# SELF CENTERED



## Brother David (Oct 14, 2018)

AS I START TO WRITE THIS POST , I MUST FIRST APOLOGIZE FOR BECOMING SELF CENTERED . AS I WAS TRYING TO SHARE THE GOSPEL WITH THE A/A MEN ON THIS FORUM , I HAD BEGUN TO MAKE IT ALL ME WANTING TO CHANGE YOUR  MINDS . THROUGH LISTEN TO GOD SPEAKING TO ME ABOUT THE ERROR OF MY WAYS , I BEGAN TO SEE CLEARLY  WHERE I HAD FAILED GOD ! I HAD BEGUN TO MAKE MY POST , ABOUT ME HAVING THE  ABILITY TO CHANGE YOU MEN AND YOUR VIEWS ON GOD . I FINALLY COME TO THE REALIZATION THAT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I COULD SAY , OR ANY WEB PAGE I POSTED WOULD CHANGE YOUR VIEW . 

   YOU SEE WE LIVE IN A WORLD TODAY WHERE MANY HAVE BECOME SO SELF CENTERED THAT NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS OR DOES IT DOESN'T INFLUENCE OUR THINKING . WE ALL HAVE PREDISPOSED NOTIONS OF WHAT REALITY IS OR IS NOT . IN REALITY , NONE OF US WHO ARE SELF CENTERED ARE CORRECT . WE HAVE ALL FAILED BECAUSE WE HAVE MADE OUR QUEST ABOUT OURSELVES !

   I HAVE APOLOGIZED TO JEHOVAH GOD AND ASKED FOR HIS FORGIVENESS , FOR SEEKING A SELF RIGHTEOUS OUTCOME . YOU SEE EVERYTHING ABOUT SERVING MY GOD TEACHES ABOUT PUTTING GOD FIRST AND ALLOWING ALL THE OTHER THINGS TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES . 

   I HOPE THAT YOU MEN CAN ALSO FIND IN OUR HEART TO FORGIVE ME FOR TRYING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND WITH WORLDLY ANSWERS TO AN UNWORLDLY QUESTION . I HAVE FAILED YOU HORRIBLY IN YOUR QUEST TO PROVE OR DISPROVE GOD . YOU SEE THE ANSWERS AREN'T IN A BOOK OR ON A WEB PAGE ( EVEN THE BIBLE IS VOID WHEN WE PUT SELF FIRST ) . IF YOU MEN REALLY WANT TO FIND GOD , QUIT LOOKING IN BOOKS , LISTENING TO EXPERTS AND START PUTTING YOUR SELF CENTERED QUEST AWAY . THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN FIND GOD IS BY DOING THE HARDEST THING WE ARE CHALLENGED WITH , PUT YOUR QUEST AND SELF LAST .

   IT'S ALL ABOUT DECIDING WHICH YOUR LIFE WILL CONSIST OF ;

             SELF CENTERED ( OR ) GOD CENTERED 

AS LONG WE CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR SELF CENTERED ANSWERS WE WILL ONLY FIND THE ANSWERS FROM SELF CENTERED PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THEY KNOW ALL. I CAN TELL YOU I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS , BUT PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE WORLD IN PLACES LIKE , CHINA , INDIA , SYRIA AND EVEN IRAN ( BY THE WAY CHRISTIANITY IS GROWING FASTER IN IRAN THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD , SO MUCH FOR INDOCTRINATION ) ARE FINDING THAT THE ANSWERS TO LIFE AREN'T IN THE NEXT SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY , BUT RATHER IN THE HEART . PEOPLE WHO BEGIN TO PUT THEIR HOPE IN JESUS CHRIST ARE COMING TO REALIZE THAT THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO LIVE ! 

   PLEASE DON'T RESPOND BY ASKING FOR A CHAPTER OR A VERSE  TO HELP YOU FIND A ANSWER , TRY LOOKING IN THE MIRROR AN ASKING YOURSELF , WHO REALLY COMES FIRST IN MY LIFE . IF YOUR LIFE IS ABOUT SELF GRATIFICATION YOUR NEVER GOING TO FIND THE ANSWERS YOU SEEK , ONLY MORE OF YOURSELF . 

 I MAY POST AGAIN NEXT WEEK , BUT UNTIL THEN , MAY GOD BLESS YOU AND KEEP YOU 

SINCERELY YOURS IN CHRIST , 
BROTHER DAVID


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 14, 2018)

Your caps lock is stuck.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 14, 2018)

Bless your heart...….


----------



## ky55 (Oct 14, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Your caps lock is stuck.



I’m pretty sure all caps is mandatory when forwarding a personal revelation from a god...



Brother David said:


> THROUGH LISTEN TO GOD SPEAKING TO ME ABOUT THE ERROR OF MY WAYS , I BEGAN TO SEE CLEARLY  WHERE I HAD FAILED GOD !


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

Is this typically how this sub forum works?  Evangelicals stop by one and a time and try and convert someone until they flame out in all caps???


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> Is this typically how this sub forum works?  Evangelicals stop by one and a time and try and convert someone until they flame out in all caps???


Not typically. Every once in a while an evangelic type stops in with the mistaken impression that they are going to preach us into believing.
They rarely last very long.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> Is this typically how this sub forum works?  Evangelicals stop by one and a time and try and convert someone until they flame out in all caps???


We need Apologists,  not Evangelists.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> Is this typically how this sub forum works?  Evangelicals stop by one and a time and try and convert someone until they flame out in all caps???



They eventually quit, or as instructed, "Shake the dust from their sandals, quit throwing pearls at swine".  When it gets to the point where one has to recognize that the basis for their belief is a mystical, immeasurable, subjective experience then there isn't much more evangelism to be done to people who don't accept that kind of a belief.  I'm dissapointed that the believers don't use this opportunity to examine their faith, to test it, maybe refine it.  There's also allot of moral questions that the Bible doesn't answer that talking to unbelievers might shed some light on.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 15, 2018)

Some folks whose minds cannot be changed by any means wonder much that they can't easily change the minds of others.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

I try to take what people say and look for the truth In it. Believers keep pointing out that we pick and choose what science to believe.   I think that argument denies the scientific method.  I keep wondering if these folks tell their doctors to take a hike when they recommend a treatment plan. As we used to think bleeding people was a good treatment.  Science isn't a substitute for religion, it's ok for it to be wrong.  It doesn't need to be infallible.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 15, 2018)

A few questions.



Bobby Linton said:


> I try to take what people say and look for the truth In it.



How do you determine what the truth is?  



Bobby Linton said:


> Non believers keep pointing out that we pick and choose what science to believe.



Who is "we"?  Do you mean people in general or atheists and agnostics?



Bobby Linton said:


> I think that argument denies the scientific method.  I keep wondering if these folks tell there doctors to take a hike when they recommend a treatment plan. As we used to think bleeding people was a good treatment.  Science isn't a substitute for religion, it's ok for it to be wrong.  It doesn't need to be infallible.



What do you see is the main cause of some believer's unwillingness to say that the Bible is wrong about some things? Bats aren't birds.  Why do you think there's so much resistance to modifying one's belief?  Why don't more believers even consider the _possibility_ that the Flood may have been a localized incident?  And how do you think people draw their lines about what they might reconsider as facts of the Bible?

Just having conversation.  Not trying to argumentative.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

I edited my post.  I meant to say believers were questioning science as flawed not non-belivers.

I dont think it is as hard for most religious people to accept science.  I grew up Methodist and we were never taught that the old testament was to be read literally. Fundamentalist can't accept anything in the bible being wrong because it is the perfect word of God.  I think that is a tuff position to have to defend in this day and age.  Just a little study would reveal to anyone interested that most of the story's from the old testament are fables and myths from other older societies.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> I edited my post.  I meant to say believers were questioning science as flawed not non-belivers.
> 
> I dont think it is as hard for most religious people to accept science.  I grew up Methodist and we were never taught that the old testament was to be read literally. Fundamentalist can't accept anything in the bible being wrong because it is the perfect word of God.  I think that is a tuff position to have to defend in this day and age.  Just a little study would reveal to anyone interested that most of the story's from the old testament are fables and myths from other older societies.




Isn't it funny that believers will say that science is flawed but will try to use it whenever someone finds the Ark or to show that the Shroud of Turin is real?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Isn't it funny that believers will say that science is flawed but will try to use it whenever someone finds the Ark or to show that the Shroud of Turin is real?


And even then they use their own version of science.
Cant tell you how many times Ive been told science discovered the ark and confirmed the Shroud is "real".


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Isn't it funny that believers will say that science is flawed but will try to use it whenever someone finds the Ark or to show that the Shroud of Turin is real?


I had walked away from faith for a while, but I must say Joseph Campbell brought me back around to an extent. He was a gifted professor and studied mythology.  Listening to him helped me understand the difference between religion and science.  He helped me see religion and faith as a tool to manage my internal struggles.  Something that serves to help us all navigate life.  Dogma really  isn't that important. For me it's ok to believe without having all the answers now.  I dont know what that makes me.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> I had walked away from faith for a while, but I must say Joseph Campbell brought me back around to an extent. He was a gifted professor and studied mythology.  Listening to him helped me understand the difference between religion and science.  He helped me see religion and faith as a tool to manage my internal struggles.  Something that serves to help us all navigate life.  Dogma really  isn't that important. For me it's ok to believe without having all the answers now.  I dont know what that makes me.



So, wait a minute.........Does radio carbon dating work or not?


_"But radiocarbon dating carried out by Oxford University in 1988 found it was only 728 years old.
However a new study claims than an earthquake in Jerusalem in 33AD may have not only created the image but may also have skewed the dating results.
The Italian team believes the powerful magnitude 8.2 earthquake would have been strong enough to release neutron particles from crushed rock.

This flood of neutrons may have imprinted an X-ray-like image onto the linen burial cloth, say the researches.
In addition, the radiation emissions would have increased the level of carbon-14 isotopes in the Shroud, which would make it appear younger."_


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...Turin-Shroud-may-date-from-time-of-Jesus.html


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> I had walked away from faith for a while, but I must say Joseph Campbell brought me back around to an extent. He was a gifted professor and studied mythology.  Listening to him helped me understand the difference between religion and science.  He helped me see religion and faith as a tool to manage my internal struggles.  Something that serves to help us all navigate life.  Dogma really  isn't that important. For me it's ok to believe without having all the answers now.  I dont know what that makes me.


Someone who sees the useful aspects of religion?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 15, 2018)

I think ya'll may have missed what Brother Dave was saying. He was saying that it was selfish of him to get into these debates so deep that it was himself being consumed by the arguments.

That maybe at some point pride took over. That he was doing the work of himself and not that of God.

Maybe like when you get caught up in a bidding war on E-bay and you pay more than something is worth. When you get consumed by pride to the point of becoming all about "self."

Not many men can humble themselves when needed. You gotta know when to hold them and when to fold them.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> So, wait a minute.........Does radio carbon dating work or not?
> 
> 
> _"But radiocarbon dating carried out by Oxford University in 1988 found it was only 728 years old.
> ...



I think religion makes its weakest case when it interjects itself into science.  The Noah's ark replicas and creation museums make me uncomfortable.  It's just a gut reaction.


----------



## j_seph (Oct 15, 2018)

Brother David said:


> PLEASE DON'T RESPOND BY ASKING FOR A CHAPTER OR A VERSE  TO HELP YOU FIND A ANSWER , TRY LOOKING IN THE MIRROR AN ASKING YOURSELF , WHO REALLY COMES FIRST IN MY LIFE .


Has been preached in our church not to long ago, If you want to know what the problem is and where it lays at, if you want to fix the problem..........Go look in te mirror, that is where it all starts. Glad out Pastor does not get his messages from the internet or some 52 Sunday message.com order site.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Has been preached in our church not to long ago, If you want to know what the problem is and where it lays at, if you want to fix the problem..........Go look in te mirror, that is where it all starts. Glad out Pastor does not get his messages from the internet or some 52 Sunday message.com order site.



You say that with some contempt? Are you opposed to the church having a organized message? I attended a friends church in grade school and was shocked to learn the same general sermon was given at both churches.  Looking back now it only makes sense that the message is canned to some extent.


----------



## kmckinnie (Oct 15, 2018)

Any of y’all going deer hunting this weekend.??


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

kmckinnie said:


> Any of y’all going deer hunting this weekend.??


I shot a button buck Saturday morning, but I'm too ashamed to tell anyone.  Only picture I took, I tried to crop the head out.  As far as the loading in the truck goes, I much prefer the small ones.  Going to make the whole deer into jerky.


----------



## kmckinnie (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> I shot a button buck Saturday morning, but I'm too ashamed to tell anyone.  Only picture I took, I tried to crop the head out.  As far as the loading in the truck goes, I much prefer the small ones.  Go to make the whole deer into jerky. View attachment 946014



Congrats. Best eating in the woods. When it happens to us we slice the hams into steaks & grill !
Good luck this weekend.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

kmckinnie said:


> Congrats. Best eating in the woods. When it happens to us we slice the hams into steaks & grill !
> Good luck this weekend.


Thanks man! Loin came out by hand it was so soft.  Good luck to you.


----------



## j_seph (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> You say that with some contempt? Are you opposed to the church having a organized message? I attended a friends church in grade school and was shocked to learn the same general sermon was given at both churches.  Looking back now it only makes sense that the message is canned to some extent.


I will not say I am opposed to it I will say I do no agree with it. To me if it is an organized message then it was organized by man not by God. How could a message/sermon be from God that is needed to reach a specific need of John Doe on 10/21/2018 at the evening service? Especially when it was wrote by someone and handed out to the churches on Jan 1 2018? Our pastor will preach what he is led by God to preach at each service. If he does not have anything he will not stand and preach. But there has always been someone who happened to show up who has not been there in months because he was led to come there that night or morning or there will be another preacher at church that has the message for that service. Our Pastor as I have said before in other post can be sitting in the front pew, reading bible for the sermon in say the front of the bible. Stand at pulpit, open his bible to the front and start preaching and literally have to go turn toward the back of the bible and read scripture that he had not been reading and go a different way.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> I shot a button buck Saturday morning, but I'm too ashamed to tell anyone.  Only picture I took, I tried to crop the head out.  As far as the loading in the truck goes, I much prefer the small ones.  Going to make the whole deer into jerky. View attachment 946014


Why would you be ashamed of some delicious deer jerky?


----------



## j_seph (Oct 15, 2018)

kmckinnie said:


> Congrats. Best eating in the woods. When it happens to us we slice the hams into steaks & grill !
> Good luck this weekend.


What you talking about..................you don't even shoot small bucks!


----------



## kmckinnie (Oct 15, 2018)

j_seph said:


> What you talking about..................you don't even shoot small bucks!


I said the word “we” cut it up. 
Didn’t say I shot it. Lols ? 
It does happen when u try for doe meat. Mostly later in the year when they all the same size. 
We have grandkids also.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Why would you be ashamed of some delicious deer jerky?


Peer pressure, I guess.  Which is odd because nobody frowns at the size of the bream I decide to eat.  I would have rather taken a doe from the group.  Three ran by.  Just shot at the deer in the lead.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> Peer pressure, I guess.  Which is odd because nobody frowns at the size of the bream I decide to eat.  I would have rather taken a doe from the group.  Three ran by.  Just shot at the deer in the lead.


To me...… shame is warranted when you find a buck tossed on the side of the road with just his antlers sawn off.
No shame in jerky


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> I had walked away from faith for a while, but I must say Joseph Campbell brought me back around to an extent. He was a gifted professor and studied mythology.  Listening to him helped me understand the difference between religion and science.  He helped me see religion and faith as a tool to manage my internal struggles.  Something that serves to help us all navigate life.  Dogma really  isn't that important. For me it's ok to believe without having all the answers now.  I dont know what that makes me.




Are you familiar with Jordan Peterson?  He calls himself a Christian but probably none of the Christians here would call him that.  I like his take on the utility of myths.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Are you familiar with Jordan Peterson?  He calls himself a Christian but probably none of the Christians here would call him that.  I like his take on the utility of myths.



Sorry ambush, I tried.  You should have told me he was Canadian! I may be sacrilegious, but I do have some standards!


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> I'm not familiar with him, but I will look him up tonight.  I think I was doing myself a disservice turning away from faith as opposed to living with a broader understanding of what it really is.  I can still draw on wisdom from the bible in my life without being a new earth creationist. Before I nailed bambi Saturday I was considering the lillies and how they grow.



Sounds like you might like Peterson. Did you ever examine any other faith traditions?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> I'm not familiar with him, but I will look him up tonight.  I think I was doing myself a disservice turning away from faith as opposed to living with a broader understanding of what it really is.  I can still draw on wisdom from the bible in my life without being a new earth creationist. Before I nailed bambi Saturday I was considering the lillies and how they grow.



What do you mean by "faith"?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 15, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think ya'll may have missed what Brother Dave was saying. He was saying that it was selfish of him to get into these debates so deep that it was himself being consumed by the arguments.
> 
> That maybe at some point pride took over. That he was doing the work of himself and not that of God.
> 
> ...





Artfuldodger said:


> I think ya'll may have missed what Brother Dave was saying. He was saying that it was selfish of him to get into these debates so deep that it was himself being consumed by the arguments.
> 
> That maybe at some point pride took over. That he was doing the work of himself and not that of God.
> 
> ...


We asked questions whose answers would be fact based.
Brother David worked himself up into a tizzy.
In his "I am humble" speech...… half of it was about us, what we must be searching for, how we can have a better life, how we can and cant respond...…...
Humble would be -
"I worked myself up into a tizzy" and left us completely out of it.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What do you mean by "faith"?


That's tuff.  I have faith in things I dont have enough information to know.  I believe we have a creator as a matter of faith.   But really I held myth as something like a lie.  A falsehood made up to explain the unknowable.  I now see that I was wrong.  Myth doesn't mean a falsehood.  It can be a lesson that helps me with the same problems people have faced for eons. I dont have a religion anymore, but I still have faith.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

Even accepting a omniscient creator is tuff because the next logical conclusion to me would be calvinist predetermination. An all knowing good already would know what was going to happen.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> That's tuff.  I have faith in things I dont have enough information to know.  I believe we have a creator as a matter of faith.   But really I held myth as something like a lie.  A falsehood made up to explain the unknowable.  I now see that I was wrong.  Myth doesn't mean a falsehood.  It can be a lesson that helps me with the same problems people have faced for eons. I dont have a religion anymore, but I still have faith.





> I have faith in things I dont have enough information to know


As it relates to having faith there is a "creator"..... isn't the default "I don't know"?
Isnt that really just showing your preference to what the answer might be even though you don't have enough information to know?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> Even accepting a omniscient creator is tuff because the next logical conclusion to me would be calvinist predetermination. An all knowing good already would know what was going to happen.


This gets discussed/debated in here quite a bit.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> As it relates to having faith there is a "creator"..... isn't the default "I don't know"?
> Isnt that really just showing your preference to what the answer might be even though you don't have enough information to know?


Yes.  You are correct.  I do not know. I used to think that something couldn't come from nothing which would  necessitate a creator.  I recently learned more about E=MC2 though.  Did you know the equation alone says that matter can be created by energy alone? Like something from nothing! Dark matter could be nothing more than the mass of matter popping into and out of existence throughout empty space.  Point being I realize I am just substituting myth for a lack of knowledge just like the ancients did.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> That's tuff.  I have faith in things I dont have enough information to know.  I believe we have a creator as a matter of faith.   But really I held myth as something like a lie.  A falsehood made up to explain the unknowable.  I now see that I was wrong.  Myth doesn't mean a falsehood.  It can be a lesson that helps me with the same problems people have faced for eons. I dont have a religion anymore, but I still have faith.



You'll like Peterson.

When you say "I have faith in things I dont have enough information to know." are you saying that you have _some_ information?  Is it like a hunch or more like a preference?  




Bobby Linton said:


> Even accepting a omniscient creator is tuff because the next logical conclusion to me would be calvinist predetermination. An all knowing god already would know what was going to happen.



It's really the only logical conclusion.  Does the notion of determinism bother you?  Why?  If you can't tell it's happening what difference does it make?  If you're Goldilocks, it seems like you have choices.  Are you familiar with Sam Harris?  His book _Freewill_ makes a powerful argument for determinism that I've not heard refuted well.  He argues that once one accepts hard determinism then it effects the way that one views crime and criminals and punishment.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> Yes.  You are correct.  I do not know. I used to think that something couldn't come from nothing which would  necessitate a creator.  I recently learned more about E=MC2 though.  Did you know the equation alone says that matter can be created by energy alone? Like something from nothing! Dark matter could be nothing more than the mass of matter popping into and out of existence throughout empty space.  Point being I realize I am just substituting myth for a lack of knowledge just like the ancients did.



Here's something interesting:

https://www.csicop.org/sb/show/did_the_universe_come_from_nothing

_Of course, creation ex nihilo (the creation of the universe out of nothing) is a major component of virtually all religions. On the other hand, modern cosmology suggests that the universe was not created but rather is eternal in time.


Theologians, theist authors, and theist debaters have developed several arguments that they maintain prove that the universe can’t be eternal, that it had to have a beginning. I will start with the frequently heard claim that an eternal universe can’t exist for mathematical reasons. The argument made is that in an infinite universe it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present from the beginning.


However, this is a straw man argument that exploits the fact that most scientists as well as laypeople improperly use the word infinite when they really mean endless or unlimited. An eternal universe is not the same as an infinite universe. Time is the number of ticks on a clock. In the eternal universe, that number is endless, not infinite. Counting backward in time, the eternal universe has no beginning—not a beginning that was an infinite time ago. The time interval from any moment in the past to the present is finite. So an eternal universe is mathematically possible._


_Some Christian authors and debaters also refer to other more recent calculations they claim require the universe to have a beginning. To give the shortest possible rebuttal, I will just quote the Caltech cosmologist Sean Carroll, who wrote to me in an e-mail: “No result derived on the basis of classical general relativity can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn’t right. You need to quantize gravity.” _

And this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...our-universe-arise-from-nothing/#508016bf4c2e

Regardless of all this science, and strangely enough some people here will attack the method itself, the thing that really interests me is why people prefer to think that a being or consciousness is involved.  I mean, I understand it from an evolutionary psychological perspective, but why, even though we understand the mechanism that makes us seek agency, do we still insist on a "Guy"?


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Here's something interesting:
> 
> https://www.csicop.org/sb/show/did_the_universe_come_from_nothing
> 
> ...


It's hard to imagine an unconscious creator, but I'm sure it could be far above our understanding.  Would anything exist if the last conscious life ended?  Can there be existence without consciousness?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 15, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> It's hard to imagine an unconscious creator, but I'm sure it could be far above our understanding.  Would anything exist if the last conscious life ended?  Can there be existence without consciousness?



I can imagine a universe completely devoid of consciousness. I'm kind of swayed by the Multiverse Theory (as I understand it, which may be mostly incorrect) because I can follow the math just enough.  It predicts that there would be universes without life.  

Knowing what we know about the anthropological origins of deities, why would anyone still feel compelled to insist on one?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 15, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> We asked questions whose answers would be fact based.
> Brother David worked himself up into a tizzy.
> In his "I am humble" speech...… half of it was about us, what we must be searching for, how we can have a better life, how we can and cant respond...…...
> Humble would be -
> "I worked myself up into a tizzy" and left us completely out of it.



I can see that, his speech was lukewarm humbleness.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 16, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> It's hard to imagine an unconscious creator, but I'm sure it could be far above our understanding.  Would anything exist if the last conscious life ended?  Can there be existence without consciousness?





> It's hard to imagine an unconscious creator


Isnt that kind of dependent on how you define "creator"?
Lightning can create fire but Im not sure the lightning consciously decided to have weenie roast.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 16, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> I shot a button buck Saturday morning, but I'm too ashamed to tell anyone.  Only picture I took, I tried to crop the head out.  As far as the loading in the truck goes, I much prefer the small ones.  Going to make the whole deer into jerky. View attachment 946014


Good eating. Don't feel bad. (Unless you shot it illegally) I have shot a few in my time. Hungry. 
Proud to put meat on the table.


----------



## JustUs4All (Oct 16, 2018)

Good deer Bobby and among the best eating around.  Nothing there to be ashamed of.  I shoot the slow stupid ones, thereby helping along natural selection even though I believe the Creator set that all up so that it operates just fine with or without my help.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 16, 2018)

I'm thinking maybe fundamentalists take everything in the bible literally because if some not so important parts are myth, fable, embellishment or nonsense maybe the real important parts might be myth, fable, embellishment or nonsense also. In other words if one part is wrong maybe it's all wrong. That is too much to risk, so it's best to believe it all.


----------



## j_seph (Oct 16, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> I recently learned more about E=MC2 though.  Did you know the equation alone says that matter can be created by energy alone?


Where did that energy come from. Something from nothing, something or someone had to create the energy.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 16, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Where did that energy come from. Something from nothing, something or someone had to create the energy.


That's a good point I cant answer.  Other side of a black hole? Gets down to a chicken or egg argument.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 16, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Where did that energy come from. Something from nothing, something or someone had to create the energy.


Did you know a vacuum(nothing) has energy?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 16, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Where did that energy come from. Something from nothing, something or someone had to create the energy.


No actually,  someone or something did not HAVE to create energy for the same reason(s) you will soon give for your god being eternal and outside of your HAVE stipulation.


----------



## JustUs4All (Oct 16, 2018)

660griz said:


> Did you know a vacuum(nothing) has energy?



A vacuum is not nothing, it is the absence of something.  Without something a vacuum would not exist.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 16, 2018)

Watch an hour documentary on nothing.  It is more complex than you would think.  It started with early experiments about light traveling through a vacuum. Helped establish that light is a wave and particle. A vacuum isn't nothing. Full of subatomic particles and energy.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> No actually,  someone or something did not HAVE to create energy for the same reason(s) you will soon give for your god being eternal and outside of your HAVE stipulation.



You make a fine point I have never considered.  How is it any more plausible that God is eternal than the universe? If you can accept a God without a beginning or end then why not the universe?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 16, 2018)

JustUs4All said:


> A vacuum is not nothing, it is the absence of something.  Without something a vacuum would not exist.


Exactly, there is a very good possibility that there never was nothing. Something(like energy which cannot be created or destroyed but changes forms) in some form always existed. Is does not have to be intelligent or have a plan. It could very well be that that things are what they are because the conditions allow it.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 16, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> You make a fine point I have never considered.  How is it any more plausible that God is eternal than the universe? If you can accept a God without a beginning or end then why not the universe?


Even more to the point than the Universe, Energy.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 16, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> You make a fine point I have never considered.  How is it any more plausible that God is eternal than the universe? If you can accept a God without a beginning or end then why not the universe?



That's what I keep asking.  Why are people so dead set on there being a "Guy" involved?  We already understand how we're psychologically predisposed to attribute agency where it doesn't exist. Why don't we learn from that when it comes to deities?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 16, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> I'm thinking maybe fundamentalists take everything in the bible literally because if some not so important parts are myth, fable, embellishment or nonsense maybe the real important parts might be myth, fable, embellishment or nonsense also. In other words if one part is wrong maybe it's all wrong. That is too much to risk, so it's best to believe it all.




What would be the harm in understanding it all as metaphor?  I think the worry is that then maybe Heaven isn't for real either and just a metaphor.  We've given many examples of why the belief in Heaven can dilute the richness of Earthly experience.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That's what I keep asking.  Why are people so dead set on there being a "Guy" involved?  We already understand how we're psychologically predisposed to attribute agency where it doesn't exist. Why don't we learn from that when it comes to deities?


Isn't it natural to assume it's a sentient being?  Things seem to evolve to consciousness.  Be it a squid or a mammal. Would you be opposed to considering "God" as the original spark of energy? I think "guy" is a necessary place holder for something in all probability we dont have the tools to understand.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 16, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> Isn't it natural to assume it's a sentient being?  Things seem to evolve to consciousness.  Be it a squid or a mammal. Would you be opposed to considering "God" as the original spark of energy? I think "guy" is a necessary place holder for something in all probability we dont have the tools to understand.



It seems very much to be a naturally occurring proclivity of ours to attribute agency  inappropriately to things.  The term god implies a consciousness.  I just don't see the rational need for one.  To say that it's a "guy" is to say that we DO understand something about it.  The problem is that we: 1.) know that we erroneously attribute agency all the time and 2.) We have no evidence of a "guy".

I don't mind if people say "I prefer to think a 'guy' is in charge.  It makes me feel good and it makes the world make sense".  The problem is that people who say that haven't really thought through the implications of it.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Oct 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> It seems very much to be a naturally occurring proclivity of ours to attribute agency  inappropriately to things.  The term god implies a consciousness.  I just don't see the rational need for one.  To say that it's a "guy" is to say that we DO understand something about it.  The problem is that we: 1.) know that we erroneously attribute agency all the time and 2.) We have no evidence of a "guy".
> 
> I don't mind if people say "I prefer to think a 'guy' is in charge.  It makes me feel good and it makes the world make sense".  The problem is that people who say that haven't really thought through the implications of it.


  If faith makes grief or illness easier to bear, it is serving a real purpose.  I understand your point that it isn't logical.  It isn't. Maybe holding on to the notion holds us back, but it fills a need.  Why would someone need to think through all the implications if it comforts them? You have to admit, beyond food, shelter, and water, most people have Spiritual needs as well.


----------



## ky55 (Oct 16, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> I'm thinking maybe fundamentalists take everything in the bible literally because if some not so important parts are myth, fable, embellishment or nonsense maybe the real important parts might be myth, fable, embellishment or nonsense also. In other words if one part is wrong maybe it's all wrong. That is too much to risk, so it's best to believe it all.



Yep, I’ve said it on here before but it applies here too:

In for a penny, in for a pound.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That's what I keep asking.  Why are people so dead set on there being a "Guy" involved?  We already understand how we're psychologically predisposed to attribute agency where it doesn't exist. Why don't we learn from that when it comes to deities?


For the same reasons a woman might "awwwwwe" at a potato chip that looks like a puppy or a guy refers to his car as "she" ,people see animals in clouds or people leap away from a snake without thinking about it...... Our brains are wired that way.


----------



## j_seph (Oct 16, 2018)

660griz said:


> Did you know a vacuum(nothing) has energy?


So where did the vacuum come from?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 16, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> I shot a button buck Saturday morning, but I'm too ashamed to tell anyone.  Only picture I took, I tried to crop the head out.  As far as the loading in the truck goes, I much prefer the small ones.  Going to make the whole deer into jerky. View attachment 946014


No shame in that deer! Meat is meat and young meat is tender!


----------



## bullethead (Oct 17, 2018)

j_seph said:


> So where did the vacuum come from?


From the Grandfather in the sky that created your Father in the sky who created his Son in the sky....
See how that works?


----------



## j_seph (Oct 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> From the Grandfather in the sky that created your Father in the sky who created his Son in the sky....
> See how that works?


So we have went from energy, that was not created by no God but from a vacuum that was not created via no God that just magically happened. There is probably some ancient alien somewhere that caused this effect I would imagine then.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Oct 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> AS I START TO WRITE THIS POST , I MUST FIRST APOLOGIZE FOR BECOMING SELF CENTERED .



Why would you apologize?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 17, 2018)

j_seph said:


> So we have went from energy, that was not created by no God but from a vacuum that was not created via no God that just magically happened. There is probably some ancient alien somewhere that caused this effect I would imagine then.


No all that sounds silly, it is an invisible guy who was not created that magically happened.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 17, 2018)

j_seph said:


> So we have went from energy, that was not created by no God but from a vacuum that was not created via no God that just magically happened. There is probably some ancient alien somewhere that caused this effect I would imagine then.


Maybe the same ancient alien that created your god?
Or did your god just magically happen?
Now go ahead and completely contradict your post above and tell me that your god "always was".


----------



## j_seph (Oct 17, 2018)

Alpha Omega


----------



## 660griz (Oct 17, 2018)

JustUs4All said:


> A vacuum is not nothing, it is the absence of something.  Without something a vacuum would not exist.



If you don't have something, you have...
Are you saying matter always existed?


----------



## 660griz (Oct 17, 2018)

Bobby Linton said:


> Watch an hour documentary on nothing.  It is more complex than you would think.  It started with early experiments about light traveling through a vacuum. Helped establish that light is a wave and particle. A vacuum isn't nothing. Full of subatomic particles and energy.


In science, a _*vacuum*_ is _*defined*_ as space without matter or air.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 17, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Alpha Omega


Energy


----------



## 660griz (Oct 17, 2018)

j_seph said:


> So where did the vacuum come from?


The first vacuum cleaner that used the same principle as those that we use today was invented by Hubert Cecil Booth of England in 1901


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 17, 2018)

Brother David said:


> AS I START TO WRITE THIS POST , I MUST FIRST APOLOGIZE FOR BECOMING SELF CENTERED . AS I WAS TRYING TO SHARE THE GOSPEL WITH THE A/A MEN ON THIS FORUM , I HAD BEGUN TO MAKE IT ALL ME WANTING TO CHANGE YOUR  MINDS . THROUGH LISTEN TO GOD SPEAKING TO ME ABOUT THE ERROR OF MY WAYS , I BEGAN TO SEE CLEARLY  WHERE I HAD FAILED GOD ! I HAD BEGUN TO MAKE MY POST , ABOUT ME HAVING THE  ABILITY TO CHANGE YOU MEN AND YOUR VIEWS ON GOD . I FINALLY COME TO THE REALIZATION THAT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I COULD SAY , OR ANY WEB PAGE I POSTED WOULD CHANGE YOUR VIEW .
> 
> YOU SEE WE LIVE IN A WORLD TODAY WHERE MANY HAVE BECOME SO SELF CENTERED THAT NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS OR DOES IT DOESN'T INFLUENCE OUR THINKING . WE ALL HAVE PREDISPOSED NOTIONS OF WHAT REALITY IS OR IS NOT . IN REALITY , NONE OF US WHO ARE SELF CENTERED ARE CORRECT . WE HAVE ALL FAILED BECAUSE WE HAVE MADE OUR QUEST ABOUT OURSELVES !
> 
> ...



I get the impression your preacher does a lot of yelling.???????


----------



## JustUs4All (Oct 17, 2018)

660griz said:


> If you don't have something, you have...
> Are you saying matter always existed?



No sir, I am making no such statement.  I will readily admit that I do not know whether or not matter has always existed.  I am not afraid to say that I do not understand the concepts of infinity which includes the concept of always. 

The soft spot in most of the argument in this forum is that the person making the argument fails to acknowledge that his mind is incapable of fully understanding the extent of the Universe or the extent of time in either direction or how it operates.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 17, 2018)

JustUs4All said:


> No sir, I am making no such statement.  I will readily admit that I do not know whether or not matter has always existed.  I am not afraid to say that I do not understand the concepts of infinity which includes the concept of always.
> 
> The soft spot in most of the argument in this forum is that the person making the argument fails to acknowledge that his mind is incapable of fully understanding the extent of the Universe or the extent of time in either direction or how it operates.


Maybe.
I am fully capable, and quite comfortable, with, "I don't know."
Seems a lot more feasible than making up a universe fairy.
I think folks need to know created the need for religions.


----------



## JustUs4All (Oct 17, 2018)

660griz said:


> In science, a _*vacuum*_ is _*defined*_ as space without matter or air.



Using your definition, can you be certain that a vacuum has ever even existed?


----------



## ky55 (Oct 17, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I get the impression your preacher does a lot of yelling.???????



You’re a little late on this one. 
Brutha Dave is THE preacher, and he’s the one doing all the yelling. 
Maybe he’s been slain in the spirit?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 17, 2018)

660griz said:


> I think folks need to know created the need for religions.



You do realize Christians recognize Christ as a living being who is involved in communicating with us.  Thus your statement is akin to saying my ‘need to know’ created you or some other living being.  Silly notion huh?

Point is you can’t put all religions in a box and make blanket statements, at least and maintain your credibility.  Some religions are obviously man contrived, but here’s the point that’s being missed, and it’s not a subtle one, Christ isn’t a religion.  He is a being.  If you want to discuss Christ as a being, I will oblige as time allows.  If not, that’s OK too.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You do realize Christians recognize Christ as a living being who is involved in communicating with us.  Thus your statement is akin to saying my ‘need to know’ created you or some other living being.  Silly notion huh?
> 
> Point is you can’t put all religions in a box and make blanket statements, at least and maintain your credibility.  Some religions are obviously man contrived, but here’s the point that’s being missed, and it’s not a subtle one, Christ isn’t a religion.  He is a being.  If you want to discuss Christ as a being, I will oblige as time allows.  If not, that’s OK too.


So you are saying that a man who died roughly 2000 years ago communicates with you the same as someone does on here now?

I'll grant you the leeway to claim he was a living being at one time(Mohammed has that covered too), but I am very interested in the communication you have with him now. 
What does he look like?
What does his voice sound like?
Does he speak Koine Greek or Hebrew or plain English but with a Netanyahu accent?
There is a lot of credibility to be maintained here and I am anxious to hear what you are going to provide to keep it.


----------



## Israel (Oct 18, 2018)

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



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> So you are saying that a man who died roughly 2000 years ago communicates with you the same as someone does on here now?
> 
> I'll grant you the leeway to claim he was a living being at one time(Mohammed has that covered too), but I am very interested in the communication you have with him now.
> What does he look like?
> ...



Not playing word paddy cake with you today bullet.  As you are fully aware Christian worship a LIVING savior.  To suggest otherwise is foolishness I won’t pander to.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not playing word paddy cake with you today bullet.  As you are fully aware Christian worship a LIVING savior.  To suggest otherwise is foolishness I won’t pander to.


In fact I do not acknowledge that the person they worship is "living".
I do not take claims and assertions as fact and I do play in make believe worlds.
You want to talk when others have to play by make believe.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not playing word paddy cake with you today bullet.  As you are fully aware Christian worship a LIVING savior.  To suggest otherwise is foolishness I won’t pander to.


this is where things get tricky for me. Are you saying that there is a living savior today?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not playing word paddy cake with you today bullet.  As you are fully aware Christian worship a LIVING savior.  To suggest otherwise is foolishness I won’t pander to.




Those are legitimate questions and I've asked them in the sincerest way possible myself?  

What does Jesus sound like?
How do you know it's him?

I'm asking about the foundation of your belief. I'm asking about your personal revelation.  It's the crux of the matter.  What's it like?  How do you know it's origin?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2018)

j_seph says he gets a tingling in his leg.  I've heard people say that they get thoughts that they're sure aren't theirs.  So what does Jesus sound like?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> In fact I do not acknowledge that the person they worship is "living".
> I do not take claims and assertions as fact and I do play in make believe worlds.
> You want to talk when others have to play by make believe.



Maybe you misread what was stated above, Post 84 to be exact:



> If you want to discuss Christ as a being, I will oblige as time allows. If not, that’s OK too


 therefore a reasonable person would assume that "Hey, I don't believe that, so we don't have anything to discuss. 

 But instead you had to engage with this:



> So you are saying that a man who died roughly 2000 years ago communicates with you the same as someone does on here now?
> 
> I'll grant you the leeway to claim he was a living being at one time(Mohammed has that covered too), but I am very interested in the communication you have with him now.
> What does he look like?
> ...


 
despite plainly admitting this:



> In fact I do not acknowledge that the person they worship is "living".


 
which makes your whole conversation appear petty and trite.
especially given this:



> You want to talk when others have to play by make believe.



In short I never engaged you, not your beliefs, nor do I care to.   As to who is playing make believe, well I guess time will tell.


----------



## ky55 (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not playing word paddy cake with you today bullet.  As you are fully aware Christian worship a LIVING savior.  To suggest otherwise is foolishness I won’t pander to.



I don’t think you are fully aware that many of us here know  a man who died over 2000 years ago is still as dead as a doorknob.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2018)

Israel said:


> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="
> 
> 
> 
> " frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Now there is a believer!


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Maybe you misread what was stated above, Post 84 to be exact:
> 
> therefore a reasonable person would assume that "Hey, I don't believe that, so we don't have anything to discuss.
> 
> ...


I am interested in hearing how you consider Jesus a "living" being.

The fact that others have to play by your rules in order for you to participate in conversation which is blatently biased towards your claims and assertions is an intellectually dishonest way to go about it.
I understand you have to do that in order to disregard the logical questions and points that would naturally come up to counter such one sided rules.
Basically you are saying that you can make a great case for yourself if everyone else agrees with your premise. All others should not participate if they disagree.

So yes, I want to discuss Christ as a living being. It want to discuss how you come to the fact he is a living being now rather than just go along with your assertion.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Now there is a believer!


Shouldn't he have been flung backwards from the impact like hollywood and some hunters think happens from bullet impact/energy?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 18, 2018)

ky55 said:


> I don’t think you are fully aware that many of us here know  a man who died over 2000 years ago is still as dead as a doorknob.



“ know of”,  if you knew him you would KNOW he’s not dead.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> “ know of”,  if you knew him you would KNOW he’s not dead.




What does he sound like?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> “ know of”,  if you knew him you would KNOW he’s not dead.


Other than pretend for the sake of having you grace us with conversation, how can we know?
Some of us are trying to learn and know about Jesus, but do it in ways that allow for logical commom sense approaches rather than just blindly going with it.


----------



## ky55 (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> “ know of”,  if you knew him you would KNOW he’s not dead.



We KNOW that everybody who has died has stayed dead.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Oct 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Other than pretend for the sake of having you grace us with conversation, how can we know?
> Some of us are trying to learn and know about Jesus, but do it in ways that allow for logical commom sense approaches rather than just blindly going with it.



This sounds like me.
I've never been able to do the turn the faith into knowledge Alchemy thing.

And while slightly off subject, I will say that there may be some kind of switch of sorts.(I was thinking of a personal analogy, but it was rather long-winded, so I'll have to skip it).
I believe that the faith-into-knowledge  switch would have to probably be on a very personal basis, not one that may be preached into belief.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What does he sound like?


Im thinking maybe he sounds like Rodney Dangerfield.
"I tell ya, on this forum I don't get no respect, no respect at all"......


----------



## 1eyefishing (Oct 18, 2018)

With a little further thought, I come to the conclusion that the faith into knowledge switch is really a faith into stronger faith switch.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> This sounds like me.
> I've never been able to do the turn the faith into knowledge Alchemy thing.
> 
> And while slightly off subject, I will say that there may be some kind of switch of sorts.(I was thinking of a personal analogy, but it was rather long-winded, so I'll have to skip it).
> I believe that the faith-into-knowledge  switch would have to probably be on a very personal basis, not one that may be preached into belief.



"Faith to knowledge".  That's an interesting concept.  I've touched on the "Faith" part recently but it hasn't gotten much traction.  There are different kinds of faith based on different things and they lead to different kinds of knowledge.  I suppose when I ask believers "What does Jesus sound like?" I'm trying to understand something about where they get their faith.  If someone tells me "Hunt for deer in saddles" I might take their word for it, I might have FAITH in what they say.  If they give me an explanation of why I should hunt saddles it might strengthen my faith.  I might go home and look into it and read about it and it might strengthen my faith even more.  If I kill some deer in saddles it will strengthen my faith even more.  Different levels of faith based on different evidence.

Why is asking "What does Jesus sound like?" any different.  People say they hear Jesus.  Isn't it natural to ask "What does he sound like?"?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> With a little further thought, I come to the conclusion that the faith into knowledge switch is really a faith into stronger faith switch.



Do you think that faith without substantial evidence can be called "theory", and at some point, after conclusive affirmation it can be considered "knowledge"?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Other than pretend for the sake of having you grace us with conversation, how can we know?
> Some of us are trying to learn and know about Jesus, but do it in ways that allow for logical commom sense approaches rather than just blindly going with it.


We've probably taken it as far as logical common sense approaches allow -
Jesus existed, was a preacher and was crucified.
All that other stuff you have to just blindly go with.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Oct 18, 2018)

Faith can be chosen.
Knowledge is either there or it isn't.
Therefore they cannot be the same.

But your faith in hunting deer in the saddles is productive
led you to the knowledge that hunting deer in saddles is productive.

Can your faith that there is a creator, lead you to the knowledge that there is a creator?
Seek and you shall find. I am still a Seeker.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 18, 2018)

JustUs4All said:


> Using your definition, can you be certain that a vacuum has ever even existed?


Not really. Based on my understanding of space, I am pretty sure there are vacuums even as we speak. However, I don't/won't base my life and actions on if they exist, or not.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> Faith can be chosen.
> Knowledge is either there or it isn't.
> Therefore they cannot be the same.
> 
> ...


They arent the same.
But many convince themselves they are.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I am interested in hearing how you consider Jesus a "living" being.



No. No you’re not.  I’ve been here long enough to know your “interest” in Christ only serves as a platform for you to deny him and denigrate those who affirm him.  In short I’m not feeding the troll.  Have a nice day.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 18, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What does he sound like?



Why don’t you accept him as your savior and find out for yourself?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 18, 2018)

ky55 said:


> We KNOW that everybody who has died has stayed dead.



Obviously you have a very narrow definition of “we”.....and “dead”.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You do realize Christians recognize Christ as a living being who is involved in communicating with us.  Thus your statement is akin to saying my ‘need to know’ created you or some other living being.  Silly notion huh?


 Folks have been around a lot longer than your belief in Christ. Christianity is relatively new in the human existence.
Not a silly notion. An irrelevant notion.


> Point is you can’t put all religions in a box and make blanket statements, at least and maintain your credibility.


 I can to some, others refuse facts and logic. I can make blanket statements and you can say I am not credible.  





> Some religions are obviously man contrived, but here’s the point that’s being missed, and it’s not a subtle one, Christ isn’t a religion.  He is a being.  If you want to discuss Christ as a being, I will oblige as time allows.  If not, that’s OK too.


 ALL religions are man contrived. You wouldn't even know about Christ without a man telling you about it. Since a being can be imaginary, no need to discuss Christ being...a being.
Now, Christ being a living being? Uh, no. I am not going to change the definition to appease.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> We've probably taken it as far as logical common sense approaches allow -
> Jesus existed, was a preacher and was crucified.
> All that other stuff you have to just blindly go with.


Yes. That is exactly where I am at with all that I have learned from recorded history.
And, it is why that I am interested in hearing from individuals who make claims and assertions. I truly hope that one day someone will have something that I missed, or may be able to explain to me in an apologetic way what I am not understanding Biblically.
But I will not blindly take someone's word or pretend that something is is isn't just to have a one sided conversation.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No. No you’re not.  I’ve been here long enough to know your “interest” in Christ only serves as a platform for you to deny him and denigrate those who affirm him.  In short I’m not feeding the troll.  Have a nice day.


Translation: you have been here long enough to know what is expected but you cannot back up your claims to accomplish it. And you are dishonest enough to blame your unwillingness to try on someone else.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Why don’t you accept him as your savior and find out for yourself?


Priceless


----------



## 660griz (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Why don’t you accept him as your savior and find out for yourself?



I did at one time. The silence was deafening.


----------



## j_seph (Oct 18, 2018)

660griz said:


> I did at one time. The silence was deafening.


So please tell us how you accepted him or rather please tell us youe experience of grace sir.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 18, 2018)

j_seph said:


> So please tell us how you accepted him or rather please tell us youe experience of grace sir.


Well, I was about 12 or 13, really wanted to feel the spirit like everyone else. I was told I needed to be saved. When the preacher asked, I stood up and proclaimed my acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Got baptized. 
The end.


----------



## j_seph (Oct 18, 2018)

660griz said:


> Well, I was about 12 or 13, *really wanted to feel the spirit *like everyone else. *I was told* I needed to be saved. *When the preacher asked*, I stood up and proclaimed my acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Got baptized.
> The end.


Here is one of the problems I see and hear about. It is not up to no preacher, or no man to save some one or even the fact that you want to feel the spirit. Until your heart has been dealt with by the Lord, and you come humble with a broken heart and a contrite spirit it ain't gonna work for ya. Baptism won't get you there nor will church membership. Have heard several testimonies where they thought they got saved but did not and when they did there was no thought no doubt.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 18, 2018)

No wonder many of ya'll quit believing. You didn't even know that Jesus was still alive.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> Faith can be chosen.
> Knowledge is either there or it isn't.
> Therefore they cannot be the same.
> 
> ...



I'm seeking, too.  That's why I ask the kinds of questions I do of believers.  I want to know what Jesus/God sounds like to them because there was a time that I thought I was getting answers to prayers but after the doubt set in I could tell tyat it was my own voice in my head.  I want to know how they're sure what they're hearing is Jesus.




SemperFiDawg said:


> Why don’t you accept him as your savior and find out for yourself?



See above.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> No wonder many of ya'll quit believing. You didn't even know that Jesus was still alive.



How do you know he's alive?  Does he talk to you?  What does he sound like?


----------



## 1eyefishing (Oct 18, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> How do you know he's alive?  Does he talk to you?  What does he sound like?



Last known location?


----------



## Brother David (Oct 18, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> Last known location?


 Right hand of the Father !!!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 18, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> How do you know he's alive?  Does he talk to you?  What does he sound like?



He ascended to Heaven in a human body. When he took our likeness, he kept it. He talks to me in Hebrew. He sounds human. Kinda soft like Michael Guido but more middle eastern.

I have a built in Christianity Hebrew decipher-er so I actually hear him in English.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> He ascended to Heaven in a human body. When he took our likeness, he kept it. He talks to me in Hebrew. He sounds human. Kinda soft like Michael Guido but more middle eastern.
> 
> I have a built in Christianity Hebrew decipher-er so I actually hear him in English.




Are you serious?  If you are then I find that fascinating and I'd like to hear more about it.


----------



## Israel (Oct 18, 2018)

I've heard a few testimonies on here, the ones I do remember come so easily to mind. See, even what may appear "anti" testimonies to some or even to the some giving them...I have been pressed to listen to "for the Lord" in them.

I realize it can be like stepping on toes to some to have _their testimonies up for consideration_ in a way that may, at any particular time, appear as though someone (such as myself) is taking away from them something of the Lord's working...when in fact they are (seemingly) rendered to oppose that proposition...that the Lord is always, indeed, working.

But, I also believe it is not hard for us to see that the obverse is also often at work...that a testimony rendered _to the Lord's working is taken by some_ to be held as nothing more than "too many slices of pepperoni pizza before you went to sleep".
I reduce it to the absurd only for example's sake.

But, if there can be a fairness, I must ascribe to the things I have heard the same measure with which I expect any testimony I may give to be taken...as mere tip of an iceberg. "Events" I may speak of _by testimony _are never the whole of my, or any testimony. A lot goes on "unseen" in each of us...but there seem to be signal things each of us presents as "real happenings" we may present _for example_, that hearers (once they are spoken) are truly free to do with as they will. When we "put something" out there...it no longer becomes our sole property...we have _given it._

The believer should know this at least as well, if not better than another, that his word will be tried. He may even find the peculiar place where being told "you're crazy" is at the very least as important as hearing "amen brother". It's good to be saved from the woe that can come when "all men speak well of you". And, I am persuaded this life of faith _in seed _even has within it the determination to direct...specifically, to those who will help the disciple be free of that particular woe.
I have seen flowers push through pavement. It, to me now, is no less a necessity.

So my "take" on some things I have heard.

I have heard one man say "I once shared the gospel with some diligence...and remember once telling someone who refused my testimony (in college) to its truth that he was then going to 'go to he11' " If I remember as well as I believe I do, this same man now considers the arrogance of that stance as somewhat (at the very least) embarrassing when considered. I would venture so much so, that he may retain some embarrassment at those who appear to come to him with the same....arrogance. Since, in perception, his own arrogance was made so plainly a fault to him, he now believes he easily recognizes such odious arrogance.  And plainly sees _the fault_.

I can't disagree...arrogance is a fault. And likewise I can't deny I have at times (many times) seen my own. I know what it is to cringe...in remembrance. Though I may not be able to convince _that man _that I have even begun to touch in a right cringing even to this moment, I still find much in agreement...arrogance stinks. It has a palpable _odor_.

But my "take away" is this. The very Lord he sought to share, to preach...is the very one letting him even know how He has no part with arrogance. This does not disqualify any man...to see he has acted arrogantly, even in his attempt at sharing...and this "life" is a continuing of course correction.  Finer and finer adjustments required, deeper and deeper things shown if we might just agree...yes, I accept your judgment on "that thing, in that place".

So as much as such a man may say "I absolutely hate the thing I saw of myself, and I cannot see anything but such as would be a continuance into even greater arrogance were I to continue in _the thing_ that caused such arrogance" But was it "the thing" that _caused the arrogance_...or was the arrogance simply revealed? And revealed as something to abandon in the reality of _that thing_ that promises to make known all the "hidden thoughts and intents of the heart"?

I know I am not fit to help such a man...except to say (if he can receive it) you are not the only one to ever cringe at what he may see of himself in the light. You are not the first to consider "I don't think I will like very much what I may be becoming" And I know I am entirely inadequate to convince such a man something quite different may lie beyond that consideration. Something...of a surprise.

Just as that man cringes at the thought of anyone telling anyone else "if you don't believe what I say, then you are going to he11" I am in his same boat. I dare not think that even though (only) apparently this man has "thrown the baby out with the bathwater" I could ever abandon him to my declaration "then you too, are going to he11". I don't know his final disposition, and I have _only seen_ enough to know...rejection of me and my word (or testimony) if taken as such (the unpardonable sin), only speaks of my own arrogance...which places me in far greater danger of fire...than any sense of rejection of me ever could. It's such a small thing. Laughable really, if this man only knew how many times I have had to agree with rejection of my own self.

Such a man has mused "I don't think anyone loses sleep thinking I may be a 'vessel of wrath' it's all just cheap words about caring." I can only tell that man, "I might just as easily worry you'll be found among those most faithful in glory". I don't know conclusively what the Lord will do with such a man...I carry the many words of one who even slaughtered disciples, making plain (at least to me) "be very careful of how you esteem a thing in which I (the Lord) can work at any time. And such conclusions may only speak more to your own personal estimations and preferences...than to the "gospel" you believe you are called to."

Yes...I believe I am being quite persuaded to the "not worry" view, and part of that, maybe a great part of that has been a result of being force fed much of what I preferred not...to learn the health of it. "Eat your vegetables". Clean the plate.

But, how then can I take any umbrage at being resisted? When I say that the One who has called me...has told me to expect it? To not be either dismayed nor bristle at it? That its even...quite necessary? How then could I "worry" about one who does me such service? Or, is at least a help? Those providing dance tune for rejoicing and leaping for joy?
What news do I carry..."believe me...or else"? Well ain't that just...silly? There's no sin in not believing ....me.

If you can believe anything I say, or not believe anything of it...believe this. I have searched and tried and twisted an arm to find that place where "not believing me" equates to sin. I have tried as fiercely as any man past, present or future sought the place where anything perceived as "my wounding" or "my rejection" is grounds for any man's judgment. It just ain't there.

Take me for fool, take me for prophet, blasphemer or fellow saint...the taking of me...or rejection...means _nothing._ Sin is forgiven in and by another, and my soap box has never gotten me within arm's length of being able to monkey with that. I have tried. And tried. And tried again...and more.

And how little I have known that it is good and perfect for me to find such frustration in trying to direct where mercy can go according to my own compass. It would surely end up...excluding me.

Like a clumsy suicide bomber putting the finishing touches on a vest he never gets to wear outside his basement.


----------



## Israel (Oct 18, 2018)

And I often think of a couple of others. Their testimonies.


----------



## Israel (Oct 18, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Right hand of the Father !!!


And no less in each of His brothers. Even if He be hard to see and hear...He's there.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2018)

Israel said:


> And no less in each of His brothers. Even if He be hard to see and hear...He's there.


When you have an unprovable assertion the best thing to do is keep piling more assertions on.
Well done.
Dilly Dilly


----------



## 660griz (Oct 18, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Here is one of the problems I see and hear about. It is not up to no preacher, or no man to save some one or even the fact that you want to feel the spirit. Until your heart has been dealt with by the Lord, and you come humble with a broken heart and a contrite spirit it ain't gonna work for ya. Baptism won't get you there nor will church membership. Have heard several testimonies where they thought they got saved but did not and when they did there was no thought no doubt.


Reminds of the Andy Griffith episode where Barney studied karate and told Andy to come at him. Andy gets him in a headlock and Barney say, "Oh no, you did it all wrong."
There is always an excuse.
I gave you the readers digest version. Why would I have a broken heart?


----------



## ky55 (Oct 18, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> No wonder many of ya'll quit believing. You didn't even know that Jesus was still alive.



Jesus most likely existed. 
It’s 100% certain that he’s still as dead as a doorknob like everybody else that has died.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 18, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> Last known location?



Just outside outside of your heart, waiting on you to open the door with the Contrition sign above it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 18, 2018)

660griz said:


> I did at one time. The silence was deafening.



Then undoubtedly, based on the since overwhelming evidence, you didn’t.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 18, 2018)

660griz said:


> Well, I was about 12 or 13, really wanted to feel the spirit like everyone else. I was told I needed to be saved. When the preacher asked, I stood up and proclaimed my acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Got baptized.
> The end.



“Really wanted to feel the spirit” is not the same as “heartfelt sorrow for my sins and a lifelong commitment to live a different life no matter the cost.”  When I was 12-13 I really wanted to kiss Stephanie T’s lips just one time and run my fingers through her beautiful long red hair, but it that’s not the same as vowing to be her slave for the rest of my life.  Get it? 

You didn’t get it because you never gave it.  You were, by your own admission, looking to GET a “feel” when Christ requires those looking to GIVE their life.  I was looking to get a “feel” of Stephanie T., not looking to give my life for it.  There’s a difference, and again, it’s not subtle.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 18, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I'm seeking, too.  That's why I ask the kinds of questions I do of believers.  I want to know what Jesus/God sounds like to them because there was a time that I thought I was getting answers to prayers but after the doubt set in I could tell tyat it was my own voice in my head.  I want to know how they're sure what they're hearing is Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, and I am no means being sassy, but if you are indeed looking to hear from Christ, the VERY first step is to speak to him in a heartfelt manner.  

We don’t get to dance with the prettiest girl at the dance without first acknowledging to her that she exists.  Heck you can’t even order a burger at the drive thru without first establishing and acknowledging contact with the person at the register.  As with everything in life, it’s GIVE annnnnnd receive.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, and I am no means being sassy, but if you are indeed looking to hear from Christ, the VERY first step is to speak to him in a heartfelt manner.
> 
> We don’t get to dance with the prettiest girl at the dance without first acknowledging to her that she exists.  Heck you can’t even order a burger at the drive thru without first establishing and acknowledging contact with the person at the register.  As with everything in life, it’s GIVE annnnnnd receive.


Why do you and most believers constantly compare your god to humans, human acts, human tendencies, human traits if you truly believe it is a god?
Must your god have it's ego stroked?
Is your god incapable of knowing each individual and the sincerity of each individual?
Or is it that deep down you know that your god is no better than the humans that created it?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Why do you and most believers constantly compare your god to humans, human acts, human tendencies, human traits if you truly believe it is a god?
> Must your god have it's ego stroked?
> Is your god incapable of knowing each individual and the sincerity of each individual?
> Or is it that deep down you know that your god is no better than the humans that created it?



We don't compare God to humans. We compare humans to God. We are made in His image. You believe we think he is made in our image.

The entity of God known as the Son incarnate as human. Thus a part of God or God himself became human. That entity or part of God known as Son is still human today. He is a live, living human person. 
Why wouldn't he have human traits? He's human.


----------



## ky55 (Oct 18, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> We don't compare God to humans. We compare humans to God. We are made in His image. You believe we think he is made in our image.
> 
> The entity of God known as the Son incarnate as human. Thus a part of God or God himself became human. That entity or part of God known as Son is still human today. He is a live, living human person.
> Why wouldn't he have human traits? He's human.



Because he’s still dead.


----------



## Brother David (Oct 19, 2018)

Matthew 7:5&6


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Matthew 7:5&6


More scripture that many Christians don't follow...…..


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> We don't compare God to humans. We compare humans to God. We are made in His image. You believe we think he is made in our image.
> 
> The entity of God known as the Son incarnate as human. Thus a part of God or God himself became human. That entity or part of God known as Son is still human today. He is a live, living human person.
> Why wouldn't he have human traits? He's human.





> God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?


If God is not human we are not made in his image.
If God is human then he is not a god.

The contradictions of Christianity constantly put you guys between a rock and a hard place. Unless you are talking to other Christians.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 19, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> “Really wanted to feel the spirit” is not the same as “heartfelt sorrow for my sins and a lifelong commitment to live a different life no matter the cost.”  When I was 12-13 I really wanted to kiss Stephanie T’s lips just one time and run my fingers through her beautiful long red hair, but it that’s not the same as vowing to be her slave for the rest of my life.  Get it?
> 
> You didn’t get it because you never gave it.  You were, by your own admission, looking to GET a “feel” when Christ requires those looking to GIVE their life.  I was looking to get a “feel” of Stephanie T., not looking to give my life for it.  There’s a difference, and again, it’s not subtle.



Yea. I get it. I am not the type personality to volunteer to be a slave or condone slavery of any kind. 
Sorrow for my sins? Lifelong commitment to live a different life?
1) How do you know I didn't feel sorrow for my sins? How do you know I didn't beg forgiveness everyday and pray to be a better person?
2) Unlike some born again Christians. I was living a pretty good life from a 'sin' standpoint. Not much life to change. I had nothing and did nothing. Now, I wasn't a drug user or woman abuser, etc., that some may equate the need to change and find God. 

It is kinda scary when folks try to normalize hearing voices in their head from imaginary friends.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Why do you and most believers constantly compare your god to humans, human acts, human tendencies, human traits if you truly believe it is a god?
> Must your god have it's ego stroked?
> Is your god incapable of knowing each individual and the sincerity of each individual?
> Or is it that deep down you know that your god is no better than the humans that created it?





WaltL1 said:


> If God is not human we are not made in his image.
> If God is human then he is not a god.
> 
> The contradictions of Christianity constantly put you guys between a rock and a hard place. Unless you are talking to other Christians.



So much energy wasted in trying to not understand;
and
in engaging those that do.

Guilty as charged.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 19, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Then undoubtedly, based on the since overwhelming evidence, you didn’t.


You, as usual, have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Why do you and most believers constantly compare your god to humans, human acts, human tendencies, human traits if you truly believe it is a god?


 Because they created him and he returned the favor. 


> Must your god have it's ego stroked?


 Of course he does. He created an entire species in order to have folks worship him or else. 


> Is your god incapable of knowing each individual and the sincerity of each individual?


 His ineptness far outweighs his usefulness.


> Or is it that deep down you know that your god is no better than the humans that created it?


Bingo.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> So much energy wasted in trying to not understand;
> and
> in engaging those that do.
> 
> Guilty as charged.


Trying to not understand?
Here's what I understand -
It is claimed that we humans are made in the image of God.
The scripture I used says God is not human.

The only way to understand that is to ignore one of those.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Trying to not understand?
> Here's what I understand -
> It is claimed that we humans are made in the image of God.
> The scripture I used says God is not human.
> ...


The only way to insure not understanding that is to ignore the varied senses in which the term "image" can be used.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> We don't compare God to humans. We compare humans to God. We are made in His image. You believe we think he is made in our image.
> 
> The entity of God known as the Son incarnate as human. Thus a part of God or God himself became human. That entity or part of God known as Son is still human today. He is a live, living human person.
> Why wouldn't he have human traits? He's human.


I respectfully disagree Art.
I am sure that you(we on your side) belive that you are made in your gods image. What I find odd is how believers try to simplify something of the magnitude of a God or a God event or compare a drive through contact experience with a personal contact experience with a god. Nobody can dumb down what is touted as the most intricately complex being like a believer.
I mean honestly, Do I have to get you to pass him a note from me in study hall?? Must I REALLY make first contact if a God in fact knows what I want? SFD would have me believe that God is parked on a neighborhood corner in his Ice Cream Truck with 30 kids lined up with cash in hand at the window, but he refuses to open the window until someone knocks first???? Doesn't he jnow why those kids are there? Must they beg for him? C'mon man, is your god that petty and conceited?? Doesnt he KNOW who and why? Is there nothing of a more grand scale worthy of your god that a believer can come up with rather than compare him to humans with human traits?? But since the bible is full of smite and spite and a god that acts like humans, I can see why believers cannot come up with anything above human for their god based off of those biblical examples.

So you are telling me that a guy who was killed on a cross,  came back, wandered around for a bit, ascended into the clouds and roams heaven is still a living breathing human? Never turned into a spirit or spiritual form???


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> The only way to insure not understanding that is to ignore the varied senses in which the term "image" can be used.


Do me a favor and cut and paste which, who's, OT or NT, which denominations etc definition of "image" aligns with your particular interpretation.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/image/


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> “Really wanted to feel the spirit” is not the same as “heartfelt sorrow for my sins and a lifelong commitment to live a different life no matter the cost.”  When I was 12-13 I really wanted to kiss Stephanie T’s lips just one time and run my fingers through her beautiful long red hair, but it that’s not the same as vowing to be her slave for the rest of my life.  Get it?
> 
> You didn’t get it because you never gave it.  You were, by your own admission, looking to GET a “feel” when Christ requires those looking to GIVE their life.  I was looking to get a “feel” of Stephanie T., not looking to give my life for it.  There’s a difference, and again, it’s not subtle.





> “Really wanted to feel the spirit” is not the same as “heartfelt sorrow for my sins and a lifelong commitment


If that ^ were the case there would be no Sunday school for kids, catechism, Christian parents requiring their kids go to church...……...
You don't actually think kids are at church or catechism or Sunday school because they feel "heartfelt sorrow for their sins and want to make a lifelong commitment to God" do you?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 19, 2018)

It's not as though we have assigned human traits, actions,  and emotions to God.  It is Mother Earth and humans that have the traits, actions, and emotions of God.

God gets angry. Mother Earth gets angry. Humans get angry.
The Father and Son were before human's existence.  We are part of that image. God is jealous. God is love.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 19, 2018)

I would think for God to become human or a child of a human, would show that humans already had that part of God within themselves. 
That image of God was already there. The children of the Father and Son that existed before we were ever children(humans).


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 19, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Jesus most likely existed.
> It’s 100% certain that he’s still as dead as a doorknob like everybody else that has died.



You know, if a full third of the world's population were to disagree with me, I think I would have to find out why.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> If that ^ were the case there would be no Sunday school for kids, catechism, Christian parents requiring their kids go to church...……...
> You don't actually think kids are at church or catechism or Sunday school because they feel "heartfelt sorrow for their sins and want to make a lifelong commitment to God" do you?



No.  No I don't, IF they are there because they are being made to go.  But SOME do go because they have been saved and want to learn more......mostly the older ones.    Sunday School, Catechisms, etc don't save people.  They serve some function after salvation, if people chose to utilize them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Why do you and most believers constantly compare your god to humans, human acts, human tendencies, human traits if you truly believe it is a god?



Ohhhhhh I think you know the answer to that.   It's just that Genesis 1 doesn't fit your meme.


----------



## ky55 (Oct 19, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know, if a full third of the world's population were to disagree with me, I think I would have to find out why.



So using your numbers a full two thirds of the world’s population disagrees with you. 
Are you trying to find out why?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 19, 2018)

ky55 said:


> So using your numbers a full two thirds of the world’s population disagrees with you.
> Are you trying to find out why?



Wrong assumption.  Safe assumption would be 2/3 don't know him which is constantly being rectified.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> If that ^ were the case there would be no Sunday school for kids, catechism, Christian parents requiring their kids go to church...……...
> You don't actually think kids are at church or catechism or Sunday school because they feel "heartfelt sorrow for their sins and want to make a lifelong commitment to God" do you?


And didn't Joshua die for our sins? What should a Christian feel guilty about???
I mean the way I see people of all religions act I can see why they should feel bad, the Christians got it covered due to the  sacrifice of the man god boy who died? for our sins but never really died? and is a living spirit man in the flesh ? who resides at the right hand of his father?(who is the same guy but not really because even though a God was supposed to have made a seperate son who was sacrificed but not really and died but not really the Xtians still try to pass off a MONOtheistic religion...but anyway)..for eternity but not really because some in here claim he is alive and among us..
Geeze, don't feel guilty Xtians, you guys have figured out how to cover evey base in every ballpark.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's not as though we have assigned human traits, actions,  and emotions to God.  It is Mother Earth and humans that have the traits, actions, and emotions of God.
> 
> God gets angry. Mother Earth gets angry. Humans get angry.
> The Father and Son were before human's existence.  We are part of that image. God is jealous. God is love.


A god that gets angry and sad and jealous and spiteful even though he knows what is going to happen sounds like a human.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would think for God to become human or a child of a human, would show that humans already had that part of God within themselves.
> That image of God was already there. The children of the Father and Son that existed before we were ever children(humans).


Is it a Father and SON gods or is it One god or what are you trying to say here?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know, if a full third of the world's population were to disagree with me, I think I would have to find out why.


Well, its not quite 1/3 that you have on your side but since Christianity has a little over 2 billion members and there are over 7 billion people on Earth, and you are SO concerned about why a majority disagrees with you, What have you found out about WHY  5 Billion people disagree with you?
Or is this another SFD do as I say, not as I do moment?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ohhhhhh I think you know the answer to that.   It's just that Genesis 1 doesn't fit your meme.


Ohhhhhh, no, no I don't know the answer. If I did I would not ask.
Your major fault is that you have convinved yourself that we buy the biblical story but just refuse to acknowledge it. You, as usual, could not be more incorrect.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Wrong assumption.  Safe assumption would be 2/3 don't know him which is constantly being rectified.


Safe assumption......yeah thats it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Trying to not understand?
> Here's what I understand -
> It is claimed that we humans are made in the image of God.
> The scripture I used says God is not human.
> ...



Orrr the physical image is not what was being referred to in that passage.  It could be as simple as one who can think, will, and act or as deep as body, soul, spirit.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Is it a Father and SON gods or is it One god or what are you trying to say here?



If the Father and Son existed before humans, then that concept of 
sonship pre-exist humans. Therefore it can't be a human trait.
 Father and Son is a Godly trait. The Heavenly family existed before humans. We can be adopted into that family.

More to the point though the Father and Son's pre-existence show something many see as human traits when it's actually the other way around.

The traits of our humanity were already a part of the Father and his Son. The ability to see, feel, love, hate, anger, etc.
Even evilness predates human existence.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 19, 2018)

I personally don't see the image as physical but some Christians do. I see it as spiritual. The Son incarnate as a human, he wasn't already a human. But once he became a human he stayed as one. He didn't give up his humanity at the ascension.

The Son could see, feel, love, obey,  had a will of his own, etc. before he became a human.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> If the Father and Son existed before humans, then that concept of
> sonship pre-exist humans. Therefore it can't be a human trait.
> Father and Son is a Godly trait. The Heavenly family existed before humans. We can be adopted into that family.
> 
> ...


Well the reality is that when we go by assertions anything can be made to fit.
I like to have those assertions taken to the next level where they are backed up by facts.

So sure "IF" the queen had.........
"IF" makes anything possible, lets try to figure out what is.


----------



## ky55 (Oct 19, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Wrong assumption.  Safe assumption would be 2/3 don't know him which is constantly being rectified.



Yeah, how about me assuming that your logic would also apply to you?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Orrr the physical image is not what was being referred to in that passage.  It could be as simple as one who can think, will, and act or as deep as body, soul, spirit.


So do I get to choose whether its simple definition or the deep definition?

Heres whats interesting to me -
The dude nailed on the cross that you see in every church looks awfully human.
Made in his image.
Christianity portrays God to look just like a human.
Call me crazy but I see a connection there.
Just coincidence I reckon'


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> So do I get to choose whether its simple definition or the deep definition?
> 
> Heres whats interesting to me -
> The dude nailed on the cross that you see in every church looks awfully human.
> ...


He looks very, well, not jewish too.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> He looks very, well, not jewish too.


A bit off topic but as I was doing some reading I ran across this -


> Isaiah further describes the appearance of Christ as He would appear as He was being scourged prior to His crucifixion. “His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness” (Isaiah 52:14). These words describe the inhuman cruelty He suffered to the point that He no longer looked like a human being (Matthew 26:67; 27:30; John 19:3). His appearance was so awful that people looked at Him in astonishment.


Now think - Shroud of Turin.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> A bit off topic but as I was doing some reading I ran across this -
> 
> Now think - Shroud of Turin.


Yes. Too perfect of an image on the shroud.


----------



## Brother David (Oct 19, 2018)

I guess I have decided to ask for the help of those who have studied evolution extensively to help me with a conundrum . 

If man and his ancestors are 200,000 years old , why do we only find Civilization and advancement in technology over the last 7000 years ? Some Scienetist say climate change is responsible , others say it's not important . I believe it's a major hole in their theroy . The only other mamal to evole that fast is a rat that has become imunue to poison . The scienctific community really doesn't have a answer that I can find . If you trace the timeline of the Bible back you find that creation and explosion of modern Civilization are almost identical ! Scienctific creation puts the creation of man around the explosion of Civilization , but " real" scienetist say there wrong to . 

So for 193,000 years man and his ancestors were dumb and fragile , but when it warmed up they got smart . No wonder I can't think when I am cold , it's evolution , I thought was because I was shivering . 

I am sure there's a better explanation I just can't find one .

There is no doubt of the existence of other homonoids , but they are all extinct . Died of something . Perhaps of cold , perhaps at the hand of God. We know they only lived to around 30 , and no one knows what happened . 

Something significant had to have happen !


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I guess I have decided to ask for the help of those who have studied evolution extensively to help me with a conundrum .
> 
> If man and his ancestors are 200,000 years old , why do we only find Civilization and advancement in technology over the last 7000 years ? Some Scienetist say climate change is responsible , others say it's not important . I believe it's a major hole in their theroy . The only other mamal to evole that fast is a rat that has become imunue to poison . The scienctific community really doesn't have a answer that I can find . If you trace the timeline of the Bible back you find that creation and explosion of modern Civilization are almost identical ! Scienctific creation puts the creation of man around the explosion of Civilization , but " real" scienetist say there wrong to .
> 
> ...


Yeah, keep looking


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I guess I have decided to ask for the help of those who have studied evolution extensively to help me with a conundrum .
> 
> If man and his ancestors are 200,000 years old , why do we only find Civilization and advancement in technology over the last 7000 years ? Some Scienetist say climate change is responsible , others say it's not important . I believe it's a major hole in their theroy . The only other mamal to evole that fast is a rat that has become imunue to poison . The scienctific community really doesn't have a answer that I can find . If you trace the timeline of the Bible back you find that creation and explosion of modern Civilization are almost identical ! Scienctific creation puts the creation of man around the explosion of Civilization , but " real" scienetist say there wrong to .
> 
> ...





> why do we only find Civilization and advancement in technology over the last 7000 years ?





> Evidence of early humans living on the coast in South Africa, harvesting food from the sea, employing complex bladelet tools and using red pigments in symbolic behavior 164,000 years ago, far earlier than previously documented, is now being reported.


science.com


----------



## ky55 (Oct 19, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I am sure there's a better explanation I just can't find one .



Brutha D, you are on the verge of an epiphany. 
Quite possibly your first, if I was guessing.


----------



## Brother David (Oct 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, keep looking


What happened ? I am asking you guys , y'all have a bunch of answers I can't find !


----------



## Brother David (Oct 19, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Brutha D, you are on the verge of an epiphany.
> Quite possibly your first, if I was guessing.



Not even close !!!!!!!!!!!!! I am asking the experts for help .


----------



## Brother David (Oct 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> science.com



If I was  going to believe in something , I would have better answer than figure it out for yourself !


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 19, 2018)

Adam and Eve went from hunter/gatherers to agriculture rather quickly. It is like they were created  and then there was a civilization explosion. 
It's almost like sin ushered in the agricultural civilized world.

Interesting. 

I'm wondering, if earlier hunter/gatherers existed, what would they have left behind? Humans older than civilization. 

Define civilization by biblical standards or scientific standards.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 19, 2018)

Early man would have no tools to leave behind. Why no 100,000 year old mummified remains?
The Ice Age ended 11,500 years ago. I think it was a hot July about 3:34pm.(lol)

It started 2.6 million years earlier. That's a long time before civilization. Anyway humans lived during the ice age. They just didn't live where the ground was covered in ice. 

So, where are the mummies?


----------



## ky55 (Oct 19, 2018)

Brother David said:


> If I was  going to believe in something , I would have better answer than figure it out for yourself !



That is a very typical answer from somebody who has apparently been told all their life what to believe by people who have been seen as authority figures, and has never been pointed toward information and told to figure it out for themself.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2018)

Brother David said:


> If I was  going to believe in something , I would have better answer than figure it out for yourself !


The information that it took roughly 2 seconds to find, would(should) completely change the questions you have.
Have you noticed that we reference the Bible and other Christian sites?
I gave you the science website so you could do the same.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Early man would have no tools to leave behind. Why no 100,000 year old mummified remains?
> The Ice Age ended 11,500 years ago. I think it was a hot July about 3:34pm.(lol)
> 
> It started 2.6 million years earlier. That's a long time before civilization. Anyway humans lived during the ice age. They just didn't live where the ground was covered in ice.
> ...





> So, where are the mummies?


The practice of mummification started with the Egyptians and at the Smithsonian is where some of them are.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Early man would have no tools to leave behind. Why no 100,000 year old mummified remains?
> The Ice Age ended 11,500 years ago. I think it was a hot July about 3:34pm.(lol)
> 
> It started 2.6 million years earlier. That's a long time before civilization. Anyway humans lived during the ice age. They just didn't live where the ground was covered in ice.
> ...


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Early man would have no tools to leave behind. Why no 100,000 year old mummified remains?
> The Ice Age ended 11,500 years ago. I think it was a hot July about 3:34pm.(lol)
> 
> It started 2.6 million years earlier. That's a long time before civilization. Anyway humans lived during the ice age. They just didn't live where the ground was covered in ice.
> ...


http://press.nationalgeographic.com...n-in-the-new-world-indicates-shared-ancestry/


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I guess I have decided to ask for the help of those who have studied evolution extensively to help me with a conundrum .
> 
> If man and his ancestors are 200,000 years old , why do we only find Civilization and advancement in technology over the last 7000 years ? Some Scienetist say climate change is responsible , others say it's not important . I believe it's a major hole in their theroy . The only other mamal to evole that fast is a rat that has become imunue to poison . The scienctific community really doesn't have a answer that I can find . If you trace the timeline of the Bible back you find that creation and explosion of modern Civilization are almost identical ! Scienctific creation puts the creation of man around the explosion of Civilization , but " real" scienetist say there wrong to .
> 
> ...


Why didn't man have TVs until 91 year ago?
Why did it take 6000 years for the incredibly smart biblical people to not know about germs? Or build a car, or harness electricity, or make a ball point pen or a billion other things?
Why has technology advanced so quickly in the last 100 years than the last 100,000?
You need to study the human history to learn these things. Not read an article and be done with it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> The practice of mummification started with the Egyptians and at the Smithsonian is where some of them are.



I'm talking about naturally mummified remains in ice or saltpeter caves, etc. I'm not doubting that life existed before the Creation analogy used to define Israel.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I guess I have decided to ask for the help of those who have studied evolution extensively to help me with a conundrum .
> 
> If man and his ancestors are 200,000 years old , why do we only find Civilization and advancement in technology over the last 7000 years ? Some Scienetist say climate change is responsible , others say it's not important . I believe it's a major hole in their theroy . The only other mamal to evole that fast is a rat that has become imunue to poison . The scienctific community really doesn't have a answer that I can find . If you trace the timeline of the Bible back you find that creation and explosion of modern Civilization are almost identical ! Scienctific creation puts the creation of man around the explosion of Civilization , but " real" scienetist say there wrong to .
> 
> ...


http://historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistoriesResponsive.asp?ParagraphID=ayj


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2018)

https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/hunter-gatherers


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm talking about naturally mummified remains in ice or saltpeter caves, etc. I'm not doubting that life existed before the Creation analogy used to define Israel.


Im no expert but the drastic changes in the earths geography probably has a lot to do with it.
Land then/oceans now, vice versa, flat land now mountains, earthquakes, meteors, fires etc etc...…. all destroy evidence.
Ever find deer sheds just about totally eaten up by squirrels etc?
For example Bullets link. That girl wasn't living underwater in a cave 
Im betting we haven't found squat compared to what is sitting underneath feet of sand in the ocean.


----------



## Brother David (Oct 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> http://historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistoriesResponsive.asp?ParagraphID=ayj



Thanks for agreeing with me , that it had to be because the earth got warmer , or so they think . 

Just think ; 190,000 plus years of hunting like wolves and the planet warmed up and man got smart .

Now that's a amazing feat of evolution ! 

Wish we had just one other super evoled animal to compare to . If we had just one more scienetist could parallel the two and really prove their point . I guess another couple hundred thousand years isn't to long to wait !


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Thanks for agreeing with me , that it had to be because the earth got warmer , or so they think .
> 
> Just think ; 190,000 plus years of hunting like wolves and the planet warmed up and man got smart .
> 
> ...


Read about how climate change affected food sources which affected the types of vitamins and minerals that our ancestors ate which affected the ability for the brain to grow and develop etc.
And your post shows your disdain for the whole idea which is probably why you don't know much about it. The information is right at your finger tips but if you don't really want to find it, you wont.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Other than pretend for the sake of having you grace us with conversation, how can we know?
> Some of us are trying to learn and know about Jesus, but do it in ways that allow for logical commom sense approaches rather than just blindly going with it.


Not blindly going with it requires not only reading the Bible, but a study of it. Asking is fine but at some point you gotta hit the word if you’re trying to learn and know Jesus. Anyone blindly going with it is not grounded anyway.,


----------



## Brother David (Oct 20, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Read about how climate change affected food sources which affected the types of vitamins and minerals that our ancestors ate which affected the ability for the brain to grow and develop etc.
> And your post shows your disdain for the whole idea which is probably why you don't know much about it. The information is right at your finger tips but if you don't really want to find it, you wont.



Quite contrary , I have read their guesses ! I think I am going to stick with CREATION ! Makes way more sense than the planet warmed up .

Many who study this come to the same conclusion , knock and you'll find, ask and you'll receive ! 

Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul , and mind an love thy neighbor as thy self and you are on the way to a great CIVILIZATION !!!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Oct 20, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Thanks for agreeing with me , that it had to be because the earth got warmer , or so they think .
> 
> Just think ; 190,000 plus years of hunting like wolves and the planet warmed up and man got smart .
> 
> ...


There are thousands of super evolved animals to compare to. Your problem is that you are under the impression that Evolution has a goal and humans were the first to reach it. You could not be more wrong on both accounts.
You are arguing about things that is obvious you do not understand. Your replies prove that.

If you think that you are so super evolved try walking around a pitch black cave with obstacles all around and use your sonar to navigate without breaking your neck.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Quite contrary , I have read their guesses ! I think I am going to stick with CREATION ! Makes way more sense than the planet warmed up .
> 
> Many who study this come to the same conclusion , knock and you'll find, ask and you'll receive !
> 
> Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul , and mind an love thy neighbor as thy self and you are on the way to a great CIVILIZATION !!!!!!


So you didn't really have any interest in the answers you were crying about that we supposedly didn't give you and now you say you say you already knew the answers but have dismissed them.
Is that loving your neighbor or is that wasting your neighbors time?


----------



## Brother David (Oct 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> There are thousands of super evolved animals to compare to. Your problem is that you are under the impression that Evolution has a goal and humans were the first to reach it. You could not be more wrong on both accounts.
> You are arguing about things that is obvious you do not understand. Your replies prove that.
> 
> If you think that you are so super evolved try walking around a pitch black cave with obstacles all around and use your sonar to navigate without breaking your neck.


 
Please name them , scienetist only recognize 5 . A frog , lizard , owl , fish and a rat ! 
These accomplishments are minute compared to man's ! 

You guys like argue Christian's don't agree on this and that and your right we don't  . What we do agree on is CREATION , SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST , THE HOLY TRINITY , THE MAJOR POINTS OF OUR RELIGION . 

YOU CAN'T EVEN FIND AGREEMENT ON EVOLUTION IN THE SCIENCTIFIC COMMUNITY , ONE THINKS THIS , ONE THAT , IT GOT WARMER , OUR DIET ,ETC. 

COME ON MAN BE CONSISTENT HOLD YOURSELF TO THE SAME STANDARDS YOU HOLD OTHERS AND LET'S NOT BE SELF-CENTERED !!!


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Please name them , scienetist only recognize 5 . A frog , lizard , owl , fish and a rat !
> These accomplishments are minute compared to man's !
> 
> You guys like argue Christian's don't agree on this and that and your right we don't  . What we do agree on is CREATION , SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST , THE HOLY TRINITY , THE MAJOR POINTS OF OUR RELIGION .
> ...


Uh oh caps lock is back on. You are working yourself up into a tizzy again. 
Better go do some revivalin'


----------



## Brother David (Oct 20, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Uh oh caps lock is back on. You are working yourself up into a tizzy again.
> Better go do some revivalin'



Not a tizzy , just emphasizing !!!!! I STAY REVIVED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MY BLOOD PRESSURE IS PERFECT , THE ONLY PILL I TAKE IS THE HOLY SPIRIT , AND HE IS AWESOME !!!!!!!! HE WALKS WITH ME AND TALKS WITH ME !!!!!!!! I KNOW YOU DON'T HEAR HIM , BUT IF YOU WOULD JUST ,ABC, YOU COULD HEAR HIM TO!!!
A) ADMIT 
B) BELIEVE
C) CONFESS
I GOTTA STOP I AM GOING TO WAKE UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOUTING FOR GLORY , I HAVE BEEN REDEEMED !!! PRAISE THE LORD ALL OF YOU THAT HAVE BREATHE , PRAISE THE LORD FOR HIS SAVING GRACE ! EVEN THOUGH I AM FLAWED HE HAS PERFECTED ME THROUGH HIS BLOOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 20, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> So do I get to choose whether its simple definition or the deep definition?
> 
> Heres whats interesting to me -
> The dude nailed on the cross that you see in every church looks awfully human.
> ...



No not crazy at all.  The Bible is clear that God is a spirit, so when the OT was written, Genesis 1 to be specific, I think it’s pretty much unanimous that it can be assumed it was NOT referring to phydical “image”.  As to Christ pictures in church, you know the whole “incarnate” story.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 20, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Do me a favor and cut and paste which, who's, OT or NT, which denominations etc definition of "image" aligns with your particular interpretation.
> https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/image/


Why?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Not a tizzy , just emphasizing !!!!! I STAY REVIVED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MY BLOOD PRESSURE IS PERFECT , THE ONLY PILL I TAKE IS THE HOLY SPIRIT , AND HE IS AWESOME !!!!!!!! HE WALKS WITH ME AND TALKS WITH ME !!!!!!!! I KNOW YOU DON'T HEAR HIM , BUT IF YOU WOULD JUST ,ABC, YOU COULD HEAR HIM TO!!!
> A) ADMIT
> B) BELIEVE
> C) CONFESS
> I GOTTA STOP I AM GOING TO WAKE UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOUTING FOR GLORY , I HAVE BEEN REDEEMED !!! PRAISE THE LORD ALL OF YOU THAT HAVE BREATHE , PRAISE THE LORD FOR HIS SAVING GRACE ! EVEN THOUGH I AM FLAWED HE HAS PERFECTED ME THROUGH HIS BLOOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


A. I HAVE ADMITTED IT
B. I HAVE BELIEVED IT
C. BEEN TO CONFESSION MANY, MANY TIMES

NOW THE ONLY PILL I TAKE, ALONG WITH 12 OTHERS, IS THE PILL OF FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!!!!! AND IT IS AWESOME!!!!!! I KNOW YOU DONT FEEL IT BUT YOU STILL HAVE TIME IF YOU WANT TO!!!!!
PRAISE LOGIC!!! PRAISE SCIENCE!!!!!PRAISE FREEDOM FROM ANCIENT MYTHS!!!!!
I HAVE BEEN REDEEMED!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Why?


Because apparently it takes an entire page to define "image" with all the opposing meanings of it based on when, who, OT, NT, denominations...…..
Just wondering which one works for you.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No not crazy at all.  The Bible is clear that God is a spirit, so when the OT was written, Genesis 1 to be specific, I think it’s pretty much unanimous that it can be assumed it was NOT referring to phydical “image”.  As to Christ pictures in church, you know the whole “incarnate” story.


Here's what Im mulling around -
God is said to be omni everything.
Obviously we are not.
God is said to be all powerful and all knowing.
Obviously we are not.
God is said to be "perfect" in every way.
Obviously we are not.
Even if God created us with the ability to be "good" obviously ability and "is" are not the same thing.
About the only thing that there is solid evidence of us being created "in his image" is the physical appearance of God that is presented to us by Christianity.
And yes I understand that as the story goes, God sent Jesus/himself to us in human form. which would underscore that we don't physically look like him.
So we aren't "in his image" in any way.....


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 20, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Because apparently it takes an entire page to define "image" with all the opposing meanings of it based on when, who, OT, NT, denominations...…..
> Just wondering which one works for you.


It takes far more than a page.  From a glance at your link, it appears to be a reasonable effort to summerise the issue from one theological perspective (it necessarily reflects the bias of the author—not a bad thing, just a factor that must be given recognition); however, it can hardly be considered sufficient to provide one with an informed view of the subject.

I'm not saying that it is necessary to thuroughly study thousands of years of history on the subject to obtain a working understanding  of "in the image of God"; meaning an understanding sufficient to investigatively discuss the issue.  I am saying that the observation that "Christianity portrays God to look just like a human." is insufficient basis for any opinion or comment on the subject.  An understanding of what the author of your link has said would likely be sufficient, (which illustrates my point in #149)

Although I have looked at the question at hand, it has only been superficially; therefore, I would not be comfortable stating my opinion, as it would likely be considered a thesis for debate, and I would consider that a waste of energy.  Besides, in my "glance" at the link, I didn't see my favored opinion, but it could be there.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> It takes far more than a page.  From a glance at your link, it appears to be a reasonable effort to summerise the issue from one theological perspective (it necessarily reflects the bias of the author—not a bad thing, just a factor that must be given recognition); however, it can hardly be considered sufficient to provide one with an informed view of the subject.
> 
> I'm not saying that it is necessary to thuroughly study thousands of years of history on the subject to obtain a working understanding  of "in the image of God"; meaning an understanding sufficient to investigatively discuss the issue.  I am saying that the observation that "Christianity portrays God to look just like a human." is insufficient basis for any opinion or comment on the subject.  An understanding of what the author of your link has said would likely be sufficient, (which illustrates my point in #149)
> 
> Although I have looked at the question at hand, it has only been superficially; therefore, I would not be comfortable stating my opinion, as it would likely be considered a thesis for debate, and I would consider that a waste of energy.  Besides, in my "glance" at the link, I didn't see my favored opinion, but it could be there.


You are kind of confirming what I thought.
Although the Bible we read is written in English, using English words, which have definitions, you get the English definition of "image".
That doesn't work because English and "Biblese" aren't the same.
So I went to a Bible Study Tools DICTIONARY for the "Biblese" definition.
And what do you get?
If its the OT Image neans this.
If its the NT  Image means that.
If you are Protestant it means this.
If you are _______ it means that.
If Paul said it he meant this.
If _______ said it he meant that.
Its all just pick and choose based on what floats your boat.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 20, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I understand that as the story goes, God sent Jesus/himself to us in human form. which would underscore that we don't physically look like him.
> So we aren't "in his image" in any way.....


Ive never heard it taught that “image” consist of any physical characteristics since God is a spirit. 

An image of God would be things such as man having rule over all animals as God rules the earth, an order - Husband head of the house, loves his wife as God is head of, loves and cares for the church. 

Through creation God indicates there was a time to work, and a time of rest. We work and rest. 

Those are some examples of “image”.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 20, 2018)

Maybe soon, rather than some debunking others, science can all agree 100% on everything so we can have examples of how we should all agree in order to make things more credible.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Maybe soon, rather than some debunking others, science can all agree 100% on everything so we can have examples of how we should all agree in order to make things more credible.


Heres a BIG difference, and Ill use the science I posted for Bro David as an example -


> Evidence of early humans living on the coast in South Africa, harvesting food from the sea, employing complex bladelet tools and using red pigments in symbolic behavior 164,000 years ago, far earlier than previously documented, is now being reported


First word - Evidence. Anybody who understands science understands evidence is just that, evidence. Meaning that evidence has to be studied, tested, confirmed or rejected.
If its confirmed, that's still not the end of it. As technology and testing methods advance, its tested again and again and...….
Whens the last time you heard Christianity (the organization) say "now that we have advanced in knowledge and technology we are going to go back and test some of these claims like ladders to Heaven or talking donkeys or......


----------



## Israel (Oct 20, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Heres a BIG difference, and Ill use the science I posted for Bro David as an example -
> 
> First word - Evidence. Anybody who understands science understands evidence is just that, evidence. Meaning that evidence has to be studied, tested, confirmed or rejected.
> If its confirmed, that's still not the end of it. As technology and testing methods advance, its tested again and again and...….
> Whens the last time you heard Christianity (the organization) say "now that we have advanced in knowledge and technology we are going to go back and test some of these claims like ladders to Heaven or talking donkeys or......



I am thinking that a talking donkey was not much, (if any) less remarkable to "those folks" than these folks.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 20, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Heres a BIG difference, and Ill use the science I posted for Bro David as an example -
> 
> First word - Evidence. Anybody who understands science understands evidence is just that, evidence. Meaning that evidence has to be studied, tested, confirmed or rejected.
> If its confirmed, that's still not the end of it. As technology and testing methods advance, its tested again and again and...….
> Whens the last time you heard Christianity (the organization) say "now that we have advanced in knowledge and technology we are going to go back and test some of these claims like ladders to Heaven or talking donkeys or......


Most are like me and realizes a talking donkey has what to do with salvation? But it does indicate that even a stubborn ole mule can recognize God?

Point is, even science with all of their “hard evidence” is not in agreement. My question is why do Christians have to be in 100% agreement but the bar is lowered for those that “know” the answers to everything?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 20, 2018)

Israel said:


> I am thinking that a talking donkey was not much, (if any) less remarkable to "those folks" than these folks.View attachment 946457


Absolutely would be had it happened


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Absolutely would be had it happened



Interesting that humans can’t or it sounds unrealistic to communicate with animals. We already established that during an era of time, people describe things the way they see them. Wonder how much communication and speaking is really different in 6000 years ago and today, and how do we know what Koko really communicated verses the donkey???

http://forum.gon.com/threads/rip-koko.921286/


----------



## bullethead (Oct 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Most are like me and realizes a talking donkey has what to do with salvation? But it does indicate that even a stubborn ole mule can recognize God?
> 
> Point is, even science with all of their “hard evidence” is not in agreement. My question is why do Christians have to be in 100% agreement but the bar is lowered for those that “know” the answers to everything?


Science says it is the best guess based on all of the available evidence. 

Christians say it IS absolutely how it is based off of no evidence.
Now, I and others would be ok with that and would lower the bar if you(Christians) say this is what an ancient culture said and a lot of it just cannot be proven but this is our best understanding of it based off of the best we can gather. But when you interject a God that is perfect, Omniscient and Omnipotent then you leave ZERO room for error. It is THE base that you set for yourselves. You tell us that you KNOW something. You set the groundwork.
Why would we hold you to less based off of your own Criteria?

Truth be told, we expect everything that you are unable to provide.  We are not at all surprised at why you cannot produce based off of the standards you set. We hope the way we go about it opens your eyes about the standards that you claim yourselves. 
Are you asking for us to give Christians a break because Christians are unable to meet the standards and claims they set themselves?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Interesting that humans can’t or it sounds unrealistic to communicate with animals. We already established that during an era of time, people describe things the way they see them. Wonder how much communication and speaking is really different in 6000 years ago and today, and how do we know what Koko really communicated verses the donkey???
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/threads/rip-koko.921286/


Your dog knows what more english words mean than you know what barks mean, and you have both spent the same amount of time together.

Is it possible that some guy who owned a donkey could understand that the donkey was hungry when it whinnied and acted a certain way, sure.
Did the donkey speak to him in the mans native tongue? No spotlite,  No it didn't.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Most are like me and realizes a talking donkey has what to do with salvation? But it does indicate that even a stubborn ole mule can recognize God?
> 
> Point is, even science with all of their “hard evidence” is not in agreement. My question is why do Christians have to be in 100% agreement but the bar is lowered for those that “know” the answers to everything?


I don't know a single AA that expects 100% agreement from Christians. Theres `2 billion of ya. 100% agreement would be a miracle in itself.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 20, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't know a single AA that expects 100% agreement from Christians. Theres `2 billion of ya. 100% agreement would be a miracle in itself.


Kind of what we see in “evidence” that A/A”s hang there hats on with scientific studies that are not in 100% agreement. I guess it’s a catch 22. Be a miracle if they could agree.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Did the donkey speak to him in the mans native tongue? No spotlite,  No it didn't.


So why would we need to re-evaluate a “talking donkey” story to see if it’s realistic? Such as suggested in post 212.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Science says it is the best guess based on all of the available evidence.
> 
> Christians say it IS absolutely how it is based off of no evidence.
> Now, I and others would be ok with that and would lower the bar if you(Christians) say this is what an ancient culture said and a lot of it just cannot be proven but this is our best understanding of it based off of the best we can gather. But when you interject a God that is perfect, Omniscient and Omnipotent then you leave ZERO room for error. It is THE base that you set for yourselves. You tell us that you KNOW something. You set the groundwork.
> ...


But we’ve said there’s no evidence other than our own personal experience. We know that science can explain a lot of things and we are ok with that, but there’s stil one they can’t and never will. And when they think they are or attempting to simulate it, it just reveals how far off base they are.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> So why would we need to re-evaluate a “talking donkey” story to see if it’s realistic? Such as suggested in post 212.


Actually you are right.
Science does it to update/correct/move forward. In other words science is willing to prove themselves wrong.
Science's mission is to move forward.
Christianity's mission...… not so much.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 21, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Please name them , scienetist only recognize 5 . A frog , lizard , owl , fish and a rat !
> These accomplishments are minute compared to man's !
> 
> You guys like argue Christian's don't agree on this and that and your right we don't  . What we do agree on is CREATION , SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST , THE HOLY TRINITY , THE MAJOR POINTS OF OUR RELIGION .
> ...





> What we do agree on is CREATION , SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST , THE HOLY TRINITY , THE MAJOR POINTS OF OUR RELIGION .


It appears you are as ignorant of your own religion as you are of science.
Please don't ask me what I mean because you have already proven you ask questions whose answers you don't have any desire to hear.
That information is right at your finger tips too.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> It appears you are as ignorant of your own religion as you are of science.
> Please don't ask me what I mean because you have already proven you ask questions whose answers you don't have any desire to hear.
> That information is right at your finger tips too.


He is here to stir the pot.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> You are kind of confirming what I thought.
> Although the Bible we read is written in English, using English words, which have definitions, you get the English definition of "image".
> That doesn't work because English and "Biblese" aren't the same.
> So I went to a Bible Study Tools DICTIONARY for the "Biblese" definition.
> ...


IOW, you are only interested in the subject to the extent that it can be used to denigrate and deride while preserving ignorance of the subject matter.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 21, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> IOW, you are only interested in the subject to the extent that it can be used to denigrate and deride while preserving ignorance of the subject matter.


Completely false.
If I wanted to preserve ignorance I wouldn't have gone to a Christian Dictionary.
I wouldn't have taken the time to read that entire page even though right off the bat it let me know I was going to get a "multiple choice" answer whos choices were completely different from one or the other.
I wouldn't have asked you which of those choices you preferred which if you had done I was going to go back and read again.

All of those are IN FACT steps a person takes to NOT preserve ignorance.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Completely false.
> If I wanted to preserve ignorance I wouldn't have gone to a Christian Dictionary.
> I wouldn't have taken the time to read that entire page even though right off the bat it let me know I was going to get a "multiple choice" answer whos choices were completely different from one or the other.
> I wouldn't have asked you which of those choices you preferred which if you had done I was going to go back and read again.
> ...


The difference is whether the resultant material is considered "multiple choice" or "relevant evidence".


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 21, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> The difference is whether the resultant material is considered "multiple choice" or "relevant evidence".


First -
are those or are those not steps a person takes to "preserve ignorance"?
Second -
I dont know if you and I are just on completely different wave lengths or if its just a matter of you see black and I see white but...…...
If OT it means this
If NT it means that
If Protestant it means this
If not it means that
If Paul said it.....
If it was someone else....

Lots of choices there. Multiple ones.
Sure they are all relevant. After you make your choice.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> First -
> are those or are those not steps a person takes to "preserve ignorance"?
> Second -
> I dont know if you and I are just on completely different wave lengths or if its just a matter of you see black and I see white but...…...
> ...


No … they are relevant evidence because they inform your choice, through a process which Aristotle studied and reported on (we call it logic).


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Kind of what we see in “evidence” that A/A”s hang there hats on with scientific studies that are not in 100% agreement. I guess it’s a catch 22. Be a miracle if they could agree.


Im glad science doesn't 100% agree.
That leads to "prove it"' (sound familiar?  )
When one or the other gets proven we advance (although "advance" can be debated)


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 21, 2018)

I found this one time when researching evolution. 


https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Im glad science doesn't 100% agree.
> That leads to "prove it"' (sound familiar?  )
> When one or the other gets proven we advance (although "advance" can be debated)


Yep ? 

That’s probably my biggest gripe with science, the “prove it” mentality. You are correct, when they can agree 100%, they should be able to prove it. Until they can, they should stick with “we believe” or “we assume” rather than “we know”.

I know they are promoted as assuming on best available evidence, but they take a solid stand on things as if they have solid proof.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 21, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> No … they are relevant evidence because they inform your choice, through a process which Aristotle studied and reported on (we call it logic).


If Im using the OT, the choice for the NT is not relevant.
Etc.
Are you suggesting you go in not having made any choices in advance like your denomination, OT or NT etc?
If that's the case you are just picking a definition you like and going with it.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> If Im using the OT, the choice for the NT is not relevant.
> Etc.
> Are you suggesting you go in not having made any choices in advance like your denomination, OT or NT etc?
> If that's the case you are just picking a definition you like and going with it.


Did you accidently reverse the prospective in you statement?
"Are you suggesting you go in not having made any choices"
"If that's the case ….."

If not, I don't understand your statement.
**********************************************
Wait, I think I got it.  More in a minute.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 21, 2018)

If you are asking if I approach each question as though I had no previous experience, the answer would be of coarse not.  If one did that he would be rehashing each question from the beginning each time new evidence were addressed.  In most cases, but not all, previous conclusions become a premise in a new argument.  (in the "but not all" the new evidence must be inserted as a premise into the old argument).  Then you have the case where new evidence may effect the truth or falsity of a previous premise.  Wait, if I'm right about your question, forget that and just go back to "of coarse not".


----------



## Muldoon (Oct 21, 2018)

Lots of folks need to incorporate SPELL-CHECK into their postings!!


----------



## Brother David (Oct 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> It appears you are as ignorant of your own religion as you are of science.
> Please don't ask me what I mean because you have already proven you ask questions whose answers you don't have any desire to hear.
> That information is right at your finger tips too.



My apology they are 6
mentalfloss.com/article/64300/6-animals-are-rapidly-evolving

Web page doesn't want to pull up ! You make the correction 64300/6 it does

In case your wondering I now my facts I don't go off hear say !

And just so you will know , modern man and all the great apes came from a common ancestor from 7 million years and we only became "intelligent" to attract the opposite sex . So much for the same sex theory . If you would like I can find that article for you also if you like . SO WHAT WILL SCIENCE CHANGE NEXT !

I'LL STICK WITH BIBLE IT DOESN'T CHANGE EVERY MONTH !


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 21, 2018)

Brother David said:


> My apology they are 6
> mentalfloss.com/article/64300/6-animals-are-rapidly-evolving
> 
> Web page doesn't want to pull up ! You make the correction 64300/6 it does
> ...


Bullet is right.
You are just here to stir the pot.
You cant possibly be this misinformed.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Bullet is right.
> You are just here to stir the pot.
> You cant possibly be this misinformed.


"Mental-Floss" is his go to science source.
You can't make this stuff up


----------



## Brother David (Oct 21, 2018)

In


WaltL1 said:


> Bullet is right.
> You are just here to stir the pot.
> You cant possibly be this misinformed.



Instead of accusations , try exploring . I have researched evolution throughly and find it extremely flawed . Scienetist can't agree on the research at hand and continue to change their hypothesis regularly . Even in one of the guotes in which I was questioned by one of A/A crowd stated " science today isn't the same I studied in school "  ! Instead of getting mad at me , research ! Bullethead is quite mistaken , instead of stirring , I am trying to enlighten as many as possible . When you don't agree with people don't get angry , it destroys the narrative !


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 21, 2018)

Brother David said:


> In
> 
> 
> Instead of accusations , try exploring . I have researched evolution throughly and find it extremely flawed . Scienetist can't agree on the research at hand and continue to change their hypothesis regularly . Even in one of the guotes in which I was questioned by one of A/A crowd stated " science today isn't the same I studied in school "  ! Instead of getting mad at me , research ! Bullethead is quite mistaken , instead of stirring , I am trying to enlighten as many as possible . When you don't agree with people don't get angry , it destroys the narrative !


Ever laugh so hard that it makes your stomach hurt?
My stomach hurts.


----------



## Brother David (Oct 21, 2018)

I think I finally have it figured out !

No matter what anyone says or offers opposite , they are wrong ! 

When you bring up evidence contrary to yours , the website is a farce ! 

If we stop bringing up info , we have been intimidated and quit ! 

If we give doubt to this attack , let's start another ! 

When I didn't post I was mad or scared ! 

So I guess we can agree on one thing , I am always wrong and wasting my time exchanging with men who already have figured it all out ! 

Isn't that the new American way . When we disagree do whatever necessary to silence the other point of view ! GOD HELP US !


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I think I finally have it figured out !
> 
> No matter what anyone says or offers opposite , they are wrong !
> 
> ...


Dave you are not even close to providing anything. You just cannot realize it, you have nobody backing you up that is on your side and if these are the types of things that you come up with in "research", it is not worth our even trying to hold an intelligent conversation with you.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I found this one time when researching evolution.
> 
> 
> https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/


I hope those 500 scientists (which is a drop in the bucket by the way) are working 24/7 to correct/amend/dispute/prove completely wrong the TOE.
That's how science advances.


----------



## Brother David (Oct 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Dave you are not even close to providing anything. You just cannot realize it, you have nobody backing you up that is on your side and if these are the types of things that you come up with in "research", it is not worth our even trying to hold an intelligent conversation with you.



Sorry I am not as smart as you !


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 21, 2018)

Brother David said:


> I think I finally have it figured out !
> 
> No matter what anyone says or offers opposite , they are wrong !
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Sorry I am not as smart as you !


That's your assessment.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I found this one time when researching evolution.
> 
> 
> https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/


You found that "interesting" while "researching" evolution....
Oh BROTHER!, david,..

From the ABOUT link on the website you linked:
Evolution News & Science Today (EN) provides original reporting and analysis about evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, intelligent design and other science-related issues, including breaking news about scientific research. It also covers the impact of science on culture and conflicts over free speech and academic freedom in science. Finally, it fact-checks and critiques media coverage of scientific issues.

The articles published at Evolution Newsare copyright by Discovery Institute and/or the respective authors and shouldn’t be republished without permission. For permission to reprint, contact editor@evolutionnews.org.

Info about the Discovery Institute:
The Discovery Institute has conducted a series of related public relations campaigns which seek to promote intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism."[1] The Discovery Institute promotes the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement and is represented by Creative Response Concepts, a public relations firm.[2]

Prominent Institute campaigns have been to 'Teach the Controversy' and to allow 'Critical Analysis of Evolution'. Other campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that the development of evolutionary theory was historically linked to ideologies such as Nazism and eugenics,[3][4][5] claims based on misrepresentation which have been ridiculed by topic experts.[6][7]These three claims are all publicised in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the Anti-Defamation League said the film's attempt to blame science for the Nazi Holocaust was outrageous.[8] Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.[9]

The theory of evolution is accepted by overwhelming scientific consensus.[10][11] Intelligent design has been rejected, both by the vast majority of scientists and by court findings, such as Kitzmiller v. Dover, as being a religious view and not science.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You found that "interesting" while "researching" evolution....
> Oh BROTHER!, david,...


Love sarcasm lol.

WHAT I find interesting there bullet is Christians do not agree on everything and there’s multiple choices / sources to choose from......so.....their system is “flawed”.

Just noting that on the WWW you could find just about anything you want to substantiate your “choice”.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Love sarcasm lol.
> 
> WHAT I find interesting there bullet is Christians do not agree on everything and there’s multiple choices / sources to choose from......so.....their system is “flawed”.



yet when scientist have 4 or 5 different theories on how something happened, they are 'correcting and searching for truth'.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 21, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> yet when scientist have 4 or 5 different theories on how something happened, they are 'correcting and searching for truth'.


Absolutely. When they set the parameters, set forth by a non believer......and try to claim their system isn’t biased......well you get the hint.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I found this one time when researching evolution.
> 
> 
> https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/


BTW bullet......I only said I “found” it lol ?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Love sarcasm lol.
> 
> WHAT I find interesting there bullet is Christians do not agree on everything and there’s multiple choices / sources to choose from......so.....their system is “flawed”.
> 
> Just noting that on the WWW you could find just about anything you want to substantiate your “choice”.


Flawed is your choice of words.

Brother David's,  and many others "research" is woefully incomplete.  30 seconds on the net isnt research, it is a search.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> yet when scientist have 4 or 5 different theories on how something happened, they are 'correcting and searching for truth'.


For Example.....


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Absolutely. When they set the parameters, set forth by a non believer......and try to claim their system isn’t biased......well you get the hint.


I want you to quote specifically where a non believer in here said their system isnt biased.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> BTW bullet......I only said I “found” it lol ?


And why did you POST that one? You must have "found" more than one. Or did only one come up the one time you researched evolution?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Flawed is your choice of words.
> 
> Brother David's,  and many others "research" is woefully incomplete.  30 seconds on the net isnt research, it is a search.


That’s what we keep telling non believers about the “research” they  link as their arguments against Christianity.

I don’t know how in depth their research really is. People actually research more than given credit, but sometimes it’s not worth the hassle of the same ole argument.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> And why did you POST that one? You must have "found" more than one. Or did only one come up the one time you researched evolution?





Spotlite said:


> Just noting that on the WWW you could find just about anything you want to substantiate your “choice”.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I want you to quote specifically where a non believer in here said their system isnt biased.


So you’ve never said you’re not biased? You only go with the facts? 

But I wasn’t speaking of anyone on here, I’m speaking of Darwin’s theory.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> So you’ve never said you’re not biased? You only go with the facts?
> 
> But I wasn’t speaking of anyone on here, I’m speaking of Darwin’s theory.



Your reply to pappy
" Absolutely. When they set the parameters, set forth by a non believer......and try to claim their system isn’t biased......well you get the hint."
So who is the non believer you are talking about?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2018)

Exactly


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Your reply to pappy
> " Absolutely. When they set the parameters, set forth by a non believer......and try to claim their system isn’t biased......well you get the hint."
> So who is the non believer you are talking about?


Already told you......


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> yet when scientist have 4 or 5 different theories on how something happened, they are 'correcting and searching for truth'.


And those theories remain theories until those theories are proven by a preponderance of the evidence or disproven by a lack there of.
Is the Bible presented as a theory that Christianity is working to prove or disprove?


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> And those theories remain theories until those theories are proven by a preponderance of the evidence or disproven by a lack there of.
> Is the Bible presented as a theory that Christianity is working to prove or disprove?


apples vs. oranges:
instance vs. genus


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> apples vs. oranges:
> instance vs. genus


Its interesting that you replied to me when its the Christians here that are trying to compare them when Im trying to point out the difference.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Its interesting that you replied to me when its the Christians here that are trying to compare them when Im trying to point out the difference.


I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstand my point.

scientific theory (an individual instance of attempting to understand the physical)
vs
theological doctrine (an individual instance of attempting to understand the metaphysical)

would be instance vs instance (apples vs apples).


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstand my point.
> 
> scientific theory (an individual instance of attempting to understand the physical)
> vs
> ...


Shifting gears a bit but.....
Does Christianity present God as an ATTEMPT to understand the metaphysical?
Or does Christianity present God as a matter of fact?


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Shifting gears a bit but.....


I would disagree with you in your expression "a bit"; it looks to me like a major shift.
I'm sure you don't realize what is required for me to answer this, but I will take one, and only one, shot at it.


> Does Christianity present God as an ATTEMPT to understand the metaphysical?


A noun cannot be presented as a verb.  God can not be presented as an attempt (I don't think, maybe it can in some instances, but not this one.)  Theology, and large portions of Philosophy, are an attempt to understand the metaphysical.

I will not and cannot speak for Christianity; I'm not even sure what anyone means when they use the word and have never associated myself with it; although, because of positions I take on some issues, it would not be totally unfair for someone to make that association, it would just be wrong.  From that position, it seems to me that many who associate themselves with Christianity would say "yes" to the question:


> Or does Christianity present God as a matter of fact?



However, the real question, in my opinion, is not a question of fact, but an axiomatic one: "Is there a reality beyond the visible/physical/material; a supernatural/metaphysical/transcendent reality?"  Being axiomatic in nature, I believe there are honest thoughtful people on both sides of that question, although I can't say that I have found that many (but then, I don't get around much)—I do find it a most useful assumption to make.  And I believe that those who view those on the other side of the issue as dishonest or deficient in some intellectual, emotional, or moral way have other issues, that I don't understand, to deal with before they are prepared to deal constructively with the axiomatic question, or those issues which are grounded in the axiomatic question.

That's the Reader's Digest version.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> I would disagree with you in your expression "a bit"; it looks to me like a major shift.
> I'm sure you don't realize what is required for me to answer this, but I will take one, and only one, shot at it.
> 
> A noun cannot be presented as a verb.  God can not be presented as an attempt (I don't think, maybe it can in some instances, but not this one.)  Theology, and large portions of Philosophy, are an attempt to understand the metaphysical.
> ...





> I'm not even sure what anyone means when they use the word


When I use it I mean -
Chris·ti·an·i·ty
[ˌkrisCHēˈanədē]
NOUN
1. the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.


> And I believe that those who view those on the other side of the issue as dishonest or deficient in some intellectual, emotional, or moral way


Well that leaves me out.
Although I do question some of the responses we get concerning the Flood etc like "well they deserved it".
However I don't view that person's morals as deficient, I view them as "suspended" for the sake of their belief in God.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> When I use it I mean -
> Chris·ti·an·i·ty
> [ˌkrisCHēˈanədē]
> NOUN
> ...


As perhaps you should, but I find that statement far short of what is necessary to understand the intended meaning.


> However I don't view that person's morals as deficient, I view them as "suspended" for the sake of their belief in God.


From which we can conclude that "suspended" morals neither stem from, nor lead to, nor are deficient morals, but are complete and intact?


----------



## Israel (Oct 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> When I use it I mean -
> Chris·ti·an·i·ty
> [ˌkrisCHēˈanədē]
> NOUN
> ...






> However I don't view that person's morals as deficient, I view them as "suspended" for the sake of their belief in God.



And I am inclined to see myself there.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> As perhaps you should, but I find that statement far short of what is necessary to understand the intended meaning.
> 
> From which we can conclude that "suspended" morals neither stem from, nor lead to, nor are deficient morals, but are complete and intact?


You can complicate it as much as you feel necessary.

As for suspension - Im going to complicate it. And Im probably going to do a poor job expressing my thoughts -
If we were talking about anyone/anything other than God, that same Christian would find it "wrong". So that particular moral exists within them. However their belief in God overrides that or puts it into a state of "suspension". Change the subject from God to Mussolini and we would immediately be back to "wrong".
Does that make their morals incomplete or not intact?
Im not sure.
I think the psychological "hold" religion can have on a person can literally override a complete and intact moral compass without changing the definition of "complete and intact".
If that makes any sense


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> You can complicate it as much as you feel necessary.
> 
> As for suspension - Im going to complicate it. And Im probably going to do a poor job expressing my thoughts -
> If we were talking about anyone/anything other than God, that same Christian would find it "wrong". So that particular moral exists within them. However their belief in God overrides that or puts it into a state of "suspension". Change the subject from God to Mussolini and we would immediately be back to "wrong".
> ...


Yes, I think it makes sense.  I guess the question, now that you have covered two of the three defects that I named, is do you want to call the people you disagree with stupid outright, or do you want to slid into that one sideways as well.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Yes, I think it makes sense.  I guess the question, now that you have covered two of the three defects that I named, is do you want to call the people you disagree with stupid outright, or do you want to slid into that one sideways as well.


Do I want to call the people that disagree with me stupid?
Im going to assume your usage of stupid = low level of intelligence.
Which would translate to " do I think the people that disagree with me do so because they are just too "stupid" to see it my way.
Hmmmmm….
I haven't had a discussion with anybody in here who I thought was stupid so I cant really answer that question.
HOWEVER,
I do think this is stupid so I'll just let it slide -


> or do you want to slid into that one sideways as well.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2018)

Israel said:


> And I am inclined to see myself there.


Then I can assume you took it the way it was intended and not as some veiled insult.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Do I want to call the people that disagree with me stupid?
> Im going to assume your usage of stupid = low level of intelligence.
> Which would translate to " do I think the people that disagree with me do so because they are just too "stupid" to see it my way.
> Hmmmmm….
> ...


Okey Dokey.  Have a good one.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Okey Dokey.  Have a good one.


And the same to ya......


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Yes, I think it makes sense.  I guess the question, now that you have covered two of the three defects that I named, is do you want to call the people you disagree with stupid outright, or do you want to slid into that one sideways as well.


I know you took your ball and went home but one last comment -
Your usage of the word "defect" above either confirms that we are on two entirely different wave lengths and our discussions probably do more harm than good or.....
You personally view those people as having a "defect".


----------



## Israel (Oct 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Then I can assume you took it the way it was intended and not as some veiled insult.



I think it more means that "morals"...(along with a myriad of other things a man reserves to himself the right to judge, both of and in himself...and others) I find suspended. And progressively so...to an end.


----------

