





hummerpoo said:


> If I am to believe my own experience, I can safely disregard this mornings discussion—notwithstanding several points which I believe to be insightful and accurate—because it's primary premise is false ("assumed way to much" as Spot said).  You see, I have found that the fourth most often asked question (4th not being an empirically derived position) among believers is "How do I know that it is God" or as a fellow inquirer once said "Is it God or that pizza I ate at bedtime".  Add that to my observation of the positions taken by nonbelievers are often based on a misunderstanding, or skewed statement of, what a believer thinks or does, and I am left with very little.
> 
> IOW, nonbelievers understanding of believers is extremely limited and that is unlikely to change, and the reverse is likely true, but I am not in a position to know the latter, only the former.



I sought the benefit of the doubt, not knowing. 

There's really nothing in the question much beyond "what if [we] said..."

It's interesting (to me) and very much so...that if that doubt be granted to what is unsaid in the question being: 

"God is heard [by one]" 

there would be following a form of zeal (or conviction) like rabbidity.

Considering all the very reasonable brothers I have met both here, and in the "upstairs",  (is it handy/simple expedience for derision?), such would be the "go to". (even if clad in light-heartedness)

But since the question never goes beyond "what if [we] said"..."to you", and is left there, its form becomes more clear as a thing.

I've heard it, seen it, dealt with it, and continue to learn so (not believing myself alone in its identification) of the voice that comes 

''But, what if I _did this_ to you...then what would you do?"

And that_ is not_ the voice I am persuaded to hearken to.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> I guess you haven't been paying attention.
> 
> Which points to the tendency to "pick it apart" as opposed to "put it together".



I'm asking you about your experience and how it's different from those you're comparing it to.  This isn't a confrontation.  I'm just trying to have conversation.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> I sought the benefit of the doubt, not knowing.
> 
> There's really nothing in the question much beyond "what if [we] said..."
> 
> ...


I agree with what you say, but want to insure that my quoted statement is understood not to address the OP, but to address the Red Herring which is that nonbelievers address such questions more deeply and thoroughly than believers, and are therefore the more believable.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I'm asking you about your experience and how it's different from those you're comparing it to.  This isn't a confrontation.  I'm just trying to have conversation.


And I am trying to address, and have seldom addressed anything else on the AAA, two issues that I believe are highly detrimental to productive conversation.  Affirmatively, that there are those who experience the supernatural and those who do not experience the supernatural, which is an inexplicable phenomenon at this point in our development; without regard to which path we are on.  Negatively, the assumption, derived from pseudo-psychology, pseudo-ethics, pseudo logics, (another list belongs upstairs) or unexamined gut feeling, that those on the other side of the first issue are fixable, either internally or externally.

As to my experience, it is that such an explanation will be unproductive to delve into in light of my failure to attract any interest in the two issues above.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> I agree with what you say, but want to insure that my quoted statement is understood not to address the OP, but to address the Red Herring which is that nonbelievers address such questions more deeply and thoroughly than believers, and are therefore the more believable.


Or maybe your assessment is the Red Herring.
Maybe this is what I had in mind -


> That means that people may ultimately come to believe that the weight of evidence supports the position that they already wanted to believe was true.  And they will believe this without recognizing that their own desires influenced the evaluation of the evidence.
> psychologytoday.com


Odds are Ambush and Bullet would be less likely to be affected by that basic human trait in their certainty it was God speaking to them.Believers addressing such question more deeply and thoroughly didnt have crap to do with it but...… whatever floats your boat.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Or maybe your assessment is the Red Herring.
> Maybe this is what I had in mind -
> 
> Odds are Ambush and Bullet would be less likely to be affected by that basic human trait in their certainty it was God speaking to them.
> Nonbelievers addressing such question more deeply and thoroughly didnt have crap to do with it but...… whatever floats your boat.


Yep.  That's exactly the Red Herring I was talking about.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Yep.  That's exactly the Red Herring I was talking about.


If it makes a difference in my last sentence Nonbelievers should read Believers.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Don't you find Pnome's de-conversion from atheism interesting?  I know believers love to tell non-believers about some guy who was a "rabid atheist" that saw the light.  What is it about their stories that's more impressive than a cradle to grave believer?


Yes I find it interesting because I feel that he done it with an open honest mind and not trying to convince himself that he was right or wrong. I think sometimes we view Atheism and Christianity in a closed minded state.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 29, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Enlighten us on what a full examination WILL produce based off of your full examination.


You`d at least be able to explain salvation using more than John 3:16.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 29, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, when I get it....ill be able to understand god AND spotlite and everyone else who has all the answers without being able to adequately provide any answer.


Gee thanks. I love sarcasm.............but none of us, including you, have all the answers. If we did, this conversation means................nil.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Yep.  That's exactly the Red Herring I was talking about.


Feel free to point out what the Red Herring is and back it up with some semblance of facts.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Feel free to point out what the Red Herring is and back it up with some semblance of facts.


A Red Herring is a false trail which leads the discussion off topic.
The question was how a believer would react if a specific, known nonbeliever made a statement suggesting faith (or maybe suggesting a supernatural experience is better).
You stated that you would trust the believers response less than the nonbeliever's because the nonbeliever would "exhaust most possibilities before being certain it was God"; which you reinforced with the non-sequitur:


WaltL1 said:


> Being more inclined to believe them has zero to do with what I think of your examination.
> They dont believe which means that they are less inclined to immediately jump to "God" it.



What another nonbeliever thinks of the subject statement is a false trail.
A perceived untrustworthiness of a believer is a false trail.
False trails should be followed just far enough to identify them as such.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> A Red Herring is a false trail which leads the discussion off topic.
> The question was how a believer would react if a specific, known nonbeliever made a statement suggesting faith (or maybe suggesting a supernatural experience is better).
> You stated that you would trust the believers response less than the nonbeliever's because the nonbeliever would "exhaust most possibilities before being certain it was God"; which you reinforced with the non-sequitur:
> 
> ...




Wouldn't it be compelling if Al Gore said "I was wrong.  The climate science indicates that Human Activity will have little to no impact on the Earth's climate."  or would you be skeptical of the science that he's referring to?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Yes I find it interesting because I feel that he done it with an open honest mind and not trying to convince himself that he was right or wrong. I think sometimes we view Atheism and Christianity in a closed minded state.



Is an indication to you that he was being honest and open because he changed his mind?  Does that mean to you that any nonbeliever who doesn't change his mind is not being honest and open?  

A believer doesn't have to change their mind to indicate that they're honest and open,but they do have to demonstrate that they're discussing the subject in good faith.  That can be demonstrated by them not trying to change the definitions of commonly accepted and well understood words.  An example of this is when they say that believing in miracles is rational, or that subjective personal experience is good evidence.  That just seems like bad faith discussion practice to me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> A Red Herring is a false trail which leads the discussion off topic.
> The question was how a believer would react if a specific, known nonbeliever made a statement suggesting faith (or maybe suggesting a supernatural experience is better).
> You stated that you would trust the believers response less than the nonbeliever's because the nonbeliever would "exhaust most possibilities before being certain it was God"; which you reinforced with the non-sequitur:
> 
> ...


I would suggest you go back and read again.
Maybe Ambush can explain it to you. Based on his question to you above he gets it.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Wouldn't it be compelling if Al Gore said "I was wrong.  The climate science indicates that Human Activity will have little to no impact on the Earth's climate."  or would you be skeptical of the science that he's referring to?



I get your point, and yes, it could be compelling; however, the thoughts that come to mind immediately are:

*not — would I question the science, but what is the science?; and what is his logical analysis from the science to his conclusion.
*In your OP the subject that has revealed a change is a relatively well known factor, Al Gore, not so much as I haven't even read his book.
*Having watched Mr. Gore deliver several speeches, it has been my observation that he might have missed his calling.  He should have been a stand up comic; that man can tell a joke better than most people who put bread on the table telling jokes; his delivery and timing are simply superb.

So, first, I would require more information before I was compelled.
And, second, similar to my response to your OP, I would wait for the anticipated punch line.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I would suggest you go back and read again.
> Maybe Ambush can explain it to you. Based on his question to you above he gets it.


Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't need too.  I reviewed todays posts before I wrote my answer, checked a couple of posts while writing, and reviewed again after completing my post.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> I get your point, and yes, it could be compelling; however, the thoughts that come to mind immediately are:
> 
> *not — would I question the science, but what is the science?; and what is his logical analysis from the science to his conclusion.
> *In your OP the subject that has revealed a change is a relatively well known factor, Al Gore, not so much as I haven't even read his book.
> ...



To the part in blue: This is the kind territory I've always been trying to couch the discussions in.  I think it's the most interesting part and I think it's where we can use language that we have in common.   I can talk about a transcendent experience or listen to you talk about one of yours but do we really know that we're in agreement about it?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't need too.  I reviewed todays posts before I wrote my answer, checked a couple of posts while writing, and reviewed again after completing my post.


This is the foundation of my opinion -


> That means that people may ultimately come to believe that the weight of evidence supports the position that they already wanted to believe was true.  And they will believe this without recognizing that their own desires influenced the evaluation of the evidence.
> psychologytoday.com


This is what you turned it into -


> but to address the Red Herring which is that nonbelievers address such questions more deeply and thoroughly than believers, and are therefore the more believable.


Bullet and Ambush would have a far less chance being affected by that basic tendency I quoted above for obvious reasons.
YOU created the Red Herring.
That's as plain as I can put it and have no interest in continuing further.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> To the part in blue: This is the kind territory I've always been trying to couch the discussions in.  I think it's the most interesting part and I think it's where we can use language that we have in common.   I can talk about a transcendent experience or listen to you talk about one of yours but do we really know that we're in agreement about it?



I understand, and have understood, that.  Purely an opinion, o.k. — As to that part of your participation on this forum, your in the wrong place.  And the next answer is, I can't give you any advise on where to go, because I haven't found it.  I just attempt to restrict my participation to the two subjects mentioned earlier, and things related (I know that I am not always successful in that attempt).  I doubt, that one on one is an answer on the internet, communication is difficult under the best of circumstances.

Shoot, back in the day, they wrote books to do the same thing.  Sometimes a year or more to get a response.  I don't think we would have the patience for that; besides it didn't work all that well.

I am currently trying out a new idea — it's not looking that good so far.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> This is the foundation of my opinion -
> 
> This is what you turned it into -
> 
> ...


It's your Red Herring because you apply the cited statement with unbalanced weight.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> I understand, and have understood, that.  Purely an opinion, o.k. — As to that part of your participation on this forum, your in the wrong place.  And the next answer is, I can't give you any advise on where to go, because I haven't found it.  I just attempt to restrict my participation to the two subjects mentioned earlier, and things related (I know that I am not always successful in that attempt).  I doubt, that one on one is an answer on the internet, communication is difficult under the best of circumstances.
> 
> Shoot, back in the day, they wrote books to do the same thing.  Sometimes a year or more to get a response.  I don't think we would have the patience for that; besides it didn't work all that well.
> 
> I am currently trying out a new idea — it's not looking that good so far.



What!?!.  New books are coming out all the time about age old problems.  They're good.  They're helpful. The better ones try to incorporate new ways of getting and understanding information that we didn't have before.  People still experience "supernatural" phenomena.  How could it not be useful to see what's happening in their heads with an MRI while they're having their experience?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> It's your Red Herring because you apply the cited statement with unbalanced weight.


 

Do you mean this part?:

_That means that people may ultimately come to believe that the weight of evidence supports the position that they already wanted to believe was true.  And they will believe this without recognizing that their own desires influenced the evaluation of the evidence.
psychologytoday.com    _ 

If so, I would say that we all do a pretty good job of trying to acquire and analyze as much evidence as people are willing to relate.     Sometimes it seems like you think that if someone criticizes a personal, subjective piece of evidence that it's a form of attack or not done in good faith.  How can anything be analyzed properly in that regard?


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What!?!.  New books are coming out all the time about age old problems.  They're good.  They're helpful. The better ones try to incorporate new ways of getting and understanding information that we didn't have before.  People still experience "supernatural" phenomena.  How could it not be useful to see what's happening in their heads with an MRI while they're having their experience?


Of course it could be helpful; but it doesn't approach the fundamental issue.  The answers can enlighten the how, not the why.  From how to why will still be non-empirical.

You follow Sam Harris with great interest and I find him skirting the real questions and speaking to irrelevant or incomplete questions.  Why do you and I differ, that is the question.  It's not because one of is stupid or a liar.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Do you mean this part?:
> 
> _That means that people may ultimately come to believe that the weight of evidence supports the position that they already wanted to believe was true.  And they will believe this without recognizing that their own desires influenced the evaluation of the evidence.
> psychologytoday.com    _
> ...


By assuming that good faith is on both sides, until proven otherwise, then attempting to "put it together".  Assuming that those you disagree with are more influenced by the above proposition than those you agree with misses the mark.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Of course it could be helpful; but it doesn't approach the fundamental issue.  The answers can enlighten the how, not the why.  From how to why will still be non-empirical.
> 
> You follow Sam Harris with great interest and I find him skirting the real questions and speaking to irrelevant or incomplete questions.  Why do you and I differ, that is the question.  It's not because one of is stupid or a liar.



We certainly differ on our belief in the supernatural.  I've never witnessed anything that I would describe as supernatural.  I have never witnessed a miracle and all the miracles that I've heard described to me seem like they could have been mischaracterizations of phenomena.  We are not stupid or liars.  Why do you believe in the supernatural? That's all I've ever asked of anyone here.  When I ask people "What does Jesus sound like?" you seem to think it's the wrong kind of question to ask.  Why is that?  

What are the questions that you think Harris is skirting?  I think he tries to resolve the "Is/Ought" problem that I think you allude to.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Is an indication to you that he was being honest and open because he changed his mind?  Does that mean to you that any nonbeliever who doesn't change his mind is not being honest and open?
> 
> A believer doesn't have to change their mind to indicate that they're honest and open,but they do have to demonstrate that they're discussing the subject in good faith.  That can be demonstrated by them not trying to change the definitions of commonly accepted and well understood words.  An example of this is when they say that believing in miracles is rational, or that subjective personal experience is good evidence.  That just seems like bad faith discussion practice to me.


No. No one is dishonest because they fail to change their mind.

By default, it just appears that non believers will not continue to explore Christianity in the mindset that it could be right. They’re already in the mindset that they’ve already taken it one God further........”been there done that” and seem to be a little higher up on the ladder of “basic thinking and research” ?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> By assuming that good faith is on both sides, until proven otherwise, then attempting to "put it together".  Assuming that those you disagree with are more influenced by the above proposition than those you agree with misses the mark.



I really don't see that happening too much with the more serious people here.  I ask constantly for believers to tell me about something I don't know about.  If what it comes down to is "I can't tell you about it", then I suppose that's the end of the sub forum.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> No. No one is dishonest because they fail to change their mind.
> 
> By default, it just appears that non believers will not continue to explore Christianity in the mindset that it could be right. They’re already in the mindset that they’ve already taken it one God further........”been there done that”



I believe that it's possible that Jesus rose from the dead.   I think it's extremely   unlikely, as unlikely as a rock falling up, and as a matter of fact I can't even posit an explanation of how it could have happened.  Is it wrong to try to figure out how it might have happened?  That's the whole scientific method. isn't it?  Make a hypothesis like "Jesus rose from the dead" and then try to prove or disprove it.  Gather evidence and test the theory.  I even accept testimony as evidence.  Make the experiments repeatable and make sure that the results are predictable.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> No. No one is dishonest because they fail to change their mind.
> 
> By default, it just appears that non believers will not continue to explore Christianity in the mindset that it could be right. They’re already in the mindset that they’ve already taken it one God further........”been there done that”


You are assuming that what we do here is not exploring.
So far haven't heard of any new discoveries to explore.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I believe that it's possible that Jesus rose from the dead.   I think it's extremely   unlikely, as unlikely as a rock falling up, and as a matter of fact I can't even posit an explanation of how it could have happened.  Is it wrong to try to figure out how it might have happened?  That's the whole scientific method. isn't it?  Make a hypothesis like "Jesus rose from the dead" and then try to prove or disprove it.  Gather evidence and test the theory.  I even accept testimony as evidence.  Make the experiments repeatable and make sure that the results are predictable.


Jesus wasn't the only one to rise from the dead in the bible. Was it a more common occurrence in ancient times?


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 29, 2018)

Israel said:


> "Certainty is never"
> 
> Are you certain?


"It is not that there are no certainties, it is that it is an absolute certainty that there are no certainties". _Chistopher Hitchens_


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> It's your Red Herring because you apply the cited statement with unbalanced weight


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> We certainly differ on our belief in the supernatural.  I've never witnessed anything that I would describe as supernatural.  I have never witnessed a miracle and all the miracles that I've heard described to me seem like they could have been mischaracterizations of phenomena.


  Maybe the below will give you something to think about for a while.



> We are not stupid or liars.  Why do you believe in the supernatural? That's all I've ever asked of anyone here.  When I ask people "What does Jesus sound like?" you seem to think it's the wrong kind of question to ask.  Why is that?


My thinking is that your last question can only be answered after the first, which is, as far as I know a mystery.



> What are the questions that you think Harris is skirting?  I think he tries to resolve the "Is/Ought" problem that I think you allude to.


Let's leave that one alone.


I hope this works, and I didn't miss any of the necessary adjustments.


> VINCENT
> Good for you. Lighten up a little.
> You been sittin' there all quiet.
> 
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Maybe the below will give you something to think about for a while.
> 
> 
> My thinking is that your last question can only be answered after the first, which is, as far as I know a mystery.
> ...




I liked that movie but I guess I wasn't as affected by Jules' speech as you were.  I didn't find it terribly profound because I didn't find Jules to be terribly profound.  He seemed like a bit of a low intelligence person and the way that he adopted his Kwai Chang Caine parlance during that scene reinforced my thinking.  

I'm more interested in you guys; you real people with real experiences. I'm really fascinated by testimonies and miracle stories. I find them compelling.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 29, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> You are assuming that what we do here is not exploring.
> So far haven't heard of any new discoveries to explore.


I’m most certain that my statement doesn’t apply to all. I probably could have worded better, I just figured “appears” covered.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I believe that it's possible that Jesus rose from the dead.   I think it's extremely   unlikely, as unlikely as a rock falling up, and as a matter of fact I can't even posit an explanation of how it could have happened.  Is it wrong to try to figure out how it might have happened?  That's the whole scientific method. isn't it?  Make a hypothesis like "Jesus rose from the dead" and then try to prove or disprove it.  Gather evidence and test the theory.  I even accept testimony as evidence.  Make the experiments repeatable and make sure that the results are predictable.


Nothing at all wrong with exploring, but at some point one must grasp the concept that the spiritual can’t be recreated by the physical. Two different elements and ultimately eradicates the faith concept, which is the foundation.

You can recreate / clone a human, animal, tree, etc,. 

The same spirit that raised Jesus wil raise us. I’m not sure how you could accomplish physically recreating that. Does not being able to recreate it mean that it’s impossible?


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 30, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> ... I have never witnessed a miracle and all the miracles that I've heard described to me seem like they could have been mischaracterizations of phenomena... .



"Don't you see, Vince, that **** don't
                        matter. You're judging this thing
                        the wrong way. It's not about what.
                        .……………………………………………….. an
                        according-to-Hoyle miracle is
                        insignificant. What is significant
                        is I felt God's touch, God got
                        involved.



ambush80 said:


> I liked that movie but I guess I wasn't as affected by Jules' speech as you were.  I didn't find it terribly profound because I didn't find Jules to be terribly profound.  He seemed like a bit of a low intelligence person and the way that he adopted his Kwai Chang Caine parlance during that scene reinforced my thinking.
> 
> I'm more interested in you guys; you real people with real experiences. I'm really fascinated by testimonies and miracle stories. I find them compelling.



Sounds like you may be fascinated in a negative way, or for the wrong thing; I can't seem to find the right words, but, for his situation, Jules did.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 30, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> So you wouldn't believe me until I can demonstrate that "I got the Fever"?  How would that look?  Would I get more quiet and introspective or use ALL CAPS!!!! LIKE I GOT THE FEVER!!!!



I believe you would have an insatiable  appetite for that which is holy. And that would be something that is inside you, but also could not be hidden on the outside, even if you tried.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 30, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> "Don't you see, Vince, that **** don't
> matter. You're judging this thing
> the wrong way. It's not about what.
> .……………………………………………….. an
> ...



That kind of reinforces what I've always postulated, that belief in the supernatural or spirits or spirit realms or souls is a preference.  It need not be based on evidence.  If Vincent and Jules had the opportunity to do a forensic analysis of the shooting scene perhaps they could line up all the bullet holes to the inept shooter and show that he simply missed them.  Is your point that Jules doesn't care about the forensics, that he wants to call it a miracle and he won't hear another word on the subject?  So it seems like it's all about interpretation.  That kind of subverts a way to objectively assess things, doesn't it?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 30, 2018)

welderguy said:


> I believe you would have an insatiable  appetite for that which is holy. And that would be something that is inside you, but also could not be hidden on the outside, even if you tried.



No offense intended but I can't hardly tell a good Christian from a good person of any stripe.  (Or inner lit, or serene, or humble, or spiritual.....).  Many people exhibit "fruits".  Indeed a display LIKE THIS!!!!! could indicate bad fruits, no?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That kind of reinforces what I've always postulated, that belief in the supernatural or spirits or spirit realms or souls is a preference.  It need not be based on evidence.  If Vincent and Jules had the opportunity to do a forensic analysis of the shooting scene perhaps they could line up all the bullet holes to the inept shooter and show that he simply missed them.  Is your point that Jules doesn't care about the forensics, that he wants to call it a miracle and he won't hear another word on the subject?  So it seems like it's all about interpretation.  That kind of subverts a way to objectively assess things, doesn't it?


That and it is a movie where the script was specifically written for the misses to happen that way so thst the conversation could take place.
Writing to the goal is a familiar and common style.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 30, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> No offense intended but I can't hardly tell a good Christian from a good person of any stripe.  (Or inner lit, or serene, or humble, or spiritual.....).  Many people exhibit "fruits".  Indeed a display LIKE THIS!!!!! could indicate bad fruits, no?



The difference I see in your view and mine is you put all the emphasis on the outward. I put far more emphasis on the inward than the outward.
We are told by the Good Husbandman to not try and separate the wheat from the tares. Let them grow together. They will be separated eventually in the end.


----------



## j_seph (Oct 30, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> So you wouldn't believe me until I can demonstrate that "I got the Fever"?  How would that look?  Would I get more quiet and introspective or use ALL CAPS!!!! LIKE I GOT THE FEVER!!!!



Yes, I know it is scripture which you won't believe but here it is anyways

Romans 8:16
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 30, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That kind of reinforces what I've always postulated, that belief in the supernatural or spirits or spirit realms or souls is a preference.  It need not be based on evidence.



*How is that anything other than a simple denial of the reality of spiritual experience in terms that can only lead to a search for a way fix the defect in the one with which you disagree (How can his preference be changed to my truth?).  Which I have identified as, what I believe are, the two primary things that are detrimental to, or prohibitive of, productive communication.*



> If Vincent and Jules had the opportunity to do a forensic analysis of the shooting scene perhaps they could line up all the bullet holes to the inept shooter and show that he simply missed them.



*LOL!!!  That would be very easy, or difficult depending on your plan for investigation.  If you watch the same cut of the movie that I have seen you will see that the bullet holes are in the wall before the shots are fired.  Editor error.*



> Is your point that Jules doesn't care about the forensics, that he wants to call it a miracle and he won't hear another word on the subject?




*That’s about as negatively stated as I can imagine.  No, caring about the forensics or what he wants to call it have nothing to do with Jules point, or mine.  Those are physical considerations, “that **** don't matter. You're judging this thing the wrong way. It's not about what.”  What matters is what happen spiritually “What is significant is I felt God's touch, God got involved.”  When ask why it happened, he says he doesn’t know but it changed his life.*



> So it seems like it's all about interpretation.  That kind of subverts a way to objectively assess things, doesn't it?




*For Jules, and anyone who has had that category of experience, it’s the most real/objective experience of their life.  It’s not interpretation unless it is preemptively categorized as physical; which is the point—it is not physical.*


*I do not believe that nonbelievers are wrong; they are true to their experience.  How they think and act toward those with a different experience is a different thing.*


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 30, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> *How is that anything other than a simple denial of the reality of spiritual experience in terms that can only lead to a search for a way fix the defect in the one with which you disagree (How can his preference be changed to my truth?).  Which I have identified as, what I believe are, the two primary things that are detrimental to, or prohibitive of, productive communication.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Three things:

1. A spiritual experience is subjective, immeasurable, highly personal, and untestable.

2. How can anyone examine someone elses' spiritual experience?  

3. Who's onus is it to determine wheter or not a line of questioning about a spiritual experience is valid or offensive?


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 30, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Three things:
> 
> 1. A spiritual experience is subjective,


From the nonbelieving perspective I'm sure that is true.


> immeasurable,


from any human perspective that is true


> highly personal,


true


> and untestable.


again, true from a human perspective



> 2. How can anyone examine someone elses' spiritual experience?


Did anyone ask that their "highly personal" spiritual experience be examined. 



> 3. Who's onus is it to determine wheter or not a line of questioning about a spiritual experience is valid or offensive?


There are four possibilities:
valid and offensive,
invalid and offensive,
valid and inoffensive,
invalid and inoffensive.
I suppose the onus falls to the one who chooses among the four.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 30, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> From the nonbelieving perspective I'm sure that is true.
> 
> from any human perspective that is true



How could it not be subjective if it can't be measured or experienced the same way by anybody else?



hummerpoo said:


> true
> 
> again, true from a human perspective
> 
> ...



Seems to me that people who engage in discussions here should be willing to ask and be asked questions, unless they just want to rant, which few often do.



hummerpoo said:


> There are four possibilities:
> valid and offensive,
> invalid and offensive,
> valid and inoffensive,
> ...



Don't you think it's a two way street?  I ask you about something, you say I'm asking the wrong kind of question and I ask you why you think that.  I'm trying to get to what you mean by *"How they think and act toward those with a different experience is a different thing*".


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 30, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> How could it not be subjective if it can't be measured or experienced the same way by anybody else?


*I’ve been chewing on the first one “nonbelieving perspective” ever since I posted it. I think that it and the previous “real/objective” would be better if revised. I’m not really settled in my own mind yet but I think it will, in the end, be that all things relating to the supernatural (pro, con, or indifferent) when it is necessary to place them in one of the two categories, objective or subjective, must be in the subjective category. I just wonder if it is necessary outside of formal debate (probably is), and an even better question; is there a good alternative expression to get the idea across without an accompanying explanation.*




> Seems to me that people who engage in discussions here should be willing to ask and be asked questions, unless they just want to rant, which few often do.


*Why should they be willing; people have been debating these issues for 2 ½ millennia, that I am aware of, without delving into “highly personal spiritual experiences” not that they were always the epitome of civility on other levels, but most were quite civil.*



> Don't you think it's a two way street?  I ask you about something, you say I'm asking the wrong kind of question and I ask you why you think that.  I'm trying to get to what you mean by *"How they think and act toward those with a different experience is a different thing*".



*My meaning is that one can always choose to present their ideas in a positive, respectful way rather than a dismissive, demeaning way.  An incongruous defence, after the fact, only serves to show that they didn’t care enough to approach the issue charitably in the first place.  That does not mean that I don’t recognize that there are situations, exceedingly rare though they may be, where a sharp tongue seems the only way forward, but a few deep breaths usually shows another way.  Hopefully that explains the “act”; if the “think” doesn’t precede the effort put into the acting, it is sure to fail.*

*Sure, there is a two-way street aspect; when someone crosses the center line and blocks your lane, you have the option to take the ditch, but he’s the one with the bulk of the responsibility; ditch or head-on. >>edit<< BTW if the believer is the non-lane-jumper the "Christian" teaching, as I understanding it, is to pray for the lane-jumper.*


----------



## Israel (Oct 31, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> "It is not that there are no certainties, it is that it is an absolute certainty that there are no certainties". _Chistopher Hitchens_



A completely imaginary study has shown that 98.4% of all people that have ever been bitten by a shark, survived a plane crash, been hit by lightning, had to take antivenin, have freely admitted they once took comfort from statistics.

One particular man, Bailey Ruminus, _not from_ Pacoima put it this way:


"It ain't that the statisticians try to be liars, cause I used to be one myself till a concussion from that Cessna incident destroyed my ability to do math. It's just that some folks find out how _plain_ useless they are in certain situations" And he added, "that was not a pun."

When asked whether it was any comfort to him knowing that even in plane crashes 95.7% of passengers survive, he laughed.

"Obviously you don't know the statistics, or what happens to a man familiar with them. When the tail broke away I knew instinctually and instantly I was already a 1 in a 11 million statistic. Trying to escape that then was already a joke. If you think that that _only_ 4.3% buy a dirt nap meant anything to a guy who already managed to be 1 in a 11 million, well even then that 95.7% which looks big to you got dwarfed."

We wondered why and how a 95.7% chance of something could ever get dwarfed in the mind of a man once so familiar with statistics. And so we asked.

"to tell you the truth, there comes a time when the decimal point no longer matters. You can put it on the right side of a number to make it look big, or on the left if you want to make it look smaller. See, I still remember a little about math! But it don't matter. You see that when your number has come up, you only know your number's come up. Big, or small, that's all you know"

We reminded him of his status as a survivor and that obviously his number hadn't truly "come up" as he'd claimed. He just smiled and went back to his gardening.

This fellow, quite cool in _his own_ way, also made the _very cool_ statement above. An assertion came to a man quite alive with no evidence he could see to measure it by. He was easily led to doubt the authority of the maker of that assertion to_ know. _
"In the day you eat of it you shall surely die".

It's easy to doubt the asserter when the thing of death is all that is nowhere yet found. The Asserter knows this. The Asserter always speaks and asserts...of what man does not yet know. He doesn't hold the not knowing...against him.

"Forgive them father, they know not what they do"

Those who cannot help but recognize the authority of the man who said that, in all right of saying and asking, and so rightly doing so, know they cannot explain how they have been brought to recognize _that_ authority. They just know...they have. They have seen the power of death. But been touched by what holds the keys of it.

_"No one can therefore know" _because _I do not know,!_ is all they have been sent into. They also know they cannot make them self equal to the task of being satisfactory to even them selves, let alone any other _thing._

Hitchens gave it his best shot. Made _his assertion_ as strongly as he was allowed (was he honest?) "I _know!_ no one can know". I think he must have doubted then, everything, except by his assertion...his own being. As being "the knowing" being.

I am often no less silly than him. I meet a lot just like me.

The man who said this has convinced me to be wary of seeking to be different by my imaginary means:

Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

So many scrambling against death like mice in a slick plastic bucket. Some will and do, seek to stand upon others to get closer to what they think is the rim to safety...which is silliest, and most pitiable at once, of all.

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into ****; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

But...a man might say "I have never seen this!" No one _can know_ this.

Neither then does that man know anything of what he so confidently affirms as being 100% true for all men. Death remains, at best for that man, a mere metaphor to him _meant _for others. All the "different" others.

"What shall I say then, 'Father save me from this hour'? It is for this very hour I have come"


----------



## bullethead (Oct 31, 2018)

Israel said:


> A completely imaginary study has shown that 98.4% of all people that have ever been bitten by a shark, survived a plane crash, been hit by lightning, had to take antivenin, have freely admitted they once took comfort from statistics.
> 
> One particular man, Bailey Ruminus, _not from_ Pacoima put it this way:
> 
> ...


9/2nds are bad with fractions too!


----------



## Israel (Oct 31, 2018)

bullethead said:


> 9/2nds are bad with fractions too!


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 2, 2018)

Israel said:


> A completely imaginary study has shown that 98.4% of all people that have ever been bitten by a shark, survived a plane crash, been hit by lightning, had to take antivenin, have freely admitted they once took comfort from statistics.
> 
> One particular man, Bailey Ruminus, _not from_ Pacoima put it this way:
> 
> ...



What are the odds that you will go to Heaven?


----------



## Israel (Nov 2, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What are the odds that you will go to Heaven?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 2, 2018)

Israel said:


>



I think it's funny too, but for different reasons I'm sure.


----------



## Israel (Nov 2, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I think it's funny too, but for different reasons I'm sure.


----------



## Israel (Nov 2, 2018)

The oddness continues...or is it normalness? I ain't sure.

All I remember is I felt a slight bump...as though I'd hit something...or something hit me, and then 9 months of mostly darkness...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 2, 2018)

Israel said:


> The oddness continues...or is it normalness? I ain't sure.
> 
> All I remember is I felt a slight bump...as though I'd hit something...or something hit me, and then 9 months of mostly darkness...
> 
> ...



Memory is a notoriously bad record of actual events.  Eyewitness testimony has been shown to be highly unreliable.

See how well you can count the passes.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## GunnSmokeer (Nov 21, 2018)

I'm skipping from page 1 to here.  It seems that this thread got derailed along the way, but I'll throw in my two cents.

If a self-proclaimed atheist announced that God had spoken to him, I'd be skeptical.

1-- It might not be God. It could be a demon, Satan himself, or mental illness, hallucinations, a dream, whatever.  I'm only slightly less skeptical of churchgoing Christians who say they got some instruction directly from God, especially when it's something they claim happens daily, and not something they'd been earnestly praying for guidance over.

2-- Even if it was God, the atheist didn't say that he was now a believer in God, or that he would follow whatever instruction God gave him, or read the Bible for guidance on all other matters on which the scriptures speak. You believe that there is a God? Okay.... but is that all?   Even the demons believe, and shudder!  (James 2:19).   How can I know how to react when somebody says "God spoke to me"?  God could have said, "_Of all my creations, you disappoint me the most. You'll never listen to me, and that's a shame_."

3-- If it was a message from God, and a positive message that transforms the atheist into a believer who wants to follow the way of the Lord Jesus as described in the New Testament, then I'd eagerly await evidence of such a transformed heart.  What does the bible say happens when one has the Christian belief and faith?

* That person gets baptized, in the name of the Lord, for the remission of sin, in water, immediately, or ASAP as circumstances allow.  See all the examples of conversion in the book of Acts.

* That person associates with fellow Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ and joins with them at least weekly for prayer and worship.   (Hebrews 13:17 says your leaders are accountable for your souls, so I assume this means church leadership) (1 Tim. 5: 9-21, regarding the church's relief for widows and its internal leadership) (Matthew 15:15-18, on progressive discipline for sinning Christians, who should be held accountable by their church if a private meeting with just a couple brothers doesn't straighten the fellow out).

*  In other ways, that person walks the walk and talks the talk. These are the fruits by which the rest of us will know that God is with him and the Holy Spirit in him. See Gal. 5:22.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2018)

How is anyone 100% sure the contents of the bible are not satan inspired?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Memory is a notoriously bad record of actual events.  Eyewitness testimony has been shown to be highly unreliable.
> 
> See how well you can count the passes.
> 
> ...



I counted 14 but never saw the gorilla.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> How is anyone 100% sure the contents of the bible are not satan inspired?


I don’t believe Satan would be inspiring scriptures that are giving God glory and condemning the works of satan??


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 22, 2018)

What would we say if a Christian said God had talked to them? How would we know? They are already baptized and producing fruit.
Perhaps it is his own thoughts or those of Satan.

I've sometimes thought it was God but later found out it was my own self. Other times I've felt the presence of the Holy Spirit. I've come to believe the Holy Spirit is quieter than me but in a more convincing way. 
Revelation is strange.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t believe Satan would be inspiring scriptures that are giving God glory and condemning the works of satan??


Thats why is it so cunning.


----------



## Israel (Nov 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> How is anyone 100% sure the contents of the bible are not satan inspired?


The question in regards to the scripture inspires me. Not to it particularly...but not so far from it that it might not be un-appreciated. LOL...if only by me.

I am wholly convinced Satan really thinks himself a nice guy. It would take some light of knowledge (and self knowing) if he were to know himself as evil. I see him all bereft of that (zip, zero, nada _light_)...and more than willing to share that poverty. Father of lies is always telling himself the most singular of all..."I ain't bad, at all"...which is why he's so very convincing...he _really believes_ it.

I am not convinced he walks around rubbing his hands together at all, wondering what mischief he can cause and grief he can spread...he's just expressing himself...as "the nice guy".


Jesus said something (as He always does) that is not worth ignoring...

"Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, _but those that be of men._

Men think like Satan, Satan thinks like men _in value._

Reminds me of that other word..."what is highly esteemed by men..."

Now, if one were trying to impress God (insert laughter), one could easily think..."If I can make myself into everything no other man would esteem...I could get on God's good side"...Been there, done that, got the T Shirt. Requires a U Turn to head home.

So, it's best to simply stay where one is, cease trying to be anything, learn...and find out...no man has to much make anything of himself (and is far better off if he can find grace to resist that)...cause he may learn...man in default...already don't esteem "other" man much at all. In fact...man is quite hostile...to man. Even to going way out of ones way (so to speak) to claim, and use God as excuse "This man is a blasphemer...God wants us to kill him ..._for that_." And, an innocent one (the _only_ One)..._at that_. (God has a way of using what is even completely corrupt reasoning...to His end)

I'm quite sure Satan thought he was doing great service in "helping" man get rid of a troublemaker. But then...He keeps popping up. Satan hates his own order...disturbed. Talk about _furious_!

Far better to learn in asking "what about that man (any man, as fits that bill)...troubles...me?

Maybe what "can be troubled by other man" can be helped. It sure needs it.

A man might even learn "looks like I'm gonna have to let go of a little of "my righteousness" to get along with _that man_." (and there's a great place for married people to practice this)


Who's yer tailor?

Hope you love yer dressing today.  
And even though I my inklings about certain things may be so strong as to appear offensive assertion to others, I still can't find cause for worry. Therefore I needed to be reminded...even by this guy...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Thats why is it so cunning.


Good point, but what would be the advantage of inspiring scripture to glorify something else? Basically- “I will make you resist me by lifting up another”.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 22, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> What would we say if a Christian said God had talked to them? How would we know? They are already baptized and producing fruit.
> Perhaps it is his own thoughts or those of Satan.
> 
> I've sometimes thought it was God but later found out it was my own self. Other times I've felt the presence of the Holy Spirit. I've come to believe the Holy Spirit is quieter than me but in a more convincing way.
> Revelation is strange.





Artfuldodger said:


> I counted 14 but never saw the gorilla.



We should all be more skeptical of what we think we hear or see.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> We should all be more skeptical of what we think we hear or see.



I would agree. Is it God, Satan, or my inner self? 
It could be a false vision, a worthless divination, the futility and delusion of our own mind.

1 John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 22, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would agree. Is it God, Satan, or my inner self?
> It could be a false vision, a worthless divination, the futility and delusion of our own mind.
> 
> 1 John 4:1
> Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.



When something happens, anything, we can attribute any kind of unprovable agency to the event.  We can say Luck did it or Vishnu or Jesus Christ.  What's interesting to me is the cascade of effects that result from a particular application of agency.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Good point, but what would be the advantage of inspiring scripture to glorify something else? Basically- “I will make you resist me by lifting up another”.


"Another" may be himself. Isn't he the God of this world? If you are concentrating on someone else, you are not watching another.

The greatest lies are lies because they really have no proof and therefore can be questioned. Their flaw is that they cannot cover all the bases, they are open to scrutiny, interpretation and understanding. They include enough truthfulness to make them seem believable, but they still leave room for doubt. Not everyone agrees upon it.

The universal absolute truth is the truth and cannot be questioned because there is absolutely nothing to question. Everyone sees it the same because there would be no other way to see it, understand it or interpret it. It goes without question because there is nothing to question.


You tell me, honestly, which one does man written scripture(of any religion) fit into?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> "Another" may be himself. Isn't he the God of this world? If you are concentrating on someone else, you are not watching another.
> 
> The greatest lies are lies because they really have no proof and therefore can be questioned. Their flaw is that they cannot cover all the bases, they are open to scrutiny, interpretation and understanding. They include enough truthfulness to make them seem believable, but they still leave room for doubt. Not everyone agrees upon it.
> 
> ...


I can certainly see the evil in some interpretations with Christianity and the Muslims. 

Agree on the distractions. I will have to believe that the Bible is inspired by God as with most preachers sermons. And I will have to believe that there’s some “man” in some of those. The proof is if they line up and produce.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I can certainly see the evil in some interpretations with Christianity and the Muslims.
> 
> Agree on the distractions. I will have to believe that the Bible is inspired by God as with most preachers sermons. And I will have to believe that there’s some “man” in some of those. The proof is if they line up and produce.



In all honesty, it will line up with the version that you prefer.  Your preference will be formed by your disposition and your environment.  Look at the type of guys that like the sword wielding Jesus or the lamb carrying Jesus.  Their idea of "lining up" tends to reflect the kind of person they are.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> In all honesty, it will line up with the version that you prefer.  Your preference will be formed by your disposition and your environment.  Look at the type of guys that like the sword wielding Jesus or the lamb carrying Jesus.  Their idea of "lining up" tends to reflect the kind of person they are.


That is true. One can line it up to fulfill or justify their desires. At the end of the day, is it good or bad? And does it agree with your spirit? Good things are of God.

Discernment, or “gut instinct” as some call it, is a real thing. 

Most people know when they’re being fed horse hockey.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> That is true. One can line it up to fulfill or justify their desires. At the end of the day, is it good or bad? And does it agree with your spirit? Good things are of God.
> 
> Discernment, or “gut instinct” as some call it, is a real thing.
> 
> Most people know when they’re being fed horse hockey.



I disagree.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 23, 2018)

> Most people know when they’re being fed horse hockey.





ambush80 said:


> I disagree.


Most  people know when they are being fed horse hockey unless its the horse hockey they want to be fed.

On a side note, Ive played a lot of hockey. Never was any horses involved though.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 23, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I disagree.


Key word “most”


----------



## Madman (Dec 3, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What if I or Bullethead or Walt said in our next post "I heard the voice of God.  I'm certain of it."  Would you rejoice?  Would you tell us to go see a shrink?  Would it depend on what He said to us?  What if we said it was Allah?


Send me a PM when it happens.


----------

