# A challenge of sorts for those seeking the veracity of God...



## jmharris23 (Jan 24, 2012)

If you are one of those who would say that you would like to know if God is real, I want to issue you a challenge. 

Will you: 

Pray - Say to God, " If you are real and Jesus is the answer, then reveal yourself to me in a way I would recognize." 

Read- Over the next 21 days, read a chapter of the Gospel of John each day with an open mind.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 24, 2012)

Do it for me. If he is real and _really cares _he would reveal himself without the need for all that.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Do it for me.


Nobody else can do it for you.



> If he is real and _really cares _he would reveal himself without the need for all that.


You telling God what He would do or needs to do is not how it works. If God deems there is a need for "all that", then there is the need, whether we understand it or even like or not.


----------



## allenww (Jan 24, 2012)

*Nobody else.....exactly*

The transformation that inevitably occurs when you accept the message and work to live within it is proof enough for many.

But then again, there was "Doubting Thomas".... if only til he shook hands. 

    wa


----------



## allenww (Jan 24, 2012)

TheBishop:  "Do it for me. If he is real and _really cares _he would reveal himself without the need for all that"

He did, via Jesus.  Even then a few believed, some were wannabees, some didn't.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Do it for me. If he is real and _really cares _he would reveal himself without the need for all that.



He has cared enough to and reveal Himself and he did that through the person and work of Jesus Christ. You can read all about it in the gospel of John.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

What are the excuses that will be used when it doesn't work?


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What are the excuses that will be used when it doesn't work?



Personally, I don't have any excuses, nor any promises that it will work. I also have no agenda here other than to provide a jumping in point for those who might be earnestly seeking the veracity of God. 

This was not intended for those who have made up their mind that no God exists and refuse to think otherwise, although I welcome those who feel this way to read it as well. I guess should have put that in the OP.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

I agree.   Great idea.   He will answer sincerity.    William Craig includes that in his debates as well.   Jesus can immediately be experienced, if you are sincere in asking Him.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> If you are one of those who would say that you would like to know if God is real, I want to issue you a challenge.
> 
> Will you:
> 
> ...



No thanks.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> No thanks.



Mind made up!   I like people who have convictions!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Personally, I don't have any excuses, nor any promises that it will work. I also have no agenda here other than to provide a jumping in point for those who might be earnestly seeking the veracity of God.
> 
> This was not intended for those who have made up their mind that no God exists and refuse to think otherwise, although I welcome those who feel this way to read it as well. I guess should have put that in the OP.



Understood.

Did you ever consider that many of "us" have done many similar things for years? We start out as young children brought up in religious families. We went through life believing what we were told and taught for many years. For whatever the reason something got us to question these beliefs and as horrible and against our upbringing as it seemed, the quest for more knowledge was greater. For me it was at this time that I reached out the farthest to God. I wanted help and guidance. I wanted to be set straight. I talked to Priests, Ministers, Pastors, Reverends, the Organist and anyone that would care to hold a discussion.......22years later I still wait.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 24, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> No thanks.



What, you scared Jesus might grab a hold of you?


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Understood.
> 
> Did you ever consider that many of "us" have done many similar things for years? We start out as young children brought up in religious families. We went through life believing what we were told and taught for many years. For whatever the reason something got us to question these beliefs and as horrible and against our upbringing as it seemed, the quest for more knowledge was greater. For me it was at this time that I reached out the farthest to God. I wanted help and guidance. I wanted to be set straight. I talked to Priests, Ministers, Pastors, Reverends, the Organist and anyone that would care to hold a discussion.......22years later I still wait.




Sure I see that and also understand. My point would be that rather than looking to others we ought first look to God. He has answered the questions, but the answers are found in His son and in His word. 

If you cannot accept those answers then we have hit the wall. On that note, I am sorry. 


I do appreciate your honest and non-sarcastic response though.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Sure I see that and also understand. My point would be that rather than looking to others we ought first look to God. He has answered the questions, but the answers are found in His son and in His word.
> 
> If you cannot accept those answers then we have hit the wall. On that note, I am sorry.
> 
> ...



God was first on my list. Openly prayed out loud nightly. I figured maybe some of his representatives could help later on.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> God was first on my list. Openly prayed out loud nightly. I figured maybe some of his representatives could help later on.



"Now I lay me down to sleep
I pray, the Lord, my soul to keep"?????    lol


His representatives answer your questions, and teach you things, regularly on here!


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> God was first on my list. Openly prayed out loud nightly. I figured maybe some of his representatives could help later on.



One more question and I'll leave you be. Can you honestly tell me that you have read and studied Scripture and came to the conclusion that there must not be a God?


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 24, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Nobody else can do it for you.
> 
> 
> You telling God what He would do or needs to do is not how it works. If God deems there is a need for "all that", then there is the need, whether we understand it or even like or not.



I'm not telling god anything.  It is a easy to follow logical conclusion based off the facts given.  

1. I am told god loves me. 
2. I am told god is good and really cares. 
3. God can accomplish anything. 


If the above is true, then there is no need to depend on the fallible nature of humans. He could and would simply will our belief in him. The simple fact that god does not, one must draw certain conclusions.

1. God does not in fact love me, or not enought to care.
2.  He is not all good.
3. He is not omnipotent.
4.  The god described simply does not exsist.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> What, you scared Jesus might grab a hold of you?



Big negative.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I'm not telling god anything.  It is a easy to follow logical conclusion based off the facts given.
> 
> 1. I am told god loves me.
> 2. I am told god is good and really cares.
> ...



I read about that somewhere once....where God had only so many choices in creating us.   He could give us the option to choose Him, or create us with no choice but to serve Him. 

I know which I'd choose....and I'm not God!

Just like with my family and friends...and prefer they choose to care than to force it.   It's a no-brainer.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> One more question and I'll leave you be. Can you honestly tell me that you have read and studied Scripture and came to the conclusion that there must not be a God?



I have read the Bible numerous times. I still reference it to this day. There was a time where I was involved in a Bible discussion group in Church.

I do not think that the God portrayed in the Bible IS the one and only.
I think that version is but ONE of man's versions of the way man thinks God to be. I do not believe for a minute that Scripture is inspired by a God or anything but the work of many many many anonymous men.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 24, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> "Now I lay me down to sleep
> I pray, the Lord, my soul to keep"?????    lol
> 
> 
> His representatives answer your questions, and teach you things, regularly on here!



I have read just about every post in all the spiritual forums.  I have endless conversations with countless individuals.  And all that was accomplished was to reaffirm my convinctions that I am on the right path,  that the bible is no word of any god, and those who claim to know the truth could not be more delusional.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> "Now I lay me down to sleep
> I pray, the Lord, my soul to keep"?????    lol
> 
> 
> His representatives answer your questions, and teach you things, regularly on here!



Two way street.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 24, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I read about that somewhere once....where God had only so many choices in creating us.   He could give us the option to choose Him, or create us with no choice but to serve Him.
> 
> I know which I'd choose....and I'm not God!
> 
> Just like with my family and friends...and prefer they choose to care than to force it.   It's a no-brainer.



An all powerful god could easily reveal himself to all, leaving little doubt, still giving me will to accept him. He is afterall all powerful.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

Something so mighty could EASILY do what is needed en mass or on an individual basis to reveal himself in an understandable way.


----------



## Four (Jan 24, 2012)

Isn't this not for the veracity of God, but the veracity of christian doctrine? It's missing a step.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Something so mighty could EASILY do what is needed en mass or on an individual basis to reveal himself in an understandable way.



Ha beat ya to it!


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 24, 2012)

Four said:


> Isn't this not for the veracity of God, but the veracity of christian doctrine? It's missing a step.



Its always really about that weather the preacher realizes it or not.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Ha beat ya to it!



Like minds.......


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Two way street.



lol    the Flew article was about all I can recall.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I have read the Bible numerous times. I still reference it to this day. There was a time where I was involved in a Bible discussion group in Church.
> 
> I do not think that the God portrayed in the Bible IS the one and only.
> I think that version is but ONE of man's versions of the way man thinks God to be. I do not believe for a minute that Scripture is inspired by a God or anything but the work of many many many anonymous men.




I gotcha.....thanks for answering.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Like minds.......



Its such a simple, logical postulation isn't it?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

You know, spelling really does say a lot about the folks who frequent this forum.    Definitely gives an impression.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 24, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> You know, spelling really does say a lot about the folks who frequent this forum.    Definitely gives an impression.



No I'm not as arrogant as to think I'm superior becuase someone else makes a few typographical errors. I know I'm not perfect and from time to time make those errors myself.  I think the message the poster is trying to get across certainly carries more weight, then the way it is typed out. I do however, believe it says alot about the character willing to forego the message and berate the messenger for improper grammar.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No I'm not as arrogant as to think I'm superior becuase someone else makes a few typographical errors. I know I'm not perfect and from time to time make those errors myself.  I think the message the poster is trying to get across certainly carries more weight, then the way it is typed out. I do however, believe it says alot about the character willing to forego the message and berate the messenger for improper grammar.



You're right, Bishop.  I shouldn't have gone there.   

I'm sorry, guys.    I tend to use "texting" language and don't half pay attention to what I'm typing most times.   

Again, my apologies, guys.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

Christ revealed Himself to many while He was on earth, with miracles and wonders and some still did not believe...so there's only so much can be proven to the naysayers no matter what.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jan 25, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Christ revealed Himself to many while He was on earth, with miracles and wonders and some still did not believe...so there's only so much can be proven to the naysayers no matter what.




On the the other side of that coin, there are there are those believers who blindly follow the bible and believe everything written inside based on "faith" with no physical evidence.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> On the the other side of that coin, there are there are those believers who blindly follow the bible and believe everything written inside based on "faith" with no physical evidence.



Well yeah, I can dig that. But, I do have physical evidence. I can't prove that to you, just like not many could prove the earth was round, or that there was something that kept us on earth(gravity) something that we could not see....but then again some people like edison, franklin, jonas salk, isaac newton, columbus saw things that no one else could see, either. So you might be blind, but I'm in good company of those who could see something that those like you could not see....that's called faith and perhaps even common sense.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jan 25, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well yeah, I can dig that. But, I do have physical evidence. I can't prove that to you, just like not many could prove the earth was round, or that there was something that kept us on earth(gravity) something that we could not see....but then again some people like edison, franklin, jonas salk, isaac newton, columbus saw things that no one else could see, either. So you might be blind, but I'm in good company of those who could see something that those like you could not see....that's called faith and perhaps even common sense.



No, not blind, just using common sense. There is no right answer to this, I'm just pointing out that if someone answers "faith" to every question, there is no discussion possible. If I say 2+2=5 and then simply refuse to discuss the idea that I may be incorrect, because of "faith", then there is no point talking to me about the subject. I can believe the answer is 5 as sincerely as I want, but it doesn't make it correct.

I don't believe, but I'm willing to say sure, it's possible, however improbable. My original point was that the believers who flat out refuse to entertain the idea that there may not be a deity are the same as the non-believers who refuse the idea that there may be such a thing. Both are closed minded in their own way.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> No, not blind, just using common sense. There is no right answer to this, I'm just pointing out that if someone answers "faith" to every question, there is no discussion possible. If I say 2+2=5 and then simply refuse to discuss the idea that I may be incorrect, because of "faith", then there is no point talking to me about the subject. I can believe the answer is 5 as sincerely as I want, but it doesn't make it correct.
> 
> I don't believe, but I'm willing to say sure, it's possible, however improbable. My original point was that the believers who flat out refuse to entertain the idea that there may not be a deity are the same as the non-believers who refuse the idea that there may be such a thing. Both are closed minded in their own way.



Well I can see that, too. But we know that 2+2=4 no matter what. And that's where I am.
I used to doubt or hide or both, but it was too late I had already been saved at 12 and God said nothing can snatch me out of the palm of His hand....I didn't know that then, but I do now.
I tried to hide from God so I could do what I wanted to do in darkness.  But after about 23 years, He snatched me back (nothing can snatch you out of the palm of My hand He said, and nothing could). I had no choice  but to go back....He snatched me up out/over the pit of hades, because I was His, because I had chose long ago to be His. No matter where I hid, He knew where His lamb was and He left the 90 and 9 and came and got me. Not by my choice at the age of 46 but at my choice at 12. He proved Himself to me....it was a miracle, I was about as lost as anyone could be but He still knew where His lost lamb was and snatched me back into the palm of His hand......I cannot deny that.


----------



## Four (Jan 25, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well yeah, I can dig that. But, I do have physical evidence. I can't prove that to you, just like not many could prove the earth was round, or that there was something that kept us on earth(gravity) something that we could not see....but then again some people like edison, franklin, jonas salk, isaac newton, columbus saw things that no one else could see, either. So you might be blind, but I'm in good company of those who could see something that those like you could not see....that's called faith and perhaps even common sense.



Almost anybody can prove the earth is round, you can find the curvature of the earth by using Pythagoras theorem and taking two measurements about a mile apart from each other. Gravity is even easier to demonstrate, since we're constantly feeling it.

It's called being testable and verifiable. To compare your experiences in which you believe a deity appears to you personally to someone like Edison and Newton, people who used the scientific method there whole lives to discover and invent things, testing and creating hypothesis and disproving them is unfathomable, frankly its the opposite process. The key part of science is to NOT have faith, second guess everything, test and retest.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 25, 2012)

Four said:


> Almost anybody can prove the earth is round, you can find the curvature of the earth by using Pythagoras theorem and taking two measurements about a mile apart from each other. Gravity is even easier to demonstrate, since we're constantly feeling it.
> 
> It's called being testable and verifiable. To compare your experiences in which you believe a deity appears to you personally to someone like Edison and Newton, people who used the scientific method there whole lives to discover and invent things, testing and creating hypothesis and disproving them is unfathomable, frankly its the opposite process. The key part of science is to NOT have faith,* second guess everything, test and retest*.


Even the earth being round and gravity?


----------



## Four (Jan 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Even the earth being round and gravity?



Scientists would jump all over  a chance to disprove an established theory. Many parts of how we understand gravity are being called into question all the time.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

Four said:


> Almost anybody can prove the earth is round, you can find the curvature of the earth by using Pythagoras theorem and taking two measurements about a mile apart from each other. Gravity is even easier to demonstrate, since we're constantly feeling it.
> 
> It's called being testable and verifiable. To compare your experiences in which you believe a deity appears to you personally to someone like Edison and Newton, people who used the scientific method there whole lives to discover and invent things, testing and creating hypothesis and disproving them is unfathomable, frankly its the opposite process. The key part of science is to NOT have faith, second guess everything, test and retest.



Well I agree, it just amazes me that it took 10 billion years to prove all that. When 5000 yrs ago the bible called the earth a sphere, and that was correct. When did someone you know actually decide the earth was round and not flat...columbus? We know that now, how did someone this long ago know it...?

Isaiah 40:22
King James Version (KJV)


 22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Not the flatness of the earth....sheesh what does it take? Can you explain to me why men thought the earth was flat for 40000000 and fifty billion years?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

Four said:


> Scientists would jump all over  a chance to disprove an established theory. Many parts of how we understand gravity are being called into question all the time.



Which scientist? We know there is gravity, but it wasn't invented, or developed, it's always been there. Someone discovered it, no scientist created gravity, that just happens to hold us and everything else on this earth....no one has that power but something bigger and more powerful than we are.  No scientist has been able to duplicate it, or create it.....they just discovered and defined it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

I love Sting anybody else?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcY12CkEz70


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

One more with Vince Gill

http://www.roughstock.com/video/music-video-vince-gill-sting-if-i-ever-lose-my-faith-in-you/


----------



## Asath (Jan 25, 2012)

“Can you honestly tell me that you have read and studied Scripture and came to the conclusion that there must not be a God?”

Yup.

Honestly.  I not only read your Scripture – I went further and read nearly EVERYONE’S.  Once it became clear that something was wrong here, I even started at the beginning, and spent many years studying the origins of the God myths, from tribal cultures, and their various Gods, through to the organization of formal belief systems, the rituals and beliefs of same, and the odd similarities between them all.  My study is ongoing, if only because all of you various ‘believers’ continue to kill each other and involve the rest of us in your ‘wars’ that you claim are ideological when that could not be further from the truth.  

The ‘evangelical’ and/or ‘missionary’ elements of each religion are blamed for the expansionist and radical fronts, but those fronts are not only tacitly but actively supported by your own voluntary contributions.  You cannot claim innocence, while contributing the monetary support these fringe elements rely upon.  Nor can you divorce yourselves from the acts that are authored in the name of your own ‘faith,’ regardless of which faith you hold.  If you count yourself among the ‘faithful,’ no matter which warring faith you are supporting, your own hands will never be clean, and you hold out no right to claim membership and also innocence.  The two positions are completely contradictory, and internally incompatible.         

The problems are rife, as you would imagine, and are punctuated occasionally by such entertaining nuggets as this – “When 5000 yrs ago the bible called the earth a sphere,  . . . “   among other things.  Ignorance seems to be the universal defense, but in the age of Google, and when such ignorance is paraded on-line by folks who clearly have such access to information and truth it is an indefensible position.    

Some folks feel that taking a single word from an ancient writing out of context, translated poorly a few hundred times, and even taken out of context and misunderstood in their own limited context acts decisively as the ‘proof’ they need to take a position.  And, entertainingly enough – they actually TAKE such a position, and try mightily to defend it.  Upon such things the entire ‘Enlightenment’ was founded, and endures to this day.

This sort of thing forces one to return the question – Has anyone actually read and studied ALL of the ‘Scriptures’ espoused by those you consider to be the unwashed heathens who are beneath your Enlightened dignity, and that they were also raised to believe, the same as you were raised to believe only your own?   Can you choose what you ‘believe’?  Or was it, genuinely, an accident of birth inside one system of ‘belief’ rather than another?

I tend to think that, for most, there has never been such a set of educated reflections.  One simply ‘believes,’ because that is all they were ever taught.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jan 26, 2012)

mtnwoman said:
			
		

> Can you explain to me why men thought the earth was flat for 40000000 and fifty billion years?



Not everyone thought the Earth was flat, it was the church who declared anyone who dared use rational thought and physics heretics, keeping the human race in the dark ages for needless generations. 

Galileo was imprisoned by the church for pointing out that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The earth was explored by men who "had faith"  that the church was wrong, and they were able to successfully navigate on the open seas because they were correct.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jan 26, 2012)

What I have learned is that religious people are the most intolerant and closed minded of all, as long as you believe as they do, then you're OK with them, believe something else, then you're an infidel or an uneducated object to be pitied. Bah...


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I read about that somewhere once....where God had only so many choices in creating us.   He could give us the option to choose Him, or create us with no choice but to serve Him.
> 
> I know which I'd choose....and I'm not God!
> 
> Just like with my family and friends...and prefer they choose to care than to force it.   It's a no-brainer.



A heavily coerced choice is not a real choice. I could give you the choice to give me your money, but with a gun to your head its not a real choice. The Edited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove Profanity punishment is even more severe than a gun to the head.


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well I agree, it just amazes me that it took 10 billion years to prove all that. When 5000 yrs ago the bible called the earth a sphere, and that was correct. When did someone you know actually decide the earth was round and not flat...columbus? We know that now, how did someone this long ago know it...?
> 
> Isaiah 40:22
> King James Version (KJV)
> ...



First off, i don't know why you keep throwing around these crazy big numbers. The homo-sapien species has been around for not much longer than 250k years, depending on who you ask.

Also, lots of people in the ancient world knew the world was round, most sailors had put it together. Pythagoras himself was around from ~ 500BC

The sphereical earth theory had been around since about 6th century BC, but was confirmed by the 3rd century BC. It was known that the earth was round by the time the bible was written and far before the KJV bible was translated 



mtnwoman said:


> Which scientist? We know there is gravity, but it wasn't invented, or developed, it's always been there. Someone discovered it, no scientist created gravity, that just happens to hold us and everything else on this earth....no one has that power but something bigger and more powerful than we are.  No scientist has been able to duplicate it, or create it.....they just discovered and defined it.




Any scientist worth a Edited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove Profanity would, if they could. New knowledge / discovery is the point. 

Gravity is a word that details knowledge of what we know about a property of matter. Just like mass.  We didn't discover gravity, but we learned about it and named it and used that knowledge to explain things. We discovered things about how it works. 

You act like gravity is something in of itself, gravity is an effect of matter. Matter has gravity, just like they have mass. Saying scientists cannot create it doesn't make much sense.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Can you explain to me why men thought the earth was flat for 40000000 and fifty billion years?



Because until very recently "men" did not exist and only more recently did their brains develop enough to figure it out and understand it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> A heavily coerced choice is not a real choice. I could give you the choice to give me your money, but with a gun to your head its not a real choice. The Edited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove Profanity punishment is even more severe than a gun to the head.


God doesn't have a gun to your head nor does he "threaten" a person with going to he11. If a person choose's to live seperately from God then He gives that person exactly what they want. Crazy how much He loves us.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Because until very recently "men" did not exist and only more recently did their brains develop enough to figure it out and understand it.



.... and the Christian faith gets poked fun at in here all the time.

I'll turn the tables on you Bullet, you can't prove a single thing in your post.


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> God doesn't have a gun to your head nor does he "threaten" a person with going to he11. If a person choose's to live seperately from God then He gives that person exactly what they want. Crazy how much He loves us.



So, the choice is love / follow god and go to heaven, or not and go to Edited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove Profanity, this isn't  a threat? 

So if i give birth to a child, and tell them if they love me i'll let them live and if they don't i'll lock them in my basement and pay someone to beat them daily, that's love?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> So, the choice is love / follow god and go to heaven, or not and go to Edited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove Profanity, this isn't  a threat?


No. What else would you like God to do? You don't believe in Him and want nothing to do with Him, He gives you just that, don't be upset with Him because being out of His presence for eternity would suck. 



> So if i give birth to a child, and tell them if they love me i'll let them live


I don't think God murders people for not believing in Him.



> and if they don't i'll lock them in my basement and pay someone to beat them daily, that's love?


No, that wouldn't be love.

We've had these types of conversations in here before and many people have tried to equate God and humanity as a whole and themselves having a child, it's not quite the same.


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No. What else would you like God to do? You don't believe in Him and want nothing to do with Him, He gives you just that, don't be upset with Him because being out of His presence for eternity would suck.



He could just leave me alone, not send me somewhere for eternal torment.



stringmusic said:


> I don't think God murders people for not believing in Him.



Really? What happened to all that genocide in the OT? Also, doesn't the bible explicitly say to kill atheists?



stringmusic said:


> We've had these types of conversations in here before and many people have tried to equate God and humanity as a whole and themselves having a child, it's not quite the same.



Perhaps not, that's the closest analogy, especially since god is often referred to as 'the father' If he is a father, he's a poor one. If not a father what? A Dictator?


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> Really? What happened to all that genocide in the OT? Also, doesn't the bible explicitly say to kill atheists?




I guess I missed the passage that explicitly told me to go kill all the atheists.....can you dig that one up for me please?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I guess I missed the passage that explicitly told me to go kill all the atheists.....can you dig that one up for me please?



I'm sure it's an OT scripture....definitely not NT.    Probably alluding to where God told the Israelites to wipe out one group or another...


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

Deut 17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him

John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Leviticus 26:33 And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> Deut 17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
> 
> John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him
> 
> ...



I was right....only OT scriptures.    The NT references do not mention anything about 'Killing atheists' or people that don't believe.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'm sure it's an OT scripture....definitely not NT.    Probably alluding to where God told the Israelites to wipe out one group or another...



You are probably correct here, and if that is the case then don't even bother to type it out. 

While I am very cool with the fact that there are those who for one reason or another have no faith in God. It does irk me a little that so many of those seem to be experts on the bible. 

You cannot have a very firm grasp on the bible without a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. You can only read it with limited understanding thereby mistakenly understanding and applying a large amount of what you read. 

Simply stated: The WHOLE book is about Jesus, and if you don't believe in Jesus, you don't understand the book.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> He could just leave me alone, not send me somewhere for eternal torment.


You're either in the presence of God when you die or you're not, it's your choice. If you want Him to leave you alone, then thats exactly what you will get from Him, you should probably thank Him.


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

God said:
			
		

> John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him



To me the least thing the 'wrath of god' entails is death



			
				God said:
			
		

> John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.



This just seems like it's using a metaphor for death. 



			
				God said:
			
		

> Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.



To me this says if any one of your friends / family puts themselves before jesus/god, then you should be set against them. . . with a sword involved that's not to big of a leap is it? Unless sword is a metaphor for polite debate?


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You're either in the presence of God when you die or you're not, it's your choice. If you want Him to leave you alone, then thats exactly what you will get from Him, you should probably thank Him.



Isn't that a false dichotomy? Considering god can 'do anything' ?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> Isn't that a false dichotomy? Considering god can 'do anything' ?



No, it's not a false dichotomy, it's the rules in which God created mankind and this earth, in so far as I can understand it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> To me the least thing the 'wrath of god' entails is death
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Originally Posted by God"
I'll give it to ya four, that was pretty funny.


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No, it's not a false dichotomy, it's the rules in which God created mankind and this earth, in so far as I can understand it.



So the implication is that god cannot break his own rules? It seems he already did several times.



stringmusic said:


> "Originally Posted by God"
> I'll give it to ya four, that was pretty funny.



Thanks i thought it was clever too


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> He could just leave me alone, not send me somewhere for eternal torment.



LOL     I like that!   I have to admit....I've often wondered that myself!   Why would He choose to condemn to the hot place rather than just let us be forever gone...


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> LOL     I like that!   I have to admit....I've often wondered that myself!   Why would He choose to condemn to the hot place rather than just let us be forever gone...



On a side note JW's believe exactly that. They don't see evidence of the "hot place" in scripture, so they think that unbelievers / heathens just stop existing, and the 'saved' are reincarnated back on the perfect earth.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 26, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> What I have learned is that religious people are the most intolerant and closed minded of all, as long as you believe as they do, then you're OK with them, believe something else, then you're an infidel or an uneducated object to be pitied. Bah...



x2


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> What I have learned is that religious people are the most intolerant and closed minded of all, as long as you believe as they do, then you're OK with them, believe something else, then you're an infidel or an uneducated object to be pitied. Bah...



x3      Not a fan of religion either!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> .... and the Christian faith gets poked fun at in here all the time.
> 
> I'll turn the tables on you Bullet, you can't prove a single thing in your post.



I'll let you do some searching about how eating meat/proteins helped us out.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html

http://www.nasw.org/eating-meat-drove-evolution-our-big-powerful-brain


----------



## gtparts (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> A heavily coerced choice is not a real choice. I could give you the choice to give me your money, but with a gun to your head its not a real choice. The Edited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove Profanity punishment is even more severe than a gun to the head.



How about gentle coercion? At what point does positive influence become coercive?

Giving in, at the point of physical harm, diminishes the wallet and the personal esteem of the victim. What God offers is far more valuable than anything we are asked to give up. 

What would you call it when someone encourages you to accept the greatest gift of all, not wanting you to suffer the lack thereof? "Heavy coercion", according to your way of thinking.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> x3      Not a fan of religion either!



Yep! I'd rather have the relationship for which I was created than religion.


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

gtparts said:


> How about gentle coercion? At what point does positive influence become coercive?



Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. It's not a matter of gentle vs. strong coercion.



gtparts said:


> Giving in, at the point of physical harm, diminishes the wallet and the personal esteem of the victim. What God offers is far more valuable than anything we are asked to give up.
> 
> What would you call it when someone encourages you to accept the greatest gift of all, not wanting you to suffer the lack thereof? "Heavy coercion", according to your way of thinking.



Again, its not heavy vs. gentle coersion, its force/violence vs. voluntarism. It's like someone drives by and offers to give you a ride, but mentions that if you don't accept they'll lock you in there basement forever and torture you.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> http://www.nasw.org/eating-meat-drove-evolution-our-big-powerful-brain



I love these story-telling guessing game articles about evolution.   lol    talking about brain sizes, early meat eating, etc.   

Gorillas have larger brains than we do.....but are strictly vegetarian....and eat their own feces.   lol

who pays these scientists to try and force facts into a theory?


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I love these story-telling guessing game articles about evolution.   lol    talking about brain sizes, early meat eating, etc.
> 
> Gorillas have larger brains than we do.....but are strictly vegetarian....and eat their own feces.   lol
> 
> who pays these scientists to try and force facts into a theory?



I guess chances are you don't really care.. but i feel compelled to mention its the ratio between size of brain and intestinal size. Eating meat affords an organism to not have as long/large of an intestinal track, since a long intestine/colon is used to digest plant matter. Since having a large brain has a high metabolic cost, The introduction of a higher fat diet led to smaller intestines (since it wasn't needed as much) as well as larger brains.

So tell that to the next vegitarian that says eating meat makes you dumb, or that we've evolved to eat veggies like our ape-like ancestors


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> I guess chances are you don't really care.. but i feel compelled to mention its the ratio between size of brain and intestinal size. Eating meat affords an organism to not have as long/large of an intestinal track, since a long intestine/colon is used to digest plant matter. Since having a large brain has a high metabolic cost, The introduction of a higher fat diet led to smaller intestines (since it wasn't needed as much) as well as larger brains.
> 
> So tell that to the next vegitarian that says eating meat makes you dumb, or that we've evolved to eat veggies like our ape-like ancestors



I'm vegan, so I know more than my share about Veggie eaters.    lol    (I know, I know....what's a Vegan doing on a hunting/fishing site? lol)

There are a lot of reasons were are no designed to eat meat.     and don't bring up the 'canine tooth' argument because Gorillas have canines and eat weeds.   lol


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'm vegan, so I know more than my share about Veggie eaters.    lol    (I know, I know....what's a Vegan doing on a hunting/fishing site? lol)
> 
> There are a lot of reasons were are no designed to eat meat.     and don't bring up the 'canine tooth' argument because Gorillas have canines and eat weeds.   lol



Your right we were not designed to eat meat. We evolved to eat meat. Discovering fire allowed us to eat softer meat and made it more enjoyable to eat so we eat more of it which in turn allowed our brains to function differently.

http://www.gmilburn.ca/2009/04/03/human-evolution-and-frameshift-mutations/


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'm vegan, so I know more than my share about Veggie eaters.    lol    (I know, I know....what's a Vegan doing on a hunting/fishing site? lol)



Things will be much clearer for you if you have a cheeseburger!
Just bustin your potatoes bandy!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Your right we were not designed to eat meat. We evolved to eat meat. Discovering fire allowed us to eat softer meat and made it more enjoyable to eat so we eat more of it which in turn allowed our brains to function differently.
> 
> http://www.gmilburn.ca/2009/04/03/human-evolution-and-frameshift-mutations/



Good thing y'all meat eaters cook your meat....because if you didn't you'd be sick in no time!   

Actually, i do 'celebrate' with meat on occasion.   My meals are not defined by the meat on the plate anymore....meat augments the veggies.    I did have some great duck breasts the other day....my son had a new recipe he wanted me to try.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

Oh, and enjoy that heart disease later in life, too!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Oh, and enjoy that heart disease later in life, too!



Like with everything else.....moderation. I know you know  we have a gene that developed because of our meat eating that processes fat and cholesterol.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

I agree, Bullet....moderation.    I do miss a good ole BK double whopper with cheese!!!   i lived on them for most of my life!    it was the special sauce!!!   lol

As to the "gene that developed"....you are sounding like your scientist friends now with your speculation!!    Snap out of it, Bullet!   Wake up!!!!     They is NO evidence that a gene just 'came about'!!!    We've shown on here how the odds against even ONE gene coming about are impossibly astronomical; not to mention the over 300 gene minimum gene set for life to exist!!!    lol


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2012)

Scientists speculate there is no life on Venus and they speculate there is a gene that developed to handle our cholesterol. I guess it comes down to which speculations we want to go with.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 26, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Yep! I'd rather have the relationship for which I was created than religion.



would you know anythinga bout that relationship without your religion? Probably not. I think this whole relationship talk is to try to lead away from the corruption that religion brings to mind... when in fact, it's all the same thing... corruption included.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Oh, and enjoy that heart disease later in life, too!



What does it matter? You've got it eternally. This is only somewhat a joke...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 26, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Not everyone thought the Earth was flat, it was the church who declared anyone who dared use rational thought and physics heretics, keeping the human race in the dark ages for needless generations.
> 
> Galileo was imprisoned by the church for pointing out that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The earth was explored by men who "had faith"  that the church was wrong, and they were able to successfully navigate on the open seas because they were correct.



Right... the church tried to limit people's thinking when it would seem they knew what was up.. Are those who still let themselves be controlled by the church, god, relationship, whatever, still in the dark ages themselves?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I agree, Bullet....moderation.    I do miss a good ole BK double whopper with cheese!!!   i lived on them for most of my life!    it was the special sauce!!!   lol
> 
> As to the "gene that developed"....you are sounding like your scientist friends now with your speculation!!    Snap out of it, Bullet!   Wake up!!!!     They is NO evidence that a gene just 'came about'!!!    We've shown on here how the odds against even ONE gene coming about are impossibly astronomical; not to mention the over 300 gene minimum gene set for life to exist!!!    lol



Frameshift Mutation
http://www.gmilburn.ca/2009/04/03/human-evolution-and-frameshift-mutations/


----------



## Etter2 (Jan 26, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> If you are one of those who would say that you would like to know if God is real, I want to issue you a challenge.
> 
> Will you:
> 
> ...



Why can't religious people just mind their own business?  Believe what you believe and leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> As to the "gene that developed"....you are sounding like your scientist friends now with your speculation!!    Snap out of it, Bullet!   Wake up!!!!     They is NO evidence that a gene just 'came about'!!!    We've shown on here how the odds against even ONE gene coming about are impossibly astronomical; not to mention the over 300 gene minimum gene set for life to exist!!!    lol



Now I am learning from you, a few months back I was informed that 400 genes was minimal for life, now today we throttled it back to 300.

Just now I learned that the minimal gene set CONCEPT is set at 250 and is that number because the jury is still out on what defines "life" or "living" and the number can drop dramatically depending on the definition.

http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/2/comment/2002


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 26, 2012)

Etter2 said:


> Why can't religious people just mind their own business?  Believe what you believe and leave the rest of us alone.



The short answer is....we just can't. The long answer is found in the bible.

But I suspect you already knew this


----------



## gtparts (Jan 27, 2012)

Four said:


> Deut 17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
> 
> John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him
> 
> ...



Makes a good case for being right with God. I don't feel threatened in the least. 
Why do you find it so threatening??


----------



## gtparts (Jan 27, 2012)

Four said:


> Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. It's not a matter of gentle vs. strong coercion.



You were the one who used the term "Heavily coerced". Just saying.




Four said:


> Again, its not heavy vs. gentle coersion, its force/violence vs. voluntarism. It's like someone drives by and offers to give you a ride, but mentions that if you don't accept they'll lock you in there basement forever and torture you.



I guess perspective has a lot to do with it. Being warned of the certainty and severity of judgment seems, at least to me, to be a kind and loving act..... something like, "Don't touch that! It's hot! It will burn you!"

To not warn you, and let you be burned through your ignorance, would be cruel. That you are recalcitrant, pretty much settles the issue of whose decision resulted in the burn.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Now I am learning from you, a few months back I was informed that 400 genes was minimal for life, now today we throttled it back to 300.
> 
> Just now I learned that the minimal gene set CONCEPT is set at 250 and is that number because the jury is still out on what defines "life" or "living" and the number can drop dramatically depending on the definition.
> 
> http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/2/comment/2002



Again, you are misinformed, Bullet!   First of all, I NEVER EVER said that the minimum was 400, but that it was 250+, taken from a study in 1994.   Then, you provided an article that showed that they had tweaked it down to 206.  Then I found that these same scientists, after gaining a more in depth knowledge of inter-cell workings, did another study in 2005.   (years after your above-mentioned 2002 article)    Their new number for this 'concept'?     

382!!!    The GAP grows!!!!!   The simplest cell we can 'conceive', or have evidence for that is self-replicating, has that kind of minimum requirement!!!   Sure hard to ignore, huh?      

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/2/425.abstract 

Notice that it's a late 2005 article from the National Academy of Sciences.   Not a 'Pro' site.   lol


----------



## Four (Jan 27, 2012)

gtparts said:


> You were the one who used the term "Heavily coerced". Just saying.



I was just trying to show the distinction between a gun and eternal torture and burning.



gtparts said:


> I guess perspective has a lot to do with it. Being warned of the certainty and severity of judgment seems, at least to me, to be a kind and loving act..... something like, "Don't touch that! It's hot! It will burn you!"
> 
> To not warn you, and let you be burned through your ignorance, would be cruel. That you are recalcitrant, pretty much settles the issue of whose decision resulted in the burn.



It's not like god is saying "hey, watch out the stove is hot" It's like he turns the stove on 100% heat, then warns you he's going to slam your face onto it if you don't love him. It's like the judeo-Christians have Stockholm syndrome!

"No no, he threatens to burn / torture me forever because he loves me, and i deserve it"



gtparts said:


> Makes a good case for being right with God. I don't feel threatened in the least.
> Why do you find it so threatening??



More Stockholm syndrome. There exists an entity, that created a place to torture you for eternity but its not a threat, what is it, a promise? (yea, cliche)

I don't feel threatened, because it's all nonsense to me, just a terrible bronse age fantasy. I feel as threatened as I would be of the Indonesian chicken god coming to pluck my eyes out.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

had an interesting talk with one of my Christian coworkers yesterday about the HE!! doctrine....

I told him that it's hard to grasp that someone, if committed to "eternal fire", would still be "burning" or being punished a trillion years later for what they did during a brief 70 years while here on Earth.   

I'm a Christian, but even to me that doesn't seem just.

Just sayin'....


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 27, 2012)

Four said:


> It's not like god is saying "hey, watch out the stove is hot" It's like he turns the stove on 100% heat, then warns you he's going to slam your face onto it if you don't love him. It's like the judeo-Christians have Stockholm syndrome!
> 
> "No no, he threatens to burn / torture me forever because he loves me, and i deserve it"



It more like "Being out of My presense sucks and I don't want that for My creation, here is the best way to live your life(the bible) and if you choose to spend eternity with Me, thats what you'll get, if you don't choose that so be it, but remember, it sucks"


----------



## Four (Jan 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It more like "Being out of My presense sucks and I don't want that for My creation, here is the best way to live your life(the bible) and if you choose to spend eternity with Me, thats what you'll get, if you don't choose that so be it, but remember, it sucks"



It's not like 'the burny place' is just some place that happened to exist. 

god CREATED it, its not just oh man it sucks without me. He specifically built a place of everlasting torture and despair.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 27, 2012)

gtparts said:


> You were the one who used the term "Heavily coerced". Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Or just the the stove off.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It more like "Being out of My presense sucks and I don't want that for My creation, here is the best way to live your life(the bible) and if you choose to spend eternity with Me, thats what you'll get, if you don't choose that so be it, but remember, it sucks"



Yeagh but he takes it one step further and says " I'm going to give no concrete evidence that this book is actually correct. I'm going to confuse you and give you logic that can makes the book look nonsensical, I going to make some born into belief and others I will birth with other beliefs or no belief at all.  I love my children so much that I will do nothing to make certain they follow the right path, and just rely on the fallible nature of humans to decide wether the live in eternal suffering or eternal love. I'm going to allow pain and suffering becuase I am all powerful and love my children.  But becuase I created the universe, which vastness can't even be comprhended by the human mind, I need to be praised and worshipped by an organism that has barely been a blip in time scheme of things."

Yeagh makes sense.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Again, you are misinformed, Bullet!   First of all, I NEVER EVER said that the minimum was 400, but that it was 250+, taken from a study in 1994.   Then, you provided an article that showed that they had tweaked it down to 206.  Then I found that these same scientists, after gaining a more in depth knowledge of inter-cell workings, did another study in 2005.   (years after your above-mentioned 2002 article)    Their new number for this 'concept'?
> 
> 382!!!    The GAP grows!!!!!   The simplest cell we can 'conceive', or have evidence for that is self-replicating, has that kind of minimum requirement!!!   Sure hard to ignore, huh?
> 
> ...



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6256036

October 12, 2006
Carsonella raddii
To make living organisms, a bundle of genes are needed. To make a human, for instance, you would need about 23,000. Now, scientists in Japan and the Unites States report new information about the minimum number of genes you need for life.

And the number is remarkably small.

Scientists used to think the number was around 300, but now researchers have found a bacterium that gets by with only 182 genes. The bacteria live inside tiny insects called psyllids. Researchers posit that the bacterium is in the evolutionary process of becoming a part of the insect.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6256036
> 
> October 12, 2006
> Carsonella raddii
> ...



A symbiotic bacterium like Carsonella can afford to give up some genes; it can rely on the cells of its host to supply its needs. But giving up too many genes can give a bacterium an identity crisis.

"It no longer becomes independent on any level and becomes an integral part of the cell," says Patricia Johnson, who works on bacterial evolution at UCLA.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> A symbiotic bacterium like Carsonella can afford to give up some genes; it can rely on the cells of its host to supply its needs. But giving up too many genes can give a bacterium an identity crisis.
> 
> "It no longer becomes independent on any level and becomes an integral part of the cell," says Patricia Johnson, who works on bacterial evolution at UCLA.



"Moran says that prior to Carsonella, no one had seen an independent cellular organism with fewer than about 400 genes."


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> "Moran says that prior to Carsonella, no one had seen an independent cellular organism with fewer than about 400 genes."



http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-simplest-organism-known.htm


"However, Carsonella ruddii cannot live on its own, and like a virus, depends on the host to survive."  

As your article states...this organism (like a virus) can't survive without a much more complex organism to help it along.   This organism is far from 'independent"...


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-simplest-organism-known.htm
> 
> 
> "However, Carsonella ruddii cannot live on its own, and like a virus, depends on the host to survive."
> ...



The first sentence of your article:
"Which microbe is the simplest organism depends on your definition of a living organism." 

The Second sentence:
If viruses, prions, satellites, nanobes, nanobacteria (non-free-living sub-bacterial organisms) are excluded, the simplest free-living organism known is Mycoplasma genitalium, with a genome of only 580,000 base pairs and 482 protein-coding genes. Mycoplasma genitalium is a tiny parasitic bacteria that lives in the digestive and genital tracts of primates. 

Those viruses are alive within a host and when alive they under 200 genes. There are a few LOOOOOONG reads about how they may have been here first(chicken and egg type argument) but it seems like only you and I would skim over them at best.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 27, 2012)

*3Xbullies,*

A quick look in Scripture reveals that the "place of everlasting torment" was a creation of God specifically for those spiritual beings (read "angels") who rejected, opposed, and sought to usurp the authority of God. 

Enter man..... who quickly rejected God in an effort to do essentially what Satan and his minions tried earlier (like that was going to work). They placed themselves in locked step with Satan and his goal. 

Turns out that "h-e-double hockey sticks" is an appropriate place for all that reject the authority of God.

In His infinite wisdom, according to His just nature, and in light of His abiding love, God decided that He would give us a second chance (some get a 3rd, a 4th......., some, even more) to repent, to turn and embrace Him as He intended. Those who do not respond in this way maintain their alignment with Satan's goal and, consequently, the same permanent residence.

With all that, it makes it very difficult to understand why anyone would not choose to do things God's way.

Unfortunately, there are many examples of folks, like you, who are consumed with the desire to do as they please, all the while hoping for a "merciful", non-sentient, dirt nap. Sounds OK till you realize that that is what Satan would have you think.  Truth is, if you persist in serving him, you will suffer with him. 

Turn the stove off?? He has made it possible to avoid the stove altogether. 

Lose power at 15,000 feet and your choices are to ride the plane down, jump without a chute, or buckle up that chute and choose life.

Well, we all know that the"plane is going down". You just have to decide how you want your story to end.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

If you truly live after death, I'll decide then.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Mycoplasma genitalium is a tiny parasitic bacteria that lives in the digestive and genital tracts of primates.



that might explain some of my itching lately.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 27, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> The short answer is....we just can't. The long answer is found in the bible.
> 
> But I suspect you already knew this



It's called the Great Commission so next time those Jehova Witness' knock on your door, you should talk to them.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> that might explain some of my itching lately.



Now I know why the monkeys smile when you visit the zoo.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If you truly live after death, I'll decide then.



Sorry, but God's ground rules, including the passing from this life "and then the judgment", seem to be one of the things people seem to skip over or ignore in Scripture.


----------



## Etter2 (Jan 27, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> The short answer is....we just can't. The long answer is found in the bible.
> 
> But I suspect you already knew this



Believe me, I've read the bible in all it's close-minded, intolerant, cruel, and contradictory glory.  

In case you are wondering, I also don't believe in people living inside of fish, talking snakes, virgin births, or floating zoos.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Sorry, but God's ground rules, including the passing from this life "and then the judgment", seem to be one of the things people seem to skip over or ignore in Scripture.



Assuming those are actually his rules of course and which I don't of course.


----------



## Etter2 (Jan 27, 2012)

So I have to not only believe, but praise and worship god?  I can't just lead a good life?  Seems like god is awfully insecure, more like a pubescent teenager than the creator of all living things.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

Etter2 said:


> So I have to not only believe, but praise and worship god?  I can't just lead a good life?  Seems like god is awfully insecure, more like a pubescent teenager than the creator of all living things.



A tad needy too!


----------



## gtparts (Jan 29, 2012)

Etter2 said:


> So I have to not only believe, but praise and worship god?  I can't just lead a good life?  Seems like god is awfully insecure, more like a pubescent teenager than the creator of all living things.



Not a bad idea. If there is a God (and I believe that to be the case), his very nature, the position he holds in all things, makes him worthy of praise and worship.
He is worthy to be worshiped because of who He is.

 It is not rational that the created is greater than the creator. Without a creator, is anything created?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

Four said:


> Almost anybody can prove the earth is round, you can find the curvature of the earth by using Pythagoras theorem and taking two measurements about a mile apart from each other. Gravity is even easier to demonstrate, since we're constantly feeling it.*Well now yes, of course we know the earth is round, but at one time there were many doubters....right? Many folks didn't know for sure that the earth was round except those who had been there and done that, some folks were total naysayers and some believed in faith by the word of others that the earth was round, even though they hadn't seen it yet. The bible said way back in the OT that the earth was a sphere....why did it take so long for everyone else to catch up?*
> 
> It's called being testable and verifiable. To compare your experiences in which you believe a deity appears to you personally to someone like Edison and Newton, people who used the scientific method there whole lives to discover and invent things, testing and creating hypothesis and disproving them is unfathomable, frankly its the opposite process. The key part of science is to NOT have faith, second guess everything, test and retest.


*I think you're missing my point....even though all those things have always existed, not everyone believed that they did until it could be proven...right? Didn't someone have to discover or prove it first before everyone believed it? Was it always provable? yes. How many 'millions' of years did it take though? You are right they cannot be disproven now, but neither can the existance of God be disproven. At some moment in time, we all will have proof that He does. As quickly as the apple fell on newtons head, we will know.*


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> A tad needy too!




I'm extremely needy.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I'm extremely needy.



No doubt.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> *I think you're missing my point....even though all those things have always existed, not everyone believed that they did until it could be proven...right? Didn't someone have to discover or prove it first before everyone believed it? Was it always provable? yes. How many 'millions' of years did it take though? You are right they cannot be disproven now, but neither can the existance of God be disproven. At some moment in time, we all will have proof that He does. As quickly as the apple fell on newtons head, we will know.*



People....modern humans....were not here for millions of years to figure this stuff out. These "inventions" are not inventions but simply giving every day natural occurrences names and explanations. You can't discover something that has always existed you can only name it and study it. You are hung up on a few examples of things that just plain exist and have existed for much longer than the human race. Those examples you use like round earth and gravity are things that  simply are the way they are and you try to intertwine them with the Bible and God. The Bible also states the "four corners" of the Earth. How does your sphere in the Bible have four corners? The proof you think we seek is not up to us to provide. There is a reason that no evidence exists and that it cannot be proven and it is because it simply does not exist. You can make up anything you want in your mind and claim that it exists because no one can prove outside of your mind that it doesn't, but in reality it still really does not exist. The burden of proof lies solely on the person making the claims and the ones made 5000 years ago do not hold up, the ones today do not hold up and claiming that they will in the future only further reinforces the fact that they hold no validity today.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> There is a reason that no evidence exists and that it cannot be proven and it is because it simply does not exist.



Your explanation, ".... and it is because it simply does not exist.", is equally unprovable, a simple matter of opinion, not supported by facts in evidence. Your opinion is based solely on the fact that you have concluded so, without exhausting all possible avenues of inquiry. In short, until you have diligently explored all possibilities, it is merely your best guess.





bullethead said:


> You can make up anything you want in your mind and claim that it exists because no one can prove outside of your mind that it doesn't, but in reality it still really does not exist.



As can you, but the matter is not so easily resolved. What you have stated in the above paragraph is, in fact, a claim... a claim made by you. According to your very next sentence (below), you now have the burden of providing proof of what you claim. I am sure you will have to get back with us when you have that proof.




bullethead said:


> The burden of proof lies solely on the person making the claims and the ones made 5000 years ago do not hold up, the ones today do not hold up and claiming that they will in the future only further reinforces the fact that they hold no validity today.



Specifically, what 5000 y.o. claims were made? How does "...claiming that they will (hold up) in the future" reinforce your claim that they will not hold up in the future?   Seems the positions are diametrically opposed and whether one position is right and one is wrong is, until the truth is revealed to all, basically unattainable by scientific inquiry.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Your explanation, ".... and it is because it simply does not exist.", is equally unprovable, a simple matter of opinion, not supported by facts in evidence. Your opinion is based solely on the fact that you have concluded so, without exhausting all possible avenues of inquiry. In short, until you have diligently explored all possibilities, it is merely your best guess.



You are darn right! Unprovable. If I say a flying pink candy cane exists and you or anyone else simply cannot prove it doesn't does not mean that it actually does exist!
If come up with mounds of undeniable evidence then I have proved my claim. That is how it works.







gtparts said:


> As can you, but the matter is not so easily resolved. What you have stated in the above paragraph is, in fact, a claim... a claim made by you. According to your very next sentence (below), you now have the burden of providing proof of what you claim. I am sure you will have to get back with us when you have that proof.



Well you got me! Your right, it exists.....only in an individuals mind.






gtparts said:


> Specifically, what 5000 y.o. claims were made? How does "...claiming that they will (hold up) in the future" reinforce your claim that they will not hold up in the future?   Seems the positions are diametrically opposed and whether one position is right and one is wrong is, until the truth is revealed to all, basically unattainable by scientific inquiry.



5000+ years of mankind trying to come up with some actual proof a God exists and physically nothing.....your right, we just have to wait a little bit longer.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 29, 2012)

Etter2 said:


> Believe me, I've read the bible in all it's close-minded, intolerant, cruel, and contradictory glory.
> 
> In case you are wondering, I also don't believe in people living inside of fish, talking snakes, virgin births, or floating zoos.



I wasn't wondering. I assumed you didn't believe in these things.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> People....modern humans....were not here for millions of years to figure this stuff out. These "inventions" are not inventions but simply giving every day natural occurrences names and explanations. You can't discover something that has always existed you can only name it and study it. You are hung up on a few examples of things that just plain exist and have existed for much longer than the human race. Those examples you use like round earth and gravity are things that  simply are the way they are and you try to intertwine them with the Bible and God. The Bible also states the "four corners" of the Earth. How does your sphere in the Bible have four corners? The proof you think we seek is not up to us to provide. There is a reason that no evidence exists and that it cannot be proven and it is because it simply does not exist. You can make up anything you want in your mind and claim that it exists because no one can prove outside of your mind that it doesn't, but in reality it still really does not exist. The burden of proof lies solely on the person making the claims and the ones made 5000 years ago do not hold up, the ones today do not hold up and claiming that they will in the future only further reinforces the fact that they hold no validity today.



Still missing the point.....One day God will also be proven to have existed all this time...that's all I'm saying. I can use other examples, if you're tired of hearing about those. But that's all they are is examples of things that at some point someone named something(and I'm not the only one that uses those examples around here)....the same will be proven  when  God/Jesus will be revealed/named/discovered/proven to be the King of Kings.

ie people didn't always believe the earth was round, people still don't believe in God, one day, just like the earth was proven to be round, God will be proven to exist, too.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

Why oh why do these supposedly scientific experts presume over and over that a virgin cannot give birth? Science has proven with aritificial insemination that a woman can become pregnant without ever having sex...and that's what a virgin is, ya know, or do ya?

Brilliant.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Still missing the point.....One day God will also be proven to have existed all this time...that's all I'm saying. I can use other examples, if you're tired of hearing about those. But that's all they are is examples of things that at some point someone named something(and I'm not the only one that uses those examples around here)....the same will be proven  when  God/Jesus will be revealed/named/discovered/proven to be the King of Kings.
> 
> ie people didn't always believe the earth was round, people still don't believe in God, one day, just like the earth was proven to be round, God will be proven to exist, too.



One day an counting...................

A God could prove it's existence on it's own.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Why oh why do these supposedly scientific experts presume over and over that a virgin cannot give birth? Science has proven with aritificial insemination that a woman can become pregnant without ever having sex...and that's what a virgin is, ya know, or do ya?
> 
> Brilliant.



We know how it happens now. We can't figure out how it happened 2000+ years ago (Oh and by the way, the times a virgin birth was claimed before that). I'm sure you have an explanation for us.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> People....modern humans....were not here for millions of years to figure this stuff out. These "inventions" are not inventions but simply giving every day natural occurrences names and explanations. You can't discover something that has always existed you can only name it and study it. You are hung up on a few examples of things that just plain exist and have existed for much longer than the human race. Those examples you use like round earth and gravity are things that  simply are the way they are and you try to intertwine them with the Bible and God. The Bible also states the "four corners" of the Earth. How does your sphere in the Bible have four corners? The proof you think we seek is not up to us to provide. There is a reason that no evidence exists and that it cannot be proven and it is because it simply does not exist. You can make up anything you want in your mind and claim that it exists because no one can prove outside of your mind that it doesn't, but in reality it still really does not exist. The burden of proof lies solely on the person making the claims and the ones made 5000 years ago do not hold up, the ones today do not hold up and claiming that they will in the future only further reinforces the fact that they hold no validity today.



4 corners....north east south west?

you're right the burden of proof lies with the person making claims there is no God, too....like i said i'm not the one that brought up gravity in these discussions in the first place. I was the one wondering why if scientists have always had dibs on mother it took them up til only 300 yrs ago could gravity even be 'named' if you need to call it that instead of discovered....so columbus didn't discover north america because it was always here, he just named it??? alrighty then. And he wasn't even a scientist.

Eastern Hemisphere, the half that is east of the Prime Meridian and west of 180° longitude 
Western Hemisphere, the half that lies west of the Prime Meridian and east of 180° longitude 
Northern Hemisphere, the half that is north of equator 
Southern Hemisphere, the half that lies south of the equator


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> 4 corners....north east south west?


Cardinal points



mtnwoman said:


> you're right the burden of proof lies with the person making claims there is no God,


Actually no it is not. Concluding there is no God is the only logical answer after someone has claimed there is a God and provides no proof. Having zero evidence to support a claim of a God leaves me no choice but to conclude there is not.



mtnwoman said:


> too....like i said i'm not the one that brought up gravity in these discussions in the first place. I was the one wondering why if scientists have always had dibs on mother it took them up til only 300 yrs ago could gravity even be 'named' if you need to call it that instead of discovered....so columbus didn't discover north america because it was always here, he just named it??? alrighty then. And he wasn't even a scientist.


Columbus found something that the people living here already knew existed. Did he invent the continent and move people and everything else on it afterwards?
Did nothing fall to the ground before Newton coined the term? Gravity was noticed and recognized long before Newton. Gravity was noted back in the 3rd century but it wasn't until much later that Newton came up with a formula for it explaining how it worked. 



mtnwoman said:


> Eastern Hemisphere, the half that is east of the Prime Meridian and west of 180° longitude
> Western Hemisphere, the half that lies west of the Prime Meridian and east of 180° longitude
> Northern Hemisphere, the half that is north of equator
> Southern Hemisphere, the half that lies south of the equator


????


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

OMGosh Mr Bullet....I'll cry uncle....ok? I give up....I don't give in, I just give up. 

4 corners...4 hemispheres...and I hated science and math and history in school. Now I know why. Every so called teacher has a different opinion and spins things into what they want it to be and then pretend to be puzzled by your question of what about this or that?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Columbus found something that the people living here already knew existed. Did he invent the continent and move people and everything else on it afterwards?
> Did nothing fall to the ground before Newton coined the term? Gravity was noticed and recognized long before Newton. Gravity was noted back in the 3rd century but it wasn't until much later that Newton came up with a formula for it explaining how it worked.



Bingo! 

I'm not the one who supports the so called scientists that supposedly discovered/invented/named this or that ......scientists didn't create anything, it was already created. So there must be something a teeny tiny bit above the scientists, that's all I've ever tried to get across.

I've always said it's not about science, I'm happy to see that you agree.....all these so called claims from scientists have always been there, even before they themselves were.

Newton didn't make/discover gravity, he just merely named it. Who made gravity? any idea? just so happens I guess?....everything fits perfectly together by coininkydinky so we could exist on this earth, eh?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Bingo!
> 
> I'm not the one who supports the so called scientists that supposedly discovered/invented/named this or that ......scientists didn't create anything, it was already created. So there must be something a teeny tiny bit above the scientists, that's all I've ever tried to get across.
> 
> I've always said it's not about science, I'm happy to see that you agree.....all these so called claims from scientists have always been there, even before they were.



Oh scientists created many many many things.

Gravity it what it is, a round earth it what it is. Scientists didn't create them and the same can be said for who/what you think created them.


----------



## Asath (Jan 29, 2012)

“Your explanation, ".... and it is because it simply does not exist.", is equally unprovable, a simple matter of opinion, not supported by facts in evidence. Your opinion is based solely on the fact that you have concluded so, without exhausting all possible avenues of inquiry. In short, until you have diligently explored all possibilities, it is merely your best guess.”

No longer.  I have now diligently explored all possible avenues of inquiry, and I did it the same way believers have done – I read parts of one book, forgot that I had any other rational abilities, rejected all things that didn’t agree with the parts of that book I agreed with,  looked up into the sky, was awed by my own ignorance, and then drank a tremendous amount of wine.  

I’m telling you, it was positively an Epiphany!  No wonder you guys are into that turning water into wine thing . . .

But, kidding aside, you seem to pretend to be a lawyer in this episode, and condescend with the term – “ not supported by facts in evidence.”  I’m afraid that we, the jury, have yet to be presented with your Honor’s ‘facts in evidence,’ and that lack of evidence presented by the self-presumed prosecution seems to rule out the prosecution’s case.  The accused is free to go, as the prosecutor simply made the entire thing up . . .   

Co-opting terms from legal idioms is the sort of thing that will continually work against your argument, since even a simple jury of twelve reasonable folks is presented with the responsibility for the outcome of other’s lives which demands that they may not make a conclusion unless the PREPONDERANCE of the EVIDENCE points to a UNANIMOUS verdict.  Most folks find this to be a reasonable way to conduct a legal system.

Religions seem to call this sort of reasonable thought ‘heresy.’  

You’re sort of dead in the water here, with the whole ‘facts in evidence’ thought.  If the ‘facts’ were actually in evidence, then there would, of needs, be only one religion, and only one thought concerning same.  God would have actually spoken to His creation.  All of it.  Every member of the jury, worldwide, would unanimously reach the same verdict – truth, after all, is undeniable, as witnessed by the clear ‘evidence’ of same.  Lacking such clear ‘facts in evidence,’ it would seem that others are not speculating so much as you seem to be . . . 

Impressive try . . .  but really?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> OMGosh Mr Bullet....I'll cry uncle....ok? I give up....I don't give in, I just give up.
> 
> 4 corners...4 hemispheres...and I hated science and math and history in school. Now I know why. Every so called teacher has a different opinion and spins things into what they want it to be and then pretend to be puzzled by your question of what about this or that?




Spin is trying to give a personal meaning to writings that are thousands of years old in order to relate to it or give it a meaning that just is not there.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Spin is trying to give a personal meaning to writings that are thousands of years old in order to relate to it or give it a meaning that just is not there.



I know what spin means.
Even you have told me that history has been rewritten because of personal spin....why do you then go back and spin something you've said into another spin?

Quit spinnin' you're makin' me dizzy......


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Your explanation, ".... and it is because it simply does not exist.", is equally unprovable, a simple matter of opinion, not supported by facts in evidence. Your opinion is based solely on the fact that you have concluded so, without exhausting all possible avenues of inquiry. In short, until you have diligently explored all possibilities, it is merely your best guess.”
> 
> No longer.  I have now diligently explored all possible avenues of inquiry, and I did it the same way believers have done – I read parts of one book, forgot that I had any other rational abilities, rejected all things that didn’t agree with the parts of that book I agreed with,  looked up into the sky, was awed by my own ignorance, and then drank a tremendous amount of wine.
> 
> ...



you left out the satan factor of confusion, he is the author of confusion.

I'm not dead in the water, I'm alive in Christ.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Oh scientists created many many many things.*name something they created out of something that did not already exist.*
> 
> Gravity it what it is, a round earth it what it is. Scientists didn't create them and the same can be said for who/what you think created them.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> What I have learned is that religious people are the most intolerant and closed minded of all, as long as you believe as they do, then you're OK with them, believe something else, then you're an infidel or an uneducated object to be pitied. Bah...



Jesus was pretty tolerant, wouldn't you say?

Nonreligious people seem pretty intolerant and prejudice towards people who do not believe as they do...maybe you should practice what YOU preach.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


>



Plastic


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Plastic



Ok...lol...plastic is a good thing...hahahahahaha...what is it made out of invented by a 'brilliant' scientist? that has the welfare of earth on his mind....assuming scientists over God have the wellfare of the earth on his mind...lol

Aren't plastics made from oil products? Where did the petroleum come from? What scientist invented petroleum?

Well at least you've proven scientists have the best of man kind at heart......

Stir away with that plastic stick you got.....

Ok I give...really what did any scientist create from nothing....come on I know you got sumpin?


----------



## Four (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> *I think you're missing my point....even though all those things have always existed, not everyone believed that they did until it could be proven...right? Didn't someone have to discover or prove it first before everyone believed it? Was it always provable? yes. How many 'millions' of years did it take though? You are right they cannot be disproven now, but neither can the existance of God be disproven. At some moment in time, we all will have proof that He does. As quickly as the apple fell on newtons head, we will know.*



Depending on definitions, the existence of god can be dis-proven.

So your proof goes something like this

As a species, homo-sapiens are not all knowing.

QED: God exists


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Ok...lol...plastic is a good thing...hahahahahaha...what is it made out of invented by a 'brilliant' scientist? that has the welfare of earth on his mind....assuming scientists over God have the wellfare of the earth on his mind...lol
> 
> Aren't plastics made from oil products? Where did the petroleum come from? What scientist invented petroleum?
> 
> ...




By your logic it is God's fault plastic is on the Earth, after all he put all the ingredients here right? I guess that makes him the first and worst Eco-terrorist.

These are all man made elements. None of them occur naturally.

Name 	Symbol 	Atomic Number
Technetium 	Tc 	43
Promethium 	Pm 	61
Astatine 	At 	85
Francium 	Fr 	87
Neptunium 	Np 	93
Plutonium 	Pu 	94
Americium 	Am 	95
Curium 	Cm 	96
Berkelium 	Bk 	97
Californium 	Cf 	98
Einsteinium 	Es 	99
Fermium 	Fm 	100
Mendelevium 	Md 	101
Nobelium 	No 	102
Lawrencium 	Lr 	103
Rutherfordium 	Rf 	104
Dubnium 	Db 	105
Seaborgium 	Sg 	106
Bohrium 	Bh 	107
Hassium 	Hs 	108
Meitnerium 	Mt 	109
Darmstadtium 	Ds 	110
Roentgenium 	Rg 	111
Ununbium 	Uut 	113
Ununtrium 	Uuq 	114
Ununpentium 	Uup 	115
Ununhexium 	Uuh 	116
Ununoctium 	Uuo 	118


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> By your logic it is God's fault plastic is on the Earth, after all he put all the ingredients here right? I guess that makes him the first and worst Eco-terrorist.
> 
> These are all man made elements. None of them occur naturally.
> 
> ...



None of them occur naturally in those particular forms. The matter that makes them up has always been here, well, ever since God created it.

Scientists can't "poof" anything out of nothing.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 30, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Your explanation, ".... and it is because it simply does not exist.", is equally unprovable, a simple matter of opinion, not supported by facts in evidence. Your opinion is based solely on the fact that you have concluded so, without exhausting all possible avenues of inquiry. In short, until you have diligently explored all possibilities, it is merely your best guess.”
> 
> No longer.  I have now diligently explored all possible avenues of inquiry, and I did it the same way believers have done – I read parts of one book, forgot that I had any other rational abilities, rejected all things that didn’t agree with the parts of that book I agreed with,  looked up into the sky, was awed by my own ignorance, and then drank a tremendous amount of wine.
> 
> ...



Interesting. We have now moved from requiring empirical evidence (The word *empirical* denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical#cite_note-0) , the basis for *scientific proof*, to, what Josh McDowell terms, *legal-historical proof.* 

At this point, I have to ask, "Does accepting legal-historical proof constitute a full repudiation of scientific proof?" I hope not. That would be absurd. And it is clearly obvious, from your post above, that you embrace both forms of proof. 

Congratulations! You have not committed intellectual suicide.

Neither have millions, even billions, of Christians, Buddhist, Hindus, etc. 

That brings up another question. What is the appropriate proof system to test for the existence of God? Christianity is supported by both systems. Everything that science has "gotten right" points to God. Everything that science has "gotten wrong" points to the failure of men to completely ferret out the truth. In fact, scientists have an appalling record for postulating incorrectly, but we tend to focus on their successes.

The conclusion is simple, we cannot rely on science alone to answer many question.

What did Asath have for dinner on Nov. 5th 2009?

How many barbershop haircuts have I had in my lifetime?

Has there ever been a talking donkey or snake?

Science is useless to categorically sustain or deny ANY response to these questions.

If we are to answer those questions, we must move on to the legal-historical method.

Do you have any document that would shed light on what you had for dinner on 11/5/09? A diet diary? A menu, dated and signed, with the items you ate circled? Perhaps a itemized copy of the check? Someone, who was present, to testify concerning your meal?

Yet, both of us have very little doubt that you ate dinner.

Isn't it curious that you cannot prove scientifically, cannot prove legally or historically, that you ate dinner, yet you "know" that you did?  

If your very life depended on it, how convincing would it be that you ate, catalogued, and had affidavits for 11/6/09 to the present?

The interesting thing is that there is legal-historical documentation for what Christians believe..... as well as other religions, I might add. 

It would appear that atheism is about nothing and based on nothing by those who are not motivated sufficiently to fully seek.

The second and third paragraph you posted is deflection. You admitted as much in your fourth paragraph. That merely takes us back to your conclusion being your "best guess". Sounds oddly like faith, to me.

There are two more things that fall within the legal-historical view.

1) The personal testimony of those, past and present, who state with absolute certainty of a transformation in their lives. They are called witnesses. Their lives show evidence that they are not the same as they once were. They are willing and have testified that the change is because of the working of Christ within them. 

2) And finally, the service extended to change the lives of others gives testimony.

Food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, formal education, clean water, training in work skills, and opportunities untold are more than the words of those transformed. They are their the feet and hands of Christ.

And I would not be faithful lest I made mention of passing on the truth of God in Christ. It is not enough to do all those other things, if we neglect the souls of men. 

Your denial of proof does not change the Truth.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 30, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Interesting. We have now moved from requiring empirical evidence (The word *empirical* denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical#cite_note-0) , the basis for *scientific proof*, to, what Josh McDowell terms, *legal-historical proof.*
> 
> At this point, I have to ask, "Does accepting legal-historical proof constitute a full repudiation of scientific proof?" I hope not. That would be absurd. And it is clearly obvious, from your post above, that you embrace both forms of proof.
> 
> ...



I ate a talking donkey for dinner last night.  

Do you concede that if was God's will that such a thing happen then it did? If you do, I have another one to sell...I mean, tell you.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> None of them occur naturally in those particular forms. The matter that makes them up has always been here, well, ever since God created it.
> 
> Scientists can't "poof" anything out of nothing.



That is right , none of them occur naturally in those forms. They are man made.
Your constant counter that God can poof things into existence is quite tiresome without any proof. You made the claim now back it up.
If you can't then I will conclude the claim is invalid,untrue and false.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Interesting. We have now moved from requiring empirical evidence (The word *empirical* denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical#cite_note-0) , the basis for *scientific proof*, to, what Josh McDowell terms, *legal-historical proof.*
> 
> At this point, I have to ask, "Does accepting legal-historical proof constitute a full repudiation of scientific proof?" I hope not. That would be absurd. And it is clearly obvious, from your post above, that you embrace both forms of proof.
> 
> ...



And yet you dismiss the writings (eye witnesses) that say what you believe to have happened in fact did not. No miracles, no savior, no Son of a God, no prophesy fulfilled. All this written by the people who actually lived it and still follow their traditional religion 2000 years later.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> By your logic it is God's fault plastic is on the Earth, after all he put all the ingredients here right? I guess that makes him the first and worst Eco-terrorist.
> 
> These are all man made elements. None of them occur naturally.



HUH? So God makes petroleum and it's God's fault man takes something good and turns it into something bad. I'd say that was satan....the same one who stirs up meth....satan is a known counterfeiter, doncha know?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I ate a talking donkey for dinner last night.
> 
> Do you concede that if was God's will that such a thing happen then it did? If you do, I have another one to sell...I mean, tell you.





Leave the poor old donkeys alone will ya?


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 30, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Interesting. We have now moved from requiring empirical evidence (The word *empirical* denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical#cite_note-0) , the basis for *scientific proof*, to, what Josh McDowell terms, *legal-historical proof.*
> 
> At this point, I have to ask, "Does accepting legal-historical proof constitute a full repudiation of scientific proof?" I hope not. That would be absurd. And it is clearly obvious, from your post above, that you embrace both forms of proof.
> 
> ...



Your truth is an illusion created in your own mind. Truth is universal, and can be duplicated and validated.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> HUH? So God makes petroleum and it's God's fault man takes something good and turns it into something bad. I'd say that was satan....the same one who stirs up meth....satan is a known counterfeiter, doncha know?



Good=God
Bad=Satan


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> That is right , none of them occur naturally in those forms. They are man made.
> Your constant counter that God can poof things into existence is quite tiresome without any proof. You made the claim now back it up.*Please tell us who you think poofed all this stuff into existance then. It ain't scientists especially if all they can come up with is stuff like plastic.*
> If you can't then I will conclude the claim is invalid,untrue and false.



Peace


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> good=god
> bad=satan



a+...


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> None of them occur naturally in those particular forms. The matter that makes them up has always been here, well, ever since God created it.
> 
> Scientists can't "poof" anything out of nothing.



Thanks!!

I was looking some of them up, lots are by products of something else none of them became what they are or do anything without something else. They are not stand alone 'things'.  

I like plastic the most though....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Peace



I think the Universe and what lies beyond is a naturally occurring system. If anything can be described as"always, forever, and a God" it is what is out there in and beyond our Universe.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Your truth is an illusion created in your own mind. Truth is universal, and can be duplicated and validated.



Gravity can be duplicated on the magnatude it is now?  I'd like to see any scientist spin a bunch of planets in orbit around the sun.

This illusional truth is shared by billions of people, not just a couple here and there.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I think the Universe and what lies beyond is a naturally occurring system. If anything can be described as"always, forever, and a God" it is what is out there in and beyond our Universe.



Could be.

But I do think there is the God of this heaven and earth.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> a+...



If God created all things he also created evil. He also created plastic, bullets ,arrows, scientists and hunters...everything you don't like is a direct result of what your God created.
Don't try to pass the buck. If he poofed it, we'll find a way to use it. If he didn't poof it we could not possibly use it, therefore he is responsible for the good and the bad that is made out of it.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Gravity can be duplicated on the magnatude it is now?  I'd like to see any scientist spin a bunch of planets in orbit around the sun.
> 
> This illusional truth is shared by billions of people, not just a couple here and there.



Hold your half full coffee mug out at arms length and spin around as fast as you can. G-force! Won't spill a drop.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Could be.
> 
> But I do think there is the God of this heaven and earth.



I know where Earth is but what/where is "of this heaven"?


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Gravity can be duplicated on the magnatude it is now?  I'd like to see any scientist spin a bunch of planets in orbit around the sun.
> 
> This illusional truth is shared by billions of people, not just a couple here and there.



The straws you grasp, are fragile and flimsy.  They bend and break with even the slightest hint of logic.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Hold your half full coffee mug out at arms length and spin around as fast as you can. G-force! Won't spill a drop.



And who created G-force?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> The straws you grasp, are fragile and flimsy.  They bend and break with even the slightest hint of logic.



That answers my question...

You're the one that said things can be duplicated, not me. And when I say duplicate spinning planets, you answer with this and I'm not logical? or you don't have an answer of who can duplicate the spinning of planets? What's illogical about the planets spinning around the sun anyway?

Spinning and circling on that big of a scale....prove to me it can be duplicated, that's all I ask you to do.

Oh it's the duplicated part that's illogical...ok gotcha...I knew that.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I know where Earth is but what/where is "of this heaven"?



in the supernatural....natural is the earth...my soul and spirit will move to the supernatural after I leave the natural....for some it won't be a good supernatural place, but for me it will.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> And who created G-force?



Mass


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> in the supernatural....natural is the earth...my soul and spirit will move to the supernatural after I leave the natural....for some it won't be a good supernatural place, but for me it will.



Sounds like Woodstock '69.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> That answers my question...
> 
> You're the one that said things can be duplicated, not me. And when I say duplicate spinning planets, you answer with this and I'm not logical? or you don't have an answer of who can duplicate the spinning of planets? What's illogical about the planets spinning around the sun anyway?
> 
> ...



The moons orbit the planets the same way the planets orbit the Sun.
A scientist didn't create that and for the same reasons neither did an invisible being.
If you continue to say that a God did PLEASE provide us with some of the same proof you ask from us daily.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If God created all things he also created evil. He also created plastic, bullets ,arrows, scientists and hunters...everything you don't like is a direct result of what your God created.
> Don't try to pass the buck. If he poofed it, we'll find a way to use it. If he didn't poof it we could not possibly use it, therefore he is responsible for the good and the bad that is made out of it.



OMGosh, all this time I've been collecting and looking for arrowheads, I even have a spear head, and I thought the Native Americans made them out of rock/stone that came from the earth....sheesh.

And bullets....I thought my favorite atheist at a flea market store reloaded shells.....wow won't he be surprised when I tell him that God really made those bullets.

And I always thought that God made every type of humans, even bambi killers....hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...scientists and even gave them some wisdom...doctors for our healing with a little bit of knowledge. I like plastic for kitty litter, it's either that or paper from cut down trees....go figure.

I have truly been tricked by satan this time. I really was trying to pass the buck, wasn't I? and give credit where credit is not even due.  My bad.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The moons orbit the planets the same way the planets orbit the Sun.
> A scientist didn't create that and for the same reasons neither did an invisible being.
> If you continue to say that a God did PLEASE provide us with some of the same proof you ask from us daily.



No, Mr Bishop said things could be duplicated....and I was just wondering if he knew what you just told me. I just told him i'd like to see a scientist duplicate our solar system....I figured you agreed with him since you didn't call him down....lol

Quit asking me for proof, if you can't provide me with any proof....that's all I'm doing ya know, is following you guys around in circles. I believe in God, surely I've proved to you that I do and I can't prove anything any more than you can. I'm just following what y'all are saying....like duplicate this.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> OMGosh, all this time I've been collecting and looking for arrowheads, I even have a spear head, and I thought the Native Americans made them out of rock/stone that came from the earth....sheesh.
> 
> And bullets....I thought my favorite atheist at a flea market store reloaded shells.....wow won't he be surprised when I tell him that God really made those bullets.
> 
> ...



Where did these people get the raw material to make those evil destruction devices? And WHO put the material there for them to use?

It was there for a purpose and God want's us to use it to make bullets and spears to kill animals. It is his Will.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> No, four said he didn't believe anything that couldn't be duplicated....and I was just wondering if he knew what you just told me.
> 
> Quit asking me for proof, if you can't provide me with any proof....that's all I'm doing ya know, is following you guys around in circles. I believe in God, surely I've proved to you that I do and I can't prove anything any more than you can. I'm just following what y'all are saying....like duplicate this.



Oh but things can and have been duplicated. Not on the scale of the size of planets but the same principal on a much smaller level. We can make gravity and make it greater or less. Gravity pulls everything down to the ground and we invent something that defies it and flies. Show us a diamond that took a billion years to create and we'll make a synthetic diamond in 24hrs.
Take a toy spinning top. Set it on the table and it falls over. Give it a spin and it's mass rotating at high speed lets it stand upright.
We don't have proof of everything but we do have proof of many things. Even one example is better than none.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Where did these people get the raw material to make those evil destruction devices? And WHO put the material there for them to use?
> 
> It was there for a purpose and God want's us to use it to make bullets and spears to kill animals. It is his Will.



OMGosh, once again, you've dumbfounded me. I eat meat. Hunting is great if you like to do it. People give me deer usually every year. I cook and eat it, I even make bambi chili....it's a joke, ok? 
The only time i've ever said anything about hunting is when someone is condemning how stupid I am for believing in God....i've only used it as an example....ie I don't like to kill animals, but I don't care who else does....like why do you dog out Christians, same thing. You think it's ok to dog out and call Christians ignernt, when you your ownself may do things that other people may not like to do.....

Talk about logic....if you actually read what I write in all my writings rather than trying to beat me over the head because you think I'm weak and fragile and flimsy because of my beliefs then you can expect the same consideration/respect that you deserve in choosing to hunt for your meat/food. I don't want to be ridiculed any more than any hunter on earth...I only use that as an example because I am in a get this....in a hunting forum, on a religeous or nonreligeous thread within that forum.

Good grief. Help me Lord Jesus...find the right words.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Oh but things can and have been duplicated. Not on the scale of the size of planets but the same principal on a much smaller level. We can make gravity and make it greater or less. Gravity pulls everything down to the ground and we invent something that defies it and flies. Show us a diamond that took a billion years to create and we'll make a synthetic diamond in 24hrs.
> Take a toy spinning top. Set it on the table and it falls over. Give it a spin and it's mass rotating at high speed lets it stand upright.
> We don't have proof of everything but we do have proof of many things. Even one example is better than none.



You mean flying like a fiery chariot? Who really knows that that chariot was?
I know about gravity.

Just quit saying things that y'all can prove that you can't. Mr Bishop said God could be disproven, that's only a theory, same as evolution.

You really don't even see where I'm coming from in all this do you?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> OMGosh, once again, you've dumbfounded me. I eat meat. Hunting is great if you like to do it. People give me deer usually every year. I cook and eat it, I even make bambi chili....it's a joke, ok?
> The only time i've ever said anything about hunting is when someone is condemning how stupid I am for believing in God....i've only used it as an example....ie I don't like to kill animals, but I don't care who else does....like why do you dog out Christians, same thing. You think it's ok to dog out and call Christians ignernt, when you your ownself may do things that other people may not like to do.....
> 
> Talk about logic....if you actually read what I write in all my writings rather than trying to beat me over the head because you think I'm weak and fragile and flimsy because of my beliefs then you can expect the same consideration/respect that you deserve in choosing to hunt for your meat/food. I don't want to be ridiculed any more than any hunter on earth...I only use that as an example because I am in a get this....in a hunting forum, on a religeous or nonreligeous thread within that forum.
> ...



No disrespect but you will throw the killing of innocent animals into a post at random, for no apparent reason, and have done it more than once. I am pretty sure you did it above somewhere and the reason WHY I used God putting lead and sharp rocks on earth in my post.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Oh but things can and have been duplicated. Not on the scale of the size of planets but the same principal on a much smaller level.




I didn't say everything couldn't be duplicated did I? I know things can be.

All I said was try duplicating the solar system....of course according to Mr Bishop that was a flimsy, fragile and I was grasping at straws response....all I was doing was replying to him saying without duplicating things they couldn't be proven. And I'm illogical?
 I don't believe that is true, there are many things that cannot be proven, do we disbelieve all of them. I know I don't. I don't even know for a fact there are no aliens or that there were no other gods, ever. God said not to have any other gods before him, leads me to an open imagination what those gods could be...real people, idols, sacred cows, whatever....I don't know.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No disrespect but you will throw the killing of innocent animals into a post at random, for no apparent reason, and have done it more than once. I am pretty sure you did it above somewhere and the reason WHY I used God putting lead and sharp rocks on earth in my post.



I know why you did it...that's why I've responded as I have.

I was married to a hunter/fisherman, he was killed in a hunting accident, so therefore I don't like bullets....is that too strange to comprehend? I've explained before many times, why I've brought up hunting. No one else seems to be offended by it, because they knew what I was getting at, they read my posts, and don't assume what I'm saying.

Check any of my posts that you will and you'll never find a post me purposing dogging out hunters/fisherman that first didn't dog me out for something. I coulda used ballerinas as an example, would that make you feel better?
 But there were no ballerinas here to dog out, just Christians and hunters.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

Oh remember back when you and ambush said you didn't know what to say?? Birds of a feather......

That's when I said I presumed that God gave us the teeth we have to chew meat, expecting God to provide what we need to overtake the kill to be able to eat it....metals, rocks whatever????

Why is everything I say so ridiculous to you when I'm directly responding to someone's post.

Is that such a ridiculous statement to make that you don't even have words for it?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> You mean flying like a fiery chariot? Who really knows that that chariot was?
> I know about gravity.
> 
> Just quit saying things that y'all can prove that you can't. Mr Bishop said God could be disproven, that's only a theory, same as evolution.
> ...



I expect that if the inerrant word of God says it was a Fiery Chariot, then it better have been a Fiery Chariot. 

God does not need to be dis-proven by any formula or evidence. There is no formula or evidence of something that does not exist. The very fact that no one, not one, not anyone has been able to provide evidence that a God exists has done our work for us.
Whether or not I can prove the claim that I ate supper on a Friday 5 years ago is insignificant compared to being able to prove a Supreme Being that is touted as capable and responsible for creating everything that has ever existed. Not a single worshiper can provide evidence and not even the Being stepped up to put the controversy to rest.

I love the thoughts that you have. I enjoy the conversations. Somehow though, SOMETIMES, they get criss-crossed and lost in translation. Like God and Evolution....i see what you want to get across, but those two could not be farther apart for examples.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I expect that if the inerrant word of God says it was a Fiery Chariot, then it better have been a Fiery Chariot. *So you think all those figures in caves were just bubble headed men? I don't honestly think that anyone back in those days could express what an airplane looked like? maybe a fiery chariot. Besides who says chariots don't fly? Didn't someone doubt at one time that man could fly? Were they proven wrong?*
> 
> Like God and Evolution....i see what you want to get across, but those two could not be farther apart for examples.


*Why is that so far fetched? God is only in my mind, evolution is only in your mind. They may be closer together than we can even imagine.*

Peace


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Oh remember back when you and ambush said you didn't know what to say?? Birds of a feather......
> 
> That's when I said I presumed that God gave us the teeth we have to chew meat, expecting God to provide what we need to overtake the kill to be able to eat it....metals, rocks whatever????
> 
> ...



Have you ever taken the time to find out why our teeth and jaws are what they are and were what they were and what brought about the changes?

That is why SOMETIMES your statements draw a moment of silence from me. I am not saying it is a bad thing. Just sometimes I think that if you were more informed you might not make a statement in a certain way.
No harm intended, just my honest answer to your questions.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Have you ever taken the time to find out why our teeth and jaws are what they are and were what they were and what brought about the changes?



Why don't you inform me about how and why our teeth and jaws have 'evolved' for life today?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by bullethead View Post
> I expect that if the inerrant word of God says it was a Fiery Chariot, then it better have been a Fiery Chariot.
> """So you think all those figures in caves were just bubble headed men? I don't honestly think that anyone back in those days could express what an airplane looked like that a fiery chariot. Besides who says chariots don't fly? Didn't someone doubt at one time that man could fly? Were they proven wrong?"""
> ...



Back in those days no one could express what an airplane looked like because there were no airplanes. They did not see an airplane fly over head because there were no airplanes flying around.

If you want to stick to the premise that "anything is possible and it just has not been done yet" then you must believe a scientist will create life from nothing some day and create gravity someday and so on and so on.....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Why don't you inform me about how and why our teeth and jaws have 'evolved' for life today?



No lessons from me tonight. The information is there at your fingertips, the proof is there, your jaw shape, muscles and teeth configuration are all different than they were tens of hundreds of thousands of years ago. Evolution for sure.
Don't take my word, do yourself a favor and read all you can about it. The truth is out there!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

But hey what the heck....I'll start ya in the right direction....
http://www.gmilburn.ca/2009/04/03/human-evolution-and-frameshift-mutations/


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Back in those days no one could express what an airplane looked like because there were no airplanes. They did not see an airplane fly over head because there were no airplanes flying around.
> 
> If you want to stick to the premise that "anything is possible and it just has not been done yet" then you must believe a scientist will create life from nothing some day and create gravity someday and so on and so on.....


*Huh? Really...huh?*

I don't believe scientists can create anything or never will be able to. I do believe there are things that scientists/explorers/archaeologists  may discover or in your words 'name'....but I don't believe anyone will ever be able to create anything from nothing, that God didn't put on earth to use for us to make something out of. And whether it's used for good or bad, that's up to the person.

I'm sure there were many native americans cruelly killed because of metals/guns/bullets....I don't believe that was a good thing. I don't believe buffalos being killed off to starve the Indians was a good thing. God created the buffalo, but man killed them.  
I don't think leather/cowhide whips to torture someone were made out of leather for that reason, but it has been done. That's what I've said since the gitgo....God has created a lot of things that satan has taken and turned into something evil, by evil people, to use for evil. That is counterfieting God's creation.

And I'm in no way saying that things that scientists 'name' are evil. I believe God gave them the wisdom to formulate things like the polio vaccine, small pox vaccine, and hopefully one day a cancer vaccine.

Maybe there were no airplanes before the wright brothers, I do have to admit it's only been a few hundred years that we have found out how we can do things, compared to billions/million/megamillions/ of years of existance.  

It's according to you, that scientists can make something out of nothing, or nothing can make something out of nothing....something made something, and I'll stick to that since no one can prove anything different. If they could there wouldn't be billions of religious people on earth no including scientists looking for the answers.....well except for you guys....


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No lessons from me tonight. The information is there at your fingertips, the proof is there, your jaw shape, muscles and teeth configuration are all different than they were tens of hundreds of thousands of years ago. Evolution for sure.
> Don't take my word, do yourself a favor and read all you can about it. The truth is out there!




I have the right kind of teeth  to chew meat and carrots.. not suck on applesauce, at least not until I become the toothless wonder....

I thought you'd have the answer. I've searched my whole life this same stuff....even chariots of the gods, carlos casteneda, etc etc. I've found my answers. But thanks for posting the link. I don't want to search for a long time to find out I have meat grinders after all.... cause that's what they do, too much.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

ok i slipped and read a little..2.4 million years ago our ancestors did this or that and only in the last 300 yrs we named gravity? Wow we were sure were brilliant back then eh? I'm glad someone's brain evolved if nothing else...wow.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> ok i slipped and read a little..2.4 million years ago our ancestors did this or that and only in the last 300 yrs we named gravity? Wow we were sure were brilliant back then eh? I'm glad someone's brain evolved if nothing else...wow.



Exactly.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> *Huh? Really...huh?*
> 
> I don't believe scientists can create anything or never will be able to. I do believe there are things that scientists/explorers/archaeologists  may discover or in your words 'name'....but I don't believe anyone will ever be able to create anything from nothing, that God didn't put on earth to use for us to make something out of. And whether it's used for good or bad, that's up to the person.
> 
> ...



Then you doubt your very beliefs!

You say:
 It is impossible for Something to always have been. 
Then in the next breath you say God has always been.

You say:
It is impossible to create something from nothing.
Then in the next breath you say God created something from nothing.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 31, 2012)

> Originally Posted by gtparts View Post
> Interesting. We have now moved from requiring empirical evidence (The word empirical denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.) , the basis for scientific proof, to, what Josh McDowell terms, legal-historical proof.
> 
> At this point, I have to ask, "Does accepting legal-historical proof constitute a full repudiation of scientific proof?" I hope not. That would be absurd. And it is clearly obvious, from your post above, that you embrace both forms of proof.
> ...



All ideas and beliefs reside in the mind. An illusion? Until and unless there is cause to alter one beliefs, they are the realities each of us depends upon to form our opinions and guide our actions. That should be sufficient to negate your assertion that truth is universal. Obviously, without determining what is or isn't truth, some cling to the truth while others cling to untruth (believing it to be truth)...... except in the case of absolute truth. Absolute truth is what it is, regardless of what anyone thinks of it and is frequently not met with acceptance. Much of "common " truth is subject to new information, i.e. "men cannot fly". Absolute truth is sufficient, complete, and immutable.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 31, 2012)

gtparts said:


> All ideas and beliefs reside in the mind. An illusion? Until and unless there is cause to alter one beliefs, they are the realities each of us depends upon to form our opinions and guide our actions. That should be sufficient to negate your assertion that truth is universal.Obviously, without determining what is or isn't truth, some cling to the truth while others cling to untruth (believing it to be truth)...... except in the case of absolute truth. Absolute truth is what it is, regardless of what anyone thinks of it and is frequently not met with acceptance. Much of "common " truth is subject to new information, i.e. "men cannot fly". Absolute truth is sufficient, complete, and immutable.



No its not an assertion.  Truth is truth, fact is fact.  what you talk about here is not truth, it is assumptions, opinions and belief.  Your attempt to confuse them is your way of rationalization.  You claim the truth but you are unable to validate, or replicate.  You have no truths, yet you claim them, and hold the position that you are above some becuase of your truths.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I have the right kind of teeth  to chew meat and carrots.. not suck on applesauce, at least not until I become the toothless wonder....
> 
> I thought you'd have the answer. I've searched my whole life this same stuff....even chariots of the gods, carlos casteneda, etc etc. I've found my answers. But thanks for posting the link. I don't want to search for a long time to find out I have meat grinders after all.... cause that's what they do, too much.




Do you remember what life was like a few weeks ago when you didn't believe in talking donkeys?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 31, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No its not an assertion.  Truth is truth, fact is fact.  what you talk about here is not truth, it is assumptions, opinions and belief.  Your attempt to confuse them is your way of rationalization.  You claim the truth but you are unable to validate, or replicate.  You have no truths, yet you claim them, and hold the position that you are above some becuase (sp) of your truths.



One man says, "Eating products containing peanuts has caused severe medical issues for me." 

Another man says, "Eating products containing peanuts has caused severe medical issues for me."

They both say exactly the same thing. One speaks the truth, the other speaks a lie. One has peanut allergies and the other does not. One has been hospitalized for eating a Snickers; the other, never been in a hospital in his life (born at home).

So, I'll ask you, "Which is it, true or false..... 

"Eating products containing peanuts has caused severe medical issues for me." 

or

"Eating products containing peanuts has caused severe medical issues for me." ?

Many truths are relative, situational. They are not universal. 

Only when a truth is indeed true in every situation, in every sense, can we say it is absolute(or universal).

Turning to something you posted, I'd appreciate it if you would explain exactly what I was rationalizing? 

Also, you can drop the matter of replication being necessary to confirm truth. Try replicating the birth of Abraham Lincoln or duplicate the Challenger disaster. Neither can be retested exactly as they happened.

As for validation, my relationship with Christ, the changes that He has brought about in me, is sufficient to convince me of His Truth. 

As for claiming to be "above some becuase (sp) of your truths."........ I do not, let me repeat that, I do not consider myself to be above others. Whatever I am is by God's grace. My only concerns are that I seek to emulate Him and that I let others know that they, too, can have that personal relationship and how it is found. Besides, knowing the Truth does not make it exclusively mine. You can have it too. I can't give it to you, but I can point you to the One who can.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 31, 2012)

gtparts said:


> One man says, "Eating products containing peanuts has caused severe medical issues for me."
> 
> Another man says, "Eating products containing peanuts has caused severe medical issues for me."
> 
> ...



No, its simple. They are either true or false. There is no such thing as half truth, partial truth, or incomplete truth. A statement or message that contains truth but is misleading, or incomplete is in itself, false. Containing truth and being true are entirely different things. 

Using your example, a good one by the way, but lets tweak it a bit. 

"Eating peanut products causes severe medical conditions."

Now the statement is broad and contains truth, but it is incomplete and misleading, and by default is not true.  It is dishonest to claim this as truth, becuase you have to deliberately leave out information pertaining to why peanuts are the cause of such conditions. In the same sense you can say that this statement is 100% true, I can proove it 100% false.  A statement cannot be 100% false and true concurrently, less it be incomplete, and the truth undetermined. 



> Turning to something you posted, I'd appreciate it if you would explain exactly what I was rationalizing?
> 
> Your attempts at rationalizing what truth really is.
> 
> ...



No, Im willing to wager that neither of has found truth.   I am still looking, and will question all that claim to such exclusivity.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 31, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No, its simple. They are either true or false. There is no such thing as half truth, partial truth, or incomplete truth. A statement or message that contains truth but is misleading, or incomplete is in itself, false. Containing truth and being true are entirely different things.
> 
> Using your example, a good one by the way, but lets tweak it a bit.
> 
> ...



The point is that something may express a truth one day and be an untruth another.

"Today is Tuesday", is only a truth one out of every 7 days. It is 100% accurate and true, sometimes! It is 100% inaccurate and untrue at other times. 

Clearly, it is not universal (applicable to all people, at all places, at all times). 

I am curious. Do we need to add to or subtract from the statement that, "Eating peanut products causes severe medical conditions.", in order to express an absolute truth?

How about:

"Eating peanut products causes medical conditions."

or

"Eating causes conditions."

or 

"Products cause conditions."

Or, perhaps we need to continue to add qualifiers to the original statement, so that it is absolute truth at all times, to all people, in all places? 

Absolute truth is absolute truth because it is. No one has to accept it. It just is,.... perfect, unchanging, and unchangeable.

Everything else we individually accept as truth is entirely subjective, based on our own perspective. In centuries past, we were certain that illnesses were caused by humors. We accepted that as truth and acted in response to it by bleeding ill patients. We now know that humors have nothing to do with illness and bleeding cures nothing. The simple fact that such a notion was completely wrong does not mean that it wasn't held as truth. 

For the better part of 2000 years, bloodletting was accepted as truth, conventional wisdom. The point is that in actual practice, mankind has often claimed truth based on error and tradition. To a great extent, our perspective is our reality. If we understand something as truth, we tend to operate on that basis, even if it is not truth. 

This could be philosophically true of religion. It could also be philosophically true of atheism. The difference is that atheism is based on the idea that what we don't know intellectually is not relevant to our lives. Theists look to what we cannot nail down intellectually and proceed to investigate how that works. Gaining something of how that works does not require scientific proof. Faith alone bridges the gap and one need not be highly educated or the premier intellectual to make that leap. Do all who seek arrive at the same place? No. but I can tell you one thing, having examined what is out there in the way of spiritual belief systems, nothing, absolutely nothing I have encountered, including atheism, is remotely close to answering life's important questions as Jesus does. He has never failed me.... never.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 31, 2012)

I think we are argueing schemantics. I think what I classify as truth, you would classify as absolute truth, and you believe in partial truth which I do not. 

Take for example:  Apples are green. The statement to me is true but it is incomplete, and misleading, therefore not the truth.   I cannot accept it as truth becuase I know some apples are red.  Now the the statement "Some apples are green."  Is the truth, or what you would call the absolute truth becuase it contains all the true information, and no falsehoods.

My question I quess is how can you express something as truth when it can just as easily be expressed as false.  Truth to me, cannot be concurrently false, it must be incomplete.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2012)

gtparts said:


> The point is that something may express a truth one day and be an untruth another.
> 
> "Today is Tuesday", is only a truth one out of every 7 days. It is 100% accurate and true, sometimes! It is 100% inaccurate and untrue at other times.
> 
> ...




Good Sir, did you give Buddhism an honest try?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Do you remember what life was like a few weeks ago when you didn't believe in talking donkeys?



I beg to differ.....hahahahahahahaha.....i didn't say I didn't believe in them, i ask you what you were talking about, since you explained it, and I got it, I at least know what you're talking about. I believe anything is possible....ever seen Mr Ed?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I think we are argueing schemantics. I think what I classify as truth, you would classify as absolute truth, and you believe in partial truth which I do not.
> 
> Take for example:  Apples are green. The statement to me is true but it is incomplete, and misleading, therefore not the truth.   I cannot accept it as truth becuase I know some apples are red.  Now the the statement "Some apples are green."  Is the truth, or what you would call the absolute truth becuase it contains all the true information, and no falsehoods.
> 
> My question I quess is how can you express something as truth when it can just as easily be expressed as false.  Truth to me, cannot be concurrently false, it must be incomplete.



I'm sorry I have to use another example... I cannot seem to be able to get my point across.

Would you say that 500 years ago that no man could prove or believe that people/airplanes/manmade objects could fly thru the air like a bird? 

The truth is, is that they could, it just hadn't been named/proven yet.

So someone proved that to be a falsehood when 500 yrs ago it woulda been the truth, because no one could fly at that time.  Just because at any given time something that was once 'seemed' impossible doesn't mean it really is impossible. 

I worked at ma bell when no one ever dreamed you could dial a direct long distance call....an operator had to do it. I never even invisioned it, much less a cellphone.  Doesn't mean that someone else didn't have that foresight/knowledge to make all that possible.
We did have mobile to mobile but you had to go thru about 10 operators from city to city to boat or whatever to get a call thru......but yet that technology has always been there, just because I thought it to be impossible, I was wrong, it wasn't impossible. So what I thought to be the truth at the time turned out to be false.

God says He will reveal Himself in due time and He will....believe it or not.

I'm old enough now that I deem nothing impossible.

I saw the first flight to the moon....the first satellite, sputnik, from russia. We used to get under our desks at school for an air raid practice, like a desk would protect anybody.  I worked a cord board until people could dial direct, and then I work on cama where the person that did dial direct you had to ask for their number. I worked in directory assistance where I could remember every number in town by heart and reckonize peoples voice when they dialed 0....like mayberry. So now nothing is impossible to me.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

gtparts said:


> The point is that something may express a truth one day and be an untruth another.
> 
> "Today is Tuesday", is only a truth one out of every 7 days. It is 100% accurate and true, sometimes! It is 100% inaccurate and untrue at other times.
> 
> ...



Bingo!!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I'm sorry I have to use another example... I cannot seem to be able to get my point across.
> 
> Would you say that 500 years ago that no man could prove or believe that people/airplanes/manmade objects could fly thru the air like a bird?
> 
> ...



The point you are overlooking is that 500 years ago no one claimed that they 1. Had an airplane or 2. could fly!

Unlike 2000-5000 years ago when all those claims were made in the Bible that said not only was it possible but they DID happen!

They didn't write that it might happen in the future, they said it did happen.

If you want to see that the Wright Brothers flew you can go look at the plane.
If you want to see an Ark that Noah built capable of holding a couple million animals.....................................................................NADA!


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The point you are overlooking is that 500 years ago no one claimed that they 1. Had an airplane or 2. could fly!
> 
> Unlike 2000-5000 years ago when all those claims were made in the Bible that said not only was it possible but they DID happen!
> 
> ...



Ok good gosh....let's not say 500 yrs ago....but 5 years before the wright brothers proved they could fly did anyone believe them? or we can say 5 minutes before ANY first flight, wright bros or whoever, could it be proven?

You're so extreme.

We have seashells in the mountains of norf kakalaki, I tend to believe there was an ocean, a flood, a tsunami.....but yet there is no proof and no shell fish, just shells...that's a teeny weenie clue.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If you want to see that the Wright Brothers flew you can go look at the plane.
> If you want to see an Ark that Noah built capable of holding a couple million animals.....................................................................NADA!



I know I've lived near Wrightsville Beach, and been to the site... and who says there was a million animals on the ark....no one has said that. Perhaps that's what happened to all the prehistoric animals? I don't know....do you know what happened to them?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Ok good gosh....let's not say 500 yrs ago....but 5 years before the wright brothers proved they could fly did anyone believe them? or we can say 5 minutes before ANY first flight, wright bros or whoever, could it be proven?
> 
> You're so extreme.
> 
> We have seashells in the mountains of norf kakalaki, I tend to believe there was an ocean, a flood, a tsunami.....but yet there is no proof and no shell fish, just shells...that's a teeny weenie clue.



Yes. people were building flying machines and using them unsuccessfully but people knew flight was going to happen.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I know I've lived near Wrightsville Beach, and been to the site... and who says there was a million animals on the ark....no one has said that. Perhaps that's what happened to all the prehistoric animals? I don't know....do you know what happened to them?



You seek answers to things that have already been answered.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Yes. people were building flying machines and using them unsuccessfully but people knew flight was going to happen.



Had anything on the earth/atmostphere/air/clouds/whatever changed to make that possible? Or had it always been possible, and no one knew/believed/thought of/ it?

You can say what you will, it was possible even 500 or more years to fly. Nobody just made it happen yet.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You seek answers to things that have already been answered.



Ok fine, I'm not gonna searth this entire forum to find your opinion on that. It won't effect what I believe anyway. I may not have all the precise answers, but I don't believe anyone does, it's just opinions or theories like evolution.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 2, 2012)

Excruciating.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Excruciating.




Oh come on, you like it....who'd y'all dog out if I wasn't here....each other? 

Go fishin' or something and calm down....

Ok, I'll go away and y'all can have the entire play ground. Have fun.


----------

